Being in a socially pair-bonded marriage doesn't change a violent man into a sweet-natured, gentle man.
That is certainly true, but statistically speaking violence is lower in stable monogamic relationships, which implies that on average men will become (a little?) less violent. That will not bring a man from violent to sweet-natured of course, and it certainly does not imply that women should be forced into relationships in order to reduce violence.
My take: women don't "owe" men sex as a condition of their not being violent towards us.
That goes without saying. As said: there's never an excuse for such violence (nor for violence in the reverse direction for that matter; also not unimportant as the statistics you mentioned show).
Statistics that show that men in stable relationships are less likely to be violent and statistics that show that men in relationships (I wouldn't call them stable) can still be violent are not necessarily at odds with each other. Clearly there is no excuse for such violence, but merely stating statistics is not mysogynous in my opinion. The conclusions one draws based on those statistics may be a different matter.
I share your curiosity; there are plenty of people who for religious reasons do not condone divorce. As I wrote just moments ago in another post: we don't really know how to handle situations in which new policies clash with religious views. I think it's at least important to review the situation carefully, and discuss it properly before taking rash actions, especially if the wisdom of said policies are still unclear.
You have a point, but in our societies we still put a lot of value on freedom of religion, and if that religion clashes with new policies we run into issues we don't really know how to handle yet. We have seen similar issues with government officials being forced to conduct gay/lesbian marriages, muslim officials and lawyers who refuse to shake hands or stand up for female judges, religious meat handling vs animal well being, etc.
I think that in our current society we have to be very careful before we force someone to act against their religion based on policies we don't even know the value of yet. Even within the scientific realm of psychology and psychiatry, opinions differ greatly on whether it is wise to start transgender procedures for minors. While that is being sorted out, should we already force people to go against their religious beliefs or fire them from jobs they have held for many years? I honestly don't know the answer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the
While I tend to agree with you that every single generation freaks out about these things, and that most situations are still anecdotal, I do see a strong rise in the number of anecdotal stories regarding these matters over the past few years. Some of them, like e.g. professor Weinstein's situation, are serious enough to consider that on those particular schools a deeper and independent review of the situation might be in order.
Also, keep in mind that some people would say the same thing about our IP concerns: that they're anecdotal and completely overblown. We've however read the laws, and realise how they can be abused, and the number of situations in which they ARE abused are on the rise.
The Canadian legal experts are not in agreement on this, Mike. The law is (deliberately?) vague. Several experts like professor Bruce Pardy have come out in support of professor Peterson on this matter, and the lawyers of the University of Toronto warned professor Peterson that posting that video might be illegal. You above many would know how vague laws are bound to be abused by people.
In the article you link to, it also states:
“If he was found guilty by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, he would have been doing something illegal but not criminal,” Cossman says. In other words, he wouldn’t go to jail. Jail is only a punishment for committing a criminal offence—a violation of the Criminal Code.
That illegal act however can get you fined, and if you refuse to pay that fine then jail can certainly be a result.
I've said lots of valid things, just not the things people like Will B. have accused me of saying. Mike has already indicated that he knows very little about professor Peterson, and I bet the same goes for most of the people here. While I agree that this lawsuit is a bad idea, I have tried to explain why I think professor Peterson has filed it, and what he hopes to attain here. I might be completely wrong, but from what I've read and heard from the man I think I'm accurate.
I've also tried to explain some of his and my views regarding radical leftist ideas like diversity and equity, which I think are a serious cause for people moving towards extra right wing views. Professor Peterson qualifies as a classic liberal, but in the eyes of these people anyone who does not agree with them is a white supremacist, a biggot and/or a misogynist. There have been a lot of hit pieces written about him lately, and he does not deserve that. As such, I enjoy setting the record straight here and there.
I don't recall stating that I don't believe it makes professor Peterson a hypocrite on free speech. Could you point out the post where I might have given that idea?
Why would I wish to refute the article? The only things I've refuted are some misconceptions regarding professor Peterson's ideas, and I've discussed some matters regarding those ideas. That's all.
I'm not at all opposed to changing my mind if someone actually has some valid arguments to bring to the table. Ad hominem attacks generally don't qualify as such.
Please point me to a single one of my posts where I said this lawsuit was a good idea. Please do, I've posted plenty in this thread. At best I stated that I might not have enough information to know the legal plan behind this move, but I've never stated that I thought it was a good idea.
Sure, if that's what you want. It wouldn't be the first time I argued against my own position, just for the fun of it. :)
In the mean time though, I haven't seen you raise a single valid argument with regards to the OP. All you've done is attack me on some points you think I made, but never made, and in stead of just admitting to your mistake of being unable to determine when I describe my insights on professor Peterson's intentions or when I describe my own views, you keep going back to name calling.
As I already answered: I agree that my first reactions were not specifically requested. I did however react to other people's posts, and to the remarks and questions that followed in response. If people engage me in conversation, I rather expect them to actually want an answer as well. I think if people read my reactions, it's really not that hard to see where I'm trying to explain professor Peterson's reasoning, and where I'm giving my own opinions.
You stated:
Disingenuous. Bullshit. He came here to defend Peterson and his lawsuit, and trying to avoid the fallout of doing so is cowardly.
That part is non-sense. I came here to read Techdirt like I always do, and came across this article about a man I admire. At no point did I defend his lawsuit; I merely pointed out what I think his reasons are, and that I disagree with those reasons.
No, that's actually not my analysis at all. As I wrote before: I think this has nothing to do with him being harmed by these false claims, and everything to do with him being angry that Wilfrid Laurier University doesn't appear to have done a single effective thing to rectify the situation, and has in stead made Lindsay Shepherd even more miserable. The apology was forced, but apparently not at all sincere. As such, I think this lawsuit is an incredibly bad idea, and I think from a PR standpoint it would have been much better if he had just acted as a witness in Lindsay Shepherd's lawsuit in stead.
He has however decided to file suit, probably in an attempt to force Wilfrid Laurier University to actually do something about the policies that caused this incident. I think he'd drop the lawsuit in a heartbeat if they disciplined the people involved, and changed their policy to protect the freedom of speech. That still doesn't make it right IMHO, even if it did prove to be effective. He might have a case under Canadian law, but it still feels wrong to me.
I don't think it's wide spread; I do think it's spreading, and we'll read more of these stories in times to come. I've read some of the comments by students from other schools, and I hear similar stories from them.
I'm not sure I would agree with your assessment regarding the reasonable school board. They are forcing new rules that run contrary to someone's religion upon that person, and while first accepting his compromise later double back, and give him very few viable options.
Also, while the intents behind these kinds of policies may be good, it's far from sure they're actually a good idea, even for transgenders themselves.
Nonsense; I've been an avid reader of Techdirt since the DMCA and EUCD started causing problems. I did a lot of copyright lobbying for the Foundation for Open Source in the Netherlands in those days, and even worked together with some of the people here arguing against the BPDG (broadcast flag). I just haven't spent much time in discussions here lately.
I also happen to enjoy reading professor Peterson's work, so when I came across this article on one of my regular visits to this site I decided to join the discussion for a change. To be quite honest: I haven't had this much fun debating things in quite a while; it's so much more fun to debate with people you disagree with. :)
Well, actually I've been reading Techdirt for ages; I just haven't commented in a while, and forgot the password to my account (https://www.techdirt.com/user/phulshof), which is still linked to my old email address. I came here to read Techdirt, and was surprised to see an article about professor Peterson on here, and figured I'd wage in for a change. :)
While I agree that my first comments may not have explicitly been asked for, people did ask me questions in response, and I answered those; some regarding how I think professor Peterson thinks about the matters, and some from my own point of view (which quite often matches that of professor Peterson, but also differs significantly at other times), depending on how the question was asked.
Actually, I haven't seen many people disagree with my analysis; merely with professor Peterson's or my own point of view. I can't know for sure what professor Peterson's views are on everything, but I've read and seen enough of the man to have gotten a pretty decent idea. That you (and others) may disagree with his (or my) point of view is a completely separate matter.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Being in a socially pair-bonded marriage doesn't change a violent man into a sweet-natured, gentle man.
That is certainly true, but statistically speaking violence is lower in stable monogamic relationships, which implies that on average men will become (a little?) less violent. That will not bring a man from violent to sweet-natured of course, and it certainly does not imply that women should be forced into relationships in order to reduce violence.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My take: women don't "owe" men sex as a condition of their not being violent towards us.
