RE: Man quits job over bad woo
February 9, 2013 at 11:24 am
(This post was last modified: February 9, 2013 at 11:27 am by PhilipD.)
So apart from the derailing, the trivial side-notes I.e. defining 'The noodle' and such I think (assuming I didn't miss it being fully explained to John) I will try and show you all and him why he garnered the outrage that he did.
Firstly, sensitive subjects. There are many 'sensitive' topics that people still do not like discussing. Heck, we're all seen as very liberal as far as religious discussion goes. Most people of all religions (or of a lack-of such) do not like to express their opinions or open them up to critiquing. I do not for one second think that John is wrong for stepping on a sensitive subject purely on the basis that it is sensitive. What would be wrong is acknowledging that it is sensitive to a particular person and going ahead and saying it to them anyway.
The main point, however, is that John took the whole situation out-of-proportion in order to make the 'insult', as it were. John, you would be right in saying that it is ironic if Tara was imposing her (I don't know which you prefer so you'll have outline that for me! Until then, I'll assume her) beliefs on her employer. For example: An originally male trans-gendered person attempts to use the female toilet in their workplace and find they are not allowed. They go through a lengthy process of forcing politically correct people to observe 'their right' to be acknowledged as a female and subsequently, they (and not men, just other 'trans-gendered' people) are allowed to use the female toilet. If they then went on to criticise this guy, that would be ironic. I'm not going to assume the background of this whole situation but from what I've discovered so far, nothing of this nature has been the case.
The reason you have been lambasted is because you decided to throw caution (and logic) to the wind in order to hurt another human-being. Not only did you risk hurting them but you also risked (and clearly did) lose your credibility in the process. It may seem easy to ridicule others because; to be frank, I have seen atheists being insulting to religious people here, but that doesn't make it right. So from a (hopefully) impartial perspective I believe this should clear up your confusion.
Firstly, sensitive subjects. There are many 'sensitive' topics that people still do not like discussing. Heck, we're all seen as very liberal as far as religious discussion goes. Most people of all religions (or of a lack-of such) do not like to express their opinions or open them up to critiquing. I do not for one second think that John is wrong for stepping on a sensitive subject purely on the basis that it is sensitive. What would be wrong is acknowledging that it is sensitive to a particular person and going ahead and saying it to them anyway.
The main point, however, is that John took the whole situation out-of-proportion in order to make the 'insult', as it were. John, you would be right in saying that it is ironic if Tara was imposing her (I don't know which you prefer so you'll have outline that for me! Until then, I'll assume her) beliefs on her employer. For example: An originally male trans-gendered person attempts to use the female toilet in their workplace and find they are not allowed. They go through a lengthy process of forcing politically correct people to observe 'their right' to be acknowledged as a female and subsequently, they (and not men, just other 'trans-gendered' people) are allowed to use the female toilet. If they then went on to criticise this guy, that would be ironic. I'm not going to assume the background of this whole situation but from what I've discovered so far, nothing of this nature has been the case.
The reason you have been lambasted is because you decided to throw caution (and logic) to the wind in order to hurt another human-being. Not only did you risk hurting them but you also risked (and clearly did) lose your credibility in the process. It may seem easy to ridicule others because; to be frank, I have seen atheists being insulting to religious people here, but that doesn't make it right. So from a (hopefully) impartial perspective I believe this should clear up your confusion.
