Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Cript:

Note, I said attempts to create policy are valid grounds for protest. I very clearly delineated that line. Stop trying desperately to erase it.

[Frumple]

So are corporations allowed to compile blacklists of individuals who espouse certain views ensuring that they are unemployable for all participating in that blacklist system

Last I checked that's legal so long as those views don't fall under one of the protected class umbrellas, yup. For better or worse, it's rule of law. Would mostly be stuff that's expertise specific that would be able to slip through on that front, though, so far as views folks would normally get blacklisted over. Except for parts of the LGBT community, anyway, among other things. Some of the states haven't made discriminating on that front entirely count legally.

And yeah, sorta' ang. It's called a discrimination lawsuit, providing the blacklist was actually filtering people based on protected views. If it wasn't things get a lot murkier.

[Criptfeind]

No, you're the one trying to erase the legitimate reasons for the protests, acting like all they have is an unreasonable demand to enthrone Clinton and calling them impotent (and that if they aren't impotent that it'd be breakdown of the law)

[wierd]

I acknowledged reasonable items that have a valid means of being corrected through protest, and pointed out which ones did not and why.

The onus is now on you to explain why raw emotions are legitimately able to be redressed by protest.

[PTTG??]

So are corporations allowed to compile blacklists of individuals who espouse certain views ensuring that they are unemployable for all participating in that blacklist system

Do we have a system in place to stop that from happening? I mean, I'd say we should, though not necessarily a government based one, but at the moment I don't think we do. :/

What kind of organization could possibly exist that would not be governmental?

This whole idea that "government is inevitably bad" is a meme created to prevent people from using their government at all.

[wierd]

Sadly, our government has also been consistently self serving.

See for instance FISA courts.

[Frumple]

What kind of organization could possibly exist that would not be governmental?

This whole idea that "government is inevitably bad" is a meme created to prevent people from using their government at all.

It was, but there is actually non-gov organizations that work like that. Stuff like the MPAA. Not legally binding, not enforced by law, still enforced by what amounts to supplier collusion. Pretty sure there's other stuff, similarly industry exclusive.

[Criptfeind]

I acknowledged reasonable items that have a valid means of being corrected through protest, and pointed out which ones did not and why.

The onus is now on you to explain why raw emotions are legitimately able to be redressed by protest.

"Raw Emotions" isn't really an accurate enough description for Trumps stated policy points and peoples issues with them for you to succeed in such a blatant attempt to redefine the issue, so, try again? But remember if you get two more strikes the inning is over.

[wierd]

It would help if the goalposts stopped moving.

If my definition is wrong, be more helpful than simply saying "nuh uh!", if you would.

How do you define the core cause of the protests, and why do you think they are legitimate?

[Criptfeind]

It would help if the goalposts stopped moving.

Maybe you should stop wiggling them about so much?

How do you define the core cause of the protests, and why do you think they are legitimate?

I already posted this. If you want a rehash of the same line.

Spoiler: rehash (click to show/hide)

You responded that his opinions aren't worth protesting over, which, when pointed out he's the fucking future president of the united states you replied "muh free speech" to which was replied "muh free speech" to which you said (in a non sequitur response) that they are impotent protests, to which I replied that that's your opinion, to which you came back with "The alternative is dangerous precedent of capitulation to violent mobs."

So, Why is it that you think that giving into a protest would be an unacceptable capitulation and how does that fit into a world where protests are a messy, but ultimately not always bad way of making ones voice heard?

Edit: Unfortunately I'm leaving for now, and this thread tends to move so fast I doubt I'll bother to respond to an argument long buried. So, rip. I'll end with my conclusion here; Protests to install Clinton are understandable but ultimately unreasonable. Violence is (currently) not worth it. Protests against what Trump has said and done and what the people he has surrounded himself with have said and done are perfectly reasonable and even good.

[Neonivek]

It would help if the goalposts stopped moving.

It is called having standards

[Shadowlord]

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Declaration of independence.

[wierd]

Now it is my turn to say nuh uh, and to be more helpful.

When I say they are impotent, I mean that literally. There is no well defined redress sought, and no legal way to give it.

The fact that trump is the president does not remove his rights as a citizen. He has every right to believe anything he wants.  What he does not have, is free license to opress others with his views.

The protestors do not like his views. They are using an angry mob to opress. This is not a valid use of the power to protest.

Again, if/when trump tries to enact policy, then protest is vslud because there is a clear item to be redressed, (namely said policy), and the right to seek that redress has a valid path of being supplied.

You moved the post yet again by not explaining what specific items are being sought, which I asked for, and why you felt they can be obtained through protest, which I also asked for, while demanding those things from myself.

I resent being told "no, you!", when I mention the moving goalposts. Please be reasonable, or constructive debate us not possible.

[Neonivek]

The protestors do not like his views. They are using an angry mob to opress.

Are we talking about the protestors or the rioters?

[Angle]

What kind of organization could possibly exist that would not be governmental?

This whole idea that "government is inevitably bad" is a meme created to prevent people from using their government at all.

I don't think government is inevitably bad, just limited and not always the right solution to any given problem. As for the organization, my suggestion would be a union of some sort to coordinate and deny such companies employees. Though of course, that has it's own problems...