ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th December 2012, 05:13 PM   #281
jhunter1163
Beer-swilling semiliterate
Moderator
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott
Posts: 21,345
Mod Warning Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.
Posted By:jhunter1163
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 05:18 PM   #282
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,026
Originally Posted by Kahalachan View Post
I'm saying this court ruling is wrong.
Specifically, what legal issues did the 2 courts and 8 justices error on?

Last edited by WildCat; 26th December 2012 at 05:19 PM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 05:33 PM   #283
Stout
Master Poster
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,397
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I, and the rest of society, face temptation every day and resist it very successfully. What's so special about this bloke?
What's special about this bloke is how he behaved like he was in a confessional booth and freely admitted to behaviour which is/was getting him crucified in both the media and forums like this. TBH his honesty kinda brings a tear to my atheist eye. No wait scratch that, he's probably more afraid of judgement in the afterlife than any punishment us mere mortals can dish out.

What's special about the issue is if we read the court's decision on page 4 we see that the wife insisted on the termination as well as citing her complaints against Melissa. What we have here is a woman insisting on the termination of another woman.

Now if we view the dental practice as being half owned by the wife based on the assumption that the couple has been together for some time and the wife is entitled to half of the business under the law, the issue morphs from appearing as though a horndog boss fired an employee he couldn't "have" to one of a co-owner insisting that a staffing decision be made.

The wife was complaining about Melissa's conduct and appearance, not the doofus dentist.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 05:40 PM   #284
Kevin_Lowe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,421
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Specifically, what legal issues did the 2 courts and 8 justices error on?
You might be attacking a straw man here, since in the passage you quote nothing was said about the decision being legally wrong.
__________________
Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists.
-- Alfred Mander
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 06:09 PM   #285
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 14,824
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
And here I was thinking we were moving forward on equality. DOH! Glad I don't play the ponies. I suck at predicting.
Yes you do. "Affirmative action," men getting paid more than women for the same job, women still treated with favoritism regarding alimony/child custody in court...the list of idiocies goes on for any group you can name getting preferential treatment vs equal treatment.

Bosses can fire employees for ANY reason other than gender, age, or ethnicity. and you best believe it happens every day. I swear bad bosses are breeding like cockroaches; this yutz is but one of the more obvious examples.
bigred is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 06:12 PM   #286
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,449
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
What's special about this bloke is how he behaved like he was in a confessional booth and freely admitted to behaviour which is/was getting him crucified in both the media and forums like this. TBH his honesty kinda brings a tear to my atheist eye. No wait scratch that, he's probably more afraid of judgement in the afterlife than any punishment us mere mortals can dish out.
This begs the question that the man is unable to control his own actions. I don't agree with that so your point is moot

Quote:
What's special about the issue is if we read the court's decision on page 4 we see that the wife insisted on the termination as well as citing her complaints against Melissa. What we have here is a woman insisting on the termination of another woman.

Now if we view the dental practice as being half owned by the wife based on the assumption that the couple has been together for some time and the wife is entitled to half of the business under the law, the issue morphs from appearing as though a horndog boss fired an employee he couldn't "have" to one of a co-owner insisting that a staffing decision be made.

The wife was complaining about Melissa's conduct and appearance, not the doofus dentist.
Interesting argument. Can you supply any proof for your assumption?
__________________
Refenestrate the delusional.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 06:31 PM   #287
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,740
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
It is a crazy world when an employer cannot fire an employee without a court case ensuing.
Careful, don't hurt your back swinging that broad brush around.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 06:34 PM   #288
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,740
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Where does it say in sexual harassment law that others have to hear it? Are ya just going to keep tossing that common sense out the window?
You've used that phrase several times in this thread. It appears that you mean:

common sense = my opinion.

Repeatedly using the phrase adds nothing to the discussion.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 07:00 PM   #289
Stout
Master Poster
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,397
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
This begs the question that the man is unable to control his own actions. I don't agree with that so your point is moot
So why then do you suppose Melissa didn't storm out of the office and file a sexual harassment complaint against the dentist the minute he made the bulging pants comment ? Come on, there was a relationship going on here that was clearly outside the boundaries of professional.

Quote:
Interesting argument. Can you supply any proof for your assumption?
No, and that's why I called them assumptions. Which one do you have a problem with ? The idea that the wife had a share in the business or the one where they weren't newlyweds ?
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 07:37 PM   #290
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E
Posts: 7,175
If this is an "at will" state then I am at a loss to understand why the dentist had to give such a stupid reason for firing the woman. It just makes it appear that he fired the woman without cause then retrospectively changed the dress code to make it appear more legitimate.

