Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Little Greta comes clean

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    He is NOT a girl, he is a man. It is a lie. And his actual name is Chris. And BTW - I never refer to Donna as he or him.
    Presumably it is not “a lie” to the person concerned. And common courtesy dictates that one exercises polite discretion – just as one does to those suffering from say, religious delusions about Jesus.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Right, you refer to Donna as Donna, but to Jennifer as Chris. Seems like you just respect the one but not the other so you're being respectful to the one you like and disrespectful to the one you dislike. "Can't you all just get along."
      Yes I refer Donna by her male name, but I do not refer to her as a male in other instances. And I may have accommodated Chris if he didn't demand it. And I do admit that I have a protective attitude towards Donna, Chris is a 6' 3" guy who can take care of himself. And I admit that I have a bias, I can understand a girl wanting to be a guy better than I can understand a guy wanting to be a gal. So sue me, the bottom line is that no one should be forced to use particular pro-nouns, by law or by your company - to me that is harassment.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        It should NOT require the “force of law” to not discriminate against those you dislike or disapprove, whether they are blacks refusing to give up their seat on buses, women exercising authority over men, Jews, Latinos or LGBT people.
        So you agree that we should not be forced by law to use particular pro-nouns?

        Presumably it is not “a lie” to the person concerned. And common courtesy dictates that one exercises polite discretion – just as one does to those suffering from say, religious delusions about Jesus.
        Well you can not demonstrate that Jesus is a delusion, you can certainly demonstrate that Christopher is not a woman. But if they are both delusions would it be a good thing to feed those fancies? And why do you spend so much time attacking our religious delusions? Shouldn't you be exercising polite discretion by accepting them? Or is that another one of your double standards?
        Last edited by seer; 12-30-2019, 07:07 AM.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Agree. I could not with a clear conscience call a guy 'she'. That would be partaking in a lie. I do not believe for one moment that men could ever be women and vice versa.
          Last edited by Sherman; 12-30-2019, 11:07 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            Then we would no longer be living in the US, or someone like Trump will have succeeded in undoing its constitution.

            There is a huge difference between forcing someone to denounce their faith and telling them the cant force their religious views on another person.

            My job is such there just isnt a necessity that these issues ever come up. If I were in a job were part of carrying out my duties meant these issues would be breached, then you would see me express what I believe is true, to the extent it was necessary to do so to do the job. A public school teacher, for instance, is much more likely to run into a situation where they have to take a stand on this issue than I am. I work with computers and I do research related to them. They dont have a gender, or a religion, and those topics never come up in the work I do, and none of the people I work with represent challenges in this arena.

            I have no legitimate reason to ever bring up or otherwise discuss this issue at work. So for me to bring it up would be an aggressive action to talk about it at all. I would have to seek out an individual that would care and then force the conversation into that topic just so I could say the thing that would offend them.

            And I have no reason to do that, nor do I believe being faithful to my Lord requires I do that.
            You didn't actually answer the question. What would you do IF you were told to denounce your faith or wear a MAGA hat or lose your job?

            I am assuming your faith and political dislike for Trump would mean you would refuse and leave your job.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              I'm not Tass, but my own answer would be: I'm not sure.

              This is one of those edge cases with various pros and cons, and multiple freedoms / rights interact. I can see arguments both ways. At the end of the day I would say this is likely to be a situation that just doesn't occur very often, so it probably doesn't overly matter what the law is.

              Maybe I would split the difference and say in general it's allowed but not in the workplace. I can imagine a situation of workplace harassment where a person decides they don't personally like someone else in their workplace who happens to be transgender, and they decide to deliberately use the wrong pro-nouns just to harass and annoy that person. The harassed person should probably have some form of recourse within the workplace to request that this stop occurring. That remedy might consist of their manager moving them away from that person, or giving that person a warning to stop harassing other employees, but there should be some sort of legal onus on the management to provide a remedy if requested just as there would be in other cases of workplace harassment or a health and safety complaint etc. Whereas if the incident were occurring just in public in general, the transgender person could just shrug it off and walk away easily and never talk to that person again, whereas in the workplace they've got to interact with the same person day after day.

              I do find your vehement interest in the topic somewhat bizarre though Seer. I get that you do work with a transgender person, so you care more about the topic personally than I do (I've never worked with one as far as I know). But you say that you're okay with addressing them in the way they wish to be addressed out of politeness, so why care overly much if there was or wasn't a law requiring you to behave as you already do?
              Free speech should include being a jackass or insulting people. When we make insulting people against the law, then we have all lost. I think that includes not using the proper pronouns or even being racist if you want to be. We don't need the thought police. Now if your speech causes someone physical harm (like you are calling for someone to be lynched) then that is something different. But merely using the wrong pronoun? That's ridiculous. Hurting someone's feelings should never be against the law.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Right, you refer to Donna as Donna, but to Jennifer as Chris. Seems like you just respect the one but not the other so you're being respectful to the one you like and disrespectful to the one you dislike. "Can't you all just get along."
                so what? Even if that were true and Seer was a bigot who disliked "Jennifer" - why should it be against the law to be a rude jackass? First amendment and all.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Free speech should include being a jackass or insulting people. When we make insulting people against the law, then we have all lost. I think that includes not using the proper pronouns or even being racist if you want to be. We don't need the thought police. Now if your speech causes someone physical harm (like you are calling for someone to be lynched) then that is something different. But merely using the wrong pronoun? That's ridiculous. Hurting someone's feelings should never be against the law.
                  I'm a free speech purist. I believe we should even have the right to threaten lynching someone, but face the legal consequences only when it becomes action.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    so what? Even if that were true and Seer was a bigot who disliked "Jennifer" - why should it be against the law to be a rude jackass? First amendment and all.
                    Well, I don't believe I said it should be against the law, as far as I know, seer can be a rude jackass if he wants to, I don't think it's illegal, and I don't know that it is, and nor do I think it should be, unless, depending upon the circumstances it's violates the "hate crime" law. My only argument with seer was that it seems to be just a matter of his being rude and disrespectful to someone he just doesn't like being that he was perfectly fine with calling Donna by her preferred name.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Free speech should include being a jackass or insulting people.
                      In general I agree.

                      It only becomes an issue when a particular person is being subjected to repeated insults in vastly greater volume and frequency than others. People being picked on and bullied in such a way is harmful to them and has measurable negative consequences - e.g. much worse health outcomes (chronic stress, heart attacks, strokes), or drives them to drink or to drugs or suicide at much higher rates than non-bullied people. The saying 'sticks and stones my break my bones, but names will never hurt me' is empirically false.

                      For that reason it's reasonable for schools to attempt to limit bullying. For that reason it's reasonable for society to attempt to limit bullying toward adults who are at risk of it. That's why I think hate-speech laws can have a place, because people in minority groups might be picked on and insulted on a daily basis by everyone they interact with. If instead we can give these people are relatively normal life free of abnormally large amount of bullying, for a relatively low price of having a law banning nastiness toward them, that seems like a large net social gain for a relatively low social cost.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        So you agree that we should not be forced by law to use particular pro-nouns?
                        That’s not what I said. I said it should NOT require the “force of law” to be decent and courteous to people who do not seek to harm you

                        Well you can not demonstrate that Jesus is a delusion,
                        Indeed. You clearly don’t think Jesus is a delusion even though I do.

                        you can certainly demonstrate that Christopher is not a woman.
                        Again, like you with Jesus, Christopher believes himself to be a woman even though you don’t.

                        But if they are both delusions would it be a good thing to feed those fancies?
                        Common courtesy dictates that we exercise polite discretion in both instances. The exception is when such delusional beliefs result in harming others (e.g. demanding Rosa Parks give up her bus seat on the delusional basis that whites are superior – in which case the force of law is required).

                        And why do you spend so much time attacking our religious delusions? Shouldn't you be exercising polite discretion by accepting them?
                        I don’t. I attack the demands that your religious delusions be given the force of law against those who don’t share them. In this instance LGBT rights.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                          I'm a free speech purist. I believe we should even have the right to threaten lynching someone, but face the legal consequences only when it becomes action.
                          I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're white.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                            I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're white.
                            Mixed race, half white. And don't take it so literally that you miss the point. I was just using that as one example from the post I was responding to. My point was, everything goes with free speech.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                              Mixed race, half white.
                              Win some, tie some


                              And don't take it so literally that you miss the point. I was just using that as one example from the post I was responding to. My point was, everything goes with free speech.
                              Ok, so let met ask you a hypothetical. Should it be against the law to threaten someone with a lynching or should it only be against the law if I try to follow through?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                                Win some, tie some



                                Ok, so let met ask you a hypothetical. Should it be against the law to threaten someone with a lynching or should it only be against the law if I try to follow through?
                                What did I say the first time? Free speech = everything should be protected if it's only verbal. If you want to cry fire in movie theater, you should be allowed to do it. But if anyone gets hurt, you pay the legal consequences. It makes everything simple that way. No gray areas, no slippery slopes, no one person or group of people determining want language is acceptable or protected and what isn't. FYI, my father was black.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                249 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                337 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X