Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
People constantly misunderstand what "Freedom of speech" is. Politically one can say anything one wants without government repercussion. That is all that it means. A place of business can fire someone for things that they do during their time off. If they do something that reflects badly on the company they are usually within their rights to fire that person.But it wasnt done at the workplace. And besides, getting her fired wont change her views or mind. She’ll go somewhere else with the same viewpoint. Nothing got accomplished.
No, they are absolutely not equivalent in meaning. They are very different, and practically opposite in meaning. Details are particulars, specific facts. An idea is a general, vague notion. One can have an idea without knowing details. Based on your own description in your own words we have an idea albeit no details of this story.We don't know the details = we have no idea. Those sentences are equivalent in meaning.
Who was looking for a scapegoat anywhere in the story from the OP or this discussion thread? This whole thing has nothing to do with scapegoats at all.Everything else you said was pure speculation - as well as an additional reasonable assumption that family members are going to be upset when a member dies. Of course. So stipulated.
Some are of the mindset to look for scapegoats. That doesn't mean one can pinpoint who is to blame even if of the mindset to do so, which really does a disservice to the kids.
Good for you! Not sure why you are stating this and why you are accusing me of "conflating prejudices with facts" when I've done no such thing. Between this and your scapegoat remark it looks like you may have meant to respond to some other post and accidentally responded to me instead.I wear a mask, FYI. Stop conflating irrational prejudices with facts.
You must not work in the Southern US. You can be terminated for any or no reason as long as the reason isn't your ethnicity, religion, gender or age.
For now. But I bet she gets another job quickly, if she hasn't already.
If I act a fool. I don't do it in front of cameras, or on profile pages. Just here. Laughing at a teen losing a mom or grandma. Because they're to brain washed against mask. Why would a hospital or doctors office be okay with this? She might be not wearing a mask in front of her consumers, or doing other things that aren't safe. Which isn't okay. She prove she's doesn't care. And that's a big problem, when it comes to consumers. I've been vaccinated and still wear mask with my consumers.
We don't know the details = we have no idea. Those sentences are equivalent in meaning.
You're fired. Your attitude isn't what we want here.That's actually true in 49 states.
We do not know HOW this woman was infected (details, who the carrier was, anything). We DO know - as I already stipulated - that Someone (pre, post, un jabbed) who had the virus transmitted it to her.No, they are absolutely not equivalent in meaning. They are very different, and practically opposite in meaning. Details are particulars, specific facts. An idea is a general, vague notion. One can have an idea without knowing details. Based on your own description in your own words we have an idea albeit no details of this story.
Who was looking for a scapegoat anywhere in the story from the OP or this discussion thread? This whole thing has nothing to do with scapegoats at all.
Good for you! Not sure why you are stating this and why you are accusing me of "conflating prejudices with facts" when I've done no such thing. Between this and your scapegoat remark it looks like you may have meant to respond to some other post and accidentally responded to me instead.
Agree with this, that one should never laugh while a kid is talking about his grandmother's death, regardless of reason, employee, friend, relative, whatever.A nurse laughing as someone relates the story of his grandmother dying of disease is just poor public optics for a company. All the nattering about the details of her death is irrelevant.
When someone is relating their story of a loved one's death, no hospital wants to see their employee laughing about it. That does not relate to the "caring" image every hospital is trying to project. It's bad customer service. It's like a an employee giving a customer the middle finger.
No, you do know the method used to cause death and damage. We saw the planes crash into the buildings.Hogwash.
I don't know the details regarding 9/11 -- the exact type of aircraft used, the names of the hijackers, the number of dead and wounded -- but it would be absurd to say I have no idea.
Agree with this, that one should never laugh while a kid is talking about his grandmother's death, regardless of reason, employee, friend, relative, whatever.
No, you do know the method used to cause death and damage. We saw the planes crash into the buildings.
You do NOT know all the details and none of us did when it happened.
OK so here you are stating that we don't know details and then you go on to state that we do have an idea since "We DO know - as [you] already stipulated - that Someone Someone (pre, post, un jabbed) who had the virus transmitted it to her."We do not know HOW this woman was infected (details, who the carrier was, anything). We DO know - as I already stipulated - that Someone (pre, post, un jabbed) who had the virus transmitted it to her.
It's not splitting hairs to point out the important distinction between knowing details and having an idea. You went from stating that knowing details = having an idea to now admitting that we do not know details yet we have an idea. I identified this earlier and it was an important distinction evidenced by the fact you just made this distinction yourself (albeit having conflated the two in your earlier posts).That is all we know, no matter how you try to split hairs.
Looking for and identifying a cause is not scapegoating, nor a scapegoating mindset, nor a scapegoating narrative. For example, it's not scapegoating to identify the cause of the spread of other diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, etc. but it is necessary in order to come up with solutions to the spread of those diseases. It's no different with Covid.The scapegoat narrative is obvious: even the kid blamed "an unmasked person" - which may or may not be reality at all as he has no idea, but there was a narrative to push.
We do not know HOW this woman was infected (details, who the carrier was, anything). We DO know - as I already stipulated - that Someone (pre, post, un jabbed) who had the virus transmitted it to her.
That is all we know, no matter how you try to split hairs.
The scapegoat narrative is obvious: even the kid blamed "an unmasked person" - which may or may not be reality at all as he has no idea, but there was a narrative to push.
Again with the distortion as if I am off base, when I am not.Is that your biggest takeaway from this thread?
Again with the distortion as if I am off base, when I am not.
This goes directly to the crux of the issue here: DID the woman laugh BECAUSE grandma died, as those who are gleeful that she was fired are asserting?
And the answer is we don't know. She smiled and shook her head slightly, then looked over at someone in the next chair. That's it.
Nonresponsive deflection.A perfectly appropriate response when a child speaks of a dead relative... have it your way.
Nonresponsive deflection.
Have it your way.
seems like a lot of work for nothing, to me. That lady will simply become a nurse elsewhere. All they did is inconvenience her.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?