NJ bank wouldn't notarize American Atheist documents for ‘personal reasons’
162 replies, posted
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44393043]Most people probably wouldn't tbh. But either way, her job is to notarise, not pick and choose. When customers come to her place of work to get shit notarised, she should do it, it's not her call whether or not that gets done because she is representing her company, not herself in this situation. If the bank actually has guidelines on "who do you green stamp" then yeah, turning people away or passing them to other departments makes sense. But saying "oh I can't do it, let me get someone else from my department" like this is not on. This implies she is doing it due to some form of prejudiced, after all, she should know how to do these forms, she's employed there after all.[/QUOTE]
Even if this was why she turned them away it is still legal in New Jersey and the boss could probably be sued by her if she was fired.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44393052]So how much does this topic upset you? Or are you immune to the observations you make of others?[/quote]
It doesn't upset me. I actually enjoy proving points.
[quote]Wait, that was your actual argument?[/quote]
I've been constantly repeating the same argument and you've yet to actually disprove it.
[quote]Because it's too vague, doesn't define the actual situation or context?[/quote]
If you agree it is a vague term then how can you be so sure it is 100% wrong?
[quote]It seems you're intentionally obtuse.[/quote]
Bravo on the ad hominem.
[quote]No, I would consider that bullshit, and start wondering what the real reasons are rather than taking it at face value. Though, that would be speculation, at least there's some greater thought going on than taking something at face value.[/QUOTE]
Then can you look at this situation in the same manner?
[QUOTE=matt000024;44393135]
It doesn't upset me. I actually enjoy proving points.[/QUOTE]
But I'm upset? So how do you know that? It seems like, gasp, you're making assumptions!
[QUOTE]I've been constantly repeating the same argument and you've yet to actually disprove it.[/QUOTE]
What is there to disprove? You've said it's justified as a personal reason. I don't see how it works out though. Not knowing your job is solely a professional problem.
[QUOTE]If you agree it is a vague term then how can you be so sure it is 100% wrong?[/QUOTE]
It's a vague term so why wouldn't you use an exact one?
[QUOTE]Bravo on the ad hominem.[/QUOTE]
Sorry I can't top "atheists are condescending"
[QUOTE]Then can you look at this situation in the same manner?[/QUOTE]
I am. I'm not taking a personal reason at face value. You are.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44393135]I've been constantly repeating the same argument and you've yet to actually disprove it.[/QUOTE]
Your "point" has been "oh! but it can be a personal reason! And here's why: " with zero actual backing to the point other than a dictionary definition of personal. It's a shit point and I really don't know why the fuck you're even continuing down this particular route.
Thread's been thoroughly hijacked by matt.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44393243]Thread's been thoroughly shit on SH style.[/QUOTE]
fixed
thread aint even about the article anymore, not really
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44393153]But I'm upset? So how do you know that? It seems like, gasp, you're making assumptions![/quote]
Sorry then, you really seemed upset though, but I'll take your word for it.
[quote]What is there to disprove? You've said it's justified as a personal reason. I don't see how it works out though. Not knowing your job is solely a professional problem.[/quote]
Even if you think that it doesn't mean the notary thinks of it so.
[quote]It's a vague term so why wouldn't you use an exact one?[/quote]
People rarely talk exactly. When you need to leave don't you often just say "Sorry, I need to go."
[quote]Sorry I can't top "atheists are condescending"[/quote]
I said 'some' and it was used in a hypothetical situation, not directed at others in this debate.
[quote]I am. I'm not taking a personal reason at face value. You are.[/QUOTE]
You're taking what she is saying at face value.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44393190]Your "point" has been "oh! but it can be a personal reason! And here's why: " with zero actual backing to the point other than a dictionary definition of personal. It's a shit point and I really don't know why the fuck you're even continuing down this particular route.[/QUOTE]
A definition is more backing than you have provided.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44393243]Thread's been thoroughly hijacked by matt.[/QUOTE]
Look at me! I'm the captain now!
[QUOTE=matt000024;44393323]Sorry then, you really seemed upset though, but I'll take your word for it.[/QUOTE]
If I didn't know better, I'd make the same assumption of you, that you're just mad and can't drop the topic. Doesn't feel very nice to be assumed of, does it?
[QUOTE]Even if you think that it doesn't mean the notary thinks of it so.[/QUOTE]
So she can't be wrong...? Is that what you're saying?
[QUOTE]People rarely talk exactly. When you need to leave don't you often just say "Sorry, I need to go."[/QUOTE]
Not in a professional setting unless it's horribly embarrassing personal issues, usually dealing with being confined to a toilet in a horrible manner. In most other situations, simply saying "I personally have to go right now", no reason, just "personal", it's not valid. You're at work. You have duties. Responsibilities. You don't just get to get up and leave because you choose to. Give a professionally valid reason or don't do it at all.
[QUOTE]I said 'some' and it was used in a hypothetical situation, not directed at others in this debate. [/QUOTE]
It's a generalization you made quite easily and quite quickly in a debate where you KNOW there's atheists. And you still thought "hey, i'll say this, it'll make me seem unbiased and reasonable".
[QUOTE]
You're taking what she is saying at face value.
[/QUOTE]
How...? Please, explain. You have to explain how I'm taking it at face value when i'm questioning the possible reasoning for it, and you're saying "No, a personal reason is a personal reason and therefore totally valid" like it means something.
[QUOTE]A definition is more backing than you have provided.[/QUOTE]
Not really when that definition lacks context...
This is why I think it's good to never have anything to do with religion in the first place.
It's just another reason for people to differentiate and be a jerk to one another and a pretty silly one at that.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44393435]If I didn't know better, I'd make the same assumption of you, that you're just mad and can't drop the topic. Doesn't feel very nice to be assumed of, does it?[/quote]
Could care less what people assume about me here. If I did I'd be worrying about ratings.
[quote]So she can't be wrong...? Is that what you're saying?[/quote]
Now you are literally putting words in my mouth. I'm just stating we can't know what she thinks.
[quote]Not in a professional setting unless it's horribly embarrassing personal issues, usually dealing with being confined to a toilet in a horrible manner. In most other situations, simply saying "I personally have to go right now", no reason, just "personal", it's not valid. You're at work. You have duties. Responsibilities. You don't just get to get up and leave because you choose to. Give a professionally valid reason or don't do it at all. [/quote]
Not all jobs are exactly the same. Some workplaces you get in trouble for eating on the job and at some others you can smoke a joint and your boss won't care. As I stated in the past, maybe she was embarrassed she didn't know how to handle it. We have no clue what she was thinking exactly.
[quote]It's a generalization you made quite easily and quite quickly in a debate where you KNOW there's atheists. And you still thought "hey, i'll say this, it'll make me seem unbiased and reasonable".[/quote]
Once again, but you somehow are unbiased?
[quote]How...? Please, explain. You have to explain how I'm taking it at face value when i'm questioning the possible reasoning for it, and you're saying "No, a personal reason is a personal reason and therefore totally valid" like it means something. [/quote]
"Just because she said personal means it must be personal. Nope, her wording things wrong is 100% impossible. Everything people say is 100% how they feel."
[quote]Not really when that definition lacks context...[/QUOTE]
But it did fit in context. It technically was applied correctly.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44393536]Once again, but you somehow are unbiased?[/QUOTE]
Never even implied this.
[QUOTE]
"Just because she said personal means it must be personal. Nope, her wording things wrong is 100% impossible. Everything people say is 100% how they feel."[/QUOTE]
Wait, that's what you think my logic is? No wonder this argument is so shitty, you're not even trying to understand what I'm saying.
She said it was a personal reason. We don't know what it was. We do know though that if it were her not knowing how to do her job, that it's not a personal reason, it's a professional one and she misspoke, or she didn't misspeak but she was just flat out wrong about it being personal.
[QUOTE]But it did fit in context. It technically was applied correctly.[/QUOTE]
Not really but okay. I can see you'll just say "it is what it is because it is what it is!" and leave it at that as an argument.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44393536]Now you are literally putting words in my mouth. I'm just stating we can't know what she thinks.[/QUOTE]
We can sure as shit make educated assumptions based on the details we have from the "victim" and the company she works for. Which is better than assuming she was saying what you seem to be claiming.
I'm actually starting to think you're just wasting our time here, you are being exceptionally obtuse, twisting the normal understanding of language to fit what you need and seem to be refusing to apply critical thought to the situation. If you actually think about it for more than a few seconds, and understand the context, it's pretty reasonable to be able to make educated assumptions of what may have occurred.
Seriously, the fact you aren't even going to give the AA woman this liberty is a big show of the institutionalised (for lack of a better term, maybe systematic?) hatred Atheists undergo
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44393585]Never even implied this. [/quote]
Then why are you targeting me for it?
[quote]Wait, that's what you think my logic is? No wonder this argument is so shitty, you're not even trying to understand what I'm saying.
She said it was a personal reason. We don't know what it was. We do know though that if it were her not knowing how to do her job, that it's not a personal reason, it's a professional one and she misspoke, or she didn't misspeak but she was just flat out wrong about it being personal.[/quote]
You're assuming you understand her thought process and wording. If she said personal it doesn't mean it is personal. If I think it is Monday say I'm going to the store tomorrow, but it is actually Sunday does that define when I'm actually going to the store on Tuesday?
[quote]Not really but okay. I can see you'll just say "it is what it is because it is what it is!" and leave it at that as an argument.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain to me exactly how it cannot fit the definition of personal in any way whatsoever? I provided an exact definition that it fit. As I've stated, this point doesn't even matter. Intention is much more important.
[editline]29th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44393617]We can sure as shit make educated assumptions based on the details we have from the "victim" and the company she works for. Which is better than assuming she was saying what you seem to be claiming.[/quote]
You are assuming the absolute worst case scenario. I'm just providing the opposite side.
[quote]I'm actually starting to think you're just wasting our time here, you are being exceptionally obtuse, twisting the normal understanding of language to fit what you need and seem to be refusing to apply critical thought to the situation. If you actually think about it for more than a few seconds, and understand the context, it's pretty reasonable to be able to make educated assumptions of what may have occurred.[/quote]
Once again, an ad hominem, bravo!
[quote]Seriously, the fact you aren't even going to give the AA woman this liberty is a big show of the institutionalised (for lack of a better term, maybe systematic?) hatred Atheists undergo[/QUOTE]
When did I say I hate atheists. I only hate atheists who will try to make an argument out of something that most likely doesn't exist. I hate extremists of any group.
This thread has nothing to do with the original topic anymore, so I'm going to close it here.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.