VERY TIRED of all the PC

Posted in the Discovery Bay Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Retired

Livermore, CA

#1 Oct 7, 2011

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic when I was working.. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honour"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in Australia, New Zealand, UK, America and Canada, while no one from these countries are allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses or stick a needle in their arm while they tried to fight it off?

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of all parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

I'm really tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions ;I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

I'm also tired and fed up with seeing young men and women in their teens and early 20's bedeck themselves in tattoos and face studs, thereby making themselves unemployable and claiming money from the Government, whose money ?

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 74.. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my grandchildren and their children.
DojoRat

Livermore, CA

#2 Oct 7, 2011
I agree with everything there, but a simple question to ask:

Who raised them to be that way? Yup, your generation...
Retired

Livermore, CA

#3 Oct 7, 2011
Yes, because of the moral decay of America and its original values.
Livrez

Livermore, CA

#4 Oct 8, 2011
I'm tired of whiners.

“Purple girl in a purple world”

Since: Apr 08

Plum, Purplonia

#5 Oct 9, 2011
I support the right to body mods and tattoos. But rather than give them welfare, fine those who refuse to hire them. Then they can work and bigot bosses can learn to be accepting like everyone else, or close shop and go hungry. The bigot bosses need to get over their inferior, gated-community snob culture and join the real world where not every looks like their immoral, excessive appearance standards dictate. People hire people with body mods in every English-speaking country but the US, and we claim to be the land of progress? At least huge fines would give them an out to customers who complain about employees - "I don't like it either, but the law says I must hire them and not complain." Then bigot customers/clients won't have any place free of people who express themselves to go to.

I would say that such employers need to be taken to a mental institution until they get over their obsession about how OTHER people look and express themselves. But then, that would be too close to the political correctness that I despise as much as the original poster. I mean, what would doctors hold them in the hospital for? EAAD ("Excessive Appearance Aversion Disorder")? That sounds too PC to me.

That gets me to another PC point. Why all the fake diseases? I certainly agree that people shouldn't get benefits because they put needles in their arm or smoke a big crack rock. Over-diagnosed diseases are another. Part of that is due to unreasonable expectations for people in society. Personal differences are no longer appreciated, but treated as disease. Also, few want to accept their are natural behavioral differences between genders and want to medicate them away. Why are so many males on ADHD drugs and females on antidepressants? To make them act more like the other gender. ADHD meds make you a bit more submissive, attentive, and more of a team player, while anti-depressants can make you more assertive, while giving you a don't give a s*** attitude. And giving depression meds to kids is often asking for trouble. Since they can dull the senses, you can commit a crime and feel very little.

Classrooms are mostly female-led, with an emphasis on female values (like being "neat"), and the rules and structure are best suited to girls. Boys tend to need a more active, hands-on, skills-based, physical approach to education, or they get bored. In the old days, that wasn't as much a problem. The social services didn't investigate nor discourage corporal punishment, so if the boys got too far out of line they got a good paddling or a switch to the behind. Then they got a good thrashing at home too. Even one scientific study showed that spanking and Ritalin has similar results. Plus there was more emphasis on sports and difficult chores to do, so they didn't have all that energy to cause trouble.

“Purple girl in a purple world”

Since: Apr 08

Plum, Purplonia

#6 Oct 9, 2011
I'm also tired of all the liability crap today. It ties in with PC, since everyone should have common sense to not do most of what is on the warning labels.

1. Any idiot should know that a super-hero costume doesn't actually make you fly nor give other special powers.

2. Any idiot should know that you should never iron the clothes you are wearing while you are wearing.

3. Any idiot should know that you should have the appliance/tool unplugged while changing bulbs, batteries, blades, or fuses.

4. Any idiot should know that a lawnmower is not a hedge trimmer. You know it has a great big blade underneath, right?

5. Anyone should know that you don't put babies, pets, nor wild animals in microwaves or other ovens to dry them off. But the newspapers are full of such stories, and repair people have plenty of their own.(Like the television repair guy who told me of the woman he told not to even bother coming into a shop. He could smell the stench of a microwaved rat from across the street where she was parked.)

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#7 Oct 9, 2011
Purple Gurl wrote:
I support the right to body mods and tattoos. But rather than give them welfare, fine those who refuse to hire them. Then they can work and bigot bosses can learn to be accepting like everyone else, or close shop and go hungry. The bigot bosses need to get over their inferior, gated-community snob culture and join the real world where not every looks like their immoral, excessive appearance standards dictate. People hire people with body mods in every English-speaking country but the US, and we claim to be the land of progress? At least huge fines would give them an out to customers who complain about employees - "I don't like it either, but the law says I must hire them and not complain." Then bigot customers/clients won't have any place free of people who express themselves to go to.
I would say that such employers need to be taken to a mental institution until they get over their obsession about how OTHER people look and express themselves. But then, that would be too close to the political correctness that I despise as much as the original poster. I mean, what would doctors hold them in the hospital for? EAAD ("Excessive Appearance Aversion Disorder")? That sounds too PC to me.
That gets me to another PC point. Why all the fake diseases? I certainly agree that people shouldn't get benefits because they put needles in their arm or smoke a big crack rock. Over-diagnosed diseases are another. Part of that is due to unreasonable expectations for people in society. Personal differences are no longer appreciated, but treated as disease. Also, few want to accept their are natural behavioral differences between genders and want to medicate them away. Why are so many males on ADHD drugs and females on antidepressants? To make them act more like the other gender. ADHD meds make you a bit more submissive, attentive, and more of a team player, while anti-depressants can make you more assertive, while giving you a don't give a s*** attitude. And giving depression meds to kids is often asking for trouble. Since they can dull the senses, you can commit a crime and feel very little.
Classrooms are mostly female-led, with an emphasis on female values (like being "neat"), and the rules and structure are best suited to girls. Boys tend to need a more active, hands-on, skills-based, physical approach to education, or they get bored. In the old days, that wasn't as much a problem. The social services didn't investigate nor discourage corporal punishment, so if the boys got too far out of line they got a good paddling or a switch to the behind. Then they got a good thrashing at home too. Even one scientific study showed that spanking and Ritalin has similar results. Plus there was more emphasis on sports and difficult chores to do, so they didn't have all that energy to cause trouble.
Why would you fine anyone? People should be allowed to hire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. That's what liberty means. So someone doesn't want to hire a fat person, or a pregnant one, or a guy with no arms...that's their prerogative, and they should not have to defend their choices. No person should be compelled to hire people they wouldn't normally hire just because the government says so - that's just bullying.

When will you people learn that using government, which is the initiation of violence and coercive force, is NEVER the answer, and can never be the answer, to any problem? Why would you think that the way to solve complex social problems is to use violence? Do you hit people when they don't agree with you? Why not? Violence is the answer, right?
JustCurious

Pleasanton, CA

#8 Oct 10, 2011
The Real Anon wrote:
<quoted text>Why would you fine anyone? People should be allowed to hire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. That's what liberty means. So someone doesn't want to hire a fat person, or a pregnant one, or a guy with no arms...that's their prerogative, and they should not have to defend their choices. No person should be compelled to hire people they wouldn't normally hire just because the government says so - that's just bullying.

When will you people learn that using government, which is the initiation of violence and coercive force, is NEVER the answer, and can never be the answer, to any problem? Why would you think that the way to solve complex social problems is to use violence? Do you hit people when they don't agree with you? Why not? Violence is the answer, right?
Agree with you for the most part. But would like to add there is a fine line between "not hire someone they wouldn't normally hire" and being discriminative, racist etc.

If you can explain it then sure it's your prerogative but if you can't there is a problem.

Also, saying just because he has tattoos, looks different, has an accent isn't justifiable reasons. That's when you are crossing the line to being discriminative. If everyone does that under "it's my prerogative" how can we have harmony in the community?
Nicole

Livermore, CA

#9 Oct 10, 2011
If I expressed myself by cutting off my nose or something else people generally consider unappetizing would you want the government to force someone into hiring me too? What if I expressed myself by yelling at the customers? Fashion expresses what you find aesthetically pleasing and nothing about your personality or who you are. What exactly does your clothing or piercings/body modifications express about you?
JustCurious

Pleasanton, CA

#10 Oct 10, 2011
Nicole wrote:
If I expressed myself by cutting off my nose or something else people generally consider unappetizing would you want the government to force someone into hiring me too? What if I expressed myself by yelling at the customers? Fashion expresses what you find aesthetically pleasing and nothing about your personality or who you are. What exactly does your clothing or piercings/body modifications express about you?
Cutting of your nose is way more exaggerated than let's say nose piercing. Which btw happens to have some significance in certain cultures.

"people generally consider unappetizing " that's making a generalization which you can't. What maybe be unappetizing to you may not really affect me the same way. Having guns at home for example - no big deal to some while absolutely unacceptable to others.

Lastly, your clothing does tell alot about you. Whether you are an artist or a office worker for example. Whether you spend More time inside or outside. Depending on the colors a woman wears or the styles she wears and how she carries it off says how confident she is about herself. Sometimes the accessories you wear can tell that you have travelled outside the country. All of this is very important info about you which might be important to an employer.

At first you may think it's aesthetically pleasing but you'll be surprised how much you reveal about yourself. Just like handwriting :)
Nicole

Livermore, CA

#11 Oct 10, 2011
I exaggerated to try to make a point. In general people don't like piercings and body modifications, I never said that I have anything against them. I respectfully disagree on the clothing issue. For example, I don't think the label 'office worker' or 'artist' say anything about a person. If you say artists are more creative then I'll have to say that I've met plenty more office workers that had more creative talent than many of the self proclaimed artists I've met who dress like the typical artist. I know a lot of people who dress alike and have absolutely nothing in common.

Really the issue with hiring people for customer service jobs is that you are making that person the interface to your company. As a customer service employee you are really selling yourself as part of your service. I've had experience in these jobs and you have to fake cordiality towards people and basically play the part. It is quite horrible and soul sucking if I may say so and employers don't care about your individuality. They shouldn't be forced to either since you're the one signing up for the role.

As for non customer service jobs I don't really see the problem with hiring anyone. If you believe that clothing expresses who you are then it only makes sense to hire someone who looks like they're expressing themselves as a hard worker who won't question the man.

“Purple girl in a purple world”

Since: Apr 08

Plum, Purplonia

#12 Oct 10, 2011
The Real Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you fine anyone? People should be allowed to hire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. That's what liberty means. So someone doesn't want to hire a fat person, or a pregnant one, or a guy with no arms...that's their prerogative, and they should not have to defend their choices. No person should be compelled to hire people they wouldn't normally hire just because the government says so - that's just bullying.
When will you people learn that using government, which is the initiation of violence and coercive force, is NEVER the answer, and can never be the answer, to any problem? Why would you think that the way to solve complex social problems is to use violence? Do you hit people when they don't agree with you? Why not? Violence is the answer, right?
Why fine them? Because they keep qualified people out of work and force people to draw disability because of the employer's immoral, invalid values. Don't blame the people with body mods for going on assistance if no employers will hire them - punish the employers who cause that.

Artificial limits like drug testing or appearance requirements should be illegal across the board for the most part. If you want artificial limits, then that means you want people on assistance and/or committing crimes to succeed. If you don't want to force employers to keep and retain heavily "decorated" persons, then that really means you want them to collect welfare. If you really want these people off welfare, then that means you support removing artifial limits made up out of spite and bigotry to hold certain people back.

We as a society have a serious problem of taking away the rights of people who we perceive as different and taking away their right to earn a living (which is Constitutionally protected, BTW - that is how SCOTUS defines "pursuit of happiness"). We have these stereotypes that say that certain people cannot be successful (or don't deserve to be successful), and we do whatever it takes to make sure the people cannot succeed to prove ourselves right and to reinforce our lies and stereotypes.

I am also against people cutting off the rights of notorious persons to profit off of their differences, notoriety, or alleged crimes (if found not guilty in court). From the start, people threatened violence or boycotts against anyone who bought, sold, offered, or traded Casey Anthony books or memorabilia. Yet the same people expect her to repay the state and SRT team (and she probably should). Really, she should be allowed to sell books, make appearances, or whatever else to earn the money to repay all she owes. Think about it logically. If she cannot repay everyone and ends up doing time for not paying, then who will get hurt? The taxpayers and the individual departments involved. What if the municipality has to lay off cops and rescue people, what if the SRT team cannot stay in business. So our self-righteousness won't help the people of that community.

Nadya Suleman is another example of how a poisoned media and public wanted to cut off any income from any show appearances and stuff she creates and yet demand that she earn the funds to pay for raising all 14 kids. They really just want to take her kids and want to see her fail. They already determined she doesn't deserve to succeed, which they will stop at any means possible - even protests and violence, and should be punished for not succeeding, when that is all an artificial condition they invented and heaped upon her.

So don't complain about people not pulling their own weight if you are not interested in removing the obstacles and artificial limits imposed by others onto them.

