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

[myata]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But - all you have to do is yell "trans!" and that alllll goes away. No crime at all committed.  Not even exposure. It's all above board with just one word.

Now look who's having a problem with an arbitrary application of the scripture. You can have a "parliament" filled with effectively employees of an activist central committee who will look the way they have to and stamp anything they need to. Also effectively closing possibility of representation to most of other voices in the society. All the rest is only a matter of technicality - no checks nor controls nothing to stop and yes the courts will do nothing a fact that we had two full years to observe.

The only factors that matter are the intent and the holy goal. Not comparing them - that's a fat disclaimer - but the Inquisition, the Nazis; Putin; Xi, Chen Un, Hezbollah, ISIS etc all have them, holy goal, the intent and means. See? It's not the scripture that makes the difference. It has to be something else. Only logically.

[myata]

The same justice (that was the word? sounds great!) will berate you "either we have the scripture or we don't and too bad for you", stands solid. The interference, obstruction and trespassing will all be there as seen. For the greater good, sure. The line is thin and faint and you won't even notice. This is exactly as it was supposed to be. Learn to be happy no matter what or just too bad for you.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Now look who's having a problem with an arbitrary application of the scripture.

Nobody mentioned the scripture.

1 hour ago, myata said:

You can have a "parliament" filled ...

None of that made sense. clearly English is not your first language. Keep practicing.

[myata]

37 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

None of that made sense. clearly English is not your first language. Keep practicing.

Aha, see no evil, it's not us, the mirror. If it worked anyhow two millennia back why shouldn't it be the ticket to eternity. Great thinking & good luck!

Edited April 24, 2023 by myata

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, myata said:

Aha, see no evil, it's not us, the mirror.

Are you a bot? That makes zero sense. It's like you're trying to look retarded.

[I am Groot]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Stories of assault or violent crime with trans people committing or bring victims.

Being victims, sure. That goes with the message. Committing crime? I know of only one; the school shooter. And it's not like they could hide that.

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I guess not, but I don't think they're avoiding the reporting of individual crimes just because the person is trans... because why would they go out of their way to report a crime that was committed... because the perp was trans?

Because they go out of their way to report any crime against trans. 

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Exactly.  Why don't you point that out, it's more salient ie sticks out more?

A statistics isn't a story. It's context; background that ought to be included when discussing police/black interactions. A story is like when hundreds of 'youths' show up at an expensive shopping area downtown smashing and grabbing things. Except if they're black it's not much of a story.

Look at the recent shootings of people who accidentally intruded into others' space. The one that got by far the most coverage, for days, was the black kid shot by the white homeowner. Their races were prominently mentioned with every story. The white girl shot by a black homeowner was mentioned once, with no mention of race, as was the girl killed by the old white dude when she drove onto his driveway. The shooting of the cheerleaders who accidentally got into the wrong car, then got out again was likewise barely covered, with no races mentioned.

 

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. I don't know?  What are they alleging - indecent exposure?

If he were a guy it would have been indecent exposure. But since he claims to be a she no crime was committed. But you still had four 14 year old girls confronted with a naked male of 18.

Edited April 24, 2023 by I am Groot

[Michael Hardner]

37 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1  Committing crime? I know of only one; the school shooter. And it's not like they could hide that.

2. A statistics isn't a story. It's context; background that ought to be included when discussing police/black interactions. A story is like when hundreds of 'youths' show up at an expensive shopping area downtown smashing and grabbing things. Except if they're black it's not much of a story.

3. Look at the recent shootings of people who accidentally intruded into others' space. The one that got by far the most coverage, for days, was the black kid shot by the white homeowner. Their races were prominently mentioned with every story. The white girl shot by a black homeowner was mentioned once, with no mention of race, as was the girl killed by the old white dude when she drove onto his driveway. The shooting of the cheerleaders who accidentally got into the wrong car, then got out again was likewise barely covered, with no races mentioned.

 

If he were a guy it would have been indecent exposure. But since he claims to be a she no crime was committed. But you still had four 14 year old girls confronted with a naked male of 18.

1. So maybe it's safe enough to allow them to use the girls' room then...
2. No - statistics are the facts.  The stories are the contexts.  You don't start with a story then go find stats to back it up, that's 100% backwards.  Go find some black crime statistics and post them... the rest of us will add the context for you.
3. BC they lead with context rather than facts.  The facts could show something like, oh, Americans shoot strangers dead more per capita than any country or something like that.  And here are some stories to put flesh on the bones.

Wait a second... weren't you the one arguing about statistics with regards to black suspects being shot by white police a year or two ago ?  You were leading with the facts at that time, as difficult as they were to swallow.

 

[Perspektiv]

On 4/23/2023 at 1:59 PM, Zeitgeist said:

If a trans woman is recognized as a woman, they will be afforded the same rights to women’s spaces as biological women.  

The issue, is there no longer are criteria for this.

I could throw on a dress and makeup, demand people to address me by my new name (not even bother changing my driving license or legal one), and apparently am now a girl o_O

Because I said so! *snaps fingers*

You have more criteria to get a driving license now (speaking of), than to be given the ability to shower with women, against their will. 

I say against, because am quite confident if women were polled anonymous, that many would be uncomfortable showering vulnerable with a "woman" with dangling balls and penis washing up nearby.

Today, that feeling of discomfort is transphobia. In the past, it was because there is a creepy looking dude with d*** and b**** showering nearby.

[Perspektiv]

On 4/23/2023 at 12:44 PM, CdnFox said:

I'm all over converting bathrooms and such to  'dual use' (enclosed stalls which men or women can use). but their comes a point where women's rights to their dignity and safety have to outweigh the rights of the trans woman

I don't think either rights should be outweighed, precisely why I don't think a woman should be forced to shower in the same space or be nude, with someone with a penis and testicles doing the same nearby.

I mean, soon if I was on a date and a woman told me she was trans, it would be a social faux pas to ask if she still has a penis. 

"How dare you reduce me to what is between my legs. You disgust me!"

Heck some lesbian women have publicly vented feeling pressured to date trans women, even though they are clearly into biological women.

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I don't think either rights should be outweighed, precisely why I don't think a woman should be forced to shower in the same space or be nude, with someone with a penis and testicles doing the same nearby.

Then you're giving priority to the woman's rights.  THere's no avoiding weighting one more than the other when they conflict.

22 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I mean, soon if I was on a date and a woman told me she was trans, it would be a social faux pas to ask if she still has a penis. 

It is very much considered to be that currently.

22 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

"How dare you reduce me to what is between my legs. You disgust me!"

Heck some lesbian women have publicly vented feeling pressured to date trans women, even though they are clearly into biological women.

True

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So maybe it's safe enough to allow them to use the girls' room then...

You're forgetting this is a discussion around what ISN'T being reported through the media. As I pointed out below, they will not point out someone being trans unless they have to. As an example, we have silly stories about a 'woman' being arrested for raping a woman. That's how it's written down by police. That's how it's reported. But it's not a woman. It's a guy in a dress.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. No - statistics are the facts. 

Or not. If trans 'women' are being arrested, prosecuted and convicted as women, then where are your stats? Crime stats aren't kept on trans as a category. And as was pointed out, it's not even a crime if an adult male-bodied individual wags his wiener at a bunch of adolescent girls because HE is considered a SHE simply by them asserting that as a fact.

What's more, if that individual than sexually assaults one the police will record is as a woman arrested for sexual assault.

So what good are your stats?

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. BC they lead with context rather than facts. 

They lead with whatever they can assert shows racism, regardless of context. A half dozen of the same type of crime can occur and the media will pay little attention to any of them unless there's a black victim and a white aggressor. This then becomes the (incorrect) public view of what is going on.

 

[Michael Hardner]

37 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. You're forgetting this is a discussion around what ISN'T being reported through the media.  

2. If trans 'women' are being arrested, prosecuted and convicted as women, then where are your stats?  

3. This then becomes the (incorrect) public view of what is going on.

 

1. But it's reported, just not widely.  What is widely reported is the sensational and salacious.

2. We have to go look for them.

3. Well yes but you can counter that.

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. But it's reported, just not widely.  What is widely reported is the sensational and salacious.

I watched the coverage of each of the cases of people being shot/shot at last week when they accidentally moved into someone's territory. The teenager shot on a porch. The girl shot in her car when they drove into someone's driveway. The two cheerleaders shot when they got into (and quickly got out of) the wrong car. The little girl and her father shot when kids chased a ball into an angry neighbor's yard. The only case where the races of the people were mentioned was the one where the black teen was shot by the white homeowner. And it was mentioned in every instance and the story was covered repeatedly over several days. Because any suggestion of black-on-white racism IS the most salacious and sensational, as far as the media are concerned.

And in this way they create the belief that racism is everywhere. It is the same way with police shootings of black men.

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. We have to go look for them.

The statistics don't exist. You would have to go into the schools and interview staff all across America (or Canada) and hope that you can get some of them to talk about things like this. And in most cases they would refuse. Or you would have to go through police records (assuming you could gain access) and hope that at some point a description or some other statement in a note would indicate the 'woman' arrested was biologically male. 

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Well yes but you can counter that.

How? By complaining about it on what few social media platforms won't ban you for going against 'the message'? Because the media, especially in Canada, is pretty much unanimous in their determination to broadcast a narrative of evil white racism, homophobia, and transphobia, gleefully seizing on every instance of white on black violence or violence against trans people and beaming it out to the world while ignoring context as well as any other kind of racism or violence, especially black on white, or poor behaviour by trans people.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

I watched the coverage of each of the cases of people being shot/shot at last week when they accidentally moved into someone's territory. The teenager shot on a porch. The girl shot in her car when they drove into someone's driveway. The two cheerleaders shot when they got into (and quickly got out of) the wrong car. The little girl and her father shot when kids chased a ball into an angry neighbor's yard. The only case where the races of the people were mentioned was the one where the black teen was shot by the white homeowner. And it was mentioned in every instance and the story was covered repeatedly over several days. Because any suggestion of black-on-white racism IS the most salacious and sensational, as far as the media are concerned.

And in this way they create the belief that racism is everywhere. It is the same way with police shootings of black men.

The statistics don't exist. You would have to go into the schools and interview staff all across America (or Canada) and hope that you can get some of them to talk about things like this. And in most cases they would refuse. Or you would have to go through police records (assuming you could gain access) and hope that at some point a description or some other statement in a note would indicate the 'woman' arrested was biologically male. 

How? By complaining about it on what few social media platforms won't ban you for going against 'the message'? Because the media, especially in Canada, is pretty much unanimous in their determination to broadcast a narrative of evil white racism, homophobia, and transphobia, gleefully seizing on every instance of white on black violence or violence against trans people and beaming it out to the world while ignoring context as well as any other kind of racism or violence, especially black on white, or poor behaviour by trans people.

Canadian media is so almost universally biased now that I’ve stopped consuming it almost entirely.  Canadian TV news is pure left-wing propaganda.  Canadians are living behind an aluminum curtain.

We’re watching the advent of transhumanism and the acceleration of so many additional destabilizing policies, whether it’s euthanasia or the legalization of hard drugs.

The UN just released a policy proposal demanding that pedophilia, hard drugs, prostitution, and pimping be made legal.  What’s underway internationally is frightening and will destroy the family and western civilization, because as people are sexualized at a young age, get onto opioids, and get into robbery, there will no doubt come a “fix”, not unlike what we saw with Covid.  People will be scared to leave their homes and walk through cities, which is already happening in cities like San Francisco and Chicago.

The “trans” rights movement is part of the same larger top-down movement to totally offend men, women, and children’s sensibilities and morality.  A small number of people with a mental health disorder who are committed to lying about their actual gender are demanding that everyone else go along with the lie so that they don’t feel offended.

Hardner and many people simply aren’t thinking about how treating trans genders as biological genders is taking us away from biology and reality.  We will likely see such “rights” expanded to cyborgs and inhuman A.I. if we continue to allow the rights of men, women, and children to be violated.

Again, it’s fine and good to prevent trans people from being abused, to ensure that they have some form of washroom access, and so on.

Playing loose with transforming bodies is another huge problem.  We haven’t seen the complete fallout yet.  

Edited April 25, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, I am Groot said:

1.  The only case where the races of the people were mentioned was the one where the black teen was shot by the white homeowner. And it was mentioned in every instance and the story was covered repeatedly over several days. Because any suggestion of black-on-white racism IS the most salacious and sensational, as far as the media are concerned.

2. And in this way they create the belief that racism is everywhere. It is the same way with police shootings of black men.

3. The statistics don't exist.  

4. How? By complaining about it on what few social media platforms won't ban you for going against 'the message'? Because the media, especially in Canada, is pretty much unanimous in their determination to broadcast a narrative of evil white racism, homophobia, and transphobia, gleefully seizing on every instance of white on black violence or violence against trans people and beaming it out to the world while ignoring context as well as any other kind of racism or violence, especially black on white, or poor behaviour by trans people.

1.  What you're doing is decrying the tendency of media to reinforce existing perceptions.  I'm behind you on this, but you really need to know that this cuts both ways.  In fact, the existence of an openly pro-Republican network in the US has hardened the media bubbles and made public discussion very difficult.  You have a tool to talk about pure numbers and that's what this forum is for.  Here's black-on-white vs white-on-black crime statistics from 2012-2015.  https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/rhovo1215.txt. Have a look.

2. "Racism is everywhere" itself is a statement that is so qualitative as to defy provability.  "Racism is everywhere" could meet there are racists in every city, state, country ... or something less.  Make some concrete statements that can be backed up such as: People are generally less racist than in the past.  Racism is still around, although the forms it takes are different and people consider the problem in different ways.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the-u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/

Pew research on interracial marriage.

3.  Maybe so.  It cuts both ways.  If we don't have statistics then should be really be relying on narratives to pass legislation ?  I don't agree that people can state that legislation has to be passed so that people "feel safe".  If that were the case, you wouldn't have open carry laws.

4. You won't be banned on Facebook for staying that trans women shouldn't compete in sports.  You won't be banned for a lot of discussion, but you will be banned for saying some anti-trans things.  Don't put me in a position to defend privately owned social-media platforms though because I do think they're problematic.  

What I am saying is you can achieve what you are looking to do - ostensibly, make a fact-based non-emotional argument - if you take the high road.  Will you succeed ?  Who knows ?  

But you have defended the kid who "was arrested for saying men are different from women", which we established did not happen so directly as claimed.  The kid chose to not make fact-based arguments only but to defy a school suspension and get himself arrested then use the very methods you decry when they're used by progressives.

Do you want to have a fact-based discussion ?  Then promote them.  The hysterical types will stay away from them, I guarantee you.

[I am Groot]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  What you're doing is decrying the tendency of media to reinforce existing perceptions. 

No. I'm decrying the media CREATING perceptions. 

And I'm not using stats because my argument isn't "Black people create crime disproportionately as compared to White people" but that the media focuses inordinately on white v black racism or violence while mostly ignoring black v white racism and violence (or black v asian racism and violence for that matter). In the same way as they focus obsessively on pro-trans messaging. The only (for want of a better term) anti-trans people you'll ever see in the mainstream media are cranks and portrayed as such. 

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. "Racism is everywhere" itself is a statement that is so qualitative as to defy provability.  "Racism is everywhere" could meet there are racists in every city, state, country ... or something less.  Make some concrete statements that can be backed up such as: People are generally less racist than in the past.  Racism is still around, although the forms it takes are different and people consider the problem in different ways.

I would say that of course there is racism. And in Canada there's a ton of it coming from newcomers who grew up in cultures where racism flourished (and continues to flourish) without any societal criticism. THAT racism is almost never mentioned by the media. We're told to obsess over minor instance of subjective racism, or supposed racism, or even subconscious racism - by white people. The presumption is this is a great and terrible and daunting threat to all non-whites when it really isn't. Out and out racism by whites in Canada is rarely much of an issue for non-whites. And for every black guy not hired by a white person because of their skin there's probably fifty black guys hired specifically due to their skin by corporations and government agencies.

 

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3.  Maybe so.  It cuts both ways.  If we don't have statistics then should be really be relying on narratives to pass legislation ? 

No, we should be relying on common sense. The idea that someone can just make a self-declaration that they are now a member of another gender and we're to accept that is lunacy. Especially when they're kids. Everyone knows there's no common sense to the idea of letting male-bodied individuals compete with women in sporting events either.

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But you have defended the kid who "was arrested for saying men are different from women", which we established did not happen so directly as claimed. The kid chose to not make fact-based arguments only but to defy a school suspension and get himself arrested then use the very methods you decry when they're used by progressives.

I didn't so much defend him as point out the absurdity of a situation where a teenage boy who doesn't like the idea of other teenage boys intruding into girls' bathrooms and locker rooms should be suspended by a Catholic high school. The suspension itself was ridiculous. The arrest was just the topping on the pie. 

