De-sensitivity training

Smallc · June 9, 2009

I hope you said that tolerantly or were you just making a funny?

No, I wasn't. Intollerance of others affects all people negatively. People should be allowed to live as they choose within the moving framework that is the law.

JerrySeinfeld · June 9, 2009

No, I wasn't. Intollerance of others affects all people negatively. People should be allowed to live as they choose within the moving framework that is the law.

Thank you. Since we agree let's move to abolish the CHRC and it's ugly sisters in the provinces.

Smallc · June 9, 2009

Thank you. Since we agree let's move to abolish the CHRC and it's ugly sisters in the provinces.

Though they can go too far at times, their entire purpose is to fight intollerance.

WIP · June 9, 2009

I put up a post on here saying gay isn't normal, and a few cry babies actaully had the nerve to accuse me of "hatred".

NO, the problem is there are too many people like you who think they should just be allowed to shoot off their mouths without backing up their opinions with any evidence. If you have contrary evidence, put it up or shut up; no one cares for your empty-headed opinions based on your personal likes and dislikes.

You are declaring gay to be not normal 35 years after the American Psychological Society declared that homosexuality was not a mental illness or a pathology. Scientific evidence on the subject of human sexual behaviour gathered since then finds a number of physiological links to sexual orientation and behaviour -- the evidence is pretty clear that people don't choose to their sexual orientation, and therefore, disparaging gays for their sexual orientation is no different than labeling people of other races as inferior. Conservatives need scapegoats to revile and ridicule, so I guess rightwing xenophobes are afraid of losing another convenient target for righteous indignation.

JerrySeinfeld · June 9, 2009

Though they can go too far at times, their entire purpose is to fight intollerance.

"fight intolerance" sounds like thought police to me.

the approprriate laws and protections exist in law and in the constitution.

The rest is just a dressed up fascist plot to control speech and thought.

Smallc · June 10, 2009

"fight intolerance" sounds like thought police to me.
the approprriate laws and protections exist in law and in the constitution.

The rest is just a dressed up fascist plot to control speech and thought.

You can think whatever you want. You can't say or do whatever you want....I wouldn't expect you to realize that or see the difference though.

JerrySeinfeld · June 10, 2009

You can think whatever you want. You can't say or do whatever you want....I wouldn't expect you to realize that or see the difference though.

WHat are you talking about? Hate speeech is adequately covered by hate speech laws. Employment discrimination is as well covered by anti discrimination laws and the constitution.

So why can't we all join together in abolishing Canada's thought and speech police, the CHRC, clearly an extension of left wing progressivist fascist tyranny?

Smallc · June 10, 2009

Hate speech is adequately covered by hate speech laws. Employment discrimination is as well covered by anti discrimination laws and the constitution.

Uh huh, and the CHRC deals with these things.

cybercoma · June 10, 2009

I do take exception to the CHRC "tribunals", which can bankrupt a person in no time.

Pliny · June 10, 2009

Uh huh, and the CHRC deals with these things.

It is superfluous. The courts should be dealing with them if laws are broken. The CHRC is basically a monopoly of what groups or individuals should be favoured and receive benefit and what groups or individuals should be looked down upon. It is about artificially making the playing field level. Of course, there is a lot of political correctness in their decisions and I see political correctness as lowering a standard to the lowest common denominator and includes a justification for active discrimination against certain groups or individuals in some warped sense of justice. I see it as detrimental to society on the whole as excellence is one thing that is discriminated against.

If we fear anything it should be violations against the sanctity of our person and property. That is the charge of government. If that is violated the government has the duty to make the correction. Human rights commissions and tribunals do not deal with justice they deal with equality, making the playing field level by enforcing society to discriminate based upon Marx's concept of to those according to their need and from those according to their ability.

What is the sense of having a person in an educational class that has no understanding of what is going on in the class? He must have the same right as any other individual according to the CHRC. Even though he may not have the capacity to learn the subject being taught. This is an inefficient and wasteful allocation of resources with negative ramifications to education as a whole.

Smallc · June 10, 2009

I do take exception to the CHRC "tribunals", which can bankrupt a person in no time.

As I said, it's like a civil court dedicated to human rights...but their mandate has probably been extended too far.

Muddy · June 10, 2009

I do take exception to the CHRC "tribunals", which can bankrupt a person in no time.

That is how Big Brother works. If you do not conform we will teach you a financial lesson. We will ruin you. Big Brother (CHRC) has the power over us. How long before we have special pris.. uh facilities to incarcerate individuals until they conform .

