Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[laughing dog]

Not when I italicized it.

- - - Updated - - -

I was summarizing your position.
Your sentence in question is "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that." - is incoherent as written.

POTENTIALLY which is your modifier means possibly but not at that time a reality. So sharing his beliefs would or would not upset employees.

Thank you for the irrelevant grammar lesson.

It's relevant.

No, it is not. Your position is that firing a Nazi for scaring/traumatizing an employee is a no-no, but it is okay to fire a Nazi for sharing his/her beliefs that may or may not upset an employee. Instead of directly dealing with that ridiculous stance, you engage in pointless pedantry about the implication of the word "potential". The pedantry was irrelevant, and your responses are irrelevant.

That's not what I said

Yes it is what you wrote.

firing a Nazi for scaring/traumatizing an employee is a likelihood depending on what was done. As for sharing beliefs that is a likelihood depending on what was done.

In the former case, you said no to firing and in the latter case you said yes to firing.

Potential can infer maybe. Maybe can mean maybe not.

Your pedantry is irrelevant.

 

[Elixir]

Your pedantry is irrelevant.

You forgot to mention "stupid".

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not when I italicized it.

- - - Updated - - -

I was summarizing your position.
Your sentence in question is "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that." - is incoherent as written.

POTENTIALLY which is your modifier means possibly but not at that time a reality. So sharing his beliefs would or would not upset employees.

Thank you for the irrelevant grammar lesson.

It's relevant.

No, it is not. Your position is that firing a Nazi for scaring/traumatizing an employee is a no-no, but it is okay to fire a Nazi for sharing his/her beliefs that may or may not upset an employee. Instead of directly dealing with that ridiculous stance, you engage in pointless pedantry about the implication of the word "potential". The pedantry was irrelevant, and your responses are irrelevant.

That's not what I said

Yes it is what you wrote.

firing a Nazi for scaring/traumatizing an employee is a likelihood depending on what was done. As for sharing beliefs that is a likelihood depending on what was done.

In thpe former case, you said no to firing and in the latter case you said yes to firing.

Potential can infer maybe. Maybe can mean maybe not.

Your pedantry is irrelevant.

The interpretation of the meaning and intent of a word as decided in court of law or industrial tribunal can affect a decision.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Your pedantry is irrelevant.

You forgot to mention "stupid".

Small correction:you forgot to mention "stupid" brilliant.

 

[laughing dog]

The interpretation of the meaning and intent of a word as decided in court of law or industrial tribunal can affect a decision.

More boring and irrelevant pedantry. You are using pedantry to evade dealing with the inherent contradictions in your own ridiculous position.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The interpretation of the meaning and intent of a word as decided in court of law or industrial tribunal can affect a decision.

More boring and irrelevant pedantry. You are using pedantry to evade dealing with the inherent contradictions in your own ridiculous position.

There are no contradictions. Using your examples, a judgement can go either way in a case depending on the circumstances where potential has to be substantiated more than a person is a Nazi.

 

[laughing dog]

The interpretation of the meaning and intent of a word as decided in court of law or industrial tribunal can affect a decision.

More boring and irrelevant pedantry. You are using pedantry to evade dealing with the inherent contradictions in your own ridiculous position.

There are no contradictions. Using your examples, a judgement can go either way in a case depending on the circumstances where potential has to be substantiated more than a person is a Nazi.

Ahem, it was your example about sharing a blog. And you said the Nazi should be fired. There was no equivocation.. And in my example, you said the Nazi should not be fired - there was no equivocation.

So, either you have changed your position or you have no clue what you are doing or you are trolling.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There are no contradictions. Using your examples, a judgement can go either way in a case depending on the circumstances where potential has to be substantiated more than a person is a Nazi.

Ahem, it was your example about sharing a blog. And you said the Nazi should be fired. There was no equivocation.. And in my example, you said the Nazi should not be fired - there was no equivocation.

So, either you have changed your position or you have no clue what you are doing or you are trolling.

I don't recall blog. If a case is determined in a court it depends on more details than a one liner. Similar cases with different circumstances can have different judgments.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There are no contradictions. Using your examples, a judgement can go either way in a case depending on the circumstances where potential has to be substantiated more than a person is a Nazi.

Ahem, it was your example about sharing a blog. And you said the Nazi should be fired. There was no equivocation.. And in my example, you said the Nazi should not be fired - there was no equivocation.

So, either you have changed your position or you have no clue what you are doing or you are trolling.

Rousseau at #234 introduced starting a blog.

 

[laughing dog]

There are no contradictions. Using your examples, a judgement can go either way in a case depending on the circumstances where potential has to be substantiated more than a person is a Nazi.

Ahem, it was your example about sharing a blog. And you said the Nazi should be fired. There was no equivocation.. And in my example, you said the Nazi should not be fired - there was no equivocation.

So, either you have changed your position or you have no clue what you are doing or you are trolling.

Rousseau at #234 introduced starting a blog.

And you responded in #235. And your introduction of court adjudacation is irrelevant to the issue.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Rousseau at #234 introduced starting a blog.

And you responded in #235. And your introduction of court adjudacation is irrelevant to the issue.

My response was
By way of conduct at work as you mentioned could be a reason for dismissal.

This is not the same as should be.

Could is used to express conditional possibility or ability. When the conditions evident we can look at should be.

 

[laughing dog]

Rousseau at #234 introduced starting a blog.

And you responded in #235. And your introduction of court adjudacation is irrelevant to the issue.

My response was
By way of conduct at work as you mentioned could be a reason for dismissal.

This is not the same as should be.

Could is used to express conditional possibility or ability. When the conditions evident we can look at should be.

You can spin all you want. You denied that a Nazi should be fired for traumatizing either survivors of the Holocaust or their families, but you allowed for the firing in the case of blog.

 

[whichphilosophy]

My response was
By way of conduct at work as you mentioned could be a reason for dismissal.

This is not the same as should be.

Could is used to express conditional possibility or ability. When the conditions evident we can look at should be.

You can spin all you want. You denied that a Nazi should be fired for traumatizing either survivors of the Holocaust or their families, but you allowed for the firing in the case of blog.

This what actually said


We have freedom of thought and expression but conduct by way intimidation and violence isn’t included. The differences can apply to scenarios taking into account the circumstances. If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that.

Mein Kamph is legal giving anyone the chance to ridicule it. It’s even in Hebrew.

http://mein-kampf.yola Isite.com/#!

 

[laughing dog]

My response was
By way of conduct at work as you mentioned could be a reason for dismissal.

This is not the same as should be.

Could is used to express conditional possibility or ability. When the conditions evident we can look at should be.

You can spin all you want. You denied that a Nazi should be fired for traumatizing either survivors of the Holocaust or their families, but you allowed for the firing in the case of blog.

This what actually said


We have freedom of thought and expression but conduct by way intimidation and violence isn’t included. The differences can apply to scenarios taking into account the circumstances. If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that.

Mein Kamph is legal giving anyone the chance to ridicule it. It’s even in Hebrew.

http://mein-kampf.yola Isite.com/#!

Nope. Try #121 where you handwaved off the possibility of a Nazi traumatizing either a Holocaust survivor or the family of a holocaust victim and injected one of your favorite bogeymen - communists - to deflect from the actual content.

It is truly fascinating your willingness to minimize Nazis while trying to infect people with your abnormal fear of communists and Antifas.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This what actually said


We have freedom of thought and expression but conduct by way intimidation and violence isn’t included. The differences can apply to scenarios taking into account the circumstances. If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that.

Mein Kamph is legal giving anyone the chance to ridicule it. It’s even in Hebrew.

http://mein-kampf.yola Isite.com/#!

Nope. Try #121 where you handwaved off the possibility of a Nazi traumatizing either a Holocaust survivor or the family of a holocaust victim and injected one of your favorite bogeymen - communists - to deflect from the actual content.

It is truly fascinating your willingness to minimize Nazis while trying to infect people with your abnormal fear of communists and Antifas.

No. We have freedom of views. As I mentioned later it is conduct by the person not generally perception of the person that is incriminating. To modern ANTIFA anything right of Marx is a Nazi. By Marx, I think they really mean Groucho.

 

[laughing dog]

This what actually said


We have freedom of thought and expression but conduct by way intimidation and violence isn’t included. The differences can apply to scenarios taking into account the circumstances. If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that.

Mein Kamph is legal giving anyone the chance to ridicule it. It’s even in Hebrew.

http://mein-kampf.yola Isite.com/#!

Nope. Try #121 where you handwaved off the possibility of a Nazi traumatizing either a Holocaust survivor or the family of a holocaust victim and injected one of your favorite bogeymen - communists - to deflect from the actual content.

It is truly fascinating your willingness to minimize Nazis while trying to infect people with your abnormal fear of communists and Antifas.

No. We have freedom of views. As I mentioned later it is conduct by the person not generally perception of the person that is incriminating. To modern ANTIFA anything right of Marx is a Nazi. By Marx, I think they really mean Groucho.

What are you babbling about?

 

[repoman]

posted to wrong thread

 

[whichphilosophy]

No. We have freedom of views. As I mentioned later it is conduct by the person not generally perception of the person that is incriminating. To modern ANTIFA anything right of Marx is a Nazi. By Marx, I think they really mean Groucho.

What are you babbling about?

A lawyer can explain the first sentence to you.

 

[laughing dog]

No. We have freedom of views. As I mentioned later it is conduct by the person not generally perception of the person that is incriminating. To modern ANTIFA anything right of Marx is a Nazi. By Marx, I think they really mean Groucho.

What are you babbling about?

A lawyer can explain the first sentence to you.

The first sentence is No. I understand each sentence by itself. I also understand they have no relevance whatsoever. Put them together and add in the irrelevance, and you get babble.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A lawyer can explain the first sentence to you.

The first sentence is No. I understand each sentence by itself. I also understand they have no relevance whatsoever. Put them together and add in the irrelevance, and you get babble.

Do you understand " ..it is conduct by the person not generally perception of the person that is incriminating.