As with any lobbyist, she could probably tell it either way depending upon who was paying her.
Paid espionage? What, did she give secrets away to the Russians? As I said before, it’s not a secret what the Brady Campaign and the VPC want to do. If it’s a gun, push to have it banned. There, I didn’t even get paid to tell you what they were doing.
The people employing the bus driver wouldn’t fail to ask. They would make it a point to do a complete physical because that what the job requires.
This whole thing is much ado about nothing. Seriously. What’s next, are you going to accuse her of being a traitor? At worst she told the NRA what the new attempt to ban something would be, and that ceases to be a secret, if it ever was a secret, as soon as Josh Sugarmann or Paul Helmke get in front of a camera.
Goddamn, Airman Doors USAF, I believe that’s a 100% score! You successfully avoided answering every single question. I’m not absolutely certain whether your response to the first question counts as a complete non-answer, but it’s such an eloquently vague and tangential reply that I think extra points for style are warranted. In particular, your shifting stance on “not being asked” vs. “telling it either way” is truly a masterpiece of misdirection, and it is a privilege to observe your technique in action.
Sir or madam, I stand in awe of your NRA-quality skill at obfuscation and duplicity. I certainly don’t envy anyone who believes that you’re working for them. The more fool they, when the time comes for you to stick the knife in.
Unless they made her sign a confidentiality agreement, I can’t see they have any remedy at law. As for the morality of lying (by omission or commission) I’ll leave that to theologians. Politicians do it to us all the time.
I suppose the right answer, the one you wanted, was “Wow, you’re right! Burn the Witch!”, but I don’t agree that it’s such a big deal. Sure, it’s an ethically questionable situation, but I put the responsibility on the hiring authority to do their homework. You disagree. So be it.
Not exactly. I just wanted a clarification of your declared manifesto of amorality and deceit:
“If you don’t ask and I don’t tell, the responsibility lies with you, not me.”
I wasn’t particularly interested in wringing a concession from you about the gun-control woman. I was curious about your apparent belief that it’s fine to deceive people so long as you’re not caught in a direct lie. Your adamant refusal to give anything approaching a straight answer seemed to confirm this hypothesis. Now that you’ve explained what you thought I was thinking, I can see that we were talking past other. I suppose it’s my fault for pursuing a topic tangential to the main thread, though it would have simplified things if you’d just admitted that bus drivers should be upfront about their propensity toward cataplectic seizure. Please don’t encourage an attitude of medical irresponsibility among our valued public transportation professionals.
Since you’ve given the rhetoric a rest and conceded “it’s an ethically questionable situation,” I may therefore infer that your earlier aphorism was not in fact intended to apply as a universal principle, and that you are not actually nuts. Just to be on the safe side though, I’m still not going to be hiring you for anything if I can possibly avoid it.
I’m not nuts. I’m simply asserting that barring a direct question or a necessity to confirm somebody’s physical or mental status, someone’s beliefs need not be disclosed. If they asked her directly what her opinion was on gun control and she lied, that is absolutely unethical. But judging by how far she got before she was found out, that is indicative of an organization that showed little to no interest in what she thought, especially since she was found out so easily by another organization. That falls squarely upon the organization.
I always say more organizations should require “loyalty oaths.” How else will they know whether I’m *really * Miley Cyrus’s #1 fan, or just an ill-intentioned agent provocateur?
There’s no hook, and I’m not trying to sucker you into anything. I gave my rationale, then I gave my interpretation of what happened from both perspectives.
Perspective 1: “If they asked her directly what her opinion was on gun control and she lied, that is absolutely unethical.”
Perspective 2: “But judging by how far she got before she was found out, that is indicative of an organization that showed little to no interest in what she thought, especially since she was found out so easily by another organization. That falls squarely upon the organization.”
The first one is simple. The second one requires affixing blame. I placed it where I perceive it belongs.
It’s not happening, sorry. I’m not going to set myself up for another narcoleptic bus driver evasion. You do it very well, though. I acknowledge that you can play these things out for as long as you like. I am no rhetorician.
How about that? I just made up the word “rhetorician,” and according to Wikipedia it’s actually the right word.