Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

The transgender insanity movement

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, dialamah said:

If a group is 'at special risk' they should get the 'same protection' as those not at special risk.  Got it.  

1,) So, let's apply this logic elsewhere:  Children under a certain size are at special risk of being injured in a car accident.  But the government should not mention, notice or address that in any way, because to say a child under a certain size needs special protection is to say that a child over a certain size deserves less protection.

2.) Poorer neighborhoods tend to have more domestic violence/crime than wealthier neighborhoods.  But police should not pay 'special attention' to poorer neighborhoods, because to do so is to say that wealthier neighborhoods deserve less attention.

3.) Women and children are at greater risk of sexual assault than men.  No additional resources should be provided to women or children to prevent or address sexual assault, because that means that 'men deserve less'.

 

I'm skeptical about the need for special treatment where intellectually competent adults are concerned.

1.) The needs of children shouldn't be addressed in the same context as those of adults. The differences are obvious. To conflate the two amounts to infantilizing adults based on race, gender, religion or other specific characteristics. Is this your intent?

2.) Poorer neighborhoods very likely do generate more crime and my suspicion is that they get more police attention than do wealthy neighborhoods, although my guess (just a guess) is that emergency calls might be responded to more quickly in wealthier neighborhoods than poorer ones. On the other hand, some populations in poorer communities complain that they get what they believe to be too much police attention. This is a issue on which the police sometimes simply can't win.

3.) Again, please leave the children aside as any comparison with adults is clearly problematic. As for greater risk of sexual assault faced by adult women, this is likely a function of evolutionary biology that has applied throughout history. Women, of course, are provided resources because the extent of domestic violence and sexual assault is increasingly acknowledged and understood - at least in Western societies - while there doesn't seem to be a lot of demand or pressure to allocate additional resources to address domestic violence faced by men, although I believe such violence does exist. I suspect, then, that the differential allocation is largely justifiable on the basis of demonstrable demand rather than any kind of discriminatory intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The one thing I pointed out, that people haven't said much about and keep drifting from is that targeted groups deserve attention and protection as a group.

In what way then if not in increasing the punishment for those who punch them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If bald people start getting targeted for assault then maybe we could do something about that, yes.

2. I don't think I have said anything about punishment.

The one thing I pointed out, that people haven't said much about and keep drifting from is that targeted groups deserve attention and protection as a group.

The most powerless and smallest minority group of all is the individual. Any individual who has been assaulted deserves the same response from the justice system against the perpetrators of the crime, whatever the race or gender of either victim or perpetrator. Any ideas that do not fulfill this basic reality are fundamentally unjust, because crimes are fundamentally committed by and against individuals. The individual criminals did the crime, and the individual victims were the ones targeted. Period. 

Edited by Bonam
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Argus said:

In what way then if not in increasing the punishment for those who punch them?

I have always thought those kinds of government statements referred to publically reminding people not to "punch them", and to running information/education campaigns aimed at humanizing a group that has been targetted. 

I have never taken those kinds of statements to mean "special" laws be enacted for adding different or increased punishment if Jews/Muslims/LGBTQ/other were attacked.  Or at least not beyond the current "hate crime" designation, which does have to meet certain criteria beyond assaulting someone from those groups.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Argus said:

In what way then if not in increasing the punishment for those who punch them?

Increased awareness, law enforcement studying how to prevent are a few things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bonam said:

 Any individual who has been assaulted deserves the same response  ...

You are the third person who has made an incorrect assumption on my posts.  Go back and read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Increased awareness, law enforcement studying how to prevent are a few things

I would imagine most of the actual violence takes place in or around bars and taverns, so I doubt there's much new to be learned about how to prevent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Argus said:

I would imagine most of the actual violence takes place in or around bars and taverns, so I doubt there's much new to be learned about how to prevent it.

Yeah, so if we're now at the part of the discussion where you're offering criminology advice, we should probably just stop.  I think you heard my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well, I am, but we are not "all agreed".  There are plenty of protests on this.

2. Ok.  That doesn't say anything about what I was challenging from you - ie. govt. statements. But ok.

1) Lets just say everyone who matters.

2) You challenged me on equal treatment from the justice system.  I thought our argument on government statements was with my opinion of the Liberals M-something or other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are the third person who has made an incorrect assumption on my posts.  Go back and read.

If I'm the third, chances are your posts weren't clear. One person misinterpreting means a bad reader. Everyone misinterpreting means a bad writer. Regardless, my statement stands on its own, regardless of what it was made in response to. So if you're in agreement with it then great. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bonam said:

One person misinterpreting means a bad reader. Everyone misinterpreting means a bad writer.

That sounds logical. I think I would have to agree with you there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, so if we're now at the part of the discussion where you're offering criminology advice, we should probably just stop.  I think you heard my point.

What do YOU want police to do? You want every transgender person to have a personal police bodyguard or what? Enough of your broad generalizations. Be specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Argus said:

What do YOU want police to do? You want every transgender person to have a personal police bodyguard or what? Enough of your broad generalizations. Be specific.

I want public messages to raise awareness of abuse against targeted groups.  I want people to care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I want public messages to raise awareness of abuse against targeted groups.  I want people to care.

People already care. Canadians are appalled at violence against anyone, regardless of whether they're a member of a 'targeted' group. If they're like me, they want a severe crackdown on violent people, and not the molly-coddling we see from the courts now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

People already care. Canadians are appalled at violence against anyone, regardless of whether they're a member of a 'targeted' group. If they're like me, they want a severe crackdown on violent people, and not the molly-coddling we see from the courts now. 

 

Hear hear.  But anytime anyone talks of punishment, we hear that rehabilitation is the key.  Too bloody late for the victim, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Argus said:

People already care. Canadians are appalled at violence against anyone, regardless of whether they're a member of a 'targeted' group. If they're like me, they want a severe crackdown on violent people, and not the molly-coddling we see from the courts now. 

 

I don't think that is true.  The reaction against concern about Muslims being targeted, and the underwhelming amount of discussion around a mass killing in a mosque in Quebec is counter evidence.  Canadaland reviewed Canadian coverage of that shooting vs. the Boston Marathon bombing and found that Canadian coverage of a terrorist attack on Canadian soil that had twice the number of fatalities received less coverage than the Boston attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that is true.  The reaction against concern about Muslims being targeted, and the underwhelming amount of discussion around a mass killing in a mosque in Quebec is counter evidence.  Canadaland reviewed Canadian coverage of that shooting vs. the Boston Marathon bombing and found that Canadian coverage of a terrorist attack on Canadian soil that had twice the number of fatalities received less coverage than the Boston attack.

That could be for a lot of reasons.  One being it was much more sensationalized, as well as being broadcast on several American networks live during the police pursuit of the suspects, with helicopters etc.  Regardless, I'm mostly against so-called hate crimes legislation.  It's thought police.  You're inside somebody's mind determining why they committed a crime.  Why is murdering somebody out of hate worse than out of jealousy?  Or any other reason?  The taking of a life is the taking of a life.  Assault is assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×