Argus Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 To her, sure. But imagine if so many people discussed issues of such a low impact. It seems like that's your opinion on all forms of discrimination if it's in order to accomodate the misogyny of Muslims. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 Of course, but if he's uncomfortable fighting a woman or touching a woman then I don't think he should be forced to. That's a different thing than just working on the same research paper as a woman. Suppose he finds out one of the male students is gay, or the instructor. Should he be accomodated in his desire to not have to be near that person? Would you care to list your hierarchy of discrimination? It seems that gays are usually first on these types of lists, and that those who are pretty blasé about discriminating against women in favor of Muslims bristle at the thought of similar discriminating against gays. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 Well, it's kind of woven into the legal system is why. No, all this crap is open to interpretation. And it all seems to depend on just how sympathetic the bleeding hearts are to a particular group. Thus a Christian who doesn't want to deal with gays "becaue of his religious beliefs" is an evil, homophobic bastard who should be forced out of business, but a Muslim who doesn't want to deal with women "because of his religious beliefs" must be protected at all costs. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DogOnPorch Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 Doesn't sound too respectful to me. It's one of those complex Muslim things involving Wudu...or rather the invalidation of Wudu. Women...after all...are unclean on a regular monthly basis. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Michael Hardner Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 It seems like that's your opinion on all forms of discrimination if it's in order to accomodate the misogyny of Muslims. Really ? You suspect that I'm... Muslim or... what exactly ? I find it strange that you should wonder about me, as I don't think about other posters' attributes when I post to them so much - mostly just their arguments. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 No, all this crap is open to interpretation. Sure - except that certain things are explicitly written into the constitution. How much 'interpretation' would you expect on that basis ? And it all seems to depend on just how sympathetic the bleeding hearts are to a particular group. Thus a Christian who doesn't want to deal with gays "becaue of his religious beliefs" is an evil, homophobic bastard who should be forced out of business, but a Muslim who doesn't want to deal with women "because of his religious beliefs" must be protected at all costs. Cry me a river. If you don't like it, you're free to leave. Actually, there's not much else you can do since we have no real input into such decisions. And that's the area in which we possibly agree, except ... I don't think you responded to that point that I made. When I say I don't care about this issue - I mean I don't care. If they had decided against him, that would be just fine with me. I'm more interested in larger questions (like the process) than petty rules. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
-1=e^ipi Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 Really ? You suspect that I'm... Muslim or... what exactly ? You're not muslim Quote
Argus Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 Really ? You suspect that I'm... Muslim or... what exactly ? No, I suspect you've decided to adopt and protect them, in the paternalistic fashion which is the hallmark of the bleeding heart liberal. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) Sure - except that certain things are explicitly written into the constitution. How much 'interpretation' would you expect on that basis ? I dare you to find me anything written into the constitution which requires this kind of accomodation. The only barely relevent points have to do with discrimination based on religion -- or gender, by the way. Of course, that doesn't stop bleeding heart liberal judges from simply re-writing the constitution so that it means anything they decide they want it to mean. But you'll find nothing written in the actual constitution with regard to accomodating misogynists. Cry me a river. If you don't like it, you're free to leave. What a quaintly American position "America! Love it or leave it!" Do you put a hard hat on and hold your hand over your heart when you write it? When I say I don't care about this issue - I mean I don't care. If they had decided against him, that would be just fine with me. I'm more interested in larger questions (like the process) than petty rules. There is no process, only a hierarchy of who the bleeding hearts feel most protective/sorry about at any given moment. As I said, gays trump Muslims, who trump women. Edited January 15, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 No, I suspect you've decided to adopt and protect them, in the paternalistic fashion which is the hallmark of the bleeding heart liberal. I don't think our politics are exactly that far apart. I could say that my views on protecting religious viewpoints is actually right-wing... Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 No, all this crap is open to interpretation. Context: Argus:What does it matter if your ignorance is inspired by religion or not? Why should we make excuses for ignorance? Hardner:[interpreting the question as general]Well, it's kind of woven into the legal system is why. Argus:No, all this crap is open to interpretation. Hardner:[interpreting the question as general]Sure - except that certain things are explicitly written into the constitution. How much 'interpretation' would you expect on that basis ? Argus:I dare you to find me anything written into the constitution which requires this kind of accomodation. Do you see how we got there ? The right to discriminate for stupid and ignorant reasons is guaranteed in our constitution. How such ideas manifest themselves into an individual's actions, and whether some authority deems it 'reasonable' is the only question. There's no argument here. That is just how it is. Do you put a hard hat on and hold your hand over your heart when you write it? Says the guy who was just complaining about 'liberal judges'. I'm not telling you to love it or leave it, I'm saying you don't have any choice so if it bothers you that much you might better leave to get peace of mind. There is no process, only a hierarchy of who the bleeding hearts feel most protective/sorry about at any given moment. Fantastic - you finally got to my point. The only thing worth complaining about here is lack of a good process, IMO. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) Really, Cyber? So, like, if we have Muslim doctors and a female patient comes in bleeding he should be allowed to go have a coffee break so he doesn't have to touch her?Do you think it's reasonable for a doctor to refuse to touch patients, especially in an Emergency Room setting? I swear, it's like nobody understands context any more. Everything has to be black and white with people when reality isn't that simple. Edited January 15, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
waldo Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 Interestingly enough both the CPC and the NDP have condemned the student's request and supported the professor while the supposedly centrist LPC has been supported the actions of the York University administration. Guess Trudeau and the liberals really like cultural relativism and want the islamist vote next election. the linked article quotes a Liberal MP... that quote certainly doesn't align with your stated "LPC support". citation request Quote
TimG Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) I swear, it's like nobody understands context any more. Everything has to be black and white with people when reality isn't that simple.The problem is no one wants a situation where judgement needs to be applied because that means different people will make different judgements and these things end up in court. What we need are clearly understood rules and if that means that some people have to put up with being told that they will not be accommodated then so be it. Edited January 15, 2014 by TimG Quote
cybercoma Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 The clearest rules still require contextual situational interpretation. That's the entire purpose of the judicial system. Quote
TimG Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) The clearest rules still require contextual situational interpretation. That's the entire purpose of the judicial system.Like I said: we don't want the judicial system involved with every accomodation request so clear rules that do not require situational interpretation are what is required. If that does not provide perfection then so be it. It is more important to have clear understandings so people don't need a law degree to figure out what is required and what is not. An outright rejection of accommodation based on a desire to not associate with other groups is reasonable in this context. Edited January 15, 2014 by TimG Quote
cybercoma Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 Like I said: we don't want the judicial system involved with every accomodation request so clear rules that do not require situational interpretation are what is required. If that does not provide perfection then so be it. It is more important to have clear understandings so people don't need a law degree to figure out what is required and what is not. An outright rejection of accommodation based on a desire to not associate with other groups is reasonable in this context.I agree and that's what I've been arguing in this thread. That in this case accommodating him is completely unreasonable. Accommodating someone in a karate class that doesn't want to roll with someone of the opposite sex is reasonable. Accommodating an ER doctor who doesn't want to see female patients is not reasonable. This is what I mean. Context is everything. Quote
TimG Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) I agree and that's what I've been arguing in this thread. That in this case accommodating him is completely unreasonable. Accommodating someone in a karate class that doesn't want to roll with someone of the opposite sex is reasonable. Accommodating an ER doctor who doesn't want to see female patients is not reasonable.No - you are making up a bunch of situational rules based on your judgement. This is NOT what we want. We want rules that do not require people to make judgement calls because if we force people to do that we end up with a bunch of cases going to court. So a simple rule: you can't discriminate against other groups. If you have a problem with sparing with women then don't join a co-ed martial arts group. Edited January 16, 2014 by TimG Quote
cybercoma Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 It's pretty foolish to think you can ignore context in these situations. Quote
TimG Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) It's pretty foolish to think you can ignore context in these situations.Based on what? The fact that you don't like it? Well that is the debate. Should we create a complicated mess of rules that satisfy people like you and keep lawyers employed or should we keep the rules simple even if enforcing them could seem unreasonable to some people in some contexts. I think simple is better than an employment service for lawyers. Edited January 16, 2014 by TimG Quote
cybercoma Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Let's make things simple and get rid of lawyers. Great idea, Tim, we wouldn't want you to have to think or anything. Quote
Boges Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Let's make things simple and get rid of lawyers. Great idea, Tim, we wouldn't want you to have to think or anything. It's easy if you try Quote
Argus Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Do you think it's reasonable for a doctor to refuse to touch patients, especially in an Emergency Room setting? Do you think it's reasonable to not want to interact with women in a classroom? Do you think it's reasonable to segregate an entire class because one man hates women and does't want to come into contact with any of them? What has reasonable got to do with it? If we were using reasonable we'd tell these people to go live in Iran or someplace like that. Instead bleeding hearts tell me we must accomodate men who despise women and if I don't like it I should leave. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 Do you see how we got there ? The right to discriminate for stupid and ignorant reasons is guaranteed in our constitution. I asked you to show me where it was explicitly stated in the constitution that we must accomodate a religious belief which is itself bigoted. You've kind of glossed over this part. The fact is while human rights bureacrts might well demand this sort of accomodation, there's nothing whatsoever in the constitution that requires it. The constution might say these twisted religious beliefs are protected, ie, we can't punish those who hold them, but there's nothing in there which says we have to change our society in order to not hurt their feelings. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 The clearest rules still require contextual situational interpretation. That's the entire purpose of the judicial system. So you were gonna answer about whether he should be accomodated if he didn't want to be around any gay guys, weren't you? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.