Kapaernick

[Derec]

Kaepernick has emerged a hero and a man to be respected.

The miserable people who opposed his freedom to make a statement about unjust action will be miserable for the rest of their miserable worthless lives.

Who has opposed his freedom to make a statement about what he believes was an unjust action?
Name one person.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Who has opposed his freedom ...?

All the people who were against his freedom to kneel during the anthem as a player. Some thought he should be fired, for example. Were you seriously not paying attention to this story? I think you were and so you're trying to frame it differently somehow. I just don't get what you're trying to say.

 

[Derec]

All the people who were against his freedom to kneel during the anthem as a player. Some thought he should be fired, for example. Were you seriously not paying attention to this story? I think you were and so you're trying to frame it differently somehow. I just don't get what you're trying to say.

That's not opposing his freedom to make a statement. That's opposing your freedom to make a non-job related statement while working and wearing his employer's uniform. Big difference there. He has always been free to make whatever statements he wanted in his spare time.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That's opposing your freedom to make a non-job related statement while working and wearing his employer's uniform.

Since they only wanted him to make a non-job related statement of pledging and standing wearing his uniform while on the job, your claim is not possible. That is, he is not hired to be an actor. His contract said he had to be respectful or some other similarly worded thing which he was. Those people were demanding things NOT IN THE CONTRACT and that he should be fired otherwise. Therefore, their extra-contractural requirements were off-the-job requirements but during the job and therefore by logic were in fact in opposition to his freedom as stated.

So imagine he was a white guy instead hired by MicroSoft. He had a contract to be a software programmer and be respectful. Management played the Chinese national anthem every morning and told him he had to stand for it while screaming "I love China!" Instead of screaming, he just stood and respectfully bowed his head. If Hillary Clinton then said this white guy should be fired for not listening to this extra-contractural thing and half the country said the same thing, favoring firing him, then they'd also be in opposition to his freedom.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That's opposing your freedom to make a non-job related statement while working and wearing his employer's uniform.

Since they only wanted him to make a non-job related statement of pledging and standing wearing his uniform while on the job, your claim is not possible. That is, he is not hired to be an actor. His contract said he had to be respectful or some other similarly worded thing which he was. Those people were demanding things NOT IN THE CONTRACT and that he should be fired otherwise. Therefore, their extra-contractural requirements were off-the-job requirements but during the job and therefore by logic were in fact in opposition to his freedom as stated.

So imagine he was a white guy instead hired by MicroSoft. He had a contract to be a software programmer and be respectful. Management played the Chinese national anthem every morning and told him he had to stand for it while screaming "I love China!" Instead of screaming, he just stood and respectfully bowed his head. If Hillary Clinton then said this white guy should be fired for not listening to this extra-contractural thing and half the country said the same thing, then they'd also be in opposition to his freedom.

But he wasn't fired in the end though. He just wasn't picked up any where afterwards. So he had freedom to say what he wanted, but it had consequences of not being hired for certain employers.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But he wasn't fired in the end though.

That is irrelevant. The statement by unter merely states that people were in "opposition to his freedom..." not that any person was in a position of power to tangibly stop his freedom or even a claim that they would, merely "opposition." While I personally believe his contract was not renewed because he was perceived as a troublesome guy, it simply isn't relevant to the statement.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But he wasn't fired in the end though.

That is irrelevant. The statement by unter merely states that people were in "opposition to his freedom..." not that any person was in a position of power to tangibly stop his freedom or even a claim that they would, merely "opposition." While I personally believe his contract was not renewed because he was perceived as a troublesome guy, it simply isn't relevant to the statement.

Huh? Nobody would say that freedom means that telling your boss to F off means you can't get fired at your job.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But he wasn't fired in the end though.

That is irrelevant. The statement by unter merely states that people were in "opposition to his freedom..." not that any person was in a position of power to tangibly stop his freedom or even a claim that they would, merely "opposition." While I personally believe his contract was not renewed because he was perceived as a troublesome guy, it simply isn't relevant to the statement.

Huh? Nobody would say that freedom means that telling your boss to F off means you can't get fired at your job.

No and it was in his contract to be respectful. Not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Huh? Nobody would say that freedom means that telling your boss to F off means you can't get fired at your job.

No and it was in his contract to be respectful. Not sure what you're getting at here.

Kapernick's freedom is in relationship to him and the US government, not him and the 49ers. Freedom would also be terminting his contract, even if it allowed for him to get money from it if that was the verdict.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Huh? Nobody would say that freedom means that telling your boss to F off means you can't get fired at your job.

No and it was in his contract to be respectful. Not sure what you're getting at here.

Kapernick's freedom is in relationship to him and the US government, ...

This is an incorrect starting premise. If someone kidnaps and locks you in a jail, even if they are not the government, they have opposed your freedom, and then acted upon that opposition by imprisoning you.

The reasons why we could speculate about with political theory, such as a theory of natural rights--those rights we have in a state of Nature allegedly even without the existence of a government. [At least according to John Locke and other philosophers.] Each person has a right to control their own body, freedom of association, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, allegedly and generally speaking but of course when other individuals are concerned such rights may be in conflict. As for Kaepernick, his freedom to kneel (do as he pleased with his own body) was the default freedom since he had not agreed to any extra-contractural stipulations about standing, i.e. he retained his freedom and did not sell his body to his employer for that purpose. Likewise, if his employer tried to steal his foot, that would also be extra-contractural and in violation of his freedom. Persons who wanted to destroy Kaepernick's livelihood and apply harmful consequences to him because he had the freedom to kneel were in opposition to that freedom, hoping instead he'd be pressured against his freedom to stand. They did not want him to have freedom of a different opinion in front of them/on television.

 

[Derec]

Do you guys think a UPS driver, while on the job and wearing his brown uniform. should have the "freedom" to wear, say a MAGA hat even if UPS disapproves?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Kapernick's freedom is in relationship to him and the US government, ...

This is an incorrect starting premise. If someone kidnaps and locks you in a jail, even if they are not the government, they have opposed your freedom, and then acted upon that opposition by imprisoning you.

The reasons why we could speculate about with political theory, such as a theory of natural rights--those rights we have in a state of Nature allegedly even without the existence of a government. [At least according to John Locke and other philosophers.] Each person has a right to control their own body, freedom of association, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, allegedly and generally speaking but of course when other individuals are concerned such rights may be in conflict. As for Kaepernick, his freedom to kneel (do as he pleased with his own body) was the default freedom since he had not agreed to any extra-contractural stipulations about standing, i.e. he retained his freedom and did not sell his body to his employer for that purpose. Likewise, if his employer tried to steal his foot, that would also be extra-contractural and in violation of his freedom. Persons who wanted to destroy Kaepernick's livelihood and apply harmful consequences to him because he had the freedom to kneel were in opposition to that freedom, hoping instead he'd be pressured against his freedom to stand. They did not want him to have freedom of a different opinion in front of them/on television.

There is no freedom that someone must provide you a livelihood. That's like saying that you you are against my freedom because you aren't paying me for the fun of it. You are the one denying freedom here, which is the freedom of association, that somebody must be forced to do something. Your argument is that if you don't support their message, you don't support freedom.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Kapernick's freedom is in relationship to him and the US government, ...

This is an incorrect starting premise. If someone kidnaps and locks you in a jail, even if they are not the government, they have opposed your freedom, and then acted upon that opposition by imprisoning you.

The reasons why we could speculate about with political theory, such as a theory of natural rights--those rights we have in a state of Nature allegedly even without the existence of a government. [At least according to John Locke and other philosophers.] Each person has a right to control their own body, freedom of association, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, allegedly and generally speaking but of course when other individuals are concerned such rights may be in conflict. As for Kaepernick, his freedom to kneel (do as he pleased with his own body) was the default freedom since he had not agreed to any extra-contractural stipulations about standing, i.e. he retained his freedom and did not sell his body to his employer for that purpose. Likewise, if his employer tried to steal his foot, that would also be extra-contractural and in violation of his freedom. Persons who wanted to destroy Kaepernick's livelihood and apply harmful consequences to him because he had the freedom to kneel were in opposition to that freedom, hoping instead he'd be pressured against his freedom to stand. They did not want him to have freedom of a different opinion in front of them/on television.

There is no freedom that someone must provide you a livelihood. That's like saying that you you are against my freedom because you aren't paying me for the fun of it. You are the one denying freedom here, which is the freedom of association, that somebody must be forced to do something. Your argument is that if you don't support their message, you don't support freedom.

No, I didn't argue that at all. I am not sure where you got that from.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you guys think a UPS driver, while on the job and wearing his brown uniform. should have the "freedom" to wear, say a MAGA hat even if UPS disapproves?

Normally with work there is an available employee handbook and policy and/or a contract which tells all about what you've agreed to. Sure, this is often not fair in some sense and often the policy is read after employment which also makes it a little unfair. That state of affairs is much more related to UPS driver. BUT in Kaepernick's case he had an explicit contract so that makes it different.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There is no freedom that someone must provide you a livelihood. That's like saying that you you are against my freedom because you aren't paying me for the fun of it. You are the one denying freedom here, which is the freedom of association, that somebody must be forced to do something. Your argument is that if you don't support their message, you don't support freedom.

No, I didn't argue that at all. I am not sure where you got that from.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you guys think a UPS driver, while on the job and wearing his brown uniform. should have the "freedom" to wear, say a MAGA hat even if UPS disapproves?

Normally with work there is an available employee handbook and policy and/or a contract which tells all about what you've agreed to. Sure, this is often not fair in some sense and often the policy is read after employment which also makes it a little unfair. That state of affairs is much more related to UPS driver. BUT in Kaepernick's case he had an explicit contract so that makes it different.

Maybe, but that would come down to the arbitration on the contract. San Francisco could have decided that he didn't meet a part of the contract and cut him, then Kaepernick would argue that he did and they would fight out who owes what or none in that situation. The 49ers didn't do that, they didn't play him as much as people wanted and eventually Kaepernick said he wanted out.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, I didn't argue that at all. I am not sure where you got that from.

- - - Updated - - -



Normally with work there is an available employee handbook and policy and/or a contract which tells all about what you've agreed to. Sure, this is often not fair in some sense and often the policy is read after employment which also makes it a little unfair. That state of affairs is much more related to UPS driver. BUT in Kaepernick's case he had an explicit contract so that makes it different.

Maybe, but that would come down to the arbitration on the contract. San Francisco could have decided that he didn't meet a part of the contract and cut him, then Kaepernick would argue that he did and they would fight out who owes what or none in that situation. The 49ers didn't do that, they didn't play him as much as people wanted and eventually Kaepernick said he wanted out.

In that sense the 49ers are not relevant which I think I already wrote. It's the conservative and/or extremist nationalist fans who were opposed to Kaepernick's freedoms to do as he pleased with his own body outside the contract. And that's because they wanted him to do X under consequences where he wanted to do Y where Y was allowed by contract because it was respectful.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, I didn't argue that at all. I am not sure where you got that from.

- - - Updated - - -



Normally with work there is an available employee handbook and policy and/or a contract which tells all about what you've agreed to. Sure, this is often not fair in some sense and often the policy is read after employment which also makes it a little unfair. That state of affairs is much more related to UPS driver. BUT in Kaepernick's case he had an explicit contract so that makes it different.

Maybe, but that would come down to the arbitration on the contract. San Francisco could have decided that he didn't meet a part of the contract and cut him, then Kaepernick would argue that he did and they would fight out who owes what or none in that situation. The 49ers didn't do that, they didn't play him as much as people wanted and eventually Kaepernick said he wanted out.

In that sense the 49ers are not relevant which I think I already wrote. It's the conservative and/or extremist nationalist fans who were opposed to Kaepernick's freedoms to do as he pleased with his own body outside the contract. And that's because they wanted him to do X under consequences where he wanted to do Y where Y was allowed by contract because it was respectful.

But the freedom is also with the 49ers to cut ties to Kaepernick for whatever reason, though they might have to pay a penalty for ending the contract early.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In that sense the 49ers are not relevant which I think I already wrote. It's the conservative and/or extremist nationalist fans who were opposed to Kaepernick's freedoms to do as he pleased with his own body outside the contract. And that's because they wanted him to do X under consequences where he wanted to do Y where Y was allowed by contract because it was respectful.

But the freedom is also with the 49ers to cut ties to Kaepernick for whatever reason, though they might have to pay a penalty for ending the contract early.

but that isn't what some people wanted. They wanted punishment for what they perceived as a dissenter. It made them angry.

In fact, even if such people saw other people than Kaepernick doing it on their own time outside a contract, it made them angry.

Such included local and state governments that through schools forced kids to stand at football games...for example Florida.

 

[coloradoatheist]

In that sense the 49ers are not relevant which I think I already wrote. It's the conservative and/or extremist nationalist fans who were opposed to Kaepernick's freedoms to do as he pleased with his own body outside the contract. And that's because they wanted him to do X under consequences where he wanted to do Y where Y was allowed by contract because it was respectful.

But the freedom is also with the 49ers to cut ties to Kaepernick for whatever reason, though they might have to pay a penalty for ending the contract early.

but that isn't what some people wanted. They wanted punishment for what they perceived as a dissenter. It made them angry.

In fact, even if such people saw other people than Kaepernick doing it on their own time outside a contract, it made them angry.

Such included local and state governments that through schools forced kids to stand at football games...for example Florida.

I agree with you on that last case, that was a government doing it with the school. That one was wrong. We are just talking Kaepernick's employment with the 49ers.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

but that isn't what some people wanted. They wanted punishment for what they perceived as a dissenter. It made them angry.

In fact, even if such people saw other people than Kaepernick doing it on their own time outside a contract, it made them angry.

Such included local and state governments that through schools forced kids to stand at football games...for example Florida.

I agree with you on that last case, that was a government doing it with the school. That one was wrong. We are just talking Kaepernick's employment with the 49ers.

PEOPLE forced and pressured others by enacting legislation. PEOPLE made the government do it to others. Back to basics: if an individual takes away your liberty to do as you please with your body that is still your freedom.

 

[coloradoatheist]

but that isn't what some people wanted. They wanted punishment for what they perceived as a dissenter. It made them angry.

In fact, even if such people saw other people than Kaepernick doing it on their own time outside a contract, it made them angry.

Such included local and state governments that through schools forced kids to stand at football games...for example Florida.

I agree with you on that last case, that was a government doing it with the school. That one was wrong. We are just talking Kaepernick's employment with the 49ers.

PEOPLE forced and pressured others by enacting legislation. PEOPLE made the government do it to others. Back to basics: if an individual takes away your liberty to do as you please with your body that is still your freedom.

I agree on your first two statements when the government did it. And the answer on the last sentence is no. When you trade your freedom for voluntary complensation they can tell you what to do. It's called work. If you don't like it, you don't have to do it. Hey McDonalds, you are taking away my freedom by making me show up for my shifts.