Author Topic: Fired for working in the adult film industry in the past (Read 39271 times)

MechAg94 · « **Reply #50 on:** October 29, 2012, 03:27:45 PM »

Whether you like it or not, actions have consequences. You may not like it, but when you make bad decisions, they can and often do come back to bite you (legal or not). IMO, the whole idea that we let the past be the past is a rather modern thought. From what I have heard, punishing bad decisions was more pronouned in past decades than it is today. I think even people who are rather tolerant of some things are often intolerant of others.

This reminded me of the scene in the Shootist where the school teacher was moving out to avoid any bad appearances or associations after John Wayne shot a couple men.

IMO, this woman might be a good teacher, but she is going to have to put some more distance between herself and her past before it goes away (if it ever does). I don't think this was the best career choice.

Balog · « **Reply #51 on:** October 29, 2012, 03:40:42 PM »

I have to laugh whenever folks talk about .gov not "enforcing morality." All laws are a form of morality. Ditto with schools teaching morality. It's impossible not to. All that argument is saying is "I don't like your morality and want .gov to enforce and schools to teach my own." And yet folks get so proud of themselves for wanting to enforce and teach their morality, simply because they phrase it a different way.

Tallpine · « **Reply #52 on:** October 29, 2012, 05:31:45 PM »

Quote from: Balog on October 29, 2012, 03:40:42 PM

I have to laugh whenever folks talk about .gov not "enforcing morality." All laws are a form of morality. Ditto with schools teaching morality. It's impossible not to. All that argument is saying is "I don't like your morality and want .gov to enforce and schools to teach my own." And yet folks get so proud of themselves for wanting to enforce and teach their morality, simply because they phrase it a different way.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

gunsmith · « **Reply #53 on:** October 29, 2012, 06:01:57 PM »

How is it illegal to stand on a street corner and sell your self for money but its ok if you do it in front of a camera?
Why cant some one simply bring a camera with them when picking up hookers and if busted just claim they're looking for new actresses?

Tallpine · « **Reply #54 on:** October 29, 2012, 07:05:22 PM »

Quote from: gunsmith on October 29, 2012, 06:01:57 PM

How is it illegal to stand on a street corner and sell your self for money but its ok if you do it in front of a camera?
Why cant some one simply bring a camera with them when picking up hookers and if busted just claim they're looking for new actresses?

I like the way you think

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #55 on:** October 29, 2012, 07:26:53 PM »

Quote from: gunsmith on October 29, 2012, 06:01:57 PM

How is it illegal to stand on a street corner and sell your self for money but its ok if you do it in front of a camera?
Why cant some one simply bring a camera with them when picking up hookers and if busted just claim they're looking for new actresses?

They already do....not sayin how I know....

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #56 on:** October 29, 2012, 07:59:10 PM »

Quote from: Tallpine on October 29, 2012, 05:31:45 PM

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Yup. I don't know what you meant to accomplish by quoting that, but I'm going to assume you realize that "securing rights" is another way of "enforcing morality." Not many people do...

Tallpine · « **Reply #57 on:** October 29, 2012, 08:38:07 PM »

Quote from: fistful on October 29, 2012, 07:59:10 PM

Yup. I don't know what you meant to accomplish by quoting that, but I'm going to assume you realize that "securing rights" is another way of "enforcing morality." Not many people do...

We're going to have to disagree on that one.

Not that the two might not often coincide, but the line between your morality and my rights is whether someone's life, liberty, or property are harmed.

Strings · « **Reply #58 on:** October 29, 2012, 08:53:44 PM »

^^THIS^^

I think that's the real crux of the issue: some of us are seeing "liberty" as meaning more than others.

Ron · « **Reply #59 on:** October 29, 2012, 09:00:41 PM »

life = Thou shalt not kill

property = Thou shalt not steal

liberty = distilled nicely in the DOI as coming from the ultimate source of morality, the Creator. Free will is a very Christian concept, esp American Christianity.

Not sure where you think the founders picked up their moral notions. They may not have believed like modern evangelicals in all things but they were cultural Christians at the very least.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #60 on:** October 29, 2012, 09:24:37 PM »

Quote from: Strings on October 29, 2012, 08:53:44 PM

^^THIS^^

I think that's the real crux of the issue: some of us are seeing "liberty" as meaning more than others.

Er, no. Tallpine was stating a moral code that he wants to see enforced. To the extent that Tallpine wants any government at all, he believes that government ought (that's the essential word of any moral system) to protect rights and not infringe them.

But you seem to be expecting some kind of ultra-liberty, while having government take charge of children at the same time. That's just not feasible.

Strings · « **Reply #61 on:** October 29, 2012, 11:20:57 PM »

*sigh*

>But you seem to be expecting some kind of ultra-liberty, while having government take charge of children at the same time. That's just not feasible.<

Umm... no. I'd be happy to see schools run strictly by private enterprise. Or, if run by the government, ONLY teaching necessary skills and such (the three R's don't require any moralizing).

