Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[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 what is meant by .. it is conduct by the person not generally perception of the person that is incriminating?

 

[LordKiran]

bleh delete

 

[laughing dog]

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 what is meant by .. it is conduct by the person not generally perception of the person that is incriminating?

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]

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

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.

So what does it mean to you?

 

[laughing dog]

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

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.

So what does it mean to you?

It means you are babbling again.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So what does it mean to you?

It means you are babbling again.

You said earlier
I understand each sentence by itself.
Is this not the case? Babble means that is difficult or impossible to understand:

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So what does it mean to you?

It means you are babbling again.

You said earlier
I understand each sentence by itself.
Is this not the case? Babble means that is difficult or impossible to understand:

verb (used without object), babbled, babbling.
1.
to utter sounds or words imperfectly, indistinctly, or without meaning.
2.
to talk idly, irrationally, excessively, or foolishly; chatter or prattle.
3.
to make a continuous, murmuring sound.
verb (used with object), babbled, babbling.
4.
to utter in an incoherent, foolish, or meaningless fashion.
5.
to reveal foolishly or thoughtlessly:
to babble a secret.
noun
6.
inarticulate or imperfect speech.
7.
foolish, meaningless, or incoherent speech; prattle.
8.
a murmuring sound or a confusion of sounds.
9.
babbling (def 2).
10.
Telecommunications. a confused mixture of extraneous sounds in a circuit, resulting from cross talk from other channels.
Compare cross talk (def 1).

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/babble

 

[laughing dog]

So what does it mean to you?

It means you are babbling again.

You said earlier
I understand each sentence by itself.
Is this not the case? Babble means that is difficult or impossible to understand:

Put them together and add in the irrelevance, and you get babble.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You said earlier
I understand each sentence by itself.
Is this not the case? Babble means that is difficult or impossible to understand:

Put them together and add in the irrelevance, and you get babble.

It can't babble by definition if you said you understood each sentence.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You said earlier
I understand each sentence by itself.
Is this not the case? Babble means that is difficult or impossible to understand:

verb (used without object), babbled, babbling.
1.
to utter sounds or words imperfectly, indistinctly, or without meaning.
2.
to talk idly, irrationally, excessively, or foolishly; chatter or prattle.
3.
to make a continuous, murmuring sound.
verb (used with object), babbled, babbling.
4.
to utter in an incoherent, foolish, or meaningless fashion.
5.
to reveal foolishly or thoughtlessly:
to babble a secret.
noun
6.
inarticulate or imperfect speech.
7.
foolish, meaningless, or incoherent speech; prattle.
8.
a murmuring sound or a confusion of sounds.
9.
babbling (def 2).
10.
Telecommunications. a confused mixture of extraneous sounds in a circuit, resulting from cross talk from other channels.
Compare cross talk (def 1).

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/babble

This illustrates further that something understood is not defined as babble.

The origins of a word are interesting which expands on dictionary.com
https://www.etymonline.com/word/babble

 

[laughing dog]

You said earlier
I understand each sentence by itself.
Is this not the case? Babble means that is difficult or impossible to understand:

Put them together and add in the irrelevance, and you get babble.

It can't babble by definition if you said you understood each sentence.

You are wrong.

For example, do you understand the following sentences?
The ball is red. Some people like chocolate ice cream. Astrology is not a science.


Now, imagine a post of

"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. " with the response of
"The ball is red. Some people like chocolate ice cream. Astrology is not a science." Put them together and add in the irrelevance, and you get babble.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It can't babble by definition if you said you understood each sentence.

You are wrong.

For example, do you understand the following sentences?
The ball is red. Some people like chocolate ice cream. Astrology is not a science.


Now, imagine a post of

"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. " with the response of
"The ball is red. Some people like chocolate ice cream. Astrology is not a science." Put them together and add in the irrelevance, and you get babble.

Re 121 I said it is conduct by the person not generally perception of the person that is incriminating?

