I can agree with that, it is an issue...I just don't think it applies to this video where he was fired because the business found his behavior unacceptable.

The facebook post thing, it depends on the opinion. For instance, it's some people's opinion that 5 year old girls want to have sex (just to go back to an earlier example). Expressing that opinion, while legal, is certainly reason to fire someone IMO, because it would definitely hurt the company if it came out they hire people that publicly state that, and indicate (rightly or wrongly) that the company supports that sentiment. EDIT: I think that's best left up to the boss, but should be indicated in the contract what's expected and what's unacceptable.

Unsubstantiated claims by competitors is not the same thing as video proof of someone's actions....it doesn't mean people don't still make unsubstantiated claims to other's detriment, but isn't applicable to THIS situation.

It's not a PC police issue because the PC police didn't cause this action, it was taken precipitously by the employer. In fact, there's little indication the protesters even knew who he was, much less where he worked.

Yes, the WBC have the right to be disgusting...just as I have the right to not hire them because I find them disgusting...right? I would also defend to the death their right to be offensive, but not the right to have no social consequence for their words and acts. The two don't go together, in fact the latter would make the former intolerable.
I would certainly rail against a LAW that bars some kind of speech criminally, but never the public's right to decide for themselves what they find appropriate, or the right to not support people they find disgusting and/or dangerous.

If you want to publicly espouse your positions, and you care, you should do a little checking to be sure your boss won't be so offended by you that he no longer wants you as an employee. If you work for a giant corporation, you should understand it comes with conditions like 'don't publicly say or do things that, if seen, would injure the business'. It is controlling, yes, but not forced. It's a contract...you get to work there and be paid, they get to tell you what's unacceptable to them.

Not all companies think or operate that way. It's limiting, but if you find that methodology unacceptable, don't work for a company with a 'behavioral standards' clause in your contract.

The PC police aren't needed. They didn't have to go after the company, the company took action on it's own. Any guess as to exactly WHY they took this action is just that, a guess, but they have SAID it was based on their outrage, and they were not under any pressure YET to act...that's a good indicator to me that they just found him disgusting and fired him because they don't want to employ people they wouldn't spit on if they were on fire.

If there were laws requiring them to fire him, I would be right there with you saying it's terrible. Since it's the company took action by itself, ostensively for their own reasons, I'm not bothered in the least...except by those defending the racist's right to keep his job...a right that never existed.

Yes...there COULD be abuse by PC groups (EDIT: or non PC groups...religious groups use that methodology often) pressuring companies into this kind of reaction, and that's bad....but not here. In fact, you seem to want to remove the decision from the company...which leaves it in the hands of the masses, exactly what you DON'T want.

It HAS been my behavior being vilified. I'm a legal marijuana patient, but I'm not protected from discrimination based on my prescribed medicine. it doesn't even have to be publicly known, they can test me for it. I dislike that, but I do agree a company has a right to do so.
I accept it as a cost of having the same freedom to decide who I hire.

Again, I do see this CAN and HAS been abused by 'pc thugs'...I just disagree that that happened at all in THIS case.

Again, intentional infliction of emotional distress is also an actual legal charge, and can be prosecuted. It does not have to be irreparable harm, that's never been the standard for harm. Aggressive use of 'hate speech' does meet the standard in many if not most places....but he's not being prosecuted, at worst you might say he was persecuted.

I agree that there is a danger with the PC groups exerting too much control over others, but looking at this case by itself, I don't think it is in that category.

I remember a VHS tape my father owned, made by Penn & Teller to allow you to perform magic tricks with your friends. It was made way back in the early 90's and when they were doing things on Showtime, I believe. It required you to do the same thing you've just mentioned to successfully pull off the trick.

Anyway, as I just mentioned, the tricks on that VHS tape were done the same as what you described. You "must" take the word of whomever you're listening to as "the truth". Because if they do lie, about certain elements, a trick can be performed by them and you may never be able to figure out how the trick is done. Unless you realize that someone you off-handedly let tell you a "fact" and you automatically allowed this "fact" to be the truth without any scrutiny, is finally re-looked at to see if it's validity still holds up.

