Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Try to explain that to some crazy people - who will physically try to harm or even kill you, if you say something they do not understand - or partially understand..or mis-understand or who totally understand and hate you for telling the truth to them ---- Freedom of experssion is fine - providing you grasp the concept that evil - violence and stupidity are the same entity....best to keep your mouth shut - we are on the planet of the apes ----9% intelligent - and the rest stupified in evil - who might just hurt you.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Just because you are absolutely free to carry a gun does not mean you are absolutely free to shoot people. Bad analogy. In fact, please explain it. I'm interested to know if even you know what you're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Just because there are rocks all over the planet does not give you the right to pick up a rock and toss it at anyone you please???????? Might be better put this way - You have the right to discriminate against what is good for you and what is bad -- we are not allowed to "discriminate" we are not allowed to protect our selves. How dare you resist getting screwed - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Based on his account, this doesn't seem like it should even go to trial. He alleges that she threw a drink at him, which is assault. He broke her sunglasses, which is... some kind of transgression. Hate crime, though... no... Of all the HRC complaints I've read on here, this is the worst or best example of tempest in a teapot but still IMO doesn't justify eliminating the HRCs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 You raise your hand in aggressive gesture that is assault - spit - that is assualt - to toss a cup of spit - or toss a whole drink of some other liquid is assault.....I still think the lesbian had the hots for this guy because he looks like a woman...just a lovers spat - The sunglasses - that's a fashion attack - should have his eyes scratched out for that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Based on his account, this doesn't seem like it should even go to trial. He alleges that she threw a drink at him, which is assault. He broke her sunglasses, which is... some kind of transgression.Hate crime, though... no... Of all the HRC complaints I've read on here, this is the worst or best example of tempest in a teapot but still IMO doesn't justify eliminating the HRCs. At a minimum, HRCs should not involve themselves in speech issues. It's none of their business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 At a minimum, HRCs should not involve themselves in speech issues. It's none of their business. If there is a Canadian journalist that is being held and beaten in Iran - the HRC - should pool their resourses and lobby on behalf of the citizen...now that would be useful - instead of listening to disgruntled lesbians insulted by comedians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) At a minimum, HRCs should not involve themselves in speech issues. It's none of their business. Yes. it's section 13 that has allowed the HRCs to start meddline in people's speech - and allowing people to file griveance because someone "hurt their feelings" or "offended" them. Democracy requires robust citizens not whiney complainers.- which is why I have posted another thread about de-sensitivity training. The two topics are closely linked. Edited June 23, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Yes. it's section 13 that has allowed the HRCs to start meddline in people's speech - and allowing people to file griveance because someone "hurt their feelings" or "offended" them. and again you are wrong. Section 13 of the bchrt has no mention of hurt feelings and being offended. Those are not grounds to have a complaint heard. Democracy requires robust citizens not whiney complainers.- which is why I have posted another thread about de-sensitivity training. The two topics are closely linked. yes the two threads are closely linked. You are complaining that others take you to task for things that you say and you think that people shouldnt do such things. I think you should get some training in robustness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) and again you are wrong. Section 13 of the bchrt has no mention of hurt feelings and being offended. Those are not grounds to have a complaint heard. yes the two threads are closely linked. You are complaining that others take you to task for things that you say and you think that people shouldnt do such things. I think you should get some training in robustness. WHat are you talkingt about? I love this debate. The fact that we're talking about it is a start. I call you spewing bullshit to deflect the real issue which is speech policing. "Taking to task" isn't the problem. Taking to "court" (Kangaroo court) is. It's the people using Human Rights commisions as their own personal whine parade. An attempt by the non-robust to regulate speech and carve the HUMAN RIGHT of free speech to suit their own feelings. As per your comment about section 13, glad to see you have google which allows you to do imcomplete research with the click of a mouse. Now maybe you should check section 13 of the CANADA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, Einstein. Edited June 23, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Section 13 of the CANADA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT? from the Vancouver Sun link provided in the OP of this thread posted by Jerry Seinfeld: Comic faces human rights hearing in B.C. after lesbian jokesDavid Wylie, Canwest News Service Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 A Canadian stand-up comedian will face a human rights tribunal hearing after a woman complained she and her friends faced a "tirade of homophobic and sexist comments" while attending one of his shows. In a decision released this week, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled there is enough evidence to hear the case of Vancouver woman Lorna Pardy against Toronto comedian Guy Earle. Zesty's Restaurant in Vancouver, where the May 22, 2007, show took place, was also named in the complaint. The restaurant has since closed. So if you want to talk about Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act why are you complaining and whining (robustly so) about Lesbians in Vancouver filing complaints under the BC Human rights legislation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Section 13 of the CANADA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT? from the Vancouver Sun link provided in the OP of this thread posted by Jerry Seinfeld: So if you want to talk about Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act why are you complaining and whining (robustly so) about Lesbians in Vancouver filing complaints under the BC Human rights legislation? Geez. It's like talking to an engineer. You're missing the forest for the trees dude, everyone else is talking about the restriction on the fundamental right of freedom of expression and you're worried about the p's and q's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Argus, At a minimum, HRCs should not involve themselves in speech issues. It's none of their business. At a certain level, all human expression is speech isn't it ? Speech at a microphone, or in front of a crowd is still speech. But stand-up comedy is an art form, and it should be offensive sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 One man's whiney complainer is another man's whistleblower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 One man's whiney complainer is another man's whistleblower. Certainly true if you live in a fascist or otherwise tyrannical state bent on controlling it's citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Certainly true if you live in a fascist or otherwise tyrannical state bent on controlling it's citizens. Or one in which the people live under any kind of false consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 (edited) Or one in which the people live under any kind of false consciousness. To suggest that it's OK to infringe on one of the fundamental bases for democracy (freedom of expression) is not only stupid, it's dangerous. But you're behaving much as the Germans did in the 30's: "don't worry about it. it's just a minor infringement" Pres. Ronald Reagan said it best: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” Samee goes for Canada. Edited June 24, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 To suggest that it's OK to infringe on one of the fundamental bases for democracy (freedom of expression) is not only stupid, it's dangerous.But you're behaving much as the Germans did in the 30's: "don't worry about it. it's just a minor infringement" Pres. Ronald Reagan said it best: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” Samee goes for Canada. Stop the act, Jerry. I am sure you would have been just fine with McCarthyism. Freedoms clash. They do not exist in a vacuum. The fundamental basis of the state *is* the mutual agreement to place limits on our own freedoms in order to avoid anarchym a la Hobbes " his life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, " and all that. So, when freedoms clash you have to figure out how you can preserve as much of both as possible; but all of both is impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Freedom of expression should be much higher on the priority list than "freedom to never have anyone say something which might offend you". There should be no clash at all, one clearly takes precedence over the other, in a sane world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Freedom of expression should be much higher on the priority list than "freedom to never have anyone say something which might offend you". There should be no clash at all, one clearly takes precedence over the other, in a sane world. Ugh... Sorry Bonam. After sitting and thinking about my reply, and almost finishing it, somehow I accidentally made my browser go back and lost the damn post, which makes me too annoyed and pissed off to want to try and replicate everything I was going to say in it. So, to make a long story short, after reviewing the video and thinking about it awhile, I do not think that the sort of comment he made should be allowed to go unsanctioned, but I am not sure how great a severity it should be treated with (more than zero, less than hate crime). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 In Vancouver, a stand up comic made some onstage comments toward a heckling Lesbian.He is now facing a Canadian Human Rights tribunal - at no expense to the complainant and at full expense to him. Video of his account of the events. Link to story in Vancouver Sun Is this kind of censorship/witch hunt OK in a free society? I've said this before, but in our crazed country... we can now foresee in the not too distant future a time when any slight political incorrectness will be punished by torture or execution. Actually Canadians who are now under seven will surely grow up to be imbecile creatures, so well trained that whenever they see or smell a "minority member", they will automatically drop to their knees and knock their foreheads three times on the pavement in veneration of their living gods- catamites and refuse from the third world... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Stop the act, Jerry. I am sure you would have been just fine with McCarthyism. That's a strawman. Deal with the facts at hand, not imaginary arguments made up by you. Look! You're arguing with ...YOURSELF Freedoms clash. They do not exist in a vacuum. The fundamental basis of the state *is* the mutual agreement to place limits on our own freedoms in order to avoid anarchym a la Hobbes " his life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, " and all that. So, when freedoms clash you have to figure out how you can preserve as much of both as possible; but all of both is impossible. So we're balancing one fundamental bases for democracy: Freedom of expression - balancing that against...what freedom exactly? You are postulating that two freedoms are clashing here. What is the fundamental HUMAN RIGHT of freedom of expression clashing with, prey tell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Who is imagining what exactly here, Jerry? I think it is quite relevant to say suggest a way in which you are a complete hypocrite. You only care about freedom of expression because you think it is your freedom of expression that is going to be violated. As long as it is the freedom of expression of people you despise, I am sure that you would be just fine with it. As for arguing with myself... That is not what I am doing in this thread. However, in the broader sense, the person who never argues with themselves is the person who has ceased to think. Have you ceased thinking, Jerry? If a person uses their freedom of expression in a way that contributes to the systemic abuse of a group of people in a way that forseeably could lead to the security of their person being compromised, then they are party to violating that higher right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 (edited) You only care about freedom of expression because you think it is your freedom of expression that is going to be violated. As long as it is the freedom of expression of people you despise, I am sure that you would be just fine with it. I said no such thing. That is another strawman. Just in case you weren't aware, making things up; "posing" them as your opponent's view then knocking those made up arguments down is called strawman argument and it is fallacious. I believe as a matter of principal that the fundamental human right to freedom of expression should not be trampled upon by overbearing government regardless of the type of expression. You added the rest. Debate the point. Which "freedom" are you advocating which clashes with the human right to freedom pf expression? Edited June 25, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 My mum was a lesbian.....so watch it...or was that thesbian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.