Originally posted by seer
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Little Greta comes clean
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostRight, 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."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 Postnot 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.
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
-
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThen 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.
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 PostI'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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostRight, 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."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostFree 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 Sparko View Postso 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 PostFree speech should include being a jackass or insulting people.
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 PostSo you agree that we should not be forced by law to use particular pro-nouns?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?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostI'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're white.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostMixed 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 DivineOb View PostWin 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?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:42 AM
|
4 responses
12 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 10:26 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 08:04 AM
|
21 responses
75 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 10:44 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 07:47 AM
|
17 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 10:38 AM
|
||
Started by Starlight, Yesterday, 10:22 PM
|
12 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 08:49 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:39 PM
|
13 responses
53 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:27 AM
|
Comment