Poll of the Day > Explain Jordan Peterson to me.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
The_tall_midget 10/23/19 4:43:01 PM #51:	Mead Is he one of those dudes that incels seem to idolize? Ah, look at that, the tolerant lefties are at it again. --- Apparently everyone can be proud of who and what they are except white people. Stop the unending racism of the left. Call them out on their racism. <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:929148056] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead</cite> <quote>Is he one of those dudes that incels seem to idolize?</quote> Ah, look at that, the tolerant lefties are at it again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/23/19 5:02:06 PM #52:	adjl posted... So tell people they can't use the wrong pronouns. Logical consistency, ho! Good God you are dumb if you think that was logically consistent. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:929148747] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> So tell people they can't use the wrong pronouns. Logical consistency, ho!</quote> Good God you are dumb if you think that was logically consistent.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zareth 10/23/19 5:08:28 PM #53:	He's an excellent speaker, fascinating to listen to, even though most of what he says is bullshit. --- It's okay, I have no idea who I am either. https://imgur.com/WOo6wcq <cite>Zareth posted [p:929149007] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>He's an excellent speaker, fascinating to listen to, even though most of what he says is bullshit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 10/23/19 5:14:59 PM #54:	Dedicated to Jordan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vc9Mz2tfHM" data-time=" --- Align your chakras, it starts with your breathing. http://www.arfalpha.com/ScienceOfBreath/ScienceOfBreath.htm <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:929149250] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Dedicated to Jordan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vc9Mz2tfHM" data-time="</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/23/19 5:24:47 PM #55:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Your name is also "that prick" to people who don't know you. No, that's just their choice of pronoun in the absence of knowing what my name actually is. My name is legally defined as something other than that. Kyuubi4269 posted... Or not directed at the referenced person and speaking in terms that least confuse the audience as to the rest of their sentence. If the use of the most appropriate pronoun for the situation may confuse the audience, then pronouns should not be used. If you're talking about two guys named Jim and Bob, "Bob took Jim's sandwich and ate it in front of him while he talked about his visit with his family" is a confusing sentence that should be clarified by using fewer pronouns. That doesn't mean "him" is not a suitable pronoun for Jim or Bob, just that the context demands more specificity. That's no less applicable here. Kyuubi4269 posted... Regardless, it is not illegal to be rude so thank you for agreeing that it isn't inherently hateful/discriminatory. You don't think something can be hateful or discriminatory unless it's illegal? Also, nice job leaving out the "dehumanizing" part. Kyuubi4269 posted... Teachers should be clear and honest with their students, students should learn to put their pride aside when they are coming to learn. You won't die because your teacher doesn't agree with your opinion, and perhaps you'll learn to respect people who don't agree with you. So you think that refusing to use a student's name is not only acceptable conduct for a teacher, it's a better learning environment than one in which the teacher does use their name? --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929149636] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Your name is also "that prick" to people who don't know you.</quote> No, that's just their choice of pronoun in the absence of knowing what my name actually is. My name is legally defined as something other than that. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Or not directed at the referenced person and speaking in terms that least confuse the audience as to the rest of their sentence.</quote> If the use of the most appropriate pronoun for the situation may confuse the audience, then pronouns should not be used. If you're talking about two guys named Jim and Bob, "Bob took Jim's sandwich and ate it in front of him while he talked about his visit with his family" is a confusing sentence that should be clarified by using fewer pronouns. That doesn't mean "him" is not a suitable pronoun for Jim or Bob, just that the context demands more specificity. That's no less applicable here. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Regardless, it is not illegal to be rude so thank you for agreeing that it isn't inherently hateful/discriminatory.</quote> You don't think something can be hateful or discriminatory unless it's illegal? Also, nice job leaving out the "dehumanizing" part. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Teachers should be clear and honest with their students, students should learn to put their pride aside when they are coming to learn. You won't die because your teacher doesn't agree with your opinion, and perhaps you'll learn to respect people who don't agree with you.</quote> So you think that refusing to use a student's name is not only acceptable conduct for a teacher, it's a better learning environment than one in which the teacher does use their name?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/23/19 5:26:39 PM #56:	Noop_Noop posted... Good God you are dumb if you think that was logically consistent. It's perfectly consistent. If you don't want to talk to somebody without threatening to kill them, don't talk to them at all. If you don't want to talk to somebody without using incorrect pronouns and/or names, don't talk to them at all. In either case, if you have to talk to them, suck it up and say something other than the things you can't say. It's really very simple. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929149713] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>Good God you are dumb if you think that was logically consistent.</quote> It's perfectly consistent. If you don't want to talk to somebody without threatening to kill them, don't talk to them at all. If you don't want to talk to somebody without using incorrect pronouns and/or names, don't talk to them at all. In either case, if you have to talk to them, suck it up and say something other than the things you can't say. It's really very simple.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/23/19 5:42:14 PM #57:	adjl posted... Noop_Noop posted... Good God you are dumb if you think that was logically consistent. It's perfectly consistent. If you don't want to talk to somebody without threatening to kill them, don't talk to them at all. If you don't want to talk to somebody without using incorrect pronouns and/or names, don't talk to them at all. In either case, if you have to talk to them, suck it up and say something other than the things you can't say. It's really very simple. i forgot who i was talking to. youre right adjl, outlawing words and mandating speech are exactly the same thing. now you can go away and let the grown ups talk. this whole conversation is clearly over your head. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:929150277] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>Good God you are dumb if you think that was logically consistent.</quote> It's perfectly consistent. If you don't want to talk to somebody without threatening to kill them, don't talk to them at all. If you don't want to talk to somebody without using incorrect pronouns and/or names, don't talk to them at all. In either case, if you have to talk to them, suck it up and say something other than the things you can't say. It's really very simple.</quote> i forgot who i was talking to. youre right adjl, outlawing words and mandating speech are exactly the same thing. now you can go away and let the grown ups talk. this whole conversation is clearly over your head.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 10/23/19 5:54:21 PM #58:	adjl posted... No, that's just their choice of pronoun in the absence of knowing what my name actually is. My name is legally defined as something other than that. So it's an objective thing and thus not under the same thing as denying your birth certificate. adjl posted... If the use of the most appropriate pronoun for the situation may confuse the audience, then pronouns should not be used. Their chosen pronoun is not always the most appropriate pronoun. adjl posted... If you're talking about two guys named Jim and Bob, "Bob took Jim's sandwich and ate it in front of him while he talked about his visit with his family" is a confusing sentence that should be clarified by using fewer pronouns. That doesn't mean "him" is not a suitable pronoun for Jim or Bob, just that the context demands more specificity. That's no less applicable here. It's very confusing to refer to a man as "she" because he requested it as it goes against observations, if he needs to state his pronouns, they are not clear and do not deliver useful information to the listener. Compelling the use of she for a man on request and is offensive to normal human interaction and flow of speech. adjl posted... ou don't think something can be hateful or discriminatory unless it's illegal? When it's law that hateful and discriminatory things are criminal; yes, that's exactly the case. adjl posted... Also, nice job leaving out the "dehumanizing" part. Dehumanising anything is inherently discriminatory. Calling him a he is recognising him as a human male, to refer to him as female suggests he doesn't follow human dimorphism and is dehumanising, or at the very least discriminatory. adjl posted... So you think that refusing to use a student's name is not only acceptable conduct for a teacher, it's a better learning environment than one in which the teacher does use their name? It's entirely dependant on circumstance. If the teacher choses to refer to everybody by their student ID it could help separate the learning environment from a social one, reinforcing the mindset demanded from learning. They could refer to everybody by their GPA and class rank to drill a competitive environment to enhance engagement, it doesn't really matter. If a teacher refers to every male as he except one, he is discriminating against that one student, separating them from the rest of the group, this may not be helpful. The teacher may also not agree with using their chosen term as they don't consider it helpful for the student's well being, they also may want to establish that all students are measured by the same yard stick and can't negotiate exceptions. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:929150699] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>No, that's just their choice of pronoun in the absence of knowing what my name actually is. My name is legally defined as something other than that.</quote> So it's an objective thing and thus not under the same thing as denying your birth certificate. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>If the use of the most appropriate pronoun for the situation may confuse the audience, then pronouns should not be used.</quote> Their chosen pronoun is not always the most appropriate pronoun. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>If you're talking about two guys named Jim and Bob, "Bob took Jim's sandwich and ate it in front of him while he talked about his visit with his family" is a confusing sentence that should be clarified by using fewer pronouns. That doesn't mean "him" is not a suitable pronoun for Jim or Bob, just that the context demands more specificity. That's no less applicable here.</quote> It's very confusing to refer to a man as "she" because he requested it as it goes against observations, if he needs to state his pronouns, they are not clear and do not deliver useful information to the listener. Compelling the use of she for a man on request and is offensive to normal human interaction and flow of speech. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>ou don't think something can be hateful or discriminatory unless it's illegal?</quote> When it's law that hateful and discriminatory things are criminal; yes, that's exactly the case. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Also, nice job leaving out the "dehumanizing" part.</quote> Dehumanising anything is inherently discriminatory. Calling him a he is recognising him as a human male, to refer to him as female suggests he doesn't follow human dimorphism and is dehumanising, or at the very least discriminatory. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>So you think that refusing to use a student's name is not only acceptable conduct for a teacher, it's a better learning environment than one in which the teacher does use their name?</quote> It's entirely dependant on circumstance. If the teacher choses to refer to everybody by their student ID it could help separate the learning environment from a social one, reinforcing the mindset demanded from learning. They could refer to everybody by their GPA and class rank to drill a competitive environment to enhance engagement, it doesn't really matter. If a teacher refers to every male as he except one, he is discriminating against that one student, separating them from the rest of the group, this may not be helpful. The teacher may also not agree with using their chosen term as they don't consider it helpful for the student's well being, they also may want to establish that all students are measured by the same yard stick and can't negotiate exceptions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 10/23/19 5:55:26 PM #59:	adjl posted... if you have to talk to them, suck it up and say something other than the things you can't say. Remember when you said you were being consistent in insisting that speech was not compelled? --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:929150750] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>if you have to talk to them, suck it up and say something other than the things you can't say.</quote> Remember when you said you were being consistent in insisting that speech was not compelled?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/23/19 6:14:34 PM #60:	homeboy is frantically searching wikipedia right now for something he even relatively relate to this topic so he can post it. if youre expecting an actual response to any point youve made well.... youve been through it with that dum dum enough times to know better. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:929151370] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>homeboy is frantically searching wikipedia right now for something he even relatively relate to this topic so he can post it. if youre expecting an actual response to any point youve made well.... youve been through it with that dum dum enough times to know better.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
THEGODDAMNBATMA 10/23/19 6:32:46 PM #61:	From what I am gathering: Jordan Peterson is a really good psychiatrist that really knows how to build people up and show them how to build confidence. But then he snakes his world view and politics into it and tricks them into thinking that what he is saying is related to the psychology? <cite>THEGODDAMNBATMA posted [p:929152122] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>From what I am gathering: Jordan Peterson is a really good psychiatrist that really knows how to build people up and show them how to build confidence. But then he snakes his world view and politics into it and tricks them into thinking that what he is saying is related to the psychology? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/23/19 6:51:58 PM #62:	Noop_Noop posted... youre right adjl, outlawing words and mandating speech are exactly the same thing. That's not what I said. I said that outlawing words and outlawing words are exactly the same thing. Duh. Try to keep up, little one. Kyuubi4269 posted... Their chosen pronoun is not always the most appropriate pronoun. In which case, pronouns should not be used so as to avoid confusion. As I said. Kyuubi4269 posted... When it's law that hateful and discriminatory things are criminal; yes, that's exactly the case. Hateful speech and criminal hate speech are two very distinct things. Same with discriminatory behaviour and criminal discrimination. I'm really not sure why you seem to think otherwise. Kyuubi4269 posted... Calling him a he is recognising him as a human male, to refer to him as female suggests he doesn't follow human dimorphism and is dehumanising, or at the very least discriminatory. Do you really think that recognizing a human's anatomical traits is more humanizing than recognizing that human's cognitive identity? Most would say that humans are defined by their minds, after all, much more so than any particular physical traits. Kyuubi4269 posted... It's entirely dependant on circumstance. If the teacher choses to refer to everybody by their student ID it could help separate the learning environment from a social one, reinforcing the mindset demanded from learning. They could refer to everybody by their GPA and class rank to drill a competitive environment to enhance engagement, it doesn't really matter. Again, see the Stanford Prison experiment. What you're suggesting is a hideously, insanely horrible idea that no competent educator would ever consider a reasonable way to approach their job. Kyuubi4269 posted... The teacher may also not agree with using their chosen term as they don't consider it helpful for the student's well being, For the most part, students that are transitioning or otherwise experimenting with a new gender identity are doing so because it's been suggested to them by a medical professional. Giving teachers free rein to supersede medical advice like that is generally a very bad precedent to set. In instances where the student is trying out a new identity without medical advice, the teacher's right to be concerned, but completely disregarding their request in front of their peers is not an effective way to act on that. Instead, the teacher should be talking privately with the student (or referring them to the school nurse, where applicable) to suggest that they seek therapeutic guidance before continuing. In neither case is refusing to call a student by their preferred name appropriate conduct. Kyuubi4269 posted... Remember when you said you were being consistent in insisting that speech was not compelled? If you're in a context where not talking to the person is not an option, your speech is compelled by your circumstances, not by the government. Still consistent. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929152783] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>youre right adjl, outlawing words and mandating speech are exactly the same thing.</quote> That's not what I said. I said that outlawing words and outlawing words are exactly the same thing. Duh. Try to keep up, little one. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Their chosen pronoun is not always the most appropriate pronoun.</quote> In which case, pronouns should not be used so as to avoid confusion. As I said. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>When it's law that hateful and discriminatory things are criminal; yes, that's exactly the case.</quote> Hateful speech and criminal hate speech are two very distinct things. Same with discriminatory behaviour and criminal discrimination. I'm really not sure why you seem to think otherwise. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Calling him a he is recognising him as a human male, to refer to him as female suggests he doesn't follow human dimorphism and is dehumanising, or at the very least discriminatory.</quote> Do you really think that recognizing a human's anatomical traits is more humanizing than recognizing that human's cognitive identity? Most would say that humans are defined by their minds, after all, much more so than any particular physical traits. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>It's entirely dependant on circumstance. If the teacher choses to refer to everybody by their student ID it could help separate the learning environment from a social one, reinforcing the mindset demanded from learning. They could refer to everybody by their GPA and class rank to drill a competitive environment to enhance engagement, it doesn't really matter.</quote> Again, see the Stanford Prison experiment. What you're suggesting is a hideously, insanely horrible idea that no competent educator would ever consider a reasonable way to approach their job. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>The teacher may also not agree with using their chosen term as they don't consider it helpful for the student's well being,</quote> For the most part, students that are transitioning or otherwise experimenting with a new gender identity are doing so because it's been suggested to them by a medical professional. Giving teachers free rein to supersede medical advice like that is generally a very bad precedent to set. In instances where the student is trying out a new identity without medical advice, the teacher's right to be concerned, but completely disregarding their request in front of their peers is not an effective way to act on that. Instead, the teacher should be talking privately with the student (or referring them to the school nurse, where applicable) to suggest that they seek therapeutic guidance before continuing. In neither case is refusing to call a student by their preferred name appropriate conduct. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Remember when you said you were being consistent in insisting that speech was not compelled?</quote> If you're in a context where not talking to the person is not an option, your speech is compelled by your circumstances, not by the government. Still consistent.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/23/19 8:55:31 PM #63:	Oh look, a 50 mile high wall of text. Noop_Noop posted... homeboy is frantically searching wikipedia right now for something he even relatively relate to this topic so he can post it. if youre expecting an actual response to any point youve made well.... youve been through it with that dum dum enough times to know better. Fucking nailed it. looks like I've got you figured out homie. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:929157336] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Oh look, a 50 mile high wall of text. Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>homeboy is frantically searching wikipedia right now for something he even relatively relate to this topic so he can post it. if youre expecting an actual response to any point youve made well.... youve been through it with that dum dum enough times to know better.</quote> Fucking nailed it. looks like I've got you figured out homie.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/23/19 8:57:34 PM #64:	Noop_Noop posted... Oh look, a 50 mile high wall of text. Don't worry, only one line of it was for you. Should be within your reading capabilities. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929157422] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>Oh look, a 50 mile high wall of text. </quote> Don't worry, only one line of it was for you. Should be within your reading capabilities.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/23/19 9:00:56 PM #65:	You seem super salty bro. Sorry you're so obvious. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:929157569] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>You seem super salty bro. Sorry you're so obvious.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/23/19 9:01:40 PM #66:	Salty? I'd call it considerate. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929157603] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Salty? I'd call it considerate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/23/19 9:02:54 PM #67:	Posting wikipedia articles isn't considerate bro --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:929157662] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Posting wikipedia articles isn't considerate bro</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/23/19 9:13:24 PM #68:	But I didn't post one for you. Unless, of course, you can find a Wikipedia article stating that outlawing words and outlawing words are the same thing. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929158094] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>But I didn't post one for you. Unless, of course, you can find a Wikipedia article stating that outlawing words and outlawing words are the same thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/23/19 9:15:44 PM #69:	Nah, but you did at kyuubi, as I said you would. Or now do you think that saying "outlawing words and outlawing words are the same thing" is compassionate? You're all over the place. You're floundering bro. Take a moment to breathe. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:929158203] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Nah, but you did at kyuubi, as I said you would. Or now do you think that saying "outlawing words and outlawing words are the same thing" is compassionate? You're all over the place. You're floundering bro. Take a moment to breathe.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/23/19 9:18:23 PM #70:	Noop_Noop posted... Nah, but you did at kyuubi, as I said you would I never said I was being considerate of him. He hasn't demonstrated any particular reading disabilities, after all. Noop_Noop posted... Or now do you think that saying "outlawing words and outlawing words are the same thing" is compassionate? Who said anything about "compassionate"? --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929158317] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>Nah, but you did at kyuubi, as I said you would</quote> I never said I was being considerate of him. He hasn't demonstrated any particular reading disabilities, after all. Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>Or now do you think that saying "outlawing words and outlawing words are the same thing" is compassionate?</quote> Who said anything about "compassionate"?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/23/19 9:46:01 PM #71:	Considerate then. Sorry, I really dont pay too much attention to the drivel you post. Still i can't help but notice you're still dodging around the point like a scared little rabbit though. No need to be so flustered homie. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:929159350] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Considerate then. Sorry, I really dont pay too much attention to the drivel you post. Still i can't help but notice you're still dodging around the point like a scared little rabbit though. No need to be so flustered homie.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 10/23/19 9:51:33 PM #72:	>claims to not pay much attention to adjl >constantly responds to adjl >,> --- Align your chakras, it starts with your breathing. http://www.arfalpha.com/ScienceOfBreath/ScienceOfBreath.htm <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:929159543] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>>claims to not pay much attention to adjl >constantly responds to adjl >,></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/23/19 9:54:19 PM #73:	Noop_Noop posted... Still i can't help but notice you're still dodging around the point like a scared little rabbit though. What point? I addressed how you misread my post over three hours ago. Far as I can tell, you haven't made a point since then. You're welcome to prove me wrong, of course, but we all know how that always turns out. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929159648] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>Still i can't help but notice you're still dodging around the point like a scared little rabbit though.</quote> What point? I addressed how you misread my post over three hours ago. Far as I can tell, you haven't made a point since then. You're welcome to prove me wrong, of course, but we all know how that always turns out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/23/19 10:25:40 PM #74:	SunWuKung420 posted... >claims to not pay much attention to adjl >constantly responds to adjl >,> bro, you have been following from topic to topic today and you STILL havent told me how many homeless people you let live in your wife's house --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:929160763] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>>claims to not pay much attention to adjl >constantly responds to adjl >,></quote> bro, you have been following from topic to topic today and you STILL havent told me how many homeless people you let live in your wife's house</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 10/23/19 10:30:51 PM #75:	And yet another example of your inability to read. --- Align your chakras, it starts with your breathing. http://www.arfalpha.com/ScienceOfBreath/ScienceOfBreath.htm <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:929160934] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>And yet another example of your inability to read.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LeetCheet 10/23/19 11:56:00 PM #76:	This is what politics does to people. It pisses everybody off and everyone becomes enemies with eachother. What happened to the good old days when we, well most of us at least, were pretty much friends with everyone? Did everything change after Trump won the election and all media lost their minds and seems to be unable to stop constantly yapping about him? Most people are getting sick of hearing about him every single day. Cant we instead talk about how lucky we really are that we get to live in such great places such as America and Europe compared to other countries such as those in Africa? Instead of arguing on what we should call eachother, we should focus on curing diseases and saving the environment. You know, stuff that actually benefit everyone. --- https://imgur.com/eQrRxik https://imgur.com/NC8itow <cite>LeetCheet posted [p:929163706] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>This is what politics does to people. It pisses everybody off and everyone becomes enemies with eachother. What happened to the good old days when we, well most of us at least, were pretty much friends with everyone? Did everything change after Trump won the election and all media lost their minds and seems to be unable to stop constantly yapping about him? Most people are getting sick of hearing about him every single day. Cant we instead talk about how lucky we really are that we get to live in such great places such as America and Europe compared to other countries such as those in Africa? Instead of arguing on what we should call eachother, we should focus on curing diseases and saving the environment. You know, stuff that actually benefit everyone.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/23/19 11:58:02 PM #77:	This isn't really anything new. These argument have been happening since long before Trump showed up. Trump just emboldened the crowd of people who cry about political correctness every time some new way of being polite and/or respectful to people emerges. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929163762] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>This isn't really anything new. These argument have been happening since long before Trump showed up. Trump just emboldened the crowd of people who cry about political correctness every time some new way of being polite and/or respectful to people emerges.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HornedLion 10/24/19 12:05:36 AM #78:	Hes one of those dudes like Ben Shapiro, who are great at debating and initially you think, Wow, theyre really smart. But then the more you hear from them you see that there are huge issues with their stance, and that they dont really know what theyre talking about. Theyre nothing more than good debaters. --- Don't runaway from troubles... instead meet them Hedons. <cite>HornedLion posted [p:929163981] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Hes one of those dudes like Ben Shapiro, who are great at debating and initially you think, Wow, theyre really smart. But then the more you hear from them you see that there are huge issues with their stance, and that they dont really know what theyre talking about. Theyre nothing more than good debaters.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 10/24/19 3:46:10 AM #79:	adjl posted... In which case, pronouns should not be used so as to avoid confusion. As I said. Or just use the correct pronoun to avoid Arving. adjl posted... Hateful speech and criminal hate speech are two very distinct things. Same with discriminatory behaviour and criminal discrimination. I'm really not sure why you seem to think otherwise. I'll just cite UK hate speech law: (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour That seems to cover hateful speech as a whole. adjl posted... Do you really think that recognizing a human's anatomical traits is more humanizing than recognizing that human's cognitive identity? Most would say that humans are defined by their minds, after all, much more so than any particular physical traits. Their gender is determined by their anatomy, and seeing as I'm not a wild sexist, I don't believe men and women have different minds. It's also rarely useful to reference the mind of a person when it comes to identification as the mind isn't visibly apparent. adjl posted... Again, see the Stanford Prison experiment. What you're suggesting is a hideously, insanely horrible idea that no competent educator would ever consider a reasonable way to approach their job. Are you seriously comparing pronoun use at school to psychological attacks in a prison? Grow up. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:929168417] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>In which case, pronouns should not be used so as to avoid confusion. As I said.</quote> Or just use the correct pronoun to avoid Arving. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Hateful speech and criminal hate speech are two very distinct things. Same with discriminatory behaviour and criminal discrimination. I'm really not sure why you seem to think otherwise.</quote> I'll just cite UK hate speech law: <quote>(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour</quote> That seems to cover hateful speech as a whole. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Do you really think that recognizing a human's anatomical traits is more humanizing than recognizing that human's cognitive identity? Most would say that humans are defined by their minds, after all, much more so than any particular physical traits.</quote> Their gender is determined by their anatomy, and seeing as I'm not a wild sexist, I don't believe men and women have different minds. It's also rarely useful to reference the mind of a person when it comes to identification as the mind isn't visibly apparent. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Again, see the Stanford Prison experiment. What you're suggesting is a hideously, insanely horrible idea that no competent educator would ever consider a reasonable way to approach their job.</quote> Are you seriously comparing pronoun use at school to psychological attacks in a prison? Grow up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 10/24/19 3:46:16 AM #80:	adjl posted... For the most part, students that are transitioning or otherwise experimenting with a new gender identity are doing so because it's been suggested to them by a medical professional. That is a compromise by the medical professional to stop them immediately chopping their nuts off. It is also good if the teacher doesn't call them by their preferred gender as there's definitely no guarantee anybody will post-mutilation. They are supposed to be learning what it will actually feel like post-transition, and that is like an outcast. adjl posted... Giving teachers free rein to supersede medical advice like that is generally a very bad precedent to set. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. It's not recommended, it's compromising with a potentially suicidal patient to avoid undue loss of life. adjl posted... In neither case is refusing to call a student by their preferred name appropriate conduct. No. adjl posted... If you're in a context where not talking to the person is not an option, your speech is compelled by your circumstances, not by the government. Still consistent. The circumstances are created by the government. If they cannot choose to disagree and can't not speak, they are being compelled to speak by threat of law. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:929168420] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>For the most part, students that are transitioning or otherwise experimenting with a new gender identity are doing so because it's been suggested to them by a medical professional.</quote> That is a compromise by the medical professional to stop them immediately chopping their nuts off. It is also good if the teacher doesn't call them by their preferred gender as there's definitely no guarantee anybody will post-mutilation. They are supposed to be learning what it will actually feel like post-transition, and that is like an outcast. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Giving teachers free rein to supersede medical advice like that is generally a very bad precedent to set.</quote> Give an inch and they'll take a mile. It's not recommended, it's compromising with a potentially suicidal patient to avoid undue loss of life. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>In neither case is refusing to call a student by their preferred name appropriate conduct.</quote> No. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>If you're in a context where not talking to the person is not an option, your speech is compelled by your circumstances, not by the government. Still consistent.</quote> The circumstances are created by the government. If they cannot choose to disagree and can't not speak, they are being compelled to speak by threat of law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/24/19 12:43:43 PM #81:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Or just use the correct pronoun to avoid Arving. Given that we're talking strictly about third-person pronouns (given that first- and second-person ones are not gendered), I don't think Arving is particularly relevant here. Speaking in third person, using actual names in place of pronouns is perfectly acceptable. Kyuubi4269 posted... That seems to cover hateful speech as a whole. It really doesn't. Try thinking independently, instead of letting the law define your morality. Kyuubi4269 posted... Their gender is determined by their anatomy, and seeing as I'm not a wild sexist, I don't believe men and women have different minds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences Different brains=different minds. Kyuubi4269 posted... It's also rarely useful to reference the mind of a person when it comes to identification as the mind isn't visibly apparent. It's rarely useful to reference anything about a person that isn't visibly apparent? I take it you never actually talk to people? Kyuubi4269 posted... Are you seriously comparing pronoun use at school to psychological attacks in a prison? Grow up. I'm guessing from this you aren't actually familiar with the Stanford Prison experiment. You need to go do some research and then try addressing this point again. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929181462] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Or just use the correct pronoun to avoid Arving.</quote> Given that we're talking strictly about third-person pronouns (given that first- and second-person ones are not gendered), I don't think Arving is particularly relevant here. Speaking in third person, using actual names in place of pronouns is perfectly acceptable. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>That seems to cover hateful speech as a whole.</quote> It really doesn't. Try thinking independently, instead of letting the law define your morality. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Their gender is determined by their anatomy, and seeing as I'm not a wild sexist, I don't believe men and women have different minds.</quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences Different brains=different minds. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>It's also rarely useful to reference the mind of a person when it comes to identification as the mind isn't visibly apparent.</quote> It's rarely useful to reference anything about a person that isn't visibly apparent? I take it you never actually talk to people? Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Are you seriously comparing pronoun use at school to psychological attacks in a prison? Grow up.</quote> I'm guessing from this you aren't actually familiar with the Stanford Prison experiment. You need to go do some research and then try addressing this point again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/24/19 12:43:47 PM #82:	Kyuubi4269 posted... That is a compromise by the medical professional to stop them immediately chopping their nuts off. It's really, really not. Kyuubi4269 posted... It is also good if the teacher doesn't call them by their preferred gender as there's definitely no guarantee anybody will post-mutilation. https://www.childtrends.org/research-shows-the-risk-of-misgendering-transgender-youth You're saying it's good to double their suicide rate. That's not good. You shouldn't think that's good. Kyuubi4269 posted... The circumstances are created by the government. You're welcome to find me a law that requires you to talk to somebody, but I was referring more to professional interactions where your job doesn't allow you the option of not talking to them. In that case, you are compelled to talk to them not by the government, but by your job requirements. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929181467] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>That is a compromise by the medical professional to stop them immediately chopping their nuts off.</quote> It's really, really not. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>It is also good if the teacher doesn't call them by their preferred gender as there's definitely no guarantee anybody will post-mutilation. </quote> https://www.childtrends.org/research-shows-the-risk-of-misgendering-transgender-youth You're saying it's good to double their suicide rate. That's not good. You shouldn't think that's good. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>The circumstances are created by the government. </quote> You're welcome to find me a law that requires you to talk to somebody, but I was referring more to professional interactions where your job doesn't allow you the option of not talking to them. In that case, you are compelled to talk to them not by the government, but by your job requirements.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 10/24/19 12:50:02 PM #83:	adjl posted... You're saying it's good to double their suicide rate. That's not good. You shouldn't think that's good. If they have such a severe reaction, they require severe medicating so they can cope with reality. If you want me to treat them as perfectly normal then you have to let me not pander to them as I do with everyone else. If you want me to pander to them and baby them, tell me it's a mental illness and I will accommodate their disability. adjl posted... You're welcome to find me a law that requires you to talk to somebody, but I was referring more to professional interactions where your job doesn't allow you the option of not talking to them. In that case, you are compelled to talk to them not by the government, but by your job requirements. My job doesn't necessitate certain pronouns. I can use the correct pronoun in my job, thus the only restriction is imposed by law. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:929181710] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>You're saying it's good to double their suicide rate. That's not good. You shouldn't think that's good.</quote> If they have such a severe reaction, they require severe medicating so they can cope with reality. If you want me to treat them as perfectly normal then you have to let me not pander to them as I do with everyone else. If you want me to pander to them and baby them, tell me it's a mental illness and I will accommodate their disability. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>You're welcome to find me a law that requires you to talk to somebody, but I was referring more to professional interactions where your job doesn't allow you the option of not talking to them. In that case, you are compelled to talk to them not by the government, but by your job requirements.</quote> My job doesn't necessitate certain pronouns. I can use the correct pronoun in my job, thus the only restriction is imposed by law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/24/19 1:09:38 PM #84:	Kyuubi4269 posted... If they have such a severe reaction, they require severe medicating so they can cope with reality. Alternatively, you could stop rejecting very straightforward scientific conclusions about effective ways to help with this mental disorder. That might work better than relying on medication that doesn't exist. Kyuubi4269 posted... If you want me to treat them as perfectly normal then you have to let me not pander to them as I do with everyone else. You address everyone else by their desired names and pronouns. What makes trans people any different? Kyuubi4269 posted... If you want me to pander to them and baby them, tell me it's a mental illness and I will accommodate their disability. ... Yes, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. There's some room for debate over whether it is mental or physical, given that the current best practice for treating it affects the body more so than the mind, but that distinction is largely academic. Kyuubi4269 posted... My job doesn't necessitate certain pronouns. I can use the correct pronoun in my job, thus the only restriction is imposed by law. The law simply says (hypothetically) that you can't use the incorrect ones (the correct ones being the ones you are asked to use, because that's how names work). That leaves you with two options: -Say nothing -Say something else The law does not remove the option of saying nothing, which means the law does not force you to say something else. If saying nothing is not an option due to other circumstances and you are therefore forced to say something else, it is those circumstances that are forcing you to say something else, not the law. It's very simple. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929182449] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If they have such a severe reaction, they require severe medicating so they can cope with reality.</quote> Alternatively, you could stop rejecting very straightforward scientific conclusions about effective ways to help with this mental disorder. That might work better than relying on medication that doesn't exist. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If you want me to treat them as perfectly normal then you have to let me not pander to them as I do with everyone else.</quote> You address everyone else by their desired names and pronouns. What makes trans people any different? Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote> If you want me to pander to them and baby them, tell me it's a mental illness and I will accommodate their disability.</quote> ... Yes, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. There's some room for debate over whether it is mental or physical, given that the current best practice for treating it affects the body more so than the mind, but that distinction is largely academic. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>My job doesn't necessitate certain pronouns. I can use the correct pronoun in my job, thus the only restriction is imposed by law.</quote> The law simply says (hypothetically) that you can't use the incorrect ones (the correct ones being the ones you are asked to use, because that's how names work). That leaves you with two options: -Say nothing -Say something else The law does not remove the option of saying nothing, which means the law does not force you to say something else. If saying nothing is not an option due to other circumstances and you are therefore forced to say something else, it is those circumstances that are forcing you to say something else, not the law. It's very simple.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rooster_Sucker 10/24/19 1:23:24 PM #85:	Kyuubi is so upset that his idol is being slandered lol he's trying so hard to white knight his beloved senpai --- Kick Rocks <cite>Rooster_Sucker posted [p:929183013] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi is so upset that his idol is being slandered lol he's trying so hard to white knight his beloved senpai </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 10/24/19 1:37:18 PM #86:	adjl posted... Alternatively, you could stop rejecting very straightforward scientific conclusions about effective ways to help with this mental disorder. That might work better than relying on medication that doesn't exist. It's not straightforward to expect the entire world to change their perception of humans to accommodate the interests of the 0.01%. adjl posted... You address everyone else by their desired names and pronouns. What makes trans people any different? I address them by their correct pronouns, their preference doesn't come in to play as I don't pander to that. adjl posted... ... Yes, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. There's some room for debate over whether it is mental or physical, given that the current best practice for treating it affects the body more so than the mind, but that distinction is largely academic. The distinction is also social. I can mock a guy with a missing leg, I can't mock a guy with a missing mom. The mental state determines the appropriate response. I will indulge the man who says he believes he is a woman, I will mock the man who says he is a woman. adjl posted... The law simply says (hypothetically) that you can't use the incorrect ones If everything but one thing is incorrect, it compels that one thing. adjl posted... the correct ones being the ones you are asked to use, because that's how names work Your name is whatever we need to identify you. You have had a particular name recognised by the government, but that doesn't not make other names incorrect (such as your nickname). Incidentally, your sex is recognised by the government based on your birth, not what you feel like. adjl posted... That leaves you with two options: -Say nothing -Say something else The law does not remove the option of saying nothing If the law bans touching food with any part of your body in any form, technically it hasn't banned eating, but you will be arrested for making any attempt and any sane person would consider it a ban on eating. Similarly, if you railroad somebody in to saying words at threat of being unemployable for not speaking or imprisoned, it would be considered being coerced in to speaking. Note that coercion is a synonym for compelling. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:929183645] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Alternatively, you could stop rejecting very straightforward scientific conclusions about effective ways to help with this mental disorder. That might work better than relying on medication that doesn't exist. </quote> It's not straightforward to expect the entire world to change their perception of humans to accommodate the interests of the 0.01%. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>You address everyone else by their desired names and pronouns. What makes trans people any different?</quote> I address them by their correct pronouns, their preference doesn't come in to play as I don't pander to that. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>... Yes, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. There's some room for debate over whether it is mental or physical, given that the current best practice for treating it affects the body more so than the mind, but that distinction is largely academic.</quote> The distinction is also social. I can mock a guy with a missing leg, I can't mock a guy with a missing mom. The mental state determines the appropriate response. I will indulge the man who says he believes he is a woman, I will mock the man who says he is a woman. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>The law simply says (hypothetically) that you can't use the incorrect ones</quote> If everything but one thing is incorrect, it compels that one thing. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>the correct ones being the ones you are asked to use, because that's how names work</quote> Your name is whatever we need to identify you. You have had a particular name recognised by the government, but that doesn't not make other names incorrect (such as your nickname). Incidentally, your sex is recognised by the government based on your birth, not what you feel like. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>That leaves you with two options: -Say nothing -Say something else The law does not remove the option of saying nothing</quote> If the law bans touching food with any part of your body in any form, technically it hasn't banned eating, but you will be arrested for making any attempt and any sane person would consider it a ban on eating. Similarly, if you railroad somebody in to saying words at threat of being unemployable for not speaking or imprisoned, it would be considered being coerced in to speaking. Note that coercion is a synonym for compelling.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/24/19 1:48:42 PM #87:	Kyuubi4269 posted... It's not straightforward to expect the entire world to change their perception of humans to accommodate the interests of the 0.01%. Sure it is. This is not a difficult change. I'm not sure why you think it is. Kyuubi4269 posted... I address them by their correct pronouns, their preference doesn't come in to play as I don't pander to that. And in taking this approach, you refer to cis people by their preferred name and pronouns, but not trans people. Why so discriminatory? Kyuubi4269 posted... I can mock a guy with a missing leg, I can't mock a guy with a missing mom. Neither are particularly appropriate to mock, unless you know for certain the person is okay with it (in which case, both become appropriate to mock). Kyuubi4269 posted... If everything but one thing is incorrect, it compels that one thing. Fortunately, I presented two alternatives. Kyuubi4269 posted... Your name is whatever we need to identify you. My name is whatever I identify it to be. Assigning me a name I don't want is disrespectful at best and dehumanizing at worst. Kyuubi4269 posted... If the law bans touching food with any part of your body in any form, technically it hasn't banned eating, but you will be arrested for making any attempt and any sane person would consider it a ban on eating. The process of eating involves touching food with part of your body, so that would be making eating illegal. You're really bad at analogies. Kyuubi4269 posted... Similarly, if you railroad somebody in to saying words at threat of being unemployable for not speaking or imprisoned, it would be considered being coerced in to speaking. Note that coercion is a synonym for compelling. And it is your job that is exercising that coercion. There is no legal penalty for choosing to say nothing instead of using the incorrect pronouns, ergo the law is not forcing you to say the correct ones. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929184198] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>It's not straightforward to expect the entire world to change their perception of humans to accommodate the interests of the 0.01%.</quote> Sure it is. This is not a difficult change. I'm not sure why you think it is. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>I address them by their correct pronouns, their preference doesn't come in to play as I don't pander to that.</quote> And in taking this approach, you refer to cis people by their preferred name and pronouns, but not trans people. Why so discriminatory? Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote> I can mock a guy with a missing leg, I can't mock a guy with a missing mom.</quote> Neither are particularly appropriate to mock, unless you know for certain the person is okay with it (in which case, both become appropriate to mock). Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If everything but one thing is incorrect, it compels that one thing.</quote> Fortunately, I presented two alternatives. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Your name is whatever we need to identify you.</quote> My name is whatever I identify it to be. Assigning me a name I don't want is disrespectful at best and dehumanizing at worst. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>If the law bans touching food with any part of your body in any form, technically it hasn't banned eating, but you will be arrested for making any attempt and any sane person would consider it a ban on eating.</quote> The process of eating involves touching food with part of your body, so that would be making eating illegal. You're really bad at analogies. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Similarly, if you railroad somebody in to saying words at threat of being unemployable for not speaking or imprisoned, it would be considered being coerced in to speaking. Note that coercion is a synonym for compelling.</quote> And it is your job that is exercising that coercion. There is no legal penalty for choosing to say nothing instead of using the incorrect pronouns, ergo the law is not forcing you to say the correct ones.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 10/24/19 1:56:50 PM #88:	I wonder if kyuubi went to a school that was sensory sensitive. --- Align your chakras, it starts with your breathing. http://www.arfalpha.com/ScienceOfBreath/ScienceOfBreath.htm <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:929184587] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>I wonder if kyuubi went to a school that was sensory sensitive.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_AdjI_ 10/24/19 2:11:08 PM #89:	Sunny, behave. <cite>_AdjI_ posted [p:929185248] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Sunny, behave.