Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[WestCoastRunner]

S&M is not sex. It is violence for pleasure. I do not see any moral difference between people who gain pleasure from violence and people who kick dogs when they are misbehaving.

However: you keep missing the point. It makes no difference if you think that taking pleasure from violence is a good thing. The question is whether a large segment of the population is revolted by such things. I believe this to be the case and that is why CBC could not take a public stand supporting Jian once the allegations were made public even if the worst of them were fabrications.

BTW: I doubt the reaction would have been any different if the CEO was caught kicking the dig in his bedroom. So the public/private question is irrelevant.

No, you keep missing the point. The audience that listens to Jian could care less what he does in the privacy of his bedroom. However, if they found out he repeatedly kicked a defenceless puppy, that would be an entirely different story.

[Michael Hardner]

S&M is not sex. It is violence for pleasure. I do not see any moral difference between people who gain pleasure from violence and people who kick dogs when they are misbehaving.

I don't think you can call it violence if it's consensual and no harm is done.

The question is whether a large segment of the population is revolted by such things.

So you believe in appeasing the collective in this case, regardless of what's right or wrong. Interesting.

[Boges]

Remember what happened to Anthony Weiner?

[WestCoastRunner]

It's not really that much of a difference if they both have 'morals' clauses. It's just a difference price, like the price of gas in Canada and the US. If Canada didn't use them, then that would be something.

The majority of Canadians do not have the religious values of Americans. There is the difference.

[Michael Hardner]

The majority of Canadians do not have the religious values of Americans. There is the difference.

Cite ? You're just talking about generalities and Canadian/American stereotypes here.

The moral witch hunt happens on both sides of the border, as is evidenced by this very case.

[WestCoastRunner]

Cite ? You're just talking about generalities and Canadian/American stereotypes here.

The moral witch hunt happens on both sides of the border, as is evidenced by this very case.

It is certainly not a generality. I will provide a cite.

[TimG]

I don't think you can call it violence if it's consensual and no harm is done.

Violence is violence. People who take pleasure from it are not morally different from people who take pleasure from harming animals.

So you believe in appeasing the collective in this case, regardless of what's right or wrong. Interesting.

No. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of people who called for the heads of those CEOs and now want to defend Jian. There are only two logically consistent positions: either Jian and the CEOs should be condemned for their private activities or they should not condemned. I am fine with either. I am not fine with hypocrites.

[WestCoastRunner]

Violence is violence. People who take pleasure from it are not morally different from people who take pleasure from harming animals.

No. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of people who called for the heads of those CEOs and now want to defend Jian. There are only two logically consistent positions: either Jian and the CEOs should be condemned for their private activities or they should not condemned. I am fine with either. I am not fine with hypocrites.

The puppy did not engage in consensual S&M

[TimG]

The puppy did not engage in consensual S&M

Stop trying to rationalize your opinions. You are entitled them. I am entitled to mine. In my opinion S&M is violence and taking pleasure from it requires someone who likes violence and that says nothing good about the person. The 'willing victim' part is not a relevant part of the equation.

But this op is about whether the the *opinions* of the public wrt private activities should matter to people doing public facing jobs. It not about my opinion or your opinion on different examples of private activities.

Edited October 27, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Violence is violence. People who take pleasure from it are not morally different from people who take pleasure from harming animals.

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

Wiki says...

"The World Health Organization defines violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation,"

So... No. BDSM doesn't seem to satisfy that definition. I was curious as to what you were saying but it seems that if you were right then all kinds of playing would be considered violence.

No. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of people who called for the heads of those CEOs and now want to defend Jian.

I agree with you.

But nobody should be defending or condemning him at this point. And the condemning/defending should be upon something that is morally objectionable to everyone - not to a prudish minority.

[Michael Hardner]

The puppy did not engage in consensual S&M

That we know of.

[WestCoastRunner]

Cite ? You're just talking about generalities and Canadian/American stereotypes here.

The moral witch hunt happens on both sides of the border, as is evidenced by this very case.

83% of Americans said it is either "very important" (60%) or "fairly important" (23%).

Those numbers take a dive north of the border: 62% of Canadians said religion is very important (28%) or fairly important (34%) to them.

Worship service attendance in the United States has remained fairly constant since the 1950s, but it has dramatically declined in Canada.

In 1955, 58% of Canadians said they had attended church or a synagogue in the past week. Since 1991, the percentage had been stable at 31%, before dropping to its current level of 26% (with a different question wording).

Religion's importance in America, when compared to that in Britain and Canada, may reflect its role in each of these cultures. The declines in Britain and Canada may be a sign of gradual secularization, and may foretell where American religiosity could head in the future. However, Winseman said he isn't convinced that it will happen to Americans anytime soon and Gallup data don't indicate a hastening decline. "We are secular society with a spiritual culture," he said. "And that culture has a very spiritual core."

[TimG]

BDSM doesn't seem to satisfy that definition.

It is a silly definition that has no connection to how people use the word.

According to that definition there is no violence in hockey.

I was curious as to what you were saying but it seems that if you were right then all kinds of playing would be considered violence.

Violence is when the objective is to cause pain. Most play activities do not have that objective.

And the condemning/defending should be upon something that is morally objectionable to everyone - not to a prudish minority.

What evidence do you have that the outrage over the dog kicking CEO was from anything but a prudish vocal minority? In the case of the CEO that donated to the anti-marriage cause we know that was a minority because the ballot measure in question passed.

We live in a society where vetos are granted to noisy "prudish" minorities all of the time and if want to say that you have a problem with that then I may call you on that in other discussions if you argue minorities should be heeded.

Edited October 27, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

83% of Americans said it is either "very important" (60%) or "fairly important" (23%).

Those numbers take a dive north of the border: 62% of Canadians said religion is very important (28%) or fairly important (34%) to them.

Worship service attendance in the United States has remained fairly constant since the 1950s, but it has dramatically declined in Canada.

In 1955, 58% of Canadians said they had attended church or a synagogue in the past week. Since 1991, the percentage had been stable at 31%, before dropping to its current level of 26% (with a different question wording).

Religion's importance in America, when compared to that in Britain and Canada, may reflect its role in each of these cultures. The declines in Britain and Canada may be a sign of gradual secularization, and may foretell where American religiosity could head in the future. However, Winseman said he isn't convinced that it will happen to Americans anytime soon and Gallup data don't indicate a hastening decline. "We are secular society with a spiritual culture," he said. "And that culture has a very spiritual core."

You need to provide links....

In any case a 62 to 83 percent difference amounts to a bit over 20%. Really isn't that much of a difference.

[cybercoma]

You really should suspend judgement, if not forever than at least for a few days.

this is where I'm at with it right now. Too many strange decisions on both sides at the moment. This is full on damage control right now.

[cybercoma]

Jian did not kick a helpless puppy in an elevator. He engaged in consensual S&M sex with a partner. His parter got pissed because he broke off the relationship. End of story.

That's certainly his side.

[Michael Hardner]

It is a silly definition that has no connection to how people use the word.

According to that definition there is no violence in hockey.

How so ? You definitely injure people in hockey.

Violence is when the objective is to cause pain. Most play activities do not have that objective.

Like tickling ? Or spanking ? And BDSM can happen without pain. Not that I'm an expert but I believe they tie each other up and so on.

What evidence do you have that the outrage over the dog kicking CEO was from anything but a prudish vocal minority?

In absence of a clear indicator on "the" public's moral compass, I will defer to the legal system. It's illegal to be cruel to an animal but not to engage in BDSM activities.

And... none of that matters to the question of the "morals" clause.

In the case of the CEO that donated to the anti-marriage cause we know that was a minority because the ballot measure in question passed.

I'm not sure where we are with that, though. I still think you can fire somebody for saying something that's barely controversial ... if there is a morals clause.

We live in a society where vetos are granted to noisy minorities all of the time and if want to say that you have a problem with that then I may call you on that in other discussions.

You seem to be confused as to my position.

Public figures have to live and die by perceptions of their public personas. They are paid a lot of money by entities that need to be able to fire them when they fall from grace.

Personal condemnations are a trickier matter - they call into question the accuser's moral code, consistency and so on.

[Michael Hardner]

this is where I'm at with it right now. Too many strange decisions on both sides at the moment. This is full on damage control right now.

I saw something else that said he wrote way too much for a $50M lawsuit. I'm surprised that he revealed so many details - maybe it's because the full story is coming out tomorrow.

[cybercoma]

I can't presume to know why, but it seems highly unlikely he would have shared that much publicly without his counsel being aware of it.

Edit: by "it" I mean aware of what he was going to say about the situation.

Edited October 27, 2014 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

I can't presume to know why, but it seems highly unlikely he would have shared that much publicly without his counsel being aware of it.

Edit: by "it" I mean aware of what he was going to say about the situation.

Of course... but then the question becomes... why the departure from the standard book of strategy on these things ?

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure it is. Details have not been released yet. He's trying to cut the head off the Hydra first. He has the chance to frame the discussion before others do.

[bush_cheney2004]

What a bunch of prudes north of the border at the CBC, eh ? Marv Albert was actually convicted of "rough sex" assault charges, only to be rehired by NBC two years later. C'mon Canada...loosen up !

[On Guard for Thee]

What a bunch of prudes north of the border at the CBC, eh ? Marv Albert was actually convicted of "rough sex" assault charges, only to be rehired by NBC two years later. C'mon Canada...loosen up !

What would the T Party do?

[TimG]

How so ? You definitely injure people in hockey.

The definition you provided is the intent matters.

Like tickling ? Or spanking ? And BDSM can happen without pain.

I don't think those distinctions matter. Obviously not all S&M acts are violent but enough are that it is reasonable to characterize it as violance (inflicting pain) for pleasure.

In absence of a clear indicator on "the" public's moral compass, I will defer to the legal system. It's illegal to be cruel to an animal but not to engage in BDSM activities.

Was the CEO charged for kicking the dog? If not his actions were not illegal or at least not that serious.

Public figures have to live and die by perceptions of their public personas. They are paid a lot of money by entities that need to be able to fire them when they fall from grace.

Personal condemnations are a trickier matter - they call into question the accuser's moral code, consistency and so on.

I don't see the distinction. Falling from grace invariably means annoying a vocal minority of people. The number of public figures doing things that upset a majority of people are fairly small. Edited October 27, 2014 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

....I don't think those distinctions matter. Obviously not all S&M acts are violent but enough are that it is reasonable to characterize it as violance (inflicting pain) for pleasure.

This...."optics" matter..in Canada and elsewhere. This guy had his fun and now it's over. Move on....

Edited October 27, 2014 by bush_cheney2004