Home Off Topic

Help.....I can't get a job!

13

Replies

  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    Now, I'm offended!!! Do you think I'm some kind of freak?

    Just how many tattoos and piercings do you think I have?

    Clue: There is no chance anyone here has fewer than I do.

    :grin
  • ParkerboyParkerboy Posts: 7,048 Admiral
    The arguments here are interesting especially when it is implied an employee has a right to tattoos and or piercings. While it is true an individual has a right to get as many tatts and piercings as they wish assuming they are of the age of majority there is no law which protects that right from an employer or potential employer from refusing to hire the individual for having them. Further, there is certainly no federal law prohibiting an employer from discharging an employee for having tatts or piercings. I am not familiar with all state and local laws so there may be such laws in isolated locations but I have never encountered them in the multiple locations we work.

    We, as a company, have refused to hire certain individuals due to tattoos or piercings and never suffered any negative consequences.
    Deo Vindice
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,487 AG
    It is his right to look how he pleases. The VAST majority of employers would never want him being part of their workforce. I would never hire him. Would never allow him on my property as part of someone's workforce who might be performing a project on my property. Anyone who has so little respect for themself or is so deranged that they would do that to themselves certainty do not instill trust,
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • micci_manmicci_man Somewhere in FLPosts: 14,645 AG
    Hat Tarpon- Would you be ok with your kid looking like either of the 2 photos? Throw rights out the window here, just go on looks. Would you hire someone that looks like them, if you had your own business?
    Common Sense can't be bought, taught or gifted, yet it is one of the few things in life that is free, and most refuse to even attempt to possess it. - Miguel Cervantes
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    I hire people in the services business all the time. And there is zero chance he would get hired by me. What on Earth gave you the idea I would act otherwise?

    But I was never interested in discussing hiring, I was attempting to discuss (before trolling our favorite plumber a bit) what happens if our pictured joker can't get a job and were to seek government assistance.

    More precisely, I was interested in the exact question I posed in post #28, and going a bit further down that line of thinking in post #32. Restated succinctly:

    Should we, as a society, be on the hook for people who willfully make themselves undesirable in the job market and if the government should support them for this choice?

    And then the kicker: Because if we say no to this guy -- as some of you already have --just where does that end? How about obese people? Should they be refused assistance too? Or should we as a society remain blind to these types of issues and provide support for all those in need?

    To me, at least, that's a much more interesting discussion than making fun of someone who has chosen to express themselves as was pictured in the first post....particularly considering some of the responses that were already shared when I posted the first time.

    But, as usual, the discussion has decomposed into plumbing and construction and name calling and tattoo counting...instead of the tougher and deeper questions more easily ignored.

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is FS after all, where the water gets shallower with each passing day. :shrug

    Thanks for the direct question & opportunity to respond...Mike
  • Mango ManMango Man Posts: 11,491 AG
    Tarponator wrote: »
    I hire people in the services business all the time. And there is zero chance he would get hired by me.

    But I was never discussing hiring, I was discussing what happens if he can't get a job and can't support himself.

    More precisely, I was interested in the exact question I posed in post #28, and going a bit further down that line of thinking in post #32. Restated succinctly:

    Should we, as a society, be on the hook for people who willfully make themselves undesirable in the job market and if the government should support them for this choice.

    Because if we say no to this guy -- as some of you already have --just where does that end? Or should we remain blind to these types of issues and provide support for all those in need?

    But, as usual, the discussion has decomposed into name calling and tattoo counting instead of the tougher and deeper questions.

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is FS after all.
    Good question.

    Do we have a moral obligation to support people who have mutilated their body for self satisfaction? Personally, my answer would be no. But, if it were necessary they would be towards the end of the line behind those that, in my opinion, would truly be needy.

    Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


    America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
    Abraham Lincoln
  • micci_manmicci_man Somewhere in FLPosts: 14,645 AG
    So what is your answer? Should the gubment support people that make themselves undesirable (in this degree) in the job market? No is my answer. Where does it end? Right where it starts. With those that think they can do whatever and still think they are entitled to something. Too many people these days think they deserve something just for being alive. You agree or no?
    Common Sense can't be bought, taught or gifted, yet it is one of the few things in life that is free, and most refuse to even attempt to possess it. - Miguel Cervantes
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    fins4me wrote: »
    It is his right to look how he pleases. The VAST majority of employers would never want him being part of their workforce. I would never hire him. Would never allow him on my property as part of someone's workforce who mught be performing a project on my property. Anyone who has so little respect for themself or is so deranged that they would do that to themselves certainty do not instill trust,

    So the crucifix below his left eye isn't enough for you?

    :wink
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    Mango Man wrote: »
    Good question.

    Do we have a moral obligation to support people who have mutilated their body for self satisfaction? Personally, my answer would be no. But, if it were necessary they would be towards the end of the line behind those that, in my opinion, would truly be needy.

    Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

    You use words like mutilation and self satisfaction quite pejoratively, and I would argue unfairly.

    How is the mutilation and self satisfaction from being obese any different?

    I think it's easy to say when you look at that picture, but if you think a bit more deeply where that line of thinking would end, it's not quite so easy.

    But your point about prioritization of funds (i.e. end of the line) is a very interesting one...and one that I'll have to think a bit more about.

    My faith in FS has been restored for a night....Mike
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    micci_man wrote: »
    So what is your answer? Should the gubment support people that make themselves undesirable (in this degree) in the job market? No is my answer. Where does it end? Right where it starts. With those that think they can do whatever and still think they are entitled to something. Too many people these days think they deserve something just for being alive. You agree or no?

    I'm not quite sure, to be honest. But I think it's a much more difficult decision than some seem to think. Frankly, I'd rather not have to make it...but as I think about it my reaction is it's probably better for society to help all those in need. The question is how to define need (and benefit)...and how to limit the effect of 'deserving something just for being alive' as you so aptly put. Social engineering isn't easy stuff, but pointing at that guy and saying he shouldn't get unemployment because he did it to himself is. I've never really been the one to take the easy road, however, and here we are.

    Now, kindly allow me to ask you a question: Do you extend the same distaste towards obese people who have made themselves undesirable to the job market?

    Or do you just like fat people more than the tattooed people based on your own relative prejudices?
  • AC ManAC Man Posts: 6,351 Admiral
    Tarponator wrote: »
    You use words like mutilation and self satisfaction quite pejoratively, and I would argue unfairly.

    How is the mutilation and self satisfaction from being obese any different?

    I think it's easy to say when you look at that picture, but if you think a bit more deeply where that line of thinking would end, it's not quite so easy.

    But your point about prioritization of funds (i.e. end of the line) is a very interesting one...and one that I'll have to think a bit more about.

    My faith in FS has been restored for a night....Mike

    What? You think being fat is no different than a freak with tats and piercings?
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    Of course they are different.

    But the reasons listed for looking at that guy and denying him coverage (i.e. something self inflicted that causes inability to work) are fundamentally no different between the "freak with tats" and the "morbidly obese".

    If you disagree, I'm happy to discuss. Please explain your position or consider the following:

    Was the "freak with tats" not aware of what he was doing? (He was aware)

    Was the "morbidly obese" guy not aware what he was stuffing his face with not know what the result would be? (He was aware)

    Does the smoker, or the drinker, not know what the result will be? (They are all aware)

    Was their behavior anything but self inflicted by any of them? (All were self inflicted)

    Not quite sure I see the difference under that light.

    Perhaps we should deny coverage to all of them, or does one of those strike too closely to home?

    Good, that was the point. It's called a slippery slope.

    You see, and not to repeat myself, but it's easy to point at that guy and say he should be denied benefits because you don't like what he looks like, but when you're forced to explain why and faced with parallels based on that explanation, it's all crickets.

    Surprise me.
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,060 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Of course they are different.

    But the reasons listed for looking at that guy and denying him coverage (i.e. something self inflicted that causes inability to work) are fundamentally no different between the "freak with tats" and the "morbidly obese".

    If you disagree, I'm happy to discuss. Please explain your position or consider the following:

    Was the "freak with tats" not aware of what he was doing? (He was aware)

    Was the "morbidly obese" guy not aware what he was stuffing his face with not know what the result would be? (He was aware)

    Does the smoker, or the drinker, not know what the result will be? (They are all aware)

    Was their behavior anything but self inflicted by any of them? (All were self inflicted)

    Not quite sure I see the difference under that light.

    Perhaps we should deny coverage to all of them, or does one of those strike too closely to home?

    Good, that was the point. It's called a slippery slope.

    You see, and not to repeat myself, but it's easy to point at that guy and say he should be denied benefits because you don't like what he looks like, but when you're forced to explain why and faced with parallels based on that explanation, it's all crickets.

    Surprise me.
    The difference is that if we send a fat guy out to someone's house, as long as he isn't a slob to go along with being fat, the customer isn't going to have an issue. Most will have an issue with someone who looks like the guy in the OP. Is it right for the them to do so? Probably not, but the world isn't fair, and never will be. The fat guy can get a job, the tat guy has a problem. Actually, he could probably find work if he stayed out of a position where he didn't have to deal with the public.

    Oh, thanks for the offer of a hug, but I'll decline. If I need a hug, I got a wife to take care of that for me.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    Thank you for completely missing the point.

    The question was not if you would hire someone obese -- although, for instance, I'm not sure you'd hire someone who was unable to walk -- but if we should withhold government assistance from the obese like some propose to do with the tattooed individual pictured in the first post of this thread.
  • PolarPolar Lake WorthPosts: 22,464 AG
    you guys gonna get a room soon?
  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,554 AG
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Or do you just like fat people more than the tattooed people based on your own relative prejudices?

    Personally, I hate fat people with tattoos. Conversely, I hate skinny people without tattoos.

    Captain Todd Approves

  • Bigfish5Bigfish5 Posts: 394 Deckhand
    Mango Man wrote: »
    Good question.

    Do we have a moral obligation to support people who have mutilated their body for self satisfaction? Personally, my answer would be no. But, if it were necessary they would be towards the end of the line behind those that, in my opinion, would truly be needy.

    Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

    I am going to just jump in here for chits n gigs, but do we not already tend to give out federal support for people who say they have skin issues and they cannot get a job because of it? This guy made a choice, but certainly he has a valid point that people do not want to hire him. Heck, i would not even want to eat in the same restaurant as these freaks.
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,060 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Thank you for completely missing the point.

    The question was not if you would hire someone obese -- although, for instance, I'm not sure you'd hire someone who was unable to walk -- but if we should withhold government assistance from the obese like some propose to do with the tattooed individual pictured in the first post of this thread.
    The thread title is "Help, I can't get a job". Not "Help, I can't get government assistance". If he was working, he wouldn't need taxpayers to support is useless **** since he can't get hired. If someone eats so much that they can't get a job, they need to diet, and get healthy enough to work. Not have taxpayers support his useless ****. That answer your question? For people who are actively seeking employment, and I mean actually doing it, not just faking reports on line, I have no problem with the government helping out for a short period of time. People who are too sorry to work, or by doing something stupid to themselves, and can't get hired, tough luck. The guy in the op could get a job if he really put effort in to it. Too many businesses looking for people to be unemployed.
  • Mango ManMango Man Posts: 11,491 AG
    Tarponator wrote: »
    You use words like mutilation and self satisfaction quite pejoratively, and I would argue unfairly.

    How is the mutilation and self satisfaction from being obese any different?

    I think it's easy to say when you look at that picture, but if you think a bit more deeply where that line of thinking would end, it's not quite so easy.

    But your point about prioritization of funds (i.e. end of the line) is a very interesting one...and one that I'll have to think a bit more about.

    My faith in FS has been restored for a night....Mike

    Unfairly? How so?

    What medical reason could a person have to have his ear(S) cut off and sewn shut, eyebrows tattooed in a Panther Blue with a matching beard and eyes. Add some costume jewelry and a new look is achieved. Would it be safe to assume, by your opinion, that this is an elective process? Or maybe in some peoples eyes who don't view this as an art form, mutilation? What's your opinion?

    Let me ask you a question Mike. Regarding prioritization, if we had to set lines, who would you deem more "deserving" of financial assistance? The person I described above or a family of 4, now 3 because the major bread winner, the wife, was killed in an auto accident.


    America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
    Abraham Lincoln
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    Unfairly, because the same logic applies to other not so clear situations. Those pejoratives only apply to your opinion -- they certainly didn't apply to the person doing it to themselves.

    Now, let me attempt to get you back to the point with a question: What medical reason does a person have to eat themselves out of work?

    And my answer: Because they wanted to.

    That's, not coincidentally I would argue, precisely the same reason the tattooed guy got his tattoos or the guy lopped off his ear....or the drinker drinks, or the smoker smokes.

    And, before those examples are ignored, it's worth pointing out that obesity, smoking, and drinking are all far more damaging to society than tattoos or piercings or self-mutilation.

    ALL OF THOSE DECISIONS ARE DAMAGING, ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT RESULTED WERE SELF-INFLICTED, EVERY SINGLE PERSON KNEW THE RISK BEFORE THEY DID IT. They only real difference is the subjective opinion of the act -- some are more "socially acceptable" than others. And should we really only be providing assistance to those who are socially acceptable to us, or should we try to do more?

    I'd like to think we'd lean more to the latter than the former, but I can also appreciate the prioritization position which seems like a very rational reaction.

    Now, to answer your question: Like you, I think there's some merit to prioritization of government programs to those in need. It just stands to reason that joker shouldn't be viewed the same as an 50 year old grandmother who still cares for her 30 year old autistic son and just lost her job. What's not so clear, to me at least, is just how those rules should be laid out. After all, how do we differentiate between the smoker, the drinker, the obese, the tattooed, the self-mutilated and grandma?

    Because "I'll know it when I see it" sounds like a recipe for discrimination and the introduction of all sorts of value based judgements when charity, I think, should be more blind.

    And it's the slippery slope of the "I'll know it when I see it" position that I was trying to highlight in the subsequent examples offered.

    I hope this makes more sense now & thanks for your response and its tone. I always like discussing things with you, MM....Mike
  • DemereDemere Posts: 1,464 Officer
    Question for you guys - Is there a danger in removing the "consequences" of your actions? Ie - should government "cover" for our bad decisions? What are the long term consequences if a large section of our population is relieved from personal responsibility for their actions?
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    pottydoc wrote: »
    The thread title is "Help, I can't get a job". Not "Help, I can't get government assistance". If he was working, he wouldn't need taxpayers to support is useless **** since he can't get hired. If someone eats so much that they can't get a job, they need to diet, and get healthy enough to work. Not have taxpayers support his useless ****. That answer your question? For people who are actively seeking employment, and I mean actually doing it, not just faking reports on line, I have no problem with the government helping out for a short period of time. People who are too sorry to work, or by doing something stupid to themselves, and can't get hired, tough luck. The guy in the op could get a job if he really put effort in to it. Too many businesses looking for people to be unemployed.

    So, is it fair to say that if you ate so much food that you could not work then the government shouldn't help their "useless ****"?

    How about smoking? Should the government pay?

    How about drinking? Should the government pay?

    How about anyone who doesn't jog and actively exercise? Should the government pay?

    Help me understand where the end of your socially acceptable line is. Thanks...Mike
  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,554 AG
    Show us your sleeves Tarponator.

    Captain Todd Approves

  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    Demere wrote: »
    Question for you guys - Is there a danger in removing the "consequences" of your actions? Ie - should government "cover" for our bad decisions? What are the long term consequences if a large section of our population is relieved from personal responsibility for their actions?

    That's precisely the point I'm touching on. Thanks for saying it succinctly. I'm not always good at that. :)
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    mplspug wrote: »
    Show us your sleeves Tarponator.

    I have no tattoos. Nor piercings. Do you think I'm lying?

    Perhaps I can feel for the consequences of being socially unacceptable a bit more than some of you.

    Not to be dramatic, because I think this point is made all too often for no good reason, but the facts are about half the population in my mother's side of the family was killed because of it.

    So perhaps I'm a bit more reticent to look the other way when I see marginalization and discrimination because of the direct effect that line of thinking had on my relatives...and the effect that very same behavior had on others when I exhibited it in my younger and dumber days.

    Because as I get older and wiser, I've realized it's not so much who you don't help, but rather the act of giving that really matters...and some my biggest regrets in life are when I've mistreated others (often based on my own very subjective and personal biases, not all that unlike tattoos)....Mike
  • micci_manmicci_man Somewhere in FLPosts: 14,645 AG
    What were they killed for?
    Common Sense can't be bought, taught or gifted, yet it is one of the few things in life that is free, and most refuse to even attempt to possess it. - Miguel Cervantes
  • stc1993stc1993 Albany, GA Carrabelle, FLPosts: 7,541 Admiral
    My wife's nephew got SS disability in Tampa for high blood pressure. Try to get it in GA for that, around here anyway they would tell you to get a job. He's more able to work than I am. I believe a lot has to do where you live.
  • SAENoleSAENole Posts: 11,187 AG
    Generation-snowflake-30-650.jpg
    Warning Level 2
  • Mango ManMango Man Posts: 11,491 AG
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Unfairly, because the same logic applies to other not so clear situations. Those pejoratives only apply to your opinion -- they certainly didn't apply to the person doing it to themselves.

    Now, let me attempt to get you back to the point with a question: What medical reason does a person have to eat themselves out of work?

    And my answer: Because they wanted to.

    That's, not coincidentally I would argue, precisely the same reason the tattooed guy got his tattoos or the guy lopped off his ear....or the drinker drinks, or the smoker smokes.

    And, before those examples are ignored, it's worth pointing out that obesity, smoking, and drinking are all far more damaging to society than tattoos or piercings or self-mutilation.

    ALL OF THOSE DECISIONS ARE DAMAGING, ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT RESULTED WERE SELF-INFLICTED, EVERY SINGLE PERSON KNEW THE RISK BEFORE THEY DID IT. They only real difference is the subjective opinion of the act -- some are more "socially acceptable" than others. And should we really only be providing assistance to those who are socially acceptable to us, or should we try to do more?

    I'd like to think we'd lean more to the latter than the former, but I can also appreciate the prioritization position which seems like a very rational reaction.

    Now, to answer your question: Like you, I think there's some merit to prioritization of government programs to those in need. It just stands to reason that joker shouldn't be viewed the same as an 50 year old grandmother who still cares for her 30 year old autistic son and just lost her job. What's not so clear, to me at least, is just how those rules should be laid out. After all, how do we differentiate between the smoker, the drinker, the obese, the tattooed, the self-mutilated and grandma?

    Because "I'll know it when I see it" sounds like a recipe for discrimination and the introduction of all sorts of value based judgements when charity, I think, should be more blind.

    And it's the slippery slope of the "I'll know it when I see it" position that I was trying to highlight in the subsequent examples offered.

    I hope this makes more sense now & thanks for your response and its tone. I always like discussing things with you, MM....Mike
    Thanks TT ( a little blast from the past :) ) Likewise.

    I knew the point of your question and wasn't dodging the question but hoped you would see that my opinion lies in being self induced vs
    not.

    I agree with you on some points but in the end it will be a very slippery slope but will need to be addressed. I believe in accountability and one is responsible for their own actions.


    America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
    Abraham Lincoln
  • AC ManAC Man Posts: 6,351 Admiral
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Of course they are different.

    But the reasons listed for looking at that guy and denying him coverage (i.e. something self inflicted that causes inability to work) are fundamentally no different between the "freak with tats" and the "morbidly obese".

    If you disagree, I'm happy to discuss. Please explain your position or consider the following:

    Was the "freak with tats" not aware of what he was doing? (He was aware)

    Was the "morbidly obese" guy not aware what he was stuffing his face with not know what the result would be? (He was aware)

    Does the smoker, or the drinker, not know what the result will be? (They are all aware)

    Was their behavior anything but self inflicted by any of them? (All were self inflicted)

    Not quite sure I see the difference under that light.

    Perhaps we should deny coverage to all of them, or does one of those strike too closely to home?

    Good, that was the point. It's called a slippery slope.

    You see, and not to repeat myself, but it's easy to point at that guy and say he should be denied benefits because you don't like what he looks like, but when you're forced to explain why and faced with parallels based on that explanation, it's all crickets.

    Surprise me.

    I'll give you this. I don't hire fat techs either. Or old ones. Not because the public would complain, but because you can't perform in this field if your old and or fat. Too physical of a job. Ask me how I know:grin
Sign In or Register to comment.