Quote:
|
it doesnt pay for me to read the fourms because someones always got something smart to say
|
You would rather everyone had something stupid to say?
Quote:
|
what ticks me off is that saying she had a choice... NO she didnt! when you cant find any other jobs you can do because you were hurt on your last job and disablity DOESNT give enough to pay BILLS there is no choice...... dont act like you know because you dont...
|
Actually, you will find a fairly good cross section of individuals have a friend or relative who is legally considered disabled in one way or another... And even a few on this board who are disabled themselves and have apparantly found work other than telemarketing or harassing people... Perhaps it is you who does not know.
Incidentally... all telemarketing involves is the ability to type, read and use a phone. I fail to see how someone with those abilities would be devoid of work, just flipping open to a random page within the classifieds section of today's small local newspaper, I see receptionists, call center operaters, accountants, DMV clerks, data entry types, proof readers, tech support types and about four hundred bajillion envelope stuffers are all needed... and this is on a single page of classifieds in a paper than only has two or three to start and with me frankly skimming the listed ads.
How can one possibly contend that there are no other alternatives than to become a telemarketer?
Telemarketers by the very nature of the job, must harass and annoy thousands of innocent people for every sale they potentially make... Know what people who harass innocents are called? Juvenile delinquents, Stalkers and your odd really determined homeless individual.
As an added bonus to the oppurtunities avaliable to the disabled, many companies with more than a certain number of employees and most civil service positions either have a legal requirement that they meet affirmative action quotas (Although that really is simply reverse discrimination and should be illegal) or tax breaks when they can report that they have hired certain disabled individuals. That means to many companies and for many of those potential positions, your disabled mother has a better chance of getting many of the jobs than someone who isn't.
As has been said many times, there is always a choice, the economy is not bad enough to force people to become telemarketers or starve.
These jack booted (metaphorically) telephone wielding thugs are a blight on the American way of life as it stands, interrupting the sanctity of our homes and subjecting the general population to annoyance and harassment over extended periods of time, ignoring the requests that they never contact you again, no matter how it's phrased.
Telling other people that they have no right to be rude to them or that there is something morally wrong with not wanting to be assaulted with sales pitches when asleep, eating dinner or just loafing around, then crying and sobbing like an ignorant child over the plight of the poor disabled indivudal who has no other choice (a fictional construct I might add) is taking this political correctness several stages too far. I've got no problem with anyone for anything they really have no control over... but telling me I have no right to have an opinion and voice it over someone else's conscious decision that affects me? That's crossing lines.
I'm going to stick in a quote by PJ O'Rourke here, from back when he was doing most his writing about social, economic and political subjects, I'd have to go look to get the specific date and right now, I'm too lazy... but it voices an opinion I agree with wholeheartedly which can have a slight application to this concept of not being mean to the poor telemarketers (Or anyone else for that matter, or any action). Those of you easily offended by slightly stronger terms that have entered into the vernacular might want to skip past the quoted section.
Quote:
We have no ideology, no agenda, no catechism, no dialectic, no plan for humanity. We have no "Vision Thing" as Daddy Bush would say. All we have is the belief that people should do what people want to do, unless it causes harm to other people. And that had better be clear and provable harm. REAL HARM. No bull#### about secondhand smoke or hurtful, intensive language.
I don't know what's good for you. You don't know what's good for me. We don't know what's good for mankind. And it sometimes seems as if we're the only people who don't.
This is because we believe in freedom. Freedom-what this country was established upon, what the constitution was established on.
Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs had in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered (or a multi-trillion dollar deffense system that has trouble killing some people living in rubble who may or may not be the enemy anyway). It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights- the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery- hay and a barn and herdsmen for human cattle.
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only human duty, the duty to accept the consequences.
|
That last line is one I want you people whining about how it's so mean to express our dissatisfaction with being called at funny hours and having our lives interrupted or intruded upon. They chose to become telemarketers, they can accept the consequences.
The only really valid logical argument I have seen on here, although I disagree with it's practical application, was Richard's comments that the rest of us, by owning phones, should accept the consequence of being called by telemarketers. While it's logically sound in theory, it's not valid as anything other than an attempt to make a point in an argument, it can be said that a phone is, if not vital, still a very important tool in the modern world, it allows communication that the rest of society has become dependant on... Which shouldn't entitle it to be used to assault people in their homes with idiotic and aggressive sales pitches.
Quote:
|
She does have a choice. Is there a person holding a gun to her temple, forcing her to harass people?
|
Well put and I'm going to take it one step further... Even if there was someone holding a gun to her temple, she still has the choice about complying with their demands or not complying with their demands. The outcome of failing to do so might be unpleasant, but it is still a choice.
It sounds bad to say it like this in light of popular sterotypes but... I am an American and I will be rude to whoever I want, whenever I want, where ever I want and for any reason (or no reason) I choose. If they want to get rude back, let 'em, we can go back and forth. If they choose to hang up, hey, more power to them then too. I can react to their intrusion in whatever manner I wish, they can respond to my reaction however they choose to. If they're going to go taking it personally because someone is angry that they just had to get out of the tub, get out of bed, stopp working, stop watching TV, stop eating dinner, stop doing ANYTHING... to go talk to someone who might as well just be a recorded message about something they don't want, even if it is just to pick up and drop the phone back down without even speaking... then they deserve whatever "bad feelings" that might result from their being thin skinned and over sensitive. Hey... it might even prompt them to do something USEFUL with themselves.
Linear Mode
