Actual Ex-Mo Predators

[Kishkumen]

Wow, you are really, really touchy about being disagreed with!

No matter. You know nothing about me. Your statement above stands as the personal attack it is. Fallacious argument at its best. Well done, fellow professor.

I didn’t mean to trigger you, Marcus. Just sharing my observations!

[drumdude]

Another characteristic of Leftist discourse is the almost sole preoccupation with power in human relationships. Marcus is pretty much a textbook Leftist, and her arguments proceed accordingly. This is not a knock but an observation. People should know that Marcus operates in a particular discourse with its own history and idiosyncrasies. The views she expresses are not automatically true, right, or uniquely salient.

Huh???

[Kishkumen]

Huh???

Whuuuu???

[Marcus]

Wow, you are really, really touchy about being disagreed with!

No matter. You know nothing about me. Your statement above stands as the personal attack it is. Fallacious argument at its best. Well done, fellow professor.

I didn’t mean to trigger you, Marcus. Just sharing my observations!

Lol. You were the one triggered. In this case by disagreement to the extent that you had to insert a personal attack into a discussion instead of arguing your case. : D

Get back to the discussion and leave the fallaciousness behind, fellow professor!

[Kishkumen]

Lol. You were the one triggered. In this case by disagreement to the extent that you had to insert a personal attack into a discussion instead of arguing your case. : D

Get back to the discussion and leave the fallaciousness behind, fellow professor!

Wow, Marcus! Calling you a Leftist is a personal attack? I had no idea! I thought you were a proud Leftist, based on everything I have seen you post here. Huh!

Well, sorry if I got that wrong. I had no idea you would take that as a personal attack and be so triggered by it!

I have been arguing my case. I can do so and make asides to help people understand some of the discourse others are engaging in. Surprise, surprise!

[Marcus]

Lol. You were the one triggered. In this case by disagreement to the extent that you had to insert a personal attack into a discussion instead of arguing your case. : D

Get back to the discussion and leave the fallaciousness behind, fellow professor!

Wow, Marcus! Calling you a Leftist is a personal attack? I had no idea! I thought you were a proud Leftist, based on everything I have seen you post here. Huh!

Well, sorry if I got that wrong. I had no idea you would take that as a personal attack and be so triggered by it!

I have been arguing my case. I can do so and make asides to help people understand some of the discourse others are engaging in. Surprise, surprise!

And more of the fallaciousness. Rein in your triggeredness and get back to the subject.

[Kishkumen]

And more of the fallaciousness. Rein in your triggeredness and get back to the subject.

I await the return of your usual even-tempered ability to distinguish between arguments and observations.

[drumdude]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hrexch ... omance/amp

Work place relationship article.

For example, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a jury could not reasonably rule in favor of the terminated subordinate employee plaintiff, where the plaintiff and her supervisor had a five-year consensual on-again-off-again sexual relationship. The employee was fired one month after the supervisor ended their relationship, but the court found that the plaintiff’s case lacked merit because she did not claim the romantic conduct was unwelcome and she admitted the supervisor did not seek sex in exchange for employment.

This does seem to make a strong case that what Dehlin did wasn’t sexual harassment.

It seems to me like improper termination is the more reasonable charge. Rosebud was still perfectly capable of performing her job, Dehlin only wanted her gone because the optics of the relationship looked bad.

[IWMP]

This does seem to make a strong case that what Dehlin did wasn’t sexual harassment.

It seems to me like improper termination is the more reasonable charge. Rosebud was still perfectly capable of performing her job, Dehlin only wanted her gone because the optics of the relationship looked bad.

This is my perspective.

[Marcus]

This does seem to make a strong case that what Dehlin did wasn’t sexual harassment.

It seems to me like improper termination is the more reasonable charge. Rosebud was still perfectly capable of performing her job, Dehlin only wanted her gone because the optics of the relationship looked bad.

I still consider dehlin's actions to be sexual harassment, but I agree that the proper legal term should probably be 'improper termination.'