ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Australia issues , christian persecution , Tim Costello

Reply
Old 9th July 2019, 01:22 PM   #41
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It is views like this that have conservatives agitating for religious protection laws.

As an employer, you have an absolute right to demand that your staff refrain from making public statements that might reflect on your business.

You have no right to censor what your staff might say as private citizens (even in a public forum) if your business is not identified.
In the case of Folau (which is what we are talking about here), his employers business was identified by virtue of who he was.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 01:38 PM   #42
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I think the hilighted bit is actually a very different problem from the other ones.

For most political beliefs, people are able to live lives that don't actually comport with those stated beliefs. A communist can live in a capitalist society without trying to start a revolution. A Nazi can live next to a Jew without trying to kill him. I'm not suggesting that there's no danger in these beliefs, but generally speaking that danger emerges when that belief reaches a critical mass. Below a certain threshold, people who have these beliefs can and usually do hold them in check in order to get by in a society which doesn't accept those beliefs. If those beliefs are coupled with a serious mental instability (like schizophrenia or psychosis), all bets are off, but for the most part people will still stick within the confines of the law.

But sexual proclivities like pederasty and pedophilia are a different ball game. For the most part, people with these proclivities can't help themselves. They have to act on them. And the nature of that proclivity is such that they're going to act on them alone, they don't need fellow travelers.

What this means is that a pederast represents a greater risk than a Nazi who behaves himself does. So the question of what to do with one doesn't need to have the same answer. I'm not advocating for any particular answer to either one, just that I think they really are very different questions (whereas the question of what to do with a Nazi or a Stalinist are pretty equivalent).

All this avoids the point TM is making.

1. You discover your employee is a white supremacist
2. You discover that he makes online posts advocating the extermination of some minority group (Jews, Gays, Muslims)
3. You decide its free speech and you say nothing
4. Said emplyee shoots up a Jewish day-care centre and murders 30+ pre-schoolers and their daycare givers

Are you and your business going to survive the backlash if it is found out that you knew what he was and you did nothing about it?

The general public will blame you for not raising the alarm. The fact that it might not be fair or reasonable will not help you. Look at the Christchurch shooter. The gun club he was a member of (Bruce Rifle Club in Milburn) has copped a fair bit of backlash and had to close.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12213738

Is that really fair on them?
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 04:45 PM   #43
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,198
Real Problem is too many Christians think that not being as dominant force in society as they once were is "persecution".
If you try to force your beliefs down other people's throats, you can expect people to have negative feelings about you.
And, of course, one of the oldest tricks in the book is to claim "persecution" when you are the one who wants to do the persecuting. I give you the Nazis in Germany in the 1920's and 30's before the seizure of power as an example.They made a huge noise about how they were being persecuted for standing up for Germany....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 06:54 PM   #44
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In the case of Folau (which is what we are talking about here), his employers business was identified by virtue of who he was.
Did somebody say "bait and switch"?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 10:18 PM   #45
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Did somebody say "bait and switch"?

What you call
"bait and switch" I call "bringing the discussion back to the subject of the thread"!!
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 10:50 PM   #46
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,438
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Special pleading is a logical fallacy. Pointing out special pleading is not whataboutism. It's a legitimate rebuttal to a fallacious line of reasoning.

I think special pleading mostly comes up in support of another logical fallacy, the ad hominem. You purport to be outraged about a thing, but for years (or whatever) you let your outrage simmer, because it was Your Guy doing the thing. Then the Other Guy comes along, and suddenly your outrage blossoms. Not because you think the thing itself is so outrageous. If you did, you'd have been outraged long before the the Other Guy showed up. No, you're outraged now because it's the Other Guy's thing. You don't want to make excuses for the Other Guy the way you make excuses for Your Guy. So you deploy special pleading to bolster your ad hom.

Calling out the ad hom and the special pleading is not "whataboutism". In this case, the cries of "whataboutism!" are a smoke screen, to cover up the logical fallacies in your argument. The proper, rational response to a charge of special pleading is to present a reasoned argument that the case truly is special, or else present evidence that the pleading itself is consistent with your other pleas on the same subject. The proper response is not to handwave the charge with cries of "whataboutism!"
So do you have in mind some quote you want to apply this sidetrack to?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 11:04 PM   #47
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

What you call
"bait and switch" I call "bringing the discussion back to the subject of the thread"!!
You threw the bait out there when you claimed that in your no-name firm, all employees are effectively on the clock 24/7 and you have the right to control their speech both on and off the job.
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
These policies and standards apply at all times, and are part of the employment contract.
The switch is when you went back to Falau and repeated what I had said in the post you quoted in such a manner as to make it appear as if I had posted something different.

You never followed up on what gives you the right as a nothing employer to control your employees' lives.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 9th July 2019 at 11:05 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 11:19 PM   #48
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,501
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You threw the bait out there when you claimed that in your no-name firm, all employees are effectively on the clock 24/7 and you have the right to control their speech both on and off the job.
As I pointed out, this is already the case in the Australian Public Service. If a public servant posts on social media anything that is critical of the Australian Government, any Australian Government Department, any Minister or the Prime Minister, they can be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. This has already happened.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 11:23 PM   #49
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
As I pointed out, this is already the case in the Australian Public Service. If a public servant posts on social media anything that is critical of the Australian Government, any Australian Government Department, any Minister or the Prime Minister, they can be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. This has already happened.
Again, I have already supported this.
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
As an employer, you have an absolute right to demand that your staff refrain from making public statements that might reflect on your business.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 9th July 2019 at 11:25 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 11:35 PM   #50
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,501
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Again, I have already supported this.
Do you believe that it is appropriate for a business to be able to control what an employee says outside business hours?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 12:12 AM   #51
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Do you believe that it is appropriate for a business to be able to control what an employee says outside business hours?
Do you seriously not understand what I posted?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 12:29 AM   #52
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,501
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Do you seriously not understand what I posted?
I know that I've read this post several times and it leads me to a pretty inescapable conclusion:

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It is views like this that have conservatives agitating for religious protection laws.

As an employer, you have an absolute right to demand that your staff refrain from making public statements that might reflect on your business.

You have no right to censor what your staff might say as private citizens (even in a public forum) if your business is not identified.
But some of the things you have posted subsequently have left me unclear. I take it your answer to my question is "yes" then?

ETA Wait... I think I missed a word somewhere there. Ah yes, there it is. Right. Your position is entirely clear - I understand now. It was my fault - I misread you.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?

Last edited by arthwollipot; 10th July 2019 at 12:39 AM.
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 12:32 AM   #53
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You threw the bait out there when you claimed that in your no-name firm, all employees are effectively on the clock 24/7 and you have the right to control their speech both on and off the job.
Nice ad hominem there. Do your actually have anything worthwhile to say?

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The switch return to thread topic is when you went back to Falau Folau and repeated what I had said in the post you quoted in such a manner as to make it appear as if I had posted something different.
FTFY

You can't seem to get your logical fallacies straight. What you just described is a strawman, not a bait and switch.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You never followed up on what gives you the right as a nothing employer to control your employees' lives.
Another ad-hominem. What the matter Psion, losing your cool?

First, it is NOT "controlling my employee's lives". That's your grossly overblown falsehood. It is a reasonable expectation of a standard of behaviour from people who work for me. I have never had an applicant refuse to sign on any basis, let alone that they wanted to be free to insult, demean or offend protect minorities.

Second, its their signature on the employment contract, which the employee freely and willingly signs, that gives me the right... but is not the right to "control their lives", its the right to expect from them the standards of behaviour they have agreed to.

If they agree to the conditions they sign it, and they get the job. If they don't agree - if the "protected minorities" clause is a stumbling block for them, then they clearly they are not a person of good enough character to work for me, and they are looking for another employer.

I ran my employment contract past my solicitor. She made a couple of minor changes, but neither of them were to that clause. I encourage prospective applicants to have a solicitor look at the contract before they sign. Some do, some don't, but none have even come back and complained about that clause.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 02:46 AM   #54
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
<. . . rule 12 violations snipped . . .>

Second, its their signature on the employment contract, which the employee freely and willingly signs, that gives me the right... but is not the right to "control their lives", its the right to expect from them the standards of behaviour they have agreed to.
. . . . .
I got all that the first time. You expect to be able to include clauses in your employment contracts that go well and truly outside the scope of your business. You might say that prospective staff are "free" to sign your contracts but we both know that this is not the case. If they had other job offers that they were considering then you can be sure that more than a few would be telling you where you can put your contracts. "Sign or be dammed" is not a fair choice.

