De-sensitivity training

[benny]

How could I possibly dissallow freedom of speech other than by breaking some kind of law with regard to threats or violence? The Charter does not apply to me. It applies to how the government treats me, not how I treat you.

The Notwithstanding clause opens the door to a legislative vacuum, through which individuals can impose cultural norms upon others.

[WIP]

As someone, I think Bill Maher once said, "I'm not prejudiced. Prejudiced implies Pre-judging. I'm not pre-judging, I'm JUDGING."

Then you need to show what your judgment is based on. As someone else once said:"opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one."

So what if you hold hostile opinions about people because of actual and true beliefs and actual and true information?

Then you shouldn't mind showing us some of your information.

That does, after all, relate to Jennifer Lynch's desire to be able to prosecute people for making hateful statements even if they are true.

I haven't been following that story, but according to a statement from her in the Globe & Mail, some rights (like free expression) should not have priority over other rights, like protection from hate speech:

Some who disagree with this notion would have Canada weaken its human-rights system, taking the view that freedom of expression is the paramount right in Canadian society, over and above the right of all citizens to be protected from the harm that can be caused by hate messages.

In fact, there is no hierarchy of rights with some rights having greater importance than others. They work together toward a common purpose.

[Argus]

I haven't been following that story, but according to a statement from her in the Globe & Mail, some rights (like free expression) should not have priority over other rights, like protection from hate speech:

Some who disagree with this notion would have Canada weaken its human-rights system, taking the view that freedom of expression is the paramount right in Canadian society, over and above the right of all citizens to be protected from the harm that can be caused by hate messages.

In fact, there is no hierarchy of rights with some rights having greater importance than others. They work together toward a common purpose.

This merely demonstrates what I said in an earlier post on this subject. The people in the "human rights" industry actually don't even know what a human right is. Human Rights commissions have nothing whatsoever to do with human rights or civil liberties. They are responsible for banning preferential and unfair treatment of people, and have expanded this into offensive speech. But nothing they look after can honestly be placed in the same category as a human right. Lynch is an ignorant woman who is trying to give the appearance her little task, the equivalent of a rowboat, is actually as important as an ocean liner.

[benny]

This merely demonstrates what I said in an earlier post on this subject. The people in the "human rights" industry actually don't even know what a human right is. Human Rights commissions have nothing whatsoever to do with human rights or civil liberties. They are responsible for banning preferential and unfair treatment of people, and have expanded this into offensive speech. But nothing they look after can honestly be placed in the same category as a human right. Lynch is an ignorant woman who is trying to give the appearance her little task, the equivalent of a rowboat, is actually as important as an ocean liner.

Your post is hate speech.

[Army Guy]

Is that an informed opinion? I could say:"I think the Moon is made of green cheese," but what value is it if it is not based on any real evidence?

I'd like to think it is, The evidence you've presented is based on theories, and educated opinions that are not accepted but all experts in the field. there has not been any conclusive evidence found that it is not a choice....

How do we explain Gay's that have had hetro relationships, or Bi sexual persons, or expermentation....In todays world sex is more openly discussed and accepted by society in large, therefore more are willing to make that choice to try having sexual relations with the same sex....for what ever reasons....I find it hard to believe that our world is producing more people with gay/ Bi hormones than before.... when it could be as simple as preference...which boils down to choice.

I didn't know you were still active duty, but it sounds like the policies you describe strike the right balance of accepting someone's sexual orientation, while preventing sexual misconduct.

I would not say accepting, rather than tolerating, or preventing discrimination openly....most Gay men remain in the closet for a lack of better term, for thier own protection. Most soldiers will agree that as long as they keep it to themselfs and not brought it to the work place everything is fine, the minute it arrives at the work place then it creates huge problems, normally ending in a transfer...

Back when I did most of my Armed Forces stint 30 years ago, a gay man would have been discharged, but during that time when women were just being introduced into more active roles, we were told by many of of our officers that it wasn't just our imaginations that they didn't seem to be the kind of girls we wanted to hang out with -- they were deliberately trying to recruit butch lesbians for female recruits, partly because they were presumed to make better soldiers than regular girls, and they figured it would cut down the risk of sexual misconduct with the enlisted men, especially at remote, isolated radar stations.

Alot of things have changed in the military since then and are still changing in regards to certain attitudes....but i think it will be serveral years yet before a gay man can introduce himself and tell his platoon he's gay...without some form of discrimination.

Sexual misconduct by men and women / hetro or gay will always be a problem, once discovered it means a quick trip home from any mission or operation your on....there has not been a cure for horny as of yet .... yes they've tried but they've all failed, or had side effects so now they just remove both of you from the zone....and when dealing with people that want to be on operations it is a some what effective way of dealing with the problem....

And my position remains that if people hold hostile opinions about people because of unfounded beliefs and misinformation, then they need to be challenged to back up their prejudicial attitudes, just like white supremacists have been over the years.

My opinion is not hostile, it is a choice that i've made, and it is founded on my beliefs, religion, and information i've gathered over the years....and is no more misguided than your oinion is .....comparing it white supremacists is going overboard, and as long as i remain within the laws established then i should be as free to express my opinion as Gays have the right to express thiers openly....

to proclaim that homosexuals have made a lifestyle choice to be deviants

I've never said that they where "deviants", just that i do not agree with thier choice of life style...

and could be heterosexual if they wanted to, then I have the same freedom to challenge unfounded belief claims like this that cause pain and suffering for a minority of the population.

You've presented some evidence , which you've taken as Proof, and yet it is not excepted across the field as 100% fact....so your as guilty as developing your opinion on unfounded claims as i am....as for causing pain to the Gay community....i'm sure they are broken up that some Army guy does not approve of thier life stlye....But that is what makes our Nation what it is today, i don't have to approve of everything....as long as i don't openly break any of the laws both sides can exist together....

[benny]

and as long as i remain within the laws established then i should be as free to express my opinion as Gays have the right to express thiers openly....

If soldiers make jokes about gays and one soldier happens to protest that theses jokes are bad, I guess he will be suspected to be gay by the group.

Edited June 22, 2009 by benny

[Army Guy]

Sorry benny, but bad jokes are not tolerated regardless of whom they are about....discipline measure can be taken....

[benny]

Sorry benny, but bad jokes are not tolerated regardless of whom they are about....discipline measure can be taken....

Nothing there to be sorry about!

[Remiel]

How do we explain Gay's that have had hetro relationships, or Bi sexual persons, or expermentation...

Though the analogy is rather simplistic, I would suggest that it would be in rather a similar way to which we explain how some left-handed people write with their right, or are ambidextrous. Society (at least in our parents or grandparents time) believed that right-handedness was proper, and that left-handedness was improper and had to be "cured" by forcing lefties to write with their right. Add to that some people who are naturally ambidextrous, and some people who were trained to essentially become ambidextrous. And consider that all of this "choice" was essentially one way. Lefties choosing to write right-handed, or becoming ambidextrous. Right-handed folks did not "choose" to become lefties. Saying that a leftie can choose to write right-handed however is not the same as saying that they are right-handed.

I find it hard to believe that our world is producing more people with gay/ Bi hormones than before.... when it could be as simple as preference...which boils down to choice.

As above, this would be a similar fallacy to thinking that the world is producing more left-handed people than before. It is not. Left-handed people are merely no longer being conditioned to pretend they are right-handed.

You've presented some evidence , which you've taken as Proof, and yet it is not excepted across the field as 100% fact....so your as guilty as developing your opinion on unfounded claims as i am....

You should try some epistemology (theory of knowledge), Army Guy. Then you can begin to doubt whether there is any such thing as 100% "fact". But there is still justification. Why do you think that your actions are justified if the alternative has "only" a 95% chance of being true?

The thing is, all you are really trying to do is justify why you are uncomfortable with gay folks, by doubting their gayness. You know, the alternative is to accept that you are not a perfect pansy and are just uncomfortable with something that happens to be reality. Like me. I am not some sort of ultra gay friendly, gay pride loving person. But I recognize that I do have to tolerate it, and I am willing to extend the courtesy of not talking about intimate details of heterosexual acts around gay folks in order to avoid the pain of having to listen to stories of homosexual acts, or whatever else. Why does there have to be a problem?

I mean, if some homosexual person comes out and says, " I am not going to tolerate straight people around me, " I would take that person for a fool, and I am sure you would too. There is no rule saying that they have to like straight people any more than you like gay people, but to try and deny the reality of the situation would just be pathetic (though moreso because they would trying to deny the majority).

In any case, I hope that you can get over this intransigence over the notion that we may not be " 100% " sure, thinking that that entails your conclusions. You can find other coping mechanisms or justifications that do not rely of a denial of probable reality.

[Army Guy]

Though the analogy is rather simplistic, I would suggest that it would be in rather a similar way to which we explain how some left-handed people write with their right, or are ambidextrous. Society (at least in our parents or grandparents time) believed that right-handedness was proper, and that left-handedness was improper and had to be "cured" by forcing lefties to write with their right. Add to that some people who are naturally ambidextrous, and some people who were trained to essentially become ambidextrous. And consider that all of this "choice" was essentially one way. Lefties choosing to write right-handed, or becoming ambidextrous. Right-handed folks did not "choose" to become lefties. Saying that a leftie can choose to write right-handed however is not the same as saying that they are right-handed.

I don't buy your theory, and while it may explain why some gays have had hetro relationships, as they where force to conform, it does nothing to explain Bi sexual or expermentation ...which is done by choice not some gene or at birth....but rather increasing the number of people one can have sex with....

You should try some epistemology (theory of knowledge), Army Guy. Then you can begin to doubt whether there is any such thing as 100% "fact". But there is still justification. Why do you think that your actions are justified if the alternative has "only" a 95% chance of being true?

I understand what your saying, but thats not the case here is it, it does not say it is the majority of experts just that some have a theory which they believe in.....and like another poster says he has a theory that the moon is made from green cheese...and until it is accepted as fact then i will keep my beliefs....

The thing is, all you are really trying to do is justify why you are uncomfortable with gay folks, by doubting their gayness. You know, the alternative is to accept that you are not a perfect pansy and are just uncomfortable with something that happens to be reality

I'm not doubting thier gayness or even it's existance...just that i do not think it's normal behavior, and i don't like it....which i've clearly stated....you want to be gay fill your boots....want to hold hands and kiss in public fill your boots....but the minute you force me into your world, by taking it to far then i've got the right to ber vocal....as with anything in this world we don't like...

Like me. I am not some sort of ultra gay friendly, gay pride loving person. But I recognize that I do have to tolerate it, and I am willing to extend the courtesy of not talking about intimate details of heterosexual acts around gay folks in order to avoid the pain of having to listen to stories of homosexual acts, or whatever else. Why does there have to be a problem?

I get the impression that you think i carry signs or shout from the roof tops that i hate gays or go out of my way to make thier lifes more difficult....i don't...when asked or confronted i will be honest about it....i don't like the life stlye, that does not make me a homo phobe or what it is you want to call me....

I don't have to tolerate it....i will have to continue to defend my postion as they will continue to defend thiers....

[WIP]

This merely demonstrates what I said in an earlier post on this subject. The people in the "human rights" industry actually don't even know what a human right is. Human Rights commissions have nothing whatsoever to do with human rights or civil liberties. They are responsible for banning preferential and unfair treatment of people, and have expanded this into offensive speech. But nothing they look after can honestly be placed in the same category as a human right. Lynch is an ignorant woman who is trying to give the appearance her little task, the equivalent of a rowboat, is actually as important as an ocean liner.

I'm not up to speed on every issue, but from what I've gleaned over the controversy regarding human rights panels, most of the complaints revolve around the grey areas that do not have well defiined powers and fact that the commissioners do not need any special qualifications, even knowledge of law and legal process -- an invitation to cronyism.

But scrapping the system, as proposed by two of the candidates in the Ontario PC leadership debates, is a bad idea and just an open invitation to return to the old tyranny of the majority. It was a former Progressive Conservative premier (John Robarts) who started the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal in the first place; if either Tim Hudak or Randy Hillier, two candidates who want to scrap the tribunal system, win the nomination, it will be further evidence that Canadian conservative parties are adopting the worst aspects of the American conservative movement.

[WIP]

I'd like to think it is, The evidence you've presented is based on theories, and educated opinions that are not accepted but all experts in the field. there has not been any conclusive evidence found that it is not a choice....

And the Theory of Gravity is just a theory also, by that analogy. If you want to test it, you can try jumping off a tall building! You are demanding that your chosen belief (sexual orientation is a matter of choice) be proven wrong. It should not be up to me or any one else to prove a negative; it should be a matter of assessing where the evidence leads -- and so far, there is substantial evidence to support genetic links to homosexuality from twin studies; prenatal hormones determining sexual orientation from evidence analyzing birth order -- younger males are more likely to be gay; and even possible prenatal infectious diseases being the cause -- there are seasonal correlations just as there are with schizophrenia.

So it appears that sexual orientation is complicated by genetic, hormonal and germ factors -- any one of them could be a cause, or any combination of the three. Just as with left handedness, there is not one, single, solitary cause, but a confluence of physical factors -- all of which would be beyond the control of the individual. And the dismal results of so called gay reparative therapies should be the nail in the coffin for any ideology that wants to promote the fiction that homosexuals are choosing to be gay, and can be turned straight......but it won't! Because if homosexuals or bisexuals and transgendered people for that matter, are not making a free will choice to be the way they are, that takes away the remaining moral justification to despise and vilify them. In modern society, we are taught that people have to be exercising free will before we can make them an object of scorn; and the Abrahamic religions that have created the ideology that homosexuals are choosing to sin, so literal acceptance of religious dogma demands that homosexuals be "cured" of their condition, or cast into the lake of fire.

How do we explain Gay's that have had hetro relationships, or Bi sexual persons, or expermentation.

How do we explain that some left-handed people are virtually ambidextrous, where as others like myself, have such a strong left-sided preference, that I can't perform any skill task with my right hand? There are at least three physical factors that alter the standard sexual orientation, so it shouldn't be any surprise that there are many people in between hetero and homosexual in their preferences.

I would not say accepting, rather than tolerating, or preventing discrimination openly....most Gay men remain in the closet for a lack of better term, for thier own protection.

Obviously, if some people have to live their lives in secret, they are going to be something less than full citizens, and develop a lot of issues that mar their enjoyment of life.

[benny]

Instead of proposing de-sensitivity training to become able to laugh at bad jokes, why not proposing a training to invent good jokes, that is jokes inspired by the interactions between "white" (abusive) and "red" (abused) clowns?

Edited June 22, 2009 by benny

[Bonam]

Instead of proposing de-sensitivity training to become able to laugh at bad jokes, why not proposing a training to invent good jokes, that is jokes inspired by the interactions between "white" (abusive) and "red" (abused) clowns?

You just stereotyped white people as abusive. I've been offended. Someone call the human rights commission to shut this man down! Oh, wait, never mind, discrimination is 100% ok and peachy as long as it's targeted at white people.

[benny]

You just stereotyped white people as abusive. I've been offended. Someone call the human rights commission to shut this man down! Oh, wait, never mind, discrimination is 100% ok and peachy as long as it's targeted at white people.

Here is an example of a clown with a white costume and white powder covering his skin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_clown

[Oleg Bach]

Here is an example of a clown with a white costume and white powder covering his skin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_clown

I had one of those little black henchmen jockeys on my lawn --- I painted him white - wanted to be politically correct...a white henchman jockey can cause no offense-----how come I never hear of some black guy being brought up before the human rights commission? There is this young plainly mentally ill black kid that passes though our neighbourhood - he will spit on you if you are white - if you so much look at him - He has also been known to harrass woman because they are white - real profane insults dealing with unclean vaginas seems to be his favorite --- how come the cops don't drag this guy off for hate crimes? I have never seen so much hate in a human being - his grandmother must have been a real piece of work.

[benny]

I had one of those little black henchmen jockeys on my lawn --- I painted him white - wanted to be politically correct...a white henchman jockey can cause no offense-----how come I never hear of some black guy being brought up before the human rights commission? There is this young plainly mentally ill black kid that passes though our neighbourhood - he will spit on you if you are white - if you so much look at him - He has also been known to harrass woman because they are white - real profane insults dealing with unclean vaginas seems to be his favorite --- how come the cops don't drag this guy off for hate crimes? I have never seen so much hate in a human being - his grandmother must have been a real piece of work.

Insanity may be invoked as both an offense and defense.

[Oleg Bach]

Insanity may be invoked as both an offense and defense.

What really tosses the judicary into a panic - is when you invoke SANITY- as a defense...seeing that some of them are quite insane--they get beside themselves and find reality irksome.

[benny]

What really tosses the judicary into a panic - is when you invoke SANITY- as a defense...seeing that some of them are quite insane--they get beside themselves and find reality irksome.

Invoking sanity to excuse one's dirty language is a non-starter.