Jordan Peterson

[Singu]

A few people choosing not to get vaccinated does not endager the rest of the group if the rest of the group is already vaccinated.

There are some people who can't get vaccinated even if they want to, for health-related reasons.

What you posted below contradicts why people who can get vaccinated should get mandatory vaccinations.

I think mandatory vaccination, like they voted on in France is monstrous. How does the government decide you have to put something in your body you don't want to?

What do you mean by forcing something into my body? You're already forcing your pathogens and germs into my body when you cough. A vaccine is no different than that, except that the pathogens and germs have already been killed, so they're harmless.

The way vaccines work is so misunderstood that people think they're putting some unknown harmful substances into their bodies, when it's no different than getting infected in the usual way, except that it's much, much safer since the pathogens have already been killed.

I've never gotten any vaccinations, nor do I plan to.

Ok, but why? There are just too much benefits from getting vaccinations than not getting vaccinated, that it would simply be better to get vaccinations.

[Computer Loser]

Bill c-16 extends existing legislation to gender identity. This is bill c-16:

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e...6/royal-assent

Here, listen around 13:25, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiijS_9hPkM&t=811s

JP specifically clarifies that preferred pronouns are not precisely defined in c-16, but it is in the Ontario human rights code.

That's literally it. How a future court "might" interpret gender identity is irrelevant. A future court could just as easily choose to interpret age as a social construct. If you want complete legal certainty, don't live in a country with an Anglosaxon code of law.

Same response as above, JP says preferred pronouns are defined by the courts, not precisely in c-16.

Even if a court did someday declare that pronouns = gender identity

The Ontario Human Rights Commission website specifically states that using the incorrect gender pronoun may be considered discrimination

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education

the threshold to get charged under the existing criminal code is really, really high. Hate crimes against sexual orientation are already legislated against in the same way and no one gets charged just for calling someone a ******.

Fair, although it won't technically/legally be criminalized, you'll be fined/punished either way as I already mentioned in the previous post.

Example:

A case where the Vancouver Police were fined by the human rights tribunal for, among other things, misgendering a trans woman by using her legal (male) name and male pronouns instead of her preferred name and pronouns.

Specifically, the decision against the Vancouver Police included the following declaration with respect to the misgendering of the trans woman:

[270] I also find that, when Ms. Dawson was referred-to with male pronouns in the report of the occurrence on June 18, 2010, it amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex. Notwithstanding that her legal name was Jeffrey, she advised the officers that she was a transsexual female and was not treated as such

[189] There are two aspects to what I have found occurred on this date that could be considered to be an adverse impact. First, is the use of the name Jeffrey and male pronouns to describe Ms. Dawson’s actions and property.

[216] Use of the name Jeffrey and male designation came up often in the evidence. This is the only instance that was raised explicitly in the complaint. I accept that use of the name Jeffrey and the male gender are matters which cause distress to Ms. Dawson and can be considered adverse

And refusing to pay the fines, as someone like JP says he would do, could result in jail time.

And lets be real, legalities aside, on a practical level, its gonna stir shit up; whether its because the courts interpret it this or that way, or whether people are sensitive/crazy, the possibilities are endless, as an example here:

Lindsay Shepherd, a TA at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, was reprimanded by the university, NOT for even using the wrong pronoun, but simply for using the youtube clip during a lecture which showed a debate about usage of pronouns (and specifically, for not telling the students that one of the positions in the debate is 'wrong'.

A full account of the event can be found on Rubin Report episode "Lindsay Shepherd LIVE: Free Speech Battle with Laurier University", and a full recording of the interrogation session - in which the university officials very specifically cited C-16!!! - is also available on Youtube (although One of Canada's newspapers published a full transcript as well:

Rambukkana: So the thing about this is, if you’re presenting something like this, you have to think about the kind of teaching climate that you’re creating. And this is actually, these arguments are counter to the Canadian Human Rights Code. Even since … C-16, ever since this passed, it is discriminatory to be targeting someone due to their gender identity or gender expression.

Practically speaking, whether or not the bill clarifies what is acceptable or not... it's still gonna lead to consequences like this regardless.

Given all this, I don't think what JP said was that much of a stretch.