The idea that stating your view on such things is so problematic that it makes trans people feel unsafe is dumb. And the belief their feeling of being unsafe, however unrealistic it is, simply because some guy doesn't think they're really girls trumps his right to an education is nonsensical. It's high farce. He can't be at school because some trans kid doesn't like that he disbelieves his fantasy and so feels 'unsafe'? Ridiculous!

[Michael Hardner]

16 hours ago, I am Groot said:

1. I'm decrying the media CREATING perceptions. 

2. And I'm not using stats because my argument isn't "Black people create crime disproportionately as compared to White people" but that the media focuses inordinately on white v black racism or violence while mostly ignoring black v white racism and violence (or black v asian racism and violence for that matter). In the same way as they focus obsessively on pro-trans messaging. The only (for want of a better term) anti-trans people you'll ever see in the mainstream media are cranks and portrayed as such. 

3. I would say that of course there is racism. And in Canada there's a ton of it coming from newcomers who grew up in cultures where racism flourished (and continues to flourish) without any societal criticism. THAT racism is almost never mentioned by the media. We're told to obsess over minor instance of subjective racism, or supposed racism, or even subconscious racism - by white people. The presumption is this is a great and terrible and daunting threat to all non-whites when it really isn't. Out and out racism by whites in Canada is rarely much of an issue for non-whites. And for every black guy not hired by a white person because of their skin there's probably fifty black guys hired specifically due to their skin by corporations and government agencies.

4. No, we should be relying on common sense. The idea that someone can just make a self-declaration that they are now a member of another gender and we're to accept that is lunacy.
 

1. Ok
2. Sure but likewise, whatever message you are trying to counter, you can use statistics.  People will rightly wonder what your objective is.  If you want to "blame" a group then what's behind that, for example...
3. There's an emerging space for pragmatic clarity on such things.  Some podcasts and such.
4. I hate the term "common sense" because it implies that a passive moral take on something is adequate and you don't have to challenge it.  Of COURSE a trans woman is a strange thing, and "common sense" says "reject it".  But you don't get to say it's lunacy based on that.
 

[eyeball]

On 4/24/2023 at 2:13 PM, I am Groot said:

They lead with whatever they can assert shows racism, regardless of context. A half dozen of the same type of crime can occur and the media will pay little attention to any of them unless there's a black victim and a white aggressor. This then becomes the (incorrect) public view of what is going on.

If it 'bleeds' it leads... But why?

I question who's leading who here. I think it's the other way around and the media follow the viewers around because the primary interest of any media producer, private or public, is viewership.

The people who see something insidious going on when they believe the media is manipulating the public should go look in the mirror and ask themselves why they want so much 'bleeding' in the media they consume? That's not insidious it's weird.

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

If it 'bleeds' it leads... But why?

I question who's leading who here. I think it's the other way around and the media follow the viewers around because the primary interest of any media producer, private or public, is viewership.

Where does this primary interest you speak of come from? Some of it comes from our very much antiracist educational system, but the bulk of it is coming from the media. The media is doing it partly due to ratings, sure, but they could get just as high ratings if not higher by beating the tribal drumbeat against black crime or something like that, as opposed to ignoring it. 

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

The people who see something insidious going on when they believe the media is manipulating the public should go look in the mirror and ask themselves why they want so much 'bleeding' in the media they consume? That's not insidious it's weird.

Nice strawman. Because I believe the media is twisting the story to put out 'the message' in order to convince people to agree with their own progressive views there's something wrong with me? I don't see how. Are you going to argue that the media will cover a white cop killing a black criminal no more and no differently than a black cop killing a white criminal? Because we know that's not true.

When a blonde housewife was gunned down by a black cop who was a member of the same police department as the guy who killed George Floyd it got mostly local coverage. But in what coverage it did get, not a single article referred to him as black, nor her as white. It was a cop who drew and fired on and killed a completely innocent woman for no reason whatsoever but that he was apparently startled. But races were never mentioned by the media. I cannot imagine a situation where the coverage would be the same if it had been the white cop in the car who killed the housewife, and if she'd been black.

Maybe you're the one who should look in a mirror and ask yourself why you believe the coverage ought to be so different.

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Where does this primary interest you speak of come from? Some of it comes from our very much antiracist educational system, but the bulk of it is coming from the media. The media is doing it partly due to ratings, sure, but they could get just as high ratings if not higher by beating the tribal drumbeat against black crime or something like that, as opposed to ignoring it.

Notwithstanding the odd news outlets that are owned by someone like Jones or Murdoch, they're pretty much entirely interested in just ratings and profit.  I wouldn't doubt it there's an interest within huge horizontally integrated conglomerates that own things like oil or agriculture/food processing companies alongside broadcasting companies that might like to see less being said about the need for climate change action or healthier eating habits and better farming methods.

Quote

Nice strawman. Because I believe the media is twisting the story to put out 'the message' in order to convince people to agree with their own progressive views there's something wrong with me? I don't see how. Are you going to argue that the media will cover a white cop killing a black criminal no more and no differently than a black cop killing a white criminal? Because we know that's not true.

When a blonde housewife was gunned down by a black cop who was a member of the same police department as the guy who killed George Floyd it got mostly local coverage. But in what coverage it did get, not a single article referred to him as black, nor her as white. It was a cop who drew and fired on and killed a completely innocent woman for no reason whatsoever but that he was apparently startled. But races were never mentioned by the media. I cannot imagine a situation where the coverage would be the same if it had been the white cop in the car who killed the housewife, and if she'd been black.

Maybe you're the one who should look in a mirror and ask yourself why you believe the coverage ought to be so different.

I think there's something wrong with you because you're obsessed with race and MSM conspiracies. I'm pretty sure if cops were unnecessarily killing and beating blond housewives on a regular basis we'd be hearing about it all the time.

[I am Groot]

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

Notwithstanding the odd news outlets that are owned by someone like Jones or Murdoch, they're pretty much entirely interested in just ratings and profit

This is what the Left always says about such complaints. Because the news is owned by some rich corporation it couldn't possibly be biased to the Left. That shows a vast ignorance of the distance between the business people up in corporate and the people who are doing the reporting and editing. Businessmen rarely try to tell 'the talent' what they should be covering for better ratings. That's left up to the local reports, editors and producers to determine. 

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

I think there's something wrong with you because you're obsessed with race and MSM conspiracies. I'm pretty sure if cops were unnecessarily killing and beating blond housewives on a regular basis we'd be hearing about it all the time.

I'm not obsessed with such things. I'm slightly obsessed with politics, true. And to some degree, society and its health and security, including future health. But I'm not obsessed with anything the way you're obsessed with knowing what color of underwear everyone in government is wearing at any given moment, and what they had for lunch, and who they spoke to, and what company their favorite chair is made by.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

This is what the Left always says about such complaints. Because the news is owned by some rich corporation it couldn't possibly be biased to the Left. That shows a vast ignorance of the distance between the business people up in corporate and the people who are doing the reporting and editing. Businessmen rarely try to tell 'the talent' what they should be covering for better ratings. That's left up to the local reports, editors and producers to determine.

Hmmmm, so what's the issue again?

Quote

I'm not obsessed with such things. I'm slightly obsessed with politics, true. And to some degree, society and its health and security, including future health. But I'm not obsessed with anything the way you're obsessed with knowing what color of underwear everyone in government is wearing at any given moment, and what they had for lunch, and who they spoke to, and what company their favorite chair is made by.

These are the sillier things people fuss and obsess over when worrying about subjecting their betters to greater transparency and accountability. Like simply making a few changes to the existing Lobbying Act to ensure the public can listen where discussions between lobbyists and public officials occur.

Fishermen used to ask similar questions when first introduced to the idea of using onboard cameras to monitor fishing activities such as catch / by-catch, quotas, size, species, GPS location, vessel ID, etc. This was implemented to ensure the public could trust that fish stocks were protected and that rules around fishing were being followed. 

Talking about colour of underwear and all; I'll never forget the pitch black night offshore after a day's fishing when I was hanging a rat over the side. All of a sudden the brightest light I'd ever seen exploded before me - as if the Big Bang itself had just gone off! It was the flash of the high definition camera on a DFO surveillance plane snapping a picture to capture my vessel's ID number.

As I was standing beside the coloured panel used to indicate the size of the fish we haul aboard, the rather infamous image also corroborated the legends circulating around the coast about me.

[blackbird]

On 4/26/2023 at 7:28 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Of COURSE a trans woman is a strange thing, and "common sense" says "reject it".  But you don't get to say it's lunacy based on that.

Does biology matter?