Maybe if you hold your breath and threaten to have a tantrum, we’ll change our minds. Would that please you?
Why care so damned much if we “see logic”? You’re right, it’s a good idea to close this thread. You are obviously taking it faaar too seriously. Take it easy, fella!
I wrote out three completely different replies to this before things clicked. OK, I see your question now. Why should they? Well, because they want to. I mean, why should you or anyone else engage in these activites (whatever they may be)? Rights have been discussed. Privacy has been discussed. Motive seems to be what you’re getting at. It’s impossible to ascribe a single motive to the corporate world at large.
Is it inconsistent when a company takes the moral high ground on drug use, and ignores other highly-charges moral issues? Yes, but certain issues such as drug use may have a more direct impact on your professional conduct. Nowhere is it written that a company must be morally consistent. Heck, if they DO that the high ground on even one issue it’s practically a miracle.
a slightly clearer inkblot
Yosemite & I “consorts”? I have never even MET her, altho i would like to. We had some big disagreements, also, BUT we kept it civil, more or less.
And, even if I did “sidestep” the question, I have recently answered it fully. Altho i still feel it was a “hijack” to do so, in the original thread, it is not, here in the PIT.
Inkblot_VERY nice use of the quote function. Hey do it again, and show that I did answer this, OK? You do it so well.
Daniel - this is the way I see it:
You and I were participating in yet another debate on Great Debates. Interesting, thought provoking stuff. We gave our spin, and our opinion on the topic. Other people disagreed with our spin (and Spooje’s spin, and other people that were partially/sort of on the “pro” side of the drug testing debate.) Fine and dandy. That’s what Great Debates is all about. Debating.
But somewhere along the way, things mutated. We (and spooje, and other people that saw some merit in drug testing) were expected to see “logic and reason”. And when we refused to bow down to “logic and reason”, all Hell broke loose. Because - oh my gosh. God Forbid we not agree with the people with whom we were debating. Didn’t we know we were expected to bow down to “logic and reason”? And didn’t we know, that because we willfully refused to listen to “logic and reason”, that we drove the delicate genius, Mr. Joe Malik, into crashing and burning on another Pit thread? It’s all our fault. We should be terribly ashamed.
Especially for refusing to agree with the people with whom we were debating. That’s the unforgivable part. We had a lot of NERVE to not agree with them, see? See? See?
Does it all make sense to you now?
Thank you Yosemite, the clear voice of reason has spoken again. My mind is clear.
BTW, how long have we been “consorts”? And, have I been enjoying it? Any kinky stuff I should know about? 
Look, guys- yes, Yosemitebabe & I were debating REAL hard, true. But it was only a freakin debate, ferkrisakes. Get a life- (You might be able to find one for sale on eBay.)
Umm, I will point out, Ol Satan, that if you are talking about your very long flame of me, in your other PIT thread, you seem to be exaggerating a bit. IE, the “whole board”. Sure, I’ll go ahead and admit you had a plurality of support in your thread, but since you had some half-dozen “supporters”, and I had some 4 or so, the “whole board” was hardly on your side. And, true, you had some “heavy hitters”, I will admit, but I had Scotticher, IzzyR, JMullany & Lauralee, not exactly lightwieghts.
So, Lynn, are you going to grant this thread a dignified death, or is it just going to have to waste away?
(This is my final post to this particular thread. I’m worn out on this issue.)
Not that I agree with everything that Daniel says, but just to clarify things, he said:
Which I feel is fairly accurate. I’m certainly not a diehard Christian (by any means!) but this is the impression I have gotten from the majority of the threads in the Great Debates forum (as a fairly objective viewer).
Meanwhile, you said (from here):
And from the same thread:
Although this is the pit, my purpose here is certainly not to ‘flame’ anyone. And I’m not here to defend Daniel, but it does seem to me that the majority of SDMB posters holds Christians (of any denomination/level of devotion) to a higher level of scrutiny than any other system of religion/beliefs. Daniel says, in a generalized statement, that the SDBM is more critical of Christians (and is criticized by other posters), while the overly-generalized response that no Jews or Buddhists are criticized because ‘they don’t act like assholes’ is met with no objection. This would seem to support Daniel’s statement on tolerance of religions at the SDMB…
Starbury: cool post. Where have you been? Hope to see more of you.
I wll also say here, that it is not everyone, just some, and mostly rather mild intoler… no, that word is too strong- let us just say, a bit less tolerant, hmm?
Agi, umm, I know you have not been around for a real long time, but the thread starter does not really get to control the thread. Of course, the moderators (May their names be praised!), may decide to do so, but it is their call. Agi, really, don’t take the fact that we disagreed (a LOT) personal, nor that I flamed your butt. It is all part of life here at the SDMB, and I hope you’ll get over it. You have potential, keep plugging, OK?
Far as I see it Danny is simply saying that since some employers can and will test for drugs for whatever reason its up to you wether to sign the paper or not.
I contributed to the employer testing thread early on but got out when I realised that some positions were simply too entrenched.
Working in a jail where the majority of inmates are there for drug related offences and having read up some of their utterly horrifying records I obviously have my own position and would welcome whatever means (almost) to put out the message that substance abuse is not acceptable in society.
Yes there is a spectrum of drug use but the damage I see every day makes me think about the limits of my freedom verses those of society as a whole.
Agi I don’t know if you have had to deal with some of the fallout from substance abuse, my guess is that you may well have seen some of it but maybe not up close and personal. All I can say is that when an individual’s behaviour in his/her private life is a contributary factor in the destabilisation of society then the employer has to recognise that it has a role to play to support and serve the community of which it is a part.
Priorities change and the laws governing sexual behaviour were enacted for the most part in an age where standards were differant. I doubt that many folk would think that sodomy is a threat to society today, though there will be some out there who do, but there are many who genuineley believe that drugs are a serious and harmful risk, not just to the user but to all those around them.
Augh! I should know better then to spout off, and I’m posting against my better judgement, but reading this thread has brought up a HUGE pet peeve of mine. So… I’ll post anyway and regret it later.
PET PEEVE: Arguing by analagy (ie. the whole sex thing)
So you wanna avoid logical errors has some great advice on this, which, unasked, I’ll share here.
By the way, I thought that DITWD did answer the questions, unless I misunderstood the questions. IMHO, I thought his arguments could be summarized as:
It’s legal, and employers have some reason to believe that drug use would have a negative effect on work.
If you don’t like it, work somewhere else.
DITWD doesn’t have any major opinions on the moral issues surrounding it, so it’s pointless to debate that.
What, exactly, am I missing here? And why do I have a feeling that I’ll regret asking?
You summarized my position better than I did, I’m afraid. Good point on the argueing from analogy. Altho it can sometimes be useful, the analogy can get more & more tortured.
Thanks for the link Lola 