Your argument is like saying vigilantism. should be endorsed and made legal. In other words, you don't care about the means, just the end.

Try that working for government and you'll soon be out of a job my friend. Your so-called idealism might work in the private sector, but when you are a public servant, many things require PC.

Like I say, it's common sense human resource stuff. Work for a big global corporation and you better adhere to their PC. What don't you get about that?

No he can't, if it's not in his employer's dress code job description. Otherwise it's common sense- reasonableness as to the appropriateness.

The dude obviously did something bone headed that's why in part he cried and apologized.

Put a quarter in and try again LOL!

Oh BTW, I'm still awaiting for you to resolve your 'hypocritical paradox' on climate change science. Let us know when you're brave enough to tackle that one!

Tick-toc-tick-toc

Matt Taylor probably works as a public official. And, even if he wasn't a public official, he is in the public eye by virtue of his position. You should provide data to show public policy and human resource criteria that support your argument for appropriate/inappropriate dress/attire.

Otherwise, what he was wearing was, inappropriate, knowing he would be exposed to national television or otherwise the public eye?

For example, provide data from a Sociological view that supports your view that the T-shirt was reasonable and appropriate for the venue. Acting reasonable requires treating like cases likely; different cases differently. Thus, if one attends a black tie event with a t-shirt; if one attends a wedding with soiled clothing, if one forgets to insert their false teeth giving a speech to the public, if one wears a speedo with a Harley jacket to the beach, ad nauseum.

As I said, in the case of the astronomer Matt Taylor, it's actually irresponsible, for a trained professional to act unprofessional by wearing a sexually charged t-shirt in the given context. If the dude wanted to just wear a t-shirt, why didn't it relate to his profession, like a shirt with the Solar system/planet's on it or something??

About the question of hypocrisy, are you saying you are unable to answer the question about politicizing climate change science?

tick-toc-tick-toc

Great question! I'm not exactly sure, but part of it is Metaphysical. I realize you're an Atheist; do Metaphysical things exist to you?

Otherwise, say, in Christianity, Love takes on many forms: phenomenology, consciousness (Jesus), altruism, sacrifice, et al..

Ignoring the question won't make it go away. Your credibility is lacking for two reasons:

1. You won't provide public policy/supporting data about your T-shirt rant relative to employment standards.

2. You attack political correctness in science, yet politically deny climate change science.

With respect to item 2 what I'm hearing from you is that essentially you are not trying to remove politics from science.

Sorry you need to put your big boy pants on because I'm going to call you out when I see hypocrisy.

So are you saying you are unable to answer the question about politicizing climate change science? Is that what you're telling me?

You support Trump right? Or, in the alternative, if you disagree with him, tell us why...

For political reasons you support denial of climate change science.

Correct?

Please tell me where I'm wrong in my analysis of your hypocrisy... ?

Is that all you got?

I'm waiting for you to reconcile your paradox that you put yourself into... . Let us know when you're brave enough to work yourself out of the political extremist box LOL!

The climate changes for many reasons. There's nothing political about that. — Harry Hindu

I agree. But his political support/views of science suggest otherwise.

Meaning, his lack of consistent credibility has greatly diminished the impact of his argument. He likely ignores climate change science for similar political reasons. I've asked the OP to reconcile the T-shirt thing through public employment policies and other tenets/maxims from known Sociological data, but have yet to see any from him.

So think he should rephrase the OP to something like:

Should all Science be free of politics?

Otherwise I agree with Baden, this appears to be just a rant.

Does History exist?

Then why does he support someone who politicizes climate change science? Isn't that hypocritical...

Please tell me where I'm wrong in my analysis of your hypocrisy... ?

Interesting. Trump politically denies climate change. You're a Trumper. Aren't you being a hypocrite?

You appear to be hypocritical in your exaggerated concern over a T-shirt/freedom of expression and political correctness. In other words, on the one hand you're denouncing political correctness in favour of freedom of expression when it suits you, on the other hand you use similar politics to support your likely denial of climate change. How do you square that circle?

Unless I'm missing something, I think you are making it too complicated. Seems like you're arguing under the guise of a simple rant about political correctness, (which is probably why in part you voted for Trump not sure).

Anyway, seems to me there are two relevant issues:

1. Sociology viz. public policy making in the workplace, etc..

2. Unbiased/objective science.

Number one, you haven't demonstrated anything. Common sense and reasonableness requires political correctness (to some degree or another) is appropriate in society.

And number two, of course the majority of people would ideally like unbiased objective science.
Take climate change for instance.. The climate is, in fact, changing: true or false(?).

So again, the scientist wearing the out-of-place inappropriate sexually-charged t-shirt at a publicized event deserved admonishment. What's so hard to understand about that?

So if you're trying to argue a paradigm shift then make your case?

Provide supporting data relative to employment job descriptions, dress codes, analogous social norms and customs snd the like.

Did I miss something or have you provided that somewhere?

Yep. It's not politically correct to do so. It's common sense.

Would you like me to repost my justification? Otherwise you have not provided any justification for it being appropriate and suitable or proper for the circumstances.

I'm waiting....

I'm arguing the first part of your logic. This isn't about emotion as you're suggesting.

My argument is central to your outcome or consequences of said behavior. If now you're changing your view that it's appropriate for a public official to wear a sexually-charged t-shirt, then you should be able to accept the consequences of your arbitrary position.

How do you square that circle and make it objectively true that all public officials should wear sexually-charged t-shirts during public speaking engagements?

Yes I think it’s appropriate. — NOS4A2

And so you would tell your children that correct? And as a policy maker you would endorse all those under you to wear a sexually-charged t-shirt in a public venue right?

wouldn’t tell them it was inappropriate. I wouldn’t tell them this because 1) I am not prim and wish not to I promote that behavior to anyone, and 2) I think there are better ways to go about it. We can simply tell them what they should wear, what people expect them to wear, and why they should do so, for example. — NOS4A2

Gosh I'm still confused. You said among other things:

1. " We can simply tell them what they should wear".
2. " ... what people expect them to wear".

3. "... And why they should do so."


Definition of Appropriate: suitable or proper in the circumstances.

So are you saying it's appropriate or inappropriate to wear the sexually-charged t-shirt?

I will discuss the second part of the topic no problem. But the first part I'm confused with your logic.

On the one hand you're saying you would not endorse a president wearing a sexually-charged t-shirt at all his/hee public speaking events. And so you would, in our analogy, go ahead and tell your children that it would be inappropriate for the president to do so.

On the other hand you're not willing to concede to the inappropriateness of the astronomer's sexually-charged t-shirt.

Did I get that right,?

(Again we're talking about what is appropriate for the venue. )

So are you conceding that the astronomer's sexually charged t-shirt was inappropriate for the venue?

You evaded the question let me rephrase it. Would you tell your children that it is appropriate for any president to wear a sexually-charged t-shirt at all his/her public speaking events?

Yes or no.

Okay let's take it to the next level how would you defend that in the face of your children watching TV when the president of the United States wears a sexually-charged t-shirt at a public speaking event. Tell me how you would defend that.

Okay should the president of the United States wear a wife beater tank top and a public speaking event?

let me get this straight are you saying wearing sexually-charged attire is appropriate for most wedding pictures?

Are you saying that if a woman wore trousers with sexually charged graphics that that would be appropriate?

Then what’s the problem with “wearing a sexually charged t-shirt”? It didn’t hinder his job at all. If it is simply a matter of not liking the t-shirt, then saying “I don’t like his t-shirt” suffices. — NOS4A2

You didn't read what I wrote. It was inappropriate for the venue.

Assuming you're married and maybe have kids. What if your daughter got married and the groom's friends or best man attending was wearing a sexually charged T-shirt?

Would you just say okay, 'I don't like his T-shirt but it's still appropriate for my daughter's wedding pictures?'

Dude, it has nothing to do with morality. It is political correctness. Do you get that?

We all should, yet the amazing accomplishment was overshadowed by the response to the shirt he wore during the live-stream of the mission, which had upon it women in “pornographic poses”. — NOS4A2

Hey NOS4A2,

Don't mean to gang tackle you, but wanted to give you some tough love here. Because of your current far-right political beliefs, I can't help but provide a little insight to your dilemma... .

Matt Taylor probably works as a public official (I used to work for the gov't; now back in private sector). And, even if he wasn't a public official, he is in the public eye by virtue of his position. Unless I'm missing something obvious, don't you think that what he was wearing was, inappropriate, knowing he would be exposed to national television or otherwise the public eye?

I mean, of course dude, it is PC. Acting reasonable requires treating like cases likely; different cases differently. Thus, if one attends a black tie event with a t-shirt; if one attends a wedding with soiled clothing, if one forgets to insert their false teeth giving a speech to the public, if one wears a speedo with a Harley jacket to the beach, ad nauseum.

In the case of the astronomer Matt Taylor, it's actually irresponsible, for a trained professional to act unprofessional by wearing a sexually charged t-shirt in the given context. If the dude wanted to just wear a t-shirt, why didn't it relate to his profession, like a shirt with the Solar system/planet's on it or something??

I mean, this is common sense dude. I know you are a Trumper. And maybe that's why you and the far-right don't understand the value of certain political correctness... . In fact, don't even call it PC; call it common sense.

Should he be admonished for that inappropriate/offensive T-shirt given the circumstances ? If not, why not?

What made you say that, as I'm off base.

Sorry Wallows, I was confusing incompleteness with indeterministic phenomenon (i.e.; secret game of 20-questions- Wheeler's Cloud- from Paul Davies Book, The Mind of God).

Yep!

A contradiction just means you have misspoken. — Banno

Banno, how would you propose correcting the misspoken-ness?

...you mean like 'intuition'? He discussed that also........

I think it would be great if society could transition to a fully agriculture-based diet and let all animals live their natural lives, which seem more worthy of respect the more you consider it, especially if we can replace the nutritional contribution of meat with plants. — Enrique

I agree. Pragmatically, if I could get all the nutritional value from plants, I would go in that direction myself. Otherwise the concern of course is vitamin deficiencies from same (B vitamins, iron, creatine, carnosine, vitamin D, and other's..). You have to eat a lot more to get the same amount of nutrients. I can't take supplement's, and prefer to get mine through natural means anyway... .

Gödel proved that true sentences of self-reference can be unresolved contradictions in his incompleteness theory.

Plato: What Socrates is about to say is false.
Socrates: Plato has just spoken truly.

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. — alcontali

What about angry mobs of people of a different religion, who hate people of whichever religion you are?

Thanks for the inspirational quote Alcontali!

With respect to angry mobs viz Religion. The important distinction not to forget about is, the dangers of extremism/fundamentalism. Because otherwise that's what you're talking about there... .

In other words, not all Religion is about extremism.

Just a quick soundbite for you:

Consider ancient Egypt (and even prehistoric Egypt) around 3100BC before Plato. There were various forms of pantheism and polytheism.

Now consider modern day philosophy of Religion and Metaphysics... .

Accordingly, in the spirit of Kantian logic: "All events must have a cause."

Fast forward to modern science; physics, cosmology and the desire to understand all of existence= ToE.

To put succinctly there, was there a common theme/emerging? Hint: it has existential implications.

Humans and fish display different kinds of instincts, and it is not necessarily the case that fish instinct is strictly automated while human instinct is not, so why not varieties of reason infused with social meanings? — Enrique

Sure, to combine both instinct and self-awareness would suggest human conscious existence. But to draw the distinction(s), one would have to demonstrate that 'fish' have self-awareness to the fullest extent that human's have. And so in the case of romantic love, that's a formidable task.

Why not just leave the so-called driving force in nature, to animal instinct/genetically coded purposeful existence? I mean Metaphysical Will in nature can certainly be conducive to biologically Emergent purpose/properties.