http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C... it is literally an amendment that describes gender expression as literally anything you want to label yourself, than suggests misusing these labels is a crime and finally suggests increasing imprisonment and punishments as a result of not using these labels correct. Clause #4.
You are welcome to debate with me if you believe one of my interpretations are incorrect, but the way in which you chose to engage with me is very immature and makes it difficult to hold a discussion with you.
Please read the HN rules first before making future replies.
Would you care to specifically point out what about my post is relatable to the behavior you were talking about? You yourself actually attacked an entire group of people with opposing view points and used straw man's to do so. I merely bluntly called this out.
>Please refrain from such emotionally charged posts where you don't fully read the content of the parent,
I read it. Please don't violate HN guidelines by insinuating I haven't read what was necessary. You provided no proof that this is even the case.
>than suggests misusing these labels is a crime and finally suggests increasing imprisonment and punishments as a result of not using these labels correct.
It says nothing of the sort.
>You are welcome to debate with me if you believe one of my interpretations are incorrect
This isn't a debate. You have not presented anything that is arguable. You lied about a very basic event that was recorded and has public records contrary to your "interpretation." You also lied about what the law says. It cannot be read even remotely close to the way you are "interpreting" it and indeed it is impossible to enforce it in any manner you are attempting to describe.
Notice your post got flagged by the community. Please take a moment to consider why.
2. I did make an assumption about you being emotionally charged due to:
- "your dutiful patrons of Reason and Logic (TM) "
- "You try to illicit a veneer of servitude towards reason and logic"
- "you can't help but be disingenuous about the subject you're discussing"
You also brought in a number of points lacking citation that I could not find any evidence of occurring at the protest I was saying I saw footage of. I googled and found the source footage, the whole talk is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwdYpMS8s28
I did not see any dogs, or anyone screaming about Micheal Brown or any of the other key points you mentioned. The whole talk is recorded including the kids trying to break the windows.
Maybe I was wrong in assuming you where emotionally charged, and maybe you just have a naturally hostile-seeming way of expressing yourself including calling names and quoting and claiming without citation. If so I apologize for suggesting it was emotionally charged.
3. It literally spells out those three things in the amendment. Could you read through the amendment and explain how it does not describe what I said above?
4. I don't care if my post is flagged. I went through the due process of actually watching the clip to see if anything you claimed happened occurred which I did not. I believe you should be capable of doing the same. Don't try to witch hunt or bring on a tribal mob just to win an argument. Win it with your facts and logical process you claim to have but haven't yet expressed.
2. There's nothing emotionally charged about any of that. It's a pretty satirical take on the reality you attempted to present in your first post. IF that makes you uncomfortable then fix your statements being easily satirized.
3. That's not how arguments work, or even how law gets interpreted.
4. You can't really attempt to weaponize HN guidelines when the evidence that you in fact were not following them is visible for everyone to see. You were not respectful to me, to the community (by lying), and certainly not to anyone else who you don't agree with.
>Win it with your facts and logical process you claim to have but haven't yet expressed.
I did. This is the veneer I was referencing. You were in fact the person to reference having superior reasoning skills, but did nothing to demonstrate their presence or even mastery.
>These far left social justice warriors are literally trying to break windows to prevent some guy from talking about supporting freedom of speech at campuses.
The rally that you're referencing was pretty volatile because of attendees, mainly your dutiful patrons of Reason and Logic (TM) 2018, were shouting slurs and engaging in physical violence. See the following report:
* In one confrontation with BLC protesters, a man shouted, “We need more Michael Browns,” in reference to the 2014 fatal shooting of the 18-year old unarmed black man by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri.
* One attendee brought three dogs to the event and was openly criticized by many people for what was interpreted as an aggressive move.
* Steven Ainneta wore a “Support Local 81” jacket — the Downtown Toronto chapter of the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club
* told The Varsity that he “was accosted by two separate older men with no affiliation to the university. One was wearing Hell’s Angel’s clothing, and the other, along with his wife, seemed to be identifying themselves as white supremacists. Both shoved me unprovoked, while my hands were up, and used racial, homophobic, and transphobic slurs and epithets with myself and other protestors on separate occasions
>This happened when the university was attempting to get the local politicians to pass a law making it a illegal to call someone the wrong pronoun, punishable by fines and jail time.
Out of all the things that have never happened online or in real life, this has never happened the most. How can you be so angry over something that isn't even happening? I don't understand the ilk that surrounds Peterson. It's a literal cult of personality.
Here's the wikipedia article of the bill you're trying to lie about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H...
Here is the section you're lying about:
>The law also adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.This section is part of the sentencing provisions and makes gender identity and gender expression an aggravating factor in sentencing, leading to increased sentences for individuals who commit crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression.
So no. No one is going to jail for using the wrong pronoun. Let me know when SJW's start running over people with their cars just because they don't like their existence.