Home Off Topic

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

124»

Replies

  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,060 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    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
    You really don't read my posts, do you? If you did, you would see I answered the part about assistance for someone who chose to eat so much they couldn't work. Same answer for smoking and drinking. As for the last one, I don't think the government supports people who don't jog or exercise now. At least not for that reason. When someone decides to practice a lifestyle that keeps them from working, I'm not in favor of paying their bills for them, no matter what the cause. Same for someone who chooses not to work. I'm not in favor of letting them die, either. If they're going to be on the dole, our fine government should put them to work. Make them show up every day, on time, and work a full eight hour day. There's plenty of community service projects they could do. Supporting them by just handing them money obviously doesn't work, we've proved that over years of trying.
  • ParkerboyParkerboy Posts: 7,048 Admiral
    There is one difference between some obese and those who have chosen to have tattoos and piercings. Many people who are obese have medical conditions which cause their obesity. I have one such person who is a direct report. I also have an employee who has a complete "suit" of tats or at least I think that is what it's called. He wears a long sleeve shirt every day so there are no visible tats. He is the admin manager for my department and a highly skilled CPA who has worked for me for more than 10 years.
    Deo Vindice
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    pottydoc wrote: »
    You really don't read my posts, do you? If you did, you would see I answered the part about assistance for someone who chose to eat so much they couldn't work. Same answer for smoking and drinking. As for the last one, I don't think the government supports people who don't jog or exercise now. At least not for that reason. When someone decides to practice a lifestyle that keeps them from working, I'm not in favor of paying their bills for them, no matter what the cause. Same for someone who chooses not to work. I'm not in favor of letting them die, either. If they're going to be on the dole, our fine government should put them to work. Make them show up every day, on time, and work a full eight hour day. There's plenty of community service projects they could do. Supporting them by just handing them money obviously doesn't work, we've proved that over years of trying.

    Of course I read your posts. Thanks for the clarification. It's clear where you stand now. Deny coverage for anyone who has tattoos and can't work, anyone who is too fat to work, anyone who drinks, or anyone who smokes. But not someone who simply doesn't exercise. I think there would be a whole lot of upset people in Pottydoc's world, but I think I understand your position now.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    Parkerboy wrote: »
    There is one difference between some obese and those who have chosen to have tattoos and piercings. Many people who are obese have medical conditions which cause their obesity. I have one such person who is a direct report. I also have an employee who has a complete "suit" of tats or at least I think that is what it's called. He wears a long sleeve shirt every day so there are no visible tats. He is the admin manager for my department and a highly skilled CPA who has worked for me for more than 10 years.

    What medical conditions cause obesity and what % of people who are obese suffer from thees maladies?

    I don't think it's "many" -- I suspect a very small % of obese people are that way because of genuine medical conditions rather than simply a lack of self control -- but that all depends on how you define that word.

    I also find your observations about your CPA and admin manager very interesting, while noting that just 20 to 30 years ago the stigma against such an individual was such that nobody would likely hire him. The point being, societal norms change over time....and the counter point being should our social programs even be affected by such things?

    I'm not so sure.
  • S.S.TupperwareS.S.Tupperware Posts: 1,057 Officer
    Theres always a job, but people are lazy, and don't want to sweat. Whata worse is people have no skills and think holding up a shovel is worth 20 bucks an hour... We give out way to many handouts as a society...
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,060 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Of course I read your posts. Thanks for the clarification. It's clear where you stand now. Deny coverage for anyone who has tattoos and can't work, anyone who is too fat to work, anyone who drinks, or anyone who smokes. But not someone who simply doesn't exercise. I think there would be a whole lot of upset people in Pottydoc's world, but I think I understand your position now.
    No, you don't understand my point. It's deny coverage to people who won't work, not can't work. Please explain to us why someone with tats can't work. I'll guarantee that the guypictured in the op can find a job. Maybe not the one he wants, probably not one that pays what he thinks he should make, but he can find work. He uses his appearance as an excuse. And why would lack of exercise stop someone from working? Most of us probably don't exercise enough, but we still manage to work every day. None of the things you listed should keep someone from working, except in extreme cases. Having tats should never stop someone from working, even though having them to the extent of he guy here will certainly close a lot of doors to him. So that means they aren't working by choice, not because of the way they look. So for those people, tough luck. But, it's not going to happen, we have already created a huge part of our society that aren't going to ever work because they know the rest of us are going to pay them not to.
  • Gary SGary S Posts: 2,254 Captain
    If the guy can't find a job, how did he afford to get that way in the first place?
  • micci_manmicci_man Somewhere in FLPosts: 14,645 AG
    micci_man wrote: »
    What were they killed for?

    I'll ask again.
    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
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,060 Captain
    Gary S wrote: »
    If the guy can't find a job, how did he afford to get that way in the first place?
    This. Getting tats ain't cheap.
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    pottydoc wrote: »
    This. Getting tats ain't cheap.
    I have always wondered about that too.
    I see people all the time using EBT and unemployed but the seem to have plenty of money for tats and I phone's.
  • TampaTarpon5TampaTarpon5 Posts: 808 Officer
    Parkerboy wrote: »
    There is one difference between some obese and those who have chosen to have tattoos and piercings. Many people who are obese have medical conditions which cause their obesity. I have one such person who is a direct report. I also have an employee who has a complete "suit" of tats or at least I think that is what it's called. He wears a long sleeve shirt every day so there are no visible tats. He is the admin manager for my department and a highly skilled CPA who has worked for me for more than 10 years.

    The confederate flag is racist. Change your photo immediately.
  • Bruce SBruce S Posts: 531 Officer
    pottydoc wrote: »
    This. Getting tats ain't cheap.

    At least the gals can do a **** for tat deal
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ParkerboyParkerboy Posts: 7,048 Admiral
    The confederate flag is racist. Change your photo immediately.

    No more racist than the U.S. flag which flew over slave trader ships which the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia never did and over a country which had legalised slavery.
    Deo Vindice
  • TampaTarpon5TampaTarpon5 Posts: 808 Officer
    Parkerboy wrote: »
    No more racist than the U.S. flag which flew over slave trader ships and over a country which had legalised slavery.
  • ParkerboyParkerboy Posts: 7,048 Admiral

    So you deny there were slave trading ships flying the U.S. flag and the U.S. did not have legalized slavery? If so you received a very poor education.
    Deo Vindice
  • ParkerboyParkerboy Posts: 7,048 Admiral
    Tarponator wrote: »
    What medical conditions cause obesity and what % of people who are obese suffer from thees maladies?

    I don't think it's "many" -- I suspect a very small % of obese people are that way because of genuine medical conditions rather than simply a lack of self control -- but that all depends on how you define that word.

    I also find your observations about your CPA and admin manager very interesting, while noting that just 20 to 30 years ago the stigma against such an individual was such that nobody would likely hire him. The point being, societal norms change over time....and the counter point being should our social programs even be affected by such things?

    I'm not so sure.

    A couple of medical conditions come to mind with diabetes being one and hypothyroidism being another. In addition there are quite a few medications which also cause obesity such as steroids and antidepressants.
    Deo Vindice
  • TampaTarpon5TampaTarpon5 Posts: 808 Officer
    Parkerboy wrote: »
    So you deny there were slave trading ships flying the U.S. flag and the U.S. did not have legalized slavery? If so you received a very poor education.

    I have a fine education, I'm ****ing with you. I know how sensitive you pro confederate flag guys get, its funny.
  • dragon baitdragon bait Posts: 9,119 Admiral
    Parkerboy wrote: »
    So you deny there were slave trading ships flying the U.S. flag and the U.S. did not have legalized slavery? If so you received a very poor education.

    That is not the same flag flown today as there was only 33 states at the time if I'm not wrong
  • ParkerboyParkerboy Posts: 7,048 Admiral
    Only the number stars, it was still the official flag of the United States of America just as the one with 50 stars is today.
    Deo Vindice
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    pottydoc wrote: »
    No, you don't understand my point. It's deny coverage to people who won't work, not can't work. Please explain to us why someone with tats can't work. I'll guarantee that the guypictured in the op can find a job. Maybe not the one he wants, probably not one that pays what he thinks he should make, but he can find work. He uses his appearance as an excuse. And why would lack of exercise stop someone from working? Most of us probably don't exercise enough, but we still manage to work every day. None of the things you listed should keep someone from working, except in extreme cases. Having tats should never stop someone from working, even though having them to the extent of he guy here will certainly close a lot of doors to him. So that means they aren't working by choice, not because of the way they look. So for those people, tough luck. But, it's not going to happen, we have already created a huge part of our society that aren't going to ever work because they know the rest of us are going to pay them not to.

    I'm not so sure that he could find a job as easily as you suggest: Who would hire him?

    What about the obese person who can't even walk? Who would hire him/her?

    The point being not that they would use it as an excuse, but would be genuinely unable to gain employment.

    Now, I know your extreme distaste for those who you think are freeloading is blinding you to the reality that some people simply are unable to work through willful acts (tattooing, self-mutilation, obesity, substance abuse). But that doesn't mean these people don't exist or you can sweep them under the rug while you express your disdain for freeloaders.

    And, for what it's worth, I completely agree with you that if you can work you should work rather than just get a check every month -- that's not at all what I'm talking about here.
  • micci_manmicci_man Somewhere in FLPosts: 14,645 AG
    You must be a lawyer Tarpon. You agree with several people but still continue to argue and ask questions about fat folks. There are different kinds of fat folks. Some are self inflicted and some not. Those that are self inflicted don't need an hand out.

    I'm still waiting to hear how your mom's side was killed off as you mentioned. Please explain to us how that happened.
    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
    Although I work closely with (and against) them on a regular basis, and have probably picked up some of their behaviors as a result, I'm not a lawyer. I'm an IT executive educated in engineering and computer science.

    To answer your question. My mother's mother's family is Jewish from western Russia, where they were mostly driven out to eastern Europe in the late 1800s. My mother's father's family is from Poland. Both of them them came to Canada about the same time and eventually settled in Philadelphia. Except for a few who fled just in time, the ones who stayed behind died at the hands of **** Germany during WW2.

    All because people pointed at them as different and marginalized them for how they expressed themselves -- in how they looked and how they worshiped. So, as a result, I'm probably a bit more sensitive than most when I see people marginalized because of how they look or how they act. After all, not a single one of us know that guy -- for all we know he could volunteer his time at an orphan's home or be a foster parent to 20 kids -- instead we are judging him by how he looks and chooses to express himself.

    Make sense now?

    And I would say the folks that self-inflicted their obesity and those whose obesity is more medically related both need help equally -- some just apparently don't want to help one group because they think they did it themselves and should suffer the consequences over the group who had no control. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that position, however the need is precisely the same.

    Take care...Mike
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,060 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Although I work closely with (and against) them on a regular basis, and have probably picked up some of their behaviors as a result, I'm not a lawyer. I'm an IT executive educated in engineering and computer science.

    To answer your question. My mother's mother's family is Jewish from western Russia, where they were mostly driven out to eastern Europe in the late 1800s. My mother's father's family is from Poland. Both of them them came to Canada about the same time and eventually settled in Philadelphia. Except for a few who fled just in time, the ones who stayed behind died at the hands of **** Germany during WW2.

    All because people pointed at them as different and marginalized them for how they expressed themselves -- in how they looked and how they worshiped. So, as a result, I'm probably a bit more sensitive than most when I see people marginalized because of how they look or how they act. After all, not a single one of us know that guy -- for all we know he could volunteer his time at an orphan's home or be a foster parent to 20 kids -- instead we are judging him by how he looks and chooses to express himself.

    Make sense now?

    And I would say the folks that self-inflicted their obesity and those whose obesity is more medically related both need help equally -- some just apparently don't want to help one group because they think they did it themselves and should suffer the consequences over the group who had no control. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that position, however the need is precisely the same.

    Take care...Mike
    Actually, I'm not judging him at all. I don't care what he looks like. My only point is that if he really can't get any job because of his tats, which I don't believe, then I don't have any sympathy for him, since he made the decision to get his face covered with tats. As far as benefits he might try to get, our government decided long ago to not hold people responsible for their actions, and pay the them to do nothing. And I don't see that ever changing, even though I think it's bs.
    And, a twin. My company has plenty of guys with tats working on our new construction team. No one really cares what they look like. But a 70 year old woman waiting to get her water heater fixed certainly does.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    When I said "we are judging him", I meant "we" as in "society", not you specifically. That said, we all do it -- it is only human nature.

    I also recognize the shrewd and sometimes unfair realities of doing business and how employees are the very face to your customer. FWIW, I've been in the services business my entire career.

    And I get you think people should be responsible for their actions. I completely agree, it just gets hard for me because of the slippery slope I've been trying to point out.

    For me, at least, I'm just not so sure that we should be making discriminatory policy decisions on issues related to self expression (i.e. pursuit of happiness). That's the real place I get stuck.

    Said a bit differently, I guess I'm just not so quick to lose my sympathy even for people that look like that.

    You are free to disagree, and have, and for what it's worth I appreciate the tone of your latest response (and joke about lack of tats on your son :) )....Mike
  • ncdeadncdead Posts: 545 Officer
    I don't understand how any self respecting tattoo artist would agree to doing that to someone. Sure it's his right to get tattoos but there has be a breaking point where you just say no....not going to do that.
  • stc1993stc1993 Albany, GA Carrabelle, FLPosts: 7,541 Admiral
    They look like prison tatoos to me. You'd be surprised what a honey bun can buy in prison.
  • ncdeadncdead Posts: 545 Officer
    stc1993 wrote: »
    They look like prison tatoos to me. You'd be surprised what a honey bun can buy in prison.

    Yeah well...then there's that. I don't understand why anyone would get a tat on their neck, let alone their face...just my opinion, what the hell do I know. If that's what you are into...have at it.
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,060 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    When I said "we are judging him", I meant "we" as in "society", not you specifically. That said, we all do it -- it is only human nature.

    I also recognize the shrewd and sometimes unfair realities of doing business and how employees are the very face to your customer. FWIW, I've been in the services business my entire career.

    And I get you think people should be responsible for their actions. I completely agree, it just gets hard for me because of the slippery slope I've been trying to point out.

    For me, at least, I'm just not so sure that we should be making discriminatory policy decisions on issues related to self expression (i.e. pursuit of happiness). That's the real place I get stuck.

    Said a bit differently, I guess I'm just not so quick to lose my sympathy even for people that look like that.

    You are free to disagree, and have, and for what it's worth I appreciate the tone of your latest response (and joke about lack of tats on your son :) )....Mike
    Mike, the Corp actually prohibits any tats that are visible when you are wearing your uniform. Including their day to day ACU's with the sleeves rolled up. They don't care about any tats that don't show.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    We hire people with tats all the time now, even visible ones, when we wouldn't have done such a thing only a decade ago.

    Times change.

    We'd still not hire someone like the joker, though.

    But times change.
  • ParkerboyParkerboy Posts: 7,048 Admiral
    Tarponator wrote: »
    We hire people with tats all the time now, even visible ones, when we wouldn't have done such a thing only a decade ago.

    Times change.

    We'd still not hire someone like the joker, though.

    But times change.

    Depends on how badly you need someone and their skill level. A young employment representative who worked for me years ago got stood up by a highly skilled individual who had accepted the job. The young rep told me he was "never going to hire that guy again" and was going to tell him so. I told him never say that because if he needed someone with his skill sets and he was the only one available he would hire him.

    Never say never
    Deo Vindice
Sign In or Register to comment.