The parents expressed their care for their children in the avenues they preferred to do so.
-
The parents expressed their care for their children in the avenues they preferred to do so.
He doesn't need to make any assumptions of other people
Assuming you tried to avoid a double negative and instead meant "There's nothing wrong with them making assumptions of other people": Again, I'm not blaming him for making those assumptions. But he did believe it would not cause harm which most likely turned out to be wrong. And that was, in your narrative that I agree with, based on the reasonable assumption that there's no ulterior connotation to "Lolita".
You can argue that Japanese Lolita fashion has little do with the infamous book, but that doesn't shake the fact that we are not in East Asia but in North America, where "Lolita" is intensely associated with the book and pedophilia. The parents made a reasonable assumption that this is what "Lolita" meant. There's no difference here between the amount of assumptions made by the driver and the parents.
They can look away
From the reasonable conclusion that their driver is a predator?
unfairly forced this man out of his position
That's an assumption. It's still possible the driver is given a second chance at bus driving. And in the worst case I doubt the driver would not be able to find employment in public transportation.
The driver caused zero harm.
That's also an assumption. I don't see any reason why the driver would not cause parents to not trust the bus and harm the children forced either to wake early and walk to school or contribute to the emissions in their air.
or chose to drive their own kid to school.
Again, there's the harm. The pollution doubling as half the bus goes to school in a car instead and being prevented from talking with friends on the bus, especially those with whom one does not share a lunch period. And your assuming that all the parents have the time to drive their children to school without conflict from their work commute.
-
The parents expressed their care for their children in the avenues they preferred to do so.
He doesn't need to make any assumptions of other people
Assuming you tried to avoid a double negative and instead meant "There's nothing wrong with them making assumptions of other people": Again, I'm not blaming him for making those assumptions. But he did believe it would not cause harm which most likely turned out to be wrong. And that was, in your narrative that I agree with, based on the reasonable assumption that there's no ulterior connotation to "Lolita".
You can argue that Japanese Lolita fashion has little do with the infamous book, but that doesn't shake the fact that we are not in East Asia but in North America, where "Lolita" is intensely associated with the book and pedophilia. The parents made a reasonable assumption that this is what "Lolita" meant. There's no difference here between the amount of assumptions made by the driver and the parents.
They can look away
From the reasonable conclusion that their driver is a predator?
unfairly forced this man out of his position
That's an assumption. It's still possible the driver is given a second chance at bus driving. And in the worst case I doubt the driver would not be able to find employment in public transportation.
The driver caused zero harm.
That's also an assumption. I don't see any reason why the driver would not cause parents to not trust the bus and harm the children forced either to wake early and walk to school or contribute to the emissions in their air.
or chose to drive their own kid to school.
Again, there's the harm. The pollution doubling as half the bus goes to school in a car instead and being prevented from talking with friends on the bus, especially those with whom one does not share a lunch period. And your assuming that all the parents have the time to drive their children to school without conflict from their work commute.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The parents made misguided assumptions of someone else and dictated how that person could express themselves. Fuck those parents. Period. Your wild logic to justify their behavior is utter bullshit.
Assuming you tried to avoid a double negative and instead meant "There's nothing wrong with them making assumptions of other people":
No, that's the opposite of what I was saying. You clearly lack reading comprehension based on this entire thread., so no surprise you misinterpret me.
There is everything wrong with making assumptions of others. It's a bad habit people need to stop doing. People who do so are in the wrong. Period.There's no difference here between the amount of assumptions made by the driver and the parents.
Except there is, because the driver was making no assumptions of anyone. His actions were not based on the decisions of other. He was simply expressing himself in the way he saw fit. As he has ever right to do. Every individual on this planet has the right to express themselves independently of how others around them might perceive them. Only the parents made assumptions of the man and his preferred method of personal expression and then acted in a way to deliberately restrict this man's ability of personal expression.
The following argument is based on the parents being justified in their assumptions, which they weren't, so this argument is invalidated. That was not a reasonable assumption. It was an ignorant assumption rather than actually observing the actions and seeing that no child was harmed.
unfairly forced this man out of his position
No, it isn't an assumption. Read the article, it is directly written in it. He no longer drives that route. That route was his position, which he no longer occupies. The rest of what you said is irrelevant to my point.
The driver caused zero harm.
