1
   

Environmentalism as a philosophical/religious belief. Ruling of British High Court.

 
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 01:48 pm
@kennethamy,
Environmentalism is certainly a scientific religion. It has data, consensus, inference, belief and a God. The judge has a premonition of sorts, but he/she is gonna be proven damn right.

The primary concern of mankind is environment, it will give rise to hope over despair, challenges over apathy, morality over pragmatism, austerity over extravagance, equity over luxury......... life is gotta be a four letter word again.
ps: excuse my american accent.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 01:55 pm
@kennethamy,
I think you're right (more or less - I mean "God"? What "God"?).

But to make it clear - the judge isn't ruling this because he respects environmentalism as a cause in and of itself.

He's ruling because he respects the right of people who think green issues are important not to be dismissed from work merely as a result of that conviction.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 03:27 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;114064 wrote:
Was the DC sniper not a post PA terrorist attack? I may be wrong, it was around the same time after all.

British policies of internment and surveilance in the past tended to encourage home grown terror rather than diminish it. Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and all that. It leads to a culture that maybe takes more risks on the issue than the US - but the IRA found such heavy handed measures a long-term tool of recruitment. Hence the culture, I suspect.

Besides, my attitude towards Bush was meant more to hold a mirror up to your attitude towards Obama than be some serious critique. Hence lassez-faire use of "stuff" and whatever.

But yeah - tangents aside - you get it finally - some freedoms (freedom not be surveyed) conflict with others (freedom not to be blown up) and authorities will seek a point of balance acceptable to most of the people with a say in their continued authority.

---------- Post added 12-24-2009 at 02:37 PM ----------


Sure - you don't mind cedeing that freedom because it doesn't bother you - you and yours weren't really in the target demographic (I guess) - though some of those who were in Cuba at the pleasure of Bush may well disagree.

But you do want to cede the freedom to keep a job despite your beliefs not marrying those of your employer judging by the jist of this thread - why is that?


The DC sniper, as you know, did what he did for money. He was trying to extort money from authorities.It had nothing whatever to do with political terrorism. He (they) were common criminals.
I ceded no freedom. I was as free after the Patriot Act as before. Only more secure. And am grateful to the last administration for it. I hope (but with little confidence) that this administration will do as well. Those in Cuba were enemy combatants. Most had attempted, and probably succeeded, in killing American. Like SKM (Shiek Kalid Mohammed) who conceived of the 9/11 attack, and who now, courtesy of this President, will receive a civilian trial. For what reason, I have yet to guess. If I did not share the beliefs of my employer, I would not ask to be employed by him. Most Americans share the same basic beliefs, however. Although the coercive utopians who now are in control, are largely opposed to those beliefs. However, we, who survived Jimmy Carter will, no doubt, survive Barry Obama. He'll have the statutory 4 years, and then be tossed out as he will deserve to be, no doubt to return to Chicago politics.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 03:30 pm
@kennethamy,
Quote:
If I did not share the beliefs of my employer, I would not ask to be employed by him.
So if you and your boss had a chat about politics say, and you had a heated two-way debate, and a little while later you were "made redundant" - you'd just lap it up and move on even if you thought the reason was the fact he didn't like your politics, or whatever?

I'm very surprised. Personally I'd see that as an injustice and want to be compensated for being got rid of for something that had nothing to do with my professional ability or ability to get on with people in the workplace.

---------- Post added 12-24-2009 at 04:35 PM ----------

kennethamy;114086 wrote:
Those in Cuba were enemy combatants.
Including those who were eventually freed?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 03:40 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;114087 wrote:
So if you and your boss had a chat about politics say, and you argued, and a little while later you were "made redundant" - you'd just lap it up and move on even if you thought the reason was the fact he didn't like your politics, or whatever?

I'm very surprised. Personally I'd see that as an injustice and want to be compensated for being got rid of for something that had nothing to do with my professional ability or ability to get on with people in the workplace.


I would not have a political chat with my boss, and, anyway, I do no take politics seriously enough to let it interfere with more important things. If my boss turned out to be a member of the far left Move On, or the Communist Party, I would hightail it out of there. Suffering injustice is an intrinsic part of life. If you are not yet used to it, I would advise getting used to it. Of course, if I made a pest of myself, as did Mr. Nicholson, I would console myself with the thought that I deserved to be sacked. Especially if I thought that my boss was sending someone to fetch my Blackberry just to spite me. How self-important Mr. Nicholson must feel. Not, of course, that I would think it was any of my business what my boss did that did not affect me.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 03:45 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;114089 wrote:
Of course, if I made a pest of myself, as did Mr. Nicholson, I would console myself with the thought that I deserved to be sacked.

He did his job - as far as the article tells it there was no accusation levelled at him for being a pest and no evidence of him pestering anyone.

You're assuming he was a pest simply because you disagree with his opinion, I think - is that right?

I say again - any evidence to support your claims that Tim was behaving in a disruptive, rude or counterproductive fashion?

Any at all?

I can't believe you actually advocate a system were proprietors can spout their personal thoughts without censure whilst employees have to either keep silent or get out and find work elsewhere - sounds utterly oppressive to me.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 03:57 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;114090 wrote:
He did his job - as far as the artice tells it there was no accusation levelled at him for being a pest and no evidence of him pestering anyone.

You're assuming he was a pest simply because you disagree with his opinion, I think - is that right?

I say again - any evidence to support your claims that Tim was behaving in a disruptive, rude or counterproductive fashion?

Any at all?

I can't believe you actually advocate a system were proprietors can spout their personal thoughts without censure whilst employees have to either keep silent or get out and find work elsewhere - sounds utterly oppressive to me.


What was all this disgruntlement about his Boss sending someone to fetch his Blackberry? What is the rest of the story. And what business of it was Nicholson's. Whether Nicholson was a pest has yet to be decided, I think. But he certainly sounds like one. God save us from the zealots. I think it is perfectly proper that if an employee disagrees fundamentally with his employer, that he simply pack up. Sounds fair to me.
Amerie phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 03:59 pm
@kennethamy,
In terms of the environment, this is a big success for anyone with similar beliefs that doesn't see themselves as 100% identifying with Animism, and the like. If people wish to live by philosophy rather than religion then good for them, it's respectable. I certainly live by philosophy and not religion and Nicholson's case just goes to prove that your beliefs shouldn't be shunned just because they're not religious. Although as has been said above, some philosophies are frowned upon just like certain sectors of religion are. Interesting really.

Going off some of the news I have read on the Nicholson case in the past, it seems that they tried to sack him for opposing their non-green credentials, and due to the nature of his role he was probably right to do so. I think it was him or his manager that travelled to Ireland and forgot their phone, so rather than have it sent back to the office in England the company arranged a return flight out there just to pick it up. There have been quite a few stories!
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 04:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;114091 wrote:
What was all this disgruntlement about his Boss sending someone to fetch his Blackberry?
I don't know - do you? No? Then why leap to assume that Tim was the one causing all the fuss?

He probably suggested a more sustainable option, rather than sending a worker off on a round trip to Ireland to collect an item that could have been sent just as quickly and cheaply by courier.

But that's an assumption too.

Who knows? Why assume it's Tim at fault just because you don't like greens?

The court didn't agree - and they saw all the evidence and heard the testimony of all parties.

So I suspect Tim had a point.

Quote:
What is the rest of the story.

Again - don't know.

But you don't know either.

So - again - what's the evidence that Tim was a pest?

Have you got any?

No.

Quote:
And what business of it was Nicholson's.


He was hired to act as the company's Head of Sustainability.

So such things were - literally - his buisness.

Sending an employee on a round trip to collect the boss's Blackberry from Ireland - not very sustainable in environmental (or economical for that matter) terms compared to a courier, or post, or other possible alternatives.

Tabling such alternatives would be the preserve of a Head of Sustainability - no?

Quote:
Whether Nicholson was a pest has yet to be decided, I think. But he certainly sounds like one.

He sounds like one - to you - simply because he stood up for believing in what he believes - which are things you happen to be dismissive of.

Quote:
God save us from the zealots.

Assuming, again, that Tim was one - nothing in the article points to him being anything beyond reasonably assertive.

God save us from having to be spineless yes-men in order to keep a job.

If Tim was a pest - IF he was - they should have disciplined him for being a pest - they're allowed to do that you realise (I hope). They could have then fired him if he continued being a pest.

But they would have had to have kept a record of his pestering, and what they said to him about stopping it, and shown that at court.

They apparently didn't do so - so assuming he was a pest, or a zealot, runs counter to the report.

Quote:
I think it is perfectly proper that if an employee disagrees fundamentally with his employer, that he simply pack up. Sounds fair to me.

Sounds fairly Victorian to me.

Given that there's a recession on in the UK, and large levels of unemployment, further hampering that situation just so bosses can have their egos stroked by a cabal of sycophants who never contradict them seems not only sickeningly deferential, but socially burdensome.

It doesn't even make good business sense - how do you learn if not through seeking the advice of advisors - even if it isn't necessarily what you want to hear?
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2009 06:15 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;114070 wrote:
I think you're right (more or less - I mean "God"? What "God"?).



'God'...... so called, is Nature, for some environmentalist. Only difference, philosphically is the structure of intellectual thought process. The religionist, some among them, call Nature as God the Manifest; while some call Nature as Gods Creation. Its a matter of hierarchy, isn't it?

Mother Nature which gave birth to all beings, consciousness, energy and matter, is equal, if not above the mental God.

Dave Allen;114070 wrote:
But to make it clear - the judge isn't ruling this because he respects environmentalism as a cause in and of itself.

He's ruling because he respects the right of people who think green issues are important not to be dismissed from work merely as a result of that conviction.


Well, its a beginning. The idea has taken root.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/10/2022 at 11:50:15