Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[Emily Lake]

Hypothetical: So you've hired one Nazi and two Nazi collaborators at a small family-owned business that prepares and serves food to the general public, to include minorities.

What does your business continuity plan look like?

What types of events and disasters have you planned for? Are you mitigating them to acceptable levels? Are you eliminating them?

Show you work.

This is genuinely an absurd line of reasoning. But sure, let me play along.

1) So I've hired a Nazi and two "collaborators". How exactly do you imagine that I know they're Nazis & Friends? Seriously - how do I know this to be true?

2) My business continuity plan at a small family-owned restaurant is likely to consist of insurance for the building, it's inventory, vendor relationships, and payroll continuity. Let's be realistic - small family-owned restaurants aren't critical components of an economic infrastructure that have material impacts on the region if they experience a disaster.

3) What you *should* be asking, but clearly aren't due to the grandiose hyperbolization of your argument (and assuming that I somehow know without doubt or speculation that my employees are Nazis & Friends) ... is what are my liability plans. Those, if you're interested, include liability insurance including coverage for the potential of food-borne illness as well as injury for myself, my employees, and my customers. I would also have a reasonable employee handbook that outlines expected behavior from my staff. The expectation that my staff will not engage in illegal or criminal activity during work hours or while on premises is a fairly boiler-plate bit of language.

It might be worth noting that a person's beliefs are neither illegal nor criminal, no matter how odious those beliefs are. They're actions, however, are fully subject to legal action... regardless of what their belief or motivation for such action is.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nazism is belief in actions that they will commit to when allowed by circumstance. It's not like a belief in Buddha or a belief that the sky is red. It's an ACTIONABLE belief system. So, if a Nazi can get away with killing or hurting a minority, the probability is strong that they will do so. Some Nazis of course also don't gas all the minorities, they might just be cogs in the machine, making the gas and giving it to others. So, for example, a Nazi cook might not try directly to kill a black customer, but instead he might call his violent friends to show up at the restaurant and tail the black customers until they catch them and do what they will.

How often does this happen? I mean, if it's a case where every Nazi will take every opportunity to murder a minority (even though Nazis actually only care about Jewish people)... why aren't they pretty much all in jail now? I mean, seriously - it seems like there should be murders in the streets all the time if that's the defining characteristic of their belief. Are most Nazis just not very good Nazis, since they don't take every possible opportunity to kill minorities? And if they're bad Nazis, who don't take every opportunity to kill minorities, does it still make sense to deny them employment and a huge swath of jobs? Or is this pre-emptive denial of employment based on what you BELIEVE they MIGHT do?

Does this policy extend to other people who hold violent beliefs? Does it extend to people who condone and support the bombing of abortion clinics? What if they're just devoutly pro-life and sincerely and zealously believe that abortion is murder?

Really, you can't not hire someone to a private restaurant with no govt contracting who is a serial killer who wants to kill your customers? Please show me the law that says that.

I am not forced to hire someone that I **KNOW** is a serial killer. If I **KNOW** a person is a serial killer, I should turn them in to the police.

This, however, is pretty much irrelevant. Wile it's certainly possible that some Nazis are serial killers, it's extraordinarily unlikely that all Nazis are serial killers. Using that as the basis for why Nazis should be denied employment is fallacious.

Not only are you not making sense, you are ascribing beliefs to me I did not state.

What the hell? I answered your question. It's not my fault you're fishing for something that doesn't follow, and doing a poor job of it, I might add.

As I already wrote and now I have to repeat for the interested reader, I am looking at this from a position of risk for specific jobs, not a global ban of Nazis from anything. So, let's look at risk. Risk is a convolution of probability and severity. Severity in this case could be trying to poison all the Jewish customers or minority customers. Or calling one's friends to give info about minority customers. Or spitting and pooping in the food of minorities. Or something as little as anti-social behaviors and not working well with others. Probability in this case would be small for someone trying to kill all the minorities, but overall the risk assessment is not acceptable for this job function.

Lol. That's just beyond absurd. The exact same argument holds just as well for a host of other ideologies and beliefs. A muslim person *might* poison all the infidels at a restaurant. A pro-lifer *might* call their friends to give them info to harm a customer they found out was planning an abortion. A mentally unstable person *might* poop in the food of people with red hair because they believe gingers have no souls and should all be ushered into hell at the earliest possible opportunity.

Should a Nazi be a lifeguard in a black community? Nope, not that either. How about a wood worker in a white community? Sure. Someone boxing shelves in the back of a grocery store with no or little risk to customers? Sure.

Again, this is the same thing as saying a pedophile should not work at a daycare center. It's an analysis of risk for specific conditions.

No, this is incorrect. A known and convicted pedophile is legally precluded from working at a daycare center.
They have committed a crime and been convicted of it. Read that again: THEY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME.
You are conflating a person's belief with a crime. Read that again: YOU ARE CONFLATING A BELIEF WITH A CRIME.
You are imposing a pre-emptive penalty on a set of people based on something they might do, but have not actually done. Read that again: You are imposing a PRE-EMPTIVE PENALTY on a SET OF PEOPLE based on something they MIGHT do, but have NOT ACTUALLY DONE.

Now, you never addressed that and dodged it, so you are not using that as an analogy while still ascribing to me a position I do not have of a blanket ban against Nazis from employment.

No, you don't. You just seem to support actively discriminating against a group of people, and directly infringing on their civil liberties, on the basis of something they have not done but have the potential to do, because you seem to have decided that their belief is equivalent to a crime.

Finally, I will add that you're still dodging every single analogy. Now, it's that you'll call the police on serial killers...but not addressing the issue of pedophiles. So, what if it's a serial killer who used to kill little girls and got out of prison after 60 years? Are you going to hire him to be your girls' soccer coach?

I'm not dodging your analogies. They're stupid and hyperbolic analogies that don't merit responses, are not apt, and are nothing more than transparent attempts to lead me down the path of your bad logic.

 

[prideandfall]

You just seem to support actively discriminating against a group of people, and directly infringing on their civil liberties, on the basis of something they have not done but have the stated intention to do, because you seem to have noticed that their belief is expressly declaring the intention to commit a crime.

fixed that for you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You just seem to support actively discriminating against a group of people, and directly infringing on their civil liberties, on the basis of something they have not done but have the stated intention to do, because you seem to have noticed that their belief is expressly declaring the intention to commit a crime.

fixed that for you.

Good catch. I don't know why Emily Lake is being so defensive. She is perfectly in her right to defend the downtrodden nazi's in America. And her self carved pedestal, that she does it from, looks wonderful!

 

[whichphilosophy]

How often does this happen? I mean, if it's a case where every Nazi will take every opportunity to murder a minority (even though Nazis actually only care about Jewish people)... why aren't they pretty much all in jail now? I mean, seriously - it seems like there should be murders in the streets all the time if that's the defining characteristic of their belief. Are most Nazis just not very good Nazis, since they don't take every possible opportunity to kill minorities? And if they're bad Nazis, who don't take every opportunity to kill minorities, does it still make sense to deny them employment and a huge swath of jobs? Or is this pre-emptive denial of employment based on what you BELIEVE they MIGHT do?

Does this policy extend to other people who hold violent beliefs? Does it extend to people who condone and support the bombing of abortion clinics? What if they're just devoutly pro-life and sincerely and zealously believe that abortion is murder?

Really, you can't not hire someone to a private restaurant with no govt contracting who is a serial killer who wants to kill your customers? Please show me the law that says that.

I am not forced to hire someone that I **KNOW** is a serial killer. If I **KNOW** a person is a serial killer, I should turn them in to the police.

This, however, is pretty much irrelevant. Wile it's certainly possible that some Nazis are serial killers, it's extraordinarily unlikely that all Nazis are serial killers. Using that as the basis for why Nazis should be denied employment is fallacious.

Not only are you not making sense, you are ascribing beliefs to me I did not state.

