Morality of carrying a gun in an NPE [Archive]

Beat Trash

03-18-2015, 08:43 AM

You would (hopefully) be shocked by the amount of grief I get from my cousins (all local police officers of one stripe or another) about the fact that I carry off duty. "Whadda ya think, ISIS is gonna crash my daughter's boithday party?" They all think I'm whacko.

I've been surprised as well by how their spouses, and the children of long-time "cop families" up here are all TERRIFIED of guns. Like the holstered pistol on my hip is going to fall out and start spraying bullets randomly around the room. These folks are all DEEP in the NYistan brain washed state of "all guns are bad."

I can only imagine what it's like in the corporate world, where no one has ever even SEEN a gun outside of a movie or TV screen, and the only thing they associate a pistol with is a mugging, rape or murder.

NEVER EVER EVER EVER move to NY...

I would expect this mentality if the cousins worked in small quiet communities or were assigned to various administrative assignments or with the in-vogue "hug-a-thug" units. Inter-city beat trash tend to have a more realistic grasp of the concept that there are evil minded people out there.

What many in the private sector can not comprehend is the fact that evil minded people are not contained in "bad neighborhoods". They can steal a car an go where ever they choose. Work place active shooters involving suspects with undiagnosed mental issues are a real threat in the corporate world, "where no one has ever even SEEN a gun outside of a movie or TV screen, and the only thing they associate a pistol with is a mugging, rape or murder."

When cowering in fear under the desk in your corporate cubicle, it's a bit too late to decide to take a more realistic view on life and the need to be able to protect oneself from the evil that exists in the world.

I agree that some companies are worried about civil litigation if they permit a shooting. Years ago, I was upset when I was dispatched to a bank robbery in progress and I was less than a block away. I eventually discovered that the suspects had fled 9 minutes prior to the bank's corporate security notifying police. The corporate policy was to hold off notifying Law Enforcement for 9 minutes, so as to permit armed suspects to escape. They did not want to risk the civil liability they may sincere should a gunfight occur within the bank.

I do know of one Doctor who happens to be a Chief of Staff at a prestigious hospital on the west coast. He shared a story in which he was among three armed doctors attending a meeting with some prominent guests. He happened to have a Glock 19 under his scrubs AWIB. And no one knew that any of the hospital staff were armed.

So yes, it can be done. You just have to work at it a bit. You also have to consider the risk of it being known that you are armed in a NPE environment, vs. the risk of being unarmed and an active shooting incident were to occur.

TGS

03-18-2015, 09:40 AM

You would (hopefully) be shocked by the amount of grief I get from my cousins (all local police officers of one stripe or another) about the fact that I carry off duty. "Whadda ya think, ISIS is gonna crash my daughter's boithday party?" They all think I'm whacko.

I've been surprised as well by how their spouses, and the children of long-time "cop families" up here are all TERRIFIED of guns. Like the holstered pistol on my hip is going to fall out and start spraying bullets randomly around the room. These folks are all DEEP in the NYistan brain washed state of "all guns are bad."

I can only imagine what it's like in the corporate world, where no one has ever even SEEN a gun outside of a movie or TV screen, and the only thing they associate a pistol with is a mugging, rape or murder.

NEVER EVER EVER EVER move to NY...

This sounds familiar.

One of my shooting buddies has been a gun owner for his whole life. Not terribly dedicated to shooting well....more of a hobbyist/collector with something around 30 guns. Even still, he's solidly what you could consider a "gun guy," and has extremely conservative political views.

He is also one of the few people in this world who have the permission to carry a concealed handgun around the POTUS and diplomats from other countries.

Yet, he feels it's almost strange to carry off duty. He even goes out of his way to not carry. We go to the range and he practices his qual from concealment for his agency....we come back, and he purposely takes off his holster, mags, unloads the gun and locks it up. Then we go to dinner.

Some people man......I just don't get it.

In addition, my girlfriend is buying a gun. We're actually leaving shortly to go pick it up. A half hour after she had mentioned it to her extremely liberal family, she jokingly poked her aunt in the ribs from behind just to spook her. Her aunt replied, "Oh, already practicing your hold ups, are we!?" I was noticeably disgusted by her comment, as was my girlfriend off-put and offended. For them, ownership of guns is automatically associated with criminal behavior. For my family, it's associated with building family ties, harvesting 2/3 of your winter dinners, and a proud part of securing our nation's freedom. It's hard to not be when your 6th and 7th great grandfathers killed Hessians and Redcoats in the area which you still live in today.

It's a difference at the most basic fundamental level, which is why I don't think we'll ever win over this people and bring them into the fold, or even get them to understand. It's as big a gap as trying to get Pashtun tribes to buy into a federal government and abide by modern international borders.

Mark

03-18-2015, 03:16 PM

No sale.

Companies dont ban carry because of moral grounds.While specific legalities vary, the broad strokes are this: its cheaper for the company to let their staff get shot then to be named in a suit when an employee forcibly halts an assault. Shot up employees cant sue the company, but shot up thugs certainly will.

I carry a gun to work every day and I have no problem with anyone else doing the same. Where I do make a distinction is in being honest and having integrity in life. If you go to work at a private company my assumption is that you have been offered a certain amount of money in exchange for doing specified work for that company while following their policies and procedures. If You accept that money you have agreed to honor the terms of the deal, which include following their policies and procedures. Now if you know that their policies forbid carrying guns to work and you do so anyway even though you agreed to follow them by accepting employment, that is lying by omission. You are starting your employment with this company by agreeing to terms (and being paid to do so) that you have no intent to actually honor. This seems dishonest to me and as I don't see dishonesty as a good idea, I would say this is a bad idea. Now I'm sure if Bill Clinton were here he could explain why they never specifically asked you each day if you're carrying and you didn't actually agree to all of the terms of the deal in your head even though you gave them the impression you did, and it's really their fault if they thought you did without specifically asking about each individual policy and getting a signature from you each day and really they said you can't carry here but isn't here really just there without a "t?"

In short, it's simply deceitful behavior which is wrong. The second amendment guarantees you the right to keep and bear arms while not being infringed by the government, it doesn't give you any rights to bear arms on private property whose owners have told you not to do so on their property. Of course if you feel you can justify deceiving or misleading others after you have made an agreement with them because you think your desires trump theirs and it's okay to lie to certain classes of people (your employer for example) because you don't agree with them.....well I doubt anything I say will change your opinion.

Captain

03-18-2015, 03:29 PM

Of course if you feel you can justify deceiving or misleading others after you have made an agreement with them because you think your desires trump theirs and it's okay to lie to certain classes of people (your employer for example) because you don't agree with them.....well I doubt anything I say will change your opinion.

Well you got that right. I believe that it is morally wrong to deny someone the right to self defense, especially when you do not provide a secure site or other alternative to replace the stripping of that right. You may feel that morally you couldn't carry at such a place. I feel that my first calling is to provide for my family, which I can't do if I'm dead. Therefore, I feel that I have a moral imperative to protect myself at all times. I do not have any issue with carrying despite of their policy. It's a complete non-issue for me. That said, everyone's different. You do what you have to do, I'll do what I have to do.

TGS

03-18-2015, 03:58 PM

Mark

03-18-2015, 04:05 PM

Well you got that right. I believe that it is morally wrong to deny someone the right to self defense, especially when you do not provide a secure site or other alternative to replace the stripping of that right. You may feel that morally you couldn't carry at such a place. I feel that my first calling is to provide for my family, which I can't do if I'm dead. Therefore, I feel that I have a moral imperative to protect myself at all times. I do not have any issue with carrying despite of their policy. It's a complete non-issue for me. That said, everyone's different. You do what you have to do, I'll do what I have to do.

I was under the impression you didn't have to work there if you didn't want to. Are they forcing you to take the job and agree to their policies or do you have the ability to turn it down and look for a job where you can in good conscious agree to their policies, for which they are paying you to abide by? Speaking of your family, what is the greater likelihood?, That you will be fired for carrying your gun which will ruin your ability to financially provide for your family or that you will be shot because you didn't have a gun on you while at work, which, ironically would probably result in a financial payout to your family greater or equal to your lifetime earning potential (if you've responsibly gotten life insurance) not too mention potential company payouts.

Don't misunderstand, I would hate for anything bad to happen to you that you could prevent with a gun and I would prefer that your employer allow you to carry. I just question wether the risks are worth lying to your employer and risking termination and future hiring challenges based on past dishonest behavior in the workplace and potentially teaching your children that it's okay to lie if you can justify it in your own head because as humans we can rationalize just about anything to ourselves if we want to. At the end of the day a man doesn't have much more then his integrity, I wouldn't let it go without serious thought. As I raise my kids I appreciate my father more and more and as many accomplishments as he has had in life the one characteristic he modeled to me that has stayed with me more then anything else is that you don't lie and the old school idea of your word as your bond. If he said something I never doubted it's truth, if he agreed to a deal, I never considered that he might not actually honor it. Once you start deceiving people, for whatever reason I just don't see it ending well. Add to that this site advocates training for people who are law abiding firearms enthusiasts, I don't know if we want a public forum where we are representing the gun community as being fine with giving advice on how to mislead our employers and more efficiently violate there policies regarding carrying weapons in the workplace.

I can't speak for Todd but I wonder if he would want his forum being used for such a purpose, I would be he would tell you to follow your companies policies. If you're reading this Todd, what would you say?

Captain

03-18-2015, 04:28 PM

I was under the impression you didn't have to work there if you didn't want to. Are they forcing you to take the job and agree to their policies or do you have the ability to turn it down and look for a job where you can in good conscious agree to their policies, for which they are paying you to abide by? Speaking of your family, what is the greater likelihood?, That you will be fired for carrying your gun which will ruin your ability to financially provide for your family or that you will be shot because you didn't have a gun on you while at work, which, ironically would probably result in a financial payout to your family greater or equal to your lifetime earning potential (if you've responsibly gotten life insurance) not too mention potential company payouts.

Don't misunderstand, I would hate for anything bad to happen to you that you could prevent with a gun and I would prefer that your employer allow you to carry. I just question wether the risks are worth lying to your employer and risking termination and future hiring challenges based on past dishonest behavior in the workplace and potentially teaching your children that it's okay to lie if you can justify it in your own head because as humans we can rationalize just about anything to ourselves if we want to. At the end of the day a man doesn't have much more then his integrity, I wouldn't let it go without serious thought. As I raise my kids I appreciate my father more and more and as many accomplishments as he has had in life the one characteristic he modeled to me that has stayed with me more then anything else is that you don't lie and the old school idea of your word as your bond. If he said something I never doubted it's truth, if he agreed to a deal, I never considered that he might not actually honor it. Once you start deceiving people, for whatever reason I just don't see it ending well. Add to that this site advocates training for people who are law abiding firearms enthusiasts, I don't know if we want a public forum where we are representing the gun community as being fine with giving advice on how to mislead our employers and more efficiently violate there policies regarding carrying weapons in the workplace.

I can't speak for Todd but I wonder if he would want his forum being used for such a purpose, I would be he would tell you to follow your companies policies. If you're reading this Todd, what would you say?

I can tell you this - I 100% have taught my children that they should do what is morally right regardless of what some dipshit with a bunch of lawyers decided was better for his bottom line - NOT that my parenting is ANY OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS. Sorry Mark, I have a Dad, and you ain't it.

And no, I do not have to take the job, but it would be extremely unwise for me to pass up this chance at advancement in my career and it would drastically impede my ability to care for my family if I don't take it.

Life Insurance - none of your business

How I raise my kids - none of your business

What I do at work - none of your business

I've tried to be polite while you crap on my thread. I'm done now. Bugger off.

If you feel that this is some awful terrible thread that will ruin the forum go ahead and report it. While you're at it, head over to google and search for this "site:pistol-forum.com NPE" without the quotes. Then report all those threads. If Todd or any staff/moderators want to quit commenting on this thread and shut it down and delete it - I guess they could do that too.

TGS

03-18-2015, 04:32 PM

I was under the impression you didn't have to work there if you didn't want to. Are they forcing you to take the job and agree to their policies or do you have the ability to turn it down and look for a job where you can in good conscious agree to their policies, for which they are paying you to abide by? Speaking of your family, what is the greater likelihood?, That you will be fired for carrying your gun which will ruin your ability to financially provide for your family or that you will be shot because you didn't have a gun on you while at work, which, ironically would probably result in a financial payout to your family greater or equal to your lifetime earning potential (if you've responsibly gotten life insurance) not too mention potential company payouts.

Don't misunderstand, I would hate for anything bad to happen to you that you could prevent with a gun and I would prefer that your employer allow you to carry. I just question wether the risks are worth lying to your employer and risking termination and future hiring challenges based on past dishonest behavior in the workplace and potentially teaching your children that it's okay to lie if you can justify it in your own head because as humans we can rationalize just about anything to ourselves if we want to. At the end of the day a man doesn't have much more then his integrity, I wouldn't let it go without serious thought. As I raise my kids I appreciate my father more and more and as many accomplishments as he has had in life the one characteristic he modeled to me that has stayed with me more then anything else is that you don't lie and the old school idea of your word as your bond. If he said something I never doubted it's truth, if he agreed to a deal, I never considered that he might not actually honor it. Once you start deceiving people, for whatever reason I just don't see it ending well. Add to that this site advocates training for people who are law abiding firearms enthusiasts, I don't know if we want a public forum where we are representing the gun community as being fine with giving advice on how to mislead our employers and more efficiently violate there policies regarding carrying weapons in the workplace.

I can't speak for Todd but I wonder if he would want his forum being used for such a purpose, I would be he would tell you to follow your companies policies. If you're reading this Todd, what would you say?

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America might be a better forum for you.

Mark

03-18-2015, 04:42 PM

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America might be a better forum for you.

Because I don't think lying is a good idea?

GardoneVT

03-18-2015, 05:15 PM

Because I don't think lying is a good idea?

Lets cross the philosohical moat here; if you quantify your ability to carry with public acceptance of the same, you may as well sell your guns and take up competitive knitting.

I dont say that to encourage law breaking, or to discredit the major advancements in RKBA recognition in recent years. That being said, we are a LONG way socially from the day when the Average Man is OK with people bringing guns to colleges or elementary-high schools. We are perhaps even further away from the day when government bureaucrats are OK with armed personnell on military bases, courtrooms, and hospitals.

As to private companies, ive already laid out the broad strokes-its less corporate liability for their staff to bleed in the lobby then an attacking scumbag.

Notice most of these places have suffered one form of mass shooting, and yet gun bans stand.They stand because a large majority of Americans -including people who really Should Know Better- would rather just ban guns and call it "Problem Solved". Which it would be if bad guys followed the rules.

Unfortunately bad guys not only dont follow the rules, but know full and well where their victims can and cannot be armed. If my profession was "Full Time Criminal", id be a lot safer plying my trade in Lincolnshire Illinois then I would Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

I dont know about your family status. But I can tell you a bit about mine. You say its immoral after a fashion to carry without permission of the property owners-and further, the property owners have a right to make misguided rules . Fair enough.

That was my thinking too when I carried in my stepdad's house without his explicit permission.What was also my thinking was the gross immorality of a home invasion where all three occupants were executed in their own kitchen. The Law cant save you when the bad guy throws a brick through your screen glass. Good Intentions wont prevent your family or mine from being savagely assaulted by animals thouroughly unconcerned with this moral issue.

Id rather my family be alive and pissed at me for carrying when the need happened, versus having two long-faced LEOs visiting my distant relatives' doorstep with Really Bad News.

ToddG

03-18-2015, 05:41 PM

A: not my forum
B: not my fight
C: "if you don't like it then move" is one of the most ignorant things I see on the internet.
/end of line

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

Mark

03-18-2015, 06:26 PM

That was my thinking too when I carried in my stepdad's house without his explicit permission.

I understand what you're saying, let me ask you though, did your stepdad specifically tell you he doesn't want guns in his house and did you carry one in anyways? Would you feel it's right to tell him you wouldn't bring one in and then do so anyway? Do you think people should have a right to make rules about what goes on on their private property? Do you feel you should be able to make rules about what goes on in your home and should people have to respect them if they come inside?

How do people get to determine what rules they follow or don't follow and when they should or shouldn't lie?

Duces Tecum

03-18-2015, 06:39 PM

I can tell you this - I 100% have taught my children that they should do what is morally right regardless of what some dipshit with a bunch of lawyers decided was better for his bottom line - NOT that my parenting is ANY OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS. Sorry Mark, I have a Dad, and you ain't it.

Beat me to it.

Captain

03-18-2015, 06:48 PM

I understand what you're saying, let me ask you though, did your stepdad specifically tell you he doesn't want guns in his house and did you carry one in anyways? Would you feel it's right to tell him you wouldn't bring one in and then do so anyway? Do you think people should have a right to make rules about what goes on on their private property? Do you feel you should be able to make rules about what goes on in your home and should people have to respect them if they come inside?

How do people get to determine what rules they follow or don't follow and when they should or shouldn't lie?

Mark, those are all good questions for a thread you're more than welcome to start on morality and philosophy. This thread is about the practicalities in carrying a gun when you absolutely can't be made - the reasons you can't be made are basically irrelevant to this thread.

Sigfan26

03-18-2015, 06:56 PM

How do people get to determine what rules they follow or don't follow and when they should or shouldn't lie?

It's really simple, they make a big boy decision understanding big boy rules. Only time they get judged is when they get caught... Don't get caught, and there's not a problem (at least that's how I look at issues where my personally safety is concerned)

JDM

03-18-2015, 08:16 PM

"Full size gun in an NPE" (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15377-NPE-with-a-Fullsize-Auto) thread split.

BobLoblaw

03-18-2015, 08:26 PM

...How do people get to determine what rules they follow or don't follow and when they should or shouldn't lie?

Luckily, I work for a great company but I'll help you with this one. It's called "risk assessment." It's how humans decide whether breaking the rules and/or lying is worth it.

A lot of employers don't care if you die. They will want you to work until you die if you work hard, if not they care even less. They cover their ass in case you don't cover it for them.

Your family needs you and doesn't want you to die. They want what's best for you and you do what's best for them.

I will work hard for my family's benefit and only lie if I deem the juice worth the squeeze. That's not for anyone to decide but me. I'll lie to your fucking face if my family is on the line. Family first. Self second.

Let's say you break policy and while working, a shooting occurs. If you take down the shooter and manage to keep a few less bullets from entering your coworkers, would you really give a shit about that lie or even getting fired? I'd never step foot in that building again, fired or not. They said you were safe and in fact, a danger to others if armed so they lied to you before you ever signed on the dotted line. However, their lie cannot be proven until their employees are already dead. Then they'll lie in the press release saying "sorry, we did everything we could." Who told the bigger lie?

Some people decide to provide for and protect their family. I'd rather a small undetected lie to accomplish that instead of uprooting my nuclear family and separate them from my extended family.

Here's your gavel, sir.

Tamara

03-18-2015, 09:21 PM

If your (generic "you") employer decreed that everyone wear pink underwear tomorrow and from now on as a condition of employment... they weren't going to check, mind you, it would just be on the honor system ...would you comply? If it was at a job where your underwear was never visible and had nothing to do with your work?

fixer

03-18-2015, 09:27 PM

boy this is a timely thread for me. My employer recently had to deal with the fallout over an employee who was convicted of various child sex crimes ranging from forcible rape to molestation. This employee was a heretofore highly respected and well liked person. The sentence was, and I am not kidding in the least, a 200 yr sentence.

The crimes were committed and investigations begun in 2012 which was when the person was hired. Our HR dept had no clue. None. No one at my office had a clue.

No one knew this guy had been arrested (he sent a message that he was out on vacation). No one knew he was on trial. No one knew anything until the local news splashed the headlines for several news cycles.

We were all emotionally sucker punched.

I was effing pissed.

I frequently and often worked with this guy. I used the damn bathroom next to this guy. We joked about our boss. We laughed about many things. We had corporate off site team building exercises together. We also had serious disagreements about how to run the business. His eyes would go black when I would confront him about his management techniques. He would shout and become inordinately defensive about mundane issues.

In short this person, capable of crimes that beget a 200 yr prison sentence, was within arms reach nearly every day, and had a volatile temper. This person could have easily gone active shooter a hundred times in over 2 years.

Despite corporate stupidity that forbids carrying of weapons of ANY kind (knives even), this single person left an untold dozens in grave danger every day for over two and a half years.

My boss' reaction to all this?

You guessed it (sort of)...brand image. Keep the brand image from being soiled.

Eff people.

Eff their familes.

What matters is keeping the company name out of the headlines.

I was instructed to not even share this news with other co workers who had worked with this person.

Gardone is right. This isn't about private property rights. It is about a very cruel and coldly calculated cost-benefit analysis of allowing workers to reasonably protect themselves.

Peally

03-18-2015, 09:27 PM

That depends. If I saw some of the people I work with accidentally showing their pink underwear I'd sooner take an ND to the face :D

TCinVA

03-18-2015, 09:28 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/24/pennsylvania-hospital-on-lockdown-amid-reports-shooting/?intcmp=latestnews

The doctor, who suffered a graze wound to his head, "faced a situation where his life was in jeopardy," Whelan said.

Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux said that, "without a doubt, I believe the doctor saved lives."

"Without that firearm, this guy (the patient) could have went out in the hallway and just walked down the offices until he ran out of ammunition,

Sounds like the Yeadon police chief was rather happy that the doctor there carried his pistol in an NPE. Company policy at that hospital would have required him to just die. Along with lots of other people.

Sort of like what school policy expected students, faculty, and staff at Virginia Tech to do.

Peally

03-18-2015, 09:29 PM

That's even worse, if I carry at the (K-12) schools I work in that's a hell of a lot more risk than simply losing your job.

SAWBONES

03-18-2015, 09:37 PM

There is such a thing as "righteous civil disobedience", and our individual concerns about personal safety with respect to the right to bear (concealed) arms trump any nonsensical corporate rules made solely for "feel good" reasons, and which will never prevent criminal activity in any case!

I advocate carrying a sidearm at all times unless some external "detector" makes such impractical or impossible, due to the inconvenience or other difficulty encountered in explaining yourself to agents of "the state".
I either avoid such circumstances, or endure them as little as needs be (such as when testifying in court).

The paper "legality" of CCW at any particular place or time represents an effort by lawmakers to restrict the potentially-injurious actions of violent sociopaths. Unfortunately, those efforts simply don't work, and criminal sociopaths don't obey those laws.

If you are a morally-upright, courageous, mentally-stable and sensible person, you have fulfilled the SPIRIT of the law, since you are no danger to the innocent.
If you carry discreetly and don't draw attention to yourself, no one will know if you are armed or not, and no one will be harmed by your discreet CCW, yet you WILL be capable of an armed response if a deadly threat requiring such appears.

Post office? Hospital? School? Church? What difference does it really make?

Understand, I'm NOT advocating ANYTHING LIKE wanton disobedience to authority or disregard for rule. I'm speaking of MORAL issues which both underlie and supercede codified laws.

Some folks may find this beyond their comprehension, though those of us who have done this for decades, and have thought through the moral principles involved have no difficulty with the concept.

Kyle Reese

03-18-2015, 09:54 PM

TGS

03-18-2015, 11:11 PM

Nephrology

03-19-2015, 08:24 AM

Tamara

03-19-2015, 08:36 AM

Of course. If you don't comply, you're simply being dishonest. Their bidniz, their rules, right?

Their rules... insofar as they affect their business. My body, my rules. I maintain that the boundary between what they have any legitimate business being concerned about and what falls under the rubric of "None Of Their Beeswax" stops at the visible outer layer of my clothes. What is invisible in my pockets is of no more concern of theirs than the unspoken thoughts in my head, which they likely wouldn't want to hear, either.

JHC

03-19-2015, 08:40 AM

David S.

03-19-2015, 09:47 AM

I don't know why everyone's feels like Mark is trying to steal their guns and pee in their Wheaties. From where I sit, he made a very compelling philosophical and moral argument that warrants rational examination within the CCW community. Maybe, this community will ultimately conclude that he is wrong and that his argument should ultimately be discarded, but I don't see that is the case out of hand. I certainly don't understand the defensiveness and mockery. Some of you have noodled through this idea and come to a conclusion. Some of us have not, and this is a blind-spot, to this point unknown and unconsidered. Maybe there's something there. Maybe not.

We as individuals have a responsibility to act with integrity. I think we can all agree on that.

And yet we agreed (in writing, under no coercion) to an employment agreement that includes an explicit no-gun policy (irrational, immoral and unsafe as that policy may be), knowing full well that we would break that policy. That is blatant dishonesty seems like an assault on personal integrity to me.

One way or another, that seems like something that should concern us as honorable people.

I was under the impression you didn't have to work there if you didn't want to. Are they forcing you to take the job and agree to their policies or do you have the ability to turn it down and look for a job where you can in good conscious agree to their policies, for which they are paying you to abide by? [Tangental to the actual point].

Don't misunderstand, I would hate for anything bad to happen to you that you could prevent with a gun and I would prefer that your employer allow you to carry. I just question wether the risks are worth lying to your employer and risking termination and future hiring challenges based on past dishonest behavior in the workplace and potentially teaching your children that it's okay to lie if you can justify it in your own head because as humans we can rationalize just about anything to ourselves if we want to. At the end of the day a man doesn't have much more then his integrity, I wouldn't let it go without serious thought. As I raise my kids I appreciate my father more and more and as many accomplishments as he has had in life the one characteristic he modeled to me that has stayed with me more then anything else is that you don't lie and the old school idea of your word as your bond. If he said something I never doubted it's truth, if he agreed to a deal, I never considered that he might not actually honor it. Once you start deceiving people, for whatever reason I just don't see it ending well. Add to that this site advocates training for people who are law abiding firearms enthusiasts, I don't know if we want a public forum where we are representing the gun community as being fine with giving advice on how to mislead our employers and more efficiently violate there policies regarding carrying weapons in the workplace.

I can't speak for Todd but I wonder if he would want his forum being used for such a purpose, I would be he would tell you to follow your companies policies. If you're reading this Todd, what would you say?

BTW. I am in no way endorsing no-gun policies. I agree with all of you that they are irrational, immoral and unsafe.

Be that as it may. . . It exists. You explicitly agreed to it.

Peally

03-19-2015, 09:51 AM

Many simply place the value of their safety above the trivialities of employee handbooks. It is what it is, if it makes me a liar then I'm OK with that.

olstyn

03-19-2015, 09:53 AM

I hope to never work somewhere that my underwear has nothing to do with my work ;)

I truly hope that that was an intentional double negative, because it has MUCH funnier implications regarding your current job than the alternative. :)

As for me, my job prohibits carry, and I abide by that policy because in my evaluation of the situation, I'm significantly more likely to get noticed and experience unpleasant consequences as a result than I am to truly need my gun while at work. Even a real knife is a termination-grade offense according to corporate policy, and I do a lot of reaching above my head while in full view of coworkers and cameras; all it would take is a single gun-related wardrobe malfunction at the wrong time. Heck, sometimes I'm even surprised that nobody has objected to the Quark QTL clipped to my pocket. (Oh noes, the strobe mode on that could give an epileptic a seizure!) I wish the policy was different, but being a small cog in a giant machine, I'm not in a position to be able to effect any change to it, so I made my choice and I hope it won't prove to be the wrong one.

I won't say anything negative about those of you who choose differently than me; your risk assessment is your own, and I wouldn't presume to calculate it for you. If I worked a different type of job, such that I'd be less likely to accidentally reveal the gun, I might choose differently.

Tamara

03-19-2015, 09:55 AM

S Jenks

03-19-2015, 09:58 AM

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/concealed-carry-permits-fire-debate-over-workplace-shootings

The article link describes a victim of the 2000 Wakefield, Massachuestts Massacre at Edgewater Technologies. A mentally deranged employee, Michael McDermott, went "mucko" (that was his license plate, I kid you not) and kills seven coworkers with AK and shotgun.

Louis Javelle was one of the seven victims. He was a licensed FFL and permit holder in his home state of New Hampshire. When the shooting started, he instructed his coworkers to lock the door behind him and went after McDermott in an attempt to stop or delay him, the classic active shooter response for a single School Resource Officer or like-minded armed individual. You know, "distract the threat in order to buy time for the cavalry".

The problem was, Javelle was not armed. He was unable to obtain a Massachusetts non-resident carry permit. All of his guns were locked up at his house, an hour away. He's long dead, his four kids lost their father and there's now a pretty little plaque at the base of a tree outside the building.

olstyn

03-19-2015, 10:03 AM

JHC

03-19-2015, 10:04 AM

Good points. I don't take it seriously. I'm dismissive of the entire premise.

It strikes me as a puritanical take on integrity on too narrow a subject. For all the hullabaloo about big government, I've seen more tyranny inflicted on real lives by employers. They are often climbing deeper into personal liberty than the gubment. And all the while with little accountability to the employee.

Most of the last 15 years I've worked in senior management. I had a strong hand in our handbook; eliminating all sorts of PC bullshit from it ( I have a bottle of scotch in my desk and we aren't afraid to use it). I wish everyone could apply ours.

Free market capitalism is the only rational way to organize an economy in my opinion but I have seen virtually ZERO correlation between that and virtue on a broad scale.

So this specific topic is singled out for an employee to fret about; all the while said employee is completely blind to vastly more serious ethical compromises swirling around him among those who knee jerked their CYA gun policy with the HR politburo.

MGW

03-19-2015, 10:17 AM

From my perspective this thread should have been called the morality of not carrying a gun in an NPE. It all seems backwards to me to let lawyers, who will most likely never or rarely set foot in the building, decide policies related to personal safety. Money before common sense is immoral in my book.

The school my kids go to is a posted "gun free zone". They have one SRO to provide "security". He is expected to cover 7 buildings spread out over 22 miles and two counties. Obviously an impossible task.

Here is the ironic part. The students are allowed to carry pocket knives if they are under a certain length. Don't remember what that length is but it isn't important. It isn't defined in the handbook but the rule of no knives at all was taken out a couple years ago. I'm okay with that personally because this is mostly a rural school district. Pocket knives are what people carry here.

Per board policy a school employee can be fired for carrying a weapon. The definition of a weapon includes a knife. No length is included in the definition just "knife".

Keep in mind that in our state school boards can authorize teachers to carry concealed. This school won't authorize it. But they allow students to carry knives but per the policy could fire teachers for doing the same. Weird.

okie john

03-19-2015, 10:19 AM

Good points. I don't take it seriously. I'm dismissive of the entire premise.

It strikes me as a puritanical take on integrity on too narrow a subject. For all the hullabaloo about big government, I've seen more tyranny inflicted on real lives by employers. They are often climbing deeper into personal liberty than the gubment. And all the while with little accountability to the employee.

Exactly.

The right to bear arms is a civil right, just like the right to assemble, to be free from unreasonable search, to vote, to be free from discrimination on racial or other grounds, and so on. Any employer who said, "You can't work here if you vote/go to the wrong church/are the wrong race/etc." would find themselves in court RIGHT NOW, yet they violate the Second Amendment with impunity, placing the lives of their employees at risk in the name of profit.

Okie John

MDS

03-19-2015, 10:26 AM

In short, it's simply deceitful behavior which is wrong.

I was under the impression you didn't have to work there if you didn't want to.

For the record, I go far out of my way to comply with no-carry zones. It's by far the most onerous, disgusting, full-of-shit part of not just my carry routine, but of my entire life. And I have two little boys, so that's saying something. The reason I am so careful is because breaking the law can have very bad consequences for my family. I can't afford civil disobedience. That said, I operate (yes, operate) this way for legal reasons. My take on the morality aspect is a bit different.

I like to think I am an honorable man. I try to deal honorably with honorable people. But weasels get stomped. It's not the same as "eye for an eye" - I don't like to waste my time with revenge. And neither do I like to waste my time by letting dishonorable people take advantage of my own honorable tendencies. I don't like to get "honor" sniped. So I won't carry when I'm not allowed, but only because of the risk assessment. The morality doesn't factor into it, given the immoral context.

I don't know why everyone's feels like Mark is trying to steal their guns and pee in their Wheaties.

Maybe because he's coming off as more than a bit judgmental. I know I'm a little offended, and I don't even do what he's judging.

If your (generic "you") employer decreed that everyone wear pink underwear tomorrow and from now on as a condition of employment... they weren't going to check, mind you, it would just be on the honor system ...would you comply? If it was at a job where your underwear was never visible and had nothing to do with your work?

"Then they came for the people who don't wear pink underwear...and I didn't speak up.........." I support the right to wear non-pink underwear, though I don't understand why anyone would want to live that way.

cclaxton

03-19-2015, 10:35 AM

As a practical matter it all comes down to "how much do you have to lose?" or a cost/benefit analysis.
I live in a fairly safe area. I don't see the value in taking a risk to go NPE into a gov't building because the odds of detection/arrest/termination is higher than the odds of a lethal encounter. Another thing that mitigates the risk is having the ability to engage in hand to hand combat, use gas/knife and perform a handgun/weapon disarm. So, the cost/benefit factor isn't in my favor. On the other hand, having to travel into Anacostia, MD or Newark, NJ late at night would completely flip that cost/benefit ratio. There is no way to guarantee I won't encounter a lethal threat at my office, but it is much less likely, and I do have other weapons to use. CS, knife, hammer-fist, hand-hand.

The morality question is a good debate to have at the political/legislative and court levels. Of course it is immoral to deny a person the right to defend themselves against other homo sapiens who might have guns or other lethal weapons. But that is not the laws we have in many parts of the country and in many government buildings, churches, etc. Until those laws change, I will keep calculating the cost/benefit ratio and acting accordingly.
Cody

RoyGBiv

03-19-2015, 10:54 AM

Duces Tecum

03-19-2015, 11:17 AM

I'm also of the opinion that when you open your business to others, employees or customers or vendors or.... you immediately move outside the definition of "private" property and are obligated to adhere to civil law. The same way you cannot ask a person of color to leave their color at home. If a business owner does not want people who are legally carrying guns to be able to do so on their business property, they should move that business to a place where the bearing of arms is not a civil right.

In my opinion, this is an elegant (in the engineering sense) approach to the discussion. If I have the right of it, the employer voluntarily moved from the private sphere to the public and should not be permitted to arbitrarily pick amongst the various civil rights, selecting some and discarding others, to the possible harm of those he serves in the public fora.

Remember that bakery that declined to bake a wedding cake for the homosexual couple? Until RoyGBiv's posting, I was in support of the bakery: the gay people could buy elsewhere. But Roy's insight makes me see the issue from the public perspective and that makes a material difference, in both wedding cakes and sidearms.

GardoneVT

03-19-2015, 11:20 AM

In discussing NPEs, we have to acknowledge some uncomfortable truths.

One-we are subject to attack at any time.
Two-we are subject to attack at any place.

Thanks to our politically correct, self censorship based culture which says "violence is always wrong" combined with the relative safety of modern life (Thanks LEOs!), most people never mentally realize those facts-and if they do, its a split second before a world class scumbag does their worst. That's way too late to do anything about the problem.

Unless someone's come to that realization before Something Bad happens, theyll believe a gun ban sign is exactly what the doctor ordered. Violence never happens except the movies or some faraway city, right? I can't count the times I've carried where people who've said to me "Why Ya Armed Weirdo" also said "you're packing right?" the moment things looked dodgy beyond the auto glass windows.

Until we change the broader cultural zeitgeist from "WTF, why do you have a GUN you psycho!?" to "You're UNARMED?! What the French Toast moron ?" NPEs will persist.

As will the violation of such by people more concerned with mortal survival then a defective group custom.

MDS

03-19-2015, 11:34 AM

In my opinion, this is an elegant (in the engineering sense) approach to the discussion. If I have the right of it, the employer voluntarily moved from the private sphere to the public and should not be permitted to arbitrarily pick amongst the various civil rights, selecting some and discarding others, to the possible harm of those he serves in the public fora.

Remember that bakery that declined to bake a wedding cake for the homosexual couple? Until RoyGBiv's posting, I was in support of the bakery: the gay people could buy elsewhere. But Roy's insight makes me see the issue from the public perspective and that makes a material difference, in both wedding cakes and sidearms.

It's not common for folks to read about a different opinion than their own, consider it honestly, and change their own opinion because of it. Besides seeing people improve their pistol shooting, this is my favorite aspect of this forum. Thanks for posting about it!

Byron

03-19-2015, 12:43 PM

You explicitly agreed to it.

That may not always be true. I didn't receive the employee handbook from my current employer until after I took the job, and I doubt mine is the only employer that operates that way. I suppose you could argue that not quitting upon reading the objectionable language in the handbook counts as agreement, but that's really not what I'd call explicit agreement.
I think this is a valid point.

When I received a job offer at my current company, they definitely didn't ask me to read any handbook before accepting the offer.

Actually, I was in the last days of my 2-week resignation period when the new company finally mentioned, "Oh, by the way... we already offered you a job and you already accepted, but of course it's conditional on your ability to pass a pre-employment drug test. And the drug test isn't just for illicit drugs. We will also be testing to see if you smoke tobacco products. We will not hire people who smoke tobacco products."

Lucky for me I don't smoke. Otherwise, it would have been a hell of an awkward conversation to walk back to my old employer, tail between my legs, begging for my job back. God forbid my new employer mention that before asking me to accept the job. Then I still didn't see the employee handbook for at least another few weeks.

As for leaving when first seeing the handbook... I can't imagine how that would look on a resume. I'm sure later interviews would go swimmingly.

"So we see that you worked at Corportaion XYZ for one week. What's that all about?"
"Oh, no big deal. They offered me a job. I accepted it. Then they told me I couldn't bring my gun to work so I quit. Do you guys let people bring guns to work?"
"Thanks for coming in today for this interview. We'll be in touch."
"Hey wait! You didn't answer my question about guns!"

So I agree that many workplace policies do not really offer informed consent... just like having to sign a document after surgery has already started is not informed consent.

GardoneVT

03-19-2015, 12:52 PM

So I agree that many workplace policies do not really offer informed consent... just like having to sign a document after surgery has already started is not informed consent.

True-but consent or no, the purpose of a company is to maximize its return on investment. NOT guarantee the physical safety of its employees.

Byron

03-19-2015, 12:55 PM

True-but consent or no, the purpose of a company is to maximize its return on investment. NOT guarantee the physical safety of its employees.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. I never claimed the company cared one bit about the safety of its employees.

I was simply addressing the issue of "You agreed to it, sucker!"

Chance

03-19-2015, 01:06 PM

From my perspective this thread should have been called the morality of not carrying a gun in an NPE. It all seems backwards to me to let lawyers, who will most likely never or rarely set foot in the building, decide policies related to personal safety. Money before common sense is immoral in my book.

Adherence to morality trumps everything. Insisting people abandon adequate means to self-defense is immoral.

Of course if you feel you can justify deceiving or misleading others after you have made an agreement with them because you think your desires trump theirs and it's okay to lie to certain classes of people (your employer for example) because you don't agree with them.....well I doubt anything I say will change your opinion.

"Certain classes of people"? Yes, I am inherently dishonest toward the bourgeoisie. :rolleyes:

Their rules... insofar as they affect their business. My body, my rules. I maintain that the boundary between what they have any legitimate business being concerned about and what falls under the rubric of "None Of Their Beeswax" stops at the visible outer layer of my clothes. What is invisible in my pockets is of no more concern of theirs than the unspoken thoughts in my head, which they likely wouldn't want to hear, either.

That's exactly my position. If it has no impact on my work performance, or the working environment, then it's none of your business. You might as well have a staunch Catholic boss who insists men can't have a condom in their wallets.

JAD

03-19-2015, 01:08 PM

I try to be a pretty ethical person (morality hasn't actually come up in this thread, and it takes a hell of a reading of the 8th to wind up where OP is coming from). That said, I have no problem carrying at work when I can get away with it, because competing harms, real easy. I had no problem carrying before Kansas had a shall issue for the same reason. However, as a sales person, I would NEVER even sort of think of carrying in to a customer site. The potential harm to my employer is /epic/ and unconscionable, well beyond my ethical and moral responsibility to defend myself.

Weird, huh?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JHC

03-19-2015, 01:24 PM

SAWBONES

03-19-2015, 01:41 PM

And yet we agreed (in writing, under no coercion) to an employment agreement that includes an explicit no-gun policy (irrational, immoral and unsafe as that policy may be), knowing full well that we would break that policy. That is blatant dishonesty seems like an assault on personal integrity to me.

I recognize the conflict involved if there was indeed an up-front agreement by a prospective employee, with a prospective employer, to not carry a typical personal defense weapon (e.g. edged weapon, sidearm), in the workplace, upon being hired.

To agree to such a policy and then to disobey it would be wrong.

That doesn't cover all the moral ground in question, however.

There are many examples of after-the-fact "feel good" policies published not only by employers, but also by other organizations with which a given individual may have some connection not involving employment.

For instance, various private non-federal buildings have "no weapons" signs, posted only recently, not carrying the force of law, which give the public impression of acquiescence to the current climate of political correctness regarding workplace safety and avoidance of "workplace violence".

Obviously, such signage accomplishes nothing except to encourage those armed individuals with tender consciences to be unarmed in that particular location.

Does anyone here who practices CCW feel a moral obligation to disarm before entering such a building for otherwise legitimate reasons?

What about the several recently publicized cases of armed physicians defending themselves and others within health care facilities?
Presumably those health care facilities had "no-gun" policies, yet the physicians in question may very well not have been employees of the facilities in question (e.g., being "on staff" does not necessarily involve any employer-employee relationship), or alternatively the physicians may have been long-employed, yet originally hired at a time when no issues about personal weapons were even thought of, much less mentioned in employment contracts.

Suppose that if, in the current well-meaning-but-ignorant political-correctness climate, a workplace bulletin about "no weapons" was subsequently circulated at those healthcare facilities, yet no signed responses or affidavits were required from employees.

Would the physicians described above, who defended their lives or others' lives with sidearms, at the facilities in question, and who did no harm to anyone else, have been considered morally wrong in their discreet, responsible CCW at those healthcare facilities?

I certainly agree with adherence by employees to the details of contracts made at the initiation of an employment relationship between employee and employer.

I do not however agree with the necessity of following any and all possible "rules", especially those rules which are not only pointless but possibly dangerous to the individual, enacted after the fact and without the force of law, and without the signatory consent of employees or associates of the workplace or facility in question.

I don't see these as morally-difficult issues.
None of us can be guaranteed to be in perfect compliance with all laws at all places and at all times (about which we may well be ignorant in many cases), and certainly no one obeys all rules, regulations and requirements at all times.

We make moral choices which pertain to the safety and well being of ourselves and our loved ones.
If my choices are prudent and harm no one, I don't see that there needs to be any moral dilemma about possible conflicts with external rules, so long as my own choices haven't included perjury.

Captain

03-19-2015, 01:46 PM

That may not always be true. I didn't receive the employee handbook from my current employer until after I took the job, and I doubt mine is the only employer that operates that way. I suppose you could argue that not quitting upon reading the objectionable language in the handbook counts as agreement, but that's really not what I'd call explicit agreement. Implied submission is probably more accurate. For that matter, it probably drops below the level of "implied submission" for employees who don't bother to read the handbook. (Yes, I understand and agree that it's their own fault, but I'm sure it's quite common.)

Since my post started this whole curfuffle - I actually have not seen the employee handbook to be able to disagree or agree with it. I am going to work at a company that a friend already works at, and that is the only way that I know what the policy is before working there. So even in this case, I don't have an official word from the company to agree or disagree with.

olstyn

03-19-2015, 01:49 PM

"So we see that you worked at Corportaion XYZ for one week. What's that all about?"
"Oh, no big deal. They offered me a job. I accepted it. Then they told me I couldn't bring my gun to work so I quit. Do you guys let people bring guns to work?"
"Thanks for coming in today for this interview. We'll be in touch."
"Hey wait! You didn't answer my question about guns!"

Haha, no joke. :)

Speaking of, is there even a good way to ask this question? Maybe if you try to make it not about guns; something along the lines of "It has been my habit to carry a pocket knife for most of my life, but I understand that can be a problem in some places. Do you have a policy about that sort of thing?" Would asking something like that work, or be more trouble than it's worth?

cclaxton

03-19-2015, 01:52 PM

One problem here is that each individual will have a different morality. I would hope the vast majority of society would think it is immoral to engage in a lethal attack on someone who is not threatening them. Where it seems to get into a big grey area is what people think about self-defense. There are a surprising number of people who would simply say: Find a way to survive the attack that doesn't involve killing the attacker, or outright pacifist, or "someone will come to my defense," or some other variation of this mindset. I am not convinced morality is so clear-cut with regards to self-defense. We can't force people to defend themselves...wouldn't THAT be immoral if we tried to?
Cody

oldtexan

03-19-2015, 02:12 PM

I carry a gun to work every day and I have no problem with anyone else doing the same. Where I do make a distinction is in being honest and having integrity in life. If you go to work at a private company my assumption is that you have been offered a certain amount of money in exchange for doing specified work for that company while following their policies and procedures. If You accept that money you have agreed to honor the terms of the deal, which include following their policies and procedures. Now if you know that their policies forbid carrying guns to work and you do so anyway even though you agreed to follow them by accepting employment, that is lying by omission. You are starting your employment with this company by agreeing to terms (and being paid to do so) that you have no intent to actually honor. This seems dishonest to me and as I don't see dishonesty as a good idea, I would say this is a bad idea. Now I'm sure if Bill Clinton were here he could explain why they never specifically asked you each day if you're carrying and you didn't actually agree to all of the terms of the deal in your head even though you gave them the impression you did, and it's really their fault if they thought you did without specifically asking about each individual policy and getting a signature from you each day and really they said you can't carry here but isn't here really just there without a "t?"

In short, it's simply deceitful behavior which is wrong. The second amendment guarantees you the right to keep and bear arms while not being infringed by the government, it doesn't give you any rights to bear arms on private property whose owners have told you not to do so on their property. Of course if you feel you can justify deceiving or misleading others after you have made an agreement with them because you think your desires trump theirs and it's okay to lie to certain classes of people (your employer for example) because you don't agree with them.....well I doubt anything I say will change your opinion.

I'm with you, Mark. The Second Amendment is important. So are private property rights. So is integrity. If a prospective employer offers me a job but sets conditions that I can't abide by, then IMO I should find another job. I can protect my 2d Amendment rights and my integrity, while honoring his property rights by finding a different job.

BWT

03-19-2015, 02:13 PM

I hate to say it. Throw me in with Mark on this one.

You want to know one of the primary reasons people steal from the company's they work for? "Because they earned it anyway".

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

While emotionally I get everyone's sentiments, and have given a public speech on why students should be able to carry while in college.

I think Mark's right. We get upset that Hillary's a liar, and yet when it suits us. We're okay with it because it suits our interests.

Logically, that's what's happening.

I realize I'm a hypocrite, and at times, I've carried in businesses that have signs not allowing it. Such as movie theaters.

It's a real decision in a gray area.

This is a difficult situation.

Peally

03-19-2015, 02:17 PM

Aray

03-19-2015, 02:23 PM

BWT

03-19-2015, 02:25 PM

Not too difficult, if you can't live with yourself and you value avoiding the consequences of carrying in a specific NPE versus the consequences you avoid being armed, don't carry.

We call Hillary a liar because the majority of us don't exactly share her comrade's views on what we consider basic human rights.

Not to get in a logical loop here, but do we share their beliefs on doing what suits us at the time regardless of the rules as well?

I'm with you on the first part.

RoyGBiv

03-19-2015, 02:28 PM

I am not convinced morality is so clear-cut with regards to self-defense.
I believe in many cases the issue is not so much morality of self defense as it is fear. Of the unknown, maybe. Probably more so a fear of ones own shortcomings. Knowing you don't have the mindset, skills or tools to defend yourself against an unexpected attack. Some folks, like people here, will step up and try to DO something about that, other folks are overwhelmed by the idea, not knowing where to start, perhaps never having confronted the possibilities or done an honest self-evaluation. It's much easier to follow the ostriches. You allow your fears to be validated by groupthink. That leads to the stupidity of thinking (I purposely didn't say "believing") a sign will make bad things not happen. Morality has little to do with it. IMO.

The good news is that fear and groupthink can be overcome.

I've taught people who were anti-gun to shoot. My wife, who always thought I was more than a little paranoid for carrying a gun the past 18 years, is taking her CHL class next month and she's bringing along a girlfriend.

I like this discussion..... I agree there's a decision to be made about NPE environments, but I don't believe self-defense itself is an issue of morality. The 6th Commandment is widely misrepresented. In Hebrew, as in English, the words for "kill" and "murder" are distinctly different. The 6th Commandment is "Thou shall not murder". Carrying where someone who has sway over you says not to carry is very different than questioning the morality of self defense in its entirety.

Sorry for rambling. Conference calling and typing ... Not always a good idea to do simultaneously. :rolleyes:

Byron

03-19-2015, 02:35 PM

We all lie to different degrees.

"Not true! You're just rationalizing your behavior so you can put your head on the pillow at night!"

OK...

How often do you tell your significant other that they really aren't as attractive as when you first started dating them?
How often do you tell your mother-in-law that her voice sounds like nails on a chalkboard?
How often do you tell your buddy that his son is a little shit?
How often do you confront your boss to let him know that you're aware of his extramarital affair?
How often do you say to someone, "I actually could spare a dollar, but I don't believe that you'll use it for the bus and therefore refuse to give it to you"?

We often use the term "discretion" when addressing these issues, or we call them white lies. Those are just nicer ways of saying that they are lies.

I'm not saying that because everyone lies about something, that makes it OK to lie about everything, but I absolutely do not buy the slippery slope argument. Truth is very easy to compartmentalize... and unless people have absolutely NO verbal filter, they're all doing so.

"Your 13 year old daughter is hideous!"
"Get out of my house."
"I had to say it. Right is right. I cannot tell a lie."
"You didn't have to say a damn thing."
"Yes I did. Mark said that lying by omission is the same as any other lie, and BWT said that wrong is wrong. I don't want to be wrong, so I didn't want to omit anything."

EDIT: I'll even go so far as to say that in some situations, a lie is more moral (or even ethical) than the truth.

BWT

03-19-2015, 02:42 PM

We all lie to different degrees.

"Not true! You're just rationalizing your behavior so you can put your head on the pillow at night!"

OK...

How often do you tell your significant other that they really aren't as attractive as when you first started dating them?
How often do you tell your mother-in-law that her voice sounds like nails on a chalkboard?
How often do you tell your buddy that his son is a little shit?
How often do you confront your boss to let him know that you're aware of his extramarital affair?
How often do you say to someone, "I actually could spare a dollar, but I don't believe that you'll use it for the bus and therefore refuse to give it to you"?

We often use the term "discretion" when addressing these issues, or we call them white lies. Those are just nicer ways of saying that they are lies.

I'm not saying that because everyone lies about something, that makes it OK to lie about everything, but I absolutely do not buy the slippery slope argument. Truth is very easy to compartmentalize... and unless people have absolutely NO verbal filter, they're all doing so.

"Your 13 year old daughter is hideous!"
"Get out of my house."
"I had to say it. Right is right. I cannot tell a lie."
"You didn't have to say a damn thing."
"Yes I did. Mark said that lying by omission is the same as any other lie, and BWT said that wrong is wrong. I don't want to be wrong, so I didn't want to omit anything."

Not necessarily the same. In all of your examples discretion would be to not say those things; because in none of those examples did they ask.

How about the terminal cancer patient who's doctor tells them to enjoy the last few months of life with family versus being exhausted and just keeping them in chemo?

I lie, have lied, and will lie again. I don't want to lie, and yet I do. Paul talks about that exact issue in 1 Timothy 1:15.

However, be that as it is; I don't just get callous and do things wrong because I've done them before.

I don't see myself as self-righteous, and in fact, called myself a hypocrite a few posts ago.

ETA: Romans 7:12-15 then all of 7:12-8:12 would be good to consider as well.

Peally

03-19-2015, 02:43 PM

Not to get in a logical loop here, but do we share their beliefs on doing what suits us at the time regardless of the rules as well?

I'm with you on the first part.

In some cases, yep! I don't think the world is totally black and white like that, and what I may consider a deeply basic human right, they may consider a mere appointed privilege. The average business likely doesn't care one way or another. In that regard, when it comes to something like a metal brick in my pants that no one will know about I'll weigh my options and break the rules as I see a need after weighing the various consequences. Every time I take a leak on a side road to nowhere technically I could be charged as a sex offender, but I decide to take that risk anyway knowing I don't want to piss myself in the car and a passing officer isn't likely to care much beyond telling me to zip it up and get moving. However, I still wouldn't take that leak in the middle of a busy school hallway.

That may make me a huge hypocrite, but I'm honestly OK with that. It may also make me a little person for considering my morals above someone like Hillary's , but I do and in the end I need to live with myself, not with what she thinks of me.

Byron

03-19-2015, 02:56 PM

Not necessarily the same. In all of your examples discretion would be to not say those things; because in none of those examples did they ask.
Right: they are lies by omission. But Mark said that lying by omission is still immoral.

Even so, let's tweak it. Your buddy is really excited to introduce you to his "beautiful" wife who he loves. She turns out to be hideous. After meeting her, he asks you, "Isn't she amazingly hot?" You've now been asked directly. Do you tell him that you think she's hideous?

How about the terminal cancer patient who's doctor tells them to enjoy the last few months of life with family versus being exhausted and just keeping them in chemo?
I'm not trying to be dense, but I don't understand what lie you are proposing here. It sounds like the doctor is being honest... unless I'm misunderstanding.

However, be that as it is; I don't just get callous and do things wrong because I've done them before.
I'm not suggesting callousness, but your second sentence brought up corporate embezzlement. Perhaps I inferred the wrong message, but I saw that as a slippery slope argument: i.e. if you're the type of guy who would lie about bringing a firearm to work, what's to stop you from stealing money? Or maybe the argument was, "How are you any different than the guy who steals?" I'm not sure as it's a bit vague what you were communicating.

I don't see myself as self-righteous, and in fact, called myself a hypocrite a few posts ago.
I don't see you as self-righteous: I just don't think the issue is as simple as "Right is right and wrong is wrong," with all lies being defined as wrong.

BWT

03-19-2015, 02:59 PM

In some cases, yep! I don't think the world is totally black and white like that, and what I may consider a deeply basic human right, they may consider a mere appointed privilege. The average business likely doesn't care one way or another. In that regard, when it comes to something like a metal brick in my pants that no one will know about I'll weigh my options and break the rules as I see a need after weighing the various consequences. Every time I take a leak on a side road to nowhere technically I could be charged as a sex offender, but I decide to take that risk anyway knowing I don't want to piss myself in the car and a passing officer isn't likely to care much beyond telling me to zip it up and get moving. However, I still wouldn't take that leak in the middle of a busy school hallway.

That may make me a huge hypocrite, but I'm honestly OK with that. It may also make me a little person for considering my morals above someone like Hillary's , but I do and in the end I need to live with myself, not with what she thinks of me.

I don't think you're a huge hypocrite in that circumstance because urinating somewhere isn't necessarily against the law unless within certain parameters such as exposing yourself to children. However, I get what you're saying.

I don't dislike the people here and I'm not accusing them of being evil or things of that nature but the law is the law. This is calling an ugly baby ugly; we aren't forced to work anywhere.

To offer perspective the mass shooting at Luby's restaurant led to almost nationwide Concealed Carry shall-issue; it did in Texas.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

BWT

03-19-2015, 03:05 PM

Captain

03-19-2015, 03:15 PM

I don't think you're a huge hypocrite in that circumstance because urinating somewhere isn't necessarily against the law unless within certain parameters such as exposing yourself to children. However, I get what you're saying.

I don't dislike the people here and I'm not accusing them of being evil or things of that nature but the law is the law. This is calling an ugly baby ugly; we aren't forced to work anywhere.

To offer perspective the mass shooting at Luby's restaurant led to almost nationwide Concealed Carry shall-issue; it did in Texas.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

BWT - you're right. The law is the law. And if everyone everywhere followed the law, we'd all be British and black people would still be second class citizens. I'm not saying this is on the same level - but few people I know would say our founding fathers or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s were wrong or even sinful because of their actions to be free (though I know a college professor who made that exact argument). I know that npe carry is not nearly on this level, but if you draw a line in the sand and say it's black and white, you don't allow for what happened at those moments in history. If you make an excuse for them - where is one supposed to draw the line?

The law also says you can't carry in schools and the post office - yet shootings there are a real thing and I know people that refuse to disarm when going into either of them despite the penalties being WAAAAAYYYY worse than carrying at work when asked not to. If one disagrees with gun/weapon free zones on principal and refuses to disarm, are they right or wrong? What about places where carrying of weapons is not allowed (or so heavily restricted so as to be completely unavailable), when people carry in spite of those unconstitutional and immoral laws - are they right or wrong? And if those people are wrong - is there any possible way that they could be a person of integrity despite ignoring the law (or a person's request) in regards to gun free zones or are they completely untrustworthy because of their fundamental philosophical difference (and therefore disobedience) in one area? For one, I take it as a personal insult when someone says I am untrustworthy or have no integrity because I choose to ignore what I see as unreasonable, unconstitutional, or immoral request/demand.

Also - the law is the law... ever had a section of road that clearly could safely have a higher speed limit? Ever speed on that road (or anywhere for that matter)? What's the difference?

JDM

03-19-2015, 03:30 PM

This is an interesting thread.

JHC

03-19-2015, 04:12 PM

Sort of. But Olympic level shark jumping too. ;)

Odin Bravo One

03-19-2015, 04:19 PM

dgg9

03-19-2015, 04:59 PM

Interesting thread, and a theme that recurs on these boards. If we lived in a perfect world where there were plenty of jobs, and the jobsites had varying philosophies on gun rights on premises, then you could probably say an absolutist property rights / contract rights approach was the way to go. But we don't live in that perfect competition. In reality, most companies base employee handbooks on legal advice and all these lawyers are learning the same things in the same law schools, based on the same caselaw. In some areas of the country, there's effectively a monopoly because all the rules are the same anywhere you go. There is no "other" place to work where your rights are respected. Not to mention that there aren't that many options to begin with in the modern economy.

In the Atlantic Northeast where I live, not only would on-premises CCW be unthinkable, most places ban firearms ANYWHERE on premises, routinely to include the company parking lot. For me to work anywhere commutable in my sector means that if I follow company diktat, I will be disarmed from the minute I leave my door, all day, until I return home.

Based on that imperfect reality, property rights can't be absolute to me.

Mark

03-19-2015, 06:32 PM

First off, I want to apologize to Captain, I think some of the things I wrote about family came across like I was criticizing his handling of his own family and that wasn't my intent, I was more trying to think out loud as to my concerns on how my actions would impact my family and their thinking, but I wrote it in such a way where it looks like I'm directing it at his family which I shouldn't have done, for that I apologize.

My main point in all of this is simply that I think truth trumps most of our personal preferences, even if we feel strongly about them. I think it's dangerous when we become comfortable with lying because we place ourselves in a position of moral or intelectual superiority to the point where we feel we can be comfortable with deceiving people because we're somehow better or smarter and our decisions are better then those who have the right to decide who they want to pay and let on their private property. To me that is no different then the Clintons. Clearly they are a truth challenged family but I would feel very comfortable making a large wager that they justify all of their lies by telling themselves they are smarter then the average person (more then likely they are) and that all of their lies are calculated for a greater good (I have no doubt they believe this) but since the rest of the country hasn't fallen in line with them yet, in the meantime it's okay for them to lie so that they can bring about a better society for many people they feel haven't gotten a fair shake in life.

If both sides feel they can lie because it's for the greater good, are they any better then each other? Interestingly of the three Abrahamic religions, Judiasm and Christianity forbid lying, but Islam allows it if it s for the furtherance of the cause of Islam. So even there we don't have universal agreement I suppose.

I also understand the argument about not telling your wife she doesn't look good. Technically it's still a lie but I would ask your intent. If I were to say that (my wife's smoking hot so it's not an issue, praise God!) to my wife, I wouldn't be doing it to try and deceive her to gain some advantage for myself but rather I would be tryingt make her feel better or at least not bad. I would say that that is different then signing an employment contract knowing the rules, taking money for promising to abide by them, and then intentionally deceiving people when I never had any intent to honor the agreement I made.

I doubt I'll change any minds, just like the Bible and the Quran see this issue very differently so do some of us here.

JM Campbell

03-19-2015, 06:33 PM

Interesting things happen at work when a family member of the owner of the company I work for unfortunately was a victim of homicide. 30.06 signs are no longer on property and a corporate sponsored a CCW license class for $25 admission. Granted this did not happen over night but the culture can change for the better, I just wish it was not for the circumstances.

I did not at any time feel it was not worth the price before...it's my bacon in the fire and I have a family to go home to.

TGS

03-19-2015, 06:39 PM

I also understand the argument about not telling your wife she doesn't look good. Technically it's still a lie but I would ask your intent. If I were to say that (my wife's smoking hot so it's not an issue, praise God!) to my wife, I wouldn't be doing it to try and deceive her to gain some advantage for myself but rather I would be tryingt make her feel better or at least not bad. I would say that that is different then signing an employment contract knowing the rules, taking money for promising to abide by them, and then intentionally deceiving people when I never had any intent to honor the agreement I made.

But you're still lying, and as you have exhaustively written....lying is bad.

You're justifying lying just the same as we are.

JHC

03-19-2015, 06:43 PM

Captain

03-19-2015, 06:59 PM

BWT

03-19-2015, 08:36 PM

Right: they are lies by omission. But Mark said that lying by omission is still immoral.

Even so, let's tweak it. Your buddy is really excited to introduce you to his "beautiful" wife who he loves. She turns out to be hideous. After meeting her, he asks you, "Isn't she amazingly hot?" You've now been asked directly. Do you tell him that you think she's hideous?

Honestly, being married myself; I'd feel uncomfortable. I'd probably tell him his wife looks fine or she's beautiful. Roles reversed, if some guy starts talking to me about how attractive my wife is; I'm probably going to get irritated. That's just not their place. I understand the sentiment; in this moment you'd want to be friendly.

How about the terminal cancer patient who's doctor tells them to enjoy the last few months of life with family versus being exhausted and just keeping them in chemo?

I'm not trying to be dense, but I don't understand what lie you are proposing here. It sounds like the doctor is being honest... unless I'm misunderstanding.

What I'm saying is lying to people to tell them what they want to hear isn't the best. Are there situations to use discernment or avoid a question yes. Do you have to always be honest? Truthfully, it's a good idea. I'm married, I get it.

I'm not suggesting callousness, but your second sentence brought up corporate embezzlement. Perhaps I inferred the wrong message, but I saw that as a slippery slope argument: i.e. if you're the type of guy who would lie about bringing a firearm to work, what's to stop you from stealing money? Or maybe the argument was, "How are you any different than the guy who steals?" I'm not sure as it's a bit vague what you were communicating.

What I was inferring here is, we justify things to ourselves in some ways that appear noble, and that still doesn't make them right. Murdering Hitler is still murder. Does that make sense?

I don't see you as self-righteous: I just don't think the issue is as simple as "Right is right and wrong is wrong," with all lies being defined as wrong.

I think lying is inherently wrong, but it happens every day, or partial truths.

And if everyone everywhere followed the law, we'd all be British and black people would still be second class citizens. I'm not saying this is on the same level - but few people I know would say our founding fathers or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s were wrong or even sinful because of their actions to be free (though I know a college professor who made that exact argument). I know that npe carry is not nearly on this level, but if you draw a line in the sand and say it's black and white, you don't allow for what happened at those moments in history. If you make an excuse for them - where is one supposed to draw the line?

So... Let's talk practically a moment. None of your examples cited support your argument.

You know what started the Revolutionary War? The Boston Massacre. People that were upset over taxes were protesting, unarmed, and were shot by British soldiers. They were following the law, and protesting their lack of representation. Not the British being there mind you, taxation. It wasn't people concealed carrying flintlocks taking down the british or pirates taking down the british. It was innocent civilians being gunned down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

Let's talk about the Civil War. It started over states rights, not slavery. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. The North ended slavery in southern states to further damage their economy because they were at war. You may or may not know, Slaves were not outlawed in states that had sided with the Union such as Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware. While Slavery is wrong, the civil war wasn't about slavery, and the abolition of slavery is the same reason they burned Atlanta to the ground, and then went burning everything to the cost; to destroy the south's infrastructure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_%28American_Civil_War%29

Here's an interesting letter by Abraham Lincoln on how he felt about slavery versus saving the Union. This lets you know where the President of the United State's interests were during the Civil War.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Let's talk about the Civil Rights movement. Are you familiar with Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr.?

Malcom X was absolute failure to bring about change in the Civil rights movement, and was assassinated by his own people.

A direct quote of Malcom X was "I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King."

http://www.malcolm-x.org/quotes.htm
(http://www.malcolm-x.org/quotes.htm)

While Martin Luther King Jr., advocated and part took in peaceful protests, where people were beaten, hosed, abused, and worse. But guess what, the public outcry became so great that the Supreme Court issued a ruling and overturned the Jim Crow laws, and the President of the United States enforced it.

Also - the law is the law... ever had a section of road that clearly could safely have a higher speed limit? Ever speed on that road (or anywhere for that matter)? What's the difference?

Let's talk about something called a fallacy. I'm going to show you some definitions, a fallacy is a "a misleading or unsound argument."

Yes, I have sped in a car, yes I have admitted here, I've carried a weapon a place I shouldn't (movie theatre, not against the law just against their signs). What I see proposed here doesn't address the issues. Their fallacies, you take one thing and compare it to another and say "is this no different?".

Or another fallacy. Appeal to Emotions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion.

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

Or, how about the many times I've been alluded to have I ever lied? I said in the first post I've done things I said not to do. I've said I've lied, I've indicated other things; I've even said I'm a hypocrite about this. But those factors have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Let's talk about another fallacy. Ad hominem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem.

When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized

Morals are individual. Certainly people can try to push their morals onto another, but it doesn't work, and usually results in push back.

Just because "you" wouldn't do something, or don't think something is "right" doesn't mean someone else isn't entitled to think and do the opposite. If being dishonest to my employer by concealing a handgun, in direct violation of company policy is something I choose to do, what does anyone else care? Sure, you can judge me. But the fact remains that you are not me. And I could care less of your opinions of me.

Do what you want with your own ass. Don't be telling me what I should be doing with mine.

I'm not trying to push my morals on to you, and my opinion of you happens to be very high; I understand why you feel the way you do. I do.

So let me get into the theological/philosophical stance on lying.

Proverbs 17:3 says, "The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, But the LORD tests hearts." I believe this is the most important factor here. The Why do we do things; not as much what we actually do. That's a discussion for the doctrine of grace, and other topics.

Let me also pose something to all of you. The gun laws are put in place to protect us, yes? That's what we're sold, right? The testimony of the daughter of the two parents that were murdered in Luby's restaurant in Texas back in 1995, and her running for political office changed the political landscape in this country in regards to concealed carry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting

In response to the incident,[21] the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses.

Based off the precedence of this law, based off this incident; concealed carry became gained national notoriety and exists in a shall-issue form based off the moment. That momentum started based off the hypocrisy of a law that took people's rights for their safety, and that very same law cost them their lives. This is the result. (referenced from gun-nuttery.com at http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php)

3172

So, I understand why you all feel the way you do.

I really do, but, truthfully; it's still breaking the law. Will I speed in traffic tomorrow? Probably, I'm trying to get better but I'm not perfect. I used to work harder at staying in the speed limit; these days I don't.

But let me also say this about Christianity, good works and salvation through Christ, Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

And, Galatians 3:23-26 "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith."

Lastly, Galatians 5:13-14 "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”

So, I realize I've said controversial things. This may get hairier before it gets better. My aim isn't to alienate those among us, but simply to state what the case is, and hopefully offer some insights on it.

It's a tough decision for me when I see that little sign every time.

On that note, I'm calling it a night and doing homework.

God Bless,

Brandon.

ETA: I fixed a spacing issue. Dang that was a long post.

ETA 2: In S.C., if a sign is of a certain description and in certain locations. You're not supposed to carry there. However, the penalty is possibly being barred from return and receiving a no trespassing. Still the rules, but the penalty is insignificant.

ETA 3: I'm going to work on posting less lengthy messages, avoiding hot topic threads, and loving my neighbor as I love myself as a result of this thread.

TGS

03-19-2015, 08:50 PM

Dang that was a long post.

Yes, it was. tl;dr.

Odin Bravo One

03-19-2015, 08:55 PM

Since it didn't make the merger, I'll repeat this here:

I lie to my employers all of the time. So far, I have not heard any compaints regarding that issue.

JAD

03-19-2015, 08:59 PM

I would encourage anybody who hasn't to google around a little bit on what might be wrong with moral relativism. I wouldn't say anything, but it's a pretty big deal to me. Anyway, if you need good sources, post or pm.

That said, we're still discussing ethics more than morals here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mark

03-19-2015, 09:25 PM

Can anyone tell me how to edit my posts? The pencil symbol doesn't show up.....

Byron

03-19-2015, 09:30 PM

But let me also say this about Christianity, good works and salvation through Christ...
Thanks, but no thanks.

JDM

03-19-2015, 09:51 PM

Can anyone tell me how to edit my posts? The pencil symbol doesn't show up.....

After a certain amount of time, posts are no longer editable.

Don Gwinn

03-19-2015, 09:55 PM

Quoting your holy scriptures will probably generally only work on your fellow worshippers (if it even works on them.) I ain't mad atcha, I'm just letting you know. Same thing for claiming the Civil War was a fight over stayes'rights and not slavery, and there's some other odd history in there, too. But the bottom line is this:
Pwrsonally, I don't carry at work, and I freely admit that I've simply calculated that the odds of getting caught, fired and blacklisted are a lot higher than my chances of encountering a problem that can't be solved without a gun, even though the odds of that aren't zero. I also feel compelled to point out that, contract many here, I've found that people who implement these bans often honestly believe they're making everyone safer.

Now, the pink underwear scenario was more troubling. They try to force me to wear underwear, and there's gonna be consequences and repercussions.

BWT

03-19-2015, 10:17 PM

Since it didn't make the merger, I'll repeat this here:

I lie to my employers all of the time. So far, I have not heard any compaints regarding that issue.

I understand. Essentially, your intentions are to protect yourself despite what the rules are because the rules are inconsistent, irrational, and nonsensical.

I've made the same decision before as well. I'm not happy about it, and honestly, I do feel troubled about for reasons cited here. I realize I'm going against my word, breaking statues, company by-laws, etc., etc. It's not something I do lightly or feel like I'm in the right about despite how I feel about the actual existence of the laws.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Words like judging, sinning, and even references to Christianity started in page 7 (if not before that), and I wasn't the first one. I thought I'd address some of those as well faith in Christ isn't works based, and I'm not in the position nor do I desire to be to judge others sins, etc. I'm sorry if this made the discussion uncomfortable to you.

Quoting your holy scriptures will probably generally only work on your fellow worshippers (if it even works on them.) I ain't mad atcha, I'm just letting you know. Same thing for claiming the Civil War was a fight over stayes'rights and not slavery, and there's some other odd history in there, too. But the bottom line is this:
Pwrsonally, I don't carry at work, and I freely admit that I've simply calculated that the odds of getting caught, fired and blacklisted are a lot higher than my chances of encountering a problem that can't be solved without a gun, even though the odds of that aren't zero. I also feel compelled to point out that, contract many here, I've found that people who implement these bans often honestly believe they're making everyone safer.

I apologize if I made you uncomfortable or felt unwelcome or brow beaten, etc. in regards to Christianity. Simply put that isn't my intention, and I'll apologize here and now for it. As far as slavery, I don't approve of slavery, never have, and never will. I simply don't know how much more vehemently I can express that. But, the war was started because the Federal government stated that no new state territories would have slavery. Some southern states felt that affected their interests, and seceded to form their own country because they wanted to do things the way they wanted, and after South Carolina attacked and took Ft. Sumter, which constituted an act of war; War broke out.

After war was declared, more southern states went with the south, and 4 slave states stayed with the Union. It's certainly wrong, but slavery also pre-dated the establishment colonies here, and even English involvement in the Americas.

Anyway, I should have let a sleeping dog lie tonight. However, I wanted to wrap up a few things.

Have a good night guys,

God bless,

Brandon.

Byron

03-19-2015, 10:29 PM

Is there any possibility a moderator would consider splitting the Civil War shit out of this thread?

I thought we were talking about disobeying carry rules in NPE's.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

RevolverRob

03-19-2015, 10:46 PM

Morals are individual. Certainly people can try to push their morals onto another, but it doesn't work, and usually results in push back.

Just because "you" wouldn't do something, or don't think something is "right" doesn't mean someone else isn't entitled to think and do the opposite. If being dishonest to my employer by concealing a handgun, in direct violation of company policy is something I choose to do, what does anyone else care? Sure, you can judge me. But the fact remains that you are not me. And I could care less of your opinions of me.

Do what you want with your own ass. Don't be telling me what I should be doing with mine.

I'm pretty much at /thread at this point. This is the quote for the win.

Since it didn't make the merger, I'll repeat this here:

I lie to my employers all of the time. So far, I have not heard any compaints regarding that issue.

They probably lie to you too. At least if they are anything like my employers.

JDM

03-19-2015, 10:51 PM

FYI, that certain amount of time is currently 30 minutes.

Thanks!

Byron

03-19-2015, 11:06 PM

Just for the record, especially since this is a public forum, I do not carry a firearm to my workplace, nor anywhere that would be illegal.

But I don't judge those who do so responsibly. On the contrary, I offer them my support and hope someone like them is around if there's ever serious trouble.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

Ptrlcop

03-19-2015, 11:17 PM

I don't have the energy to read the whole thread right now but:

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein

That seems a bit "idealistic" but it's the truth. What it doesn't say is that you also can't bitch when you meet consequences for exercising your freedom.

Mark

03-19-2015, 11:18 PM

I'm pretty much at /thread at this point. This is the quote for the win.

They probably lie to you too. At least if they are anything like my employers..
I don't think you can declare a win unless you can convince some of us it's okay to lie in the scenario, just like we can't declare a win unless you decide to tell the truth. Ultimately it's a debate that evokes thought but in this format is probably unwinable.
Regardless of wether or not my employer lies to me i don't believe that justifies me lying to them.

Captain

03-19-2015, 11:20 PM

Okay, BWT - you seem to like to make assumptions. Assumptions like I don't know history, logic, or the Bible. A little clue - I know about all those things and I certainly don't appreciate the preachy holier-than-thou attitude with which you "taught" me all those things.

1. I know all about the Boston Massacre - I also know that many great mean were breaking the law in a lot of little ways before that tipping point occurred and even after before fighting broke out 5 years later - which was the point of me bringing up our founding fathers - if there hadn't been great men to stand up to stupid and tyrannical laws (which they broke all willy nilly sometimes), then we'd still be British. Yes it's a simplification of everything that happened then, but it's no less true.

2. I never brought up the Civil War. Completely not relevant to this conversation at all. In fact, I mentioned the 1960s... should have been a clue.

3. In the context of what I said, I was clearly referring to the civil disobedience performed by Rosa Parks and many of King's followers during the Civil rights movement, and not militants like Malcolm X.

