Federal Workers Told to Inform on Colleagues

Hume said:
No it is not. The reductio is based on self contradiction. You just are fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
1c4d8f4dccd6a1bfb38347858972b905.png
 
Diogenes said:
No, federal employees in the United States cannot be fired simply because someone doesn't like them. Here's a breakdown of the protections and processes involved:

  1. Civil Service Protections: Most federal employees are part of the civil service system, which offers protections against arbitrary dismissal. They have rights under laws like the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which includes:
    • Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB): Federal employees can appeal adverse actions like removal to the MSPB, where they must demonstrate that the action was taken for cause and not for arbitrary or personal reasons.
    • Due Process: Employees are entitled to due process, which includes notice of the charges against them, an opportunity to respond, and, if removed, a right to appeal.
  2. Just Cause: Removal must be for "just cause" or "good cause," which typically involves performance issues, misconduct, or a violation of agency rules. Examples include:
    • Neglect of duty
    • Insubordination
    • Misconduct (e.g., theft, fraud)
  3. Political Appointees vs. Career Employees:
    • Political Appointees: These positions, which include many high-level roles, serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority (like the President) and can be removed more easily without the same level of job security as career civil servants.
    • Career Employees: Have more protections. Firing them requires following specific procedures.
  4. Whistleblower Protections: Federal employees are also protected under various whistleblower laws if they report wrongdoing. Firing someone in retaliation for whistleblowing is illegal and can lead to reinstatement or other remedies.
  5. Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs): Many federal employees are also covered by union contracts that might provide additional protections or steps in the disciplinary process.
  6. Performance-Based Actions: Even here, the process must follow specific guidelines where poor performance must be documented, and the employee given opportunities to improve before being removed.

In summary, while federal employees enjoy significant job security, they can be fired, but it must be done through legally sound processes with just cause, not merely because someone dislikes them.


@Grok
Click to expand...
That is the way it use to be but now under Trump things are changing.
looks like they can be fired for NO reason at all.
 
Hume said:
Absurd means contradiction.
Click to expand...


No, "absurd" does not mean "contradiction." Here's a breakdown of these terms:

  • Absurd refers to something that is wildly unreasonable, illogical, or contrary to reason, often to the point of being ridiculous or nonsensical. In philosophy, particularly in the works of Albert Camus, "absurd" also refers to the conflict between human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any in a purposeless, indifferent universe.
  • Contradiction, on the other hand, is a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when one statement asserts the opposite of another, making both statements logically impossible to be true at the same time in the same context. In simpler terms, if something contradicts something else, they cannot both be correct under the same conditions.

To illustrate:
  • "It's absurd to think that pigs can fly" uses "absurd" to denote how ridiculous the idea is.
  • "He said he was both at home and at work at 3 PM" is a contradiction because one cannot be in two places at once.

While both concepts deal with logic or the lack thereof, they address different aspects of reasoning and logic.


@Grok
 
Hume said:
'

Absurd means contradiction. You are a fucking dope
Click to expand...
ab·surd
[əbˈsərd]
adjective
  1. wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate:
    "the allegations are patently absurd" · "so you think I'm a spy? How absurd!" · "she was being absurd—and imagining things" · "he had a keen eye for the incongruous and the absurd"
 
Diogenes said:
No, "absurd" does not mean "contradiction." Here's a breakdown of these terms:

  • Absurd refers to something that is wildly unreasonable, illogical, or contrary to reason, often to the point of being ridiculous or nonsensical. In philosophy, particularly in the works of Albert Camus, "absurd" also refers to the conflict between human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any in a purposeless, indifferent universe.
  • Contradiction, on the other hand, is a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when one statement asserts the opposite of another, making both statements logically impossible to be true at the same time in the same context. In simpler terms, if something contradicts something else, they cannot both be correct under the same conditions.

To illustrate:
  • "It's absurd to think that pigs can fly" uses "absurd" to denote how ridiculous the idea is.
  • "He said he was both at home and at work at 3 PM" is a contradiction because one cannot be in two places at once.

While both concepts deal with logic or the lack thereof, they address different aspects of reasoning and logic.


@Grok
Click to expand...
www.bbc.com

Freed Capitol riot ringleaders regroup - and vow 'retribution'

Leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys called for prosecutions of police, prosecutors and members of a congressional committee.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
T. A. Gardner said:
ab·surd
[əbˈsərd]
adjective
  1. wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate:
    "the allegations are patently absurd" · "so you think I'm a spy? How absurd!" · "she was being absurd—and imagining things" · "he had a keen eye for the incongruous and the absurd"
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with logical fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top