Black Dog

You're confusing democracy with straight up mob rule. Also not sure why you're banging on about the SCC and the Charter when neither features in this case as yet.

We're still waiting for that breakdown of the legal flaws in the court decision and a link to a case where people are being allowed to wear face coverings on government IDs.

OK, which specific parts of the ruling are out of bounds? I'll hang up and listen. Yeah if history has taught us anything its that the justness of a cause is derived from its popularity.

The hell do they have to do with it? It doesn't touch them.

You forgot the other piece: obsessive about small government and low spending except on when it comes to the military and prisons, two bloated institutions that serve as de facto welfare programs for the American underclass.

I did the Google and I didn't see anything about anyone successfully getting away with not showing their face on government IDs. Back to my point as to why the slippery slope argument here is a fallacy: there's no reason to think allowing someone to have their face covered during the citizenship oath would lead to face covering for IDs because they are already required to show their faces for ID purposes at citizenship ceremonies and no one is arguing for that to change. Apple and oranges, really.

Ah yes, that old canard. We've dealt with this before. Men and women get roughly equal amounts of abuse, but the abuse women face is more likely to be gender based. LOL. BINGO! Nazi Germany wasn't a a state?

Hmmm, maybe it's this: I expect they "seem to be" because you're looking for it/focusing on it. As I pointed out earlier, the whole GamerGate thing was explicitly about online mobs attacking anyone they perceived to be remotely affiliated with SJW causes (or just for being women), but that got cricket sounds from you. False equivalency. No one is advocating extrajudicial or state repression of anyone. I made no reference to race or gender in the quoted post. You're so monomaniacal when it comes to "SJWs" that you can't even read a word like privilege without losing your shit. Funny stuff. Asked and answered.

Link

You're proving my point here. Thanks. Looooooolllllll. The origins of GamerGate is one sad loser's sick vendetta against his ex-girlfriend. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Yeah, I guess they should look into that, but in the meantime: link?

Good question. Maybe we should.

Yeah like that whole GamerGate thing that the SJWs perpetrated, right?

Is your link to the forum rules and guidelines broken?

Link?

And this is completely irrelevant. How paternalistic. You don't have to respect it. But you don't get to outlaw it either. I don't give a crap what they think anymore than they should give a crap what I think.

In other words: anyone can say whatever they want because free speech, but if you think someone should be held accountable in some way for what they say, you aren't allowed to say that because their free speech rights are more important than yours for some reason. If free speech means anything, it means freedom from arbitrary and subjective constraints like this.

Bad analogy. In this case, the sanction falls upon the victim, not the perpetrator. In cases where women are being forced to wear them, you're basically telling the people forcing them that the women need to be kept at home. And for women who choose to wear them, you're telling them you know better than they do. If you don't like women wearing the niqab, don't wear one.

I would argue the time to argue against such policies is when they are actually real and not figments of your fevered imagination. How? How was his right to free speech infringed upon? He wasn't fired for his political opinions. He was fired because the backlash over his political opinions made him a liability to his employer. Are you saying employers have no right to act in their own interests when an employees activities threaten their bottom line? Let's say this is true (it's obviously bullshit, but let's go with it): how do you propose regulating people's speech er, I mean "bullying?"

Thing is, even if you believe (as I do) that the niqab is a symbol of oppression, how on earth does banning it help anyone? All you're doing is attacking the symptom, not the disease.

Irrelevant. A stunningly inaccurate version of events. Like, the literal opposite of what happened. Even if it is the case, so what? There's a reason we have a system that includes protections for minority rights. SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

This is called a slippery slope fallacy. How were his free speech rights abrogated? He exercised his right to free speech, others exercised their right to disagree and the Board of Directors exercised their right to eliminate a threat to their bottom line. It seems pretty clear that you don't see the contradiction in your position. Calling for boycotts or demanding people be fired are also expressions of free speech.

Ok, I'm sure you have lots of examples, then. We'll wait. This is comedy gold and I bet you don't even know why. Yes this is just like that, only no one has been fired. But yeah, otherwise exactly the same.

So...pretty much like everyone else everywhere, then?

It's pretty funny: these guys want free speech and to be free from any consequences of that speech. Just want to float along on a cloud of privilege. Just a staggering amount of entitlement.