3 ms·

parent comment is once again saying no such thing. The root comment of this thread are not the words of that comment.

by Stevvo 5y ago

jodrellblank 5y ago
You can't just keep repeating "saying no such thing" when you (they) are saying such a thing. They joined in to a root comment reminding people to reject Norton employee resumes, by saying that Norton people who don't get other jobs are morally bad people and programmers are free agents who could get other jobs (by implication they would do so if they were morally good people). Under this worldview, leaving shows moral goodness so hiring them should be encouraged more than hiring a random person. Saying "nuh uh" isn't enough to wriggle out of it.
- Stevvo 5y ago
  That's ridiculous. You also joined the discussion; by your own flawed logic, shouldn't we also determine everything everything you have said in this thread as being in support of the argument put forth in the root comment?
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    What specifically do you disagree with, or consider flawed logic, or ridiculous? 1. Pick a human at random, you have no information about their character. 2. Hurting people is bad. 3. It is possible to unknowingly hurt people, which does not reflect on moral character. 4. Learning that you are hurting people, and then continuing to do so is morally bad. 5. Learning that you are hurting people, and then stopping is morally better. 6. Therefore you have more information of good moral character about someone who has learned that they are hurting people and stopped, than about the unknown person in 1. 7. It is not reasonable to expect every job seeking person to know about every company reputation, or the crypto miner management might ask them to work on at some point in future. 8. Working at a company involves learning a lot more about what they do. 9. Learning that what they do is hurting people, and leaving, is more evidence of moral goodness than you know about an unknown random job applicant from an unknown previous employer. Or, alternately if you don't disagree with any of those, perhaps you disagree with the idea that someone could work for Norton not knowing in advance they would be harming people, so that counts as morally bad. Then you either think "hire morally bad people" or you agree with the root claim "remember don't hire Norton programmers". If so, then you disagree with the parent commenter's "everyone has the freedom to get another job" because if nobody should hire them, they don't have said freedom. 1.

parent comment is once again saying no such thing. The root comment of this thread are not the words of that comment.

by Stevvo 5y ago

parent comment is once again saying no such thing. The root comment of this thread are not the words of that comment.

You can't just keep repeating "saying no such thing" when you (they) are saying such a thing. They joined in to a root comment reminding people to reject Norton employee resumes, by saying that Norton people who don't get other jobs are morally bad people and programmers are free agents who could get other jobs (by implication they would do so if they were morally good people). Under this worldview, leaving shows moral goodness so hiring them should be encouraged more than hiring a random person. Saying "nuh uh" isn't enough to wriggle out of it.

Stevvo 5y ago
That's ridiculous. You also joined the discussion; by your own flawed logic, shouldn't we also determine everything everything you have said in this thread as being in support of the argument put forth in the root comment?
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  What specifically do you disagree with, or consider flawed logic, or ridiculous? 1. Pick a human at random, you have no information about their character. 2. Hurting people is bad. 3. It is possible to unknowingly hurt people, which does not reflect on moral character. 4. Learning that you are hurting people, and then continuing to do so is morally bad. 5. Learning that you are hurting people, and then stopping is morally better. 6. Therefore you have more information of good moral character about someone who has learned that they are hurting people and stopped, than about the unknown person in 1. 7. It is not reasonable to expect every job seeking person to know about every company reputation, or the crypto miner management might ask them to work on at some point in future. 8. Working at a company involves learning a lot more about what they do. 9. Learning that what they do is hurting people, and leaving, is more evidence of moral goodness than you know about an unknown random job applicant from an unknown previous employer. Or, alternately if you don't disagree with any of those, perhaps you disagree with the idea that someone could work for Norton not knowing in advance they would be harming people, so that counts as morally bad. Then you either think "hire morally bad people" or you agree with the root claim "remember don't hire Norton programmers". If so, then you disagree with the parent commenter's "everyone has the freedom to get another job" because if nobody should hire them, they don't have said freedom. 1.