Archbishop compares Bush to Ugandan dictator

[ebia]

The act of making a comparision can't be slander. It's only slander if he's made a factual statement that isn't true.

The more you rant against the idea that some of what western countries have done lately can be compared to what the worst dictators have done, the more you make the point that such a comparision needs to highlighted. Whether the comparison stands up or not isn't the point - people need to consider the similarities.

 

[HeartFullaLove]

The act of making a comparision can't be slander. It's only slander if he's made a factual statement that isn't true

Based on that, it was slander.

 

[ebia]

Based on that, it was slander.

What factual statement in ++York's statement is demonstrably untrue. (Note, "Bush is like Amin" is not, in itself, a factual statement - it's a comparison and an opinion).

 

[Ave Maria]

I don't think that necesarrily falls into a minority that even needs it's rights protected.... Unless you're speaking off the right to act as one wishes and receive whatever you feel you should receive. Homosexuals are oppressed because he U.S. doesn' let them marry? Maybe pedophiles are oppressed because we don't let hem marry who they love. We also don't honor marriage between a brother and a sister. You say that's different, and it might be now a days, however, 30 years ago, it was in in the came category, and who knows, 50 years from now, maybe it will be again, both as groups of people with legislative protection.

Actually I was talking about the fact that in most states, you can be fired just because your employer suspects you to be a homosexual. I personally don't think that is right.

 

[Combatchuc11]

Actually I was talking about the fact that in most states, you can be fired just because your employer suspects you to be a homosexual. I personally don't think that is right.

No you can't. That IS something that's protected by law. Also, legally your employer has to tell you why you got fired. If he gives a stupid reason (i.e. "You said something that sounded gay"), you can take him to court. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that a person, gay or straight can flout their sexuality in the work place. I myself am a straight man, but I highly doubt I could get away with going to work and talking about my sex life in business settings.

 

[HeartFullaLove]

No you can't. That IS something that's protected by law. Also, legally your employer has to tell you why you got fired. If he gives a stupid reason (i.e. "You said something that sounded gay"), you can take him to court. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that a person, gay or straight can flout their sexuality in the work place. I myself am a straight man, but I highly doubt I could get away with going to work and talking about my sex life in business settings.

For "at will employees" there is no requirement that someone be told why they are being terminated. If the employer decides he "no longer requires your services" he may simply let you go. The difference would be in collecting unemployment insurance -- whether you were fired "with cause" or not. It isn't hard to find "cause" if an employer wants to. All he has to do is wait. Eventually everyone screws up.

 

[TheReasoner]

There are ways in which Bush can be compared to many different men in the history of the world.
Now, because of my nation's history (being invaded by the Nazis and all) we are taught very much about Hitler, and I must say I can see some similarities between Hitler and Bush. Thankfully, Bush does not have the abilities Hitler did. While Hitler was a lunatic, he was very well spoken. And he knew how to appeal to the people. Bush is definitely NOT well spoken.Nor does he have a hangup about the Jews or a master rac.... Hang on, he DOES have a hangup about nationality, as opposed to race.
And he uses God to justify his wars. Just like Hitler did.

 

[TheReasoner]

For "at will employees" there is no requirement that someone be told why they are being terminated. If the employer decides he "no longer requires your services" he may simply let you go. The difference would be in collecting unemployment insurance -- whether you were fired "with cause" or not. It isn't hard to find "cause" if an employer wants to. All he has to do is wait. Eventually everyone screws up.

Depends. You would have to define a cause in the law. I can hardly fire an employee of mine if he does a normal messup
If he is incompetent, sure. But incompetence and regular accidents... Huge difference.

 

[HeartFullaLove]

Depends. You would have to define a cause in the law. I can hardly fire an employee of mine if he does a normal messup
If he is incompetent, sure. But incompetence and regular accidents... Huge difference.

True. The devil is in the details, but most employers become quickly familiar with them. Careful documentation can make an occasional mess-up look like incompetence.

 

[Ave Maria]

No you can't. That IS something that's protected by law. Also, legally your employer has to tell you why you got fired. If he gives a stupid reason (i.e. "You said something that sounded gay"), you can take him to court. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that a person, gay or straight can flout their sexuality in the work place. I myself am a straight man, but I highly doubt I could get away with going to work and talking about my sex life in business settings.

As a matter of fact, you can be fired for being suspected to be a homosexual. I know someone who was fired because they suspected he was a homosexual. I think the law varies from state to state so I'd say both of us are correct to an extent. I know that in my state though it is perfectly legal to fire someone just because you think they're gay.

 

[HeartFullaLove]

As a matter of fact, you can be fired for being suspected to be a homosexual. I know someone who was fired because they suspected he was a homosexual. I think the law varies from state to state so I'd say both of us are correct to an extent. I know that in my state though it is perfectly legal to fire someone just because you think they're gay.

Personally, I think a business owner should be allowed to hire and fire whomever he wants and by whatever criteria he wants, i.e., age, sex, race, etc. It falls under the constitutional right of association. We, OTOH have a right to boycott any business which does those things. Government agencies may also refuse to do business with such as well.

 

[Ave Maria]

Personally, I think a business owner should be allowed to hire and fire whomever he wants and by whatever criteria he wants, i.e., age, sex, race, etc. It falls under the constitutional right of association. We, OTOH have a right to boycott any business which does those things. Government agencies may also refuse to do business with such as well.

So in other words, you support illegal discrimination? You do realize that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin right?

http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_laws.html

Do you also realize that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from discrimination?

http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_laws.html

Or perhaps you are unaware of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the private sector, and in state and local governments?

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/ada.html

Perhaps you are also unaware of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government?

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/rehab.html

Did you know that it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment including:

* hiring and firing;
* compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
* transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
* job advertisements;
* recruitment;
* testing;
* use of company facilities;
* training and apprenticeship programs;
* fringe benefits;
* pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
* other terms and conditions of employment.

http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_practices.html

No offense but I find it quite shocking that you support illegal discrimination.

 

[HeartFullaLove]

No, I don't support illegal discrimination. I support the repeal of laws requiring an business to hire people it does not want to hire.

 

[ebia]

No, I don't support illegal discrimination. I support the repeal of laws requiring an business to hire people it does not want to hire.

So it would be fairer to say you support the legalisation of discrimination than to say you support illegal discrimination.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Well, we now have a new form of Argumentum ad Hitlerum: Argumentum ad Idium. It is closely related to Odium GeorgeWium.

In all seriousness, comparisons often times take the impact out of the original, in the same way that overuse of the term 'awesome' has leeched all of the meaning away.

Anyone that would compare Bush to Idi Amin is ignorant of history- and not very good at comparisons at all.

George W is a minor Imperialist. He is not a Tyrannical dictator, and his body count, as distressing and upsetting as it is, would not even get him mentioned in the annals of butchers throughout history.

He would be more appropriately be compared to Mr Bean.

 

[HeartFullaLove]

So it would be fairer to say you support the legalisation of discrimination than to say you support illegal discrimination.

Nope. That would not be "fair" at all. I do not support some "legislation." I support the U.S. Constitution which, 1) gives us a right to freedom of association and 2) limits the power of the U.S. government to those powere specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution.

Business owners do not lose their right to associate whith whomever they choose by starting a business -- starting a business is part of their right to "pursue happiness." Nothing in the U.S. Constitution gives the general government the power to regulate private hring practices. It does allow the general government to regulate ITS OWN hiring practices, and the practices of anyone who takes their money (states, schools, contracting businesses, etc.), but it not purely private hiring.

If they want to do that, they should change the Constitution.