No, this also isn't an assumption. It's the negative. Until you can prove with evidence he did harm, then the negative is always considered true. This is called the "benefit of the doubt". Learn it.
forced either to wake early and walk to school or contribute to the emissions in their air.
They were not forced. Parents were perfectly able to choose to continue letting the kids keep riding the bus. The harm of emissions from not letting the children take the bus is the fault of the parents, not the driver. If the parents can't drive their kids to school, then they should learn to cope that other people have the right to be different. Don't shift the blame.
-
The parents made misguided assumptions of someone else and dictated how that person could express themselves. Fuck those parents. Period. Your wild logic to justify their behavior is utter bullshit.
Assuming you tried to avoid a double negative and instead meant "There's nothing wrong with them making assumptions of other people":
No, that's the opposite of what I was saying. You clearly lack reading comprehension based on this entire thread., so no surprise you misinterpret me.
There is everything wrong with making assumptions of others. It's a bad habit people need to stop doing. People who do so are in the wrong. Period.There's no difference here between the amount of assumptions made by the driver and the parents.
Except there is, because the driver was making no assumptions of anyone. His actions were not based on the decisions of other. He was simply expressing himself in the way he saw fit. As he has ever right to do. Every individual on this planet has the right to express themselves independently of how others around them might perceive them. Only the parents made assumptions of the man and his preferred method of personal expression and then acted in a way to deliberately restrict this man's ability of personal expression.
The following argument is based on the parents being justified in their assumptions, which they weren't, so this argument is invalidated. That was not a reasonable assumption. It was an ignorant assumption rather than actually observing the actions and seeing that no child was harmed.
unfairly forced this man out of his position
No, it isn't an assumption. Read the article, it is directly written in it. He no longer drives that route. That route was his position, which he no longer occupies. The rest of what you said is irrelevant to my point.
The driver caused zero harm.
No, this also isn't an assumption. It's the negative. Until you can prove with evidence he did harm, then the negative is always considered true. This is called the "benefit of the doubt". Learn it.
forced either to wake early and walk to school or contribute to the emissions in their air.
They were not forced. Parents were perfectly able to choose to continue letting the kids keep riding the bus. The harm of emissions from not letting the children take the bus is the fault of the parents, not the driver. If the parents can't drive their kids to school, then they should learn to cope that other people have the right to be different. Don't shift the blame.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Every individual on this planet has the right to express themselves independently of how others around them might perceive them.
Yes, absolutely. We have the right to express ourselves. But we aren't entitled to employment in any position we want at any company we want regardless of how we express ourselves in public while representing that company. "Dressing in flashy attention-seeking outfits and displaying a sign that says Lolita" isn't a category that's protected from employment discrimination.
The dude isn't facing criminal charges. Just normal workplace consequences that anyone should have expected regardless of whether you feel it's right.
-
Every individual on this planet has the right to express themselves independently of how others around them might perceive them.
Yes, absolutely. We have the right to express ourselves. But we aren't entitled to employment in any position we want at any company we want regardless of how we express ourselves in public while representing that company. "Dressing in flashy attention-seeking outfits and displaying a sign that says Lolita" isn't a category that's protected from employment discrimination.
The dude isn't facing criminal charges. Just normal workplace consequences that anyone should have expected regardless of whether you feel it's right.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Yea gonna disagree there. A company shouldn't have the right to end employment over inconsequential differences. That is not their authority.
So long as the individual is doing the job, which is simply to drive a bus in this case, everything else is irrelevant and companies should go get fucked for trying to dictate that. How he dresses has nothing to do with his ability to drive a bus and shouldn't be allowed to be a factor in determining his employment.
The entire point is he shouldn't have had to face any consequences for something so benign.
-
Yea gonna disagree there. A company shouldn't have the right to end employment over inconsequential differences. That is not their authority.
So long as the individual is doing the job, which is simply to drive a bus in this case, everything else is irrelevant and companies should go get fucked for trying to dictate that. How he dresses has nothing to do with his ability to drive a bus and shouldn't be allowed to be a factor in determining his employment.
The entire point is he shouldn't have had to face any consequences for something so benign.
It's not "inconsequential" if it causes friction with your client. You can say "this is fucking bullshit and fuck anyone who disagrees" as much as you want because you're an uninvolved keyboard warrior, but the employer has to be pragmatic.
