NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, and I'm not discussing history.
So you think that society will never ever make a mistake again?

Well, right now society is allowing Israel to continue killing Lebanese civilians. Therefore, that's OK. Also, in Iran women cannot expose certain parts of their body. Therefore, thats ok. Right now, our war in Iraq is costing the lives of Iraqi citizens, but society is permitting it, so thats ok.


Humans in groups gives you the mob mentality (society), and is not exactly a reliable basis for moral legislation.

No. When firing someone forms must be filled out and the person fired can always appeal if they were dismissed unfairly.
Do you realise that people are not always honest and that they may manipulate existing discrimination laws to suit their exact purposes? I don't agree with this procedure to begin with.

I believe a company should consider the well being of all its employees. There is more to think about than purely making a profit and doing better than their competitors. Forget the gain/loss of the company, what of the fired person? This person has just lost their job, that is a serious life changing event and getting fired is never good. Especially over something stupid like your boss just not liking gays. We need laws to prevent unfair dismissal.
It's not your company to run as you like. The person lost their job, sure...it's part of the vicissitudes of life. They can try elsewhere for employment.They will probably find it in a freely competitive market. If not, the government will ensure they enjoy a minimal standard of living needed to get by. A good company will consider the well-being of its employees, sure. It has a reputation to consider anyway. However, you, as the voter in the ballot, are not partisan of that company. Besides ensuring its goods are safe to consume and it does not form a monopoly or harm the environment, it affects you in no other way. As an employee, you are entitled to a wage appropriate for your services and reasonable working hours and conditions, not what you want in excess of that or can attain through labour monopolies. You cannot, however, demand that a company hires you or keeps hold of you.

The Weimar Republic, at its time, was one of the most free democracies ever created. It was part of the "modern Western world". That changed. People command government. Their desires shape it. It happened in Germany, it can happen again. Don't delude yourself into thinking Constitutions are a magical panacea against human fallibility.

And, by the way, your ideas are far from being the basis of the West. The idea of law as an end was very much part of the non-Western world at the time.
So it's nothing magical. Lets just say then that I am happy with the laws in the UK right now. I'm happy to pay tax and see it go back into public schools, hospitals and transport, and to people needing benifits. To get back on topic: I'm glad workers are protected from discrimination. If there is discrimination in the workplace then legal action is taken.

So it's nothing magical. Lets just say then that I am happy with the laws in the UK right now. I'm happy to pay tax and see it go back into public schools, hospitals and transport, and to people needing benifits. To get back on topic: I'm glad workers are protected from discrimination. If there is discrimination in the workplace then legal action is taken.
It's nothing at all, would be more appropriate. Do not be too surprised when your nation begins to realise in what other ways it can run your life more efficiently for you, and turns your most cherished ideals against you. You alone will be to blame for assenting to their control.

To get back on topic: I'm glad workers are protected from discrimination. If there is discrimination in the workplace then legal action is taken.
Well, I can't really argue against that. There's no reason for me to tell you not to be glad, but only to state that I disagree.

It's nothing at all, would be more appropriate. Do not be too surprised when your nation begins to realise in what other ways it can run your life more efficiently for you, and turns your most cherished ideals against you. You alone will be to blame for assenting to their control.
*Nods
Your ideals are seemingly leading straight into something out of 1984.

It's not your company to run as you like. The person lost their job, sure...it's part of the vicissitudes of life. They can try elsewhere for employment.They will probably find it in a freely competitive market. If not, the government will ensure they enjoy the necessary level o A good company will consider the well-being of its employees, sure. It has a reputation to consider anyway. However, you, as the voter in the ballot, are not partisan of that company. Besides ensuring its goods are safe to consume and it does not form a monopoly or harm the environment, it affects you in no other way. As an employee, you are entitled to a wage appropriate for your services and reasonable working hours and conditions, not what you want in excess of that or can attain through labour monopolies. You cannot, however, demand that a company hires you or keeps hold of you.
You should expect a company to keep hold of you if you are doing your job well. There are plenty of reasons to dismiss someone that are easy to prove as companys keep track of their employees. To fire someone for no good reason isn't fair (yeah, I know lifes not fair). But it's not right to be sacked because you're gay, or you boss doesn't like your haircut. :rolleyes:
I'm not saying don't fire someone even though they are unreliable, constantly late or absent and don't obey the company rules. I'm just saying don't fire anyone for no good reason.

I'm just saying don't fire anyone for no good reason.
But why should YOU determine what a good reason is.

It's nothing at all, would be more appropriate. Do not be too surprised when your nation begins to realise in what other ways it can run your life more efficiently for you, and turns your most cherished ideals against you. You alone will be to blame for assenting to their control.
Yes, I'll just stand here and be proud when my country starts culling people over the age of fifty. That's not going to happen... :rolleyes:
I'm just saying I'm happy now. If the government were to privatise everything then I wouldn't be.

You should expect a company to keep hold of you if you are doing your job well. There are plenty of reasons to dismiss someone that are easy to prove as companys keep track of their employees. To fire someone for no good reason isn't fair (yeah, I know lifes not fair). But it's not right to be sacked because you're gay, or you boss doesn't like your haircut. :rolleyes:
I'm not saying don't fire someone even though they are unreliable, constantly late or absent and don't obey the company rules. I'm just saying don't fire anyone for no good reason.
It is not your place to say what is or isn't a good reason. It is the employer's, the free market's and society's at large. The employer as it is he/she who is paying the wage, the free market as it can provide alternatives and society in the form of freedom of speech, not coercion. These are the ingredients of a free society.

Yes, I'll just stand here and be proud when my country starts culling people over the age of fifty. That's not going to happen... :rolleyes:
Can you not realise that it is a hypothetical scenario? An illustration? Not something I project...I could use any example, ones perhaps far more realistic.

I'm just saying I'm happy now. If the government were to privatise everything then I wouldn't be.
Or nationalise, no?

But why should YOU determine what a good reason is.
I don't decide, there are acceptable reasons. A few of which I mentioned in my post.

I don't decide, there are acceptable reasons. A few of which I mentioned in my post.
So let the employer decide. Not you. Not the government. Let the free market and the free society penalise them accordingly, through boycotts etc. Not laws. Not prohibitions.

So let the employer decide. Not you. Not the government. Let the free market and the free society penalise them accordingly, through boycotts etc. Not laws. Not prohibitions.
It's not up to me to let anyone decide, but I can remain happy that where I live it's done in a way I'm happy with. :p
How about where you are? Is it entirely up to the employer to decide?

It's not up to me to let anyone decide, but I can remain happy that where I live it's done in a way I'm happy with. :p
How about where you are? Is it entirely up to the employer to decide?
In my homeland it is done in a way I consider repugnant...it is affirmative action. Where I currently reside (the UK for the past few years, soon Sweden)...well you know.

It's not up to me to let anyone decide, but I can remain happy that where I live it's done in a way I'm happy with. :p
How about where you are? Is it entirely up to the employer to decide?
No, there are laws against firing employees for certain reasons, and people use them to sue companies who fire them. Unfortunately, many of those people weren't fired unfairly, and they abuse the law. And get away with it. The US unfortunately is lawsuit crazy, and more gov't control is the LAST thing we need.

I don't decide, there are acceptable reasons. A few of which I mentioned in my post.
Right, and we agree on many of them, but at a certain point they become debateable. That's why we are saying you shouldn't legislate all of them.

In my homeland it is done in a way I consider repugnant...it is affirmative action. Where I currently reside (the UK for the past few years, soon Sweden)...well you know.
How did this thread turn into a debate about politics anyway? :rolleyes:Socialism rules!

How did this thread turn into a debate about politics anyway? :rolleyes:Socialism rules!
The matter we're debating is directly related to politics.

Deluded fool! Capitalism ftw. ;)

The matter we're debating is directly related to politics.

Deluded fool! Capitalism ftw. ;)
LOL nice, I got the joke in there. I had to look hard for it though...

Yea, we didn't go too far astray. Rare here in general. And it never completely dissolved into flamewaring.

The matter we're debating is directly related to politics.

Deluded fool! Capitalism ftw. ;)
Yeah, it just got started to get quite heated. Greedy bastard. :p

Yeah, it just got started to get quite heated. Greedy bastard. :p
Still, I'd say this was one of the more satisfying debates I've entered into in quite some time. It was a new topic for once, or at least a new spin.

Fucking hate Europa.... ;)

w00t I'm Quite Deadly. Awesomeness.

Still, I'd say this was one of the more satisfying debates I've entered into in quite some time. It was a new topic for once, or at least a new spin.

Fucking hate Europa.... ;)
It was, although I'm new to debating anyway. I quite despise you as well.:)

Still, I'd say this was one of the more satisfying debates I've entered into in quite some time. It was a new topic for once, or at least a new spin.

Fucking hate Europa.... ;)
Hah, trust me, you'd prefer me as an ally than an enemy.

w00t I'm Quite Deadly. Awesomeness.
I have 4 more posts to go untill my first 000 (third if you include my old nation). +1

Still, I'd say this was one of the more satisfying debates I've entered into in quite some time. It was a new topic for once, or at least a new spin.

Fucking hate Europa.... ;)
I had not seen the topic before and it came to mind that’s why I made it …

I had not seen the topic before and it came to mind that’s why I made it …
It stayed serious up until 19 pages, that's very good. :)

Hah, trust me, you'd prefer me as an ally than an enemy.
You did a great job. The worst thing is when someone is agreeing with you, but they keep saying stupid stuff that is wrong. And then you get lumped in with it.

Hah, trust me, you'd prefer me as an ally than an enemy.
Quoted for truth

I had not seen the topic before and it came to mind that’s why I made it …
Well, it gave us a great run. Now we'll just have to get it to about 200 pages

You did a great job. The worst thing is when someone is agreeing with you, but they keep saying stupid stuff that is wrong. And then you get lumped in with it.
Sometimes people feel like they need to respond to peoples arguements, even if they don't really know what they are talking about. I've done that on occasion and said something daft, but now I usually admit to my ignorance.

EDIT: Death. :(

I killed the thread, just as we were starting to play nice. :(

Nah, I'm still hangin around, but I guess most eveybody has bailed. There were only a handful of people making all those posts anyways ;)

Nah, I'm still hangin around, but I guess most eveybody has bailed. There were only a handful of people making all those posts anyways ;)
And I am heading off to bed in a while. S'amuse bien. :)

Nah, I'm still hangin around, but I guess most eveybody has bailed. There were only a handful of people making all those posts anyways ;)
True, I'll spam another day...I mean debate. :eek:

*Flees to the wonderful land of Spam*

Well, I had a gay roommate this year, and had no problems. To be perfectly honest, everyone sort of suspected that he was gay... and then his subscription to GQ confirmed it. :P

That aside, he was a very cool guy, and I would have no problems with having a gay roommate in the future.

In answer to the question proposed in the OP, I think it could be considered an option, but not an imposition, provided there is enough demand for such housing. Personally, I would like to see unisex dormitories as the default. Now, before someone starts going "But...but", bear in mind that sexual harassment and rape are still considered crimes and if people can not behave themselves in a society, they will be removed from it.

In answer to the question proposed in the OP, I think it could be considered an option, but not an imposition, provided there is enough demand for such housing. Personally, I would like to see unisex dormitories as the default. Now, before someone starts going "But...but", bear in mind that sexual harassment and rape are still considered crimes and if people can not behave themselves in a society, they will be removed from it.
Yea, I don't know, this thread kinda died, but if yall can revive it go for it. We sorta argued until we ran out of points 19 pages later, and with nothing left to say, we all were getting along too well to continue arguing ;)

In answer to the question proposed in the OP, I think it could be considered an option, but not an imposition, provided there is enough demand for such housing. Personally, I would like to see unisex dormitories as the default. Now, before someone starts going "But...but", bear in mind that sexual harassment and rape are still considered crimes and if people can not behave themselves in a society, they will be removed from it.

I agree with you completely and think those should be the default as well.

*sigh*
I think it's a case of "suck it up".

People get along badly with roommates for all kinds of reasons. Not cleaning their spit-laden toothpaste out of the sink. Clipping their nails on the carpet. Being slobs. Being inconsiderate in all kinds of ways. Being jealous of each other's looks, or snobby about lack of wealth.

You're going to deal with people in the world ALL THE TIME that you'd rather not. You can't go to your boss and say, "I won't work with Sharon because she's a ******," or "As a Christian, I won't work with that blaspheming atheist!"

It's a learning experience. Rather than whining about how awful their roommates are because they are not just like home, make the effort to actually get along with them. Not like, not love, just treat courteously. Unless they are raving lunatics or assholes, you'd be surprised at how courteous other people act when treated with respect.

Of course, if they ARE complete assholes and can't respect one's property or need for alone time, or space, then a talk with the Dorm's PA is in order.

*snipped to save space
w00t
Finally got a mod!