It's redundant's lucky day, a strawman has appeared. However remember, just pointing out that it's a strawman IS NOT A COUNTER ARGUMENT. It must be dismantled and the flaw exposed.

Firstly, reality has been reconstructed as "USA ONLY", because that is an easier problem to talk about. This is easily enough countered by linking to Australian unfair dismissal information: http://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-em...fair-dismissal

Secondly BP has reconstructed "all employment contracts" as only 1 document (because it's hard to think about billions of different documents that may or may not say something), and by the way that document apparently says that you can be dismissed for being convicted of any crime. There is also a third subtle reconstruction here, in this case the Ray Rice situation is reconstructed as him having been convicted. In reality, he has not been convicted. There is no need to attack the ridiculous assumption that billions of documents are identical or have an identical clause, because Ray Rice was not convicted of anything.

And lastly we come to the most jarring strawman. Boredpayne has tactfully turned my argument into "it's fine to beat your wife they can't fire you for that". He then goes on to attack it by saying that "legally and practically speaking" that's not possible. He does not elaborate on why it's impractical (and makes no reference to it), but needless to say that was not anyone's argument in the first place. He goes on say that you shouldn't be able to ethically anyway. He makes absolutely no argument about the practicality nor about the ethics of striking someone who strikes you - these are non-arguments, merely asserted statements tacked onto the stawman. Why would he tack these on? Because if I disagree with one statement in the clause it can then be reconstructed as me disagreeing with the entire clause. In this way he tries to trap me. Fortunately it's easy to counter by separating the clause into it's component statements.

Thanks for the masterclass example BP!