Roseanne Barr off the air

Giordano said:
Oh, I thought that quote was attributed to Oscar Wikde like so many others...:)

I hope that Voltaire was not declaring his willingness to die just so some scumbag could call another human being an abhorrent, demeaning racial insult. Somehow I always pictured this stirring declaration to refer to a defense of ideas more soul stirring and important to our civilization and to our society than slimy school yard taunts. Maybe issues and discussions that seek to bring out the best in us. Maybe a debate on Marxism vs. capitalism. Or the role of marriage in society. It is important to hear all sides in these types of discussion. The freedom to insult, threaten, debase, and demean others? Not high on my list of things to die for.

And are you certain the UN charter states that any jerk has the right to say any noxious and disgusting thing they wish and never be condemned by any other private citizen or private organization? Didn't you already state your understanding of the difference between frredom from government repercussions and freedom from other people calling a jerk a jerk?
Click to expand...

Funny how the ideas that shouldn't be protected are ones you don't like. You realize ideas people like don't need protection, right? So your interpretation is quite obviously wrong.

Unless you believe a good translation is "I don't believe like you, but if I like how you believe I will die for your ability to say so. "
 
Jungle Jim said:
Seriously? This is your evidence that Valerie Jarrett is a stooge for the Iranians. You clearly have no credibility as a poster.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, have I been making assumptions again? I did assume that everyone knew she was born in Iran.

In any event, certainly one did not say that was all the evidence, and certainly credible skeptics would have undoubtedly investigated on their own behalf, certainly.

Oh well, let me save you the burden of clicking google

https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-and-us-held-secret-talks-for-over-a-year/
 
Craig B said:
There is no right of free speech such that nothing anyone says will have personal or professional consequences for the person saying it.
Click to expand...

Then everyone promoting anti segregation or women's rights back in the day should not have complained when they were fired for it?

If you don't believe that your view is very hypocritical and boils down to when people say things you like that get them fired is wrong but if you don't like it is perfectly fine.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh dear, I wasn't aware that this was not common knowledge, certainly the 19th ward guys I was sitting with seemed to think so.

Certainly the Israelis knew all about it

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578778/valerie-jarrett-iran
Click to expand...
The Obama administration was hopeful of normalizing relationships with Iran. BFD and oh dear to boot. Your evidence makes weak tea seem like toxic sludge.

According to your world view, may I assume that you consider Trump a stooge of North Korea? (Rhetorical; no answer expected.)
 
varwoche said:
The Obama administration was hopeful of normalizing relationships with Iran. BFD and oh dear to boot. Your evidence makes weak tea seem like toxic sludge.
Click to expand...
If by that you mean, "The Obama administration had brought us to the brink of normalizing relations with Iran and in the process had secured an unprecedented multilateral nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran, which the Trump administration insanely flushed down the toilet," you've got it about right.
 
Ziggurat said:
First off, why do I need to substantiate something which is an obvious logical possibility.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that “It is possible therefor it is so?”
Ziggurat said:
All one need to do to see that it's a possibility is think about it.
Click to expand...

On the contrary it seems rather nonsequitur conclusion. The second part does not follow logically from the first because the situations and dynamics are complexly different.
Ziggurat said:
are you really under the impression that this has never happened
Click to expand...

Whether it’s ever happened is not the issue. (In fact I’d argue there is a parallel in some cases of bullying) People suffer insults all the time without it inciting others to commit violence against them so in we know up front your conclusion fails. If there are exceptions, where violence is incited against a person because that person was the target of an insult, deal with it as such.
 
sadhatter said:
Then everyone promoting anti segregation or women's rights back in the day should not have complained when they were fired for it?

If you don't believe that your view is very hypocritical and boils down to when people say things you like that get them fired is wrong but if you don't like it is perfectly fine.
Click to expand...
They should indeed have complained, but this is not a simple case where an employer fired Barr anyway. Associates refused to cooperate with her because they didn't want to be linked to her utterances. And her views were not expressions of principle, but personal insults directed at specific individuals. Inaccurate ones as well. If I had been fired for something like that, I would have had few grounds for complaint.
 
Babbylonian said:
If by that you mean, "The Obama administration had brought us to the brink of normalizing relations with Iran and in the process had secured an unprecedented multilateral nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran, which the Trump administration insanely flushed down the toilet," you've got it about right.
Click to expand...


Someone really hates Obummer, it seems.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region


Perhaps Trump can pardon Roseanne.
 
lomiller said:
On the contrary it seems rather nonsequitur conclusion. The second part does not follow logically from the first because the situations and dynamics are complexly different.
Click to expand...

No, they are not completely different. Why would they be?

Whether it’s ever happened is not the issue.
Click to expand...

Of course it's the issue. If it has happened, then that proves conclusively that it can happen, Hlafordlaes was wrong, and what you called an "unsubstantiated assertion" is instead a fact.

People suffer insults all the time without it inciting others to commit violence against them so in we know up front your conclusion fails.
Click to expand...

Groups suffer insults all the time without it inciting others to commit violence against them as well. Nobody, including Hlafordlaes, claimed that insults always lead to violence. He only claimed that insults can lead to violence in the case of groups, not that it always does. Likewise I claim insults can lead to violence against individuals, but I never claimed that it always does. So my conclusion didn't fail, and your statement here is a mere straw man.
 
Craig B said:
They should indeed have complained, but this is not a simple case where an employer fired Barr anyway. Associates refused to cooperate with her because they didn't want to be linked to her utterances. And her views were not expressions of principle, but personal insults directed at specific individuals. Inaccurate ones as well. If I had been fired for something like that, I would have had few grounds for complaint.
Click to expand...

You must have missed it, I want talking about rosanne.

Try answering my question versus an easy one you can answer, it makes debate so much richer.
 
sadhatter said:
You must have missed it, I want talking about rosanne.

Try answering my question versus an easy one you can answer, it makes debate so much richer.
Click to expand...
You have enriched the discussion already by posting words that don't make sense. What do these strange words mean? "I want talking about rosanne. Try answering my question versus an easy one you can answer."
 
Craig B said:
You have enriched the discussion already by posting words that don't make sense. What do these strange words mean? "I want talking about rosanne. Try answering my question versus an easy one you can answer."
Click to expand...

God forbid autocorrect misses one letter. Wasn't was the word in question.

Now maybe try answering the question asked? Though you trying to wiggle around it is funny.
 
sadhatter said:
God forbid autocorrect misses one letter. Wasn't was the word in question.

Now maybe try answering the question asked? Though you trying to wiggle around it is funny.
Click to expand...
im glad you're having a laugh at least. Now be specific about your point. If you have a question you want me to answer, ask it.
 
Ziggurat said:
First off, why do I need to substantiate something which is an obvious logical possibility? All one need to do to see that it's a possibility is think about it.

Second, are you really under the impression that this has never happened? That speech about an individual has never lead to violence against that individual? That would be an extraordinary assertion, and would itself require extraordinary evidence. It would be passing strange if speech could affect behavior towards groups but not towards individuals. What theory of human behavior could possibly support such a belief? It makes no sense.

Lastly, the coup de grace. A single example suffices to show that it's possible. So I refer you to the case of Matthew Apperson.
Click to expand...

Or the speech by Brutus regarding Caesar. Act 3 scene 2. Very violent.
 
lomiller said:
So your argument is that “It is possible therefor it is so?”


On the contrary it seems rather nonsequitur conclusion. The second part does not follow logically from the first because the situations and dynamics are complexly different.
Click to expand...
So libel and slander laws that protect individuals don't make any sense because only groups of people can be slandered or libeled?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom