Doing the right thing isn't easy

[BraunsBoyfriend]

Point Beer Is Best , good points. However, those are jestful lines in separate posts. But well done none the less. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

I

I

[RockCoCougars]

Quote:

---

I should have clarified in the original post that it is, in fact, part of my job to check on stuff like this. I work in a big hotel downtown, and part of our daily duties is to tour the parking structure connected to the hotel and check for anything out of the ordinary.

---

This changes things a little. I guess you have three choices in this situation. What you did (warn the guy), "rat him out" to the meter maids, or ignore (and therefore not do your job). Since you want to perform up to expectations at your job, the last choice would probably be out. I guess if you have a good relationship with the party, you would choose the first option. That doesn't seem to be the case here, the guy sounds like a major league tool to me... therefore the second choice would be a good one to teach him a lesson. I guess if you wanted to be really nice to the guy, you could tell him that someone with a h/c tag complained to you in the lot....this way you don't look like the bad guy and thusly avoid conflict.

[LouisEly]

LouisEly, what does behavior have to do with managing people?

 

Are you serious? You are kidding, right? Managing people has everything to do with managing behavior. Pick up any book or take any course in people management. Start with anything by Ferdinand Fournies:

 

Ferdinand Fournies

 

THE TOP 10 REASONS EMPLOYEES DON'T DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO:

10. They don't know why they should do it;

9. They don't know how to do it

8. They don't know what they are supposed to do

7. They think your way will not work

6. They think their way is better

5. They think something else is more important

5. They think they are doing it

4. They are punished for doing it

3. They are rewarded for not doing it

2. It's beyond their personal limits

1. No one could do it

 

You reward good production and you don't reward bad production. People aren't dogs. You don't give treats to those that obey you just because they sit when you say. You give incentive to those that are smarter, faster and produce more.

 

No, you reward good intentions/behavior and you punish bad intentions/behavior. Sometimes bad outcomes come from good intentions/behavior, and sometimes good outcomes come from bad intentions/behavior. Yes, you reward those who produce more, but not if they do it unethically or illegally or are a cancer who causes others to reduce their production. And 95% of the time the reason those who produce more do so is because of their behaviors/actions/habits (i.e. what they do), and that is what management is - managing people's actions, not their outcomes. If their actions are in line, the outcomes almost always follow.

 

In my industry there is a growing list of companies and people who have been fined by the government hundreds of millions of dollars because they increased sales as a result of unethical or illegal behavior. That is a list you don't want to be on.

 

Maybe I took your comments too literal.

 

Ah... that's it. You are not taking "behavior" too literal; you are taking too narrow of a definition of it. You are thinking of "behavior" as good or bad, like a child. I am referring to the broader definition of behavior - people's actions, habits, what they do. That, by definition, is behavior.

[Thurston Fluff]

Gypcasino, hes using a red herring and a slippery slope to try and make a point. Of course his argument is based in fallacy and irelevent articles, but that's how it goes. At least I wasn't the only person who immediately found it humorous

 

Fallacy of what? Was there no cross burnings, no segregation? Was there no parking illegally? Since I never used an article it's hard to say it was irrelevant. While the two are differant levels they certainly are relevant by the connection I made between the two fo them. It is hard to argue they do not share the same characteristic of being allowed to continue by lack of action by others.

I was using those as examples of how the "that's none of my business" attitude allows such behavior to continue. Using other examples to point out how your "it's none of your business" attitude is wrong is a perfectly valid way of pointing out the weakness in your stance on said subject.

 

As far as the slippery slope arguement that just isn't the proper use of slippery slope. Slippery slope arguements say if one thing continues it will turn into something bigger. I never once said violating hadicapped parking laws would turn into cross burnings. I simply said both behaviors are allowed to continue until someone makes it their business to stop it.

My examples are, today, at extreme ends of the spectrum. That was not always the case. At one time in our not so distant past it was as acceptable for KKK member to burn a cross in yard as it is now to park in hadicapped parking space. Segregation was legally enforced at one time. In fact some of those people in white hoods were policemen, judges, congressmen and pastors. What it took to stop that type of behavior was for people who took it upon themselves to make it their business. Which is the point I was making. Whether you like it or not your attitude is the exact same type of attitude other more serious offenders rely on to continue the bad behavior. While it may be an extreme example it is perfectly valid for the point I was making. Simply put the "it's not my business" attitude is wrong in both cases for the exact same reasons.

[BraunsBoyfriend]

BackupCatchers,

 

You are suggesting that checking parking is the same as cross burning. You're using an irrelevant and extreme example to make your case about how it's important that people speak up. I've pointed out why this is flawed.

 

This, is a red herring.

 

It is also a slippery slope because you're suggesting that if people don't speak up when people park illegally, what's next?! People might not stop cross burners! Slavery could still exist! The world will catch on fire!! What if people didn't stop cross burners and no one spoke up?! Good for the parent for speaking up because without people like him crosses would be burning everywhere and crime would be rampant! Textbook example.

 

Your examples do nothing to defend or dispute the premise, which is minding your own business sometimes is the best route. I don't think anyone would disagree that speaking up against cross burners and such is probably a good thing. You're comparing apples to oranges here. It's a typical political move anyways so maybe that's where you learned. However in a debate class or a court of law, you'd be laughed out of the room with such silliness.

 

I think you would have been better off suggesting its great he spoke up because the elderly and crippled, purveyors of most handicap spots, often can't defend themselves. And if everyone just let people park in their designated spots, these poor people would be left defenseless. So the parent was being a good samaritan defending the rights and giving a voice to the people who need these spots.

 

That has obvious flaws in it as well I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

[backup catchers]

You are suggesting that checking parking is the same as cross burning. You're using an irrelevant and extreme example to make your case about how it's important that people speak up. I've pointed out why this is flawed.

 

This, is a red herring.

 

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

 

The example is not irrelevant since It was used to point out the flaw in your reasoning that it was none of his business. My point with the example is how flawed the "it's none of your business'" is. It was also not intended to draw attention away from your faulty premise. In fact it drew attention to it. Thus it is by definition not a red herring.

 

You are suggesting that checking parking is the same as cross burning.

 

Agian misrepresenting what I said. I said it is allowed to continue in part by the attitude of it's none of my business. Never once did I say or mean to say they are the same.

 

It is also a slippery slope because you're suggesting that if people don't speak up when people park illegally, what's next?!

 

Obviously you saw something that didn't exist or I somehow conveyed my message poorly. I never said one caused the other. I never even implied what would come next. I simply said the "mind your own business," arguement you made is the same one used for other more serious issues. It is far differant to say if you don't do something about "A" "B" will happen than it is to say "A" and "B" continue to happen for the same reasons.

 

Your examples do nothing to defend or dispute the premise, which is minding your own business sometimes is the best route. I don't think anyone would disagree that speaking up against cross burners and such is probably a good thing. You're comparing apples to oranges here. It's a typical political move anyways so maybe that's where you learned. However in a debate class or a court of law, you'd be laughed out of the room with such silliness.

 

Wit hall due respect Braunsboyfriend my examples are based off Immauel Kants ethical arguements. It states that if something cannot be done ethically in all circumstances or all persons could not do the same and have society function it is not a sound ethical principal. I have a BS in philospohy with an emphasis on logic and I can tell you in absolute certainty that my arguments are based on sound philisphical basis not political ones. So perhaps lay off the condecention. I would further suggest if you wish to critisize my points you at least represent what I said correctly. Your arguement that minding your own business is correct when confronting illegal or immoral behavior is exactly why my examples are both relevant and appropriate to the debate. If you have not notriced I can hold my own in debates and hope that in the future you lay off the attacking the messenger approach which BTW is a classic debate ploy usually used when one cannot appropiatetly defend a position. I learned that as a member of the model UN of UWO which successfully defended our title as national champions at the national competition that year. I'm guessing I have far more practical experience in making valid areguments than you may have expected.

 

 

That has obvious flaws in it as well I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

 

Yet another common ploy used. Saying something is so obvious that it doesn't require explaination, I'll let you figure it out or if you don't know I can't explain when in reality it cannot be explained adequately. For someone accused me of having flawed arguements you do plenty of it yourself.

[pitchleague]

IBTL

 

This is starting to sound like an argument that needs to be taken to the ezinboxes.

 

We all have different opinions of what is "right" and "wrong" and "none of our business."

[BraunsBoyfriend]

I agree. I'm done with this thread. I've already have brewers19 email me about it I think. There is no arguing with backup catchers. He does after all have an undergrad in philosophy. This could be why he's good at imagining things and making things up. That was a joke for the tight wads. Lighten up and laugh a little.

 

As for Daniel Kant, keep your moral theology away from any discussion requiring logic and the idea the world isn't so black and white. He's a fraud and his opinions have no place in a country like America, where we tend to separate these things. That was also mainly sarcasm for tw's.

 

I don't think you're stupid or anything though backup catchers. In fact it appears you're probably ahead of at least 85% of what's around. We're going to have to agree to disagree here. Unless we want this to become even more pathetic.

 

brewers19, consider this my final post on this topic. Sorry if I sounded derisive before. I didn't mean to. Half of what I say is tongue in cheek and absurdity. I mean, it's an Internet forum. Is it to be taken so seriously? Lighten up, have fun and try to realize that it's more or less a video game without fancy graphics.

[brewers19]

Check your inbox, BraunsBoyfriend.

 

I don't currently have any major issues with this thread, but it's definitely at risk of entering dangerous territory. But, if everyone is gonna throw in the towel on this discussion, let's just say that I'm not gonna complain one bit.

[homer]

To clarify my position on the issue:

 

I don't expect questioning a jerk that parks in a handicapped spot to stop being a jerk. I just hope that he thinks twice next time he tries to park there. If some feel that is a waste of time so be it.