These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Should CCP Remove Fon Revedhort from the CSM Election?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#81 - 2013-03-29 04:24:57 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Hustomte wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

I do find it rather strange that people are arguing that this person should not be allowed basic human rights because he believes differently to others. While one of his beliefs is the removal of those rights from others.

Sounds like you need to re-read what the Human Rights actually ARE
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please pay specific attention to article 30 and get back to us.
Thanks.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Exactly, he nor you have the right to perform any act or activity at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

If you cannot see that removing his rights because of what he says is against article 30 you need to read that again also you are also stepping on

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

and

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.


He is entitled to his freedom of expression and he is entitled to be presumed innocent of any crime until he is found guilty of one.

It is more your stance that is in breach of article 30 than his.


Can you explain to me how people choosing to assume that Fon is human garbage based on the ideologies he's espoused is the equivalent of automatically assuming that someone charged with a penal offense is guilty? Because newsflash - it's not. Similarly, pointing out that many people who share his political ideology tend to be violent is not charging him with a criminal offense either - it's pointing out an association that may give one a reason for concern.

And can you explain to me how CCP going "You know what Fon old buddy, a lot of people don't really take very well to the ideologies you embrace, and from a business perspective, we've decided that we'd rather not have you as a community representative. Sorry!" is "destroying his rights"? Because newsflash - it's not. Were they to do so they'd have done exactly nothing to prevent him from expressing his beliefs - they'd have merely taken steps to distance themselves from them.

Likewise, Article 19 would be inapplicable for the same reason.

So, while your armchair laweyering is cute and everything, I'm having trouble seeing how it actually applies. Maybe you can explain that to me. Not that it's relevant at all anyway, of course, seeing as the UDHR is very much non-binding.

No someone was claiming that members of that political or ideological type had committed mass crimes and was implying that subsequently any neo-nazi is guilty by association.

But this was not about CCP removing someone for what he said but what he was. Now if you believe that it should be fair that No republican should ever sit on the CSM, well I can not argue with that other than to say it would be against their human rights. If on the other hand they were thrown off for being a racist intolerant and spouted that with the bounds of this game then fair enough.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#82 - 2013-03-29 04:26:19 UTC
Andski wrote:
you know, there's a massive difference between saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because you disagree with their views and saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because they've literally posted racist nonsense on these forums

if the guy doesn't really bother separating his wretched views and associations from EVE, why should we do the same in return?

Yes and the ball is in CCPs court, they either give him a ban and make him ineligible or they don't, as he either broke the EULA and/or TOS or he did not.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#83 - 2013-03-29 04:34:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
you equate denying him the ability to run for CSM to denying his human rights

by extension being banned from eve - which denies you the ability to run for CSM - is stripping you of your human rights

can you make this a bit more challenging because it's not at all

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frying Doom
#84 - 2013-03-29 04:47:08 UTC
Andski wrote:
you equate denying him the ability to run for CSM to denying his human rights

by extension being banned from eve - which denies you the ability to run for CSM - is stripping you of your human rights

can you make this a bit more challenging because it's not at all

No I am stating that stopping someone from doing something due their political affiliation, race, sex, disability, sexual persuasion is.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#85 - 2013-03-29 04:48:27 UTC
Oh no, this is definitely the honeypot thread. Plenty of content for reddit.txt and shitredditsays.
Hustomte
Veritex Industrial Inc.
#86 - 2013-03-29 05:00:36 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Article 30 you will note actually says noting about hate speech, and yes they can toss him if he breaches the EULA or TOS. What I support is people human rights, all people not just those who I happen to agree with.

*facepalm* Article 30 says you cannot infringe other peoples rights, I dont know why you don't understand this (unless you're trolling)?

If you really did support peoples human rights, and by definitions set by the United Nations, then you would NOT defend this man. We can agree to disagree, but let it be known that I have shown you explicitly how hate-speech and racism is against universal human rights and everything that the United Nations/CCP stands for.

Now that I have said my piece, I will go back to *popcorn* Big smile

...Signature...
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#87 - 2013-03-29 05:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Frying Doom wrote:
No I am stating that stopping someone from doing something due their political affiliation, race, sex, disability, sexual persuasion is.


what do you mean i can't walk into the women's bathroom you're violating my human rights

also let me dig up a post i made many, many pages back that you may have missed

Andski wrote:
you know, there's a massive difference between saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because you disagree with their views and saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because they've literally posted racist nonsense on these forums

if the guy doesn't really bother separating his wretched views and associations from EVE, why should we do the same in return?


also CCP as a private entity must defend its business interests from the potential media backlash of, say, a guy who has previously spewed racist nonsense spewing racist nonsense while being in their ~player council~ especially in the event that he's on a non-delayed video stream

hmm when does that ever happen

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frying Doom
#88 - 2013-03-29 05:08:04 UTC
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
No I am stating that stopping someone from doing something due their political affiliation, race, sex, disability, sexual persuasion is.


