• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

D.A.

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
425
and that lawyer too, in spite of his good intentions - are FACTUALLY INCORRECT
Taking a random user from a gaming board above an actual lawyer would not be sound when it comes to legal matters.
"THE LAW IS OTHERWISE UNSETTLED AS TO WHETHER SOMEONE CAN INSIST ON ANY ONE GENDER-NEUTRAL PRONOUN IN PARTICULAR"
this is a direct quote from the interpretation of the law used by tribunals you are claiming force people to use gender neutral pronouns
is there any word in that sentence that you need for me to define for you? do you genuinely not comprehend what that means?
Interpretation? Is this by a judge or the writers of the law? There are activist judges and legislators, you know who interpret things or claim to interpret things, in any way they see fit. We would have to see what the law ACTUALLY states to know what the law ACTUALLY claims. Unless you said most or all tribunals with side with this particular interpretation.

The bill does not in fact say that actively refusing to use a person's preferred pronoun is discrimination. That's how the OHRC might interpret it, but the OHRC is not the final authority.

Ok, if you've read the law carefully and have adequate educational background to understand the legalesse, and this is the general consensus amongst lawyers and judges. Then that would settle it.

We already have one example of one lawyer opposing Peterson that disagrees though, we don't know if that's a lone rare example.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
17,022
As a rule, if your entire argument is just a vid without anything to sum it up, you have no argument.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Taking a random user from a gaming board above an actual lawyer would not be sound when it comes to legal matters.

Interpretation? Is this by a judge or the writers of the law? There are activist judges and legislators, you know who interpret things or claim to interpret things, in any way they see fit. We would have to see what the law ACTUALLY states to know what the law ACTUALLY claims. Unless you said most or all tribunals with side with this particular interpretation.



Ok, if you've read the law carefully and have adequate educational background to understand the legalesse, and this is the general consensus amongst lawyers and judges. Then that would settle it.

We already have one example of one lawyer opposing Peterson that disagrees though, we don't know if that's a lone rare example.
STATUTES OF CANADA 2017
CHAPTER 13
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code

ASSENTED TO
JUNE 19, 2017
BILL C-16





SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address:
http://www.parl.gc.ca


64-65-66 ELIZABETH II

CHAPTER 13
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
[Assented to 19th June, 2017]



Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

R.‍S.‍, c. H-6

Canadian Human Rights Act

1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)

1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:

Purpose

2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle 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 based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)

2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

Criminal Code

2014, c. 31, s. 12

3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

Definition of identifiable group

(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

1995, c. 22, s. 6

4 Subparagraph 718.‍2(a)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,

Give it a read
 

David Ricardo

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
254
You can't actually wrote that out with words?

Clearly Petersen acolytes are on a superior plane of existence, communication by third party videos.

"Darmok et Tanagra"

"When the walls fell"
, David.
Basically the title is self explanatory. It's a speech about why you should tell the truth. He says you should tell the truth or, at least, not lie. Telling the truth might have negative consequences, you might be singled out, but not saying it also has consequences. We have seen it in the 20th century. You shouldn't be afraid of telling the truth, whatever happens is better that not saying it and maybe be complicit in the lies of others.

It's a good speech, you should watch it.
 

SixPointEight

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,308
Why do I need Peterson to tell me that? Why do I have to suffer through one of his videos to reach such a conclusion?

Edit: and more importantly, why do your values and come from a single source?
 
Last edited:

SweetVermouth

Banned
Mar 5, 2018
4,272
You know what... How can someone find this inspirational? It's pseudo-intellectual blah blah coming from a guy whose only success is talking to right-wing people and telling them what they want to hear.

Any fucking Rocky movie is more inspirational and motivating than this crap.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
17,022
A child is literally disciplined if they lie and they usually understand that peoplé don't like when they're lied to.
Why the fuck do we need Peterson when a good parent should have taught you that already?
 

SixPointEight

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,308
By saying it. If you are wrong, others will point it to you.

3 people criticizing the content of a 7 minute video they haven't watched. You see how you deauthorize yourselves?

I'm not criticizing the video as I haven't watched it. Im asking why I should watch it. Your summary doesn't sell me on it. So, what I'm really doing is criticizing you, much like you are criticizing me.

That's the TRUTH.
 

David Ricardo

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
254
I'm not criticizing the video as I haven't watched it. Im asking why I should watch it. Your summary doesn't sell me on it. So, what I'm really doing is criticizing you, much like you are criticizing me.

That's the TRUTH.
Saying that watching that video would make you suffer isn't critizicing it? Also you have baselessly accused me of having only one source for my values. I have a family. That commentary didn't offend me because I know you made it to mess with me but it's potentially offensive.
 

SixPointEight

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,308
Saying that watching that video would make you suffer isn't critizicing it? Also you have baselessly accused me of having only one source for my values. I have a family. That commentary didn't offend me because I know you made it to mess with me but it's potentially offensive.

So why should I watch the video other than pre school morals that you highlighted?

PS: I thought the TRUTH being offensive was Buckos shtick. And I was just asking questions.

Too bad this type of argument doesn't resonate with you this time.
 
Last edited:

David Ricardo

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
254
So why should I watch the video other than pre school morals that you highlighted?
Watching it would help you understand how Peterson thinks, why I am still here defending what I believe and it would allow you to critizice it knowing what you are talking about.

The trick is you don't have to watch it. You can stil critizice me, Peterson and the video without watching it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
Always tell the truth, unless it is about a law about gender pronouns you don't like or climate change or whatever the hell cultural marxism is, and then go hog wild. But, remember to be precise in your speech, except if you are just asking questions and being generally vague in attempts to hide your very conservative viewpoints. Also, precision only applies to speech and not reading comprehension. Oh, and keep your room clean.
 

Sub Boss

Banned
Nov 14, 2017
13,441
Everybody loves mr. Peterson on Youtube comments, seems like they love the message he speaks of individual blame or something, and no white privilege because a 'not very bright' gay black woman shares the same responsibility as average white guy, he tells it like it is.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,624
canada
Watching it would help you understand how Peterson thinks, why I am still here defending what I believe and it would allow you to critizice it knowing what you are talking about.

The trick is you don't have to watch it. You can stil critizice me, Peterson and the video without watching it.

That doesnt answer his question and only leads to the question of why would he want to understand what peterson thinks when given the synopsis of the video he has found its thesis to be common knowledge
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
David Ricardo's motivation is bloviating endlessly and circuitously and never to apologize because that's what Peterson says. Peterson thinks that you should tell your truth and others will tell you if it is dumb or right or whatever and after five years, you'll be able to articulate yourself... but you can still be wrong. Peterson told his truth in regards to C-16, was told his truth was dumb, and he still thinks the same way.

Funnily enough, he keeps saying "your" truth, but he doesn't like post-modernism.
 

dusteatingbug

Member
Dec 1, 2017
1,393
Always tell the truth, unless it is about a law about gender pronouns you don't like or climate change or whatever the hell cultural marxism is, and then go hog wild. But, remember to be precise in your speech, except if you are just asking questions and being generally vague in attempts to hide your very conservative viewpoints. Also, precision only applies to speech and not reading comprehension. Oh, and keep your room clean.

For real.

What do same-sex marriage, climate change, abortion, and the existence of God have in common? They're all topics that Dr Professor Jordan B Peterson PhD has been asked about extensively and has refused to give his position on.

Mr be-precise-in-your-speech, Mr stand up tall and speak your broken truths. If he's asked about his own personal stance on any even remotely controversial issue, what does he do? He prevaricates, he dissembles, he talks shit and filibusters until his interlocutor gives up and moves on to the next question.

The dude is a fraud. He's not a serious person, or a valuable intellectual, or even an interesting troll. He's just a mean old man who's a lot less intelligent and interesting than he thinks he is.

You wanna know why Peterson is so against humanities and social science education? It's because those are the disciplines where people learn to think critically about the kind of rambling bullshit that makes up his body of work.
 

StoveOven

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,234
Considering Peterson clearly doesn't know what post-modernism is (as shown by his conflating it with Marxism), I fully believe that he said that.
 

dusteatingbug

Member
Dec 1, 2017
1,393
There's no way a guy who doesn't believe in post-modernism defined truth like that. I simply refuse to believe that.

The dude thinks postmodernism is when a bunch of (((French academics))) took the class struggle concept from Marxism and reapplied it to systems of social oppression and hierarchy

No lie, I don't think my man has ever used the term "metanarrative" or talked about "high and low art" or "deconstruction" or any of that stuff. His entire understanding of postmodernism is based on some Cold Warrior bullshit book by Stephen Hicks where it is basically positioned as "new Marxism."

Again, Jordan Peterson really is quite a dumb and uninformed man and there's a reason no one outside of right wing culture warrior media figures takes him seriously.
 

David Ricardo

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
254
Didn't Peterson once defined the truth as it doesn't even need to be fact to be truth
Yes. He has a video where he says something along the lines of "if something isn't true, but acting like it was true gives the expected results, then it's true." I was tired when I watched it and didn't understand why he said it. I think it has something to do with the bible, but I still don't know what his reasoning was exactly.

I know that you will use this to attack him, but it was him who said to say the truth and whatever happens is because it had to happen. So there it is.

There is a 2 hour video of him and sam harris titled: "what is truth? Darwinism and pragmatism." It must be there. I'll watch it and probably tomorrow tell you what I find.
 

D.A.

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
425

Maybe I missed the details, the link doesn't go to the actual law but parliament website, but without defining what constitutes hate propaganda or offenses, the summary at least does not tell me what can or cannot be punished nor the extent of punishment.

We do know that internet posts or comments and distasteful joke videos are now subject to severe penalties in other countries.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Maybe I missed the details, the link doesn't go to the actual law but parliament website, but without defining what constitutes hate propaganda or offenses, the summary at least does not tell me what can or cannot be punished nor the extent of punishment.

We do know that internet posts or comments and distasteful joke videos are now subject to severe penalties in other countries.
Did you not read the rest of it which is the actual law? Because you wanted the actual law. That is what was amended to the Canadian Human Rights law so here's a link to that

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/

Here's some of what it considers discriminatory practices:

Discriminatory Practices

Marginal note:Denial of good, service, facility or accommodation

1980-81-82-83, c. 143, s. 3(F).
Marginal note:Employment applications, advertisements

Previous Version


Marginal note:Discriminatory policy or practice
10
It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization

  • (a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
  • (b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,
that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

  • R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 10;
  • 1998, c. 9, s. 13(E).
Marginal note:Equal wages
  • 11 (1) It is a discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value.
  • Marginal note:Assessment of value of work
    (2) In assessing the value of work performed by employees employed in the same establishment, the criterion to be applied is the composite of the skill, effort and responsibility required in the performance of the work and the conditions under which the work is performed.
  • Marginal note:Separate establishments
    (3) Separate establishments established or maintained by an employer solely or principally for the purpose of establishing or maintaining differences in wages between male and female employees shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be the same establishment.
  • Marginal note:Different wages based on prescribed reasonable factors
    (4) Notwithstanding subsection (1), it is not a discriminatory practice to pay to male and female employees different wages if the difference is based on a factor prescribed by guidelines, issued by the Canadian Human Rights Commission pursuant to subsection 27(2), to be a reasonable factor that justifies the difference.
  • Marginal note:Idem
    (5) For greater certainty, sex does not constitute a reasonable factor justifying a difference in wages.
  • Marginal note:No reduction of wages
    (6) An employer shall not reduce wages in order to eliminate a discriminatory practice described in this section.
  • Definition of wages

    (7) For the purposes of this section, wagesmeans any form of remuneration payable for work performed by an individual and includes
    • (a) salaries, commissions, vacation pay, dismissal wages and bonuses;
    • (b) reasonable value for board, rent, housing and lodging;
    • (c) payments in kind;
    • (d) employer contributions to pension funds or plans, long-term disability plans and all forms of health insurance plans; and
    • (e) any other advantage received directly or indirectly from the individual's employer.

Give it a read
 

Simon Belmont

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,037
The dude thinks postmodernism is when a bunch of (((French academics))) took the class struggle concept from Marxism and reapplied it to systems of social oppression and hierarchy

No lie, I don't think my man has ever used the term "metanarrative" or talked about "high and low art" or "deconstruction" or any of that stuff. His entire understanding of postmodernism is based on some Cold Warrior bullshit book by Stephen Hicks where it is basically positioned as "new Marxism."

Again, Jordan Peterson really is quite a dumb and uninformed man and there's a reason no one outside of right wing culture warrior media figures takes him seriously.

The man teaches at a goddamned university, it wouldn't be hard for him to pick up a fucking book about the subject. Most of this stuff is Soc 101 level.

We already have one example of one lawyer opposing Peterson that disagrees though, we don't know if that's a lone rare example.

https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

Here is the Canadian Bar Associations position on the matter. It's an organization that is literally filled to the brim with Lawyers and Judges of high esteem.
 

JasonV

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,968
The man teaches at a goddamned university, it wouldn't be hard for him to pick up a fucking book about the subject. Most of this stuff is Soc 101 level.

Peterson can't handle sociology 101 because its been "infiltrated"; he wanted it banned from universities lol.

Anything outside the reactionary narrative is part of the conspiracy; so they will never learn anything that conflicts with their views.
 

Simon Belmont

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,037
Peterson can't handle sociology 101 because its been "infiltrated"; he wanted it banned from universities lol.

Anything outside the reactionary narrative is part of the conspiracy; so they will never learn anything that conflicts with their views.

This is like Green Eggs & Ham - if he'd only try it he'd discover structural functionalism and love it!
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,359
Basically the title is self explanatory. It's a speech about why you should tell the truth. He says you should tell the truth or, at least, not lie. Telling the truth might have negative consequences, you might be singled out, but not saying it also has consequences. We have seen it in the 20th century. You shouldn't be afraid of telling the truth, whatever happens is better that not saying it and maybe be complicit in the lies of others.

It's a good speech, you should watch it.

Peterson lies all the time.
 
OP
OP

Deleted member 25709

User Requested Account Closure
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,046
Peterson would go into shock if he steps into a SOC101 lecture in Convocation Hall at University of Toronto. He wouldn't be able to take the 1500 students being "indoctrinated" at a given time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.