Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 904

Thread: Enough of these 'I'm Offended, It's not Politically Correct' people already

  1. #101

    Default

    Yup, it's almost as if they actually believe that nutcases setting off pressure cooker bombs in public are doing it because our language is too harsh. It's unbelievable.

  2. #102

    Default

    the word "Terrorist" is absolutely being overused but that sure isn't the reason.
    There can only be one.

  3. #103

    Default

    Canada touts itself as being multicultural, yet the complete opposite is happening. We're becoming this weird MONOculture where everything from every culture is stripped out because it may offend others.

    I find it sickening because we are supposed to bend over backwards for newcomers. However, try bringing your ways to other countries and see what happens. Go to Turkey, and I mean somewhere in south-east Turkey, far away from the tourist areas, and show up in shorts with a sleeve-less shirt. Find a restaurant and sit outside and have a few beers (Oh, you'll have to bring your own!). I'm not picking on Turkey either, you can try the same in Dubai... See how far that gets you and how long it takes for you to land in jail. Cry about how it's your way and it's acceptable in your country, see if that helps. Here's a hint, it won't.

    But go to another country and tell them you're offended by their ways. What'll happen? If you survive, you'll probably be sent home or locked up. Yet the Muslim community asked Germany to stop their Oktoberfest celebrations because it offended the Muslim community. Again, if you don't like the rules where you go, then don't go there, go back home.

    Now don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on Muslims, I have Muslim friends who actually agree with me. It's the other ones who are the problem. And NO, not just Muslims, just people from other cultures in general, who are radically different in their ways.

    Canada will no longer be the country we knew when we were kids. And it's already happening. Nobody says Merry Christmas anymore, and they're changing our national anthem to make it gender neutral. Funny, but where was that vote cast? I don't remember getting a say on that decision... Till the day I die, I will never speak the anthem in the new PC way. Ottawa can kiss it.

  4. #104

    Default

    Quick Google tells me the Oktoberfest petition is a fake. As easily guessed.
    There can only be one.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quick Google tells me the Oktoberfest petition is a fake. As easily guessed.
    No, that's only what people speculate. No proof either way because the petition was taken down. But it wouldn't be the first "demands".

  6. #106
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    British Columbia is a ‘racist’ name and needs to go, says artist

    It’s not the Queen Charlotte Islands anymore, but Haida Gwaii; the Salish Sea and Kwakwaka'wakw Sea are less-well known attempts to rename B.C. places to acknowledge the presence of first peoples.
    A prominent aboriginal artist is now arguing that the name of our province needs a wholesale rethink, and is pushing for the issue to be put to a provincial referendum.


    “It’s a colonial, ugly, creepy, Canadiana, racist (name),” said Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun. A 30-year retrospective of Yuxweluptun’s work is currently on display at the Museum of Anthropology, which has launched a campaign called #RenameBC that will wrap up this weekend as the exhibition closes.


    Some of the suggestions submitted so far through Twitter have included Chuckkopakosah (Twitter user @starbuckbeak writes: “In Chinook Wawa, trade language of old Columbia…it means Sea to Sky”), Hyas Illahee (Chinook for “Great Land", writes Twitter user @LeftCoastRacing) or Klahowya (Chinook for “welcome” or “hello”). Tree Sea and Landfall are two other suggestions.


    Yuxweluptun especially takes issue with the “British” part of British Columbia, although he’d really like to see the entire thing go.


    “Anything but British Columbia is my preference. We have Salish Seas, I think even calling it the Coastal province – anything that brings it out of British control,” Yuxweluptun said.


    “I would rather have a republic. I don’t want the British monarchy coming here and visiting.”


    For Yuxweluptun, whose art depicts environmental catastrophes and the clash between arboriginal people and European colonizers, a new name for B.C. would be the first step in addressing current and historic injustices.


    “I want them to be changed so we can start to realistically negotiate in trust, in stewardship of this land,” he said, pointing out that 96 per cent of B.C. First Nations still do not have treaties. “If you want to cut down a tree, pay the Indian. If you want a glass of water, pay the Indian.”
    http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouv...go-artist.html

  7. #107

    Default

    They really don't understand what "racist" means.

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    They really don't understand what "racist" means.
    It means pretty much any anything - any discrimination or prejudice between groups based on you name it; ethnicity, class, culture, colour, country, religion...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism


    The melting pot belief:
    The Ugly, Fascinating History Of The Word 'Racism

    The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Pratt was railing against the evils of racial segregation.

    Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary
    Although Pratt might have been the first person to inveigh against racism and its deleterious effects by name, he is much better-remembered for a very different coinage: Kill the Indian...save the man.

    "A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one," Pratt said. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."

    We're still living with the after-effects of what Pratt thought and did. His story serves as a useful parable for why discussions of racism remain so deeply contentious even now.


    But let's back up a bit.

    Beginning in the 1880s, a group of well-heeled white men would travel to upstate New York each year to attend the Lake Mohonk Conference Of The Friend Of the Indian. Their primary focus was a solution to "the Indian problem," the need for the government to deal with the Native American groups living in lands that had been forcibly seized from them. The Plains Wars had decimated the Native American population, but they were coming to an end.

    There was a general feeling among these men and other U.S. leaders that the remaining Native Americans would be wiped out within a generation or two, destroyed by disease and starvation.

    The Lake Mohonk attendees wanted to stop that from happening, and they pressed lawmakers to change the government's policies toward Indians. Pratt, in particular, was a staunch advocate of folding Native Americans into white life — assimilation through education. ....



    http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswit...he-word-racism
    Last edited by KC; 04-10-2016 at 09:32 PM.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    They really don't understand what "racist" means.
    It means pretty much any anything - any discrimination or prejudice between groups based on you name it; ethnicity, class, culture, colour, country, religion...
    No, it doesn't. Some people might try to use it that way, but it's not what "racism" is.

  10. #110

    Default

    Introducing Trudeau's government recent BILL C-16






    http://eedition.toronto.24hrs.ca/epaper/viewer.aspx October 3rd, 2016 (page 3)


    I definitely wouldn't use "zhe" instead of he or she either. When people talk of Liberal Fascism, this I think, hits pretty close to that term. Referring to someone as "he" instead of "she" by mistake is NOT a human rights issue. We don't sacrifice our fundamental language for a tiny minority of individuals whose orientation does not correspond to their physical sex.

    The Human Rights Commission in this country is a complete joke.

  11. #111

    Default

    I think the Human Rights Commission probably get's it's fair share of frivolous cases dumped on it's desk. People going out of their way to find offence or discrimination where there really is none. Usually basic common sense used to settle most disputes. Now it's a civil case. Thin skinned people living in la la land.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  12. #112
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,447

    Default

    Soon we'll have discrimination based on skin thickness.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  13. #113

    Default

    Discriminate against people who don't discriminate enough.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Introducing Trudeau's government recent BILL C-16






    http://eedition.toronto.24hrs.ca/epaper/viewer.aspx October 3rd, 2016 (page 3)


    I definitely wouldn't use "zhe" instead of he or she either. When people talk of Liberal Fascism, this I think, hits pretty close to that term. Referring to someone as "he" instead of "she" by mistake is NOT a human rights issue. We don't sacrifice our fundamental language for a tiny minority of individuals whose orientation does not correspond to their physical sex.

    The Human Rights Commission in this country is a complete joke.
    CBC Radio interviewed him. He sure held his own. A great interview to listen to if anyone can find the link.

    I think we should all be called "its". Or use names. Eg. It's standing right over their next to the other it with blonde hair. Or, Bobby's right there.

    In writing I think s/he works well. As for zhe is that an American z or Canadian z?
    Last edited by KC; 06-10-2016 at 01:37 AM.

  15. #115

    Default

    What's with these people getting all freaked out and offended by these so called 'creepy clowns'. Some days I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry while reading the news. I guess EPS have arrested two students for having some creepy clown adventures. Could this be EPS's first case for their Terrorist Bureau. Now the article is a bit thin on what they actually did but I hope it's not just dressing like clowns and posting the frivolity on-line. Back in the day this kind of stuff used to be called 'high jinks'. I guess now it's called a 'Federal Case' or a 'Case for the Prosecution'. I guess people are getting antsy because they see a clown walking along the road at night or peering at them while they are chowing down their McD's. It seems all a bit too much for them or offends them. For cripes sake, their folks stuck for things to do so they are dressing as clowns. It's a phase, ignore them, it to will pass.


    http://wpmedia.edmontonjournal.com/2...y=55&strip=all
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  16. #116

    Default

    How to spot a Social Justice Warrior - they will tell you what to think instead of asking. Toronto Professor gives up trying to reason with SJWs:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA



    One comment on this was, "These people don't understand because they're not trying to." Sums it up quite nicely.

  17. #117

    Default

    "It's impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows." - Epictetus
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    How to spot a Social Justice Warrior - they will tell you what to think instead of asking. Toronto Professor gives up trying to reason with SJWs:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA


    One comment on this was, "These people don't understand because they're not trying to." Sums it up quite nicely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    "It's impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows." - Epictetus


    Same with religions. Especially powerful when you can get people born into a religion. They just accept what they are told as 'gospel' and so don't question their own beliefs. However, they sure question anything that goes counter to their unquestioned beliefs.

    People should listen to the Prof. on the CBC interview. Quite interesting. I can't say who'd I'd side with but he sure held his own.


    Friday September 30, 2016
    'I'm not a bigot' Meet the U of T prof who refuses to use genderless pronouns


    "Carol Off: Professor Peterson, why have you said you don't recognize another person's right to determine what pronouns you use to address them?

    Jordan Peterson: That's right. I don't recognize that. I don't recognize another person's right to decide what words I'm going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people. They might have a point but I'm not going to say their words for them."


    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/...ouns-1.3786144


    By the way folks, I know some of you like to refer to me in quite derogatory terms but I may decide that you all will have to refer to me as "your honour", "your holiness", "almighty", "master of the universe", or something befitting of my interpretation of myself. I know you will all respect my wishes.

    I've argued with friends that we should all just call each other "it". Simple. People call my dog an it as in: What is it? What's it's name?, and so on. It works well.

    Maybe "person" would work even better. Has some legal/constitutional precedence too.
    Last edited by KC; 24-10-2016 at 11:36 AM.

  19. #119

    Default

    I have been following Dr Peterson for many years now. For him to come out publicly and risk his tenure and livelihood things must have reached an insufferable stage. His clients are being driven to insanity by the Human Remains departments where they work. In one workplace his client could no longer say "flip-chart" as it was deemed derogatory.

    I believe at this point we are at the precipice of change. Especially here in Alberta. With high school dropout rates as high as 40% and thousands of homeschooled kids there is a massive constituency that will not abide.
    And that is a good thing.

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Safir View Post
    In one workplace his client could no longer say "flip-chart" as it was deemed derogatory.
    That's really unbelievable. I think that "generation snowflake" is at the point where they are just grasping at anything, desperately searching for a battle to fight for.

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Safir View Post
    I have been following Dr Peterson for many years now. For him to come out publicly and risk his tenure and livelihood things must have reached an insufferable stage. His clients are being driven to insanity by the Human Remains departments where they work. In one workplace his client could no longer say "flip-chart" as it was deemed derogatory.

    I believe at this point we are at the precipice of change. Especially here in Alberta. With high school dropout rates as high as 40% and thousands of homeschooled kids there is a massive constituency that will not abide.
    And that is a good thing.
    "flip-chart"? Oh, you gotta provide a link on that.


    Found this ref. back to 2004
    http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=267627



    This is fascinating - see below.
    Whatever happened to tolerance and multiculturalism - we must let these poor letter combinations retain their cultural and original attributes:


    HOW ‘GAY’ CAME TO MEAN ‘HOMOSEXUAL’
    February 25, 2010 Daven Hiskey

    The word “gay” seems to have its origins around the 12th century in England, derived from the Old French word ‘gai’, which in turn was probably derived from a Germanic word, though that isn’t completely known. The word’s original meaning meant something to the effect of “joyful”, “carefree”, “full of mirth”, or “bright and showy”.

    However, around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality. By the mid 17th century, according to an Oxford dictionary definition at the time, the meaning of the word had changed to mean “addicted to pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life”. This is an extension of one of the original meanings of “carefree”, meaning more or less uninhibited.

    Fast-forward to the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women (ironically enough), often prostitutes. Also at this time, the phrase “gay it” meant to have sex.

    With these new definitions, the original meanings of “carefree”, “joyful”, and “bright and showy” were still around; so the word was not exclusively ..."

    http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....an-homosexual/
    Last edited by KC; 27-10-2016 at 02:39 PM.

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Safir View Post
    In one workplace his client could no longer say "flip-chart" as it was deemed derogatory.
    That's really unbelievable. I think that "generation snowflake" is at the point where they are just grasping at anything, desperately searching for a battle to fight for.
    Apparently "Flip" is considered a slur against Phillipinos. Too warm for snowflakes in their home country. Google "flip chart derogatory".
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  23. #123

    Default

    The pendulum has got to start swinging back to the middle ground. Start calling things what they are. Politicians skirting around words like 'terrorists', calling black people 'people of color' etc. A few years back I remember reading an article about government forms and lingo etc. Some government officials wanted to simplify the forms by cutting out the double speak jargon and just use plain English. It seems to me it's got worse. If we want plain English we should be able to call a spade a spade.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  24. #124

    Default

    This is the kind of nonsense that Orwell cautioned in '1984'. It's creepy as hell that governments are actually trying to censor acceptable language to make it fit their political agenda.

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    The pendulum has got to start swinging back to the middle ground. Start calling things what they are. Politicians skirting around words like 'terrorists', calling black people 'people of color' etc. A few years back I remember reading an article about government forms and lingo etc. Some government officials wanted to simplify the forms by cutting out the double speak jargon and just use plain English. It seems to me it's got worse. If we want plain English we should be able to call a spade a spade.

    " call a spade a spade"

    I'd prefer that you use shovel. Hearing the word spade spoken, evokes horrible psychological trauma among pet dogs.

  26. #126

    Default

    There will be no "plain" English until we have one and only one word or symbol for a concept, with no room for interpretation or offense in any other language. Orwell described what such a system would be like in 1984. Doubleplusungood.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  27. #127
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    calling black people 'people of color' etc.
    People of color means not white, not just black people.

  28. #128

    Default

    White is a color.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  29. #129
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    White is a color.
    wtf

    Thank you for reminding me why you're on ignore.

  30. #130

    Default

    ^Your welcome.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  31. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    White is a color.
    wtf

    Thank you for reminding me why you're on ignore.
    Well, in additive colour space (e.g., lighting) white is all colours.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  32. #132

  33. #133

    Default

    Yup, offended easily and thinned skinned to boot. See post #129 for a prime example of jackassery.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  34. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    White is a color.
    Where it's a minority maybe.

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    White is a color.
    wtf

    Thank you for reminding me why you're on ignore.
    http://www.acronymfinder.com/WTF.html

    wtf? I like the last one. "Words to follow". :—)

  36. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    White is a color.
    Where it's a minority maybe.
    And that would be pretty much everywhere. Who is actually white? Even albinos are pink.

    Colourists!
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  37. #137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    White is a color.
    wtf

    Thank you for reminding me why you're on ignore.
    http://www.acronymfinder.com/WTF.html

    wtf? I like the last one. "Words to follow". :—)
    You have to laugh at the irony of this as we are in a thread basically about the easily offended.
    Tell someone that white is a color and for some reason they go ballistic. Anyway, WGAF what some wimpy poster thinks.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  38. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    White is a color.
    Where it's a minority maybe.
    And that would be pretty much everywhere. Who is actually white? Even albinos are pink.

    Colourists!
    Yes, those colourists are wreaking havoc on the politically correct crowd.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  39. #139
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    White is a color.
    wtf

    Thank you for reminding me why you're on ignore.
    http://www.acronymfinder.com/WTF.html

    wtf? I like the last one. "Words to follow". :—)
    You have to laugh at the irony of this as we are in a thread basically about the easily offended.
    Tell someone that white is a color and for some reason they go ballistic. Anyway, WGAF what some wimpy poster thinks.
    I'm not offended.

    I just don't understand your ignorance.

  40. #140

    Default

    Let us just make everyone happy. White is and is not a colour.

  41. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBear View Post
    Let us just make everyone happy. White is and is not a colour.
    We come in all shapes, sizes and colors but we are all members of the human race and that's the main thing.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  42. #142

    Default

    OK, so here my question:

    If it's wrong to wear dress or do something that culturally belongs to some other culture (like the yoga issue, the native headdresses, etc. etc. etc..) then what are immigrants to Canada supposed to do? Should they not adopt Canadian culture because that would be "cultural expropriation"?

  43. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JBear View Post
    Let us just make everyone happy. White is and is not a colour.
    We come in all shapes, sizes and colors but we are all members of the human race and that's the main thing.
    Well, technically, maybe partial members of the human race as I think they are discovering that European people have some Neanderthal in them. Only the Africans might be pure humans and everyone else is maybe a hybrid / mixed race sort of thing.

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    If it's wrong to wear dress or do something that culturally belongs to some other culture (like the yoga issue, the native headdresses, etc. etc. etc..)
    I have some issues with that, too. Cultures are all different and some see that as a sign of respect - a Japanese person would be honored if someone of another race dressed as a Geisha.

