US women soccer players want equal pay to US men's team.

I would think "what an asshole".

 

Oye Vey! Nice non sequitur.

 

It's an analogy, and it's not entirely inapt, and as a bonus, it is pretty historically accurate if you strip some of the ancillary stuff out of there.

Not sure how it's "a conclusion that does not logically follow from the arguments".

 

For a small segment, probably. Thrashing Thailand 13-0 in the first game probably didn't help, either. Particularly with the obnoxiousness on display with some of the celebrations. This was certainly a group that didn't endear itself to the general public as previous versions had.

 

Now, the hypothetical situation posed above in that utter failure to use the quote function properly is...rather a loaded and strange one.

 

I don't want employers to be allowed to force employees to engage in political, social, or ideological activities or speech. No employer should have the power to force an employee to wear a shirt, pin, ribbon or any other item related to some sort of cause.

I don't see any difference between requiring someone to wear a Pride-themed shirt or a MAGA hat, if doing so isn't explicitly part of their job description.

I'm also generally in favor of expanding workplace protections to greatly limit employers' ability to fire people for speech or conduct outside of work. Bob in accounting might be a neo-Nazi or a radical Communist, but if he doesn't bring his opinions to work, just leave him to his spreadsheets.

 

Yeah, not really. It's really out of left field. And it's assuming a political bent that's not really there. It's going to the all sides argument and not actually debating the one at hand.

 

I love how you look words up that you don't know what they mean and then reply making sure so everyone knows you looked it up.

you complain when others make direct comparisons like they are somehow mean and now ur pulling

'not entirely inept' '
'pretty historically accurate'
'if you strip sone of the ancillary stuff'

if you have to use those three phrases to qualify on opinion...its a bad opinion.

 

strange to say after you just justified an opinion with:

'not entirely inept' '
'pretty historically accurate'
'if you strip sone of the ancillary stuff'

those things would describe an utter failure typing 'say' once when I put 'think' the first two times is a typo.

 

Are you serious with this question?

If I found out Bob in accounting was a convicted sex offender, I'd just continue to treat him professionally, same as the theoretical neo-Nazi or homophobe in the office.

 

what you don't get is everyone brings their opinion to work

there is no such thing as 'its only business'

 

The parallel that it seems to be drawing is that one can say some really awful, impolitic things, and quite possibly be a virulent racist with virulent beliefs about minorities, and still end up contributing to humanity in some way (some would argue the degree of positivity of that contribution). Do you have a different interpretation or some other understanding of the history?

 

so if ur kids daycare hired a convinced sex offender...you'd be ok with that because that was outside of work lol

 

Maybe you work with immature, unprofessional people. I've never worked in an environment where people regularly spout off about their political opinions. I couldn't tell you what my co-workers political or ideological beliefs are, and I'm happy about that.

 

So, now you're conflating having a certain opinion (which is protected by the First Amendment) with being a sex offender.

You understand how stupid that makes you look, right?

 

What are you talking about? A non sequitur is an often-used fallacy, especially 'round these parts.

This is gibberish.

1. "Inapt" not "inept".
2. Do you dispute the quote attributed to Sanger or her involvement (in contributing to an organization that probably gets the largest portion of my yearly charitable donations) in forming PP?
3. Yes, the poster included some unnecessary shots at Hillary Clinton among other things, but the analogy survives that.

 

I've been lucky enough, but sometimes it gets a bit grating. The cool part is that everyone is self-aware enough to know about when to knock it the hell off, even if you agree. And over time, trust emerges and everyone can have their occasional debates/commisserations without having to get HR involved, or to engage in immature passive-aggressive BS.

 

good luck with that...you have been ranting for 12+ hrs about how racism/homophobia outside of work are fine that you and everyone you work with go all day without anything popping up...ever.

 

Where have I ever said that racism and homophobia outside of work are fine? Show evidence, or I'm going to call you a liar in every single post to you from now on.

 

I think this poster acquired their yellow card for similar behavior.

 

now this is getting good

the non-sequitur of ur fallacy is fictitious in its gibberish of the paranormal particles of the prophecy when the viciousness of the fallacy is intrinsic to the proposition that well women speaking up scares you

the other thing that is clear is when you are pushed into a corner and facts are just completely absent of ur position you try to use big words to sound smart, which for the record I am totally enjoying reading.

as far as ur above gibberish what I am saying is if you have to use three qualifiers that each in their own way say the thought isn't entirely accurate then that thought is garbage.

 

where will I find a quote saying that...I just can't think of anywhere

 

You are being childish.

 

when I asked about bob being racist/homophobic on the news...you replied with this...saying you don't care as long as its outside of work.