Page 8 of 17
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:18 pm
by losCHUNK
then its obvious, your shit at your job
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:22 pm
by [xeno]Julios
YourGrandpa wrote:
Please go back and read. I've acknoledged 1, 2, 3 and 4. But I'm of a different opinion. Sorry.
huh?
if you acknowledge all those points, then where exactly do our opinions differ?
you've just said you agree with all those points - meaning you agree that the loss of some people's pets causes them enough grief that their employer should allow them the day off.
So are you saying you're a bad employer, since you're not doing what you agree an employer
should do?
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:24 pm
by YourGrandpa
[xeno]Julios wrote:YourGrandpa wrote:
Please go back and read. I've acknoledged 1, 2, 3 and 4. But I'm of a different opinion. Sorry.
huh?
if you acknowledge all those points, then where exactly do our opinions differ?
you've just said you agree with all those points - meaning you agree that the loss of some people's pets causes them enough grief that their employer should allow them the day off.
So are you saying you're a bad employer, since you're not doing what you agree an employer
should do?
Acknowledge does not = agree.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:25 pm
by YourGrandpa
losCHUNK wrote:then its obvious, your shit at your job
Yeah, that's obvious.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:25 pm
by [xeno]Julios
ok let's try it this way:
which of the four points do you you not hold to be true?
Remember, they are all factual propositions making a claim about reality.
It's like I said:
1) the snow is white
2) the grass is green
3) snow and grass are different colours
and you said:
i acknowledge them, but don't agree with them
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:26 pm
by losCHUNK
YourGrandpa wrote:losCHUNK wrote:then its obvious, your shit at your job
Yeah, that's obvious.
well you can acknowedge an opinion and completely disregard it ?
yerp
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:28 pm
by dubz
[xeno]Julios wrote:YourGrandpa wrote:
You asked if it was a hamster. No, this is an open conversation about a pet. Hamsters are still pets, right? Why should I feel any different about a dog? After all, it's a pet. If taking a day off isn't acceptable for one, it shouldn't be for the other.
not quite. Let's take a broader look at this:
Jake lives in a house with many organisms. Some of them are members of his own species, and share much of their genetic information with his own. One is a worm which he feeds daily, another is a plant which he nurtures. He also takes care of a pair of tiny turtles, and has a few fish.
Jake has different relationships with all these organisms. He knows his brothers and sisters very well, and they share a lot of thought patterns together, which is facilitated by their ability to engage one another in a complex exchange of information - language.
Jake communicates with the goldfish, but in a very primitive way - the fish vaguely senses when Jake is feeding him, and Jake senses when the fish is in distress. When the fish dies, Jake will miss him a bit, but there will be not much of a shared history between them.
Jake also lives with a dog named Akira, and they've known each other since Jake was a baby, 15 years ago. Akira and Jake have shared many memories together - they've both taken care of each other when the other was feeling down, or ill. They've played together, and they can read each other in ways that Jake and his siblings cannot.
Jake also has a new baby sister, named fellatia.
So, there are two issues here:
which are the pets, and does the death of any one of them cause the same sense of loss and suffering in jake than any other?
If one of the fish died, and Jake had the same cognitive response to the death of Akira, would we not think Jake a bit mad?
You claim that you understand the deep relationships and emotional bonds that are formed between humans and other animals, yet clearly you do not, else you would not have difficulty understanding why the death of some animals causes enough grief in their companions so as to impel them to miss a day of work.
THANK YOU MISTER SCIENTIST I UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE NOW
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:28 pm
by YourGrandpa
I agree with 1 and 2. 3 and 4 is where my opinion differs.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:29 pm
by mjrpes
Lucid arguments
Fall to the wayside
Defeated in one sentence,
No one can crack him
Again and again
They fight to persuade him
Logic has no place here,
It is an impossible fight
Will the torture ever end?
Try they must unflinching
For the greater good of humanity,
Still, grandpa is but an asshole.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:30 pm
by YourGrandpa
losCHUNK wrote:YourGrandpa wrote:losCHUNK wrote:then its obvious, your shit at your job
Yeah, that's obvious.
well you can acknowedge an opinion and completely disregard it ?
yerp
Listen, you're obviously not that bright. Please go find something else to occupy your time.
Thanks.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:31 pm
by [xeno]Julios
YourGrandpa wrote:I agree with 1 and 2. 3 and 4 is where my opinion differs.
thanks for replying.
Ok, so you agree with this fact:
3) This emotional suffering is so severe, that they could really use a day in their own space to come to terms with their new reality.
Do you also agree that you should look out for the well being of your employees?
If so, then why would you not feel right about letting them use this day which
you acknowledge that they actually need.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:35 pm
by Wabbit
YGP doesn't have to agree. He acknowledged the points. That's all that can or really needs to be done.
You can't brow beat someone into agreeing with you. He sees what people are saying, he just doesn't agree. That's fine. He's entitled.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:36 pm
by YourGrandpa
mjrpes wrote:Lucid arguments
Fall to the wayside
Defeated in one sentence,
No one can crack him
Again and again
They fight to persuade him
Logic has no place here,
It is an impossible fight
Will the torture ever end?
Try they must unflinching
For the greater good of humanity,
Still, grandpa is but an asshole.
Beautiful...
I think I’ve been so deeply stricken emotionally by this, that I'm going to need tomorrow off.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:37 pm
by [xeno]Julios
Wabbit wrote:YGP doesn't have to agree. He acknowledged the points. That's all that can or really needs to be done.
You can't brow beat someone into agreeing with you. He sees what people are saying, he just doesn't agree. That's fine. He's entitled.
wabbit, i'm not brow beating - i'm arguing that he's made a logical inconsistency in his claims. Sometimes these things get resolved after much back and forth. We're actually getting to the root here, so stay out dammnit!
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:41 pm
by Wabbit
Sorry jules. I don't think he's being inconsistent. I think he has a different opinion. I read it as: "I understand people get emotionally attached to pets, but job responsibilities come first and people should always go to work, pretty much no matter what."
The end.
He acknowledges your points but they just don't hold the same weight for him as they do for you or many of the other people here.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:41 pm
by YourGrandpa
Look, we're now on page 6. I think I've made my opinion pretty clear and Wabbit is pretty close with here analysis. So unless there is something else ground breaking that could be discussed, I think I'm done.
I thank everyone for their support. I'm also fine with the title of heartless asshole.... :icon26:
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:42 pm
by [xeno]Julios
no wabbit - follow the logic of the last few posts - he agrees with points 1, 2, and 3, but not with 4.
I'm arguing that if you agree with 1, 2, and 3, then it's irrational not to conclude with 4.
We're in the middle of discussing this very connection between 1,2,3 and 4 - try to understand this.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:43 pm
by [xeno]Julios
YourGrandpa wrote:Look, we're now on page 6. I think I've made my opinion pretty clear. Unless there is something else ground breaking that could be discussed, I think I'm done.
I thank everyone for their support. I'm also fine with the title of heartless asshole.... :icon26:
we came so close to a meeting of minds...
you sure you don't want to respond to my last post?
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:44 pm
by [xeno]Julios
here it is again:
YourGrandpa wrote:I agree with 1 and 2. 3 and 4 is where my opinion differs.
thanks for replying.
Ok, so you agree with this fact:
3) This emotional suffering is so severe, that they could really use a day in their own space to come to terms with their new reality.
Do you also agree that you should look out for the well being of your employees?
If so, then why would you not feel right about letting them use this day which
you acknowledge that they actually need.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:44 pm
by YourGrandpa
[xeno]Julios wrote:YourGrandpa wrote:Look, we're now on page 6. I think I've made my opinion pretty clear. Unless there is something else ground breaking that could be discussed, I think I'm done.
I thank everyone for their support. I'm also fine with the title of heartless asshole.... :icon26:
we came so close to a meeting of minds...
you sure you don't want to respond to my last post?
*edit---- up*
Not right now.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:45 pm
by Foo
Missed some of this thread but here's my take:
Employment is a legally-backed activity. Every stipulation in what an employee can and can't do, and what an employer can and cannot do, should be covered by the employment contract or standard employment law.
Hence, if the employee has the right under his/her contract to take time off for this then stop right there, whether you agree or not with it there's no place to criticise that employee or for it to affect your working relationship with them in any way whatsoever. This boils down to a reflection on yourself and how professional you can be about the situation... because if they're allowed to do it, then you're being unprofessional if you express to that employee or anyone else at the company that you don't think it was valid for them to have taken the time off.
So the only thing that really leaves is the situation where the employment contract clearly states that taking time off for a pet dying would not be acceptable behavior... and at this point it boils down to this:
Does this employee work to rule, or does he/she do things beyond doing only what's required by the terms of employment? Because if the employee does more, then you should cut them a fair equal amount of slack for their own needs. Your own view on how attached you're capable of becoming to an animal does not have any bearing on that persons level of attachment and hence it's not your decision to make.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:46 pm
by Nightshade
There sure are a lot of words in this thread.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:49 pm
by mjrpes
YourGrandpa wrote:
Beautiful...
I think I’ve been so deeply stricken emotionally by this, that I'm going to need tomorrow off.
very rarely do people get to say they have a thread poem :icon14:
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:49 pm
by [xeno]Julios
YourGrandpa wrote:
Not right now.
You're backed into a logical corner - there are two ways out:
one is to provide a good argument why 1,2,3 do not lead to 4.
The other is to agree with 4.
Both are rational options, but you cannot ignore the corner.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:51 pm
by plained
uh no he isnt backed into nothin
ur like high presure sales
no ones buying
