-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Sure I'll grant you that, but that does not justify the solutions you propose.Coburgtiger said:
Not everything that is immoral should be made illegal. So all those things you listed are certainly immoral, but an immoral law to prevent immoral acts is not justice, and leads to all sorts of rabbit holes that undermine the basic requirements of social cooperation. To make it illegal to offend someone will simply put an end to any discussion of ideas lest you offend someone, as it is purely a subjective determination by the offended, and is impossible to predict whether someone will be offended or not.
You want to restrict people's freedom to discuss ideas, well then you prevent those ideas from being defeated through peaceful argumentation and you leave people that are sympathetic to those ideas no avenue other than violence.
Private property rights are essential to a moral society, one that enshrines social cooperation. You yourself are presupposing the existence of private property rights through the act of arguing, although I doubt you are aware of it.
On the subject of absurd PC lunacy. Should observe some sh!t the left of centre Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau, dribbles. The man is seriously a Ken Doll - albeit with less substance than a Ken doll.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/justin-trudeau-has-apologised-for-his-peoplekind-comment/news-story/08f8add72954289b07cac1abb75cd605
And more alarmingly. The Orwellian laws he is prepared to pass in order to force and dictate what language people will use. And ultimately by controlling language, dictate what people are allowed to think. It essentially criminalises people like Dr Peterson, who dare, not just to have an opposing view, but refuse to use terminology they disagree with as they see it having no scientific basis. No doubt book burning is just around the corner.
https://www.google.com.au/amp/dailysignal.com/2017/06/19/canadians-face-hate-crimes-using-wrong-gender-pronouns/amp/
To quote Dr Peterson: "......while it is legitimate for the state to enumerate language that people can’t use (e.g. racial epithets, inciting violence), forcing people to use specific language is an abuse of state power."
Given all of our public institutions are infected with this type of *smile* navel gazing. It will only take a change to a left of centre leader here, to see a complete capitulation to this type of lunacy and in turn, an overt push from the top of this type of utter garbage.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/justin-trudeau-has-apologised-for-his-peoplekind-comment/news-story/08f8add72954289b07cac1abb75cd605
And more alarmingly. The Orwellian laws he is prepared to pass in order to force and dictate what language people will use. And ultimately by controlling language, dictate what people are allowed to think. It essentially criminalises people like Dr Peterson, who dare, not just to have an opposing view, but refuse to use terminology they disagree with as they see it having no scientific basis. No doubt book burning is just around the corner.
https://www.google.com.au/amp/dailysignal.com/2017/06/19/canadians-face-hate-crimes-using-wrong-gender-pronouns/amp/
To quote Dr Peterson: "......while it is legitimate for the state to enumerate language that people can’t use (e.g. racial epithets, inciting violence), forcing people to use specific language is an abuse of state power."
Given all of our public institutions are infected with this type of *smile* navel gazing. It will only take a change to a left of centre leader here, to see a complete capitulation to this type of lunacy and in turn, an overt push from the top of this type of utter garbage.
Midsy said:
Its hard to argue with a master craftsman of half truths. Almost as hard as arguing with a conspiracy theorist, which is nigh on impossible.
But if it makes you feel good JP is standing up for the downtrodden rich guy, laugh it up.
jb03 said:
i tried to listen but i lost what little interest i had after he said the gender pay gap doesnt exist, then about 20 seconds later said gender was one of the reasons for the pay gap.
He meant it didn't exist in the context the interviewer was claiming it existed, which he clearly demonstrated to be the case.Brodders17 said:
