RIP Canada: "Protect 2SLGBTQI+ Communities Act"

You can read the actual bill if you were interested in the truth and not rely on fact checkers that do the same thing. If you value truth over agenda.

 

What a gross misunderstanding of marginalization in this context. It contradicts the very definition of marginalized groups.

It is really senseless to misappropriate the term for group whose representation includes control of the House and 50 Senate seats and has no recent history of systematic exclusion, oppression, and discrimination.

SMDH

 

He’s a medical professional, a psychologist no less, so he is expected to comport himself according to the standard of his profession as a professional even if he believed trans was actually something that ought to be treated as mental illness. Although as a supposed professional he should know better, that not all cases are the same.

Nah, he strikes me as not much more than an opportunist. Not much different from “doctors” who play the anti-vaxx game but then make millions on the side selling quack supplements or speaking in front of politicians.

 

We should remove men from delicate situations around natural girls. Yes, we should discriminate.
No we shouldn’t bait men into bad situations and wait for something undesirable to happen.
Are you freaking serious?

 

That's (D)ifferent, Tilly.

 

Horse hockey.

For one, it's not a proposed bill for all of Canada, it is provincial bill that would is limited to Ontario. Also, there is no references in the bill about child porn. Your salacious schedule of fines (see below) are also not mentioned in the bill. Are you sure you read the bill?

"The govt’s website indicates child porn fines are as follows:

1st offence = $1K
2nd offence = $5K
3rd offence = $10K
Possessing child porn 3x = $16K
Saying there are 2 genders = $25K​

"​

Lastly, Canadian federal law already criminalizes child porn possession so "fines" for violations of the protected zones makes little sense:



Criminal Code

Are you really sure you read it? Here it is just in case.
https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2023/2023-04/b094_e.pdf

Lastly, I'm not sure of the nobility of challenging my criticism of your post's accuracy after you edited it. Your original post is there to see in the thread's first reply.

 

So you think that people have the absolute right to protest outside churches in any manner they see fit? Because that is false. For example:

2013 Missouri Revised Statutes :: TITLE XXXVIII CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS :: Chapter 574 Offenses Against Public Order :: Section 574.035 Disrupting a house of worship, crime of--violation, penalty.

 

When it comes to one group of people oppressing another, yes. Are you suggesting transgenders should be oppressed? I’m having trouble understanding why transgenders are so threatening to you. In my 79 years, I’ve known one. Known lots of gays, too. NEVER felt threatened by any of them.

 

If segregation is discrimination, then there are unquestionably all sorts of areas where we discriminate based on sex today. Locker rooms, bathrooms, sports.

Almost everybody including men and women thought that was normal and fine until two seconds ago.

There's good versions of this and bad versions of this. Segregating locker rooms to keep the pervs from peeping on the women, that's a good thing. Refusing to hire a woman in a demanding career because she mentions that "she wants to have kids" in an interview, that's a bad thing.

 

You have a tendency to mischaracterize what posters who disagree with you are saying and paint them in the worst possible false light. That's a bad habit to have.

Makes people think it's pointless to have any real conversation with you.

 

(S)trawman

 

You played the whataboutism card then proceeded to attempt to highlight any difference you could find and claim it as relevant

Now you're misusing the term "strawman" either throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks or just completely misunderstanding what the term means.

 

On which subject? Tilly's whataboutism? Whataboutism is a type of false equivalency fallacy. You combat that sophism by pointing out how the original subject is different than the fallacy. If there's a better way to point out the sophistry, please educate me.

For the strawman comment, I want you to show me where the Democrat party, a Democrat politician, or a participant on this board took a position based on political affiliation that warrants your dig. You're accusing democrats of hypocrisy a position that nobody took... that people should be fined for speech against members of a religion or political party.

 

We should teach boys and man to behave like humans, not like animals. And the ones that behave like animals should be punished according to the law. But do we punish the transgender person because of non-trans people who act like animals?

Trans kids who have been acting as the opposite gender from birth from years are highly unlikely to do anything that would draw unnecessary attention to them. That includes assault in a locker room. And I agree we can set some rules, and a 15-year old boy who one day decides to be female should not automatically allowed in the girl's locker room. But the born male who has been identifying as female since age 6, has had years of counseling, and is on hormone blockers at age 15? She is no more dangerous as anyone else in the locker room. She shouldn't be punished for the actions of others.

 

Thank you for admitting you claimed Tilly's analogy was "different."

The whataboutism post you made in response to Tilly which basically says the same thing that my "It's (D)ifferent" post said, minus the snark and sarcasm. I was mocking posters because I knew it was only a matter of time for someone to say you can't compare Tilly's hypothetical to what happened. And it looks like I was right as you just admitted.

 

If any more posters put me on ignore, all threads on Too Hot will appear to me to have 5 posts.

 

No shit. That's what false equivalency is... differences . Unless you're stating that false equivalency means "the same". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and applaud your recent understanding.

Wut? Only "(D)'s" point out logical fallacies? I'm not a (D), so should I stop?