    This politically-correct culture just makes everyone fight more. It would be better if we still recognized that everyone is different, but hammer home the fact that nobody is special.

  45. #145
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    OK, so here my question:

    If it's wrong to wear dress or do something that culturally belongs to some other culture (like the yoga issue, the native headdresses, etc. etc. etc..) then what are immigrants to Canada supposed to do? Should they not adopt Canadian culture because that would be "cultural expropriation"?
    It's not inherently wrong to wear or do something that culturally belongs to another culture.

    Cultural appropriation an issue in two kinds of cases:

    1) Wearing or doing something from a culture that has been oppressed, especially by the oppressors, and even made worse when the oppressed was forbidden or mocked for doing the same. Like your white people wearing dreadlocks but forbidding it on black people. Or wearing First Nations outfits even though First Nations people were forced not to.

    2) Mocking or using culturally important items/clothing/beliefs insensitivity. Things like war bonnets that have spiritual and ceremonial significance shouldn't be your next fashion accessory.

    There is a difference between appreciating another culture and appropriating it. You move away from appropriation towards appreciation with things like consent and I don't mean asking one person from that culture I mean actually understanding the thing you want to use, and obtaining it from said culture vs buying it at your nearby box store.

    So the immigrants to Canada are not appropriating any Canadian culture. They're integrating themselves into the culture here.

  46. #146

    Default

    Ok, I guess this means Canadians SHOULD NOT buy clothing items from other countries. eg. Seems that going to Mexico and bringing back a Sombrero is inherently a racist action or at a minimum, an attempt at cultural expropriation. Moreover, say, cowboy hat sales in Calgary to foreigners is selling out our identity (or is it their's?) and that practice must be stopped.


    Costume party highlights racism at Queen’s University, critics say
    ERIC ANDREW-GEE

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle32996051/
    Last edited by KC; 23-11-2016 at 11:33 AM.

  47. #147
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,726

    Default

    ^ I browsed through the pictures on a different site. It was a bit of a stretch to call them offensive. Maybe the buddhist monks? Dressing the mexicans in prison fatigues was more a barb at Trump's claims than a racism thing. The Viet Cong was probably inappropriate.

    If you can't dress as a Luchadore (mexican wrestler) for Halloween, then all hope is lost.
    Last edited by nobleea; 23-11-2016 at 11:37 AM.

  48. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JBear View Post
    Let us just make everyone happy. White is and is not a colour.
    We come in all shapes, sizes and colors but we are all members of the human race and that's the main thing.
    Well, technically, maybe partial members of the human race as I think they are discovering that European people have some Neanderthal in them. Only the Africans might be pure humans and everyone else is maybe a hybrid / mixed race sort of thing.
    Me Tarzan You Jane...........Ah..e..ah..e..ah.e..ah.e.ah.ahhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  49. #149

    Default

    A Dutch bakery in Edmonton is reviving a Dutch Christmas custom of Zwarte Piet or Black Pete. The usual flock of butt hurt and easily offended are bleating that this should not be happening. Zwarte Piet supposedly represents a coal miner or someone who fell down a chimney and is Santa's side kick. Like Santa I guess there are a couple of theories about what Black Pete is but I don't think being culturally insensitive is one of them. I don't think anyone seeing a Black Pete outfit will suddenly get the urge to bring back slavery. They might ponder the demise of coal or soot but slavery is a very long shot. I very much doubt black people are so thin skinned as to find a Xmas tradition offensive. I'm surprised overweight white people are not complaining that Santa is always being portrayed as white and overweight. Somebody have to draw the line on that one.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...face-tradition
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  50. #150

    Default

    I really hope the bakery doesn't cave to those whiners. Being "offended" does not make you right.

  51. #151
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,961

    Default



    Yeah, no kidding.

    Article reminds Top_Dawg of a hilarious quip he once read about Reverend Al Sharpton.

    To paraphrase:

    ' Jesse Lipscombe was of course available for comment. '

  52. #152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    A Dutch bakery in Edmonton is reviving a Dutch Christmas custom of Zwarte Piet or Black Pete. The usual flock of butt hurt and easily offended are bleating that this should not be happening. Zwarte Piet supposedly represents a coal miner or someone who fell down a chimney and is Santa's side kick. Like Santa I guess there are a couple of theories about what Black Pete is but I don't think being culturally insensitive is one of them. I don't think anyone seeing a Black Pete outfit will suddenly get the urge to bring back slavery. They might ponder the demise of coal or soot but slavery is a very long shot. I very much doubt black people are so thin skinned as to find a Xmas tradition offensive. I'm surprised overweight white people are not complaining that Santa is always being portrayed as white and overweight. Somebody have to draw the line on that one.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...face-tradition

    Santa, often portrayed as an older white man who gives gifts, perpetuates white supremacy and misogyny. Let's ban him. Elves, perpetuate myths regarding little people. Let's ban them. Pinocchio, perpetuates too many stereotypes to mention, let alone the problem with his nose growing with each lie sets out a dangerous perception of those with disabilities. Cinderella 's ugly step-sisters perpetuate false perceptions of blended families. Let's ban it. In fact, let's just legally prohibit all celebrations of all kinds for kids which in any way involve any characters who are not historically accurate or who, having lived in their time, now represent or can be said to represent, values no longer perpetuated. I think this will end Cupid, you know the violent character who dispenses arrows, the Easter Bunny, who clearly misappropriated eggs, Hallowe'en is absolutely out as it represents cultural misappropriation. Ban all of them. We must stamp out all traditions, all use of imagination, all belief in magical events, if we are to raise the lemming workers of tomorrow. That is our job as adults. We've made a start but we have a ways to go yet. We can all gather for book burnings if there is any perceived need for any celebration. By the way, I checked with my niece who celebrates Dutch Christmas. She thinks black Pete is black because he is a coal miner and hence carries the sack of coal. I didn't bother to tell her that stereotypes coal miners as being dirty. We are banning coal anyway.
    .

  53. #153

    Default

    B.C. teacher fired for having the wrong opinion

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...-wrong-opinion

    Excerpts

    A teacher at a posh private school in British Columbia was fired last month after making an innocuous comment about abortion to his Grade 12 law class.

    Though there is no way of knowing, since discipline matters are shrouded in secrecy, it may be the first time a Canadian teacher has been fired not amid allegations of impropriety, but for having the wrong opinion.
    In other words, he said, in a pluralistic democracy, there’s often “a difference between people’s private morality and the law.

    “I find abortion to be wrong,” he said, as another illustration of this gap, “but the law is often different from our personal opinions.”


    That was it, the teacher said. “It was just a quick exemplar, nothing more. And we moved on.”


    A little later, the class had a five-minute break, and when it resumed, several students didn’t return, among them a popular young woman who had gone to an administrator to complain that what the teacher said had “triggered” her such that she felt “unsafe” and that, in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man.
    What happened to the teacher over the ensuing few days sounds like something out of the Cultural Revolution in Mao’s China, where people were subjected to what were known as ideological struggle sessions, forced to “confess” to various imagined sins before large crowds, and roundly denounced.
    The discussion was postponed another day, and after “white-knuckling” it through his other classes, it came time for the law class.

    It was exactly the horror show he’d imagined: His boss sat among a crowd of students, ran through a list of what had gone wrong and “what I needed to do to change.” While most students appeared to be on his side, the offended girl was still furious.


    He apologized specifically to her, but then made what was apparently a fatal error: He said he liked her, that she was a bright and engaging student, and said he’d told her father just that at a recent parent-teacher night.

    She stormed out of the class in tears, and he was again castigated by his superiors, this time for having been “too personal” in his apologia.


    On Nov. 30, he showed up at the school, was retrieved by an administrator and taken to the “head” of school, the private school equivalent of a principal.


    He was told he “could no longer continue in the classroom,” and was offered a short-term medical disability top-up for employment insurance.


    He was then escorted down the hall and off the premises.

    “Such is the cost of a small misstep in a crushingly politically correct world,” he said sorrowfully.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    B.C. teacher fired for having the wrong opinion

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...-wrong-opinion

    Excerpts

    A teacher at a posh private school in British Columbia was fired last month after making an innocuous comment about abortion to his Grade 12 law class.

    Though there is no way of knowing, since discipline matters are shrouded in secrecy, it may be the first time a Canadian teacher has been fired not amid allegations of impropriety, but for having the wrong opinion.
    In other words, he said, in a pluralistic democracy, there’s often “a difference between people’s private morality and the law.

    “I find abortion to be wrong,” he said, as another illustration of this gap, “but the law is often different from our personal opinions.”


    That was it, the teacher said. “It was just a quick exemplar, nothing more. And we moved on.”


    A little later, the class had a five-minute break, and when it resumed, several students didn’t return, among them a popular young woman who had gone to an administrator to complain that what the teacher said had “triggered” her such that she felt “unsafe” and that, in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man.
    What happened to the teacher over the ensuing few days sounds like something out of the Cultural Revolution in Mao’s China, where people were subjected to what were known as ideological struggle sessions, forced to “confess” to various imagined sins before large crowds, and roundly denounced.
    The discussion was postponed another day, and after “white-knuckling” it through his other classes, it came time for the law class.

    It was exactly the horror show he’d imagined: His boss sat among a crowd of students, ran through a list of what had gone wrong and “what I needed to do to change.” While most students appeared to be on his side, the offended girl was still furious.


    He apologized specifically to her, but then made what was apparently a fatal error: He said he liked her, that she was a bright and engaging student, and said he’d told her father just that at a recent parent-teacher night.

    She stormed out of the class in tears, and he was again castigated by his superiors, this time for having been “too personal” in his apologia.


    On Nov. 30, he showed up at the school, was retrieved by an administrator and taken to the “head” of school, the private school equivalent of a principal.


    He was told he “could no longer continue in the classroom,” and was offered a short-term medical disability top-up for employment insurance.


    He was then escorted down the hall and off the premises.

    “Such is the cost of a small misstep in a crushingly politically correct world,” he said sorrowfully.
    Interesting. Now the article mentions a boss (and not a principal) and a list of what had gone wrong. Why didn't the reporter provide the list to the readers?

    I wonder how it would have gone if he said: I find abortion right, and the law is in agreement with my personal opinion, as it generally is in agreement with most personal opinions on many issues. Would students have complained? Where would it have gone from there? Or if it had been about legalizing marijuana or something else, when is personal opinion allowed?
    Last edited by KC; 08-12-2016 at 05:33 PM.

  55. #155
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Just yet another cupcake ruining a man because she can. This nonsense needs to stop.

  56. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Just yet another cupcake ruining a man because she can. This nonsense needs to stop.
    She should have just recognized that he was rather brain dead for thinking abortion is "wrong". Kids need to be taught that adults can be as moronic as kids.
    Last edited by KC; 08-12-2016 at 09:05 PM.

  57. #157

    Default

    Why cannot a man have an opinion on abortion? Does that mean there can only be women judges and jurors in abortion cases? Does this mean only certain races can have opinions on specific race cases? Does it mean only men can teach boys sports?

    How politically correct do we become before being policially correct becomes offensive and morally incorrect. I see too much of a fracturation of society on racial, gender and religious lines. The exact opposite of what was the goal.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  58. #158

    Default

    A man can have any opinion on abortion he chooses, but at best his opinion is utterly worthless, since he will never under any circumstances whatever have an abortion himself.

    Expressing that opinion is another matter. He should in fact keep it to himself. Otherwise he only exposes something worthless to the world. At best. At worst he is guilty of intimidation.
    Last edited by AShetsen; 08-12-2016 at 09:49 PM.

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Just yet another cupcake ruining a man because she can. This nonsense needs to stop.
    She should have just recognized that he was rather brain dead for thinking abortion is "wrong". Kids need to be taught that adults can be as moronic as kids.
    No, she was being sexist in judging him as not being able to have an opinion or even having the right to have an opinion simply because he has a penis.

    One hundred years ago, half the population in Canada could not vote if they had a vagina.

    Now you see how wrong this whole example is. The teacher was fully within his rights and the student was wrong IMHO. That is of you let me have my opinion...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  60. #160

    Default

    Male opinions on abortion are the same as female opinions on prostate cancer. Give or take the matter of intimidation -- but otherwise, equally worthless.

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    A man can have any opinion on abortion he chooses, but at best his opinion is utterly worthless, since he will never under any circumstances whatever have one himself.

    Expressing that opinion is another matter. He should in fact keep it to himself. Otherwise he only exposes something worthless to the world. At best. At worst he is guilty of intimidation.
    I do not think you have the right to control my opinion on abortion. You are assuming that since it does not directly affect me, I have no rights or freedom of expression. That is a slippery slope. If a Muslim man murders his daughter in an honor killing, you are saying that since I am not a Muslim, I cannot express my opinion or judge if it is right or wrong even on a legal basis?

    If a First Nations person steals property from another First Nations person, can I not sit on the jury because I am not one?

    Are you saying that a woman who is infertile and cannot have children do not have the right to an opinion on abortion?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 08-12-2016 at 10:14 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  62. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Male opinions on abortion are the same as female opinions on prostate cancer. Give or take the matter of intimidation -- but otherwise, equally worthless.
    Not the same. Abort ion is a morality and legal issue. Are you saying that a woman can have an abortion during the 8th month of pregnancy just because she decided to have one?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Male opinions on abortion are the same as female opinions on prostate cancer. Give or take the matter of intimidation -- but otherwise, equally worthless.
    That's a limited a view. A male physician, a male partner/husband, any half informed, half thinking male can recognize that there are times and situations where an abortion is necessary to save a girl or woman's life. Taking if further, if that woman is a mother of several young children sacrificing her life (say from a cancerous tumour) to let's assume, deliver a very premature child, possibly a child with a very low probability of survival itself (under 20 week maybe), seems to potentially shift such decisions to favour the mother's life over a foetus - say a 20 day old embryo... Just as one doesn't have to be a murder victim to understand the issues involved in a murder, male not being a female can have a bit of reasoned insight, empathy and understanding of a woman's position, even if they can't walk in their shoes.
    Last edited by KC; 08-12-2016 at 10:23 PM.

  64. #164

    Default

    Thanks for posting this here PRT. I was flabbergasted when I read this latest bit of inanity in the paper. What crazy times we live in.

    An entitled student feigns feeling "unsafe" because a teacher stated his opinion on abortion (that's all he did), she immediately goes to administrators who immediately go on fullscale panic PC alert.


    Not one mention of how the student felt "unsafe'' around the teacher or why even conceivably the question of safety could even arise in this context. Then the student gets offended a 2nd time when the teacher is forced to apologize to her and yet again storms out like a petulant, delicate child in need of more histrionics 101 lessons down the hall..

    lol as well that a teacher (male) cannot have any expressed opinion on abortion be it on moral, spiritual, judgement grounds but that the same teacher and faculty are made to take tolerance training from the latest popup organization for LGBTQQ2S ( I can't even keep up with this ever expanding acronym) named Qmunity where faculty get to have their own background and beliefs expunged in the name of post information age "facts' on sexuality and that "everybody is somewhere on the gender spectrum" and that 100% identification with ones sex doesn't exist to which I would ask "how do you know? In effect using the same logic applied in reaction how would QComunity know what hetero 100% identification is, looks like, or if it exists.

    I would get fired on the spot. It would be worth it.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  65. #165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Just yet another cupcake ruining a man because she can. This nonsense needs to stop.
    She should have just recognized that he was rather brain dead for thinking abortion is "wrong". Kids need to be taught that adults can be as moronic as kids.
    No, she was being sexist in judging him as not being able to have an opinion or even having the right to have an opinion simply because he has a penis.

    One hundred years ago, half the population in Canada could not vote if they had a vagina.

    Now you see how wrong this whole example is. The teacher was fully within his rights and the student was wrong IMHO. That is of you let me have my opinion...
    Sexist, or calling it like it is, he's an *****, possibly generalizing, but possibly talking to someone that may have direct, possibly horrible experience already. Say her dad or brother had raped her, got her pregnant at 13 and she'd had an abortion. This guy could have been up there telling it like it is too, abortion is wrong - implying all abortions are wrong...

  66. #166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Just yet another cupcake ruining a man because she can. This nonsense needs to stop.
    She should have just recognized that he was rather brain dead for thinking abortion is "wrong". Kids need to be taught that adults can be as moronic as kids.
    No, she was being sexist in judging him as not being able to have an opinion or even having the right to have an opinion simply because he has a penis.

    One hundred years ago, half the population in Canada could not vote if they had a vagina.

    Now you see how wrong this whole example is. The teacher was fully within his rights and the student was wrong IMHO. That is of you let me have my opinion...
    Sexist, or calling it like it is, he's an *****, possibly generalizing, but possibly talking to someone that may have direct, possibly horrible experience already. Say her dad or brother had raped her, got her pregnant at 13 and she'd had an abortion. This guy could have been up there telling it like it is too, abortion is wrong - implying all abortions are wrong...
    “I find abortion to be wrong,” he said, as another illustration of this gap, “but the law is often different from our personal opinions.”


    Is what the teacher stated. That's all. "I find" and "personal opinion" being somewhat relevant in the statement. In otherwords clearly an opinion. As stated.


    For which he lost his job. In another age they'd be summarily lopping heads. So small solace and blessing.

    Welcome to newage witch hunts. Oh no, not PC term...
    Last edited by Replacement; 08-12-2016 at 10:43 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  67. #167

    Default

    Witches are people too you know...

    This student took it to a whole different level when she stated "in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man."

    She is insisting that he has no right to express himself on the issue. That would not hold up in the Courts because it violates his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    What's next? Men are not allowed to gather together in twos or more because a woman could feel threatened of being gang raped? Just because someone feels threatened or perceives it so, does not make the other party guilty of anything. It is called, guys waiting for a bus...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  68. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Witches are people too you know...

    This student took it to a whole different level when she stated "in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man."

    She is insisting that he has no right to express himself on the issue. That would not hold up in the Courts because it violates his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    What's next? Men are not allowed to gather together in twos or more because a woman could feel threatened of being gang raped? Just because someone feels threatened or perceives it so, does not make the other party guilty of anything. It is called, guys waiting for a bus...
    If I was the teacher I wouldn't feel "safe" around her..

    So because people are into hypotheticals here to illustrate a point how about this one. Happily married couple. Agree to have children 5 times and procreate. Wife changes mind and gets an abortion each time, unexplained, contrary to the mutually agreeing to have the child each time. Yet the man, being a male has no right to have an opinion, or any say on abortion whatsoever. Even involving his potential progeny. That's the extent of the alleged logic herein.

    That's the world we live in?
    Last edited by Replacement; 08-12-2016 at 11:13 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  69. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Witches are people too you know...

    This student took it to a whole different level when she stated "in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man."

    She is insisting that he has no right to express himself on the issue. That would not hold up in the Courts because it violates his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    What's next? Men are not allowed to gather together in twos or more because a woman could feel threatened of being gang raped? Just because someone feels threatened or perceives it so, does not make the other party guilty of anything. It is called, guys waiting for a bus...
    If I was the teacher I wouldn't feel "safe" around her..

    So because people are into hypotheticals here to illustrate a point how about this one. Happily married couple. Agree to have children 5 times and procreate. Wife changes mind and gets an abortion each time, unexplained, contrary to the mutually agreeing to have the child each time. Yet the man, being a male has no right to have an opinion, or any say on abortion whatsoever. Even involving his potential progeny. That's the extent of the alleged logic herein.

    That's the world we live in?

    Obviously, he wasn't safe around her. She nailed him good. Seems she may have better legal intuition than the law teacher too.

    I see nothing wrong with the teacher saying what he said as long as it's not some extremist hate speech (and even there I'm not so sure there should be great limitations). Everyone is free to have an opinion and to reveal how much of an ***** they are. His use seemed appropriate and commonplace. However, the girl should have therefore have the right to stand up and say whatever she wanted to in response to his statement of his own personal opinion. If he can state his personal opinion in a class, so should students. Open it up to debate, since he started it.

    As for the rest of the actions, reactions, etc. Well, I guess it's like war. You start some battle, you better be prepared for it go in unpredictable directions. He brought up a personal opinion for which he may have direct experience, but so may his students. Moreover, his students might hold more direct knowledge and expertise on the subject matter themselves than he did.

    As for her saying something to the effect that: 'he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man', that was her opinion and she's a sexist as well as against freedom of speech and that should have been something the administrator should have noted and possibly taken her to task for as well.

    Lastly, the situation seemed to be poorly arbitrated. Though I believe in our law, freedom of speech has numerous actual limitations. Most employees could be fired for speaking freely and openly of their opinions of their employers if those opinions were highly negative. This teacher may have stepped beyond what the employer felt was the approved curriculum. Since its in the papers now though, embarrassing the school and possibly causing financial damage they should maybe be thinking about firing the top people too. It's a gong show.
    Last edited by KC; 08-12-2016 at 11:51 PM.

  70. #170

    Default

    ^Well one would think the guy in this scenario of his wife having abortions would be saying 'Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me'.

    As for the teacher getting fired. I don't know if he would belong to any union if it was a private school but I'm sure if he was unionized it would not have happened or if it did he would get his job back. That school being a private school probably is extra cautious with those precious snowflakes they are trying to educate. Unfortunately they might me teaching them a school curriculum but they are sure not teaching them anything about life in the real world.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  71. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Well one would think the guy in this scenario of his wife having abortions would be saying 'Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me'.

    As for the teacher getting fired. I don't know if he would belong to any union if it was a private school but I'm sure if he was unionized it would not have happened or if it did he would get his job back. That school being a private school probably is extra cautious with those precious snowflakes they are trying to educate. Unfortunately they might me teaching them a school curriculum but they are sure not teaching them anything about life in the real world.
    That real world fired his ***. ...and as I was trying to show with my hypotheticals, a lot of girls might have very, very clear experience with surviving in the "real world". The teacher and a lot of men may be the snowflakes and cupcakes having never faced overwhelming violence against themselves. I know I sure grew up in a bubble of decency.
    Last edited by KC; 08-12-2016 at 11:56 PM.

  72. #172

    Default

    ^Yup and all because he had an opinion that was not in line with some princess. Her saying he cannot be allowed to have an opinion of abortion is ridiculous. I fail to see why the school fired him. Then when he went to apologize he made it too personal. WTF. The guys better out of there. Sounds like that private school could fry a persons mind. Unless there is more to this story than stated the guy should sue. The school and princess personally.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  73. #173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Witches are people too you know...

    This student took it to a whole different level when she stated "in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man."

    She is insisting that he has no right to express himself on the issue. That would not hold up in the Courts because it violates his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    What's next? Men are not allowed to gather together in twos or more because a woman could feel threatened of being gang raped? Just because someone feels threatened or perceives it so, does not make the other party guilty of anything. It is called, guys waiting for a bus...
    If I was the teacher I wouldn't feel "safe" around her..

    So because people are into hypotheticals here to illustrate a point how about this one. Happily married couple. Agree to have children 5 times and procreate. Wife changes mind and gets an abortion each time, unexplained, contrary to the mutually agreeing to have the child each time. Yet the man, being a male has no right to have an opinion, or any say on abortion whatsoever. Even involving his potential progeny. That's the extent of the alleged logic herein.

    That's the world we live in?

    Obviously, he wasn't safe around her. She nailed him good. Seems she may have better legal intuition than the law teacher too.

    I see nothing wrong with the teacher saying what he said as long as it's not some extremist hate speech (and even there I'm not so sure there should be great limitations). Everyone is free to have an opinion and to reveal how much of an ***** they are. His use seemed appropriate and commonplace. However, the girl should have therefore have the right to stand up and say whatever she wanted to in response to his statement of his own personal opinion. If he can state his personal opinion in a class, so should students. Open it up to debate, since he started it.

    As for the rest of the actions, reactions, etc. Well, I guess it's like war. You start some battle, you better be prepared for it go in unpredictable directions. He brought up a personal opinion for which he may have direct experience, but so may his students. Moreover, his students might hold more direct knowledge and expertise on the subject matter themselves than he did.

    As for her saying something to the effect that: 'he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man', that was her opinion and she's a sexist as well as against freedom of speech and that should have been something the administrator should have noted and possibly taken her to task for as well.

    Lastly, the situation seemed to be poorly arbitrated. Though I believe in our law, freedom of speech has numerous actual limitations. Most employees could be fired for speaking freely and openly of their opinions of their employers if those opinions were highly negative. This teacher may have stepped beyond what the employer felt was the approved curriculum. Since its in the papers now though, embarrassing the school and possibly causing financial damage they should maybe be thinking about firing the top people too. It's a gong show.
    The student likely had the choice to debate the issue, confront in class, after class, direct her concern directly with the teacher, all of which are responsible adult options. She instead chose to leave, and powertrip on two occasions and complaining about the teacher and triangulating what that teacher had stated. In effect a student initiated tribunal, apparently because she can, knew she could, and feels entitled to on the flimsiest of grounds. All aided and abetted by the educational facility if not present day consumer society.

    The real issue for teachers, any of them, is that in the present age students are considered the customer, administrators are the placating gods that be, and teachers expendable. It seems when complaints arise we are seeing multiple precedents where the teachers lose out and even in cases where there were no grounds for discipline, firing.

    The scary thought for me? I think that the student has likely even been reared, socialized to believe that any errant thought involving such topics as abortion should be responded to which such a fervor and zeal in the name of calling out anything sensed as intolerant, sexist, and all this while irony and double standard abounds.

    In our societies haste to protect everybodies precious little bubblewrap I'm afraid we've lost our way. There is next to no comprehension of what ought to occur when apparent rights of expression intersect.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  74. #174

    Default

    Amongst other issues, the example of women using abortion as a method of birth control is a well established fact. Not only can abortions endanger a woman's health with multiple risk factors of any operation but also may prevent her from having children at a later date. Also because abortions are costly to the public system, men also fund the procedures through their taxes so an argument can be made that men have an opinion on that front too.

    Nothing has been said about the rights of the fetus which has legal support and a moralistic and religious implications. Abortion is not a singular black or white issue. It is also a sliding scale as the fetus develops and becomes a viable life that can live outside the womb well before term. One of the most shocking things I learned was the murderous medical procedure was used in some places like Florida called partial birth abortions. These are performed at term where the baby is killed usually using a probe to the base of the neck just before the baby takes their first breath. The baby's brains are then sucked out. This was legal in some States at 9 months. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2007 that the ban was upheld as being Constitutional.

    In the ruling: Respondents have not demonstrated that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. The decisions of the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are reversed.

    The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion called partial-birth abortion, referred to in some medical literature by its less common name of intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partia...ortion_Ban_Act

    Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

    The Supreme Court's decision upheld Congress's ban and held that it did not impose an undue burden on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion, "under precedents we here assume to be controlling," such as the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In a legal sense, the case distinguished but did not overrule Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), in which the Court dealt with related issues. However, Gonzales was widely interpreted as signaling a shift in Supreme Court jurisprudence toward a restriction of abortion rights, occasioned in part by the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor and her replacement by Samuel Alito.
    The court found that there is "uncertainty [in the medical community] over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman's health"; and in the past the court "has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty."
    Looks like a lot on men had a legal opinion on this decision. Will that crazy student claim that their decision is null and void?

    Technically, partial birth abortions are entirely legal in Canada. The only controls in place are the Doctor's strict professional guidelines.

    Aside from all this, where has the normal student/teacher respect gone?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 09-12-2016 at 06:19 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  75. #175
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ... the same teacher and faculty are made to take tolerance training from the latest popup organization for LGBTQQ2S ( I can't even keep up with this ever expanding acronym) named Qmunity



    Classic.

    Queermunity indeed.

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Amongst other issues, the example of women using abortion as a method of birth control is a well established fact. Not only can abortions endanger a woman's health with multiple risk factors of any operation but also may prevent her from having children at a later date. Also because abortions are costly to the public system, men also fund the procedures through their taxes so an argument can be made that men have an opinion on that front too.

    Nothing has been said about the rights of the fetus which has legal support and a moralistic and religious implications. Abortion is not a singular black or white issue. It is also a sliding scale as the fetus develops and becomes a viable life that can live outside the womb well before term. One of the most shocking things I learned was the murderous medical procedure was used in some places like Florida called partial birth abortions. These are performed at term where the baby is killed usually using a probe to the base of the neck just before the baby takes their first breath. The baby's brains are then sucked out. This was legal in some States at 9 months. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2007 that the ban was upheld as being Constitutional.

    In the ruling: Respondents have not demonstrated that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. The decisions of the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are reversed.

    The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion called partial-birth abortion, referred to in some medical literature by its less common name of intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partia...ortion_Ban_Act

    Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

    The Supreme Court's decision upheld Congress's ban and held that it did not impose an undue burden on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion, "under precedents we here assume to be controlling," such as the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In a legal sense, the case distinguished but did not overrule Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), in which the Court dealt with related issues. However, Gonzales was widely interpreted as signaling a shift in Supreme Court jurisprudence toward a restriction of abortion rights, occasioned in part by the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor and her replacement by Samuel Alito.
    The court found that there is "uncertainty [in the medical community] over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman's health"; and in the past the court "has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty."
    Looks like a lot on men had a legal opinion on this decision. Will that crazy student claim that their decision is null and void?

    Technically, partial birth abortions are entirely legal in Canada. The only controls in place are the Doctor's strict professional guidelines.

    Aside from all this, where has the normal student/teacher respect gone?
    So I assume you have an opinion on the rightness/wrongness of this procedure. You used the word murderous. However, your opinion would be worthless in some minds.

  77. #177

    Default

    I have both pro and negative opinions on abortion. To say in a word, I am conflicted.

    I saw the procedure described on 60 Minutes where the full term baby was half in and half out and the doctor in Florida describing that if he let the baby out an inch more, it could catch his first breath. That to me is murder. Doing an abortion during the first trimester is not murder IMHO but others would disagree with my opinion.

    But this is not about me and my opinion on abortion.

    This is about a teacher who was fired for having an opinion on a legal matter he was instructing on and some student who went ballistic.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Just yet another cupcake ruining a man because she can. This nonsense needs to stop.

    This is so sexist and anyone that thinks about this stuff will realize that it's not limited to women over men, but those just seeking validation of their own bias will embrace this stuff. It's somewhat interesting.


    Exposing How Women Manipulate Men


    "Published on Jan 24, 2015
    There is no definitive list of techniques to how women manipulate men but you can see it in action. The case of Dalia Dippolito, caught hiring an assassin to kill her husband, produced really good footage of a woman in full manipulation mode. She was convinced that if she could get her husband physically close to her, she could blind him. And she's right. As long as men remain unaware of their vulnerability to female manipulation they will continue to be victims to it.

    The phenomenon of MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) is a good way to open your eyes. Feminism is bad but it's only a symptom of the bigger problem: gynocentrism and man's vulnerability to female charms. If you want to learn more about this phenomenon you'll find it on youtube: ..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SddZvNQOuFw

  79. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I have both pro and negative opinions on abortion. To say in a word, I am conflicted.

    I saw the procedure described on 60 Minutes where the full term baby was half in and half out and the doctor in Florida describing that if he let the baby out an inch more, it could catch his first breath. That to me is murder. Doing an abortion during the first trimester is not murder IMHO but others would disagree with my opinion.

    But this is not about me and my opinion on abortion.

    This is about a teacher who was fired for having an opinion on a legal matter he was instructing on and some student who went ballistic.
    I'm a "know nothing" on most issues, but that doesn't stop me from having opinions, sometimes very strong opinions. However, I could pick near any subject I could imagine and talk to an expert and I'd find that my simplistic thinking, truisms, platitudes, bromides, gross generalizations, etc. wouldn't hold up in all cases or upon inspection and all the exceptions would make a fool of me.


    This below highlights the point. (Even talking to one expert source can lead to incomplete and biased positions. Jusdgemtn should be reserved until more facts are gathered and even then, sometimes judgement should be reserved as unanswered. ) As the second author below says: "It makes sense that dramatic and persistent changes to the way we give birth will have an impact on the way our species develops. But..."

    bolding mine - of course
    Caesarean births 'affecting human evolution'
    By Helen Briggs, BBC News, 7 December 2016


    More mothers now need surgery to deliver a baby due to their narrow pelvis size, according to a study.

    Researchers estimate cases where the baby cannot fit down the birth canal have increased from 30 in 1,000 in the 1960s to 36 in 1,000 births today.

    Historically, these genes would not have been passed from mother to child as both would have died in labour.


    Researchers in Austria say..."


    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38210837



    Caesarean sections are rising – but don’t blame mothers
    Rebecca Schiller

    Just when you thought the pressure on mothers couldn’t be any greater, science and the media machine that interprets it have come up with a brand new Darwin-shaped stick to beat us with. According to a “simple mathematical model” published this week, the rising rate of caesarean sections could be explained by an evolutionary trend whereby the procedure itself perpetuates small pelvises in women.

    Babies who would previously have died during childbirth because they were unable to fit their large heads through their mothers’ narrow pelvises are now saved by caesarean sections. According to the theory, the small-pelvis genes of the mother are then passed on to the next generation, defying natural selection. Researchers predict that this will lead to an evolutionary loop requiring increasing numbers of caesareans as the generations go by.

    It makes sense that dramatic and persistent changes to the way we give birth will have an impact on the way our species develops. But I find myself irked by the narrow and inaccurate slice of the evolutionary pie the study has chosen (reflective of a broader trend in how contemporary childbirth is understood).

    This research is based on an assumption that, while foetuses grow larger to increase their chances of survival (as low-birth weight is associated with poor outcomes), women’s bodies have somehow malfunctioned. It takes for granted that reporting of cephalopelvic disproportion is accurate and scientific, and ignores the myriad other factors at work. None of these assumptions stand up.

    Forcing a woman to have a caesarean is an assault we won't tolerate
    Rebecca Schiller
    Read more
    Despite this, the paper has been widely reported, becoming another weapon in the polarising media fight involving women’s bodies and the medical establishment.
    ..."


    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...small-pelvises
    Last edited by KC; 09-12-2016 at 10:05 AM.

  80. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I have both pro and negative opinions on abortion. To say in a word, I am conflicted.

    I saw the procedure described on 60 Minutes where the full term baby was half in and half out and the doctor in Florida describing that if he let the baby out an inch more, it could catch his first breath. That to me is murder. Doing an abortion during the first trimester is not murder IMHO but others would disagree with my opinion.

    But this is not about me and my opinion on abortion.

    This is about a teacher who was fired for having an opinion on a legal matter he was instructing on and some student who went ballistic.
    FTR you're not alone in consideration of the rights of the fetus and I indirectly referenced that in my above evaluation of when rights/beliefs intersect.

    I do find it interesting that abortion is increasingly seen as only a womens rights issue. To have rights over her own body. But effective birth control has granted that right. The increasing choice of abortion, as a means of birth control is another issue involving more than just the woman. It involved a complex definition of what is a fetus, when is it a human entity (clearly it is) and the ramifications of intendedly ceasing life of a human entity. Or even doing this in serial nature repeatedly as many individuals have done.

    Next, a common reaction has developed to equate competing information or suggestion on abortion as an attack on womens rights and their very safety. For instance at the University of Alberta whenever pictures of fetuses and information on abortion are posted, or provided its around 5mins before theres serial reports to the U of A admin on "safety being compromised and people "triggered". Its gotten to the point where anti abortion protest is equated to be some form of hate speech and dealt with accordingly. When the reality is that the information is disturbing to individuals who believe in abortion because it depicts the nature of what a fetus looks like at times of abortion. If that information wasn't very telling, very evocative, it wouldn't be so challenging and disturbing. Apparently healthy cognitive dissonance is considered dangerous..

    What needs to be considered is that in present day substantial confusion exists between peoples concept of safety, and the mere presence of salient competing information. Conflagrating counter information as an attack on ones self is a distortion of that information and the right for that to be disseminated as well. Instead we see a developing society where some rights are furthered while others are denounced. For instance that anti abortion protests can have their rally and demonstration ceased in a moment because its disturbing and elicits complaints but any pro choice rally is permitted regardless of complaint. This IS a double standard and exists ironically within most of our post secondary institutions.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  81. #181

    Default

    Something about the article I'll reference again that is a sticking point for me. That Faculty were required to attend, take "serious" training provided by Qmunity. I looked up the org, I'm already somewhat familiar with it as I spend a fair amount of time in Downtown Vancouver and have enjoyed Davies street and environs.

    Heres one of the pages on Qmunity website linked from front page;

    http://qmunity.ca/news/striving-to-be-in-allyship/


    Its illustrating a Seattle establishments front door poster on prohibitions. Whereas most such facilities have the no guns, no knives, no weapons, such disclaimer posted prominently to further "safety" and weapons clearly being mechanisms that can intrusively interfere within ones safety that makes sense. However, this establishment is applauded for having a picture with a militant fist and no isms allowed. With the article even equating the presence of competing views with ones personal safety and advising that people be militant in confronting any perceived "hate thought' wherever they find it, sense it, are repulsed by it etc.

    Its not hard to see where some of this newage militancy and fervor and zeal comes from.

    Back in the day I have to say I was never much concerned if any one of 500 people in a bar was a bit of a miscreant. I imagined given population, behavior, and some of the bars I attended that they probably were. The only thing that would cause me further thought is somebody whipping out a weapon or sticking it in my face. I don't think I felt my safety compromised because the Heavy Metal act playing on the stage might have voiced a non PC word or anything like that.

    ironically the same Qmunity page even references sticks and stones but while furthering confusion on what safety is just the same. It even concludes that words do hurt (they can) but to the degree that they compromise ones safety. The latter being a debatable point.


    I think a recalibration of what safety is may be required. I'm wondering if theres any connection between a student stating she feels "unsafe" and such information around fighting competing thought being disseminated. AS if competing thoughts represent an attack on ones safety.


    OK, time to label me a racist, sexist, misogynist. Just because I might have triggered a competing thought..
    Last edited by Replacement; 09-12-2016 at 10:56 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  82. #182

    Default

    ^That is a very interesting slant on childbirth. I know someone who had two C sections as their pelvis was tilted and they and the baby would have died in childbirth. And now with people moving all over the world and mixed marriages being more common there are 6ft + guys marrying smaller Asian women so their off spring could be bigger hence C sections for those ladies. A friend of mine gave birth to a fairly large boy and she was far into labour so they could not do a C section. Her pelvis spread and cracked during childbirth so when she came home she was wearing a brace. There are many factors for C sections and it's not because some women are to posh to push. A C section is a major operation so why put someone through it if they don't have to. I don't understand why some women today don't face up to the reality that giving birth has been going on since women evolved and that modern birthing methods have made childbirth safer for everyone. Even abortions are now safer because they are done in legal clinics where patients can be monitored better.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  83. #183
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^That is a very interesting slant on childbirth. I know someone who had two C sections as their pelvis was tilted and they and the baby would have died in childbirth. And now with people moving all over the world and mixed marriages being more common there are 6ft + guys marrying smaller Asian women so their off spring could be bigger hence C sections for those ladies. A friend of mine gave birth to a fairly large boy and she was far into labour so they could not do a C section. Her pelvis spread and cracked during childbirth so when she came home she was wearing a brace. There are many factors for C sections and it's not because some women are to posh to push. A C section is a major operation so why put someone through it if they don't have to. I don't understand why some women today don't face up to the reality that giving birth has been going on since women evolved and that modern birthing methods have made childbirth safer for everyone. Even abortions are now safer because they are done in legal clinics where patients can be monitored better.
    C-sections are far more prevalent than they need to be. Usually it's not an elective choice, but rather the culmination of a cascade of interventions. Mother is over 40 weeks, hence induction. Induction leads to X which leads to Y, which then necessitates a c-section.

    We went through the Bradley method course on our first. It teaches natural childbirth with no drugs. Hundreds of thousands of women have taken the course, maybe millions. The stat that still shocks me is that almost 90% of women who take the course end up delivering naturally with no drugs. We did.
    On our second, baby was way over due, so they strongly suggested an induction with drugs. Things got out of hand (due to the drugs) and we needed an epidural. Baby was fine. As someone who has experienced both sides of childbirth, my wife strongly and without doubt would do the natural method again.

    On abortion, I used to be fully pro choice. But now woudl say pro life except in the cases of rape or incest. I urge anyone who thinks of themselves as pro choice to go to the first ultrasound. You can see baby moving, kicking. There's no way I could abort after that.

  84. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    On abortion, I used to be fully pro choice. But now woudl say pro life except in the cases of rape or incest. I urge anyone who thinks of themselves as pro choice to go to the first ultrasound. You can see baby moving, kicking. There's no way I could abort after that.
    I'm staunchly pro-choice & I've got a 14 year old daughter who was placed into an open adoption at birth after medical issues in her birth mother masked the pregnancy situation long enough to make medical intervention impossible in Alberta. I love my daughter more than words can say & am very grateful for her in my life, but her birth wasn't a catalyst for me to change my stance. If anything, I'm more adamantly pro-choice now as I don't think that the rights of a fetus should outweigh the rights of my daughter, ever.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  85. #185
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,447

    Default

    ^My reaction to having a child was also to clarify a pro-choice position. Newborns are still "proto-people". They look reasonably human, but they do not yet possess any of the qualities that really make humans unique. There wasn't much love at first sight - that was something that grew slowly and continues to grow 6 years on.

  86. #186

    Default

    But we digress.

    Back on subject, the question is, did this teacher do anything wrong to deserve being fired? Looks like a private school is firing a staff member because the well heeled parents of the petulant student support the school funding while the lowly teacher is a replaceable cog in their machinery.

    So did they care that the rights of the teacher were violated all for sake of upper class political correctness?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 09-12-2016 at 12:21 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  87. #187

    Default

    Going anti-abortion after having children is merely projecting your own sentimentality upon everyone else. You want children, and now so too must everyone else have them.

    In general the pro-life argument is almost always completely worthless, because almost no one is really pro-life, except in their ecstatic and fervent hypocrisy. I am not saying it is wrong to pick sides in war: quite right! And so do you, right? Well, most of you, the religious included, have happily supported wars, justified them, picked sides, and if religious likely prayed for the troops of your choice wilfully to kill, more efficiently, the enemy. Pregnant women? All is fair in war, right? If a pregnant Nazi was killed, do you care? How about her "unborn child"? Spare me your lizard tears, hypocrites.

  88. #188

    Default

    ^^The stated reasons for firing anyone usually cover the real antipathies at play. I wouldn't be surprised if this is what happened here.