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/24/19 2:37:25 PM #90:	I think he's a terminator. He acts like it. --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:929186376] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>I think he's a terminator. He acts like it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWitchMorgana 10/24/19 2:39:25 PM #91:	hey guys whats up --- and love comes back around again, it's a carousel, my friend <cite>TheWitchMorgana posted [p:929186456] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>hey guys whats up</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 10/24/19 3:51:04 PM #92:	_AdjI_ posted... Sunny, behave. No, seriously. That is also catering to how people perceive. It's not that different from using the pronoun people prefer. --- Align your chakras, it starts with your breathing. http://www.arfalpha.com/ScienceOfBreath/ScienceOfBreath.htm <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:929189384] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>_AdjI_ posted...</cite> <quote>Sunny, behave.</quote> No, seriously. That is also catering to how people perceive. It's not that different from using the pronoun people prefer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 10/24/19 3:58:42 PM #93:	adjl posted... Neither are particularly appropriate to mock, unless you know for certain the person is okay with it The one without the mental harm is fine to mock, being as they're in a fine mental state to take it. adjl posted... Fortunately, I presented two alternatives. You did not, but feel free to tell yourself what you want. adjl posted... My name is whatever I identify it to be. Assigning me a name I don't want is disrespectful at best and dehumanizing at worst. Your name is what you were given. Your decisions are respected when they are respectable. adjl posted... The process of eating involves touching food with part of your body, so that would be making eating illegal. You're really bad at analogies. The process of speaking freely requires I say the pronoun I choose. adjl posted... And it is your job that is exercising that coercion. There is no legal penalty for choosing to say nothing instead of using the incorrect pronouns, ergo the law is not forcing you to say the correct ones. Not at all. I want to comply with my job, I do not want to comply with government overreach, it is the government forcing me to act against my will. You can't say I have a choice when the choices are do as I say or be punished in myriad of ways. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:929189704] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Neither are particularly appropriate to mock, unless you know for certain the person is okay with it </quote> The one without the mental harm is fine to mock, being as they're in a fine mental state to take it. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Fortunately, I presented two alternatives.</quote> You did not, but feel free to tell yourself what you want. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>My name is whatever I identify it to be. Assigning me a name I don't want is disrespectful at best and dehumanizing at worst.</quote> Your name is what you were given. Your decisions are respected when they are respectable. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>The process of eating involves touching food with part of your body, so that would be making eating illegal. You're really bad at analogies.</quote> The process of speaking freely requires I say the pronoun I choose. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>And it is your job that is exercising that coercion. There is no legal penalty for choosing to say nothing instead of using the incorrect pronouns, ergo the law is not forcing you to say the correct ones.</quote> Not at all. I want to comply with my job, I do not want to comply with government overreach, it is the government forcing me to act against my will. You can't say I have a choice when the choices are do as I say or be punished in myriad of ways.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/24/19 4:31:00 PM #94:	Kyuubi4269 posted... The one without the mental harm is fine to mock, being as they're in a fine mental state to take it. That's basically what I said: It's only okay to mock people if they're okay with it. That is true whether the subject of the mockery is physical or mental. Unless, of course, you're going to try and tell me that losing a leg has no psychological impact on people. Kyuubi4269 posted... You did not, adjl posted... -Say nothing -Say something else I count two bullet points there. Ten, if you're counting in binary for whatever reason and that's where your confusion is coming from. Kyuubi4269 posted... Your name is what you were given. Only if I accept what I was given. I'm perfectly free to change it as desired. Kyuubi4269 posted... Your decisions are respected when they are respectable. If you don't think somebody's name is worth respecting to enough of an extent to use it when referring to them (without them doing something to earn that sort of flagrant disrespect), you're an asshole. Kyuubi4269 posted... The process of speaking freely requires I say the pronoun I choose. We established the premise back on page 1 that free speech does not mean carte blanche to say whatever you want (the example given being death threats). The discussion now is whether a law on this matter would be preventing you from saying a certain thing (which we've established and accepted is okay) or forcing you to say a certain thing (which is not so okay). So no, free speech (in terms of a right that we are looking to protect) does not inherently mean you get to say the pronoun you choose, only that the government cannot force you to say one you do not choose. That is the premise under which we are operating. Kyuubi4269 posted... I want to comply with my job, Meaning you are making the decision to say the permitted words instead of saying nothing. The choice between those two options is still yours. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:929191022] in Explain Jo... [t:78105048]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>The one without the mental harm is fine to mock, being as they're in a fine mental state to take it.</quote> That's basically what I said: It's only okay to mock people if they're okay with it. That is true whether the subject of the mockery is physical or mental. Unless, of course, you're going to try and tell me that losing a leg has no psychological impact on people. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>You did not,</quote> adjl posted...</cite> <quote>-Say nothing -Say something else</quote> I count two bullet points there. Ten, if you're counting in binary for whatever reason and that's where your confusion is coming from. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Your name is what you were given.</quote> Only if I accept what I was given. I'm perfectly free to change it as desired. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Your decisions are respected when they are respectable.</quote> If you don't think somebody's name is worth respecting to enough of an extent to use it when referring to them (without them doing something to earn that sort of flagrant disrespect), you're an asshole. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>The process of speaking freely requires I say the pronoun I choose.</quote> We established the premise back on page 1 that free speech does not mean carte blanche to say whatever you want (the example given being death threats). The discussion now is whether a law on this matter would be preventing you from saying a certain thing (which we've established and accepted is okay) or forcing you to say a certain thing (which is not so okay). So no, free speech (in terms of a right that we are looking to protect) does not inherently mean you get to say the pronoun you choose, only that the government cannot force you to say one you do not choose. That is the premise under which we are operating. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>I want to comply with my job,</quote> Meaning you are making the decision to say the permitted words instead of saying nothing. The choice between those two options is still yours.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Explain Jordan Peterson to me. (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Explain Jordan Peterson to me.