Matt Taylor probably works as a public official. And, even if he wasn't a public official, he is in the public eye by virtue of his position. You should provide data to show public policy and human resource criteria that support your argument for appropriate/inappropriate dress/attire.

Otherwise, what he was wearing was, inappropriate, knowing he would be exposed to national television or otherwise the public eye?

For example, provide data from a Sociological view that supports your view that the T-shirt was reasonable and appropriate for the venue. Acting reasonable requires treating like cases likely; different cases differently. Thus, if one attends a black tie event with a t-shirt; if one attends a wedding with soiled clothing, if one forgets to insert their false teeth giving a speech to the public, if one wears a speedo with a Harley jacket to the beach, ad nauseum.

As I said, in the case of the astronomer Matt Taylor, it's actually irresponsible, for a trained professional to act unprofessional by wearing a sexually charged t-shirt in the given context. If the dude wanted to just wear a t-shirt, why didn't it relate to his profession, like a shirt with the Solar system/planet's on it or something??

About the question of hypocrisy, are you saying you are unable to answer the question about politicizing climate change science?

tick-toc-tick-toc

My point is that he can pick and choose what attire he deems appropriate, and it is neither up to me or you to do it for him. Your frigidity around clothing is direct evidence not of Taylor’s irresponsibility, but of your own opinion, nothing more. And given that he landed a spacecraft on a comet despite the shirt renders your opinion moot.

No he can't, if it's not in his employer's dress code job description. Otherwise it's common sense- reasonableness as to the appropriateness.

The dude obviously did something bone headed that's why in part he cried and apologized.

Put a quarter in and try again LOL!

Oh BTW, I'm still awaiting for you to resolve your 'hypocritical paradox' on climate change science. Let us know when you're brave enough to tackle that one!

Tick-toc-tick-toc

No he can't, if it's not in his employer's dress code job description. Otherwise it's common sense- reasonableness as to the appropriateness.

He can and he did, and landed a spacecraft on the nucleus of a comet while doing so. While you shush him and wag your finger he’s advancing the world forward. That’s why this sort of political correctness is laughable.

I’m open to all climate science. What I’m not open to is the intolerance and bigotry towards sceptics of it.

Your argument is like saying vigilantism. should be endorsed and made legal. In other words, you don't care about the means, just the end.

Try that working for government and you'll soon be out of a job my friend. Your so-called idealism might work in the private sector, but when you are a public servant, many things require PC.

Like I say, it's common sense human resource stuff. Work for a big global corporation and you better adhere to their PC. What don't you get about that?

Meaning, his lack of consistent credibility has greatly diminished the impact of his argument. — 3017amen

Many, if not most, people on this forum lack consistent credibility (including Baden and yourself) which has greatly diminished the impact of their arguments across the board. Meaning, you have both said things that are inconsistent across many different threads because it is difficult to integrate all of your knowledge together into a consistent whole. You have both said things that are illogical, like using ad hominems because you don't like what someone is "ranting" about. Attack argument being made, not the person making it or some other argument that they haven't made (straw-manning).

I've already provided the answer to the question in the OP, so I don't see what else there is to "rant" about from either side - that is unless you want to go off-topic and talk about NOS4A2's "inconsistencies". Maybe you might want to start another thread on that because this thread isn't about that.

Please feel free to share my inconsistencies... ?

I'm happy to stand corrected.

It seems to me that you have politicized his OP. — Harry Hindu

So political correctness isn't political or what? I'm not sure what you mean.

Your argument is like saying vigilantism. should be endorsed and made legal. In other words, you don't care about the means, just the end.

Try that working for government and you'll soon be out of a job my friend. Your so-called idealism might work in the private sector, but when you are a public servant, many things require PC.

Like I say, it's common sense human resource stuff. Work for a big global corporation and you better adhere to their PC. What don't you get about that?

Vigilantism should be made legal? I’ve made nothing close to that argument. In other words, you don’t care to properly represent your opponent’s argument.

So political correctness isn't political or what? I'm not sure what you mean. — ssu

There nothing that is political that is correct. Science determines what is correct.

There is ethics, you know. Science doesn't anything about what would be ethically right or wrong.

Science also doesn't answer normative questions. Objectivity isn't a cure for everything.

There is no objective morality. What is right or wrong for you isn't necessarily the same for me. Any ethical standards we might agree on will be based on us being members of the same species and or culture.

There is no objective morality. What is right or wrong for you isn't necessarily the same for me. Any ethical standards we might agree on will be based on us being members of the same species and or culture. — Harry Hindu

Oh I agree totally with you, Harry.

Yet we have to answer questions about ethics. Even if we cannot escape our subjectivity, the questions are many times very important and leaving them unanswered is a choice that can have serious consequences. Many times we have to answer political (and ethical) questions even if we wouldn't want to.

When NOS4A2 talks about political correctness, we cannot avoid the political aspect of it. That's my point.

Yet we have to answer questions about ethics. Even if we cannot escape our subjectivity, the questions are many times very important and leaving them unanswered is a choice that can have serious consequences. Many times we have to answer political (and ethical) questions even if we wouldn't want to. — ssu

Right. Since its subjective, the answers will be subjective. Search yourself, not this forum, for the answers to your political / ethical questions, and don't bother posting your answers because they will only be applicable to you.

When political correctness is brought up it is usually to point out where politics is putting its nose into business it shouldn't.

IOW according to a different political correctness set of values.

Search yourself, not this forum, for the answers to your political / ethical questions, and don't bother posting your answers because they will only be applicable to you. — Harry Hindu

Oh to just me?

And you have the correc / true subjective point of view or what?

Or moral ethics isn't worth a debate in PF? That your line?

If your answers were applicable to others, then they wouldn't be subjective. I thought you agreed that there isn't an objective morality?

What makes you think any ethical/political answers you have would be applicable to anyone else?

How do you know anything about me to know that what is good for you is good for me?

I rarely participate in ethical or political debates because there are no objective answers. Why would I be interested in answers that only work for you (ethical - subjective)? If they work for me and others, then the answers are more about the world (scientific - being the same species (sociobiology) and members of the same culture and environment (geography) - objective), and not just about you.