“Purple girl in a purple world”

Since: Apr 08

Plum, Purplonia

#13 Oct 10, 2011
Nicole wrote:
I exaggerated to try to make a point. In general people don't like piercings and body modifications, I never said that I have anything against them. I respectfully disagree on the clothing issue. For example, I don't think the label 'office worker' or 'artist' say anything about a person. If you say artists are more creative then I'll have to say that I've met plenty more office workers that had more creative talent than many of the self proclaimed artists I've met who dress like the typical artist. I know a lot of people who dress alike and have absolutely nothing in common.
Really the issue with hiring people for customer service jobs is that you are making that person the interface to your company. As a customer service employee you are really selling yourself as part of your service. I've had experience in these jobs and you have to fake cordiality towards people and basically play the part. It is quite horrible and soul sucking if I may say so and employers don't care about your individuality. They shouldn't be forced to either since you're the one signing up for the role.
As for non customer service jobs I don't really see the problem with hiring anyone. If you believe that clothing expresses who you are then it only makes sense to hire someone who looks like they're expressing themselves as a hard worker who won't question the man.
If others don't like tats and piercings, that is their problem. If they have this sickness of being nosy enough to care or even notice what others do to their own bodies, they should keep such mental illness and snob trash values to themselves. How I look like doesn't affect you in any important way, and to be offended at how I look is to say you are arrogant enough to believe you even have the right to care. What others do to themselves should be regarded as private, even when seen in public. Each person's body is their own space. I'd say those with a big problem with how others do things should get their eyes removed, but I don't want to have to pay disability to bigots.

So if the government comes in and bans not hiring such people, at least for a generation, then there will be no backlash from the public. A lot of employers would hire such people, but suffer what some call "second-hand bigotry." They are not bigoted, but their customers are, and they don't care about their own employees, but solely care about the bottom line.

As for the business world, as a client, I'd rather see natural-acting people with piercings and tats who do me well, rather than all the uptight "penguin"-looking, gated community rich trash that has been destroying our nation since the 1920's, if not sooner. So if I went to a bank and saw a teller with spots shaved out of her head, and covered with tats and piercings, I would most certainly get in her line, rather than go to any of the lines with uptight, impersonal, snobs who feel so self-important. Of course, this is where hometown banks have an edge. They don't have this huge corporate image to maintain, and tend to be more relaxed and friendlier.

Do you know what a necktie really represents? The penis and male oppression of others. It is a sign of dominance, not just "proper business attire." Then the black and white represent conformity and polarized thinking that is unable to budge. That won't attract customers who reject such antiquated, stuffy values and who value self-expression.

Any employer who doesn't value their employees enough to support their individuality does not deserve to be in business or to work anywhere. But to deprive them of those rights would make me a hypocrite.

“Purple girl in a purple world”

Since: Apr 08

Plum, Purplonia

#14 Oct 10, 2011
Here is a type of business I would love to see. How about one where *only* visibly modified/decorated people are allowed to work there? Or, at least those who are fully tolerant of such and who won't push their values on others nor criticize anyone for how they look.

My business would allow most forms of visible self-expression during business hours. Employees would be held to the same professional standards. Since their inner being and person is respected, they will be more productive, and of the genius that would attract, we'd have innovative products and ideas. We'd provide products that are of better quality or lower price, and provide the utmost in customer service.

As for clients, they would know upfront who we are and what we stand for, so there would be little resistance on premises. Our success and visibility would be a lesson to all businesses, and they would learn to allow more free-expression to increase productivity and profit margins. Quite a few employees would be willing to settle for a little less pay just to come to work in a way that is reasonable and natural for them. Also, a lot without jobs are willing to put their luxury of having aversions and bigotry aside just to get to work there. Even if it doesn't work out, they would leave with a different perspective and see that not all body-modded people are revolting or even bad people.

Someone once tried something slightly similar in Minnesota. They could never get it to work. What they tried to get going was a transsexual work commune, with the goal of helping all the members get their surgeries. It would provide a safe place without bigotry and bashing until they could get their surgeries and get on their feet and reemerge into the real world. The idea was that communal living would reduce expenses, the work site would be right there, as well as entertainment, and everyone could pool their resources for investing and turning out products. They were particularly interested in those with CDLs so they could have people to ship the goods. That all never went anywhere due to a lack of funding, burnout, and trans-politics.
Nicole

Livermore, CA

#15 Oct 10, 2011
Oh god I had to stop at the tie being the symbolism of penises and the male oppression. Some of your posts are just too ludicrous to handle. I wonder if you're even living in reality. I could make a write up of the history behind the tie but I don't think you'll believe anything beyond what you want to believe.

I don't know if you were addressing me personally by assuming I'm like that at all because I honestly don't give one rat's ass what you do with your body. I'm not an employer but I would hire whoever I thought would do the job best.

I think you have problems about lashing out at people you think don't approve of you. Your posts had such an unreasonable amount of blind hate in them it was hard to read through. While there are some people out there that are like that, I haven't really met any 'rich snobs' that care about your appearance unless you look at the media stereotypes of rich snobs. Most of the people who care and wouldn't hire you are normal working class people. I thought your previous cop posts were somewhat off center but I didn't say anything because I agreed with a small amount and thought maybe it was a sensitive spot for you. This has me wondering if you are just an all around paranoid person.

This doesn't seem to be very connected to Livermore news and I regret furthering this topic.
North Livermore Resident

Livermore, CA

#16 Oct 10, 2011
And, yet, you respond......!
Oh Wait

Fremont, CA

#17 Oct 10, 2011
Purple Gurl wrote:
<quoted text>
If others don't like tats and piercings, that is their problem. If they have this sickness of being nosy enough to care or even notice what others do to their own bodies, they should keep such mental illness and snob trash values to themselves. How I look like doesn't affect you in any important way, and to be offended at how I look is to say you are arrogant enough to believe you even have the right to care. What others do to themselves should be regarded as private, even when seen in public. Each person's body is their own space. I'd say those with a big problem with how others do things should get their eyes removed, but I don't want to have to pay disability to bigots.
So if the government comes in and bans not hiring such people, at least for a generation, then there will be no backlash from the public. A lot of employers would hire such people, but suffer what some call "second-hand bigotry." They are not bigoted, but their customers are, and they don't care about their own employees, but solely care about the bottom line.
As for the business world, as a client, I'd rather see natural-acting people with piercings and tats who do me well, rather than all the uptight "penguin"-looking, gated community rich trash that has been destroying our nation since the 1920's, if not sooner. So if I went to a bank and saw a teller with spots shaved out of her head, and covered with tats and piercings, I would most certainly get in her line, rather than go to any of the lines with uptight, impersonal, snobs who feel so self-important. Of course, this is where hometown banks have an edge. They don't have this huge corporate image to maintain, and tend to be more relaxed and friendlier.
Do you know what a necktie really represents? The penis and male oppression of others. It is a sign of dominance, not just "proper business attire." Then the black and white represent conformity and polarized thinking that is unable to budge. That won't attract customers who reject such antiquated, stuffy values and who value self-expression.
Any employer who doesn't value their employees enough to support their individuality does not deserve to be in business or to work anywhere. But to deprive them of those rights would make me a hypocrite.
Tattoo up all you want. We live in the best country in the world. This is a Free Country. But be prepared to live with your free choices. At least have the smarts to cover up if that's what the job demands. Show your tattoo's on your own time- not mine. I would not hire a person covered in tattoo's that wouldn't cover them up. Why? Because that's what my customers demand. I cater exclusively to my customers. Why? Because they pay me. And this allows me to pay my employees. Customers have the right to take their business anywhere they want. It's really very simple. No customers = no pay.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#18 Oct 10, 2011
JustCurious wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree with you for the most part. But would like to add there is a fine line between "not hire someone they wouldn't normally hire" and being discriminative, racist etc.
If you can explain it then sure it's your prerogative but if you can't there is a problem.
Also, saying just because he has tattoos, looks different, has an accent isn't justifiable reasons. That's when you are crossing the line to being discriminative. If everyone does that under "it's my prerogative" how can we have harmony in the community?
Discrimination is a word that become trumped up to have this bogeyman status. All it really means is perceiving the differences between things. Making a choice is a private issue, and why should anyone have the right to meddle with an individual's process for decision making? And why should exercising a right to choose be illegal in the first place? Those differences might be the source of the utility of an employee. People discriminate all the time in their private lives, we have to. Some people you like, others you don't, so should the government force you to associate with people you don't like? People should be allowed to discriminate as they please,(as they do). The government comes in and tells you have to hire some freakshow with tats and a bone in his nose, and your business takes a dive because people don't like a weirdo watching their kids at your daycare, who is going to compensate you for that?

We should all have the right to hire or not hire anyone we want to, and it should be our prerogative how we arrive at that decision. Maybe I want to throw the dice to pick between two candidates, or maybe I want to administer a written exam testing language comprehension and the high scorer gets the job, or maybe I want to give the job to a person who exhibits a solid and orderly outlook that most closely mimics mine, since I feel that will result in a higher level of camaraderie and teamwork in the office. Maybe I want to hire a relative or barring that, someone from my home country, if I'm an immigrant. I should be allowed to make those decisions for myself, not have some govt goon telling me how to think.
la Migra

Livermore, CA

#19 Oct 10, 2011
iS THAT WHY THERE ARE NO WHITE PEOPPEL WORKING IN A CHINESE RESTERANT?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#20 Oct 10, 2011
Purple Gurl wrote:
<quoted text>
Why fine them? Because they keep qualified people out of work and force people to draw disability because of the employer's immoral, invalid values. Don't blame the people with body mods for going on assistance if no employers will hire them - punish the employers who cause that.
Why would able-bodied people go on disability? They aren't disabled, they're just not meeting the requirements of an employer. And who are you to label someone's values as immoral or invalid? By what criteria? We all have the right to our personal beliefs, and if that offends you, then you are the one who has a problem, being so intolerant of other opinions and values.
Purple Gurl wrote:
<quoted text>
Artificial limits like drug testing or appearance requirements should be illegal across the board for the most part. If you want artificial limits, then that means you want people on assistance and/or committing crimes to succeed. If you don't want to force employers to keep and retain heavily "decorated" persons, then that really means you want them to collect welfare. If you really want these people off welfare, then that means you support removing artifial limits made up out of spite and bigotry to hold certain people back.
No, that isn't what it means at all. Freedom means having the right to contract on whatever terms you wish. If you don't wish to hire someone because of their personal appearance or their drug use that is your right, just as it is your right not to date someone because of their personal appearance or their drug use.
Purple Gurl wrote:
<quoted text>
We as a society have a serious problem of taking away the rights of people who we perceive as different and taking away their right to earn a living (which is Constitutionally protected, BTW - that is how SCOTUS defines "pursuit of happiness"). We have these stereotypes that say that certain people cannot be successful (or don't deserve to be successful), and we do whatever it takes to make sure the people cannot succeed to prove ourselves right and to reinforce our lies and stereotypes.
The pursuit of happiness doesn't mean you are going to earn a living, or that you are "owed" one, especially not from any particular person. It means only that the government cannot restrain you from trying. Happiness is actually an expansion of the original phrase which was property.
Purple Gurl wrote:
<quoted text>
So don't complain about people not pulling their own weight if you are not interested in removing the obstacles and artificial limits imposed by others onto them.


Life is full of "obstacles". Do you expect everything to be automatically granted to you? You have to work for things, and seek to create the situations and circumstances that are optimal for your own goals. Nobody else is required to do any of this for you or make things easy for you. That's not how life operates. Be responsible for yourself - and work hard, and that's all you can do. Stop blaming others because they won't assist you. They aren't responsible for you! You are!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Discovery Bay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roadshow: Parking in front of a neighbor's hous... (Aug '09) 18 hr hsktommox 186
Participate in a Paid Food Testing Event! 23 hr Ssophiiee 3
Antioch homeowner shoots burglar in home Tue gman 3
Word Association Game... (Oct '12) Mon texas pete 1,351
How to Report Section 8 Fraud (Mar '11) Dec 12 brian Collins 80
Is Antioch a Ghetto? Hell No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Oct '09) Dec 12 jenny 142
Legalize COCKFIGHTING in AGRI ZONINGS to fund p... (Mar '13) Dec 12 equal rights 81
Discovery Bay Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Discovery Bay People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Discovery Bay News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Discovery Bay

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:36 pm PST

CBS Sports 2:36PM
Releasing Ray McDonald latest domino to fall in 49ers' season
ESPN 2:46 PM
Rivers rests; confident he'll play Saturday
NBC Sports 3:10 PM
Timing of Niners' decision to cut Ray McDonald is strange
Yahoo! Sports 3:55 PM
NFL's 49ers release McDonald amid sexual assault investigation
NBC Sports 3:57 PM
Win and hope: Bills focus solely on facing Raiders - NBC Sports