• 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!

Do you support civil/criminal penalties for intentional use of non preferred pronouns?

Do you support civil/criminal penalties for intentional use of non preferred pronouns?

  • Yes, I support civil penalties

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, I support criminal penalties

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, I support civil and criminal penalties

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Just no

    Votes: 25 96.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • Total voters
    26
Chomsky said:
Any freedom & right can be abused. But it usually is worse to abuse a right by excessively limiting it. Nothing's perfect.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that was a very comforting thought for Blacks after Dishonest Abe "freed" them. LGBT folks can expect the same century plus "respect" to be given to them as "citizens" in the USA as Blacks got.

Doesn't the "we make mistakes but we are trying, no system is perfect" ever wear thin for y'all?
 
TheGoverness said:
No. I don't support criminal penalties. I think it kinda interferes with the idea of free speech in my mind.

I don't want anyone do be discriminated against, and being the L in the LGBT, I understand wanting people to accept you (hence why I respect my trans friends by referring to them with their chosen pronouns). But implementing something like this, just wouldn't help, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Many groups from all over the political spectrum make the mistake of trying to demand compassion rather than inspire it and I think it ends up with the opposite effect.
 
X Factor said:
Sure, until you’re served with a summons...
Click to expand...

Bring it on, I would love to be served that summons, as would my attorneys. They would be happier than pigs in slop. If there was a slam dunk break the backboard glass case, this would be it.
 
camlok said:
I'm sure that was a very comforting thought for Blacks after Dishonest Abe "freed" them. LGBT folks can expect the same century plus "respect" to be given to them as "citizens" in the USA as Blacks got.

Doesn't the "we make mistakes but we are trying, no system is perfect" ever wear thin for y'all?
Click to expand...
What? You seem to be either ignorantly, or naively, conflating an awful lot here.

There was no "mistake" in speech legislation concerning men & women of color. Hate speech directed towards African-Americans is not illegal today, nor was it ever. I have no idea what your talking about, here.
 
camlok said:
I'm sure that was a very comforting thought for Blacks after Dishonest Abe "freed" them. LGBT folks can expect the same century plus "respect" to be given to them as "citizens" in the USA as Blacks got.

Doesn't the "we make mistakes but we are trying, no system is perfect" ever wear thin for y'all?
Click to expand...

I don't know why but a lot of the times your posts appear to be absolutely incoherent Babble or complete cognitive dissonance.
 
camlok said:
I have already pointed that out. See Post#21
Click to expand...

Well I for one am personally flattered by your US obsession. We are definitely worth it.
 
camlok said:
I'm sure that was a very comforting thought for Blacks after Dishonest Abe "freed" them. LGBT folks can expect the same century plus "respect" to be given to them as "citizens" in the USA as Blacks got.

Doesn't the "we make mistakes but we are trying, no system is perfect" ever wear thin for y'all?
Click to expand...

You're conflating two things that are not similar. In your example for blacks, slavery, segregation, and such it was the law that was imposing on the rights of those individuals realizing their freedoms. Conversely, what you're supporting by agreeing to forced speech in the imposing of the government on the rights of individuals realizing their freedoms.

You're literally trying to mash up two things that are the opposite.
 
Picture it, Sicily 1984, one of you asshats call me a moron against my known wishes of liking to be called pinhead, you get punished to the tune of 250K?
 
Chomsky said:
What? You seem to be either ignorantly, or naively, conflating an awful lot here.

There was no "mistake" in speech legislation concerning men & women of color. Hate speech directed towards African-Americans is not illegal today, nor was it ever. I have no idea what your talking about, here.
Click to expand...

I am talking about the usual, always stunning hypocrisy of the "all men are created equal crowd", the ones who crow about the lies but never live them.

Just as it took the "all men are created equal crowd" well over a century to adjust to Black people being their equals, so too will it likely be for the LGBT community, because Americans are great at mouthing the memes but they aren't all that great at living them.
 
Fishking said:
You're conflating two things that are not similar. In your example for blacks, slavery, segregation, and such it was the law that was imposing on the rights of those individuals realizing their freedoms.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, blame 100 plus years of blatant white racism on the law. It was also the law in Germany that saw Jews murdered so the German people are free and clear of any responsibility. "Hey, Jewish people, don't blame me, it was the law, and hey, I am a law abiding citizen.

Listen to the NRA crowd whine and bitch and moan when there has been nothing taken from them.

Conversely, what you're supporting by agreeing to forced speech in the imposing of the government on the rights of individuals realizing their freedoms.

You're literally trying to mash up two things that are the opposite.
Click to expand...

There's no 'conversely'. There is only your confusion. I am not agreeing to nor am I demanding forced speech.
 
X Factor said:
Well I for one am personally flattered by your US obsession. We are definitely worth it.
Click to expand...

Meme city, USA.

You seem to be awfully reluctant to talk about how reality doesn't in any way match the rank propaganda you all seem to have totally swallowed.
 
camlok said:
I am talking about the usual, always stunning hypocrisy of the "all men are created equal crowd", the ones who crow about the lies but never live them.

Just as it took the "all men are created equal crowd" well over a century to adjust to Black people being their equals, so too will it likely be for the LGBT community, because Americans are great at mouthing the memes but they aren't all that great at living them.
Click to expand...
Alright, fair enough.

But I think LGBT acceptance will be a far shorter period. At least from what I see in my far Northern city. Now South of the Mason Dixon, I can't speak to.
 
Chomsky said:
The first amendment means we have to deal with a lot of things we don't like. But that is what freedom looks like. So we deal with it as free men & women, because not being free is much worse!
Click to expand...

It should be readily apparent that we are heading for a post-freedom culture.
 
SDET said:
It should be readily apparent that we are heading for a post-freedom culture.
Click to expand...
Post freedom?

Do you mean we're losing our freedoms?

Because in many ways that's true, particularly in relation to the government, which are the really big ones!
 
X Factor said:
From Snopes so we know it’s true;

Discrimination against a transgender individual could result in fines of up to $250,000, but these fines won’t be handed out for accidentally misusing pronouns. According to the new guidelines, the commission can impose civil penalties of up to $125,000 for violations of the law and (in extreme circumstances) of up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of “willful, wanton, or malicious” conduct.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/

Ok, let’s take the accidental misuse out of it and assume the government will magnanimously forgive those. In cases where the “misuse” is intentional, do you support civil and/or criminal penalties for not calling someone by whatever pronoun they want you too?
Click to expand...

If they tattoo the "pronoun" on their forehead, and provide a Websters style indicator of proper pronunciation I would consider it. But, NO.

Hey, I quit this game when "Ms." became a thing...
 
camlok said:
Meme city, USA.

You seem to be awfully reluctant to talk about how reality doesn't in any way match the rank propaganda you all seem to have totally swallowed.
Click to expand...

And you seem reluctant to talk about anything that's actually on the topic of any given thread.
 
X Factor said:
From Snopes so we know it’s true;

Discrimination against a transgender individual could result in fines of up to $250,000, but these fines won’t be handed out for accidentally misusing pronouns. According to the new guidelines, the commission can impose civil penalties of up to $125,000 for violations of the law and (in extreme circumstances) of up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of “willful, wanton, or malicious” conduct.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/

Ok, let’s take the accidental misuse out of it and assume the government will magnanimously forgive those. In cases where the “misuse” is intentional, do you support civil and/or criminal penalties for not calling someone by whatever pronoun they want you too?
Click to expand...
No. While I support encouraging others to address people by their preferred gender and whatnot, I am completely against any laws or civic penlty for such. This is not true harm against another and should not be a matter for the state.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
<alt>doxygen said:
If they tattoo the "pronoun" on their forehead, and provide a Websters style indicator of proper pronunciation I would consider it. But, NO.

Hey, I quit this game when "Ms." became a thing...
Click to expand...

Kind, warm generous Americans. Isn't that what the propaganda says? Do you accept/use Mr?
 
camlok said:
Kind, warm generous Americans. Isn't that what the propaganda says? Do you accept/use Mr?
Click to expand...

I prefer to use actual names. Since I rarely do "customer contact", that's all I usually need. Other times I just go with whatever seems appropriate.

The problem with "Ms." was that when it was introduced, as many women didn't like it as did.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I prefer to use actual names. Since I rarely do "customer contact", that's all I usually need. Other times I just go with whatever seems appropriate.

The problem with "Ms." was that when it was introduced, as many women didn't like it as did.
Click to expand...

There were likely a lot of slaves who were wondering where their next meal was coming from.

Ms was used in the 17th century, an attempt to revive it in the USA occurred in 1901. We both know why it wasn't.
 
camlok said:
There were likely a lot of slaves who were wondering where their next meal was coming from.

Ms was used in the 17th century, an attempt to revive it in the USA occurred in 1901. We both know why it wasn't.
Click to expand...

This is the (re) introduction of "Ms." I was referring to. I lived through it. I was obviously not anywhere in the 1700's.
In 1961, Sheila Michaels attempted to put the term into use when she saw what she thought was a typographical error on the address label of a copy of News & Letters sent to her roommate.[11][12] Michaels "was looking for a title for a woman who did not 'belong' to a man."[13] She knew the separation of the now common terms Miss and Mrs. had derived from "Mistress", but one could not suggest that women use the original title with its now louche connotations. Her efforts to promote use of a new honorific were at first ignored.[14]

In 1969, in a lull during a WBAI-radio interview with The Feminists group, Michaels suggested the use of Ms. A friend of Gloria Steinem heard the interview and suggested it as a title for her new magazine. Ms. debuted on newsstands in January 1972, and its much-publicized name quickly led to widespread usage.[15] In February 1972, the US Government Printing Office approved using "Ms." in official government documents.[16] In 1976 Marvel Comics introduced a new superhero named "Ms. Marvel", billing her as the "first feminist superhero".
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms.
 
doxygen said:
This is the (re) introduction of "Ms." I was referring to. I lived through it. I was obviously not anywhere in the 1700's.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms.
Click to expand...
Mistress and master we're originally meant to indicate youths, particularly of higher class. Miss is what eventually derived from that. They were also used to indicate skill ranks or position with in an organization, such as a master Craftsman, or the guild mistress.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom