Plasmaball
Gold Member
- Sep 9, 2010
- 20,629
- 2,194
- 175
This in reality should be a very short thread. The idea is basically that one should tolerate unpopular opinions from people because they have the right to those opinions. Well yes they do, but we as society have the right to react to those opinions in a manner of ways we so see fit. We can send in letters, emails for the more hip, Call, Boycott and even demand someone if fired.
The company ( we will use Phil from ducks as the leading example.) has the right to ignore such demands from the public. They also have the right to watch their bottom line and if they feel such words will result in them loosing money. They can remove said person from their business.
Now some think ( well one really) that such ACTIONS as calling for a firing should be made criminal. Now to any logical person that should be a red flag. You can not claim someone has the unalienable right to voice their opinion, and then in the next breath say that a group voicing there opinion/actions as a criminal offense.
Speaking out against the crown at one point was also illegal, and yet i highly doubt that would be seen as "evil" by some people. In fact i assume those types would have supported such Evil actions.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and you need to take the good with the bad. Sometimes that bad has consequences such as boycotts and the call to fire someone.
I'm not going to get into the partisan left vs right and who doesn't like consequences, because the reality is nobody likes them. Nobody wants to be personally accountable for their actions and always wants to pass the buck to whomever than can. The reality is this is a dumb partisan trick in order to play victim/divert the subject.
I guess there isnt really much to debate, because there really isnt anything to debate on this subject to logical people. Granted who cares where this subject goes, freedom of speech and the flow of conversation is the greatest thing in this world to have.
The company ( we will use Phil from ducks as the leading example.) has the right to ignore such demands from the public. They also have the right to watch their bottom line and if they feel such words will result in them loosing money. They can remove said person from their business.
Now some think ( well one really) that such ACTIONS as calling for a firing should be made criminal. Now to any logical person that should be a red flag. You can not claim someone has the unalienable right to voice their opinion, and then in the next breath say that a group voicing there opinion/actions as a criminal offense.
Speaking out against the crown at one point was also illegal, and yet i highly doubt that would be seen as "evil" by some people. In fact i assume those types would have supported such Evil actions.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and you need to take the good with the bad. Sometimes that bad has consequences such as boycotts and the call to fire someone.
I'm not going to get into the partisan left vs right and who doesn't like consequences, because the reality is nobody likes them. Nobody wants to be personally accountable for their actions and always wants to pass the buck to whomever than can. The reality is this is a dumb partisan trick in order to play victim/divert the subject.
I guess there isnt really much to debate, because there really isnt anything to debate on this subject to logical people. Granted who cares where this subject goes, freedom of speech and the flow of conversation is the greatest thing in this world to have.