Kolya on 16/12/2017 at 23:37
Quote Posted by Starker
While a company cannot fire you without proof (such as testimony from your colleagues), nobody is obligated to hire you or to renew your contract.
I think by this point you can decide yourself if them basing this decision on uncorroborated statements is a good thing.
SubJeff on 16/12/2017 at 23:39
Quote Posted by Starker
Finally, neither I nor anyone else in this thread has suggested that the accusers should be blindly believed. All anyone has asked is that they should be taken seriously.
Time for a reread. You're wrong
Starker on 16/12/2017 at 23:41
If multiple unrelated women accuse someone of masturbating in front of them, yeah, I think that's a pretty good sign to not hire that guy.
Kolya on 16/12/2017 at 23:41
Quote Posted by Starker
But that's the point. We are not in a court of law. These are examples of how we don't live our lives as if we were in a courtroom.
The point I'm making is that we should, because the moral principles apply whether a judge is present or not.
Starker on 16/12/2017 at 23:42
So, let's take the babysitter example. If several people told you that a babysitter has mistreated their children, would you hire that babysitter? Moreover, if you did hire them, would you treat them as if they were innocent and not check up on them?
Starker on 16/12/2017 at 23:57
Also, the court is not necessarily the place where the morality of things like these is decided. You can make decisions and form opinions yourself based on the evidence available to you. For an extreme example, if you saw someone murder a person, you do not have to wait for a verdict to consider them a murderer. And OJ Simpson may have been found not guilty, but that doesn't mean you're morally wrong if you are convinced of his guilt despite what was decided in court.
Courts are what we rely on for arbitration and judicial decisions and punishments, not for how we should live our lives or what to think.
icemann on 17/12/2017 at 00:20
A good example you give there. Word of mouth and TV reporting gave the slant that he was guilty despite the actual evidence not corroborating that, but by public opinion he was guilty. But was he?
Starker on 17/12/2017 at 00:40
Or maybe he wasn't guilty until the civil trial and was guilty after that? The same evidence can lead to different conclusions. In criminal court, the evidence was deemed to be not sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, the evidence was enough. And every person can look up the evidence presented and make up their own mind based on that.
bjack on 17/12/2017 at 02:18
It seems there is some disagreement here based upon cultural and national norms. It is in fact a crime in the USA to whip it out and fap away in front of someone - at least in a public space (i.e. a store, movie theatre, under a bridge, in an alley, etc.) If you invite someone into your office, then whip it out, then you have likely violated a corporate or company policy (albeit not a state violation, just a contractual one). If a woman follows you to your home, enters, and then you whip it out and she is not happy with that? She should just leave. If the guy tries to stop her with force or coercion, that is different matter. However, if you "nude up” in your own home in front of someone, you have not committed any crime. If they try to leave and you stop them, that is a potential crime, depending on the severity of the “stop". Then again, you may work for a company that has a moral terpitude clause, so you may have to answer for your actions at a civil level.
In the USA, it is illegal to grab “tits” intentionally without consent. It gets very grey here... That consent can be non-verbal and worse yet misinterpreted. “Oh Maude... I so wish to squeeze your ample womanhood!” In her eyes he viewed a big YES! So he went for it. Little did he know, Maude really wanted him to fondle another womanly part and was offended he misinterpreted her non-verbal queues. She got pissed off and decided to report him to the local authorities as a masher. Oh yes, alcohol was involved... quite a great deal of it. Maybe even a little green.
As for “innocent until proven guilty”... That is not universal for all the “free world”. Check out the countries and one state that still use the Napoleonic Code (France, Louisiana, etc.) - at least in part. Back in the 80s going to college, I took a course on Fascism, Communism, and Democracy. The professor asked the class what are some of the features of a democracy. I proudly answered, “Innocent until proven guilty!” I was shot down like a WWII German fighter over the English channel. IUPG is shared by more “free” societies, but it is not a prerequisite to being a democratic/republican society.
nickie on 17/12/2017 at 12:17
Quote Posted by faetal
. . . I barely come to CommChat anymore . . .
More's the pity. CommChat is the poorer for it.
