This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Still waiting for a response to this MyTie:
Uh huh...so how come it's now, and not when a politician, celebutard, actress, actor is pressured out of their jobs that you start to complain? Because really, the 'precedent' is already out there, so why should this author be held to different standards then any other famous person before him?
And hate to tell you MyTie, but the Majority Rule already runs rampant through out our society when it comes to what you should eat, wear, watch, listen to, believe in etc etc etc.
Also: MyTie you free are to vote for whatever law you want to, same as anyone else. Does it mean said law is going to win the day? More then likely not, since people are stupid, but they are usually not that stupid.
Also, I'd still like to know why it is that Card is suppose to be able to get away with comments like this. Why is it not on him for saying these in the first place? What is special about him that when he says stupid bigoted things, he get's a pass and isn't suppose to get called out for it?
Post by
Squishalot
MyTie - who's demanding? I thought we're talking about boycotting.
The news article. People are demanding that he be fired.
That would be a strawman argument then, if you're arguing with Elhonna.
I would also note that advocating for a particular party / President / Senator / other politician would also be essentially demanding that their counterpart would be fired, of sorts, on the basis of their beliefs.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
ElhonnaDS
MyTie- they are demanding that he be fired...or they will stop paying. You can "demand" whatever you want. You don't always get it. A demand is only as strong as whatever they are threatening if they are not met. If I demand something with no consequence, then I am just using a fancy word for making a loud request. If I demand it, or I will attack you, then I am threatening you and I am way out of line. If I demand it, or I will stop buying your stuff, then that's completely morally and logically reasonable. It is not immoral to no longer give people stuff if you don't want to. You have no moral obligation to buy from terrible people.
I think that there has to be some way to make people accountable on some level for being immoral. I don't think the government should do it, because they shouldn't have that much power. I think that parents should teach children that they should be embarrassed to be caught being a bully or being nasty. I think that if kids took the opportunity to "boycott" the friendship of bullies in school, there would be less of a problem with them. I think that if people who were rude and took advantage of others were shunned by friends and associates, they'd act better. I think that if the public made a point of decrying people for having attitudes where it is ok to take advantage of each other, to be racist, to belittle people for disabilities, etc. then these things would happen less often.
I don't just feel that it's morally ok for people to put social pressure on people who offend them and seem to be immoral, especially when all they are threatening is to not buy things from them. I think they have a moral RESPONSIBILITY to do so if they feel that the specific issue is especially important. I absolutely believe that socially refusing to deal with people who are horrible people makes it harder for them to get along being horrible people. The law has to protect everyone's freedom of speech to protect us from the government. We as a society have to make it known when we feel people are immoral and a bad influence on society to protect ourselves from them. If someone wants to legitimize some obnoxious idea by publishing something that is offensive and morally wrong, then people should morally let them know that their idea is offensive and morally wrong by not buying his book, by telling the companies carrying the book that they feel it is so vile that they will stop doing business with them while the continue to carry them, to picket bookstores, etc.
There is no injustice here. He made a public spectacle that was deliberately degrading to a lot of people. People feel like that was offensive enough that they don't want him to have any benefit from their money. So they tell the company fore him, or we won't give you money. Great- perfect. That's the perfect way to make your case without infringing on that person's freedoms at all. You are not taking anything away due him- you are letting him know that you will not be giving him anything in the future.
EDIT: BTW, I didn't actually read what this guy wrote, so I'm not sure if he is a terrible person or not. But I am using this example because it's where we're discussing it. But in the case of dealing with people whose statements are really, in my opinion, immoral, I defend both the right AND the morality of a boycott, and I am kind of shocked that someone who is so into the right of the individual to have freedom thinks that there is some moral obligation for people to not stop shopping places when they want to.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
Still waiting for a response to this MyTie:
Uh huh...so how come it's now, and not when a politician, celebutard, actress, actor is pressured out of their jobs that you start to complain? Because really, the 'precedent' is already out there, so why should this author be held to different standards then any other famous person before him?
And hate to tell you MyTie, but the Majority Rule already runs rampant through out our society when it comes to what you should eat, wear, watch, listen to, believe in etc etc etc.
Also: MyTie you free are to vote for whatever law you want to, same as anyone else. Does it mean said law is going to win the day? More then likely not, since people are stupid, but they are usually not that stupid.
Also, I'd still like to know why it is that Card is suppose to be able to get away with comments like this. Why is it not on him for saying these in the first place? What is special about him that when he says stupid bigoted things, he get's a pass and isn't suppose to get called out for it?
Ugh. What celebrity are you talking about? I'll gladly agree with my premise for any applicable case. There are few exceptions. Middle school government teachers who also Holocaust deniers, for example, would qualify as an exception.
And, about the law, you completely missed the point, and in fact, remade the same mistake I was trying to point out in the first place. I'm trying to say that just because something isn't going to have an effect, doesn't mean that it is an acceptible action. It would be wrong for me to vote for a law that said that Wiccians shouldn't be allowed to breathe, even if that law had no chance of passing. Me voting for it would be wrong. Much like these people demanding someone be fired for a dissenting opinion is wrong, even if, as you say, it isn't going to have an effect. The lack of effect is beside the point.I don't just feel that it's morally ok for people to put social pressure on people who offend them and seem to be immoral, especially when all they are threatening is to not buy things from them. I think they have a moral RESPONSIBILITY to do so if they feel that the specific issue is especially importantThis sounds great. No go read the definition of "bigot". Now apply your view to that. Tell me you have a moral responsibility to be intolerant of people who have differing views, and to exert "social pressure" on people who differ from you, people who you think are wrong.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
So it is bigoted to have a standard by which you expect people to treat each other and behave around each other? It's bigoted to expect people to not make degrading statements about women, or to not advocate sex with children? To refuse to deal with people who use racial slurs?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
Much like these people demanding someone be fired for a dissenting opinion is wrong, even if, as you say, it isn't going to have an effect.Still waiting for you tell me how that is any different from the people who demand that this politician steps down, that celebutard is fired, that actor not act in a movie etc etc etc.
Edit: And still ignoring things:
Also, I'd still like to know why it is that Card is suppose to be able to get away with comments like this. Why is it not on him for saying these in the first place? What is special about him that when he says stupid bigoted things, he get's a pass and isn't suppose to get called out for it?
Post by
MyTie
So it is bigoted to have a standard by which you expect people to treat each other and behave around each other? It's bigoted to expect people to not make degrading statements about women, or to not advocate sex with children? To refuse to deal with people who use racial slurs?
Strawman, Elhonna, strawman. This dude is not, in any way, acting in a way at work with affects the product or service. If the guy has problems outside of work, by all means, don't go hang out with him. Don't invite him to your wedding, or have him over for your superbowl party. That's your social circle, and you have the right, and responsibility to screen out people with whom you have deep seeded disagreements and disparities of morality and values. But, society, and the job market, is not your social club. You shouldn't feel that you can decide who is and who isn't excluded based on what you think is right and wrong.Much like these people demanding someone be fired for a dissenting opinion is wrong, even if, as you say, it isn't going to have an effect.Still waiting for you tell me how that is any different from the people who demand that this politician steps down, that celebutard is fired, that actor not act in a movie etc etc etc.
Edit: And still ignoring things:
Also, I'd still like to know why it is that Card is suppose to be able to get away with comments like this. Why is it not on him for saying these in the first place? What is special about him that when he says stupid bigoted things, he get's a pass and isn't suppose to get called out for it?Adamsm, you're getting on my nerves, pal. I don't understand why you are "still waiting" for anything out of me. I already addressed the celebrity thing, and said that I would stand by the same thing for those people as well. I asked for specific examples, and would demonstrate to you how I would stand by them. Don't ask me a question, get an answer, and then tell me you are waiting for an answer. In case you missed it:What celebrity are you talking about? I'll gladly agree with my premise for any applicable case. There are few exceptions.As for this guy being "special", he isn't. He said something that a lot of people take offense to. So, take offense. Go ahead. I never said don't. When did I say that no one can dissent against his opinion? Where do you get this stuff.
As for "still waiting", I'd love to actually get a response from you on this:To me MyTie, that's a freedom of choice people do have: I sure as hell wouldn't go to a doctor who did nothing but made racist/sexist comments the entire time I'm in his office, no matter how good he is when it comes to healing the sick.
This is where you and I differ. If there were two brain surgeons available in my area, and my wife had a brain tumor that had to be operated on, or she would die, I would be more concerned about which brain surgeon was a more effective brain surgeon, not their political views. I'm always shocked when people say this stuff... "I'd put my doctor's political views ahead of my health". I mean... really? You really believe that? Seriously? That's so counter intuitive to what I consider to be common sense, that the viewpoint is literally incomprehensible.While you are coming up with what I'm sure will be an inspired response, enjoy this picture of
Vigo sweeping
.
Post by
Magician22773
This
should make for some interesting discussion here.
Personally, I find it as ridiculous as I do repulsive.
First off, I simply cannot imagine any actual "priest", or head of any church that would have the opinion that the one in the story had. I don't care how liberal you are, this is just wrong, on multiple levels. Honestly, whats next....a pig roast in the local Mosque?
Post by
MyTie
This
should make for some interesting discussion here.
Personally, I find it as ridiculous as I do repulsive.
First off, I simply cannot imagine any actual "priest", or head of any church that would have the opinion that the one in the story had. I don't care how liberal you are, this is just wrong, on multiple levels. Honestly, whats next....a pig roast in the local Mosque?
Thanks Magician, for that change of topic. I was feeling a bit repetitive.
But, I'm not really surprised by the content of your article. People will do almost anything these days to appear more edgy than everyone else, like attention starved children.
Post by
Magician22773
This
should make for some interesting discussion here.
Personally, I find it as ridiculous as I do repulsive.
First off, I simply cannot imagine any actual "priest", or head of any church that would have the opinion that the one in the story had. I don't care how liberal you are, this is just wrong, on multiple levels. Honestly, whats next....a pig roast in the local Mosque?
Thanks Magician, for that change of topic. I was feeling a bit repetitive.
But, I'm not really surprised by the content of your article. People will do almost anything these days to appear more edgy than everyone else, like attention starved children.
I hate to tie this back into the other topic, but I have to ask:
If someone wants to legitimize some obnoxious idea by publishing something that is offensive and morally wrong, then people should morally let them know that their idea is offensive and morally wrong by not buying his book, by telling the companies carrying the book that they feel it is so vile that they will stop doing business with them while the continue to carry them, to picket bookstores, etc.
I would say it is safe to say, that what these people did in a church would be " offensive and morally wrong", to at least a large portion of the population of the United States. I would at least think this would be offensive to nearly any Catholic, and most any other person that truly has faith of any kind, and believes that a Church is the House of God.
So, assuming we can agree that this stunt was "offensive and morally wrong" to a large number of people, should it not be our "moral RESPONSIBILITY" to try and socially shun this "school", and anyone who participated in this "class"?
Post by
MyTie
I would say it is safe to say, that what these people did in a church would be " offensive and morally wrong", to at least a large portion of the population of the United States. I would at least think this would be offensive to nearly any Catholic, and most any other person that truly has faith of any kind, and believes that a Church is the House of God.
So, assuming we can agree that this stunt was "offensive and morally wrong" to a large number of people, should it not be our "moral RESPONSIBILITY" to try and socially shun this "school", and anyone who participated in this "class"?
This would be one of the few exceptions where I would say "yes". Much like my example of the middle school government teacher being a holocaust denier, there is a conflict of interest. When someone's "product" is morality, then the morality of that person becomes part of the product, and can therefore be scrutinized. There is no comparison between a superman comic book and church teachings, as far as self claims to morality go, although superman does get a bit preachy imo.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Magician- personally, I think that any adult that wants to take a class about masturbation (which, I'll be honest, you can get information for free about so it seems like a waste of money) can do so if they choose.
If this had been at a school with minor students, then I would have said boycott the school until the program was removed, and the administrators and teachers involved with approving it and teaching it were fired. I would also never hire those people, and would most likely boycott other schools they got jobs in. Because exposing children to explicit content of that nature is morally wrong. IMO, sex education classes should be clinical in nature and revolve around prevention and safety, and stressing how easy it is to get pregnant. They shouldn't be giving tips for better sex. To minors.
Since I don't have any particular moral objection to adults discussing sex, then I would have no reason to boycott or shun the people who taught this at a college. Nor would I think they need to be boycotted, because I don't think they did anything wrong. However, I understand why many people would want to, and since I don't think it's particularly immoral to not want your religious institution's school to discuss those things, then I would have no moral problem with people who morally wanted to boycott the school and all of the administration and teachers who thought that was a good idea. I think that while this doesn't seem all that immoral to me, getting upset about it and wanting it removed ALSO doesn't seem all that immoral to me, and so I'm not all that bothered by either side. It's a case where I can see both sides, and I think that people who are upset are appropriate in boycotting.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
Since I don't have any particular moral objection to adults discussing sex, then I would have no reason to boycott or shun the people who taught this at a college.
Adults discussing sex? That's what this article was about?
Oh
. I thought it was about something as disrespectful and degrading as the Church, charged with spreading the words of Jesus and the apostles, instead explaining to people how best to masturbate themselves to orgasm. I've given sermons on sex before, and it is covered in the Bible, so it comes up during discussion in Church, but usually in appropriate manner, relating to marriage, homosexuality, adultery, incest, other places it is brought up in the Bible. I certainly wouldn't explain to man how best to spank the monkey, because that would be unbecoming to the reason I was there, and disrespectful of the teachings I was charged to convey. Adults discussing sex? My my. I don't know that we read the same article.
In all seriousness, I'd like to juxtapose your rewording of what happened in this article into something innocuous, to your example you used in the last discussion to make something more sinister. Something as inappropriate as "Graphic masturbation class in Church" became "adults discussing sex", and something as appropriate as "man has an unpopular opinion he expressed" became "man handing out porno to children". You could be a attorney. "Stabbing someone to death" could become "rapidly relocating a knife", if you were a defense attorney, and "35mph in a 25mph" could become "attempting to mass murder children with a giant metal death contraption" if you were a prosecutor. Quite skillful.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Except, MyTie, no one broke into this chapel and desecrated it, to the horror of the clergy in charge. It wasn't an attack on the church by outside forces. The Chaplain in charge approved of the class. That's called freedom of religion. You don't have to like it, and if the people who are attending his services there are offended then they can boycott, and get him replaced, but it wasn't like it was a hate crime. If one person in practicing their own religion believes something is appropriate, and I don't find anything immoral about the thing he finds appropriate, why should I be outraged that other people who practice a similar religion WOULD be outraged by it? That's between them.
If a Muslim clergyman was found to be eating bacon, which is traditionally offensive to his religion, and he said that he didn't believe that was something wrong, then it may be enough to separate his beliefs from those who practice the same religion, but I am not offended on their behalf on the grounds that he doesn't have the same religious values as they do. If they are offended, and want to have him replaced because he doesn't represent their values in a religious leader, I also have no problem with that because I consider that reasonable. But I am not going to say "how dare he eat bacon against the teachings of his religion" because it's not something I feel the need to monitor. Why do I have the right to declare one set of Muslim values right, and one wrong, when I'm not Muslim? If the action itself isn't something I object to, and the action was taken by members of said church instead of as a way to degrade members of said church, then I fail to see why I should have an opinion on it.
Freedom of religion means that people will practice a religion differently than you will, will make allowances that you won't, and will have ideas that don't conform to what you consider appropriate. If you don't like their messages, then that's not a good religion for you. If someone teaching in or on behalf of your church offends you, then you can boycott and raise a protest against it and make sure that what they practice in terms of their religion is not taught where you practice your religion. But I'm not going to say that something I find morally fine suddenly becomes immoral when someone deviates from a religion that is not my own to agree with me.
If I found the content of what he approved of the be immoral in and of itself, then I would be morally outraged about the content of the message itself, and not because in addition to my belief that it was wrong it also means that other members of his religion would think he was violating religious doctrine.
And in response to your characterization of my choice in wording, it would be hard for me to make an example of things that I find morally fine vs. things I find morally objectionable without quoting things I find morally objectionable. I could just have easily have said that he was handing pamphlets with hate speech- something that said homosexuals are evil- and the metaphor would have worked just as well. Quibbling about strawmen and language quirks aside (which in and of themselves have become strawmen), my basic argument comes down to this:
I feel some things are immoral in and of themselves, regardless of others opinions. I feel the need to speak up against people who practice these things, and who promote the message that these things are ok. I feel justified in taking my money with me when I walk away from those people. I have no moral obligation to help or interact with you in any way if I feel the way in which you live your life makes the world worse, and I am completely fine with letting people know that is why a company no longer has my money. Because I think that the things that I consider immoral are harmful to people and to society, and to ignore them and pass by and let them continue without voicing my opinion is negligent. I don't the that I have the right to physically restrain or harm you if you aren't harming someone else, and I don't think the government should be able to regulate morality by force other than to protect us from each other. But I certainly can and should make my actions reflect what I believe, and that includes choosing to shop with people who are not making the world a worse place rather than with people who are.
There are things that I find not particularly immoral, but I can understand why other people would, and so completely believe that they have the right to act in that situation in the same way that I act when I find something unconscionable. They can walk away, voice their anger, take their money.
If someone wants to use the above tactics to promote a message that I specifically find immoral, then I will treat that in the same way I treat anyone else who I feel is spreading immorality. I debate, I complain, I walk away, I take my money. I don't have an issue with their tactics, but the cause for which they are using them.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
People who have viewpoints which I consider immoral, should not be allowed to have a job.
Would you buy gay pornography to stop someone from being fired?
Exerting public pressure to get someone fired over their opinion, IS IMMORAL, regardless of their opinion.
Is it immoral to fire someone for expressing their opinion? Even if that opinion is expressed to a customer?
You shouldn't feel that you can decide who is and who isn't excluded based on what you think is right and wrong.
Unless they're providing a service other than expressing their opinion through art, right?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
To clarify about the class at the church, I think it's in pretty bad taste to have it there. I just don't think that if the person in charge of the chapel wants it there that I find that to be morally offensive, or that I have the right to dictate to him when he is going against his own religious beliefs.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
Freedom of religion
Elhonna, you went through a lot of effort to type up that post. And, I really respect the amount of effort you put into it. I don't want to sound demeaning to your post, but I find no other way to concisely say this: almost none of your post applies to anything I said. I never argued against anyone's freedom of religion. As you pointed out, our freedoms are for our protection against government, and to be able to do something inhibited by others. I never once argued that these people should be forcibly stopped.
I'm just going to stop addressing your points right there. All these side things are making a mess. I'm going to cut to the heart of it, repeat myself, again.
1) A person's personal opinion being found to be immoral or unpopular by the majority does not necessitate them being sacked.
2) If the person's behavior, or work performance is impacted due to that person's performance, then that is reason to demand their removal.
The morality of a person isn't normally a factor when considering the product or service being rendered, as long as it doesn't adversely impact the product or client. If the dude who washes my car believes that black people aren't people, or something, I'm still going to let him wash my car as long as he does a very good job of washing my car. However, the "normally" in the first sentence is there because sometimes the product IS the morality of a person. A politician, for example, is selling his version of morality. A church is selling their version of morality.
Which brings us to this church that teaches masturbation lessons. Their "product" is shoddy. They should therefore, be shunned and boycotted on the "market" due to their morality. This has absolutely nothing to do with their right to do what they are doing. There should be no law against them.
I honestly don't even know why you are bringing up this legal argument. I never once suggested their rights should be infringed. I feel like you aren't understanding what I'm saying, no matter how many different ways and times I'm saying it. Further, when you extrapolate points from my posts that aren't even remotely there, well, it's getting pretty frustrating.Would you buy gay pornography to stop someone from being fired?No. I'm not sure where you are going with this, but just because it is not right to demand someone get fired for having differing views from me, doesn't mean it is my responsibility to ensure people job security just because they have different views.Is it immoral to fire someone for expressing their opinion? Even if that opinion is expressed to a customer?Doing something at work has a direct affect on customer service. Further, if someone were to express something to a customer that wouldn't reflect well on a company, that could be considered irresponsible. If I were running a company, I would want my empolyees on their best behavior, on and off the job, especially while customers were listening. But, this isn't about firing someone based on behavior. Should the comic book company fire the dude who caused the havoc? That's debatable, and should really have to do with how it will affect their bottom line. They are there to sell comic books. But, the real question here is the moral superiority of the boycotters and the one who made the statement.You shouldn't feel that you can decide who is and who isn't excluded based on what you think is right and wrong.
Unless they're providing a service other than expressing their opinion through art, right?
No.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@MyTie- I was more trying to outline all of the details and boundaries of what I believe in this matter. I know you weren't specifically saying anything should be illegal. I was trying to be as complete as possible as to where I think the boundaries lie and why. If that derailed the heart of the argument, that was not my intention. I was just trying to be complete in my description of my rationale, and why I would think this was ok whereas I would think other similar actions might not be.
Our disagreement is, I think, just going to have to be one where we agree to disagree because I don't think there is any debate about any of the facts of the matter. You don't believe that someone's work eligibility should be based on anything other than his technical capacity to perform a job, and one should never make buying decisions based on their personal opinion of the seller or the seller's employees. I don't agree- I think that taking into account the person as well as the product is fine.
I will ask about your clause about it adversely affecting the client, though, as it relates to the original case. If you had an employee that called customers to their faces racial or other slurs, told women they were dressed like ********, insulted customers by making accusations of promiscuity or attention seeking behavior, would you consider that affecting the customers? If an employee was telling people who bought your products that they were only doing it for attention, that they were not really entitled to buy these products because they don't really enjoy them as much as his other customers, that they need to stop pretending they like your stuff and leave the real customers alone- and he said this to people who spend lots of money on products with your brand, would you:
A) Consider that part of his work performance? Would you consider the way in which he spoke to customers and the things he said to them, and about them where he knew that they would hear, to be an aspect of his job performance, or only the way in which he physically completed transactions, or stocking, or whatever his job was?
B) Believe any customer who was directly insulted or referred to by this employee, and heard him or saw the memo he posted specifically for them to see, be morally incorrect in not shopping there anymore because they had been directly insulted for doing so? Should they either continue to shop there because they like product despite the employees direct and deliberate insults, or leave quietly so that the management doesn't realize that's why they are leaving? Is it incorrect for someone to tell the management of a company that an employee is costing them theirs and other peoples business because he is directly insulting them for buying and being a fan of that brand?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
The way an employee speaks directly to customers is part of work performance.
However, this really needs to be evaluated carefully. There are distinctly different ways of expressing an opinion, one definitively on one side, and the other on the other side, with a wide margin in the middle. On one side, you have being in uniform, on the clock, at work, looking directly at a customer, and calling that customer a racial slur to his face, in direct contrast to the written rules for employment posted for the employee to read. On the extreme other side, you have a person voting for a political who has espoused racist values. No one should be fired for how they vote, but then, anyone who acts like that first person should be fired. This has little to do with the fact that the person is racist, but more to do with how that person expressed that racism. However, in the middle, you have a lot of gray area. Can a person put campaign signs in their front yard for a racist candidate, and still retain employment at some random company? Can a person give public speeches about racism, and still hold a job at, say gamestop? Can a person get into a public shouting match with a person of another race and shout obscenities at them, but not be in uniform, at the job location, or on the clock, and still have a job? Lots of gray area. What about the package method of the communication? It's quite a bit different to say that "the average IQ of asians is higher than the average IQ of blacks", than it is to say "blacks are dumber than asians", but both of those statements are racist. Even more gray area. I tend to lean more toward personal liberty than you do. What a person thinks, believes, and expresses, should be tolerated, within reason (more gray area). Perhaps I believe that because my own views are often not tolerated. You really need to be able to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is at the receiving end of intolerance to understand it.
Either way, I'm going to reference this discussion when the participators soap box later about "tolerance" in other discussions.
Post by
Squishalot
Hey MyTie, I asked a question before, but I think it may have been lost in the discussion with Elhonna.
What is your view on political claims for a President / Congressperson to be removed from office and replaced with (insert alternative here) due to their views / opinions / beliefs on a matter? How does this differ from boycotting a product until an employee is removed?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.