Jump to content

Court victory for teacher silenced for transgender-book criticism


CdnFox

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The part about depictions of sex... the article said her concerns were elsewhere.
 

That doesn't make sense - what do you mean?

Quote

2. She is asserting that she was defamed but that doesn't speak to whether it was done vengefully or not.  I didn't see anything in the description that indicated these were personal vendettas.

Part of defamation's definition in canadian law indicates that.


 

Quote

3. But "charge" her ?  With what ? 

Oh they couldn't but they claimed it was a violation of the human rights act and blah blah blah. Of course as we see now, no it wasn't, but that didnt stop them from threatening

Quote


5. Reputation ?  Yes possibly.  But they won't be personally impacted at least not as much as she waas.

Hard to say. Might be harder to get reelected if you just lost the school system a hundred grand or so,

 

Quote

6.  Supposed to, why ?  You think that you are allowed to say anything at all in a School Board meeting ?  The fact that YOU think it's acceptable is utterly meaningless.  They have business to conduct, and they don't have to listen to every Chud who wants to expound on his flat earth theories... 

So now she's a 'chud'.  And we don't listen to 'chuds'.  Tell me again that you odn't use the term to dehumanize,

And yes - if it relates to the school at all they have to listen to the 'chuds'. Which is what this judge just said


 

Quote

7. Yes we established that.  "Tossed out" = "Suspended" , "Quit" = "Retired with full pension" ... clarity, my son...

Don't know what you're saying here either. Sounds like another attempt to obfuscate.


 

Quote

8. We shall see... at least if she loses you won't be able to crow that the courts are compromised, there's not any justice etc... which is a good thing.

I think you mean if she wins.

And no - that would not be the case.  The courts can get some cases right and still be heavily influenced by bias and politics.  IT's not a 100 percent either or situation.

But - based on your comment does that mean if she DOES lose you agree that the courts are compromised? :)  It must if a victory proves they're not :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Chuds are humans.  I haven't called anyone on here a Chud.
2. It's an example and it does happen/has happened.  People trying to attend a meeting and misgender people, call them mentally disturbed, insult them etc.  To what end ?  The board isn't going to reverse policy based on rights legislation.  It's trolling at best, hate speech at worst.
3. You think nobody has ever denied the legitimacy of Transgender people in a school board meeting ?  
4. Well... if I'm wrong about this then I will change my position on the school meetings.  I seem to remember the big issue in the Eastern Ontario school was that parents had their microphone cut off because they were denying Transgenderism as a phenomenon.  

Isn't my position on speakers asking a question legitimate ?  If you agree with me then we are at a crossroads: if indeed that happened you will agree with me that that's not a legitimate line of questioning yes ?  Inappropriate for a meeting of that type ?  If it didn't happen, then I have to agree with you that the parents were talking about policy in the domain of what the board was doing and should have been able to speak ?

5. I don't get to decide anything any more than you do.  The Board and parents and citizens decide what's ok.  Nobody gets to veto the other side and get their way.  

6. Yes, because I favour Transgender rights.  Freedom means you p1ss people off who hate the site of a transgender girl... Maybe the offended person will skulk off... maybe they'll get an apology...

Catholic Catechism directly states that there are only two genders, the natural born biological ones.  To say that the question of whether transgender constitutes real gender with attendant gender rights is something that shouldn’t be asked, let alone opposed, in a Catholic school system with constitutionally protected religious rights is absurd, if not completely stupid.  Of course people have the right to oppose the recognition of transgenderism and novel “trans rights” on the basis of their religious beliefs.  In fact, the Catholic education system defines itself on the basis of Catholicity.  If you think that the transgender question is a fait accompli, expect endless culture wars, because most people can’t pretend that green is orange or do what they think is wrong for very long.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I can't tell what was blurred out but it seems like it shouldn't be given to under-18 to me.
2. You're not addressing my point.   If you think it's ok to effectively lie about people in the midst of talking about an issue that you're trying to resolve together ... it sure isn't "so fcking what" in my books.  Why would you trust anybody who did that to come to a solution ?  You'd just be eradicating their position entirely, which means you'd go nowhere.  

IOW - "they're going to lie and cheat so I will too"  

Doesn't lead to anywhere good from what I can see.

3.  They don't though.  They look at polling, they see what's happening in the world.  Same-sex marriage came about because regular folks stopped opposing it.  Or, more accurately, the ones against it started dying off.

4.  You are lucky to have a wife to support your cake habit.  Enjoy your afternoon nap i guess.. I'll go take mine now.

1. Good

2. "Chuds"

3. Then I would suggest we need stronger leadership.

4. Still working.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

1. That doesn't make sense - what do you mean?

2. Might be harder to get reelected if you just lost the school system a hundred grand or so,

3. So now she's a 'chud'.   

4. And yes - if it relates to the school at all they have to listen to the 'chuds'.  

5. Don't know what you're saying here either.

6. based on your comment does that mean if she DOES lose you agree that the courts are compromised? :)  It must if a victory proves they're not :)

1. I thought the article said something about being too unserious about the topic, taking it lightly? Nothing about exposure to images or whatnot.

2. Superintendents are appointed in Ontario, and I think that's the only individual named aside from the board itself.

3. No, I was talking about the theoretical speaker who would be disallowed from speaking in the Ottawa Valley board of education case I referred to.

4. I was switching context to the other case. Ottawa Valley or Eastern Ontario somewhere. Parents were prevented from speaking.

5. I'm just clarifying your language, even if it's just for myself. That way we can continue to be on the same page.

6. Oh, not at all. It's just a process. That's all. I don't feel one way or another about it personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s highly relevant to the day to day running of school boards because use of pronouns has become front and centre, to the extent that Ottawa-Carleton no long refers to girls and boys or he/she or him/her.  Everyone is they/them,

OMG, that's some great logic right there.

"Let's misgender 99% of the population 100% of the time so that we don't accidentally misgender the other 1% of the population 1 or 2 times a year."

AlienProbe.thumb.png.1acf7beacd392f8a27bf135c52b2ac31.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I thought the article said something about being too unserious about the topic, taking it lightly? Nothing about exposure to images or whatnot.

The article may have - as i noted i actually watched the proceedings till they threw her out and looked at her comments afterwards so i may be using facts you didn't have available.  She did complain that one of her issues was they made transgender surgery sound super easy and consequence free (it did) and she felt that people in grade 1 and 2 might not understand it was a much bigger issue with long term consequences.

But the books she noted were fairly vivid about many things.

Quote

2. Superintendents are appointed in Ontario, and I think that's the only individual named aside from the board itself.

I don't imagine it'll do his appointment any good either :)    At some point someone will wear it politically if the school board has to turn over a hundred grand or more

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. No, I was talking about the theoretical speaker who would be disallowed from speaking in the Ottawa Valley board of education case I referred to.

Sure you were. I certainly understand you backpeddaling. As always - dehumanize people with a pejorative so you can pretend you don't have to listen to them.

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I was switching context to the other case. Ottawa Valley or Eastern Ontario somewhere. Parents were prevented from speaking.

Sure you were.  Boy you sure have to spend a lot of energy re-writing what you wrote after the fact don't you :) 

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Oh, not at all. It's just a process. That's all. I don't feel one way or another about it personally.

So - one way it's absolute and it's proof that the judiciary is pure and you're really glad about that.  But the other way it's still a process and you don't care one way or another.

:)  

Dude, i mean...  can't YOU hear it?  Does that sound rational to you? Does that really sound like someone who'd being dispassionate and logical rather than tribal?  I don't need to explain it do I?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

18? lol.

Try 13. Most kids now days ahve seen porn videos by the time they are 10.

And 60 years ago they'd seen playboys by the same age.  That hardly makes them adult enough to make their own decisions about sexuality ,

Are you suggesting that 10 year olds are old enough to have sex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And 60 years ago they'd seen playboys by the same age.  That hardly makes them adult enough to make their own decisions about sexuality ,

Are you suggesting that 10 year olds are old enough to have sex?

I'm not sure what World you live in, or if you were home schooled, but it is a good idea to have sex education by the time a kid is 13. Back when I was growing up, we had a brief introduction video to sex ed when I was turning 11 in 5th grade, then again in 7th grade. Finally in 9th grade, the school spent considerable time talking about issues like sex, teen pregnancy, STD's, homosexuality, physical/sexual abuse in relationships, etc.

I mean kids can learn this before they have sex, and know exactly what is going on, and it can prevent things like STD's and teen pregnancies, or you can go the way of many of the Southern US states, and not teach sex education at all, and wonder why your state has the highest HIV and teen pregnancy rate in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And 60 years ago they'd seen playboys by the same age.  That hardly makes them adult enough to make their own decisions about sexuality ,

Are you suggesting that 10 year olds are old enough to have sex?

You seriously think "Playboy magazine" is on par with today's hardcore pornography, where they have double anal penetration, and a girl having sex with 20 different guys, in every hole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

18? lol.

Try 13. Most kids now days ahve seen porn videos by the time they are 10.

I don't think kids should be allowed to change their gender medically until that age, but that's my opinion.

I have seen extreme cases that would justify it as young as 16, where the person is mature enough to drive, but any younger to me, is unnacceptable. 

Kids don't know what they want. I knew girls who thought they were bi at that age. Realized they were straight later on.

Dated a couple goth girls. Loved the dark stuff. Only to ditch it by the time they became adults.

Teens go through mazes to find themselves. 

There's a reason why there's a minimum age for tattoos.

I did  alot of dumb shit as a teen. To put me in charge of a permanent decision to me, would be unwise. Am considered mature beyond my years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I don't think kids should be allowed to change their gender medically until that age, but that's my opinion.

I have seen extreme cases that would justify it as young as 16, where the person is mature enough to drive, but any younger to me, is unnacceptable. 

Kids don't know what they want. I knew girls who thought they were bi at that age. Realized they were straight later on.

Absolutely, 18 it should be. Teenagers can regret this later on. I do not get allowing a child to change their gender if they are under 16. Especially if they have yet to enter puberty.

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Dated a couple goth girls. Loved the dark stuff. Only to ditch it by the time they became adults.

Goth girls are awesome in bed.  They let you do anything to them sexually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

1. The article may have - as i noted i actually watched the proceedings till they threw her out and looked at her comments afterwards so i may be using facts you didn't have available.   

2. she felt that people in grade 1 and 2 might not understand it was a much bigger issue with long term consequences.

3. Sure you were. I certainly understand you backpeddaling. As always - dehumanize people with a pejorative so you can pretend you don't have to listen to them.

4. Sure you were.  Boy you sure have to spend a lot of energy re-writing what you wrote after the fact don't you :) 

5. So - one way it's absolute and it's proof that the judiciary is pure and you're really glad about that.  But the other way it's still a process and you don't care one way or another.

6. Does that really sound like someone who'd being dispassionate and logical rather than tribal? 

1. Fair enough - I didn't say you were lying only that I didn't see that in the article.
2. Yes that's the part I saw.
3. Why would I say I support the decision and in the same thread call her a 'Chud' ?
4. The other example was something that we were on the same page over - remember ?  That's actually a remarkable thing given the degree of distrust you have for me.  If you didn't realize it, I was offering to use that as a test case to build upon the discussion we're having here.  But I think that was before you posted that you were "loathe" to agree with me.  It's fine either way, but I was offering to use that other case to examine the details of freedom-of-speech at a board meeting.  I'll even suppress my use of the c-word to describe the complaintants there :)
5. No, I feel the same about both rulings.  I'm happy that the process is working both ways, and I don't "care" (ie. don't have personal stake in the outcomes).  Hope that's clear.
6. See 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

I do not get allowing a child to change their gender if they are under 16. Especially if they have yet to enter puberty.

There are quite a few lawsuits in England, of adults that essentially changed their minds on their gender change.

Realizing their mistake is permanent, and has devastating consequences if it wasn't what you wanted.

Seducing the youth of the allure of having what is essentially a mental illness (yes I said it), is insane to me.

There is nothing cool about gender dysphoria. To even remotely try to frame it that way via influencers, the media and the like, isn't only wrong to me. It's sick.

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

Goth girls are awesome in bed. 

Thats the good part about them, the sexual trauma I have come to learn so many of them that I dated experienced, is overwhelming. 

Dated a few who had been molested, which sort of explained their love of dark and sadistic shit.

Wild indeed, but if you dated one that also cut themselves, you get the wildest possible.

One issue. They cut for a reason.

Finding it out during, IE they start crying uncontrollably during, is incredibly awkward and all but kills the mood.

Great if you want to experiment with things most women would refuse for you to do to them, but horrific as girlfriends from my experience as way too many mental problems to deal with.

I see a woman with serious daddy issues, and just run. I don't ask questions.

My wife is close to her father, and her parents are still going strong, so I knew I wouldn't deal with all of that mental health BS, to where I feel like am holding up my weight and theirs.

I won't lie. I love the corsets, the micro mini skirts, and miss the insanely freaky shit these women do, but yeah. Am too old now, haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

You seriously think "Playboy magazine" is on par with today's hardcore pornography, where they have double anal penetration, and a girl having sex with 20 different guys, in every hole?

Oh my! 

Hey folks...is there a list for potential sex offenders? I think we have a candidate here. If nothing else but a "groomer".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

I'm not sure what World you live in, or if you were home schooled, but it is a good idea to have sex education by the time a kid is 13.

And you were still in grade 1 at age 13 were you?  That explains a lot.  Most kids are 6-7 in grade one. And they don't need to be thinking about that stuff.  And that's what we're talking about here.

It'd really speed this up if you thought even a little before speaking. It's tiring explaining basic things to you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

You seriously think "Playboy magazine" is on par with today's hardcore pornography, where they have double anal penetration, and a girl having sex with 20 different guys, in every hole?

Ahhh - so now you think that 7 year olds should be watching double penetration.  How messed up are you exactly?

Parents can control where 7 year olds go on the net. And they can supervise.  Sure kids will see stuff now and again but your argument that 7 year olds should be given unfettered access to 'double penetration' porn is stupid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:


3. Why would I say I support the decision and in the same thread call her a 'Chud' ?

Why would you call anyone a chud at all?  Don't ask me to explain your bigotry and hatred.

