Jump to content

The woke police going after nurse for believing in biology


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Not true.  
You’re one of the good ones here….  don’t start spreading misinformation just to try and make a point.  

Ok, I qualified it though.  My friend said that he couldn't work for a party or wear a button.  

And I Googled (I GOOGLED) but couldn't find specifics.  I did find prohibitions of a kind but they were vague.

Help a brother out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

But our legal selves trade rights off all the time right?   

Nope. I didn't trade you any rights for my life and my freedoms in full, unconditionally and irrevocably. These folk pretend to have some claim for it that they do not and cannot have. Also known as taking without permission; usurping; and other such words. Just because you may think that something of someone should belong to you, even if for their own good or other great purpose, it's still usurping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, myata said:

Nope. I didn't trade you any rights for my life and my freedoms in full, unconditionally and irrevocably. These folk pretend to have some claim for it that they do not and cannot have. Also known as taking without permission; usurping; and other such words. Just because you may think that something of someone should belong to you, even if for their own good or other great purpose, it's still usurping.

That's the thing about authoritarians.  They believe it is their god-given right to trample and take other people's rights away for whatever excuse they might have in their tiny little minds.  They convince themselves its all for the greater good.  Didn't we hear somewhere Chairman Mao thought the same way?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, myata said:

1. I didn't trade you any rights for my life and my freedoms in full, unconditionally and irrevocably.
2. These folk pretend to have some claim for it that they do not and cannot have. Also known as taking without permission; usurping; and other such words.

 

1. If I hired you, then you would.  Not unconditionally, not irrevocably but yes.
2. Taking without permission ?  No.  You sign a contract or you don't.  It's an agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If I hired you, then you would... contract

This is where you're wrong. Maybe because you simply don't understand that in a democracy (real one) rights are universal. They cannot be "signed off" nor any employer could require you to, that would be illegal. That's what happens when rights are written on a pretty paper hang somewhere high up but in reality every little bump can make their own "policy" and "tribunal". You didn't know, never got it and understood and then forgot again. Because you are not a democracy. Somewhere in between - to China?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If I hired you, then you would.  Not unconditionally, not irrevocably but yes.
2. Taking without permission ?  No.  You sign a contract or you don't.  It's an agreement.

We have lots of examples of employers taking liberties which they do not legally have.  That's why we have labour law firms advertising their services on TV warning the people that when an employer lays you off you may be entitled to far more severance pay than they give you.  They think they can shove you off with a pittance, but they learn from the lawyers to pay up real severance pay. 

You think associations and employers have unlimited rights which is wrong.  People have basic rights such as freedom of expression and beliefs.  You cannot sign those rights off and no association or employer with any sense would even attempt to force you to sign off your fundamental freedom of expression, particularly when you are on your own time.  It would be an invalid agreement.  It is very unlikely the nurse in this topic signed off her freedom of expression on her own time with the college of nursing.  It would not be valid anyway.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, myata said:

1. This is where you're wrong. Maybe because you simply don't understand that in a democracy (real one) rights are universal.

2. You didn't know, never got it and understood and then forgot again. Because you are not a democracy. Somewhere in between - to China?

1. Your right to free speech can be subordinated to a contract.  If I agree to employ you, you can agree to restrict your free speech.
2. You really don't like China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

1. You think associations and employers have unlimited rights which is wrong.   

1. No, I didn't say that.  Read my posts again.  If you agree to give up a right in exchange for something then it's legal.  If you sign an agreement to join a professional association where you agree to not post things on social media, or sign an employment agreement that says you won't criticize your employer, as I have, then you will be fired if you execute your free speech rights and you will have no legal recourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your right to free speech can be subordinated to a contract.

OK - my Constitutional right "subject to a contract"? Why do we need it, the paper aka "Constitution" if all can be regulated by contracts it's inferior to and without it? Answer: because you never understood what it is, and what it means. Only a paper, right? Just like any other paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

If I agree to employ you, you can agree to restrict your free speech.

Not likely because that would be restricting someone's freedom of expression on their own time by coercion.  You cannot coerce someone to give up their freedom of speech on their own time in exchange for a job and paycheck.   There would be an understanding that you will not attack the employer or his business on your own time, but that is all.  You don't need a written agreement for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, myata said:

OK - my Constitutional right "subject to a contract"? Why do we need it, the paper aka "Constitution" if all can be regulated by contracts it's inferior to and without it? Answer: because you never understood what it is, and what it means. Only a paper, right? Just like any other paper.

Because you choose to enter contracts.  

I might not be right on the terminology but I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to say whatever you want in the world without consequence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

1. Not likely because that would be restricting someone's freedom of expression on their own time by coercion.  You cannot coerce someone to give up their freedom of speech on their own time in exchange for a job and paycheck. 

1. Ok, you just don't know how the world works.  If I write it into the contract and you sign it then you have to live up to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you sign an agreement to join a professional association where you agree to not post things on social media

Such an agreement would be invalid because it was signed under coercion, i.e. to get the job.  If you are talking about attacking the employer or business, of course you can't do that on your own time or on social media.  But you don't need to sign an agreement for that.  That is just common sense.  But aside from that, an employer cannot take away someone's basic rights in exchange for the job when it has nothing to do with the job.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

Such an agreement would be invalid because it was signed under coercion, i.e. to get the job. 

OK, well maybe I'm wrong. And every company I have worked for of any size and presence in the economy was wrong in stipulating that.  

Would you accept it if I Googled the answer ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because you choose to enter contracts.  

I might not be right on the terminology but I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to say whatever you want in the world without consequence.  

There you are making general vague statements without any basis.  I said no contract can take away basic rights without a clear meaningful reason such as when you are on the job, you can't say certain things.  But it doesn't need a written contract to tell people how to think and speak on the job.  That's just common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

OK, well maybe I'm wrong. And every company I have worked for of any size and presence in the economy was wrong in stipulating that.  

Would you accept it if I Googled the answer ?  

No.  You can find almost any perverse statement on Google.  Google is not always an authority.  Google is being hauled before the government and authorities for over reaching control of the marketplace and industry domination. 

 I go with common sense and the law which guarantees freedom of expression, except for exceptional circumstances.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because you choose to enter contracts.  

See, you aren't getting it. I can enter contracts without it. Why do we need it, if any piece of paper can nullify it?

The freedoms are universal but they aren't unlimited. As an employee one takes an implicit or even explicit commitment to not directly harm the employer. That may extend to something you post in your free time. Most people understand that. You wrote "A is bad" someone passed it on, the director reads it, it is direct harm to the employer.

But it does not extend to a privilege of the employer to monitor and censor all that you say and limit your right of expression for however remote reason or without any real one. You just don't get it that no authority, by whatever status or privilege gets that unlimited power or should, ever, in a real democracy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If I hired you, then you would.  Not unconditionally, not irrevocably but yes.
2. Taking without permission ?  No.  You sign a contract or you don't.  It's an agreement.

Stop dodging.

Leftards said that people can wear slogans at work and kneel for the anthem. 

Now they tell us we can't say "Keep men out of the girl's bathroom."

Which is it? It's one or the other...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. There you are making general vague statements without any basis.  I said no contract can take away basic rights without a clear meaningful reason such as when you are on the job, you can't say certain things.  But it doesn't need a written contract to tell people how to think and speak on the job.  That's just common sense.

2. No.  You can find almost any perverse statement on Google.  Google is not always an authority.  Google is being hauled before the government and authorities for over reaching control of the marketplace and industry domination. 

3. I go with common sense and the law which guarantees freedom of expression, except for exceptional circumstances.

1. Well, it might.  But ... you are acknowledging here that you don't have "free speech" on the job so ok.
2. Google links to other things though... and those things can be authorities right ?  Like legal websites etc. ?
3. Ok, well I think we are on the same page with your point #1.  "You can't say certain things"  That is correct, ie. your expression is limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, we are moving more toward authoritarianism where many liberal-minded people believe in big government control of everyone and everything they say and do.   We now see where a city is deciding whether to ban people from riding sleds on most hills around the city.

"https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/sabrina-maddeaux-now-city-hall-is-coming-for-your-sleds/ar-AA16L9nY?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=98275549177041b591db219b620153bd

"The situation follows a pattern of knee-jerk responses to public health concerns in the headlines as of late. Others include Canada’s highly questionable new alcohol guidelines and the demonization of bringing cake to the office, lest it tempt someone to make an unhealthy choice.

Just as we exit the pandemic, it appears we’re entering a new era of health and safety puritanism. Whether driven by a lingering taste for collective control over personal responsibility, skewed risk perceptions or an inclination toward herd panic, it’s a worrying trend."

Collective control????   Isn't that a form of neo-Marxism particularly when its applied to everyone and everything a person does in society?

If its liability the city is worried about, the solution is simple.  Have a form that people print their name, address, and sign which releases the city from any liability in case of accident or injury.  End of matter.  No need to shut down all activities.  Let people live and make their own choices.

Edited by blackbird
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, myata said:

1. See, you aren't getting it. I can enter contracts without it. Why do we need it, if any piece of paper can nullify it?

2. The freedoms are universal but they aren't unlimited.  

3. But it does not extend to a privilege of the employer to monitor and censor all that you say and limit your right of expression for however remote reason or without any real one. You just don't get it that no authority, by whatever status or privilege gets that unlimited power or should, ever, in a real democracy.

 

1. Because of what it means outside the contract.  If you don't have the freedom of speech, then you can't criticize government, make public statements etc.  The freedom means that you naturally have that right and can choose to not use it.  

2. Yes, I agree.

3. I think I agree here also.  Their rights aren't unlimited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Stop dodging.

2. Leftards said that people can wear slogans at work and kneel for the anthem. 

3. Now they tell us we can't say "Keep men out of the girl's bathroom."

4. Which is it? It's one or the other...

1. ?
2.  What do I care what other people (that you have a cute name for) say ?
3.  Those things are analogous at all.  You don't have a logical mind.
4.  Rights discussions are pretty tricky things to undertake.  From your post you seem to be pretty invested in one side or the other, and you want me to be on the other I guess.  That's just not how it is.  I find the situation interesting, and have stated multiple times what I would like to get out of this discussion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

make public statements etc. 

But you wouldn't be able to make them, if you have a contract and your employer has an absolute privilege to interpret and decide what may or could harm their reputation is some stretched remote way. You lost you rights and the paper they were written on is worthless.

No, this is not how freedoms and democracy work, and you struggle to get it because you never really understood the democracy.

The rights are universal, they apply to every citizen. But because of your situation, relationships, etc, they may be limited in a very certain, specific, limited and justified way. If someone's health or wellbeing is at stake, you may not share publicly some information. If you are employed, cannot spread defamatory information about your employer. Police cannot discuss tomorrow's raid on the criminals, etc. Obvious.

But thanks to the eternal "because we can" it all turned around. You signed it off, done deal. Now I own it, your former rights, so better be careful to say (and think, obviously). Universality left behind, with the democracy itself. Hello, China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...