Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Made me think of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

It has nothing to do with any of that.

Philosophically, it has everything to do with someone being able to choose who they hire for whatever reason they want, however asinine it may be. Choosing not to give someone a job is not harm. You don't have a right to be employed.

Pragmatically, it has everything to do with not wading into the shit swamp of trying to enforce such legislation. As well as avoiding it's eventual broadening.



I'd like to opt out of a lot of these 'social contracts' I never wanted to sign in the first place.

Too bad for all practical purposes, I can't.

Yes, you're the very image of "consistent." You're consistently changing the rules as you go along because you're so myopic that you can only focus on a single outcome at a time and don't realize the myriad outcomes the precedents that are set in getting to your desired outcome present.



The only people that discuss amorphous concepts like "national community" are people who only take issue with using the power of the 'majority'/state/"greater good" when they disagree with what the "national community" wants. The only problem here is that someone is disgruntled with a religious community (an actual community in which people have chosen to participate, and not an imaginary one of which you seem to think we're obligated to be members) because they were shown the door. I'm not certain how I could be ignoring a "problem" out of "greed" when I stand to gain nothing through my advocacy. There may be small-mindedness involved (and it may not even be located where you're assuming it is), but unless there's been some revisions to the Constitution I've missed, there is no "right to freedom from small-mindedness." If anything, the First Amendment should be a warning to anyone who can read (i.e.; Not You) to expect it.



Yes, that's an "obvious" example. We're absolutely inundated with retards who hate themselves so much that shackling themselves with one whiny, mouthy bitch isn't enough, they need a few more. Can't walk down the street without running over some asshole who is out with his multiple wives.

You should really leave the ridiculously exaggerated analogies to Mayo, because at least when he does them, they make a little sense.

I also like how your "obvious example," which is meant to show how certain philosophies are unrealistic, aside from being very unrealistic itself, relies on the premise that someone break a majority of the tenets of that philosophy to make your case.



I have no personal investment in this whatsoever. I don't belong to an organized religion. The only concern I have is the one I usually have: that the dilution of basic principles over time eventually leads to a loss of personal freedom. The only one making a "personal distinction" here is you, and that's because you cannot, for whatever reason, wrap your mind around the fact that, due to the nature of the employment, this is not simply a "professional" issue. It is simple-minded to think that, because (as usual) you don't endorse the outcome, that the matter of employment should take precedence over the matter of religious freedoms guaranteed by law. The only way this individual's preferences can be guaranteed is at the expense of the rights of every other member of the church in question.



You make the assumption that the only reason this woman was fired/excommunicated/shunned was her illness. The article leads to that conclusion, but doesn't clearly say that is the only factor. That aside, if one of the terms of employment is membership/good standing/holding office in the church, and you're excommunicated/shunned, you no longer meet the terms of employment. At that point, the employer is under no obligation to maintain your employment.



Which is exactly the problem with this suit and what it portends. The judiciary is going to have to make some ruling about the underlying theological issues. You finally found the nut, blind squirrel, even if you had to stumble over it accidentally.



Another turn-of-phrase that basically lets you know the person using it expects things of you they have no reason to expect.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

This is "I got mine".

There is no way you would say this if you found yourself unhireable for any number of unfair reasons outside your control, such as chronic illness, Jim Crow, religious discrimination or slander.

To say, "You don't have a right to be employed" then argue that society has no obligation to alleviate the conditions of underemployment is to argue that people don't have a right to life either.

It adds up to the same thing, doesn't it?



Ted Kaczynski did. You can too.

Your life would really suck, though. Because life with no social contract sucks.



Chipping this gem out of the wall of text.

The same people who say this sort of thing complain about the decline of patriotism and morality, and say things like "if you don't like America, move to the EU". It's ludicrously hypocritical. Really the only constant is "I got mine".

There is a grey area between politically driven social engineering and the basic obligations of a civilized state. Ensuring the well-being of the less fortunate (people who have jobs then happened to get sick) is far, far in the realm of the latter.

The "every man for himself" vision has no place in a civilized country.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I was going to reply to this thread, and I even read the article despite the source. But it's pretty clear that Jubber's already made up his mind and doesn't actually want to have any discussion on the topic.

(And spoilers: the government has every right to interfere with religious organizations when they break laws. This isn't about freedom of religion, and any lawyer who tries to argue the first amendment should be disbarred)

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

I've always thought that being able to recognize and point out logical fallacies is a strength. Why do people make fun of others who do this?

JW

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

Why don't we have a cure for AIDS?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Of all the people to make a TL;DR complaint...



Since you're actually sharpening your fangs to become a lawyer, and this is meant to be a discussion, I want you to toss your two cents in.

Look at this another way: If you worked for a company that issued certifications for a skill, like network security, and one of the conditions of your job was that you maintained the related certification. The certification is issued by your company upon passing an exam or some other form of testing, and the exam is free to you, yet you allow the certification to lapse, and you're fired. Should the company be obligated to maintain your employment simply because they're the party that issues the certification (in other words, if they just gave it to you, you wouldn't be fired)?

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

False analogy. You're shifting the burden of responsibility.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

If Battletard were Justice Herpy McDerperson


Freedom of religion = You can practice your fairy unicorns in the sky religions as you wish

Freedom of religion = You can waive your right to worship fairy unicorns in the sky

If your religion causes injury or harm to another, or obstructs another's rights as outlined in the Constitution, GTFO

If your decision to abstain from religious beliefs results in a bitchfit which implies the government should impede the aforementioned religions rights to worship their fairy unicorns religions that do not cause injury or harm to another, or obstruct another's rights, GTFO


It doesn't mean EVEERY1 B CHRISTIAN CUZ MERICA WAS FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS WE R A CHRISTIAN NATION


TL;DR: Everyone chill the fuck out




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/0 ... n-of-aids/



Only insofar as I'm suggesting that the ability to stay 'certified' is solely controlled by the employee in question. It's not that simple in this case, as 'certification' obviously involved subjective factors such as the approval of the congregation.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Guess ill have to read this bullshit when I get home. Question. Was it in a right to work state, and would that make a difference in this case?

Wouldn't make a difference because the EEOC and the employee are alleging this is a violation of federal laws.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

It is a violation of the law. Firing people for taking sick leave is illegal.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.