DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Everything not rugby related!
*****************************************************
#Post#: 109347--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Account_109
Date: May 26, 2023, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't really understand this debate tbh. Yes, it's reasonable
that there are social and professional restrictions on speech
beyond the legal limits. Yes, it's also reasonable to argue that
they're too restrictive, and should be lessened. If you don't
have any limits on speech beyond the legal limits, you end up
not being able to fire an employee that's publicly bad-mouthing
their company, or any number of things that 99% of people would
agree that a company is within their rights to do. However, if
you say that all social and professional restrictions are
acceptable because it's not the government restricting speech,
you still have a chilling effect on speech where people don't
want to go against the dominant cultural narrative in fear of
being fired and socially ostracised.
If our goal as a society is to maximise the free and open
exchange of ideas, while minimising the harmful side-effects,
then it seems obvious to me that we should be aiming somewhere
between those two extremes. Different people will disagree on
where exactly on that scale we should be aiming, and that's
okay. "There are consequences to speech therefore you can't
complain about what those consequences are or when they're
applied" is just as ridiculous an argument as "I have the legal
right to free speech therefore I can say whatever I want with
impunity"
#Post#: 109348--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Quinky
Date: May 26, 2023, 5:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brown Bottle link ---
>
> There's no inconsistency there - you just ignored this bit
"but there are consequences as to what we say". It didn't
disappear when you made the first bit bold.
>
--- End Quote ---
You think there's no inconsistency...
Oh dear.
#Post#: 109349--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Quinky
Date: May 26, 2023, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Account_109 link ---
>
> I don't really understand this debate tbh. Yes, it's
reasonable that there are social and professional restrictions
on speech beyond the legal limits. Yes, it's also reasonable to
argue that they're too restrictive, and should be lessened. If
you don't have any limits on speech beyond the legal limits, you
end up not being able to fire an employee that's publicly
bad-mouthing their company, or any number of things that 99% of
people would agree that a company is within their rights to do.
However, if you say that all social and professional
restrictions are acceptable because it's not the government
restricting speech, you still have a chilling effect on speech
where people don't want to go against the dominant cultural
narrative in fear of being fired and socially ostracised.
>
> If our goal as a society is to maximise the free and open
exchange of ideas, while minimising the harmful side-effects,
then it seems obvious to me that we should be aiming somewhere
between those two extremes. Different people will disagree on
where exactly on that scale we should be aiming, and that's
okay. "There are consequences to speech therefore you can't
complain about what those consequences are or when they're
applied" is just as ridiculous an argument as "I have the legal
right to free speech therefore I can say whatever I want with
impunity"
>
--- End Quote ---
Well said.
#Post#: 109350--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: May 26, 2023, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> You think there's no inconsistency...
>
> Oh dear.
>
--- End Quote ---
Fine. Perhaps you'd like to point out the inconsistency between
"would get him in a lot of trouble if he spoke them out loud"
"you can say whatever you want, but there are consequences"
#Post#: 109352--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Carbonm
Date: May 26, 2023, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no inconsistency here as others have pointed out.
I wasn't implying that people should feel sympathy for him, just
giving my view on what happened.
#Post#: 109353--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Carbonm
Date: May 26, 2023, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with a lot of what you say and debate should be
encouraged. You rightly point out that there are some limits are
needed. I don't agree that I was arguing that ALL restrictions
are acceptable (unless you are referring to someone else). I was
referring specifically to the Folau incident. I believe
different views and beliefs make for a healthy society.
As consequences for speech, well there are consequences I'm
afraid, as the Folau incident shows, whether you think it's
right or not. That's not to say you can't have a exchange of
different views. Unfortunately social media is not the best
forum for this.
--- Quote from: Account_109 link ---
>
> I don't really understand this debate tbh. Yes, it's
reasonable that there are social and professional restrictions
on speech beyond the legal limits. Yes, it's also reasonable to
argue that they're too restrictive, and should be lessened. If
you don't have any limits on speech beyond the legal limits, you
end up not being able to fire an employee that's publicly
bad-mouthing their company, or any number of things that 99% of
people would agree that a company is within their rights to do.
However, if you say that all social and professional
restrictions are acceptable because it's not the government
restricting speech, you still have a chilling effect on speech
where people don't want to go against the dominant cultural
narrative in fear of being fired and socially ostracised.
>
> If our goal as a society is to maximise the free and open
exchange of ideas, while minimising the harmful side-effects,
then it seems obvious to me that we should be aiming somewhere
between those two extremes. Different people will disagree on
where exactly on that scale we should be aiming, and that's
okay. "There are consequences to speech therefore you can't
complain about what those consequences are or when they're
applied" is just as ridiculous an argument as "I have the legal
right to free speech therefore I can say whatever I want with
impunity"
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 109360--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Bayernquin
Date: May 26, 2023, 1:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why did he not say, homosexuality is contrary to my religious
beliefs and therefore I don't feel I can condone it, but accept
that others see the situation differently, and accept each to
their own, as opposed to the burn in hell quote? No-one
offended, he states his view, end of!
#Post#: 109361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Quinspirational
Date: May 26, 2023, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Admin, is there any chance of changing this topic to OT ?
#Post#: 109363--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Quinky
Date: May 26, 2023, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bayernquin link ---
>
> Why did he not say, homosexuality is contrary to my religious
beliefs and therefore I don't feel I can condone it, but accept
that others see the situation differently, and accept each to
their own, as opposed to the burn in hell quote? No-one
offended, he states his view, end of!
>
--- End Quote ---
No one offended? You really think that?
#Post#: 109364--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Quinky
Date: May 26, 2023, 4:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinspirational link ---
>
> Admin, is there any chance of changing this topic to OT ?
>
--- End Quote ---
Or focus on the rugby instead of what someone posted on social
media a long time ago.
*****************************************************
Page 11 of 12
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page