SantaClausowitz: It only took the 10th post for somebody to be horrified. What century are we living in? Or, more poignantly, what type of people is this forum home to? I read this article on the story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/bosses-irresistible-workers_n_2348381.html

Wow, I left this open for a long time.

And this is why I stopped participating in forum discussions. It's incredible the complete lack of buffer most people on this forum have between "I don't believe X" and "Believing X is irredeemably evil and we must mock and shame it until the very possibility of expressing it is beyond the pale" (to borrow a rather fitting turn-of-phrase from a recent piece I read).

I participate in these forum discussions to figure out what I should think and how to portray it. I also participate in these forum discussions to learn what I should never think and how not to portray it. And some people, as we all know, are just plain hilarious. Good night :)

Well, as long as I'm providing the joy of humor one way or another.... goodnight, bo!

1 JECE, more poignantly suck my ball-sack

2. I don't see what is the problem of being horrified when an otherwise intelligent individual actually advocates giving employers blank checks to fire their employees and, as an extension, coerce his/her employees to do whatever s/he wants in order to keep their paycheck. I have to see that as an acceptable solution? I understand its fashionable to jump on my shit nowadays but i reserve the right nonetheless to find some things objectionable.

"And this is why I stopped participating in forum discussions. It's incredible the complete lack of buffer most people on this forum have between "I don't believe X" and "Believing X is irredeemably evil and we must mock and shame it until the very possibility of expressing it is beyond the pale" (to borrow a rather fitting turn-of-phrase from a recent piece I read)."

Sorry, I have no obligation to find your fantasy world bullshit palatable

PE, that part was actually directed at krellin, but who needs to know ;)

President Eden: This is a side-show regarding your comments that she should have quit her job anyway, but: "Nelson was stunned because she viewed the 53-year-old Knight as a father figure and had never been interested in starting a relationship, Fiedler said." Yes, the Lamborghini comment and others are telling, but it appears that overall the working relationship felt normal to her.

But the issue at stake here, if the judges did not err in their unanimous decision, is the law. Clearly, basic worker's rights are not respected in the United States if a dentist can get away with something like this.

"Clearly, basic worker's rights are not respected in the United States if a dentist can get away with something like this. "

maybe if you had read Eden's writing before passing judgement on people disagreeing with him you would see Eden believes workers have only 1 right and that is the right to quit.

SantaClausowitz: I'm on your side, idiot. Read my comment again.

President Eden: If your "why I stopped participating in forum discussions" is in response to me, then let me say something. My experiences on this forum have made give up on trying to convince people about anything on-line (at least in a time-delayed format like a forum). I've concluded that it's virtually impossible to change people's minds through this type of a medium and that all I end up doing is wasting a colossal amount of time. Hence, I may take a shortcut of curtly expressing my disgust at how a forum thread is going.

SantaClausowitz: Really? You read that and still don't question whether you misunderstood me?

I read your comment the first time. I'm puzzled why someone who has any sympathy for workers rights, as you obviously do, objects to my question "what century are we in" and overall disbelief with the argument. After all PE wants to undo changes that people campaigned for since first 2 decades of the 20th century for gods sake. Hence my question "what century are we in. Then again, I remember that it is fashionable among many around here to trash me no matter what the context.

That's flatly false, Santa. I don't know if you bothered to read my last explanation or not, but I explicitly revised what I said because I recognized I missed an important aspect of the discussion. Included was the right to sue for wrongful termination of the contract (which I never said didn't exist, but admittedly, failed to incorporate properly in my responses, at least until the last one).

Furthermore, how it is that you decided I was jumping on your shit when your entry into this topic was to equate my responses with promoting segregation and coerced sexual favors is beyond me. I'm considering this conversation resolved and honestly should have from the beginning.

@JECE: Fair enough I guess (re: this being a waste of time). It wasn't solely directed to you, to be clear.

oh you mean the original comment. Well then I completely misread that, you are right. I thought it was just another ass hole dropping into my disscussion to browbeat me. I apologie for the misunderstanding. Its happened alot lately.

How in the world are you complaining about that when your entry into this conversation was clearly just to attack me? I don't know if this is a typical example (haven't been following the forums since Thanksgiving), but if it is, then I might have an answer to why you get attacked a lot on here.

I'm not complaining, I'm explaining why I took his comments the way I did. I do find it frustrating when people tell me how i should act on the forum without even reading the thread which is what I believed happen. And don't flatter yourself, I attacked your views, and would have attacked them had anyone offered them. It just so happens in your current state of marital bliss with Ayn Rand's writings I happen to object to your statements more often.

I mean, you're still straw manning the hell out of my statements, so it's pretty obvious what you're doing has nothing to do with them, or you'd actually bother to address them in a worthwhile manner.

Some parting advice, the victimhood shtick is really, really old. Take it or leave it, but I suggest trying a different tack.

Believe whatever the hell you want Eden. Fact of the matter is you've been back peddling from your statements from the start so I apologize if I can't keep up. Now its all about contracts. Sure, in a workers market that might fly, but when times get tough a nd people are out of work for months at a time? You think they are going to be able to press on specific language let alone hire the lawyer to advocate for them in this all important moment in the career of an employee? Please

"Some parting advice, the victimhood shtick is really, really old. Take it or leave it, but I suggest trying a different tack. "

Why, if it works for you... and again I never complained, I explained why i took his words to mean what I did. I'd like to hear where else my victim hood shtick has come into play

Your system quite obviously stacks the deck against the worker, somehow the libertarian anarchists hopes to pit individuals against corporations and somehow claim its a fair fight. How can one person assert his or her rights as an employee when the employer much of the time will have the resources ( money, time, council) that most individual workers could never dream of.

President Eden: For the record, I did, in the end, reply to your position on the issue.