|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 21, 2017 14:54:00 GMT
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. Sex isn't a special case for sexual harassment. If it can be proven that a worker was harassing an employ in any other way.. I'm sure some disciplinary action would be taken. It's dickish. If a coworker is sexually harassing a coworker... Disciplinary action should be taken. It's dickish and creepy. If an employer/boss uses their position in a threatening way for sexual purposes... That is so beyond dickish and creepy... to the point that it should be illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:55:04 GMT
tpfkar Everyday version of "objective" as in the interest of the business within a framework of fairness to employees as opposed to uniquely personal interests of the appraiser. concerning canguageThe interests of the business and within a framework of fairness according to whom? |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 14:55:23 GMT
Jesus Christ relax there pal, you must really have an emotional investment in this. Again I thought you considered patronising "assholish". The only "ignorant fuck" here is you with an attitude like that. I notice you didnt adress what I said in any substantial way, you just resorted to ad hominems. You didn't say anything substantial. You just made up more stupid shit. There's no way that you don't believe it's stupid. (At least I hope not.) I have never seen someone get so annoyed at something like this before. It is quite frankly ridiculous. You are like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum when his mommy won't get him what he wants. Anyway we are not that different in terms of what views we hold. We agree on a lot of things. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 21, 2017 14:56:32 GMT
Terrapin Station The law doesn't require you to be friends with coworkers. So if he isn't promoted on the basis of hanging out with the guys then it is a quid pro quo situation and is harassment. I've had to promote or recommend many people who I didn't like personally because they were the best ones for the job. It's all about the Benjamins and I can forgive a lot of bad personality if it leads to a bigger bonus. Again, the situation I described happens all the time, in all sorts of work environments. It's not against the law, and there's never been a case where it's been taken to court and won. It's how employment/business relationships work in general. You don't get anywhere if you can't network well. Well, sexual harassment happens all the time too.
Just because something isn't reported or perhaps isn't legal doesn't mean it's not harassment.
However, if Construction Joe filed a grievance, the company would have to address it in this scenario since it could still lead to a lawsuit. I'm not sure how common this is if there's no evidence that it is common.
Still, I'm not sure why this would be more heinous than sexual harassment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:59:02 GMT
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. Sex isn't a special case for sexual harassment. If it can be proven that a worker was harassing an employ in any other way.. I'm sure some disciplinary action would be taken. It's dickish. If a coworker is sexually harassing a coworker... Disciplinary action should be taken. It's dickish and creepy. If an employer/boss uses their position in a threatening way for sexual purposes... That is so beyond dickish and creepy... to the point that it should be illegal. I didn't say anything about "sex being a special case of sexual harassment." You're arguing that there's something special about sexual harassment. The arguments in favor of the illegality of sexual harassment aren't framed as if there's something special about sexual harassment. You can take them and apply them to other, nonsexual things just as easily. An argument that there's something special about sexual harassment would have to make the case re just what's special about sexual harassment, so that the supporting claims for this couldn't just as well apply to something else. In other words, it would have to fashion a set of demarcation criteria that single out sexual harassment, and ONLY sexual harassment. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 21, 2017 15:02:31 GMT
U.S. Republican guidelines:
breastfeeding in public: bad
trans women using the women's restroom: bad
men groping women at the workplace: ok!
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 15:03:45 GMT
Again, the situation I described happens all the time, in all sorts of work environments. It's not against the law, and there's never been a case where it's been taken to court and won. It's how employment/business relationships work in general. You don't get anywhere if you can't network well. Well, sexual harassment happens all the time too.
Just because something isn't reported or perhaps isn't legal doesn't mean it's not harassment.
However, if Construction Joe filed a grievance, the company would have to address it in this scenario since it could still lead to a lawsuit. I'm not sure how common this is if there's no evidence that it is common.
Still, I'm not sure why this would be more heinous than sexual harassment.
