Canadian Catholic student arrested for saying men are different from women.

[reason10]

I'm not judging the entire country of Canada for this ignorant shit.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/canadian-catholic-student-arrested-charged-saying-men-women-different-embarrassing

Canadian Catholic student arrested, charged after saying men, women are different: 'Embarrassing'

Arrested for holding Christian beliefs at a Christian school? Canadian Catholic high school student Josh Alexander claims that's the story behind authorities arresting – and charging – him for trying to attend class last month.

Alexander was a student at a Canadian Catholic high school in Ontario until he spoke his mind over concerns of men in women's restrooms at the institution.

Distinguishing men from women and believing God created only two genders, he suggested, eventually led authorities to arrest and charge him for the offense.

This stuff makes Hitler look like a boy scout by comparison.

 

[Michael Hardner]

I can't see the post, but I am familiar with the case.  This is what I was telling Groot about, intellectual dishonesty.

The student was arrested for trespassing, not stating an opinion.

[CdnFox]

SLIGHTLY misleading headline (he was technically arrested for trespass) but not by much.

And obviously it's just wrong. On many many levels.

None the least of which is guess how he feels about transsexuals NOW.  Guess how his friends feel. Even people who didn't have much of an opinion either way will start to get polarized over this kind of reaction.

They've taken a difficult situation and made it much worse.

[West]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I can't see the post, but I am familiar with the case.  This is what I was telling Groot about, intellectual dishonesty.

The student was arrested for trespassing, not stating an opinion.

No the kid was suspended and DENIED AN EDUCATION for his views on transgenderism

When he tried to go and get an education, as children in this country should be allowed to do, he was arrested for trespassing. 

You are the one being dishonest

[Michael Hardner]

Lies.   It was trespassing.

Don't lie.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

I can't see the post, but I am familiar with the case.  This is what I was telling Groot about, intellectual dishonesty.

The student was arrested for trespassing, not stating an opinion.

It doesn't say he wasn't. Read it again. They never said it was for his opinion. The closest they come is where they pose it as a question. How very intellectually dishonest of you (snicker )

But i agree it's somewhatmisleading.' I was typing my response when you posted. In the end tho there's a grain of truth to it as well. His opinion is indeed what lead to his being suspended and subsequently charged with trespass. There was no tresspass if they school hadn't punished him for his position, it's definitely an inciting factor. The school preferred to have him arrested because he held his opinion rather than find another way to address it.

[Michael Hardner]

Furthermore, expression of opinions in school isn't sacrosanct or even protected speech.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, CdnFox said:

It doesn't say he wasn't. Read it again.  

Read the subject line of this thread.

[West]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Lies.   It was trespassing.

Don't lie.

It was a sequence of events... which was the root of the kids views on transgenderism you are lying. And yih are a scumbag for accepting the denial of an education because he doesn't share your views

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, West said:

It was a sequence of events...  

The last of which ended up with him getting charged for trespassing.

If he shot somebody at the end, you'd still be saying that it was because of his opinion.

 

Stop it.

 

I'm done with you.  Your dishonesty is pathological.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Read the subject line of this thread.

You really aught to know by now that doubting me THAT quickly is an invitation to look dumb.

Lets look at the headline as you suggest

Canadian Catholic student arrested, charged after saying men, women are different: 'Embarrassing'

That's the headline. So.  Is it true he was arrested? Yup. Is it true this occurred after his statement about men and women? Yup.

Does it say he was arrested FOOOOR saying it? Nope.

Do you look a little dumb? Yup. Should you maybe be careful about calling others 'intellectually dishonest" and then not getting your facts straight? Yup.  Am i laughing at you a little? Ohhh big yup

Seriously they don't actually claim anywhere in the story he was arrested for his opinion, they just claim the kid says that's the "STORY" behind his arrest and there's clearly some truth to it despite the fact that it would not be accurate to claim that's the charge.

[Dougie93]

17 minutes ago, reason10 said:

This stuff makes Hitler look like a boy scout by comparison.

but the National Socialists outlawed cross dressing under Paragraph 183 of their Criminal Code,

so I'm not clear as to who you are accusing of being the Nazis here

Edited March 12, 2023 by Dougie93

[West]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

The last of which ended up with him getting charged for trespassing.

