Quote from: Big Boss™ Remastered on February 09, 2018, 07:19:12 AMI'd probably feel down if Ringo Starr went. I was obsessed with Thomas the Tank Engine.why are you so lame😂😂😂
I'd probably feel down if Ringo Starr went. I was obsessed with Thomas the Tank Engine.
Quote from: Aether on February 08, 2018, 08:24:45 PMFrom what I can tell, the contents of the C16 bill seem to have been exaggerated and mischaracterized by many – Peterson included. There’s numerous articles and expert opinions that have covered this in depth. The effects of the law have been discussed in detail by professors of law and the Canadian Bar Association. Reading the text of the law itself and the accompanying explanatory notes should help clear much of that up. The law changes two things. One, that gender identity is now explicitly recognized in the criminal code for sentencing and the crimes of advocating genocide and the willful promotion / public incitement of hatred. Using the wrong pronoun does not fall under this by any stretch of the imagination. Two, it adds gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Code. This is nothing new and has been the case where Peterson lives for 5 years already. It relates to discrimination in certain areas such as employment and housing, meaning that you cannot do things like deny people jobs or rent based solely on the fact that they’re transgender. As the Canadian Department of Justice has already confirmed, this will not provide transgenders with special rights. There’s several other articles out there that include interviews with legal experts and overviews of Canadian court cases / official statements on this topic, but I’ll just give you a few more if you want to go through them. Warning, the last one is far too personally negative when it comes to Peterson but gives a very lengthy (6000 words) and detailed overview of the law and what it entails.So yeah, in my opinion many blanket statements do amount to fearmongering and give the impression that people will face criminal charges for using the wrong pronouns. Peterson himself has admitted he doesn’t actually know the legal side of things very well, yet he still presents himself as an expert talking at length about farfetched and very questionable interpretations of the law that has actually already been applied in most Canadian regions for years without any of the concerns turning out to be true. In my opinion, the "SJW's are going after free speech and you're going to be in trouble for not catering to gender whims" narrative seems very unsubstantiated here. As for the Damore memo, there are again very extensive factchecks that present alternative evidence, research and studies that challenge or add nuance to his claims. This 40 page overview by a behavioral science and evolutionary biology PhD candidate seems to cover much of it. It includes over a 100 references and concludes with links to numerous books and other analyses by scientists in a variety of fields. From what I can tell, Damore appears to be pushing an evolutionary biology narrative that is outdated and no longer supported by the majority. He cites studies and research of which the authors themselves have since said that his conclusions are not in line with their work or not necessarily applicable to the situation he’s referring to. The core of much of this resistance seems to be that while he gets the basics of some things right (there are of course some differences between men and women), Damore has overstated much of them, selectively ignored heaps of recent evidence challenging some of his points, paid little to no attention to how discrimination and social patterns can perpetuate inequalities rather than innate biological differences, and drew implications regarding human abilities and work skills that are inaccurate, all without recognizing the nuances and pitfalls of research in this field. One of the biggest issues with his memo is how it incorrectly appears to present particular schools of thought as fact and reflecting consensus while this is not the case at all, and how it misses findings in neuroscience that suggest conditioning and culture are at play rather than the biology he implies. Damore raises some sound and relevant points and this discussion should be had, but a good amount of what he says simply lacks says nuance or is selectively interpreting evidence to make very questionable claims – as does much of the criticism depicting him as some sexist monster.
SpoilerFrom what I can tell, the contents of the C16 bill seem to have been exaggerated and mischaracterized by many – Peterson included. There’s numerous articles and expert opinions that have covered this in depth. The effects of the law have been discussed in detail by professors of law and the Canadian Bar Association. Reading the text of the law itself and the accompanying explanatory notes should help clear much of that up. The law changes two things. One, that gender identity is now explicitly recognized in the criminal code for sentencing and the crimes of advocating genocide and the willful promotion / public incitement of hatred. Using the wrong pronoun does not fall under this by any stretch of the imagination. Two, it adds gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Code. This is nothing new and has been the case where Peterson lives for 5 years already. It relates to discrimination in certain areas such as employment and housing, meaning that you cannot do things like deny people jobs or rent based solely on the fact that they’re transgender. As the Canadian Department of Justice has already confirmed, this will not provide transgenders with special rights. There’s several other articles out there that include interviews with legal experts and overviews of Canadian court cases / official statements on this topic, but I’ll just give you a few more if you want to go through them. Warning, the last one is far too personally negative when it comes to Peterson but gives a very lengthy (6000 words) and detailed overview of the law and what it entails.So yeah, in my opinion many blanket statements do amount to fearmongering and give the impression that people will face criminal charges for using the wrong pronouns. Peterson himself has admitted he doesn’t actually know the legal side of things very well, yet he still presents himself as an expert talking at length about farfetched and very questionable interpretations of the law that has actually already been applied in most Canadian regions for years without any of the concerns turning out to be true. In my opinion, the "SJW's are going after free speech and you're going to be in trouble for not catering to gender whims" narrative seems very unsubstantiated here. [/spoiler]SpoilerAs for the Damore memo, there are again very extensive factchecks that present alternative evidence, research and studies that challenge or add nuance to his claims. This 40 page overview by a behavioral science and evolutionary biology PhD candidate seems to cover much of it. It includes over a 100 references and concludes with links to numerous books and other analyses by scientists in a variety of fields. From what I can tell, Damore appears to be pushing an evolutionary biology narrative that is outdated and no longer supported by the majority. He cites studies and research of which the authors themselves have since said that his conclusions are not in line with their work or not necessarily applicable to the situation he’s referring to. The core of much of this resistance seems to be that while he gets the basics of some things right (there are of course some differences between men and women), Damore has overstated much of them, selectively ignored heaps of recent evidence challenging some of his points, paid little to no attention to how discrimination and social patterns can perpetuate inequalities rather than innate biological differences, and drew implications regarding human abilities and work skills that are inaccurate, all without recognizing the nuances and pitfalls of research in this field. One of the biggest issues with his memo is how it incorrectly appears to present particular schools of thought as fact and reflecting consensus while this is not the case at all, and how it misses findings in neuroscience that suggest conditioning and culture are at play rather than the biology he implies. Damore raises some sound and relevant points and this discussion should be had, but a good amount of what he says simply lacks says nuance or is selectively interpreting evidence to make very questionable claims – as does much of the criticism depicting him as some sexist monster.
A. 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.
Quote from: Aether on February 09, 2018, 02:04:13 PMI'll get back to you shortly, btw.
the one true God is Doctor Doom and we should all be worshiping him.
that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices
Whose deaths (outside of friends and family) will affect you the most?
