Lesbian in Vancouver CHRC

[Argus]

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).

After reading this, I've decided you should not be permitted to write such things without punishment. I am presently deciding on what manner of punishment you should recieve, but be forewarned that any repeated utterance of opinions I regard as offensive will greatly increase the severity of your eventual sanction.

[Argus]

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.

You are making this statement despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, or even any real basis for believing it to be true. In essence, you are simply using it as an insult.

Most of the people who protested and were pepper sprayed during the APEC summit were lefties, those airhead BC student types, and I was and remain, years later, outraged by the supression of their rights.

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.

Contributes to? Systemic abuse? Foresseably could". That's an awful lot of suggestive possibilities which could basically encompass all speech of any kind for any reason.

Why does the notion that others can speak their opinions frighten you?

[Oleg Bach]

Opinions are theorys yet to be proven--some don't like it if you spew off a lot of theoreticals - because eventually you will hit the mark and tney may not hit target - it's envy - common envy - those that do not like freedom of speech are just worried that someone might say something more profound and more correct than they - so the gag everyone - because they are not brave and deny the right to stand and be brave to others -----"There are violent men who try to take heaven by force - those that block others from entering it because they can not enter it" to para phrase...it takes guts to go against the grain and people don't want to be exposed as cowards so the deny heroism to all all others.

[Remiel]

After reading this, I've decided you should not be permitted to write such things without punishment. I am presently deciding on what manner of punishment you should recieve, but be forewarned that any repeated utterance of opinions I regard as offensivewill greatly increase the severity of your eventual sanction.

But do regard it as a threat against some genetic fact about yourself that is the past has provoked violence against you and people with the same characteristic?

If you look at the video again, I do not take issue with the first the the guy quoted himself as saying, no matter how mean-spirited and disgusting it was. I take issue with the second part, because of the implicit threat.

Would you feel the same way about someone making a hostile sounding "joke" about a woman in the audience being raped?

[Remiel]

You are making this statement despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, or even any real basis for believing it to be true. In essence, you are simply using it as an insult.

If I say, " Bob is a loser, " and everyone I am speaking to knows Bob, then they presumably already have access to the evidence and can skip to the evaluation of the claim.

Most of the people who protested and were pepper sprayed during the APEC summit were lefties, those airhead BC student types, and I was and remain, years later, outraged by the supression of their rights.

But I was not talking about you, was I, Argus? I was talking about Jerry. As much as I may hate your guts sometimes, I have a great deal more respect for you than I do for him.

Contributes to? Systemic abuse? Foresseably could". That's an awful lot of suggestive possibilities which could basically encompass all speech of any kind for any reason.

You are right, I am guilty of being vague. But if morals questions were all transparent, no one would have to wrestle with them. Many here have said that certain radical Muslim clerics should be deported for incitement of hatred, yet if we take free speech as "absolute" then there is nothing we should be doing about them. Where do you think the line is between hate speech and bad taste?

[JerrySeinfeld]

But I was not talking about you, was I, Argus? I was talking about Jerry. As much as I may hate your guts sometimes, I have a great deal more respect for you than I do for him.

Um, if you look at your quote, you weren't talking about me either - at least not about anything I actually said or believe.

"Your probably think" of "I'm sure you believe" isn't a valid argument. It's making shit up.

Stick to the facts and the debate at hand instead of making things up that you think people might believe, and then you won't sound like a little girl.

If you were a real man with a real brain you wouldn't have to make up false statements or presumptions to make a point against a made up argument. Instead you'd stick to facts and logic.

You still haven't answered the question. You raised a point about "freedoms clashing all the time".

I have asked you three times now: I am defending the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Exactly what "freedom" are you defending?

Many here have said that certain radical Muslim clerics should be deported for incitement of hatred, yet if we take free speech as "absolute" then there is nothing we should be doing about them. Where do you think the line is between hate speech and bad taste?

You must check your facts (again).

The criminal code of Canada has a section dealing with the promotion/incitement of hatred. The standard of proof is very high. But it is there and for the criminal courts of Canada to deal with, not a trumped up human rights kanmgaroo speech police court.

Edited June 25, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[Remiel]

If you were a real man with a real brain you wouldn't have to make up false statements or presumptions to make a point against a made up argument. Instead you'd stick to facts and logic.

Well, since I am apparently so bad, I will indulge in a further logical fallacy, called Tu Quoque. Roughly speaking, " You Too. "

That is the fallacy of trying to deflect an argument by saying, " But you do it too. "

Take your post on " Gay is not normal. "

Your argument goes like this: Imagine gay people? Isn't that disgusting? Therefore gay is not normal.

Which folows the same form aas " Imagine a guy taking acrap. Isn't that digusting? Crapping is not normal. "

Premises have nothing to do with conclusion in your argument.

So, Jerry, do not ever lecture me about logic and facts.