Lt. Gen. Boykin Fired for Free Speech

The purge begins.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

It is your right if he doesn't follow the rules.

So there are consequences to speech. Thank you.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I've never advocated the suppression of thoughts and views, unlike you. So excuse as I continue to suspect everything that you write, for its nascent bigotry is apparent.

You're a lot like Trump - you know that?

You think you can say things - and it doesn't matter if it's true. The people who agree with you won't care if it's true either. Isn't that interesting?

:-)

If you believe in freedom of thinking, and freedom of speech - why are you not allowing the left that same freedom? You don't like what they're saying? Then argue against it intelligently

But that's not what you're about

Bigotry indeed

That's not interesting actually, and I cannot remember any time you've said anything interesting. You're a lot like Hilary Clinton.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

It is your right if he doesn't follow the rules.

So there are consequences to speech. Thank you.

No. He disobeyed the rules. The consequence of that is you firing him. You're welcome.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

It is your right if he doesn't follow the rules.

So there are consequences to speech. Thank you.

No. He disobeyed the rules. The consequence of that is you firing him. You're welcome.

Yes, rules. Rules on what? On what people can say in certain circumstances. Therefore consequences for certain speech.

a reply to: introvert

Consequences for breaking certain rules, yes. Consequences of speech, no.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

Consequences for breaking certain rules, yes. Consequences of speech, no.

Such rules are directly correlated with speech. The very nature of the rules existence is to set forth policy that places consequences for unacceptable speech.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's not interesting actually, and I cannot remember any time you've said anything interesting. You're a lot like Hilary Clinton.

Another crowd-pleaser :-)

You've learned from the best

Go Donny go!

If you believed in freedom of speech, you wouldn't need to play one side against the other. This is where it all falls apart - at least for many of us

So I'm not interesting to you? All I see is someone that won''t answer a question. Or can't

Freedom of speech can only be preserved if it's available to all of us. Why do you never condemn the right? I'm sincerely curious

a reply to: Snarl
Can you imagine the special snowflakes drill instructors must have to deal with now.

Probably have safe spaces for recruits now. SMH.

My Grandfather and Dad must be rolling over in their graves.

God help us if there is ever a need for the draft and a reason to have to hit an enemy foreign shore.

We are so screwed as a nation.

This gunny would be in 'sensitivity' training now, ffs.

Warning for special snowflakes, you may be triggered.

What a world of special pansies this has become.

We lost a warrior.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well, now we went full drama queen.

There are consequences to the things we do and say.

Accept responsibility for what you say.

You got that right. I'm all for free speech, but if I'm out having dinner with my wife and some guy walks up and calls her a filthy whore, his ass will be dealt with swiftly. Just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you should. There's not a damn thing PC about common courtesy and respect. Walk up to me and call me the n-word. It will not end well. It's about respect and some people don't give a damn about that. Words can and has caused many a war and feuds.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There is no consequence to speech. There are consequences to being superstitious towards words, however.

How can one be true and not the other?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If your blood boils at the sound of certain speech, that is your problem, and a consequence of your own biology, your own psychology, your own delusion, no one else's.

Then if someone gets fired because of words - same difference?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Another crowd-pleaser :-)

You've learned from the best

Go Donny go!

If you believed in freedom of speech, you wouldn't need to play one side against the other. This is where it all falls apart - at least for many of us

So I'm not interesting to you? All I see is someone that won''t answer a question. Or can't

Freedom of speech can only be preserved if it's available to all of us. Why do you never condemn the right? I'm sincerely curious

As I've explained to you many times, my criticisms span along the scale of freedom and unfreedom.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As I've explained to you many times, my criticisms span along the scale of freedom and unfreedom.

BS answer Les

Come on - you can do better than that

You have history here. Most people won't bother to verify that - and even more don't care

But - I do

Man up

a reply to: introvert

Such rules are directly correlated with speech. The very nature of the rules existence is to set forth policy that places consequences for unacceptable speech.

So is a blogger being executed for blogging in Saudi Arabia the consequence of his speech?

a reply to: JimiBlack

That's not free speech ... that's verbal assault on your wife.

Self-defense is precisely the correct response, IMO.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

BS answer Les

Come on - you can do better than that

You have history here. Most people won't bother to verify that - and even more don't care

But - I do

Man up

And why do you care?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

No there is no consequence to speech. We're talking about reality. If people connect the views of an employee to that of your business, they are committing a fallacy. It's not because the words made them do it.

Yes there is... and to suggest that there shouldn't be is it's own form or suppression. It seems that you want is the ability to stand near me all day and insult me but the second I open my mouth or exercise my right to dissociate with you... I'm in the wrong somehow.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

Such rules are directly correlated with speech. The very nature of the rules existence is to set forth policy that places consequences for unacceptable speech.

So is a blogger being executed for blogging in Saudi Arabia the consequence of his speech?

I'm not going to answer that because I believe it to be a red herring. Saudi Arabia does not give it's people the same rights as we have in the US.

What you are doing is trying to create a philosophical argument that can only exist in a sterile environment outside of reality. You've already destroyed your own argument by saying I had the right to fire someone for their speech.

There are direct consequences for speech and the line of argument you are trying to take only exists in La La Land. Back in reality, you can't weasel your way out of being a loud-mouthed jackass.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And why do you care?

I do

This country is coming apart at the seams. This may just be entertainment to you (as you've stated - repeatedly)

But - I believe we are acountable for our words. You want to argue that words have no power when it suits you - and that they have too much power when your argument goes awry

We've arrived at a point in time where those of us who argue just to get our jollies need to take a stand. I believe that we are perilously close to losing something very important in this country

It's not your country - is it?

Well, be that as it may - if you sincerely believe in freedom of speech, you must defend it always - across the board - for everyone. I understand that our politics are all different - but no matter

This is the here the and now - it's no longer a game