EVE Search - Discrimination against smokers possibly ok? :(

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Discrimination against smokers possibly ok? :(

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page

Author	Topic
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:52:00 - [121] Edited by: Bhaal on 17/08/2006 21:53:56 Originally by: Pika Eadesso Edited by: Pika Eadesso on 17/08/2006 21:35:10 Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Crumplecorn It is so right that you can choose not to employ people who choose to smoke. Why should smokers have any extra protection? Higher-end drug addicts certainly don't. Also, this thread seems to be a bit off topic now. I agree with you, and blame it on DS, he is the one that lead me to my example that derailed this thread... Smokers where I work have way too much leeway as far as I'm concerned... I'm sorry for taking this off topic again, but PLEASE don't say DS took thos off topic, he didn't. He used homosexuallity as a refrence to another argument, YOU then brought up that its a genetic defect, wich to be honest is so horribly horribly wrong. To say a * person is born * is a load of horsecrap. If it was a genetic issue, my mother or father would be *, as would my brother and my sister, and so would older generations that still managed to have offspring. Yes, i'm . I find it very insulting that you feel you can pass of homosexuality as a disabillity rather than a councious descion or prefrence of a sexual partner (cause lets be honest, while theres more to a relationship than sex, if you're talking about \stright, you're talking about where they shove it, rather than if they love men or women.) Sorry. To get back on topic: I dunno about this. I can see why chosing not to emply smokers would benifit the company, afterall tabaco IS a drug, like it or not. Adittedly its no **** but it is obviously addictive. Eh... out of steam after my rant. EDIT: Damn draconian forum filter! The DS remark was sarcasm. The rest is my opinion, and what I believe to be true until proven otherwise. The feelings of others is not proof to me... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Deeik Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.17 23:01:00 - [122] Originally by: The Enslaver Edited by: The Enslaver on 17/08/2006 21:00:11 The thing that always irritated me about smokers (in the UK at least), was that people can smoke for 30 years, get cancer that is certainly from it, then other people have to pay huge amounts of money for them to get treated, from an illness they willingly brought upon themselves through their choices. If people want to smoke, fine - but if people get ill from it, they should pay for their own god damned treatment. The UK's national health service has an annual budget of ú76bn (around $150bn) - and as Avon said, ú1.7-ú1.8bn per year is spent on smoking-related illnesses, with a cap of ú2bn. That is a massive chunk of the NHS's budget which is far more worthwhile being spent elsewhere, such as filling in the gaps in some of the several hospital's budgets who may even be facing having their A&E departments closed because of being in the red. That, and in my opinion smoking should only be allowed around people who are willing to breathe the smoke - and smoking inside the same household that a child resides in should have an outwright ban. Passive smoking has been proven to have drastic health effects, especially on children. The vast majority of non-smokers hate having to breathe in this crap which they are forced to breathe if they want to have a normal life - on the street, in bars and clubs, etc. It is wrong for smokers to force this upon others, if people insist on killing themselves, they should keep it amongst others who have the same hobby, rather than forcing it on others. And for the 'smoking means we pay more tax' argument - for those who smoke willingly around non-smokers, that is no justification for forcing it upon them, and oyu know - you could just always donate that money to the government, surely that would have the same effect? fist of all, the taxes more than cover for the increased expenses. so no. second, second hand/passove smoke is inconclusive as to causing cancer or any disease. you're just flato n your face wrong about it being proven. it's just a lie, bold faced BS. or if you're really worried, don't work/eat/drink at a job/restaurant/bar that allows smoking. no forcing going on anywhere, just you and your decisions.
Zaldiri Caldari Automated Industries	Posted - 2006.08.17 23:28:00 - [123] TBH I am slightly shocked that this case is in the EU. I thought that it was in the US, where smoking is far more demonised and employers have significantly more to game (cheaper health insurance etc.) from banning smokers. You shouldn't be able to hire and fire on the basis of lifestyle choices that do not affect an employees capability to benefit the employer. An employee smoking in their own home hardly detracts from their ability to work does it? On the other hand smoking does pollute the environment, and makes it an unpleasant (although hardly dangerous) place to work. So the solution is simply to ban smoking within work hours. The argument that "they smell" hold no water. I could refuse to employ fat people, because they smell. Conversely, I would very much want to see smoking banned outright. Simply because it seems (to my eyes at least) an entirely pointless activity, from what I can gather (I don't actually know that many smokers) it provides next to no enjoyment, and the only reason people smoke is because there addicted to it (and the main reason they get addicted is because of peer presume etc.). Also companies making money from a product that has only one purpose; to start/fuel peoples addictions, seems very immoral to me. However I would much rather have a world with cigarettes than employers which can take control of your home life. ----------------------------------------------- Admiral of King Frieza's Super Saiyan fleet.
Deeik Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.17 23:55:00 - [124] Originally by: Zaldiri Conversely, I would very much want to see smoking banned outright. Simply because it seems (to my eyes at least) an entirely pointless activity, from what I can gather (I don't actually know that many smokers) it provides next to no enjoyment, and the only reason people smoke is because there addicted to it (and the main reason they get addicted is because of peer presume etc.). Also companies making money from a product that has only one purpose; to start/fuel peoples addictions, seems very immoral to me. alot of smokers do say the enjoy it (and it can be, certainly), and alot people try it to, well, try it. and the term "addiction" is so loose that it's unfair to say "all they do is make people addicted!". is all cpp doing gettikng people addicted to an mmo? ZOMG BAN PLZ. not to mention the fact that bans hardly ever work. does it work with weed? or other drugs? did it work with alcohol? by banning it you'll create black markets, high prices, excessive use of tax money on law enforcement/prosecution etc etc. the cure is far worse than the disease.
The Enslaver Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.18 00:40:00 - [125] Originally by: Deeik fist of all, the taxes more than cover for the increased expenses. so no. Wrong, the government makes more money - not the NHS. So a significant difference, it is unlikely that the NHS's budget would differ at all regardless of the tax on tobacco. Quote: second, second hand/passove smoke is inconclusive as to causing cancer or any disease. you're just flato n your face wrong about it being proven. it's just a lie, bold faced BS. or if you're really worried, don't work/eat/drink at a job/restaurant/bar that allows smoking. no forcing going on anywhere, just you and your decisions. Also wrong, there is substantial proof that second hand/passive smoking causes harm. See this, this, or even this. Sorry, you were saying about bold faced BS? --------
Xelios Minmatar Rampage Eternal	Posted - 2006.08.18 02:11:00 - [126] Quote: Wrong, the government makes more money - not the NHS. So a significant difference, it is unlikely that the NHS's budget would differ at all regardless of the tax on tobacco. Isn't that something to take up with your government? If they're making money from cigarette tax and not passing that money onto health programs like they should be then talk to them about it. I don't see how it's the smoking population's fault that the money is being mishandled. The new BFG.
Mak'shar Karrde Minmatar UK Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.18 02:16:00 - [127] Originally by: Pika Eadesso To say a * person is born * is a load of horsecrap. If it was a genetic issue, my mother or father would be *, as would my brother and my sister, and so would older generations that still managed to have offspring. Yes, i'm *. That isn't really how genes work though, is it? As far as I remember (it's been a while since I left school) there are dominant and recessive genes. Not all left handers have left handed parents for example. It's quite easy for a gene to be passed on even if it doesn't effect the parents. Not that I believe that it's all in the genetics, I have no opinion either way. There is one school of thought that says that homosexuals (human and animal) benefit society by gathering resources and looking after others without inflicting the burden of extra children on society. In fact, by helping their family, that might be their method of passing on their genes (or a bloody close approximation). Personally, I think we should put the effort into locating and eliminating the Bigot gene instead. Then we can just avoid looking for the Red Hair gene, the Left Handed gene, the Homosexual gene or maybe even the Black Skin gene.
Deeik Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.18 02:46:00 - [128] Originally by: The Enslaver Wrong, the government makes more money - not the NHS. So a significant difference, it is unlikely that the NHS's budget would differ at all regardless of the tax on tobacco. see xelios' post. didn't know it wasn't being funnelled into nhs, but it should, and more than easily could be. also, this is art of my angst with nhs to begin with soooo... Quote: Also wrong, there is substantial proof that second hand/passive smoking causes harm. See this, this, or even this. Sorry, you were saying about bold faced BS? http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html http://www.forces.org/ hi2u, <3 <3 <3 <3
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.18 03:21:00 - [129] Originally by: Mak'shar Karrde Originally by: Pika Eadesso To say a * person is born * is a load of horsecrap. If it was a genetic issue, my mother or father would be *, as would my brother and my sister, and so would older generations that still managed to have offspring. Yes, i'm *. That isn't really how genes work though, is it? As far as I remember (it's been a while since I left school) there are dominant and recessive genes. Not all left handers have left handed parents for example. It's quite easy for a gene to be passed on even if it doesn't effect the parents. Not that I believe that it's all in the genetics, I have no opinion either way. There is one school of thought that says that homosexuals (human and animal) benefit society by gathering resources and looking after others without inflicting the burden of extra children on society. In fact, by helping their family, that might be their method of passing on their genes (or a bloody close approximation). Personally, I think we should put the effort into locating and eliminating the Bigot gene instead. Then we can just avoid looking for the Red Hair gene, the Left Handed gene, the Homosexual gene or maybe even the Black Skin gene. All I can say is that in some point in the future, humanity will have to deal with this front and center. Gene therapy, genetically building your child in a lab, clones, you name it... It's going to happen, and we need to start discussion on it now IMO. I'm sure there is a gene that some humans have that make them more susceptible to drug addiction than others... One day I believe we will fully understand & be able to manipulate the human genome to make whatever we want of our progeny, free of the many mutations that cause grief for a lot of humans... I don't believe my view makes me a bigot BTW, as I can get along with anyone no matter what, as long as there is mutual respect. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Pika Eadesso Numida Corporation	Posted - 2006.08.18 04:24:00 - [130] Edited by: Pika Eadesso on 18/08/2006 04:25:23 Originally by: Mak'shar Karrde Originally by: Pika Eadesso To say a * person is born * is a load of horsecrap. If it was a genetic issue, my mother or father would be *, as would my brother and my sister, and so would older generations that still managed to have offspring. Yes, i'm . That isn't really how genes work though, is it? As far as I remember (it's been a while since I left school) there are dominant and recessive genes. Not all left handers have left handed parents for example. It's quite easy for a gene to be passed on even if it doesn't effect the parents. Not that I believe that it's all in the genetics, I have no opinion either way. There is one school of thought that says that homosexuals (human and animal) benefit society by gathering resources and looking after others without inflicting the burden of extra children on society. In fact, by helping their family, that might be their method of passing on their genes (or a bloody close approximation). Personally, I think we should put the effort into locating and eliminating the Bigot gene instead. Then we can just avoid looking for the Red Hair gene, the Left Handed gene, the Homosexual gene or maybe even the Black Skin gene. Genes do indeed work like that, however a recessive gene crops up every few generations, not randomly one generation. All gene 'mutation' (ugh) happens gradually, not suddenly in a single generation. A ' Gene' can't just crop up, even recessivly, without it being 'active' in prior generations, at least a little, wich of course would never allow the production of offspring for obvious reasons. There is no substantial proof that a "* Gene" exists, it has never, been discovered (and I doubt it ever will) ... To belive in such a thing is... insane to say the least. That would mean that absolutly everything about your life is genetic, down to your very choices. Could we say theres a smoking gene? Some people just claim "I can't help it, I NEED to smoke!" ... same thing really. My own personal opinion on it is that sexuality comes from simply what a person finds attractive and nothing more. I find men attractive, you find women attractive, theres no genetics there. To quote a certain female singer from a popular 80s song 'its only chemical' I ranted. Not at anyone in particular, but I apologise.. yeah.. uhm.. smokers! I don't think you couldn't recruit someone cuase they smokes, as long as my co-worked don't blow the smoke in my face, I don't mind.

Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.18 10:12:00 - [131] Quote: There is no substantial proof that a "*** Gene" exists, it has never, been discovered (and I doubt it ever will) ... To belive in such a thing is... insane to say the least. Insane? How so? If you can't prove or disprove it, how can you say it's insanity? It's insane simply because you disagree and deem it to be so? And yes, gene's that make some ppl more susceptible to drug addiction than others is very plausible IMO... Same way some gene's make some ppl more susceptible to being athletic, have immune deficiencies, learning disorders, you name it... Homosexuality is not a byproduct of free will, as so many would like to believe... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Winter Star Caldari Back Home In Time For Tea And Medals	Posted - 2006.08.18 10:23:00 - [132]
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.18 10:26:00 - [133] Originally by: Winter Star LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Sorry, will do... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
The Enslaver Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.18 11:02:00 - [134] Originally by: Deeik Originally by: The Enslaver Wrong, the government makes more money - not the NHS. So a significant difference, it is unlikely that the NHS's budget would differ at all regardless of the tax on tobacco. see xelios' post. didn't know it wasn't being funnelled into nhs, but it should, and more than easily could be. also, this is art of my angst with nhs to begin with soooo... Quote: Also wrong, there is substantial proof that second hand/passive smoking causes harm. See this, this, or even this. Sorry, you were saying about bold faced BS? http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html http://www.forces.org/ hi2u, <3 <3 <3 <3 Sorry, do you have any links to actual surveys etc that have been carried out by official organisations or governments that back up your claim? A website that just says 'ZOMG EXAGGEERATED' doesn't really count. --------
Deeik Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.18 20:27:00 - [135] Originally by: The Enslaver Originally by: Deeik Originally by: The Enslaver Wrong, the government makes more money - not the NHS. So a significant difference, it is unlikely that the NHS's budget would differ at all regardless of the tax on tobacco. see xelios' post. didn't know it wasn't being funnelled into nhs, but it should, and more than easily could be. also, this is art of my angst with nhs to begin with soooo... Quote: Also wrong, there is substantial proof that second hand/passive smoking causes harm. See this, this, or even this. Sorry, you were saying about bold faced BS? http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html http://www.forces.org/ hi2u, <3 <3 <3 <3 Sorry, do you have any links to actual surveys etc that have been carried out by official organisations or governments that back up your claim? A website that just says 'ZOMG EXAGGEERATED' doesn't really count. they were fraudulent (sp?). that's already been proven. even the who has said there isn't significant proof it causes advert health risks, and the ETA study has been debunked head to toe numerous times, and hand selected the data so that it would suggest the conclusion that they wanted. and there are plenty of stats on forces (apparently you didn't even bother to look) of independent (non gov/industry) research of stats showing that the risk to health is negligible/inconclusive etc. the website says more than "zomg exagerated". how bout actually reading it? k? :) also check the sources for the facts on the sources you listed.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.