I feel like A bias is being held against me.

N

natYO

New member
This is a state institution. Mandating a certain dress is nowhere in the rules or the school or of that department (I checked). He made this solely because I asked him why. He is actively enforcing a bias against me.



The argument stands that the lawsuit wouldn't hold in court. Frivolous lawsuits are met with far more scruitiny than before.



The moment you touch that door, you have just touched fecal, uric, and other kinds of unpleasant matter. The same when you touch virtually anything Insta-dirty! If shoes are mandated by this logic, then so should gloves as hands have been proven to be the most common way diseases are spread.




Again, no. It isn't HIS lab, it's the school's lab just like if you work at a gas station as a cashier, that isn't YOUR gas station (self-employment excluded).



There's more filth within reaching distance than walking.



No, he created a policy actively enforcing his irrational bias.



Your simplistic view is what's causing your blatant misinterpretations. No rational argument has been placed for why one should wear shoes that hasn't been refuted. You're just trying to play the "It's civil" card without proper explanation. Also, insulting the situation does not make you right. Trying to fling insults about what happened is about as bad as any other argument you've posted.

And finally, who the fuck do you think they're enforcing the rules upon? Why did they create the rules? To enforce upon me. They hadn't such rules before, and he did not posit a good reason the rule exists - and nor have you, might I add.



No logical argument why, so no. Keep your fucking shoes.



I'm surprised at his infantile reactions. I see no logic in his argument, point it out, and he gets pissy. Adults with problems discuss things calmly and maturely, not like ranting lunatics.
 
It would appear that he's enforcing a bias against naked feet. Not you specifically, just your actions. There IS a difference.



Frivolous or not, it STILL costs the school money to deal with it. It's easier to not have to worry about the problem in the first place.



Again, is he RESPONSIBLE for the lab? Does he manage it? He might not own it but if he is RESPONSIBLE for the operation of the lab, it is "his" lab to run as long as he does so within the rules of the school. And as you've already stated, as long as the policy is presented in writing and doesn't violate the uni's rules it's legit.



That's his prerogative as the lab's operator. "No Shirt, no shoes? No service." Long held standard in society.



As I stated previously, they didn't have this rule before because they didn't need it. Now they feel they do. Because of YOUR actions. He's not barring you from the lab. He's not biased against YOU. He's biased against YOUR ACTIONS.

Here's a life lesson for you: many rules exist simply because someone did something stupid. They exist without necessarily having a good reason. Example: It is illegal to fish from the back of a camel in Idaho. I can fish from a horse, but not a camel. Good reason for that? No.



Logical reason why: it's a socially accepted norm and it's been presented to you in written form as a policy of that lab.



How would you expect us to react? You're throwing a hissy fit over fucking shoes man. You're claiming persecution and bias and throwing out all sorts of reasons that this is unfair to you when it's simply some guy, maybe a dick, that wants everyone in the lab he is in charge of to wear proper footwear while there. Maybe it's a health issue, maybe it's a political issue...

The fact that he's a prick doesnt' change the fact that you're throwing a grade A tantrum over being asked to wear shoes for fuck's sake.
 
Which didn't occur until after the fact?



There's such a thing as a counter-lawsuit for the court costs.



It is a direct act against me. This is the argument.



So was "black folk aren't citizens", "women are too stupid to vote", and "a government should have the right to violate a person's rights". Extreme examples, but it proves my point. Not. Logical.



What? Are my "evil" bare feet gonna destroy the fragile fabric of morality and justice that is Western Civilization? Please. More drastic things have been done. And bias against me is bias against me. Thanks for agreeing.



So it should stay on the law books for what reason, exactly?



See my previouw argument against why tradition isn't necessarily valid logic.



The fact is, I wouldn't give a damn if I didn't have to go in there for my classes. If it were optional, I'd say "fuck it" and go about my business. This is hindering my education because he wants to enforce an irrational bias against me.

THAT is why I have a problem with it, not because someone doesn't like bare feet.
 
Avidity, you pissed off someone with the authority to write policy and he exercised his right. The fact that you spawned the policy does not mean it is a personal policy against you. The policy applies to everyone.

Pull your big boy pants on, put your big boy shoes on and dry your eyes.

Welcome to the real world.
 
As a wise man once said: "So fucking what?"





There's such a thing as a giant pain in the ass that could be avoided. This would be a PERFECT example.



Wrong. It's a direct action against YOUR actions. Stop making it about you.



K. So shoud I call you Dr. BareFoot now in light of your fallen heroes like Dr. King?

Bare that torch! You go! You'll be a martyr for the rest of your brethren who eschew footwear!



True, more drastic things have been done. But they're not the point are they? The size of my dick matters as much as these other things in this case.



For what reason should it be taken OFF the books there captain crybaby?



See my previous argument for how much I fucking care. Why "tradition isn't necessarily valid logic" could also be read to mean "why tradition is valid logic"



The fact is, you wouldn't care if you didn't think you were special. If someone else was fighting for their rights to go hippy you'd probably sit quitely on the sidelines and not say a damn word.



No. You have a problem with it because you didn't get your way. You have a problem with it because you acted like a 5 year old and got told to act like the adult you are. You have a problem with it because you're not fucking special.



DING DING DING! We have a winnar!
 
There are some things that just aren't worth fighting about.

Wearing shoes is one of them.

The way I see it, you're being prepped for your professional life. I know in most of the jobs I've worked if someone pulled stunts like this they got fired real quick. I've seen it happen; if someone is more hassle than they are worth why do we pay them?

If I suddenly started fighting for something as minor as this at work I'd be on the street.

Shouting 'discrimination' over something so silly just makes it sound like you don't think you should be held to the same standard as the rest of us. Put on some sandals and get on with more important things.
 
As far as suing goes you might not but if they everybody who wanted to go barefoot did it there would definitely be people who injured their foot in some way, in the lab, who would sue. They could win too b/c currently in our judicial system, it you come over to my house and jump into my pool or use it even without my consent and you injure yourself or die, I can be successfully sued.

Do you really think the policy is about you (you have had conflicts with him previously) or do you think he would do this to any barefoot student? If you have never had any problems with him then maybe it isn't you specifically.
 
If you need me to spell that out for you, then you fail reading comprehension.



As stated before, I am who I am. This was done against me because of me.



Okay, now you're just being a twit. The point wasn't that I'm suffering on that level. My point is that social norm does not always equal. Keeping something because it is the social norm is ignorant.



Again, if you need me to spell this out for you, you fail at reading comprehension.



It's an illogical rule, Major Moron.



How the Hell do you get that a claim of something being not necessarily the case is in fact a claim that that same thing is always the case?



That's where you're wrong. I have helped several friends with their problems including helping my friend formally lodge a report against a racist instructor and having him fired.

When a wrong is done, it stands to reason that it should be righted. Just because you're an apathetic, bitter pile of lethargy doesn't mean everyone else is.



Again, how do you get "mandatory class time" + "irrational rule" = the only reason I am giving a damn and turn it into "You just want your way"? You're just reading into this what you want and not reading what is actually there.


UPDATE:
Go ahead and reply to this post if you want. I'm currently actively working with the Assoc. Dean of Student Affairs and Accountability to eliminate this rule. Victory will soon be mine and your inability to comprehend will be moot, so I see no reason to continue discussing the issue.



He created it because of me. That is my problem. If I didn't have to go to the damned lab (which it IS a requirement by two of my classes and directly and significantly affects my grade), I wouldn't care and would go about my business.



Well, you go ahead with that mentality because OBVIOUSLY if someone objects to a rule and formally acts against it, they're just being a child instead of the person who put the rule up to feed his hubris and directly act against you.

While you're at it, just go ahead and get your 1984 uniform and start working mindlessly for whomever. I'll be over here questioning any rules that seem illogical.
 
So wait, you wouldn't have as big a problem with this policy if someone else had spawned it? So a policy was spawned, incidentally, by you therefore there is bias against you?? Narcissism ftw.
 
Avidity this is very simple and Jack may have made it too complicated, even though I agree with him.

Avidity's wants < Society's demands

Avidity < Society.



Note: Your professor has authority and power bestowed upon him by a social institution. Even you have said that he was following policy and that you would comply, so saying it's in direct response to you changes nothing. You have no say in the matter as Society, on behalf of the school, already says he can do so. Life is just unfair like that. The best you can do at the moment is graduate, get hired by the same department, and hope they force him into an early retirement. :tongue:
 
Wow.... just.... wow... I've never seen anyone throw such a whiny temper tantrum over something as insignificant as being required to wear shoes. So you really think that raising a stink and going over the lab instructor's head to have this policy reversed is going to work out well for you in the long run? He manages a lab that, as you already stated, you are required to do work in... Making an enemy of him seems like a fucking brilliant idea.

In this case, he's right, and you're wrong. You are capable of wearing shoes, so you can't really say he's holding a bias against you. He's not saying you can't work in the lab, he's saying that if you work in the lab, you've gotta have shoes on. Unless you can present him with a doctor's note stating that you have a medical condition that prevents you from wearing shoes, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

You've also already shown that you're just being a stubborn jackass. you said,


And then he did present the policy in writing, did he not? You don't seem to be peacefully complying.

You said no one can see your feet when you're sitting at the desk, right? so would it be so hard to wear flip flops as you enter the lab, and then take them off when you sit down at the desk? Wouldn't that be a fairly simple solution that would cause you less strife in the long run than making an enemy out of someone you have to work around frequently?
 
Pun-tacular!!! :thumbsup:


Avidity, I hope this works out for you (I really do) though I am going to laugh my ass off if you make such a big deal out of this that a campus-wide policy is enacted.

It might be better to quit while you're ahead.
 
Back
Top