First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply No to Free Speech with Social Justice?
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

ClothStatue wrote:
As have you.

False.

I have, for various reasons I don't want to get into unless directly asked, been deprived of several freedoms throughout the course of my life.

It is easy to feel others should be deprived of freedoms, until it results in the deprivation of your own.
22114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

False.

I have, for various reasons I don't don't to get into unless directly asked, been deprived of several freedoms throughout the course of my life.

It is easy to feel others should be deprived of freedoms, until it results in the deprivation of your own.


Indeed. But I still do not see an argument as to the thesis points in this debate. To argue against non discrimination policies existing ends with segregation. And we all know how well that went. I'm sure the Black and African American communities of that time, as well as the pioneers of women's rights in our nation, had very similar experiences of a lack of rights to yours. Unless you believe those movements were unjust, but I hope not. I really hope not.
18688 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 10/30/16
there are not 29 genders, fucking retards
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/30/16

ClothStatue wrote:


False.

I have, for various reasons I don't don't to get into unless directly asked, been deprived of several freedoms throughout the course of my life.

It is easy to feel others should be deprived of freedoms, until it results in the deprivation of your own.


Indeed. But I still do not see an argument as to the thesis points in this debate. To argue against non discrimination policies existing ends with segregation. And we all know how well that went. I'm sure the Black and African American communities of that time, as well as the pioneers of women's rights in our nation, had very similar experiences of a lack of rights to yours. Unless you believe those movements were unjust, but I hope not. I really hope not.


All peoples are currently allowed to say what they want about all other peoples. This is what I call equality.

This is much different from some peoples choosing what people are allowed to do and where.

I do not feel that laws need to be made about what words we can use, but rather that people need to learn to face the idea that occasionally an idiot or two is going to say something they do not like.
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 10/30/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:


ClothStatue wrote:


False.

I have, for various reasons I don't don't to get into unless directly asked, been deprived of several freedoms throughout the course of my life.

It is easy to feel others should be deprived of freedoms, until it results in the deprivation of your own.


Indeed. But I still do not see an argument as to the thesis points in this debate. To argue against non discrimination policies existing ends with segregation. And we all know how well that went. I'm sure the Black and African American communities of that time, as well as the pioneers of women's rights in our nation, had very similar experiences of a lack of rights to yours. Unless you believe those movements were unjust, but I hope not. I really hope not.


All peoples are currently allowed to say what they want about all other peoples. This is what I call equality.

This is much different from some peoples choosing what people are allowed to do and where.

I do not feel that laws need to be made about what words we can use, but rather that people need to learn to face the idea that occasionally an idiot or two is going to say something they do not like.


I agree with you to a certain point, but it's a little ridiculous when people at colleges insist on professors/teachers/whatever using certain pronouns because 'THAT IS WHAT I IDENTIFY WITH'.

And no, I don't have anything against sexual genders and all that; you wanna identify yourself as panasexual female cat or whatever, you do you, though I think you're full of horseshit...but either you id as male or female...no matter what.

2220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/30/16
Freedom of speech is a principle of critical importance. It is freedom of speech that enables us to have this discussion in the first place, a freedom I'm sure a lot of you are dying to get rid of. It is the principle that allows us to challenge misconceptions about each other and the world itself. It's sad that this reminds me of the history of the Catholic Church. They had a lot of mandates on what was considered "hate speech" (one of the new words for heresy). The religious fervor behind these attempts to suppress others' ability to discuss issues shows a lot of parallels as well.

The C-16 bill has a great deal of vague wording that could be used as precedent for legal action against individuals for use of or refusal to use certain words. This goes beyond threats of removal from employment or chastisement from the general public. People can potential face fines or jail time depending on the verdict of a court, all for using certain words. (I'd cite the bill sections, but I really recommend just reading the whole deal to get a sense of how widely it could be interpreted)

Peterson wishes to abide by traditional modes of address based on the English language, an act that others wish to classify as hate speech and in some instances "assault". Such classification of his speech under this bill could result in the government effectively silencing his opinion (I am not saying it HAS come to that yet, merely that the wording of the bill ALLOWS it). Language changes drastically overtime. Words lose and gain meaning based on their usage over many people over long periods of time. As I am sure any of you have encountered in your life, this can cause conflict between generations. Older generations are accustomed to a manner of speaking that differs and is often in conflict with younger generations. Are we going to seek to prosecute older generations because they learned to speak differently than you?

When you are asking someone like Peterson to change his language, you are asking him to suddenly change his entire lens through which his world is viewed. This is, of course, not a problem to those who are against him because no work is required on their part to adopt the language changes they themselves have created.

Irrespective of the individuals involved in this debate, I wonder what ramifications artificial injections into a language will have on its evolution in the long run. I know where I live there are a large amount of people who can not even read. Do you think these people will suddenly adopt the language mandated by a minority in higher education institutions? If you do, I would suggest you spend more time studying how language and society actually work before you claim authority to legislate it.

At the end of the day, if someone isn't physically harming, stealing, or otherwise holding you captive, I think you should allow them the dignity of being able to speak words. I can also honestly say I never thought that I would have to defend that point to someone.
22114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

All peoples are currently allowed to say what they want about all other peoples. This is what I call equality.

This is much different from some peoples choosing what people are allowed to do and where.

I do not feel that laws need to be made about what words we can use, but rather that people need to learn to face the idea that occasionally an idiot or two is going to say something they do not like.


I'm saying that your argument puts us incapable of dealing with some pretty ridiculous situations. Say that you are a therapist for the mentally disabled, and you tell your patients that you think mentally disabled people are the scum of the earth including them, your argument is that your boss cannot fire you for this. You're saying that you believe that if a recruiting agent hates black people he can just turn every black person away for that explicit reason, and his own company can't stop him or fire him for it. You're saying that someone can join a christian non profit organization as a secretary and tell every person who walks in that Christians deserve to die in a fire that the organization cannot remove them of their position. None of these examples, with non-discrimination policies, would ever take away your ability to speak your ideas, but you're right, you won't be able to do anything you want wherever you want. That's what we call anarchy.

If the government was establishing non discrimination policies without any public consent, that would be a problem. But I cannot see why we cannot form non discrimination laws if there is a democratic consensus among the public. When we disagree on policies in a democracy, we make compromises, something our congress refuses to do, outside of their big/dark money constituents.
2220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/30/16

ClothStatue wrote:


All peoples are currently allowed to say what they want about all other peoples. This is what I call equality.

This is much different from some peoples choosing what people are allowed to do and where.

I do not feel that laws need to be made about what words we can use, but rather that people need to learn to face the idea that occasionally an idiot or two is going to say something they do not like.


I'm saying that your argument puts us incapable of dealing with some pretty ridiculous situations. Say that you are a therapist for the mentally disabled, and you tell your patients that you think mentally disabled people are the scum of the earth including them, your argument is that your boss cannot fire you for this. You're saying that you believe that if a recruiting agent hates black people he can just turn every black person away for that explicit reason, and his own company can't stop him or fire him for it. You're saying that someone can join a christian non profit organization as a secretary and tell every person who walks in that Christians deserve to die in a fire that the organization cannot remove them of their position. None of these examples, with non-discrimination policies, would ever take away your ability to speak your ideas, but you're right, you won't be able to do anything you want wherever you want. That's what we call anarchy.


I'm not really defending this digression because I find it irrelevant, but I think you are kind of misrepresenting what he's saying. Your examples don't really make a lot of sense.

When it's literally an aspect of the therapists job to assist the mentally disabled, he cannot take actions that negatively impact the actual health and stability of his patients. He should still be allowed to freely speak disdain of the mentally ill outside of his ability. The instant it begins to effect his job is when he should be removed.

The same for the recruiter. Essentially, he can hate black people, still abide by the overriding principle of the best man for the job, and hire black people. When it effects his job is when action needs to take place.

The Christian non-profit organization (at least in America) would never fall into this scenario because they are exempt from workplace equity laws as classified as a religious organization under the Civil Rights Act.
22114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16


I'm not really defending this digression because I find it irrelevant, but I think you are kind of misrepresenting what he's saying. Your examples don't really make a lot of sense.

When it's literally an aspect of the therapists job to assist the mentally disabled, he cannot take actions that negatively impact the actual health and stability of his patients. He should still be allowed to freely speak disdain of the mentally ill outside of his ability. The instant it begins to effect his job is when he should be removed.

The same for the recruiter. Essentially, he can hate black people, still abide by the overriding principle of the best man for the job, and hire black people. When it effects his job is when action needs to take place.

The Christian non-profit organization (at least in America) would never fall into this scenario because they are exempt from workplace equity laws as classified as a religious organization under the Civil Rights Act.


The examples are gave were all on the job, not off. In the case of the therapist, how do you determine what affects his job and what doesn't? I said if he said it to the faces of his patients. Off the job you are right, he should be allowed to voice his opinions, but even then, if he makes a public statement about it, how does that not affect his patients? The company has the right to kick him out because he is discriminating.



The same for the recruiter. Essentially, he can hate black people, still abide by the overriding principle of the best man for the job, and hire black people. When it effects his job is when action needs to take place.


That's what I'm saying, you can't call it freedom of speech if he's interfering with your principle's policy, which would be a non-discrimination policy of not discriminating by such factors and taking the best person for the job.

In terms of the Christian organization, fair point, that would not happen, replace christian with lgbt people.


18902 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/30/16
If there is a "cost", how is it "free" speech?
Unless speech is free for everyone, then it imperils
the exchange of thoughts' and everyone will be diminished.
How we tolerate speech we disagree with, is a sign of our
social maturity.
2220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

ClothStatue wrote:

The examples are gave were all on the job, not off. In the case of the therapist, how do you determine what affects his job and what doesn't? I said if he said it to the faces of his patients. Off the job you are right, he should be allowed to voice his opinions, but even then, if he makes a public statement about it, how does that not affect his patients?

That's what I'm saying, you can't call it freedom of speech if he's interfering with your principle's policy, which would be a non-discrimination policy of not discriminating by such factors and taking the best person for the job.

In terms of the Christian organization, fair point, that would not happen. *edited in after original quote* replace Christian with LGBT people



On the subject of a therapist, there are a large number of measures in places at clinics to determine whether or not a therapist is causing harm to his patients (assuming the clinic is abiding by standards adopted by the APA). That is an entirely different discussion though. Additionally, there are plenty of therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists that publicly present distasteful opinions about the mentally ill, patients, and those they work for. So long as there are no violations of PPI or HIPPA laws nothing generally comes of it.

For the recruiter, I think you still aren't understanding what I am saying. The recruiter can set aside his prejudices and biases while he is on the job, allowing him to fulfill the duties required in hiring. If the recruiter cannot do this, regardless of the presence of free speech, he is effectively unqualified to perform the basic duties of a recruiter.

I probably won't continue this topic though as it is quickly moving away from the general topic of free speech with which I am concerned, and it is turning more into an argument of equity of the workplace based on exceptional circumstances.

EDIT RESPONSE: In response to that statement that I'm not entirely sure why you decided to add it in, if LGBT people want to establish themselves as an official religion, good for them I guess? They'd have all the protections and stipulations afforded to religious organizations, and it would certainly cut out a great deal of ambiguity in their often faith based argumentation methods.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

ClothStatue wrote:


All peoples are currently allowed to say what they want about all other peoples. This is what I call equality.

This is much different from some peoples choosing what people are allowed to do and where.

I do not feel that laws need to be made about what words we can use, but rather that people need to learn to face the idea that occasionally an idiot or two is going to say something they do not like.


I'm saying that your argument puts us incapable of dealing with some pretty ridiculous situations. Say that you are a therapist for the mentally disabled, and you tell your patients that you think mentally disabled people are the scum of the earth including them, your argument is that your boss cannot fire you for this. You're saying that you believe that if a recruiting agent hates black people he can just turn every black person away for that explicit reason, and his own company can't stop him or fire him for it. You're saying that someone can join a christian non profit organization as a secretary and tell every person who walks in that Christians deserve to die in a fire that the organization cannot remove them of their position. None of these examples, with non-discrimination policies, would ever take away your ability to speak your ideas, but you're right, you won't be able to do anything you want wherever you want. That's what we call anarchy.

If the government was establishing non discrimination policies without any public consent, that would be a problem. But I cannot see why we cannot form non discrimination laws if there is a democratic consensus among the public. When we disagree on policies in a democracy, we make compromises, something our congress refuses to do, outside of their big/dark money constituents.


That's absolutely NOT my argument. My argument is that there should be freedom of speech with the government.

Individual organizations and businesses CAN and DO have their own set of ethics and what is and is not appropriate.

What I am saying is that the government should not make a law against saying offensive shit.

10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

Jamming777 wrote:

If there is a "cost", how is it "free" speech?
Unless speech is free for everyone, then it imperils
the exchange of thoughts' and everyone will be diminished.
How we tolerate speech we disagree with, is a sign of our
social maturity.


Freedoms are not free. I think we all know this.

All freedoms come with a cost. However, most people don't understand that cost is worth it until after they decide that freedom isn't worth the cost.

When you aren't even allowed to criticize your president, you begin to understand how dear those freedoms are.
1058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / many homes differ...
Offline
Posted 10/30/16
just like what?
22114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

That's absolutely NOT my argument. My argument is that there should be freedom of speech with the government.

Individual organizations and businesses CAN and DO have their own set of ethics and what is and is not appropriate.

What I am saying is that the government should not make a law saying offensive shit.


Which is all well and good but say you're any form of lgbt in a deep red, super anti-lgbt state, with no means to leave. If people cry "free speech" as a method to refuse service to you, and it's the whole town, what do you do, especially if the vast majority of the country agrees to said policies. My whole argument is simply as a democracy we make laws with through a moral consensus, we compromise and we discuss. There is no such thing as a non-moral law, so if the guy in OP's video disagrees with the non discrimination policy, but most people disagree with him and what those laws in place, as long as those laws do not take away a person's right to free speech, which just ensures the government can't arrest or otherwise detain you for what you say, I do not see why we cannot make such laws. We can still overturn them later with enough public support, we can still petition, heck we can sue a law if we think it's that unconstitutional and if it goes up to the supreme court then they'll put it to rest.

Either way, I'm afraid I'm long out of time to keep debating today. For now I'll just agree to disagree with what we disagree with.

Oh and I just wanted to tell everyone in the debate, that I apologize if I offend or come off as rude or heated, text can be easily misinterpreted, so when it comes to discussions like this I understand it is easy for assertions to feel like they carry a lot of passion with them, but this is not the case. Thank you to everyone who took the time to debate with me. ^.^
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.