 

Quote

4. The other example was something that we were on the same page over - remember ?  That's actually a remarkable thing given the degree of distrust you have for me.  If you didn't realize it, I was offering to use that as a test case to build upon the discussion we're having here.  But I think that was before you posted that you were "loathe" to agree with me.  It's fine either way, but I was offering to use that other case to examine the details of freedom-of-speech at a board meeting.  I'll even suppress my use of the c-word to describe the complaintants there :)

And this is your excuse for why you had to re-write what you wrote in the first place?  Just  be clear in the future and if you change your mind just say so instead of trying to ret-con a new version.
 

Quote

5. No, I feel the same about both rulings.  I'm happy that the process is working both ways, and I don't "care" (ie. don't have personal stake in the outcomes).  Hope that's clear.
6. See 5.

But that's not what you said.  Maybe it would be helpful if you could post an expiry date with each of your comments so we know when they're going to no longer be your valid opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And you were still in grade 1 at age 13 were you?  That explains a lot.  Most kids are 6-7 in grade one. And they don't need to be thinking about that stuff.  And that's what we're talking about here.

It'd really speed this up if you thought even a little before speaking. It's tiring explaining basic things to you.

 

 

God, you're pathetic.

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Why would you call anyone a chud at all?  Don't ask me to explain your bigotry and hatred.

 

And this is your excuse for why you had to re-write what you wrote in the first place?  Just  be clear in the future and if you change your mind just say so instead of trying to ret-con a new version.
 

But that's not what you said.  Maybe it would be helpful if you could post an expiry date with each of your comments so we know when they're going to no longer be your valid opinion?

Michael, is one of the most intelligent and mild mannered people in the Political Forums he is a member of.  If you can't get along with him, then you must be a piece of shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

God, you're pathetic.

 

So that's a yes?  :)

IT's starting to get easy to see what your "tells" are.  When you know you're wrong you simply throw out an insult or fecal reference and then cower in the corner.

Quote

Michael, is one of the most intelligent and mild mannered people in the Political Forums he is a member of.  If you can't get along with him, then you must be a piece of shi

Mike is a dishonest poster and not very smart.  I thought initially he seemed intelligent as well but when i started reading his stuff - it's not. In fact, it's pretty low brow.  He uses a series of debate tricks to come across as smart but in reality it's just obfuscation, misdirection avoidance and minimization with a healthy dollop of dehumanization thrown in of course.

The fact you're impressed by that suggests you're dumber than a slug.  but your posts really had given that away Already. :)  

You're really going to have to step up your game if you're going to hang around here or you're just going to wind up being a punching bag.  Make better arguments.  Be less stupid.  Read carefully to make sure you know what you're replying to.  Make strong arguments and avoid cheap tricks.

Or not -  i can always use another good laugh and emotional scratching post :) 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ahhh - so now you think that 7 year olds should be watching double penetration.  How messed up are you exactly?

What the hell are you going on about?

 

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Parents can control where 7 year olds go on the net. And they can supervise. 

Not if the kid decides to go over to a friends house, where the parents do not supervise their child.  This happens all the time.  A kid who is restricted access to the family internet, will likely just find one of their friends, who has parents who are either out, or do not supervise what their child watches. 

This happened to me as a child. I was not allowed to watch old reruns of Three's Company, but if I was at my friends house, they had no problem letting us view the sitcom, so I watched it there.

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure kids will see stuff now and again but your argument that 7 year olds should be given unfettered access to 'double penetration' porn is stupid.

 

What the hell are you talking about.  Just because you fantasise about 7 year old girls, does not give you the right to project your sexual deviance on me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

Mike is a dishonest poster and not very smart.  I thought initially he seemed intelligent as well but when i started reading his stuff - it's not. In fact, it's pretty low brow.  He uses a series of debate tricks to come across as smart but in reality it's just obfuscation, misdirection avoidance and minimization with a healthy dollop of dehumanization thrown in of course.

 

If we were to compare IQ scores, Michael would likely come on top by at least 40 points. My guess is 128-88. You ahve a limited intellect, I commend you for trying. There is nothing wrong with being in the bottom 1/3 of the general public when it comes to intelligence. God just made you that way.

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

You're really going to have to step up your game if you're going to hang around here or you're just going to wind up being a punching bag.  Make better arguments.  Be less stupid.  Read carefully to make sure you know what you're replying to.  Make strong arguments and avoid cheap tricks.

Or not -  i can always use another good laugh and emotional scratching post :) 

Actually, this forum does not have the best reputation.  I've actually had to dumb myself down just to fit in.  This is a borderline White supremacist site. 

Edited by DUI_Offender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,753
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Matthew
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...