Jordan Peterson 🐐 vs CH4

[HBV]

women are sly for goodness sake. if you are going to go to the trouble of arguing that they are not then at least throw in something with a bit of meat on it like their uterus’s and the struggle they are having with men to keep control of their uterus’s

[anon61956325]

Here’s a snippet of Jords talking about the meaning of life for men … @Horsebox needs to watch this and I think we all know a Peter Pan that could do with listening to it also.

It must have been Halloween as someone is in costume at the front.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX2ep5fCJZ8

[backinatracksuit]

Mate, there’s a huge difference between tax avoidance and what we’re talking about here, tax avoidance is a ‘victimless’ crime, nobody will kick up a fuss, unfair dismissal is the absolute opposite, I’m with @Fagan_ODowd here, it’s Alf Garnett stuff

[mikehunt]

I’m not comparing tax and employment law. I’m just highlighting ways companies bend the rules so they don’t break the law. This one sounds like a bad egg, not cos she’s pregnant but because she wasn’t honest about her situation.

[backinatracksuit]

I understand what you’re doing, but nobody kicks up a fuss over tax avoidance, the victim of unfair dismissal will bring down these famous small businesses a lot quicker than a few months of voluntarily paying her maternity cover, and she’s proven herself to be the best qualified person for the job, she is not dishonest in this instance, perhaps she’s a bit brazen but without knowing much of the circumstances yourself and a few others are coming across as dinosaurs.

[Tim_Riggins]

She’s a bad egg because she needed a job and was pregnant.

FFS.

[Ashman]

I am surprised no one has asked is the lady attractive .

[mikehunt]

@Tim_Riggins

She’s a bad egg because she needed a job and was pregnant.

FFS.

Yep that’s been my point all along Tim.

[Horsebox]

@Ashman

I am surprised no one has asked is the lady attractive .

Finally someone says what everybody’s been thinking.

[mikehunt]

@backinatracksuit

I understand what you’re doing, but nobody kicks up a fuss over tax avoidance, the victim of unfair dismissal will bring down these famous small businesses a lot quicker than a few months of voluntarily paying her maternity cover, and she’s proven herself to be the best qualified person for the job, she is not dishonest in this instance, perhaps she’s a bit brazen but without knowing much of the circumstances yourself and a few others are coming across as dinosaurs.

@flattythehurdler

As an aside, a girl we appointed previously still works for us, and is one of my favourite people. She is a delight. She was the only person initially called for interview for her job, and refused to interview as she said she was pregnant. She contacted us after she had had the baby, and was settled, and was appointed immediately. We rang her after the first time, and told her not to be stupid, but she insisted that it wouldn’t be right.

Compare and contrast the behaviour of both.

[backinatracksuit]

One of those may be an actual real person

[Tim_Riggins]

That’s what you’re saying, you are failing to considering this from one side only.

[mikehunt]

@Tim_Riggins

That’s what you’re saying, you are failing to considering this from one side only.

I am doing the exact opposite.I have mentioned the impact on the company and it’s current employees and the potential costs involved. I find her actions to be questionable but only time will tell how it will work out. I’m sure Flatty will keep us informed.

[Tim_Riggins]

You literally just called her dishonest- she has no obligation to report that under law. It is an offense in an interview to ask such questions. The reason being that they are trying to give women some protection in the labour market to go and get a job.

I pointed out the issues for small companies from the get go and said being peeved is perfectly understandable. I find it interesting that you immediately attack a person trying to make their way in the economy with no consideration of their circumstances.

[flattythehurdler]

If you ever stick your nose outside your safe little bubble into the real world of creation of jobs and the like, I’ll take something you have to say under consideration.
Otherwise, put your padded elbow jacket back on, light your pipe and FRO.

[backinatracksuit]

Ah bless, you’ll only take opinion from somebody involved in job creation

[flattythehurdler]

Nope. But I’ll only be accused of lying by someone with a modicum of knowledge.
Both of these examples are absolutely true.
I was surprised by the second lady, who is, as I say, delightful. I haven’t formed a strong opinion on the first as she’s on maternity leave.
I absolutely accept her legal right to do what she did. Lots of things are absolutely legal, but morally vague.
I think there is a difference between being dishonest, and not being absolutely open. It is what it is.
I merely furnished it as a (quite true) example. Im sure balbec will vouch for me.

[backinatracksuit]

Ffs, you furnished us with a convenient counter female employer and I made a light hearted comment, I’ve no reason to believe you or otherwise, but I’m perfectly entitled to an opinion in this hypothetical debate, what the fuck do you know about me, do you only ever comment on things you have direct expertise in?

[flattythehurdler]

@backinatracksuit

One of those may be an actual real person

Sin e e.

[Sidney]

@flattythehurdler

I absolutely accept her legal right to do what she did. Lots of things are absolutely legal, but morally vague.

I would class things such as tax avoidance, marital infidelity, killing animals for food, or activities such as hare coursing and horse racing where animals are killed for sport, as being in that category.

Not taking maternity leave.