3 ms·

So just to establish: You would be okay with someone say, joining a company with the explicit purpose of dating and not doing their work, yeah? Like they join t

So just to establish: You would be okay with someone say, joining a company with the explicit purpose of dating and not doing their work, yeah? Like they join the company, do nothing except look for women to date. Not only that, but if management found out they would not be allowed to fire them.

ShredKazoo 4y ago
>So just to establish: You would be okay with someone say, joining a company with the explicit purpose of dating and not doing their work, yeah? Getting a job and then not doing your work makes you a shitty employee, and being a shitty employee is bad. You're violating the spirit of your employment contract, that your employer gives you money and you do work for them in return.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Correct, now apply that to being a student. When you go to college, there is a contract that you sign to not cheat, to not be disruptive. To be a 'good' student (which doesn't necessarily entail passing classes, but not affecting others or being dishonest). Guess what these people are doing in this situation.
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
    >When you go to college, there is a contract that you sign to not cheat, to not be disruptive. Cheating isn't relevant when you're auditing a class. I think the key issue is how disruptive the behavior really is. My suspicion is that it isn't very disruptive and the people complaining are being oversensitive.
    - fzeroracer 4y ago
      So you're going to continue dancing around the point I'm making. I believe we're done here then since you've planted your feet at the 'it's not disruptive even if people are saying it's disruptive' line.
      - ShredKazoo 4y ago
        Yep, just because people say it is disruptive doesn't make it disruptive. Imagine a gay couple sits together in class every day -- no PDA, but it's obvious they're a couple. Students complain to the professor that they're being disruptive. What is the appropriate response? If they're consenting adults engaging in activities that are mutually consensual, generally speaking I don't think there is a problem.

ShredKazoo 4y ago

>So just to establish: You would be okay with someone say, joining a company with the explicit purpose of dating and not doing their work, yeah? Getting a job and then not doing your work makes you a shitty employee, and being a shitty employee is bad. You're violating the spirit of your employment contract, that your employer gives you money and you do work for them in return.

fzeroracer 4y ago
Correct, now apply that to being a student. When you go to college, there is a contract that you sign to not cheat, to not be disruptive. To be a 'good' student (which doesn't necessarily entail passing classes, but not affecting others or being dishonest). Guess what these people are doing in this situation.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  >When you go to college, there is a contract that you sign to not cheat, to not be disruptive. Cheating isn't relevant when you're auditing a class. I think the key issue is how disruptive the behavior really is. My suspicion is that it isn't very disruptive and the people complaining are being oversensitive.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    So you're going to continue dancing around the point I'm making. I believe we're done here then since you've planted your feet at the 'it's not disruptive even if people are saying it's disruptive' line.
    - ShredKazoo 4y ago
      Yep, just because people say it is disruptive doesn't make it disruptive. Imagine a gay couple sits together in class every day -- no PDA, but it's obvious they're a couple. Students complain to the professor that they're being disruptive. What is the appropriate response? If they're consenting adults engaging in activities that are mutually consensual, generally speaking I don't think there is a problem.