Dolphins Don Jones suspended for tweeting about Michael Sam

[bucky]

There is no ethics here, it's an employer/employee issue. Go tell your HR department you hate gays and see how it works out for you, ethically speaking.

You are presenting dumb "arguments" so I do believe this has run its course. Good day.

It's not a dumb argument. It's exactly what gets our country into trouble. People don't respect what belief really is or the ethical boundaries of belief. We are hypocritical about this.

 

[Senser81]

What she being oppressive/obscene or inappropriate in any way to anyone during the interview process? Any research into her past show she took her views/beliefs outside of her beliefs ethical boundaries and was actively oppressive to others? If you based it solely off of that one line in her resume, then Yes, it actually was oppressive. But the severity of the oppression is actually less than punishing an existing employee over personal opinion.

Wow.

 

[Senser81]

It's not a dumb argument. It's exactly what gets our country into trouble. People don't respect what belief really is or the ethical boundaries of belief. We are hypocritical about this.

I thought the hypocrisy would be when an entity/organization that makes a public stand for tolerance and gay rights and lets anti-gay slurs go unpunished. You seem to be tying the NFL's hands with your argument. Whatever action/inaction they take can be termed "hypocritical".

 

[NAHSTE]

IF YOU BASE HIRING DECISIONS OFF OF SOMEONE'S RESUME IT'S DISCRIMINATION

:dead:

 

[bucky]

I thought the hypocrisy would be when an entity/organization that makes a public stand for tolerance and gay rights and lets anti-gay slurs go unpunished. You seem to be tying the NFL's hands with your argument. Whatever action/inaction they take can be termed "hypocritical".

I didn't realize tweeting "Horrible" or stating you are against homosexuality is an anti-gay slur. Looks to me like just an opinion.

 

[bucky]

IF YOU BASE HIRING DECISIONS OFF OF SOMEONE'S RESUME IT'S DISCRIMINATION

:dead:

If you are basing it off of something that has absolutely nothing to do with the job, then yes it is discrimination. Does belonging to an organization make you less knowledgeable about the job you are doing? Are you just basing your decision over a difference in opinion?

All this Dolphin guy did was tweet "Horrible". I personally wished he viewed things differently. But this is actually a difference of opinion.

 

[NAHSTE]

If you are basing it off of something that has absolutely nothing to do with the job, then yes it is discrimination. Do you, belonging to an organization make you less knowledgeable about the job you are doing? Are you just basing your decision over a difference in opinion?

All this Dolphin guy did was tweet "Horrible". I personally wished he viewed things differently. But this is actually a difference of opinion.

So did his employer. If you have a difference of opinion with your place of employment, you have two choices...

 

[SethMode]

I am beyond confused as to what your possible end goal is, bucky. Your entire argument collapses in on itself in the real world. Here's a quick breakdown of how things would go if everyone could say what they wanted, hypothetically (I am not talking about this situation per se):

- Person A comments on a picture posted by Person B, his co-worker, of Person B and his gay lover kissing. He comments: horrible.
- Company A, Person A and B's employer, worried that they might oppress Person A's right to express himself, does not reprimand him.
- The story gets national traction, and people begin to openly express disdain for Company A, including anything from negative opinions to refusing to purchase products or do business with Company A.
- Company A now must decide between effectively oppressing themselves and their otehr HUNDREDS of employees by continuing to damage their profitability, etc...by supporting Person A's opinion of a co-worker.
- Person's C-Z are all Company employees as well, and they feel that Person A is a scumbag who is not only harming Person B, but them as well through the damage he is doing to the company.

Do you not see how trying to take a strict ethical stance of "anyone is free to say whatever idiot thing that they want with no consequences" probably isn't a remotely realistic business proposition?

 

[bucky]

I am beyond confused as to what your possible end goal is, bucky. Your entire argument collapses in on itself in the real world. Here's a quick breakdown of how things would go if everyone could say what they wanted, hypothetically (I am not talking about this situation per se):

- Person A comments on a picture posted by Person B, his co-worker, of Person B and his gay lover kissing. He comments: horrible.
- Company A, Person A and B's employer, worried that they might oppress Person A's right to express himself, does not reprimand him.
- The story gets national traction, and people begin to openly express disdain for Company A, including anything from negative opinions to refusing to purchase products or do business with Company A.
- Company A now must decide between effectively oppressing themselves and their otehr HUNDREDS of employees by continuing to damage their profitability, etc...by supporting Person A's opinion of a co-worker.
- Person's C-Z are all Company employees as well, and they feel that Person A is a scumbag who is not only harming Person B, but them as well through the damage he is doing to the company.

Do you not see how trying to take a strict ethical stance of "anyone is free to say whatever idiot thing that they want with no consequences" probably isn't a remotely realistic business proposition?

The company can come out publicly giving the companies views on the issue, strongly supporting what ever side of an issue they fall on, including actively supporting pro-gay rights while at the same time saying that as long as employees opinions are not obscene, criminal or oppressive, employees can express their own opinions outside of the workplace.

What you are talking about is selective oppression over opinion based issues.

 

[Senser81]

If you are basing it off of something that has absolutely nothing to do with the job, then yes it is discrimination. Does belonging to an organization make you less knowledgeable about the job you are doing? Are you just basing your decision over a difference in opinion?

We thought her affiliation with an anti-black organization would make it difficult for her to manage a workforce that was about 50% minorities. If a school doesn't choose to hire a teacher because they are members of NAMBLA, is that unethical?

 

[bucky]

So did his employer. If you have a difference of opinion with your place of employment, you have two choices...

And the employee would be ethically wrong. What you are talking about is selective oppression over opinion based issues. This is exactly what gets our country into trouble.

 

[Senser81]

And the employee would be ethically wrong. What you are talking about is selective oppression over opinion based issues. This is exactly what gets our country into trouble.

I thought it was the exact opposite which had gotten our country in trouble...the non-oppression/acceptance of hateful opinions.

 

[bucky]

We thought her affiliation with an anti-black organization would make it difficult for her to manage a workforce that was about 50% minorities. If a school doesn't choose to hire a teacher because they are members of NAMBLA, is that unethical?

Doesn't NAMBLA support criminal activity? We seemed to have stopped talking about "difference of opinion" and gone to "criminal".

 

[Senser81]

Doesn't NAMBLA support criminal activity? We seemed to have stopped talking about "difference of opinion" and gone to "criminal".

So now the terms "unethical" and "criminal" are interchangeable?

 

[bucky]

I thought it was the exact opposite which had gotten our country in trouble...the non-oppression/acceptance of hateful opinions.

What gets our country into trouble is ignoring what belief really is and taking our belief outside of it's ethical boundaries and legislating oppressive laws.

Is a religious person wrong for believing homosexuality is a sin? Prove they are wrong.
Is a gay person wrong for believing it is not a sin? Prove they are wrong.

Should we legislate what religions are allowed to belief just because we believe differently (outside of criminal beliefs)? Wouldn't that be in itself oppressive?

Why do we try to fight oppression with oppression? Doesn't that just seem to legitimize to the other sides that the oppression is OK?

Shouldn't we be supporting each others right to believe, while educating how wrong oppression is? Shouldn't we be, within respectful conversation, giving our views to the other side trying to build bridges toward a lasting resolution?

 

[bucky]

So now the terms "unethical" and "criminal" are interchangeable?

And exactly how did you come up with this? Wouldn't/shouldn't criminal be a subset of unethical? Caveat being that the laws that are in place are themselves ethical laws.

 

[Senser81]

Is a religious person wrong for believing homosexuality is a sin? Prove they are wrong.

How about the religious person proves they are right?

 

[NAHSTE]

And the employee would be ethically wrong. What you are talking about is selective oppression over opinion based issues. This is exactly what gets our country into trouble.

You are dumb as fuck. My opinion. If VSN signed my paychecks, and told me to stop saying that, I'd have no choice but to stop if I indeed wanted to keep receiving the checks.

 

[Senser81]

And exactly how did you come up with this? Wouldn't/shouldn't criminal be a subset of unethical? Caveat being that the laws that are in place are themselves ethical laws.

Because your issue with NAMBLA was its criminal element, not its lack of ethics.

 

[bucky]

So now the terms "unethical" and "criminal" are interchangeable?

Senser, one of the things I find really funny, sitting on the liberal/conservative fence, is that liberals are just as close minded on issues as conservatives, but they do it under the umbrella of open mindedness.