Pronouns -- Sometimes I think they are just trolling us...

[West]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You put a slash beside them, which means you are now differentiating them as two different things - which is good.  But speech is most always restricted in polite society, and democratic society tends to be polite.
2. There are lots of examples of restricted speech: hate speech, harassment, threats, fraudulent claims, libel, slander, false advertising, false medical claims, false alarm, false advertising.  That's off the top of my head.  

 

I'm not differentiating them just using your language. Either way you cut it, compelling someone by law to call you a made up pronoun is silly.

Right all of which protects integrity of a contract. Not to protect someone from not having their feelings hurt. That's not a good use of government resources

Edited April 17, 2022 by West

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, West said:

1. I'm not differentiating them just using your language.

2. Either way you cut it, compelling someone by law to call you a made up pronoun is silly.

3. Right all of which protects integrity of a contract. Not to protect someone from not having their feelings hurt. That's not a good use of government resources

1.  Well you SHOULD differentiate them as they are different things.  Dr. Peterson protested compelled speech, then relented in his testimony on the bill when he found that 'compelled' speech was not explicitly promoted by the OHRA.

2. Well, you don't know the difference between restricted and compelled speech I guess, if you are conflating them.

3. Hate speech, medical claims, harassment ?  Hmmm... not really, no.  You can't call me the n_word if I'm looking to rent housing from you...

[West]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Well you SHOULD differentiate them as they are different things.  Dr. Peterson protested compelled speech, then relented in his testimony on the bill when he found that 'compelled' speech was not explicitly promoted by the OHRA.

2. Well, you don't know the difference between restricted and compelled speech I guess, if you are conflating them.

3. Hate speech, medical claims, harassment ?  Hmmm... not really, no.  You can't call me the n_word if I'm looking to rent housing from you...

3. Do you think lying to get more money is the same as facing harrassment charges for not calling somebody "fir"? 

You can make fun of a number of people. Christians. White people. Etc etc but somehow the alphabet soup needs additional protections? 

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, West said:

1. Do you think lying to get more money is the same as facing harrassment charges for not calling somebody "fir"? 

2. You can make fun of a number of people. Christians. White people. Etc etc but somehow the alphabet soup needs additional protections? 

1. I was responding to this, from you: "all of which protects integrity of a contract"  Some of those aren't contract enforcement.  That's all.

2. You need to be specific here.  You are 100% free to make fun of Christians, white people, LGBTQ+.  You can't do it to disobey a judge's order, to harass someone etc.  I get that this upsets you, but as you pointed out... nobody should be protected for having feelings hurt.  I'm interested in the legal angle on these issues, and we can talk about these but weboth need to be precise with examples.   eg.  Don't compare a judge's order in a custody case with what you are allowed to shout on a streetcorner.  The contexts are different.

Thanks for the points you have made.

 

[West]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I was responding to this, from you: "all of which protects integrity of a contract"  Some of those aren't contract enforcement.  That's all.

2. You need to be specific here.  You are 100% free to make fun of Christians, white people, LGBTQ+.  You can't do it to disobey a judge's order, to harass someone etc.  I get that this upsets you, but as you pointed out... nobody should be protected for having feelings hurt.  I'm interested in the legal angle on these issues, and we can talk about these but weboth need to be precise with examples.   eg.  Don't compare a judge's order in a custody case with what you are allowed to shout on a streetcorner.  The contexts are different.

Thanks for the points you have made.

 

The issue is whether or not a judge should be able to compel one's speech. I think it's not democratic. You should be able to express views freely, such as whether or not you think there's 2 or 78 genders, and be able to have your views scrutinized without fear of the government. The bar needs to be much higher than what the cancel culture folks are setting it at. 

The cancel culture nonsense isn't "polite culture". Full of a bunch of angry folks who can't have a debate.

Edited April 18, 2022 by West

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, West said:

1. The issue is whether or not a judge should be able to compel one's speech. I think it's not democratic.

2. You should be able to express views freely, such as whether or not you think there's 2 or 78 genders, and be able to have your views scrutinized without fear of the government. The bar needs to be much higher than what the cancel culture folks are setting it at. 

3. The cancel culture nonsense isn't "polite culture". Full of a bunch of angry folks who can't have a debate.

1. Ok - well you are still mixing up 'compelled speech' as defined by Dr. Peterson and restricted speech.  A judge telling somebody to NOT call a party "him" is NOT compelled speech it's restricted speech, legally speaking.

2. It's a question of legal jurisdiction, I think.  You are not allowed to refer to a party as "num-nuts" either, if the judge tells you so.

3. It mostly is about politeness, and the legal questions pretty much line up along those lines with regards to harassment etc.  Me calling you "idiot" is rude, but me, as your boss, saying it to you at work repeatedly becomes a harassment issue.
 

[West]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok - well you are still mixing up 'compelled speech' as defined by Dr. Peterson and restricted speech.  A judge telling somebody to NOT call a party "him" is NOT compelled speech it's restricted speech, legally speaking.

2. It's a question of legal jurisdiction, I think.  You are not allowed to refer to a party as "num-nuts" either, if the judge tells you so.

3. It mostly is about politeness, and the legal questions pretty much line up along those lines with regards to harassment etc.  Me calling you "idiot" is rude, but me, as your boss, saying it to you at work repeatedly becomes a harassment issue.
 

1. I don't think it's ever went to court so not sure your point. Liberal judges love to overreach all the time... is it really a judge's job to tell you what to call someone? Mid six figure salary to tell you to call someone by their preferred pronoun? Seems silly

3. You can't legislate politeness. Should people be polite? Sure. But I'm talking about legislation.. if we criminalized being a jack*** lots of folks would end up in jail or tying up a court system. I don't think a case of hurt feelings is worth expending finite resources over. 

Edited April 18, 2022 by West

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, West said:

1. I don't think it's ever went to court so not sure your point.

2. Liberal judges love to overreach all the time... is it really a judge's job to tell you what to call someone?

3. Mid six figure salary to tell you to call someone by their preferred pronoun? Seems silly

4. You can't legislate politeness. Should people be polite? Sure. But I'm talking about legislation..
 

1. No, you're right.  Compelled pronouns have never gone to court, likely because no one has tried to enforce such a thing.

2. Try to call your ex- a b*tch in open court and find out how much they will overreach.

3.  Their salary isn't germane to anything.  Their responsibility and function is.

4.  Agree 100% on the general case.  But in specific cases, it's relevant.
 

[West]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, you're right.  Compelled pronouns have never gone to court, likely because no one has tried to enforce such a thing.

2. Try to call your ex- a b*tch in open court and find out how much they will overreach.

3.  Their salary isn't germane to anything.  Their responsibility and function is.

4.  Agree 100% on the general case.  But in specific cases, it's relevant.
 

1. It's relatively new. We live in bizarro world right now where politicians seem to throw the book at political dissidents so I imagine it's coming. 

2. It might be relevant, say, in a domestic violence case as evidence or whatever but calling someone a "b*tch" shouldn't by itself be grounds for prosecution. 

3. It is in the sense that we pay these guys alot of money to hear and judge some serious stuff, not whether or not you called someone "they" or not. 

4. Not really. Mere words shouldn't be enough to charge someone. 

Going back to your examples, I can say my couch is leather even though it's cloth provided I'm not trying to sell you something. It's the action that's a crime, not the words.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, West said:

1. It might be relevant, say, in a domestic violence case as evidence or whatever but calling someone a "b*tch" shouldn't by itself be grounds for prosecution. 

2. It is in the sense that we pay these guys alot of money to hear and judge some serious stuff, not whether or not you called someone "they" or not. 

3. Not really. Mere words shouldn't be enough to charge someone. 

4. Going back to your examples, I can say my couch is leather even though it's cloth provided I'm not trying to sell you something. It's the action that's a crime, not the words.

1. 3. It is if a judge tells you to not use it in court, or in communication with the plaintiff and you do.  It's called contempt of court, defying a court order etc.

2. They work for us, so no matter how silly the case they are obliged to serve.

4. Ok but this example doesn't map to people using harassing language.     

[West]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 3. It is if a judge tells you to not use it in court, or in communication with the plaintiff and you do.  It's called contempt of court, defying a court order etc.

2. They work for us, so no matter how silly the case they are obliged to serve.

4. Ok but this example doesn't map to people using harassing language.     

1. The judge should take any condition he imposes with great consideration. Should be limited to what the actual crime is

4. I think you folks are trying to lower the bar on what's "harassment". 

"Agressive pressure or intimidation". 

Merely not calling someone "fir" isn't harassment.

The other stuff could just as easily be dealt with by existing laws if people are making threats etc.

Edited April 18, 2022 by West

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, West said:

1. I think you folks are trying to lower the bar on what's "harassment". 

2. Merely not calling someone "fir" isn't harassment.

 

1. I trust a judge to decide.  I'm pretty sure these things change over time though, because the world does.
2. I trust a judge to decide, but as you have said this doesn't seem to have shown up in court yet.

 

[Army Guy]

On 4/15/2022 at 7:06 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, I looked up the case. It's kind of more about disobeying a judge's order then misgendering.. but don't let the facts get in the way of you getting upset over something right?

Not sure what facts you are denying Michael, the fact that it is illegal's in Canada to miss gender someone on purpose... and that there are cases that have gone to court and they have either been  jailed or charged. The original charge that the man in question was charged with was miss gendering, which brought him into court in the first place...

Did i sound upset to you in the my post, or are you pissed off at me for coming up with a tidbit ( facts) of info that you suggested you can't be charged for miss gendering in Canada...

 Canadians Could Face Hate Crimes Over Using The Wrong Gender Pronouns | The Daily Caller

[West]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I trust a judge to decide.  I'm pretty sure these things change over time though, because the world does.
2. I trust a judge to decide, but as you have said this doesn't seem to have shown up in court yet.

 

1. I don't trust liberals to decide what's a crime. They don't have a good track record of honesty. Often they'll abuse the court system, sinking people in legal fees for not subscribing to wokeism.

2. The fact this even has the ability to reach a judge is ridiculous for a free society.

Edited April 18, 2022 by West

[West]

59 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Not sure what facts you are denying Michael, the fact that it is illegal's in Canada to miss gender someone on purpose... and that there are cases that have gone to court and they have either been  jailed or charged. The original charge that the man in question was charged with was miss gendering, which brought him into court in the first place...

Did i sound upset to you in the my post, or are you pissed off at me for coming up with a tidbit ( facts) of info that you suggested you can't be charged for miss gendering in Canada...

 Canadians Could Face Hate Crimes Over Using The Wrong Gender Pronouns | The Daily Caller

It's sad this guy was even before a judge. Leftists are taking us down a dark path.

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, West said:

1. I don't trust liberals to decide what's a crime.  

2. The fact this even has the ability to reach a judge is ridiculous for a free society.

1. Well, it seems you don't trust the legal system then.  How much else to say there.

2. Anything can reach a judge, the question is whether they throw it out or not.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

1. ...the fact that it is illegal's in Canada to miss gender someone on purpose... and that there are cases that have gone to court and they have either been  jailed or charged.  

2.

 Canadians Could Face Hate Crimes Over Using The Wrong Gender Pronouns | The Daily Caller

1. Okay, please post such a case here with the details. We already discussed one do you have another one?

2. A five-year-old article that speculates what may be illegal is not a factual statement of what is illegal. Like I say bring the evidence please.

[West]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well, it seems you don't trust the legal system then.  How much else to say there.

2. Anything can reach a judge, the question is whether they throw it out or not.

1. After what we've witnessed recently, it's evident the judicial system needs reform. Blatant abuses of the people followed by years of wait time before anything ever hits the system. Also judges abusing power by implementing compelled speech released conditions. I don't trust them to not push wokeness in the court system.

2. Not anything. They don't hear cases of crimes committed if you are under 12 as an example.

[Luz P.]

The “recent” fascination with pronouns has little to do with inclusiveness or being politically correct and everything with newspeak and further confusing the masses.

 

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, Luz P. said:

The “recent” fascination with pronouns has little to do with inclusiveness or being politically correct and everything with newspeak and further confusing the masses.

 

No cite.  Conspiracy to 'confuse the masses' with no explanation as to who would have the power, and motive to do that.

I guess you just think that posting things convinces us that it's true.  After all you HAVE been here since Sunday at 3.37 pm...

[West]

13 hours ago, Luz P. said:

The “recent” fascination with pronouns has little to do with inclusiveness or being politically correct and everything with newspeak and further confusing the masses.

 

It's more to do with the leftist grudge against what they perceive as injustice. Something to do with overthrowing the patriarchy created by those darn white men. At its core, it's about fulfilling insecurity and control and likely some mental illness

[Luz P.]

On 4/19/2022 at 11:00 AM, Michael Hardner said:

 After all you HAVE been here since Sunday

And you've been here for a long time (35.4K comments), seems you think of yourself as the indispensable commentary . Glad to see you're so impressed by yourself!   At least you have one fan.  

[Army Guy]

On 4/18/2022 at 6:18 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Okay, please post such a case here with the details. We already discussed one do you have another one?

2. A five-year-old article that speculates what may be illegal is not a factual statement of what is illegal. Like I say bring the evidence please.

I gave you two cases already, both of them resulted in either a fine or jail time. 

You have said it was a result of disobeying a judges orders, those orders were not to call his daughter, daughter and he refused he was given a jail sentence for refusing to obey a judges orders. The fact remains he would have not been in court had c-16 not been passed, so C-16 has meat to it, and it is possible to get jail or fined for not using those pronouns,

Judges do have limitations on what orders they can give, they must have some back ground law attached to them, he can not just order someone to stand on one lag and bark like a dog...In this case C-16 is that back ground... 

 

[Nationalist]

On 4/15/2022 at 7:54 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's a strange thing to tie human rights or even politeness to some idea that people need to have "accomplished" something... to your satisfaction.  It's certainly not a viewpoint that affords basic respect to the individual.
As to tying this to 'leftist' parties.  I suppose you mean the centrist Liberal Party of Canada, who have duped you into thinking they are a progressive party.  That's on you for believing their press.  Freedom is a conservative value, which is why Conservative and Harper's #1 man Jim Flaherty supported transgender rights early on.

So, in short, you are confused about rights.

2. People who want to ban "mother" and "father" are fringe dwellers.  Just ignore them and start posting about real politics if you have the wherewithal to do so.

As for those constructed pronouns - you're free to not use them.  I didn't use "Ms." for a long time - do you use that one ?  If you don't, I'm sure nobody cares either way.

Translation: Don't rock the boat. Don't identify threats to common sense. Use the words you are told to and always trust the institutions. They know what's best for you.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Translation: Don't rock the boat. Don't identify threats to common sense. Use the words you are told to and always trust the institutions. They know what's best for you.

 

Not sure how you got that from what I said.  Repeated: YOU ARE FREE TO NOT USE THEM.

Please read my posts.  Thank you