Who is going to file a lawsuit because they didn't advance in their job after they didn't hobnob with their coworkers, who wound up not being so friendly with them, not letting them into their clique? Who has that kind of money to just burn? The idea had nothing to do with something being more heinous than something else. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 21, 2017 15:03:54 GMT
It's no fun when it happens to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 21, 2017 15:04:51 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. It does work because we as a society apply punishments and levels of wrongness to the various misdeeds that are committed by its members. How exactly we as a group have determined which acts warrant more discipline is probably most easily defined by self reflection. How would I feel if these acts were committed against me? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 15:05:16 GMT
U.S. Republican guidelines: breastfeeding in public: bad trans women using the women's restroom: bad men groping women at the workplace: ok! Just because of the context, I'm hoping you're not thinking that I'm a Republican or that I think there's anything wrong with breastfeeding in public or anyone using whatever bathroom they'd like to use. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 21, 2017 15:05:48 GMT
Sex isn't a special case for sexual harassment. If it can be proven that a worker was harassing an employ in any other way.. I'm sure some disciplinary action would be taken. It's dickish. If a coworker is sexually harassing a coworker... Disciplinary action should be taken. It's dickish and creepy. If an employer/boss uses their position in a threatening way for sexual purposes... That is so beyond dickish and creepy... to the point that it should be illegal. I didn't say anything about "sex being a special case of sexual harassment." You're arguing that there's something special about sexual harassment. The arguments in favor of the illegality of sexual harassment aren't framed as if there's something special about sexual harassment. You can take them and apply them to other, nonsexual things just as easily. An argument that there's something special about sexual harassment would have to make the case re just what's special about sexual harassment, so that the supporting claims for this couldn't just as well apply to something else. In other words, it would have to fashion a set of demarcation criteria that single out sexual harassment, and ONLY sexual harassment.No shit. That's what I'm saying... It is its own crime. Harassment is harassment. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment. Generally... Buying something isn't illegal. Buying sex is. It's still a different crime than trying to buy drugs. Sex has its own habitat in which it lives. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 15:06:33 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. It does work because we as a society apply punishments and levels of wrongness to the various misdeeds that are committed by its members. How exactly we as a group have determined which acts warrant more discipline is probably most easily defined by self reflection. How would I feel if these acts were committed against me? So you're simply advocating some sort of mob rule/argumentum ad populum/flow with the current trend approach? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 15:07:43 GMT
I didn't say anything about "sex being a special case of sexual harassment." You're arguing that there's something special about sexual harassment. The arguments in favor of the illegality of sexual harassment aren't framed as if there's something special about sexual harassment. You can take them and apply them to other, nonsexual things just as easily. An argument that there's something special about sexual harassment would have to make the case re just what's special about sexual harassment, so that the supporting claims for this couldn't just as well apply to something else. In other words, it would have to fashion a set of demarcation criteria that single out sexual harassment, and ONLY sexual harassment.No shit. That's what I'm saying... It is its own crime. Harassment is harassment. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment. Generally... Buying something isn't illegal. Buying sex is. It's still a different crime than trying to buy drugs. Sex has its own habitat in which it lives. "Sex isn't identical to other things" doesn't really work as a justification for why it should be different for harassment, say. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2017 15:07:43 GMT
tpfkar General business & personnel concepts, business plans, mission statements. Whoever set up the business, whoever's running the business, generally making money tempered by the hammer of society's views & laws on running businesses + fairness to people Queen Bee and Her Pals |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 15:08:58 GMT
tpfkar General business & personnel concepts, business plans, mission statements. Whoever set up the business, whoever's running the business, generally making money tempered by the hammer of society's views & laws on running businesses + fairness to people Queen Bee and Her PalsRight, so (a) there's nothing objective about that, and (b) no one would ever be in violation of a "merit" edict. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 15:11:33 GMT
By what evidence would we be claiming that sexual harassment is that straightforward? By the claims of people suing for sexual harassment? Penthouse Letters? Porno film scripts? I wasn't speaking of evidence. I'm kind of confused where that came into play to be brought up.  Evidence for the claim you'd made about comparative blatantness. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2017 15:20:00 GMT
tpfkar (a) of course it's objective in that it's driven by an external framework as opposed to strictly personal preferences and goals. (b) wat Ono Soul |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 15:24:01 GMT
tpfkar (a) of course it's objective in that it's driven by an external framework as opposed to strictly personal preferences and goals. (b) wat Ono SoulFor (a), you mentioned concepts for example. You're not claiming that concepts are not personal things, are you? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2017 15:27:52 GMT
tpfkar One can act according to concepts laid out by others. And I'm claiming what I'm claiming. Psychic Hearts |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 15:33:54 GMT
tpfkar One can act according to concepts laid out by others. And I'm claiming what I'm claiming. Psychic HeartsWell, a concept can't literally be made external, can it? |
|