Had he specified a new dress code and the woman didn't comply then he would have been able to fire her for cause and not appear like a moron who's brain is in the wrong part of his body.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 08:17 PM   #291
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Has anyone ever seen a source for the "bulge in the pants" comment??
It's in the court docs.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 08:24 PM   #292
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
No, I see the point of removing temptation, I just didn't see your point.
You see my point you just don't see my point.


Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
What it seems to me that you're doing here is removing from him all responsibility for his own actions.
Pure straw, not what I said at all.


Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If it is necessary for the temptation to be removed, the implication is that he would not be able to resist it, otherwise, why remove it?
And?


Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If resisting it is merely difficult or very difficult, then, I'm afraid, it's welcome to the world of grown ups which is very full of all sorts of temptation and we who live in it resist that temptation every day.
One way to resist the temptation is to remove it.


Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Short of actual psychological damage or very, very extreme provocation (which this wasn't) a human being, a member of a functioning society has the capacity to control their own actions.
The world according to the morally righteous among us?


Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
What if the temptation couldn't be removed? Further still, what if she could resist temptation and he couldn't, then what? Would you absolve him of responsibility for his own actions in that case? After all, he couldn't control himself.
A straw man and a hypothetical not under consideration in this incident.


Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I, and the rest of society, face temptation every day and resist it very successfully. What's so special about this bloke?
More preaching from the morally righteous among us?
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 08:27 PM   #293
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,819
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
So why then do you suppose Melissa didn't storm out of the office and file a sexual harassment complaint against the dentist the minute he made the bulging pants comment ? Come on, there was a relationship going on here that was clearly outside the boundaries of professional.
Maybe she wanted to keep her job, and hoped everything would just go back to the way it had been for years?
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 08:42 PM   #294
BobTheCoward
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 866
To opponents of the Dentist's actions...In an ideal world with an ideal legal system, where these three parties could not reach an agreement on their own, what actions should the court be able to take?

Don't hide behind bashing the ethics or the justice system, give a solution.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 09:12 PM   #295
cwalner
Philosopher
 
cwalner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,102
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
To opponents of the Dentist's actions...In an ideal world with an ideal legal system, where these three parties could not reach an agreement on their own, what actions should the court be able to take?

Don't hide behind bashing the ethics or the justice system, give a solution.
A more equitable solution would have been some compensation for wrongful termination. Something that would allow her time to find a new job. I am thinking of a severance of maybe 1 to 2 years.

Or more idealistically, but this way oversteps the current bounds of our legal system, is have her on paid leave for up to a year (so she still has medical coverage) but terminated early if she gets another job. This solves the Doctor's and the Wife's problem of having her out of the office, without her losing her livelihood and gives her more than enough time to find a new job, even in this current economy.
__________________
Vecini - Inconceivable!
Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
cwalner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 09:14 PM   #296
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,026
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Yeah I know that, but don't apologise for pointing out that there are other ways which nations not as rich as the US can implement. The wealth discrepancy is your biggest problem in my opinion, but any suggestions to ease this, even by something so sensible as a UHS, is dismissed as socialism. The ordinary worker will continue suffer if things like the tax regime, which favours the rich (compared to other countries) continues.
If the ordinary US worker is suffering it must be really tough in Australia. The median household income in PPP dollars is over $4,000 less in Australia than in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 09:15 PM   #297
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,026
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I think people are mostly discussing the moral issues, or haven't you noticed ?
Except the people I'm addressing have specifically criticized the court opinion.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 09:18 PM   #298
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,026
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
The lawsuit isn't about the woman being fired, it's about her being fired for being a woman.
She was fired for being a woman? Link? Cite?

Or are you just making that up?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 09:19 PM   #299
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,946
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
If the ordinary US worker is suffering it must be really tough in Australia. The median household income in PPP dollars is over $4,000 less in Australia than in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
What's the minimum wage in the US? Compare to Australia's. Case closed.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 09:20 PM   #300
Stout
Master Poster
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,397
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
Maybe she wanted to keep her job, and hoped everything would just go back to the way it had been for years?
Yes, that's entirely possible. This may have been a one off comment at the office Christmas party after a few to many, or it may have been one in a series on ongoing dialogue. We just don't know.

Dammit, these people aren't doing what they're supposed to do, beak off in the media with their respective stories to give us forumites material to work with.

For all we know this idiotic comment could have been made years before the firing.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 09:21 PM   #301
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,946
Originally Posted by cwalner View Post
A more equitable solution would have been some compensation for wrongful termination. Something that would allow her time to find a new job. I am thinking of a severance of maybe 1 to 2 years.

Or more idealistically, but this way oversteps the current bounds of our legal system, is have her on paid leave for up to a year (so she still has medical coverage) but terminated early if she gets another job. This solves the Doctor's and the Wife's problem of having her out of the office, without her losing her livelihood and gives her more than enough time to find a new job, even in this current economy.
That sounds fair to me.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 09:21 PM   #302
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,026
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
You might be attacking a straw man here, since in the passage you quote nothing was said about the decision being legally wrong.
Sure it did, I even quoted it: "I'm saying this court ruling is wrong."

Or is it now your claim that courts rule on something other than legal reasons?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 09:27 PM   #303
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,026
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
What's the minimum wage in the US? Compare to Australia's. Case closed.
Completely irrelevant, see the PPP rankings. A typical American household has $4,000 more PPP dollars to spend than a household does in Oz.

You are seeing the folly of high minimum wage, it doesn't actually make anyone wealthier it just makes things more expensive.

eta: and at the bottom Australia has 105,000 homeless people on any given day, or .46% of the population. The US has 650,000 homeless on any given day, or .22% of the population. So per capita Australia has twice as many homeless as the US does.

Last edited by WildCat; 26th December 2012 at 09:44 PM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 10:16 PM   #304
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 4,149
Wildcat, please, we're discussing a legal case that originated in an American dentist's office here, not the minimum wage in Australia. Please take your economic talk to a more appropriate thread or start a new one.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 10:19 PM   #305
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,946
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Wildcat, please, we're discussing a legal case that originated in an American dentist's office here, not the minimum wage in Australia. Please take your economic talk to a more appropriate thread or start a new one.
To be fair I brought up the issue of severance pay, which I think was on topic, but it led to the derail I participated in.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 10:20 PM   #306
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 35,436
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
No, I see the point of removing temptation, I just didn't see your point.




What it seems to me that you're doing here is removing from him all responsibility for his own actions. If it is necessary for the temptation to be removed, the implication is that he would not be able to resist it, otherwise, why remove it? If resisting it is merely difficult or very difficult, then, I'm afraid, it's welcome to the world of grown ups which is very full of all sorts of temptation and we who live in it resist that temptation every day.

Short of actual psychological damage or very, very extreme provocation (which this wasn't) a human being, a member of a functioning society has the capacity to control their own actions. What if the temptation couldn't be removed? Further still, what if she could resist temptation and he couldn't, then what? Would you absolve him of responsibility for his own actions in that case? After all, he couldn't control himself.


I, and the rest of society, face temptation every day and resist it very successfully. What's so special about this bloke?
^ This. Pretty much this.

I don't argue against the fact that he acted within the law when firing the girl. But that was far from solving the problem with his marriage.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 10:39 PM   #307
Kevin_Lowe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,421
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Sure it did, I even quoted it: "I'm saying this court ruling is wrong."

Or is it now your claim that courts rule on something other than legal reasons?
I haven't made any claims. Try to pay attention rather than trying to stick claims in my mouth that you wish I had made.

It strains credulity that you have been around these forums this long and not encountered the concept of something being seen to be legally correct and morally wrong. Lots of people think lots of things are legally correct but morally wrong. I'm surprised it didn't even occur to you that Kahalachan's claim was that the court decision was wrong in some moral sense, regardless of whether or nor it was wrong in some legal sense.

Figuring that out seems to be a fairly straightforward exercise in basic reading comprehension.
__________________
Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists.
-- Alfred Mander
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 10:57 PM   #308
Morrigan
Crone of War
 
Morrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,265
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
If the ordinary US worker is suffering it must be really tough in Australia. The median household income in PPP dollars is over $4,000 less in Australia than in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
...That's your counter-argument about the quality of life of workers? Comparing two countries with different economies? Wow. How is that relevant to this discussion anyway...

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Sure it did, I even quoted it: "I'm saying this court ruling is wrong."

Or is it now your claim that courts rule on something other than legal reasons?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? He obviously meant that he thought the ruling was morally wrong, not legally. I mean... come on, you're better than this.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Figuring that out seems to be a fairly straightforward exercise in basic reading comprehension.
Or simply a show of good faith, really...
__________________
curi0us Many kids grow up in environments where if the worse thing they had to deal with was a pervy gym teacher wanting to **** them they would considere themselves to be privileged and living the good life.
bigred homophobes are not nearly as widespread or common as the oh-woe-are-the-poor-oppressed-gays whiners would have you believe.
Morrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 11:10 PM   #309
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 35,436
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post

Yes, I am being serious. This thread is about a court decision regarding the legality of the dentist's action. I'm not justifying the dentist at all. I think he's a dick. But he had a legal right to do what he did, and we don'thave enough information to determine that it was even the wrong decision, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Firing someone for their ethnicity is not legal in the U.S., so that question is a bit of a red herring. You still have not provided any reason whatsoever why the employee should have a higher claim than the wife's. Sorry, Ron, but just because you don't approve of this, doesn't mean it's wrong. If you think the law is wrong I'd be happy to explore that possibility. How would you like to see the current law altered?






You've never been married, have you? All kidding aside, I've already told you I agree with you as far as how marriage ought to work. But this is a value judgement that is simply not relevant. You've also got a false dichotomy fallacy in there. In fact, we are talking about both a weakness and a simple contract (and several other confounding ethical concerns).





You're really oversimplifying here. WE don't know how many decisions or related concerns he had to deal with in arriving at this decision. Perhaps a divorce would render him financially unable to maintain his business and continue to pay his other employees. Perhaps his wife is dying and he just wants to give her everything she wants before she goes. Perhaps he doesn't really care about his wife at all but he just finds the employee so distracting that it's become difficult for him to focus on doing his own job competently; keeping her on might even endanger his patients. OTOH maybe the marriage has never been monogamous in the first place and he really did fire the girl for some illegal reason while using his libido as a convenient legal cover. Really, we can go on and on with speculation about all the different possible mitigating or exacerbating circumstance that might alter the moral assessment of his decision. Give me some more background information about what's really going on in this case, and I might well change my mind. But the default position is still correct given the info we now have on the table.





Of course I don't think firing the girl solves the problem. That's why I said as much in the part I've hilighted for you. You're grasping at Straw, Ron.
The thing I wonder about is, if you're so keen to continue stressing the fact that "we don't know what really happened", how come you only contemplate all the options that justify the guy firing the girl. And you seem a bit too comfortable just stating the fact that he had a legal right to fire the girl.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 26th December 2012 at 11:12 PM.
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 11:12 PM   #310
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,740
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I don't argue against the fact that he acted within the law when firing the girl. But that was far from solving the problem with his marriage.
You don't know that. It is just pure speculation on your part. I think they resolved their differences and lived happily ever after. See, my wild *** hand waving has the same credibility as yours.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 12:00 AM   #311
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,026
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
I haven't made any claims. Try to pay attention rather than trying to stick claims in my mouth that you wish I had made.

It strains credulity that you have been around these forums this long and not encountered the concept of something being seen to be legally correct and morally wrong. Lots of people think lots of things are legally correct but morally wrong. I'm surprised it didn't even occur to you that Kahalachan's claim was that the court decision was wrong in some moral sense, regardless of whether or nor it was wrong in some legal sense.

Figuring that out seems to be a fairly straightforward exercise in basic reading comprehension.
It would be wrong for the court to rule in anything but a legal sense. Would you want courts to rule according to the emotions of the judges as opposed to the law?

I'm sorry, but when you claim the court was wrong you must show legal errors, not make some appeal to emotion. Otherwise complain about the law, not the courts interpretation of it as it exists when you can find no fault with the interpretation.

The anti-court people on this thread are behaving exactly like the fundy Christians against gay marriage did with this very court when they campaigned to vote out judges because they ruled according to the law instead of some arbitrary moral judgement.

Last edited by WildCat; 27th December 2012 at 12:03 AM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 12:06 AM   #312
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,026
Originally Posted by Morrigan View Post
...That's your counter-argument about the quality of life of workers? Comparing two countries with different economies? Wow. How is that relevant to this discussion anyway... ..
The rankings and numbers were based on purchasing power parity, which controls for differences in the economies. At any rate, a derail. I'm sorry I took the bait.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 12:25 AM   #313
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
You've used that phrase several times in this thread. It appears that you mean:

common sense = my opinion.

Repeatedly using the phrase adds nothing to the discussion.
Repeatedly making personal attacks adds nothing to the discussion. But hey par for the course for you eh?


Common sense


The man knew the woman had an infrequent sex life with her husband

The woman said the man's comments didn't bother her

The woman sent personal text messages unrelated to work to the doctor.


The doctor asked her to not wear such tight revealing clothing at work and she refused to change it saying it was fine.

Common sense


If the doctor knew about her sex life it means she discussed it with him. This is not professional.


If the comments didn't bother her and one of the comments was about his erection then she set a standard there.


If she sent personal text messages she was developing a personal relationship with him rather than a professional one.



And the most important

she was an "at will" employee. He didn't need to give a reason for firing her.

She helped to create a hostile work environment for other employees including his wife.

The court didn't so much as side with him as confirm that her behavior was unprofessional.

Common sense. Apparently not so common.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 12:33 AM   #314
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 45,415
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
The thing I wonder about is, if you're so keen to continue stressing the fact that "we don't know what really happened", how come you only contemplate all the options that justify the guy firing the girl. And you seem a bit too comfortable just stating the fact that he had a legal right to fire the girl.
Who said the scenarios I've included in my posts are the only ones I've contemplated? Also, it's not even true that I've only included possibilities that justify the firing. I did mention one opposing possibility as well. And my point in repeating the fact that we don't really know what happened is that it's a logical response to the fact that you keep repeating the same logical fallacies. There is a default position. No matter which possibilities you bring up, until you can provide evidence that one of these speculations is actually the case, the default stands.

Furthermore, I'm not just stating the fact that he had a legal right. I'm going farther. I'm also stating that he had an ethical obligation to appease his wife. The whole temptation/self-control thing is a red herring. The girl was fired because the wife didn't trust her husband, and wanted this token act of obedience from him. That their marriage quite obviously does not live up to the ideal you espouse does not obviate the fact that they are still morally bound to fulfill their wedding vows.

That recent post about the wife possibly being legally considered a co-owner of the business only strengthens my argument further.

I have requested several times now that you provide any reason whatsoever why the employee's claim outweighs the wife's, since the core of my argument is simply that it does not. If you can't even attempt this then you've really got nothing substantial against me at all.
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.

Last edited by Prometheus; 27th December 2012 at 12:34 AM.
Prometheus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 01:17 AM   #315
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24,676
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
What do you think he should have done?
Deal with the situation as a responsible business owner.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 01:21 AM   #316
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,946
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Deal with the situation as a responsible business owner.
Agreed. Act like an adult and not a 17 year old.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 01:22 AM   #317
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 35,436
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
You don't know that. It is just pure speculation on your part. I think they resolved their differences and lived happily ever after. See, my wild *** hand waving has the same credibility as yours.
See, the whole "you don't know that" argument only works in certain situations. Not in situations where it's obvious that the person is not solving the problem. A marriage issue in which a guy isn't sure if he's capable of cheating on his wife, is not solved by getting rid of the "temptation", because the problem is not the girl. The problem is the guy who doesn't know if he really wants to be in a serious relationship with his wife.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 27th December 2012 at 01:26 AM.
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 01:26 AM   #318
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 35,436
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
I have requested several times now that you provide any reason whatsoever why the employee's claim outweighs the wife's, since the core of my argument is simply that it does not. If you can't even attempt this then you've really got nothing substantial against me at all.
I have answered that several times, Prom. I've told you already, that it's not a matter of the employee's claim outweighing his wife's. If you want further detail on that, go back to my previous posts and actually read. But stop treating me as if I had "nothing substantial against you" because I've already addressed that. Besides, who said this is "against you"? It's funny how when I try to have a serious argument with you, you get arrogant and pedantic. I think I like you better back there at the humor section.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 27th December 2012 at 01:31 AM.
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 01:45 AM   #319
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Deal with the situation as a responsible business owner.
"Deal with it" can mean a number of things. It would seem the people in the thread mostly think "deal with it" is limited to seeing the woman he was attracted to 8 hours a day M-F (or whatever the clinic hours were).

I'm just saying I get it that option A wasn't workable given the wife's issues and the fact she also worked there. He took option B. It was better, IMO, than option C.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 01:46 AM   #320
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24,676
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
To opponents of the Dentist's actions...In an ideal world with an ideal legal system, where these three parties could not reach an agreement on their own, what actions should the court be able to take?

Don't hide behind bashing the ethics or the justice system, give a solution.

In New Zealand, a situation like this would be unfair dismissal, and the court would side with the employee. The employee may propose that the situation has created a hostile work environment making it impossible for them to return to their job, in which case the employer would have to compensate the employee for lost earnings (I don't know how this is actually determined, but generally is income for a period of time such as 6 months).

The employer's issue with their wife would be considered irrelevant by the court; it's a personal issue between the two of them and has no bearing on the professional relationship between the dentist and his employee.

We have special courts that deal specifically with employment disputes.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.