Of course, you ignored my main point. These clauses may be legal now but if enough tin pot dictators follow suit then you can be sure that conservatives will lobby a conservative government to change the law.

And when that happens, people like Israel Folau who have no right to embarrass Rugby Australia will also be protected.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 03:48 AM   #55
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I got all that the first time. You expect to be able to include clauses in your employment contracts that go well and truly outside the scope of your business. You might say that prospective staff are "free" to sign your contracts but we both know that this is not the case. If they had other job offers that they were considering then you can be sure that more than a few would be telling you where you can put your contracts. "Sign or be dammed" is not a fair choice.

Of course, you ignored my main point. These clauses may be legal now but if enough tin pot dictators follow suit then you can be sure that conservatives will lobby a conservative government to change the law.

And when that happens, people like Israel Folau who have no right to embarrass Rugby Australia will also be protected.
Oh dear... Angels and ministers of grace defend us!!
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 04:07 AM   #56
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Oh dear... Angels and ministers of grace defend us!!
That's a weird counter-argument.

I guess that there is no defence to the charge that prohibiting employees from making posts on facebook/twitter/ISF etc that you don't agree with is an abuse of power.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 04:33 AM   #57
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,626
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That's a weird counter-argument.

I guess that there is no defence to the charge that prohibiting employees from making posts on facebook/twitter/ISF etc that you don't agree with is an abuse of power.
As I see it, the ability of an employer to expect that certain standards of behaviour, including public speech, be maintained when "not on the clock" is dependent on whether or not an employee (or public servant) is perceived as being a public face of the organization regardless of the circumstances. Major athletes, whose identities are well known and intimately tied to their sport/team/etc can be seen as being "on the clock" 24/7 when it comes to things in the public sphere (and speech whether in front of a mic or online is public) can be seen as public and either positively or negatively effecting the brand of the team/sport - expecting such employees to not say things that negatively effect the brand is entirely reasonable - same as we expect higher ranking military or government personnel to not engage in activities that will result in a negative public image of the institution.

Most of us are not in that position - few of us are in a position where our public persona is intimately tied to our employment status to the point where anyone who sees/reads/hears what we do or say draws the conclusion that that person is speaking on behalf of the institution/business when they are not being employed at their jobs.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 04:38 AM   #58
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
As I see it, the ability of an employer to expect that certain standards of behaviour, including public speech, be maintained when "not on the clock" is dependent on whether or not an employee (or public servant) is perceived as being a public face of the organization regardless of the circumstances. Major athletes, whose identities are well known and intimately tied to their sport/team/etc can be seen as being "on the clock" 24/7 when it comes to things in the public sphere (and speech whether in front of a mic or online is public) can be seen as public and either positively or negatively effecting the brand of the team/sport - expecting such employees to not say things that negatively effect the brand is entirely reasonable - same as we expect higher ranking military or government personnel to not engage in activities that will result in a negative public image of the institution.

Most of us are not in that position - few of us are in a position where our public persona is intimately tied to our employment status to the point where anyone who sees/reads/hears what we do or say draws the conclusion that that person is speaking on behalf of the institution/business when they are not being employed at their jobs.
That expands on my position quite nicely. Well done.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 04:42 AM   #59
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That's a weird counter-argument.

I guess that there is no defence to the charge that prohibiting employees from making posts on facebook/twitter/ISF etc that you don't agree with is an abuse of power.
Again with the strawman

Never mind, debating with you is like bashing my face into a concrete walll
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 08:12 AM   #60
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So do you have in mind some quote you want to apply this sidetrack to?
It wasn't a sidetrack when you started it. Or was it?

Anyway, yes, I do have a quote in mind. Click on that little button next to my handle in the quote header, and you'll find it right away.

But I will summarize for you:

I will argue against your "whataboutism" canard wherever I find you pushing it.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 12:58 PM   #61
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,438
Me pushing it?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 01:05 PM   #62
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Me pushing it? : dl :
Pushing what?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 02:09 PM   #63
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,438
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Pushing what?
Quote:
I will argue against your "whataboutism" canard wherever I find you pushing it.
Are you trying to Bob the thread?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 02:37 PM   #64
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,538
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Pushing what?
I assume this:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 02:49 PM   #65
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Are you trying to Bob the thread?
Nope. Just refuting your bogus argument about "whataboutism", wherever I find you pushing that bogus argument.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 03:14 PM   #66
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,438
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Nope. Just refuting your bogus argument about "whataboutism", wherever I find you pushing that bogus argument.
I stand by what I said, maybe you think any and every comparison is whataboutism. That suggests a very limited vocabulary if you think whataboutism applies to every comparison..

"Whataboutism is when one says what about so and so, they do/did it too.

Using what someone does/did as a comparison is not whataboutism.

Now, if someone suffers and you discount it by saying it's nothing compared to the suffering of so and so, sometimes that is insensitive and sometimes it is a valid statement."
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 03:20 PM   #67
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I stand by what I said, maybe you think any and every comparison is whataboutism. That suggests a very limited vocabulary if you think whataboutism applies to every comparison..



"Whataboutism is when one says what about so and so, they do/did it too.



Using what someone does/did as a comparison is not whataboutism.



Now, if someone suffers and you discount it by saying it's nothing compared to the suffering of so and so, sometimes that is insensitive and sometimes it is a valid statement."
I think you may have missed every single point in this thread. Including, possibly, your own.

In any case, I have one more question for you: Is it possible to commit" whataboutism" without using the "what about" clause?

Last edited by theprestige; 10th July 2019 at 03:21 PM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 04:12 PM   #68
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,438
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think you may have missed every single point in this thread. Including, possibly, your own.
Typical post of yours, making up something bizarre then pretending superiority while dismissing any discussion.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In any case, I have one more question for you: Is it possible to commit" whataboutism" without using the "what about" clause?
Of course. So what?

Doesn't change jack about what I said, and, it didn't occur in this thread which merely compared 'real' persecution to the perceived persecution some Christians in the Western World are claiming.

Here's what you claimed in post #2
Quote:
I eagerly await Costello's condemnation here, for his blatant whataboutism.
You have that wrong and Costello was not saying what about these persecuted Christians in other countries, though obviously you cannot let your wrong assessment go and are annoyed that we aren't all agreeing.

Arthwollipot addressed your wrong conclusion in post #9:
Quote:
It is entirely appropriate to compare claims of Christians being persecuted in Australia to actual persecution in countries such as Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
You claimed that didn't answer your question but it did, very precisely.

Arthwollipot provided an example in post #9
Quote:
Gay people being allowed to get married does not persecute Christians. Israel Folau being disciplined for breaching an agreed Code of Conduct does not persecute Christians.
Sideroxylon is right here in post #22:
Quote:
Arth did answer it through elaboration. Now he has gone out of his way, how about you show a bit of courtesy and explain your claim while addressing what he has said.
Arcade22 agreed in post #23:
Quote:
It's not whataboutism because he's not excusing something, he's explaining that if people want to see what oppression and persecution actually looks like they should look at other countries.

Originally Posted by theprestige
To me it seems like the same kind of thing, the same kind of argument.
Yes, we know that. And it's clear you won't let go of that. You've gone on to accuse people of not addressing this, when they had.

You've accused people of not reading your posts yadda yadda, same old stuff.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 10th July 2019 at 04:16 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 06:42 PM   #69
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Again with the strawman
Sure, you worded it as "not making disparaging remarks towards protected minorities" but the effect is to give you editorial control over what your employees post. So there is no strawman here.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Never mind, debating with you is like bashing my face into a concrete walll
I suppose that's one way to get out of the corner you painted yourself into.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 08:17 PM   #70
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Sure, you worded it as "not making disparaging remarks towards protected minorities" but the effect is to give you editorial control over what your employees post. So there is no strawman here.
Those protected minorities have been under attack from the likes of you (and for the removal of doubt, I mean those who are free speech absolutists, and who want to allow bigots and racists to vent their bile by hiding it behind free speech rights) for decades. I'm not allowing it to happen on my watch!

Furthermore, members of that protected minority group make up a small but significant part of my clientele. Words matter and those words will affect my business. I have the absolute right to protect my business from damage.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I suppose that's one way to get out of the corner you painted yourself into.
The figure of speech "painted into a corner" in this context, implies that I want to walk back what I said but cannot figure out how to. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will not walk back my position.... ever; nor do I want to. I will staunchly defend my right to protect my business interests.

So long as my Government retains the right to prevent its employees making those kinds of remarks in public, I will demand to retain that right too. Should the law ever change the way you want it to (which will result in MY rights being trampled on), then I will have to protect myself some other way, for example, by engaging an internet security investigator to check out any potential employees prior to hiring them. It may be expensive, but the benefits will far outweigh that cost.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 08:44 PM   #71
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
"Whataboutism" is a variation of the Tu Quoque fallacy. The claims made by Costello are facts; Christians ARE persecuted in Syria, and other countries, they are NOT persecuted in Australia

Whataboutism in this case would be when you try to EXCUSE the actions of one group by pointing to another group and claiming "well they do it too, so its OK". That is emphatically NOT what Costello is claiming. He's pointing to the persecution of Christians in Syria and other counties and saying THAT is what real persecution of Christians looks like, and it doesn't look anything like what Christians are claiming is happening to them in Australia.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 10th July 2019 at 08:45 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 08:46 PM   #72
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,501
Exactly.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 09:10 PM   #73
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Those protected minorities have been under attack from the likes of you (and for the removal of doubt, I mean those who are free speech absolutists, and who want to allow bigots and racists to vent their bile by hiding it behind free speech rights) for decades. I'm not allowing it to happen on my watch!

Furthermore, members of that protected minority group make up a small but significant part of my clientele. Words matter and those words will affect my business. I have the absolute right to protect my business from damage.



The figure of speech "painted into a corner" in this context, implies that I want to walk back what I said but cannot figure out how to. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will not walk back my position.... ever; nor do I want to. I will staunchly defend my right to protect my business interests.

So long as my Government retains the right to prevent its employees making those kinds of remarks in public, I will demand to retain that right too. Should the law ever change the way you want it to (which will result in MY rights being trampled on), then I will have to protect myself some other way, for example, by engaging an internet security investigator to check out any potential employees prior to hiring them. It may be expensive, but the benefits will far outweigh that cost.
After that tirade do you still deny that you are a SJW?

It's no wonder that there are moves to increase protection to religious freedoms.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 09:12 PM   #74
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,501
Okay, the term "SJW" has been used. I'm out.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 09:59 PM   #75
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Okay, the term "SJW" has been used. I'm out.
I don't know what other term to use when somebody makes it their mission to stamp out all politically incorrect speech even if it means side stepping the law.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 10:10 PM   #76
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
After that tirade do you still deny that you are a SJW?
Yes, I do

You wouldn't know a social justice warrior if one fell through the roof of your house, landed on the seat in front of your Grand Piano and started playing "Social Justice Warriors are Here Again"!

Just because I see the oppression of minorities and refuse to be a part of that oppression does not make me an SJW.

Dr Martin Luther King spoke for the rights of black minorities.... was he an SJW?

Anderson Cooper speaks for the rights of LGBTQI minorities.... is he an SJW too?


Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It's no wonder that there are moves to increase protection to religious freedoms.
I'm all for people having the right to freedom of expression, and freedom of religion and freedom to believe in anything they like. What I am NOT in favour of is allowing that freedom to give THEM the right to harm others with no consequences.

That doesn't make me a Social Justice Warrior, it makes me a person with common decency, a strong moral compass, and a good sense of the difference between right and wrong... I will never, ever apologise for that, and nor will I ever shrink away from it.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 10th July 2019 at 10:14 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 10:24 PM   #77
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Dr Martin Luther King spoke for the rights of black minorities.... was he an SJW?

Anderson Cooper speaks for the rights of LGBTQI minorities.... is he an SJW too?
Did they force their prospective employees to sign contracts limiting what they could say outside of work?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 10:51 PM   #78
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Did they force their prospective employees to sign contracts limiting what they could say outside of work?
Non- sequitur. Your strawman is unrelated to the question.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 11:51 PM   #79
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,559
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Non- sequitur. Your strawman is unrelated to the question.
So your answer is "no". Therefore their actions bear no relation to yours.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2019, 12:52 AM   #80
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
So your answer is "no".
My answer was that your question is based on a strawman of your making

You are representing my statement that "I will staunchly defend my right to protect my business interests" as "I force prospective employees to sign contracts limiting what they could say outside of work?"

I don't force anyone to sign anything. It is no more onerous signing for compliance with a business policy of not attacking protected minorities than it is signing for compliance that they will treat customers with courtesy at all times, or to turn up to work on time.

I have an absolute, irrefutable right to decide who I will employ, and who I will not employ. Only scumbags, racists and bigots want to attack protected minorities, and I have an absolute, irrefutable right to ensure that no scumbags, racists or bigots work for me!
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 11th July 2019 at 12:54 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.