Reply With Quote
Dollars and cents? Black people as a whole are way more costly across the board than white people.
I think I get where you are coming from...it's ok to reduce a smoker to a stat but not a minority. Because there are clear and valid exceptions to minority stats and there are none with smokers...
Inspite of the fact that I posed unquestionable proof that the oldest person who ever lived was a smoker.
You are truly brilliuant funt.
Dollars and cents? Black people as a whole are way more costly across the board than white people.
When I hear this I know I am dealing with a bigoted mind who is simply doing an unbigoted thing in terms of race because of the social condemnation that comes with it, because he is told it is wrong, not because he actually understands it and why it is wrong. Not to mention stupid.
That's exactly what this is...
In the long run, as it does with racial or religious or gender discrimination...the employer with this statistical based mindet is his own worst enemy...because at some point he is going to turn a way a better employee for a lesser one on the basis of stats.
The biggest fools in history are those that think they can tell what an individual can or cannot do, based on superficial characteristics. It's not a case of if they will be proven wrong...just a matter of when.
Just think if someone turned down Marie Calumet because she was a smoker...and thought she might cost them money due to illness. She was the healthiest person in history...
And her smoking ass owned her doctor on a reverse mortgage...that he had to pay until he died...
my wifes name is cadi and she is always crying that people spell her name katy or katie. yalls name is just easily mispell like that
Japanese seem to pretty damn hardy workers. And they smoke likle chimneys.
No offense, but since you guys feel it's ok to discriminate based on stats I might as well too...
I'd takie a chain smoking Jap as an employ over some lazy fatassed non-smoking American any day of the week.
What is bigoted about what I said? Stating the fact that discriminating smokers isn't illegal is bigoted? Maybe stating the fact that racial discrimination is illegal is bigoted? Suggesting you work to change the discrimination laws is bigoted? Suggesting you quit smoking to avoid the tobacco taxes?
No one is saying you can or cannot smoke. If you want to smoke, smoke. I smoke. I smoke knowing the health risks, the social stigma, and the possibility that some employers may not hire me because of it.
When you own your own company, you're free to hire chain smoking Japanese over non-smoking Americans all you want. Well, maybe. Could be considered racial discrimination.
No no...it's not any kind of discimination. It's simply going with the stats.
When I hear someone say what you just said...I know I am arguing with someone who would have justified slavery prior to the civil war on the basis that the law said it was ok.
The law may set the limits for your intelligence...I otoh choose not to be stupid.
So, whottt. Am I a bigot for adhereing to a company's policy in their right to not hire someone based solely on the fact they are a smoker or a non-smoker?
No but you are a bad person for wearing uggs.
Depends on why you were banging your head:
I thought you definitely got "it" which is what lead to you starting this thread in the first place.Does anyone here work for a company that does not hire smokers?
I had a candidate interview with a client yesterday who I thought was absolutely perfect for their position. Turns out, they thought so too, other than smelling a "hint" of smoke on her.
Did you agree with your employers decision to discriminate?
If you are asking if working for a bigot makes you one...no. I've done and do that myself. I mean I work for an employer who is bigoted against smokers too...that doesn't mean I am bigoted against them.
First off, it was my client's decision to discriminate, not my employer. Secondly, I don't agree with it but I adhere to it. And I think that's what Strike is aruging, especially considering he's a smoker himself. Yet you called him a bigot.
I called him a bigot based on the logic he was using. That it wasn't discrimination because the law says it wasn't. And it doesn't matter if he's a smoker or not.
As I already said, the law once said slavery was ok too.
If the discussion is about whether or not it's illegal to discriminate against smokers...I don't see much room for discussion there, it's totally legal to do so. I wouldn't waste 2 second arguing whether or not it's illegal or legel. It's most definitely legal and not even open to debate.
That doesn't mean it isn't discrimination, in the true sense.
I don't have anything against black people. I just want to own a few of them.
But...
I don't see where Strike said it was the "right" thing to do but rather the employer's right to do so.
And...
Comparing discrimination of smokers to slavery is like comparing apples to oranges. You just shouldn't do it.
I don't recall ever saying it was right. Just because it is/isn't law doesn't mean it's right/wrong. I don't think smoking or possessing weed is wrong simply because it is illegal. I do, however, acknowledge the fact that smoking or possessing weed in this country could land me in jail.
He used the stats to defend a descriminatory mindset(not ao mention double stadards)...and a stupid one at that, as most of them are.
Like I said then...the stats also say a dark skinned person is much more likely to be a criminal than a light skinned one.
As he said to me...the stats are there whether anyone likes it or not.
I mean if he is trying to debate the legality of it with me...I'd like to see anywhere I claimed it was illegal...I claimed it was wrong, and I said it was wrong because it was a stupid mindset(not to mention a doublestandard) that will be proven wrong...sooner or later.
I am not interested in debating the legality of it at all...only the intelligence behind the generalizing, and I will win that argument. Marie Calumet wins it for me. She's the oldest person that has ever lived...and she was a smoker.
I think anyone should be allowed to hire whoever they want for whatever reason they want, or not, as loing as they aren't funded by the Government, however, I will debate the intelligence behind statistical generalizing when doing so.
Thats not a meltdown. He is making some good points.
katy would you hire me?
i may or may not promise to never come to work stoned
and i'll probably take a minimum of three cigarette breaks each hour
You can think I was doing whatever you want...but I guarantee you I knew every anti-smoking stat that was going to be thrown at me...I will also guarantee that no one I am arguing with in this thread knew that the oldest person who ever lived was a smoker. Or that the Japanese inspite of being nuked, and over 50% of their population smoking, have the lowest incidence of lung cancer in the world.
By all means, paint with that broad brush...because it's so smart.
I know enough about genetics to know that no matter how you much you bleach your skin you can't quit being Black.
At the end of the day smoking is still a choice and if an employer sees that as a weakness and a potential financial hit against the company then so be it.For instance...in my youth, I was quite fond of methamphetamine. I broke the law to consume it, I was heavily addicted to it. I was told what a s bag I was. I went to rehab and broke the addiction...then when they sent me to the doctor he diagnosed me with depression, and it is strong in my faimily history..
You know what they frequently prescribe for depression?
Adderall.
Look it up and maybe you will get the humor behind it.
PS: there most cetainly is evidence of a genetic predispostion to nicotine addiction. I am sorry you do not realize this, but if the world consisted of nothing but things you realize...there wouldn't be much to it. It'd be a Chengdeite rock and nothing else...and I am being generous.
The employer has the same right to discriminate against people missing limbs, that are blind, or have any number of ailments or addiction that might cost the company time or money somewhere down the line.
It has been proven pretty much without a shadow of a doubt that smoking is hazardous to a person's health. It has not been proven that all Blacks have a genetic disposition to crime.
Your argument is beyond stupid.
In reality, I think it's bull that I might be denied a job based on whether or not I smoke. As Katy said, I'm defending an employer's right to do so because as of today, it's not illegal. And any company that wouldn't hire me because I smoke is a company for whom I wouldn't want to work.
I never said you claimed it was illegal. You spit out the "people of color commit more crimes than whites" statistic as a comparison. I stated the difference between the two as it pertains to hiring practices.
So a few people who lived to a ripe old age while smoking trumps the hundreds of thousands of people who find an early grave because of smoking?
I agree. Hire who you want based on your own factors, so long as those factors aren't illegal. All I'm saying is, right or wrong, employers have the legal right to not hire a smoker based on the statistical evidence that smokers average more sick days, have more health risks, and risk costing companies more in lost productivity.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
