 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Seems relevent to me... |
That;s your fault, not mine.
quote:
There is nothing wrong with people wanting to make a political statement by boycotting a product or person. |
There is if they want to encourage the free exchange of ideas, rather than suppressing it.
quote:
You seem to think it's wrong and dumb... but that's how they are exercising their right of free speech. |
And just how is boycotting a product speaking?
quote:
You attack a culture simply because people are exercising their rights... I don't think much of a culture that thinks expressing free speech is dumb |
The right to buy what you want has nothing to do with the right to free speech. They are separate issues. Most governments prevent individual people from buying automatic weapons, I don't see people complaining that this is a free speech issue, because it isn't.
quote:
Unlike the famous actors who can make political statements that end up in the paper, the little guy doesn't get that kind of media coverage. A boycott is a way for their opinions to be heard. |
And the casino company is "the little guy"? There are plenty of better ways to have your voice heard than boycotts. Organizing protests outside Linda Ronstadt concerts, writing letters to the editor, starting an anti-Linda Ronstadt web sites. Many people who disagreed with Michael Moore did just this and had no problem having their opinion heard.
Your argument fails because boycotts are not the only way for people to get their opinions heard and because they have a dampening effect on free expression, which the others do not.
quote:
You are the one that has already lost... and aren't paying attention to the real argument here. |
I'm not the one who is confusing the right to freedom of speech with the right to buy products in a free market. Buying is not speaking. Of course you could invent some ridiculous metaphor to try and establish that it is, but it is not. One could easily imagine a society where people were not prevented from selecting any good that was legally for sale, but where they were prevented from expressing political opinions.
quote:
You just think it's stupid... great support for your ideas |
I gave reasons why it is stupid.
quote:
I'm glad our culture sees it as a reasonable political statement... |
If you are for a free exchange of ideas, you must be against something that makes people less likely to engage in it.
quote:
instead of a culture that just considers others stupid when they disagree. |
This is a red herring. Most of the things people say are going to be considered stupid by some people, this isn't a substantial impediment to people expressing their views.
quote:
When you compare the two... the culture that has the real freedom of speech is the better one, not the one that just considers insults proof of their argument |
I gave you a simple question to answer, and you responded with bluster and avoidance. Please answer the question. In fact just answer this question - the rest is besides the point.
Here is the question again:
It's quite simple: will it in fact make it easier for people to express their political views if they do not have to live in fear of being fired/boycotted/etc. ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
That;s your fault, not mine.
|
Yes... continue to ignore that you truely don't believe in real discussions... just insulting people that don't agree with you.
quote:
There is if they want to encourage the free exchange of ideas, rather than suppressing it.
|
It's not suppressing them... that's the whole flaw in your supposed argument. The people who are doing "whatever" it is that is being boycotted can continue to do what ever it was they are doing. If they stop because of the boycot... that's THEIR choice. But they can continue to do just what they want and ignore the boycott... BOTH sides get their point of view across... instead of the onsided tactics you take to just ignore and insult those that disagree with you.
quote:
And just how is boycotting a product speaking?
|
Typical of you... If you can't see that boycottings is making a statement identical to saying it... you don't have a clue 
quote:
The right to buy what you want has nothing to do with the right to free speech. They are separate issues. Most governments prevent individual people from buying automatic weapons, I don't see people complaining that this is a free speech issue, because it isn't.
|
Again... you ignore reality. And your gun argument is a true red herring... You can voice your opinion by NOT buying a product. Not only is it a legal... it's a smart way to get your opinion across. People have to listen to you and discuss the issues if they want to change your mind on the boycott... promoting a true discussion of the issues.
quote:
And the casino company is "the little guy"? There are plenty of better ways to have your voice heard than boycotts. Organizing protests outside Linda Ronstadt concerts, writing letters to the editor, starting an anti-Linda Ronstadt web sites. Many people who disagreed with Michael Moore did just this and had no problem having their opinion heard.
|
The casino did what was within their legal rights when somebody they were paying was pissing off paying customers... I think Linda got the message, so it was pretty effective. Yes, their are many ways to do things... and boycotts is one of them... and an effective one at that...
quote:
Your argument fails because boycotts are not the only way for people to get their opinions heard and because they have a dampening effect on free expression, which the others do not.
|
Your argument fails because it doesn't have a dampening effect on free expression... it's just another form of it. Just one of the MANY ways people can have their opinions heard.
quote:
I'm not the one who is confusing the right to freedom of speech with the right to buy products in a free market. Buying is not speaking. Of course you could invent some ridiculous metaphor to try and establish that it is, but it is not. One could easily imagine a society where people were not prevented from selecting any good that was legally for sale, but where they were prevented from expressing political opinions.
|
Another one of you red herrings...
Not buying a product is sending a messsage... if you can't hear it, that's your fault
quote:
I gave reasons why it is stupid.
|
But when your reason is incorrect and not supported by any facts... where does the stupidity really belong
quote:
If you are for a free exchange of ideas, you must be against something that makes people less likely to engage in it.
|
And that's why I support this type of boycott. You are the one that's mistaken that it makes people less likely to engage in it. It's a way to bring people to the "table" to have the discussions.
quote:
I gave you a simple question to answer, and you responded with bluster and avoidance. Please answer the question. In fact just answer this question - the rest is besides the point.
|
You never answer mine... and your question is irrelevent to the discussion. I've already stated that boycots encourge discussion, and you say it doesn't.
quote:
It's quite simple: will it in fact make it easier for people to express their political views if they do not have to live in fear of being fired/boycotted/etc. ? |
Maybe if I answer yours, you will try to have the type of discussion that you claim boycotts stop.
When you state your views, there is no law that says you are immune to how other people will except them.
Like the speaker has the right, so do the listeners...
If I speak out against my company, or it's beliefs, I excpect to get fired.
Maybe you live in some fantasy world where you never have to face the consequences of your actions... but that's all it is... a fantasy world.
People have EVERY RIGHT to stop supporting some person, company, or product because they don't believe in something they are doing or saying. And you want to limit that because in your opinion it stops discussion.
You're wrong... it OPENS Discussion by bringing both sides to the table. If you are the little guy, you need something to make those big rich people listen... and you can't deny that boycotts are effective.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Yes... continue to ignore that you truely don't believe in real discussions... just insulting people that don't agree with you. |
Whatever...
quote:
It's not suppressing them... that's the whole flaw in your supposed argument. The people who are doing "whatever" it is that is being boycotted can continue to do what ever it was they are doing. |
They are suppressing it simply because their actions or threatened actions influence the person speaking. The idea of free speech is that you can express your political beliefs without fear of reprisal. People will not feel free to express their political beliefs if they are afraid of reprisals.
We have a way of sorting out our political differences. It's called the ballot. A feature of the open society is that people should feel free to express their political views without fear of reprisals in order to persuade their fellow citizens at the ballot.
quote:
If they stop because of the boycot... that's THEIR choice. But they can continue to do just what they want and ignore the boycott... |
If your boss can fire you because of your politics, then that places a massive constraint on free speech for the majority of ordinary Joes. it means that only those who can afford the risk will express their political opinions, and that's not everyone.
quote:
BOTH sides get their point of view across... instead of the onsided tactics you take to just ignore and insult those that disagree with you. |
Whatever... No amount of bluster or accusations will hide the fact that you are seriously out of your depth in this discussion (just like last time in the copyright discussion, in which you were thoroughly owned).
If I am going to lose half my income by stating my political opinion, then that's going to make me feel reticent about expressing my political opinions. In a democratic society no one should be put in that situation.
quote:
Typical of you... If you can't see that boycottings is making a statement identical to saying it... you don't have a clue |
It is not identical to speech (because it isn't speaking or conveying semantic content) and it is not the only option open. In the open society you are free to petition, protest and publish. These things are better than boycotts in that they are attempts to persuade rather than coerce.
I'm not the clueless one. You just want a society where you can coerce people into shutting up by threatening their livelihoods.
quote:
Again... you ignore reality. And your gun argument is a true red herring... You can voice your opinion by NOT buying a product. |
You aren't voicing an opinion by not buying a product, you are just not buying a product. If all you do is not buy the product, how is the manufacturer supposed to know your reasons for not buying it? Of course you could voice your opinion by writing or speaking to them or protesting, but that is different from merely not buying their stuff.
quote:
Not only is it a legal... it's a smart way to get your opinion across. People have to listen to you and discuss the issues if they want to change your mind on the boycott... promoting a true discussion of the issues. |
The key statement that undermines your whole position is that, as you say, "people have to listen to you". That is why it is coercive.
What you want is for consumers to be able to compel people they disagree with to keep their traps shut. A society based on this premise is not one in which heretical ideas can easily flourish and is not a society that resolves its differences through open discussion and the ballot.
quote:
The casino did what was within their legal rights when somebody they were paying was pissing off paying customers... I think Linda got the message, so it was pretty effective. Yes, their are many ways to do things... and boycotts is one of them... and an effective one at that... |
I agree that they were within their rights to dismiss her, I merely think that this shows how some people can't handle free speech when it doesn't go their own way.
quote:
Your argument fails because it doesn't have a dampening effect on free expression... it's just another form of it. Just one of the MANY ways people can have their opinions heard. |
Of course it does. It simply stands to reason that if there are serious consequences with expressing your beliefs, people will be less likely to do it. The difference between a vindictive society which boycotts dissenters and a totalitarian society which imprisons them is one of degree, not of kind. Both reject the idea that people should be free to express themselves politically without fear of reprisals from others.
The society in which people resolve these issues at the ballot is a more open society than one in which people must live in fear of vindictive boycotts. It's about the power of each individual to express his or her political beliefs and for others to be free to accept or reject them at the ballot, not about the power of individuals to silence others with threats and boycotts.
quote:
Another one of you red herrings...
Not buying a product is sending a messsage... if you can't hear it, that's your fault |
Nobody can. There are millions of products I don't buy. How are the companies supposed to know I am boycotting them unless I tell them? In that case I may as well just hold a protest.
quote:
But when your reason is incorrect and not supported by any facts... where does the stupidity really belong |
It's supported by arguments and an understanding of how they work, which is more than I can say for your crude attempts at refutation.
quote:
And that's why I support this type of boycott. You are the one that's mistaken that it makes people less likely to engage in it. It's a way to bring people to the "table" to have the discussions. |
Protests and other forms of dissent do this just as well. The difference is that they are non-coercive. The problem with your version is that it can just as easily be used to silence people.
quote:
You never answer mine... and your question is irrelevent to the discussion. I've already stated that boycots encourge discussion, and you say it doesn't. |
And I have a reason, you don't.
The argument is simple - when there is the prospect of harm coming to one through expressing one's political beliefs, all other things being equal one is less likely to do so.
Deny this if you want, it will merely expose the absurdity of your position.
quote:
If I speak out against my company, or it's beliefs, I excpect to get fired. |
Great, so you endorse the idea that your boss should be able to prevent you from attending political rallies of the party of your choice. Some democracy.
quote:
Maybe you live in some fantasy world where you never have to face the consequences of your actions... but that's all it is... a fantasy world. |
No. It's called every country I have ever lived in. The expectation is that we resolve our differences at the ballot, not by threatening each other with boycotts. It works quite well.  When I am at work I am a representative of my company or organization. When I'm not at work I can campaign for whom the hell I want. It's not my employer's business and none of my past employers would have thought it was. In fact they would be horrified at the suggestion.
quote:
People have EVERY RIGHT to stop supporting some person, company, or product because they don't believe in something they are doing or saying. And you want to limit that because in your opinion it stops discussion. |
If you've actually read what I've been saying, I'm not arguing that people should lose all these rights. I'm merely saying that a society where people do not try to silence others with threats is not as free a society as that where dialogue is free from fear.
quote:
You're wrong... it OPENS Discussion by bringing both sides to the table. If you are the little guy, you need something to make those big rich people listen... and you can't deny that boycotts are effective. |
So boycotting Michael Moore's film so that people in many areas couldn't see it, opened discussion. How interesting.
What your little scheme does is give some people power over the political speech of others. It can conceivably be used to initiate dicussion, but as the Moore and Ronstadt cases show, it can just as easily be used to suppress it.
In a culture where people don't feel the need to coerce or threaten each other over their political beliefs, this does not happen. No society is perfect, but the States is pretty bad in this respect.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2004 03:04
ACK! 
|