Survey on sexual harassment and sexual assault in climbing

FosterK, what exactly, in the linked video regarding rough and tumble play, do you disagree with?

This thread is about assault, and there have been many instances on this site lately where men have been described as being innately violent which contributes to these types of assault. It is interesting that biological reasons can be made for male violence but not much else regarding personality traits, etc. The tendency is to teach our boys to "unlearn" violence, and the fear is that people will shy away from engaging in things such as rough and tumble play because they see it as teaching them violence. The current literature shows that boys that have experiences with rough and tumble play grow up to be more assertive but less violent. Therefore and argument is made that rough and tumble play is essential for boys to learn delayed gratification, empathy, boundaries, and assertiveness.

Now, if you want to watch the video and actually debate the ideas, which are relevant to the thread topic, then by all means do so. That video is recent, within the last week, so I don't agree with your claim that he is currently selling snake oil.

jg fox wrote:

Have you read his books or do you rely on second hand information?  Who was this student?  He became prominent for his opposition to Bill C-16 not for being a "dick" to students.

T R I G G E R  W A R N I N G ! ! !

Lol opposition C-16. His opposition to C-16 is entirely based on his bigoted stance against transpersons, which precedes his testimony in 2017, and is traceable to news articles in back to mid 2016. 

Ashort wrote: FosterK, what exactly, in the linked video regarding rough and tumble play, do you disagree?

Since I haven't watched this video, can't find the a link to it posted earlier, and am not arguing about this specific argument, I don't have specific information to agree or disagree with, and don't have enough knowledge to agree or disagree. Given how Peterson has previous misframed social justice, identify politics, "neo-Marxism", and Bill C-16, I'm inclined to request other sources than a "video" if you'd like to provide additional information on the topic.

FosterK wrote:

Lol opposition C-16. His opposition to C-16 is entirely based on his bigoted stance against transpersons, which precedes his testimony in 2017, and is traceable to news articles in back to mid 2016. 

The source of his "bigotry."  

If you want compelled speech using unnatural pronouns (e.g. zhe, zher) that's on you but that shouldn't be forced on a population with criminal penalties for noncompliance.

jg fox wrote:

If you want compelled speech using unnatural pronouns (e.g. zhe, zher) that's on you but that shouldn't be forced on a population with criminal penalties for noncompliance.

Since both you and Mr. Peterson are under this mistaken belief that Bill C-16 did this, or would do this, enjoy your echo chamber. 

FosterK wrote: Since both you and Mr. Peterson are under this mistaken belief that Bill C-16 did this, or would do this, enjoy your echo chamber. 

Straight from Bill C-16, note that gender expression (aka pronoun usage) is a part of the criminal code.  Sorry for leaving out the French part.

Ryan Swanson wrote: ad ho·mi·nemˌad ˈhämənəm/adverb & adjectiveadverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1. 1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings when I called Peterson a "new age right-wing uber-intellectual psychobabbler".  Thanks to a much better understanding of logical fallacies provided by the above definition, I will now change my statement to say that "Peterson's positions are new age right-wing uber-intellectual psychobabble".  Problem solved.

jg fox wrote:

Straight from Bill C-16, note that gender expression (aka pronoun usage) is a part of the criminal code.  Sorry for leaving out the French part.

318 (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. 

The changes now make specific that advocating for genocide of transpersons is now an indictable offense. Oh the horror!

718 is the sentencing provision - it adds discriminatory intent against transpersons as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Oh the horror!

Is Mr. Peterson intent on committing crimes specifically against transpersons or advocating for genocide? 

FosterK wrote:
Since I haven't watched this video, can't find the a link to it posted earlier, and am not arguing about this specific argument, I don't have specific information to agree or disagree with, and don't have enough knowledge to agree or disagree. Given how Peterson has previous misframed social justice, identify politics, "neo-Marxism", and Bill C-16, I'm inclined to request other sources than a "video" if you'd like to provide additional information on the topic.

your laziness is only outstripped by how wrong you are.   once you wrote that first sentence in the quote above... maybe you should have reflected on how... that means you don't actually have anything useful to add to the debate.  you're just showing your fully-conscious bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YdFlKaJv4g  - The Lindsay Shepherd scandal.

this interaction was a direct effect of bill C-16

and hey guess what, if you don't "have time to watch this video"... she was a TA in a Sexual Violence class, attempting to start some basic discussion on the issue.
I bet this woman had some Post-Traumatic-Stress from having to deal with defending her actions in this insane Tribunal meeting.
i've spent the last year and a half researching into these issues and scrutinizing hours and hours of intense videos like these.. I'm not just some acolyte.

please tell me how this was "misframed"
just, not in this thread.

it's pretty clear who's trolling vs who's contributing now.  maybe the moderators might want to get back to the old program for the womens forum?

FosterK wrote: Since both you and Mr. Peterson are under this mistaken belief that Bill C-16 did this, or would do this, enjoy your echo chamber. 

it is you who is mistaken.  

you know that video you replied to with this quote above? which was warning about the effects of bill C-16??

well hey, guess what.  the lawyers at Toronto U then drew up a letter and sent it to him which states the following

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S31Jf2WFTNU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmNKPL1Y4g0 

Mis-framed? Mistaken??

get real.

if you think this is about him "pushing an anti-trans bigoted agenda"... you just haven't understood what's being said.  it's all laid out as plainly and directly as can be.

andyD123 wrote:

Merlin, the first line of his abstract says "Entropy, a concept derived from thermodynamics and information theory, describes the amount of uncertainty and disorder within a system." You said this was objectively incorrect in three places. I'm not a scientist like you, but here is what I got from Wikipedia here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

"Generally, entropy refers to disorder or uncertainty, and the definition of entropy used in information theory is directly analogous to the definition used in statistical thermodynamics."

The article cites "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" by mathematician Claude E. Shannon and credits him with developing the theory of information entropy which Jordan Peterson seems to be referencing.

In what three places was his first line objectively wrong?

Wikipedia is wrong in that article.  So 1: Entropy is not a measure of disorder 2: Entropy is not a measure of uncertainty 3: Entropy is not derived, it is an axiomatic law based on observations, just like Newton's laws are.  It can not be derived.  The second law is an axiomatic statement that explains the arrow of time seen in physics.  While consequences of the second law as well as a mathematical formulation describing how to measure entropy may be written down, its truth is based in observation.  Note, I have no idea who the author is, I didn't google search him to read what his views are.  I have no skin in the game there.  He simply has about the same understanding of entropy that creationists have when they say "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics".  The author is simply using a topic in physics incorrectly and some very basic mathematical formulae, to demonstrate that he has no real understanding of said concept. His citations may be sound, I didn't check them, his understanding is barely at the level of a freshman student when it comes to entropy.

My first degree was in psychology.  My latter degrees diverged from this path.  There is no possible way to enumerate the microstates associated with human emotion.  Even if there were, there is no possible way to assume human emotion follows the same laws that dictate the various ways in which energy tends to partition itself to how human behaviour works.  It would be akin to saying "you get this much useable energy from burning a gallon of gas therefore I can say how long a person can remain calm". Its an idiotic article at best.  I didn't read any of the other articles.

Ryan Swanson wrote:

Clearly you can’t read. You are basing your attack on the person,  not the ideas he has. Or hell, maybe you do have an argument against his ideas. If so, it would be great to hear. However, I will most likely just chalk this up like every other discussion with an ideological leftist. 

"Peterson's positions are new age right-wing uber-intellectual psychobabble"

Please feel free to tell me how that is an attack on the person, and not his positions or ideas.

ubu wrote:

"Peterson's positions are new age right-wing uber-intellectual psychobabble"

Please feel free to tell me how that is an attack on the person, and not his positions or ideas.

his ideas are none of those things.

"right wing" ????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnHbkTgQRIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0Nb5bO1R1Y
listen and grow up.

"new-age"???
nearly all of his major influences are from the atrocities of the 20th century, and from a score of philosophers and writers who are ALL DEAD NOW.

"uber-intellectual psychobabble"??
gee I guess his wide degree of viewers/attendees and the scores and scores of comments that pour in from all over the world, thanking him for his articulation... are because his ideas are so useless and hard to understand???

you can say those things all you want, but they don't constitute as an "attack" because they don't do any actual damage, except to you...  as they're just false if you spend any real amount of time digging at the truth of the matter in a serious way.
you've made several posts which say absolutely nothing other than "wahh, I don't like mr Peterson"
do you think anyone even cares what you say at this point?
you're DONE.

can we at least pretend to try and be on-topic here?
remember that this latest bout of inane ad hominems started out after I linked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5O_FLUWYmg - an interview about The Boy Crisis
that a greatly increasing amount of children are raised in a way which is detrimental to society? and results in threads like this one, and the Meru thread about Toxic Masculinity?

and if you try and write this off as "oh it's just a Canadian issue"
http://ussanews.com/News1/2018/05/16/ohio-universitys-new-diversity-czar-will-make-nearly-200k-a-year/
wake up bucko, the mentality is spreading everywhere.

Having expertise in one narrow area doesn't mean that a person has expertise in other areas. 

FosterK wrote: 

318 (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. 

The changes now make specific that advocating for genocide of transpersons is now an indictable offense. Oh the horror!

718 is the sentencing provision - it adds discriminatory intent against transpersons as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Oh the horror!

Is Mr. Peterson intent on committing crimes specifically against transpersons or advocating for genocide? 

I meant to post the human right's portion instead of the criminal code but this brings up a good point about the genocide portion.

(2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

• (a) killing members of the group; or
• (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

I have no issues with (a) but its (b) that is troubling.  The whole pronoun debate is making it seem like it will lead to the destruction of the trans community, at least that's the jist of what I picked up on in the last 9 years.  By someone refusing to recognize pronouns, a flawed but popular argument could be made that it will bring about the destruction of their gender identity.  Also, consider that the trans community suicide rate, ranges from 32% to 50%, that means if a classmate or family member doesn't call someone by whatever pronoun they can think of and they decide to kill themselves, there could be a case to be made in charging someone with "genocide."

Just a note, that suicide rate is not related to perceived discrimination as ethnic minorities in Western cultures that face discrimination don't have anywhere near as high of a suicide rate.


Now the Human Rights act has been updated and it is a offense to not use someone's pronoun.  Canadian government is forcing the use of unnatural words or unnatural usage of words (they in the singular) on their country. 

jg fox wrote:

I meant to post the human right's portion instead of the criminal code but this brings up a good point about the genocide portion.

I have no issues with (a) but its (b) that is troubling.  The whole pronoun debate is making it seem like it will lead to the destruction of the trans community, at least that's the jist of what I picked up on in the last 9 years.  By someone refusing to recognize pronouns, a flawed but popular argument could be made that it will bring about the destruction of their gender identity.  

The language regarding genocide is far to specific for the fantasy scenario you outline.

.

Now the Human Rights act has been updated and it is a offense to not use someone's pronoun.  Canadian government is forcing the use of unnatural words or unnatural usage of words (they in the singular) on their country. 

It would not be an offense, because the CHRA is not a piece of criminal legislation. It creates quasi-judicial civil court system for civil suits on discrimination and federally regulated activities. It certainly doesn't force any "unnatural words" (what are those?) and "unnatural usage" (what is that?).

FosterK wrote: The language regarding genocide is far to specific for the fantasy scenario you outline.

It would not be an offense, because the CHRA is not a piece of criminal legislation. It creates quasi-judicial civil court system for civil suits on discrimination and federally regulated activities. It certainly doesn't force any "unnatural words" (what are those?) and "unnatural usage" (what is that?).

xi, xir, and other pronouns with no logical derivations from any language.  The use of "they" in a singular context instead of plural.

Consider you get fined by breaking the act and you don't pay the fine.  What happens?  I imagine jail is in order.

jg fox wrote:

Now the Human Rights act has been updated and it is a offense to not use someone's pronoun.  Canadian government is forcing the use of unnatural words or unnatural usage of words (they in the singular) on their country. 

Maybe I'm not seeing it, but where does it reference the use of a pronoun? This seemed to be a pretty decent explanation: https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/  

“The misuse of pronouns is not equivalent to advocating genocide in any conceivable manner,” ... “If he (i.e. Peterson) advocated genocide against trans people, he would be in violation, but misusing pronouns is not what that provision of the code is about.” 

Regardless, this easily passed the Senate 67-11... it simply amends the criminal code to extend protections against hate speech and allows a judge to take into consideration when sentencing whether a crime was motivated by hatred of the victim’s gender identity or expression. That and the federal government is late to this game – most of the provinces and territories already include gender identity and gender expression in their provincial Human Rights Codes.

"Equality for trans and non-gender binary Canadians.  It’s pretty simple.  And right. And decent." -  Brenda Cossman 

jg fox wrote:

xi, xir, and other pronouns with no logical derivations from any language.  The use of "they" in a singular context instead of plural.

Neologisms are a natural and regular part of language development. Think meme, gif, emoji, etc. The singular use of they has historical use back to the roots of English.
 

Consider you get fined by breaking the act and you don't pay the fine.  What happens?  I imagine jail is in order.

Actually no, you cannot be incarcerated for civil penalties, and the tribunal or the vicitm would be able to get a lien, asset seizure, or debit enforced by the court directly through the bank (as per normal civil procedures).

“If he was found guilty by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, he would have been doing something illegal but not criminal,” Cossman says. In other words, he wouldn’t go to jail. Jail is only a punishment for committing a criminal offence—a violation of the Criminal Code.
If Peterson was found to be in violation of the code, there are different possible remedies. He could be ordered to pay money, he could be ordered to correct the behaviour, he could be ordered to go to training, etc.