And owning an assault weapon will do nothing to stop it anyway. — Xtrix

It is exactly what would stop it.

If government goes too far, they'd have to contend with a population that is already armed.

Waging a large-scale counter-insurgency on its own soil, against its own people? That'll be the end of whatever empire is foolish enough to try.

There are no reasons to own them ... — Benkei

Given the actions of governments world-wide over the past few years I would beg to differ.

Tyranny is not something we can look back at and marvel over. The events of the past years have shown that government still is the foremost threat to peace and humanity, as it always has been.

Force is the language of tyrants, force is the language of government, and all peoples who would wish to remain free should speak it.

If some government went barmy and demanded something of me I didn't want to give it, the government is going to win, hands down every time, my .22 hunting rifle is no match for fully armed AFOs, let alone the army. — Isaac

Civilians with guns are not going to stop the US military, ... — Maw

Peasants with guns have been besting professional militaries for decades (throughout all of human history, really), including the US military on several occasions.

And fighting against a guerilla on your own soil, against your own people? A modern military wouldn't stand a chance, no matter how much barbarism it is willing to resort to.

Laying waste to someone else's country and people is one thing, laying waste to your own - that'll be the end of whatever nation was so foolish to try.

Meanwhile, let's ban guns right now everywhere whilst we work that out. — Isaac

Given the last and the current US presidents, and the recent propensity in the US and the world towards authoritarianism, I'd say keep the second amendment right where it is.

When mass shootings occur, somehow the debate is always about gun control and never about why kids are massacring kids.

It's not normal, obviously. I would be wondering what kind of rot has seeped into society that's causing it.

One's own 'evil' tendencies must first be understood. Before understanding there is only a meaningless moral limbo known as ignorance, where one commits good and evil by pure coincidence and one is a slave to their lesser nature.

Evil is not an inherent part of man. When one understands why evil tendencies exist, it becomes a choice. It is therein that morality lies. From that point onward man becomes a moral agent.

Who was it that said that the strength of a man's character can be gauged by the amount of truth he is able to stomach?

The issue with the term 'toxic masculinity' in the way that it is often used is that it implies that there is something inherently toxic about masculinity.

Instead of regarding problematic behaviors as seperate phenomena, apparently the need is felt to link these behaviors to men and masculinity.

That is very problematic, and it has appeared to me as though the term has become a society-sanctioned way of projecting one's personal grievances with men on men as a whole.

Examples include - using physical strength and height to intimidate other people (especially women), hatred of gay people; hyper masculinity - sexually inappropriate towards women; use of violence (or threats thereof) to influence behavior or punish others; inability to access and fear of emotions (except aggression and anger). — Tom Storm

Women exhibit all of these behaviors as well, including hyper masculinity (ironically).

The suggestion seems to be that only men can exhibit 'toxic masculine' behavior, which is inaccurate, sexist and putting women on a pedestal.

And yes, women can be badly behaved too but, from what I've seen, not quite in the same pugnacious manner or as frequently. — Tom Storm

Ah, there's the pedestal.

I don't think the idea that killing / mistreating animals is unethical and killing / mistreating plants is perfectly fine holds much philosophical merit.

Both constitute life, both are in ways essential for our survival, and all life shows signs of consciousness. We don't have a moral right to mistreat an animal any more than we have a moral right to mistreat plants and trees.

To make any kind of consumption ethical, some form of symbiosis needs to be reached.

Man has reached this symbiosis with plants and animals on many occasions, but it is often lost under the pressure of overpopulation and greed.

We are our mind and body in the present moment, and nothing else.

Good point by the OP.

Power doesn't corrupt, but simply liberates individuals to a degree that the corrupt parts of their soul can manifest more strongly.

I think you are trying to tergiversate the main point of the conversation. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Wouldn't it be revelant to your logically coherent conclusion that individuals in the way you describe them are not acting rationally?

Is the most coherent conclusion that we have to just "Live at war" indefinitely? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Should individuals live "at war" with each other in pursuit of a goal that they hold no stake in nor any influence over?

Doesn't seem very coherent to me.

Your promotion of the term 'strategic interests' ignores the reasonableness or not of those interests. — Tim3003

The reasonableness doesn't need to be taken into account at all. Whatever judgement we pass on the reasonableness of a nation's strategic interest, the fact of the matter is that they will pursue those interests regardless of our judgement.

All we can do is take note and act accordingly.

Ignoring them invites war.

I thought the UN was a tool for peace. — Tim3003

The United Nations are a means of communication between nations. Communication facilitates peace, but it cannot cause it unless the nations of the world want peace.

That's why kicking nations out of the UN is a terrible idea. It cuts off diplomatic routes, leaving violence as the only option.

And the reason certain countries, including Russia, have a veto in the UNSC, is because the founders of the UN realized the danger of backing nuclear-armed state actors into a corner.

Your vision will surely promote regional conflict ... — Tim3003

I've not proposed a vision. I've explained to you why the United Nations work the way they do.

Maybe the way the UN operates does in some way turn a blind eye on regional conflicts (mostly it just lacks the power to avoid it), but I'm not convinced there's a suitable alternative. Kicking nations out of the UN is certainly not it.

Twitter doesn't impede your right to speech. — Michael

It certainly does, and Twitter and platforms like Google have already been reprimanded on this issue.

That's what it means to live in a digital age.

Freedom of expression is a human right. When certain companies grow so large that they have the power to impede human rights you're asking me who is going to compensate them for not violating those rights?

That's a bit obscene.

For normal companies I'd say yes. But social media like Twitter hold a special, near monopolistic place in public discourse and should in my opinion be regarded as a public forum in the legal sense, and thus the right to freedom of speech should be observed especially.

Do I not have the right to choose who works for me? — Michael

Of course you do. You exercise that right by being able to sign contracts with whoever you like, and come to a mutual agreement about the terms of that contract.

If you happen to contract somebody who turns out to be a bit of a nutcase; tough luck! That's down to you being a poor judge of character or being careless with the terms of contract, and unless they do something illegal or breach the contract, I'd say you're morally (and in a lot of cases legally) obliged to uphold your end of the deal.

Such interactions between individuals are usually written down in a contract, and includes what is expected of both parties.

Why would your right not to be offended take precedence over contractual obligations?

No, the general principle is:

Premise 1: An employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing morally reprehensible opinions

I then apply this principle to the more specific case:

Premise 2: Racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-semitism are morally reprehensible
Conclusion: An employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-semitic opinions

Which of premise(s) do you disagree with? — Michael

Premise 1, obviously.

And while I would agree with premise 2, I wouldn't trust anyone with the power to decide what is considered racist, sexist or what have you. My moral opinions I hold to guide my own behavior, and I don't expect or desire others to follow it, except of their own volition.

Is "I like Hitler" a racist, homophobic or anti-semetic remark? Yet I'm sure such a remark would incur your wrath as an employer, would it not?

If we choose to ignore powerful countries' strategic interests, such as has happened in Ukraine with Russia, we invite war. To me that's not a matter of right and wrong, but of cause and effect.

If we want a peaceful world, powerful nations will need to have their strategic interests secure and not threatened.

Using a veto in the UN is a way for a powerful nation to say "This threatens my strategic interests", and thus is a proponent to a more peaceful world.

Of course, if we ignore these things and simply continue to threaten strategic interests anyway, we invite war. If we then take away all avenues of conflict resolution besides violence, we invite more war, etc.

My claim is that we have a "natural" right to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions. — Michael

I don't know what such a "natural right" would be based on. Some sort of right not to be offended by someone else? I'd wholeheartedly disagree with that.

And these certain kinds of opinions just so happen to be views you disagree with also? If roles were reversed, would you feel the same way, or does it only apply when you agree with what is deemed reasonable and what isn't?

Us. We're the arbiter of everything. [...] That we sometimes make mistakes isn't that we shouldn't make any kind of judgement at all. — Michael

Mankind's history is near entirely comprised of unreasonable lapses of moral judgement.

Ironically, the fact that at one point certain enlightened individuals understood the value of free speech is one of few exceptions to an atrocious track record that doesn't suggest even the slightest ability to responsibly wield power of any kind, let alone power over fundamental human rights.

You wouldn't let a toddler play with a scalpel.

I'm not saying that they should fire them. I'm saying that (depending on the opinion) they have the right to fire them. — Michael

Whether they have the right or not is a legal matter and depends entirely on where one lives and what the terms of contract are.

I'm not saying that they should fire them. — Michael

Then what are you saying people should do? And why?

If they express the opinion that black people are inferior to white people and ought not have the same legal rights, then you, possibly a black man, ought be allowed to terminate their employment. — Michael

Why should someone else's ignorance bother me so, assuming all they do is hold an ignorant opinion?

Although, as above, that depends on the opinion. — Michael

And who should be the arbiter of this?

People don't exactly have a shining track record when it comes to determining what is "extreme" and what is "reasonable".

No, the act of expressing that opinion is sufficient grounds for being fired or having one's social media account suspended. — Michael

That doesn't seem to be what you're arguing at all.

Lets say you overhear your employee during a private phone conversation and you find out they have an opinion you strongly dislike.

Should you now fire them?

I don't need a "way out". — Michael

Clearly you do.

Lets say you're working hard trying to provide for your family, but then news reaches my ears you have some funny ideas about freedom of expression.

Should I now fire you because I dislike your opinions?

I believe that public expressions of a person's opinions does matter to people. — Michael

I'm sure they matter to people, but why?

Note that I've already offered you a way out, in suggesting that certain opinions may lead to problematic behavior which could be a grounds for firing someone. (In which case it would be the behavior and not the opinion that is the critical factor)

But instead you insist that the act of having an opinion is sufficient grounds for censorship and robbing someone of their livelihood.

That begs the question why.

You believe opinions matter enough for people to be fired and censored over them. That much is obvious or you wouldn't be espousing these ideas.

The question you refuse to answer is why these opinions matter so much to you.

That directly contradicts your desire to see people with private opinions you dislike unemployed and censored.

You're dodging the question.

The fact that Russia (or indeed any country with a veto) is able to block security resolutions that it feels undermine its strategic interest is a sign that the United Nations is functioning exactly as it should, in that it seeks to avoid powerful nations being backed into a corner where their only way out is more violence; something that would be an inevitable result of excluding certain nations from the UN and counter to its founding principles.

Whether we like certain countries' policies and actions or not, their strategic interests are extremely revelant for world peace and that understanding seems to be completely lacking in this thread.

I don't understand the question. — Michael

Someone has an opinion I don't like. Why or how should that affect me? — Tzeentch

You're telling me that you wish for people to lose their jobs and their right to free speech because they hold opinions you don't like, but you cannot even tell me why their private opinions should matter to you?

... , Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), ... — neomac

The United States and their meddling in Russia's backyard with Europe as its forward pawn is what is an existential threat to Europe.

I don't understand the question. — Michael

Someone has an opinion I don't like. Why or how should that affect me?

An unfortunate opinion. How exactly should that affect me?

My argument is that I'm not obligated to keep him as an employee. — Michael

Depending on the terms of contract, you may very well be.

But you're beating around the bush. Your example doesn't feature an expression of an opinion, but an insult.

Another attempt to justify your desire for punishment, which reaffirms the need for my question to be answered.

You're obligated to whatever was agreed upon in the contract.

If that contract states one is able to fire an employee at any time, for whatever reason, then that's part of it.

But you're ignoring the fundamental question here:

The question is, why can't we contend with shrugging our shoulders and disagreeing?
Why is there a need to punish people who we strongly disagree with? — Tzeentch

A bit too confrontational for comfort, perhaps?

most (all?) of us are just saying that even if the government ought not have the power to prevent people from speaking or imprison/fine those who do, it is right that people are held accountable for the things they say and face reasonable social consequences such as being fired from private employment or having their social media account suspended. — Michael

What these arguments amount to is that expressing one's privately held beliefs can be sufficient reason for someone to end up unemployed or without a voice.

Of course we can think of examples where one's privately held beliefs can make one unable to hold certain jobs. In such cases a good argument needs to be made why that is so, but the grounds for firing someone would not be them expressing their beliefs, but them being unsuitable for a job.


The question is, why can't we contend with shrugging our shoulders and disagreeing?
Why is there a need to punish people who we strongly disagree with?

Fear or a desire for control, neither of which are good councillors for reasoned thought. (And both of which are the prime movers of human evil)

And you think that any opinion should be able to be expressed without legal consequences, i.e. without a breach of contract? So employers should not be able to require that their employees refrain from expressing certain opinions? I cannot make it a condition of employment at my synagogue that employees must not condone Nazism? — Michael

No, I don't think that.

I just thought I'd point out that freedom of expression is a human right, thus unalienable and not suspended as the result of a contract.

What two parties agree upon consensually to be the terms of their contract is none of my business.

You count being fired from private employment as a legal consequence? — Michael

Assuming there was a contract involved that would be breached, yes.

It is possible that expressing certain opinions constitutes a breach of contract, which would make losing one's job a legal consequence one has agreed to as a result of them signing the contract.

Though, it should be noted that freedom of expression is a human right and is thus unalienable, therefore cannot be suspended as part of a contract.

It might not be OK to fire someone for expressing certain kinds of extreme political opinions, like the abolition of government, but OK to fire someone for expressing other kinds of extreme political opinions, like Nazism. — Michael

I disagree.

Any opinion should be able to be expressed without legal consequences, assuming they're expressed in a non-disruptive manner, and not a direct threat of or call to violence.

Reason being, whatever lowest common denominator of humanity is represented by governments would have to arbitrate what we consider reasonable limitations on free speech.

Wielding power over speech in a responsible manner and being able to estimate what is "extreme" and what is "reasonable" are things that governments (and indeed most individuals) have time and again proven to be incapable of.

Furthermore, it testifies of a fundamental distrust in the individual's ability for reason if one believes that free speech can lead to dangerous ideas taking hold. Usually ideas that are labled as such are dangerous to those who would rather hang onto their power. It's that distrust of the individual in which we find the roots of authoritarianism and all the suffering it brings.

It is in the crucible of free discourse that extreme ideas get tested and discarded. That's the power of free speech. It is in a climate of censorship that extremism thrives, usually by pointing at other extremists as an excuse to censor criticism.

"Fuck off and die" is not an opinion.

But you're right. I am trying to nudge you, towards being able to see things in perspective, so you too may one day formulate a worthwhile opinion on something as fundamental as free speech.

We're not quite there yet, it seems.