The whole point of that was not to make emotional arguments or anything else - it was simply this - You said not following the rules is ALWAYS wrong. I simply pointed out two very obvious times in our shared history as American's (I did make an assumption there) where purposefully disobeying the rules/laws was clearly morally right and you could not fault the people doing it. Did any of them lie? Well, I'm sure at least one of them did - and I wouldn't fault him or her for it.

As for your fallacies arguments - I never attacked your character (Ad Hominem), I never appealed to your emotions, and it's not a fallacy when someone says that you should always follow the rules or it's wrong for someone to ask - "what about all of these instances of rule breaking - do you think they are also wrong?" It's called finding out what you actually think/believe about something.

As for quoting the Bible to show why you're right - you're in luck, I happen to be a believer in Christ. That doesn't mean I agree with everything you said, and if I wasn't it means that entire section would hold absolutely zero weight with how I should decide my own ethics or morality. Why? Because if I don't believe the same as you - which others on this thread have indicated they don't - then the Bible holds no moral authority for them.

Oddly enough in the midst of that, you bring up the Luby's shooting. Here's the rub - she made a choice I won't make. She chose to follow the rule (law in that case) even though she knew better and it cost her both of her parents. I refuse to go through something like that for the sake of "not lying" or "following the rules". I have a moral imperative to come home to my family at night. Morals are our internal (unless we source them externally) beliefs of right and wrong. I feel it is wrong to not take responsibility for my safety and that of my family. I do not feel that breaking an immoral rule or lying about breaking such a rule is morally wrong because the impetus of the action/lie is an immoral rule to begin with. Call it what you will, that's what I believe. If you believe differently, that's fine - just don't talk down to me while you defend your position.

So... Let's talk practically a moment. None of your examples cited support your argument.

You know what started the Revolutionary War? The Boston Massacre. People that were upset over taxes were protesting, unarmed, and were shot by British soldiers. They were following the law, and protesting their lack of representation. Not the British being there mind you, taxation. It wasn't people concealed carrying flintlocks taking down the british or pirates taking down the british. It was innocent civilians being gunned down.

Let's talk about the Civil War. It started over states rights, not slavery. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. The North ended slavery in southern states to further damage their economy because they were at war. You may or may not know, Slaves were not outlawed in states that had sided with the Union such as Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware. While Slavery is wrong, the civil war wasn't about slavery, and the abolition of slavery is the same reason they burned Atlanta to the ground, and then went burning everything to the cost; to destroy the south's infrastructure.

Let's talk about the Civil Rights movement. Are you familiar with Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr.?

Malcom X was absolute failure to bring about change in the Civil rights movement, and was assassinated by his own people.

While Martin Luther King Jr., advocated and part took in peaceful protests, where people were beaten, hosed, abused, and worse. But guess what, the public outcry became so great that the Supreme Court issued a ruling and overturned the Jim Crow laws, and the President of the United States enforced it.

Let's talk about something called a fallacy. I'm going to show you some definitions, a fallacy is a "a misleading or unsound argument."

Yes, I have sped in a car, yes I have admitted here, I've carried a weapon a place I shouldn't (movie theatre, not against the law just against their signs). What I see proposed here doesn't address the issues. Their fallacies, you take one thing and compare it to another and say "is this no different?".

Or another fallacy. Appeal to Emotions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion.

Or, how about the many times I've been alluded to have I ever lied? I said in the first post I've done things I said not to do. I've said I've lied, I've indicated other things; I've even said I'm a hypocrite about this. But those factors have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Let's talk about another fallacy. Ad hominem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem.

I'm not trying to push my morals on to you, and my opinion of you happens to be very high; I understand why you feel the way you do. I do.

So let me get into the theological/philosophical stance on lying.

Proverbs 17:3 says, "The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, But the LORD tests hearts." I believe this is the most important factor here. The Why do we do things; not as much what we actually do. That's a discussion for the doctrine of grace, and other topics.

But let me also say this about Christianity, good works and salvation through Christ, Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

And, Galatians 3:23-26 "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith."

Lastly, Galatians 5:13-14 "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”

So, I realize I've said controversial things. This may get hairier before it gets better. My aim isn't to alienate those among us, but simply to state what the case is, and hopefully offer some insights on it.

It's a tough decision for me when I see that little sign every time.

On that note, I'm calling it a night and doing homework.

God Bless,

Brandon.

RevolverRob

03-20-2015, 01:20 AM

.
I don't think you can declare a win unless you can convince some of us it's okay to lie in the scenario, just like we can't declare a win unless you decide to tell the truth. Ultimately it's a debate that evokes thought but in this format is probably unwinable.
Regardless of wether or not my employer lies to me i don't believe that justifies me lying to them.

Three points of order.

1) I generally avoid engaging in debates about issues, where I feel those looking for resolutions are only looking for the otherside to agree with them. I.E., my experience is very few people are in it to be convinced that their view point may be incorrect. I am not seeing a lot here to convince me this isn't the case here.

2) I generally avoid engaging in falsely dichotomizing issues. The issues up for debate currently are neither black nor white. To dichtomize them as such is to ignore the larger reality of our world.

3) I, personally, do not feel that these are moral or ethical issues, let alone important ones. Fundamentally, the core to the "moral issues" being discussed here is actually about the free exercise of personal choice. You either choose to carry or you do not. That is your right, regardless of moral or ethical intepreptations of others. As a result, my viewpoint is precisely in line with Sean's, what you choose to do is your own business and no other entity's business.

A genuine moral issue I see here is the free exercise of judgement of someone else's actions. The fact that such points were brought up, originally in Captain's thread, indicates to me that we have a moral failing in this country. Where we feel all are qualified to judge others. Further, that those perceived qualifications entitle those who make such judgements to continue waxing on at length about things that almost unequivocally do not affect them. Finally, that many are narcissitic enough to feel their own opinions about such matters are most important (that goes to people on both sides of this "argument").

I'll end by defering to my personal favorite modification of an age old adage, "If you don't have anything useful to say, do not say anything at all."

-Rob

PS: I do not necessarily consider my own contributions to this thread useful overall and thus recognize some hypocrisy in the statement above.

Mark

03-20-2015, 01:50 AM

PS: I do not necessarily consider my own contributions to this thread useful overall and thus recognize some hypocrisy in the statement above.

No worries, we're all in it together, at the base of it we're all hypocrites to one degree or another, at least we're all thinking about it and how to be better from whatever perspective we come from.

cclaxton

03-20-2015, 05:16 AM

The survival of the species and the tribe and now society does not allow for complete freedom...well, beyond doing *anything* once. My point is that our modern society has laws/rules that are derived from our common morality/ethics, and our behavior most definitely IS judged by society and IS subject to punishment/reward. Even in caveman days, the tribe dictated what you could and could not do.

The one area where we are truly FREE is with our own thoughts/feelings.
Cody

GardoneVT

03-20-2015, 08:11 AM

My point is that our modern society has laws/rules that are derived from our common morality/ethics.

Those common morality/ethics often dont line up with reality at all, especially with firearms. Why is it legal for residents to walk down Austin ,Texas whilst armed and not so in Los Angeles ?
Largely because most Texans believe guns are good and because most urban Californians believe guns are a social pox. Whether one policy is safer then the other doesnt majorly come into it-or the personal safety of individuals thereof.If it did, we'd be shopping for Prada 1911 holsters on Rodeo Drive.

Byron

03-20-2015, 09:02 AM

...our behavior most definitely IS judged by society and IS subject to punishment/reward...
I haven't seen a single person claim that if they break rules, they should be free of consequences. On the contrary, I see people saying things like this:

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Robert A. Heinlein

That seems a bit "idealistic" but it's the truth. What it doesn't say is that you also can't bitch when you meet consequences for exercising your freedom.
[Emphasis added]

-----

BWT,

Prior to your diatribe in post 85, I had been enjoying our discussion. But whatever your intention might have been, that post came across as wildly condescending.

And as Tom points out, the lack of attribution across multiple people/posts makes it even more discouraging to give a thoughtful reply. I don't feel like spending one third of a post addressing the questions that pertain to me, and two thirds identifying the arguments I never made.

Some highlights of what seems condescending:

Let's talk about the Civil War. It started over states rights, not slavery. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.
The third sentence implies your awareness that many people disagree with you about this. Your response is to "apologize" by informing them they are wrong and that you speak the truth.

In my experience, that's one of the least persuasive ways to make an argument. If you start out your point by telling everyone with a contrary opinion that they simply don't know the truth... well good luck getting them to read the rest of your points (much less respond to them). If I thought for one second you might actually be open to further discussion on the matter, I might offer some counterpoints, but you already know the "truth" so why bother?

I find persuading people is a lot more productive if you start with evidence and lead to a conclusion. If you instead choose to start your argument with 'anyone who disagrees with me is wrong'... well... good luck getting people to read your supportive evidence with an open mind.

Let's talk about the Civil Rights movement. Are you familiar with Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr.?
Holy shit this is condescending. Do you honestly believe that any internet-using adult in the United States of America has never heard of these men? Even if these ignorant people are out there, they're not here in this discussion.

By asking such a question, it really comes across as a passive aggressive dig at those who would disagree with you. "Oh, you don't see things the way I do? You're probably too stupid to have heard of these huge names in American history then."

Let's talk about something called a fallacy. I'm going to show you some definitions, a fallacy is a "a misleading or unsound argument."
Again with the "let's talk" opener... which sounds like a 4th grade teacher direction the classroom. And again with the implication that people in this discussion lack a high school education.

Don't get me wrong: I think it's valuable to point out fallacies as you identify them. But you don't need to start by defining a fallacy for everyone like we're children. You could just say, "Your argument X is a Y type of fallacy," and then support your case. But again, your phrasing comes across as, "Let me educate you simpletons."

My aim isn't to alienate those among us, but simply to state what the case is, and hopefully offer some insights on it.
Unfortunately it seems you missed your aim by a wide margin.

Let's talk about something called language. I'm going to show you some definitions. Are you familiar with the fact that language can be used in drastically different ways, even when communicating exactly the same information? Did you know that communication style is critical in determining whether you alienate people, persuade them, or something in-between? Have you been informed that sometimes the method of communication can be even more important than the content of the communication? I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

See how condescending that last paragraph sounds?

David S.

03-20-2015, 09:24 AM

Problem solved. :)
Davenport employer offers cash bonus to conceal carry (http://kwqc.com/2015/03/18/davenport-employer-offers-cash-bonus-to-conceal-carry/)

Peally

03-20-2015, 09:32 AM

Paid....to do what I want? What is this madness?

MDS

03-20-2015, 09:48 AM

I steal from my employer all the time because instead of doing what they pay me for, I debate morality on the internet.

RoyGBiv

03-20-2015, 09:49 AM

Paid....to do what I want? What is this madness?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7qQ6_RV4VQ

ubervic

03-20-2015, 10:30 AM

Three points of order.

1) I generally avoid engaging in debates about issues, where I feel those looking for resolutions are only looking for the otherside to agree with them. I.E., my experience is very few people are in it to be convinced that their view point may be incorrect. I am not seeing a lot here to convince me this isn't the case here.

2) I generally avoid engaging in falsely dichotomizing issues. The issues up for debate currently are neither black nor white. To dichtomize them as such is to ignore the larger reality of our world.

3) I, personally, do not feel that these are moral or ethical issues, let alone important ones. Fundamentally, the core to the "moral issues" being discussed here is actually about the free exercise of personal choice. You either choose to carry or you do not. That is your right, regardless of moral or ethical intepreptations of others. As a result, my viewpoint is precisely in line with Sean's, what you choose to do is your own business and no other entity's business.

A genuine moral issue I see here is the free exercise of judgement of someone else's actions. The fact that such points were brought up, originally in Captain's thread, indicates to me that we have a moral failing in this country. Where we feel all are qualified to judge others. Further, that those perceived qualifications entitle those who make such judgements to continue waxing on at length about things that almost unequivocally do not affect them. Finally, that many are narcissitic enough to feel their own opinions about such matters are most important (that goes to people on both sides of this "argument").

I'll end by defering to my personal favorite modification of an age old adage, "If you don't have anything useful to say, do not say anything at all."

-Rob

PS: I do not necessarily consider my own contributions to this thread useful overall and thus recognize some hypocrisy in the statement above.

THIS.

JodyH

03-20-2015, 10:39 AM

My employer breaks our employment contract as much as I do in various ways.
We're both free to part ways if the contract violations are egregious enough.

JAD

03-20-2015, 10:51 AM

I steal from my employer all the time because instead of doing what they pay me for, I debate morality on the internet.

Ethics. And I'm on vacation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MDS

03-20-2015, 11:02 AM

If you're debating ethics, then you're OT for this thread, just read the title! ;) (Since you're not the first to mention this, I'll toss in my $.02: It's both! It's ethics insofar as the focus is on acceptable behavior. It's morality insofar as the focus is on the fundamental judgment of right vs wrong that underlies the ethics discussion.)

And I got laid off 3 months ago, so my vacation beats your vacation! :)

olstyn

03-20-2015, 11:12 AM

Paid....to do what I want? What is this madness?

No joke. I wish my employer was this awesome. Heck, I'd do it for $25! :)

Byron

03-20-2015, 11:13 AM

One more thought on employment contracts vs employee handbooks, as I believe they are being conflated:

...signing an employment contract knowing the rules, taking money for promising to abide by them, and then intentionally deceiving people when I never had any intent to honor the agreement I made...
Based on state law and my employer's own policies, my employment is 100% at-will. I never signed any employment contract, as they never gave me that option. They can fire me "at any time, for any or no reason, with or without cause or notice." (Quoted from our handbook)

I was given an offer letter, which sure as hell didn't include all corporate policies, and I signed and returned it to accept the job.

Once I was already on the job, I was eventually given the handbook and told that I had to sign the acknowledgement. Under no reasonable definition could it be called a contract, given terms like:

The Company may revise this Employee Handbook and Company policies at any time without notice and will interpret the Employee Handbook and Company policies using its sole discretion.

The Company reserves the right to modify, revoke, suspend, terminate, or change, in whole or in part, at any time, with or without cause and with or without prior notice, any or all of the plans, policies, and procedures described in this Employee Handbook.
So regardless of whatever rules I agree to, the company may change them at any moment. Under these terms, the appropriate clothes that I wear in at 8:00 AM might be deemed inappropriate by 9:00 AM. That's obviously a silly example, but that's exactly what the policy is saying.

That's not a contract.

One party has all the power to change the terms.
That same party has all the power to interpret the terms as they see fit, even without changing them.

That's not a contract.

A contract also grants assurances to both parties, which this does not:

I have read the introduction to this Handbook and understand that this Handbook is a general guide and that the provisions of this Handbook do not constitute a contract or guarantee of continued employment or of employment for any specific duration.

And just one more time on the signature page in case I missed it the other times:

I further understand that the Company reserves the right in its sole discretion to change, add to, or eliminate any of the policies, procedures or benefits described in this handbook (or otherwise provided by the Company), at any time, with or without cause, and with or without prior notice.

This was never a contract. This is "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

SAWBONES

03-20-2015, 11:39 AM

It's a tough decision for me when I see that little sign every time.

I instantly go through the following sort of thought process whenever I see these "little signs".

"I know of course that these simpleminded folks mean well, but they're obviously almost wholly ignorant about firearms, and also woefully unrealistic about human nature. The sign is posted in the naive expectation that all will obey it and that accordingly 'nothing bad can happen', but in fact it accomplishes not a damn thing.

I also know quite well that although armed, I'm no danger to anyone under any but the most dire of circumstances, that I'm reasonably competent with my own concealed sidearm, and that my own judgement is sound, so I realize that my own understanding in these matters transcends that of those who are responsible for the sign, and that in this case my personal ethics genuinely supersede theirs."

This gives me no difficulty with my conscience because I am thoroughly certain that I am morally correct in my judgement, as my motives are altogether "for the good" here.

45dotACP

03-20-2015, 12:35 PM

This was never a contract. This is "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE

Tamara

03-20-2015, 12:51 PM

I apologize if I made you uncomfortable or felt unwelcome or brow beaten, etc. in regards to Christianity.

Pretty sure you didn't make Don feel any of those things.
I think he was just pointing out that, for some of us, you might as well quote AD&D rules or cite passages from Dianetics or the Mongolian tax code instead of dropping III Zebediah 13:5. :)

Hambo

03-20-2015, 02:46 PM

One more thought on employment contracts vs employee handbooks, as I believe they are being conflated:

Based on state law and my employer's own policies, my employment is 100% at-will. I never signed any employment contract, as they never gave me that option. They can fire me "at any time, for any or no reason, with or without cause or notice." (Quoted from our handbook)

I was given an offer letter, which sure as hell didn't include all corporate policies, and I signed and returned it to accept the job.

Once I was already on the job, I was eventually given the handbook and told that I had to sign the acknowledgement. Under no reasonable definition could it be called a contract, given terms like:

So regardless of whatever rules I agree to, the company may change them at any moment. Under these terms, the appropriate clothes that I wear in at 8:00 AM might be deemed inappropriate by 9:00 AM. That's obviously a silly example, but that's exactly what the policy is saying.

That's not a contract.

One party has all the power to change the terms.
That same party has all the power to interpret the terms as they see fit, even without changing them.

That's not a contract.

A contract also grants assurances to both parties, which this does not:

And just one more time on the signature page in case I missed it the other times:

This was never a contract. This is "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

You are correct. I would add that "at will" employees can be terminated for any reason. For example, you abide by their rules at work but post something they don't like on Facebook. Or, you are in a justified shooting outside of work. Company doesn't like it, and it's goodbye.

When I was involved in contract negotiations my view was that anything management didn't bring up during negotiations was not an option for them during the term of the contract. Management's view was that anything not in the contract was at their sole discretion. We found out who was right on particular points in court or arbitration.

I thought of another point while reading the morality arguments. This is not addressed to anyone in particular. If carrying a gun against company policy is a moral issue, do you look deep at the work you do and the company you work for? It is possible that while having a first world moral crisis over violating rules, you are complicit in the immoral acts of your employer. Just food for thought.

Odin Bravo One

03-20-2015, 04:34 PM

BobLoblaw

03-20-2015, 09:12 PM

Note to self: never argue with Byron

NickA

03-20-2015, 09:15 PM

Note to self: never argue with Byron
I've said before, I won't even claim to be myself on the internet, because I'm afraid Byron will prove me wrong.

SeriousStudent

03-20-2015, 09:51 PM

I'm not trying to "win". I don't see the issue as "Win/Lose". Simply as what one persons feels is appropriate, others may or may not. It doesn't mean one is right and the other(s) wrong. It simply means that if I choose to lie to my employers, or I feel it is a necessary "evil", the bottom line is no one else is me, and has any idea of the "why" behind those decisions, nor any moral, ethical, or holy ground to stand on when it comes to telling me what I should & should not do. It is my decision to make, and I am the one who must live with the consequences of those decisions.

The religious arguments are pointless unless you are speaking to someone who shares those same beliefs.

Very much agree. If I own every round I fire out of a weapon, I own the decisions prior to it as well. All of those decisions.

People do what they have to do.

BWT

03-20-2015, 10:22 PM

As a general rule, if anyone wants to do a REALLY long multi-quote post/rebuttal, please take care to not mess up the attribution.

It's almost impossible to figure out who said what in the quoted portions of your post. I may try to fix it, if I can find the time (and patience) to do so.

I'll start here.

I'll start by apologizing; you certainly manage the forum faithfully and I'll work to not repeat this mistake. I should have clarified better to whom I was addressing what, and for that I apologize.

I think I started trying to engage as many individuals as possible in discussion, and it just didn't end well in execution (in multiple ways).

I'm going to try to break this into a few posts, and just go page through page as I see it.

BWT

03-20-2015, 10:36 PM

Okay, BWT - you seem to like to make assumptions. Assumptions like I don't know history, logic, or the Bible. A little clue - I know about all those things and I certainly don't appreciate the preachy holier-than-thou attitude with which you "taught" me all those things.

1. I know all about the Boston Massacre - I also know that many great mean were breaking the law in a lot of little ways before that tipping point occurred and even after before fighting broke out 5 years later - which was the point of me bringing up our founding fathers - if there hadn't been great men to stand up to stupid and tyrannical laws (which they broke all willy nilly sometimes), then we'd still be British. Yes it's a simplification of everything that happened then, but it's no less true.

2. I never brought up the Civil War. Completely not relevant to this conversation at all. In fact, I mentioned the 1960s... should have been a clue.

3. In the context of what I said, I was clearly referring to the civil disobedience performed by Rosa Parks and many of King's followers during the Civil rights movement, and not militants like Malcolm X.

The whole point of that was not to make emotional arguments or anything else - it was simply this - You said not following the rules is ALWAYS wrong. I simply pointed out two very obvious times in our shared history as American's (I did make an assumption there) where purposefully disobeying the rules/laws was clearly morally right and you could not fault the people doing it. Did any of them lie? Well, I'm sure at least one of them did - and I wouldn't fault him or her for it.

As for your fallacies arguments - I never attacked your character (Ad Hominem), I never appealed to your emotions, and it's not a fallacy when someone says that you should always follow the rules or it's wrong for someone to ask - "what about all of these instances of rule breaking - do you think they are also wrong?" It's called finding out what you actually think/believe about something.

As for quoting the Bible to show why you're right - you're in luck, I happen to be a believer in Christ. That doesn't mean I agree with everything you said, and if I wasn't it means that entire section would hold absolutely zero weight with how I should decide my own ethics or morality. Why? Because if I don't believe the same as you - which others on this thread have indicated they don't - then the Bible holds no moral authority for them.

Oddly enough in the midst of that, you bring up the Luby's shooting. Here's the rub - she made a choice I won't make. She chose to follow the rule (law in that case) even though she knew better and it cost her both of her parents. I refuse to go through something like that for the sake of "not lying" or "following the rules". I have a moral imperative to come home to my family at night. Morals are our internal (unless we source them externally) beliefs of right and wrong. I feel it is wrong to not take responsibility for my safety and that of my family. I do not feel that breaking an immoral rule or lying about breaking such a rule is morally wrong because the impetus of the action/lie is an immoral rule to begin with. Call it what you will, that's what I believe. If you believe differently, that's fine - just don't talk down to me while you defend your position.

Let's start fresh on a few things, and start with a fresh context. Given time to reflect on this; I'll start here between you and I.

First, I'm going to own my mistakes; I shouldn't have spoken the way I did. I apologized to Tom for the how. To you sir, I'd like to extend an apology for the what. It's not in the spirit of this forum, our of our shared faith.

Second, I'm going to ask for a contrite but authentic discussion in the next several moments.

You didn't mention the Civil war, but you also didn't outline what you meant by the Civil rights movement or about our forefathers. So, I did make assumptions, that's partially because I wanted to win (ETA: changed "and" to "the") the argument and partially because you didn't indicate either way. I feel that's a fair statement to say; I kind of was lead to my make my own interpretation. I think that's fair.

As far as our shared faith. I never spoke from a position of authority over others; if I seemed or appeared to that certainly wasn't my intent, and I'll apologize. What I offered is what we share as our belief in salvation, and not by works. The reason why I did this was because, it seems that everyone got fairly fixated on the "right" and "wrong" of this (including myself) but I wanted to illustrate we're not saved by our works even in our own faith. We're dissuaded from things that aren't representative to the freedom we have but, that's a different discussion; I'll leave it at that.

I do not feel that breaking an immoral rule or lying about breaking such a rule is morally wrong because the impetus of the action/lie is an immoral rule to begin with. Call it what you will, that's what I believe. If you believe differently, that's fine - just don't talk down to me while you defend your position.

(I'm re quoting the last sentences of his post to address them specifically) I don't believe it is subjective. I struggle with the same fears and concerns of those here. I admitted when I succumbed to those fears and carried in a place I shouldn't. But what I did indicate is that, I'm breaking a promise/covenant/agreement I made. Is it worth it?

That's the real question here. What's that worth to you. That will be subjective to everyone; we decide what things are worth to us.

So, now that we're kind of out of the thicket of our inter personal stuff (which was my fault), and hopefully my apology has reduced the sting here enough; we can re-join the discussion.

I'll continue the trend of responding to other posts separately just for simplicity and brevity's sake.

BWT

03-20-2015, 10:42 PM

BWT,

Prior to your diatribe in post 85, I had been enjoying our discussion. But whatever your intention might have been, that post came across as wildly condescending.

And as Tom points out, the lack of attribution across multiple people/posts makes it even more discouraging to give a thoughtful reply. I don't feel like spending one third of a post addressing the questions that pertain to me, and two thirds identifying the arguments I never made.

Some highlights of what seems condescending:

The third sentence implies your awareness that many people disagree with you about this. Your response is to "apologize" by informing them they are wrong and that you speak the truth.

In my experience, that's one of the least persuasive ways to make an argument. If you start out your point by telling everyone with a contrary opinion that they simply don't know the truth... well good luck getting them to read the rest of your points (much less respond to them). If I thought for one second you might actually be open to further discussion on the matter, I might offer some counterpoints, but you already know the "truth" so why bother?

I find persuading people is a lot more productive if you start with evidence and lead to a conclusion. If you instead choose to start your argument with 'anyone who disagrees with me is wrong'... well... good luck getting people to read your supportive evidence with an open mind.

Holy shit this is condescending. Do you honestly believe that any internet-using adult in the United States of America has never heard of these men? Even if these ignorant people are out there, they're not here in this discussion.

By asking such a question, it really comes across as a passive aggressive dig at those who would disagree with you. "Oh, you don't see things the way I do? You're probably too stupid to have heard of these huge names in American history then."

Again with the "let's talk" opener... which sounds like a 4th grade teacher direction the classroom. And again with the implication that people in this discussion lack a high school education.

Don't get me wrong: I think it's valuable to point out fallacies as you identify them. But you don't need to start by defining a fallacy for everyone like we're children. You could just say, "Your argument X is a Y type of fallacy," and then support your case. But again, your phrasing comes across as, "Let me educate you simpletons."

Unfortunately it seems you missed your aim by a wide margin.

Let's talk about something called language. I'm going to show you some definitions. Are you familiar with the fact that language can be used in drastically different ways, even when communicating exactly the same information? Did you know that communication style is critical in determining whether you alienate people, persuade them, or something in-between? Have you been informed that sometimes the method of communication can be even more important than the content of the communication? I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

See how condescending that last paragraph sounds?

I'm going to own my faults here.

The tone and intent was condescending; that's really not excusable and I don't have a legitimate reason for it. But, at this point; I'll apologize to you Byron and own it. I was wrong to speak to Captain the way I did, and I was wrong to offend you as well.

I'd like to continue the discussion, if at all possible.

If I thought for one second you might actually be open to further discussion on the matter, I might offer some counterpoints, but you already know the "truth" so why bother?

I would like to hear your counter points. I'll offer some in a closing reply I have a few other pages to go through to see if I missed anyone.

BWT

03-20-2015, 11:01 PM

I instantly go through the following sort of thought process whenever I see these "little signs".

"I know of course that these simpleminded folks mean well, but they're obviously almost wholly ignorant about firearms, and also woefully unrealistic about human nature. The sign is posted in the naive expectation that all will obey it and that accordingly 'nothing bad can happen', but in fact it accomplishes not a damn thing.

I also know quite well that although armed, I'm no danger to anyone under any but the most dire of circumstances, that I'm reasonably competent with my own concealed sidearm, and that my own judgement is sound, so I realize that my own understanding in these matters transcends that of those who are responsible for the sign, and that in this case my personal ethics genuinely supersede theirs."

This gives me no difficulty with my conscience because I am thoroughly certain that I am morally correct in my judgement, as my motives are altogether "for the good" here.

The reason it's tough for me is, there's a verse in the bible that Jesus warns the disciples to not fear those that can kill the body but he who can destroy the body and the soul in hell. I don't say that out of fear of my Savior, but just practically in other parts of the bible I'm called to recognize and support all authorities as appointed by God. So, it takes on a deeper meaning for me personally than just being afraid of what's in the next store, neighborhood, etc. It is also faith in God for me at times of am I going to trust in my strength or trust in the Lord?

So, I don't say the above to ask you to have all of those same internal dialogues, but to simply explain to you why there's a internal debate at all for me.

Pretty sure you didn't make Don feel any of those things.
I think he was just pointing out that, for some of us, you might as well quote AD&D rules or cite passages from Dianetics or the Mongolian tax code instead of dropping III Zebediah 13:5.

I'm going out on a limb and trying to get a second quotation in the same post.

I understand where you're coming from, but I wanted to say thank you for taking the time to say something about that to me; I really do appreciate that.

On Topic

So, I'm going to steer this portion of the post into not a direct response to anyone but just an open discussion of.

I think what we have ended up here is worth to individuals is the qualifying value for people's decisions. I look at that concealed carry sign and say to myself "I made a promise, that's important to consider", others look at and say "I've survived too much life to not make it home to my family today because some other guy decided to take out his problems on the rest of the world".

I've thought both, and I've made decisions that coincide with both options.

However, to get to the subject of what's "right" and "wrong" about keeping what you say? It's wrong to make a covenant, agreement, promise, etc. and not keep it; it's simply dishonest. Now, do you associate more worth with honesty or your (and others) physical security?

That's... in my opinion, a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" situation.

We all make decisions, and that's a decision that must be made.

I hope this has been a better way to approach this discussion on reasoning and the topic at hand.

God bless you guys,

I really do love it here and I (ETA: typo) aim to handle these things better in the future.

Have a goodnight,

Brandon.

P.S.

From Page 8, going back through this thread.

This is an interesting thread.

Sort of. But Olympic level shark jumping too.

When re-reading this thread, I went and looked up what shark jumping was. Spot on JHC, spot on. That's hilarious.

Lomshek

03-21-2015, 01:32 AM

.
I don't think you can declare a win unless you can convince some of us it's okay to lie in the scenario, just like we can't declare a win unless you decide to tell the truth. Ultimately it's a debate that evokes thought but in this format is probably unwinable.
Regardless of wether or not my employer lies to me i don't believe that justifies me lying to them.

I look to arguments of "it's wrong" in the sense of malum prohibitum vs. malum in se or maybe more appropriately the doctrine of competing harms.

The argument of malums - Why is something against the rules? If the answer is because an irrational person feels better then I place myself under no obligation to follow their irrational rule. I won't steal or cause anyone harm but I won't make myself more vulnerable so someone else can "feel" better when they don't know what I'm doing in the first place and my behavior in no way harms them.

The competing harms argument - Does obeying a rule leave me more open to harm than disobeying it? If the answer is yes then that rule will not be obeyed by me.

I'm not OC'ing and making anyone uncomfortable. The only way they'll find out I'm carrying is if I need to use my pistol in defense of myself or others. Why on earth would I obey an unethical rule (not even law in most cases) that has the chance of leaving myself and others more vulnerable to injury and even the potential to cause greater issues if some doofus catches a glimpse of me un-gunning in the car and hits the big red button?

The fools making up irrational rules will feel no obligation to help me if I'm harmed while obeying their rule so I see no reason to obey in the first place.

dgg9

03-21-2015, 07:01 AM

The argument of malums - Why is something against the rules? If the answer is because an irrational person feels better then I place myself under no obligation to follow their irrational rule.

Or even worse, if the other party quite rationally but callously chooses to throw my safety under the bus to limit their legal liability.

Well said, by the way.

fixer

03-21-2015, 10:16 AM

Although I am firmly in the camp (if there is one) that looks at this issue from 'my personal security' instead of 'employer's rights', let me play devil's advocate for a minute.

My employer has policies that ostensibly are designed to promote a 'violence-free workplace'. They have rigid policies against harassment, etc. to ensure that human interactions do not get to a flash point of violence. In fact my employer has rigid internet and network mechanisms that restrict access to any site or material that is prima-facie related to violence. If it involves guns, knives, etc...it is blocked. For sure, these are universally weak and ineffective measures...but they do exist...

Given this corporate policy, let's look at this from the perspective of a supervisor and direct report's working relationship.

In the course of running a business, people are 'managed' and directed to achieve some goal or objective. In this pursuit there are many, many times when there have to be frank and honest--even heated--discussions about employee performance etc.

If I am a supervisor or manager, do I want to have these discussions with an employee who is carrying a firearm? I can see how this could be a level of intimidation that a manager would not want to deal with.

In a perfect world, would the manager know the employee is carrying? no.
Could the manager also choose to carry? yes...but they may find that a huge burden if they weren't inclined to carry.
If I am a manager, do I really want to add additional things to manage like employee handling of firearms while I have enough dumb-assery to deal with?

Just something else to think about in the course of the labyrinth of issues we are discussing here. /Devil's advocate.

Given the corporate disposition on weapons, I work in a location in W. Tx where I know that the overwhelming majority of employees are CHL holders and purveyors of second amendment, self-defense, and the like. It is a frequent topic of casual conversation at work. This alone is a violation of corporate policy.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has some cool spring assisted pocket knife (again huge violation of corporate policy). Some guys will even toy with them during meetings. Not once has there even been a hint of intimidation, menace, or threat even in the midst of tense discussions amongst employees and with management.

So although I am advocating for the devil, I honestly don't see actual data suggesting firearms will increase intimidation between employees and managers. If this were necessarily the case, it would have reared up with the ubiquitous nature of pocket knives.

The nature of the work I am in also forces our employees to frequently interface with local land owners--some of which have a less than positive opinion of the company. It is a common occasion for the disgruntled land owner to meet with company reps on their property while carrying a long gun of some form. The point here is that there are clear and obvious situations were employees should have the means for reasonable and effective self defense.

Captain

03-21-2015, 10:29 AM

BWT - it takes a big man to apologize, let alone in a public venue. Apology accepted, respect level increased.

Fixer - I get you're playing Devil's Advocate (like he needs one, LOL.) but I sincerely hope anyone who has made the choice to be responsible for their own safety would also be civilized enough to get called out for screwing up at work without whipping out their heater. That said, I've seen huge amounts of stupidity in this world...

Tamara

03-21-2015, 11:38 AM

Given this corporate policy, let's look at this from the perspective of a supervisor and direct report's working relationship.

In the course of running a business, people are 'managed' and directed to achieve some goal or objective. In this pursuit there are many, many times when there have to be frank and honest--even heated--discussions about employee performance etc.

If I am a supervisor or manager, do I want to have these discussions with an employee who is carrying a firearm? I can see how this could be a level of intimidation that a manager would not want to deal with.

Gun shops have managers and employees and employee reviews and heated discussions, oftentimes while everybody involved is carrying loaded firearms. I have seen a guy so pissed at something an employee did that he flipped the dude's desk over in his office. Unsurprisingly, nobody got shot.

(On the other hand, I have never, ever, seen one employee lay hands on another, no matter how heated things got.)

Glenn E. Meyer

03-21-2015, 11:52 AM

I have yet to see a gun fight at a gun match - look the level of violence at Little League.

I have a solution to the employee problem. It comes from Seinfeld. Elaine had to fire an employee who came to work with skull t-shirts and camo. She was so scared of him, that she ended up promoting him. This happened several times, until he became responsible for a successful line of wannabee tactical clothes for her company.

Workplace violence usually occurs on the next day or week and then on the anniversary day of a firing. It is usually correlated with a tyrannical management style and a firing or dressing down that is authoritarian and demeaning.

If someone is prone to carry a weapon, they will do it anyway - if their goal is evil.

Chance

03-21-2015, 12:35 PM

In the course of running a business, people are 'managed' and directed to achieve some goal or objective. In this pursuit there are many, many times when there have to be frank and honest--even heated--discussions about employee performance etc.

If I am a supervisor or manager, do I want to have these discussions with an employee who is carrying a firearm? I can see how this could be a level of intimidation that a manager would not want to deal with.

And how far should management be allowed to go to limit someone's ability to intimidate them? Frisk a condemned employee before they enter the room? Handcuff condemned employee to the chair ahead of time?

And, as Glenn just pointed out, most workplace violence doesn't happen at the exact moment of termination. Once condemned employee is terminated, they're no longer restricted by the company policy of employees not bringing arms onto the premises.

Totem Polar

03-21-2015, 01:12 PM

Gun shops have managers and employees and employee reviews and heated discussions, oftentimes while everybody involved is carrying loaded firearms. I have seen a guy so pissed at something an employee did that he flipped the dude's desk over in his office. Unsurprisingly, nobody got shot.

(On the other hand, I have never, ever, seen one employee lay hands on another, no matter how heated things got.)

Right in line with history. The idea that firearms on the scene of 'heated discussions' will greatly increase the likelihood of bloodshed is the stuff of Prohibitionist fantasies.

fixer

03-21-2015, 02:17 PM

And how far should management be allowed to go to limit someone's ability to intimidate them? Frisk a condemned employee before they enter the room? Handcuff condemned employee to the chair ahead of time?

.

I asked myself that while writing my post above...and I don't have an answer.

Tamara, Glenn--great points.

David Armstrong

03-21-2015, 02:20 PM

Mod Note: Thread split from the "Full size gun in an NPE thread" (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15377-NPE-with-a-Fullsize-Auto)

This ones easy, if it's a private company and you want to work there you should abide by their policies. You don't want to start you're job there being deceitful.
That pretty much sums it up for me. Put aside all the rationalization and such, what it boils down to is you agree to take their money in exchange for acting in a certain way. If you don't want to act that way don't take the money. Nobody is forcing you to take that job. Both sides agree to certain things voluntarily. I doubt anyone would say it was OK for the company to let you work there for a while then say they were not going to pay you. I have never understood why that same reasoning doesn't work both ways.

David S. put it very well:

We as individuals have a responsibility to act with integrity. I think we can all agree on that.

And yet we agreed (in writing, under no coercion) to an employment agreement that includes an explicit no-gun policy (irrational, immoral and unsafe as that policy may be), knowing full well that we would break that policy. That is blatant dishonesty seems like an assault on personal integrity to me.
Either my word means something, or it means nothing. I find it particularly galling when gun owners talk about how important their rights are then want to turn around and say they shouldn't have to respect the rights of others. The mere fact one would hide what they are doing seems pretty indicative that they realize their actions are wrong, otherwise why hide them?

DacoRoman

03-21-2015, 02:29 PM

A couple of points to add to the discussion.

1. Upholding the truth due to some sacrosanct notion that truth is morally above all else is foolish and actually immoral. Example: if the law stated that you must give up Jews, Homosexuals, Christians, etc., would you still say well, yes I have to give those people up because to me not lying is the most important thing.

Another way to say this is that sometimes lying IS THE MOST MORAL THING to do, for example when securing someone's safety. Another example: Killer asks you if there is anyone else in the house, etc.

2. Laws/rules/orders can can be immoral and illegal in fact, and one may choose to disobey them. One has to very carefully make this choice, and expect possible punishment as a result, but sometimes the most moral thing to do is to in fact disobey an illegal order/law.

Some make very strong arguments that any law/rule/order that infringes upon one's right of self defense is inherently immoral.

3. As an addition to #2, there is the concept of Natural (God's) Law, e.g. the Law of self defense, and the concept of Man's (King's) Law, e.g. you are not allowed to defend yourself (for any stated reason). So I guess it depends on what you think is more important to follow, understanding that you can catch a lot of grief if you go against Man or King.

fixer

03-21-2015, 02:36 PM

Not so simple to just find another job when 99.9% of employers have the same idiotic policies.

Odin Bravo One

03-21-2015, 02:40 PM

That pretty much sums it up for me. Put aside all the rationalization and such, what it boils down to is you agree to take their money in exchange for acting in a certain way. If you don't want to act that way don't take the money. Nobody is forcing you to take that job. Both sides agree to certain things voluntarily. I doubt anyone would say it was OK for the company to let you work there for a while then say they were not going to pay you. I have never understood why that same reasoning doesn't work both ways.

It does work both ways. My employer, for example, changed the terms of the pay & benefits AFTER both sides voluntarily agreed to the terms.

Ironically humorous there are a lot of people who believe that honesty and honor are the same thing.

Chance

03-21-2015, 02:43 PM

Nobody is forcing you to take that job.

Honestly, this argument holds virtually no sway for me, personally. We live in a capitalist society where we're expected to do things like pay for food, and shelter, and taxes. Those things are sufficient motivation for me to try to earn as much as I can, though none of them literally 'force' me to do anything.

Ironically humorous there are a lot of people who believe that honesty and honor are the same thing.

This. So much this.

Not so simple to just find another job when 99.9% of employers have the same idiotic policies.

And also this. So much this. I've spent over a decade and six figures out of pocket putting together a skillset that places me in an industry filled with "forward thinking" people. Casually finding a job, in this field, that would not have these policies, is non-trivial.

JAD

03-21-2015, 02:51 PM

I don't know where I got it, but 25 years ago I started saying "honesty does not demand full disclosure." I'm still pretty comfortable with that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fixer

03-21-2015, 02:52 PM

And also this. So much this. I've spent over a decade and six figures out of pocket putting together a skillset that places me in an industry filled with "forward thinking" people. Casually finding a job, in this field, that would not have these policies, is non-trivial.

Exact same boat here. Not to mention many people take jobs so they can be in a strategic location for reasons such as family, weather, climate, health, etc...

David Armstrong

03-21-2015, 02:54 PM

It does work both ways. My employer, for example, changed the terms of the pay & benefits AFTER both sides voluntarily agreed to the terms.
And at that time I would think you had the option at that time of not continuing your employment under the new terms.

Ironically humorous there are a lot of people who believe that honesty and honor are the same thing.
I would agree and certainly would not consider myself in such a camp. To me the line in this instance is that one party is taking money from the other by deceiving the other party into believing they are adhering to certain rules.

David Armstrong

03-21-2015, 02:57 PM

Honestly, this argument holds virtually no sway for me, personally. We live in a capitalist society where we're expected to do things like pay for food, and shelter, and taxes. Those things are sufficient motivation for me to try to earn as much as I can, though none of them literally 'force' me to do anything.
That is sort of the key. Nobody is forcing you to work for that company, it is a choice. If one chooses to be deceptive, dishonest, lie, or whatever term one wants to use, that is also a choice. I would argue the company was wrong if they were deceptive towards you. For example, if they agree they will put $5 for each hour you work into a retirement account for you, I doubt it would be OK to find out years later they were only putting $1 in that account, even if you did not discover that at the time.

Captain

03-21-2015, 03:07 PM

To me the line in this instance is that one party is taking money from the other by deceiving the other party into believing they are adhering to certain rules.

Actually, I'm agreeing to take money in exchange for a job that maybe 1-3% of the population can do at the talent/quality level that I do. What I carry on my person while performing that should be largely irrelevant.

DacoRoman

03-21-2015, 03:29 PM

Ironically humorous there are a lot of people who believe that honesty and honor are the same thing.

Well said, and like I wrote in my last post honesty and morality are not the same thing either. Being honest does not automatically result in the most honorable or moral action. Being honest is just being honest, nothing more or nothing less. The honorable or moral implications run much deeper than knee jerk honesty, and the moral and ethical consequences of one's honesty may vary highly depending on the context.

Glenn E. Meyer

03-21-2015, 05:55 PM

One can comment on being deceptive in our 'gun context'. Is it deceptive or being immoral to hide personal characteristics of religion, race or sexual orientation in order to get a job in a time of economic diversity or in order to serve one's country?

Not really a comment on how to carry but on what is moral.

Byron

03-21-2015, 06:33 PM

You are correct. I would add that "at will" employees can be terminated for any reason. For example, you abide by their rules at work but post something they don't like on Facebook. Or, you are in a justified shooting outside of work. Company doesn't like it, and it's goodbye.
Indeed.

It's hard to offer much respect to a farcical system of rules that contains the invisible print:
Following these rules 100% in letter and spirit could still result in exactly the same consequences as breaking them all.

Or how about this gem early in the handbook? "You owe a duty of loyalty to the Company."
I wish I was kidding, but that's a direct quote. It's weird because I certainly don't remember joining the armed forces.

I don't care how much a private company wants to pay me: why would I owe them a "duty of loyalty"? Especially after they've made it crystal clear that they will offer me no reciprocity in this realm.

I live under plenty of laws to which I did not consent, but still ostensibly retain protections. I never agreed that people should be arrested for gambling, but I also know that if I do not gamble, I cannot be jailed for gambling. I can also look up the statutory penalties for gambling, gain an understanding of exact procedures and punishments, and defend myself should I ever be accused of such a thing.

My employer offers me nothing of the sort...
Thanks for agreeing to take the job. Here's your paycheck. Oh, by the way... here are our rules. We reserve the right to change our rules however we want, whenever we want. We have no framework for our disciplinary proceedings. We already told you we can fire you for no reason, so why would we promise you a hearing of any sort? You and Bob could both scream at each other in the middle of the office and we might decide to just fire you. We might just fire Bob. Maybe neither of you. Or maybe we'll fire both of you. Take a chance and find out!

In fact, unequal treatment is not only accepted, but expected. I highly doubt my workplace is unique in this regard:
Situation 1 (which is a true story): President curses me out because he's having a bad day and he doesn't like the news I just gave him. His behavior is in clear violation of multiple parts of our policy and there are numerous witnesses. Oh well: sucks for me. I'm getting my paycheck so I just need to STFU.
Situation 2 (which has not YET happened): Someone else curses out that same president because he's forcing entire teams to work at twice their functional capacity. You can bet your ass that person is out of a job within the day.

Why such unequal treatment? Because the President is worth more money to the company. Who cares if he's right or wrong? As long as his tirade doesn't include specific phrases that could get them sued (i.e. religion, gender, etc.) then he can do what he wants.

Which brings us back to the value of these rules: they are only enforced relative to their financial impact. If the company stands to make more money by doing so, they will gladly turn a blind eye to certain violations (as in my personal example above).

Since my employer holds all the power and can punish me regardless of my adherence to their rules, I don't find any particular honor in blindly obeying said rules.

I do behave within the rules, but that's simply my natural behavior. I would behave exactly the same regardless of what our handbook said.

I'm going to own my faults here.

The tone and intent was condescending; that's really not excusable and I don't have a legitimate reason for it. But, at this point; I'll apologize to you Byron and own it. I was wrong to speak to Captain the way I did, and I was wrong to offend you as well.

I'd like to continue the discussion, if at all possible.

I would like to hear your counter points [on the American Civil War]. I'll offer some in a closing reply I have a few other pages to go through to see if I missed anyone.
I sincerely appreciate your candor and apology, even though I didn't feel like you owed me one.

I respect your desire to keep discussion going, but I think we've drifted way too far off topic. It is my personal opinion that the Civil War just isn't a relevant discussion to be had in this thread.

You've referenced primary sources from Lincoln, so I have to assume that you've also read primary sources from key members of the Confederacy. To have read those latter words straight from the horse's mouth, and still hold the position that you do, means that nothing I could say would change your mind.

That we have such divergent views of other historical events further reinforces my belief.

It is not my intent to disrespect you, so I hope it does not come across that way. Rather, I'm just saying that I'd prefer to "agree to disagree."

Put aside all the rationalization and such, what it boils down to is you agree to take their money in exchange for acting in a certain way. If you don't want to act that way don't take the money.

Either my word means something, or it means nothing.
There are still places in this country where it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay. Not because they whipped their dick out at work. Not because they plastered their cubicle with photos of naked men. Not because they raped someone in the bathroom. Simply because they go home to a committed partner of the same sex.

Pack your shit, homo. Get out of here. Have fun finding another job... especially after we make sure word gets out around here.

And if I had to live in one of those places for a while, I would happily lie to anyone's face that my coworker was in fact straight, knowing full well that he wasn't. My moral compass tells me that's the honorable thing to do: protect the job of a friend who has done absolutely nothing wrong. Whether or not I cash my paycheck has no influence on my decision whatsoever.

I suppose some people's moral compass tells them that the right thing to do is "out" the coworker if the boss ever asks. You agreed to take their money: you better be their rat.

The mere fact one would hide what they are doing seems pretty indicative that they realize their actions are wrong, otherwise why hide them?
By your logic, only open carry is honorable and people who carry concealed anywhere "realize their actions are wrong."

I would argue the company was wrong if they were deceptive towards you. For example, if they agree they will put $5 for each hour you work into a retirement account for you, I doubt it would be OK to find out years later they were only putting $1 in that account, even if you did not discover that at the time.
That's material damage.

What is the material damage of a holstered firearm inside of someone's pants that never comes out and no one ever knows about?

karmapolice

03-21-2015, 06:47 PM

I look at it like this: I would and will give my last breath, my last second on this earth for those who I love and innocents. I'm also pretty keen on getting the full ride of this life before exiting stage right, so I will fight to stay alive for both those reasons. I carry a gun on duty 100% and off duty 99.8% of the time except when I fail myself and others. So if carrying a gun against the polices and or wishes of others make me a terrible, unethical, evil person than so be it. I will greet others like me at the burning gates of hell. Kyle Defoor put it best with his honorable death mindset speech, it's on YouTube somewhere.

Please excuse my horrible grammar and other mistakes. What value this has to the thread is maybe nothing but eh.

BWT

03-21-2015, 07:48 PM

I sincerely appreciate your candor and apology, even though I didn't feel like you owed me one.

I respect your desire to keep discussion going, but I think we've drifted way too far off topic. It is my personal opinion that the Civil War just isn't a relevant discussion to be had in this thread.

You've referenced primary sources from Lincoln, so I have to assume that you've also read primary sources from key members of the Confederacy. To have read those latter words straight from the horse's mouth, and still hold the position that you do, means that nothing I could say would change your mind.

That we have such divergent views of other historical events further reinforces my belief.

It is not my intent to disrespect you, so I hope it does not come across that way. Rather, I'm just saying that I'd prefer to "agree to disagree."

Oh, You can reply to the civil war comments.

I didn't know that's what your counter points were going to be towards. That being said; I thought Captain was discussing the civil war or direct after math before full rights were granted to freed slaves, etc. that's the only reason I brought up the Civil War.

As far as the rest of it goes; whatever you think is prudent. If that's leave it as it be that suits me just fine. I've said pretty much everything I need (well, and more than needed) to say at this point.

MDS

03-21-2015, 08:34 PM

Discussing this sort of thing with a friend, we concluded that if everyone had the same moral compass, freedom and liberty would be irrelevant concepts.

Odin Bravo One

03-21-2015, 08:41 PM

And at that time I would think you had the option at that time of not continuing your employment under the new terms.

And you would be incorrect.

Totem Polar

03-21-2015, 09:01 PM

Goddam, Byron. No wonder they call you the d*** shooter. You've been *killing* this thread since post one.
Last one upstream may well be your best yet. I'm going to go re-read that one directly...

Seven_Sicks_Two

03-21-2015, 11:50 PM

I hope this doesn't cross the line with regards to the discussion of illegal activity; but I was wondering if those folks that oppose carrying in employer mandated NPEs feel the same way about government mandated NPEs. It seems that most of us recognize the right to bear arms for personal defense a basic human right. What about those folks that LIVE in NPEs? Is it immoral for someone to carry a firearm in those places where it is proscribed by law?

I've personally made the decision not to carry anyplace it is illegal for me to do so (in my case, everywhere but at home and on occasion at work). I don't really have much option in the matter as CCW permits are nearly impossible to get where I live. Furthermore, I don't have a wife or kids to provide for or protect. So, if I get "made" carrying, I lose my job, lose my guns, lose any savings I have paying for my legal defense and probably wind up with a criminal record. In short, the consequences are nearly the same as if I was the victim of a violent crime... my life is pretty screwed up.

Would anyone question the integrity or honor of a man (or woman) who has no legal means to exercise a fundamental human right and decides to carry a gun in order to protect themselves or their family even though it is illegal?

Odin Bravo One

03-22-2015, 12:12 AM

It is illegal for me to carry at my office; meaning the location of my desk.

TCinVA

03-22-2015, 12:15 AM

Goddam, Byron. No wonder they call you the d*** shooter. You've been *killing* this thread since post one.

We call him that because he quite literally shot me in the penis with a sims round.

It is illegal for me to carry at my office; meaning the location of my desk.

I have never in my life understood how that state of affairs can logically exist. I know many things in this world make no sense, but that's so painfully stupid you'd figure somebody would have fixed it by now.

Odin Bravo One

03-22-2015, 12:27 AM

One would think......but I'll refer you to sections and beliefs relayed in this topic. One or two of those mindsets in the right places and viola'.......

Totem Polar

03-22-2015, 12:41 AM

We call him that because he quite literally shot me in the penis with a sims round.

I had surmised as much, and in what circumstances; I just wasn't sure of the DIQ. Now I know. :D

GardoneVT

03-22-2015, 04:01 AM

I would argue the company was wrong if they were deceptive towards you. For example, if they agree they will put $5 for each hour you work into a retirement account for you, I doubt it would be OK to find out years later they were only putting $1 in that account, even if you did not discover that at the time.

In that event, every major firm in the country is wrong in this regard.

So, what then? Observe that lawsuits are a universally undesireable situation for every company , which means gun bans to avoid liability will be more or less universal as well.

Another note-just because an employer hasnt said in the handbook its "against the rules to carry" specifically doesnt mean you cant get fired if youre made.The management will simply scour the rulebook until they can sack your armed hiney for something else-like being late thirty seconds, or "abusing company resources" because your printed an airline ticket. One manager I dealt with in a job with unionized staff got around the regs by waiting.

That simple-because there were so many diverse ways to commit a "Code of Business Conduct" violation -like not reading a disclosure script to the letter-he'd wait until an employee inevitably broke it, then covertly documented the incident. When said employee had to go, shazam-HR would find out about the violation and that's all she wrote.He'd take heat in the short term for not 'immediately' notifying HQ, but he'd still have a job and the fired employee wouldnt.

So. Even if your employer doesnt necessarily ban carry....doesnt mean you cant get the boot for it indirectly. I'd also wager that unless the management is educated in lethal force and personally understanding of the circumstances, if you drop a thug on company property youre gone no matter what the book says.

SJC3081

03-22-2015, 07:06 AM

I didn't have time to throughly read this entire thread, but here is my opinion. As regards to carrying a conceled pistol in a NPE and the morality of it.
It is immoral for a company or Goverment to require that a person has to remain defenseless at the workplace or anyplace. It is also immoral to comply with such requests and risk leaving your wife and children without a husband/father.

cclaxton

03-22-2015, 07:58 AM

Byron,
Every employee (contract employees are usually exempt) have a fiduciary obligation to the employer. You are obligated to be loyal to the employer while you are working, and not to disparage the employer when not on duty.

If you were a plumber working for an employer you cannot moonlight while on the clock or take the employers customers for yourself. You would be exposing yourself to a potential lawsuit or even criminal charges (depending on the State)

That doesn't require you to promise to stay at that company, but while you are there you have a fiduciary duty.

Cody

Mr_White

03-23-2015, 02:57 PM

Or how about this gem early in the handbook? "You owe a duty of loyalty to the Company."

You work for IDPA? ;)

You are obligated to be loyal to the employer while you are working, and not to disparage the employer when not on duty.

Ok, this all adds up now. I guess you do work for IDPA, Byron!

-----

Seriously, what a thread. I have avoided commenting because I might give unintentional insult, and others have expressed my views so well already. But I am going to bluntly say what I think now: my first right and responsibility is to attempt to continue my existence, which speaks directly to the right to self-defense, and the tools attendant to that right. Anyone who wants to undermine that can go piss up a rope. I went through a kind of adolescence where I was really really concerned about not breaking other people's stupid rules, but that day is done. Now I just don't give a shit what dumbass people think. But I won't tell them that. I'll just shine them on and do what I my conscience tells me is the right thing, balanced against the practical consequences I can foresee and that I care about.

Peally

03-23-2015, 03:18 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJRJAXolk4

fixer

03-23-2015, 07:28 PM

... my first right and responsibility is to attempt to continue my existence, which speaks directly to the right to self-defense, and the tools attendant to that right. Anyone who wants to undermine that can go piss up a rope. I went through a kind of adolescence where I was really really concerned about not breaking other people's stupid rules, but that day is done. Now I just don't give a shit what dumbass people think. But I won't tell them that. I'll just shine them on and do what I my conscience tells me is the right thing, balanced against the practical consequences I can foresee and that I care about.

Not to sound like an internet nut-swinger, but that is worthy of memorizing.

Totem Polar

03-24-2015, 12:30 AM

Yeah, Gabe sort of put an end to this epic thread. In a good way, I mean.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 11:46 AM

Actually, I'm agreeing to take money in exchange for a job that maybe 1-3% of the population can do at the talent/quality level that I do. What I carry on my person while performing that should be largely irrelevant.
You may be correct, but if the employer disagrees, so be it. They get to write the checks.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 11:59 AM

There are still places in this country where it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay. Not because they whipped their dick out at work. Not because they plastered their cubicle with photos of naked men. Not because they raped someone in the bathroom. Simply because they go home to a committed partner of the same sex.
Pack your shit, homo. Get out of here. Have fun finding another job... especially after we make sure word gets out around here.
And if I had to live in one of those places for a while, I would happily lie to anyone's face that my coworker was in fact straight, knowing full well that he wasn't. My moral compass tells me that's the honorable thing to do: protect the job of a friend who has done absolutely nothing wrong. Whether or not I cash my paycheck has no influence on my decision whatsoever.
I suppose some people's moral compass tells them that the right thing to do is "out" the coworker if the boss ever asks. You agreed to take their money: you better be their rat.
I would suggest the better course of action would be to resign in protest. After all, you said your paycheck has no influence on your decision, so it seems reasonable you would be willing to give up that paycheck. If enough folks would do that bad rules would probably disappear, or the company would.

By your logic, only open carry is honorable and people who carry concealed anywhere "realize their actions are wrong."
Nonsense. Not only does that require an out of context consideration, that is not in any way a logical conclusion to my statement.

That's material damage.
What is the material damage of a holstered firearm inside of someone's pants that never comes out and no one ever knows about?
So if nobody knows about it makes it OK? Sorry, I don't accept that. If you hire an electrician to wire your house, and you pay him to use a certain type and quality of wire, is it OK if he substitutes a cheaper, less effective wire as long as you don't find out about it? I would say no, it is dishonest, because he is claiming to agree to follow the standards you have set and accepting the money for it, but not actually fulfilling the agreement.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 12:03 PM

In that event, every major firm in the country is wrong in this regard.
That might be so, I'm not aware of the source for that so I can't comment much, other than to say just because they are doing it does that then mean it is right for them to do it?

Shellback

03-24-2015, 12:18 PM

Byron

03-24-2015, 12:36 PM

I would suggest the better course of action would be to resign in protest. After all, you said your paycheck has no influence on your decision, so it seems reasonable you would be willing to give up that paycheck. If enough folks would do that bad rules would probably disappear, or the company would.
If enough folks... yea. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
In the meantime, I can't count on what rules will "probably" disappear, much less when.

Resigning would do nothing to protect my homosexual coworker. I can't make the decision for him to resign, so I'll go ahead and lie to my employer: then decide if I want to resign. But I'm not walking out the door without doing what I can to protect my friend.

I don't live in such a place so this is just hypothetical, but I'm illustrating an instance (based on our current society) in which I would feel morally obligated to lie, not just morally justified.

As for your comment about giving up my hypothetical paycheck, whether something has influence on a decision has nothing to do with whether or not that thing matters.
"My child has no influence over my decision to defend my coworker's job."
"Oh, I guess you can just give up that child then!"

My point was that my moral compass does not change based on salary. That is what I meant: that a paycheck has no influence over my decision to defend the civil rights of a friend.

By your logic, only open carry is honorable and people who carry concealed anywhere "realize their actions are wrong."

Nonsense. Not only does that require an out of context consideration, that is not in any way a logical conclusion to my statement.
OK. Help me out, please.

You said:

I find it particularly galling when gun owners talk about how important their rights are then want to turn around and say they shouldn't have to respect the rights of others. The mere fact one would hide what they are doing seems pretty indicative that they realize their actions are wrong, otherwise why hide them?
[Emphasis added]

1. Whenever anyone goes out in public with a concealed firearm they are hiding their actions.
2. You say that hiding actions indicates a person knows that said actions are wrong.
3. So why is concealing at work an indication of wrong-doing, while concealing in public is no such indicator?

I believe your premise to be fundamentally flawed: that people only "hide what they are doing" when "they realize their actions are wrong."

So if nobody knows about it makes it OK? Sorry, I don't accept that. If you hire an electrician to wire your house, and you pay him to use a certain type and quality of wire, is it OK if he substitutes a cheaper, less effective wire as long as you don't find out about it? I would say no, it is dishonest, because he is claiming to agree to follow the standards you have set and accepting the money for it, but not actually fulfilling the agreement.
It has nothing to do with what people know: you are once again raising material damages. Receiving a lesser product than the one you paid for is material.

Can you please try again to explain how a firearm hidden inside someone's pants materially damages the company?

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 12:39 PM

Businesses make decision based on what's best for the business. As an example, I was employed by a large international corporation for approximately 7 years and they decided to stop funding pensions for the entire company out of the blue one day. No notice, no nothing, tough shit, deal with it.

I make decisions based on what's best for me and my family. One of those decisions is to make sure I get home safe to them and to ensure their safety when I'm with them. My sole allegiance and alliance is to my wife and family, not some corporate entity.
And one is certainly entitled to make such decisions. I decide very differently. When I was an employer I expected my employees to be honest about their actions, which included following the SOP. If I found they were not doing so there would be some ramifications. I admit, I'm pretty balck and white on this. I find it rather strange that so many gunowners say it is OK to ignore laws, rules, act in questionable manner, etc. as long as it involves carrying a gun but then turn around and condemn the same behavior with something else. Sounds a whole lot like what I heard from an officer who got some unpaid leave for sleeping while on duty. His argument? "Nothing happened so there was no harm, so it should be OK." Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now.

Shellback

03-24-2015, 12:45 PM

Byron

03-24-2015, 12:47 PM

I find it rather strange that so many gunowners say it is OK to ignore laws, rules, act in questionable manner, etc. as long as it involves carrying a gun but then turn around and condemn the same behavior with something else.
Weird, huh?

It's almost as if people consider some laws/rules to be more just and fair than others. Like our country might have a national history of some laws being wildly unfair, prejudicial, etc.

I can't believe everyone doesn't just accept that all laws and rules are valid because 'the people with the power said so'. It's always worked out so well for everyone in the past!

Mr_White

03-24-2015, 12:50 PM

I find it rather strange that so many gunowners say it is OK to ignore laws, rules, act in questionable manner, etc.

That's because many people's consciences are in conflict with some laws and rules. So then they follow their conscience. Laws and rules do not define people's morals. Doesn't seem strange to me in the least.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 12:55 PM

Resigning would do nothing to protect my homosexual coworker. I can't make the decision for him to resign, so I'll go ahead and lie to my employer: then decide if I want to resign. But I'm not walking out the door without doing what I can to protect my friend.
If you chose to leave without saying either way, telling the employer you find it repugnant to answer such a qestion and you won't work for someplace that acts in that manner, don't you also protect him while at the same time letting the employer know that you find his actions morally suspect? But if you are comfortable hiding your actions so you can get a paycheck, great, more power to you. To me that is the main point. By hiding the activity and being deceptive about it, one tacitly endorses the actions of the organization.

As for your comment about giving up my hypothetical paycheck, whether something has influence on a decision has nothing to do with whether or not that thing matters.
"My child has no influence over my decision to defend my coworker's job."
"Oh, I guess you can just give up that child then!"
Sorry, but again that doesn't make any sense. Equating a child with a paycheck is a rather poor comparison, IMO, but in any case the employer does not provide the child for you in exchange for your work.

My point was that my moral compass does not change based on salary. That is what I meant: that a paycheck has no influence over my decision to defend the civil rights of a friend.
Then again, if it has no influence you shouldn't feel any need to take that paycheck.

OK. Help me out, please.
You said:
[Emphasis added]

1. Whenever anyone goes out in public with a concealed firearm they are hiding their actions.
2. You say that hiding actions indicates a person knows that said actions are wrong.
3. So why is concealing at work an indication of wrong-doing, while concealing in public is no such indicator?
I believe your premise to be fundamentally flawed: that people only "hide what they are doing" when "they realize their actions are wrong."
Again, context is our friend. The issue is hiding actions you know are prohibited. If CCW, carrying concealed is FOLLOWING the rules, not violating the rules.

It has nothing to do with what people know: you are once again raising material damages. Receiving a lesser product than the one you paid for is material.
How? If you don't know it was done and you don't find out it was done, what damage has occurred?

Can you please try again to explain how a firearm hidden inside someone's pants materially damages the company?
I don't think I've tried to argue that position, as I find it irrelevant.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 12:58 PM

I think it's ok to ignore a lot of laws.
I think most feel that way. I tend to draw a line at taking money through deception.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 01:00 PM

Weird, huh?

It's almost as if people consider some laws/rules to be more just and fair than others. Like our country might have a national history of some laws being wildly unfair, prejudicial, etc.

I can't believe everyone doesn't just accept that all laws and rules are valid because 'the people with the power said so'. It's always worked out so well for everyone in the past!
The reason so many of those laws and rules have been changed is because some had the courage of their convictions and actually stood up to challenge them, rather than hiding their beliefs and pretending to support them.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 01:02 PM

That's because many people's consciences are in conflict with some laws and rules. So then they follow their conscience. Laws and rules do not define people's morals. Doesn't seem strange to me in the least.
I have nothing against those who are willing to take a stand against what they feel are unjust acts. I find that very different from pretending to accept those rules and laws as appropriate in order to get some money.

Shellback

03-24-2015, 01:05 PM

Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison explained, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Democracy and majority rule confer an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical. - Walter E. Williams

Byron

03-24-2015, 01:06 PM

OK, David. Move those goalposts as much as you'd like.

I am hard pressed to believe that you really need me to define the material damage of receiving a "less effective wire" than the one you paid for.

I don't have any interest in going round and round when you won't own your arguments. You keep drawing a false equivalence between carrying against policy vs acts of outright financial fraud (first stealing from retirement accounts, then bait-and-switch on building materials). Now you're saying it's irrelevant that your equivalence doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I'll save any further keystrokes.

Mr_White

03-24-2015, 01:14 PM

Chuck Haggard

03-24-2015, 01:23 PM

If Americans didn't have a history of blatantly ignoring unjust gun laws made by the powers that be would there even be an United States of America now?

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 01:26 PM

OK, David. Move those goalposts as much as you'd like.
Not moving a thing, just pointing out the inconsistencies of your argument.

I am hard pressed to believe that you really need me to define the material damage of receiving a "less effective wire" than the one you paid for.
Again, if you don't know it or notice it then hard to argue a harm, right? Isn't that what you have been arguing to justify carrying a firearm while at work? No one knows, no one notices, it doesn't hurt anything, so it is OK?

I don't have any interest in going round and round when you won't own your arguments. [/quote[
Then don't. I always find it strange when folks want to argue they do not want to do exactly what they are doing.
[quote]You keep drawing a false equivalence between carrying against policy vs acts of outright financial fraud (first stealing from retirement accounts, then bait-and-switch on building materials). Now you're saying it's irrelevant that your equivalence doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I don't feel there is a false equivalency as it relates to the point I am discussing. If you do, so be it. Again, nobody forces anyone to engage in debate on the internet, AFAIK. But if one chooses to do so one should at least recognize the other party as being just as sincere and honest as one expects others to recognize in them. I tend to present my positions following standard rules of logic, debate and argumentation. If others don't want to do that......

Peally

03-24-2015, 01:26 PM

(@Chuck) Negative Ghost Rider

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 01:28 PM

How do you feel your view comports with pragmatism?
Pragmatism as a philosophical view or a political view?

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 01:29 PM

If Americans didn't have a history of blatantly ignoring unjust gun laws made by the powers that be would there even be an United States of America now?
I don't think it was nearly as much "ignoring" as it was directly challenging, which is kind of the point I'm trying to make. If we just ignore it, if we tacitly accept it through pretense and hiding, there is no need or impulse to fuel change.

GardoneVT

03-24-2015, 01:31 PM

The reason so many of those laws and rules have been changed is because some had the courage of their convictions and actually stood up to challenge them, rather than hiding their beliefs and pretending to support them.

Wrong.

The reason those rules have been challenged and changed is because a series of circumstances aligned to make it possible. Courage alone won't do it; you also need most of society and many institutions to back your viewpoint.The alignment of all of the above is a VERY rare thing; and even then you can end up in a pine box for your trouble, and your movement corrupted anyways.I can't speak for Dr King, but if he were alive today he'd be likely as displeased with the black victimhood culture of "Hands Up Don't Shoot" as he was with the racist one he fought to end.

In the meantime, the thugs of the world will continue their business of evil .A 9mm Glock illegally possessed goes a lot farther in defending against the latter at 2AM then lofty ideals of social justice.

Note- changing the mindset of people en masse to promote the common carry of deadly weapons will always be a hard sell in civilized times.Unless zombies are roaming the streets-or its painfully obvious law enforcement cannot provide even the barest security due to budget or rural spaces- its difficult to sell the idea of "go forth armed" to ordinary people.

Racial equality, gay marriage, and so forth are philosophical beliefs which anyone can access and speak to-and its a rare disturbed individual who thinks those philosophies can personally injure or kill them and their families.

Firearms are VERY tangible things, and can kill at the flick of a finger.The very existence of that kind of power and the concomitant responsibility is what scares the Average Joe-what IF the dumbest person they know carries a gun ? Even we gnash our teeth at the acts of stupidity gun owners currently indulge in. The unwashed think "guns can hurt me and mine and there's a lot of idiots out there, so lock that shit up and make sure only the vetted and the certified can carry."

Good luck challenging that attitude.

Captain

03-24-2015, 01:34 PM

I have nothing against those who are willing to take a stand against what they feel are unjust acts. I find that very different from pretending to accept those rules and laws as appropriate in order to get some money.

David, this whole thing started because of my original post. Let me say this - there is no way I could work for a company that is truly utilizing my talent and skillset while justly compensating me for it if I didn't "pretend to accept those rules [not laws] as appropriate in order to get some [quite a bit actually - enough to actually provide for my family's future] money." There just isn't a company out there that has a different policy that would actually employee me doing what I do. The only exception is the niche that I've been in for the past 10 years in which my family has made great sacrifices for me to remain underpaid while I doing what I do. I am at a point in my life and career where I have to make some changes to better provide for them and it's either stop carrying a gun (not going to happen due to my past experiences) or keep making half or less than what I'm worth. Instead I chose the third option - I take the position and follow all the rules that I feel they have a right to actually impose and I will ignore the ones that they have no moral standing to make or try to enforce. I'm a big boy, wearing my big boy pants, and if I'm caught, it'll be because I've saved my life or that of my coworkers and if I get fired for that, i can live with it.

Chuck Haggard

03-24-2015, 01:35 PM

I'm glad that many people over the years haven't exactly followed the rules, when those rules were unjust, even if they were sneaky about it.

This guy for example; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler

dgg9

03-24-2015, 01:47 PM

Dave, doesn't there have to be a distinction between delivering an objectively unsafe work product (the wrong AWG to use your example) and rules that have no conceivable bearing on the outcome? Whether the customer at first notices or not, I've given him something unsafe. But if he says "you can only do the job if you're not gay" that has no connection to the product. One sounds like Malum in se. The other not.

And while open protest might be more effective to some future trend, most people can't afford to be unemployable just to make a statement. Sometimes you have to weigh bad choices.

Mr_White

03-24-2015, 01:57 PM

David, what I was getting at was this: the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

Kyle Reese

03-24-2015, 02:01 PM

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 02:01 PM

Wrong.
The reason those rules have been challenged and changed is because a series of circumstances aligned to make it possible.
Wrong to your wrong. Doesn't matter how circumstances align if folks hide their feelings and beliefs, In fact, I might suggest that as long as those feelings and beliefs are hidden there will never be a favorable alignment of circumstances.

Courage alone won't do it; you also need most of society and many institutions to back your viewpoint.
True, but again, seems awfully hard to get others to back your viewpoint is you continue to hide your viewpoint.

Racial equality, gay marriage, and so forth are philosophical beliefs which anyone can access and speak to-and its a rare disturbed individual who thinks those philosophies can personally injure or kill them and their families.
Sure, just as students cheating on a test won't injure anyone or the police officer sleeping on the job won't injure anyone either. But I also oppose those things.

Good luck challenging that attitude.
Actually we have had great success at changing that attitude by openly challenging it. That is sort of the story of the gun movement for the last couple of decades, and we have seen laws and public perception change quite a bit because of it.

orionz06

03-24-2015, 02:05 PM

Wow... Not sure I can add to the gay IDPA moral hammer nail mess...

I carry a gun when I think I can get away with it. It's never been a deep internal discussion. Lemme know when someone does a thesis on the rest if the crap...

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 02:06 PM

David, this whole thing started because of my original post. Let me say this - there is no way I could work for a company that is truly utilizing my talent and skillset while justly compensating me for it if I didn't "pretend to accept those rules [not laws] as appropriate in order to get some [quite a bit actually - enough to actually provide for my family's future] money." There just isn't a company out there that has a different policy that would actually employee me doing what I do. The only exception is the niche that I've been in for the past 10 years in which my family has made great sacrifices for me to remain underpaid while I doing what I do. I am at a point in my life and career where I have to make some changes to better provide for them and it's either stop carrying a gun (not going to happen due to my past experiences) or keep making half or less than what I'm worth. Instead I chose the third option - I take the position and follow all the rules that I feel they have a right to actually impose and I will ignore the ones that they have no moral standing to make or try to enforce. I'm a big boy, wearing my big boy pants, and if I'm caught, it'll be because I've saved my life or that of my coworkers and if I get fired for that, i can live with it.
And that is certainly your right to make that decision. I would disagree with the idea based on my beliefs and experience, but vive le difference, as they say. I am sort of the opposite. I did turn down a job offer where I could have made a lot more money but I disagreed with some of the rules of that organization, and I have have been dismissed from a few positions over time because I challenged rules I felt were unjust or unfair.

Byron

03-24-2015, 02:08 PM

JodyH

03-24-2015, 02:14 PM

I carry a gun when I think I can get away with it. It's never been a deep internal discussion. Lemme know when someone does a thesis on the rest if the crap...
3186

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 02:14 PM

Dave, doesn't there have to be a distinction between delivering an objectively unsafe work product (the wrong AWG to use your example) and rules that have no conceivable bearing on the outcome?
I think you have changed the argument a bit by adding the unsafe element. Given that, can't one argue that the reason so many organizations prohibit carry is because they feel it makes the workplace less safe? But my argument is that the wire is not unsafe, it is simply not what you are paying for and was agreed upon.

Whether the customer at first notices or not, I've given him something unsafe. But if he says "you can only do the job if you're not gay" that has no connection to the product. One sounds like Malum in se. The other not.
I don't know. I support the right of the owner of the bakery to refuse to make a wedding cake for the gay couple, or for a church to refuse to allow the gay couple to marry in the sanctuary. I don't necessarily agree with their position, but I would argue they have the right to do so since nobody is forcing the couple to utilize those particular services.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 02:15 PM

David, what I was getting at was this: the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.
And what I am getting at is if nobody stands up nobody sees any need for change. I'm in a primarily no-gun environment, and even though I can legally carry my employer has rules that say as a condition of employment I don't carry. So I have gone on occassion to the powers that be and presented my case for why I think the rule is wrong and there should be a modification or exception to the rule. I've still got my job, and frankly I would not want to work for an employer that would fire me for doing something like that.

Mr_White

03-24-2015, 02:22 PM

And what I am getting at is if nobody stands up nobody sees any need for change.

Really?

dgg9

03-24-2015, 02:28 PM

Organizations can "feel" what they will. Doesn't make it so. Any company near me bans not only carry but even firearms in my car. Depending on my commute, that absolutely makes me less safe.

It's wrong to work someplace in isolation of policy, though how wrong depends on the policy rationality

IF I protest their policy I am unemployable and will become bankrupt. That too is wrong.

If if acquiesce then I am more prone to be a victim of violent crime. That too is wrong.

Some choices allow no pure answer

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 02:30 PM

Really?
Really!

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 02:35 PM

Organizations can "feel" what they will. Doesn't make it so.
Sure, just like individuals. To me it doesn't matter, what matters is does one do what they have agreed to do.

Any company near me bans not only carry but even firearms in my car. Depending on my commute, that absolutely makes me less safe.
We had the same situation. As a result of people feeling that was wrong and challenging that, we got the law changed.

It's wrong to work someplace in isolation of policy, though how wrong depends on the policy rationality
IF I protest their policy I am unemployable and will become bankrupt. That too is wrong.
If if acquiesce then I am more prone to be a victim of violent crime. That too is wrong.
I don't think your chance of civtimization changes based on having a gun in your car. The outcome of that victimization may change, but I think oyu are just as prone to becoming a victim. As for being unemployed if you protest the policy, as mentioned above I wouldn't want to work for a company that prohibited employees from discussing rules and regulations in a sensible manner.

Some choices allow no pure answer[/QUOTE]

dgg9

03-24-2015, 02:44 PM

To me it doesn't matter, what matters is does one do what they have agreed to
In general I agree but I can't elevate that in all cases and at all costs to be inviolable. Well maybe if it's genuine malum in se, which this is not even in the same universe.

It's a good; but a competing good. The less rational the policy, and the more harm there is in it for me, the less it drives me

Mr_White

03-24-2015, 03:13 PM

And what I am getting at is if nobody stands up nobody sees any need for change.

This sentence isn't even logical. A person can see something needs to change, choose not to lobby for that change, and someone (that person) does still see the need for change. Lobbying for change is independent of the perception of a need for change.

Glenn E. Meyer

03-24-2015, 04:10 PM

During the Depression (as I was told), a family member had to lie about religion to get a job. Protesting would have been useless.

A family member working for another company, also hid religion. The boss was a fan of Father Coughlin (an American Nazi sympathizer). Said things like:

The times had watched Father Coughlin lend support to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Then at a speech Coughlin gave in the Bronx – perhaps his most famous – he gave a Nazi salute and yelled out, "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing."

http://www.fathercoughlin.org/father-coughlin-anti-semitism.html

Said boss decided to tell the office that Father C. was the cat's meow and correct. Said family member protest with vehemence. Guess who wasn't working for the company after that noble protest.

Now hearing the boss, one might righteously quit. But that wasn't what happened. Would you have gone to work for such a boss, if you knew, probably not. You might in the Depression and lie about your faith. In the first case, that wasn't the issue - the firm asked on your application for your Christian church.

Does carrying in a NPE rise to a level where one's personal moral view supersede the strict compliance to company rules? That's been parsed out for years. In Kohlberg's theory of morality, adherence to an action because it is proscribed by law alone, is seen as a lower stage of moral development. The upper stages have one deciding that following your own moral code is a higher level.

Deceit per se - is that moral? If you were a Nazi but smuggled Jews out of the country? Saying deceit per se is wrong, IMHO, is too simplistic.

GardoneVT

03-24-2015, 04:44 PM

Wrong to your wrong. Doesn't matter how circumstances align if folks hide their feelings and beliefs, In fact, I might suggest that as long as those feelings and beliefs are hidden there will never be a favorable alignment of circumstances.

On the flip side of the coin-someone who makes their viewpoints known against the prevailing social status quo risks unemployment, jail time, and even death in many cases. Galileo was right about his theory of the Solar System,but the Church didn't give a damn.

His exposure of the truth-and a proveable one at that-only resulted in more problems. It sure didn't change the Church's viewpoint that the universe revolved around the Earth "as God ordained".

As to the last point: we should be careful to note that gradually getting our government to follow its own Constitution is NOT the same thing as altering general social opinions regarding firearms. Justice Posner didn't overrule Illinois' Unlawful Use of a Weapon statute because he felt the average Joe should be armed .He did so because the law contradicted the Second Amendment, and it was thus his sworn duty to strike it down.

We return to the basic problem; millions of folks in America consider firearms to be a technology too dangerous for public use en masse, most of them city dwellers whose only exposure to guns is Channel 7. Even in so called 'flyover country' there's no shortage of people convinced taking a pistol downtown to the General store is an expression of paranoia.

Add in general company aversion to any sort of risk which compromises profits, and we have the general state here.
People who carry and keep silent achieve two morally superior goals-they protect themselves and potentially their coworkers/fellows around, and they do not offend the sensibilities of people with a different perspective .

On to the last part ; it may be frustrating to confess, but there are people who just won't like or tolerate armed people nearby. I've met more then a few folks in the military who despite that job title were actually anti gun. Further-this being America, they have the RIGHT to feel and believe as they do. Often antis speak of "feeling uncomfortable" whenever an armed person is nearby. Its no different then when the conservative Christian "feels uncomfortable" when the flamboyantly gay coworker is at the same worksite. Likewise, the Democrat feminist in Cubicle 1A probably ain't happy about the attitudes of Mr Republican in Cubicle 1B.

Some here have said its immoral to lie to your employer about carrying.The reality is the modern workplace wouldn't function if people DIDNT lie about or obscure their beliefs .

The Muslim on staff prays in the conference room so as to not disrupt fellow coworkers.That's hiding.

The lesbian employee refrains from talking about her sex life/personal plans, and avoids the subject whenever its raised. Once again, she's hiding an important belief.Before DA/DT went away, we still knew who was gay and who wasnt on the base. You can't spend 40 hours a week around someone without just knowing that peripherally. It wasnt a problem, because the gay people in the military kept their yaps shut and never fell afoul of the rules-they actually behaved better then the hetero folks, in my view.

No ones feelings got hurt, and the mission got done. Ultimately that's the goal ,and hiding ones armed status against company rules or existing laws isnt any more immoral then omitting your religious affiliation or sexual orientation.Further- the point could be made that hiding your armed status is actually morally necessary rather then negative so as to prevent the cultural "misunderstandings" we see with "Open Insulting Carry Texas".

ubervic

03-24-2015, 05:05 PM

This thread is quite stimulating from a metaphysical perspective.

I do not debate 'morals' with anyone outside my immediate family, and I hold no moral authority over anyone, much less kowtow to anyone else's presumed authority. However, I very humbly suggest that each of us must choose for himself which deceits or lies or disobedience that he must commit, if any, as he navigates the constraints of the world according to his own moral compass---such that the discussion with others around such 'transgressions' is quite academic.

23JAZ

03-24-2015, 05:40 PM

You work for IDPA? ;)

Ok, this all adds up now. I guess you do work for IDPA, Byron!

-----

Seriously, what a thread. I have avoided commenting because I might give unintentional insult, and others have expressed my views so well already. But I am going to bluntly say what I think now: my first right and responsibility is to attempt to continue my existence, which speaks directly to the right to self-defense, and the tools attendant to that right. Anyone who wants to undermine that can go piss up a rope. I went through a kind of adolescence where I was really really concerned about not breaking other people's stupid rules, but that day is done. Now I just don't give a shit what dumbass people think. But I won't tell them that. I'll just shine them on and do what I my conscience tells me is the right thing, balanced against the practical consequences I can foresee and that I care about.

AMEN!

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 07:31 PM

In general I agree but I can't elevate that in all cases and at all costs to be inviolable. Well maybe if it's genuine malum in se, which this is not even in the same universe.

It's a good; but a competing good. The less rational the policy, and the more harm there is in it for me, the less it drives me
And that is a fair position, doctrine of competing harms, etc etc. I do think it has to be considered mala in se, however, as I would think arguing that taking money under false pretenses is mala prohibita would be a very difficult argument to support in any logical framework.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 07:36 PM

A family member working for another company, also hid religion. The boss was a fan of Father Coughlin (an American Nazi sympathizer). Said things like:
One might then rightfully ask why someone would then use their labor to help that company be successful??
Deceit per se - is that moral? If you were a Nazi but smuggled Jews out of the country? Saying deceit per se is wrong, IMHO, is too simplistic.[/QUOTE]
I agree, which is why I pose my position as that of when you agree to perform in a certain way in exchange for money, and then you intentionally fail to meet the agreement but still take the money. There certainly can be times when deceit is the least objectionable action, but I can't see it in that particular case.

Captain

03-24-2015, 07:45 PM

dgg9

03-24-2015, 07:53 PM

And that is a fair position, doctrine of competing harms, etc etc. I do think it has to be considered mala in se, however, as I would think arguing that taking money under false pretenses is mala prohibita would be a very difficult argument to support in any logical framework.

I don't agree that breaking a work policy is itself "taking money under false pretenses." That implies (to me) that I'm somehow cheating on something directly relevant to my work product: lying on timesheet and the like. This is nothing like that. In this scenario, I give my employer 100% of what's involved in my work, the work for which they pay me. As a separate matter, I would be breaking an arbitrary rule that has no bearing on my work product, not stealing or embezzling. No one is harmed. Not all offenses are the same severity, and they're not somehow equated just because they happen at work. The offense itself is mala prohibita. The fact of my salary does not up-convert it to mala in se, which I think would require someone actually being harmed, or some intent to inflict actual harm.

"Competing harms" was indeed exactly my approach.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 07:58 PM

On the flip side of the coin-someone who makes their viewpoints known against the prevailing social status quo risks unemployment, jail time, and even death in many cases. Galileo was right about his theory of the Solar System,but the Church didn't give a damn.
Not sure how relevant that would be, unless you are suggesting that Galileo should never have said anything about his theory and kepr it secret while publicly acknowledging the Church position as valid and correct. Also, IIRC, he was not in employment of the Church at the time.

People who carry and keep silent achieve two morally superior goals-they protect themselves and potentially their coworkers/fellows around, and they do not offend the sensibilities of people with a different perspective .
If the position truly is morally superior there would be no legitimate need to pretend to be doing something you agreed to do when you are not actually doing so simply to get a paycheck.

Some here have said its immoral to lie to your employer about carrying.The reality is the modern workplace wouldn't function if people DIDNT lie about or obscure their beliefs .
Yet is does seem somewhat dishonest to agree to do something, then not do it while pretending you actually are doing it, and then accept money based on that falsehood.

The Muslim on staff prays in the conference room so as to not disrupt fellow coworkers.That's hiding.
No, that is not disrupting the work environment. Or if he is hiding apparently he isn't doing it very well since someone else knows about it and he is doing it in an area that is accessible to others.

The lesbian employee refrains from talking about her sex life/personal plans, and avoids the subject whenever its raised. Once again, she's hiding an important belief.
How does one know that? If she is hiding it then one would not have any knowledge as to her sexual orientation. Of course, I'm not sure why sexual orientation and personal plans would be discussed at the workplace unless one wants others to know about it.

Before DA/DT went away, we still knew who was gay and who wasnt on the base. You can't spend 40 hours a week around someone without just knowing that peripherally. It wasnt a problem, because the gay people in the military kept their yaps shut and never fell afoul of the rules-they actually behaved better then the hetero folks, in my view.
No ones feelings got hurt, and the mission got done.
Exactly. There was an agreement between employer (DA) and employee (DT) that was generally followed.

Ultimately that's the goal ,and hiding ones armed status against company rules or existing laws isnt any more immoral then omitting your religious affiliation or sexual orientation.
Quite a difference between omitting information and intentionally failing to live up to an agreement one has willingly and knowingly made.

Further- the point could be made that hiding your armed status is actually morally necessary rather then negative so as to prevent the cultural "misunderstandings" we see with "Open Insulting Carry Texas".
I would agree that may be an excellent position. Provided one has informed the employer of such status there is no real reason to inform other employees of that. It is an agreement between you and the employer and not the business of anyone else.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 08:09 PM

David, you keep making it sound like someone is getting paid to NOT carry. In fact, most people are getting paid to actually do something productive, while being asked to not carry is a matter of being overly concerned about legal liability and overstepping their bounds.
That really isn't the issue. The issue is when one makes an agreement to do something in exchange for money, is it then OK to willfully do the opposite while hiding the facts and still accept the money? I feel it is not. Again, is it OK with you if the police officer, paid in part by your tax dollars to be working, sleeps on duty instead of performing as he agreed to do, provided nobody finds out?

I do not see that I am being paid to NOT carry. Rather I am being paid for my talents and skills in something that has nothing to do with carrying... so in fact not carrying at the office is absolutely malum prohibitum.You are being paid based on an agreement that you will perform in a certain manner. Intentionally not meeting the performance standard while at the same time hiding that fact and falsely presenting a facade of doing so is pretty much mala en se on all levels.

Were I being paid solely for not carrying, I suppose then you could make an argument for malum in se.
Not carrying is part of the agreement. If one wishes to change the agreement that is fine, present the argument and re-negotiate the agreement. Falsely presenting the posture one is following the agreement when one is not is a whole different story.

Captain

03-24-2015, 08:20 PM

That really isn't the issue. The issue is when one makes an agreement to do something in exchange for money, is it then OK to willfully do the opposite while hiding the facts and still accept the money? I feel it is not. Again, is it OK with you if the police officer, paid in part by your tax dollars to be working, sleeps on duty instead of performing as he agreed to do, provided nobody finds out?

But that's just it - I'm not being paid to NOT carry. I'm being paid to produce a very specific product. The offer of employment was extended upon my previous work in this field and with the explicit understanding that I would now continue that work for the new employer. Those were the terms of my employment. Now, when I arrive on my first day, they will hand me an employee handbook (again, both parties have already agreed to the employment arrangement before this point) and then I will officially be told that they have a no weapons in the office policy. I am not being asked to not carry as part of the employment agreement. Period.

You are being paid based on an agreement that you will perform in a certain manner.

Which has everything to do with my actual production, not the employee handbook that I haven't even been given yet.

Intentionally not meeting the performance standard while at the same time hiding that fact and falsely presenting a facade of doing so is pretty much mala en se on all levels.

So, much like every other performance standard, do you think during my bi-annual reviews they will ask me how many days I did not bring a weapon to work? I'm pretty sure they won't ask me that. Instead they will focus on whether or not I completed my projects correctly and met various metrics for what I do. Still not seeing how you could not be getting this.

Not carrying is part of the agreement. If one wishes to change the agreement that is fine, present the argument and re-negotiate the agreement. Falsely presenting the posture one is following the agreement when one is not is a whole different story.

But, it's not. I have already made the agreement and the only person that has so far mentioned not carrying a weapon is my friend who already works there. And he doesn't have the authority to even offer me a job since I'm technically going to be his boss now... The carrying of weapons was never mentioned, not once, during any interviews, salary/benefit negotiations, or discussions of what my work would and would not entail.

So, while the employer may fire me for breaking one of their rules (or for any reason in this Right-to-Work state), they at no time, either explicitly or implicitly, made carrying or not carrying an actual condition of my receiving a paycheck. That all centered on the production that I can bring to their company. Again, this makes the not carrying rule, malum prohibitum. Sorry man, the argument is just wrong.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 08:24 PM

I don't agree that breaking a work policy is itself "taking money under false pretenses." That implies (to me) that I'm somehow cheating on something directly relevant to my work product: lying on timesheet and the like. This is nothing like that.
It is not breaking a policy that is the problem, it is willfully breaking policy while pretending to actually be meeting the requirements of the policy. That creates the false pretense.

In this scenario, I give my employer 100% of what's involved in my work, the work for which they pay me.
If that is all they are paying you for, then why hide the fact that you are doing something that they have prohibited? That is the fallacy. Apparently part of the pay from their perspective includes adherence to the rules of conduct they have established, otherwise why would they have the rule and why would you feel the need to hide the act?

As a separate matter, I would be breaking an arbitrary rule that has no bearing on my work product, not stealing or embezzling. No one is harmed.
No one is harmed when Johnny cheats on a test to get a better grade. No one is harmed when the officer on duty finds a nice quiet place to take a nap. Not too sure why there needs to be a harm for something to be wrong.

Not all offenses are the same severity, and they're not somehow equated just because they happen at work. The offense itself is mala prohibita. The fact of my salary does not up-convert it to mala in se, which I think would require someone actually being harmed, or some intent to inflict actual harm.
Mala en se indicates an act that is wrong in and of itself, particularly in the context of assorted social conventions. If one does not thing it is wrong to agree to do something in exchange for money and then takes that money while intentionally not fulfilling the agreement AND falsely presentigtn the position one is meeting the agreement, I'm not sure where to go with the discussion. Either a voluntary agreement between parties is expected to be followed by both parties or there really is no basis for most social interaction.

"Competing harms" was indeed exactly my approach.
I think that is usually, if not always, the approach most use when deciding a course of action. But a lesser wrong is still a wrong, not a right.

dgg9

03-24-2015, 08:38 PM

It is not breaking a policy that is the problem, it is willfully breaking policy while pretending to actually be meeting the requirements of the policy. That creates the false pretense.

Well, of course one isn't going to announce one is breaking policy. Because getting fired is the greater wrong. The fact that it's a senseless policy having nothing to do with my actual work product makes it, to me, dispensable.

Apparently part of the pay from their perspective includes adherence to the rules of conduct they have established, otherwise why would they have the rule and why would you feel the need to hide the act?

We've been through this earlier in the thread. Companies have senseless HR policies all the time, for any variety of reasons. One reason might be that their perception of liability is more important to them than my safety. If I choose to ignore that rule then of course I'm not going to mention it.

No one is harmed when Johnny cheats on a test to get a better grade. No one is harmed when the officer on duty finds a nice quiet place to take a nap.

Johnny is harmed, because his education is thwarted. The public is harmed because the officer is not available to help anyone. In both cases, they are cheating the exact, essential purpose of the job at hand. Totally not the same as some utterly irrelevant policy tacked on that has no bearing on their job.

Mala en se indicates an act that is wrong in and of itself, particularly in the context of assorted social conventions. If one does not thing it is wrong to agree to do something in exchange for money and then takes that money while intentionally not fulfilling the agreement AND falsely presentigtn the position one is meeting the agreement, I'm not sure where to go with the discussion.

We're never going to agree on this. This policy in question is the very definition of malum prohibitum. It is an arbitrary "because I said so" rule, the breaking of which is not remotely inherently wrong. It has no bearing on what I produce for them. The fact that my employer tacks it onto his list of rules does not magically increase it to malum in se.

But a lesser wrong is still a wrong, not a right.

Actually, I agree and never said otherwise. One can be in a position with no perfectly right options.

I sense that we're at "agree to disagree" time.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 08:46 PM

But that's just it - I'm not being paid to NOT carry. I'm being paid to produce a very specific product. The offer of employment was extended upon my previous work in this field and with the explicit understanding that I would now continue that work for the new employer. Those were the terms of my employment. Now, when I arrive on my first day, they will hand me an employee handbook (again, both parties have already agreed to the employment arrangement before this point) and then I will officially be told that they have a no weapons in the office policy. I am not being asked to not carry as part of the employment agreement. Period.
If one agrees to accept a job without taking the time to learn what is involved or expected of one, it is their fault and they should learn to live with their mistake or re-negotiate the agreement rather than engage in deception toward the employer. I'm fairly sure you are not being paid to not do a number of things. In this case, however, you are being paid, at least in part, to follow the rules of employment.

Which has everything to do with my actual production, not the employee handbook that I haven't even been given yet.
Again, that is your fault if you have agreed to the terms without reading them. Apparently it DOES have some impact on what the employer expects of you, otherwise they probably wouldn't care and you wouldn't need to pretend, right?

So, much like every other performance standard, do you think during my bi-annual reviews they will ask me how many days I did not bring a weapon to work? I'm pretty sure they won't ask me that. Instead they will focus on whether or not I completed my projects correctly and met various metrics for what I do. Still not seeing how you could not be getting this.
They probably won't ask you how much time you spent sneaking away from the job to take a nap either. Not sure why that means it is OK to sneak around and take a nap. But I am equally lost as to how one cannot see the issue is one of false pretenses based on hiding a violation of an agreement.

But, it's not. I have already made the agreement and the only person that has so far mentioned not carrying a weapon is my friend who already works there. And he doesn't have the authority to even offer me a job since I'm technically going to be his boss now... The carrying of weapons was never mentioned, not once, during any interviews, salary/benefit negotiations, or discussions of what my work would and would not entail.
I'm going to hazard a guess that there are a number of rules that were not mentioned during interviews and such. They probably didn't tell you that you would not be allowed to steal from the company, submit false claims for expenses, sexually harrass other employees, etc. I am pretty sure that part of the emplyment offer did encompass the idea that one would be expected to follow the work rules as that is a pretty intrinsic implication when going to work for someone. Again, if this was an important issue to you why didn't you ask about the policy? "Excuse me, but before I agree to the offer I have a very strong belief in the 2nd Amendment and my right to carry a firearm while at work. Will thta be a problem for you?"

So, while the employer may fire me for breaking one of their rules (or for any reason in this Right-to-Work state), they at no time, either explicitly or implicitly, made carrying or not carrying an actual condition of my receiving a paycheck. That all centered on the production that I can bring to their company. Again, this makes the not carrying rule, malum prohibitum. Sorry man, the argument is just wrong.
Nice claim, but again it sort of falls apart when looked at in any reasonable light. If you neglect to find out what you are agreeing to that does not change the fact the agreement is there. Again, if you did not think the agreement was there you would have no need to hide your actions and pretend to be following the rule, right? That is the mala en se issue, whether is is inherently wrong to agree to perfrom according to a certain standard, then intentionally not meet the standard while pretending to be meeting the standard. In no logical framework can that be considered wrong only if someone says it is wrong.

David Armstrong

03-24-2015, 08:59 PM

Well, of course one isn't going to announce one is breaking policy. Because getting fired is the greater wrong. The fact that it's a senseless policy having nothing to do with my actual work product makes it, to me, dispensable.
If workplace rules can be considered applicable or dispensable based on how each individual employee feels, it sort of does away with the entire concept of workplace rules, doesn't it?

We've been through this earlier in the thread. Companies have senseless HR policies all the time, for any variety of reasons. One reason might be that their perception of liability is more important to them than my safety. If I choose to ignore that rule then of course I'm not going to mention it.
And you are going to present the facade that you are following the rule. If you feel the rule is senseless then argue against it with the courage of your convictions, don't be deceptive about it. By hiding it you are tacitly indicating your approval of the policy.

Johnny is harmed, because his education is thwarted. The public is harmed because the officer is not available to help anyone. In both cases, they are cheating the exact, essential purpose of the job at hand. Totally not the same as some utterly irrelevant policy tacked on that has no bearing on their job.
Afraid not. Johnny isn't harmed, he is plenty smart and is getting a good education. He just chose to cheat this time. Same with the officer. He is available, and you might be surprised how well-trained some officers who coop a lot get when it comes to waking right up if the radio calls their unit. And since nothing happened while he was sleeping clearly there is no harm, right?

We're never going to agree on this. This policy in question is the very definition of malum prohibitum. It is an arbitrary "because I said so" rule, the breaking of which is not remotely inherently wrong. It has no bearing on what I produce for them. The fact that my employer tacks it onto his list of rules does not magically increase it to malum in se.
You are right. If agreeing to do something, then not doing it while pretending that you are doing it, and then taking compensation based on the fact you did whatever is not mala en se, then the basic foundation of social interaction (agreements between parties are to be followed) has no meaing or relevance. That such action is not inherently wrong is an unworkable premise.

Actually, I agree and never said otherwise. One can be in a position with no perfectly right options.
I sense that we're at "agree to disagree" time.
Didn't mean you had said otherwise, apologies if that was the way it came across. And yes, I agree<G>!

Captain

03-24-2015, 09:17 PM

Odin Bravo One

03-24-2015, 10:24 PM

Palmguy

03-24-2015, 11:08 PM

nevermind

orionz06

03-25-2015, 06:37 AM

Jesus.

TCinVA

03-25-2015, 06:48 AM

David, I was disappointed to see you did not address the employer changing the terms of pay & benefits agreed to for services rendered, while the employee still being legally bound to the original terms of employment and expected services he/she originally agreed to provide.

https://madisonhillhoa.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/darth-vader-i-am-altering-the-deal.png

Peally

03-25-2015, 08:09 AM

This thread:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bcgGjWklXIc/T9p913tz-oI/AAAAAAAAApU/8eV1Z60Yp_Q/s1600/JumpingTheShark.jpg

orionz06

03-25-2015, 08:59 AM

But is he deceiving us and carrying a handgun in the NPE that is the shark tank? Let's have a 100 post discussion on it.

David Armstrong

03-25-2015, 09:43 AM

David, I believe everyone in this thread is at a "agree to disagree" time with you. This is a clear case of malum prohibitum. It is breaking a rule only. A rule that an employer has no moral or ethical grounds to make. There was no implicit "we will give you money if you follow all the rules" there was a very explicit "we would like to pay to you to do a very specific task for us." Period.
Sorry, pretty much by definition it cannnot be mala prohibita when one looks at the principle. I might (and probably would) agree that carrying a gun at work in violation of a rule is prohibita if that is all one did. However, that is not all one has done here. In this case, since one is aware of the rule, intentionally and knowingly violates it, and then hides the fact they are violating the rule that they have agreed to, it is a mala en se concept. One has gone against a basic structure of social contact, that being one is expected to stand by an agreement one voluntarily makes. And following the rules of employment is always implicit in taking a job.

The funny thing is you keep mentioning things that are either illegal or quite obviously malum in se and then committing the fallacy of moral equivalency to say that carrying in the office is wrong.
One is certainly entitled to their beliefs and opinions. However, I have found over the years that the moral equivalency fallacy claim is usually trotted out when one has no logical response to the example that has been given. If one stays within the framework of the morality of agreeing to do something, then not doing it and hiding that fact while claiming to be meeting the agreement, most things do become equivalent given that the issue is the agreement and the hiding. I will concede an difference if there is a clear hurt or harm.

Sleeping on the job (provided it is not during your official break time), no matter what job, is not meeting the agreed condition of your employment (i.e.: you come to work and produce XYZ for us).
The product of the officer who is cooping has not changed in this case.

Cheating on a test is misrepresenting your skill or knowledge to further your own career, academic or otherwise - indicating you can do or know something you don't and then expecting compensation for it, either money or a grade.
Again, wrong. Lots of cheating is done simply because of laziness, some of the best students turn out to be some of the worst cheaters, and the difference in the score they would get is irrelevant to their overall standing. It is a shortcut or a safeguard for them.

Saying "Yes I will work for you and ply my skills and talent in exchange for money," and then finding out there's an office rule you don't like (or feel is morally wrong in this case), so you ignore it while still plying said skills and talent is very clearly not the same and is by no means a breech of the previously mentioned agreement.
Sorry, but claiming that unless a company goes through each rule in advance it is OK to then break the rule violates pretty much all common sense. One has to suspend the idea that when one works for an organization it is a total package deal, not just an end product deal.

The thing is this - when one does not have the authority to make a particular rule, then that rule should in no way be binding.
If you can find me a law that says the compnay cannot make that rule you might have something. Until then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Declaring that I cannot have with me any means to protect myself is even further outside of their authority. Therefore, their rule is invalid.
Again, if you can provide some law that supports that, great. But at this time AFAIK pretty much all legal doctrine says just the opposite.

Thank God they're actually paying me to make a certain product and not based on what's in my pants.
You keep making that claim but your actions indicate that you don't even believe that. If the claim was true, then there would be no rule. If the claim was true, you would not feel the need to hide it from them. If it was true, if they knew it wouldn't matter. Apparently it does matter since you feel the need to decieve them regarding your actions.

At any rate, it's clear you and I don't see this issue the same at all, and there's no point going round and round. My conscience is clear in regards to my actions. I assume yours is in regards to yours, so you do you and I'll do me.
Of course. One usually does what their conscience dictates to them. I have no problem with that. I do question the loops and hoops some go through to try to rationalize an action that has no logical support.

David Armstrong

03-25-2015, 09:45 AM

David, I was disappointed to see you did not address the employer changing the terms of pay & benefits agreed to for services rendered, while the employee still being legally bound to the original terms of employment and expected services he/she originally agreed to provide.
Sorry, I thought I did that. I would agree it is wrong to change the agreement without also allowing the other party to opt out of further involvement. I might see an exception for emergency circumstances or other legal issues.

orionz06

03-25-2015, 10:18 AM

Sorry, pretty much by definition it cannnot be mala prohibita when one looks at the principle. I might (and probably would) agree that carrying a gun at work in violation of a rule is prohibita if that is all one did. However, that is not all one has done here. In this case, since one is aware of the rule, intentionally and knowingly violates it, and then hides the fact they are violating the rule that they have agreed to, it is a mala en se concept. One has gone against a basic structure of social contact, that being one is expected to stand by an agreement one voluntarily makes. And following the rules of employment is always implicit in taking a job.

One is certainly entitled to their beliefs and opinions. However, I have found over the years that the moral equivalency fallacy claim is usually trotted out when one has no logical response to the example that has been given. If one stays within the framework of the morality of agreeing to do something, then not doing it and hiding that fact while claiming to be meeting the agreement, most things do become equivalent given that the issue is the agreement and the hiding. I will concede an difference if there is a clear hurt or harm.

The product of the officer who is cooping has not changed in this case.

Again, wrong. Lots of cheating is done simply because of laziness, some of the best students turn out to be some of the worst cheaters, and the difference in the score they would get is irrelevant to their overall standing. It is a shortcut or a safeguard for them.

Sorry, but claiming that unless a company goes through each rule in advance it is OK to then break the rule violates pretty much all common sense. One has to suspend the idea that when one works for an organization it is a total package deal, not just an end product deal.

If you can find me a law that says the compnay cannot make that rule you might have something. Until then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Again, if you can provide some law that supports that, great. But at this time AFAIK pretty much all legal doctrine says just the opposite.

You keep making that claim but your actions indicate that you don't even believe that. If the claim was true, then there would be no rule. If the claim was true, you would not feel the need to hide it from them. If it was true, if they knew it wouldn't matter. Apparently it does matter since you feel the need to decieve them regarding your actions.

Of course. One usually does what their conscience dictates to them. I have no problem with that. I do question the loops and hoops some go through to try to rationalize an action that has no logical support.

Is it better if you carry in an NPE in condition 3?

Glenn E. Meyer

03-25-2015, 10:26 AM

One might then rightfully ask why someone would then use their labor to help that company be successful??

1. The incident occurred without previous knowledge of the boss's bigotry.
2. In the Depression, one might put up with a boss that was horrible in order to have a place to live and eat. Perhaps to support older parents?

Mr_White

03-25-2015, 11:24 AM

If we just ignore it, if we tacitly accept it through pretense and hiding, there is no need or impulse to fuel change.

Prove it

But if one chooses to do so one should at least recognize the other party as being just as sincere and honest as one expects others to recognize in them.

You can't make me

does that then mean it is right for them to do it?

I'm not telling

Lolololololololol

Captain

03-25-2015, 11:57 AM

Way to ratchet up the condescension on this post.

Sorry, pretty much by definition it cannnot be mala prohibita when one looks at the principle.

Wrong. Carrying in spite of a rule is breaking a rule only. It is not inherently wrong, especially since there is no clear moral authority or imperative to make said rule. Now, your real issue is the deception - you can say that is mallum in se, but what everyone else in this entire thread is saying is that breaking the carrying rule is mallum prohibita, and they are right.

I might (and probably would) agree that carrying a gun at work in violation of a rule is prohibita if that is all one did. However, that is not all one has done here. In this case, since one is aware of the rule, intentionally and knowingly violates it, and then hides the fact they are violating the rule that they have agreed to, it is a mala en se concept. One has gone against a basic structure of social contact, that being one is expected to stand by an agreement one voluntarily makes. And following the rules of employment is always implicit in taking a job.

Okay, finally - carrying in spite of the rule is mallum prohibita - you finally admit it. Whew. Was that so hard? Now, as for the rest of that paragraph, which you say becomes a wrong in and of itself... In my location, I am required by law to conceal any weapon I carry. Therefore, I am staying within legal bounds by not flaunting the fact that I am carrying. Therefore it is not purely deception that leads me to conceal my weapon - it is in fact following the law that governs carrying of a weapon in my state. So, if I willingly disclose that I am carrying any time I am asked - am I deceiving the company? I'm almost certain I would only be asked upon being made or having to use my weapon. I am equally certain I would be asked to consent to search if I say no and fired if I refuse, so at that point, I would of course admit to carrying. So other than the legally required concealment of my firearm, where is the deception "in exchange for money"?

One is certainly entitled to their beliefs and opinions. However, I have found over the years that the moral equivalency fallacy claim is usually trotted out when one has no logical response to the example that has been given. If one stays within the framework of the morality of agreeing to do something, then not doing it and hiding that fact while claiming to be meeting the agreement, most things do become equivalent given that the issue is the agreement and the hiding. I will concede an difference if there is a clear hurt or harm.

The product of the officer who is cooping has not changed in this case.

Again, wrong. Lots of cheating is done simply because of laziness, some of the best students turn out to be some of the worst cheaters, and the difference in the score they would get is irrelevant to their overall standing. It is a shortcut or a safeguard for them.

But that's exactly what I'm disputing. An officer is not paid to just produce arrests - he is paid to be on duty, a duty he does not perform while sleeping. You can say nothing happens, but the only person that would really know that is the person that was there and alert. With him sleeping, all manner of things may have happened without his (or anyone else other than the perpetrator's) knowledge. That duty includes specific things, none of which are sleeping. He is directly breaking the actual terms of what he is being paid for. If you are negligent in the exact thing you are being paid for, then you are breaking that sacrosanct employment agreement you keep talking about. Just like someone taking a test is being given a grade based on their proof of knowledge and skills. If you provide false proof then you have violated that agreement. It doesn't matter if you're smart enough for it not to matter, the point of the test is not to prove something to yourself but to prove it to your professor/administrator. In the case of the test, the equivalency to the carry argument is that the student was told to use a No. 2 pencil, but used a No. 3 pencil instead. He doesn't tell anyone and no one notices. He has violated a rule, possibly knowingly, but still given a fair assessment of knowledge and skills. Cheating and dereliction of duty are not morally equivalent to following or breaking an added-on rule. They just aren't and your protestations to the opposite are tiresome and fall flat with, from what I can see, everyone else on this thread. Now, was that a better "logical response" or do you have something else to change or pile on to sound more condescending?

Sorry, but claiming that unless a company goes through each rule in advance it is OK to then break the rule violates pretty much all common sense. One has to suspend the idea that when one works for an organization it is a total package deal, not just an end product deal.

I believe (not that anyone in a right to work state signs a contract or actual employment agreement) to make a legally binding agreement, one has to state all of the terms before said agreement is valid. Since both parties have agreed to the heretofore presented terms, then the agreement is made and no further addendums should be allowed. What's not to understand about that?

If you can find me a law that says the compnay cannot make that rule you might have something. Until then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Again, if you can provide some law that supports that, great. But at this time AFAIK pretty much all legal doctrine says just the opposite.

Are we talking about legality or morality? You keep throwing around mala in se, so I thought the whole issue was morality? That (according to the subject line) is what we are supposed to be discussing. Try to focus and stop changing what it is you're saying. See Bryon's comment on goalposts earlier if you're still confused...

Legally, I'll take my lumps - I'm a big boy. Besides, legally I work in a right-to-work state - they can fire me whenever they want for any reason and I have no recourse. Guess I'd better hide my gun well and do my job to the best of my ability... I bet if I do, my employer will love me since I am giving them everything they asked for when they hired me.

Now, morally? They don't have the authority to make the rule, thus I am not morally obligated to follow it. Given that morals are specific to the individual, I don't see what is left to discuss.

Since you can't even acknowledge that you're changing your arguments (or at least couldn't before) I'm out. I'll even give you the last word since you'll pile it on regardless of what I say anyway.

cclaxton

03-25-2015, 12:24 PM

What seems to be missing from this is the consequences related to carrying in an NPE. Employers are usually worried about the liabilities involved. Sometimes insurers place those requirements on employers, and insurance costs can be higher if they allow firearms at work. I think it's important to understand the employer's side of this. If an incident happens, that can mean consequences for the employer as well. That is a business decision, not a moral one.

As employees, we are engaged in that business and have a business relationship with the employer, the relationship is not one based on morality but pay for services rendered.

I am starting to think the premise of the thread is improperly tied together.
Cody

Byron

03-25-2015, 12:50 PM

In Kohlberg's theory of morality, adherence to an action because it is proscribed by law alone, is seen as a lower stage of moral development. The upper stages have one deciding that following your own moral code is a higher level.
Thanks very much for the reminder, Glenn. Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs) always stuck with me from my undergrad psych days, but for whatever reason I had forgotten about Kohlberg's stages of moral development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development). Great material for me to look back on and reflect: especially as my moral compass has shifted since college.

For those of us who subscribe to a philosophy of post-conventional morality, Kohlberg theorized that the vast majority of adults will never agree with us.

The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles — principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms — ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.

Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.
[Emphasis added]

Palmguy

03-25-2015, 03:00 PM

I might (and probably would) agree that carrying a gun at work in violation of a rule is prohibita if that is all one did. However, that is not all one has done here. In this case, since one is aware of the rule, intentionally and knowingly violates it, and then hides the fact they are violating the rule that they have agreed to, it is a mala en se concept.
One has gone against a basic structure of social contact, that being one is expected to stand by an agreement one voluntarily makes. And following the rules of employment is always implicit in taking a job.

You are arguing that the definition of a prohibition as malum in se or malum prohibitum depends on the cognizance of the actor, and that willful violation of a malum prohibitum rule somehow converts it to being malum in se. Strange logic in my opinion. Using the same logic and a not unreasonable statement that compliance with all laws is a "basic social structure", you virtually eliminate all prohibitions which would be considered malum prohibitum.

TGS

03-25-2015, 03:11 PM

What seems to be missing from this is the consequences related to carrying in an NPE. Employers are usually worried about the liabilities involved. Sometimes insurers place those requirements on employers, and insurance costs can be higher if they allow firearms at work. I think it's important to understand the employer's side of this. If an incident happens, that can mean consequences for the employer as well. That is a business decision, not a moral one.

A business decision can still be immoral.

If I take $10,000 in payment for kidnapping 15 year old girls to sell into sex slavery, it's a business decision.

It's still immoral. The fact I did it for business reasons, and not for personal ones, does not change that.

cclaxton

03-25-2015, 03:39 PM

A business decision can still be immoral. If I take $10,000 in payment for kidnapping 15 year old girls to sell into sex slavery, it's a business decision. It's still immoral. The fact I did it for business reasons, and not for personal ones, does not change that.
Well, my comments were considering legal businesses, not illegal ones.

But setting that aside, I see your point. I just think it is irrelevant. Business decisions are amoral. They are not normally choosing to "do immoral acts" or choosing to "do moral acts." They are making business-related risk assessments, looking at costs and revenues and practical matters and making a decision. Unless it's against the law or will create bad PR, they will do what makes sense to keep the company profitable and healthy. For instance, the fact that a company decides to move an operation that pollutes waterway from the US to Mexico may be immoral (as most of us would likely see it), but it makes perfect sense from a business view.

In our business arrangement as an employee or contractor with this company, unless something can be legislated through law, we should treat that as amoral as well. The legality of our behavior and the integrity we hold within that company is what matters in my view. If we want to change the laws, then we should advocate for laws that establish a right to carry at our places of employment.
Cody

23JAZ

03-25-2015, 06:28 PM

Well, my comments were considering legal businesses, not illegal ones.

But setting that aside, I see your point. I just think it is irrelevant. Business decisions are amoral. They are not normally choosing to "do immoral acts" or choosing to "do moral acts." They are making business-related risk assessments, looking at costs and revenues and practical matters and making a decision. Unless it's against the law or will create bad PR, they will do what makes sense to keep the company profitable and healthy. For instance, the fact that a company decides to move an operation that pollutes waterway from the US to Mexico may be immoral (as most of us would likely see it), but it makes perfect sense from a business view.

In our business arrangement as an employee or contractor with this company, unless something can be legislated through law, we should treat that as amoral as well. The legality of our behavior and the integrity we hold within that company is what matters in my view. If we want to change the laws, then we should advocate for laws that establish a right to carry at our places of employment.
Cody

If an employer says no guns that's not a law that's a policy. Big difference in violating policy and violating a law. I don't violate laws because I don't want to go to jail, my wife and kids need me. A no carry in the work place policy will get ignored because my safety is the priority because my wife and kids need me.

JAD

03-25-2015, 07:15 PM

.

For those of us who subscribe to a philosophy of post-conventional morality,

If you're interested, Walter Conn in the late 70s and early 80s did some of the most interesting engagement with Kohlberg that I've read.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

David Armstrong

03-25-2015, 08:30 PM

Is it better if you carry in an NPE in condition 3?
I would think the carry condition to be irrelevant in this case, as is true of most cases.

David Armstrong

03-25-2015, 08:32 PM

1. The incident occurred without previous knowledge of the boss's bigotry.
2. In the Depression, one might put up with a boss that was horrible in order to have a place to live and eat. Perhaps to support older parents?
If done without knowledge that is a different issue. Once one knows of the issue is when it becomes problematical.

David Armstrong

03-25-2015, 08:35 PM

Prove it
Simpl;e logic. If everyone accepts things as htey are and makes no effort to change them, then things don't chage. Change almost by definition is fueled by need or impolse to modoify the status quo.

You can't make me
Of course not. Why would I want to do so?

I'm not telling
That certainly is your choice.

Thank you for playing.

Lolololololololol[/QUOTE]

David Armstrong

03-25-2015, 09:14 PM

from Captain:
Way to ratchet up the condescension on this post.
I guess one can read whatever they want to in a post. Probably more a reflection on the reader than the poster.

Wrong. Carrying in spite of a rule is breaking a rule only. It is not inherently wrong, especially since there is no clear moral authority or imperative to make said rule. Now, your real issue is the deception - you can say that is mallum in se, but what everyone else in this entire thread is saying is that breaking the carrying rule is mallum prohibita, and they are right.
Wrong. One of the great things about working at a university is the ease with which one can call on experts in various fields. I strolled down to the philosophy den today and posed a few questions to the folks htere. One of them was the mal/prohibita isssue, and to a man they all said that knowingly violating an agreement one has entered into of their own free will and then hiding that violation is mala en se, based on the idea that a society cannot function unless agreements are considered to be valid. Otherwise there is no actual agreement and all actions would then be based on dishonesty.

Okay, finally - carrying in spite of the rule is mallum prohibita - you finally admit it.
No, wrong again. I said carrying IN IGNORANCE of the rule was probably prohibita.
Now, as for the rest of that paragraph, which you say becomes a wrong in and of itself... In my location, I am required by law to conceal any weapon I carry. Therefore, I am staying within legal bounds by not flaunting the fact that I am carrying. Therefore it is not purely deception that leads me to conceal my weapon - it is in fact following the law that governs carrying of a weapon in my state. So, if I willingly disclose that I am carrying any time I am asked - am I deceiving the company? I'm almost certain I would only be asked upon being made or having to use my weapon. I am equally certain I would be asked to consent to search if I say no and fired if I refuse, so at that point, I would of course admit to carrying. So other than the legally required concealment of my firearm, where is the deception "in exchange for money"?
Flaunting has nothing to do with it. You are violating a rule that is considered part of your employment and willfully hiding that action so as to avoid repercussions. That was another question for the philosophers, and they used the term "deception by omission."

But that's exactly what I'm disputing. An officer is not paid to just produce arrests - he is paid to be on duty, a duty he does not perform while sleeping. You can say nothing happens, but the only person that would really know that is the person that was there and alert. With him sleeping, all manner of things may have happened without his (or anyone else other than the perpetrator's) knowledge.
Again, I beleive the argument has been from the "it's ok to deceive" side that if there is no harm it doesn't matter. I stipulated in my example that nothing happened, there was no harm. Thus it logically follows that if nothing has happened then it is OK to sleep according to that reasoning.

That duty includes specific things, none of which are sleeping. He is directly breaking the actual terms of what he is being paid for.
Hmmmm, sounds a whole lot like someone who knowingly violates a work rule and hides it, as they are directly breaking part of the terms under which they are being paid.

Just like someone taking a test is being given a grade based on their proof of knowledge and skills.
Not necessarily. Tests are far more often graded on what one can remember or understand at that particular time based on an interpretation of material. Tests often have little relation ship to knowledge and skills. Frequently it is more a test of ones ability to take a test rather than knowledge. Further, cheating often is done for the benefit of another, such as Student A giving the answers to a test to Student B.

Cheating and dereliction of duty are not morally equivalent to following or breaking an added-on rule. They just aren't and your protestations to the opposite are tiresome and fall flat with, from what I can see, everyone else on this thread. Now, was that a better "logical response" or do you have something else to change or pile on to sound more condescending?
Sigh. As often happens in these discussions, when one is having trouble defending their position with logic and reason they resort to accusations and name-calling. How trite. BTW, intentionally violating a rule and then pretending to follow that rule in order to get paid IS cheating.

I believe (not that anyone in a right to work state signs a contract or actual employment agreement) to make a legally binding agreement, one has to state all of the terms before said agreement is valid. Since both parties have agreed to the heretofore presented terms, then the agreement is made and no further addendums should be allowed. What's not to understand about that?
You believe incorrectly, at least in a legal context. If one party intentionally hides some of the terms from the other you might have something, but most areas of employment law that I have been involved with put the onus on the hiree to check the terms if they want to, and if they don't they are considered bound by those terms. Sort of like reading the fine print in a contract. If you choose not to that is your problem.

Are we talking about legality or morality? You keep throwing around mala in se, so I thought the whole issue was morality? That (according to the subject line) is what we are supposed to be discussing. Try to focus and stop changing what it is you're saying. See Bryon's comment on goalposts earlier if you're still confused...
Since you posited the following: "The thing is this - when one does not have the authority to make a particular rule, then that rule should in no way be binding. " it seems pretty clear to me you are discussing the right (authority) to do something, In this case the authority for an employer to establish workplace rules is based on a legal doctrine, thus the obvious need to refer to the law. If you don't want to discuss authority to do or not to do, don't bring it up. Businesses DO have the authority to prohibit carry in premises unless the law specifically says otherwise.

Legally, I'll take my lumps - I'm a big boy. Besides, legally I work in a right-to-work state - they can fire me whenever they want for any reason and I have no recourse. Guess I'd better hide my gun well and do my job to the best of my ability... I bet if I do, my employer will love me since I am giving them everything they asked for when they hired me.

Now, morally? They don't have the authority to make the rule, thus I am not morally obligated to follow it. Given that morals are specific to the individual, I don't see what is left to discuss.
Again, wrong, as they do have the authority to make the rule, both legally and morally, just as you have the right to not work for them. That is the key to the issue, a voluntary agreement that one party chooses to violate while pretending to honor it. Again, to fall back on the philosophers discussion, the attempt to hide the deception is the greater moral wrong and is what changes what might be a mala prohibita act into a mala en se act.

Since you can't even acknowledge that you're changing your arguments (or at least couldn't before) I'm out. I'll even give you the last word since you'll pile it on regardless of what I say anyway.
Bye bye. The last word shall be "artichoke."

orionz06

03-25-2015, 09:15 PM

Who are you trying to quote there?

David Armstrong

03-25-2015, 09:19 PM

You are arguing that the definition of a prohibition as malum in se or malum prohibitum depends on the cognizance of the actor, and that willful violation of a malum prohibitum rule somehow converts it to being malum in se. Strange logic in my opinion. Using the same logic and a not unreasonable statement that compliance with all laws is a "basic social structure", you virtually eliminate all prohibitions which would be considered malum prohibitum.
Nope, that is not my argument. My argument, which apparently is correct according to the folks I checked with, is that violating the rule then hiding that fact while pretending to be following the rule is what causes the shift.

David Armstrong

03-25-2015, 09:22 PM

Who are you trying to quote there?
I believe if you will look at the first quoted block it says "from Captain".

BobLoblaw

03-26-2015, 08:38 AM

Rant mode: engaged.

Signing an employment contract says you agree to give a company the results outlined in said job description and in exchange they give you said money. Your continuing employment is based on your past performance and loosely based around their rules and whatever else they feel like (they can even fire you for questioning company rules). Rule infractions don't void the employment contract since said rules do not exist in said contract. You may or may not get fired for a rule infraction but that doesn't mean the decision to break said rule is wrong. The benefits of doing so could make it right. Either party may fire the other for literally ANY reason. Avoiding pissing the company off is smart but again, not required.

Payment for work and continued employment are separate matters entirely and should be treated as such. You provide the results listed in the job duties section clearly outlined in your employment contract or you don't get paid. You break their rules (which are what they would like for you to do or not do) and they might not want to work with you in the future but it has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on accepting payment for completion of services rendered. Services rendered, once again, is completion of job duties outlined in your employment contract which has absolutely nothing to do with the company rule book. Again, just to be clear: no one is lying for money in the confines of this discussion. They are completing work for money. They also happen to be putting their own rules above someone else's to avoid potential death of self or others. This may or may not have an effect on the amount of future income you could accrue but it has no bearing on the payments themselves.
Furthermore, following somebody else's rules may be in your best interest at times but you have absolutely no moral obligation to put their rules over your own unless your morals say they do. Being honest to yourself may or may not be more important than being honest to others.

Sorry to repeat myself and others but it's apparent that the message is not being received. Morality is not for any one person to decide regardless of some of the logical arguments and face-palming absurdity in this discussion. Their morals may not be logical to you because THEY ARE NOT YOUR OWN MORALS.

Rant mode: aborted
Eco mode: engaged