Gore's consumption news

#126
#126
This line of reasoning implies that everyone will act sensibly and we don't need rules to protect the general populace from people who might make poor decisions. Seems to me that your right to drink and drive should end where my right to expect other drivers to follow the rules begins.
 
#127
#127
BigPapaVol said:
This line of reasoning implies that everyone will act sensibly and we don't need rules to protect the general populace from people who might make poor decisions. Seems to me that your right to drink and drive should end where my right to expect other drivers to follow the rules begins.
Click to expand...
I always enjoy the "follow the rules simply because they are there" argument.

You do have laws and rules to protect the population from people that will break them, as we should. We should have laws that punish offenders because they harm or intend to harm others, not because their actions have a 40% greater chance of harming others. That is assinine.
 
#128
#128
therealUT said:
I always enjoy the "follow the rules simply because they are there" argument.

You do have laws and rules to protect the population from people that will break them, as we should. We should have laws that punish offenders because they harm or intend to harm others, not because their actions have a 40% greater chance of harming others. That is assinine.
Click to expand...


Been a while so you will have to correct me if I do not have your thoughts down excatly right. But weren't you for making it illegal for employers to ask potential employees about their criminal records?
 
#129
#129
allvol123 said:
Been a while so you will have to correct me if I do not have your thoughts down excatly right. But weren't you for making it illegal for employers to ask potential employees about their criminal records?
Click to expand...
Indeed. If a sentence is served, then it is served. The sentence is not "2 years imprisonment followed by a lifetime of disadvantage."

For those that will spasm in reaction to this statement, the answer is harsher penalties for actual crimes.
 
#130
#130
therealUT said:
Indeed. If a sentence is served, then it is served. The sentence is not "2 years imprisonment followed by a lifetime of disadvantage."

For those that will spasm in reaction to this statement, the answer is harsher penalties for actual crimes.
Click to expand...

Have no spasm for your statement. But I do not see the harm that this law would be protecting someone from? An employer has harmed no one by asking questions concerning someone's history.
 
#131
#131
I agree that an employer has harmed no one. And, if the potential employee wishes to come forward with the information, it is his choice. However, the government should not aid that private employer in limiting his potential employees' opportunities.
 
#132
#132
If it could have an effect on that business the business serves its own interest in knowing the person that they are about to enter a contract with could potentially harm them.

A bank should have a concern that this person applying for a teller job has stolen money or counterfeited money in the past.

A daycare or school should be a little concerned that the person they are about to employ has been convicted in the past on child abuse or molestation.
 
#133
#133
What you are saying is there is no real hope that a human can change their ways?

There is just as much potential that someone who has never robbed a bank will rob one tomorrow as there is that someone who has spent time in prison for robbing a bank will.
 
#134
#134
therealUT said:
I agree that an employer has harmed no one. And, if the potential employee wishes to come forward with the information, it is his choice. However, the government should not aid that private employer in limiting his potential employees' opportunities.
Click to expand...

It is your opinion, not trying to change it. Just does not seem consistent to me that you are against Volman Jr. having his DUI laws because there is no victim in someone driving home safely while plastered but you want a law prohibiting an employer asking questions that do not hurt anyone, hence no victim. Sure you can argue that the questions have the potential to scare an employer away from a potential employee, but it is not guaranteed.
 
#135
#135
The questions not only harm but have a victim. The only reason an employer would ask such questions is in order to use them in the evaluation. Therefore, the person is having their opportunity to work (and hence live) cut short.
 
#137
#137
therealUT said:
The questions not only harm but have a victim. The only reason an employer would ask such questions is in order to use them in the evaluation. Therefore, the person is having their opportunity to work (and hence live) cut short.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. It is a capatalistic country you speak of. During the evaluation, they have the opportuniity to win the interviewer over. They have opportunnity. They can also start their own business or look for employment at an endless amount of other companies. The questions have the potential for harm, just as the drunk driver has the potential to do harm. Neither will necessarily create harm.
 
#138
#138
Fair enough, if you feel that a felon's sentence should extend beyond that declared by the judge. If not, then it should be of no consequence. If it is of no consequence, then why does the employer need to ask about it? If it is still of consequence, then the ex-con should probably still be in prison, and therefore, the argument should be for harsher punishment for actual crimes.
 
#139
#139
therealUT said:
Fair enough, if you feel that a felon's sentence should extend beyond that declared by the judge. If not, then it should be of no consequence. If it is of no consequence, then why does the employer need to ask about it? If it is still of consequence, then the ex-con should probably still be in prison, and therefore, the argument should be for harsher punishment for actual crimes.
Click to expand...

It is of consequence for the same reason that you would ask a potential contractor why he failed so miserably on a project 3 years ago that he performed for another business. If I am going to pay you money Mr. contractor, explain to me why you failed. I am glad you were able to stay in business, but I need to make evaluations on you.
 
#140
#140
That is merit and performance, as relating to the job at hand, based. If someone is fired from their previous job and also sent to prison for the action that led to their unemployment, then the prospective employer should be able to find that information out from work history checks (merit and performance based).
 
#141
#141
It has been a good conversation. But still have never seen how you being against Volman jr's DUI laws is consistent with you being for making it illegal for an employer to ask certain questions. The questioner does not necessarily intend harm just as the drunk driver does not necessarily intend harm.
 
#142
#142
Can we please get this back to Algore!

AlGoreWin.jpg
 
#143
#143
therealUT said:
Fair enough, if you feel that a felon's sentence should extend beyond that declared by the judge. If not, then it should be of no consequence. If it is of no consequence, then why does the employer need to ask about it? If it is still of consequence, then the ex-con should probably still be in prison, and therefore, the argument should be for harsher punishment for actual crimes.
Click to expand...
It's not the sentence in question, but the judgment, or lack thereof, of the interviewee in question. Is there some reason that an employer shouldn't try to ascertain the ability of the potential employee to make good decisions when necessary.
 
#144
#144
One more point, to the government's regulation of a business and the rights of the business owner... years ago there were products that exterminators could use that were highly effective at killing bugs (DTD, Durasban and others) turns out that they also have ill effects on the human thus the government banned them. But by your logic those business owners should be able to use those products just because they want to.
 
#145
#145
volmanjr said:
One more point, to the government's regulation of a business and the rights of the business owner... years ago there were products that exterminators could use that were highly effective at killing bugs (DTD, Durasban and others) turns out that they also have ill effects on the human thus the government banned them. But by your logic those business owners should be able to use those products just because they want to.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Also, by my logic, none of those employees are forced to work for a company that uses those chemicals.
 
#146
#146
Not refering to the emlpoyees of these companies but to the customers (who would have no idea what chemical was being used) that would be harmed.
 
#148
#148
isn't the hysteria over DDT overblown, just like the frothing over Alar?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top