209
By Tony / Tuesday 30 November 2010 11:30 /
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments
Comments
Reply

stop trying to make people feel sorry for you. buy a wig, may I suggest "the trump" wig

Reply

38: Losing hair is in no way indicative of  dirtiness or slobbishness. Unless (s)he's a model or something, OP shouldn't feel pressured into wearing a wig if (s)he doesn't feel comfortable with it. What's next, requiring amputees or people with malformed limbs to wear prosthetics, or asking those with scars to hide them with makeup, just to make coworkers or clients feel more comfortable around them?     

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  43

What's the problem with that? A malformation doesn't make them any less of a person. They may have a fantastic personality which may be overlooked because they have a single scar from a surgery on their cheek.

Reply
  BehindTheSun  |  2

Technically, yes, it does make them less of a person. Accurately, I'm more of a person than some dude without legs. So, I do believe you just got owned. I now invite you to stick that in your juice box and suck it.

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  43

117 - a deformity could also be a scar, in which case it would be either the same amount of skin or an excess (if it's a keloid). Your douche-bag personality surely makes you less of a person than a "dude without legs". I hope you realize I meant for "more of a person" to mean a bigger person; a person with a better personality. Those with deformities are commonly known to have a better outlook on life. Depending on their deformity, they may even live life fuller than you would, since you have both legs, presumably, and take everything involving legs for granted. Who got owned?

Reply

wow guys are you serious?? my dad just came home from afganistan and he got his legs blown off when he accidently steped on a land mine. does that make him less of a person? you guys have to go fuck yourself

Reply
  powermad80  |  2

117 meant that technically, he has more "person" than a person with no legs, since he has more body mass and therefore more "person" in him. I believe he his the ultimate owner in this arguement due to his high grade technicality.

Reply

Sorry Steff, I have to ask... Among whom is that fact "commonly known"? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just wondering you're referring to researched psych and/or medical info, or more of a general cultural understanding.

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  43

147 - I realize that technically he has more body mass than a person without legs, but that doesn't make him less of a person in general. Are you guys seriously arguing this? A person is a person. Period. Jane - More generally. I'm sure there's medical/psychological research done on it, and it has been mentioned in my psychology course, but I haven't done any research on it myself.

Reply
  kiraaamaeee  |  0

the guys that fight for your countries have scars && amputations etc. so stop giving people with disabilities grief, it's not their fault , why don't you give fighting for your country a try (:

Reply
  cherriekerrie  |  0

I kind of agree with the people on the douche-side of this argument, but not for their douche reasons. I think it's kind of awkward to see people with missing limbs, etc. because I feel so bad, and I don't want to make them feel like I'm staring, but I don't want them to feel ignored or like an outcast. They don't deserve to be thought of as any "less of a person".

Reply
  jritchie10  |  3

117 & 118. you both look like pathetic and ignorant people I'd like to see either one of you be man enough to do the things that any person that has a deformity it has lost a limb does everyday, although it is rather obvious from your comments you never will be men hell I would compare your manliness to that of a 3 year old girl. now who got owned?

Reply
  writergirl69  |  0

Holy crap you guys, he was just kidding. Learn to take a freaking joke. You don't have to go all batshit crazy on him. "OH LAWD YOU BE INSULTING THE TROOOPS!!" is unnecessary. Seriously.

By  ninofrank  |  0

Comment moderated or buried due to negative votes. Show the comment

Reply
  rightsaidred  |  3

No, they can't. they can fire you and not state a reason. If a reason IS stated by the employer, it can't be a discriminatory one, e.g., a medical condition, otherwise that's wrongful termination. That said, unless what the OP's boss said was documented, or there are witnesses who will back the OP up, it would be really hard to prove it.

Reply
  pip74205  |  9

Not true. I work in PA, which is an at-will employment state. Though they can technically fire you for any reason they so choose; they still have to have a lawful reason to fire you. Most states, if not all, have laws protecting from discrimination due to a medical condition (as well as others). This would make Tony's case clearly wrongful termination. Even if this happened within 90 days of hiring. The real trick is going to be proving that that was why you were fired.

By  perdix  |  29

How did you get the job if you have alopecia? It's not a disease you get overnight, or on a drunken weekend. You can be the test case to see if the ADA applies to skinheads.

Reply
  styphon  |  5

are you a med student or a surgeon? alopecia has multiple causes, some which are easily treatable. seems a little radical to shave if this is the case

Reply
  DocBastard  |  38

Styphon - Yes, I'm a surgeon. Learn what sarcasm is. Anything else? Worpletinger - Since you dislike my comments, I promise to leave this site and never return. My apologies for annoying you so. It was unintentional, and I hate myself for causing you grief.

Reply
  DocBastard  |  38

wwerulez14 - I'm only a general surgeon. I have no idea how to do a sense-of-humor transplant. I'll look it up and get back to you. Worpletinger - Looks like I may have been sarcastic in that last comment to you. Oopsy!

Loading data…