I never thought that I would see the day that we would have discrimination against free thought. If someone does not like me because of my religion or skin colour so what. I don`t associate with them. Pretty simple.

JerrySeinfeld · June 10, 2009

Uh huh, and the CHRC deals with these things.

no. the law courts deal with these things. the CHRC is a quasi kangaroo court set up by the government and so by it's very nature is a political, not a judicial, body.

it uses it's "authority" to police people's right to freedom of expression, speech or peaceful exchange of ideas.

under it's watch, facts are not a legitamate defense. the burden of proof is that someone is "offended".

human rights commissions have successfully drain the Western Standard of it's resources onyl because the magazine chose to print the danish cartoons of muhammed - cartoons the entire world was talking about.

is this what this country has come to? everyone complains about the evil christians, but it is the muslims who have succesfully and effectively created a "blashphemy" law in Canada by financially penalizing anyone who chooses to print or say something they don't like.

Since when does anyone in the country have a right no to have "their feelings hurt" - the right not to be offended?

The whole idea of "being offended" is a cloaked and clever way to shut someone up or tell them how they allowed to speak - which is precisly what's going on in places like suadi arabia - and precisely why people should take "de-sensitivy training".

And it's fascism.

Edited June 10, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

cybercoma · June 10, 2009

As I said, it's like a civil court dedicated to human rights...but their mandate has probably been extended too far.

My exception has nothing to do with their mandate and everything to do with the expense imposed on those charged (whether they're guilty or not) by a system outside the courts. Edited June 10, 2009 by cybercoma

Oleg Bach · June 10, 2009

Sure would like to be insensitive to the the sword of coersion that hangs over the heads of all free speachers. If a politican is a liar - we should be able to say he or she is a god damned deceptive and exeedingly destructive sob...If a judge shoots his mouth off and blows his political cover by revealing what he really thinks - it would be nice to say that he was a rat instead of having the court of appeals say....The judge did not mean that - he simply "mis-spoke" - I saw that once at Osgoode Hall - You corner the ruling of a trail judge and say - look at this he admits that the defendant is in error and liable ---but the three appeal judges write with easy ----he "mispoke" and I would respond by saying if he mispoke then he also MISTHOUGHT....I sure would like some de-sensitizing to these types of situations that are pervasive every where these days ---- and I would like to say with complete freedom - that person is a liar --------------------------or that gay person is not a nice person - or that comfortable and aging feminists don't give a damn for their sisters - that they become what they hate....boy am I ever insensitive! :rolleyes:

Pliny · June 13, 2009

That is how Big Brother works. If you do not conform we will teach you a financial lesson. We will ruin you. Big Brother (CHRC) has the power over us. How long before we have special pris.. uh facilities to incarcerate individuals until they conform .
I never thought that I would see the day that we would have discrimination against free thought. If someone does not like me because of my religion or skin colour so what. I don`t associate with them. Pretty simple.

Are you trying to un"muddy" the waters?

Pliny · June 13, 2009

Sure would like to be insensitive to the the sword of coersion that hangs over the heads of all free speachers. If a politican is a liar - we should be able to say he or she is a god damned deceptive and exeedingly destructive sob...If a judge shoots his mouth off and blows his political cover by revealing what he really thinks - it would be nice to say that he was a rat instead of having the court of appeals say....The judge did not mean that - he simply "mis-spoke" - I saw that once at Osgoode Hall - You corner the ruling of a trail judge and say - look at this he admits that the defendant is in error and liable ---but the three appeal judges write with easy ----he "mispoke" and I would respond by saying if he mispoke then he also MISTHOUGHT....I sure would like some de-sensitizing to these types of situations that are pervasive every where these days ---- and I would like to say with complete freedom - that person is a liar --------------------------or that gay person is not a nice person - or that comfortable and aging feminists don't give a damn for their sisters - that they become what they hate....boy am I ever insensitive!

Well, I recently saw an ad on tv for www.respectwomen.ca. In the ad they said that we should make sure that men are brought up to respect women. I was trying to figure out what was wrong with that ad and I was telling my wife about it and said, "Does that mean that women expect to be disrespected unless someone tells men that they need to be respected?" My wife is very smart and she said, "Some women do not deserve respect. Respect is not an entitlement. It is a mutually earned benefit." I respect her for that.

JerrySeinfeld · June 17, 2009

Well, I recently saw an ad on tv for www.respectwomen.ca. In the ad they said that we should make sure that men are brought up to respect women. I was trying to figure out what was wrong with that ad and I was telling my wife about it and said, "Does that mean that women expect to be disrespected unless someone tells men that they need to be respected?" My wife is very smart and she said, "Some women do not deserve respect. Respect is not an entitlement. It is a mutually earned benefit." I respect her for that.

That's awesome. Good for her.

Having individual women stand up as intelligent individuals with intelligent things to say does so much more for the "respect" of women than do a bunch of man-hating dykes marching through Berkley.

As for de-sensitivity training, I think this guy put it best (since it happened to show up on google today)"

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

- Thomas Jefferson

Great stuff. If he were here today, he'd probably say "stop being such a whiney over sensitive cry baby" to the lefty-self-created victim class.

Edited June 17, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

WIP · June 17, 2009

Well, I recently saw an ad on tv for www.respectwomen.ca. In the ad they said that we should make sure that men are brought up to respect women. I was trying to figure out what was wrong with that ad

I didn't see anything wrong with the ad on the website; what was it about an ad for prevention of violence against women that you found offensive?

and I was telling my wife about it and said, "Does that mean that women expect to be disrespected unless someone tells men that they need to be respected?"

Sounds like you're trying to shift the blame for abuse and physical assaults on to the victim.

My wife is very smart and she said, "Some women do not deserve respect. Respect is not an entitlement. It is a mutually earned benefit." I respect her for that.

I don't know what goes on in your home, but if she is not aware that many women are victimized and threatened if they try to leave, then she is not smart and has a warped notion about the term "respect." So, if a man is beating his wife, that just means she hasn't earned enough respect!

g_bambino · June 17, 2009

Sounds like you're trying to shift the blame for abuse and physical assaults on to the victim.

Sounds like you missed his point entirely.

Some will shamelessly use actual victims as a propaganda tool to softly but steadily bludgeon all men about the head, reducing every single one of them to a potential mouth-frothing Neanderthal just itching to smack a woman down, in stark contrast, of course, to the gentle and ever-innocent nature of all females. It's gender identity politics that does little more than cheapen the experiences of those who really are victims, and I highly doubt that making a man constantly feel guilty about being a man is going to improve anything.

Army Guy · June 17, 2009

I put up a post on here saying gay isn't normal, and a few cry babies actaully had the nerve to accuse me of "hatred".
Isn't that a little steep?

You know, despite what they're trying to shove down our throats these days, we don't have to like everything, every lifestyle. We don't really even have to "tolerate" it.

Freedom goes both ways: just as you have the freedom to make your women wear a mask on their faces or to date people of the same sex, I have the freedom to think it odd, wierd, offensive or even downright mysoginistic.

And I also have the freedom to express it.

I agree with jerry on this issue, there is a major difference between dislike....and hate...and it does fall under free speach to voice your opinion of all your dislikes as long as it is done tastefully, and respectfully...i don't think jerry has breached that with his opening post....

There is no consistancy in our classifications, what seems to be generally socially acceptable we are not allow to remark upon, such as Gays or thier live stlyes but it is acceptable for instance comment on hate for the taliban , gang violence, or crooked government workers....So why is it OK to comment on these topics with out fear of being pigioned holed.

I to dislike the Gay life style, i find it wierd and offensive, and it's not tolerated within my household or my surroundings....i don't hate it, i don't have a web site expressing hate for gays, i don't call gays names in public, nor do i go out of my way to piont this out to every Gay....

It is thier chioce and they are free to carry on with thier lifes, as long as it does not interfer with my life or space....but i don't have to like it....but i certainly don't hate it....

So ya we do need to lighten up.

Smallc · June 17, 2009

I to dislike the Gay life style, i find it wierd and offensive, and it's not tolerated within my household or my surroundings....

You see right there though...that's uncalled for. I wouldn't want you locked in jail for saying such a thing, but that is very near hatred and it's the right of others to call you out on it. You don't tolerate the 'liefstyle' in your surroundings? Really? Is that your choice? I think not. What you feel seems to go beyond dislike all the way to intollerance.

g_bambino · June 17, 2009

I wouldn't want you locked in jail for saying such a thing, but that is very near hatred and it's the right of others to call you out on it.

I don't understand your reaction, Smallc. I didn't see ArmyGuy advocating violence towards or even the dehumanization of those who chose the gay lifestyle; it seemed to me that he merely didn't want such practices around him. Our society openly accepts similar desires from some groups, so why is ArmyGuy not allowed the same privilege?