• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Viral video of man picking on Chick-fil-A worker gets him fired

apdst said:
You believe in being sorta free? The government can't ruin your life, but someone else can? That's not freedom.
Click to expand...

It certainly is freedom, the boss is free to fire morons that pubically spew garbage and post it on YouTube. Your right to freely swing your hand stops where my nose begins. Not only "little guys" have freedom, everybody does.
 
apdst said:
The guy is an obvious asshole, but he didn't deserve to be fired.

His 1st Amendment rights were violated by this action.
Click to expand...

I agree. As I said previous, with all the social networking and blah blah blah, the databasing these days is high and we are losing our personal lives. I understand if there are certain conduct expected of business and their employees; but this guy was as off the clock as he could get and I don't think he should face ramifications for having run his mouth.

I think we may be at a point where we need to EXPAND the Bill of Rights. Not adding more amendments mind you, but clarifying what is allowed and making it so that one cannot be fired for their personal life if what they are doing is not illegal and not infringing on the rights of others.

It's time to take back our personal lives.
 
Wake said:
Private businesses can fire at will.
Click to expand...

They certainly can. But it just feels to me (and of course this is mere opinion) that it's getting out of hand. There are too many mechanisms through which we can be monitored and reported, we may have to start imposing some restrictions in order to maintain our freedom.
 
Caine said:
The guy is a douche bag. Yes.

And yes the company had a right to fire him.

Just think if this guy was a police officer and did something like this in his off-duty time and posted it on youtube.

People would be calling for his badge, having the incident "investigated", etc, etc, etc. All claiming that he gets tax dollars and thus its the public's business.



However, If this guy worked for the city trash service, not so much, nobody would care. (still tax dollars).


This guy's employers looked into it (investigation) and made their decision to fire him.
Click to expand...

If this were an off duty cop, I would say exactly what I am saying now. Even more so because he's a cop, there are plenty of dirty pool cops out there whom are much greater threat than a cop who would merely run his mouth while off duty.
 
apdst said:
And, for the last time, when when their are consequences to you excercising your freedoms, they're not really freedoms. No one should have to fear reprisal--from anyone--for excercising their constitutional rights. Anyone that doesn't agree with that knows nothing about what freedom really means.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it should be you shouldn't fear reprisal from anyone. But that our datamining and data collection has been aggregated to such a level as it is truly becoming detrimental to our rights. And in that light, we should expand upon our explicitly stated rights to curtail this trend.
 
Caine said:
We usually agree on stuff, but I am going to have to disagree with you on this one bud.

If I walk up to you and call you an "ugly ****ing N******" I should not have to fear reprisal from your fist for exercising my freedoms?
Click to expand...

In this case, no. For you are just running your mouth, but his response would be assault. You should be free to do as you like so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process.
 
Ikari said:
In this case, no. For you are just running your mouth, but his response would be assault. You should be free to do as you like so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process.
Click to expand...

He could also say "get out of my store" and in adpst's view that would be a violation of his speech rights because being kicked out of a store would be a consequence.
 
megaprogman said:
He could also say "get out of my store" and in adpst's view that would be a violation of his speech rights because being kicked out of a store would be a consequence.
Click to expand...

Naw, that's property rights. And in many cases so is the boss for firing the individual. It's a tough call cause you can see abuse either way. Though the same is true with government in general, yes?

The datamining, the surveillance, etc. which exists now....it's getting to obscene levels and will only get worse. I fear that we could all become defacto slaves here because of the sins brought by technology. And on that front, I'd rather cut this off at the pass. There are behavioral expectations and other limitations to employment, but we really are getting to a point in which we no longer have personal lives, and at that point you're as good a slave.

I don't know, I think on some level this is why everything should be performance base. Don't care what you do on your time, so long as that on my time you are the best there is. And of course even that has limitations.
 
Ikari said:
Naw, that's property rights. And in many cases so is the boss for firing the individual. It's a tough call cause you can see abuse either way. Though the same is true with government in general, yes?

The datamining, the surveillance, etc. which exists now....it's getting to obscene levels and will only get worse. I fear that we could all become defacto slaves here because of the sins brought by technology. And on that front, I'd rather cut this off at the pass. There are behavioral expectations and other limitations to employment, but we really are getting to a point in which we no longer have personal lives, and at that point you're as good a slave.

I don't know, I think on some level this is why everything should be performance base. Don't care what you do on your time, so long as that on my time you are the best there is. And of course even that has limitations.
Click to expand...

erm, I think we are on different topics. I was still talking about adpst and him not understanding the first amendment.
 
megaprogman said:
erm, I think we are on different topics. I was still talking about adpst and him not understanding the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I do agree with the spirit in which adpst's comments were made. That kinda makes me feel dirty.
 
Ikari said:
Maybe, but I do agree with the spirit in which adpst's comments were made. That kinda makes me feel dirty.
Click to expand...

I can't say I do. Society has a vested interest in self regulation and internal cultural consistency. Shaming people for things like being racist and other antisocial behaviors is perfectly acceptable and in cases, a good thing.

This does not mean government should get into the business of regulating speech though.
 
megaprogman said:
We live in a world where we have to interact with other people, deal with it.
Click to expand...

Right, and in a free country, I shouldn't have to worry about any backlash because of me simply voicing my opinion. Deal with that.
 
megaprogman said:
I can't say I do. Society has a vested interest in self regulation and internal cultural consistency. Shaming people for things like being racist and other antisocial behaviors is perfectly acceptable and in cases, a good thing.

This does not mean government should get into the business of regulating speech though.
Click to expand...

I do agree on many levels, and I think self regulation is a proper means through which we can eliminate government coercion. But I just see the level of Social Brother (right, not even Big Brother) surveillance into our lives and if anyone messes up, even once, then it will have life destroying consequences. But it really does feel as if we are getting to a point that because of the tech we have, and the databasing, and the searching algorithms that it is becoming harder and harder to be an individual. And that is not a good thing.
 
apdst said:
Right, and in a free country, I shouldn't have to worry about any backlash because of me simply voicing my opinion. Deal with that.
Click to expand...

Actually you should if that opinion is unacceptable to people in a greater society.
 
Ikari said:
I do agree on many levels, and I think self regulation is a proper means through which we can eliminate government coercion. But I just see the level of Social Brother (right, not even Big Brother) surveillance into our lives and if anyone messes up, even once, then it will have life destroying consequences. But it really does feel as if we are getting to a point that because of the tech we have, and the databasing, and the searching algorithms that it is becoming harder and harder to be an individual. And that is not a good thing.
Click to expand...

I agree. Its one of the flaws of human nature. People love being social and these software platforms let us scratch that mental itch. Its not going to get better unless people evolve away as its rarely a conscious decision to participate.
 
megaprogman said:
I agree. Its one of the flaws of human nature. People love being social and these software platforms let us scratch that mental itch. Its not going to get better unless people evolve away as its rarely a conscious decision to participate.
Click to expand...

The biggest flaw, IMO, of human nature is that because of it anarchy cannot work.

I do think we are approaching a line wherein we can place reasonable restrictions upon government and business to maintain our freedom. Right? They're always saying we should accept "reasonable" restriction to our rights for the sake of functional government or public safety; that door swings both ways.
 
Ikari said:
The biggest flaw, IMO, of human nature is that because of it anarchy cannot work.

I do think we are approaching a line wherein we can place reasonable restrictions upon government and business to maintain our freedom. Right? They're always saying we should accept "reasonable" restriction to our rights for the sake of functional government or public safety; that door swings both ways.
Click to expand...

We crossed that line a long time ago. There is a reason businesses have been employing psychologists in their advertising campaigns. They take advantage of us by knowing our flaws and have been doing so for a long while now.
 
Caine said:
We usually agree on stuff, but I am going to have to disagree with you on this one bud.
Click to expand...

We might have to agree to disagree, my brother.

If I walk up to you and call you an "ugly ****ing N******" I should not have to fear reprisal from your fist for exercising my freedoms?
Click to expand...

But, that's not what happened. This cat simply expressed his disagreement with Chick Filet's managment's public opinion on gay marriage. Is he an asshole? Sure, but there is nothing in the criminal code that makes being as asshole a crime.

This dude shouldn't be punished for expressing his opinion, just like Chick Filet shouldn't be boycotted because it's managment expressed it's opinion.
 
So if I owned a business and I advocated for ****ing babies (but never did it or anything illegal beyond having an opinion), i wouldn't deserve a boycott?

seriously?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It certainly is freedom, the boss is free to fire morons that pubically spew garbage and post it on YouTube. Your right to freely swing your hand stops where my nose begins. Not only "little guys" have freedom, everybody does.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that this guy's employer doesn't have the right to fire him. I question whether, or not, it's right to fire him, over this.

He showed his ass in public. I mean, so what? Have you ever showed your ass in public?
 
megaprogman said:
He could also say "get out of my store" and in adpst's view that would be a violation of his speech rights because being kicked out of a store would be a consequence.
Click to expand...

Wow! Now, you can read my mind? Where did I say that?

Along with freedom of speech, I believe that an establishment reserves the right to refuse service to, anyone.

But, whatever bro, keep distorting my handle and falsely believing you know what I really think. It's assinine to think that being refused service equates to losing one's livelyhood.
 
apdst said:
Wow! Now, you can read my mind? Where did I say that?

Along with freedom of speech, I believe that an establishment reserves the right to refuse service to, anyone.

But, whatever bro, keep distorting my handle and falsely believing you know what I really think. It's assinine to think that being refused service equates to losing one's livelyhood.
Click to expand...

you said if people face consequences, free speech is violated. now you are being inconsistent.
 
megaprogman said:
Actually you should if that opinion is unacceptable to people in a greater society.
Click to expand...

Umm...no! Society doesn't dictate how I think. That's political correctness, my man, and political correctness is the biggest attack on freedom of expression that we've ever faced.
 
megaprogman said:
So if I owned a business and I advocated for ****ing babies (but never did it or anything illegal beyond having an opinion), i wouldn't deserve a boycott?

seriously?
Click to expand...

That's a stupid comparison. Are you saying that gay marriage is remotely related to ****ing babies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom