Am I a heartless asshole?

[YourGrandpa]

I did read your post. Though I may not laugh, I would question his fortitude.

I don't know about your line of work but neither my boss nor co-workers ask questions when I take a personal day as long as it isn't negatively affecting a major project or deadline. Its part of being a professional and being respected for your skills. Its also because my organization, like most that have competent management, have planned ahead for contingencies such as people having their personal lives interfere with their ability to be at work occasionally.

With regards to your analogy if a manager tells their employees something he or she is told in confidence then to me it says a lot about that manager's lack of aptitude for their position and a lack of personal character.

#1. That was a mock dialog. It doesn't relate to anything in particular.

#2. I hope you're not trying to imply anything about my company’s ability to plan around or function when unforeseen situations arise. Because you couldn't be further from reality.

#3. The "analogy" didn't mention anyone's professional title. I was simply these two guys talking.

#4. You don't expect anyone to believe that you've never been questioned about your absence by a Co-Worker or Boss and that you've never questioned anyone about their absence, do you? Am I supposed to believe that you've never been at work when someone else wasn't there and asked where that person was? Give me a break....

[R00k]

You ARE claiming to be an authority on this matter. You say quite clearly: "you still shouldn't be taking a day for dead animals".

That is where you become the asshole. You use the word "shouldn't", and you imply there aren't any exceptions. No exceptions = black and white = no compassion = asshole.

If you do believe there are exceptions, where a person could, possibly should, take the day off for their dead pet, then say it. And be done with it.

That is all I am arguing here.

I am NOT, you dipshit. I just said I wasn't. You're obviously confused, which isn't hard to do. I think everyone can see that you’ve taken a statement out of context and are trying to twist it into something it's not. That statement was prefaced multiple times in this thread by IMHO or some other derivative. Everything in this thread is based on MY opinion, which I'M entitled to. None of this is fact or law. Furthermore, the entire issue isn't black and white to me, just the end result. I can see how people get attached to their pets. I understand that some people may determine that they need a day off to grieve. I also said that I wouldn't fire someone for taking a day to deal with there emotions. But what I did say and stand behind is, I would loose confidence in that person's ability to be totally reliable.

I hope you can understand that.

I think he understands that - and is saying that's what makes you an asshole.

"I understand that there are circumstances where people may be very upset when their pet dies, and may need to take a day off. But I don't consider those kind of people reliable in a work environment. Because there are two types of people -- there are people who go to work when their dog dies, and there are people who don't."

LOL. I'm just amazed that you can base your opinion of a person on such a ridiculous metric.

[R00k]

Maybe not really amazed.

[Tormentius]

#4. You don't expect anyone to believe that you've never been questioned about your absence by a Co-Worker or Boss and that you've never questioned anyone about their absence, do you? Am I supposed to believe that you've never been at work when someone else wasn't there and asked where that person was? Give me a break....

Since I've stepped into a management role, no, I haven't been questioned about an absence. If I say I need a day off to attend to a personal matter or because of illness then thats the end of it. I'm not grilled about specifics. The same goes for me questioning my co-workers. If someone isn't there its none of my damned business why, I just go off of the assumption that they must have either been ill or had to take care of something

[[xeno]Julios]

But what I did say and stand behind is, I would loose confidence in that person's ability to be totally reliable.

but don't you see - it's this very stance you have which is being criticized.

You are essentially making the following claim about humans:

those who do suffer intensely at the loss of their pets are not as reliable as those who don't suffer intensely.

You could be meaning this in the vacuous tautological way that people who take a day off work for loss of pets are less reliable than those who don't take a day off, simply because the latter can be relied upon to come into work in that particular situation.

But that very logic could be used to make the following claim:

those who don't suffer intensely at the loss of a spouse or child are more reliable, since they will be less likely to take a day off work.

I don't think you meant it in this way - you are implying that suffering intensely at the loss of a pet is an indication that they have an unreliable character in general.

Now this is your opinion, which you stand by, but have you asked yourself upon what it is based?

[R00k]

nevermind, lol

[prince1000]

ygp isnt even smart enough to heartless. at least in this thread.

[mjrpes]

This thread is fun

Everything in this thread is based on MY opinion, which I'M entitled to.

Did you read my post two places up where I said I'm not out to change your beliefs? I am not trying to change your opinion; I'm explaining why everyone here thinks you're an asshole. A pointless enterprise that shows I'm a dipshit for trying, but one I seem to have stumbled upon without an exit strategy.

Since you've already accepted the title of 'asshole' anyway, I have no clue why you keep getting upset. And you back up my point with your last sentence:

But what I did say and stand behind is, I would loose confidence in that person's ability to be totally reliable.

"I would loose confidence" is language that implies no exceptions to the rule. I am not 'twisting' anything you say; if you disagree with this then clarify what you're saying by making it explicit. The way it stand, what you're saying is: no matter what their situation is, how long they've worked there, you have lost confidence in a person who takes the day off to mourn for their pet.

Ergo,

No exceptions = black and white = no compassion = asshole

Perhaps page 11 will be about the specific qualities that make up an asshole and whether or not an asshole has to act on their assholeness in order to truly be an asshole. Julios?

[[xeno]Julios]

lol some other time - i wanna see his response to our latest posts before going that route

gnite for now

[YourGrandpa]

A lot of assumptions are being made here and solely for the sake of argument I presume.

ROOK: You're actually assuming that I base my entire opinion of a person on this one idea. How stupid, is that? I mean, how many times could something like this come up? Surely it’s not enough to completely define someone's character. I also didn't say the person would be totally unreliable. I said they wouldn't be as reliable.

Tormentius: You're assuming when I say "questioned", it somehow means someone is being "grilled". I even tried to avoid that by giving the example. But you even said yourself that you explain your absence, "If I say I need a day off to attend to a personal matter or because of illness". So therefore you've explained why you were out. BTW, it must suck to work in an atmosphere where showing interest in a Co-Worker could be perceived as prying and even considered none of your damned business. *Oooh look, an exaggerated assumption*

Julios: You made the wrong assumption and you also compared an animal to a spouse/child, like an idiot. We'll call this the daily duce, because it's pure shit. A person who misses less work is more reliable. That's a fact, hence the very meaning of the word reliable.

I know you want to argue some more, so please do. But next time try asking a question before making assumptions.

Next....

[YourGrandpa]

This thread is fun

Everything in this thread is based on MY opinion, which I'M entitled to.

Did you read my post two places up where I said I'm not out to change your beliefs? I am not trying to change your opinion; I'm explaining why everyone here thinks you're an asshole. A pointless enterprise that shows I'm a dipshit for trying, but one I seem to have stumbled upon without an exit strategy.

Since you've already accepted the title of 'asshole' anyway, I have no clue why you keep getting upset. And you back up my point with your last sentence:

But what I did say and stand behind is, I would loose confidence in that person's ability to be totally reliable.

"I would loose confidence" is language that implies no exceptions to the rule. I am not 'twisting' anything you say; if you disagree with this then clarify what you're saying by making it explicit. The way it stand, what you're saying is: no matter what their situation is, how long they've worked there, you have lost confidence in a person who takes the day off to mourn for their pet.

Ergo,

No exceptions = black and white = no compassion = asshole

Perhaps page 11 will be about the specific qualities that make up an asshole and whether or not an asshole has to act on their assholeness in order to truly be an asshole. Julios?

You are either incredibly hard headed or retarded, possibly both.

Let me explain something. I didn't use certain adjectives because I didn't want to imply certain things. I didn't say that I would lose ALL confidence in someone for calling out like you're implying. I said I would lose confidence. Maybe I should have been a bit more "explict" and said some confidence or maybe you shouldn't have assumed otherwise. Either way, I refuse to spoon feed you the emotional context of my opinions.

[mjrpes]

Okay, I'm done now... I've gotten the complete YGP experience

[YourGrandpa]

Okay, I'm done now... I've gotten the complete YGP experience

You got served your ass.

Run along.

[[xeno]Julios]

Julios: You made the wrong assumption and you also compared an animal to a spouse/child, like an idiot. We'll call this the daily duce, because it's pure shit. A person who misses less work is more reliable. That's a fact, hence the very meaning of the word reliable.

I know you want to argue some more, so please do. But next time try asking a question before making assumptions.

Next....

read my last post with care, YGP. No offense, but you completely missed the subtle point I was making.

I'll reiterate it for you:

1) You stand by the opinion that those who miss work over a lost pet are less reliable.

2) By "less reliable" you could either mean:

A: Less reliable because they have a higher chance of missing work than someone who doesn't miss work over a lost pet, all else being equal

B: Less reliable because someone who grieves so intensely over a non human animal is probably weak minded in some way, and this weak mindedness is what makes them less reliable.

The whole point of my post was that it's unlikely you meant A:, since that logic could be used to say that someone who missed work over a lost spouse or child could be said to be unreliable (since they have a higher chance of missing work than someone who doesn't miss work over a lost child).

Therefore, you probably meant it in the sense of B:

At which point, I asked:

Now this is your opinion, which you stand by, but have you asked yourself upon what it is based?

If you go back and read that post, you'll see that this is exactly what I meant, and that you completely missed the point.

I've admitted misreading your post in the past, so don't be afraid to do the same.

[YourGrandpa]

And I told you that you had assumed wrong and I did in fact mean "A".

[YourGrandpa]

Even a bottle of Windex couldn't make that any clearer.

[[xeno]Julios]

And I told you that you had assumed wrong and I did in fact mean "A".

Thanks for clearing that up - I wasn't sure what you meant.

Ok, so you don't have any tendencies towards B?

If not, then your definition of reliable is quite arbitrary - generally when we use the word reliable we tend to talk of a quality of someone's character.

i.e. we wouldn't call someone less reliable simply because they had a husband who might die in a car accident tomorrow, and may therefore miss work for a day. But that is exactly what A means.

[YourGrandpa]

Could this horse get any more dead?

[[xeno]Julios]

btw in the first post of this thread, you wrote this:

I'm of the opinion that people who can not separate themselves from their emotional bonds to an animal long enough to do their jobs are ultimately weak and you won’t be able to depend on them when times get rough.

Do you stand by this opinion? Because it sure sounds like B to me.

[mjrpes]

Okay, I'm done now... I've gotten the complete YGP experience

You got served your ass.

Run along.

Last word, eh? Well, I wanted to continue. But with your last post, it's just too much of a hill to climb. That you completely missed the mark by what I meant by "explicit", bodes badly for any further discussion.

It was honor to debate you, and you truly lived up to your esteemed reputation :icon14:

[R00k]

Through not observing what is in the mind of another a man has seldom been seen to be unhappy; but those who do not observe the movements of their own minds must of necessity be unhappy.

[+JuggerNaut+]

Even a bottle of Windex couldn't make that any clearer.

[GONNAFISTYA]

lol @ gramps and this 10 page article showcasing all-new levels of redneck stupid

[ek]

hey guys, i am off for the weekend to paint my hideous yellow porch

[GONNAFISTYA]

Hey...have a great weekend and don't forget to fuck your kid.