Jordan Peterson interview on C4

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

The post I was replying to was regarding that c 16 bill. Peterson's famous rant was about that bill. This link is to something else.

That link is to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It is relevant.

The following is taken directly from the Canadian Department of Justice.

It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and gender expression. This amendment would give explicit protection to transgender and gender-diverse persons from discrimination in areas such as employment opportunities and access to goods and services.

In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

My argument is that the law doesn't exist not that it is being ignored or not enforced.

Bill C-16 is not a Canadian Law? News to me, or are you lying again.

markodaly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Chortle chortle chortle.

Discussion is a good thing in my opinion. If Peterson’s fans aren’t inclined to discuss his work, it’s good that someone is willing to discuss it. Better than declaring him a genius and running away

Who is declaring him a genius? I have searched the entire thread, and no one has called him a genius apart from you.

markodaly

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are clearly wasting everyone's time

Check out his/her postings or should I say rants on The Gentleman's Lounge. Infamous for their goal post shifting and strawman.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Bill C-16 is not a Canadian Law? News to me, or are you lying again.

Bill C-16 won't send anyone away for using pronouns. Do keep up kid.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

Bill C-16 won't send anyone away for using pronouns. Do keep up kid.

In your opinion, of course.

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

Bill C-16 won't send anyone away for using pronouns. Do keep up kid.

Keep up? Keep up.

RandomName2 wrote: »

It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and gender expression. This amendment would give explicit protection to transgender and gender-diverse persons from discrimination in areas such as employment opportunities and access to goods and services.

In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission

Brian, you should really be promoting higher posting quality than this and El Duderino's blinkered bon mots.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

In your opinion, of course.

And the Canadian Bar Association.

SterlingArcher

RandomName2 wrote: »

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

And you don't see any pitfalls or issue arising from this ill conceived bill?

My chosen gender identity is random2isapissbagof****eandillsmashisfaceinandnobodycanstopme ... Respect it or suffer the consequence.

RandomName2

SterlingArcher wrote: »

And you don't see any pitfalls or issue arising from this ill conceived bill?

My chosen gender identity is random2isapissbagof****eandillsmashisfaceinandnobodycanstopme ... Respect it or suffer the consequence.

I'm going to be honest, your reply is a bit strange.

I was quoting verbatim from the linked website, for the benefit of 20Cent.

However, I know that 20Cent isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer (or they appears not to be), so I couldn't be arsed wrapping the quote in quotation marks as I was expecting they to either ignore the post or go off on some tangent. They went for the first option in the end.

SterlingArcher

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm going to be honest, your reply is a bit strange.

I was quoting verbatim from the linked website, for the benefit of 20Cent.

However, I know that 20Cent isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer (or they appears not to be), so I couldn't be arsed wrapping the quote in quotation marks as I was expecting they to either ignore the post or go off on some tangent. They went for the first option in the end.

I 100% agree with your assessment of them not being the most colourful crayon in the box.

I kinda used you as a way to get the point across about the bill in question(not Jordan Peterson), without having to actually reply back to..... Soz.

20Cent

Refer to the actual bill Peterson was talking about.
Replies refer to some other bill and something that "might" happen.
Try to keep discussion about what actually happened and get called a liar by the lobsters.

Every JP discussion






Ever

20Cent

Arkham City wrote: »

Why does this guy wind lefties up so much?

Lefties have higher intellectual standards, dislke spoofers and are willing to critique their own. Right wingers seem happy to deem anyone who says what they want to hear an intellectual (in his field Peterson is very good it's when he strays out of it he spoofs).

SterlingArcher

20Cent wrote: »

Lefties have higher intellectual standards, dislke spoofers and are willing to critique their own. Right wingers seem happy to deem anyone who says what they want to hear an intellectual (in his field Peterson is very good it's when he strays out of it he spoofs).

Lefties have higher intellectual standards. ha Cathey Newman called.... You must be far right so eh?

Lefties have spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof.

Your post works under the ignorant assumption everyone and anyone who listens to or agrees with him is right wing. do you confuse inquisition for critique?

Talking like you are in some political hive mind.

Soon people thinking like you will just scream like ****ing body snatchers. pointing at anyone who questions anything " rawwwrr right wingerrrrr.

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

Refer to the actual bill Peterson was talking about.
Replies refer to some other bill and something that "might" happen.

'Might happen' because government agency was writing in advance of the bill (C-16) becoming an act. It even says it at the very top of the page

Archived information
Legislation on gender identity and gender expression received royal assent on June 19, 2017.

Jesus

20Cent wrote: »

Try to keep discussion about what actually happened and get called a liar by the lobsters.

Nobody's calling you a liar. That's El duderino.

And that's.. not what.. lobsters.. that's to do with deflection.. why..

20Cent wrote: »

Lefties have higher intellectual standards

Devoid of irony.

'Lefties' have, by definition, considered themselves to be working against the intelligentsia and be outside the scope of intellectual standards, instead working to expose injustice and challenge traditional authority structures. The left got lost somewhere along the way and now tend to simply challenge anything they consider threatening. Intellectual standards have never been a major factor.

20Cent

Arkham City wrote: »

Citation needed.

Right wingers think Ben Shapiro is an intellectual.

Qed

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

Right wingers think Ben Shapiro is an intellectual.

Qed

That's not how proof works! That's not a citation!

'So what you're saying is that Ben Sharpio is an intellectual'

- now that's a proper example of a lobster move.

Ulysses Gaze

20Cent wrote: »

Right wingers think Ben Shapiro is an intellectual.

Qed

Ben Shapiro is a parrot.

A 21st Century Thomas Gradgrind.

Now, what I want is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the mind of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.

20Cent

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Lefties have higher intellectual standards. ha Cathey Newman called.... You must be far right so eh?

Lefties have spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof spoof.

Your post works under the ignorant assumption everyone and anyone who listens to or agrees with him is right wing. do you confuse inquisition for critique?

Talking like you are in some political hive mind.

Soon people thinking like you will just scream like ****ing body snatchers. pointing at anyone who questions anything " rawwwrr right wingerrrrr.

Who claims Cathy Newman is a left wing intellectual?
Don't think liking Peterson makes someone right wing another straw man there. I do tjink that right wingers are more susceptible to spoofres though. Shapiro, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Alex Jones etc. No real left wing versions of people like that the left don't really tolerate such nonsense.

jace_da_face

B0jangles wrote: »

Isn't he the guy who thinks being asked to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns is oppression and a sign of the impending collapse of modern society?

No. He is the guy who has an issue with it being enshrined into the Canadian constitution that he must use those preferred pronouns and thereby curtailing free speech. There is a difference and you have to look at the sub text. He has no issues referring to transgender people in their preferred pronouns. Nowhere else is free speech curtailed in Canadian law.

20Cent

jace_da_face wrote: »

No. He is the guy who has an issue with it being enshrined into the Canadian constitution that he must use those preferred pronouns and thereby curtailing free speech. There is a difference and you have to look at the sub text. He has no issues referring to transgender people in their preferred pronouns. Nowhere else is free speech curtailed in Canadian law.

Except that nothing remotely like having to use prefered pronouns is "enshrined" in Canadian law.

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

Except that nothing remotely like having to use prefered pronouns is "enshrined" in Canadian law.

Well C-16 certainly pertains to pronoun usage. I know you choose not to believe that it does (seeing as the word 'pronoun' isn't actually used in the legislation), but it specifically states that 'it adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code'.

That relates to pronouns by the way.

Whether or not this may lead to negative consequences is a matter of active debate. There is no definitive answer in relation to this, as it is up to the courts to determine how the legislation should be interpreted, and there has yet to be a test case. Many laws take years before being tested in court.

However that is not to say that the law does not have any effects. Indeed, Lindsay Shepherd was threatened by college authorities for having been 'in breach of C-16' by showing a video of Jordan Peterson. Now you may say that they were not right in doing so, but it is still clear that it doesn't necessitate people being behind bars for a law to have a significant impact.

20Cent

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well C-16 certainly pertains to pronoun usage. I know you choose not to believe that it does (seeing as the word 'pronoun' isn't actually used in the legislation), but it specifically states that 'it adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code'.

That relates to pronouns by the way.

Whether or not this may lead to negative consequences is a matter of active debate. There is no definitive answer in relation to this, as it is up to the courts to determine how the legislation should be interpreted, and there has yet to be a test case. Many laws take years before being tested in court.

However that is not to say that the law does not have any effects. Indeed, Lindsay Shepherd was threatened by college authorities for having been 'in breach of C-16' by showing a video of Jordan Peterson. Now you may say that they were not right in doing so, but it is still clear that it doesn't necessitate people being behind bars for a law to have a significant impact.

It's a matter of "active debate" now.

Not dragging people away to prison like Kermit claimed.

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

It's a matter of "active debate" now.

Not dragging people away to prison like Kermit claimed.

The anti 8th amendment repealers really should've had you batting for them.

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

It's a matter of "active debate" now.

Not dragging people away to prison like Kermit claimed.

What's your take on a comedian getting fined 42 grand by the human rights council for jokes? Oh yes those jokes were 'hateful', they were at a handicapped lads expense, but if you don't see the problem with this stuff you'll never see it. Canadian comedy will go through the glorious human rights council to ensure there is no harm in it. Everyone will be protected from harm so what downside could there possibly be?

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

What's your take on a comedian getting fined 42 grand by the human rights council for jokes? Oh yes those jokes were 'hateful', they were at a handicapped lads expense, but if you don't see the problem with this stuff you'll never see it. Canadian comedy will go through the glorious human rights council to ensure there is no harm in it. Everyone will be protected from harm so what downside could there possibly be?

Perhaps give a link or soemthing for those of us not into the Canadian comedy scene.

Call Me Jimmy

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-comedian-human-rights-tribunal-1.3689465

https://www.weeklystandard.com/mark-hemingway/canadian-human-rights-commission-fines-comedian-15-000-for-insulting-audience-member.

These are the guys you'd be referred to if you misgendered someone.

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-comedian-human-rights-tribunal-1.3689465

https://www.weeklystandard.com/mark-hemingway/canadian-human-rights-commission-fines-comedian-15-000-for-insulting-audience-member.

These are the guys you'd be referred to if you misgendered someone.

Not really, no one has been "referred to them" for misgendering someone. The experts say they couldn't be.


Do you consider defemation laws to be wrong then?

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

Not really, no one has been "referred to them" for misgendering someone. The experts say they couldn't be.


Do you consider defemation laws to be wrong then?

Which experts are you talking about?

Yes I support defamation laws, ie.the person is telling provable lies which damages reputation or ability to earn. Why do you ask?

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Which experts are you talking about?

Yes I support defamation laws, ie. it can be proven the person is telling provable lies which damages reputation or ability to earn. Why do you ask?

The Canadian Bar association are the experts I refered to. Defemation laws which you say you support could also be argued to be a slippery slope.