what do you mean i can't walk into the women's bathroom you're violating my human rights

also let me dig up a post i made many, many pages back that you may have missed

Andski wrote:
you know, there's a massive difference between saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because you disagree with their views and saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because they've literally posted racist nonsense on these forums

if the guy doesn't really bother separating his wretched views and associations from EVE, why should we do the same in return?


also CCP as a private entity must defend its business interests from the potential media backlash of, say, a guy who has previously spewed racist nonsense spewing racist nonsense while being in their ~player council~

In all honesty while I believe in his human rights, I do hope that CCP bans him for a EULA breach.

Until they ban him he has not really breached.

As to the bathroom that is infringing on the rights of others but how that works for a trans gender I have no idea.Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#89 - 2013-03-29 05:08:49 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Andski wrote:
you equate denying him the ability to run for CSM to denying his human rights

by extension being banned from eve - which denies you the ability to run for CSM - is stripping you of your human rights

can you make this a bit more challenging because it's not at all

No I am stating that stopping someone from doing something due their political affiliation, race, sex, disability, sexual persuasion is.


Running for CSM is not a "human right".

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Frying Doom
#90 - 2013-03-29 05:09:15 UTC
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
No I am stating that stopping someone from doing something due their political affiliation, race, sex, disability, sexual persuasion is.


what do you mean i can't walk into the women's bathroom you're violating my human rights

also let me dig up a post i made many, many pages back that you may have missed

Andski wrote:
you know, there's a massive difference between saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because you disagree with their views and saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because they've literally posted racist nonsense on these forums

if the guy doesn't really bother separating his wretched views and associations from EVE, why should we do the same in return?


also CCP as a private entity must defend its business interests from the potential media backlash of, say, a guy who has previously spewed racist nonsense spewing racist nonsense while being in their ~player council~ especially in the event that he's on a non-delayed video stream

hmm when does that ever happen

Yes and as long as it is his spewing that is fair enough, so long as it is his not the crap of the group he belongs too.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2013-03-29 05:10:21 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Running for CSM is not a "human right".
It's a capsuleer's right, and a nerd's privilege.
Frying Doom
#92 - 2013-03-29 05:11:05 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Andski wrote:
you equate denying him the ability to run for CSM to denying his human rights

by extension being banned from eve - which denies you the ability to run for CSM - is stripping you of your human rights

can you make this a bit more challenging because it's not at all

No I am stating that stopping someone from doing something due their political affiliation, race, sex, disability, sexual persuasion is.


Running for CSM is not a "human right".

So you have no problem with CCP making the CSM only for white, land owning males over 45 years old then?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#93 - 2013-03-29 05:15:00 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So you have no problem with CCP making the CSM only for white, land owning males over 45 years old then?


naturally people against overt racists running for the CSM are just fine with CCP implementing an overtly racist policy

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frying Doom
#94 - 2013-03-29 05:19:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So you have no problem with CCP making the CSM only for white, land owning males over 45 years old then?


naturally people against overt racists running for the CSM are just fine with CCP implementing an overtly racist policy

Why would that be a bother as it is the CSM so it does not involve Human Rights, just ask Mynnna.

Or are you saying we should only be worried about some human rights only and just forget the rest...Oh and who gets to choose?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#95 - 2013-03-29 05:21:49 UTC
Do you have an actual argument? One that addresses how blocking someone from running for CSM violates their human rights? Or are you going to continue to throw out as many straw men as you can come up with?

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Frying Doom
#96 - 2013-03-29 05:24:50 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Do you have an actual argument? One that addresses how blocking someone from running for CSM violates their human rights? Or are you going to continue to throw out as many straw men as you can come up with?

Ok so you do agree with 45 year old land owning white males...Good to see.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#97 - 2013-03-29 05:25:23 UTC
That would be another straw man. Try again?

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#98 - 2013-03-29 05:25:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
telling a guy who has clearly expressed racist views on your forums "no, you can't run for a position that puts you in a position to make our employees highly uncomfortable in their workplace, which puts our business at risk" is the same as limiting that position to white male landowners

i didn't know this, thanks frying doom

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frying Doom
#99 - 2013-03-29 05:30:03 UTC
mynnna wrote:
That would be another straw man. Try again?

No you are arguing that stopping someone due to their political affiliation is fine but not for their age, sex and financial criteria.

Sorry you don't get to pick and chose what is a human right.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#100 - 2013-03-29 05:31:51 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
No you are arguing that stopping someone due to their political affiliation is fine but not for their age, sex and financial criteria.

Sorry you don't get to pick and chose what is a human right.


CCP already stops people who are under 21 from running, naturally these monsters are violating their human rights

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar