MigL

From your point of view, obviously not. But the point of discussion is to explore alternate viewpoints. As you don't want to do that, or simply don't care, you are preaching. We have rules against that.

So you are not here for a discussion, just to preach ? I capitalize everyone's name; the 'y' was a slip-up. My bad. No I'm not fine with civil disobedience. And I wasn't last year either, when all of you were with the protests and riots. ( and I implied as such in my post ) Most of the time we can't tell if you're posting drunk or sober. ( sorry bud, I couldn't resist 😄 . And this thread is definitely lacking in humor )

I'm fully aware of Koty's motives ( to prove a point ), but I would still like an answer.

I think you put too much emphasis on labels, and trying to characterize people according to those labels. People don't live their lives according to one specific philosophy, rather, they pick and choose differing philosophies to apply to different aspects of their lives.

Excuse the absence; was busy all day. How else would you protest what you believe to be unjust treatment of your sdaughter ( son ) ? I can point you to plenty of threads where members of this forum have advocated breaking the law to protest unjust treatment. And you only think those news outlets distort stories because they have a different agenda than yours. Was this team composed of one or more clinical psychologists ? Tell me again ... What is Jordan Peterson ? Is he not a clinical psychologist and a Psychology professor at one of Canada's most prestigious shools ? Or is he 'out of his area of expertise' simply because you don't agree with his views ( but you agree with the school psychologist, and others, who recommended the girl's gender transition ) ? I have one final question for everyone... Everyone has claimed that it's a courtesy to use someone's preferred pronoun. So, if I don't address Koti as 'thou', am I simply discourtious, or am I a bigot ? ( bigotry carries a lot more baggage, and consequences, than being rude )

Yeah, someone is going to have to do a better job of explaining why that example does not apply. Here is a man, with a 5th grade daughter ( not an adult ) who has certain ideas ( whether right or wrong ) about gender reassignment. This is happening to his minor daughter ( son ) without his consent He is voicing those opinions because his concerns, about his daughter ( or son ) are not being addressed, and is being muzzled, by the law ( OK, not Bill C-16, granted ) from voicing those opinions. And you guys said it would never get to that !

Horseshit ! ( as INow would say ) I was asked for an instance where a person has been prosecuted under canadian law, for his/her views on gender transitioning. I provided one . Does any media outlet, conservative or liberal, deny that he is being prosecuted, and jailed ? Let's try to keep the goalposts in one place, gentlemen.

That's pretty low, INow, making accusations after people have 'left the room'. Simply ask, and you shall receive ... Canadian Father Jailed for Speaking Out about Trans-Identifying Child (city-journal.org)

No But I can be convinced otherwise with evidence.

Because I like to argue, and get under people's skin ... No seriously, you go through life and you see things in a certain, limited perspective. Sometimes you become 'blinded' to other perspectives, so it's a good idea to open up to differing points of view, and maybe open others eyes as to your point of view. We don't know what we're missing until it is pointed out to us. But mostly, it is because I like science, and learning in general. I have learned quite a bit here, and I like to think I've also disseminated some knowledge.

Can't speak for Koti, but why should I be offended if someone mis-pronouns me ? As I've previously stated, language is a tool that is used to translate one person's ideas to a second person. They are the one person's ideas; why should the second person have any input, or be offended by, the way the one person chooses to express his/her ideas ? A book does the same thing with written words. Should you be upset or offended, that the book doesn't mention you specifically, or your preferred pronoun ? Oh wait! Silly me, I forgot, the new PC pastime is re-writing classic books, because the language used at the time, offends 'modern' sensibilities.

Not about being offensive ??? How many people have lost their jobs, been severely financially impacted, or had to defend themselves against charges that someone brought up because they were offended that they did not use their preferred pronoun ? ( go back about 4 pages; theVat posted one such example, where there was no discrimination, simply offense taken ) Like I said in a previous post ... If I said about gays or transexuals what Peterkin said about priests, that 'they deress funny and God only knows ( he does ! ) what they get up to in the closet', what would your response be ? I'm willing to bet you would find that offensive. So why the double standard. Are we allowed to offend some groups, but not others ? Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy ? ( I forget who asked, this thread moves way too fast to keep up )

Beliefs have no place in science.

Glad to be here, buddy.

Shouldn't I be the one to make that decision. Or are you going to be 'offended' for me, INow ? I don't care f you use they or he, as long as the meaning is clear and not ambiguous ( I would think Clint Eastwood clearly looks like a he ). Language is not a 'weapon', it is a tool that translates ideas to other people. And ideas cannot be prohibited, only actions can.

Well let me see if I can point out at least one of them ... IIRC, Peterkin knows that Religious beliefs are one of the protected areas under Bill C-16, yet he has no problem being offensive to Catholics, by making fun of priests, and implying they all get up to bad behaviour. If I had said that about gay/ trans/women or any of his favored causes, he would have been all over me. ( sort of like when a mosque or synagogue gets vandalized, and there's lots of hand-wringing/political visits and posturing, but about 50 Cathlic churches are burned down in Western Canada, in the wake of the residential school mass graves, and most don't even make the news ) Seems some people are more interested in appearing politically correct for the 'cause celebre', and wearing their 'offense' on their sleeve than actually protecting people's feelings. Apparently they want to pick and choose which areas they apply their politically correct views to. Well I wouldn't go that far, but he is certainly a hypocrite.

And I would argue that's courtesy, and optional; It should not be law. I should not be forced to legitimize anyone else's subjective beliefs. ( last time that was tried was the Spanish Inquisition )

I would have to agree with Joigus and Swansont. 'Classical entanglement' is better ( and more accurately ) known as a correlation

You've always been very sensible, and since I'm not sure if you're addressing J Peterson, or me, I will reply to this ... What about when the person wants to be referred to as They/them, but there is only one of Him/her ??? What about when the person wants to be referred to as Ze/hir, or Xe/xem, or Hy/hym, or even Co/cos ? When does it become a delusion, and not an oppression ? And someone please inform Peterkin ( because he always pretends he doesn't know what others are talking about ) that it doesn't matter if a law has never been used to such an end; once it's in the books there is a possibility that it will. I have never been hit by a bus either, that doesn't mean I don't take precautions and look both ways before crossing the street.

I am deeply offended by the two neg reps, without explanation. There should be a law against those who don't share my subjective viewpoint on such matters 😄 😄 . You don't seem to be clear on many things ... It is not the fact that they don't have a venue to present their dissenting views, but the fact that laws are enacted to prevent them from doing so. Do you actually not see the difference, 'Napoleon'. ( reference to Orwell's Animal Farm ) Anyway, I'm out. You guys carry on your 'virtue signaling' and patting each other on the back as to how 'woke' you are, all the while, enacting laws which diminish people's rights. Good uck with that.

Any new ideas are offensive to some people, all of the time.* Just ask the millions of Republicans, and MAGAs, in the US about J Biden's agenda, and whether they find it offensive. Do you think 'right-to-lifers' are not offended by the on-going 'murder' that 'pro-choicers' call abortion ? Do they have a right not to be offended ? Does that right only extend to people you agree with ? Or, do you think we should pass laws that forbid new ideas, as they might be offensive to some ? Social justice is a valid ideal to strive for, but you guys need to get off your hypocritical high horse. *( that is also J Peterson )

IIRC, this thread was supposed to be about "Jordan Peterson's ideas on politics". Not about gender discrimination, power hierarchies, male-female relations, etc. The only aspect of his endeavors which is political, is his objection to the Government of Canada's proposed Bill C-16, and his distaste for Marxist ideology. It is kind of difficult to have that discussion when other stuff, like gender discrimination, is brought up. Gender discrimination is illegal. On the other hand, offending people is not. This law attempts to vilify, and punish, people who may say something someone else doesn't like, because they claim to be offended. I noticed that in the example @TheVatbrought up, quite a few of you called the professor a jerk, but the 'offended' student, for whom an explanation was not good enough, and who proceeded to report/sue the Prof was absolved of all culpability. I guess some males use the threat of violence to establish hierarchies, others use the threat of law. Either way is an attempt at control of discourse, and the dissemination of ideas. No one should be able to control others ideas, and the way they think. But if you want to discuss gender discrimination, or male-female relations, please open a thread, and do so. Here, we are discussing J Peterson'e political ideas.

Ask Peterkin; he's the one who originally posted the above quote. Just before claiming he doesn't know which law I'm talking about.

So, no jail time. But it can get you fired. Even from a job ( such as a law/sociology/psychology professor ) where it is your job to present an opinion.

You are anything but dumb, so stop pretending. Biill C-16 has been mentioned several times. It is what brought J Peterson his 'fame'. If you look it up, it will answer several of your above questions. And are you now suggesting they were appropriate ???