That goes without saying. As said: there's never an excuse for such violence (nor for violence in the reverse direction for that matter; also not unimportant as the statistics you mentioned show).
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I found this article enlightening on this matter:
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/jordan-peterson-and-enforced-monogamy-heres-what-you-dont- understand/
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that in our current society we have to be very careful before we force someone to act against their religion based on policies we don't even know the value of yet. Even within the scientific realm of psychology and psychiatry, opinions differ greatly on whether it is wise to start transgender procedures for minors. While that is being sorted out, should we already force people to go against their religious beliefs or fire them from jobs they have held for many years? I honestly don't know the answer.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the
Also, keep in mind that some people would say the same thing about our IP concerns: that they're anecdotal and completely overblown. We've however read the laws, and realise how they can be abused, and the number of situations in which they ARE abused are on the rise.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Canadian legal experts are not in agreement on this, Mike. The law is (deliberately?) vague. Several experts like professor Bruce Pardy have come out in support of professor Peterson on this matter, and the lawyers of the University of Toronto warned professor Peterson that posting that video might be illegal. You above many would know how vague laws are bound to be abused by people.
In the article you link to, it also states: “If he was found guilty by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, he would have been doing something illegal but not criminal,” Cossman says. In other words, he wouldn’t go to jail. Jail is only a punishment for committing a criminal offence—a violation of the Criminal Code. That illegal act however can get you fined, and if you refuse to pay that fine then jail can certainly be a result.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
I've also tried to explain some of his and my views regarding radical leftist ideas like diversity and equity, which I think are a serious cause for people moving towards extra right wing views. Professor Peterson qualifies as a classic liberal, but in the eyes of these people anyone who does not agree with them is a white supremacist, a biggot and/or a misogynist. There have been a lot of hit pieces written about him lately, and he does not deserve that. As such, I enjoy setting the record straight here and there.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
I'm not at all opposed to changing my mind if someone actually has some valid arguments to bring to the table. Ad hominem attacks generally don't qualify as such.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
In the mean time though, I haven't seen you raise a single valid argument with regards to the OP. All you've done is attack me on some points you think I made, but never made, and in stead of just admitting to your mistake of being unable to determine when I describe my insights on professor Peterson's intentions or when I describe my own views, you keep going back to name calling.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
You stated: Disingenuous. Bullshit. He came here to defend Peterson and his lawsuit, and trying to avoid the fallout of doing so is cowardly.
That part is non-sense. I came here to read Techdirt like I always do, and came across this article about a man I admire. At no point did I defend his lawsuit; I merely pointed out what I think his reasons are, and that I disagree with those reasons.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
He has however decided to file suit, probably in an attempt to force Wilfrid Laurier University to actually do something about the policies that caused this incident. I think he'd drop the lawsuit in a heartbeat if they disciplined the people involved, and changed their policy to protect the freedom of speech. That still doesn't make it right IMHO, even if it did prove to be effective. He might have a case under Canadian law, but it still feels wrong to me.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure I would agree with your assessment regarding the reasonable school board. They are forcing new rules that run contrary to someone's religion upon that person, and while first accepting his compromise later double back, and give him very few viable options.
Also, while the intents behind these kinds of policies may be good, it's far from sure they're actually a good idea, even for transgenders themselves.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
I also happen to enjoy reading professor Peterson's work, so when I came across this article on one of my regular visits to this site I decided to join the discussion for a change. To be quite honest: I haven't had this much fun debating things in quite a while; it's so much more fun to debate with people you disagree with. :)
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
While I agree that my first comments may not have explicitly been asked for, people did ask me questions in response, and I answered those; some regarding how I think professor Peterson thinks about the matters, and some from my own point of view (which quite often matches that of professor Peterson, but also differs significantly at other times), depending on how the question was asked.
Actually, I haven't seen many people disagree with my analysis; merely with professor Peterson's or my own point of view. I can't know for sure what professor Peterson's views are on everything, but I've read and seen enough of the man to have gotten a pretty decent idea. That you (and others) may disagree with his (or my) point of view is a completely separate matter.
Next >>