Out of Pod Experience

My question is why? One would assume that the one reason to keep someone around is for the eye candy factor. Or was he jealous because he wanted to be the pretty one at work?

Edit: nm, the guys married. This was more like a case of the significant other being jealous and telling HIM 'either she goes, or I go'

Guys who can't keep in in their pants are Full of Win, doncha know, doncha know ??????????

Back to the Petticoats and the Kitchens with them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I could strangle her all night long

On the plus side at least I know I've got job security in this department.

Firing talented employees for such arbitrary reasons is a good way to brain-drain a company into the dumpster. Let the dummies fire themselves out of business.

Id just like to point out this is wrong.

Also id like to point out that if your arguing its right... your wrong.

Carry on.

You know, it's called self control.

I can say with a good amount of certainty that he doesn't respect people like he should cause in a work environment he should have no trouble treating people as a professional would.

When you can't maintain that professional distance the work place is disrupted...as in the article.

She should have maintain a distance herself and understand that texting and ANY relationship outside of the work place is absolutely a no no.

I don't blame the wife one bit, both we're guilty of not maintaining that distance, and shown themselves to be of weak character.

And provided those problems, the dentist managed them in the most rational, sensible way. There was no agression towards any of the parts, despite a irrational frustration was present, and that's damn rational to do if the problem is of an irrational nature. R*pe, suicide, self-mutilation, murder, all them where ends to that wrong road. Instead, a competent professional was fired (and found a new job) and a competent professional has become the laughing stock of a country and a target to certain politcal cause/bigotry.


My whole point is about how do we command others to deal with their irrational, and how mercyful/understanding we are with their weaknesses even if they lead to stupid and wrongness. As the Law is inflexible once it starts its course, then it must be flexible enough in its inception. FAI, maybe it could provide a compensation for dismissal if it is of certain nature, so the dentist could pay himself out of his trouble.

I don't want to escalate the discussion with a hotter topic, but I think it is worthy to point out that certain irrational behavior exclusive to women is not dealt as harshly as you pretend to deal with this dentist. "Beat it or shoot yourself or be legally punished" is not the most sensible/humane way to deal with irrational issues.



Frankly, don't know the cases. I'm just curious as to what you think the dentist should had done. Just "beat it" by the miraculous force of your wish that he wasn't oh so irrational? Indemnize the employee for firing her for no "acceptable" reason? Or what?



Yay, they aren't human beings, right?

In public workplaces non of this is really approriate, since all such things are governed by strict laws. In private workplaces I can't see there being a path, that isn't going to cause problems for one party and I think the law should favor the employer in cases where clear evidence of unlawful discrimination can't be shown. Anything else would be open to abuse and be unjust, since it's against the innocent until proven guilty -principle. This will be unfair to the employed in many cases, but that's fine.

Flexibility in firing and hiring is in gneral better for the overall economy then having strict rules governing it. Besides you're not going to come up with a law, that isn't going to be unfair to one party in these kind of situations. You just decide which side you tell to suck it up in unclear cases and that is and should be the accuser in most cases. In some cases the evidence/records can be unilaterally in the control of the accused, so there the burden of proof can reasonably be placed on them.

As to the firing because inappropriate thoughts comment, it propably happens already in some cases. They just aren't going to be stupid enough to give that as the reason for firing, since it does them no good and can cause them damage. I'd suspect the preferred way is to simply not hire you, since it's much easier to not let you in, then it is to get rid of you after. That is besides the point though, since such thing wasn't the case being decided here.


That's not a way to handle the conflict though. That's wishing the actual conflict away. It's an attractive thing to do, but it's a giant waste of time, since you're just hand waving the actual issue away instead of dealing with it. For example if you discuss how to handle conflicts caused by racism and intolerance the solution isn't to say, that people should just stop being racist and intolerant. That's just basically saying, that if the conflict didn't exist, we wouldn't have the conflict. It's certainly true, but as I said, it's adding nothing of value to the discussion about the actual issue. Point being the situation was what it was and what needed to be decided was, if it was illegal or not in the light of the evidence provided. It wasn't and even if potentially unfair to one party, it seems like a reasonable decision to make.

Apparently, by judging "why" and not "what", you're making a moral judgement there and want the law to enforce it upon others, you want everyone to follow your moral. What you defend is not a consensual "good", but is based on what you think it is offensive and so the law must make everyone share your morality. I fail to see that desirable for a democracy.



The law is rational (or pretends to) and when it judges irrational behavior (like being attracted enough so it becomes an issue) it must be flexible to not punish people who didn't cause a harm comparable to the one the law would inflict on them.

Point in case, you say "i'm gonna shoot a kinder" as a joke and you end up in jail, abused and depressed to the point of suicide... that's a case of a terrible law being awfully applied.



I was thinking of something else, but won't comment further as it would likely derail the thread and have it closed. It's related to a very hot topic that affects only women.



Yes, your moral is good enough for everyone and in case it's not, bring in the Law. "The practices", oh my, how do they dare?



"Eradicate" certain type of men, yes, is both feasible and desirable enough to warrant a prosecution by Law.