The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:14 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:35 pm 
http://www.wtov9.com/health/4134754/detail.html

If you recall the debate before about if restauraunts should be allowed to say if their restauraunts are smoking or non. This one should be an interesting reversal of that. :devil:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:09 pm 
Good. I could use a nice strong incentive to drop a few pounds.

(Yes, I'm also an anti-smoking fascist.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:16 pm 
One extreme form of your employer determining your employment by such health factors...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 pm 
Bad example. According to the review the movie has a happy ending. B^o


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:35 pm 
I'm with Kazriko on this one. The general prinicple is that what you do outside of the company, as long as it stays outside, is none of the company's damn business. There are always details to be nuanced, of course, but abandoning this postulate legitimizes corporate fascism.

In essence, it establishes a two-tiered society: owners, who can do what they please, and wage-earning peasants who can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Their lives are directed by the owners, for the good of the company and, of course, for their own good.

For the most part, our ancestors came to this country because they were tired of being peasants.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:05 am 
On the contrary, BB, it's an excellent example. The happy ending was because he beat the system against odds, not because the system worked.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:09 am 
Berken wrote:
I'm with Kazriko on this one. The general prinicple is that what you do outside of the company, as long as it stays outside, is none of the company's damn business. There are always details to be nuanced, of course, but abandoning this postulate legitimizes corporate fascism.


Eh, I don't have a problem on company hiring practices being based on voluntary behaviors. In regards of the matter of being fat if I were to excercise some self control and only eat when my body tells me I'm hungry instead of whenever my anxieties tell me I need some comfort food then I could lose some weight.

Berken wrote:
In essence, it establishes a two-tiered society: owners, who can do what they please, and wage-earning peasants who can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Their lives are directed by the owners, for the good of the company and, of course, for their own good.


This heralds the creation of a two tiered society? Hardly.

As 64% of us are overweight and 30% of us are obese it's unlikely that enough companies will convert in order to fulfill the slippery slope you propose.

Berken wrote:
For the most part, our ancestors came to this country because they were tired of being peasants.


employee != peasant

employer != feudal lord


Raif wrote:
On the contrary, BB, it's an excellent example. The happy ending was because he beat the system against odds, not because the system worked.


If the system was beatable then it couldn't have been all that bad.

I probably need to see the movie in order to appreciate it. (Duh!)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:12 pm 
BBlalock wrote:
If the system was beatable then it couldn't have been all that bad.

Yet another instance of BEGGING for Godwin's law... I'll say it outright: Pick your favorite fascist regime. There are people who can get out and/or succeed within it. Does this mean it's not a bad regime? ;)

Quote:
I probably need to see the movie in order to appreciate it. (Duh!)

Yes.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:13 pm 
BBlalock wrote:
Berken wrote:
In essence, it establishes a two-tiered society: owners, who can do what they please, and wage-earning peasants who can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Their lives are directed by the owners, for the good of the company and, of course, for their own good.

This heralds the creation of a two tiered society? Hardly.

It doesn't "herald," it establishes legal and social precedents. I do try to use exact language in these discussions.

There has been a see-saw legal battle going on over this version of the issue for decades, with corporate busy-bodies trying to find legal justifications for securing irrelevant worker medical records, requiring females to sign contracts swearing they won't get pregnant while working for the company, and various other odd and intrusive items.

Weird relevant tidbit: Gloria Steinem's first big break as a feminist leader came about when she went undercover and wrote a magazine article on the lives of Playboy bunnies. One of the things she revealed was that Playboy Inc. was requiring the bunnies, ostensibly hired as waitresses, to have a gynocological exam as part of the hiring process. Since no one at the corporation could provide an explanation (at least in public) as to why this was needed, the requirement was dropped.

BBlalock wrote:
As 64% of us are overweight and 30% of us are obese it's unlikely that enough companies will convert in order to fulfill the slippery slope you propose.

As I noted above, any policy subversive of personal sovereignty has possible legal implications.

BBlalock wrote:
Berken wrote:
For the most part, our ancestors came to this country because they were tired of being peasants.


employee != peasant

employer != feudal lord

If you lived in the 19th century and couldn't distinguish among free laborors, peasants, peons, and slaves (American law does identify all these categories) then you probably would not have immigrated. The people who did go to the effort to immigrate almost universally took pride in living in a country without aristocrats. For example, when Oscar Wilde took a speaking tour of the United States c. 1900, he made the mistake of referring to his audience (in South Dakota, I believe) as "peasants" during the course of a speech. A riot broke out and he barely got out of town ahead of a lynch mob.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:39 pm 
Raif wrote:
BBlalock wrote:
If the system was beatable then it couldn't have been all that bad.

Yet another instance of BEGGING for Godwin's law... I'll say it outright: Pick your favorite fascist regime. There are people who can get out and/or succeed within it. Does this mean it's not a bad regime? ;)


I don't happen to have a favorite fascist regime. B^(

No, of course the exceptions don't mean that it's not a bad regime.

Having not seen the movie I don't know how the protagonist managed to succeed.

If he did it by hiding the fact that he was had genetic defects then I would call that a win for the regime. They have not officially allowed thier rule to be broken..

If he succeeded (for instance) by becoming so valuable to the program that the only choice the regime had was to knowingly submit to his ambitions then that's a win for the protagonist, and for freedom. In that case the government has demonstrated that it is susceptable to reason, and therefore not all that bad.


In the case of overweightness I'd hope that the administrators would recognize that BMI is not a reliable measure of physical fitness. Of course that hope may be unrealistically optimistic.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:48 pm 
BBlalock wrote:
If he did it by hiding the fact that he was had genetic defects then I would call that a win for the regime. They have not officially allowed thier rule to be broken..

He did, but they did allow such. You see, there was a bit of 'corruption' in the ranks, and the man who caught him was sympathetic. Of course, they may well have found out later but since the mission is expensive they couldn't recall it for the very reason our protagonist would have been held back: The mission is considered critical.

Now it's well possible they found out later, though the epilogue suggests otherwise, and everybody loses. They lose one of their most valuable employees, the protagonist loses his livelihood.

It just doesn't simplify down to "Either the regime won or it didn't." :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:15 am 
Raif wrote:
BBlalock wrote:
If he did it by hiding the fact that he was had genetic defects then I would call that a win for the regime. They have not officially allowed thier rule to be broken..

He did, but they did allow such. You see, there was a bit of 'corruption' in the ranks, and the man who caught him was sympathetic. Of course, they may well have found out later but since the mission is expensive they couldn't recall it for the very reason our protagonist would have been held back: The mission is considered critical.


A rogue enforcer doesn't alter anything. If that's how the movie played out then there was no official sanction of the protagonist's actions.

Raif wrote:
Now it's well possible they found out later, though the epilogue suggests otherwise, and everybody loses. They lose one of their most valuable employees, the protagonist loses his livelihood.

It just doesn't simplify down to "Either the regime won or it didn't." :)


All one has to do is define a single criteria as a dividing line.

My single criteria for fascist regimes is whether the rules are subject to reason.

In this case the rules were not amended, even to allow for this specific instance, so the protagonist must live in fear the rest of his life.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:01 pm 
BBlalock wrote:
In this case the rules were not amended, even to allow for this specific instance, so the protagonist must live in fear the rest of his life.

So I've lost you. Are you defending this regime or criticizing it? :P


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:14 pm 
Raif wrote:
BBlalock wrote:
In this case the rules were not amended, even to allow for this specific instance, so the protagonist must live in fear the rest of his life.

So I've lost you. Are you defending this regime or criticizing it? :P


Yes. B^)


With what I now know about the movie it is clear that the government rules concerning the predetermination of one's career by genetics meet my definition of fascist.

Earlier, with less knowledge of the movie, I had guessed that the movie had a more hopeful theme.

In other words, you were right and I was wrong.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:56 pm 
BBlalock wrote:
In other words, you were right and I was wrong.

It's not often I get to hear those words... :P

Alright, cool beans. 'tis a favorite movie of mine.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group