Mike Pence

Forum Sponsor
Also in Hamilton, Westdale to be specific, a lesbian was refused at a mens barbershop. Big doings ensued, made the Hamilton Spectator and CHCH TV 6 o'clock news. The barber is immigrant so you can imagine the Mexican standoff between media, immigrant and lesbian. I never got to the bottom of it tho, was refused service for being a woman or a lesbian? Not sure.
 
Last edited:
crankcall said:
So those " no shirt, no shoes, no service " signs are all on the wrong side of ethics? A dude in a wife beater and flip flops is on dangerous ground, so close to the acceptable limit.
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges. Health code rule that applies to everyone vs. singling out a particular group.
 
crankcall said:
So those " no shirt, no shoes, no service " signs are all on the wrong side of ethics? A dude in a wife beater and flip flops is on dangerous ground, so close to the acceptable limit.
Click to expand...
What do you think, and what have you observed, and what can you find out about the ethics of refusing service to anyone with no shirt?

All those questions should lead you to the same answer, and an understanding of why it's different from refusing to serve someone who f*s others of the same sex.
 
Neil_V said:
@fastar

As I'm baking this cake, can I openly question the rational of genderqueer masculine of center? Bet I can question the kid who comes in with 40 piercings in his face without worry.

Anyway, not really a free society if youre not free to decide who you do business with... right or wrong.
Click to expand...
We live in an age where people get defensive if you question where they bought their shoes. What you need to worry about is entirely up to you.

Can you bear the judgement of others who see you question some people based on their attire, or on their gender expression, or race, or religion? Just because you're allowed to question anything doesn't mean you'll be spared people's potential hatred. And can you stand the potential scrutiny from those who worry that your questions indicate an underlying bias of some form that could lead to more sinister outcomes? Can you withstand the pressure of people who may overreact and mount a campaign against you?

This is all what open dialogue in a free society looks like. If you think it has to look pretty too, of course you will be disappointed. And it is a free society, regardless of what you think of rules intended to stop you from doing harm. If people from DPRK or China and elsewhere could all read these different paranoid delusional threads about our free speech being restricted, they'd be wondering what bad drugs we're all on.
 
fastar1 said:
This is all what open dialogue in a free society looks like. If you think it has to look pretty too, of course you will be disappointed. And it is a free society, regardless of what you think of rules intended to stop you from doing harm. If people from DPRK or China and elsewhere could all read these different paranoid delusional threads about our free speech being restricted, they'd be wondering what bad drugs we're all on.
Click to expand...

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourcei...&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=no+such+thing+as+society&*
 
inreb said:
Also in Hamilton, Westdale to be specific, a lesbian was refused at a mens barbershop. Big doings ensued, made the Hamilton Spectator and CHCH TV 6 o'clock news. The barber is immigrant so you can imagine the Mexican standoff between media, immigrant and lesbian. I never got to the bottom of it tho, was refused service for being a woman or a lesbian? Not sure.
Click to expand...

Barber was a) said to be uncomfortable cutting women's hair, and b) felt his establishment, being a barber shop, was a men's club so to speak. There's multiple hair removal facilities in the 2 bock Westdale core; this women wasn't significantly disadvantaged in anyway. Just another angrey Fem Nazi.


Edit: If memory serves, I think she won a gift certificate? She was offered cash value for cert; not accepted.
 
Last edited:
fastar1 said:
What do you think, and what have you observed, and what can you find out about the ethics of refusing service to anyone with no shirt?

All those questions should lead you to the same answer, and an understanding of why it's different from refusing to serve someone who f*s others of the same sex.
Click to expand...

What if shirtless/shoeless is of religious or other ideological importance? Does rational behind no shirt no service cease to exist?
 
fastar1 said:
Can you bear the judgement of others who see you question some people based on their attire, or on their gender expression, or race, or religion? Just because you're allowed to question anything doesn't mean you'll be spared people's potential hatred. And can you stand the potential scrutiny from those who worry that your questions indicate an underlying bias of some form that could lead to more sinister outcomes? Can you withstand the pressure of people who may overreact and mount a campaign against you?

This is all what open dialogue in a free society looks like. If you think it has to look pretty too, of course you will be disappointed. And it is a free society, regardless of what you think of rules intended to stop you from doing harm. If people from DPRK or China and elsewhere could all read these different paranoid delusional threads about our free speech being restricted, they'd be wondering what bad drugs we're all on.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I don't shy away from my right to be an individual because herd... and neither should those whom we're discussing. Forcing others to accept the nuance that makes you you? Sorry.. Pick another shop, it's not that hard.

We all deal with this on the daily. It's inevitable in a society of individuals, and it's better than the alternative.

On the second bit... maybe, having lived the alternative, they'd agree that it's damn important to nip these moves towards social conformity in the butt before it has a chance to develop into something worse.


Edit: to expand upon my reply to your last paragraph, I think it's interesting to note the student who organized the infamous free speech rally in defense of J. Peterson was from Hong Kong
 
Last edited:
Snobike Mike said:
And as pointed out so clearly by Jordan Peterson, creating identities that aren't based on truth, are not identities, and in fact do harm to the person attempting to hold such a facade.
Click to expand...

I love it when someone sciences the hell out of alt facts. You were born either a male or a female? Nature doesn't agree with you.

sciencebitch_zpsl4dqnwjt.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think one of my ex's had a wry gene.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
I love it when someone sciences the hell out of alt facts. You were born either a male or a female? Nature doesn't agree with you.

sciencebitch_zpsl4dqnwjt.jpg
Click to expand...
I guess I'll take this one.

What you've posted is a picture of sciency-sounding words strung together eloquently and claimed it as scientific fact, in response to something nobody seems to have said in this thread ("you were born either a male or a female"). While Snobike may or may not appreciate the subtlety, his Peterson reference is not a criticism of all non-binary gender identities.

That doesn't mean your info is wrong, but it is unverifiable, and it's a straw man argument. It also suggests you rely on confirmation bias to judge the worth of a claim, rather than actual scientific analysis.

But if you have better info to support your view, Id like to see it.
 
fastar1 said:
I guess I'll take this one.
Click to expand...

I don't tend to engage in discussions with meme's (unless meme. I'm told she's alright) as some may think I'm crazy and refuse service. But seriously.. well not seriously; like FB rants posted to GTAM.
 
fastar1 said:
I guess I'll take this one.

What you've posted is a picture of sciency-sounding words strung together eloquently and claimed it as scientific fact, in response to something nobody seems to have said in this thread ("you were born either a male or a female"). While Snobike may or may not appreciate the subtlety, his Peterson reference is not a criticism of all non-binary gender identities.

That doesn't mean your info is wrong, but it is unverifiable, and it's a straw man argument. It also suggests you rely on confirmation bias to judge the worth of a claim, rather than actual scientific analysis.

But if you have better info to support your view, Id like to see it.
Click to expand...

Actually as far as I can see most of that content is scientifically correct.
 
jc100 said:
Actually as far as I can see most of that content is scientifically correct.
Click to expand...
If so, you've based that on info we don't have. And it's still not pertinent to the discussion as far as I can see.
 
Did everyone befriend Caitlyn Jenner (Bruce Jenner) since she/he they are a Republican?

Gender is a social construct...that is the gold prize right there for mental issues.

These are ppl with nothing to do in life and no real function...uhm where is my 4 cheeseburgers and bag of chips.
 
fastar1 said:
If so, you've based that on info we don't have. And it's still not pertinent to the discussion as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

Part of my past research involved slime moulds, I currently keep marine fish (clown fish), I teach students in a program that also includes the curriculum teaching some of the other parts of that post. So those parts I know about and they are all correct.
 
fastar1 said:
If so, you've based that on info we don't have. And it's still not pertinent to the discussion as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

When Rocker Guy stops posting erroneous proof that his claims are right (1.35 > 1.5) I'll take the time to do your research for you.

And it's pertinent to the discussion seeing as the post is about some thumper that thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old that signed laws discriminating against certain members of the population based on his (misguided) views about what is and isn't part of nature.
 
Last edited:
jc100 said:
Part of my past research involved slime moulds, I currently keep marine fish (clown fish), I teach students in a program that also includes the curriculum teaching some of the other parts of that post. So those parts I know about and they are all correct.
Click to expand...

why are ppl wasting time comparing humans to clown fish?
might as well add the seahorse in the mix and say there we go, all the proof needed, case closed.
 
-D- said:
why are ppl wasting time comparing humans to clown fish?
might as well add the seahorse in the mix and say there we go, all the proof needed, case closed.
Click to expand...

Might as well say there's no point in comparing humans and chimps because they only share 98.8% of their DNA, too.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom