4 ms·
This is such an unoriginal and unexceptional thread. You try to illicit a veneer of servitude towards reason and logic, but then you can't help but be disingenu
by kadendogthing 8y ago
This is such an unoriginal and unexceptional thread. You try to illicit a veneer of servitude towards reason and logic, but then you can't help but be disingenuous about the subject you're discussing. You're virtue signaling in the worst way possible; you're not as smart as you want to make yourself out to be.
>These far left social justice warriors are literally trying to break windows to prevent some guy from talking about supporting freedom of speech at campuses.
The rally that you're referencing was pretty volatile because of attendees, mainly your dutiful patrons of Reason and Logic (TM) 2018, were shouting slurs and engaging in physical violence. See the following report:
* In one confrontation with BLC protesters, a man shouted, “We need more Michael Browns,” in reference to the 2014 fatal shooting of the 18-year old unarmed black man by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri.
* One attendee brought three dogs to the event and was openly criticized by many people for what was interpreted as an aggressive move.
* Steven Ainneta wore a “Support Local 81” jacket — the Downtown Toronto chapter of the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club
* told The Varsity that he “was accosted by two separate older men with no affiliation to the university. One was wearing Hell’s Angel’s clothing, and the other, along with his wife, seemed to be identifying themselves as white supremacists. Both shoved me unprovoked, while my hands were up, and used racial, homophobic, and transphobic slurs and epithets with myself and other protestors on separate occasions
>This happened when the university was attempting to get the local politicians to pass a law making it a illegal to call someone the wrong pronoun, punishable by fines and jail time.
Out of all the things that have never happened online or in real life, this has never happened the most. How can you be so angry over something that isn't even happening? I don't understand the ilk that surrounds Peterson. It's a literal cult of personality.
Here's the wikipedia article of the bill you're trying to lie about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H...
Here is the section you're lying about:
>The law also adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.This section is part of the sentencing provisions and makes gender identity and gender expression an aggravating factor in sentencing, leading to increased sentences for individuals who commit crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression.
So no. No one is going to jail for using the wrong pronoun. Let me know when SJW's start running over people with their cars just because they don't like their existence.
- CryoLogic 8y agoPlease refrain from such emotionally charged posts where you don't fully read the content of the parent, and you stoop low enough to start claiming you can read my mind and calling me a lier regarding an amendment for which you didn't even read beyond the Wikipedia summary. http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C-16_1/C-16_1.PDF http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C... it is literally an amendment that describes gender expression as literally anything you want to label yourself, than suggests misusing these labels is a crime and finally suggests increasing imprisonment and punishments as a result of not using these labels correct. Clause #4. You are welcome to debate with me if you believe one of my interpretations are incorrect, but the way in which you chose to engage with me is very immature and makes it difficult to hold a discussion with you. Please read the HN rules first before making future replies.
- kadendogthing 8y ago>Thanks for being an example of the type of behavior I was talking about. Would you care to specifically point out what about my post is relatable to the behavior you were talking about? You yourself actually attacked an entire group of people with opposing view points and used straw man's to do so. I merely bluntly called this out. >Please refrain from such emotionally charged posts where you don't fully read the content of the parent, I read it. Please don't violate HN guidelines by insinuating I haven't read what was necessary. You provided no proof that this is even the case. >than suggests misusing these labels is a crime and finally suggests increasing imprisonment and punishments as a result of not using these labels correct. It says nothing of the sort. >You are welcome to debate with me if you believe one of my interpretations are incorrect This isn't a debate. You have not presented anything that is arguable. You lied about a very basic event that was recorded and has public records contrary to your "interpretation." You also lied about what the law says. It cannot be read even remotely close to the way you are "interpreting" it and indeed it is impossible to enforce it in any manner you are attempting to describe. Notice your post got flagged by the community. Please take a moment to consider why.
- CryoLogic 8y ago