Comments

  • Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
    I worked for a US company for awhile with a US manager and once complimented his secretary (Dutch) on her dress. He called me over and said I couldn't say that to a woman. Since I was one of the three in-house attorneys I naturally lied about the standards in the Netherlands being medieval with regard to sexual harassment and avoided getting fired. — Benkei

    Being called aside is all that was going to happen even without your bogus excuse most likely. It's not like major corporations vest significant authority in middle management, nor can anyone do anything without following some tortuous process, including firing someone on the spot. If the woman formally complained, HR would investigate and then decide what to do to you, from being chastized, to being forced through sensitivity training, to being forced to wear the same dress and being ridiculed yourself so you'd know how she felt, to being terminated, although very very doubtful.

    Since you are struggling to understand American culture, to help you out, I would suggest a better line than the simple "that dress looks good on you," is you should say, "that dress looks good on you, but it would look better crumpled up on my bedroom floor. " That way she will know you simply like her dress wherever it is, and you are making no reference to her anatomy.

    Following my advice will assure you of a long successful career in the US. Thank me later.
  • Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
    But it's just so double standard. — Sapientia

    So what? That the person is entirely inconsistent from one thread to the next, is hypocritical, or whatever, hardly affects the truth value of any given statement.
  • The actual worth of an "intellectual"
    ↪Baden
    You’re a traveller with no history — Wayfarer

    This line strikes me as nonthematic and inconsistent. Someone in exile would be longing for home, the place of their historical roots. A stranger in a strange land must have come from somewhere. Such is the story of Exodus at least.

    Cool lyrics nonetheless, capturing the idea of seperatedness.
  • Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
    Boys will be boys. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/11/steven-seagal-accused-telling-actress-to-sit-on-his-face-in-1991.html
  • Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
    So, is calling others a cunt just banter and harmless fun? Or should I delete it all because it's offensive, bad conduct, and, as ProbablyTrue has said, "not just between two people, it's a whole room of people leaving open a whole room of interpretation"? — Michael

    In an office context, I wouldn't openly call someone a cunt. That's for lunch time fun.
  • The Last Word
    I have to believe that Mr. Embry and Mr. Riddle along with the Wright brothers studied the mechanics of birds in order to figure out how to fly, right? — ArguingWAristotleTiff
    https://youtu.be/8y3fIr4dVYE
  • Why can't I doubt that I am doubting?
    ↪guptanishank
    You can edit your own post and remove whatever you wish you hadn't said.
  • Why can't I doubt that I am doubting?
    Could you delete this comment please. — guptanishank

    Who are you talking to?
  • Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
    Besides, you have zero credibility when you talk about these matters, since you frequently and openly praise Donald Trump, recently saying that he's an inspiration to you. — Sapientia

    So what, once someone supports Trump you can forever attack whatever they say because of their association with an asshole? It's just so ad hom.
  • Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
    Having spent the better part of two decades in a professional environment in a major corporation, I can say that any direct comment about a woman's anatomy by a man would not be tolerated by anyone. The rules grow more strict as the disparity in position grows. A lawyer commenting on a secretary's anatomy is very off limits. A secretary commenting on a lawyer's anatomy would seem manipulative. Of course, not everyone abides by the rules.

    But to the point, bad conduct can be significantly limited by creating a culture where it's not accepted. There will be those who break the rules, but corporations are really good at self protection and eliminating hazards from within. Compliance officers, in addition to stifling all feelings of human worth, do serve a valuable service.

    The story of the guy commenting on the woman's breasts wouldn't have evoked laughter. It've evoked cringes and we'd all be waiting for HR to bust through the door.

    The appropriate way to present perverse sexual expression, both express and through thinly veiled innuendo, is by posting anonymously on philosophy websites where the mods let you get away with anything. Hell, I even know of one where they let you be a mod.
  • In the debate over guns I hear backtracking on universal human rights
    So, thankfully my government doesn't allow dangerous weapons to be widely available. — Baden

    But this can't be so, because Article 12 says:

    "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

    This makes direct reference to the law being the required protection against interferences with honor, reputation, and privacy, but Article 3 places no such limitation ("Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."). That is, where the drafters wished to declare that a person be protected by the government (i.e. "the law"), they said so. But in the sweeping declaration of the right to security of person, the drafters left it wide open, allowing you to protect yourself with whatever you have to give.

    And now that we've resorted to original intent (just to again make the point this document offers us no greater resolution of the matter), now let's look at historical context. It seems highly doubtful the framers wanted to suggest they wanted to gather up the citizens of the world's guns. That was not the sentiment in 1948 generally, and especially not of those who just suffered through the devastation of the world war. I'd suggest that if anyone were justified in clinging to their guns, it was those folks.

    What you need more than a clear document and a clever argument is a receptive tribunal.
  • In the debate over guns I hear backtracking on universal human rights
    I'm not saying that this is how it should be understood, only that there is alot more ambiguity here than what I think you're suggesting. Arguably, a large part of the gun debate turns upon just this contested notion of what 'security' ought to look like. — StreetlightX

    I agree with you, but my response to Baden is that slapping down this document as definitive proof that gun ownership is not a human right just doesn't work. It leaves us no better off than we were when we began, with both sides using a document to support their position, which, again, evokes another peculiar American institution, that of inherent legalistic ambiguity, where no argument is ever conceded because there is always suspected to be one tribunal somewhere that will endorse your argument and make it law. And, of course, that leads us to another American interpretational problem: who gets to decide? In America it's clear: only Americans, which is why international documents are never thought to have come from Mt. Sinai If you're American.

    And wasn't that at least part of Baden's clandestine agenda, to trump (I do so enjoy that word) the Constitution, to tell Americans it's not the final word when such an idea is known to be sacrilege to Americans?
  • In the debate over guns I hear backtracking on universal human rights
    ↪Baden
    Well, you present an odd response, suggesting that had the right to gun ownership been specifically declared a universal human right in 1948, then it would be, as if the document was gospel.

    But since you've bought into that ideosyncratically American way of hierarchical document interpretation where the highest one is treated like it came from Mt. Sinai, consider Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." This clause actually forms a personal basis for gun ownership clearer than the 2nd Amendment, as it's not complicated by the strange language of state militias. That is, this is a general right to protect against intruders, not just against the government. If I present a compelling argument that I cannot be safe without a gun, am I not entitled to one? I don't see anything in this document suggesting that these rights be limited if society is overall harmed. This document speaks in terms of absolute rights without regard to a general societal weighing test.

    And really, despite their dependence on the 2nd Amendment, isn't this what gun rights advocates are really arguing, not that they actually believe their handguns will resist a fully armored tank attack with air support? They want "security of person" from whoever might threaten it.

    I didn't support gun rights prior to your showing me this document. Thank you for this.
  • MeToo, or maybe Not
    I'd agree that the definition needs to be limited to actual cases of abuse. The first example you gave provided limited context. Was this man someone who exerted some influence over the women's' careers and they felt they couldn't leave without jeopardizing their careers, or was he just an odd guy that they humored until it got so disgusting they couldn't tolerate it any longer? Like all accusations, the devil is in the details. The second example was clearly not sexual abuse, but more just an understandably pissed off woman who perhaps was retaliating in an improper way by making false accusations.
  • The Last Word
    ↪ArguingWAristotleTiff
    I self censored my response because it had to do with the blood of the womb instead of water of the womb, and I've found from past discussions that jokes about menstrual blood have a fairly limited audience.
  • What pisses you off?
    When my mother in law's zebra chews gum. I'm like, are you going to chomp like a horse all day or are you going to do some work and she says "yes." I want to kick that ambiguous talking fucker in the nads, but girl zebras got none. Fortunately for her I'm a green man and I walk away.

    True story. Couldn't make this shit up if I wanted to.
  • What pisses you off?
    1. Chewing gum in a professional setting. The hate I silently feel is all consuming.
    2. If I ask multiple questions in an email and get a response to only some.
    3. Someone having their secretary call me and then asking that I wait for them to go get them so they can talk to me.
    4. Someone attempting to impose their OCD rules on me.
    5. Not texting me when you're going to be late
    6. Thinking your drunken humor is funny.
    7. Complaining at a restaurant with an expectation you'll get something for free.
    8. Using profane language in a public place.
    9. Deciding what I'll eat or when I'll eat lunch for me.

    I'm sure there's more.
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    All you are asking for is either silence or submission. — TimeLine

    Actually, no. I'm asking for feedback, but presenting it to the masses is having no beneficial effect, and romanticizing this as some sort of civil rights protest is immature at best. At best we have a customer who's unhappy with his service. The complaint has been heard and taken seriously, but standing on the table screaming your soup was cold isn't only inappropriate and disrespectful, it is more wrong than the wrong you seek to remedy.

    I lack the power to ban, but telling others to fuck off, despite how super duper justified you feel, would get you thrown out of my establishment 100% of the time despite all your other wonderful qualities.
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    Whatever I'm doing, it's not lurking. I'm not pissed off either. And I don't want to come back to the fold because I'm not a sheep. — unenlightened

    Again, fuck off with your 'romantic', your 'lurking'; it's ad hominem bollocks. — unenlightened

    I now realize you're a waste of time and regret having engaged.
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    Fuck you all therefore. Destruction is now necessarily what I am about. It will be my own destruction on this site no doubt, but that is no longer any great loss to me. — unenlightened

    If you're disgruntled to the point where you feel you offer nothing but poison, at least have the maturity to realize you offer nothing but mutual misery to yourself and this board and simply leave voluntarily. Keep in mind that this assessment is yours, not mine, but if you've observed something so unacceptable that you believe your integrity forbids respectful contribution, why remain? Will the blaze of glory of the termination you predict offer you great joy as opposed to your offering a simple tactful farewell?

    Don't misunderstand me though. I think you're dead wrong in your assessment of this board, its mods, your own ability to continue to contribute as a poster, and I believe your decision to resign as a mod was a loss to this site and was an unnecessary gesture to make us realize the extent of your objection to the way a prior poster was handled. Whatever you romanticized about the impact of your resignation has been lost by your now sniping on the sidelines with "fuck yous."

    You want constructive criticism? Stop being pissed off and come back into the fold. Despite your assessment of how bad we suck, I'd suggest you consider how many other boards have mods so tempered that they'd tolerate an ex-mod quitting and then lurking around and telling the others to fuck off.
  • We Need to Talk about Kevin
    I'm going to weigh in cuz why not?

    I'm of the opinion that public discussion of moderator activity serves no philosophical purpose, offers nothing but drama to the forum, and results in hostile interactions between posters. To the extent someone has an opinion about moderator action, he can share it privately with the moderator, but there is no added value to having the grievance aired for public debate. If Bob thinks I suck, Bob telling me may set me straight, but I really don't need to hear what Mike thinks of Bob's grievance.

    If my boss called me to the carpet for poor performance, I think it would be destructive for him to offer a public reprimand and then allow me a public reply and then to open it up to the floor for public debate.

    We're a philosophy forum, and it seems a stretch to suggest that philosophy includes hearty debate about forum rules. Or, put another way, if all the words in this thread were never spoken (including my own words), this forum would be a better place.
  • The Last Word
    ↪ArguingWAristotleTiff
    Brokeback Mountain female version?
  • Has 'the market' corrupted education?
    ↪Agustino
    If you're 18 and working your ass off making a small salary, you can sleep peacefully. If you're 48 and doing the same, you can't. Making rent and having a little beer money left over isn't enough at a certain point. Sounds like you're reminiscing about having little responsibility, not about having the chance to physically labor. If you do find physical labor therapeutic, you can work in your garden. I suppose that's why people do that.
  • The priest and the physicist
    What she probably would care about is whether a lay person believes her prediction that a certain observable physical event such as a hurricane will occur - because lives can depend on such a belief. — andrewk

    I agree with you in principle, but question the example. We're really bad at predicting hurricanes, including even predicting their path once formed.
  • The priest and the physicist
    ↪Meta
    Is it your position that quarks are a purely dogmatic creation, without empirical basis? I think you'd have to argue that if you wish to sustain your analogy that souls : people : : quarks : physical world.
  • The Last Word
    Fats Domino dead at 89. — Sir2u

    Since they seem to blame me for everything, if anyone asks, I was with you guys.
  • The Last Word
    One day when I retire, I hope to move to a large tree surrounded by trees where I can lie next to Hanover and play with his penis. — Sapientia

    While disturbing, I do admire honesty in all its forms, even where it involves homosexual acts with a person who enjoys mice play.
  • The divide between psychology and psychiatry
    If a parent dies and that results in depression, a number of conversations might relieve those symptoms. If you insist you're Jesus, you're not getting talked out of that.
  • Descartes Substance Dualism Argument from Imagination
    In esponse to the first premise, I don't think I can imagine that I have no body or spatial location. — Caoimhe

    I think that's correct, and I think Kant believed space must be assumed for the world to be coherent.
  • Femtography
    You posted an unclear OP, which generated an epistemological discussion. I'm not interfering in your conversation by talking to Banno and Fishfry about that, but you feel the need to interfere in my conversation with them.
  • Femtography
    ↪Hachem
    Ironic post. The topic of our side discussion is trying to decipher what the topic of the conversation was in the first place.

    In other words, clarify the OP and then you'll be in a more solid position to argue why the sidebar is unrelated to the OP.
  • Femtography
    ↪fishfry
    If Bob is murdered, we look first to those with motive (enemies, business partners, spouse), and we then look if opportunity existed (do they have an alibi). From there we take statements, interview witnesses, locate recordings, receipts, etc. and look at the physical evidence. If the proof is there, we convict him.

    The point being that motive and opportunity allows us to form a theory. The proof comes next. You can't conclude anything just because you have identified motive and opportunity.

    So, you think Cheney had motive and opportunity to blow up the twin towers. If from there you argue he must have done it without supporting evidence, a crackpot you are.
  • Femtography
    ↪Banno
    No, calling someone a crackpot is rude. Reading your various political positions and categorizing them correctly is true. Calling you conservative in order to try to alleviate the rudeness of having called you liberal would be strange irony.

    Of course, liberalism in the US is leftist, so maybe there's a communication break down down under.
  • Femtography
    ↪Banno
    Meh. You're a rank and file liberal. I am in fact eccentric, but that speaks to my sense of humor, not my rationality or my day to day living. I get that not everyone finds dark sexual absurdity funny. Pity.
  • Femtography
    This isn't complicated. If you have a reasonable basis to reject an account (including believing the source isn't credible), then you should reject it. You don't then get to make up something else.

    Not believing the official US 9/11 report and declaring that Cheney ordered the attacks are two different things and that I have to point that out indicates an irrational element in your reasoning.
  • Femtography
    ↪fishfry
    Yep, you're a crackpot under my definition.
  • Femtography
    ↪fishfry
    You greatly misstate my position. Questioning is not the same as arriving at unsupported and outlandish theories.
  • Femtography
    ↪Hachem
    I admit to having certain prejudices. Please tell me you're not Dutch.
  • Femtography
    ↪Hachem
    My criticism was that I didn't know what you were talking about and neither do you. I'm sure of the former, but I'll admit that the latter may be false because of the former, although I am sure the problem of the former lies with you.
  • Femtography
    To your questions, in order: No, no, yes, not really well, yes, no.

    Saying, I want a more comprehensive report about 9/11 is different than the crackpot conclusion that GW orchestrated it.

    Wanting reasonable allocations of money for investigations is reasonable . Wanting the same allocation of money for what you think was unreasonable for something that you think reasonable isn't reasonable. Unreasonable decisions ought not be used as binding precedent. If you insist that it should, you're unreasonable.
Home » Hanover