  89. #189

    Default

    Well, the teacher said he believes abortion is wrong and he disagrees with the law. Apparently abortion is wrong without exception in his mind as I didn't hread of him nuancing his remarks, though I'm not sure if he was asked to explain himself, or his understanding of "wrong", yet it was clear he feels the current law is wrong.

    Everyone would likely say killing is wrong, yet in the name of self defence, war and many other scenarios most people and the law allow killing if not encourage it and reward medals to some of those most effective at killing. So, I doubt many people would get fired for saying that they believe killing is wrong, "but the law is different than our personal opinions". Most people would also quickly apologize and clarify what they mean as wrong.
    Last edited by KC; 10-12-2016 at 09:53 AM.

  90. #190

    Default

    ‘He’ and ‘she’ are now ‘ze’ at Oxford

    Students at Oxford have been told to use gender neutral pronouns such as “ze” rather than “he” or “she”.

    The move, outlined in a students’ union leaflet, is intended to stop transgender students being offended. Deliberately using the wrong pronoun for a transgender person is an offence under Oxford’s behaviour code.

    Students hope the use of gender neutral pronouns will be extended to lectures and seminars. The gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell welcomed the step: “This issue isn’t about being PC. It’s about respecting people’s right to define themselves as neither male nor female.”
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ne...ford-3kb33jtp8

  91. #191
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,238

    Default

    Oh please..ths is getting ridiculous.

  92. #192

    Default

    "This issue isn’t about being PC. It’s about respecting people’s right to define themselves as neither male nor female.”


    Well I am a 'he' and if you call me a 'ze' I am offended. How about respecting people’s right to define themselves as male or female.


    My wife is sometimes called 'Ms." especially by people at medical places where it clearly states on forms that she is married and a "Mrs.". She really gets irked. Wait till she is called "Mx.", yes that is a new neutral one too.

    From now on I prefer the title "Esq."
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 11-12-2016 at 10:29 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  93. #193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Oh please..ths is getting ridiculous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    "This issue isn’t about being PC. It’s about respecting people’s right to define themselves as neither male nor female.”


    Well I am a 'he' and if you call me a 'ze' I am offended. How about respecting people’s right to define themselves as male or female.


    My wife is sometimes called 'Ms." especially by people at medical places where it clearly states on forms that she is married and a "Mrs.". She really gets irked. Wait till she is called "Mx.", yes that is a new neutral one too.

    From now on I prefer the title "Esq."

    Well, I may identify as someone much, much younger than my biological age (except when it comes to seniors discounts and pensions). So don't anyone start calling me a senior.

    I'm a youngin - when I feel like it. I reserve the right to choose my own identty.




    Bottom line: I figure we should just call people whatever they want to be called if it makes them happy. Hell, people can call the anonymous me (KC) here on c2e whatever the heck they want to call me too, if it makes THEM happy.


    I just started this thread:
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...anguage-on-c2e
    Last edited by KC; 11-12-2016 at 10:40 AM.

  94. #194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    ‘He’ and ‘she’ are now ‘ze’ at Oxford

    Students at Oxford have been told to use gender neutral pronouns such as “ze” rather than “he” or “she”.

    The move, outlined in a students’ union leaflet, is intended to stop transgender students being offended. Deliberately using the wrong pronoun for a transgender person is an offence under Oxford’s behaviour code.

    Students hope the use of gender neutral pronouns will be extended to lectures and seminars. The gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell welcomed the step: “This issue isn’t about being PC. It’s about respecting people’s right to define themselves as neither male nor female.”
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ne...ford-3kb33jtp8
    Oh, FFS. How much longer is this stupidity going to last. One wants to bang ones head against the wall when these so called scholars of the future try to shape the language. Why not call everyone an 'it'. The word 'it' has been around for hundreds of years. It works on all levels. Or an even better idea. Just leave things the way they are as nobody is having trouble calling people him/her, she/his etc.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  95. #195

    Default

    What do you care what person X wants to be called? If "ze" is how that person wants to be called, why are you so against it?

    If someone identifies as anything, to deny that identification is an act of bullying.

    And all bullies are cowards before they are anything else.

    And this place is full, chock full of bullies. Well, like anywhere else.
    Last edited by AShetsen; 11-12-2016 at 06:48 PM.

  96. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    What do you care what person X wants to be called?
    Actually, nobody cares what someone else wants to call themselves - that's not the issue.

  97. #197

    Default

    That is correct. Teachers and others are being bullied to use the new term. Some are threatened to be fired.

    Who creates a term called ze anyway?

    Human rights commissioner weighs in on ze and hir


    BY ANTONELLA ARTUSO, TORONTO SUN http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/13...-on-ze-and-hir
    Are Ontarians obliged to use ze and hir instead of he and she?

    The war of words over gender-neutral pronouns that has led to two disciplinary letters against University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson was sparked in large part by the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code.


    Certainly, the university noted the OHRC in its request that Peterson address students by the pronoun of their choice and to stop speaking out about what he sees as the intrusion of political correctness and the use of hate speech laws to ‘weoponize tolerance’ and stifle debate in post-secondary institutions.


    The Sun asked the OHRC to weigh in on this raging controversy, and Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane responded:


    •University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson is raising an argument that the OHRC is being used as a weapon to smother free speech. His university has said that the OHRC obliges him to address students by the pronoun of their choice. Must he?


    “The OHRC recognizes the right to freedom of expression under the Charter. However, lawmakers and courts have found that no right is absolute. Expression may be limited where it is hate speech under criminal law; or amounts to harassment, discrimination, or creates a poisoned environment under the Code.”


    •Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun? And if so, in what setting?


    “Refusing to address a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, is discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code (employment, housing, and services like education).”

    MORE
    Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined
    By Joe Tacopino May 19, 2016
    http://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-is...nder-pronouns/

    Employers and landlords who intentionally and consistently ignore using pronouns such as “ze/hir” to refer to transgender workers and tenants who request them — may be subject to fines as high as $250,000.


    The Commission on Human Rights’ legal guidelines mandate that anyone who providing jobs or housing must use individuals’ preferred gender pronouns.


    As the regulations, updated late last year, point out, some transgender individuals prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers.


    Examples of less prominent pronouns that some transgender people may choose, according to the city, are: “ze,” which is the third person singular, such as he and she; and “hir,” which is the third person plural, similar to they.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 11-12-2016 at 08:48 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  98. #198

    Default

    Edm. PRT. Note: This posting is in reference to yours ( # 186 )

    So, the Teacher made the mistake of expressing an opinion on a subject. Most Universities claim somewhere within their Charter to support the concept of New Ideas, Free Expression, Different Views etc. all in the concept of developing challenges and new inventions which are at the root of progressive development within society. Unfortunately many Colleges and Universities are controlled by personnel that have their own idea of what "free expression" means and we don't have to go too far to see that happen on our very own doorstep.
    Hello, University of Alberta! Even though part of the university's policy states essentially that --"No Student shall, by action, words, written material or by any means whatsoever, obstruct any University Activity or Function, the Administration stood by quietly and without making any protest while a Pro-Life group was physically blocked, obstructed and prevented from showing a display promoting their views. Apart from showing tacit support to the undemocratic unruly mob that sought to silence a group that had views different to theirs, the University Administration ruled that as their Pro-Life group was deemed to be controversial, the group would have to pay a "security fee" of $17,500.00 if they ever wanted to have another display. It's easy to see who rules the morals of today's learning establishment. With people at the top with these views, free speech will soon be a thing of the past.
    Last edited by Komorosky; 11-12-2016 at 09:09 PM. Reason: Not showing below the chosen comment.

  99. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    ‘He’ and ‘she’ are now ‘ze’ at Oxford

    Students at Oxford have been told to use gender neutral pronouns such as “ze” rather than “he” or “she”.

    The move, outlined in a students’ union leaflet, is intended to stop transgender students being offended. Deliberately using the wrong pronoun for a transgender person is an offence under Oxford’s behaviour code.

    Students hope the use of gender neutral pronouns will be extended to lectures and seminars. The gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell welcomed the step: “This issue isn’t about being PC. It’s about respecting people’s right to define themselves as neither male nor female.”
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ne...ford-3kb33jtp8
    Oh, FFS. How much longer is this stupidity going to last. One wants to bang ones head against the wall when these so called scholars of the future try to shape the language. Why not call everyone an 'it'. The word 'it' has been around for hundreds of years. It works on all levels. Or an even better idea. Just leave things the way they are as nobody is having trouble calling people him/her, she/his etc.
    That's exactly what I proposed to friends when discussing this. Call everyone an "it". Simple. People walk up and ask me about my dog saying what is it? What is its name, etc.

  100. #200

    Default

    Komorosky, i think you hit cut and paste a few times too many.

    Good example though...
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 11-12-2016 at 09:04 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •