RE: [BDSM-LegalIssues] You did, didn't you, say the following, 'tongue in cheek', RIGHT? WAS: Re: New b
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cadenas_sd
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:34 AM
> It would really behoove you to actually read what others post!
LOL!
> We've already had a few people post of their own ACTUAL
> careers destroyed. You just choose to ignore it and claim
> that it is hypothetical.
Two examples were offered: one followed an ACTUAL CONVICTION, the other was
the male head teacher wearing vinyl hot pants in an area known to be
frequented by prostitutes.
The first isn't relevant to your rants about unjust arrests, because it
involved a conviction, the second flies in the face of the morals (and
common sense) clause of the (religious) school.
> I, and a couple other people, already posted suggested
> solutions. You just choose to dismiss them - and then turn
> around and claim that we didn't propose any solution.
Ah, again, your comprehension abilities seem to be failing you.
You (and anyone else) offered no solution that could be codified. Your
approach is utterly meaningless (not to mention unjust): permit an employer
to discharge the arrested person after some kind of an investigation, which
I presume YOU won't be paying for. But as you trumpted a while ago, you
aren't terribly interested in the thoroughness of the investigation, and you
seem incapable of grasping that absent standards for _that_, all you're
doing is imposing cost on employers with no benefit to anyone.
> And you continually argue the current status quo, even though
> there is no debate about what the status quo is.
Yet you continually fail to notice that the problem you whine about just
doesn't seem to have victims.
The reason for that may well be that THE STATUS QUO WORKS. Hence the
relevance.
> These are just a few examples.
How's your dictionary?
> You also continously change what you claim to be arguing. How
> about, you stick to a position!
Ah, no. What changes is your distortions and misrepresentations of what I
wrote. See my previous response for an example of your games.
> Please stop building strawmen and distorting what everybody
> else is saying!
Get off you high horse. And stop pretending you speak for "everybody".
Your entire thesis is based on straw man arguments (due in large part to the
absence of victims and the reality of what people have been telling you),
and by ignoring or misrepresenting positions.
Case in point: Leigha Fleming's post that start your ranting explicitly
noted that they considered the circumstances of the situation, i.e. that it
wasn't the automatic policy that you want so badly to believe it is.
Malc.
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
2:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home