Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 806 807 [808] 809 810 ... 852

Author Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread  (Read 870630 times)

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12105 on: February 23, 2012, 01:42:45 am »

I stopped reading when I scrolled down to see how long the article was, and the first line that catches my eye is...

Quote
When in doubt, ask HR

No.  Fuck HR.  I don't know how it is with anyone else here, but my experience with HR is that they're hateful, deceptive creatures loyal only to upper management and their own bloodlust.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Max White

  • Bay Watcher
  • Still not hollowed!
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12106 on: February 23, 2012, 01:47:54 am »

HR ain't so bad, you just need to understand them. You see they are a supporting service to a business, so as soon as shit goes fanward, they are on the firing line, thus they have to be hateful, deceptive creatures loyal only to upper management and their own bloodlust in order to suck up enough to not get fired.

So basically exactly what you said...

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12107 on: February 23, 2012, 01:51:18 am »

I'm an attorney and I think HR are bloodsuckers. I'm either a hypocrite or honest and they're that bad..
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Bauglir

  • Bay Watcher
  • Let us make Good
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12108 on: February 23, 2012, 01:57:29 am »

My experience so far is to suck up mercilessly, and occasionally bring them sweets, making it clear that you're not going out of your way to do so but just happened to have them and figured why not. They will then approximate helpfulness, to the extent that it doesn't actually affect the bottom line. For that, you have to also have an ironclad argument, couched in the same sucking up. Still, I cannot stress enough how helpful it is to be polite, especially when you don't need anything from them. They're people, so basically you have to make it as difficult as possible for them to reconcile ignoring your problems (which their job trains them to do, constantly, because to be completely fair they have at least as much bullshit as everyone else to wade through) with their impressions of you, and that means not only do they have to know you, they have to know you as "That nice guy who brought us those fun size candy bars and who asks how our days are".

Then again, I've been generally really damn lucky with my employers. I might be overly optimistic.
Logged
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky. “I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied. “Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky. “I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes. “Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.
“So that the room will be empty.”
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

Andir

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12109 on: February 23, 2012, 09:49:43 am »

My experience so far is to suck up mercilessly, and occasionally bring them sweets, making it clear that you're not going out of your way to do so but just happened to have them and figured why not. They will then approximate helpfulness, to the extent that it doesn't actually affect the bottom line. For that, you have to also have an ironclad argument, couched in the same sucking up. Still, I cannot stress enough how helpful it is to be polite, especially when you don't need anything from them. They're people, so basically you have to make it as difficult as possible for them to reconcile ignoring your problems (which their job trains them to do, constantly, because to be completely fair they have at least as much bullshit as everyone else to wade through) with their impressions of you, and that means not only do they have to know you, they have to know you as "That nice guy who brought us those fun size candy bars and who asks how our days are".

Then again, I've been generally really damn lucky with my employers. I might be overly optimistic.
It's not just you, optimism has been working here too.
Logged
"Having faith" that the bridge will not fall, implies that the bridge itself isn't that trustworthy. It's not that different from "I pray that the bridge will hold my weight."

Montague

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12110 on: February 23, 2012, 10:49:31 am »

With wills, I think the stuff is (philosophically) not really the dead person's property as much as it is slowly delivered by a series of legal orders/contracts, like a much more elaborate version of sending a letter to somebody and then dying.
Err, well no, because debt and obligation cannot be waved away with a letter or some-such. A will is a serious, legally binding document and an 'estate' is an earnest representation of an individual. You cannot put into a will "All my worldly possessions go to my youngest son, whom I cherish and all debt incurred by my person goes to my eldest son, who is a douche-bag" because it's unenforceable.

This all relates to the idea of an individual's body as personal property, pointing out the concept of self-ownership, for which I am not quite sure why I brought it up in the first place since commercialization of body parts is quite distinct from issues such as willful amputation or abortion, which have no real commercial incentive.

Logged

irmo

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12111 on: February 23, 2012, 12:11:47 pm »

So a dead guy's body still belongs to him and it goes where he planned it would go after his death. To the university to be dissected by med students, or a grave or whatever. His kid's can't just ignore the will and dump his carcass in the river or whatever, because it's not their property either.

So I'm curious about this. Why do we allow people to refuse to donate their organs? I mean, the reasons for it amount to "it creeps me out", and after you're dead, you won't be creeped out by it. Shouldn't the needs of the living take precedence?
Logged

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12112 on: February 23, 2012, 12:14:42 pm »

So a dead guy's body still belongs to him and it goes where he planned it would go after his death. To the university to be dissected by med students, or a grave or whatever. His kid's can't just ignore the will and dump his carcass in the river or whatever, because it's not their property either.

So I'm curious about this. Why do we allow people to refuse to donate their organs? I mean, the reasons for it amount to "it creeps me out", and after you're dead, you won't be creeped out by it. Shouldn't the needs of the living take precedence?

Presumably the same reason we don't allow the government take every last bit of their property: Because it's still owned by someone or bequeathed to someone, and they have the rights to make that decision if the decision.

I'm on the fence about that, though. On one hand, I feel people and their families have a right to decide what to do with a body after death, because that kind of thing has a lot of cultural importance. On the other hand, people need organs.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 12:17:23 pm by G-Flex »
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

ChairmanPoo

  • Bay Watcher
  • Send in the clowns
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12113 on: February 23, 2012, 12:17:21 pm »

It creates a public outcry, and can actually hurt organ donations.
Logged
Everyone sucks at everything. Until they don't. Not sucking is a product of time invested.

MonkeyHead

  • Bay Watcher
  • Yma o hyd...
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12114 on: February 23, 2012, 12:30:48 pm »

So, I fully acknowledge that individuals have a right to choose regarding abortion. But this news story chills me to the core -  in a modern and secular western state, that someone could follow such a course of action is disturbing.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12115 on: February 23, 2012, 12:33:41 pm »

So a dead guy's body still belongs to him and it goes where he planned it would go after his death. To the university to be dissected by med students, or a grave or whatever. His kid's can't just ignore the will and dump his carcass in the river or whatever, because it's not their property either.

So I'm curious about this. Why do we allow people to refuse to donate their organs? I mean, the reasons for it amount to "it creeps me out", and after you're dead, you won't be creeped out by it. Shouldn't the needs of the living take precedence?

Overall, the way you frame a question is key and this is a major hurdle to practicing law. People come in and they tell me what they think happened in their terms. I can't use those terms, I have to use the law's terms if I want a judge or magistrate (someone who can do something about it) to give a damn.

The basis of our rights begin with bodily integrity: the right to be free of unwarranted harm from others. From there, it abstracts out with different definitions of "harm" and "unwarranted." "bodily" also becomes "property," etc. (Property rights as an idea, developed from the idea of bodily rights).

If a person has a right to determine their bodily integrity and their property disposition, then the primary thing about death is just that they can't communicate how they want their bodily integrity or property disposed of.... Enter the will, a document that communicates the person's desires. This is "the intent of the testator" or what the person wants done after they're dead. It's the main consideration in a will, but not the only one. It just isn't absolute, because there are certain things we won't let you do and screw you if you wanna do them.

The first thing we won't let you do is disinheriting your spouse or leaving them with nothing. A.) We the state don't want to take care of your spouse after you're dead if you have the means to do so. It's expensive and you gain unjustly as a result of his/her loss. B.) That stuff is their stuff too. This is why there was dower (now only in four states including Ohio by statute) and what is called an "elective spousal share." The amount of the spousal share is determined by statute. Here, this is somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 depending on the number of children in the family.

The second thing we won't let you do is make racist/bigoted distributions of your property. You can't leave your kid "$20,000 so long as he is married before the age of 27 to a woman of pure white lineage." We disallow this as against public policy. What happens to the money after the condition is disallowed is a whole big steaming court case. However, strangely, certain conditions which might be considered bigoted might be allowed. Example, "I give to my nephew Issac the sum of $70,000 so long as and only if he should use it to purchase a home in the State of Israel and maintain his Jewish faith in accordance with the Torah while volunteering 1 hour a week to a charity serving Survivors of the Holocaust," may be allowed or disallowed depending on jurisdiction.

As you can see, we place a great value upon what the deceased wants done with both their property and their body. To override this, there usually has to be an issue of public policy forbidding their wishes.

Thus, to seriously consider your question, "Why do we allow people to refuse to donate their organs? " You would have to consider if it is a very serious matter of public policy sufficient to override their basic right to bodily and property right determination, even after death.

If you wanted to frame an argument, it could be something like this. While it has long been recognized that one has the right to determine what is done with their body and property after death, it is also long recognized that this right is not absolute. Certain public policies may override the right to determine what is done with one's body and property after death. Examples include elective spousal share to avoid disinheriting spouses and nullifying bequests and gifts in the will if made with racial or bigoted motive. Both of these long standing doctrines are justified in overriding the will of the testator because they impose undue burdens upon the public and state they are not willing to bear.

[Talk about Organ donation problems including the death statistics]

[Analogize refusing to donate organs to refusing to give widow/widower spouse support after death]

[address differences and imperfections with this analogy including how you are related to/have chosen your spouse]

[state that despite these differences the case remains strong because while you are not related to an individual dying for lack of an organ, the need is greater--life itself rather than mere financial support]

Who knows if it would work (I'd bet not) but there's a way to do it and how you do it is just as important as why.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 12:58:28 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

ChairmanPoo

  • Bay Watcher
  • Send in the clowns
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12116 on: February 23, 2012, 01:00:57 pm »

In the UK there was a public outcry some years ago because at some hospital they weren't so throughly as they should have been in contacting the deceased's family to consult about organ donation. It resulted in organ donations actually going down in the subsequent years. That's why in general the policy is to stick to the family's wishes. Most of the time they do, in fact, choose to donate the organs, once the situation is explained to them.
Logged
Everyone sucks at everything. Until they don't. Not sucking is a product of time invested.

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12117 on: February 23, 2012, 01:03:08 pm »

So, I fully acknowledge that individuals have a right to choose regarding abortion. But this news story chills me to the core -  in a modern and secular western state, that someone could follow such a course of action is disturbing.

Hah, it's not a natural consequence of abortion... it's a natural consequence of sexism and assumptions of binary gender, so that people get abortions rather than pumping out babies until they get "one of each."  It'd be like me having children until I got at least one mathematician and one librarian-type... it's totally ridiculous.
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12118 on: February 23, 2012, 01:08:47 pm »

In the UK there was a public outcry some years ago because at some hospital they weren't so throughly as they should have been in contacting the deceased's family to consult about organ donation. It resulted in organ donations actually going down in the subsequent years. That's why in general the policy is to stick to the family's wishes. Most of the time they do, in fact, choose to donate the organs, once the situation is explained to them.

Yeah, this is one of the many things people fail to realize English class is good for: persuasiveness.
Essentially:
Explaining that there is another family out there about to be mourning over their loved one, and that you could prevent it. Wouldn't that be what they would've wanted...?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 01:12:39 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12119 on: February 23, 2012, 01:27:02 pm »

Interestingly enough, most wills nearly aren't as binding as people think. While they mean your executor has legal standing to carry out the force of the will, your family CAN go against your express desired in numerous ways and get away with it no problem.

For example: Organ Donation. You can be a registered organ donor, you can have it in your will that you want your organs to be donated, and your family can STILL prevent them from being donated. That doesn't sound a whole lot like owning your organs after you die!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 806 807 [808] 809 810 ... 852