Penn & Teller have you perform this same "trick" or psychological manipulation in their VHS tape magic trick to use on others and as you mentioned we are assuming that Penn & Teller are indeed on the up & up when another person on their show performs a magic trick... If they lie to us, as you mentioned, a trick can automatically be accomplished since we've given Penn & Teller a "free pass" to tell us whatever they want.

As you mentioned Penn & Teller do in fact use this methodology to perform some of their tricks and as I mentioned they even sold "magic tricks" that used this very same idea to create a magic trick or an illusion. So I wouldn't put it past them that they may indeed use this same thing on their own TV show...

We just have to hope they won't.

Yeah, you got me there. Clever girl.

You want credible sources?

Here ya go:
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1995/gun/
http://www.hardylaw.net/FailedExperiment.pdf
(and the debate rages on)

Am 100% in agreement - "The problem is that it's simply way too easy to get a gun in the US." As a Canadian living in the USA for the past 15 years, not wanting to become a US citizen because I'd have to cut out half my brain, I've been through Canada's attempts at gun control too. Can't even buy a box of .22 shells at home without completing a classroom course (or is it two now?) which I think is the door swinging too far the other way. Worth noting perhaps is the incidence of gun crime in major metropolitan centers in Canada *appears* to be on the rise... would be nice if someone out there could do a comprehensive update using the same methodology as e.g. Mauser to see if it's real.

I'm still at a complete loss as to why some people seem to think that calmly not submitting to random intrusive 'investigative' questioning makes a person a tool. The cop's not looking to have a nice conversation or make a friend, he's looking for anything he can use against the person he's interrogating...and often, as in this case, when they can't find anything, they'll make something up.
EDIT: often, they'll say you said something you didn't say, or twist what you may have said to come up with a reason to go farther and charge you with something made up. That's why you should say NOTHING, then they have nothing to twist or lie about 'mishearing' or 'misunderstanding'.

As I see it, not answering questions is not disruptive, not dangerous, doesn't cause fear (in normal people), is patriotic, and is also a methodology suggested by nearly EVERY lawyer worth their salt. I can't see the drawback, or how being respectfully reasonable and safe makes someone a tool. I think answering a cop's questions makes a person a tool...one that gives up their hard won right against self incrimination in order to not upset or inconvenience their overzealous interrogator, at the risk of their own freedom, safety, and sometimes life.
Since no one has put forth a reasonable explanation WHY one would act in such a self defeating, disrespectful (to those who died to secure the right to not incriminate yourself or be searched at random), unsafe, victimized way, it seems we should just agree to disagree. I think I put forth a number of logical reasons why I see this behavior (not answering questions) as perfectly reasonable AT ALL TIMES, and fortunately for me the DAs and judges agree with me.

We, the People, do NOT agree with your methodologies. They represent tyranny. You want the American people to be little obedient sheep? SCREW YOU.

Did you read it? I bet not, because it describes systems of laws and rules that can allow programs/problem solutions to create themselves based on evolutionary models, starting from a randomly generated population of possible solutions, not the programming of an AI.
Yes, someone must 'program' those rules into a computer, but there's no need to program an AI (nor is there a need for someone to program those laws into reality, they simply are... the universe did not start out as an empty hard drive), this programs and re-programs itself based on the rules to find the optimal solution to the problem given. That's solution evolution, not AI.
The methodology comes from the field of AI, as it's a good way for an AI to find the best solution to a problem, it is not, however, an AI itself, nor is it relegated only to the field of AI.

No they don't. Sort of. It's complicated.

I don't know about neutrinos, but I'm fairly certain they don't travel faster than light. There was an experiment a few years back that seemed to suggest they did, but as far as I know it is now thought to have been an error. It did make for an interesting paradox - I'm told the experiment was only possible due to very accurate GPS, which of course relies very heavily on both general and special relativity. The ftl result undermined their own methodology.

The technique to making true Damascus steel was lost in the mid 1800s. The technique and composition to Greek Fire was lost in the 13th century or 19th, depending on whose stories you want to believe.

We were well on our way to losing the schematics and information on our original Apollo and Gemini space programs until they started trying to sort and salvage that data a few years ago. The problem is that when we replace something old with a better technology or limit the knowledge of a technique to a few people, we rapidly lose the methodology of 'how' to do the technique.

In the case of proper war and hunting archery, when guns became more common and easier to use, people gravitated to them because they were MUCH easier to learn than archery. Archery required specific training for war and for survival it was from the time you could hold a bow. Anyone could learn to use a gun quickly, so people just....forgot how to properly use bows. Probably as soon as the remaining archers died out.

i have zero desire to see trance banned,that was never my intent for calling him out.
i simply wanted him to acknowledge his emotional response to a disagreement on a video he posted,
that the disagreement was with the video NOT him..personally.

i know this will only further derail this thread but i think it should be said.

a video is not a representation of the person.
being called out does not automatically translate to dislike of the person being called out.

a few weeks ago i did a little experiment with clickbait titles and @ChaosEngine totally called me on it.which gave me a nice chuckle and chaos was in the right but interestingly enough,the experiment worked.that video got 10 times the views it normally would in the same allotted time.

there was another video i posted where i didnt do my due diligence and it turned out to be a total fraud and @speechless (quite politely) called me out on that video and i was forced to apologize in shame.

does all this translate to chaos and speechless disliking me?
of course not.
i got busted using clickbait methodology and not doing my homework.while a tad embarrassing,being called out taught a lesson and a bit of humility.

point: i was the better for it.

trances targeted downvoting was an emotional response and he was behaving foolishly,but make no mistake..trance is no fool.he just took my analysis and criticism personally and responded emotionally.

no animals were harmed,all the puppies are still cute and kitty videos are more popular than ever.

human beings are sometimes irrational and emotional.trance should not be banned for behaving like a human being.

WHAT?!?
So, we can't beat them fighting in the middle east, but we should still go to war there to keep them from 'coming here'...exactly how does that work? By fighting an unwinnable 'war' and causing FAR more collateral damage than those we are attacking have we CREATE ISIS and it's cohorts, and give them a REASON to come to our shores. The 'came here' BECAUSE we invaded them and continue to occupy more and more and exert more and more outside control over them, not the other way around, buddy.
But don't get me wrong, now that we've created and armed them, we have a responsibility to 'deal' with them. I only wish we dealt with them by supporting the locals so much that they would rather support the US over others, rather than by bombing all of them and wondering why the survivors don't love us. That CAN'T stop terrorism, because it IS terrorism.
yeah, not too worried that ISIS might build a nuke any time soon, Iran hasn't.
When you shoot Dillinger in the head while he's handcuffed, and his dog, and burn his home with his family inside, and his neighbors homes, you will automatically create at least one Dillinger Jr., if not many. It's this dehumanizing, 'our fear outweighs your life' methodology that has created the problem where a large portion of the world hates us enough to be willing to die just to hurt or scare us, and I wish we would re-think it rather than keep doubling down and hoping for different results. It's doing the same for police lately.

I also never understood this. It seems like one more instance where a cultural methodology hurts the culture...just like the whole 'don't snitch' BS.

As an aside, I hate this thing where they just repeat the video for no reason.

@SDGundamX and addressing the devil's advocate rather than 'you'...

Spiderman's head is also raised (the same angle of their face is shown) and his back is arched, and i think that's clear when they are side by side. If anything i think spiderman's left leg is poorly drawn and his backside does need to be more in the air, whereas spiderwoman is a more human-like natural position for raising a knee over a ledge with your chest close to the ground. Remember that they are different artists bringing their own styles to a particular genre, they both have their own personalities and methods/methodologies. Furthermore, how much of an arch difference is necessary or acceptable and who makes those rules? Surely we must draw men and women differently so that we know whether the character is male or female (do we have too few fem superheroes is another question), and as a species we have different shapes. Surely amongst all these factors we must accept that the spiderwoman is a reasonable artistic recreation of the spiderman pic? If not, why not, taking all of those factors into account (and i can probably list more)? Basically we're asking the question "what is art?" here.

So that's why i think it's impossible for anyone to say the pose is sexual but the creator. No one questioned whether the spiderman pose was overtly sexual until someone drew spiderwoman doing "the same" (for argument's sake) thing. To a bunch of people who do not automatically see women as sexual objects (and i consider myself among that bunch), her pose is not sexual because the context isn't sexual. The question of sexuality arises when someone looks at the pic and goes "Gee, if i were levitating several hundred meters in the air directly behind her and she wasn't wearing any pants, she'd be 'presenting' to me for a split second."

So the ultimate level of 'equality' (or whatever) would be a world in which anything, in its particular context, is legal and absolutely ok. But of course, we can't depict nude youngsters in cinema even in the context of a bath for good reason, which let's generalise to all potentially difficult subjects (like sexism, racism, etc.) and call the "no one's perfect rule" - we can't trust everyone to keep things in context.

Our supposedly greatest form of organisation and problem solving - national governments, the pillars of our society - can't sort their proverbial arses from their proverbial elbows; if they're not perfect, how can we trust all of society to be?

In conclusion - i suppose we need a certain level of sexism or reverse-sexism that hopefully keeps us balanced between short-changing the future prospects of young girls in favour of young boys because of a biased society, and treating other people unfairly because of an over-zealous pursuit of what seems to be impossible.

One way of helping this is by very carefully checking the facts, the context and the meaning of what someone says before saying things like "sexist" or "mansplaining" or "racist". Always react as slowly as you may, that way you can be more or less enraged in your response depending on new info!

Edit: Want to add that if i had a pic of myself in that spidey pose, i'd be pretty happy putting it up on an eharmony profile or something - it is a 'sexy' pose, it looks good, he looks lean and strong and fit. I don't like this idea that women don't have sexual urges or that lean, fit men aren't sexy to women. It's possibly sexist to assume that! He's kind of presenting too, from a certain position...

Common core Puppet.

IS not what they need to learn its the methodology they use. Its' Fucked up.

7X4 is not 28 its 7 circles with 4 dots in each circle. This is the crap I face with my kids every day. It a round about way and hence illogical.

Rounding to the nearest thousand 9501 is 9000 but who rounds a number like this? normal rounding of a thousand involves a number worth rounding ex 210, 898 is rounded to to 211k out of convenience and where the hundreds are less important

So, you're saying god made 'his word' perfect, but made man so imperfect they can't possibly understand that perfect word?...unless we 'know the mind of god', but I recall the bible stating that anyone claiming to have knowledge of god's mind/plan is a liar or insane (or both). That seems like a terrible methodology for Him to use.
I think if 'god's word' was perfect, it could not be ignored or misunderstood, ever, under any circumstance, by anyone. No? That's my idea of perfection, not an easily questionable, morally bankrupt (slavery, stoning, raping, etc.), debatable, confusable, ignorable, changeable 'word'.
How to reconcile that logical Mobius loop?
..and who are you to question your god's wish that I not believe in him?! ;-)

Thanks for answering my questions.

Couldn't agree more. But (there's always a 'but')... if a person convinces themself that they feel better without gluten, then the most passionate and data filled argument presented to tell them that what they feel is not justifiable scientifically, they're still going to be silly and tell the informed individual to screw off. The point is, some people have a reason that is good enough for them, and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. Are we really that dialed in to what's healthy and what nutrients we need for a healthy lifestyle? (whatever that means...). By example, consider the history of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - in the early 90's, people were feeling shitty and weak, in pain and suffering. They were labeled as fakers or diagnosed as having a psychological disorder, but certainly not a verifiable medical condition related to any consistent physiological disorder. Thousands then and now millions of people have been diagnosed with the disease that is finally recognized as a true medical ailment. The point: we know a lot but we don't know it all when it comes to physiology, nutrition and "sensitivities", and there is no one size fits all solution to guarantee we will be healthy. It's understandable that some are dismissive of this gluten thing as completely irrational based on current science, but parallel that with the irrational and mocked CFS sufferers from 30 years ago who now carry a disease that is has a clear diagnostic methodology and is to varying degrees treatable. Sometimes we don't even know what we don't even know, and for some if it makes them feel better, they're going to do it. Harmful? To each their own.