Transgender Ideology is “Totalitarian”

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There's nothing about being a Christian that requires abusing another human being to make a cheap polemical point. As somebody wisely said a long time ago, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". I learned that back when I was a young kid. Why do Christians throw wisdom like this out the door in the name of following Jesus? Did Jesus ever command us to forgo a basic sense of compassion and decency? I don't think so. That's simply a misreading of the entire Bible.

"You need Jesus"
"Why?"
"Because you're a sinner in need of redemption."
"That's abuse and hurts my feelings."

 

[FireDragon76]

"You need Jesus"
"Why?"
"Because you're a sinner in need of redemption."
"That's abuse and hurts my feelings."

That's taking things out of context, I would think.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That's taking things out of context, I would think.

Except you said we shouldn't be offensive.

 

[FireDragon76]

Except you said we shouldn't be offensive.

There's a difference between a called and ordained minister preaching to their flock with the dynamics of Law and Gospel, and attacking someone's character and dignity for a political agenda. Frankly, trying to seek religious justifications for that is repugnant, and it's a pity you don't see the difference.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There's a difference between a called and ordained minister preaching with the dynamics of Law and Gospel, and attacking someone's character and dignity for a political agenda. Frankly, trying to seek religious justifications for that is repugnant, and it's a pity you don't see the difference.

Suggesting someone is not fit for political office for the false identity they claim for themselves should not be liable to fines because it is suggested all the time. I suspect you would consider many conservative Christians unfit for office because they hold to Christian beliefs and believe they should have an impact on the laws they seek to pass.

Politics is all about attacking character and since the truth no longer matters, but what one feels, you have removed the most important element with which a democratic system is supposed to operate. Canada is pretty liberal, I imagine most wouldn't have voted for this man, so why does he need to be fined for even suggesting a man claiming to be a woman is unfit for office?

There is also no difference between a preacher and a member of the laity speaking the truth. A lot of things Christians say are offensive. Such as Jesus being necessary for all people. That offends a lot of Muslims. There are many Christian doctrines that offend you, do we no longer have a right to say them because you feel uncomfortable?

Feelings over the truth, in your worldview.

 

[FireDragon76]

Suggesting someone is not fit for political office for the false identity they claim for themselves should not be liable to fines because it is suggested all the time. I suspect you would consider many conservative Christians unfit for office because they hold to Christian beliefs and believe they should have an impact on the laws they seek to pass.

Politics is all about attacking character and since the truth no longer matters, but what one feels, you have removed the most important element with which a democratic system is supposed to operate. Canada is pretty liberal, I imagine most wouldn't have voted for this man, so why does he need to be fined for even suggesting a man claiming to be a woman is unfit for office?

There is also no difference between a preacher and a member of the laity speaking the truth. A lot of things Christians say are offensive. Such as Jesus being necessary for all people. That offends a lot of Muslims. There are many Christian doctrines that offend you, do we no longer have a right to say them because you feel uncomfortable?

Feelings over the truth, in your worldview.

No, feelings over your "truth".

 

[Aldebaran]

No, feelings over your "truth".

Oh, now that's offensive because it suggests that his truth is only his opinion. I wonder what the fine should be. Perhaps $55,000 should cover it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No, feelings over your "truth".

Well that says it all doesn't it. Only your perspective has the right to exist in the public square unabated and freely without fear of reprisal.

 

[Albion]

Transgender Ideology is “Totalitarian”

It speaks volumes that all 3 of the posts critical of the decision made by Canada's "so-called" human rights tribunal identify themselves as Americans.

Well, the opposite has happened here many times, so we can probably excuse this one thread, right?

 

[FireDragon76]

Well that says it all doesn't it. Only your perspective has the right to exist in the public square unabated and freely without fear of reprisal.

No, a pluralistic society recognizes multiple perspectives, but that doesn't mean people are free to say whetever they want, regardless of how injurous it is.

 

[RDKirk]

That's not what "totalitarian" means.

BTW.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No, a pluralistic society recognizes multiple perspectives, but that doesn't mean people are free to say whetever they want, regardless of how injurous it is.

So pluralism up until the point it goes beyond with what you agree with. Beyond that point you should be subject to fines and jail.

Doesn't seem like pluralism to me if you're okay with fining people for their non-violent perspectives. Unless you believe violence = speech then that's a totally different discussion.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, a pluralistic society recognizes multiple perspectives, but that doesn't mean people are free to say whetever they want, regardless of how injurous it is.

Was the politician "injured" to the tune of $55,000 because someone stated a fact?
If that were even the case, it's further proof they aren't fit for political office.

 

[FireDragon76]

So pluralism up until the point it goes beyond with what you agree with. Beyond that point you should be subject to fines and jail.

Doesn't seem like pluralism to me if you're okay with fining people for their non-violent perspectives. Unless you believe violence = speech then that's a totally different discussion.

The tribunal in Canada believes that the sort of speech exhibited contributes to hatred , contempt, and violence against transpeople, and I agree with them. Characterizing it as nonviolent is Kafka-esque.

 

[Aldebaran]

The tribunal in Canada believes that the sort of speech exhibited contributes to hatred , contempt, and violence against transpeople, and I agree with them. Characterizing it as nonviolent is Kafka-esque.

How is it violent? Did he end up with a black eye?

 

[FireDragon76]

How is it violent? Did he end up with a black eye?

It attacks the dignity of transpeople. Let's not be so naive as to pretend that this sort of thing doesn't contribute to violence.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The tribunal in Canada believes that the sort of speech exhibited contributes to hatred , contempt, and violence against transpeople, and I agree with them. Characterizing it as nonviolent is Kafka-esque.

So since harmful words can lead to violence, we must treat them as violent acts. Interesting. For instance, you are insisting calling a biological man, a man is equal to violence. To question a person who holds this position and their fitness for office is not permissible. I presume you would also insist the same if we were to say Homosexuality is immoral, this would lead to contempt. Would same apply to liberals, such as yourself, who say negative things about Christianity?

Like if you were to say Christianity is illogical, it's archaic, immoral or any other negative word, this could lead to potential hatred right? The sort of hatred we see displayed by Antifa types towards any who disagree with them? Since we have construed negative associations with violence, should we fine and jail anyone who says anything negative about someone else?

No, limiting violence to action is the appropriate thing to do, lest we find all manner of criticism to be violent.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It attacks the dignity of transpeople. Let's not be so naive as to pretend that this sort of thing doesn't contribute to violence.

So an attack on a class or certain types of people is an attack on dignity which must be protected?

 

[FireDragon76]

So since harmful words can lead to violence, we must treat them as violent acts.

No, the tribunal imposed a civil penalty, they didn't treat it as an actual violent act.

And BTW, in the US people can be sued for defamation. Free speech does not exempt people from consequences.

Interesting. For instance, you are insisting calling a biological man, a man is equal to violence.

Read the actual tribunal's conclusions. This is more than just misgendering somebody or holding convictions about biological sex. It's a malicious act.

To question a person who holds this position and their fitness for office is not permissible. I presume you would also insist the same if we were to say Homosexuality is immoral, this would lead to contempt.

Yes I would.

Like if you were to say Christianity is illogical, it's archaic, immoral or any other negative word, this could lead to potential hatred right?

If it's designed to instigate hatred or contempt against an entire group of people, it is.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No, the tribunal imposed a civil penalty, they didn't treat it as an actual violent act.

Then what's the justification for fining this man? If it doesn't promote violence against men who don't think they're men, why?

And BTW, in the US people can be sued for defamation. Free speech does not exempt people from consequences.

Free speech in the USA doesn't include making negative speech inherently violent.

Read the actual tribunal's conclusions. This is more than just misgendering somebody. It's a malicious act.

It's malicious how? Is telling the truth a malicious act?

If it's designed to instigate hatred or contempt against an entire group of people, it is.

So it goes beyond the speech itself to the supposed motives of an individual saying an action? So it's not the words themselves that could lead to hatred or contempt?