Why does the "for the children" argument work so well for politicians?

[AndriaD]

You just don't want to respond - and I speculate that it's because the answer would completely invalidate your position.

In my experience, when someone says "that doesn't merit a response," it's because they can't be bothered -- or don't know how -- to think of a rational argument. They'd rather just throw it all back on you, i.e., the ad hominem response -- the lazy irrational way to argue.

Andria

 

[DC2]

One just may be a little too addicted to nicotine if they choose it over employment.. Sounds like a personal problem, rather than terrorism..

So you're fine with people who drink caffeine all day long denying employment to nicotine users.

 

[HazyShades]

Guys, this thread has lost its way and has become somewhat foolish. I dislike saying this because many of you I like quite well and respect your thought processes, others not so much. The arguments have become circular and reduced in intellectual quality - next I expect to be told that my mother wears combat boots. I am out of here.

See ya. However, combat boots are quite comfy. My wife wears them all the time
Hazy

 

[Rossum]

The "Laws" and "Regulations" that the ANTZ want (and in many cases have already gotten) that restrict the rights of people to determine what is and is not acceptable behavior by otherwise honest, peaceable people on their own property can ultimately only be enforced through the threat of violence.

 

[stevegmu]

Maybe it does to you because you don't know the meaning of terrorism.
If you did you might not make such an outlandish argument.

Denying a job because somebody doesn't meet certain qualifications is not
the same as attacking them with violence.

Violence involves bloodshed.

Moreover, not employing someone because they vape or smoke, while a prejudicial action
is or should be a right similar to denying somebody the right of free speech in a private forum.

If the employer is a government entity you might have a quasi solid argument.
But in free society a private enterpise should have the freedom to emplloy
people who meet thr prerequisite qualifications of the job, including not vaping, smoking, ETC.

Hazy

When I open my vape shop in Prague I will only hire hotties who dress fashionably. Let the fatties complain, but it won't be illegal, or a violation of their rights... Neither is denying one a job in the medical field if they choose to use nicotine...

 

[HazyShades]

Is it picture time yet?

Is it OK to just post a hearty LOL?

 

[caramel]

One just may be a little too addicted to nicotine if they choose it over employment.. Sounds like a personal problem, rather than terrorism..

Isn't it illegal to deny employment based on a canditate's characteristic that does not prevent him to perform the work?

 

[stevegmu]

So you're fine with people who drink caffeine all day long denying employment to nicotine users.

Yep. No problem with that at all. It is what it is...

 

[sub4me]

So you're fine with people who drink caffeine all day long denying employment to nicotine users.

Yes, in case you weren't informed an employer only has to follow the law. Last I checked smokers, vapors, alcoholics, red heads, green men for Mars, people with nose rings, and many more dont fall into a protected class. So sorry.

 

[HazyShades]

When I open my vape shop in Prague I will only hire hotties who dress fashionably. Let the fatties complain, but it won't be illegal, or a violation of their rights... Neither is denying one a job in the medical field if they choose to use nicotine...

I agree wholeheartedly.
Think of that famous spoorts bar with the ladies in the hot orange shorts.
Should they be forced to hire fat bearded women?

Hazy

 

[DC2]

The "Laws" and "Regulations" that the ANTZ want (and in many cases have already gotten) that restrict the rights of people to determine what is and is not acceptable behavior by otherwise honest, peaceable people on their own property can ultimately only be enforced through the threat of violence.

It doesn't count until the police actually beat someone.

 

[Rossum]

Isn't it illegal to deny employment based on a canditate's characteristic that does not prevent him to perform the work?

Only if they are politically correct "protected" characteristics.

 

[stevegmu]

Isn't it illegal to deny employment based on a canditate's characteristic that does not prevent him to perform the work?

Apparently not. From quite a few studies I have read, fatties earn less and don't advance as quickly as people who aren't obese...

 

[stevegmu]

I agree wholeheartedly.
Think of that famous spoorts bar with the ladies in the hot orange shorts.
Should they be forced to hire fat bearded women?

Hazy

I was thinking of the club I go to in Prague, where the only men who work there are managers, bouncers, bodyguards and limo drivers , but the other example will also do...

 

[HazyShades]

Isn't it illegal to deny employment based on a canditate's characteristic that does not prevent him to perform the work?

If the characteristic impedes the performance of the job, no.
If the applicant has certain personal habits that may be considered as risky
the employer has the right to deny employment whether the applicant is capable of performing the job or not.

There are certain examples I can't elaborate on in this forum

This is still a free society not ruled by a monarchy.

Hazy

 

[sub4me]

Hazy takes them to school again over and over with common sense.

Hazy the school master, LOL.

 

[HazyShades]

Only if they are politically correct "protected" characteristics.

Indeed. You hit it on the nose. However, politically correct is not ethically or practically correct.

Why can't I "like" you, man Wheres the like link?

Hazy

 

[HazyShades]

Hazy takes them to school again over and over with common sense.

Hazy the school master, LOL.

Thanks, sub. But I'm just another bozo on this bus.
Only difference is that I'm paying attention 'cause my cognitive ability is tweaked

Hazy

 

[Krashman Von Stinkputin]

To answer the OP's question:

The same reason that Walt Disney movies make people believe that lions and bears wanna sing and dance with us and not eat us.

From that famous,but little known, deleted "Yummy Nummy" song and dance scene from Disney's Jungle Book that'll tug at your heart strings....

Mowgli asks: "WHAT'S FOR DINNER???"

 

[HazyShades]

The "Laws" and "Regulations" that the ANTZ want (and in many cases have already gotten) that restrict the rights of people to determine what is and is not acceptable behavior by otherwise honest, peaceable people on their own property can ultimately only be enforced through the threat of violence.

When it becomes violence then it will become terrorism
May I point out that anti-antz indulges similar behavior, the difference lies in that
Anti-ANTZ aren't in control as far as smoking/vaping is concerned.
But a similar situation exists in othes venues of life where the politically correct,
formerly unacceptable minorities, are in control and indeed do threaten violence
or at least intimidation to those who don't play along.

Hazy