Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on MeToo?

tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2018 5:15:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What are your thoughts on MeToo?

What are your opinions on the rising spate of public figures -- particularly in the performing arts industry -- coming out as having faced sexual harassment?
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
revenant_a
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2018 5:36:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mostly agree with what Liam Neeson said about it.

There are aspects particular to how Hollywood works which make it inevitable and (to some extent) appropriate that such incidents are taken to the public. Specifically, the fact that Hollywood is a uniquely publicized industry, and that similar problems uniquely facilitated by this industry have been raised before (see: Corey Feldman).

At the same time, the very idea of settling what should be legal matters through public opinion and shame is usually stupid and dangerous. The news cycle and social media aren't and can't be accountable the way courts are.
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2018 12:32:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2018 5:15:02 AM, tejretics wrote:
What are your thoughts on MeToo?

What are your opinions on the rising spate of public figures -- particularly in the performing arts industry -- coming out as having faced sexual harassment?

It adds fuel to the fire -- it's really bad.

Sexual harassment has been watered down to mean essentially anything that a woman doesn't like. For example, data collection for crime statistics can involve things such as "financial abuse", wherein your partner denies you their credit card for a random purchase (such as shoes or tools). That now counts as domestic abuse. This contributes to toxic MGTOW, gamers and woman-hating groups, of which further destroy the social fabric of society.

Granted, there are genuine examples of sexual harassment women experience, of which shouldn't be tolerated. But hyper-PC culture turns "looking good today" into sexual harassment. So whilst MeToo might expose some hidden examples of genuine sexual harassment, it also gives women the blowtorches to immolate the careers of people they don't like, regardless of whether they actually committed genuine sexual harassment. Not to mention that some scummy women would gladly destroy a career for attention.

We need to rid ourselves of this ridiculous PC culture, before we even think of giving people this kind of political power.
alex6704
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2018 2:04:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2018 5:36:42 AM, revenant_a wrote:
I mostly agree with what Liam Neeson said about it.

There are aspects particular to how Hollywood works which make it inevitable and (to some extent) appropriate that such incidents are taken to the public. Specifically, the fact that Hollywood is a uniquely publicized industry, and that similar problems uniquely facilitated by this industry have been raised before (see: Corey Feldman).

At the same time, the very idea of settling what should be legal matters through public opinion and shame is usually stupid and dangerous. The news cycle and social media aren't and can't be accountable the way courts are.

I agree. It's becoming a norm for the public to have full power. You could ask someone "Do you really think he touched/raped/groped etc. her?" and a normal reply now would be "It really doesn't matter. It's out now, and they're ruined." And the reason they are "ruined" per say is because as soon as a hint of misconduct is smelled, social media jumps at the chance to bash, creating a tidal wave of shame that crashes down, crushing the reputation of the proposed suspect.

Though if a rumor is proven to be true, they deserve their fame to be discarded.
AlYezdi
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2018 8:57:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As a feminist, this movement troubles me.

First - anyone that has used their power over another to achieve unwanted sexual activity should be shot in the head.

However - waiting 20 years to make a claim of abuse removes the accuser from the moral high ground, imo. If you waited 20 years...or 20 days.... to report a sexual abuser or crotch grabber, then your lack of action resulted in how many more abuse victims? I cannot consider you to be a person of good moral character on that basis.

Further, the example provided by Jennifer Lawrence - She claimed she was 'forced', along with a number of aspiring models and actresses, to stand nude for inspection.

I'm sorry J-Law, but no one 'forced' you to do anything. You were asked to do something that could further your career, and put you closer to your dream of Fame and Fortune. You made a decision to forego your moral outrage and go for the money. While that is a decision I can respect - your whining about the mean old perverts after the fact shows a lack of integrity. The only appropriate time for you to take a stand against this behavior was in the moment.

Thoughts?
----------------
Do Good for Good is Good to do. Spurn Bribe of Heaven and Threat of Hell.

- the Kasidah of Haji Abdu al-Yezdi
tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2018 11:01:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2018 8:57:11 PM, AlYezdi wrote:
As a feminist, this movement troubles me.

First - anyone that has used their power over another to achieve unwanted sexual activity should be shot in the head.

However - waiting 20 years to make a claim of abuse removes the accuser from the moral high ground, imo. If you waited 20 years...or 20 days.... to report a sexual abuser or crotch grabber, then your lack of action resulted in how many more abuse victims? I cannot consider you to be a person of good moral character on that basis.

I strongly disagree -- because it's incredibly hard to report a sexual abuser immediately after the incident, for many people. First, abusers are often in positions of power, meaning you're jeopardizing your own career and future by doing the reporting. Second, people are unlikely to believe you, and you're likely to be victim-blamed and treated poorly. Third, on an emotional level, people often don't come to terms with the fact that they've been sexually harassed, because somewhere deep within them, they're trying to take back control and deny that it happened to them.

I've been sexually assaulted -- the first two reasons didn't really apply to me, but it took me two years to tell anyone because of the third reason. And yes, it makes me feel terribly guilty, though I'm reasonably certain that the perpetrator never assaulted anyone else. But it took me a while to admit that it happened to me, and to come to terms with the fact.

Further, the example provided by Jennifer Lawrence - She claimed she was 'forced', along with a number of aspiring models and actresses, to stand nude for inspection.

I'm sorry J-Law, but no one 'forced' you to do anything. You were asked to do something that could further your career, and put you closer to your dream of Fame and Fortune. You made a decision to forego your moral outrage and go for the money. While that is a decision I can respect - your whining about the mean old perverts after the fact shows a lack of integrity. The only appropriate time for you to take a stand against this behavior was in the moment.

That's bullsh!t. It's obviously ridiculous for an employer to say "I'll fire you unless you let me sexually harass you." And it's perfectly legitimate for someone who's sexually harassed to protect their own careers.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2018 1:14:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/10/2018 11:01:56 AM, tejretics wrote:
I strongly disagree -- because it's incredibly hard to report a sexual abuser immediately after the incident, for many people. First, abusers are often in positions of power, meaning you're jeopardizing your own career and future by doing the reporting.

Therefore, one is trading one's sexual integrity for their career prospects. If they decide to allow the alleged "sexual abuse" to continue, their silence is not mitigated because the person was "in a position of power." Unless the person was being threatened with or victimized by some type of bodily harm, there's no way that the "abuser" would be in a position of "power." Fear of losing one's job doesn't absolve one of his or her discretion in making a decision and following it through with action.

Second, people are unlikely to believe you, and you're likely to be victim-blamed and treated poorly.

False. If anything, "victims" are believed more than they should be. If there's any disbelief, it's the byproduct of feminists broadening the definition of sexual misconduct.

Third, on an emotional level, people often don't come to terms with the fact that they've been sexually harassed, because somewhere deep within them, they're trying to take back control and deny that it happened to them.

This is a fair point. And while I do not agree with the notion that there's a time limit, note that 20 years works heavily against one's claim since most of these acts of sexual misconduct comes down to he-said-she-said.

That's bullsh!t. It's obviously ridiculous for an employer to say "I'll fire you unless you let me sexually harass you." And it's perfectly legitimate for someone who's sexually harassed to protect their own careers.

No, it isn't ridiculous. Your comment presupposes that a laborer has entitlement to, in this case, her job. She does not. She's only entitled to the labor she provides. The employer is entitled to dictate any terms to which he is willing to associate with the labor. The same is true for the laborer.

Let's try this thought experiment: what if I'm a small business owner who's fallen on rough times. I pinch every penny and I can't bear to lose an employee. One of my female employees, knowing the situation, approaches me and states that she's going to quit unless I provide her some sexual favor. Does she not have the right to quit for any reason she wants? If I decided to indulge this sexual favor, would it not be my decision regardless?
tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2018 4:34:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/10/2018 1:14:23 PM, Athias wrote:
At 5/10/2018 11:01:56 AM, tejretics wrote:
I strongly disagree -- because it's incredibly hard to report a sexual abuser immediately after the incident, for many people. First, abusers are often in positions of power, meaning you're jeopardizing your own career and future by doing the reporting.

Therefore, one is trading one's sexual integrity for their career prospects. If they decide to allow the alleged "sexual abuse" to continue, their silence is not mitigated because the person was "in a position of power." Unless the person was being threatened with or victimized by some type of bodily harm, there's no way that the "abuser" would be in a position of "power." Fear of losing one's job doesn't absolve one of his or her discretion in making a decision and following it through with action.

Broadly, people who're victims of sexual harassment suspect (a) the fact that them speaking out won't do anything, which is probably true, given the positions of power these people hold, and (b) will simply hurt their career prospects, cause them to be silenced, and cause future victims to also be silenced. Given those two reasonable suspicions, it's okay for individuals to try and protect their careers.

Second, people are unlikely to believe you, and you're likely to be victim-blamed and treated poorly.

False. If anything, "victims" are believed more than they should be. If there's any disbelief, it's the byproduct of feminists broadening the definition of sexual misconduct.

You literally need to look to "men's rights activists" on Internet threads and folks like that suggesting that these accusers are liars and "attention seekers." I'd say that's "not believing."

Third, on an emotional level, people often don't come to terms with the fact that they've been sexually harassed, because somewhere deep within them, they're trying to take back control and deny that it happened to them.

This is a fair point. And while I do not agree with the notion that there's a time limit, note that 20 years works heavily against one's claim since most of these acts of sexual misconduct comes down to he-said-she-said.

That has no relevance to this argument.

That's bullsh!t. It's obviously ridiculous for an employer to say "I'll fire you unless you let me sexually harass you." And it's perfectly legitimate for someone who's sexually harassed to protect their own careers.

No, it isn't ridiculous. Your comment presupposes that a laborer has entitlement to, in this case, her job. She does not. She's only entitled to the labor she provides. The employer is entitled to dictate any terms to which he is willing to associate with the labor. The same is true for the laborer.

(1) This is an argument against *any* workplace regulation. I'm assuming you're not down with abolishing every single regulation to protect workers.

(2) It is coercive for an employer to say "I'll fire you unless you let me sexually harass you" -- it's effectively forcing these individuals to endure this. The employer can't "dictate terms of labor" if (a) something isn't explicitly in the contract, and (b) if those "terms of labor" are abusive. Those are standards we apply everywhere. It's your burden of proof to demonstrate that we shouldn't follow those standards.

Your position is honestly despicable.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2018 6:17:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/10/2018 4:34:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
Broadly, people who're victims of sexual harassment suspect (a) the fact that them speaking out won't do anything, which is probably true, given the positions of power these people hold, and (b) will simply hurt their career prospects, cause them to be silenced, and cause future victims to also be silenced. Given those two reasonable suspicions, it's okay for individuals to try and protect their careers.

And that's their responsibility. If the sexual harassment/misconduct isn't enough of a violation to warrant one's vocal objection or even risk one's job, then it's not enough to reprimand the employer for his sexual misconduct. In that scenario, one is trading one's career prospects for one's comfort. And one has to live with that decision.

You literally need to look to "men's rights activists" on Internet threads and folks like that suggesting that these accusers are liars and "attention seekers." I'd say that's "not believing."

We're not talking about MRA's. You said people likely wouldn't believe them. If your focus is on MRA's, whom you have done nothing more than caricatured, then your assertion doesn't hold much weight.

That has no relevance to this argument.

Then don't bring it up. It was a response to your comment.

(1) This is an argument against *any* workplace regulation.

Yes.

I'm assuming you're not down with abolishing every single regulation to protect workers.

Your assumption is incorrect.

(2) It is coercive for an employer to say "I'll fire you unless you let me sexually harass you" -- it's effectively forcing these individuals to endure this.

No it isn't. Saying "I'll fire you you unless you let me sexually harass you" constitutes neither an act of force or a threat. Unless one is being threatened with some form of bodily harm, one is not being coerced. You cannot force someone by an attempt to end an association. Employment is an association--it is not a part of one's person. This is the reason people are neither condemned nor detained for saying "suck my dick or I'll break up with you."

The employer can't "dictate terms of labor" if (a) something isn't explicitly in the contract,

The employer is entitled to dictate the terms to which he is willing to participate in the contract known as employment. He can dissociate himself from the employee for any reason he sees fit, just as the employee can disassociate for any reason she sees fit. Anything else is a slave contract.

if those "terms of labor" are abusive. Those are standards we apply everywhere. It's your burden of proof to demonstrate that we shouldn't follow those standards.

Yes, those are the standards which maintain slave contracts.

Your position is honestly despicable.

Irrelevant.
Df0512
Posts: 1,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2018 7:44:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2018 5:15:02 AM, tejretics wrote:
What are your thoughts on MeToo?

What are your opinions on the rising spate of public figures -- particularly in the performing arts industry -- coming out as having faced sexual harassment?

Like BLM, it started with good intentions, but is now radicalized to the point or absurdity. They are like sharks that frenzy over the smallest morsel of blood. hopefully they can chill a but and get back on track.
tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2018 11:37:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/10/2018 6:17:12 PM, Athias wrote:
At 5/10/2018 4:34:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm assuming you're not down with abolishing every single regulation to protect workers.

Your assumption is incorrect.

Well, in that case, we've got a fundamental disagreement on what the role of the government in the workplace is.

I think people with merit have a right to opportunity without abuse, enforced by the government -- and that protection takes the form of workplace regulations. I also think that improves the quality of life of workers, given that it's incredibly hard for a person who's fired to find another job -- giving them an impossible choice between enduring continued bullsh!t and losing their economic opportunity. Workplace regulations also demonstrably improve economic efficiency.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2018 1:49:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/10/2018 7:44:59 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 5/3/2018 5:15:02 AM, tejretics wrote:
What are your thoughts on MeToo?

What are your opinions on the rising spate of public figures -- particularly in the performing arts industry -- coming out as having faced sexual harassment?

Like BLM, it started with good intentions, but is now radicalized to the point or absurdity. They are like sharks that frenzy over the smallest morsel of blood. hopefully they can chill a but and get back on track.

totally agree, all these things are great lessons and modern versions for The Boy who Cried Wolf.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2018 2:01:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2018 11:37:43 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2018 6:17:12 PM, Athias wrote:
At 5/10/2018 4:34:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm assuming you're not down with abolishing every single regulation to protect workers.

Your assumption is incorrect.

Well, in that case, we've got a fundamental disagreement on what the role of the government in the workplace is.

I think people with merit have a right to opportunity without abuse, enforced by the government -- and that protection takes the form of workplace regulations. I also think that improves the quality of life of workers, given that it's incredibly hard for a person who's fired to find another job -- giving them an impossible choice between enduring continued bullsh!t and losing their economic opportunity. Workplace regulations also demonstrably improve economic efficiency.

Ughh....how watered down the term "rights" has become.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2018 2:13:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2018 2:01:23 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/11/2018 11:37:43 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2018 6:17:12 PM, Athias wrote:
At 5/10/2018 4:34:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm assuming you're not down with abolishing every single regulation to protect workers.

Your assumption is incorrect.

Well, in that case, we've got a fundamental disagreement on what the role of the government in the workplace is.

I think people with merit have a right to opportunity without abuse, enforced by the government -- and that protection takes the form of workplace regulations. I also think that improves the quality of life of workers, given that it's incredibly hard for a person who's fired to find another job -- giving them an impossible choice between enduring continued bullsh!t and losing their economic opportunity. Workplace regulations also demonstrably improve economic efficiency.

Ughh....how watered down the term "rights" has become.

https://goo.gl...
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2018 5:12:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2018 11:37:43 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2018 6:17:12 PM, Athias wrote:
At 5/10/2018 4:34:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm assuming you're not down with abolishing every single regulation to protect workers.

Your assumption is incorrect.

Well, in that case, we've got a fundamental disagreement on what the role of the government in the workplace is.

I think people with merit have a right to opportunity without abuse, enforced by the government -- and that protection takes the form of workplace regulations. I also think that improves the quality of life of workers, given that it's incredibly hard for a person who's fired to find another job -- giving them an impossible choice between enduring continued bullsh!t and losing their economic opportunity. Workplace regulations also demonstrably improve economic efficiency.

It has been apparent since the beginning that we have a fundamental disagreement on the role of government. Employment is nothing more than an agreement to exchange labor or service for compensation. That's it. One is not entitled to "opportunity" or "quality of life" as far as that arrangement is concerned. One is entitled to that for which one has traded (compensation for labor/service; labor/service for compensation.) It's not an employer's responsibility to take into account the availability of alternatives outside his arrangement with an employee. Notions of employment have been infected with infantile pretexts and enforced with an ever increasing paternalizing government---particularly platitudes derived from Marxist Conflict Theory and Labor Theory of Value.

And had you indulged my thought experiment, I would have at least conveyed to you with an identical logic that a person is free to engage or disengage any association or arrangement one wants for any reason one wants. Anything else is a slave contract.

As for workplace regulations improving economic efficiency, prove or rationalize it.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2018 4:48:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2018 5:12:33 PM, Athias wrote:
At 5/11/2018 11:37:43 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2018 6:17:12 PM, Athias wrote:
At 5/10/2018 4:34:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm assuming you're not down with abolishing every single regulation to protect workers.

Your assumption is incorrect.

Well, in that case, we've got a fundamental disagreement on what the role of the government in the workplace is.

I think people with merit have a right to opportunity without abuse, enforced by the government -- and that protection takes the form of workplace regulations. I also think that improves the quality of life of workers, given that it's incredibly hard for a person who's fired to find another job -- giving them an impossible choice between enduring continued bullsh!t and losing their economic opportunity. Workplace regulations also demonstrably improve economic efficiency.

It has been apparent since the beginning that we have a fundamental disagreement on the role of government. Employment is nothing more than an agreement to exchange labor or service for compensation. That's it. One is not entitled to "opportunity" or "quality of life" as far as that arrangement is concerned. One is entitled to that for which one has traded (compensation for labor/service; labor/service for compensation.) It's not an employer's responsibility to take into account the availability of alternatives outside his arrangement with an employee. Notions of employment have been infected with infantile pretexts and enforced with an ever increasing paternalizing government---particularly platitudes derived from Marxist Conflict Theory and Labor Theory of Value.

Brokering money for sex is called solicitation. That is illegal in most states. Brokering advancement for sex is misappropriation of company resources. I sincerely doubt ATT or Disney is some how served if a part time call worker/lifeguard is blowing their super for more hours, and has more than likely made ATT and Disney complicit in said solicitation, as the screening user received the benefit with company funds.

Outside the sex-trade industry, engaging in quid pro quo for sex/advancement typically means the recipient of the benefit pays nothing. Obviously, this doesn't always hold true in smaller scales.

THAT I what makes sexual harassment and sex-for-occupation unethical, its (by and large) not the recipients resources being spent to acquire the sex, that is also what makes the 'efficiency' of such a work place dissolve, you have (potential) talent for the job needed in favor of immediate sexual talent that is not serving the company as a whole, but is being paid for by the company as a whole.

And had you indulged my thought experiment, I would have at least conveyed to you with an identical logic that a person is free to engage or disengage any association or arrangement one wants for any reason one wants. Anything else is a slave contract.

As for workplace regulations improving economic efficiency, prove or rationalize it.

OSHA, in a nutshell.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2018 11:52:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2018 4:48:10 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Brokering money for sex is called solicitation. That is illegal in most states. Brokering advancement for sex is misappropriation of company resources. I sincerely doubt ATT or Disney is some how served if a part time call worker/lifeguard is blowing their super for more hours, and has more than likely made ATT and Disney complicit in said solicitation, as the screening user received the benefit with company funds.

Outside the sex-trade industry, engaging in quid pro quo for sex/advancement typically means the recipient of the benefit pays nothing. Obviously, this doesn't always hold true in smaller scales.

Irrelevant. Normative arguments about the concept of employment need no legal citations. I'm aware of the law. My contention is with the law.

THAT I what makes sexual harassment and sex-for-occupation unethical, its (by and large) not the recipients resources being spent to acquire the sex, that is also what makes the 'efficiency' of such a work place dissolve, you have (potential) talent for the job needed in favor of immediate sexual talent that is not serving the company as a whole, but is being paid for by the company as a whole.

If a manager of a company is misusing his proxy, acting outside of the company's interest, or to be more precise, the chairman and board's interests, then there'd be an issue. But that has little to do with the nature of sexual harassment in the workplace and more to do with general work misconduct and/or insubordination. And the example I used invoked a direct employer/employee relationship. Let's for the sake of argument say that you're correct and sexual harassment does dissolve workplace efficiency, how does that at all change the dynamic of what each party is entitled to as described in my previous statements?

OSHA, in a nutshell.

That's neither proof nor a rationalization.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2018 1:36:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2018 11:52:04 AM, Athias wrote:
At 5/14/2018 4:48:10 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Brokering money for sex is called solicitation. That is illegal in most states. Brokering advancement for sex is misappropriation of company resources. I sincerely doubt ATT or Disney is some how served if a part time call worker/lifeguard is blowing their super for more hours, and has more than likely made ATT and Disney complicit in said solicitation, as the screening user received the benefit with company funds.

Outside the sex-trade industry, engaging in quid pro quo for sex/advancement typically means the recipient of the benefit pays nothing. Obviously, this doesn't always hold true in smaller scales.

Irrelevant. Normative arguments about the concept of employment need no legal citations. I'm aware of the law. My contention is with the law.

I think it would be pretty obvious that a manager getting a blow job under the auspices of company requirement or threat of termination would obviously wander into prostitution and unethical treatment as a change of job scope. Said employee isn't hired for sexual service, that it should be provided would necessitate further compensation.

THAT I what makes sexual harassment and sex-for-occupation unethical, its (by and large) not the recipients resources being spent to acquire the sex, that is also what makes the 'efficiency' of such a work place dissolve, you have (potential) talent for the job needed in favor of immediate sexual talent that is not serving the company as a whole, but is being paid for by the company as a whole.

If a manager of a company is misusing his proxy, acting outside of the company's interest, or to be more precise, the chairman and board's interests, then there'd be an issue.

Okay, so we have established that a quid pro quo has issue, would the reasons outlined make for good justification why such should be unethical?

But that has little to do with the nature of sexual harassment in the workplace and more to do with general work misconduct and/or insubordination. And the example I used invoked a direct employer/employee relationship. Let's for the sake of argument say that you're correct and sexual harassment does dissolve workplace efficiency, how does that at all change the dynamic of what each party is entitled to as described in my previous statements?

An employer (and their proxy) isn't entitled to outlined duties. The general issue that you will find with sexual harassment AND quid pro quo arrangements is that the desired relationship of the worker and employer proxy gets altered without upper level managers making that call, ie, those who know better. That sexual assault, harassment, and quid pro quo arrangements aren't company principle should lend itself to why such are not accepted in the work place. People typically don't want to be assaulted and harassed as such, if that was a company goal, they could literally do it to random passerby for free.


OSHA, in a nutshell.

That's neither proof nor a rationalization.

Its both. The amount of lost time due to accident since OSHA's inception, and various enforcement levels has dropped. This in turn means worker's compensation claims drop, etc etc. The worker in question is able to perform the duty hired for more likely than being out or dead due to accident.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ken1122
Posts: 1,737
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2018 3:23:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2018 5:15:02 AM, tejretics wrote:
What are your thoughts on MeToo?

What are your opinions on the rising spate of public figures -- particularly in the performing arts industry -- coming out as having faced sexual harassment?

I"m old school where # is called the pound sign. So #MeToo sounds more like an invitation for pounding (rough sex), rather than a sexual harassment awareness movement.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.