I don't know if i like this.... should i start looking for a new job?

[Stampede]

Playboy gives Microsoft Silverlight a whole new level of exposure - TechFlash: Seattle's Technology News Source

...............

[Dravin]

Wait, Silverlight is a flash-like deal? I wondered what it was.

You learn something new every day.

[LittleWyvern]

Getting angry at Microsoft because somebody decided to use Silverlight like this is like getting mad at Adobe because somebody decided to make Flash porn. Sliverlight and Flash are just tools... on a most basic level, just programming languages, and neither you nor Microsoft nor Adobe can be held responsible for their uses. I wouldn't worry about it. :)

[WillowTheWhisp]

Ye its like throwing out your TV because there are porn channels - there are also Church broadcasts.

[siouxz72]

Yeah...or like quitting your job as a restaurant manager because the place serves alcohol.

[Stampede]

Getting angry at Microsoft because somebody decided to use Silverlight like this is like getting mad at Adobe because somebody decided to make Flash porn. Sliverlight and Flash are just tools... on a most basic level, just programming languages, and neither you nor Microsoft nor Adobe can be held responsible for their uses. I wouldn't worry about it. :)

I work at the Data center that HOSTS Silverlight and Cloud DB. there has been talk about Microsoft hosting portions of this stuff at our Data Center.....Meaning it is going to be on the servers i am obligated to maintain.

In regards tot he Alchohol Comment, I would never work at a place that serves it

[LittleWyvern]

I work at the Data center that HOSTS Silverlight and Cloud DB. there has been talk about Microsoft hosting portions of this stuff at our Data Center.....Meaning it is going to be on the servers i am obligated to maintain.

I think the same concept still applies. If Microsoft offers Cloud database space for Silverlight projects, then really anybody (who pays for it) can make something that can be hosted there. It's still kinda like refusing to maintain a golf course because some GLBT person played on it. Just because you maintain a space, doesn't mean that you are held accountable for the actions of the people who use it.

[Dravin]

As long as you don't see it I wouldn't have an issue with it. I used to work for the Post Office I was part of a chain which delivered pornography to people, I've actually had to put Playboys (and other items) into peoples P.O. Boxes. Their choice not mine, well and in my case a federal offense not to deliver.

I'm hoping to get a job at Wal-Mart, they not only sell alcohol, but tobacco, coffee, tea and magazines that I personally wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. I've also worked at Subway in the past, I had to prepare and sell coffee. If I worked on servers I'd pretty much be guaranteed that people accessed that data and those servers on Sundays, some of them working, thus they break the sabbath. Heck, if I cleaned rooms as Marriott Hotels I'd be working for and encouraging people (by making sure the rooms are nice and spiffy) to patron a business that sells pornography and is open on Sunday.

That is of course IMHO YMMV and IANY and a host of other initialisms. In the end, pray about it and do what you feel you must, its not like you'll not do what you feel you must based on anything I say.

[hordak]

I'm part of a military family.

My last elders quorum president designed lasers that guide missiles for the purpose of killing and destroying as accurately as possible. I think your over thinking this.

[Guest missingsomething]

First- beautiful family!

Second- You lost me at blah blah blah

Third- Getting the jist of the msg ... I would say - do what your heart tells you - if you can find another job that is equal - go for it. IF you cant... just remember, we have to live in the world... it doesnt mean you have to be of the world. Everyone has agency - just merely hosting this does not mean you are shoving it down people's throats or taking away their agency not to partake.

[DigitalShadow]

I work at the Data center that HOSTS Silverlight and Cloud DB. there has been talk about Microsoft hosting portions of this stuff at our Data Center.....Meaning it is going to be on the servers i am obligated to maintain.

In regards tot he Alchohol Comment, I would never work at a place that serves it

A huge company like Playboy could certainly afford to host this content on their own servers. In fact, I recently made a portfolio page for my wife using Silverlight hosted entirely on nearlyfreespeech.net with no connection to Microsoft servers. Yes, Microsoft hosts some Silverlight applications on their servers for free, but that is mostly for small personal sites, commercial sites pay for their own hosting and bandwidth.

[Mahone]

Echoing what others have said, you can't take away other peoples agency to do what they want to do. You cannot force your beliefs on other people. Refusing to maintain servers that may contain pornographic material is effectively the same as trying to force your beliefs on other people. Providing you never have to actually view it in order to do your job, there should be no problem. On the other hand, if you are required to view it as part of your job - then you may need to look at your job description and see whether it mentions anything like that in there. If it doesn't, they cannot force you to view it.

[Dravin]

You cannot force your beliefs on other people. Refusing to maintain servers that may contain pornographic material is effectively the same as trying to force your beliefs on other people.

I don't agree with that. If say George opens up a grocery store and doesn't sell tobacco or what not is he forcing others to keep the Word of Wisdom? If Bob opens a porn shop and calls a temp company and the temp hire (when called by the agency he works for) refuses to man the store is he forcing his beliefs on other people? Now if he prevents somebody else from maintaining the servers that would be a problem.

[Mahone]

I don't agree with that. If say George opens up a grocery store and doesn't sell tobacco or what not is he forcing others to keep the Word of Wisdom? If Bob opens a porn shop and calls a temp company and the temp hire (when called by the agency he works for) refuses to man the store is he forcing his beliefs on other people? Now if he prevents somebody else from maintaining the servers that would be a problem.

By the same logic, if a non member of my family comes to my home and asks me to make them a cup of coffee, do I refuse because I am told we are not allowed to drink it? I may not have coffee in my house, but say they bought their own? Do I still refuse to make it?

The porn shop is a bad analogy because you will undoubtedly come across the material yourself and it's a bad environment to be in. But I do not see anything wrong with a till operator selling cigerettes to someone. As long as you aren't smoking them yourself, it's not a problem. However if you think selling them to other people becomes a temptation to yourself, then it becomes a problem.

That said, if you were MAKING the cigarettes for a living, then I would say that was over stepping the bounds. I see it as the same as the online porn industry and internet service providers. The porn industry makes the porn, the internet service providers allow it to be given to the general public. You wouldn't want to work for the people making the porn and be a DIRECT cause of people doing what you believe to be wrong, but would this prevent you working for the internet service provider? For most LDS members it wouldn't. The same applies to a shop keeper selling tobacco. The same also applies to the OP.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Mahone

[Dravin]

By the same logic, if a non member of my family comes to my home and asks me to make them a cup of coffee, do I refuse because I am told we are not allowed to drink it? I may not have coffee in my house, but say they bought their own? Do I still refuse to make it?

If you want, I personally wouldn't make somebody a cup of coffee at home, I've been required on the job to do so ( however if I didn't want to be in that situation I didn't have to take the job and there is nothing wrong with that), but make your own dang cup. Furthermore, insisting that I make you something in the comfort of my own home that I am morally opposed to makes you an insensitive cad. I'm curious, would have have qualms with insiting a Rabbi make you a BLT in his own home? I would. If he refuses he's forcing his beliefs on you? Heck I wouldn't be a jerk and bring the bacon into his home in the first place, he isn't depriving me of agency, I'm still free eat a BLT in my own home, or insist and get kicked out.

Agency means choosing for yourself, not selecting your consequences (generally people will select none negative) or demanding that people enable you to choose certain things. So your agency to eat a BLT is intact as is the Rabbi's to not make you one.

But I do not see anything wrong with a till operator selling cigerettes to someone.

I don't either, if you look back in the thread you'll see this particular sentiment coming from me. I also see nothing wrong with somebody not working a job that has them doing something they don't want to do. What I do take issue with is the idea that if I refuse to work a job that would put me in a position to do something I don't want to do is forcing my beliefs on other people that I have a problem with.

You didn't answer the question. If I open a store and don't sell tabacco am I forcing people to keep the Word of Wisdom, am I forcing my beleifs on them? A store owner is free to sell or not sell what ever he wants (within the constraints of the law).

Nobody is required to do a job (just as not business is required to provide a particular service), if I think cars are evil and so I don't work for GM I'm not forcing people to not manufacture or purchase and use cars nor am I making them believe they are evil, I'm simply not contributing to what I consider to be a problem. There is a huge gap between, "I don't want to sell cigerettes and as such won't work a job that puts me in that position" and, "You aren't allowed to smoke and I'm gonna prevent you from doing so."

[Mahone]

If you want, I personally wouldn't make somebody a cup of coffee at home, I've been required on the job to do so ( however if I didn't want to be in that situation I didn't have to take the job and there is nothing wrong with that), but make your own dang cup. Furthermore, insisting that I make you something in the comfort of my own home that I am morally opposed to makes you an insensitive cad. I'm curious, would have have qualms with insiting a Rabbi make you a BLT in his own home? I would. If he refuses he's forcing his beliefs on you? Heck I wouldn't be a jerk and bring the bacon into his home in the first place, he isn't depriving me of agency, I'm still free eat a BLT in my own home, or insist and get kicked out.

Ah. You live in the USA. Go figure. I should have mentioned that it is a sign of politeness in the UK to offer to make a visitor a cup of tea or coffee. It's bad enough that we don't do that in our house and people do take offense by it sometimes. However refusing to serve them a cup when they actually ask for it would be considered extremely impolite. And yes, I consider that to be pushing your own beliefs on others. My non-member grandmother would be extremely offended if I refused when she asked for a coffee. In fact we have a jar of coffee in our house just for the odd occasion that she comes. I don't know of any mormons who would object to having a cup of coffee in their house when they aren't drinking it themselves and if there are any, I think they are being silly. If we weren't allowed anywhere near coffee beans, that would be completely different.

I also see nothing wrong with somebody not working a job that has them doing something they don't want to do. What I do take issue with is the idea that if I refuse to work a job that would put me in a position to do something I don't want to do is forcing my beliefs on other people that I have a problem with.

Of course people can do what they like. I've never said that they must not quit their job if they don't want to do it. They have every right to do that. However, if the reason is something along the lines of what the OP stated, I would still say they were trying to force their beliefs on others. You cannot actually FORCE people to not do certain things you disagree with, but you can make it more difficult for them to do these things by quitting your job. They have to find someone to replace you which takes time and effort. So yes, I class this is trying to force your beliefs on others. Whether you believe this is a good thing to do or not is up to you. BUT each situation is different and I gave examples in my previous post.

You didn't answer the question. If I open a store and don't sell tabacco am I forcing people to keep the Word of Wisdom, am I forcing my beleifs on them? A store owner is free to sell or not sell what ever he wants (within the constraints of the law).

Again, of course he can do what he wants. I didn't questioned his legal rights even once. However the same applies as above. Though being the store owner is being more DIRECTLY involved in feeding the addiction of these people, which is completely different to the scenario the OP was in. He is the employee, not the CEO. My comments were for his scenario and were not to be taken for every single situation imaginable.

Nobody is required to do a job (just as not business is required to provide a particular service), if I think cars are evil and so I don't work for GM I'm not forcing people to not manufacture or purchase and use cars nor am I making them believe they are evil, I'm simply not contributing to what I consider to be a problem.

Again, completely different situation. I don't think I need to explain why, I need to go to bed, it's 1:30am. But take into account my scenario of the online porn industry and ISPs. Yes, an LDS employee can quit his job working for AT&T (I think that's an American ISP) when he discovers that porn actually travels through their servers directly to the customer, but he'd be pretty silly to do so IMO

(N.B no legal rights have been questioned in this post).

Edited April 2, 2009 by Mahone

[Dravin]

However refusing to serve them a cup when they actually ask for it would be considered extremely impolite. And yes, I consider that to be pushing your own beliefs on others.

Impoliteness or societal norms are irelevant. Its not a question as to wether it is polite, but wether I am pushing my beleifs on them and I still maintain no more so than they are doing it to me (how my refusal to provide X is somehow worse than their demand to provide X I don't know). However you've made your point, if somebody wants to do something and I don't help them I'm pushing my beliefs on them, fine. I beleive that insisting that I provide you with something I'm morally opposed to is pushing your beliefs on me. I guess we're at an impasse. *shrug*

Doesn't matter what X is, from bacon, coffee to pornography and everything in between. I doubt you'd maintain if there existed a country where it was impolite not to watch pornography with your guests that not doing so is pushing your beliefs off on somebody else, or maybe you would and say that's perfectly fine (to push your beliefs). *shrug*

Again, of course he can do what he wants. I didn't questioned his legal rights even once

I wasn't exactly going into it either, it's called a disclaimer, you say a store owner can sell what ever they want and somebody pops up and says, "He can't sell heroin and slaves!"

My comments were for his scenario and were not to be taken for every single situation imaginable.

Either not wanting to be involved in selling or distrubuting something one is morally opposed to is forcing your beleifs on somebody or it isn't. Doesn't matter if its the CEO or the clerk. Doesn't matter if its cigerettes or slaves or a PG-13 movie you think is inappropriate. Preventing them from obtaining it is, but not providing is not the same as preventing.

I'm probably driving you batty because I won't stick to just coffee or what have you, but in my mind we are discussing principles and principles are something that can be applied to a variety of situations.

Again, completely different situation. I don't think I need to explain why, I need to go to bed, it's 1:30am. But take into account my scenario of the online porn industry and ISPs. Yes, an LDS employee can quit his job working for AT&T (I think that's an American ISP) when he discovers that porn actually travels through their servers directly to the customer, but he'd be pretty silly to do so IMO

Silly != pushing beliefs off on others. For the record I'd think he'd be silly as well, I just don't think he would be pushing his beliefs off on anyone.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Dravin

[lilered]

As a point. What if you owned a building and you had it advertised for lease or rent. Everyone knows you own the property. A client wants to lease the building for 10 years say. Wants to open up a porn. shop/strip club and sell pornography and booze/ smokes.

Will you lease it to him, knowing what the building will be used for?

[Stampede]

As a point. What if you owned a building and you had it advertised for lease or rent. Everyone knows you own the property. A client wants to lease the building for 10 years say. Wants to open up a porn. shop/strip club and sell pornography and booze/ smokes.

Will you lease it to him, knowing what the building will be used for?

Absolutely not.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Ah. You live in the USA. Go figure. I should have mentioned that it is a sign of politeness in the UK to offer to make a visitor a cup of tea or coffee. It's bad enough that we don't do that in our house and people do take offense by it sometimes. However refusing to serve them a cup when they actually ask for it would be considered extremely impolite. And yes, I consider that to be pushing your own beliefs on others. My non-member grandmother would be extremely offended if I refused when she asked for a coffee. In fact we have a jar of coffee in our house just for the odd occasion that she comes. I don't know of any mormons who would object to having a cup of coffee in their house when they aren't drinking it themselves and if there are any, I think they are being silly. If we weren't allowed anywhere near coffee beans, that would be completely different.

I too am in the UK and I understand this perfectly. There are some things which are allowed in our home and some which aren't and I quantify them by how much they affect me. If a non-member visitor calls I will offer them tea or coffee or Barleycup or Caro and explain that the latter are my personal choice alternatives to tea and coffee as a Latter-day Saint. Friends and family members already know this. In fact my Uncle after his first cup of Barleycup decided he prefered it to coffee anyway. We even offer to make cups of tea for workmen. It would be considered very impolite not to. It is refered to as "making a brew" and you get a much better job done by a workman who has been well 'watered' with brews at frequent intervals, especially if they are doing a strenuous job on a hot day. Some of them will try a "Mormon coffee" and then later decide they prefer tea. What they rink does not affect me personally so I have no problem making it for them.

However if someone wanted to come into my home and smoke I would not permit that because it would contaminate the home. We had a family member who used to smoke and knowing it was not permitted in this house would make an excuse to go outside and "inspect the garden wall" He respected my wishes for no smoke in the house whilst I respected his desire for a cigarette. (He has since quit but that's another story)

I doubt you'd maintain if there existed a country where it was impolite not to watch pornography with your guests that not doing so is pushing your beliefs off on somebody else, or maybe you would and say that's perfectly fine (to push your beliefs). *shrug*

.

I have visited a country where is is impolite not to drink a very strong cup of coffee with your host when you arrive. I explained to them that I did not wish to offend them but that my own beliefs did not permit me to drink coffee. This was thought about for a while and then my host went off to the shop and came back with a can of Fanta. Whilst everyone else drank their coffee I drank my Fanta. I became known as the Fanta lady. The spirit of the shared drink of coffee was maintained but without the necessity for me to drink coffee. They compromised in much the same way I compromise by making a cup of tea for my guests. I wasn't forcing my beliefs on them and neither were they forcing their beliefs on me. This is how I believe we ought to behave.

[Dravin]

I wasn't forcing my beliefs on them and neither were they forcing their beliefs on me. This is how I believe we ought to behave.

If somebody wanted something to drink I'd be more than happy to accommodate them with something that I don't have any issue with, a cocoa or a glass of ice water. Heck, if a vegetarian came over and we were all munching on jerky I'd probably grab some carrots out of the fridge, but then I don't have any issue with carrots just like I imagine the person from your encounter didn't had any issues with Fanta. So that kind of situation is ideal.

Now if I stopped by a vegetarian's house and they were munching on carrots, I wouldn't ask them for jerky and I wouldn't think they were pushing their beliefs on me by not providing it in the event I did ask. I've actually been over to a vegetarian's house for dinner (multiple times), they didn't serve me meat and I didn't think or feel they were pushing they're beliefs off on me, of course I wouldn't have been so rude as to ask them in the first place (well, aside from a joke). I suppose if I didn't know (which would be the case in your worker scenario), they'd inform me, I'd respond with something akin to, "Oh, okay." and move on neither of us feeling we'd imposed our beliefs on anyone or had any beliefs imposed on us.

Aside: What would the response be if you offered the worker an herbal tea or a glass of water, and if they asked for a coffee or real tea you informed them you don't have any?

It is refered to as "making a brew" and you get a much better job done by a workman who has been well 'watered' with brews at frequent intervals, especially if they are doing a strenuous job on a hot day.

Also, this conjured up some funny images until I realized that you can ice coffee and tea. The thought of giving a worker something hot to drink on a hot day (and a diuretic to boot) while they are engaged in strenuous labor made me do a double take. Or maybe the cultural divide really is greater than I understand. :)

[WillowTheWhisp]

Actually hot drinks refresh you more on a hot day than cold ones do. It may sound crazy but it's true. I learned that at school umpty years ago. Something to do with the speed of temperature exchange. If you leave a drink without milk in it will cool down quicker (and get colder) than if you add milk and leave it for the same length of time. No, we don't do iced tea or coffee! lol. My mother always used to drink hot tea on a hot day and I would have ice cold lemonade! I was a contrary child.

[Dravin]

A quick search turned up that drinking a hot beverage will raise your internal temperature, your body being jumpy of core temperature changes does what it can to dissipate the heat, aka sweating. Since sweating removes heat from the surface your body keeps dumping heat until the core cools down.

So I guess it makes you sweat longer and harder than you normally would which results in a greater amount of cooling than normal. At least if I understood the theory.

I think I'll stick with cold water personally though, I've never had issues sweating profusely on a hot day.

[Mahone]

Thank-you willow, I didn't get around to replying to this thread yesterday but you pretty much took the words out of my mouth.

Regarding the scenarios people have been giving me, they are very extreme examples and that is not what I am referring to. My words were for the OPs situation, not for every situation. Please take that into account. If I tell you that you need to take salt in order to live, you can tell me that you shouldn't eat salt because it will kill you. Yes, that is true if you take it in extreme quantities, but the fact remains you need to take it in order to live.

@lilered - if the person was going to rent a building off me for run a business which made all it's money in tabacco and porn, then no, I would not rent it to him. However if he was going to set up a newsagents which sell all and sundry, including top shelf magazines and cigarettes (like in every newsagents and supermarket) then I'd have no problem with doing it. Are you going to stop shopping at supermarkets because they sell top shelf magazines and you may be indrectly helping to fund the companies who provide those magazines? Can you see how the two situations are completely different? The OP is very much in the latter situation.

@dravin - you are completely wrong. Social norms are extremely relevant. You are basically saying that everything is black and white and there is no grey area. I'm afraid that is completely theoretical and based on an ideal world. In practise, there is definately a grey area. Sometimes you do need to compromise in order to fit in with social norms and not to do so would be imposing your beliefs on others. The coffee example is a very good one, which is why I keep using it. Your examples are extreme and not what I'm talking about. It is not against church rules to serve someone a cup of coffee, so why refuse to do it? The reason can only simply be you don't want to enable them yourself to break the rules that you live by, thereby imposing your rules onto them making it more difficult for them to get a cup of coffee. The reason I bought up the issue of social norms is that I was pointing out that you have to make exceptions. You said "I believe that insisting that I provide you with something I'm morally opposed to is pushing your beliefs on me" is where you have to make an exception when it comes to social norms - they are not pushing their beliefs onto you, it's just what is socially acceptable. Remember LDS are the minority and we have to live with that. Providing you do not have to break the rules yourself, do not try and impose it onto others when what is happening is within social norms. The example of it being a social norm to watch porn with your guests is very extreme and requires you yourself to break your rules. The church would not even set up in a society that did this. You say that principles apply to a variety of situations, and they do, but as I said, there are grey areas and it completely depends on the situation - sometimes you need to compromise in order to fit in.

The church used to hold the same beliefs that you do, that everything is black and white. But they soon learnt that not making any compromises wasn't a good idea. They may not be "of the world" but they are still in the world and they need to fit in otherwise laws get passed which make it legal to kill anyone who is a mormon. Examples: Plural marriage and blacks holding the priesthood. Missionary rules are changed to fit in with the socially acceptable norms of the area they are in. I don't know if you have been endowed, but the process has been changed a number of times since Joseph Smith first received instruction on how to do it. This is one of the most important things that happens in the church, yet they have changed how it works quite drastically since it started. The initatory has also changed a lot. Why? Because the way it happened before was way too far out of social norms, even for members of the church. The endowment was scaring people with what could be perceived as death threats and the initatory was quite revealing.

So in summary: You cannot just refuse to have anything to do with those social normalities even if you don't have to partake in them because yes, this would be classed as trying to push your rules onto them. LDS members are in the minority, you need to accept this. It is up to us to make compromises, not everyone else.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Mahone

[WillowTheWhisp]

What you just said there Mahone reminded me of the Saviour when he visited people who the Phariees would not have been seen dead with. He on the other hand entered their homes and 'supped' with them. He would not have compromised his own standards in order to do so, but he did accept that there were people who did not necessarily maintain those same standards.