A Question for Evangelicals.

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote:Not necessarily, That's a matter of degree. I can work with some unpopular people.
You're still requiring popularity to work with this person. You're telling people that unless the reactions of others toward them change, they're fired.

My only problem with this is that people can't change others' reactions. People can only control their own behaviour.
Bust Nak wrote:What's wrong using the result > skill premise?
Nothing. But you will continue to not get results when you replace the rude surgeon. Tammy will find the next guy rude, and the next, and the next, until she finds a surgeon who will sufficiently bribe her to hand the scalpel, because that's the power you've given her. When you finally find someone who is "not rude" it'll just mean he was the one who put more effort into bribing/pleasing the team than he did into the guy dying on the table.

This is why everything sucks. All jobs are now politics. Who gets the job as a surgeon? The best social butterfly. Who gets the job as the movie writer? Not a good writer - a good social butterfly. It goes all the way down from up at the very top to the people flipping burgers. No one can do their job because the job has nothing to do with doing the job: It has to do with not offending anybody and being a perfect social butterfly.

We would live in a perfect world if everyone even remotely likable just suddenly died off.
Bust Nak wrote:Because being rude goes against my standard of behavior.
I only wish it was a standard of behaviour. In my experience, once someone decides they don't like another person, they will just call that person rude and no behaviour on the part of the rude person can make him not rude, according to the accusers.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8632
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: You're still requiring popularity to work with this person. You're telling people that unless the reactions of others toward them change, they're fired.
Okay, there is a degree of that. Someone extremely unpopular does not belong in a team.
My only problem with this is that people can't change others' reactions. People can only control their own behaviour.
So change your behavior to be more popular.
But you will continue to not get results when you replace the rude surgeon. Tammy will find the next guy rude, and the next, and the next, until she finds a surgeon who will sufficiently bribe her to hand the scalpel, because that's the power you've given her.
Well there you go, it will work by firing the rude surgeon, and replacing her with someone better.
When you finally find someone who is "not rude" it'll just mean he was the one who put more effort into bribing/pleasing the team than he did into the guy dying on the table.
That's good, I like people who put more effort into their work.
This is why everything sucks. All jobs are now politics. Who gets the job as a surgeon? The best social butterfly.
Again, you don't have to be a social butterfly to work with Tammy. Popularity as you used it above, doesn't mean being a social butterfly, it meant not being so rude that people refuses to work with you.
No one can do their job because the job has nothing to do with doing the job: It has to do with not offending anybody and being a perfect social butterfly.
That's part of the job, you don't have to be a social butterfly, but you have to be able to work with your team.
We would live in a perfect world if everyone even remotely likable just suddenly died off.
that's a horrible way of thinking. How is this world perfect where everyone in it is not likeable?
I only wish it was a standard of behaviour. In my experience, once someone decides they don't like another person, they will just call that person rude and no behaviour on the part of the rude person can make him not rude, according to the accusers.
That's where I come in, to decide if the problem lies with the surgeon or Tammy. More to the point, as far as the premise of this topic goes, it was presupposed that the problem lied with the surgeon. Recall if you will, where the conversation started 3 weeks ago, Wootah introduced the hypothetical situation with a problematic heart surgeon.

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 3417
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post by Checkpoint »

[Replying to post 5 by Wootah]
Furthermore, Trump ain't so bad. he is a builder, not a destroyer.
Yep, he is a builder.

Of himself, of course.
___

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote:
Purple Knight wrote: You're still requiring popularity to work with this person. You're telling people that unless the reactions of others toward them change, they're fired.
Okay, there is a degree of that. Someone extremely unpopular does not belong in a team.
My only problem with this is that people can't change others' reactions. People can only control their own behaviour.
So change your behavior to be more popular.
But you will continue to not get results when you replace the rude surgeon. Tammy will find the next guy rude, and the next, and the next, until she finds a surgeon who will sufficiently bribe her to hand the scalpel, because that's the power you've given her.
Well there you go, it will work by firing the rude surgeon, and replacing her with someone better.
When you finally find someone who is "not rude" it'll just mean he was the one who put more effort into bribing/pleasing the team than he did into the guy dying on the table.
That's good, I like people who put more effort into their work.
This is why everything sucks. All jobs are now politics. Who gets the job as a surgeon? The best social butterfly.
Again, you don't have to be a social butterfly to work with Tammy. Popularity as you used it above, doesn't mean being a social butterfly, it meant not being so rude that people refuses to work with you.
No one can do their job because the job has nothing to do with doing the job: It has to do with not offending anybody and being a perfect social butterfly.
That's part of the job, you don't have to be a social butterfly, but you have to be able to work with your team.
We would live in a perfect world if everyone even remotely likable just suddenly died off.
that's a horrible way of thinking. How is this world perfect where everyone in it is not likeable?
I only wish it was a standard of behaviour. In my experience, once someone decides they don't like another person, they will just call that person rude and no behaviour on the part of the rude person can make him not rude, according to the accusers.
That's where I come in, to decide if the problem lies with the surgeon or Tammy. More to the point, as far as the premise of this topic goes, it was presupposed that the problem lied with the surgeon. Recall if you will, where the conversation started 3 weeks ago, Wootah introduced the hypothetical situation with a problematic heart surgeon.
I've thought this over and I just have one question for you.

What if the reason all these people hate this guy... is because he is black?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8632
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: What if the reason all these people hate this guy... is because he is black?
Again, you don't have to like the guy, you just have to work with him. Is this hatred affecting results? If so then I would fire the other guys.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8632
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post by Bust Nak »

Missed this reply...
Clownboat wrote: Not necessarily. What I have observed over the years is a victim mentality in the workplace that needs to not be encouraged IMO.

People need to stop blaming others and look inward. There are rude people on this planet and that will not change. The ability to deal with them (again, they don't have to like them, just be able to work with them) is manditory in the work place.
Again, that's where I come in, to decide who the problematic individuals are.
Rude people need jobs and so do ugly people. Employeers on a normal basis should not be firing people for being ugly or rude. Even if their level of uglyness is something another employee finds offensive.
Why not? I am not particularly interested in creating a hostile workplace just to fufill the need of someone needing a job.
What if an employee finds the smell of curry to be offensive? Surely we also would not fire the person that enjoys curry due to the offense it causes another worker.
Of course, instead fire the guy who finds the smell of curry offensive enough to not work with the curry eater.
Addressed in post 7: (I believe we were asked to not use the D---y Head word).
Either way, I'm curious...
If someone is a total ***** **** of a person, but a qualified heart surgeon, should you not use their services? Pretend the ***** **** is better qualified if you would.

He is not lying, in this scenario. He is better qualified, but more rude then the other candidate. Care to provide your thoughts in regards to the POTUS with this in mind?
Am I to pretend the POTUS is better qualified? That's not gonna fix all the other problems.
"When it comes to our presidents, I don't really see how anyones level of not liking them should come in to play. We don't even have to work with them. Therefore, are work results the primary thing that should matter or their level of rudeness?"
It's not about not liking him though, it's about his personal flaws affecting his work.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Scholar
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote:
Purple Knight wrote: What if the reason all these people hate this guy... is because he is black?
Again, you don't have to like the guy, you just have to work with him. Is this hatred affecting results? If so then I would fire the other guys.
So if their hatred of the one guy is because he's black, fire them.

If it's for any other reason, fire him.

Correct?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8632
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: So if their hatred of the one guy is because he's black, fire them.

If it's for any other reason, fire him.

Correct?
Nah, it depends on what the reasons are. Recall if you will, this is what I said in an earlier post: "That's where I come in, to decide if the problem lies with the surgeon or Tammy."

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7721
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post by Clownboat »

(I was not notfified about this reply...)
Copy/Paste = People need to stop blaming others and look inward. There are rude people on this planet and that will not change. The ability to deal with them (again, they don't have to like them, just be able to work with them) is manditory in the work place.
Again, that's where I come in, to decide who the problematic individuals are.
This fails to address my point now bolded for you (one you may not agree with).
You being the dictator of who is the problem individuals will not stop the blame game I observe. Also ineffective if you are the problem (racism for one example).
Rude people need jobs and so do ugly people. Employeers on a normal basis should not be firing people for being ugly or rude. Even if their level of uglyness is something another employee finds offensive.
Why not?
I find it unethical to fire someone for being ugly (consider a burn victim) or rude. (Exception can be made for being overly rude).
I am not particularly interested in creating a hostile workplace just to fufill the need of someone needing a job.
I would not suggest that you create a hostile workplace either.
What if an employee finds the smell of curry to be offensive? Surely we also would not fire the person that enjoys curry due to the offense it causes another worker.
Of course, instead fire the guy who finds the smell of curry offensive enough to not work with the curry eater.
Even if the curry eater has cheated on their husband?
What if the curry eater is a habitual liar?
Don't those things matter? What if enough people call them these names, would it then matter?
It's not about not liking him though, it's about his personal flaws affecting his work.
Then that case should be made. The slander aimed at Trump is not needed or helpful. Leave his perceived flaws out of it and address his work. I don't see this happening and perhaps I'm just missing it, but I am tired of the name calling.

From the OP alone:
- habitual liar
- serial adulterer
- defaulter on contracts
- (one ) who tears children from their parents
- (one) who puts children in cages
All leaves me wondering about how he is actually doing as a president.
What does being a liar or adulterer for example have to do with opperating on hearts, or being president? I'm not seeing the connection, but many want the man removed from office for just that reasoning. Do people actually wonder if a heart surgeons that has committed adultery deserves to remain a Doctor? I wouldn't think so.
You can build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, or you can set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible being’s wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

User avatar
Diogenes
Student
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: UK

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post by Diogenes »

Wootah wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:56 am
Gracchus wrote: [Replying to post 2 by Wootah]

Well, that doesn't answer the question, does it? Especially, since Ms. Clinton is not running for office this time. So, as of right now, you can't vote against her again.

Perhaps, you would be so good as to answer the question actually asked? If I didn't see you were a Christian, I would be inclined to think that you were deliberately prevaricating. But of course you would not consciously bring Christianity into disrepute by bearing false witness. That would be a bad fruit from what is supposed to be a good tree, and I have been told that is not possible.

:?: :study:
Let me answer like this: Suppose there was a heart surgeon that I needed that was a habitual liar, serial adulterer, and defaulter on contracts, who tears children from their parents and has them put in cages.

Are you saying I should not use his skills of heart surgery?
This poses a false dichotomy. A heart surgeon is not required to have good character, be honest, have decent personal values or good judgment except in regard to heart surgery.
A leader must inspire and have ethics that at the very least enable him to put the country far ahead of his own personal interests. Trump has shown repeatedly that he cares only for himself, not the country. His constant lying is not just bad because of the lies; the lying reveals a corrupt character and an inability to objectively assess problems, so the correct solutions may be found. Trump can't do this. He cannot objectively look at a situation, analyze and solve it because he does not have the good of the country in mind at all. He only thinks about self aggrandizement, avoiding responsibility, and declaring victory. It is as if he believes saying something makes it so.
This puts Trump in a category that goes far beyond policy and blue vs. red politics. He is a menace to democracy itself. One would think any reasonable person could see this fact, regardless of political affiliation.

Post Reply