Not only about games company, but any company. Give me your opinion about this.
You think a company-owner should promote employers based on his freedom of opinion or you think the state should violate individual freedom in order to determine who should be promoted or not?
You first. What are your thoughts?
If itâs your âopinionâ that men are better than women or whites are better than non-whites and you start making hiring & promotion decision based on that, then I have no problem with the law telling you to knock it off.
You have the freedom to think whatever opinions you want in the privacy of your own head, even if youâre full of &*%^. You donât have the freedom to discriminate based on gender & race.
In my opinion everything that works through force is wrong.
Especially when what is in question do not belong to you.
My question is, an owner has the freedom of choice to choose his employers hire/promote or the state should violate them in order to make this choice?
Great. What does that have to do with ethics, law and game companies? Come on. Itâs your thread, develop the idea.
Everything, from start to end.
Okay, dude, you clearly want to have a dog-whistle debate about race but you donât have the stones to throw down.
Next?
The debate is about freedom, not specific gender or race. It could be about a manicure company or a basketball team and many other situations.
Can you answer if you are in favor of the state violating individuals in order to make choices or not? lol
When your choices start affecting other people you just might run into some limitations on your freedom to treat people like crap. You libertarians love to throw around the word âfreedomâ but âresponsibilityâ doesnât seem to be in your vocabulary.
Can you?
I already did.
I donât know if you defines âaffecting other peopleâ by ânot help themâ considering an inaction as an action, but if you consider this it can be applied to everyone, if i do not hire X, then Y is affected no matter what.
If you do not defines âaffecting other peopleâ like i described then hire X does not affect Y.
Suuuureee it is, Tucker.
I mean are you trying to say that sexually harassing people at the workplace is freedom of speech?
If thatâs the case, then your prompt isnât in good faith and you probably should just reconsider your sea lioning attempt.
You both are just ignoring solid based argument into âyou no mean just that! heh??? you sayin X defending Y??? haha gotcha !â
Seriously? Topic is not about Blizz.
You just afraid to follow my point because if you agree automatically will refute your point of view? is that so?
No.
I think the entire matter is more complex than the question allows.
Thats exactly why i turned into a SIMPLE question.
The choice to hire anybody for your company is yours (owner) or the state should do it?
Theres no complexity.
If you think the state should hire employers and owners has no right to do it, just say it.
Iâll take gaslighting for $1000, Alex (RIP)
Looks like the community are incapable to answer a simple ethic question or maybe they are just afraid/shame to admit their opinion, maybe this explains the reason behind assumptions/sarcastic posts instead of simple answers.
Well if the state hired âemployersâ then they would have to take input from the state should they decide to hire an âemployeeâ.
The âownerâ of a business doesnât have to make a hire (of an employee) because the state says so. Unless they are under contract by a public entity they can do as they please.
That freedom to hire does not make them immune to public or political opinion. Itâs their money let them spend/distribute it as they wish.
