[Rhodes22-list] political philosophy- "moral equivalence" (There is no fundamental right or wrong?)

Wed Dec 17 09:37:16 EST 2008

Ben,

At the risk of picking nits, how does the NLRB (National Labor
Relations Board - what I think you meant) or the RLA (Railroad Labor
Act - my work rules) apply to an "at will" employee?  Absent the tort
option, I think Herb is on the right side of the law.

Brad

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Ben Cittadino <bcittadino at dcs-law.com> wrote:
>
> Herb;
>
> It's nice to know you live in Texas.  Man, do I hate those Cowboys!
>
> Anyway, it doesn't matter where YOU live. Where does Bill live? You didn't
> talk about firing anybody. In fact you agreed with me that if such firing
> were to take place it would be something of which you would disapprove.
>
> Don't dismiss the NRLA as a remedy here. If a business says, no politics, it
> must be even-handed and prohibit politics for both sides. Any discrimination
> would be violative of Federal Law.
>
> Ben C.
>
>
>
> hparsons wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry Ben. Have I not mentioned that I don't live in New York? Or
>> California, Lousiana, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota, or even South
>> Carolina.
>>
>> I live in Texas.
>>
>> And please, none of the "common law torts" stuff. That's not hard and
>> fast, and you know as well as I do, that "infliction of emotional
>> distress" and all the other stuff are simply shots in the dark, and can
>> be attempted to apply to just about anything.
>>
>> Texas is an "at will" employment state.
>>
>> Besides, I know you still haven't fully accepted this
>>
>> It
>> Was
>> A
>> Joke
>>
>>
>>
>> Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
>>> Herb;
>>>
>>> New York Labor Law sec. 201d protects political activity of employees of
>>> private employers as do similar statutes in New Jersey, California,
>>> Louisiana, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota and even South Carolina,
>>> and
>>> probably afew I haven't thought of.
>>>
>>> In South Carolina the law was used by an employee who refused to remove a
>>> confederate battle flag insignia from his lunch pail to win
>>> reinstatement.
>>> There were some jurisdictional issues on appeal in that case but the law
>>> stands as protection of even "politically incorrect" speech for private
>>> employees.
>>>
>>> Aside from specific state statutes, the NLRA (National Labor Relations
>>> Act)
>>> (Federal Law) can be used to protect employees in cases where termination
>>> was due to discriminatory enforcement of "no political speech" rules in
>>> the
>>> workplace(as in McCain/Palin bumper stickers allowed-Obama/Biden stickers
>>> not allowed).
>>>
>>> And if that doesn't work the good old common law torts of Interference
>>> with
>>> prospective economic advantage, infliction of emotional distress, and
>>> outrage provide the aggrieved employee with lots of ammunition.
>>>
>>> And that's just off the top of my head (after a Christmas party and afew
>>> drinks).
>>>
>>> Aren't you glad you live in this greatest country in the world?
>>>
>>> Ben C.
>>>
>>> PS- Can we talk about something else now?
>>>
>>> PPS- Have you checked the thinness of YOUR skin lately? Personal attack?
>>> Who's looking for excuses to feel insulted now?
>>>
>>>
>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sure you'll get a response. Cite the law that says differently.
>>>>
>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>
>>>>> Through all your "wailing and gnashing of teeth" you made an important
>>>>> admission. You said, it's an employers right to fire someone for the
>>>>> reason
>>>>> of "not liking their politics".  I disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the odds that you will reply to this post? Will I get the last
>>>>> word?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And Ben, I will repeat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not evil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may be stupid
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may be a goofy thing to do (which was why it was a JOKE).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's not evil
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe it was you (but very well could have been someone else), who
>>>>>> asked if I would quit by job if they sold bumper stickers that made
>>>>>> jokes about shooting Obama. I said I would. It's a bumper sticker
>>>>>> sellers right to sell anything they want, and it's my right to not
>>>>>> purchase from them if I'm a shopper, and not work for them if I'm a
>>>>>> buyer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, it's an employer's right to fire someone for just about
>>>>>> anything, including not liking their politics. Again, just some I'm
>>>>>> clear, It would be stupid, and it would be goofy, and I don't think a
>>>>>> person doing so would be successful in the long run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's not evil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for me calling your nonsense "shit", it is. You've chosen to make
>>>>>> this a personal attack on both Bill, and now myself. You've totally
>>>>>> mis-characterized what I wrote to fit your neat little (false) bundle,
>>>>>> and yes, I find that offensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Futher, you accuse me of being "dishonest about the subject" when in
>>>>>> fact I've remained consistent in what I've said (unlike you're "fuuqa
>>>>>> bs"), and then after accusing me of such, say you're done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect you are.;  You've been revealed for what you are, pretty
>>>>>> consistently, and I have no doubt you want no more of it. Go take your
>>>>>> hypocrisy and attacks elsewhere if you wish, I'm sure the break will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> a welcome one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Come on now. I'm perfectly happy to have an argument with you, but
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>> be dishonest about the subject and expect people to listen.  The evil
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> were both talking about had nothing to do with laying people off in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> abstract. It had to do with the POINT of the JOKE which as you very
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> know was laying people off BECAUSE THEY HAD OBAMA BUMPER STICKERS.
>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>> what made it funny to you and offensive to me. "They wanted change
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> gave it to them". Remember?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently I have somehow managed to hurt your feelings, because is
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> usually not your style to use vulgar expressions, except when you are
>>>>>>> feeling attacked, so I must have provoked you in some way to cause
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> "do
>>>>>>> you really believe the **** you write?" line. I do think we ought not
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> such profanity on this list and would request that you not do so.
>>>>>>> Remember,
>>>>>>> you and I are not the only people who see this stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact, my posts do reflect my beliefs, and for those who wonder why
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> waste my time with you, it is because your beliefs reflect those of a
>>>>>>> (thankfully small) number of people I have met and dealt with in my
>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>> short, understanding the likes of you helps me. Thanks for your
>>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>>> to my education on human nature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Be well, Herb. Have a truly joyous Holiday Season. I think we're done
>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry Ben, you are under a misconception.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There IS no "evil" in laying off workers. You may choose to call it
>>>>>>>> "throwing workers out in the street', but the truth of the matter is
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> is a person (or a group of people) choosing to no longer employ an
>>>>>>>> individual, and that is their RIGHT. It's not an evil, it's not even
>>>>>>>> wrong, unless they are doing something contrary to what they've
>>>>>>>> promised.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If they've signed a contract, they should honor it. If they've made
>>>>>>>> promises, they should honor those. But workers leave (often without
>>>>>>>> notice), simply because they find something  better, decide not to
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> anymore, whatever. Employers have that same right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the rest of your drivel, you completely mis read what I
>>>>>>>> wrote.
>>>>>>>> Might I suggest you go back and look at what I actually said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "... is not only wrong, but worthy of disdain ..." Is a clue, but
>>>>>>>> frankly, I think you're clueless. You see what you want to see, and
>>>>>>>> anyone that doesn't see it is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what in the WORLD are you talking about "covering for each
>>>>>>>> other".
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> said nothing in support of Ed, nor did I speak of Marxism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you REALLY believe the shit you write?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ed and Herb;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Herb said,
>>>>>>>>> "You know something Ben, that you totally miss - EVERYONE thinks
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> cause is worthy, and EVERYONE thinks those causes 180 degrees
>>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The difference between you, and others of your ilk, is the
>>>>>>>>> arrogance
>>>>>>>>> that says "Not only is my cause the worthy one, but anyone that
>>>>>>>>> sees
>>>>>>>>> things differently is not only wrong, but worthy of disdain,
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> am so obviously right that anyone that differs that strongly from
>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> unAmerican and wrong."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ed said,
>>>>>>>>> "Your  thought of arrogance is correct.  Arrogance is especially
>>>>>>>>> noticeable
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> those who have loss touch with ordinary people.  Arrogance is often
>>>>>>>>> evident
>>>>>>>>> in those of self appointed elites, many of higher formal
>>>>>>>>> education."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So let me get this straight. A strong opinion as to the fundamental
>>>>>>>>> "rightness" of one's position on an issue (such as the evil of
>>>>>>>>> throwing
>>>>>>>>> workers into the street and out of their jobs, joking or not),
>>>>>>>>> equates
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> "arrogance". That is exactly what you both have said . So since
>>>>>>>>> EVERYONE
>>>>>>>>> feels that way (that their cause is right and the other guy's is
>>>>>>>>> wrong)
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> assume there must not be any absolute Right or Wrong according to
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> philosophical outlook. Therefor, in your view, all morality is
>>>>>>>>> relative
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>> to the person making the judgment. Thus MY morality (fairness to
>>>>>>>>> workers
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> disapproval of jokes celebrating the hurting of workers) represents
>>>>>>>>> arrogance to you Herb and you Ed. My recollection is that both of
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>>> to hold Christian values. Does this mean that your strong opinions
>>>>>>>>> on,
>>>>>>>>> say,
>>>>>>>>> abortion or stem cell research are arrogant? If there is no
>>>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>>>> Right or Wrong how are we to make judgments? I would offer that
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>> are Right and some things are Wrong, and that there are Good guys
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> Bad
>>>>>>>>> guys, and the difficulty of confronting evil does not excuse us
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> duty to do so. So yes, I believe Bill's joke of several weeks ago
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> manifestation of a depraved heart, and was not the least bit funny.
>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>> yes,I think the two of you ought to give more thought to what it
>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> an American and less to the marxists hiding under your beds. I
>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>> hold
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> breath waiting for you to engage in any self examination however.
>>>>>>>>> You're
>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>> busy covering for each other to think for yourselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tootle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rummy,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Somebody that comes on once every 3 or 4 months ought to consider
>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>> sure others can clearly i.d. who is making the comments.  I do not
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> your infallible memory.  However, I do remember various trolls in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Study these web sites:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/facts/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.instituteforlegalreform.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is important to remember that one aspect of Marxism is control
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> people.  Remember that Marxism seeks to create a 'Dictatorship of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Proletariat'.  An important aspect of control is control descent
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>> thought.  An element of dictatorship is for the dictator making
>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>> opinions the correct and only view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A Marxist dictator will claim that he is speaking for the little
>>>>>>>>>> guy.
>>>>>>>>>> There is glossing over the fact that the little guy can speak for
>>>>>>>>>> himself.
>>>>>>>>>> He pretends the little guy incapable of self defense when in fact
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> not true.  He believes only the Marxist knows the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your thought of arrogance is correct.  Arrogance is especially
>>>>>>>>>> noticeable
>>>>>>>>>> in those who have loss touch with ordinary people.  Arrogance is
>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>> evident in those of self appointed elites, many of higher formal
>>>>>>>>>> education.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I recall pictures and news reports of a ceremony in the Roman
>>>>>>>>>> Catholic
>>>>>>>>>> Church in Rome where the Pope washes the feet of a group of
>>>>>>>>>> Cardinals.
>>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of that ceremony?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In 1936 Major General J. F. C. Fuller wrote a booklet for the U.
>>>>>>>>>> S.
>>>>>>>>>> Army
>>>>>>>>>> entitled, Generalship:  Its diseases and Their Cure.  Therein he
>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>> the arrogance of power and one of its cause as disassociation from
>>>>>>>>>> reality.  This affliction is evident in the U. S. national media
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>> acolytes and some members of this forum.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ed K
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Herb Parsons
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Thomas-Keane-identify-yourself-tp21025141p21054202.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>