Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

by azor 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  schnell

  Does anyone else think it strange that JWs never seem to do any public debates for their beliefs? I mean they even recognize that C.T. Russell engaged in such debates on Bible subjects and that those debates helped to publicize the "Truth." So why don't they do any today defending old-earth creationism, or their own interpretation of the Bible?
  

  They'd get destroyed. Plus, I think that if they debated another religious quack like Eric Hovind or Ken Ham on matters of creationism, it would be tedious for anyone outside their spheres of influence.

  I am sure he wouldn't do it now after his stroke, but I would have paid money and flown out to see any of the GB debate Dawkins. That would have been such an ass-kicking that they might have deemed it the Great Tribulation. Aron-Ra? Dillahunty?

  Hell, get Bart Ehrman in there. Don't even dress it up as a debate at first, just put him on JW Broadcast and let the discussion commence.
• 

  bohm

  Simon:

  That's a good writeup but just to clarify something about Peterson. AFAIK he does not argue that a man can't be a women or vice versa. He argues that the overwhelming majority are one or the other and that the few who are not or think they are the wrong one from birth still want to be one or the other.

  I know this was not quite what I said but that was also what I meant. It is very tiresome to get all the corner cases in this debate.

  The law is vague but suggests that we have to call people what they want, using made-up pronouns like "Ze", which can change by the hour and if someone gets it wrong, they can be charged with a hate crime based on the person claiming their feelings were hurt.

  I know that is what he said in his first video, however, I have been able to find no evidence at all this is in fact so.

  Did you watch the debate he had with the lawyer? She had professional experience with these type of legal matters and she 100% contradicted him that this was the correct interpretation of the law --- claims that he did not dispute. According to her he is absolutely wrong on the made-up pronoun bit.
• 

  Simon

  Did you watch the debate he had with the lawyer? She had professional experience with these type of legal matters and she 100% contradicted him that this was the correct interpretation of the law --- claims that he did not dispute. According to her he is absolutely wrong on the made-up pronoun bit.

  She is no doubt coming at things from a legal perspective and what could be prosecuted in court.

  The problem is that the human rights tribunals are like judicial committees - they make the rules, they decide the outcome and they are stacking the deck to give themselves more power and they can and do use that power to shut people up.

  All to push leftish PC agendas that further their own power and position.
  
  
• 

  bohm

  She is no doubt coming at things from a legal perspective and what could be prosecuted in court.
  The problem is that the human rights tribunals are like judicial committees - they make the rules, they decide the outcome and they are stacking the deck to give themselves more power and they can and do use that power to shut people up.

  I am concerned about what the legal implications are and if they are what Jordan claims they are... not seeing much evidence in support of that so far.
• 

  Simon

  I am concerned about what the legal implications are and if they are what Jordan claims they are... not seeing much evidence in support of that so far.

  The HRC seem to operate outside of the normal legal frameworks:

  The Post criticized the procedures and structure of HRC hearings, citing a number of specific problems:

  • Third parties not involved in the alleged offences may nonetheless file complaints.
  • Plaintiffs have sometimes been given access to the commissions' investigation files and given the power to direct investigators.
  • Truth is not a defence.
  • Defendants are not always permitted to face their accusers.
  • Normal standards for assuring the validity of evidence do not apply.
  • Hearsay is admitted.
  • The government funds the plaintiff but the defendant is on his/her own

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy#Criticism

  So someone can accuse you of something and ... well, you're screwed, with little legal recourse and the flimsiest of evidence.

  Oh, you called me "he" but I self-identify as "Ze" today, that's a hate crime and someone should pay me money. Nothing to do with being given a C on my last paper ...

  Yeah, nothing that would ever be abused.
• 

  bohm

  Simon: The HRC and the particular bill are two separate issues. I focus on the legal implications of the bill which is what is front and center in JPs first video and if those implications are as JP claim they are. I do that because it is something which is easier to evaluate and get a black/white answer to. So far JPs claim does not appear to stand up to scrutiny.

  Regarding the HRC, I am not 100% sure what the HRC can actually do and what it in fact does. Most of what I have to go by are general concerns like those you list, but I don't know what those concerns translate to in practice (i.e. what have the HRC actually done in real cases to real people).

  Oh, you called me "he" but I self-identify as "Ze" today, that's a hate crime and someone should pay me money. Nothing to do with being given a C on my last paper ..

  Can you provide any evidence that I can be charged with a hate crime for not calling you Ze? I mean objectively true evidence and not the opinions of JP.

  "Hate crime" is a very particular legal category, as I understand it I would first have to commit a serious crime, for instance, I would have to be raping you and THEN calling you "Ze" while I did that before THAT could be considered a hatecrime. And as I understand it even using the wrong pronoun during the rape would not ACTUALLY make the rape a hate crime.

  That would of course have to be tested by the courts...
• 

  Simon

  It's hard to prove what will happen under any particular law, we can only point out what the law says and scenarios that it would appear to cover.

  The issue with the HRC is the combination of the inclusion of certain things as a hate crime combined with their lack of accountability and normal legal protections.

  Sure, they might not misuse their powers now, but laws should protect against use of powers if lesser governments get into office. The US is currently learning that the allowances they gave "nice guy" Obama now apply equally and set a precedent for use by "less nice guy" Trump.

  Yes, "hate crime" is a particular legal category and so called mis-gendering should not be included in the definition of it.

  If I told someone in future to grow up and put their big girl panties on, I would hate for some militant 3rd party to be able to use the laws and the commission to prosecute me.
  
• 

  bohm

  Simon:

  It's hard to prove what will happen under any particular law, we can only point out what the law says and scenarios that it would appear to cover

  I agree, that's why I tried to google scholarly opinion on what the law did and I could not find something that supported Jordans interpretation. That the items in the bill are already in effect (and Canada is not an Orwellian nightmare) seems to heavily contradict Jordans interpretation.

  The issue with the HRC is the combination of the inclusion of certain things as a hate crime combined with their lack of accountability and normal legal protections.

  Let me try to understand your worries. You are saying that if someone in Canada asks me to address him as Zip, and I refuses (for instance, I do not use pronouns to address him but rather use his name), that will now be a hate crime under canadian law?

  Yes, "hate crime" is a particular legal category and so called mis-gendering should not be included in the definition of it.

  So you are claiming that mis-gendering is now a hate crime in canada?
• 

  Saename

  bohm - So you are claiming that mis-gendering is now a hate crime in canada?

  If I understand the law correctly, it's not that it is, but that it could be.

  C-16 Bill replaced Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code with the following:

  (i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor, [emphasis added]
  

  (The bill added the words "gender identity or expression.") This means, in my view, that if an offence is motivated by hatred based on gender identity or expression, then it is a hate crime. The problem with this law is that it doesn't specify anything. So is mis-gendering a hate crime? It could be.

  Edit: But please do correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know much about the law. I can hardly even say that I know anything.
• 

  Simon

  Yes, the problem is that the law is vague because "gender identity or expression or any similar factor" is pretty vague.

  It's the combination of several rather vague and frankly ridiculous terms and pieces of legislation being given to an unaccountable body that increasingly has real teeth and is riddled with links to religious groups that really doesn't give you the warm and fuzzies.