[BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: Canadians begin to get it...
--- In BDSM-LegalIssues@
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cadenas_sd
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:18 PM
>
> > > But "being arrested" is a property of doing.
> >
> > No it is not. You are, again, asserting that being arrested
> > means being guilty of something.
>
> Where, precisely, have I asserted that?
OK. Let's recap.
You are saying "an arrest is a property of doing"
You are also saying that "an arrest does not mean guilt"
Therefore, the "doing" you are referring to is not an indication of
anything, either, unless you directly know what the "doing" is and can
evaluate it.
> What I *have* said, and what has obviously confused you, is that
> being arrested is evidence of something.
No, that's not what you said. You said it is evidence of doing (or
rather, "a property of doing" since you keep parsing words). In any
case, you never established what this "doing" (or now even more
vaguely, "something") is and how it is relevant if it is no indication
of guilt.
> > If you have evidence of
> > actual doing, you won't get an argument from me about
> > personnel decisions.
>
> You have evidence that law enforcement has probably cause to believe
> the doing occurred.
Which is, you have exactly nothing. You don't know what the "doing"
was, nor whether it is relevant, nor even whether it was just a case
of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Or, more on topic, whether it was just the act of a cop who doesn't
like what you do sexually.
> > Being arrested is a property of something happening to you.
>
> ... which something is established at the "probable cause" level.
Others have already debunked that assertion.
> And the solution to the latter category is that whole pesky thing
> called "leeway". If you can show that you are one of the (tiny
> proportion of) cases in the latter category, what employer is going
> to incur the cost of finding and training a replacement?
Pretty much every employer. Even more so because firing the employee
undercuts his very opportunity to even mount the kind of defense that
you demand.
It may have escaped you, but employers today treat employees as
disposable property.
Maybe you are independently wealthy and don't have to work for a
living. Else I'm sure you would not be talking about such things as if
they were just some abstract event.
> But the burden has to be on you, the employee (or potential
> employee) to provide that proof, not on someone else (e.g. the
> employer).
The burden should be the same as on anybody else: when a misfortune
happens, not to aggravate it.
Post message: BDSM-LegalIssues@onelist.com
Subscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: BDSM-LegalIssues-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/BDSM-LegalIssues
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
posted by Annja Sue at
2:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home