Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
(Post 2643584)
You have done it four times, yes. and four times you did not realise the self-contradiction you are stating.
You imply that there could be an offence in stating the obvious. You focus on the intention behind stating the obvious. Since when does truth have an intention? Only the desire to hide the truth has an intention behind doing so. it. As if truth depends on intention for being truth! It needs not. Truth is truth. And there cannot be several truths - where it seems so, all but one truths must be wrong. That is the meaning and concept behind this term "truth".
There is no offence possible, and thus there shall not be any form of punishment or sanctionizing be possible or imaginable. So where you answered my question whether refusing gender-ideology-correct speech should be punishable with "If you are doing it intentionally, to harass or discriminate. Yes, absolutely", you imply - you cannot evade that implication - that using the obvious truth should be punished if the truth violates somebody's personal belief. And for that I call out a foul.
|
As I've said already in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowly
(Post 2643105)
And for the record just so you don't have to assume things about me: I agree, there are only two genders. But that doesn't mean I am against a law or laws that would shield people who believe otherwise from harassment, discrimination or violence for no other reason than they think differently.
|
Quote:
What did Peterson (whose case you comfortably cut short in summary as well) get quoted with in that article?
|
I quoted the link, anyone interested could read the entire article instead of the summary you posted.
Quote:
"I've studied authoritarianism for a very long time - for 40 years - and they're started by people's attempts to control the ideological and linguistic territory," he told the BBC.
|
What's the difference in trying to control it the other way around?
Quote:
The C16 bill obviously criminalises the rejection of gender-ideological nonsense speak rules by labelling it as "hate crime" and "discrimination". BOTH IT IS NOT.
|
No, C16 doesn't do that. It simply adds 'Gender identity and expression' under the umbrella of existing laws.
If you deny service from someone on the basis that that person identifies as man, but looks like female. That's discrimination.
If you beat someone up and your motive is because she identifies as him, that's a hate crime.
C16 has absolutely nothing to do with whether you use the correct pronoun when addressing someone.
Quote:
You completely ignore that forstater already GOT FIRED for an claimed offence you insist to descrie as NEVER GETTING PUNISHED at all. while claiming that the truth should be pnsihed if beign spoken out in an intention. Oh my.... What queer chaos of self-contradictions you have arranged there.
|
First of, she didn't get fired, her contract wasn't renewed. There's a difference. Secondly, let's see what I actually said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowly
(Post 2643165)
Accidentally calling someone him instead of her is not punishable and I very much doubt will ever be.
|
She didn't accidentally use an incorrect pronoun, she did it repeatedly, seemingly on purpose. |
