Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is people's right to be offended killing free speech?

1…1011121315

Comments

  • #422
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #423
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Thanks for answering.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Do you draw the line at an employee's views, or would you also extend it to sexual orientation, ethnicity, and so on*?

    (In the event that, say, Company A refuses to do business with Company B because Company A doesn't like the fact that Company B employs a number of Muslims)

    *disregarding current discrimination laws - I'm asking you what company rights you would support. Or, when you said 'no limitations' perhaps the limitations of discrimination laws was implicit in that.


  • #424
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #425
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    And, if discrimination law (or more likely, lack thereof) permitted, you would support the right to fire somebody because they were Muslim, black, gay, female, Latino, etc., purely because it would be in the company's and shareholders' best interests to do so?

    I know you have said you have been as clear as you can be, but it's something serious enough that I don't want to assume you support the above without making sure that is actually what you mean.


  • #426
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Perma thinks you should be able to be fired because you're a single woman and you got pregnant. Perma thinks that your landlord should be able to give you the boot for the same reason. Perma probably thinks the only GP in town, remember thats a small business owner, should be able to refuse the single woman pre-natal care for the same reason.


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #428
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Ok, thanks.

    I have no more questions/scenarios.:pac:

    Obviously, there is a massive difference in opinion there, but I appreciate the honest answers.


  • #429
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Perma thinks you should be able to be fired because you're a single woman and you got pregnant. Perma thinks that your landlord should be able to give you the boot for the same reason. Perma probably thinks the only GP in town, remember thats a small business owner, should be able to refuse the single woman pre-natal care for the same reason.

    Maybe not all those things but he does believe an employer has a right to decide how a person should exercise their fundamental rights.

    Or he believes that a person should promote the company line if they're not at work. If an employer wants to control what I say outside of work then I expect to be paid around the clock.


  • #430
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Should a business have to demonstrate that the action is genuinely in the 'shareholders' best' interest as opposed to say, random whim or personal taste of the individual doing the firing?


  • #431
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The confusion arises Perma because you chose repeatedly to answer the question by stating 'If it's in the company's and shareholders' best interests to do so, then yes.'

    So now either that sentence was redundant or misleading. Which was it?


  • #433
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #434
    RustyNut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Perma thinks you should be able to be fired because you're a single woman and you got pregnant. Perma thinks that your landlord should be able to give you the boot for the same reason. Perma probably thinks the only GP in town, remember thats a small business owner, should be able to refuse the single woman pre-natal care for the same reason.

    That's american freedom. Your employer is free to sack you for no reason,your landlord is free to evict you for no reason,the police are free to kill you for no reason and you are free to suck it up or go postal.


  • #435
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    So in other words the 'shareholders' interest' is of no relevance and a business/or an individual within a business ought to be entitled to sack anyone for any reason. Thanks for clearing that up. I can't wait for your ascendancy, I'll be dusting off my 'no queers, no fat chicks, no blacks' sign.


  • #436
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #437
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It is off no relevance, as you clarified albiet not in so many words, because as you have said you believe that anyone should be stackable, at any time for any reason, therefore whether or not it is in the best interests of shareholders or the business is entirely irrelevant.

    Its not difficult to understand.


  • #438
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Permabear is a libertarian in favour of at will employment so his opinions on what people should be able to be sacked for are of limited scope and thus of limited value.


  • #439
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,116 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Perma thinks you should be able to be fired because you're a single woman and you got pregnant. Perma thinks that your landlord should be able to give you the boot for the same reason. Perma probably thinks the only GP in town, remember thats a small business owner, should be able to refuse the single woman pre-natal care for the same reason.

    And gods help you if you're in a state where "at-will employment" is in force and your Objectivist boss sees you've retweeted an article about growing wealth inequality.


  • #440
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #441
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    That's wonderful. Unfortunately you are not example of the 'universal employer'. Plenty of individuals have been terminated for values they have held or indeed other aspects of their person which have no bearing on their capacity to do the job.


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #443
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I haven't even remotely done so and I'd be grateful if you could acknowledge that. Of course most employers are reasonable, fair individuals who don't fire people arbitrarily or engage in discrimination quite independent of the fact that such actions are illegal. That does not in any mean that the law is unnecessary. That is patently absurd. Its like suggesting that we needn't make theft illegal because the overwhelming majority of us know it to be wrong and will by our own volition refrain from engaging in it.


  • #444
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #445
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Explain how the particular restriction proposed on this thread would have that effect.


  • #446
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #447
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I thought you were going to be more specific. No I think they would still only hire exactly as many people as they need to.


  • #448
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Except that's exactly what has happened in the past, with Communists during the McCarthy era, which the about-to-be-released film Trumbo is based upon - where an entire industry enforced a blacklist based upon alleged political views.

    Entire industries are known to - even in the present day - collude against their workers; and without legal restrictions, they'd have every ability to do this based on political views - just like what happened in certain industries in the past.

    The brand of 'Libertarians' who support this, don't actually believe in liberty/freedom at all - they would just like to replace public tyranny, with private tyranny.


    On the general topic, just saw this pop up in my RSS feeds - very good/relevant, as another example of people exploiting the concept of 'free speech', to promote policies which erode that exact liberty:
    "Where Were the Post-Hebdo Free Speech Crusaders as France Spent the Last Year Crushing Free Speech?"
    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/where-were-the-post-hebdo-free-speech-crusaders-as-france-spent-the-last-year-crushing-free-speech/


  • #449
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Yea good luck finding any kind of evidence/substantiation to back up that ridiculous claim...(especially given that, in Europe, such rules are already in place when it comes to free speech)


  • #450
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Yea good luck finding any kind of evidence/substantiation to back up that ridiculous claim...(especially given that, in Europe, such rules are already in place when it comes to free speech)

    Where?


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Except that's exactly what has happened in the past, with Communists during the McCarthy era, which the about-to-be-released film Trumbo is based upon - where an entire industry enforced a blacklist based upon alleged political views.

    Entire industries are known to - even in the present day - collude against their workers; and without legal restrictions, they'd have every ability to do this based on political views - just like what happened in certain industries in the past.

    The brand of 'Libertarians' who support this, don't actually believe in liberty/freedom at all - they would just like to replace public tyranny, with private tyranny.


    On the general topic, just saw this pop up in my RSS feeds - very good/relevant, as another example of people exploiting the concept of 'free speech', to promote policies which erode that exact liberty:
    "Where Were the Post-Hebdo Free Speech Crusaders as France Spent the Last Year Crushing Free Speech?"
    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/where-were-the-post-hebdo-free-speech-crusaders-as-france-spent-the-last-year-crushing-free-speech/

    Brilliant comment on that article. Sums up a lot of the restrictions or quasi-restrictions on free speech.
    "Free speech is the ultimate goal. But first it is necessary to eliminate all disagreement. You can’t put the cart before the horse."


Advertisement