PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 13:52:15 GMT
I am not going to get in to another semantics discussion with you. Semantics refers to meaing or philosophy of meaning (depending on the context). I asked you an ontological question. You can just ignore it, sure. But that doesn't make it so that the answer to that ontological question isn't a crucial consideration for what you're advocating. I know. You think we are making different ontological claims when we aren't. You are confused over semantics.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 21, 2017 13:52:17 GMT
So first off, you apparently believe that who is "best fit" for something is an objective fact? I am not going to get in to another tedious semantics discussion with you. Respectfully I think you were asked a very reasonable question, saoradh.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 21, 2017 13:56:25 GMT
As for Construction Joe I'd say there is a difference in approach to a friendly happy hour with coworkers versus a date with romantic implications. Even a happy hour with romantic implications is just different. I've been in both an office and construction environment for years and the approach to coworkers getting a few drinks is about the same regardless of gender. The whole point is to undermine the usual justificational rhetoric for why sexual harassment of the sort described should be illegal. It doesn't tho. Creating parallels that don't deal with sex don't work. The pressure on an employee to 'have a few drink' versus the pressure on an employee to 'have sex' with their employers or coworkers is not comparable.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 13:56:40 GMT
Semantics refers to meaing or philosophy of meaning (depending on the context). I asked you an ontological question. You can just ignore it, sure. But that doesn't make it so that the answer to that ontological question isn't a crucial consideration for what you're advocating. I know. You think we are making different ontological claims when we aren't. You are confused over semantics. I wouldn't ask you a question if I thought I knew the answer with respect to your view already. That's why I asked if you take merit to be objective. If you don't, then the problem is how you decide anything on merit rather than the personality interaction dynamics I've already been talking about.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 13:58:53 GMT
I know. You think we are making different ontological claims when we aren't. You are confused over semantics. I wouldn't ask you a question if I thought I knew the answer with respect to your view already. That's why I asked if you take merit to be objective. If you don't, then the problem is how you decide anything on merit rather than the personality interaction dynamics I've already been talking about. All that matters is that the person in power thinks they are picking the best person for the job.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 13:59:19 GMT
The whole point is to undermine the usual justificational rhetoric for why sexual harassment of the sort described should be illegal. It doesn't tho. Creating parallels that don't deal with sex don't work. The pressure on an employee to 'have a few drink' versus the pressure on an employee to 'have sex' with their employers or coworkers is not comparable. The justificational rhetoric doesn't have it that sex is a special case, where the supports do not apply to anything else. The justificational rhetoric could have it that sex is a special case, where the supports do not apply to anything else, of course, but then the justificational rhetoric would have to justify why sex is a special case. This step couldn't use supports that would work just as well as a description for anything that's not sex, because then they wouldn't actually be arguing that sex is a special case. They'd have to be supports that necessarily pertain only to sex. In other words, the arguments would have to be focused on why sex is a special case.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:02:43 GMT
I wouldn't ask you a question if I thought I knew the answer with respect to your view already. That's why I asked if you take merit to be objective. If you don't, then the problem is how you decide anything on merit rather than the personality interaction dynamics I've already been talking about. All that matters is that the person in power thinks they are picking the best person for the job. Right. So the person in power thinks they are picking the best person for the job, or at least says they are, when they pick the guy who went out for a beer after work with the other guys--for one, because he works much better with the other guys because he gets along with them, and he passes over the guy who repeatedly turned down their offers to socialize. So what has our law done?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 14:07:39 GMT
All that matters is that the person in power thinks they are picking the best person for the job. Right. So the person in power thinks they are picking the best person for the job, or at least says they are, when they pick the guy who went out for a beer after work with the other guys--for one, because he works much better with the other guys because he gets along with them, and he passes over the guy who repeatedly turned down their offers to socialize. So what has our law done? Well nothing in this instance because there is no discrimination. If the person in power picked his best friend over someone else despite the fact that he doesn't think he is as good of a pick then the other person the law would come in to use.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 21, 2017 14:10:57 GMT
Right. So the person in power thinks they are picking the best person for the job, or at least says they are, when they pick the guy who went out for a beer after work with the other guys--for one, because he works much better with the other guys because he gets along with them, and he passes over the guy who repeatedly turned down their offers to socialize. So what has our law done? Well nothing in this instance because there is no discrimination. If the person in power picked his best friend over someone else despite the fact that he doesn't think he is as good of a pick then the other person the law would come in to use. How are you going to prove it either way?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:13:04 GMT
It's as if you want to take out of the equation the fact that employees are people, they're humans, and humans have personalities and socialize and so on. It's as if you want workplaces to be staffed strictly by robots.
And given that we're on a message board, in light of the fact that messages boards tend to attract certain personality types, I'd guess that maybe you're thinking this because: (a) you have something of a social phobia and/or an antisocial personality, and (b) you think that you have a lot of merit in some milieus, but you also feel that your superior abilities in those arenas haven't been recognized, haven't been tapped. The combination of those two factors means that you're not prepared to pursue and work on the social networking and personality skills necessary to achieve the things you feel you should be achieving . . . if only they'd make a law that would force people to reward your superior abilities just because you have them, regardless of your personality and how you interact with others.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 21, 2017 14:13:49 GMT
In other words, the arguments would have to be focused on why sex is a special case. I'd say because of the invasive and personal nature of it. I'm sure someone could elaborate more articulately why we view sexual misdeeds as different than other misdeeds. But to me it's that reason. Again it's the different between 'wanna go golf' to 'how about a bj'. It's just simply more offensive.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 14:15:09 GMT
Well nothing in this instance because there is no discrimination. If the person in power picked his best friend over someone else despite the fact that he doesn't think he is as good of a pick then the other person the law would come in to use. How are you going to prove it either way? I dont know. Is it really relevant though?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:16:24 GMT
Right. So the person in power thinks they are picking the best person for the job, or at least says they are, when they pick the guy who went out for a beer after work with the other guys--for one, because he works much better with the other guys because he gets along with them, and he passes over the guy who repeatedly turned down their offers to socialize. So what has our law done? Well nothing in this instance because there is no discrimination. If the person in power picked his best friend over someone else despite the fact that he doesn't think he is as good of a pick then the other person the law would come in to use. What happens in the real world is that they pick the person they have a good relationship with--their friend, more or less, but they don't say to anyone that they think the friend isn't as good of a pick as someone else (because of work-specific skills or whatever). They rather say that their pick is the better candidate, and in some respects, at least, they believe this, because any employment or business relationship isn't only about the job skills as if we were having robots do things. They're about how people interact with each other.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 14:18:09 GMT
It's as if you want to take out of the equation the fact that employees are people, they're humans, and humans have personalities and socialize and so on. It's as if you want workplaces to be staffed strictly by robots. And given that we're on a message board, in light of the fact that messages boards tend to attract certain personality types, I'd guess that maybe you're thinking this because: (a) you have something of a social phobia and/or an antisocial personality, and (b) you think that you have a lot of merit in some milieus, but you also feel that your superior abilities in those arenas haven't been recognized, haven't been tapped. The combination of those two factors means that you're not prepared to pursue and work on the social networking and personality skills necessary to achieve the things you feel you should be achieving . . . if only they'd make a law that would force people to reward your superior abilities just because you have them, regardless of your personality and how you interact with others. What on earth makes you think I want to do any of that? And when did I say how people interact with others should be considered irrelevant?
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 21, 2017 14:19:15 GMT
How are you going to prove it either way? I dont know. Is it really relevant though? I think it's very relevant. How can workplace issues/promotions and such be mandated to be decided objectively unless someone can come up with a way to prove it was or was not?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:19:40 GMT
Melvin said:
"I'd say because of the invasive and personal nature of it. I'm sure someone could elaborate more articulately why we view sexual misdeeds as different than other misdeeds. But to me it's that reason. Again it's the different between 'wanna go golf' to 'how about a bj'. It's just simply more offensive"
That wouldn't work, though.
"If something is more invasive and personal, more offensive than something else, it's importantly different" doesn't just apply to sex, and it doesn't necessarily apply to sex. It applies to whatever an individual feels is more invasive and personal, more offensive.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 14:20:08 GMT
Well nothing in this instance because there is no discrimination. If the person in power picked his best friend over someone else despite the fact that he doesn't think he is as good of a pick then the other person the law would come in to use. What happens in the real world is that they pick the person they have a good relationship with--their friend, more or less, but they don't say to anyone that they think the friend isn't as good of a pick as someone else (because of work-specific skills or whatever). They rather say that their pick is the better candidate, and in some respects, at least, they believe this, because any employment or business relationship isn't only about the job skills as if we were having robots do things. They're about how people interact with each other. Ok and how is this relevant to anything I have said? I am guessing you have an emotional investment in this.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:21:36 GMT
What happens in the real world is that they pick the person they have a good relationship with--their friend, more or less, but they don't say to anyone that they think the friend isn't as good of a pick as someone else (because of work-specific skills or whatever). They rather say that their pick is the better candidate, and in some respects, at least, they believe this, because any employment or business relationship isn't only about the job skills as if we were having robots do things. They're about how people interact with each other. Ok and how is this relevant to anything I have said? I am guessing you have an emotional investment in this. It's weird to me that you can't figure out how that's relevant to what you said. It's relevant because there's not a single case where the law would ever intervene, regardless of who a person in charge would pick, regardless of the real reasons they picked the candidate they did.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 14:23:01 GMT
I dont know. Is it really relevant though? I think it's very relevant. How can workplace issues/promotions and such be mandated to be decided objectively unless someone can come up with a way to prove it was or was not? Well there could be physical evidence (emails etc) where the person in power admit to it. Or there could be testimonial evidence where the perso who got the job admits that is the case or the person in power does. I guess that would be the only way to decide.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:23:08 GMT
It's as if you want to take out of the equation the fact that employees are people, they're humans, and humans have personalities and socialize and so on. It's as if you want workplaces to be staffed strictly by robots. And given that we're on a message board, in light of the fact that messages boards tend to attract certain personality types, I'd guess that maybe you're thinking this because: (a) you have something of a social phobia and/or an antisocial personality, and (b) you think that you have a lot of merit in some milieus, but you also feel that your superior abilities in those arenas haven't been recognized, haven't been tapped. The combination of those two factors means that you're not prepared to pursue and work on the social networking and personality skills necessary to achieve the things you feel you should be achieving . . . if only they'd make a law that would force people to reward your superior abilities just because you have them, regardless of your personality and how you interact with others. What on earth makes you think I want to do any of that? And when did I say how people interact with others should be considered irrelevant? "As if" is a good phrase to be able to understand.
|
|