The transgender insanity movement

[turningrite]

21 hours ago, dialamah said:

If a group is 'at special risk' they should get the 'same protection' as those not at special risk.  Got it.  

1,) So, let's apply this logic elsewhere:  Children under a certain size are at special risk of being injured in a car accident.  But the government should not mention, notice or address that in any way, because to say a child under a certain size needs special protection is to say that a child over a certain size deserves less protection.

2.) Poorer neighborhoods tend to have more domestic violence/crime than wealthier neighborhoods.  But police should not pay 'special attention' to poorer neighborhoods, because to do so is to say that wealthier neighborhoods deserve less attention.

3.) Women and children are at greater risk of sexual assault than men.  No additional resources should be provided to women or children to prevent or address sexual assault, because that means that 'men deserve less'.

 

I'm skeptical about the need for special treatment where intellectually competent adults are concerned.

1.) The needs of children shouldn't be addressed in the same context as those of adults. The differences are obvious. To conflate the two amounts to infantilizing adults based on race, gender, religion or other specific characteristics. Is this your intent?

2.) Poorer neighborhoods very likely do generate more crime and my suspicion is that they get more police attention than do wealthy neighborhoods, although my guess (just a guess) is that emergency calls might be responded to more quickly in wealthier neighborhoods than poorer ones. On the other hand, some populations in poorer communities complain that they get what they believe to be too much police attention. This is a issue on which the police sometimes simply can't win.

3.) Again, please leave the children aside as any comparison with adults is clearly problematic. As for greater risk of sexual assault faced by adult women, this is likely a function of evolutionary biology that has applied throughout history. Women, of course, are provided resources because the extent of domestic violence and sexual assault is increasingly acknowledged and understood - at least in Western societies - while there doesn't seem to be a lot of demand or pressure to allocate additional resources to address domestic violence faced by men, although I believe such violence does exist. I suspect, then, that the differential allocation is largely justifiable on the basis of demonstrable demand rather than any kind of discriminatory intent.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The one thing I pointed out, that people haven't said much about and keep drifting from is that targeted groups deserve attention and protection as a group.

In what way then if not in increasing the punishment for those who punch them?

[Bonam]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If bald people start getting targeted for assault then maybe we could do something about that, yes.

2. I don't think I have said anything about punishment.

The one thing I pointed out, that people haven't said much about and keep drifting from is that targeted groups deserve attention and protection as a group.

The most powerless and smallest minority group of all is the individual. Any individual who has been assaulted deserves the same response from the justice system against the perpetrators of the crime, whatever the race or gender of either victim or perpetrator. Any ideas that do not fulfill this basic reality are fundamentally unjust, because crimes are fundamentally committed by and against individuals. The individual criminals did the crime, and the individual victims were the ones targeted. Period. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Bonam

[dialamah]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

In what way then if not in increasing the punishment for those who punch them?

I have always thought those kinds of government statements referred to publically reminding people not to "punch them", and to running information/education campaigns aimed at humanizing a group that has been targetted. 

I have never taken those kinds of statements to mean "special" laws be enacted for adding different or increased punishment if Jews/Muslims/LGBTQ/other were attacked.  Or at least not beyond the current "hate crime" designation, which does have to meet certain criteria beyond assaulting someone from those groups.  

 

[Michael Hardner]

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

In what way then if not in increasing the punishment for those who punch them?

Increased awareness, law enforcement studying how to prevent are a few things

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, Bonam said:

 Any individual who has been assaulted deserves the same response  ...

You are the third person who has made an incorrect assumption on my posts.  Go back and read.

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Increased awareness, law enforcement studying how to prevent are a few things

I would imagine most of the actual violence takes place in or around bars and taverns, so I doubt there's much new to be learned about how to prevent it.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I would imagine most of the actual violence takes place in or around bars and taverns, so I doubt there's much new to be learned about how to prevent it.

Yeah, so if we're now at the part of the discussion where you're offering criminology advice, we should probably just stop.  I think you heard my point.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well, I am, but we are not "all agreed".  There are plenty of protests on this.

2. Ok.  That doesn't say anything about what I was challenging from you - ie. govt. statements. But ok.

1) Lets just say everyone who matters.

2) You challenged me on equal treatment from the justice system.  I thought our argument on government statements was with my opinion of the Liberals M-something or other.

[Bonam]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are the third person who has made an incorrect assumption on my posts.  Go back and read.

If I'm the third, chances are your posts weren't clear. One person misinterpreting means a bad reader. Everyone misinterpreting means a bad writer. Regardless, my statement stands on its own, regardless of what it was made in response to. So if you're in agreement with it then great. 

[OftenWrong]

3 minutes ago, Bonam said:

One person misinterpreting means a bad reader. Everyone misinterpreting means a bad writer.

That sounds logical. I think I would have to agree with you there...

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, so if we're now at the part of the discussion where you're offering criminology advice, we should probably just stop.  I think you heard my point.

What do YOU want police to do? You want every transgender person to have a personal police bodyguard or what? Enough of your broad generalizations. Be specific.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

What do YOU want police to do? You want every transgender person to have a personal police bodyguard or what? Enough of your broad generalizations. Be specific.

I want public messages to raise awareness of abuse against targeted groups.  I want people to care.

[Argus]

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I want public messages to raise awareness of abuse against targeted groups.  I want people to care.

People already care. Canadians are appalled at violence against anyone, regardless of whether they're a member of a 'targeted' group. If they're like me, they want a severe crackdown on violent people, and not the molly-coddling we see from the courts now. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

People already care. Canadians are appalled at violence against anyone, regardless of whether they're a member of a 'targeted' group. If they're like me, they want a severe crackdown on violent people, and not the molly-coddling we see from the courts now. 

 

Hear hear.  But anytime anyone talks of punishment, we hear that rehabilitation is the key.  Too bloody late for the victim, then.

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

People already care. Canadians are appalled at violence against anyone, regardless of whether they're a member of a 'targeted' group. If they're like me, they want a severe crackdown on violent people, and not the molly-coddling we see from the courts now. 

 

I don't think that is true.  The reaction against concern about Muslims being targeted, and the underwhelming amount of discussion around a mass killing in a mosque in Quebec is counter evidence.  Canadaland reviewed Canadian coverage of that shooting vs. the Boston Marathon bombing and found that Canadian coverage of a terrorist attack on Canadian soil that had twice the number of fatalities received less coverage than the Boston attack.

[Shady]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that is true.  The reaction against concern about Muslims being targeted, and the underwhelming amount of discussion around a mass killing in a mosque in Quebec is counter evidence.  Canadaland reviewed Canadian coverage of that shooting vs. the Boston Marathon bombing and found that Canadian coverage of a terrorist attack on Canadian soil that had twice the number of fatalities received less coverage than the Boston attack.

That could be for a lot of reasons.  One being it was much more sensationalized, as well as being broadcast on several American networks live during the police pursuit of the suspects, with helicopters etc.  Regardless, I'm mostly against so-called hate crimes legislation.  It's thought police.  You're inside somebody's mind determining why they committed a crime.  Why is murdering somebody out of hate worse than out of jealousy?  Or any other reason?  The taking of a life is the taking of a life.  Assault is assault.

[Argus]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that is true.  The reaction against concern about Muslims being targeted

Targeted = rude things being said in 95% of the cases.

Quote

, and the underwhelming amount of discussion around a mass killing in a mosque in Quebec is counter evidence. 

Compared to what? No one really saw this as anything but the act of a lunatic, one who called the police on HIMSELF and surrendered after getting away!

Quote

Canadaland reviewed Canadian coverage of that shooting vs. the Boston Marathon bombing and found that Canadian coverage of a terrorist attack on Canadian soil that had twice the number of fatalities received less coverage than the Boston attack.

Of course it did! Most of Canada's mainstream news have almost no reporters to speak of any more. That's especially so for TV networks. They prefer to get cheap news feeds from American networks. You might recall I've complained about this before. So they had cheap American video aplenty, and live pictures of the event in broad daylight as well as interviews with survivors. Plus the ongoing search for and shootout with the terrorists!What did they have in Quebec? After the fact video of flashing police lights, and survivors who mostly spoke no English. And no drama because the guilty party was already in custody.

What the news covers is mostly based on what kind of video is available, not how important the event is.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

1) One being it was much more sensationalized, as well as being broadcast on several American networks live during the police pursuit of the suspects, with helicopters etc. 

2) Regardless, I'm mostly against so-called hate crimes legislation.  It's thought police. 

3) You're inside somebody's mind determining why they committed a crime. 

 

1) "it was sensationalized" uses what is called the passive voice.  Why did Canadians sensationalize it and who did so ?

2)  How is hate crimes thought police ?  Someone who gets beat up for wearing a kippah, or gets a swastika spray painted on a school is being "thought policed" ?  What a retarded idea.

3) "Hmmmmm.... why did this gentleman spray paint a swastika on this gravestone ?  Hmmmmmmm"

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

1) Targeted = rude things being said in 95% of the cases.

2) Compared to what? No one really saw this as anything but the act of a lunatic, one who called the police on HIMSELF and surrendered after getting away!

 

1) You will stop at nothing to find reasons to avoid violence.  Why do you think it's so necessary to protect racist violence ?  Do you really think it's helpful ?

2) These people are being whipped up against minorities.  If you can't see that then you are blind.  The guy who killed Jews in Pittsburgh because they were helping the caravan.  

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) You will stop at nothing to find reasons to avoid violence.  Why do you think it's so necessary to protect racist violence ?  Do you really think it's helpful ?

Your argument is petty and juvenile and your accusation is worse. Read the report. It states categorically that the vast majority of such incidents are not violent. Far more incidents target Jews and you show zero concern about that. Why do you hate Jews, MH?

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) These people are being whipped up against minorities.  If you can't see that then you are blind.  The guy who killed Jews in Pittsburgh because they were helping the caravan.  

Whipped up by what? By whom? The crazy incel guy was 'whipped up' against women, apparently, and 'chads'. What exactly do you want us to do anyway? You think campaigns telling us to be nice to each other is gonna do the trick?

[Michael Hardner]

32 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) It states categorically that the vast majority of such incidents are not violent. Far more incidents target Jews and you show zero concern about that. Why do you hate Jews, MH?

2) Whipped up by what? By whom? The crazy incel guy was 'whipped up' against women, apparently, and 'chads'. What exactly do you want us to do anyway? You think campaigns telling us to be nice to each other is gonna do the trick?

1) Of course I am concerned about Jews - I referenced the Pittsburgh incident.  "Vast majority" aren't violent - so ?  We shouldn't be concerned ?

2) By 'The Rebel' by Trump and anti-immigrant and anti-woman publications.  I wouldn't mind if you said something against these.

[Goddess]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Of course I am concerned about Jews - I referenced the Pittsburgh incident.  "Vast majority" aren't violent - so ?  We shouldn't be concerned ?

Isn't that your stance on Islam?  The vast majority aren't violent so we shouldn't be concerned about it all and if we are, we're Islamophobes?

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Of course I am concerned about Jews - I referenced the Pittsburgh incident.  "Vast majority" aren't violent - so ?  We shouldn't be concerned ?

2) By 'The Rebel' by Trump and anti-immigrant and anti-woman publications.  I wouldn't mind if you said something against these.

There are NO 'anti-immigrant or anti-woman publications'. None.

Unless you count the Koran as an anti-woman publication, and I'm guessing you don't.

I believe I've said a word or two about Trump on occasion. As to the Rebel, it's a web site and I've never been to it. I watched their TV news for about... maybe a total of ten minutes spaced over several visits. I think you massively overestimate their influence. Sometimes it seems to me that when you rate the influence of national media it goes like this:

1 The Rebel
2 The Rebel
3 The Rebel
...
47 National Post
48 CTV
--
94  CBC
..
169 The Toronto Star

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Argus

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Avoid feeding derailment of your own threads.