Kevin Biestra Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 2 minutes ago, Shayster007 said: You can think what ever you want, doesn't make any difference to me. If you don't support basic human rights, you're a crap human in my eyes. Bottom line. Well again...whom do you appoint to define basic human rights and whom do you appoint to define when somebody is adequately supporting them...under your proposed penalty of depriving anyone who doesn't do so to your satisfaction of participating in "major decisions" in society? If that one guy doesn't want to be made to wear a jersey is he infringing on anyone else's human rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 1 minute ago, Kevin Biestra said: Well again...whom do you appoint to define basic human rights and whom do you appoint to define when somebody is adequately supporting them...under your proposed penalty of depriving anyone who doesn't do so to your satisfaction of participating in "major decisions" in society? If that one guy doesn't want to be made to wear a jersey is he infringing on anyone else's human rights? You're talking in circles. If you don't know the criteria of what basic human right means.. that's on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 2 minutes ago, Shayster007 said: You're talking in circles. If you don't know the criteria of what basic human right means.. that's on you. I'm not talking in circles at all. You haven't answered a single question. You just seem to want to declare who gets to participate in societal decisions by fiat depending on whether they agree with you or not. I have given you every opportunity thus far to answer any of the questions and establish that your system of depriving participation in societal decisions would be based on some kind of system other than who agrees with you personally about human rights and when they are not being adequately supported. As described thus far what you essentially propose, whether you realize it or not, is a (for now) presumably benevolent dictatorship that probably descends into some kind of chaos when people actually petition the court to have their right to participate in "major decisions" reinstated because you haven't provided any definition of when they have thought or behaved so wrongfully that such a deprivation is in order. It is you that hasn't actually thought this through. All of the questions still stand, though you won't answer them, and if you did there would be at least a few more before what you are suggesting begins to approach anything workable in the real world or in a real legal or political system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said: I'm not talking in circles at all. You haven't answered a single question. You just seem to want to declare who gets to participate in societal decisions by fiat depending on whether they agree with you or not. I have given you every opportunity thus far to answer any of the questions and establish that your system of depriving participation in societal decisions would be based on some kind of system other than who agrees with you personally about human rights and when they are not being adequately supported. As described thus far what you essentially propose, whether you realize it or not, is a (for now) presumably benevolent dictatorship that probably descends into some kind of chaos when people actually petition the court to have their right to participate in "major decisions" reinstated because you haven't provided any definition of when they have thought or behaved so wrongfully that such a deprivation is in order. It is you that hasn't actually thought this through. All of the questions still stand, though you won't answer them, and if you did there would be at least a few more before what you are suggesting begins to approach anything workable in the real world or in a real legal or political system. Lol, if you say so. I disagree with every point your attempting to make. Edited February 9, 2023 by Shayster007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maninthebox Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Shayster007 said: Lol, if you say so. I disagree with every point your attempting to make. Whereas you have yet to make a valid point, or adequately refute any of his You are exactly the type of person who should never be placed in any position to influence discussions such as this. Your ignorance and bigotry is apparent. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 18 minutes ago, Maninthebox said: Whereas you have yet to make a valid point, or adequately refute any of his You are exactly the type of person who should never be placed in any position to influence discussions such as this. Your ignorance and bigotry is apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Shayster007 said: Lol, if you say so. I disagree with every point your attempting to make. What points do you claim I have attempted to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 1 minute ago, Kevin Biestra said: What points do you claim I have attempted to make? That supporting basic human rights would lead to the decent into chaos of society? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 (edited) 1 minute ago, Shayster007 said: That supporting basic human rights would lead to the decent into chaos of society? That is a garden variety failure in reading comprehension and a catastrophic failure in logic. Honestly, why not just go through the conversation we have had and try to digest what has been said and asked for what is actually being said and asked and then if you feel like it, make an honest attempt to address those things. Or don't. Up to you. Edited February 9, 2023 by Kevin Biestra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Maninthebox said: Whereas you have yet to make a valid point, or adequately refute any of his You are exactly the type of person who should never be placed in any position to influence discussions such as this. Your ignorance and bigotry is apparent. The thing is, I think this person means well and at the very least has convinced himself or herself that they mean well. I just don't yet see much in the way of evidence of any tools for debate or policy. It's really easy for everyone to just try to win the contest of making the loudest display that they have the best morals. But the thing is that everyone agrees with their own morals and ethics...that's why they hold them. Edited February 9, 2023 by Kevin Biestra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 1 minute ago, Kevin Biestra said: That is a garden variety failure in reading comprehension and a catastrophic failure in logic. Nice, we've got to the point where you're just gonna start attempting to throw insults. Right on time. Great talk bud, you're really killing it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 Just now, Shayster007 said: Nice, we've got to the point where you're just gonna start attempting to throw insults. Right on time. Great talk bud, you're really killing it. It is not meant as an insult. There is no way for you to conclude what you did from what was written while succeeding in those two areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 1 minute ago, Kevin Biestra said: It is not meant as an insult. There is no way for you to conclude what you did from what was written while succeeding in those two areas. Lol k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 9 minutes ago, Shayster007 said: Lol k 2 hours ago, Shayster007 said: You're talking in circles. If you don't know the criteria of what basic human right means.. that's on you. All right I guess we can try this another way. You claim to know what the criteria of basic human rights are and apparently are of the mind that most or all people should agree with that definition and practical application. So...what are those criteria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 Just now, Kevin Biestra said: All right I guess we can try this another way. You claim to know what the criteria of basic human rights are and apparently are of the mind that most or all people should agree with that definition and practical application. So...what are those criteria? You keep trying to turn this into a debate. This conversation has been over for awhile. I'm shocked with your immaculate reading comprehension you haven't caught on yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 1 minute ago, Shayster007 said: You keep trying to turn this into a debate. This conversation has been over for awhile. I'm shocked with your immaculate reading comprehension you haven't caught on yet. Suit yourself. I wasn't really going through the exercise for my benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrayDog Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Kevin Biestra said: You claim to know what the criteria of basic human rights are and apparently are of the mind that most or all people should agree with that definition and practical application. So...what are those criteria? I think this might be what you're looking for: Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 (edited) 16 minutes ago, StrayDog said: I think this might be what you're looking for: Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations I am aware of that document. I am also aware of the Canadian Charter and the US Constitution, some individual US State Constitutions and several other documents. I was primarily interested (for the sake of the discussion anyway) on how the individual who claimed this is all obvious and presumably easy to apply was going to present them. The point that will be fairly clear immediately is that all of the Constitutions I named, and several others, and the document you provided do not have 100 percent overlap in how these rights are defined and what they are. And they may diverge further still in practice when cases based on these documents are taken to the courts and judges weigh in on interpretation. I am well aware of the concept of human rights and I wouldn't be surprised at all if I am more protective of them than the individual who terminated the discussion rather than take the first step down defending or even explaining or exploring their position. It is that individual that wanted to remove the right to "make major decisions" in society from anyone who failed to meet that individual's standards for supporting human rights. So what does taking away the ability to make major decisions mean? Does it mean removing the right to vote? Well in that case, let me direct you to the Canadian Charter (with the help of the courts) and many other constitutions which give the right to vote even to incarcerated criminals. This individual perhaps wants to remove that right for someone who simply doesn't meet their personal standards for being enlightened? I asked that individual to explain their position further and the discussion was terminated. Look again at human rights. It generally is taken to mean and should mean anyone in the LGBT+ community having equal standing under the law, in the courts and so on. Perhaps more...that is all being figured out as we speak and will be for some time. Does it however include the right to take somebody who isn't gay and make them wear a jersey against their will that says they support the gay community under the pain of unemployment? Should it? Then there is the difference between limitations on the government versus limitations on corporations and private citizens and so on. And that is just scratching the surface. Everybody wants to jump on a chair and yell "I'm the one who most supports human rights, more than that guy over there!" but all that mostly produces is a lot of noise. Edited February 9, 2023 by Kevin Biestra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrayDog Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 30 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said: I am aware of that document. I am also aware of the Canadian Charter and the US Constitution, some individual US State Constitutions and several other documents. I was primarily interested (for the sake of the discussion anyway) on how the individual who claimed this is all obvious and presumably easy to apply was going to present them. The point that will be fairly clear immediately is that all of the Constitutions I named, and several others, and the document you provided do not have 100 percent overlap in how these rights are defined and what they are. And they may diverge further still in practice when cases based on these documents are taken to the courts and judges weigh in on interpretation. I believe pretty much everyone on these boards can agree on what constitutes basic human rights. It is in their application that we seem to disagree. I am, for instance, of the opinion that someone's right to religion does not trump the rights of a marginalized person to exist. There are those who believe otherwise. We will each believe the other one to be wrong, and there is precious little that will change that. While the documents cited may not have 100 percent overlap, I believe the intent behind those documents sync well enough for our purposes. 30 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said: It is that individual that wanted to remove the right to "make major decisions" in society from anyone who failed to meet that individual's standards for supporting human rights. So what does taking away the ability to make major decisions mean? Does it mean removing the right to vote? Well in that case, let me direct you to the Canadian Charter (with the help of the courts) and many other constitutions which give the right to vote even to incarcerated criminals. This individual perhaps wants to remove that right for someone who simply doesn't meet their personal standards for being enlightened? I asked that individual to explain their position further and the discussion was terminated. I can't speak to what they meant by removing the ability to make major decisions. Neither can you. Assuming that they want to take away someone's voting rights may be premature. I would not be comfortable in removing the right to vote from those who disagree with me, but I can see the appeal of not allowing neo-Nazis to vote and thereby influencing how society progresses. 30 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said: I am well aware of the concept of human rights and I wouldn't be surprised at all if I am more protective of them than the individual who terminated the discussion rather than take the first step down defending or even explaining or exploring their position. Everybody wants to jump on a chair and yell "I'm the one who most supports human rights, more than that guy over there!" but all that mostly produces is a lot of noise. I'm really just being facetious here, but this struck me as amusing. Thank you for stating your position. I can respect where you're coming from on it, even if we might not see totally eye to eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegr Posted February 11, 2023 Author Share Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) This is getting ugly.. so much for the NHL's support towards LGBTQ+... The Chicago Blackhawks Refused to Wear Pride Jerseys and Wore New Uniforms Representing ''Hockey is For Everyone'' https://www.hawksinsider.com/The-Chicago-Blackhawks-Refused-to-Wear-Pride-Jerseys-and-Wore-New-Uniforms-Representing-Hockey-is-For-Everyone-207857 Over the past month there's been plenty of debate and a little bit of controversy over the NHL "Hockey Is For Everyone" campaign when it comes to their "Pride Night's." It all started when Philadelphia Flyers defenceman Ivan Provorov refused to participate in the team's warm-ups due to refusing to wear the Flyers' Pride Night Jerseys. Then the New York Rangers and New York Islanders both decided as a team not to participate in the Pride night Jerseys. Well it looks like the Chicago Blackhawks have decided to make a change to their Pride Night. Instead of wearing any rainbow jerseys, The Chicago Blackhawks wore Black History Month warmup jerseys as part of Hockey is for Everyone. Edited February 11, 2023 by Slegr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts