Philosophical Vegan Forum

The fact that they would like to make it a crime to basically be an ass is ludicrous.

Should all name calling be potentially punished by jail? It will be expensive to house all those elementary school children, but at least society will benefit from it, right?

How on earth can any rational person believe this is something that needs to be addressed with a law on the books?

I believe this law was addressed towards healthcare providers, and I totally support the right of the employer to fire any employee who doesn't use the patients preferred pronoun. That's as far as it should go.

The first amendment isn't there to provide us protection to talk about the weather, it's there to protect speech we don't like. (Of course if I was an employer and an employee was deliberately being a dick by not using someone's preferred pronouns, I'd fire their ass immediately. Providing I was allowed to do so, based on some state's asinine laws regarding employee termination.)

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:16 pm Should all name calling be potentially punished by jail? It will be expensive to house all those elementary school children, but at least society will benefit from it, right?

How on earth can any rational person believe this is something that needs to be addressed with a law on the books?

Name calling can result in arrest and even potentially jail if you have a captive audience.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2280740

Remember, this only applies to senior living facilities. These people aren't just out and about and being called names; it's their home, and they're not really able to leave to escape the abuse.

It's a unique situation, and probably the reason this made it past the basic first amendment test.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:16 pmI believe this law was addressed towards healthcare providers, and I totally support the right of the employer to fire any employee who doesn't use the patients preferred pronoun. That's as far as it should go.

The trouble is that these elders don't really have the choice to go anywhere else to escape the abuse if the employer fails to fire the offending worker. They functionally have a monopoly on care and control the person's home environment, and it's not practical for a senior (some literally unable to walk, and who may be put there by their children) to take their business out the door.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:16 pmThe first amendment isn't there to provide us protection to talk about the weather, it's there to protect speech we don't like. (Of course if I was an employer and an employee was deliberately being a dick by not using someone's preferred pronouns, I'd fire their ass immediately. Providing I was allowed to do so, based on some state's asinine laws regarding employee termination.)

You could call this law a bandaid to fix problems caused by other laws (like being unable to terminate an employee), or other social issues (like monopoly in elder care, or shortage of nurses). We wouldn't need it if these people had more choice of facility and it were easy to fire and hire new nurses.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:33 pm Name calling can result in arrest and even potentially jail if you have a captive audience.

Extreme scenario- I run a public transit system, I display a message to my captive audience that is deemed unlawful. Police come to arrest me in my home, I run. They use physical force (up to and including killing me) to ensure my compliance, and (if I survive) lock me in a cage with violent persons...

Is that morally right?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:33 pm Remember, this only applies to senior living facilities. These people aren't just out and about and being called names; it's their home, and they're not really able to leave to escape the abuse.

It's a unique situation, and probably the reason this made it past the basic first amendment test.

So these senior transgender individuals are relying on others to provide them housing. A person employed by the facility repeatedly calls them by the opposite pronoun by which they identify. (And just to be clear, I fully support transgendered persons. ) That person is an ass. HOWEVER, that person should not face being locked in a cage. Just as if the transgender person who they are misgendering refers to the healthcare provider as "a fucking nazi piece of shit who probably is a latent homosexual" shouldn't be punished by being put in a cage.

I have no problem with physically harming someone who physically abused the elderly, but that is apparently not allowed. (Despite the fact that they physically harmed someone.)

If you commit a "crime" with words, you should be punished equally; with words.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:33 pm The trouble is that these elders don't really have the choice to go anywhere else to escape the abuse if the employer fails to fire the offending worker. They functionally have a monopoly on care and control the person's home environment, and it's not practical for a senior (some literally unable to walk, and who may be put there by their children) to take their business out the door.

So what is the limit? How many times should it take for someone to refer to a transgendered woman as "he" before it is acceptable to forcibly place them in a cage? 2? 7? 39?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:33 pm You could call this law a bandaid to fix problems caused by other laws (like being unable to terminate an employee), or other social issues (like monopoly in elder care, or shortage of nurses). We wouldn't need it if these people had more choice of facility and it were easy to fire and hire new nurses.

You know why it is so hard to fire people in some areas?....... Laws that sounded good at the time but turned out to be burdensome and pointless.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:23 am Extreme scenario- I run a public transit system, I display a message to my captive audience that is deemed unlawful. [...]Is that morally right?

If you are a monopoly? Yes.
If people have other viable options, then it's fine.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:23 amHOWEVER, that person should not face being locked in a cage. Just as if the transgender person who they are misgendering refers to the healthcare provider as "a fucking nazi piece of shit who probably is a latent homosexual" shouldn't be punished by being put in a cage.

If that TG person went to his or her HOME and did that (refusing to leave), then yes he or she should probably be locked up.

Remember, these people rely on the nurses for care, though. The nurses are also in a position of power, they could easily "accidentally" give the wrong medicine or something.

I understand why it's controversial, but there's so much force involved here I just wanted to make sure the jurisprudence was clear. This law is in the right according to the first amendment.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:23 amSo what is the limit? How many times should it take for someone to refer to a transgendered woman as "he" before it is acceptable to forcibly place them in a cage? 2? 7? 39?

No limit. It said intentionally. Which would mean in order to be punished, you'd have to have some witnesses at least to this person talking about doing it knowingly, or a facebook post or something like that.

They could easily get out of it by saying it was an accident if there's no proof of intent.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:23 amYou know why it is so hard to fire people in some areas?....... Laws that sounded good at the time but turned out to be burdensome and pointless.

Yep. You have to look at the consequences of laws carefully.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:17 am

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:23 am Extreme scenario- I run a public transit system, I display a message to my captive audience that is deemed unlawful. [...]Is that morally right?

If you are a monopoly? Yes.
If people have other viable options, then it's fine.

Wait a sec. Are you leaving out the [...] because you are saying it's okay to jail someone for words??! I may be confused on this, but if not, please express that thought in words.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:17 am

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:23 amHOWEVER, that person should not face being locked in a cage. Just as if the transgender person who they are misgendering refers to the healthcare provider as "a fucking nazi piece of shit who probably is a latent homosexual" shouldn't be punished by being put in a cage.

If that TG person went to his or her HOME and did that (refusing to leave), then yes he or she should probably be locked up.

.........Okay, I get that your position is to protect the transgendered person, which I can sympathize with. Seriously, I get that. It feels morally right. BUT...... I'm LGBT, so no homophobia here, but.....YOU CAN'T CLAIM TO BE MORAL IF YOU WANT TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR WORDS!!!

Cross my property line and threaten me or my family with physical violence, and I'll happily put many bullet holes in you. Come onto my property and throw words at me, I'll reciprocate with words.

This is not even an extreme example or language abuse. This is not yelling "FIRE" in a theater. This is "MR. Smith"..I'm MRS. Smith now...come one MR. Smith, time for meds...

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:17 am Remember, these people rely on the nurses for care, though. The nurses are also in a position of power, they could easily "accidentally" give the wrong medicine or something.

That is a direct assault, and should be handled much differently than some old-fashioned nurse calling the patient with a penis Mr., despite Mr. Penis saying she identifies as a woman.

I could call anyone any name I feel like. But (as someone on this forum smarter than I, I think boes or something) once said, "the right to swing my arm stops where your nose begins".

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just explaining constitutional law. I happen to mostly agree with it, but only because of the unique situation.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:24 am Wait a sec. Are you leaving out the [...] because you are saying it's okay to jail someone for words??! I may be confused on this, but if not, please express that thought in words.

If you are forcing people to hear your words, possibly yes. It depends on the words (in jurisprudence it has to be personal).
Monopolies are not OK, but when they exist the monopolizer is bound to certain behavior.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:24 amYOU CAN'T CLAIM TO BE MORAL IF YOU WANT TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR WORDS!!!

It's not punishing for words, it's punishing for forcing people to hear your words in a way those people can not reasonably escape.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:24 amCross my property line and threaten me or my family with physical violence, and I'll happily put many bullet holes in you. Come onto my property and throw words at me, I'll reciprocate with words.

How about if they say those words loudly all night long and don't let you sleep? They're just standing next to your bed yelling at you. There must be some limit?

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:24 amThis is not even an extreme example or language abuse. This is not yelling "FIRE" in a theater. This is "MR. Smith"..I'm MRS. Smith now...come one MR. Smith, time for meds...

I understand. If it's not intentional then there's no problem. In practice nobody is ever going to get in trouble for this.
But if it's intentional and hurtful and constant and the person has no ability to leave and not be constantly harassed, that's an issue.

It's not the words themselves, it's the force and lack of choice to leave.

The same would apply to an LGBT nurse mocking a patient as a Nazi constantly; if the patient has no option to leave, he or she is a captive audience and that's an issue of forcing somebody to hear your ridicule all of the time.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:24 am That is a direct assault, and should be handled much differently than some old-fashioned nurse calling the patient with a penis Mr., despite Mr. Penis saying she identifies as a woman.

I'm saying because of that position of power, it's not an even playing field. The patient can not just strike back.

It's like the difference between a bully making fun of you, and a teacher doing it in class. The bully you can insult back at, the teacher might fail you.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:43 am Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just explaining constitutional law. I happen to mostly agree with it, but only because of the unique situation.

You're explaining interpretations of constitutional law.

And I agree that in this unique situation, it seems like there should be something to prevent it from happening.

I would hate it if my elderly relative who was born a man, but transitioned to a woman, didn't have any family willing to take her in. In her old age she was forced to live in a state regulated housing situation. (She probably would have been able to survive on her own if it wasn't for state and federal taxes forcing her out of her home, but we'll save that for another thread...)

But if you allow her unique situation to set a precedent (IE words can lead to jail) what is there to prevent a law saying you can go to jail for calling someone .... well, anything? If the law decides that words are enough to jail someone, then which words do we stop at?

You're arguing that simply saying he/she is enough to jail someone. I know, currently you are only referring to an extreme situation, but..... is it really to far to see it being used for another similar situation? How long until calling someone a faggot gets you a year in jail? Maybe in twenty years calling someone a homophobe is punished by two years, since the republicans won in 2025?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:43 am It's not punishing for words, it's punishing for forcing people to hear your words in a way those people can not reasonably escape.

Here's a scenario. You're in a public restroom. You head to a stall to "do your business" . Suddenly, a blood soaked pony enters the room. You can't leave. Suddenly, without warning and at the top of its lungs, the pony cries...POTATO!!!POTATO!!!POTATO!!!!!POTATO!!!!!

You can't escape. How much time in jail should this pony get? Seriously. It forced you to hear words in a way you couldn't escape.

I get your intention is to help people. But the way you are going about it is in violation of others rights. Even if the others are fucking degenerate assholes who pick on elderly transgendered persons.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:43 am How about if they say those words loudly all night long and don't let you sleep? They're just standing next to your bed yelling at you. There must be some limit?

Any law on the books in the US is eventually punishable by jail. To ensure you go to jail, men with guns show up, and yell at you until you comply. (Or they shoot you/your dog)

Please explain how many/which words require someone to be threatened with death. This in not an analogy, this is realistic once a "good idea" becomes a law.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:32 am But if you allow her unique situation to set a precedent (IE words can lead to jail) what is there to prevent a law saying you can go to jail for calling someone .... well, anything? If the law decides that words are enough to jail someone, then which words do we stop at?

Well, the precedent is already set. The cat is out of the bag.
Why not use it to protect transgendered elders who have no choice but to live in these places?

Now we can talk about whether the precedent is bad and if it should be overturned... maybe it should. But if conservatives can use these rules, it doesn't seem to be of any use to abstain on principle and let them jail us for speaking and not protect the elderly from harassment in their homes.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:32 amis it really to far to see it being used for another similar situation? How long until calling someone a faggot gets you a year in jail? Maybe in twenty years calling someone a homophobe is punished by two years, since the republicans won in 2025?

Since it's limited to a captive audience, and personal attacks, I don't think it's a terribly slippery slope.
It might get a nurse jailed for repeatedly calling a patient a homophobe in care facility. Nurses would just have to learn to keep their opinions about patients to themselves when they're on the job and in their patient's (captive audience's) living place.

I don't see this as applying to normal situations.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:32 am Here's a scenario. You're in a public restroom. You head to a stall to "do your business" . Suddenly, a blood soaked pony enters the room. You can't leave. Suddenly, without warning and at the top of its lungs, the pony cries...POTATO!!!POTATO!!!POTATO!!!!!POTATO!!!!!

You can't escape. How much time in jail should this pony get? Seriously. It forced you to hear words in a way you couldn't escape.

That's not a personal attack, it's just words. It's not even directed at you. Probably no jail time.

Public places where captive audiences can happen cause problems, though. Elevators, restrooms, crowded public transit.
It's not really appropriate to talk to somebody in these situations after they ask you not to (not the repeated part).
Doesn't matter if they have nazi symbols on their clothing and you're trying to tell them how you don't think that's OK: if they don't want to hear it and they're held captive, and they ask you to stop, you shouldn't bother them with it.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:32 am I get your intention is to help people. But the way you are going about it is in violation of others rights. Even if the others are fucking degenerate assholes who pick on elderly transgendered persons.

The rights in question have already been deemed to not exist. This is in like with existing jurisprudence.
So, this isn't doing anything that isn't already established in law.

Maybe the law needs to change, and maybe free speech needs more protection. But as long as the law is already like this, why not use it to protect people and get some good out of it?

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:32 am Please explain how many/which words require someone to be threatened with death. This in not an analogy, this is realistic once a "good idea" becomes a law.

• Personal words (attacks/criticism/come-ons etc. that address the person rather than something like performance)
• uttered intentionally, rather than accidentally
• After the person asks it to stop
• To a person who is a captive audience
• By somebody in an authority position over that person (so there's no even playing field to just fight back with his or her own words)
• That are not an essential or ordinary part of normal performance (e.g. criticism of work by a boss or teacher, although I think that's probably covered by the first point)

If it fails any of those tests, I would probably not agree with it. The same applies to instances of sexual harassment in the workplace by a boss.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:33 pm

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:32 am Please explain how many/which words require someone to be threatened with death. This in not an analogy, this is realistic once a "good idea" becomes a law.

• Personal words (attacks/criticism/come-ons etc. that address the person rather than something like performance)
• uttered intentionally, rather than accidentally
• After the person asks it to stop
• To a person who is a captive audience
• By somebody in an authority position over that person (so there's no even playing field to just fight back with his or her own words)
• That are not an essential or ordinary part of normal performance (e.g. criticism of work by a boss or teacher, although I think that's probably covered by the first point)

If it fails any of those tests, I would probably not agree with it. The same applies to instances of sexual harassment in the workplace by a boss.

Well we both seem to agree on what is wrong, it seems our only disagreement is how it should be handled.

I think there are better ways than legislation that threatens to jail people for (horrible) speech. It seems it would be more cost effective (given the number of Transgendered elderly living in nursing homes is certainly small) to simply hire a few advocates (or get volunteers from the community) to check up on these elderly individuals, and if it is found they are being repeatedly mis-pronouned, to make that fact publicly known. No business would risk the wrath of the entire internet (especially in California) by allowing such an employee to continue working.

Elderly person is protected, asshole is fired, no laws were needed to be passed.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:39 pm It seems it would be more cost effective (given the number of Transgendered elderly living in nursing homes is certainly small) to simply hire a few advocates (or get volunteers from the community) to check up on these elderly individuals, and if it is found they are being repeatedly mis-pronouned, to make that fact publicly known. No business would risk the wrath of the entire internet (especially in California) by allowing such an employee to continue working.

Well, I doubt anybody will ever go to jail for this. Just the threat of it alone may be enough to get the couple assholes who are doing this to stop.

If it happened that somebody WAS jailed, though, I 100% agree. Jail, not to mention all of the costs associated with getting people there, is enormously expensive.
Also, the legislative process was probably very expensive in itself, but it would also have to be legislated to hire some social workers to do that, so... I don't know.

The threat of punishment, if it works without having to enforce it, may be cheaper than the social workers

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:39 pmElderly person is protected, asshole is fired, no laws were needed to be passed.

Just the law funding and directing the institution that hires and oversees these social workers. But I agree such laws are probably more useful and less of an imposition than those dealing with legal punishment.