Suddenly the answer to my question about why he seems to adore J
I do now have a further question. Is Moonbeam, JP? There's something about them that strikes me as weirdly similar.
No, the law does not say that, for the 4th (6th?) (10th?) time.
I do now have a further question. Is Moonbeam, JP? There's something about them that strikes me as weirdly similar.
Oh come on, even as a wind-up that doesn't ring true! The two are very different. It's pretty obvious Moonbeam is not nearly as rich and 'alpha' as JP! One is merely floundering around trying to find a psychological safe resting place, the other is a careerist bully. It's like comparing Pakistan to Saudi Arabia.
On kindness and where the pronoun issue arises plus a perspective from both sides:There is the little matter of kindness and not wanting to inflict (unnecessary) suffering. Especially in the context of a lack of real scientific understanding on which to base decisions, which I think is the case with transex issues. If you are in a position of authority over someone and consistently insist on calling them by terms you know causes them distress, you are probably a bit of an arse. And there's a strong argument that should be covered by employment law.
What things should be in a 'protected class' is a really fraught issue, in my opinion. Right now in this country we have the Tory party rejecting a definition of Islamophobia proposed by a cross-party parliamentary committee and backed by Muslim groups. It's a direct echo of Corbyn's Labour Party not wanting to adopt the 'official definition' of antisemitism as part of it's constitution.
Everyone involved now seems to be on the opposite side of the argument that they were when it came to antisemitism, even though the two are clearly parallel (both Jewishness and Muslimness overlap with, but are not quite the same as, race). The exact same people who insisted the definition of antisemitism had to include a lot of things regarding what can be said about Israel (which was the Corbynistas fundamental problem with it) are now outraged at the argument that it's Islamophobic to call Palestine a 'terror state'. It's almost funny.
Personally, I sometimes want 'hate speech' against cyclists to be outlawed. (It clearly encourages motorists to behave in ways that leads to their being killed or injured). But conversely I sometimes think it's so hard to work out which groups should be covered, that maybe the whole concept should be abandoned. But either way, Peterson appears to be an arse.
Hehehe, and to think that just three hours before you posted this you were talking about kindness. I'm glad you think the truth about who I am is more important than my feelings.Oh come on, even as a wind-up that doesn't ring true! The two are very different. It's pretty obvious Moonbeam is not nearly as rich and 'alpha' as JP! One is merely floundering around trying to find a psychological safe resting place, the other is a careerist bully. It's like comparing Pakistan to Saudi Arabia.
They are both wrong.On kindness and where the pronoun issue arises plus a perspective from both sides:
Hehehe, and to think that just three hours before you posted this you were talking about kindness. I'm glad you think the truth about who I am is more important than my feelings.
Of course he can't make the case about legislation because even if the legislation is there it doesn't mean you'll believe it. He argued in that video instead that you simply look it up. He said is isn't in C-16 but in the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy on discrimination, which is legally enforceable. Naturally, since you already know everything and have a mind set in stone, there would be no reason to check on that, but I did: See "Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun" bolded below.They are both wrong.
You can't expect people to remember which of the 31 pronouns applies to each person. So Peet is wrong to expect legislation to do that.
However, at least in that video, Peterson has still not made the case that the legislation forces her to use specific pronouns. She has misinterpreted the law that prevents her from calling someone by a pronoun that they have clearly asked her to stop using. In order to drive this point home I would suggest everyone interacting with Peterson refer to her as she and her until she pulls her head out of her vagina long enough for this simple concept to sink in.
On top of that, with the use of charged phrases like SJW and radical leftists, she has demonstrated that she is nothing more than a little bitch that deserves exactly zero of my time moving forward until she makes the actual case that there is actual legislation that forces her to use specific language.
Not a bad guy............just a dweeb with issues.............. No discriminatory intention to inflict any pain there, just the milk of human kindness. HeheheheActually I was making the point that you, unlike Peterson, are not a bad guy and not a malevolent actor. You are just a dweeb with 'issues', like the rest of us, but unfortunately have come under the influence of someone who _is_ malevolent. Which, unfortunately, seems to cause you to excuse his unkindness, that I preciously referred to.
That looks like a quote from Wikipedia to me. I provided you a link to the actual OHRC site so you could read the actual OHRC policy back when we started arguing. Maybe you should have read that link when I first gave it to you instead of just ignoring information that contradicts your current belief. If you had done that you would see that exact line in its proper context which I meticulously explained to you in post 163, two full days ago.Of course he can't make the case about legislation because even if the legislation is there it doesn't mean you'll believe it. He argued in that video instead that you simply look it up. He said is isn't in C-16 but in the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy on discrimination, which is legally enforceable. Naturally, since you already know everything and have a mind set in stone, there would be no reason to check on that, but I did: See "Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun" bolded below.
7.4 Gender-based harassment and sexual harassment
The Code prohibits harassment on various grounds including because of gender identity and gender expression (gender-based harassment) as well as because of sex (sexual harassment). Trans people, other gender non-conforming individuals as well as non-trans people (cisgender) can all experience harassment on any one or a combination of these and other grounds.
The Code defines harassment as “engaging in a course of vexatious[40] comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” Harassment will have happened if the person carrying out the behaviour knew or should have known it was unwelcome. If the victim says the behaviour is unwelcome then the harasser “knows.” If the harasser didn’t know (or didn’t intend to harass), it is still harassment if a “reasonable” person would know such behaviour is unwelcome.[41] What is considered “reasonable” includes the perspective of trans people and other gender non-conforming individuals.
A victim does not have to explicitly or directly object to harassment.[42] They may be vulnerable and not speak out because of a threat or fear or because the person has some power or authority over them like a manager or landlord. Some may simply withdraw or walk away.
Many trans people are vulnerable to harassment because of their gender identity and gender expression.[43] Trans people also experience harassment that is sexual in nature (sexual harassment) that may be because of their gender identity, gender expression and/or sex.
Gender-based harassment can involve:
Sexual harassment can involve:
- Derogatory language toward trans people or trans communities
- Insults, comments that ridicule, humiliate or demean people because of their gender identity or expression[44]
- Behaviour that “polices and or reinforces traditional heterosexual gender norms”[45]
- Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun
- Comments or conduct relating to a perception that a person is not conforming with gender-role stereotypes
- Jokes related to a person’s gender identity or expression including those circulated in writing or by email or social media[46]
- Spreading rumours about a person’s gender identity or expression including through the Internet[47]
- “Outing” or threatening to “out” someone as trans
- Intrusive comments, questions or insults about a person’s body, physical characteristics, gender-related medical procedures, clothing, mannerisms, or other forms of gender expression
- Other threats, unwelcome touching, violence and physical assault.
- Intrusive or offensive questions or comments about a trans person’s sex characteristics, sexual identity, romantic relationships or sexual activity, or sexual orientation
- Jokes that objectify a trans or gender non-conforming person in a sexual way including those circulated by email or social media[48]
- Displaying or circulating pornography,[49] sexual pictures or cartoons,[50] sexually explicit graffiti,[51] or other sexual images about trans people including through the Internet
- Leering or inappropriate staring[52]
- Threats, unwelcome touching, violence and sexual assault.
I just told you not C-16 but the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy on discrimination when I said:That looks like a quote from Wikipedia to me. I provided you a link to the actual OHRC site so you could read the actual OHRC policy back when we started arguing. Maybe you should have read that link when I first gave it to you instead of just ignoring information that contradicts your current belief. If you had done that you would see that exact line in its proper context which I meticulously explained to you in post 163, two full days ago.
What did I link to in post 163? Did you have a stroke or something?I just told you not C-16 but the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy on discrimination when I said:
"Of course he can't make the case about legislation because even if the legislation is there it doesn't mean you'll believe it. He argued in that video instead that you simply look it up. He said is isn't in C-16 but in the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy on discrimination, which is legally enforceable.", which I looked up for you:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-pre...-and-gender-expression/7-forms-discrimination
Wait, since you clearly think I have gone insane and the problem is clearly with you, in my opinion, I would like to step back and see if we can work this out. What you quoted in 163, to the very best of my knowledge, and the place the link opens for me is the Canacian Bill C-16 nowhere in which is there any mention of pronoun usage, That, the strictures on pronoun usage aren't to be found in C-16, but in the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy on discrimination paragraph 7.4 to which I linked and bolded the pronoun part. You have been bellyaching about how there is no pronoun issue in C-16 and so Peterson can't claim he is being forced to use pronouns he doesn't believe in when another part of the related law actually says he does, and furthermore, he has received a threatening letter of warning about it from his university and because he publicly announced opposition to the bill, as if opposition to the bill was based on bigotry against gender issue people rather than the infringement of free speech.What did I link to in post 163? Did you have a stroke or something?
That link is VG's link. I provided a link in post 163 labeled "in full context" which links directly to OHRC...Wait, since you clearly think I have gone insane and the problem is clearly with you, in my opinion, I would like to step back and see if we can work this out. What you quoted in 163, to the very best of my knowledge, and the place the link opens for me is the Canacian Bill C-16 nowhere in which is there any mention of pronoun usage, That, the strictures on pronoun usage aren't to be found in C-16, but in the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy on discrimination paragraph 7.4 to which I linked and bolded the pronoun part. You have been bellyaching about how there is no pronoun issue in C-16 and so Peterson can't claim he is being forced to use pronouns he doesn't believe in when another part of the related law actually says he does, and furthermore, he has received a threatening letter of warning about it from his university and because he publicly announced opposition to the bill, as if opposition to the bill was based on bigotry against gender issue people rather than the infringement of free speech.
OK I see, but you linked to a page designed to answer questions about gender identity and pronouns, but I liked you to not to how they want to explain the law but what the law actually says: Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun constitutes gender based harassment. When you put that up against the fact he was warned his refusal to comply with the law as a violation of free speech, he was threatened by his university. This means that while you are right about C-16, you are wrong about the law that is supplements it, that a failure to follow a pronoun request from somebody claiming a demand for kindness, supplants any judgment you might have regarding what is real kindness. I will, however, reconsider my position, if you will be kind enough to lick my boots.That link is VG's link. I provided a link in post 163 labeled "in full context" which links directly to OHRC...
Okay, so you missed the original link and my possibly ten references to OHRC since then but still feel you are the one that occupies the high ground. This is probably because although it took 10 posts repeating myself until you understood, when you finally went back to that post you did so only to find the link while still ignoring all the words I wrote in there for you so you could fully understand how JP misinterpreted the law which has led you to misinterpret it as well.OK I see, but you linked to a page designed to answer questions about gender identity and pronouns, but I liked you to not to how they want to explain the law but what the law actually says: Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun constitutes gender based harassment. When you put that up against the fact he was warned his refusal to comply with the law as a violation of free speech, he was threatened by his university. This means that while you are right about C-16, you are wrong about the law that is supplements it, that a failure to follow a pronoun request from somebody claiming a demand for kindness, supplants any judgment you might have regarding what is real kindness. I will, however, reconsider my position, if you will be kind enough to lick my boots.
I mean, there it is: Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun constitutes gender based harassment.
I think a perspective you may be missing is the walk a mile in the other guys shoes. Peterson is a liberal and a seeker of truth. He is in a field totally dominated by other liberals, but in my opinion, not as hell bent of speaking the truth as he finds it to be. You may not believe that many liberals, those with an authoritarian, and even juvenile bent on university campuses today, and the riots they sometimes engender to drown out speech they don't want to hear, isn't a growing problem in such places, and also that their isn't any seething violence and victim resentment at it root, but it is pretty clear to me that is happening.
Meanwhile while we blow smoke arguing minutia, Peterson is out there offering young people a way to fix the desperation and darkness in their lives, and apparently, the letters of retard and thanks from the hopeless who thank him for bringing change to their lives, is sufficient to keep him going in the face of the slime throwing radical left.
Okay, so you missed the original link and my possibly ten references to OHRC since then but still feel you are the one that occupies the high ground. This is probably because although it took 10 posts repeating myself until you understood, when you finally went back to that post you did so only to find the link while still ignoring all the words I wrote in there for you so you could fully understand how JP misinterpreted the law which has led you to misinterpret it as well.
The problem, dear Moonbeam, is that the statement you reference has the word "and" in it. That means that in order to run afoul of that particular requirement, a person would have to refuse to refer to a person by their chosen name AND refuse to refer to them by their preferred pronoun. Just refusing to use the desired pronoun would not be enough to qualify as discrimination, as JP thinks. OHRC recognized that the wording in the law you linked was confusing many people so they issued the clarification which is what I linked. Go back and read post 163 IN ITS ENTIRETY please so you can see how I explained how that clarification shows that Peterson's interpretation is wrong. If you have a problem with that post, please feel free to explain.
I am glad you have seen what I see with respect to Peterson. After watching him talk he is clearly a guy filled with hate. I don't know if he was always that way and the hate is what led him to believe the law was something it isn't or if his gross misunderstanding of the law and everyone's apathy to what he sees as a huge threat is what causes the hate.I am not sure what ‘and’ you refer to and if it’s in the answering questions or the actual declaration but it really doesn’t matter. I have decided I like your argument better than my own. Peterson, I think, saw more threat in the law than was there. You were remarkably decent and patient with me for somebody who wants dummies to suffer. Love you.❤️