>liberty = distilled nicely in the DOI as coming from the ultimate source of morality, the Creator.<

Of which you have your version, and I have mine. And both are VERY different (although both DID grant us, Their creations, free will)

>Free will is a very Christian concept, esp American Christianity.<

Depending on how you define "American Christianity". I've had a huge number of "American Christians" tell me that questioning anything in the Bible is sin and evil, which (to me) negates the whole concept of free will. However... THAT particular discussion, we should probably take to PM...

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #62 on:** October 30, 2012, 12:15:45 AM »

I didn't say you favored public education, just that you don't see that moral judgments go right along with it. You could have schools that only teach the three Rs, and teachers would still have past lives.

Strings · « **Reply #63 on:** October 30, 2012, 01:13:36 AM »

And past lives shouldn't be involved in the discussion of a teacher (assuming she's otherwise doing a good job) staying employed by the school

If she teaches science well, and the kids are learning, I personally don't care if she served a term for murder for the john she had to kill back when she was turning tricks. People CAN change and move on.

I like the idea of "actions have consequences". However, especially in the age in the internet, the consequences can easily go beyond the level of the actions. People should be allowed to move on with their lives...

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #64 on:** October 30, 2012, 01:31:30 AM »

Strings, there's a few "if's" in your post.

IF she can teach a class and the kids do well, then what she did in the past is not an issue. It becomes an issue--and this is something that can only be determined by what happens in the classrooms--if her past is a distraction.

There wasn't an internet when I was in school. Hell, photography was in its infancy. But if there had been some porno photos of my hot German language teacher somewhere, I would have crawled over broken glass to see them. That's the nature of hormonal boys. And that could become a distraction.

As was said before, decisions have consequences. If her prior decisions make her performance as a teacher suffer, then she should go. The school administrators should first determine whether distractions exist, by watching how her class performs, not how she performed in the past. (Which I'm sure many of them did over and over again).

roo_ster · « **Reply #65 on:** October 30, 2012, 02:16:05 AM »

Not sure where folks get the idea that even if this gal was a wonderful teacher, the porno gigs were not a distraction, <stack any number of unknown factors in her favor>, she is owed a job as a teacher. I just saw lots of folks who were good at their job and had clean backgrounds get laid off at work. So this gal's background caught up with her, big whoop. She isn't owed diddly beyond what she & her employer agreed to and if she deceived on her end, she isn't even owed that.

This foolish woman may end up in a tight spot, given her choice of schooling & credentials that may be rendered nigh useless given her background. She made her bed.

Quote from: Strings on October 30, 2012, 01:13:36 AM

And past lives shouldn't be involved in the discussion of a teacher (assuming she's otherwise doing a good job) staying employed by the school

Bullhockey.

There are any number of "past lives" that employers may not want in their employees. Just because this particular unsavory "past life" is of a sexual nature doesn't exempt it from coloring her prospects.

Quote from: Strings on October 30, 2012, 01:13:36 AM

If she teaches science well, and the kids are learning, I personally don't care if she served a term for murder for the john she had to kill back when she was turning tricks. People CAN change and move on.

The folks paying the taxes and who hire the school educritters may think otherwise and it ought to be their call to make. Some place else might find her past unobjectionable. Let those that pay the costs be the boss.

Most folks don't change barring something really significant/traumatic smacking them in the noggin. And for those that do, the taxpayers aren't required to subsidize them on their journey to better things.

Quote from: Strings on October 30, 2012, 01:13:36 AM

I like the idea of "actions have consequences". However, especially in the age in the internet, the consequences can easily go beyond the level of the actions. People should be allowed to move on with their lives...

IOW, you like the idea, but not the practice.

You do have a point in that networked commo and persistent databases can be debilitating for folks who want to shake off their past. I have contemplating starting a thread about this, examining the good & bad of it.

Balog · « **Reply #66 on:** October 30, 2012, 02:34:23 AM »

Quote from: Tallpine on October 29, 2012, 08:38:07 PM

We're going to have to disagree on that one.

Not that the two might not often coincide, but the line between your morality and my rights is whether someone's life, liberty, or property are harmed.

You realize that your stating a moral code there, but just calling it something different right? The choice isn't (and has never been, and can never be) between a moral code and a set of laws. Laws are just a moral code, even if that moral code is supremely lax.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #67 on:** October 30, 2012, 08:18:56 AM »

To paint the firing of this woman as a "consequence" of her ostensible action basically absolves anyone who made a decision to fire her from any responsibility, and presents the firing as a sort of inevitable, natural circumstance of her original 'past time' - as if we wanted to avoid entirely the discussion of this termination in a moral context.

"Actions have consequences" has turned, in our culture, into a code of unlimited social bullying.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #68 on:** October 30, 2012, 08:42:00 AM »

"actions have consequences" is something that goes back hundreds of years and longer. There are lots of old sayings that say the same thing. It has not turned our society into anything. It has always been there and always will be. Many times it is a good thing and sets a good example for others. Sometimes it isn't. I am sure it almost always sucks for the person who made the bad choices. Most often, those same people knew it was a bad choice and did it anway.

My company won't hire felons. Most every chemical company around here has a similar policy and do background checks prior to hiring. Those past actions have consequences. Are there hard working felons who would be good employees? Sure there are. Won't change our policy though.

I will say again that "School Teacher" is NOT the best career choice for someone that is trying to put a porn career behind them. There are lots of jobs out there where that sort of past might be ignored, but school teacher is probably not one of them.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #69 on:** October 30, 2012, 08:57:10 AM »

Perhaps it has. In modern society it has expanded in its use.

It's most obvious because these days we have electronic databases and people's past lives are far harder for them to live down.

(And because far more things are a felony, in your case).

Ron · « **Reply #70 on:** October 30, 2012, 09:09:49 AM »

There is too much government involvement in education currently.

There needs to be a push not for more government standards and bureaucratic meddling but less.

There should be minimum standards set by the state in the areas of reading/writing, US/world history (including geography), mathematics and science (hard science only, no "social science").

Then open it up to the free market.

Situations like this teachers past would then be dealt with by market forces. There would be more choices for all, all around.

roo_ster · « **Reply #71 on:** October 30, 2012, 10:30:49 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on October 30, 2012, 08:18:56 AM

To paint the firing of this woman as a "consequence" of her ostensible action basically absolves anyone who made a decision to fire her from any responsibility, and presents the firing as a sort of inevitable, natural circumstance of her original 'past time' - as if we wanted to avoid entirely the discussion of this termination in a moral context.

"Actions have consequences" has turned, in our culture, into a code of unlimited social bullying.

Nonsense on stilts.

The folks who hired the gal are responsible for hiring someone (the locals may consider) unfit to be a teacher. If she is deemed unfit, you can be sure whoever fires her is going to do their best to claim credit. May even be a scuffle to be the first. Especially if they were the one who hired her.

Whining about "bullying" by adults when their actions are criticized is merely an attempt to forestall criticism. It is analogous to the accusation of racism meant to cut off debate.

More folks (and especially libertarian-leaning ones who ought to know better) these days seem to think that they are entitled to do whatever they want without having to hear any un-supporting voices. Well, if folks wanna flash their tuckus at their neighbors while diddling a goat on Main Street, they'd best be ready to be downgraded for poor technique, at the very least.

Tallpine · « **Reply #72 on:** October 30, 2012, 10:31:14 AM »

Quote from: Balog on October 30, 2012, 02:34:23 AM

You realize that your stating a moral code there, but just calling it something different right? The choice isn't (and has never been, and can never be) between a moral code and a set of laws. Laws are just a moral code, even if that moral code is supremely lax.

Okay, so my "moral code" is "keep your gorram hands off my life, liberty, and property"

But I don't suppose you think my code (see also J.B. Books

) is very moral.

As far as the teacher in question, I have no idea if she should be retained or fired based on her performance. I have known teachers who shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near other people's children, based on their (then) current behavior and not anything known of their past.

Strings · « **Reply #73 on:** October 30, 2012, 11:06:25 AM »

I have to say, I agree with Ron in this one. That said...

"Actions have consequences" should not mean "albatross hanging around your neck for all eternity", in most cases. However, with the information age, it often does.

There was recently a young lady that flashed a guy on a webcam, and the resulting fallout drove her to suicide. But I guess that's just one of the consequences of her actions, right?

MechAg94 · « **Reply #74 on:** October 30, 2012, 11:40:05 AM »

Quote from: Strings on October 30, 2012, 11:06:25 AM

I have to say, I agree with Ron in this one. That said...

"Actions have consequences" should not mean "albatross hanging around your neck for all eternity", in most cases. However, with the information age, it often does.

There was recently a young lady that flashed a guy on a webcam, and the resulting fallout drove her to suicide. But I guess that's just one of the consequences of her actions, right?

Nope. The consequence was that the photo got distributed. She didn't handle it too well, unfortunately.

I agree and I hope that past bad decisions can be left in the past. I also agree that databases and information hang around a lot longer than they should in these days. Yes, it does suck, but that is reality. People judge you by your actions. If past bad decisions come to light, people will judge you by that also. In this case, I thought I saw that the porn career was only several years ago. That isn't all that far in the past.

Personal story I thought of: My parents moved out to a small town when I was a kid. They liked the Church they went to in Houston and got tapes from that Chuch instead of joining a new one. I didn't know it at the time, but she said she knew a number of people who tended to judge us because "we didn't go to Church". I have no idea if there were any consequences to that or not, but there are lots of things people judge you over.

News:

Author Topic: Fired for working in the adult film industry in the past (Read 39271 times)