Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Freedom of speech regarding gay marriage?

Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Recently, there have been a few cases where people who voice their arguments against gay marriage have been punished. Does this constitute a breach of free speech and an attack on intellectual debate? I'm worried it does.

For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Such occurrences sicken me. They are remnants of a fascist state where having voicing opinions to the status quo is punishable. It is a thought crime and discourages debate.

Most people on DDO are pro-same-sex-marriage. I'm fine with that. I have had many lively debates on the subject and I would not dream of seeking to prevent someone from being unable to voice their opinions. Yet this is what some liberals are increasingly trying to do.

To quote Charles Krauthammer:

"The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage ... To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally."

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech in this regard? Do you support the suspension of the professor in the example I presented?
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 4:39:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:
Recently, there have been a few cases where people who voice their arguments against gay marriage have been punished. Does this constitute a breach of free speech and an attack on intellectual debate? I'm worried it does.

For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Such occurrences sicken me. They are remnants of a fascist state where having voicing opinions to the status quo is punishable. It is a thought crime and discourages debate.

Most people on DDO are pro-same-sex-marriage. I'm fine with that. I have had many lively debates on the subject and I would not dream of seeking to prevent someone from being unable to voice their opinions. Yet this is what some liberals are increasingly trying to do.

To quote Charles Krauthammer:

"The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage ... To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally."

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech in this regard? Do you support the suspension of the professor in the example I presented? : :

Freedom of speech was designed to make the public feel they are free to speak their minds. The people who wrote the laws regarding freedom of speech knew that it was only a figure of speech.

Christians use the freedom of speech laws to advertise their religious ideas. It's the same freedom of speech that corporations use to advertise their lies, too.

Try stand in front of a corporate store or Christian church with messages contrary to their beliefs and you will find out that freedom of speech does not apply to them.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 5:31:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 4:39:27 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:
Recently, there have been a few cases where people who voice their arguments against gay marriage have been punished. Does this constitute a breach of free speech and an attack on intellectual debate? I'm worried it does.

For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Such occurrences sicken me. They are remnants of a fascist state where having voicing opinions to the status quo is punishable. It is a thought crime and discourages debate.

Most people on DDO are pro-same-sex-marriage. I'm fine with that. I have had many lively debates on the subject and I would not dream of seeking to prevent someone from being unable to voice their opinions. Yet this is what some liberals are increasingly trying to do.

To quote Charles Krauthammer:

"The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage ... To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally."

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech in this regard? Do you support the suspension of the professor in the example I presented? : :

Freedom of speech was designed to make the public feel they are free to speak their minds. The people who wrote the laws regarding freedom of speech knew that it was only a figure of speech.

Christians use the freedom of speech laws to advertise their religious ideas. It's the same freedom of speech that corporations use to advertise their lies, too.

Try stand in front of a corporate store or Christian church with messages contrary to their beliefs and you will find out that freedom of speech does not apply to them.

Often there is a reason to limit free speech, mainly because it causes harm of some form or another (such as slander). Also, the intent must be considered; if someone intends to offend or harm someone, then they don't have the freedom to do so.

But in relation to the gay marriage debate, no harm nor intent to harm is caused by those who are against gay marriage - yet the left still tries to punish and marginalise them simply because they dislike their opinions. This is an attack on legitimate intellectual discourse and is a travesty in our modern world.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 5:50:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 5:31:35 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:39:27 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:
Recently, there have been a few cases where people who voice their arguments against gay marriage have been punished. Does this constitute a breach of free speech and an attack on intellectual debate? I'm worried it does.

For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Such occurrences sicken me. They are remnants of a fascist state where having voicing opinions to the status quo is punishable. It is a thought crime and discourages debate.

Most people on DDO are pro-same-sex-marriage. I'm fine with that. I have had many lively debates on the subject and I would not dream of seeking to prevent someone from being unable to voice their opinions. Yet this is what some liberals are increasingly trying to do.

To quote Charles Krauthammer:

"The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage ... To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally."

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech in this regard? Do you support the suspension of the professor in the example I presented? : :

Freedom of speech was designed to make the public feel they are free to speak their minds. The people who wrote the laws regarding freedom of speech knew that it was only a figure of speech.

Christians use the freedom of speech laws to advertise their religious ideas. It's the same freedom of speech that corporations use to advertise their lies, too.

Try stand in front of a corporate store or Christian church with messages contrary to their beliefs and you will find out that freedom of speech does not apply to them.

Often there is a reason to limit free speech, mainly because it causes harm of some form or another (such as slander). Also, the intent must be considered; if someone intends to offend or harm someone, then they don't have the freedom to do so.

But in relation to the gay marriage debate, no harm nor intent to harm is caused by those who are against gay marriage - yet the left still tries to punish and marginalise them simply because they dislike their opinions. This is an attack on legitimate intellectual discourse and is a travesty in our modern world.

You are responding to ... ummm ... Saint Brad Holkesvig, a mentally-ill bum who annoys the public in Campbell, CA. He's been banned from here a dozen times, but keeps coming back (like a toothache).
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 5:50:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:
Recently, there have been a few cases where people who voice their arguments against gay marriage have been punished. Does this constitute a breach of free speech and an attack on intellectual debate? I'm worried it does.

For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Such occurrences sicken me. They are remnants of a fascist state where having voicing opinions to the status quo is punishable. It is a thought crime and discourages debate.

Most people on DDO are pro-same-sex-marriage. I'm fine with that. I have had many lively debates on the subject and I would not dream of seeking to prevent someone from being unable to voice their opinions. Yet this is what some liberals are increasingly trying to do.

To quote Charles Krauthammer:

"The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage ... To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally."

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech in this regard? Do you support the suspension of the professor in the example I presented?

It is a problem facing countries with it being legal. Canada's freedom of speech rights have eroded since legalization of it in 2005.

"In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training."

http://www.cnsnews.com...

I think some people view it as they view interracial marriage. They think speaking against it is bigoted and very wrong, and thus the right to do so harms people who are LGBT. Their community does face problems like heterosexuals don't, such as a higher suicide rate, so I'm guessing that leftists think that allowing such speech is harmful to them. But this thinking lies under the misconception that most people who oppose gay marriage are so because they are bigots, which is not true.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 6:53:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:
For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Are you sure that's why he was suspended. Did you read and consider the other side of the story?

https://docs.google.com...

I doubt you did.
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 9:03:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 5:31:35 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:39:27 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:
Recently, there have been a few cases where people who voice their arguments against gay marriage have been punished. Does this constitute a breach of free speech and an attack on intellectual debate? I'm worried it does.

For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Such occurrences sicken me. They are remnants of a fascist state where having voicing opinions to the status quo is punishable. It is a thought crime and discourages debate.

Most people on DDO are pro-same-sex-marriage. I'm fine with that. I have had many lively debates on the subject and I would not dream of seeking to prevent someone from being unable to voice their opinions. Yet this is what some liberals are increasingly trying to do.

To quote Charles Krauthammer:

"The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage ... To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally."

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech in this regard? Do you support the suspension of the professor in the example I presented? : :

Freedom of speech was designed to make the public feel they are free to speak their minds. The people who wrote the laws regarding freedom of speech knew that it was only a figure of speech.

Christians use the freedom of speech laws to advertise their religious ideas. It's the same freedom of speech that corporations use to advertise their lies, too.

Try stand in front of a corporate store or Christian church with messages contrary to their beliefs and you will find out that freedom of speech does not apply to them.

Often there is a reason to limit free speech, mainly because it causes harm of some form or another (such as slander). Also, the intent must be considered; if someone intends to offend or harm someone, then they don't have the freedom to do so.

But in relation to the gay marriage debate, no harm nor intent to harm is caused by those who are against gay marriage - yet the left still tries to punish and marginalise them simply because they dislike their opinions. This is an attack on legitimate intellectual discourse and is a travesty in our modern world. : :

I've had many altercations by Christians and corporate stores who hate freedom of speech. The blind don't notice what's happening in this world.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 5:43:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 5:50:31 PM, annanicole wrote:

You are responding to ... ummm ... Saint Brad Holkesvig, a mentally-ill bum who annoys the public in Campbell, CA. He's been banned from here a dozen times, but keeps coming back (like a toothache).

Oh, is Sword BornOfGod?

At 7/2/2015 6:53:43 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:
For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Are you sure that's why he was suspended. Did you read and consider the other side of the story?

https://docs.google.com...

I doubt you did.

Thanks for finding this letter, I read it and found it very interesting.

Nevertheless, the reasons for dismissal are still tantamount to a form of punishment upon the professor for what was freedom of speech. I don't doubt that if the scenario was reversed and he was writing in support of gay marriage, he would have been championed by the LGBT community and the university lambasted if it was to suspend him.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 7:49:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks for finding this letter, I read it and found it very interesting.

Nevertheless, the reasons for dismissal are still tantamount to a form of punishment upon the professor for what was freedom of speech. I don't doubt that if the scenario was reversed and he was writing in support of gay marriage, he would have been championed by the LGBT community and the university lambasted if it was to suspend him.

As someone who has just read this too, I find this comment frivolous and baseless. Where is your evidence for any of this speculation? Also even the universe was lambasted by the LGBT community it would still be irrelevant to the OP, which is a curtailing of free speech. Since the dismissal was (as you seem to admit) not done on grounds of the position on same-sex marriage, but the professor's gross misconduct regarding the student, and use of social media and identities without permission in a manner which caused harm.

It is fine to speculate, but it not fine to assert such speculations as a premise for a conclusion - which you are implicitly doing here regarding the conclusion of the OP. You do not have freedom of speech to violate confidentiality.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:40:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:49:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
Thanks for finding this letter, I read it and found it very interesting.

Nevertheless, the reasons for dismissal are still tantamount to a form of punishment upon the professor for what was freedom of speech. I don't doubt that if the scenario was reversed and he was writing in support of gay marriage, he would have been championed by the LGBT community and the university lambasted if it was to suspend him.

As someone who has just read this too, I find this comment frivolous and baseless. Where is your evidence for any of this speculation? Also even the universe was lambasted by the LGBT community it would still be irrelevant to the OP, which is a curtailing of free speech. Since the dismissal was (as you seem to admit) not done on grounds of the position on same-sex marriage, but the professor's gross misconduct regarding the student, and use of social media and identities without permission in a manner which caused harm.

It is fine to speculate, but it not fine to assert such speculations as a premise for a conclusion - which you are implicitly doing here regarding the conclusion of the OP. You do not have freedom of speech to violate confidentiality.

I find it hard to believe that simply mentioning the name of a teacher online is enough to warrant dismissal. Besides, the teacher has no right to confidentiality regarding what she teaches, since she is in a position where she publicly expresses what she thinks.

I know it is speculation about what I said, but I find it hard to believe that the professor would have been lambasted in the way he was if he was standing up for a gay student voicing out against the anti-gay-marriage teachings of his teacher. Even if he was, the LGBT community would be in outrage.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:03:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I find it hard to believe that simply mentioning the name of a teacher online is enough to warrant dismissal.

It was a good thing it wasn't just that if you actually read the letter.

For example:

"Similarly, by leaving out any reference to Ms. Abbate's follow-up class discussion in which she acknowledged and addressed the student's objection to gay marriage, you created a false impression of her conduct and an inaccurate account of what occurred. You either were recklessly unaware of what happened in the follow-up class, or you elected not to include these facts in your Internet story."

And virtually everything on page 3.

Besides, the teacher has no right to confidentiality regarding what she teaches, since she is in a position where she publicly expresses what she thinks.

So? The teacher is in employment, which means he has agreed to abide by the colleges policies. He deliberately violated those policies (via. gross misconduct nontheless). That is a dismissal, end of story. If you have a problem with the policies then fine, but that is not relevant to freedom of speach. You do not have freedom of speach in a position of employment - you cannot as someone working for a supermarket chain go telling your customers that your store is a load of sh&t. For example.

Freedom of speech is a government, not a private matter. You are not criminally liable for what you say, those are the freedoms you are given.

I know it is speculation about what I said, but I find it hard to believe that the professor would have been lambasted in the way he was if he was standing up for a gay student voicing out against the anti-gay-marriage teachings of his teacher.

That's great. Why should anyone care?

Even if he was, the LGBT community would be in outrage.

I don't believe you. And even if I did, it wouldn't be relevant to the OP regarding free speech. I also think you seriously misunderstand what the US's free speech laws actually are (I presume you speak from an American POV). You don't have the right to say what you want, in any context - that is not freedom of speech and expression as protected by your constitutional rights.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:23:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:
Recently, there have been a few cases where people who voice their arguments against gay marriage have been punished. Does this constitute a breach of free speech and an attack on intellectual debate? I'm worried it does.

For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Such occurrences sicken me. They are remnants of a fascist state where having voicing opinions to the status quo is punishable. It is a thought crime and discourages debate.

Most people on DDO are pro-same-sex-marriage. I'm fine with that. I have had many lively debates on the subject and I would not dream of seeking to prevent someone from being unable to voice their opinions. Yet this is what some liberals are increasingly trying to do.

To quote Charles Krauthammer:

"The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage ... To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally."

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech in this regard? Do you support the suspension of the professor in the example I presented?

If someone punishes you for expressing a thought that doesn't sit well with them, you need to find someone who gives a sht on the progressive left. They will form a group and put them out of business and make it impossible to find employment.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:23:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:03:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
I find it hard to believe that simply mentioning the name of a teacher online is enough to warrant dismissal.

It was a good thing it wasn't just that if you actually read the letter.

For example:

"Similarly, by leaving out any reference to Ms. Abbate's follow-up class discussion in which she acknowledged and addressed the student's objection to gay marriage, you created a false impression of her conduct and an inaccurate account of what occurred. You either were recklessly unaware of what happened in the follow-up class, or you elected not to include these facts in your Internet story."

And virtually everything on page 3.


Besides, the teacher has no right to confidentiality regarding what she teaches, since she is in a position where she publicly expresses what she thinks.

So? The teacher is in employment, which means he has agreed to abide by the colleges policies. He deliberately violated those policies (via. gross misconduct nontheless). That is a dismissal, end of story. If you have a problem with the policies then fine, but that is not relevant to freedom of speach. You do not have freedom of speach in a position of employment - you cannot as someone working for a supermarket chain go telling your customers that your store is a load of sh&t. For example.

Freedom of speech is a government, not a private matter. You are not criminally liable for what you say, those are the freedoms you are given.

The criteria for 'gross misconduct' were written to be:

'serious instances of" dishonorable, irresponsible or incompetent conduct'

If these are the terms of the workplace within which Prof. McAdam's works, then his act of writing his blog post hardly constitutes conduct that is classed as gross misconduct. It is neither seriously dishonourable, irresponsible or incompetent. Hence it doesn't constitute gross misconduct and therefore warrant dismissal.

In regards to the 'follow-up class', the professor can hardly be punished for not taking the effort to enquire into its content (most likely he was probably unaware of it). Otherwise, one wouldn't be able to criticise anyone in case they happened to say something in the future that is in some form of an apology.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:40:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:
Recently, there have been a few cases where people who voice their arguments against gay marriage have been punished. Does this constitute a breach of free speech and an attack on intellectual debate? I'm worried it does.

For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Such occurrences sicken me. They are remnants of a fascist state where having voicing opinions to the status quo is punishable. It is a thought crime and discourages debate.

Most people on DDO are pro-same-sex-marriage. I'm fine with that. I have had many lively debates on the subject and I would not dream of seeking to prevent someone from being unable to voice their opinions. Yet this is what some liberals are increasingly trying to do.

To quote Charles Krauthammer:

"The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage ... To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally."

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech in this regard? Do you support the suspension of the professor in the example I presented?

It sounds like it was more an issue of naming names like it is a gossip column than because of support for arguing against gay marriage.

Regardless Marquette is a private college. Freedom of speech was never intended to protect us from private colleges. I wonder exactly how open Oral Roberts or other fundamentalist colleges are with hearing pro same sex marriage materials on campus?
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 11:30:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Honest discourse on this subject is nearly impossible, because to speak in any way that might be considered negative of it will get you branded as a homophobic bigot.

If someone believes that you have an irrational fear of them, and that you hate them, they aren't going to listen to any of your rational. The funny thing is, this type of reaction is one that stems from irrational fear.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
VietTurtle
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 6:28:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:
Recently, there have been a few cases where people who voice their arguments against gay marriage have been punished. Does this constitute a breach of free speech and an attack on intellectual debate? I'm worried it does.

For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Such occurrences sicken me. They are remnants of a fascist state where having voicing opinions to the status quo is punishable. It is a thought crime and discourages debate.

Most people on DDO are pro-same-sex-marriage. I'm fine with that. I have had many lively debates on the subject and I would not dream of seeking to prevent someone from being unable to voice their opinions. Yet this is what some liberals are increasingly trying to do.

To quote Charles Krauthammer:

"The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage ... To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally."

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech in this regard? Do you support the suspension of the professor in the example I presented?

I only skimmed like half the article its to long. He got sacked cause he blogged it... . Teachers idk what applies to college teachers. but they have to remain neutral and the are responsible what they post online . for example teachers in a public school setting cant preach their political views etc.. to their students idk if that in all states.. Even in the military you are responsible for online post
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 7:25:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:

This honestly annoys me. We are guaranteed the freedom of speech by the first amendment. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to threat speech or hate speech. Gay marriage has become such a sore subject now in days. If you're against it, you're are looked down upon. Everyone has the right to believe in what they want. Nobody should force their beliefs on you and think less of you just because you believe in something different.
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 11:18:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:40:33 PM, Philocat wrote:
I find it hard to believe that simply mentioning the name of a teacher online is enough to warrant dismissal. Besides, the teacher has no right to confidentiality regarding what she teaches, since she is in a position where she publicly expresses what she thinks.

His alleged misconduct was not limited to "mentioning the name of a teacher." He made false and defamatory statements in his blog that caused real damage to others at the university. That's the official reason for the dismissal. I don't see why you find it so hard to believe, and I'm not aware of any credible evidence indicating that the dismissal was politically motivated.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 12:42:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
People have no respect for the First Amendment. There are people who believe that it applies so long as they are not offended. The double standard is sickening.

No, these people are full of spite and hate. Flying under the banner of tolerance, they silence anyone they can't tolerate. Flying under the banner of diversity, they can't even tolerate being married to the opposite sex. They belittle those who might have anything negative to say about it by accusing them of irrational fear, yet they are among the most theophobic people you'll meet. They take pride in their perversity, and their mental preoccupation with vanity.

Yet, the Christian is called to put up with this and love them regardless. Ironically, if it wasn't for that, they would never have been given the ability to marry, and of course they are going to use this as an opportunity to destroy people's lives. I assure you, there are many Christians who will rejoice at their martyrdom. Give the dogs what is sacred, of course they will tear it apart.

I think it is shameful that people are intentionally walking into churches, demanding that they marry them, and when they refuse on religious grounds, they drag the church into the dirt through judicially backed economic violence. Why can't you do your wedding somewhere else? A business doesn't want to bake a cake for your same-sex wedding? What, spreading the word around and giving them bad press isn't enough, you have to sue them out of business and destroy their livelihoods? It's sickening! Yet people think this is acceptable!

Things have reached such an absurdity that they are pumping prepubescent children with hormones, and giving sex changes to 15 year olds! This is child abuse!

It's some high form of mental illness, and I am thoroughly convinced that it is WRONG.

And if you want to know the depths of my tolerance, understand that I accept it, let it be, do not discriminate based on these things, do not advocate oppression through law, violence, etc.

I let things be.

And I tell you, my opinions about these things do not come from fear. Neither am I a bigot. However, the people who go around calling other people fearful bigots, to me, they are the ones who look like fearful bigots.

Oh, and lets not kid ourselves. Most people who identify with the LGBT lifestyle are not interested in marrying. I'd like to think that allowing them to marry would cut back on the promiscuity that goes on, but we're talking about a culture that is so maladjusted mentally that they define themselves as being "dominant" and "submissive" rather than "complimentary". Some people like multiple partners, oh that is just the way they are, right?

There has been a lot of work done in the last half a century to make people think that there is nothing wrong with this stuff. I tell you, things are not always how they seem on the surface, and these things were not considered wrong for arbitrary reasons.

Certainly, live and let live. Live and let die. But lets not pretend that these behaviors and habits are good, because they aren't. However, the right thing to do is let society figure it out on their own than to do anything about it.

There really isn't anything you can do about it.

Personally though, because marriage and religion are so tied together in the minds of people, the government should stay out of marriage all together, and just give civil unions to everyone. Same-sex or opposite-sex, the sanest solution to me is to change the name of "marriage" to "civil union". Let individuals and churches decide whether or not they recognize it as a "marriage".
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 2:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 12:42:34 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
People have no respect for the First Amendment. There are people who believe that it applies so long as they are not offended. The double standard is sickening.

No, these people are full of spite and hate. Flying under the banner of tolerance, they silence anyone they can't tolerate. Flying under the banner of diversity, they can't even tolerate being married to the opposite sex. They belittle those who might have anything negative to say about it by accusing them of irrational fear, yet they are among the most theophobic people you'll meet. They take pride in their perversity, and their mental preoccupation with vanity.

Yet, the Christian is called to put up with this and love them regardless. Ironically, if it wasn't for that, they would never have been given the ability to marry, and of course they are going to use this as an opportunity to destroy people's lives. I assure you, there are many Christians who will rejoice at their martyrdom. Give the dogs what is sacred, of course they will tear it apart.

I think it is shameful that people are intentionally walking into churches, demanding that they marry them, and when they refuse on religious grounds, they drag the church into the dirt through judicially backed economic violence. Why can't you do your wedding somewhere else? A business doesn't want to bake a cake for your same-sex wedding? What, spreading the word around and giving them bad press isn't enough, you have to sue them out of business and destroy their livelihoods? It's sickening! Yet people think this is acceptable!

Things have reached such an absurdity that they are pumping prepubescent children with hormones, and giving sex changes to 15 year olds! This is child abuse!

It's some high form of mental illness, and I am thoroughly convinced that it is WRONG.

And if you want to know the depths of my tolerance, understand that I accept it, let it be, do not discriminate based on these things, do not advocate oppression through law, violence, etc.

I let things be.

And I tell you, my opinions about these things do not come from fear. Neither am I a bigot. However, the people who go around calling other people fearful bigots, to me, they are the ones who look like fearful bigots.

Oh, and lets not kid ourselves. Most people who identify with the LGBT lifestyle are not interested in marrying. I'd like to think that allowing them to marry would cut back on the promiscuity that goes on, but we're talking about a culture that is so maladjusted mentally that they define themselves as being "dominant" and "submissive" rather than "complimentary". Some people like multiple partners, oh that is just the way they are, right?

There has been a lot of work done in the last half a century to make people think that there is nothing wrong with this stuff. I tell you, things are not always how they seem on the surface, and these things were not considered wrong for arbitrary reasons.

Certainly, live and let live. Live and let die. But lets not pretend that these behaviors and habits are good, because they aren't. However, the right thing to do is let society figure it out on their own than to do anything about it.

There really isn't anything you can do about it.

Personally though, because marriage and religion are so tied together in the minds of people, the government should stay out of marriage all together, and just give civil unions to everyone. Same-sex or opposite-sex, the sanest solution to me is to change the name of "marriage" to "civil union". Let individuals and churches decide whether or not they recognize it as a "marriage".

What the hell does this have to do with the topic? Is this just some copy/pasted rant?
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 4:33:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 2:02:45 PM, Death23 wrote:
What the hell does this have to do with the topic? Is this just some copy/pasted rant?

The entire first amendment is under attack. It isn't just freedom of speech.

Churches are being sued into non-existence for not marrying same-sex couples. Businesses ae being sued into non-existence for not making wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

A business has a right to refuse service to anyone. If you don't like their decisions, give them bad press and let the free market take care of it. A church shouldn't have to comply with something that they believe is wrong.

No, you want to know the height of absurdity? A distributor of a particular bible translation is currently being sued by a self identified "gay" because the use of the word "homosexual" in a negative context deeply troubled him.

I don't understand how anyone can even call themselves an American if they pull this stuff.

I'm genuinely offended at what is going on. This shouldn't be acceptable behavior. Yet, I've talked to people who honestly believe this stuff is ok.

It's despicable. If someone slaps you on the cheek, you don't respond with your shotgun! Come on!
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 4:51:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 4:33:58 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:02:45 PM, Death23 wrote:
What the hell does this have to do with the topic? Is this just some copy/pasted rant?

The entire first amendment is under attack. It isn't just freedom of speech.

Churches are being sued into non-existence for not marrying same-sex couples.

Citation please? I know of no such situation. I know of some churches who incorporated parts of their organization improperly and got sued as a result, but that's entirely different.

Businesses ae being sued into non-existence for not making wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Public accommodation laws have been on the books since the 60s. Though the limits of them have some wiggle-room, having them exist is a pretty settled question, and generally speaking we know that society is worse when they're not in place. Where the limits should go is another question entirely, but if you're going to argue against public accommodation laws, then you need to recognize that you're arguing in favor of whites-only businesses. Which some have said "Go ahead, let 'em so we all know they're jerks", but that doesn't help the poor minority person who can't even eat in a random small town because no one will serve them due to their race.

A business has a right to refuse service to anyone. If you don't like their decisions, give them bad press and let the free market take care of it. A church shouldn't have to comply with something that they believe is wrong.

Churches don't. Businesses do.

No, you want to know the height of absurdity? A distributor of a particular bible translation is currently being sued by a self identified "gay" because the use of the word "homosexual" in a negative context deeply troubled him.

I assume you're referring to Bradley LaShawn Fowler, who IIRC is a pro se litigant (that is, representing himself rather than having a lawyer), and who has pretty much no chance of winning barring, I suppose, some kind of default judgement if the defendants don't respond.

The US is a country where as a general rule anyone can file a lawsuit, no matter how frivolous. Part of me wonders if effective anti-SLAPP legislation would cover this in addition to the more "standard" applications.

Certainly, no one I've heard of is supporting this nonsensical suit, and nonsensical suits get filed frequently:

http://www.loweringthebar.net...

http://www.loweringthebar.net...

http://www.loweringthebar.net...

http://www.loweringthebar.net...

Wait until there's a snowball's chance in heck of him winning the lawsuit before bemoaning the state of society on that one.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 4:58:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:23:23 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 7/3/2015 4:03:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
I find it hard to believe that simply mentioning the name of a teacher online is enough to warrant dismissal.

It was a good thing it wasn't just that if you actually read the letter.

For example:

"Similarly, by leaving out any reference to Ms. Abbate's follow-up class discussion in which she acknowledged and addressed the student's objection to gay marriage, you created a false impression of her conduct and an inaccurate account of what occurred. You either were recklessly unaware of what happened in the follow-up class, or you elected not to include these facts in your Internet story."

And virtually everything on page 3.


Besides, the teacher has no right to confidentiality regarding what she teaches, since she is in a position where she publicly expresses what she thinks.

So? The teacher is in employment, which means he has agreed to abide by the colleges policies. He deliberately violated those policies (via. gross misconduct nontheless). That is a dismissal, end of story. If you have a problem with the policies then fine, but that is not relevant to freedom of speach. You do not have freedom of speach in a position of employment - you cannot as someone working for a supermarket chain go telling your customers that your store is a load of sh&t. For example.

Freedom of speech is a government, not a private matter. You are not criminally liable for what you say, those are the freedoms you are given.

The criteria for 'gross misconduct' were written to be:

'serious instances of" dishonorable, irresponsible or incompetent conduct'

If these are the terms of the workplace within which Prof. McAdam's works, then his act of writing his blog post hardly constitutes conduct that is classed as gross misconduct. It is neither seriously dishonourable, irresponsible or incompetent. Hence it doesn't constitute gross misconduct and therefore warrant dismissal.

In regards to the 'follow-up class', the professor can hardly be punished for not taking the effort to enquire into its content (most likely he was probably unaware of it). Otherwise, one wouldn't be able to criticise anyone in case they happened to say something in the future that is in some form of an apology.

The teacher who got fired did not follow university procedures, outed a Grad Student by name while hypocritically preserving the anonymity of the Undergrad Student for privacy reasons, posted information with a reckless disregard for the truth, and had done similar things in the past and been told to quit it. In fact, he reveled in the consequences that might come from what he posted without, again, any reference to the fact that the situation was significantly different than what he represented.

He deserved to be fired, and it had nothing to do with the viewpoints that were being discussed.

It's also worth noting that graduate students are expected to screw up--they aren't professors, they're under professors, specifically because they aren't sufficiently trained yet. So, while you may think the grad student was wrong, outing her to publicly shame her was clearly egregious from a supervisor--particularly since he described the events in a manner inconsistent with the facts.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 5:59:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 4:51:26 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Public accommodation laws have been on the books since the 60s. Though the limits of them have some wiggle-room, having them exist is a pretty settled question, and generally speaking we know that society is worse when they're not in place. Where the limits should go is another question entirely, but if you're going to argue against public accommodation laws, then you need to recognize that you're arguing in favor of whites-only businesses. Which some have said "Go ahead, let 'em so we all know they're jerks", but that doesn't help the poor minority person who can't even eat in a random small town because no one will serve them due to their race.


I am someone who has faced a great deal of unjust discrimination by businesses because of my appearance. I have walked into businesses, and told to leave before any words were even said. I have experienced this in my life on multiple occasions.

Knowing first hand how terrible that sort of thing is, and knowing how much it makes you want to throw bricks through peoples windows, I still believe it is a fundamental right of a business owner to make a choice on whether or not they want to serve someone. To have freedom, you have to respect freedom.

I'm not going to pretend I know the proper way to run things though. That is a bit out of my area of expertise. When I see these things happening though, I am reminded that "There is no compulsion in religion"
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 8:20:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am not at liberty to say anything about gay marriage. I have kids to feed and can't lose my job.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 7:29:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 5:59:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/10/2015 4:51:26 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Public accommodation laws have been on the books since the 60s. Though the limits of them have some wiggle-room, having them exist is a pretty settled question, and generally speaking we know that society is worse when they're not in place. Where the limits should go is another question entirely, but if you're going to argue against public accommodation laws, then you need to recognize that you're arguing in favor of whites-only businesses. Which some have said "Go ahead, let 'em so we all know they're jerks", but that doesn't help the poor minority person who can't even eat in a random small town because no one will serve them due to their race.


I am someone who has faced a great deal of unjust discrimination by businesses because of my appearance. I have walked into businesses, and told to leave before any words were even said. I have experienced this in my life on multiple occasions.

Knowing first hand how terrible that sort of thing is, and knowing how much it makes you want to throw bricks through peoples windows, I still believe it is a fundamental right of a business owner to make a choice on whether or not they want to serve someone. To have freedom, you have to respect freedom.

I'm not going to pretend I know the proper way to run things though. That is a bit out of my area of expertise. When I see these things happening though, I am reminded that "There is no compulsion in religion"

The type of freedom you're referring to isn't as important as you make it out to be. Most Americans are not business owners, and fairness is important too. Absolute freedom can't coexist with absolute fairness. A reasonable balance must be struck between the two. This is the justification for laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating on certain bases.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 7:09:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:
For example, recently a professor was suspended for supporting a student's right to argue against gay marriage. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)

Wow. If this happened where I work and he WASN'T fired, I'd walk off the job and everyone would. Are you kidding me? Student records a conversation with the tutor and he backs the STUDENT up and publishes the tutor's name in a kind of hateful rant? O.O. Who cares what the topic was or whether or not the tutor was right? He can call her up and have a chat, but professors always need to back up the tutors.
Mind you, I didn't know you could fire people with tenure. I thought that was the whole point.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 7:14:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Although now I think of it, people get fired for plagiarism, faking results and other scandalous behavior, so I suppose it's always been possible.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 7:22:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 7:25:48 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 7/2/2015 7:21:06 AM, Philocat wrote:

This honestly annoys me. We are guaranteed the freedom of speech by the first amendment. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to threat speech or hate speech. Gay marriage has become such a sore subject now in days. If you're against it, you're are looked down upon. Everyone has the right to believe in what they want. Nobody should force their beliefs on you and think less of you just because you believe in something different.

Do you actually understand the US laws regarding free speech? Can you even quote the portion which is relevant to it? (Hint, it's in the first ammendment) If you can do those, then it should be quickly aparent to you why the US laws on FoS have nothing to do with the OP, and why this entire thread is a misnomer.