That's why I said, unless it's a theocracy. In US, you are at far greater threat from authority protecting a different religion's dogma, than the Muslim one. In fact, the only time Muslim dogma attempted to be defended in court recently, was indirect. Because the same dogma of Lot that influences government's action towards gay marriage, is in the Khoran. It's the same exact parable... It's the same reason why Kim Davis, no longer is required to sign marriage licenses...
- - - Updated - - -
It shouldn't mater, because being offended or even if criticism is constructive, are subjective. I don't fear government or any of that sort, but I also recognize the sort of power subjective definitions give government. As soon as you enter a court room and the argument is no longer what you did, but if what you did fits a subjective opinion, game over. You have just given the government plausible deniability to do what ever they want.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
I stumble on my shoelaces? Are you serious? Did you actually READ your own post above?
Ok, lets go.
1) A western, modern society DOES entail everybody being free. I can not even understand how someone could possibly miss that fact, if born in the west. I'm guessing your inability to see that you are demonstrably wrong, is due to you still not being able to read what I write (ie NOT talking about a democracy, but a WESTERN, MODERN democracy).
2) Claiming that I fail to grasp basic assertions, while not even getting the above right - priceless. And not really cute at all, just...well, sad, really.
3) From the eyes of something with innate properties, properties which by the way aren't subjective in the least when the construct in question is built upon those properties being the entire context (such as a stone objectively being a concrete object in the eyes of a human, but not objectively so lacking that context), anything that would represent the antithesis of those principles can absolutely be termed abhorrent. Claiming otherwise, or start going on about assigning values (which certainly isn't needed in the least) is just pretentious silliness (or alternatively, stupidity).
Having said that, I hope you don't respond again. I haven't blocked anyone here, actually, and I hope I won't - but it is really close at this point. I mean I've seen a lot of stupidity, but the pretentious, pseudo-intellectual bullcrap that you seem to think is somehow deep or smart, rather takes the cake. I had to deal with enough of that when dealing with immature 101-students at university.
We can't refer to Gyspies as Gypsies, we have to call them "Rom people" now, that seems a little Orwellian.
Buuut apart from that, can't really think of anything.
Originally Posted by Vaerys
The list provided by Djalil directly contradicts this, and details that an affront to their dignity and their psychological integrity is sufficient to qualify as "damages".
It doesn't have to be physical or financial. Emotional damages are absolutely on the list, despite your attempts to ignore this.
It has to be more than just "you said a bad word and hurt my feelings", but repeatededly using racial slurs on someone absolutely crosses that line, for example.
Last edited by Endus; 2016-08-24 at 08:38 AM.
They're not arguing they're not "damaging", or ignoring it. The argument raised is that workplace and labor health/safety legislation is motivated by finances.
It is an unorthodox outlook on health and safety. But treating the well being of workers as a financial asset is not unheard of.
Last edited by nextormento; 2016-08-24 at 11:14 AM.
And they'd argue that laws should do that.
We follow HR conventions because other countries could exert financial pressure on us.
We care for climate change because it's expensive not to.
So, yes: it's easy to frame everything under physical and fiscal safety.
The question is "should we?". We don't yet have an answer, I'm afraid.
You do understand what the word every means?
- - - Updated - - -
Doesn´t such a system of laws ultimately lead to increasing the gap between rich and poor? A person without a job can´t reasonably make a claim for financial damage in such a system.
I just don't consider myself important enough that the government would like to know what I'm doing. I am extremely unimportant.
For corporativism (that rolls easily on the tongue and the keyboard) I guess you do have a fair point, if I understand the word correctly.
I'm from Norway and there we rarely question "big buisness" when it's involved with the government, like partially owned by them. Panama Papers - Norway's biggest bank was involved and that case died out pretty quickly, and there wasn't much critisism towards them. We only have a few grocery stores owned by families and corporations, those families are also among Norway's richest. Lidl (German brand) tried to establish themselves in Norway. Yeh, that didn't work out too well. They were quite frankly bullied out of country. Scandinavian goverments own SAS (airline company). Rarely can you see them being critisised. The privately owned airline Norwegian on the other hand... Oh my.
We laugh of Americans' culture of sueing everything that moves, whereas in Norway, the big companies are never questioned. And that - that is worrying
Originally Posted by Vaerys
I always roll my eyes when people mention orwellian