you factually proved that you dont know what AA/EO is and you factually proved when things supposedly happen to you or someone you know you ASSUMED it was because of AA/EO
your posts are a PERFECT example of the my point, no changing that fact at all
2.) if you say so but parts of them are factually untrue they way you say them and it further proves #1 right
3.) then you got nothing
4.) meaningless INFO
5.) links? facts? did you turn them in for breaking the law, how do you know?
quotas are factually ILLEGAL and against the law and NOT part of AA/EO thank you for further proving #1 rights
weird ive never encountered them ever and ive done recruiting for 3 different jobs on top of my normal job.
6.) if they do they are breaking the law and factually NOT following AA/EO again you keep proving my point
7.) again if true they broke the law and the factually not following AA/EO
maybe he lied to make you feel better
maybe this never happened
8.) no your perception tells the perfect story, it proves my point to a T.
THank you again for proving my point
unless one is a child, foreign (not understanding rights/freedom), misogynist or a bigot how does one ever convince themselves its ok
I feel bad for thier moms, sisters and daughters
The OP used the term "freedom." Freedom to hire and fire at will. I think you just like to see yourself typing or something.Of course we can. I just did, in fact. And giving employers total power of hiring and firing is not freedom, it's simply transferring power from employee to employer. I already addressed this earlier in the thread, but I can direct you to the post if you'd like.
No, I'm not "okay" with it. Just like I"m not "okay" with people dropping the "N" word. But I am okay with Freedom of Speech. Why is the concept so hard for you to grasp? The straw man you are fighting with doesn't even resemble me.But you're okay with a woman being fired if she refuses, correct?
Oh so now you are arguing morals. Who's morals? Yours? And if you think I feel differently you have serious reading comprehension issues.Because refusing sex is a moral decision. We already established you would prohibit an employer from being able to fire an employee for refusing to do something illegal. So now we're onto a moral discussion and there are very few things more offensive than an employer wielding sex as a form of control. At least, that's how I feel, you seem to feel differently.
It went right over your head didn't it?Uhh, I'm not the one who is advocating for complete and uninhibited power for the employer in regards to hiring and firing. You are.
I forgot how fun people like you can be.Ooh, you bolded AND italicized this...now you mean business....
Now you're talking about something completely different. What you are describing is stealing. What we were discussing was an employer deciding as to whether or not to employ someone. If you work and I don't pay you I'm stealing money you have earned. If I fire you I don't have to pay you because you no longer work for me. I don't know if you're reframing for the sake of argument or just being obtuse.So tell me, how far do you believe the freedom principle carries? For example, if I walk into your restaurant and eat your food, but decide your food tasted bad, can I just walk out without paying for it (or paying what I feel it's worth)? After all, you didn't earn my money, you provided me with a lousy meal. And I assume I'm right in believing you are completely okay with me telling everyone I know you served me food with maggots in it...after all, you believe in total freedom of speech, so a lie which costs you money shouldn't bother you at all.
I'm gonna start calling you Norma Rae Quixote.So how far does freedom extend?
Don't pretend that you have the right or the power to define what is true in my experience. To try to that discredits your character and credibility in this discussion. Until you can say and/ or prove something without the use degrading tactics, don't respond to me. I will not respond back if you pretend to have that authority. You have learned the liberal tactics of attack and lie to discredit those that don't share your view.
there you go that was easy, fact win againIn the United States, affirmative action refers to equal opportunity employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of "color, religion, sex, or national origin".
Further impetus is a desire to ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve. Affirmative action is a subject of controversy. Some policies adopted as (meaning not actually)affirmative action, such as racial quotas or gender quotas for collegiate admission, have been criticized as a form of reverse discrimination, and such implementation of affirmative action has been ruled unconstitutional by the majority opinion of Gratz v. Bollinger.
2.) didnt do that so please stop with the strawmen
I only said some of the things you posted are factually wrong and that is true
3.) good thing it factually never happened so im good
4.) already did FACTS prove your posts wrong and the definition of what AA/EE is proves your posts wrong.
ALL THE COURT CASES prove your posts wrong
5.) never did only presented the fact that prove your post wrong
6.) another failed strawman and HUGELY hypocritical. You just posted lies and made up a story saying that i did something that i didnt then you turned around and did the same thing you accuse me of with your last line and grouping all liberal s together which im not one lol
wow, facts prove you wrong, your posts prove my point and facts also show your posts are dishonest and hypocritical.
also, i wasting giving you my opinion this is where you biggest mistake is, what we were discussion involves FACTS, rights and laws and thats not opinion and they all prove parts your posts factually wrong. Deflecting wont change this neither will running away, facts will be the same tomorrow as they are today and i accept your concession.
As long as employees can fire their bosses, i'm ok with this.
(and btw - women bosses sometimes exploit their underling's for sex/companionship)
1) ex·ploit transitive verb \ik-ˈsplȯit, ˈek-ˌ\It's also called providing for her family. It's called allowing her the dignity of the job without the indignity of having to keep it by being sexually exploited. I find it amazing people are okay with someone being fired because they refuse to have sex with their boss.
: to get value or use from (something)
: to use (someone or something) in a way that helps you unfairly
If she did not have sex with him, then she was not sexually exploited - he 'only' attempted to sexually exploit her.
2) Which internationally respected, human rights organization (like the U.N.) states that a private employer owes ANYONE a job? Or is responsible for another's dignity through employment?
The answer - to my knowledge - is none do.
This pig of a boss does not owe this woman a job.
If she does not like the terms of the job...then leave.
Last edited by DA60; 01-26-14 at 02:13 AM.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."