What the hell? I answered your question. It's not my fault you're fishing for something that doesn't follow, and doing a poor job of it, I might add.

As I already wrote and now I have to repeat for the interested reader, I am looking at this from a position of risk for specific jobs, not a global ban of Nazis from anything. So, let's look at risk. Risk is a convolution of probability and severity. Severity in this case could be trying to poison all the Jewish customers or minority customers. Or calling one's friends to give info about minority customers. Or spitting and pooping in the food of minorities. Or something as little as anti-social behaviors and not working well with others. Probability in this case would be small for someone trying to kill all the minorities, but overall the risk assessment is not acceptable for this job function.

Lol. That's just beyond absurd. The exact same argument holds just as well for a host of other ideologies and beliefs. A muslim person *might* poison all the infidels at a restaurant. A pro-lifer *might* call their friends to give them info to harm a customer they found out was planning an abortion. A mentally unstable person *might* poop in the food of people with red hair because they believe gingers have no souls and should all be ushered into hell at the earliest possible opportunity.

Should a Nazi be a lifeguard in a black community? Nope, not that either. How about a wood worker in a white community? Sure. Someone boxing shelves in the back of a grocery store with no or little risk to customers? Sure.

Again, this is the same thing as saying a pedophile should not work at a daycare center. It's an analysis of risk for specific conditions.

No, this is incorrect. A known and convicted pedophile is legally precluded from working at a daycare center.
They have committed a crime and been convicted of it. Read that again: THEY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME.
You are conflating a person's belief with a crime. Read that again: YOU ARE CONFLATING A BELIEF WITH A CRIME.
You are imposing a pre-emptive penalty on a set of people based on something they might do, but have not actually done. Read that again: You are imposing a PRE-EMPTIVE PENALTY on a SET OF PEOPLE based on something they MIGHT do, but have NOT ACTUALLY DONE.

Now, you never addressed that and dodged it, so you are not using that as an analogy while still ascribing to me a position I do not have of a blanket ban against Nazis from employment.

No, you don't. You just seem to support actively discriminating against a group of people, and directly infringing on their civil liberties, on the basis of something they have not done but have the potential to do, because you seem to have decided that their belief is equivalent to a crime.

Finally, I will add that you're still dodging every single analogy. Now, it's that you'll call the police on serial killers...but not addressing the issue of pedophiles. So, what if it's a serial killer who used to kill little girls and got out of prison after 60 years? Are you going to hire him to be your girls' soccer coach?

I'm not dodging your analogies. They're stupid and hyperbolic analogies that don't merit responses, are not apt, and are nothing more than transparent attempts to lead me down the path of your bad logic.

If the Nazi committed a crime the owner would most likely fire him.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You just seem to support actively discriminating against a group of people, and directly infringing on their civil liberties, on the basis of something they have not done but have the stated intention to do, because you seem to have noticed that their belief is expressly declaring the intention to commit a crime.

fixed that for you.

Good catch. I don't know why Emily Lake is being so defensive. She is perfectly in her right to defend the downtrodden nazi's in America. And her self carved pedestal, that she does it from, looks wonderful!

In certain cases (conspiracy) but applying literally there wouldn't be enough room to fit thousands of drunks making threats into the cells.

 

[Emily Lake]

You just seem to support actively discriminating against a group of people, and directly infringing on their civil liberties, on the basis of something they have not done but have the stated intention to do, because you seem to have noticed that their belief is expressly declaring the intention to commit a crime.

fixed that for you.

Sure, if you wish. And you know, those darned Christians have a faith that states their intention to stone to death adulterers and witches too - clearly their belief is expressly declaring their intention to commit a crime.

As an aside, if you edit my words in the context of a "ftfy" style quote, please highlight the part that you've edited. That's just common courtesy.

- - - Updated - - -

You just seem to support actively discriminating against a group of people, and directly infringing on their civil liberties, on the basis of something they have not done but have the stated intention to do, because you seem to have noticed that their belief is expressly declaring the intention to commit a crime.

fixed that for you.

Good catch. I don't know why Emily Lake is being so defensive. She is perfectly in her right to defend the downtrodden nazi's in America. And her self carved pedestal, that she does it from, looks wonderful!

And you're perfectly within your rights to advocate for denying other citizens of their rights. Isn't it nice that freedom of speech and belief are so well protected in the US?

- - - Updated - - -

If the Nazi committed a crime the owner would most likely fire him.

One would hope that if an employee committed a crime, the owner would fire them regardless of that person's politics or beliefs. And preferably support whoever pressed charges as a witness.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Such a shiny pedestal. And so high. Might explain why you can't see much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

No, you don't. You just seem to support actively discriminating against a group of people, and directly infringing on their civil liberties, on the basis of something they have not done but have the potential to do, because you seem to have decided that their belief is equivalent to a crime.

Civil liberties usual refer to right that government cannot deny or interfere with:

Civil liberties or personal freedoms are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation, without due process. Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.

( Civil_liberties). No one in this thread is arguing for gov't interference. By chance do you mean civil rights?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, you don't. You just seem to support actively discriminating against a group of people, and directly infringing on their civil liberties, on the basis of something they have not done but have the potential to do, because you seem to have decided that their belief is equivalent to a crime.

Civil liberties usual refer to right that government cannot deny or interfere with:

Civil liberties or personal freedoms are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation, without due process. Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.

( Civil_liberties). No one in this thread is arguing for gov't interference. By chance do you mean civil rights?

I will just add for now...because I don't have much time...that her call to some kind of liberty negates the rights of small business owners such as the restaurant owners to hire or fire whom they like with just cause because such cause may be that employing such person may be harmful to customers and other workers.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sure, if you wish. And you know, those darned Christians have a faith that states their intention to stone to death adulterers and witches too - clearly their belief is expressly declaring their intention to commit a crime.

As an aside, if you edit my words in the context of a "ftfy" style quote, please highlight the part that you've edited. That's just common courtesy.

- - - Updated - - -

You just seem to support actively discriminating against a group of people, and directly infringing on their civil liberties, on the basis of something they have not done but have the stated intention to do, because you seem to have noticed that their belief is expressly declaring the intention to commit a crime.

fixed that for you.

Good catch. I don't know why Emily Lake is being so defensive. She is perfectly in her right to defend the downtrodden nazi's in America. And her self carved pedestal, that she does it from, looks wonderful!

And you're perfectly within your rights to advocate for denying other citizens of their rights. Isn't it nice that freedom of speech and belief are so well protected in the US?

- - - Updated - - -

If the Nazi committed a crime the owner would most likely fire him.

One would hope that if an employee committed a crime, the owner would fire them regardless of that person's politics or beliefs. And preferably support whoever pressed charges as a witness.

Your last point makes sense but some may wait until the trial finishes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hypothetical: So you've hired one Nazi and two Nazi collaborators at a small family-owned business that prepares and serves food to the general public, to include minorities.

What does your business continuity plan look like?

What types of events and disasters have you planned for? Are you mitigating them to acceptable levels? Are you eliminating them?

Show you work.

This is genuinely an absurd line of reasoning.

No, it is a hypothetical. Your line of reasoning that a small family owned business preparing and serving food to the public including minorities has no freedom to decide if hiring Nazis is too risky for the business is absurd. As already stated, there is a clear, non-ideological, objectively assessed risk that Nazis pose to other workers, to customers, and to the business strategy. Some of the risks would include things I have already written such as anti-social behavior with other workers but also less probable events such as poisoning minority customers, imprisoning them in the basement, stealing money for the Nazi cause, calling other Nazis to tail customers and take them out...the list goes on...

But sure, let me play along.

You actually aren't playing along with the hypothetical at all. You refuse to go through the mental exercise as an objective, open-minded person would when brainstorming possible (EVEN IMPROBABLE) events that having a Nazi and two Nazi collaborators working for a restaurant might induce. To continue, when given an analogy of hiring a pedophile to work at a small family owned daycare center, you choose not even to respond to the post. But it's the same concept.

1) So I've hired a Nazi and two "collaborators". How exactly do you imagine that I know they're Nazis & Friends? Seriously - how do I know this to be true?

Because the Nazi ran for political office in your town. He talked a lot about how he wanted other Nazis to be elected as well across the Rustbelt and Appalachia until they had enough political power to secede and then forcefully, violently purge any minorities in their new ethnostate who refused to leave. He also lives around the corner from your restaurant and since he's been working there for a year, you've also managed to hire his wife and her brother, two collaborators. People coming into the restaurant often make comments about the politician who everyone in New Carlisle, Ohio has heard of ever since he ran for office. He's been in the local paper many times, he also led an entire organization of people in Charlottesville, VA which was well publicized. He was leading people marching with torches yelling "THE JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US." Then, at that time, there was news coverage of him and an interview. Later, after all the local publicity, national publicity, there was another national publicity event in which the New York Times wrote an article about him saying he had great mid-Western manners your mother would be proud of, which is true when he's talking to white people he thinks he can generate sympathy from--he's a Nazi politician after all, trying desperately to make Nazism succeed when it's unpopular.

Also, when he took two days off--a Friday and Saturday, your busiest restaurant days to travel to Virginia and his wife and brother-in-law also either were off or told you he was in Virginia you knew. But if you didn't, then you found out after the article in the New York Times. So that's how you know.

2) My business continuity plan at a small family-owned restaurant is likely to consist of insurance for the building, it's inventory, vendor relationships, and payroll continuity. Let's be realistic - small family-owned restaurants aren't critical components of an economic infrastructure that have material impacts on the region if they experience a disaster.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with why businesses choose to draw up a business continuity plan. It doesn't matter if they impact the region at all. Businesses choose to draw up a business continuity plan to look at any type of risk, including improbable disasters and how to mitigate them. So, for example, businesses may look at a risk-scenario of an earthquake, someone hacking their computers, or terrorism for example--all unlikely events.

Now, besides all that, I did not write that a small business would necessarily write a business continuity plan. Nope, I did not write that at all. Most small businesses would NOT. Instead, I proposed a mental exercise of a hypothetical of what kinds of scenarios a small business would introduce into their business continuity plan if they chose to hire a Nazi and two Nazi collaborators. You completely failed to perform the mental exercise. This is like, what, the 7th dodge you've done in posting? I am ready to put you on ignore if you do it again.

3) What you *should* be asking, but clearly aren't due to the grandiose hyperbolization of your argument (and assuming that I somehow know without doubt or speculation that my employees are Nazis & Friends) ... is what are my liability plans. Those, if you're interested, include liability insurance including coverage for the potential of food-borne illness as well as injury for myself, my employees, and my customers. I would also have a reasonable employee handbook that outlines expected behavior from my staff. The expectation that my staff will not engage in illegal or criminal activity during work hours or while on premises is a fairly boiler-plate bit of language.

No, I shouldn't be asking that because that is obvious and also it is not mutually exclusive to a business continuity plan. So, you still haven't done the mental exercise. Instead, you're coming up with excuses to avoid it. You do not even want to consider listing out the risks associated with hiring a Nazi and two Nazi collaborators.

It might be worth noting that a person's beliefs are neither illegal nor criminal, no matter how odious those beliefs are. They're actions, however, are fully subject to legal action... regardless of what their belief or motivation for such action is.

Nazis believe in criminal behavior. It is a risk to hire them for particular jobs and in particular contexts. As a business owner you are legally and MORALLY responsible if you hire them. So, if you knew they might poison food of Jewish customers and it happens, you are responsible morally. You can consider how liability insurance may or may not cover you for that specific instance (and it might not if you chose to hire a Nazi and two Nazi collaborators) but you'd still be morally responsible.

Moreover, food poisoning is one scenario you would want to examine in your business continuity plan that you refused to engage in. What you may have done in this mental exercise is actually chosen to not put Nazis in charge of preparing or serving food in order to mitigate the risk of food poisoning. Instead, you chose to not mitigate any risk at all and just deal with it through insurance which might not even work. Irresponsible and immoral and reckless to your business.

That is like hiring a pedophile to work in a daycare center. You could have chosen to analyze all the risks and based on objective risk assessments decided it was at an unacceptable level to hire him/her. Or based on defined risks, you could choose ways to mitigate the risks by not having him/her work near the children and be supervised at all times, if that were feasible for your organization. Instead, you want to rely on liability insurance and an employee handbook, so if he/she molests 50 children after you knowingly hired him/her, you think you can cover molestation lawsuits. That sounds as reckless as the Catholic Church's strategy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...even though Nazis actually only care about Jewish people...

Evidence?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Again, this is the same thing as saying a pedophile should not work at a daycare center. It's an analysis of risk for specific conditions.

No, this is incorrect. A known and convicted pedophile is legally precluded from working at a daycare center.
They have committed a crime and been convicted of it. Read that again: THEY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME.
You are conflating a person's belief with a crime. Read that again: YOU ARE CONFLATING A BELIEF WITH A CRIME.
You are imposing a pre-emptive penalty on a set of people based on something they might do, but have not actually done. Read that again: You are imposing a PRE-EMPTIVE PENALTY on a SET OF PEOPLE based on something they MIGHT do, but have NOT ACTUALLY DONE.

No, you are incorrect. I did not write anything about a convicted pedophile--just pedophile. You are still dodging.

If you knew someone was a pedophile and you had the ability to hire them to a daycare, would you? [the ability to hire them precludes their being disallowed by law. so it is not part of the hypothetical].

Would you hire Michael Jackson or Roy Moore to work at a daycare center or work tutoring adolescents?

Also, it pays to point out to you yet again because you seem to be jumping all over the point, you do not have a constitutional right to get any job you want.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As I already wrote and now I have to repeat for the interested reader, I am looking at this from a position of risk for specific jobs, not a global ban of Nazis from anything. So, let's look at risk. Risk is a convolution of probability and severity. Severity in this case could be trying to poison all the Jewish customers or minority customers. Or calling one's friends to give info about minority customers. Or spitting and pooping in the food of minorities. Or something as little as anti-social behaviors and not working well with others. Probability in this case would be small for someone trying to kill all the minorities, but overall the risk assessment is not acceptable for this job function.

Lol. That's just beyond absurd. The exact same argument holds just as well for a host of other ideologies and beliefs. A muslim person *might* poison all the infidels at a restaurant. A pro-lifer *might* call their friends to give them info to harm a customer they found out was planning an abortion. A mentally unstable person *might* poop in the food of people with red hair because they believe gingers have no souls and should all be ushered into hell at the earliest possible opportunity.

I already addressed this. I would not hire a member of ISIS who believes in genocide of the Jews to work in a Jewish Community Center. Hiring Muslims who do not believe in genocide of other persons to work in a restaurant--probably okay. Hiring a person who has laid out intentions to kill children to bring them closer to Christ--to work in a day care center--also would not do. Hiring a terrorist bomber of abortion clinics to work in an abortion clinic--also would not do. Hiring a basic pro-lifer to work at a hospital, and giving them the choice not do certain tasks where there are other resources to do them--yes.

Finally, I will add that there are not laws in the U.S. about discrimination of Nazis even though you thought there were. You still haven't corrected yourself over that mistake. You still also keep drawing analogies to protected classes and anti-discrimination laws which are invalid analogies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...even though Nazis actually only care about Jewish people...

Evidence?

Well, she certainly isn't going to bring up the Holocaust because millions of others were executed as well.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...even though Nazis actually only care about Jewish people...

Evidence?

Well, she certainly isn't going to bring up the Holocaust because millions of others were executed as well.

I look forward to Emily Lake explaining that minor oversight.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, she certainly isn't going to bring up the Holocaust because millions of others were executed as well.

I look forward to Emily Lake explaining that minor oversight.

Could be interesting. I don't think Emily Lake is a holocaust denier.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I will add the following... laughing dog pointed out holocaust survivors may have ptsd around nazis. This specific case is representative of harm that hiring a Nazi may have to employees. So this is also a risk I would have to look at as a potential business owner. I would try to be responsible to my customers, my business strategy, and my employees.

1) Holocaust survivors are in their 80s now. While they should certainly be respected, they are not a core customer segment of most businesses.
2) They would have to actually KNOW that the person is a Nazi for them to experience ptsd. How would they know?
3) How do you know a person is a Nazi before you hire them? Is this a question that you ask during their interview? Do you ask about any other political ideology or belief system during your interview?

++++

4) Here's where you're engaging in special pleading: Survivors of the current middle-east conflict may have ptsd around people of middle-eastern descent. Survivors of 9-11 may have ptsd around people of middle-eastern descent. Do you support an argument that people of middle eastern descent shouldn't be allowed to hold jobs where they might trigger someone's ptsd?
5) Let's extend this special pleading just a tiny bit - it's not even very far... Survivors of sexual abuse may have ptsd around men in general... should men not be allowed to hold jobs where a woman might be exposed to them and experience ptsd?

You seem to have bolded the wrong part of my post and taken that off to la-la land while then trying desperately to create general rules from the specific claims of fact. What you actually should have bolded was this part "So this is also a risk I would have to look at..." In other words, it would be a factor in a part of a greater analysis...a fact to consider.

(1) I worked with a Holocaust survivor previously. If I were the hiring manager and I knew of a Nazi candidate, I might have a conversation with the Holocaust survivor--her name was Weronica--to get her feeling about it. Before doing that I'd also have some conversations with the management about hiring such person, relevant laws, and the company's core values--one of which included DIVERSITY. The company's headquarters in a European country, probably also banned the Nazi Party from their country--creating an instance where our U.S. laws are different than the laws in the headquarter's country. So, I'd have to make sure to talk to the right U.S. employees understanding U.S. law before making any decisions. If I had to hire such person, then I'd have to figure out how to mitigate any risk they may create because they're a Nazi.
(2) You get to know a person you work with. I am surprised you don't know that. Eventually, a Holocaust survivor may see a Nazi tattoo or a Heil Hitler symbol. Or when the Nazi hears that the potential victim is Jewish, Slavic, African American, they could get an earful. A lot of these Nazis are insane like the guy who ran over those people in Charlottesville and so it becomes quickly obvious they are Nazis by how they act. Here's an example of his telling behavior:

Fields was fascinated with Nazism, idolized Adolf Hitler, and had been singled out in the 9th grade by officials at the Randall K. Cooper high school in Union, Kentucky, for his "deeply held, radical" convictions on race, his former high school teacher Derek Weimer said Sunday.

Keegan McGrath, 18, who said he was roommates with Fields on a class trip to Europe in 2015, said Fields referred to Germany as "the Fatherland," had no interest in being in France, and refused to interact with the French.

"He just really laid on about the French being lower than us and inferior to us," McGrath told the AP on Monday.

McGrath challenged Fields on his beliefs, and the animosity between them grew so heated that it came to a boil at dinner on their second day. He said he went home after three or four days because he said he couldn't handle being in a room with Fields.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...elds-charlottesville-bail-20170814-story.html

(3) Normally, you don't know a person is a Nazi, but you might. If they come to an interview with a swastika on their forehead, it's a sign.

You might find out months later after they are working for you or years later if they try hard to keep it a secret.

(4) I am not engaging in special pleading. Being Middle Eastern is not evil. It's not the root cause for someone's trauma. The root cause is that someone else did something. That is very different from someone with the same evil ideology that caused the problem. What a bullshit comparison.

(5) Nazis are evil people. It is their own doing and they are responsible for their own actions any trauma they cause is their fault. Men generally are good people and not responsible for the trauma they could possibly trigger.

 

[Emily Lake]

Such a shiny pedestal. And so high. Might explain why you can't see much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You appear to have a lot of ad hominems, but not much substance. Would you care to keep the conversation on topic rather than engaging in insults?