HSFBfan Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 Something that makes me go hmmmm......people that side with Illegals...that makes me go hmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, World Citizen said: [...] I can understand Bob's position on legislating speech but the other arguments are very confusing and irrelevant and seem to take the "My offense is more important than your rights" stance when it has nothing to do with them or their choice to be offended. [...] Irrelevant to what? I thought that all my main arguments were in the service of justifying the claim that it's a serious mistake to pass laws forcing people to use certain pronouns, which is something I thought we all agreed on. I gave an argument that the N-word is importantly different from pronouns. That was a stand-alone argument, but I don't seriously believe that it's confusing. It rests on the fairly obvious premise that pronouns aren't parts of speech whose purpose is to dehumanize or degrade like racist slurs are. Maybe you can point to argument I made that appeals to any such premise as "my offense is more important than your rights". Where the f*ck did I say anything like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Troubador Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 On 2/27/2018 at 12:10 PM, Belly Bob said: Here's a very short video for anyone who may be interested. Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, and he has been speaking out against the new legislation. Some highlights: NY currently protects 31 genders. Facebook has identified 54 genders. Under current Canadian law, it may be illegal to discuss the appropriateness of the legislation governing the use of gender pronouns, since the very discussion may count as hate speech. The first two "highlights" should strike an ordinary person who didn't take gender studies or women's studies in college as puzzling. But the last bit is very scary, and we should all be paying attention to it. And it's all scary when you realize that it may become illegal for you to say, "I don't believe that there are 54 genders; and I'm not going to use 54 different made-up words or phrases to refer to them." EDIT: Facebook has identified 58 genders, not 54. Great video. Love watching Peterson. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Citizen Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 50 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: Irrelevant to what? I thought that all my main arguments were in the service of justifying the claim that it's a serious mistake to pass laws forcing people to use certain pronouns, which is something I thought we all agreed on. I gave an argument that the N-word is importantly different from pronouns. That was a stand-alone argument, but I don't seriously believe that it's confusing. It rests on the fairly obvious premise that pronouns aren't parts of speech whose purpose is to dehumanize or degrade like racist slurs are. Maybe you can point to argument I made that appeals to any such premise as "my offense is more important than your rights". Where the f*ck did I say anything like that? Sorry I wasn't clear. Your argument I can understand and can agree that legislating speech is not a good idea. The other arguments (not made by you) is what I was referring to. So again, your position is reasoned and appreciated. Hope that clears things up. Could have made it muddier idk. I think there are 2 separate arguments being made. 1 is about legislating speech (yours) and the other seems to be about discriminating bc people don't like and understand people doing all sorts of things to themselves and it makes them angry enough to want to stop them. The 2nd is what I originally was responding too and was unaware of laws telling me how to speak to people. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 11 minutes ago, World Citizen said: Sorry I wasn't clear. Your argument I can understand and can agree that legislating speech is not a good idea. The other arguments (not made by you) is what I was referring to. So again, your position is reasoned and appreciated. Hope that clears things up. Could have made it muddier idk. I think there are 2 separate arguments being made. 1 is about legislating speech (yours) and the other seems to be about discriminating bc people don't like and understand people doing all sorts of things to themselves and it makes them angry enough to want to stop them. The 2nd is what I originally was responding too and was unaware of laws telling me how to speak to people. Well, yikes. My apologies. And just to be super clear, I think we should respect the rights of weirdos and misfits etc. That's sorta what rights are for, to protect people who might otherwise get squashed by the cavemen bc they're so weird. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golfaddict1 Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/all-talk-no-bolt-action-gun-injuries-drop-during-nra-conventions/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.