professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
. Legislation of language is a modern way to control verbal bullying and abuse - Never a JW
Peterson's objection to law C-16 is not just that it limits what somebody can say - that would be bad enough. It is legislating what a person must say. That is a line the law must not be allowed to cross.
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
They just need 47.8 of support from non transgender to get a majority. - Never a jw
0.3% + 47.8% = 48.1%
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
Languages and societies evolve. - never a jw
Yes. Nobody is objecting to the evolution of language. Legislation of language is the problem.
(if you reply see if you can resist personal insults this time)
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
Do you remember when some women asked to be called Ms? The sky fell down then too
I have never referred to anybody as Ms in my life, I have also never referred to a man as Mx and never will.
Bill C-16 makes it illegal to decline to pander to anybody's latest whim regarding their gender identity or expression. If somebody decides that this week they are skoliosexual and prefer to be referred to by pronouns like Zi and Hir the law will demand that Canadians comply.
Jordan Peterson explains why C-16 is a threat to free speech here (specifically starting at 20 mins)
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto will be streaming a live debate on his YouTube channel on the topic of Free Speech and "Bill C-16".
If you haven't heard (where have you been?) Peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of PC "Social Justice Warriors" at the U of T to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns. In his judgement proposed "bill-C16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.
Professor Peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-Marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
If all of this is a mystery to you have a look at his channel and do some research on recent events. Free speech is under attack from Authoritarian PC activists. If I have time I will be watching the debate or else catch up with it later.
Here is his latest update before the debate and, below that a confrontation he had recently on the campus.
i picked up bernard cornwell's the pagan lord at the library.
historical fiction set in england after the death of alfred the great.
i'm loving it, especially the between-the-lines wit and sense of timing in cornwell's writing, and the complete badassery of the protagonist.
I'm currently reading "Mary Queen of Scots" by Antonia Fraser and "Life Unfolding" by Jamie A. Davies.
On TV I enjoy most light entertainment and documentaries. Time Team. Car SOS. Masterchef. Frasier. Big Bang Theory. History Channel (Spoiler alert, Hitler was bad).
and if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
Interesting theory about the origin of the divine name Yah-weh.
God is repeatedly linked with breath, wind, air in the OT. Breath in and out deeply through your mouth and you say Yah-weh with every breath.
10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
Thank you Cobweb. I genuinely believe this line of reasoning is unassailable. A more succinct version is here...
Imagine if the GB published something like this as "new light".
If it wasn't for the possible legal consequences....
after many years of objecting to the wt teachings on many levels, blood being one of them, i recently started to wonder (ok, i am slow!
) : what exactly does the wt think that the early non jewish christians were abstaining from in the blood abstention bit.
while i understand the context of the request that the apostle sent to the brothers, i do not understand what jws think they were abstaining from.. meat slaughtered improperly?.
if i serve blood sausage (black pudding) according to 1st cor' 10:27 would they be ok to eat - Fairlane
No they wouldn't. Since they would know that the meat was made with blood they could not eat it knowingly.
If you think my explanation is bizzare can you explain why the council in Jerusalem had needed to explain to gentile converts to keep their pants on? Are gentile converts allowed to murder, steal etc? Contex - Steel
I explained it some detail in the link I provided for you...
A more succinct version here does not discuss Acts 15...
You obviously didn't bother to read them. Here is an extract of the section on Acts 15...
By the way it's "Cofty".
Only by properly understanding this Old Testament background of the laws concerning blood can the key text at Acts 15 in the New Testament and its significance for Christians be properly understood.
A fact often overlooked by modern Christians is that they’re religion began as a Jewish sect. The burning issue in the early church, that almost divided it in its infancy, was whether gentile believers could be acceptable without complying with the full requirements of the law.
In Galatians 2 Paul recounts how tension between Jewish and gentile believers led him to go up to the apostles in Jerusalem to settle the matter. In Acts 15 we appear to have a historical account of what Paul is referring to in this letter. A summit meeting is held involving a large number of believers including some of the elders and apostles as well as Paul and Barnabus.
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses." Acts 15:2
So here is the problem; it is offensive to Jewish Christians that some of their brothers are ignoring the basic requirements of the law including circumcision. This did not just have theological implications; it was an obstacle to the unity and fellowship of the early church. A Jewish Christian could not, in good conscience, have fellowship with an uncircumcised person.
The solution that was finally adopted was a stroke of genius.
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. Acts 15:28,29
So where did the meeting come up with this particular set of requirements for gentile believers? Why no injunction against murder? What about theft, drunkenness and lying? This verse is not a new set of commandments for Christians; it is a restatement of those things that had always been required to maintain fellowship between Jews and gentiles.
The question of how Jews and gentiles could live together peacefully and what was required of non-Jewish residents in Israel was already established in the Law. In Leviticus 17 and 18 these very same prohibitions which could neatly be summarized as idolatry, blood and fornication, are set out as being those things that a foreigner must adhere to while living amongst the Israelites. They were not required to be circumcised, and to stipulate they were to abstain from murder or theft would have been to state the obvious. The crimes that a foreigner were likely to commit, perhaps without even understanding their offensiveness to their Jewish hosts, were these three things, idolatry, fornication and eating blood.
The words of James who proposed the content of the letter sent out to the congregations leaves us in no doubt about the reason for its contents.
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." Acts 15:19-21
How can there be any room for doubt that these things are not about fundamental laws but about how to maintain unity under the specific circumstances of the early congregation?
Finally, the letter requires Christians “abstain from food sacrificed to idols” but in 1Cor 8 Paul explains clearly that a brother who eats food sacrificed to idols commits no sin but does risk stumbling his brother. The language Paul uses there is identical to the wording of the Acts 15 letter.