Without good reason the perceived possibility in itself is not rationally sufficient to take action against anyone. The chocolate ice cream scenario does not relate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/babble

This illustrates further that something understood is not defined as babble.

No it doesn't. If the words are without meaning then they might be not understood, but on the other hand if they are irrational, then they can be understood. Likewise, if they are foolish, they can be understood, but if they are incoherent, they might not be.

The origins of a word are interesting which expands on dictionary.com
https://www.etymonline.com/word/babble

The etymology is irrelevant. Are you babbling?

 

[laughing dog]

Re 121 I said it is conduct by the person not generally perception of the person that is incriminating?

Without good reason the perceived possibility in itself is not rationally sufficient to take action against anyone.

Nonsense. It is rational to take precautionary measures against potential dangers or threats.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/us/nazi-sympathizer-profiled-by-the-times-loses-his-job.html

According to the article, he was actually foolish enough to agree to be interviewed so you have nothing to worry about.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No it doesn't. If the words are without meaning then they might be not understood, but on the other hand if they are irrational, then they can be understood. Likewise, if they are foolish, they can be understood, but if they are incoherent, they might not be.

The origins of a word are interesting which expands on dictionary.com
https://www.etymonline.com/word/babble

The etymology is irrelevant. Are you babbling?

Quoting from a dictionary cannot be babbling.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Re 121 I said it is conduct by the person not generally perception of the person that is incriminating?

Without good reason the perceived possibility in itself is not rationally sufficient to take action against anyone.

Nonsense. It is rational to take precautionary measures against potential dangers or threats.

Sentence 2 is true, hence better to apply when recruiting staff.

Where you have staff working for an employer there must be a valid reason based not solely the person's politics is repulsive.

 

[laughing dog]

Re 121 I said it is conduct by the person not generally perception of the person that is incriminating?

Without good reason the perceived possibility in itself is not rationally sufficient to take action against anyone.

Nonsense. It is rational to take precautionary measures against potential dangers or threats.

Sentence 2 is true, hence better to apply when recruiting staff.

Where you have staff working for an employer there must be a valid reason based not solely the person's politics is repulsive.

That is your opinion. In the USA, your opinion is not law. And it is rational to let go an employee who may potentially reduce earnings or productivity.

- - - Updated - - -

Quoting from a dictionary cannot be babbling.

Of course it can - if the quotation is completely irrelevant.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sentence 2 is true, hence better to apply when recruiting staff.

Where you have staff working for an employer there must be a valid reason based not solely the person's politics is repulsive.

That is your opinion. In the USA, your opinion is not law. And it is rational to let go an employee who may potentially reduce earnings or productivity.

- - - Updated - - -

Quoting from a dictionary cannot be babbling.

Of course it can - if the quotation is completely irrelevant.

I didn't say it applied to US laws. A good manager wouldn't fire someone without cause and does so without political bias.

Irrelevant is not babble. Etymology can give extra depth to the understanding of words.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A good manager wouldn't fire someone without cause and does so without political bias.

Reducing risk to your business, workers, and customers in total is not political bias. It is an apolitical, objective decision, like not hiring someone who in an interview says he likes to kill other co-workers or is a serial killer. One objectively ought not hire a Nazi and two Nazi collaborators at a small business to prepare and serve food to a public that includes Jews, blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities. If you also managed a Jewish Community Center, you ought not hire ISIS members either who have said they want to kill all the Jews. If you work at a Muslim center as a hiring manager, you ought not hire an extremist who says he wants to kill all the Muslims. Also, you shouldn't hire someone to work in a restaurant making food for white people who says he wants to kill all white people. If you own a daycare center, you ought not hire a pedophile to work closely with the children unsupervised. If you work in a mortuary as a hiring manager, you ought not hire a necrophiliac. It is not a political bias, but simply rational decisions based on risk of various outcomes and whether you want to eliminate or mitigate those risks.