|
|
|
|
|
|
by coldtea
4461 days ago
|
|
|
>So you see that many people clearly disagree with your opinion and also with your framing. Yes. But that's not an argument. Are you content with "other people disagee with my opinion" as a measure of its worth? It doesn't even matter that some judges have disagreed with my opinion. Some people disagree with things like "not being racist". And judges have also made bad decisions, that now everybody derides, for ages. If we are to have a valid conversation, it would have be with arguments about the intristic value of what we are discussing. What's good and what should people be doing is not merely a matter of "some people are OK with it". Even democracy doens't justify things merely by "some people wanting X". It raises this bar, asking for the majority (or the plurality) or people wanting it -- and it even adds other procedures and safeguards in too. |
|
|
You disagree, and say that certain things are unfair.
You mentioned that it's unfair to bring private views/actions into professional life. I pointed out a couple of examples where people do exactly that. Which is fine - you're free to say that Supervisor McGoldrick is unfair. Just realize that you're calling a lot of people unfair by your definition.
My point of bringing up those other arguments is to show that many people disagree with you. This means that you need to have a stronger basis for your argument, otherwise I'm free to treat it as an opinion that I can easily ignore.
You mention "not being racist" as a similar argument. But in the US it's completely fair to demand that others conform with one's racist ideas. I can hold a protest on the sidewalk in front of a store and demand that they only hire Trafalmadorians. People won't respect me, and it would be illegal for the store to do so, but it's completely fair that I make that demand and be able to protest peacefully. There is no law which prevents me from being racist and ignoring Trafalmadorians that I meet on the street. Those laws you talk about deal with government, businesses, education, public accommodation, etc. but not individual people. (Otherwise it would be a free speech and right to assemble violation. Hence why there are still racist private clubs.)
If I were were a Jain, who believes that not even insects should be killed, I might demand that the president step down because he killed a fly once on TV.
If I were strongly anti-fur, it's fair for me to demand that someone step down at CEO for wearing a coon-skin cap at a private Halloween party.
If I were an absolute teetotaler, I might demand that a CEO resign because he enjoys a beer every once in a while in his spare time, while I believe that no one in a position of responsibility should ever drink alcohol.
I am completely of the opinion that anyone can call for the resignation of someone else based on "99% or OWS, or gun laws or whatever".
What's "unfair" about those? Nothing. I say that none of these demands, including a demand based on one's political contributions to a state constitutional amendment, are not at all "unfair". "Unrealistic", certainly, but there's nothing intrinsically unfair about these demands.
So my opinion is that all of these are "fair". Your opinion is that some are "unfair". It's easy to find people who disagree with you. So now we've got dozens of opinions.
You also mention that people who make these unfair arguments are bullying. Would you explain that logic? I don't see how these are connected at all.