@TurtleMat said in #141:
> Do not ever claim ever again that you are on the right side when talking about racial discrimination.
>
Don't worry, and remember you don't have a magic wand to declare or choose who is on the right side and who is not.
@TurtleMat said in #141:
> If that is the level we are having this discussion on, i'm out.
Because I trust the police in my country while you do not?
Have you considered maybe we live in different countries, and those organisations may have different standards?
I have the feeling the reason you give up more likely reside in the solidity of your argumentations.
Take some advice for once, make a break and relax a bit, and when you are in a good mood feel free to come back and friendly/calmly we can go on talking/arguing.
After all we can disagree and still being respectfully of eachother.
@Ender88 said in #140:
> Till a fact isn't proved what remains are suspect and gossip.
Participants in criminal or civil trials will be sad to hear that as will police assembling a file, dusting fingerprints or interrogating people. So according to your view, all this is just 'suspect and gossip' then and not evidence until the trial has come to an end.
> Let's assume for absurdum it's true.
> Basically you are saying that every private organisation have to be competent to handle correctly and coherently such situations.
> Do you see what unreasonable and absurd is expecting that grandma's sewing club have the competence and knowledge to handle that.
If there is a sexual predator at the grandma's sewing club, the grandmas do have a responsibility not to give the guy access to vulnerable people. Nobody says these are easy decisions for our poor grandmas, but doing nothing can be wrong too.
> Damaging others, or as you like to say "negatively affect an individual without a permission" isn't something that may happen lawfully.
All the time it does. Every time somebody's employment is cancelled (lawfully). Every time a negative newspaper article appears about someone (lawfully). Every time a store raises prices (lawfully). Every time friends argue (lawfully). Even every time somebody loses a chess game (lawfully). Negative effects on people without permission, yet entirely lawful.
Most events in life happen without a special permission by a judge.
@svensp said in #143:
> Participants in criminal or civil trials will be sad to hear that as will police assembling a file, dusting fingerprints or interrogating people. So according to your view, all this is just 'suspect and gossip' then and not evidence until the trial has come to an end.
What police work with is clues, evidence and testimony. All things that cast suspicious over an alleged criminal.
People talking about it out of courtroom, without any specific clue about the specific topics (as we do) are making gossip IMHO
@svensp said in #143:
> If there is a sexual predator at the grandma's sewing club, the grandmas do have a responsibility not to give the guy access to vulnerable people. Nobody says these are easy decisions for our poor grandmas, but doing nothing can be wrong too.
>
Are you joking? How do you expect an old person to have knowledge/energy on how handled such complex things.
Law enforcement have such duties not my grandmother.. :')
@svensp said in #143:
> All the time it does. Every time somebody's employment is cancelled.
No no, fire someone cause an allegations (with no judge involved) is not legal where I live.
Happened, and systematically they have to re-hire plus paying all the missing month in between.
@svensp said in #143:
>Every time a negative newspaper article appears about someone.
I already answered this very specific example.
No reporter is allowed to make claims without sources and factual evidence, or without clearly stating it is only allegations (things that someone believes happened), otherwise reporter is doing defamation.
@svensp said in #143:
>Every time a store raises prices.
Whenever happened that a store rise price for a very specific person.
We were talking of company Vs person
@svensp said in #143:
>Every time friends argue.
How arguing is damaging? And why do you don't understand we aren't talking 1 o 1 interaction between two people?
You keep repeating the same example out of topic about person to person interaction.
I am arguing against the principles that private parties (aka club, corporation and so on) could damage a person because they have some suspects (that stem form whoever allegations).
@svensp said in #143:
>Even every time somebody loses a chess game.
>Negative effects on people without permission, yet entirely lawful.
I was never been damaged by a lost chess game, especially online.
Again off topic because we are talking of another thing (private entity vs person).
@svensp said in #143:
> Most events in life happen without a special permission by a judge.
Yes you are right tornado also, volcano eruption and so on.
But here we are talking about what a company, a club.. and so on can freely do to a person.
Because you write that they can :
"negatively affect the individual without any input or permission by a judge" and in the phrase you was referring to the aforementioned "private entities" aka club, company and so on.
So do not twist your words, you said that at #124.
Didn't you?
"I already answered this very specific example.
No reporter is allowed to make claims without sources and factual evidence, or without clearly stating it is only allegations (things that someone believes happened), otherwise reporter is doing defamation."
Still, a negative article being published is an example (among hundreds) where somebody is negatively affected by the action of somebody else without a need for prior permission by a judge. Something you argued was never legally possible.
Most things in life don't require a prior permission by a judge. Among those are things that affect people negatively.
"Are you joking? How do you expect an old person to have knowledge/energy on how handled such complex things.
Law enforcement have such duties not my grandmother.. :')"
Poor grandmothers :)
But seriously, if the grandma's sewing club holds events they have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for the participants of those events. That is not easy, but if they cannot do it, in my opinion they have no business doing events at all.
@svensp said in #145:
> "I already answered this very specific example.
> No reporter is allowed to make claims without sources and factual evidence, or without clearly stating it is only allegations (things that someone believes happened), otherwise reporter is doing defamation."
>
> Still, a negative article being published is an example (among hundreds) where somebody is negatively affected by the action of somebody else without a need for prior permission by a judge. Something you argued was never legally possible.
>
You play with words.
Have claimed that people grandmother should be in charge to police criminals sometimes...
Have claimed that corporation/club and/or company may be allowed to "negatively affect the individual without any input or permission by a judge" and now tell me you meant instead newspaper criticism.. aka free speech (with no defamation).
Have made plenty of pointless and off topic example of person to person interaction, like two friends arguing, like it is something on similar level to a corporation freely choose to hurt person life..
At this point, after all this nonsense, I again have feelings you are just trolling around; possibly spitting how many arguments as much chatGPT can forge ;)
>Really? So if somebody commits a crime at work they can only be fired once the legal proceedings are over?
Yes, if the fact is serious it can be suspended with pay AFAIK.
Same apply for disciplinary proceedings.
If the subject is caught red handed situation changed, but only because a judge say so in the pre-trial phase.
No way! There's a country where you can't fire a criminal for being a criminal until they've been convicted by a court of law?!
@littlepoison said in #147:
> Yes, if the fact is serious it can be suspended with pay AFAIK.
> Same apply for disciplinary proceedings.
> If the subject is caught red handed situation changed, but only because a judge say so in the pre-trial phase.
>
> No way! There's a country where you can't fire a criminal for being a criminal until they've been convicted by a court of law?!
Not sure if I have understood you correctly.
Are you saying that's it's impossible that exists a country where you can't fire alleged criminals? (and I mean not obvious ones).
We are talking about *alleged* criminals after all, not proved criminals.
For obvious I mean when criminal is caught red hands or so blatantly culprit anyway that in pre trial phase a judge allow for the firing/ job suspension.
My country quite sure, quite sure also in France works the same way AFAIK (you can't fire).
In some other places there are less safety for workers, probably in USA you can be fired for whatever reason the employer likes (If I understand USA law correctly).
But IMHO it's not obvious nor automatically that a suspicious or allegations should led to firing.
As stated in some places of the world (France included) doesn't work like that.
Ps :
I did a bit of research, seems that firing someone, even for being arrested (but not sentenced yet), is not so automatic neither in USA (even if probably more easy and feasible than in France).
Even in the least "employees friendly" US state as far as I understood this legal firm.
https://www.staffordtrialteam.com/can-my-employer-fire-me-because-i-got-arrested/
Allegations only (aka suspect only with no arrest) is probably less feasible even in the less "employee friendly" US state's.
PPS: I am not a lawyer, nor a native English speaker, so maybe I have misinterpreted what I have read, even if my sources (link cited) seem quite straightforward to me.
@NatalijaFirenkova said in #39:
> No, because Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan don't exist as countries
Bro they are countries from WW2 (world war 2)
what ya expect
я родился
@Matuxa2011 said in #150:
> я родился
what ur born also YOU ARE THE 150TH COMMENT!!!!