Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[dirtywick]

If you're a stuntperson in a film, what you wear is to some extent determined by safety and to some extent determined by what the director wants/needs. As long as you aren't doing anything that's risky in an objective sense (the way delivering pizza or cutting down trees is risky in an objective sense) it's simple inconsistency to think this makes porn work in any way morally special.

The plain fact is that she was fired over sex, not over job-related risk.

Er, they're still bad analogies.

I think the idea that children won't do their homework because a secretary they hardly ever see was in porn once has been lampooned sufficiently by others already. I don't think I need to mock it further myself.

Strawman. Not going to bite.

That's not a justification as far as I can see. It looks like a relative of the tu quoque fallacy if anything.

So there are, what, three arguments in play now, all silly?

We had a crappy analogy and a strawman. And I wasn't using it as an argument that any consequences should be applied. I'll quote myself: "It's all arbitrary." I believe that's all there is to people's opinions any of these stories, may as well throw a dart at a board to decide who stays and who loses.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Really people. while most of us here at JREF are enlightened, free thinking, easy come , easy go individuals; porn is still a problem for mainstream western society ...

Give it up ....

 

[JFrankA]

I have stated my position the best that I could. If you don't get it, then that's your problem. If you want to dig deeper and try and find polarity in my statements. Also your problem. If you want to try and think you're clever by performing amateur "psychoanalysis" and attaching some kind of social stigma on me as a woman hater because of my position then you are a troll.

I am firm on my position.

You are firm on your position?

...sorry, I couldn't resist.

Of course, your "position" is utter bullpucky. You claim to think that all the students will be "distracted" by the fact that someone has made a porno and works at their school.

Distracted, how? Do you think that the students are going to run and watch her work and giggle? Do you think that they won't be able to take their tests at all during the whole school year because of this?

Let me tell you something, the school board, making a big deal about that and firing her is causing a much bigger "distraction" than if they just didn't do anything to her.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I doubt the teens would take her seriously, which would impact her job performance in the office at school working with them.

I'm not sure why you'd think I directed that remark towards you.

Well you neglected to mention who you were directing it at, so I fielded it for the Sensible Team. Since that's now two posts where you haven't said who holds this 'double standard', I'm guessing you won't be telling us any time soon.

It has already been established that she didn't 'work with' the teens at her school. But clearly the school board share your doubts (or your prejudices) and nobody is interested in finding out the facts, they're just running with their 'doubts' (or prejudices). If her performance (at the school job!) had been affected, then sack her. That you think it might (that you think porn is bad mkay) isn't grounds for sacking someone. In fairness, if her porn performance might suffer because she'd been sacked from her school job, with all the stress that would entail, then sack her from her porn job as well. Then you could reinstate her at the school, of course. Then you could reinstate her at the studio...

 

[JFrankA]

I doubt the teens would take her seriously, which would impact her job performance in the office at school working with them.

That's a straw man. She was a secretary, not a teacher.

And even if she was a teacher, why wouldn't the students take her seriously?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Really people. while most of us here at JREF are enlightened, free thinking, easy come , easy go individuals; porn is still a problem for mainstream western society ...

Give it up ....

Yeah, sorry. Sit at the back of the bus, go back to the kitchen, don't rock the boat - someone here reckons he represents mainstream western society, so give it up. There's been quite enough progress, thank you.

 

[dirtywick]

Well you neglected to mention who you were directing it at, so I fielded it for the Sensible Team. Since that's now two posts where you haven't said who holds this 'double standard', I'm guessing you won't be telling us any time soon.

People in general. Was Sensible Team outraged when Tiger lost sponsorships?

It has already been established that she didn't 'work with' the teens at her school. But clearly the school board share your doubts (or your prejudices) and nobody is interested in finding out the facts, they're just running with their 'doubts' (or prejudices). If her performance (at the school job!) had been affected, then sack her. That you think it might (that you think porn is bad mkay) isn't grounds for sacking someone. In fairness, if her porn performance might suffer because she'd been sacked from her school job, with all the stress that would entail, then sack her from her porn job as well. Then you could reinstate her at the school, of course. Then you could reinstate her at the studio...

I qualified that with "that's not the reason the school used" so I doubt the school shares my opinion.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Er, they're still bad analogies.

You can assert that, but without any argument to back that assertion up I don't see any point in you doing so.

If risky behaviour was really the concern, teachers would be fired for delivering pizza, not for making porn in a professional context. Making porn is not particularly risky. As long as people are trying to justify sacking a porn actor on the grounds that their behaviour was risky, then analogies to more risky jobs are absolutely apt.

Of course the truth is most likely that the people advancing the risk argument don't actually give a damn about risk. They're just using it as an excuse for their real agenda which is about sex, not risk.

We had a crappy analogy and a strawman. And I wasn't using it as an argument that any consequences should be applied. I'll quote myself: "It's all arbitrary." I believe that's all there is to people's opinions any of these stories, may as well throw a dart at a board to decide who stays and who loses.

Then why are you posting again? Just to tell us all that you don't care and it's all arbitrary? If so, why do you care enough to tell us?

 

[dirtywick]

You can assert that, but without any argument to back that assertion up I don't see any point in you doing so.

If risky behaviour was really the concern, teachers would be fired for delivering pizza, not for making porn in a professional context. Making porn is not particularly risky. As long as people are trying to justify sacking a porn actor on the grounds that their behaviour was risky, then analogies to more risky jobs are absolutely apt.

Of course the truth is most likely that the people advancing the risk argument don't actually give a damn about risk. They're just using it as an excuse for their real agenda which is about sex, not risk.

They're bad because driving with a roll cage and a helmet with a paramedic crew behind you isn't even close to as extreme as wearing a condom (which should be pretty standard practice in sex in 2011 right? Or are we not drilled with that on a daily basis?).

You were the one arguing unprotected sex is adequately safe if testing is done. That's ridiculous on it's face and several links earlier in the thread about AIDS in the porn industry covered that.

That's why your analogies suck. A condom is as trivial as wearing a helmet on a construction site.

Then why are you posting again? Just to tell us all that you don't care and it's all arbitrary? If so, why do you care enough to tell us?

I didn't say I don't care. I think it's ridiculous and it bothers me.

 

[jiggeryqua]

People in general. Was Sensible Team outraged when Tiger lost sponsorships?

You made the claim of double standards. I answered for myself. The only thing you can say about 'people in general' is that they're people, in general.

 

[jiggeryqua]

wearing a condom (which should be pretty standard practice in sex in 2011 right? Or are we not drilled with that on a daily basis?).

That depends whose opinions you expose yourself to and how much critical thinking you apply to them. Some people expose themselves to a drilling from Alex Jones every day. Some people carry the puritanical positions of their patriarchal predecessors with them into every new day. That's the purpose of drilling, isn't it? Unthinking grunts, who follow orders.

 

[dirtywick]

You made the claim of double standards. I answered for myself. The only thing you can say about 'people in general' is that they're people, in general.

You didn't really answer, just got indignant with me bringing it up and accusing people of this or that. There was a miscommunication between us and I'm OK with leaving it that.

 

[dirtywick]

That depends whose opinions you expose yourself to and how much critical thinking you apply to them. Some people expose themselves to a drilling from Alex Jones every day. Some people carry the puritanical positions of their patriarchal predecessors with them into every new day. That's the purpose of drilling, isn't it? Unthinking grunts, who follow orders.

Are you advocating that unsafe sex is propaganda? Or that testing adequately safe enough to forego the trivial safety precaution of a condom with new partners?

 

[jiggeryqua]

You didn't really answer, just got indignant with me bringing it up and accusing people of this or that. There was a miscommunication between us and I'm OK with leaving it that.

Ah, the 'lets agree to disagree' school of conflict resolution. Couldn't resist prefacing it with a self-regarding (I hesitate to use the term 'utterly fictional') slant on preceding events, but you're correct, someone somewhere will think I'm just looking for a fight if I continue to point out that you're wrong.

You're wrong. I'm ok leaving it with that.

 

[dirtywick]

Ah, the 'lets agree to disagree' school of conflict resolution. Couldn't resist prefacing it with a self-regarding (I hesitate to use the term 'utterly fictional') slant on preceding events, but you're correct, someone somewhere will think I'm just looking for a fight if I continue to point out that you're wrong.

You're wrong. I'm ok leaving it with that.

I'm not sure where you get a double standard from, since you're the first to mention Tiger Woods. My opinions actually have no impact on either case, even if you knew how I or any other poster felt about Tiger, please don't hold me to account for events I have no control over.

Where exactly did you answer anything? You personalized my comment out of nowhere, got indignant for me making the remark, and dismissed it.

Or perhaps it was here:

Well you neglected to mention who you were directing it at, so I fielded it for the Sensible Team. Since that's now two posts where you haven't said who holds this 'double standard', I'm guessing you won't be telling us any time soon.

Still no remarks on the original statement, just a statement of how sensible you are and how I'm not naming names.

Anyway, I have no further interest in this topic. You've been nothing but dismissive and rude. I'll go find a topic where I can interact with the posters who can have a little courtesy towards one another.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Where exactly did you answer anything? You personalized my comment out of nowhere, got indignant for me making the remark, and dismissed it.

Or perhaps it was here:

Still no remarks on the original statement, just a statement of how sensible you are and how I'm not naming names.

Anyway, I have no further interest in this topic. You've been nothing but dismissive and rude. I'll go find a topic where I can interact with the posters who can have a little courtesy towards one another.

If you're backing out, it would be courteous not to lob questions around first. Where exactly did you ask anything? You've convinced yourself of your utterly fictional account (there, I said it). You asked 'why the double standard?'. I asked 'where the double standard?' and never got an answer. I answered that it wasn't my double standard.

Are you advocating that unsafe sex is propaganda? Or that testing adequately safe enough to forego the trivial safety precaution of a condom with new partners?

These lobs don't even make sense.

 

[Dorian Gray]

No, please read: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7071711&postcount=131

I should have been clearer in my post.



They already disciplined the kid and he was apparently suspended. How would this be any different if a 30 year old found out that his female co-worker made porn and he couldn't let it go and started to obsess about it? Should they fire her too instead of punishing the other guy?

It's not different. I'm sure her coworkers know about it.

 

[odeed]

But if the school board hadn't suspended her in the first place there would have been nothing for that publisher to publicize.

This is known as the "NOW look what you made me do!" cop-out.

The school board had every right to suspend her while they investigated this matter, I doubt her contract was specific on whether being a porn actress may or not be proper conduct outside her employment. I also doubt that the school board publicised her porn name and films, but they probably felt that having the school associated with another business was not in the best interests, so fired her.

She should of read her employment contract, or got it in writing from her employer that it was okay to take a second job.

 

[Dorian Gray]

The same way I feel now. What is it about porn that bothers you? I'm betting most of the PE teachers, male coaches of the girl's volleyball teams, female blah di blahs etc have sex. I'd wager a few filmed it too. Took pictures at least. Some of them probably engaged in same sex sex The usual percentage will have been nicked for corrupting our precious children. The usual percentage will have got away with the same.

Your position doesn't even make sense. Or at least you haven't shown how it does. You just repeat it and insist we're missing the point. Show me the point. Prick me with it, if you'll excuse the expression.

Those all sound like things that happen in private. Whereas making a porn for money is intended to be widely viewed.

Hopefully that prick wasn't too big for you.

 

[Dorian Gray]

What do you mean by "kids can't handle this particular situation"? Please be more specific. Don't you think that by keeping the secretary in her job it sends out a more positive message: that porn is not bad, or wrong, but a normal part of adult life? Instead, by sacking her a proportion of kids will get hang ups about their own sexual feelings and desire to look at porn, doubtless in the process having to reconcile some screwed up adult attitude to something that adults do. All this whilst going through the sensitive stage of puberty where we form attitudes and beliefs that can stay with us for life.

Yeah, well done school board...

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. If we don't have porn actresses in schools, kids will get sexual hangups. I won't even ask for evidence, because I know you don't have it. But Jesus, that was lame.