It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

page: 18
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

How it that???

2nd




posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Does the business have the right to fire someone for being racist? Is that a violation of freedom of speech?


I was intrigued by your question, so I went back to look at exactly the question you were referring to, here it is:

Krazysh0t's repies from earlier in this very thread:


[What I assume is scenario 1]

You need evidence to show that there are consequences for anything you say? I'll give you a thought experiment instead.
Scenario:
You are the owner of a business and an employee in your company starts insulting another co-worker calling her a variety of offensive and racial names (let's say this other co-worker is a black female). Do you believe that this employee's freedom of speech should trump your right as a business owner to fire this employee for being abusive and creating an unsatisfactory working environment?

Unless the black female employee complains to the employer directly because she feels she has been racially vilified or harassed AND her experiences can be confirmed by at least one other witness, and the employer has still not been made aware of there being an issue up until this point, THEN no. It not the obligation of the employer to just fire the accused unless they experienced this happening first hand.


Scenario 2:
The black female's friends have gotten pissed off at the first employee not being fired. They have gotten together and shout down the racist employee's words every time he starts up. Now we are presented with two questions. First, do you think that this group of people has the freedom of speech to shout this person down? Second, can you as the employer not fire all parties involved for creating a disruptive work environment?


The person first accused has the obligation to speak directly with the employer and raise their concerns that they are being unfairly harassed by a group of employees. It is then the obligation of the employer (if they haven't already been made aware of the issue yet) to investigate the claims as soon as possible and establish what is going on. The employer would not be obligated to fire the black women or the group supporting her" based ONLY on weak evidence presented by the person complaining about their harassment.

The best solution to both situations:
Call each individual in separately and try establish what has happened. If after doing so, you cannot confirm who is lying, then call in a third party and try to find out. If that fails, call in a group meeting of EVERYONE involved and get to the bottom of it. If after doing this you still cannot establish who is lying and who is telling the truth, tell them that the accused and the alleged victim all be placed on disciplinary action until the truth has been established.

Yes, this will take time, but the ONLY other alternatives are to either be flat out racist (ok I can't be bothered, I'll fire the black woman because I don't like her anyway) OR unreasonably biased against the accused and fire them on the spot (ok I can''t be bothered, I'll fire the accused to avoid the chance of a lawsuit). Both of these alternatives would be a grave injustice to what has happened, especially considering all of the above mentioned methods would not take THAT long or use too much effort to achieve in a timely matter.

edit on 20/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

You have a right to life...unless something kills you.

So what exactly is the difference between having the right and not having it?



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



That's fair. The physics of speech could hardly move a feather, but I can understand the comfort of the superstitious thinking required to blame words. I think people might not want to let that comfort go just yet.


Well, I am prone to superstition, so I can only plead guilty as charged.

But, strikes me as odd, that you hold such an elevated opinion of the importance of a right to exercise such an impotent tool.

None the less, you've given me a new appreciation for the fragility of the right to free speech. Thank you for that.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Your life (as in the physical existence of just being alive) is your own, it is inherent to you, just because an outside force acts to deny you the ability to physically exist doesn't mean you never had the right to exist in the first place, it just means that you have been denied the ability to continue existing.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

What is the difference between having that right and not having it?



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



That's fair. The physics of speech could hardly move a feather, but I can understand the comfort of the superstitious thinking required to blame words. I think people might not want to let that comfort go just yet.


Well, I am prone to superstition, so I can only plead guilty as charged.

But, strikes me as odd, that you hold such an elevated opinion of the importance of a right to exercise such an impotent tool.

None the less, you've given me a new appreciation for the fragility of the right to free speech. Thank you for that.


It's the core of liberal science and democracy, and has a proven track record as a great substitute for violence, coercion, oppression, threat, insofar as it is a means of acquiring knowledge and power. It is victimless, is the main point. It is the only way societies can learn from their mistakes, and to push bad ideas to the fringe without shedding blood.

There is a vast literature on the subject if you need recommendations. I haven't been able to stop reading about it, personally.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

There is no "not having it", if you are existing then you have the right to continue to exist. The only way you would stop existing is if an outside force acted to deny you your existence or you choose to end your existence, the first is a violation of you ability to exist and the second is you choosing to discontinue your existence.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

So when you die of old age it's a violation caused by nobody?

Saying you have it or don't have it really doesn't change anything. To me that seems like a good indication that it is not something real.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Actually I would say that death by old age is caused by the nature (which we are a part of) denying your right to continue to exist. If the natural forces of entropy, and decay did not exist then you would (in theory) be able to continue to exist forever.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

OK but it doesn't really sound like these right things make a difference.

To borrow from the OP, sounds like superstition.


edit on 20-4-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I'm fairly sure that if somebody started to deny you your right to life, you would think they make a difference... but then again maybe you would just let them take your right. I dunno, I don't know you well enough to make that determination.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
You have a right to life...unless something kills you.

So what exactly is the difference between having the right and not having it?


I think we are on the same page.

If saying "I am alive therefore I have the right to be alive" I will not argue. (I wouldn't personally classify that as a "right" but more a natural state of affairs)

If saying "I am alive, therefore I automatically have the freedom to say what/when/how I want to say just because I am alive" and can expect no consequences besides hearing my own voice saying those words, THEN no I do not agree that is true.

It all depends on the context. You cannot claim the right to freedom of expression if you are not putting into context what/how/where you saying those words — unless the location you are at when saying it permits that behaviour.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad
I'm fairly sure that if somebody started to deny you your right to life, you would think they make a difference... but then again maybe you would just let them take your right. I dunno, I don't know you well enough to make that determination.

Calling it a "right to life" instead of just "life" doesn't change anything. "If someone tried to kill you" means the same thing but the word "right" isn't in that mix. It's nothing but semantics.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Let me ask you... Do you believe you should be able to exist?

2nd



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It's the core of liberal science and democracy, and has a proven track record as a great substitute for violence, coercion, oppression, threat, insofar as it is a means of acquiring knowledge and power. It is victimless, is the main point. It is the only way societies can learn from their mistakes, and to push bad ideas to the fringe without shedding blood.

There is a vast literature on the subject if you need recommendations. I haven't been able to stop reading about it, personally.


There is no way to deny how logical, reasonable and factually accurate what you just said happens to be, so there is no point in trying.

HOWEVER (bet you were expecting that)

The problem is we interact with countries who disagree with what you have said so vehemently that they will not change based on your words alone. So what can we do?

Either we stop interacting with countries and accept that we do what we want within our own borders and give them the same freedom, OR we continue to interact with them but then must be forced to respect their culture and not purposely insult it just because we can, just because we want to piss them off, just because we want to rub it in their face that we have the freedom to do as we please and they can't stop us. (The only other option I can think of is to militarily intervene into their countries and force them to accept freedom of expression as we enjoy it. I don't think you or I thinks that is a reasonable alternative.)

If you have a better suggestion, please share it. But at the moment, THAT is the reality we face.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

No.

3rd, because the 2nd is empty.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Do you believe that other humans have the "right" to exist?



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

I'm trying to figure out if "rights" even exist and if they do, what they actually are.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

OK,

Let me word it this way,

Do you think other humans should be able to exist?




top topics



 
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join