[Singu]

The Ontario Human Rights Commission website specifically states that using the incorrect gender pronoun may be considered discrimination

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education

If Peterson wants his "freedom of speech" when he's educating his students, then maybe he should quit being a professor in a public social area. Then he can have all the freedom of speech he wants.

Honestly how ridiculous would it be, if some professor started harassing a student by saying "I'm not going to call you a Christian, because God doesn't exist and you're being delusional. You're an atheist, just like everyone else."? It's pretty much the same thing.

[WVBRY]

You're already forcing your pathogens and germs into my body when you cough.

I would say that if I held your mouth open with my hands and coughed into it, that would be forcing pathogens into your body. Casually coughing is different, of course, you can always tell me to go somewhere else if you're afraid to catch my germs and you can get up and go somewhere else.

Comparing coughing to government forcing people to get a vaccine just does not follow, imo.

[WVBRY]

If Peterson wants his "freedom of speech" when he's educating his students, then maybe he should quit being a professor in a public social area. Then he can have all the freedom of speech he wants.

Honestly how ridiculous would it be, if some professor started harassing a student by saying "I'm not going to call you a Christian, because God doesn't exist and you're being delusional. You're an atheist, just like everyone else."? It's pretty much the same thing.

You're framing the issue as one of harassment. It's not. Of course someone who harasses others should be held acountable, noone is saying otherwise.

A better example would be if a teacher once calls a Christian student an athiest, and gets fired for it. Maybe he didn't mean to and maybe he did, but it's pretty draconian grounds for firing someone in any case.

[xerx]

Here, listen around 13:25, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiijS_9hPkM&t=811s

JP specifically clarifies that preferred pronouns are not precisely defined in c-16, but it is in the Ontario human rights code.

Same response as above, JP says preferred pronouns are defined by the courts, not precisely in c-16.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission website specifically states that using the incorrect gender pronoun may be considered discrimination

According to that document: "the Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology."


Following the C-16 controversy, the Canadian Bar Association, which is highly authoritative on these matters, issued a memo on the topic of hate crime legislation that deflates accusations of attempting to shut down free speech.

https://www.cba.org/News-Media/News/...n-on-Bill-C-16

Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.

...

For hate crimes, Bill C-16 adds gender identity or expression to the identifiable groups protected from those who advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace or wilfully promote hatred against them.

...

The provision possesses a stringent mens rea requirement, necessitating either an intent to promote hatred or knowledge of the substantial certainty of such, and is also strongly supported by the conclusion that the meaning of the word hatred is restricted to the most severe and deeply-felt form of opprobrium.

^ A hate crime is something much stronger than a refusal to use a pronoun.

The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech prohibitions. Hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred as a part of that debate. It does not target the ideas, but their mode of expression in public and the effect that this mode of expression may have.

...

The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens. Nor will it hamper the evolution of academic debates about sex and gender, race and ethnicity, nature and culture, and other genuine and continuing inquiries that mark our common quest for understanding of the human condition.

^ Hate crimes legislation doesn't force you to use "certain words." You're allowed to debate whatever ideas you like, and you're allowed to question the morality of anything. Academic debate will never be restricted by law, and Peterson's unimportant ass will never be fined.

The amendment will, however, make explicit the existing requirement for the federal government and federally regulated providers of goods and services to ensure that personal information, like sex or gender, is collected only for legitimate purposes and not used to perpetuate discrimination or undermine privacy rights. In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.

^ It does, however, protect against persistent workplace discrimination and harassment. What's definitely clear is that legislation doesn't prevent your boss from publicly expressing beliefs about the immorality of sex reassignment surgery or voice opposition to the use of transgender pronouns.

Fair, although it won't technically/legally be criminalized, you'll be fined/punished either way as I already mentioned in the previous post.

Example:

A case where the Vancouver Police were fined by the human rights tribunal for, among other things, misgendering a trans woman by using her legal (male) name and male pronouns instead of her preferred name and pronouns.

Specifically, the decision against the Vancouver Police included the following declaration with respect to the misgendering of the trans woman:

According to that source, Angela Dawson complained that she was denied post-surgery medical treatment relating to her sex-reassignment surgery. That's a case of physical harm resulting from not taking someone's medical condition seriously. It's not clear (and probably unlikely) that being called "Jeffery" played a huge part in her winning the lawsuit.

And refusing to pay the fines, as someone like JP says he would do, could result in jail time.

And lets be real, legalities aside, on a practical level, its gonna stir shit up; whether its because the courts interpret it this or that way, or whether people are sensitive/crazy, the possibilities are endless, as an example here:

Lindsay Shepherd, a TA at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, was reprimanded by the university, NOT for even using the wrong pronoun, but simply for using the youtube clip during a lecture which showed a debate about usage of pronouns (and specifically, for not telling the students that one of the positions in the debate is 'wrong'.

A full account of the event can be found on Rubin Report episode "Lindsay Shepherd LIVE: Free Speech Battle with Laurier University", and a full recording of the interrogation session - in which the university officials very specifically cited C-16!!! - is also available on Youtube (although One of Canada's newspapers published a full transcript as well:



Practically speaking, whether or not the bill clarifies what is acceptable or not... it's still gonna lead to consequences like this regardless.

Given all this, I don't think what JP said was that much of a stretch.

Yes, it's still a huge stretch.

Wilfred Laurier University isn't the government. They're a separate institution responsible for setting their own curriculum. If some overzealous professors decided to push through an agenda, then I certainly wouldn't support it, but it has nothing to do with bill C-16. It's up to individuals to not "stir shit up;" the government has no business interfering with their freedom of speech .

[Singu]

I would say that if I held your mouth open with my hands and coughed into it, that would be forcing pathogens into your body. Casually coughing is different, of course, you can always tell me to go somewhere else if you're afraid to catch my germs and you can get up and go somewhere else.

I can't tell you to go somewhere else in a public space. Neither of us own the place.

Why should I go somewhere else, when you're the one who should be getting vaccinated? If you're not vaccinated, then maybe you should just stay at home so you don't spread your pathogens.

The government can't force you against your will, but the government also has the responsibility of protecting other citizens. Not "forcing" is not an absolute value, just like freedom of speech isn't an absolute value. Some expressions are not protected under freedom of speech.

You're framing the issue as one of harassment. It's not. Of course someone who harasses others should be held acountable, noone is saying otherwise.

It is about harassment, under this law. Even if you have no intention of harassing someone, it could count as harassment.

The real issue is why should all the other groups and attributes such as gender, race, age, etc., be protected under this law, but not "gender identity"? That is indeed singling out and discriminating gender identity.

A better example would be if a teacher once calls a Christian student an athiest, and gets fired for it. Maybe he didn't mean to and maybe he did, but it's pretty draconian grounds for firing someone in any case.

Well you're changing the subject, because nobody is getting fired over this. At best you're getting fined, or forced to apologize, or take some courses in human rights. Of course if you refuse to do that, then it turns into a criminal case of not paying fines, which is a separate issue.

[WVBRY]

I can't tell you to go somewhere else in a public space. Neither of us own the place.

You can tell someone to go somewhere else in a public place. They don't have to listen; they may not listen to you even in your own private space either.

Why should I go somewhere else, when you're the one who should be getting vaccinated? If you're not vaccinated, then maybe you should just stay at home so you don't spread your pathogens.

I didn't say you had to go somewhere else. But what's more important to you, if someone on the bus next to you has a cold, standing your ground, or not catching their germs? It's up to you to decide. This isn't the type of thing public policy should regulate, imo.

The government can't force you against your will

Sure they can, in places where vaccines are mandatory. And if that isn't practical, they can put you in prison.

Not "forcing" is not an absolute value

In any case, forcing someone to get vaccinated is really authoritarian imo. I don't realy believe in forcing people to do stuff against their will, whether it's government in the name of general interest or whatever, but that's a different debate.

It is about harassment, under this law. Even if you have no intention of harassing someone, it could count as harassment.

Which is of course, silly.

The real issue is why should all the other groups and attributes such as gender, race, age, etc., be protected under this law, but not "gender identity"? That is indeed singling out and discriminating gender identity.

Sure, if you look at it like that, it makes sense.

However, I don't believe that hate speech, where noone is being threatened with violence, should be penalized under law.

Well you're changing the subject, because nobody is getting fired over this. At best you're getting fined, or forced to apologize, or take some courses in human rights. Of course if you refuse to do that, then it turns into a criminal case of not paying fines, which is a separate issue.

Dude, saying someone should be forced to take courses in human rights is so 1984.

Also, the post you initially quoted was talking about people getting fired.

[Computer Loser]

According to that document: [I]"the Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology."

^ A hate crime is something much stronger than a refusal to use a pronoun.

…^ Hate crimes legislation doesn't force you to use "certain words." You're allowed to debate whatever ideas you like, and you're allowed to question the morality of anything. Academic debate will never be restricted by law, and Peterson's unimportant ass will never be fined.

Ok, it doesn’t specify word for word “if you call this trans lady a dude you'll be fined”

But it’s pretty clear the use/absence of pronouns in certain settings will lead to trouble.

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

Definition of misgendering- refer to (someone, especially a transgender person) using a word, especially a pronoun or form of address, that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they identify.

I also work in retail, and there have been times I accidentally called some lady a dude/”sir” because I didn’t look hard enough. (Sometimes there are girls with hairy legs and mustaches and stuff I dunno, I get confused at times.) She got pissed and complained that I didn't treat her/refer her as a man etc.

No the law doesn’t specify “DUDE” but come on… It can lead to discrimination cases. It’s not the actual words per say, but it’s the stuff around the pronoun. Think of "the whole thoughts...leads to words...leads to actions" idea. Saying a pronoun can help stir/lead to an intent which can lead to an action.

And just to be clear, we’re in agreement that JP didn’t say c-16 = pronouns, right? But that c-16 is an extension and the code clarifies.

All JP is communicating is that a dangerous precedent is being set in place.

According to that source, Angela Dawson complained that she was denied post-surgery medical treatment relating to her sex-reassignment surgery. That's a case of physical harm resulting from not taking someone's medical condition seriously. It's not clear (and probably unlikely) that being called "Jeffery" played a huge part in her winning the lawsuit.

The tribunal also found Dawson was discriminated against on this occasion when officers referred to her as "Jeffrey" and used male pronouns to describe her.

The words "discriminated against" and "male pronouns" are thrown out here in the same sentence. Come on, it played a role in the fine. Do we need high-definition body camera footage of Angela grimacing in pain as the policer officers yells out "JEFFREY"?

Yes, it's still a huge stretch.

Wilfred Laurier University isn't the government. They're a separate institution responsible for setting their own curriculum. If some overzealous professors decided to push through an agenda, then I certainly wouldn't support it, but it has nothing to do with bill C-16. It's up to individuals to not "stir shit up;" the government has no business interfering with their freedom of speech .

It’s 2018. Everyone is sensitive. Technically on paper it may not be so, but in reality and how it plays out is a different story.

--

Hmm, putting aside who’s right/wrong, I’m glad we’re having this dialogue anyway, I’ve learned a lot Xerx.

Because of you and JP, it forced me to examine the facts further.

As a society we need to learn to think critically about these issues, examining the facts from both sides, instead of blindly forming opinions just because.

Even if you think JP is an idiot, come on, at least his opinions gets people to think deeply about these matters, and is worthy of discussion.

Honestly I think its a Ti vs Te thing... Ti-types come off like they're exaggerating in relation to Te types.

If Peterson wants his "freedom of speech" when he's educating his students, then maybe he should quit being a professor in a public social area. Then he can have all the freedom of speech he wants.

Honestly how ridiculous would it be, if some professor started harassing a student by saying "I'm not going to call you a Christian, because God doesn't exist and you're being delusional. You're an atheist, just like everyone else."? It's pretty much the same thing.

I’m Christian and you can call me atheist if you’d like. The only problem is people would think you’re retarded.

But no, I’m not gonna force you to do anything.

[Singu]

I’m Christian and you can call me atheist if you’d like. The only problem is people would think you’re retarded.

But no, I’m not gonna force you to do anything.

That's my entire point, since I'm not going to call you an atheist. I'm going to call you a Christian, since that's what you prefer to be referred to as and that's what you identify as. When you don't call people by their preferred gender, then that's being "retarded", as you put it.

So you've just defeated your own argument.

[Computer Loser]

That's my entire point, since I'm not going to call you an atheist. I'm going to call you a Christian, since that's what you prefer to be referred to as. When you don't call people by their preferred gender, then that's being "retarded", as you put it.

So you've just defeated your own argument.

nuuuu uhhhhh!!!!! boo boo. it must hurt grasping for so many straws.

It's not my "preferred pronoun." I don't "prefer" to be called anything. And i'm not forcing you to believe in God or change your inner beliefs,

but in society generally the label "Christian" is put on people associated with belief in God.

Similarly, in society a person with a dick is generally labeled as a man.

Now all a sudden there's a dude that cuts his dick off. Now call him a woman. That's different.

And I wouldn't be called retarded in calling a dude born with a dick a dude... Because that's what a dude with a dick is called...Unless you're in Thailand.

[timber]

Because I never got them as a kid, and so throughout my childhood was exposed to measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, chicken pox etc and now have natural immunity. Natural immunity is stronger and longer-lasting than vaccines in all those cases so I'm pretty well protected. There's a few things left that I could still potentially catch, but chances of that are pretty slim. Side effect risks are probably higher than infection risks at this point. I mean if I was potentially going to be in specific conditions (injured while in flooded areas with contaminated water or some such) I might want to get a tetanus shot of course, but that's not an everyday normal kind of thing. And I'd rather just not.

Sorry this is dumb. HAHA at natural immunity. You don't have any natural immunity you just missed the bullet and were lucky.

[timber]

That's my entire point, since I'm not going to call you an atheist. I'm going to call you a Christian, since that's what you prefer to be referred to as and that's what you identify as. When you don't call people by their preferred gender, then that's being "retarded", as you put it.

So you've just defeated your own argument.

What about the individuals responsibility to accept the things he can't change?

[Singu]

It's not my "preferred pronoun." I don't "prefer" to be called anything. And i'm not forcing you to believe in God or change your inner beliefs,

Then why can't you do the same with gender identity?

but in society generally the label "Christian" is put on people associated with belief in God.

Yes, well lucky for you that the "society" that you live in is where Christianity is the majority religion.

But what if you lived in a society where people thought Christianity was crazy, and constantly tried to tell you that you're not a Christian, and you're an atheist and you're just crazy for thinking otherwise?

The point is, this isn't about what you or I personally feel about it. One's religiosity is a given right, and it's protected under this law. So why can't gender identity be also protected by this law?

So I think Jordan Peterson makes a ridiculous point, when he claims that all of a sudden freedom of speech is being threatened, just because they're going to add gender identity to this list. It's no different than having his own religion protected under the same law. He should just admit that he has a certain prejudice against adding gender identity to the list. Instead he claims that this is about freedom of speech, because he's dishonest and manipulative in a certain way.

[xerx]

Ok, it doesn’t specify word for word “if you call this trans lady a dude you'll be fined”

But it’s pretty clear the use/absence of pronouns in certain settings will lead to trouble.

Definition of misgendering- refer to (someone, especially a transgender person) using a word, especially a pronoun or form of address, that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they identify.

I also work in retail, and there have been times I accidentally called some lady a dude/”sir” because I didn’t look hard enough. (Sometimes there are girls with hairy legs and mustaches and stuff I dunno, I get confused at times.) She got pissed and complained that I didn't treat her/refer her as a man etc.

No the law doesn’t specify “DUDE” but come on… It can lead to discrimination cases. It’s not the actual words per say, but it’s the stuff around the pronoun. Think of "the whole thoughts...leads to words...leads to actions" idea. Saying a pronoun can help stir/lead to an intent which can lead to an action.

And just to be clear, we’re in agreement that JP didn’t say c-16 = pronouns, right? But that c-16 is an extension and the code clarifies.

All JP is communicating is that a dangerous precedent is being set in place.

Here is how I understand the discrimination aspect of the new laws:

I take it you're a man, both biologically and in terms of self-identification. Imagine if your boss, because he's a dick, decided to refer to you repeatedly and maliciously as "she" in front of customers and coworkers. Under these new laws, which seem only to apply to regulated environments like schools and workplaces, your boss wouldn't be forced to call you "he" but could face arbitration for insisting on referring to you by "she."

This isn't different from penalties against (say) calling someone a "******" at work. You aren't being compelled to use the politically correct terminology "African" to refer to him. You definitely aren't being forced to change any racist attitudes you might have against black people.


If this prohibition was being implemented everywhere, even on the street, I would agree that it signficantly lowers the existing standards of free of speech, and I would probably be against it. But at work / schools / clinics, having standards for professional behaviour is something that already exists. Whether we should have laws related to professional behaviour at all is an interesting and thought provoking experiment in Anarchist self-organisation, but much, much bigger than the conversation around C-16.

The words "discriminated against" and "male pronouns" are thrown out here in the same sentence. Come on, it played a role in the fine. Do we need high-definition body camera footage of Angela grimacing in pain as the policer officers yells out "JEFFREY"?

The reporting wasn't a transcript of events, so it's impossible to be sure. Reports can be sensationalised by the reporter or even by a victim who wants her social activism to be validated.

If we employ common sense, the police probably referred to her as "Jeffery" because that's what was written on her ID; how else would they have known her original name if she wasn't the one using it? A court would probably be sympathetic to the police when it comes to following what is presumably standard procedure. What probably isn't standard procedure, however, is medical neglect; she was misgendered because they chose to ignore her transgender medical needs.

It’s 2018. Everyone is sensitive. Technically on paper it may not be so, but in reality and how it plays out is a different story.

--

Hmm, putting aside who’s right/wrong, I’m glad we’re having this dialogue anyway, I’ve learned a lot Xerx.

Because of you and JP, it forced me to examine the facts further.

As a society we need to learn to think critically about these issues, examining the facts from both sides, instead of blindly forming opinions just because.

I'm glad I could help out.

[sbbds]

Why would anybody want to facilitate the law being less humane and considerate of nuance and differences rather than more? This IMO is a step forward for everyone with regard to overall mentality.

[Bastard]

Why would anybody want to facilitate the law being less humane and considerate of nuance and differences rather than more? This IMO is a step forward for everyone with regard to overall mentality.

"Muh free speech." Essentially.

[timber]

I took biology in school and understand both concepts.

It is impressive you survived all those illnesses in order to develop this type of immunity.

[Singu]

Well I think I've gotten some vaccines for life-threatening diseases like tuberculosis. And you can't just "survive" tuberculosis.

[timber]

Chicken pox can return as shingles which happened to me when I was 21. The rash spread across my nape and face for many months one summer. I continued to work my jobs at that time as well. I know what pain is and if I could have taken a vaccine for it I would have. A kind of pain that takes up all your consciouness at all times. Pain from my nerves cell exploding with virus. Pain that from eating a sour apple. Pain from the wind blowing across my skin. Dull aching pain all the way to shear stabbing pain. I also have had a life long battle with body acne, painful sores all over. You can't survive Polio happily, nor Small pox.

All you anti vaccers are the retarded ones. Not me. Thanks for stopping by you stupid bitch. Hopefully you don't get cervical cancer because the 2 cancer causing HPV strains are out there and are very common.

When the vaccine arrives for HIV I will be first in line.

[timber]

Ultimately: why do we need to suffer from illnesses if we don't need to?

Your for profit medical system and lack of proper science education have left you jaded.

[WVBRY]

Why would anybody want to facilitate the law being less humane and considerate of nuance and differences rather than more? This IMO is a step forward for everyone with regard to overall mentality.

Morality isn't law.

You can't force people to be good, whatever you consider good to be.

Hate speech laws that penalize "degrading speech" imo open the door to other government abuses of power wrt to free speech.

If everyone got to legislate what they consider to be "good" and enforce their morality on others through government, there would be no freedoms left.

Found this image on twitter which illustrates my point:

[WVBRY]

Your for profit medical system

No such thing as free lunch.

[sbbds]

Morality isn't law.

You can't force people to be good, whatever you consider good to be.

Hate speech laws that penalize "degrading speech" imo open the door to other government abuses of power wrt to free speech.

If everyone got to legislate what they consider to be "good" and enforce their morality on others through government, there would be no freedoms left.

Found this image on twitter which illustrates my point:

They aren’t the same thing but law is definitely influenced by the prevailing mores of the society it exists in. It’s up to legislators to create a functional balance.

Interesting excerpt. Indian society and culture overall is quite different from the Western societies that these laws would be used in though.

[timber]

natural immunity is not a vocab term. my original conclusions still stand. avoiding vaccines is dumb.

[timber]

No such thing as free lunch.

Except for all intents and purposes there kinda is. I paid nothing this year, except the few hundred taken from my income tax which I did not notice. No worries about Insurance companies. No worries about full coverage. No worries about needing to mortgage a house, or fall into life long poverty.

[WVBRY]

Except for all intents and purposes there kinda is. I paid nothing this year, except the few hundred taken from my income tax which I did not notice. No worries about Insurance companies. No worries about full coverage. No worries about needing to mortgage a house, or fall into life long poverty.

If you're paying it through your taxes it isn't free.

A few hundred Canadian dollars per year seems like a very low income tax though, even if you are only making minimum wage, so color me skeptical.

[timber]

If you're paying it through your taxes it isn't free.

Btw, you paid a few hundred Candian dollars on your income tax this year? That seems like very little. How much do you earn, lol?

Nope nice try at being insulting. In British Columbia our premiums are usually below 1000 a year for one person household.

Sure beats the several thousand and THEN some your citizens pay.

Most here don't consider the minisclule amount as being worth ranting and raving about because not all taxes are bad. We pay a little bit each so that no one has to pay a lot. Plus there are no pre-existing conditions clauses and no deductibles.

[WVBRY]

Nope nice try at being insulting. In British Columbia our premiums are usually below 1000 a year for one person household.

Sure beats the several thousand and THEN some your citizens pay.

Most here don't consider the minisclule amount as being worth ranting and raving about because not all taxes are bad. We pay a little bit each so that no one has to pay a lot.

I rephrased what I said because it was sure to be misunderstood, however I wasn't trying to be insutling, lol.

My citizens? Which country do you suppose I am from?

Though I do subscribe to your point that if people are dumb enough to demand their politicians make them pay taxes, they deserve to get exactly that. Not calling you dumb specifically, I get that you prefer the system you have but people often don't consider the unseen consequences of spending, imo.

[timber]

I rephrased what I said because it was sure to be misunderstood, however I wasn't trying to be insutling, lol.

My citizens? Which country do you suppose I am from?

Though I do subscribe to your point that if people are dumb enough to demand their politicians make them pay taxes, they deserve to get exactly that. Not calling you dumb specifically, I get that you prefer the system you have but people often don't consider the unseen consequences of spending, imo.

Right it would have been waaay better to pay 5000 dollars out of my own pocket for the last trip to the Emergency room and if I did not have the money well its my own moral failing for not having saved up for it.

[WVBRY]

Right it would have been waaay better to pay 5000 dollars out of my own pocket for the last trip to the Emergency room and if I did not have the money well its my own moral failing for not having saved up for it.

What?

[timber]

What?

Everyman for himself I mean I should have got myself Health Insurance, because if I can pay for it I must have been doing things the right way. Thank God I'm not like all those other people who are just not working hard enough to earn the right to medicine and health care.

[WVBRY]

Everyman for himself I mean I should have got myself Health Insurance, because if I can pay for it I must have been doing things the right way. Thank God I'm not like all those other people who are just not working hard enough to earn the right to medicine and health care.

Seems like you're putting words into my mouth here, lol. You don't really know what I think.

Besides, even if you did know what I think there's no reason to take a discussion like this personally...

[timber]

I'm just trying to get into the head space of a person who prefers a pay-for-health-for-profit system.

[timber]

Seems like you're putting words into my mouth here, lol. You don't really know what I think.

Besides, even if you did know what I think there's no reason to take a discussion like this personally...

I disagree, health care is a very personal issue and its something I feel very strongly about. Oh no, don't feel strongly in our world because that makes you a triggered SJW and we all know that SJWs are delta NFs only.

[WVBRY]

I'm just trying to get into the head space of a person who prefers a pay-for-health-for-profit system.

I think the idea is that having competition and choices increases quality. Monopoly of a service tends to decrease quality, and when the government says something is theirs to do, usually that means there are no alternatives or competition possible, the only competition possible is with public services in other countries.

I'm for getting rid of taxation, since it is coercive. I'm pretty sure we could finance government and its services through voluntary donations, in that case you could have a public healthcare service for those who can't pay and you could also have free market alternatives etc.

I disagree, health care is a very personal issue and its something I feel very strongly about. Oh no, don't feel strongly in our world because that makes you a triggered SJW and we all know that SJWs are delta NFs only.

There's no reason to take any of this personally. You are acting like a triggered SJW tbh. You may feel strongly about it but that's not a reason to not be able to hold a debate, especially if someone has an idea to improve the existing system.

[timber]

I think the idea is that having competition and choices increases quality.

Myth. Do the research. Americans have poor health outcomes and lower life expectancy than many other first world nations.

Monopoly of a service tends to decrease quality, and when the government says something is theirs to do, usually that means there are no alternatives or competition possible, the only competition possible is with public services in other countries.

Myth. In regards to health outcomes Canada ranks high on world lists. The few problems that exists are wait times, those can be addressed, but not through privatization, as Australia is tried with a two-teir system and are failing as it dilutes quality for both pay and Universal.

I'm for getting rid of taxation, since it is coercive.

Okay, great. Hope you have the stamina to do it all yourself.

I'm pretty sure we could finance government and its services through voluntary donations, in that case you could have a public healthcare service for those who can't pay and you could also have free market alternatives etc.

Doesn't work in reality as some countries are finding.

There's no reason to take any of this personally. You are acting like a triggered SJW tbh. You may feel strongly about it but that's not a reason to not be able to hold a debate, especially if someone has an idea to improve the existing system.

Like I stated previously this topic I DO take personally and I have no problem saying that.

[timber]

^lumberjack (and troll) who has never heard of natural active or acquired immunity

Yeah I have and yeah I got amazing marks in Bio, but nice try trying to personally call me a liar and also try to be insulting. Also, working in forestry is an amazing career, I get to see some of the most beautiful natural scenery, make a great wages, get to do dangerous and exciting work and on the front lines of this world... and I have no shame in being proud of it and bragging about it. Nice try going for the 'lesser man' attack.

<- biologist (who happened to have been raised in a religious culture that did not immunize, so ended up acquiring immunity for a number of diseases the hard way as a child)

I have close family members who are micro-biologists and I frequently work with field scientists, so 'that don't impress me much'. My original comment stands, you got lucky.

I also got lucky, once.

[WVBRY]

Myth. Do the research. Americans have poor health outcomes and lower life expectancy than many other first world nations.

Could be for other reasons than the healthcare system. For example, do you know how they eat (no offense to any Americans intended)?

Myth. In regards to health outcomes Canada ranks high on world lists.

Again, could be for other reasons than the healthcare system, for example lifestyle.

The few problems that exists are wait times, those can be addressed, but not through privatization, as Australia is tried with a two-teir system and are failing as it dilutes quality for both pay and Universal.

Hmm well I don't see why it would dilute quality. Really, though, you're confusing two different things. Waiting in lines is not the same thing as the quality of the service itself. Waiting in lines is a problem that can only be addressed through privatization.

Okay, great. Hope you have the stamina to do it all yourself.

Snide sarcasm aside I really don't or care to, lol. I think it would be better but like I said if people are dumb enough to keep wanting to pay taxes, more powah to the politicians who represent them, I guess, lol.

Doesn't work in reality as some countries are finding.

Which countries have replaced taxes with voluntary donations?

Like I stated previously this topic I DO take personally and I have no problem saying that.

I don't really care if you're offended mate. I've not said anything rude to you, so if you're offended by arguments boo hoo hoo.

[timber]

Could be for other reasons than the healthcare system. For example, do you know how they eat (no offense to any Americans intended)?

This is linked to health care and access issues.

Again, could be for other reasons than the healthcare system, for example lifestyle.

Lifestyle does not appear to be overall much different than other nations including mine.

Hmm well I don't see why it would dilute quality. Really, though, you're confusing two different things. Waiting in lines is not the same thing as the quality of the service itself. Waiting in lines is a problem that can only be addressed through privatization.

Are you suggesting that individuals paying for a service instead of Government funded makes the quality of it better? This is another myth that American politicians like to flout.

Snide sarcasm aside I really don't or care to, lol. I think it would be better but like I said if people are dumb enough to keep wanting to pay taxes, more powah to the politicians who represent them, I guess, lol.

What good really is a Government, or a nation for that matter, if not to provide the people living there with Health Care at the very least?

Which countries have replaced taxes with voluntary donations?

I was speaking in terms of Health Care specifically and funding through income taxes instead of paying-for-service yourself, which is a phenomena happening right now and isn't much more effective as my illustrating Australia is showing.

I don't really care if you're offended mate. I've not said anything rude to you, so if you're offended by arguments boo hoo hoo.

You are miss reading me, there is a difference between being offended and being passionate. Squark is trying to offend and you are trying to discredit.