| The "I'm sorry, but what on God's green earth. 18:24 - Sep 13 with 8544 views | legoman |
.....is Sam Smith on about?" thread.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49688123
Answers on a postcard. Good job this attitude didn't prevail in 1939. [Post edited 13 Sep 2019 18:27]
|  |
| "M'sieur, you said your dog did not bite!"
"That's not my dog" |
| |  |
| The on 16:33 - Sep 15 with 967 views | Lohengrin |
| The "I'm sorry, but what on God's green earth. on 16:27 - Sep 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Every rational person understands this.
Chad is simply attempting to catch me out because she has wanted to do so ever since I told her to f*** off for calling me a liar. |
”Every rational person understands this.”
Socrates didn’t, or Plato, nor for that matter did Descartes and he was the father of Rationalism...   |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| The on 16:35 - Sep 15 with 962 views | bluey_the_blue |
| The "I'm sorry, but what on God's green earth. on 16:22 - Sep 15 by TimTtam |
Children aren't born with prejudice. They learn it either from their parents, or from society. And their parents either learned it from their parents, or from society. And on, and on.
It all stems from what society believes, and things are changing for the better as each day passes. |
I'm not entirely convinced.
Look at people's differing choices in what they regard as attractive in a partner, for example - some prefer blondes, brunettes, different body shapes as an example. Is that learnt from parents? Society?
Before anyone complains, not remotely comparing it to anti-semitism, racism. It's an example of a personal choice where you deliberately exclude based upon physical characteristics. I'd like to agree children are a blank slate, but has that ever truly been proven?
EDIT:
As for learning from parents, society, that's fine. That prejudice however had to start somewhere for it to be known by parents, society. [Post edited 15 Sep 2019 16:36]
|  | | |
| The on 16:37 - Sep 15 with 957 views | bluey_the_blue |
| The on 16:33 - Sep 15 by Lohengrin |
”Every rational person understands this.”
Socrates didn’t, or Plato, nor for that matter did Descartes and he was the father of Rationalism... |
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart,
"I drink, therefore I am." | | | |
| The on 16:58 - Sep 15 with 945 views | TimTtam |
| The on 16:35 - Sep 15 by bluey_the_blue |
I'm not entirely convinced.
Look at people's differing choices in what they regard as attractive in a partner, for example - some prefer blondes, brunettes, different body shapes as an example. Is that learnt from parents? Society?
Before anyone complains, not remotely comparing it to anti-semitism, racism. It's an example of a personal choice where you deliberately exclude based upon physical characteristics. I'd like to agree children are a blank slate, but has that ever truly been proven?
EDIT:
As for learning from parents, society, that's fine. That prejudice however had to start somewhere for it to be known by parents, society. [Post edited 15 Sep 2019 16:36]
|
In terms of your attractive partner statement, it could be argued that society has shaped that as well. Unfortunately the first thing I notice in a guy is his looks, because everywhere you look online or on TV it is attractive people. You get used to seeing attractive people, and then when you see someone who is a little less attractive, they seem mediocre.
I think ultimately it comes down to what society thinks. Back in the 50s and earlier it was acceptable to be racist, and thus most people were. But as society became more tolerant, people realised that racism was bad, and thus less people are racist today. I'm not racist, but if I lived in the 50s, there's a good chance I would've been.
And for society to learn prejudice, it possibly comes from the Bible or other religious material. Or if not that, maybe something as simple as stories being told centuries ago. |  |
| |
| The on 17:06 - Sep 15 with 927 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The on 16:33 - Sep 15 by Lohengrin |
”Every rational person understands this.”
Socrates didn’t, or Plato, nor for that matter did Descartes and he was the father of Rationalism... |
Lol. I meant it in common parlance, not attempting to open a Plato vs Aristotle discussion (who knows what was Socrates and what was Plato so I’m just using Plato as shorthand) nor indeed a Descartes vs Locke discussion.
Although, as an aside, the rather extensive work done with identical twins in modern times leads me to believe that old Plato was rather simplistic in his views. | | | |
| The "I'm sorry, but what on God's green earth. on 17:20 - Sep 15 with 906 views | perchrockjack |
It wasn't acceptable simply a result of us colonising countries ,taking it for our own and then dumping said country when the resources ran out and when it suited us.
ALL colonial countries have the fall out from our Colonial days as evidenced by the innumerable statues of men that basically enslaved millions.
All such countries felt superior to the "native" and Lord above, we sent missionaries to bring the light of Jesus Christ into the dark continent . Western eyes,always looking out for a bigger prize. | |
| |
| The on 17:20 - Sep 15 with 911 views | bluey_the_blue |
| The on 16:58 - Sep 15 by TimTtam |
In terms of your attractive partner statement, it could be argued that society has shaped that as well. Unfortunately the first thing I notice in a guy is his looks, because everywhere you look online or on TV it is attractive people. You get used to seeing attractive people, and then when you see someone who is a little less attractive, they seem mediocre.
I think ultimately it comes down to what society thinks. Back in the 50s and earlier it was acceptable to be racist, and thus most people were. But as society became more tolerant, people realised that racism was bad, and thus less people are racist today. I'm not racist, but if I lived in the 50s, there's a good chance I would've been.
And for society to learn prejudice, it possibly comes from the Bible or other religious material. Or if not that, maybe something as simple as stories being told centuries ago. |
I get your point about TV, it's pushed the "beautiful look". Take slim/large body types out of the equation then. Hair colour is a better example of a mild form of prejudice that I'd say isn't something learnt from parents or society.
Someone wrote the Bible / other religious material in the first place. I'd argue prejudice occured well before that. Someone had to come up with stories or more accurately, use them to stimulate prejudice in the first place?
I just happen to think everyone has prejudice within them or one sort or another. It just takes a certain type of person for it to be demonstrated in an extreme manner; almost mental illness imo. | | | |
| The on 17:22 - Sep 15 with 908 views | bluey_the_blue |
| The on 17:06 - Sep 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Lol. I meant it in common parlance, not attempting to open a Plato vs Aristotle discussion (who knows what was Socrates and what was Plato so I’m just using Plato as shorthand) nor indeed a Descartes vs Locke discussion.
Although, as an aside, the rather extensive work done with identical twins in modern times leads me to believe that old Plato was rather simplistic in his views. |
I always thought Plato was banging Minnie Mouse behind Mickey's back. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The on 17:35 - Sep 15 with 901 views | Lohengrin |
| The on 17:06 - Sep 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Lol. I meant it in common parlance, not attempting to open a Plato vs Aristotle discussion (who knows what was Socrates and what was Plato so I’m just using Plato as shorthand) nor indeed a Descartes vs Locke discussion.
Although, as an aside, the rather extensive work done with identical twins in modern times leads me to believe that old Plato was rather simplistic in his views. |
You and I could have had the best read kids in Glamorgan. Lookers too.  | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| The on 17:37 - Sep 15 with 894 views | Swanjaxs |
| The on 17:35 - Sep 15 by Lohengrin |
You and I could have had the best read kids in Glamorgan. Lookers too. |
Get a room you two... 😂 |  |
| |
| The "I'm sorry, but what on God's green earth. on 18:09 - Sep 15 with 866 views | DJack |
| The "I'm sorry, but what on God's green earth. on 16:27 - Sep 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Every rational person understands this.
Chad is simply attempting to catch me out because she has wanted to do so ever since I told her to f*** off for calling me a liar. |
A little sad isn't it. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| The "I'm sorry, but what on God's green earth. on 22:10 - Sep 15 with 816 views | Bazswan |
Prejudice is a mix of many things and not just societal. We could say that some who may have not had their prejudices naturally could have been influenced to have them by societal factors, but clearly there can be no blanket statement there due to prejudice existing. I would say prejudice is innate in some sense as a survival instinct, but early experience with other children quickly negates that within us due to them posing no threat. All over the animal kingdom are examples of animals being born and wishing to stick with familiarity, with difference innately seen as a threat. Which is probably why tribalism existed in humans in the first place.
Again it’s not an issue of prejudice for me but the compulsion of language that I am very uncomfortable with. A personal request is fine but it can lead to horrendous legislation being passed and laws put in place off the back of it where failure to use the correct pronoun is illegal and classed as hate speech, as highlighted in the new Bill C-16 passed in Canada in 2017. | | | |
| The on 22:49 - Sep 15 with 785 views | Glossolalia |
Besides everything else said on this thread, it's the grammar issue that gets me.
Pronouns belong to a closed-word group and in general, they don't change much. The use of a third person pronoun to refer to a single person is confusing and I believe, a tad pretentious. I understand the notion of being gender fluid. That on any given day, one could feel more masculine or feminine, or more like a cooking utensil.
However, this shouldn't result in a fundamental undermining of the way our language works, because a person feels more this way or that way. And besides, this person isn't going to feel like two people concurrently!
Also, pronouns are used mainly for sex and not gender, so I don't think this is the way to go about things...
Edit: I get that times change, and so on. But this isn't something being pushed by the masses. It's just a rather irksome way of alleviating the terrible burden of being 'different'. [Post edited 15 Sep 2019 22:54]
|  | | |
| The "I'm sorry, but what on God's green earth. on 22:57 - Sep 15 with 769 views | Bazswan |
Agree Gloss. I don’t know what’s wrong with being a feminine male or a masculine female, I suppose it’s a spectrum driven by testosterone and oestrogen - but their sex remains constant, which is what the pronoun refers to. I have a horrible feeling that these “progressive inaccuracies” that fly in the face of science are actually going to be taught in schools and universities soon, in fact knowing how universities are currently, it may well be already. | | | |
| The on 22:58 - Sep 15 with 769 views | Glossolalia |
| The "I'm sorry, but what on God's green earth. on 22:10 - Sep 15 by Bazswan |
Prejudice is a mix of many things and not just societal. We could say that some who may have not had their prejudices naturally could have been influenced to have them by societal factors, but clearly there can be no blanket statement there due to prejudice existing. I would say prejudice is innate in some sense as a survival instinct, but early experience with other children quickly negates that within us due to them posing no threat. All over the animal kingdom are examples of animals being born and wishing to stick with familiarity, with difference innately seen as a threat. Which is probably why tribalism existed in humans in the first place.
Again it’s not an issue of prejudice for me but the compulsion of language that I am very uncomfortable with. A personal request is fine but it can lead to horrendous legislation being passed and laws put in place off the back of it where failure to use the correct pronoun is illegal and classed as hate speech, as highlighted in the new Bill C-16 passed in Canada in 2017. |
Article C-16 is downright scary. Compelled speech and the like. It's a real encroachment on the freedom of speech.
Sure, a few on here may see this as an overreaction. But it's the start of something dangerous, and it's wrapped up neatly in this friendly, inclusive, left-wing narrative. Wolf in sheep's clothing...
Yes Baz, it's like the religious clinging onto what has been utterly disproven by science, but in reverse! [Post edited 15 Sep 2019 23:00]
| | | |
| The on 23:10 - Sep 15 with 757 views | WarwickHunt |
| The on 22:49 - Sep 15 by Glossolalia |
Besides everything else said on this thread, it's the grammar issue that gets me.
Pronouns belong to a closed-word group and in general, they don't change much. The use of a third person pronoun to refer to a single person is confusing and I believe, a tad pretentious. I understand the notion of being gender fluid. That on any given day, one could feel more masculine or feminine, or more like a cooking utensil.
However, this shouldn't result in a fundamental undermining of the way our language works, because a person feels more this way or that way. And besides, this person isn't going to feel like two people concurrently!
Also, pronouns are used mainly for sex and not gender, so I don't think this is the way to go about things...
Edit: I get that times change, and so on. But this isn't something being pushed by the masses. It's just a rather irksome way of alleviating the terrible burden of being 'different'. [Post edited 15 Sep 2019 22:54]
|
Amen, brother/sister/spatula. |  | | |
| The on 23:40 - Sep 15 with 733 views | SwanDownUnder |
Lisa come to Dollis Valley and call us "them people" is that ok? [Post edited 15 Sep 2019 23:45]
| | | |
| The on 23:47 - Sep 15 with 719 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The on 23:40 - Sep 15 by SwanDownUnder |
Lisa come to Dollis Valley and call us "them people" is that ok? [Post edited 15 Sep 2019 23:45]
|
I’m sorry, I genuinely have no idea what this means. | | | |
| The on 03:22 - Sep 16 with 681 views | Bazswan |
| The on 22:58 - Sep 15 by Glossolalia |
Article C-16 is downright scary. Compelled speech and the like. It's a real encroachment on the freedom of speech.
Sure, a few on here may see this as an overreaction. But it's the start of something dangerous, and it's wrapped up neatly in this friendly, inclusive, left-wing narrative. Wolf in sheep's clothing...
Yes Baz, it's like the religious clinging onto what has been utterly disproven by science, but in reverse! [Post edited 15 Sep 2019 23:00]
|
It’s only getting worse too as pronouns are being created by the day and enforced by law.
Ne
Ve
Spivak
Ze and hir
Ze and zir
Xe
The above are now becoming as common as Sam Smiths example of wanting to be called ‘them’ and ‘they’, especially Ze and Zir, Xe.
For example if you wish to say “he likes himself” or “she likes herself” in the traditional sense, using the newly formed pronouns people are adopting we now must (some by law) say:
- Ne likes nemself (Ne)
- Ve likes verself (Ve)
- Ey likes emself (Spivak)
- Ze likes hirself (Ze and Hir)
- Ze likes zirself (Ze and Zir)
- Xe likes xemself (Xe)
As you can see it is truly getting out of hand now that this has been compelled by law. So what starts off as innocent acceptance quickly turns into utter farcical nonsense as there is no cut off point and an infinite amount of pronouns that must be treated just as validly as the one before. It seems like it is creating a breeding ground for pre meditated opportunity to take offence by setting unrealistic expectation that everyone carries out newly formed and almost senseless language. | | | |
| The on 07:10 - Sep 16 with 640 views | Humpty |
| The on 03:22 - Sep 16 by Bazswan |
It’s only getting worse too as pronouns are being created by the day and enforced by law.
Ne
Ve
Spivak
Ze and hir
Ze and zir
Xe
The above are now becoming as common as Sam Smiths example of wanting to be called ‘them’ and ‘they’, especially Ze and Zir, Xe.
For example if you wish to say “he likes himself” or “she likes herself” in the traditional sense, using the newly formed pronouns people are adopting we now must (some by law) say:
- Ne likes nemself (Ne)
- Ve likes verself (Ve)
- Ey likes emself (Spivak)
- Ze likes hirself (Ze and Hir)
- Ze likes zirself (Ze and Zir)
- Xe likes xemself (Xe)
As you can see it is truly getting out of hand now that this has been compelled by law. So what starts off as innocent acceptance quickly turns into utter farcical nonsense as there is no cut off point and an infinite amount of pronouns that must be treated just as validly as the one before. It seems like it is creating a breeding ground for pre meditated opportunity to take offence by setting unrealistic expectation that everyone carries out newly formed and almost senseless language. |
In which countries are these pronouns being enforced by law?
Genuine question. [Post edited 16 Sep 2019 7:13]
|  | | |
| The "I'm sorry, but what on God's green earth. on 07:25 - Sep 16 with 633 views | dickythorpe |
| The "I'm sorry, but what on God's green earth. on 14:52 - Sep 15 by Highjack |
I think where I’d fall over with it is with the very welsh thing of calling him “mate” or “butt”. |
The hand grenade "pal" would get me into hot water. |  | | |
| The on 07:35 - Sep 16 with 621 views | Bazswan |
| The on 07:10 - Sep 16 by Humpty |
In which countries are these pronouns being enforced by law?
Genuine question. [Post edited 16 Sep 2019 7:13]
|
Canada currently. | | | |
| The on 07:58 - Sep 16 with 607 views | Humpty |
| The on 07:35 - Sep 16 by Bazswan |
Canada currently. |
I know practically nothing about Bill C-16 but I see Jordan Peterson is claiming it will lead to people being imprisoned for using incorrect pronouns. Once I saw his name being quoted a lot it immediately raised my suspicions. Many others disagree with him.
According to Brenda Cossman, a professor of law at the University of Toronto, Peterson is “fundamentally mischaracterizing” Bill C-16.
“I don’t know if he’s misunderstanding it, but he’s mischaracterizing it,” Cossman says.
(Brenda Cossman spoke to Torontoist about this, but you can find what else she’s said on the issue here.)
Cossman says it seems Peterson is trying to argue that the misuse of pronouns could constitute hate speech.
“I don’t think there’s any legal expert that would say that [this] would meet the threshold for hate speech in Canada,” she says
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-corre
Looks like some people are exaggerating to me. | | | |
| The on 08:17 - Sep 16 with 596 views | Bazswan |
| The on 07:58 - Sep 16 by Humpty |
I know practically nothing about Bill C-16 but I see Jordan Peterson is claiming it will lead to people being imprisoned for using incorrect pronouns. Once I saw his name being quoted a lot it immediately raised my suspicions. Many others disagree with him.
According to Brenda Cossman, a professor of law at the University of Toronto, Peterson is “fundamentally mischaracterizing” Bill C-16.
“I don’t know if he’s misunderstanding it, but he’s mischaracterizing it,” Cossman says.
(Brenda Cossman spoke to Torontoist about this, but you can find what else she’s said on the issue here.)
Cossman says it seems Peterson is trying to argue that the misuse of pronouns could constitute hate speech.
“I don’t think there’s any legal expert that would say that [this] would meet the threshold for hate speech in Canada,” she says
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-corre
Looks like some people are exaggerating to me. |
Not entirely sure it would result in a custodial sentence but very likely a monitory fine, in fact it has already happened and the amount (up to $20,000) is listed in the bill. But who knows where it could end up. The issue is that it (gender identity protection) is listed in 3 places in Bill C-16, most pertinent in the Human Rights section.
As a result Vancouver Police were fined by the Human Rights tribunal for referring to a transgender woman as “he” and also calling him (her) his (her) real name “Jeffrey”. So it’s only common sense to suggest that these other pronouns will also result in similar sanctions. Although much of the language does seem to be surrounding the workplace.... But compelled speech is compelled speech. | | | |
| The on 08:38 - Sep 16 with 579 views | Humpty |
| The on 08:17 - Sep 16 by Bazswan |
Not entirely sure it would result in a custodial sentence but very likely a monitory fine, in fact it has already happened and the amount (up to $20,000) is listed in the bill. But who knows where it could end up. The issue is that it (gender identity protection) is listed in 3 places in Bill C-16, most pertinent in the Human Rights section.
As a result Vancouver Police were fined by the Human Rights tribunal for referring to a transgender woman as “he” and also calling him (her) his (her) real name “Jeffrey”. So it’s only common sense to suggest that these other pronouns will also result in similar sanctions. Although much of the language does seem to be surrounding the workplace.... But compelled speech is compelled speech. |
Cheers.
I'll have to look a bit more into it. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
