Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Burka ban
Comments
-
I'm religious and support the bansponsoredwalk wrote: »It's hard to read this and not apply the logic carte blanche to justify Dunnes stores in the apartheid situation for firing those people 'who changed' after they'd agreed to company policy (which as you so adamantly say simply cannot change to suit an employee). Note you ignore such an inconvenient consequence of your own logic, a logic that says the government are wrong to commemorate those people with a plaque for changing after they'd agreed to suppress their personal convictions once they'd signed a contract.
Well, in my opinion the employees in the apartheid situation were also wrong. They were right in what they tried to achieve, but if they had a problem with a product Dunnes were selling, regardless of the reason, they shouldn't have been working there. If the company I work for now was doing something which I found to be immoral, I'd quit. If the company changed their stance, I'd consider trying to get my job back.sponsoredwalk wrote: »You're seriously going to argue that "Many Muslim women do not wear any form of hijab at all" was not meant as a means to imply that the hijab is not a necessity by virtue of the fact that "many" don't wear it? Such a sentence has absolutely no relationship even to the concept that they might be firing her for becoming a Muslim
This is too radical a departure in meaning to be taken seriously quite frankly, I doubt the question wouldn't have been pursued further had I not called you on it, the logic of it fits in perfectly with everything else you're saying so I sincerely doubt such a weapon would have been left unwielded...
That's not what I was arguing at all. It's necessity is not a factor. My point was that Dunnes did not fire her because of her religion. If she was a Muslim woman who did not wear a hijab, she would have been fine and there wouldn't have been an issue. The issue is not the religion, it is the violation of the clothing policy. Therefore, this is not an issue of discrimination.sponsoredwalk wrote: »All of a sudden company policy has concepts like reasonableness attached to it :rolleyes: The rest of what you're saying explicitly & radically refutes such an idea...
Yes. I used to work as a waiter, and there was a clothing policy. It is reasonable for the management to insist I wear the same uniform as everyone else, so the customers know I work there. It is reasonable for the management to insist I don't wear a hat as it's unprofessional. It is reasonable for the management to have a policy that I don't come in with the word "C*ntnugget" tattooed on my forehead.
Whether you agree with policies or not, the management has a right to make them provided they are legal, and if you disagree with a policy, don't work there. If I had a job somewhere, I changed religion, and my religion conflicted with parts of the job, I wouldn't expect the entire company to change around my needs and wants. I would leave.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Very very easy for you to say this from the outside, not having to deal with such a request that you clearly have no interest in even attempting to begin to even try to start to understand, not ideologically palatable enough but shure it's only one of the less-rational...
And again, I used to work as a waiter. Some parts of the job I thought were a little over the top. I used to have to wear a dickie-bow, but I never used to button the top button of my shirt. Boss gave out to me. I thought it wasn't that big a deal. But guess what, I did it anyway because I worked for them. I even went out and bought a few new shirts with a larger neck size so I could button the top button without feeling uncomfortable. Did I agree with why my boss gave out to me? No, not at the time. I can see now how it could look unprofessional though, and everyone else had the top button buttoned. Same with shoes. Had to wear black shoes. Would it have mattered if I wore brown shoes? I didn't think so. But it is not unreasonable for the management to want all employees to look the same (it's why they're called uniforms, so everyone looks uniform) and to look professional, and brown shoes with black trousers doesn't look as professional as black shoes with black trousers). Either way, I worked for them. And in every job I've had since, whether I agree with my bosses/company policy or not, I complied with them. It's called "being an employee". So long as I don't find them unethical, I comply.sponsoredwalk wrote: »You completely missed the point there, if you're willing to miss the point there I can't convey the point to you - impenetrable...
I think you're mentioning the concept of discrimination based on fundamentally misinterpreting what I meant as regards company owners & what they could do to every type of minority they have a problem with. I just don't see how you could square such an interpretation of what I was saying with sentences of mine like:
It's a serious break in logic, just not giving my posts the full weight they deserve - & the fact that you so conspicuously ignored the apartheid orange case is undeniable evidence of this even if everything else was wrong...
Firstly, believe me, I am giving your posts the exact amount of weight I believe they deserve. I ignored your orange example as that's a case of going against store policy on moral reasons. The woman with the hijab, is not going against company policy for moral reasons. Same with your examples of minorities, unless you can show how they are being discriminated against of forced to work in the back of the store solely because of their ethnicity, it is a moot point.
This is not a case of discrimination. Nor is this woman being asked to work under some kind of dictatorial management system where she is degraded. She is being asked to continue working in her job, as she happily did so before, without wearing any type of headwear. Regardless of her reasons for wearing the hijab, SHE is the one who has changed and is now in violation of a policy which she had NO issues with before. It is not "antithetical to basic human dignity" because she is not being FORCED to work without the hijab. She has a choice to work there or not. She does not have the choice to disregard pre-existing, undiscriminatory and completely legal company policy, regardless of her reasons.
Who knows, maybe Dunnes will decide to change company policy to say "No headwear except for religious reasons (eg. hijab)". If they do, then she'd be able to work there. But that's not her decision to make.
Where I currently work, we get 21 days holidays each year. But, company policy is that the office closes on Good Friday, which means we only get 20 days holidays. As an atheist, I don't give a flying f*ck about Good Friday and would have no problem coming into work that day. But, it's company policy. I don't agree with it, but I comply with it.0 -
Well, in my opinion the employees in the apartheid situation were also wrong. They were right in what they tried to achieve, but if they had a problem with a product Dunnes were selling, regardless of the reason, they shouldn't have been working there.
Fantastic. Such logic also applies carte blanche, for example (among many many examples), to thousands of children in 1835 who so scurrilously went against company policy to protest the 13.5 hour work day instead arguing for 11.5. You can't pull a fast one & invoke compliance with law, you attempt this little game below, because it wasn't illegal (despite all the, I would have thought, obvious flaws with such an argument). Again we could really dig deep with how fantastic this logic is & what it condones, teaming up with Newt Gingrich & arguing for 'right to work' for little children is small fry... If you want to be in any way consistent you have to do nothing but criticize the children for going on strike against company policy & adulterously cheating on the company policy they'd agree to around the age of 6... Oh sure, they may have been "right in what they tried to achieve", despite the fact such a claim completely contradicts your entire argument (sure you don't want to look too heartless, you do need to include something not to lose all credibility despite the fact your entire argument opposes such irrational humanity) but they always had the 'freedom' to go work somewhere else so sure ideology dictates that they are in the wrong. The depths one has to descend to...
But I'm glad you're honest enough to admit this much. Anybody not whipped into submission to company policy sees how subservient an attitude this is & how such logic applies carte blanche to black people, to women, to immigrants, basically to anybody outside of company policy, historically we know who they are & who they aren't. You might think this is fine, in all of it's obvious Ayn Randian libertarian glory, but society completely rejects it (in large part because of anti-company policy troublemakers) instead putting up plaques to support those un-rational people who just aren't rational enough to see how such policies are justified & unchangable from the outside...
You are the perfect example of someone who benefits from moral herd immunity in a manner akin to unvaccinated people. You may be too afraid to challenge unjustified company practices but other people weren't & boy is it lucky for you... Similarly in both cases the results, if your beliefs were taken seriously, end up cancerous for society. You have to wonder where the 8-hour working day came from, where weekends off came from, why children don't work in coal mines anymore :rolleyes: Such scurrilous rebels going against perfectly legitimate & unquestionable biblical doctrine company policy, caring about children & all that, I mean company policy is far more important. One can only guess your opinion about unions & strikers & how awful they are despite all the things you now benefit from due to these troublemakers. Your logic supports all of these things, & your only attempt is to try to invoke the law as a means to save you from the obvious conclusions of your argument despite the fact that such wouldn't have ever become illegal if you were leading the generation that challenged such practices when they were legal.
In other words everything you're saying is mired in historical contradictions, let alone theoretical ones. Every time you try to retort you have to be willing to justify Dunnes supporting Aparthied (despite the contradictory fact the workers were "right in what they tried to achieve" even though they were wrong even though they were right even though...) or argue along with Newt Gingrich that children should be off working again. What next? I have an idea...That's not what I was arguing at all. It's necessity is not a factor. My point was that Dunnes did not fire her because of her religion. If she was a Muslim woman who did not wear a hijab, she would have been fine and there wouldn't have been an issue. The issue is not the religion, it is the violation of the clothing policy. Therefore, this is not an issue of discrimination.
Again nowhere in anything I've said does discrimination have anything to do with anything...Yes. I used to work as a waiter, and there was a clothing policy. It is reasonable for the management to insist I wear the same uniform as everyone else, so the customers know I work there. It is reasonable for the management to insist I don't wear a hat as it's unprofessional. It is reasonable for the management to have a policy that I don't come in with the word "C*ntnugget" tattooed on my forehead.
For a second there I thought you were arguing that reasonableness had something to do with company policy from the workers perspective - but no... :rolleyes: Your only thoughts are for the company & how they view things, making sure they are offered reasonable enough submission by their workers :rolleyes: Over 150 years ago it was reasonable for you to be 12 down a coal mine as a little breaker boy from the point of view of a company, it was those people you are opposed to, those who so arrogantly go against company policy, that are the reason why such is not considered reasonable. Again, the implications of your argument just contradict history & illustrate how ridiculous what you're saying is considering you're not working an 18 hour day instead posting online.Whether you agree with policies or not, the management has a right to make them provided they are legal, and if you disagree with a policy, don't work there. If I had a job somewhere, I changed religion, and my religion conflicted with parts of the job, I wouldn't expect the entire company to change around my needs and wants. I would leave.
Yes, many societies at different times changed & didn't feel it was justified that companies could force them to work 10-18 hours a day. By your logic those who'd committed adultery on company policy should have just quit & society should have just accepted the authority of company policy...but I never used to button the top button of my shirt. Boss gave out to me. I thought it wasn't that big a deal.
Oh so you're one of those who doesn't think company policy is justified :mad: Lucky they weren't able to access your thoughts & know what you really thought...Firstly, believe me, I am giving your posts the exact amount of weight I believe they deserve. I ignored your orange example as that's a case of going against store policy on moral reasons. The woman with the hijab, is not going against company policy for moral reasons.
As obvious as it is that your statement could only be reached through such biased ideology that negates all others that aren't in line with your own, if we even bother to properly look at the words being used we see:
I'm not going to take your dogmatic assertions seriously if they are so ridiculous they can only be explained as the product of ideology when you don't even attempt to justify such. Simply claiming a woman choosing to wear her hijab is not a moral decision, bereft of even a morsel of justification, might go down well against creationists but I think you'll have a hard time defending the claim that to indulge in determining "the difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using logic" with regard to following what one thinks is right (to wear a hijab) as dictated by their beliefs, i.e. the definition of moral reasoning, is actually not the definition of moral reasoning against other people (I think you'll have a harder time doing this if you continue to do it without a whiff of an attempt at justifying yourself).Moral reasoning can be defined as being the process in which an individual tries to determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using logic.[2] This is an important and often daily process that people use in an attempt to do the right thing. Every day for instance, people are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to lie in a given situation. People make this decision by reasoning the morality of the action and weighing that against its consequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_reasoningSame with your examples of minorities, unless you can show how they are being discriminated against of forced to work in the back of the store solely because of their ethnicity, it is a moot point.
You're not paying attention if you thought that's what I was saying...This is not a case of discrimination. Nor is this woman being asked to work under some kind of dictatorial management system where she is degraded.
Why don't you tell this to yourself & all the other people trying to imply that I'm even broaching on the topic of discrimination when I never did.She is being asked to continue working in her job, as she happily did so before, without wearing any type of headwear.
Unbelievable. Such an argument betrays absolutely no care in the world for anybody else than the companies perspective, a stance your entire post betrays & the hilarious consequences of such a stance have, hopefully, been made explicit by now...Regardless of her reasons for wearing the hijab, SHE is the one who has changed and is now in violation of a policy which she had NO issues with before.
Tell this to one of the 8 year old girls in 1835 who "changed and is now in violation of a policy which she had NO issues with before". Such an argument is simply negated by history, I don't know why you'd whip out such fundamentalist assertions that completely ignore all traces of history. If what you were saying was in any way respectable then those children wouldn't & shouldn't have gotten their 13.5 hour work day reduced, but no it isn't so ridiculously black & white. In other words, such arguments are completely useless...It is not "antithetical to basic human dignity" because she is not being FORCED to work without the hijab.
Under no respectable interpretation could something being antithetical to basic human dignity somehow imply that thing is being FORCED upon the person... For example the whole point of bamboozled is to highlight something antithetical to basic human dignity even though nobody is forced into anything. But sure it's fine to just attack me by joining others in practically referencing Pluto in order to retort to me because I'm defending something to do with religion :rolleyes:She has a choice to work there or not. She does not have the choice to disregard pre-existing, undiscriminatory and completely legal company policy, regardless of her reasons.
Such nonsense justifies not hiring black people. Again, & this is going to require a few seconds of thought, you only have the right to even mention the word "legal" in this context because of the people you are arguing against. It's because the people who went against company policy in the 60's, or the 1830's, or... that such practices are illegal. I mean, your argument calls Rosa Parks a troublemaker that always had the option to walk instead of take the bus (even though she was right in what she did even though she was wrong even though she was right even though...), if it wasn't for people like her company policies would never have changed.Who knows, maybe Dunnes will decide to change company policy to say "No headwear except for religious reasons (eg. hijab)". If they do, then she'd be able to work there. But that's not her decision to make.
Who knows, maybe... Such questions would never even have occurred to Dunnes if it was you in her position since you'd just run away with your tail between your legs apologizing for them...Where I currently work, we get 21 days holidays each year. But, company policy is that the office closes on Good Friday, which means we only get 20 days holidays. As an atheist, I don't give a flying f*ck about Good Friday and would have no problem coming into work that day. But, it's company policy. I don't agree with it, but I comply with it.
It doesn't surprise me at all to see you not bothering to take a stand on some moral conviction, instead just going with the flow, because it's company policy you're up against...0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement