Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 15, 2016 10:51:54 GMT -5
There is a counterargument, Virgil. It's called "consent". A four year old child cannot "consent" to a sex act. Two women having consentual sex in their 20s is no legitimate comparison to the molestation of a four year old. You are off the track on this one. I know the point you are trying to make, but you are trying to make it with apples and oranges.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,161
|
Post by giramomma on Dec 15, 2016 10:55:19 GMT -5
Virgil keeps trying to place homosexual acts and pedophilia acts in the same catagory, suggesting that if people accept homosexuality they must accept pedophilia. It's a false equivalence, but so long as he toes that line he's going to have to own what he says. Why should this man endure your hatred and be discriminated against by you because of your moral code? He's capable of performing the job. He shouldn't have the right to make a living because you and Miss T. hate him? You're worse than he is. How do you know he's capable of performing the job? That this guy poses a minimal risk to Miss T's company? You know him personally? Know for sure that with jail time came some treatment or behavior modification? Are you a trained therapist, an expert in this field that can get to know him, and offer your expert assessment to Miss T? See, the problem is that no one really knows the situation. And you can't ask, either during a job interview. If this guy is "bright" and wanted the job badly enough, he should have gone on the offensive about his background. If I was hiring a "bright" person to work on computers all day, I'd feel much better if said person came to me saying "Look, this is what I was convicted for in the past. I won't be using your work computer for child porn or solicitation of underage kids because...." That shows a lot better character than "I'm innocent."
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Dec 15, 2016 10:55:34 GMT -5
This is too stupid to even comment on.
So, did you guys hear the Seattle Sounders won the MLS cup?
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,161
|
Post by giramomma on Dec 15, 2016 10:56:52 GMT -5
This is too stupid to even comment on. So, did you guys hear the Seattle Sounders won the MLS cup? We watched the second half of the game. It was pretty exciting, and I'm not really even a soccer buff.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 10:58:00 GMT -5
There is a counterargument, Virgil. It's called "consent". A four year old child cannot "consent" to a sex act. Two women having consentual sex in their 20s is no legitimate comparison to the molestation of a four year old. You are off the track on this one. I know the point you are trying to make, but you are trying to make it with apples and oranges. I've already told you that our consent laws are bigoted moral constructs, no different from miscegenation laws. They just happen to agree with your moral code. But other cultures have permitted (and do permit) loving sexual acts between adults and what we would call "minors", and have thrived. So again I ask you: why should your dogma about "consent", which is just a way of discriminating against something you fear because you don't understand it, be the moral doctrine that binds this poor man's behaviour? And if that wasn't enough, you're not only throwing him in jail for what he is, you're preventing him from being hired onto a job that he's qualified to fill. Throwing him out like garbage. Where's the justice in that? It's hatred, pure and simple.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 11:01:49 GMT -5
Why should this man endure your hatred and be discriminated against by you because of your moral code? He's capable of performing the job. He shouldn't have the right to make a living because you and Miss T. hate him? You're worse than he is. How do you know he's capable of performing the job? That this guy poses a minimal risk to Miss T's company? You know him personally? Know for sure that with jail time came some treatment or behavior modification? Are you a trained therapist, an expert in this field that can get to know him, and offer your expert assessment to Miss T? See, the problem is that no one really knows the situation. And you can't ask, either during a job interview. If this guy is "bright" and wanted the job badly enough, he should have gone on the offensive about his background. If I was hiring a "bright" person to work on computers all day, I'd feel much better if said person came to me saying "Look, this is what I was convicted for in the past. I won't be using your work computer for child porn or solicitation of underage kids because...." That shows a lot better character than "I'm innocent." Miss T. says in the OP that he was more than qualified and that he was the best applicant for the job. She was more than happy to get him. No doubt he's going from job to job, desperately looking for work, hoping to find somebody who doesn't hate him, and now he's back on the street again. And we tolerate this in our society. Because of fear and bigotry. And you're deluding yourself if you think your "being proactive" solution would work. Not only would he have not landed the job, he'd have to endure one more Miss T. calling him a pervert to his face.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 11:04:28 GMT -5
In fact, one of the companies he worked for was located in the same building as a daycare center. The parents had a fit once someone realized a registered sex offender was working in the building. He was terminated. Legally he was doing nothing wrong which is scary.
A church that many of my friends go to recently got a new pastor who discovered that one of the church employees - the assistant musical director - was a pedophile on the sex offender registry. Not only did that person directly supervise the children's music program, but the church has a huge preschool with over 100 children that the church employees regularly interact with. The new pastor fired the assistant musical director/convicted pedophile. Here were the reactions of the various groups: - Nonreligious parents of kids in the preschool - OMG, I'm glad the new pastor realized what was going on and acted to protect our kids. It's scary that for the past few decades this guy had access to our children. - Religious parents of kids in the preschool or who had kids in the church music programs - mostly the same as the nonreligious parents' reaction, but with a few that knew the guy expressing shock that he could do such a thing since they knew him and he was such a nice guy they would never believe he could do that. - Members of the church that did not have children - get rid of this pastor. "Bob" has been a valued member of our church for many years now and we all know he's a wonderful person who would never do anything wrong. Either the conviction was a mistake or he's changed and besides, Christ would want us to give him a second chance. It's ridiculous that a single mistake made years ago would cause us to fire someone we all know and love. Bottom line, in less than a year, the new pastor who fired the beloved child molester was driven out of the church. ... And this is an example of why I find it hard to trust the decision making of organized religion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 17:21:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 11:09:52 GMT -5
Miss T. says in the OP that he was more than qualified and that he was the best applicant for the job. She was more than happy to get him. No doubt he's going from job to job, desperately looking for work, hoping to find somebody who doesn't hate him, and now he's back on the street again. And we tolerate this in our society. Because of fear and bigotry. And you're deluding yourself if you think your "being proactive" solution would work. Not only would he have not landed the job, he'd have to endure one more Miss T. calling him a pervert to his face. He's not "back on the street". He has a job. I agree everyone needs work, but I don't think Miss T needs to feel guilty in not hiring him. If it wasn't going to be a good fit for the office than it was better for all that she tell him no. There are places that will hire him. I work at a really large company. I know almost nothing about the personal lives of the people in the cubes around me, the only part that affects me is the moron next to me eats Cheetos all freaking day.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Dec 15, 2016 11:10:18 GMT -5
Because you don't have a counterargument to save your life. At least you're aware of that now. that would imply that there was an argument to counter.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Dec 15, 2016 11:15:21 GMT -5
Had the guy spent 7 years in jail for something other than a sex offense he would still have a hard time finding a job. Most companies don't want convicted felons working for them.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 11:17:28 GMT -5
Because you don't have a counterargument to save your life. At least you're aware of that now. that would imply that there was an argument to counter. And that those posts aren't just blatant trolling... But how could that possibly be? I'm sure the mods would all jump in immediately to respond to blatant trolling. Right?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 11:17:34 GMT -5
Miss T. says in the OP that he was more than qualified and that he was the best applicant for the job. She was more than happy to get him. No doubt he's going from job to job, desperately looking for work, hoping to find somebody who doesn't hate him, and now he's back on the street again. And we tolerate this in our society. Because of fear and bigotry. And you're deluding yourself if you think your "being proactive" solution would work. Not only would he have not landed the job, he'd have to endure one more Miss T. calling him a pervert to his face. He's not "back on the street". He has a job. I agree everyone needs work, but I don't think Miss T needs to feel guilty in not hiring him. If it wasn't going to be a good fit for the office than it was better for all that she tell him no. There are places that will hire him. I work at a really large company. I know almost nothing about the personal lives of the people in the cubes around me, the only part that affects me is the moron next to me eats Cheetos all freaking day. What if a black person isn't a "good fit"? What if a disabled person isn't a "good fit"? The whole reason we have anti-discrimination laws, or in some cases need anti-discrimination laws, is to protect people from bigots who think that the most qualified candidate for a job isn't a "good fit" for their office. Now Miss T. probably is going to wind up hiring the moron who eats Cheetos all day because she rejected a candidate she was more than happy to have before her phobias kicked in.
|
|
dee27
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 28, 2016 21:08:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,211
|
Post by dee27 on Dec 15, 2016 11:18:24 GMT -5
I worked with a guy who should have been on the sex registry. He had molested children before we worked together, but the bosses gave him a sterling recommendation and he was hired on his work performance. After ten years, he was arrested and jailed because he molested another young child, and during the trial, his past deeds unraveled. His co-workers were shocked as was I that he had not been arrested before his latest incidence.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 17:21:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 11:20:45 GMT -5
He's not "back on the street". He has a job. I agree everyone needs work, but I don't think Miss T needs to feel guilty in not hiring him. If it wasn't going to be a good fit for the office than it was better for all that she tell him no. There are places that will hire him. I work at a really large company. I know almost nothing about the personal lives of the people in the cubes around me, the only part that affects me is the moron next to me eats Cheetos all freaking day. What if a black person isn't a "good fit"? What if a disabled person isn't a "good fit"? The whole reason we have anti-discrimination laws, or in some cases need anti-discrimination laws, is to protect people from bigots who think that the most qualified candidate for a job isn't a "good fit" for their office. Now Miss T. probably is going to wind up hiring the moron who eats Cheetos all day because she rejected a candidate she was more than happy to have before her phobias kicked in. sex offenders aren't a protected class.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 11:21:33 GMT -5
Because you don't have a counterargument to save your life. At least you're aware of that now. that would imply that there was an argument to counter. Appeal to incredulity. Great attempt. Not a defense. You've got nothing. Honestly, the ones who've run off with their fingers in their ears were wise to cut their losses.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 11:21:52 GMT -5
What if a black person isn't a "good fit"? What if a disabled person isn't a "good fit"? The whole reason we have anti-discrimination laws, or in some cases need anti-discrimination laws, is to protect people from bigots who think that the most qualified candidate for a job isn't a "good fit" for their office. Now Miss T. probably is going to wind up hiring the moron who eats Cheetos all day because she rejected a candidate she was more than happy to have before her phobias kicked in. sex offenders aren't a protected class. They obviously need to be.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 11:22:43 GMT -5
What if a mod isn't a "good fit"?
What if one of the people charged with ensuring the COC is enforced regularly flouts COC rules about "trolling"?
The whole reason we have the COC and we so vigorously enforce it and need rules about trolling is to protect people from oh, wait, ... if it's the mods doing the trolling, uh, um, I guess we um don't need to worry about all those silly rules and stuff.
All you silly chickens just settle down, Mr Fox is here to make sure people behave.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 11:23:23 GMT -5
that would imply that there was an argument to counter. And that those posts aren't just blatant trolling... But how could that possibly be? I'm sure the mods would all jump in immediately to respond to blatant trolling. Right? Ad hominem. Another great attempt. Not a defense.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 11:24:50 GMT -5
There is no way to defend against someone who is inappropriately placed in a position of authority and uses that as a shield for wrongdoing.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Dec 15, 2016 11:25:38 GMT -5
And that those posts aren't just blatant trolling... But how could that possibly be? I'm sure the mods would all jump in immediately to respond to blatant trolling. Right? Ad hominem. Another great attempt. Not a defense. But it's true.
You're being obtuse and attempting to rile the posters up, i.e. trolling. Knock it off. YOu know damn well there is a difference between having sex with children and engaging in consensual homosexual acts.
ETA: We're having a really good conversation about the collateral effects of having a sex offense on your record, etc., but you're just being an asshole.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 11:26:49 GMT -5
So we have to look at the facts. Either Virgil believes that molesting children is not a problem or he understands that this is a sensitive issue for people (many of whom were molested themselves) and enjoys trolling them.
Neither of these possibilities is a very flattering picture of a person who is supposed to be entrusted with enforcing rules.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 11:27:29 GMT -5
What if a mod isn't a "good fit"? What if one of the people charged with ensuring the COC is enforced regularly flouts COC rules about "trolling"? The whole reason we have the COC and we so vigorously enforce it and need rules about trolling is to protect people from oh, wait, ... if it's the mods doing the trolling, uh, um, I guess we um don't need to worry about all those silly rules and stuff. All you silly chickens just settle down, Mr Fox is here to make sure people behave. I'm trying to elicit a counterargument that isn't a blatant cop-out or logical fallacy. That constitutes trolling now? But I've made my point. I think I've disturbed the sound of silence enough for one day. I'll leave you all to your ideological vacuum, as usual.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 11:28:29 GMT -5
What if a mod isn't a "good fit"? What if one of the people charged with ensuring the COC is enforced regularly flouts COC rules about "trolling"? The whole reason we have the COC and we so vigorously enforce it and need rules about trolling is to protect people from oh, wait, ... if it's the mods doing the trolling, uh, um, I guess we um don't need to worry about all those silly rules and stuff. All you silly chickens just settle down, Mr Fox is here to make sure people behave. I'm trying to elicit a counterargument that isn't a blatant cop-out or logical fallacy. That constitutes trolling now? But I've made my point. I think I've disturbed the sound of silence enough for one day. I'll leave you all to your ideological vacuum, as usual. Wise to run off with your fingers in your ears and cut your losses.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Dec 15, 2016 11:29:34 GMT -5
And we will leave you to your "enlightened" thoughts that other cultures which allow the molestation and raping of children are much more superior than the rest of us.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 11:29:49 GMT -5
Ad hominem. Another great attempt. Not a defense. But it's true.
You're being obtuse and attempting to rile the posters up, i.e. trolling. Knock it off. YOu know damn well there is a difference between having sex with children and engaging in consensual homosexual acts.
I'm making an ideological argument about the nature of tolerance, discrimination, and morals, and the hoi polloi don't like where it's going. Am I guilty of challenging your thinking? Yes. Am I guilty of confronting you with demands for a justification you can't provide? Yes. Neither of these constitutes trolling.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Dec 15, 2016 11:31:01 GMT -5
that would imply that there was an argument to counter. Appeal to incredulity. Great attempt. Not a defense. You've got nothing. Honestly, the ones who've run off with their fingers in their ears were wise to cut their losses. It's actually rather amusing that you think you have an argument.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 11:31:06 GMT -5
I'm trying to elicit a counterargument that isn't a blatant cop-out or logical fallacy. That constitutes trolling now? But I've made my point. I think I've disturbed the sound of silence enough for one day. I'll leave you all to your ideological vacuum, as usual. Wise to run off with your fingers in your ears and cut your losses. "Don't troll" and then you bait me. ...
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Dec 15, 2016 11:31:07 GMT -5
But it's true.
You're being obtuse and attempting to rile the posters up, i.e. trolling. Knock it off. YOu know damn well there is a difference between having sex with children and engaging in consensual homosexual acts.
I'm making an ideological argument about the nature of tolerance, discrimination, and morals, and the hoi polloi don't like where it's going.
Am I guilty of challenging your thinking? Yes. Am I guilty of confronting you with demands for a justification you can't provide? Yes. Neither of these constitutes trolling. No, you only think you're doing that. You really just sound stupid.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 11:33:05 GMT -5
Wise to run off with your fingers in your ears and cut your losses. "Don't troll" and then you bait me. ... Not at all - feel free to respond. That is, if you have something interesting. You know I'm not one to report to the mods. I prefer a level playing field and I'll happily take on my own defense and offense. If you feel you're strong enough to undertake a fair fight, resign as a mod and bring it.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 11:35:00 GMT -5
I'm making an ideological argument about the nature of tolerance, discrimination, and morals, and the hoi polloi don't like where it's going. Am I guilty of challenging your thinking? Yes. Am I guilty of confronting you with demands for a justification you can't provide? Yes. Neither of these constitutes trolling. I'm making an ideological argument about the nature of what constitutes appropriate mod behaviour. Am I guilty of challenging the appropriateness of you being a mod when you repeatedly break the COC? Yes. Am I guilty of confronting you with proof of your own wrongdoing? Yes. Neither of these constitutes baiting.
|
|