NationStates

Freiheit Reich wrote:-cut-

You understand that giving corporations the ability to fire people for shits is something that you, as a right-libertarian, are indirectly supporting?

these fucking geniuses
the FBI is using Baked Alaska's livestream to track down the rioters

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Not a purge where they will be legally beat and thrown in reeducation camps like during the China Cultural Revolution BUT many are being punished by employers and schools for their political views (some leftists like the manager Ozzie Guillen faced this purge as well for supporting Castro and his punishment bothers me today even though I oppose Castro). Many Americans don't like the idea of people having opposing viewpoints. If you tell me that you like Hitler or Stalin, I might be surprised but I would want to know why and I could still get along wit that person as long as they did not get angry if I had different views. I would be fine if a co-worker was a Nazi or a Maoist or a Jihadist or a man-hating feminist in his/her spare time as long as he/she was respectful and polite at work and didn't force his/her views on me. What happens outside of work should stay outside of work. Most Americans are less tolerant though.

bruh

As long as they are just stating their opinions and not actually killing people, it is fine. I respect their right to have an opinion. I am sure they dislike my pro-Israel views, but I would hope they would respect my right to have that opinion as well and be respectful to me at work.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Page wrote:
I suppose I can only speak for myself but I think very, very few people have any interest in going after Grandpa Bill from Ohio who had a Trump sign in his yard and sent the Trump campaign fifty bucks, nor does anyone want to bother whatever poor intern had to go to McDonald's for Trump.

But people like Stephen Miller, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Flynn, the active participants in the regime, they definitely deserve the social ostracizing equivalent of a death penalty.

I can find more cases of people getting fired for daring to support the president. Chiang Kei-shek supporters that stayed in mainland China in the 1950's were also punished for supporting the 'wrong side' (which happened to be the proper leader) in the Chinese Civil War.

...yeah, by being imprisoned or murdered. Are you still at it with these stupid fucking comparisons to parts of Chinese history that clearly have no parallel to current events?

We are entering McCarthyism Part II: The Leftists Fight Back

Spoken like someone who knows almost nothing about McCarthyism.

BREAKING: Patriot Gets FIRED for Supporting President Trump

https://freedomnewsusa.com/breaking-pat ... ent-trump/

Yes, "Freedom News USA," a website which puts BREAKING ahead of its partly-CAPSLOCK headline, seems like a reliable source of information about the world.

Nearly Half Of Young Americans Say It’s Okay To Fire People Who Support Trump

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/31/ne ... ort-trump/

Forty-four percent of Americans younger than age 30 believe a company is correct in firing an executive because he or she personally donated to President Trump’s reelection campaign.

Well, the man did just orchestrate an attempted coup d'etat, so they might have a point. How else do you want a democratic society to enforce its democratic values? Are all these references to bloodletting in China actually an oblique way of saying you'd prefer a situation more like that?

Reporter Fired After Expressing Support for Donald Trump on Facebook

https://www.thewrap.com/reporter-fired/

High school teacher and coach fired in Michigan after saying 'Trump is our president'

https://thepostmillennial.com/high-scho ... -president

You're like the alt-right Facebook aunt version of Kowani.

Freiheit Reich wrote:Yes, she was wrong to have sued McDonald's.

Why is it wrong to sue a company for selling you a defective product that causes you injury?

Because that is what McDonalds admitted to during the trial, that they knowingly sold coffee that was to hot to drink when they served it to you, and they didn't warn you about it.

I don't find the situation funny. I feel upset that a sneaky lawyer likely encouraged her to sue for a ridiculous amount. Would she even have made that much money if the coffee made her paralyzed

She tried to settle for $20,000, McDonalds offered her $800. The Jury then awarded money for damages and to punish McDonalds for its years of causing injuries.

Although a New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant, ultimately Liebeck was only awarded $640,000.

Right the judge presiding over the case reduced the punitive money levied on McDonalds.

She died 12 years later meaning she was awarded over $50,000 per year of her remaining life because of a burn which did not paralyze or kill her. Her remaining life was likely worth around $20,000 X 12= $240,000 (it depends if she had investment income or just SSN). Likely, she would not have worked full-time from age 79-91 (and she still got the same social security payment). The burn did not reduce her income. Also, most workers in their prime years do not make $640,000 over a 12-year period and remember, the coffee burn would not have stopped 12 years of income. Even if the coffee burn killed her, the lawsuit seems too steep just going by estimated value of her remaining life (valuing a human life is quite controversial but it is done in courts).

First you are ignoring punitive damages, that is damages assigned to punish for wrong doing. In this case 2/3rds of the damages were punitive.

Why? Because McDonalds admitted to purposefully selling coffee that was to hot to drink, and that they knew would cause injury. To rephrase an analogy that you used earlier, that is like selling a knife where you know the handle occasionally breaks causing a person to get stabbed, and not doing anything to fix it.

Second the damages were not just for medical expenses but the loss of income from the injured parties family because they had to spend time not working to help her recover.

Third you are completely ignoring any type of damages besides loss of income. Really trying to reduce a person to a number based on their income is stupid as it implies that a person has no value outside of the work they do.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
bruh

As long as they are just stating their opinions and not actually killing people, it is fine. I respect their right to have an opinion. I am sure they dislike my pro-Israel views, but I would hope they would respect my right to have that opinion as well and be respectful to me at work.

Yeah they'll respect your views until they stab you in the neck for being a Jew lover lol. I don't think you actually have much experience in the world, which seems to be common for libertarians.

Valrifell wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:-cut-

You understand that giving corporations the ability to fire people for shits is something that you, as a right-libertarian, are indirectly supporting?

They should have the legal right to fire people but ethically it is wrong. The government should set a good example and never fire people for their opinions outside of work (as long as they don't wear the work uniform or post from a government website).

My hope is that more people will agree to disagree and respect people's opinions even if they are controversial. People need to be less petty and we can have more harmony. The people that fired the employees behaved like mini tyrants. I bet they are the same people that criticized Xi Jinping or Kim Jong-Il or Stalin for 'human rights violations' and not allowing freedom of speech BUT they also behave like a tyrant when given the opportunity.

Senkaku wrote:You're like the alt-right Facebook aunt version of Kowani.

...
bruh

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
You understand that giving corporations the ability to fire people for shits is something that you, as a right-libertarian, are indirectly supporting?

They should have the legal right to fire people but ethically it is wrong.

Why do you want to live in an unethical society?

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
You understand that giving corporations the ability to fire people for shits is something that you, as a right-libertarian, are indirectly supporting?

They should have the legal right to fire people but ethically it is wrong. The government should set a good example and never fire people for their opinions outside of work (as long as they don't wear the work uniform or post from a government website).

My hope is that more people will agree to disagree and respect people's opinions even if they are controversial. People need to be less petty and we can have more harmony. The people that fired the employees behaved like mini tyrants. I bet they are the same people that criticized Xi Jinping or Kim Jong-Il or Stalin for 'human rights violations' and not allowing freedom of speech BUT they also behave like a tyrant when given the opportunity.

You're seriously comparing some guy getting fired from his job for posting incendiary shit online to Stalin MURDERING PEOPLE? bro

Freiheit Reich wrote:My hope is that more people will agree to disagree and respect people's opinions even if they are controversial.

"Agreeing to Disagree" is not how anything works. Opinions may be born of personnel bias but facts are someone's opinion will be validated and the others discarded.

Senkaku wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
They should have the legal right to fire people but ethically it is wrong.

Why do you want to live in an unethical society?

Becuase the government shouldn’t necessarily legislate ethics.

Adamede wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Why do you want to live in an unethical society?

Becuase the government shouldn’t necessarily legislate ethics.

Legislating based on ethics is kind of the government's whole shabang.

Senkaku wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Not a purge where they will be legally beat and thrown in reeducation camps like during the China Cultural Revolution BUT many are being punished by employers and schools for their political views (some leftists like the manager Ozzie Guillen faced this purge as well for supporting Castro and his punishment bothers me today even though I oppose Castro). Many Americans don't like the idea of people having opposing viewpoints.

The fact that the tough, hard, manly men of the right seriously think that getting in trouble with your boss for posting terrorist threats on Facebook or whatever is a "political purge," alike in severity or scale if not in style to the Cultural Revolution or the great purges of the fascist and communist dictatorships, says something both very funny and very sad about the insane sense of entitlement they're in fact expressing, and about the deep, deep lack of actual historical knowledge among the broader population of the atrocities that they're comparing their own "suffering" to.

would be fine if a co-worker was a Nazi

Yes, I've gathered.

I expect better from the USA and Americans. I expect a nation that values the Bill of Rights. I might expect this pettiness in China, Vietnam, North Korea, or Turkmenistan where people value authoritarian leadership (they love dictators there like Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jong-Il, and Saparmurat Niyazov. It saddens me that Americans want to force their views on others and punish those with opposing views instead of calmly chatting politely about their differences or simply ignoring them.

Yes, the USA has often had these problems. The McCarthy red scare era was another shameful chapter in American history. We need to learn from this and grow as a society instead of racing towards the bottom and trying to copy red China.

Adamede wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Why do you want to live in an unethical society?

Becuase the government shouldn’t necessarily legislate ethics.

What law is not ultimately based on some normative assertion?

Kowani wrote:Majorie Taylor Greene says she'll be bringing articles of impeachment against Biden

She’s aware of who his VP is right?

I'm starting to see why Libertarians are not popular.

Bombadil wrote:Seems to me that at a state level the GOP is thoroughly corrupted by Trump, while at the Federal level many just played along to get what they want at the state level they've drunk the kool aid so much they're as orange as the man himself.

Depends on the state. Georgia GOP leadership hasn’t real gone full Trump but AZ GOP has

Thermodolia wrote:

Kowani wrote:Majorie Taylor Greene says she'll be bringing articles of impeachment against Biden

She’s aware of who his VP is right?

With the power of Q she will impeach them all.

Neutraligon wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
I bet if her coffee came out lukewarm, she would have complained and asked for a refill. This is a lesson to be careful when handling hot drinks. This should be common sense just like you should be careful when cutting meat to avoid cutting off your finger. Wait! Cutting knives are sharp? I better sue the company for $1 million if I cut off my finger by accident.

Humans are getting quite ridiculous. It would be comical if I were an alien watching from afar instead of being among other humans and having to be exposed to such foolishness.

Have you seen the images of the injuries she got?

Indeed. Spilling a drink shouldn't put one in the hospital, and she only wanted her medical bills covered at first.

Ifreann wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:She’s aware of who his VP is right?

With the power of Q she will impeach them all.

The plan is to impeach Biden, the impeach Kamala before she can select a new VP, then impeach Pelosi, then keep on impeaching new Democratic speakers until the Republicans get a majority in the House.

It’s a flawless strategy, honestly.

Omniabstracta wrote:

Ifreann wrote:With the power of Q she will impeach them all.

The plan is to impeach Biden, the impeach Kamala before she can select a new VP, then impeach Pelosi, then keep on impeaching new Democratic speakers until the Republicans get a majority in the House.

It’s a flawless strategy, honestly.

And then impeach a few Republicans, just to show them who's boss.

Bombadil wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
I bet if her coffee came out lukewarm, she would have complained and asked for a refill. This is a lesson to be careful when handling hot drinks. This should be common sense just like you should be careful when cutting meat to avoid cutting off your finger. Wait! Cutting knives are sharp? I better sue the company for $1 million if I cut off my finger by accident.

Humans are getting quite ridiculous. It would be comical if I were an alien watching from afar instead of being among other humans and having to be exposed to such foolishness.

Actually all of it was about liability of companies, it's part of a much broader attack on the right of individuals to sue companies under Tort law. The whole dismissal of her case is part of a PR campaign to muddy the issue, your attitude has been created and defined by others aiming to strip you of your rights.

Do you question climate change, or think smoking is a case of individual rights? These messages have been created for you to think.

Climate change is a natural process and the world was actually much hotter during the time of the dinosaurs. Yes, humans are partly but likely not all to blame. Tree planting campaigns can help solve the problem. Anyways, it is about choice and you are not forced to drive a gas guzzler or use coal at home if you are a tree-hugger just as people should be allowed to eat meat or not eat meat based on their ethics.

I support propaganda campaigns to discourage smoking and the dangers can be discussed in public schools. However, private businesses should have the right to allow or not allow smoking and adults (16+) should be allowed to smoke. Cigarette companies should be restricted from putting dangerous poisons in their cigarettes but natural tobacco (and non-dangerous chemicals) should be allowed as long as they are on a label (I agree in some regulations but as limited and as reasonable as possible).

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
Actually all of it was about liability of companies, it's part of a much broader attack on the right of individuals to sue companies under Tort law. The whole dismissal of her case is part of a PR campaign to muddy the issue, your attitude has been created and defined by others aiming to strip you of your rights.

Do you question climate change, or think smoking is a case of individual rights? These messages have been created for you to think.

Climate change is a natural process and the world was actually much hotter during the time of the dinosaurs.

You are ignorant on the topic of climate science, a believer of corporate misinformation.

Bombadil wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:It's a case by case basis based on people's PIN.

Tell me yours and I'll let you know.



...don't do that, obviously. I hope obviously.

Your mother's maiden name and your favourite book will do..

I can’t spell my mother’s maiden name and I don’t read gud