>>102264205>I'm fine with this. The person exists and can defend herselfYou being fine with it doesn't mean her employer shouldn't fire her.
>Means nothing to meThere is a thing called prescription that is quite meaningful.
>Means little when you choose to not delete the past jokes. He never should have been hiredIf you are going to be fired for bad PR, rule of thumb should at least be that you are being fired for something you did while working for the persons you are working for.
>Doesn't invalidate her apologyIt literally does. When you apoplogy yet at the same time goes "look, there are people who say what I said was not wrong" it means you do not really think what you di was wrong.
>Just generic children. So I guess rape jokes and saying blacks are thieves is fine, I'm not targeting anyoneIt's at least less aggravating than specifically targetting a person.
>MeaninglessIt is meaningfull. the whole notion of prescription is based on this.
>Should have never been hired over itRedemption and betterment should ,not be ignored.
>I doubt the sincerity. Prove he was sincereYou are the one accusing him of being insincere. You are the one who have to prove it. Then again, you are the same guy who think that someone who goes "Look at those people who say I did nothing wrong" while apologising is still sincere, so, I'd really be interested in the rules you go by.
>See? I can apply my own moral and personal reasonings to every point you make Except to do so, you had to be in disagreement with the notions of prescription and attonment, who are deeply rooted not only in our justice system itself, but you had to be self-contradict about what make someone sincere or not. Sorry, dude, but you didn't really accomplished much there.
try again, and be more self-consistent, this time.
