- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
21 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75exactly, we agree. things are not black and white. the reasons i give you various scenarios was not to get a black and white answer but to show you that its difficult to have a flat rule regarding freedom of speech.
Well you are answering your questions yourself then that you have for us. Yes there are no just black and white answers because as you say there are many senario's. So to ask us or anyone what the answer would be even to simple questions is not really answerable and it is impossible to give just a black and white answer for us either is there?
So you c ...[text shortened]... what if this and what if that, but only one could answer if one were there in a given situation.
because it is wrong in a legal sense to judge each case based on our own personal feelings, there must flat rules and the rule is, a company can sack an employee if the employee brings negative publicity that may harm the future of the business. there was a similar case in the uk several years ago, where a contestant said something the main sponsors of the show found offensive and they withdrew sponsorship and advertising, several other advertiser followed and the show was eventually cancelled.
you and robbie began this debate with a hard stance, both implying that the company was wrong to suspend him because you thought he was speaking the truth and he was being censored.
i hope ive clearly shown to you both that a - he has not been censored and b - speaking 'truth' does not give a person the right to say what they want when they want whenever they want.
so his company (regardless is you think they did the right thing) were perfectly within their rights to suspend him...........im not even sure why this is being debated. i suspect the main aim of your original point was to argue the 'truth' about homosexuality.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by stellspalfiehe has been censored, indirectly as i have demonstrated!
exactly, we agree. things are not black and white. the reasons i give you various scenarios was not to get a black and white answer but to show you that its difficult to have a flat rule regarding freedom of speech.
you and robbie began this debate with a hard stance, both implying that the company was wrong to suspend him because you thought he was ...[text shortened]... ted. i suspect the main aim of your original point was to argue the 'truth' about homosexuality.
Originally posted by Proper KnobWill you know publicly admit that if those persons who suffer with HIV had applied the Bibles superlative and wise counsel to avoid sexual practices which Gods words states are unnatural and destructive they would be spared the heartache of being HIV+
This is correct. Put a condom on, problem solved.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by Proper Knobok, will you now publicly admit that the Bibles wise and superlative counsel to refrain from promiscuousness, fornication and adultery could save millions form the heartache of contracting sexually transmitted diseases?
Not it's not. Because HIV can also be transmitted during 'natural sex'.
Originally posted by stellspalfieEPIC FAIL, he was suspended from his job because of exercising the right to free speech and therefore while he still has recourse to that freedom as guaranteed by the US constitution, if he exercises it, he risks loosing his job entirely, that is an indirect from of censorship.
has his ability to speak his mind been affected..........nope. was he threatened with action if he said certain things......nope.
then no censorship has occurred.
21 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes. If everyone only had one sexual partner then STD's would dramatically be reduced. But how realistic is that?
ok, will you now publicly admit that the Bibles wise and superlative counsel to refrain from promiscuousness, fornication and adultery could save millions form the heartache of contracting sexually transmitted diseases?
Now will you publicly admit that if everyone practiced safe sex by using a condom then millions of people could also be saved the heartache of contracting STD's?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou keep repeating the same nonsense. you obviously dont understand what censorship means.
EPIC FAIL, he was suspended from his job because of exercising the right to free speech and therefore while he still has recourse to that freedom as guaranteed by the US constitution, if he exercises it, he risks loosing his job entirely, that is an indirect from of censorship.
if he exercises it, he risks loosing his job entirely, that is an indirect from of censorship
actually to be fair you are starting to make sense here. but you are also speculating as to what is going to happen.......if his company threaten to sack him unless he stops speaking certain opinions through the media....then he has a case for censorship. as it stands he has not been censored. you probably dont understand this subtle difference, but then again you are the guy who just suggested heterosexual couples cannot give each other hiv!!!!
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn San Fran, they ban Happy Meals because they are unhealthy and compare circumcision of child abuse and wish to ban it.
in the UK there is the highest ever recorded cases of HIV among gay men, a direct consequence of failing to acknowledge that the physiology of the human body is not conducive to homosexual practice and is thus contrary to nature.
However, they are unable to acknowledge the 600 pound gorilla in the room.