If he shot somebody at the end, you'd still be saying that it was because of his opinion.

 

Stop it.

 

I'm done with you.  Your dishonesty is pathological.

He never shot anyone. He tried going back to school to finish his studies which are a RIGHT in this country. 

You are dishonest and scum of the earth type for denying children an education

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

 

Lets look at the headline as you suggest

 

No I didn't suggest that.

[West]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You really aught to know by now that doubting me THAT quickly is an invitation to look dumb.

Lets look at the headline as you suggest

Canadian Catholic student arrested, charged after saying men, women are different: 'Embarrassing'

That's the headline. So.  Is it true he was arrested? Yup. Is it true this occurred after his statement about men and women? Yup.

Does it say he was arrested FOOOOR saying it? Nope.

Do you look a little dumb? Yup. Should you maybe be careful about calling others 'intellectually dishonest" and then not getting your facts straight? Yup.  Am i laughing at you a little? Ohhh big yup

Seriously they don't actually claim anywhere in the story he was arrested for his opinion, they just claim the kid says that's the "STORY" behind his arrest and there's clearly some truth to it despite the fact that it would not be accurate to claim that's the charge.

Mike's a tyrant apologist. A very twisted individual

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

The last of which ended up with him getting charged for trespassing.

If he shot somebody at the end, you'd still be saying that it was because of his opinion.

 

Stop it.

 

I'm done with you.  Your dishonesty is pathological.

You're way out of line. At first i thought you were being a ilttle pedantic but it is absolutely ignorant to claim there is NO connection between voicing his opinion and his arrest. There very obviously is a direct connection. Pretending the two are unrelated events is just childish.

No he was not arrested on the charge of "his opinion". He was arrested on the charge of tresspassing. However  it is not an unreasonable statement to say that he was arrested BECAUSE of his opinion. Without that - if he had been in the same place at the same time under the same circumstances he would not have been arrested for trespassing.

So because he voiced his opinion, his presence was found to be tresspass. If he had not voiced his opinion his presence would not have been a tresspass. Ergo his opinion lead to the state of tresspass for which he was arrested.

Call a spade a spade.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, CdnFox said:

  it is absolutely ignorant to claim there is NO connection between voicing his opinion and his arrest.  

I didn't suggest that.

[West]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I didn't suggest that.

But you are an apologist for the school on that very point.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No I didn't suggest that.

Well seeing as you are being so technical seeing as i was originally speaking of the headline (gave you the benefit of the doubt) then reading the subject line does not show where "They" said it was either.

So you're still wrong. And still look dumb.

Seriously you are NOT coming across as very intelligent in this thread. You've done better.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

 reading the subject line does not show where "They" said it was either.

Reason10 is guilty of the subject line, which trumps up the situation by omitting details as you agreed above.

[Michael Hardner]

These are sensitive subjects.

I'm more than willing to listen to all sides but when people show up at the table spouting vitriol I lose interest in them.

[CdnFox]

Getting back to reality and ignoring the obvious brain farts some people are having, obviously the kid was banned and arrested because of his opinion (regardless of the mechanism). 

Our laws on free speech are becoming a little too weak. This kind of thing will fuel hatreds, not suppress them.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

Our laws on free speech are becoming a little too weak.  

Do you think that students have the right of free speech at school?

If the kid broke some rule, ostensibly respect for transgender students, then there's no more legal standing than if he broke any rule.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Reason10 is guilty of the subject line, which trumps up the situation by omitting details as you agreed above.

We weren't discussing reason10.  I was discussing the headline and paper article and THEY don't make any type of claim. Nor does his subject line say they did.

Sorry man - you're wrong here both on a technical level and from a practical point of view. While he wasn't arrested FOR it, he was arrested BECAUSE of it, and while reason10's subject line is factually incorrect the fact he did post the ACTUAL headline and story in his first post in bold shows he wasn't trying to hide that. 

So all you can really accuse him of is being a little clickbait-y.

Why don't we just put that nonsense behind us and talk about the issue. At the end of the day it's a draconian response to what is a truthful statement that's not made out of hatred or ill will - do you not think there was a better way to handle this?

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

   I was discussing the headline  

Ok, well you replied to ME I think, and as I said I couldn't see the post.  I was only seeing the subject line.