11–20 of 56 posts
Naive as I was, I didn’t believe them at the time but time has proven them right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
cutting off a one means of income from a wealthy, controversial influencer is not comparable to being put to death, no. that’s incredibly callous.
They're both on the same slippery slope of governmental punishment of wrongthink. Saudi Arabia is just way, way further down it.
Or. Could a certified driving instructor lose their license for telling their clients to drive aggressively, regardless of safety concerns? They might just become a brave martyr challenging the safety-obsessed culture that coddles our drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s curious that you chose JP, as opposed to the much better example of Hamline University (or that stupid halloween costume thing from a couple of years back; etc, etc). Instead, we choose to entertain JP’s ever-escalating persecution complex. It’s “persecution” only when someone I like loses or suffers, it’s “consequences” when it’s someone I dislike/in the outgroup (never mind the actual circumstances of their be…
Lawyers should never get disbarred, and drivers should never lose their licenses, for doing anything that the Constitution gives them the right to do.
Has it not occurred to you that professionals could lose their licenses for reasons that at are not solely political? Like professional malpractice, or advocating for quackery? (There’s a line to be drawn there, too, about what constitutes reasonable standards, but you seem to be suggesting that there be no standards at all.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyers should never get disbarred, and drivers should never lose their licenses, for doing anything that the Constitution gives them the right to do.
There’s an extended discussion to be had about the merits and drawbacks of professional licensing as state-enforced gatekeeping, but equating this with political persecution doesn’t seem useful. Has it not occurred to you that professionals could lose their licenses for reasons that at are not solely political? Like professional malpractice, or advocating for quackery? (There’s a line to be drawn there, too, about wh…
For malpractice such as leaving a scalpel inside of someone or amputating the wrong appendage, sure. But there's no Constitutional right to do either of those things. As for "advocating for quackery", the government forbidding someone for practicing medicine over that absolutely flies in the face of the First Amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s curious that you chose JP, as opposed to the much better example of Hamline University (or that stupid halloween costume thing from a couple of years back; etc, etc). Instead, we choose to entertain JP’s ever-escalating persecution complex. It’s “persecution” only when someone I like loses or suffers, it’s “consequences” when it’s someone I dislike/in the outgroup (never mind the actual circumstances of their be…
Lawyers should never get disbarred, and drivers should never lose their licenses, for doing anything that the Constitution gives them the right to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're both on the same slippery slope of governmental punishment of wrongthink. Saudi Arabia is just way, way further down it.
Banning lead from gasoline (and paint, plumbing etc) is also governmentally-punished wrongthink, if you’ve built your whole identity and livelihood around being a salesman for leaded gasoline. Or. Could a certified driving instructor lose their license for telling their clients to drive aggressively, regardless of safety concerns? They might just become a brave martyr challenging the safety-obsessed culture that codd…
A long time ago, some Jewish coworkers told me about Saudi Arabia as very extreme (a lot of frank discussions about Israel’s issues, Palestinians, and the middle east). Naive as I was, I didn’t believe them at the time but time has proven them right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyers should never get disbarred, and drivers should never lose their licenses, for doing anything that the Constitution gives them the right to do.
There’s an extended discussion to be had about the merits and drawbacks of professional licensing as state-enforced gatekeeping, but equating this with political persecution doesn’t seem useful. Has it not occurred to you that professionals could lose their licenses for reasons that at are not solely political? Like professional malpractice, or advocating for quackery? (There’s a line to be drawn there, too, about wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyers should never get disbarred, and drivers should never lose their licenses, for doing anything that the Constitution gives them the right to do.
The Canadian constitution grants one the right to speak freely with zero professional repercussion?
[flagged]
“Canada” here being a quasi-governmental professional organization tasked with ensuring the safety of patients and professionalism of practitioners. Not remotely the same as the government-proper arresting him and threatening him with death.