Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. Renewal how though? Both sides claim rationality, but neither side is primarily guided by reason. Consumer culture has, to my perspective, undermined the foundations of democracy. The political sphere is dominated by celebrity, superficial impressions and tribalism.
  2. On the last page I asked anyone to point out what's wrong with this book. No one did.
  3. Yes. I'm sorry that your hero lost but sometimes in life you lose...
  4. I agree with the court. The decision is entirely reasonable and unsurprising. I can't explain why you're so upset by it, but as I said NDAs and agreements to not express opinions are normal. Peterson and the rest are being hysterical about this. I'm going to do my part to make this issue die a natural death by not talking about it like it's a major decision. It's exactly what you would think to happen when someone breaches rules of membership in an organization.
  5. 1. I think that that was the court case... the court upheld their ruling. If you don't think Transgenderism is anything beyond a flaky ideology then you may come to realize that others disagree, and even authorities do also.
  6. Yes it's punishment. Speaking of obtuse - have you or have you not ever heard of an NDA ? Non disclosure agreement ? Hm ? What ? No - I am steadfastly AGAINST the hanging of witches... How do you want to work back towards a professional body sanctioning a member ?
  7. 1. Ever heard of an NDA ? 2. Extreme statements about a practice that is a foundation for professional practices since forever... I'm sorry you are just learning about this.
  8. You can't legally agree to becoming a slave, but you can legally agree to shut up. Everybody just keep saying "China North" as though you're making a point please...
  9. This is the state telling people what they can teach in the classroom. Also not exactly the same thing but definitely open to court challenge.... The State does seem to have the right to define curriculum but the individual boards should/do manage mandates.
  10. 1. It has ALWAYS been so. You can fire Bud Light and Bud Light can fire you. 2. No, you keep saying it's freedom of speech but your right to join an association is dependent on their conditions. JP agreed to them so .... tough luck being him and not being able to read I guess.
  11. They can reject membership in their association based on comments made. The courts didn't look away, they ruled. Try to find an example where you would agree with a Professional Group discharging someone based on expressed opinions - I'm sure you can come up with one if you try. How about one of Poilievre's caucus pointing out that he's a fake working-man with no serious vision for Canada ? Certainly people try to fire me from conservatism because they don't like my opinions.. happens on here every day.
  12. 1. Riiiiight... the College of Psychologists or whatever it's called feels the need to go beyond to protect Trudeau right ? Sounds like a conspiracy to me. 2. And yet Peterson had and still has said Freedom as has been pointed out forever. 3. Why is Poilievre jumping on this train exactly ? Is he going to force the courts to overturn the rights of professional orgs to pass judgment on their members, in other words the government restraining... speech ? 4. The devil is in the details. The College didn't ostensibly discipline Peterson for opposing Trudeau, the action indicates that he trespassed on professional standards of practice. If you want to argue that the College shouldn't have standards on how to address/treat transgenderism that's a different matter than their right to discipline people. My advice is get some counter studies published...
  13. How about... You take an oath to support care of individuals, then start selling snake oil online? You insist it's a miracle cure, but your professional org says it isn't.
  14. I think someone like him is grossly needed. I follow Sam Harris, who is a more rigorously academic version of a public intellectual/moralist.
  15. Putin for sure doesn't want what I have. He wants his billions, Ukraine, an army of wh0res and anything..... I doubt he wants my 10 year old caravan. So I guess you like him in that you think Putin's ostensible killing of an opponent is pompous. Good for you.
  16. Yeah we can go on forever, but still somehow I answered a bunch of your key questions in that last post so hopefully you understand things (and not just my opinions) a little more now. I'm not trying to convince myself or anyone. Your opinions are valid, but I don't share them. Cheers...
  17. I would say that the nature of social media, that it allows people to eavesdrop on a conversation between a small group of friends from far field, is something we haven't adjusted to socially yet. For example there was a case of a woman fired in England for expressing anti-transgender views online, ostensibly, that was reversed.
  18. Your cohort didn't want to talk about the religious example, because it presumably provides a reasonable principle and supports the discipline against JP. But.... there are indeed limits as to what can be done about online postings.. firing people and so on. It's contentious.
  19. 1. Ok. You ask good questions. So you are asking "should be" but let's break down how/why things are as they are: If you are going to have countries then you have laws and policies passed by the governments of those countries to protect national interests. Laws restrict freedom... for companies, corporations and individuals that operate in Canada and even abroad since you can extradite people from other countries. These are the basic elements of governance. As for the internet, it is already controlled by the government, as are radio, telephone, and communications in general. The agency is known as the CRTC. The Slippery Slope argument says that the fact that they can tax, regulate content and shut people down is tantamount to banning or autocracy it's like that today: the government has in many instances the power to ban and restrict any communication for various reasons. 3. Not just social media - there is already a CRTC and government monitoring of media since at least the Massey Commission 1949. 4. What would we do about stopping China from buying our newspapers ? We would disallow it. We already disallowed them from owning lithium mines last year ( https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-orders-three-chinese-firms-to-exit-lithium-mining-1.6137466 ) No, we don't allow the US to own controlling interest in media either even though they do own a majority stake in our major national newspaper chain they are ostensibly non-voting shares. 5. Yes, but the site gains monetarily so they are dinged for hosting the link. 6. Sure but aspects are based on the American system and my point is not the origins of our system as much as pointing out that AMERICA doesn't allow people to own its media. Don't you think that's odd ? Why do you think America thinks that's a bad idea. 7. People didn't just drop them though, there was a new alternative.
  20. I guess I'm going to raise my hand here? I mean if you pissed off Putin in Russia, would you just happily take a plane inside it's borders?
  21. 1. Well, group think is kind of a necessity for a professional body don't you think? Otherwise what is the value?
  • Create New...