I'm with you. So let's empower unions again so workers can be protected against this kind of thing.
That's what you meant, right?
Top French Weatherman FIRED for Writing a Book Critical of Climate Change Dogma
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
I'm with you. So let's empower unions again so workers can be protected against this kind of thing.
That's what you meant, right?
It figures. You know that you're wrong so you change the subject. I never said that the person couldn't be fired. I'm saying that it raises a red flag, especially since this isn't the first instance of this happening.
Again, you guys like to change the subject a lot when you have nothing to add.
It figures. You can't back up your position or connect the dots so you stomp your feet and pound the table.
Last edited:
That's the key, man!
When you have the facts, you pound the facts.
When you don't have the facts, you pound the table.
Insult all you want, it just shows how ignorant you guys are. The facts are in the history books. Ignore them and try to change the subject all you want, but the facts are right in front of you.
Those facts don't align with this case. Your challenge is to prove they do. And where do you see an insult? I think you're running and deflecting because you can't actually make the case. Because the moment you try to connect the dots you realize your error.
I'm not sure how I am deflecting. A body of power using force to silence dissenters is nothing new. It's been going on throughout history.
You're changing it from, "why they were firing him" to, "is it okay for them to fire him."
It's a subtle attempt at deflection that is too often used on this board when people don't have an answer to the comment.
Here, I'll connect some dots for you:
Guy writes a book.
Guy gets fired.
Guy was fired for writing a book.
Whether some dubious "ethics violation" or "contract breach" occurred is not relevant. If ethics rules or the contract prohibit him from writing a book, then such restrictions are unconscionable.
Guy writes a book.
Guy gets fired.
Guy was fired for writing a book.
Whether some dubious "ethics violation" or "contract breach" occurred is not relevant. If ethics rules or the contract prohibit him from writing a book, then such restrictions are unconscionable.
What dots, where?
Lets start with which of the two instances you think isn't representative of a body of power silencing a dissenter.
This guy wasn't silenced. So that's your first problem.
Galileo wasn't technically silence either. His career was just ruined, like this guy's career. All because they dare dissent against those in power.
And, again, I thought you supported at-will employment laws that allow firing for any - or no - reason as long as it's not a protected class. If you support that then the "why" is irrelevant...to you. Do you or do you not support at-will employment?
So in your mind, firing a guy is destroying a career? And you think this is wrong, but you don't want to do anything about it?
The question is do you support it? I love how you cons run from the obvious.
But you see, that doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. I do believe in at-will employment, but that doesn't change the fact that he was fired for his dissent.
It's not just firing people. It's blackballing them as well. This guy will never work in the business again, guaranteed.
Actually, he continued to work for the rest of his productive life and was visited by or corresponded with many of the best minds of his time. It was during his house arrest that he wrote Two New Sciences which is one of his greatest works. He was sentenced in 1633, went blind five years later and died in 1642. His career was hardly ruined though the Church's judgment against him was certainly a travesty.
So. What?
You're in favor of him being fired for no reason at all. Why are you so upset that he claims the book was the reason he was fired? To be intellectually honest, you should say, "Too bad. You have no right to that job anyway".
Once again, I have no problem with him being fired. I'm just saying that the reason he was fired raises some real red flags.
No...it doesn't. In your world, it means management wanted to terminate his employment and did. Period. Should he have been protected from this?
If you publish a book that pasteurization is bad, you're probably not going to work in the food safety business either, but it doesn't mean they were black balled. It means they have views that make them unsuitable for the job. And once again I'm going to point out you don't want to do anything about this. Your's is a very cheap objection.
And no one who has been fired has ever been able to find another job in their field? Ever?
Couple of extra problems here:
His employer is the state.
The state is getting ready to hold a big international climate treaty conference.
His book is critical of many government figures involved in the planning of this conference.
I don't think at-will employment should allow the state to fire someone for whistleblowing about state wrongdoing. Do you?
My views on the right to work still doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about, no matter how hard you try to use it to deflect.
What wrong-doing did he allege? He's not a "whistle-blower". He has an opinion that doesn't correspond to the facts. People get fired for that all the time.
Nope...but you sure are, You have no problem with him being fired for any reason unless it's a reason you don't happen to like.
They're relevant only in understanding how easy you come by your positions. But I don't need to deflect as you have yet to even attempt a swing. You cower in the corner just beating the table that you are right with zero arguments to back your position.
You are confusing 'the reason he was fired' with 'the reason he claims he was fired'.
They are two different things....
What I think about allowing the state to fire someone for whistle blowing about state wrongdoing is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The guy is in France.
Also, by varying accounts he was fired for violating ethical rules and violating elements of his contract, the specifics of which have not been made public.
You, me, or anyone else, other than the appropriate parties, do not know the specific reasons he was fired. It could have been specifically that the conclusions he made in his book were counter to his bosses at France 2, or it could have been that he was using resources from them against station policy, or it could have been that he was promoting the book using his status as a France 2 weatherman. There are myriad reasons for his firing, none of which we know AS FACT.
True, we don't have all the facts, but consider this:
Imagine that you tell your employer that you are pregnant. Within a week, your employer finds some reason to fire you. It will be VERY difficult to show that the termination didn't have something to do with the pregnancy.
It seems pretty obvious why he was fired.
Look, the government backs nearly all climate change research. They love climate change because it gives them a great tool to scare the public into giving up their liberties, and to funnel taxpayer money to their cronies. This guy works for the government and writes a book attacking climate change. The government then fires him. I think it's pretty safe to say why they fired him.
For the third time now, I don't have a problem with him being fired. Maybe you'll actually understand it this time.*crosses fingers*
