It literally doesn't matter because this isn't a discussion of the death penalty. This is an individual asking about a serious situation at work you deliberately ran off the rails to push a political agenda. Take your anti-justice garbage and shut it.

Oh, and by the way, OP's friend being expected to work alongside their rapist functionally is worth than death.

2y ago

How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?

Jump

pinkdrunkenelephants @lemmy.cafe 2y ago

It is to you because that is how you framed it. Re-read what you wrote. You and your cult have offered nothing but logical fallacies, especially Motte and Baileys, strawmen, transparent threats, and talking points for an anti-justice, anti-victim, anti-woman political agenda. And you do it because you don't care about rape victims or their lives, and you don't care about OP, you're here on your hustle looking to push an agenda.

And I am telling you NO. Get the fuck on. Get off our lawn.

2y ago

How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?

Jump

pinkdrunkenelephants @lemmy.cafe 2y ago

2y ago

How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?

Jump

pinkdrunkenelephants @lemmy.cafe 2y ago

2y ago

How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?

Jump

pinkdrunkenelephants @lemmy.cafe 2y ago

Yes, they should be able to feed and house themselves, which they can't do if they're being forced to work around a rapist.

2y ago

How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?

Jump

pinkdrunkenelephants @lemmy.cafe 2y ago

Yes the fuck you are, you vile, disgusting rape apologist. You and your ilk have:

Told us that rape is more recoverable than murder, therefore it's not as bad
Insisted society has an obligation to feed people and therefore a known sexual predator has rights that supercede the rights of his victims or potential victims that would be violated if the company fired them to protect the rest of the workplace
That a company would have no liability to protect its women workers and that, in fact, the woman would create a hostile work environment for the rapist by complaining about it
That women should just shut up and get over it, and suffer the presence of a rapist.

These are positions your little cult have argued, hiding behind flowery language and Motte-and-bailey arguments, and you will NOT escape responsibility for your words.

You are a rape apologist. Period.

2y ago

How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?

Jump

pinkdrunkenelephants @lemmy.cafe 2y ago

You're not listening. Companies shouldn't hire either. And we're talking specifically about rapists, not thieves. Don't waste my time trying to strawman.

2y ago

How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?

Jump

pinkdrunkenelephants @lemmy.cafe 2y ago

Yes, you ARE the troglodyte BECAUSE you don't want to protect other people by imprisoning rapists for life, serious and extreme criminals who need to be kept away from society permanently.

You are a backwards-ass sexist who belongs in the 20th century. You'd get along well with Brett Kavanaugh, Bill Cosby and all of their ilk.

2y ago

How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?

Jump

pinkdrunkenelephants @lemmy.cafe 2y ago

Well, when did anyone say they were ostracizing a rapist? You want to talk about logical fallacies, you best look at yourself and your compatriots here.

Firing them from a job like that, where they have to work closely with women and have the opportunity to reoffend, isn't ostracization the way you're flagrantly exaggerating it to be. It's called common sense.

The other employees have every right to fear being raped because there is a known sexual predator in the workplace. It's a specific and credible fear that not only is grossly immoral if the company doesn't act, it also will put them in a position of extreme liability. That scumfuck should never have gotten past the background check in the first place.

And you don't care about that because all you care about is yourself. Because like the other apologists here, you're thinking from a perspective of "But what if I get caught?" and that means you believe you or someone you know will rape someone someday -- and you'll keep them in your life anyway, because you don't care about justice or morality, you only care about shielding your friends from consequences.

2y ago

How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?

Jump

pinkdrunkenelephants @lemmy.cafe 2y ago

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

You are advocating a known sexual predator be allowed in the workplace, knowing other employees are threatened by his presence.

The company isn't responsible for ensuring the rapist -- who is not supposed to be in society in the first place -- is able to put food on the table. It is the company's responsibility to protect its workers in th workplace, and that means not letting a known rapist work around women.

Honestly, those women could probably go complain to the EEOC. They certainly could win a civil suit.

What you're asking for is horrific and a blatant violation of the rights of other people. We don't live under the barbaric practices of the 20th century where anything like this can just be done to you and you have to put up with it. We live in the 21st century where we recognize the rights of victims and communities are more important.