Jordan Peterson says Ontario psychologist licence may be suspended over public statements

[mellowjello]

The lecture was the sanction, Mel. Just like when the judge could send you to jail for the weekend for contempt, but instead just reams your ass out for 15 minutes in the courtroom.

No it's not.
If a judge is able to send you to jail, that means you've been found guilty,
then he/she can choose to send you to jail or "ream your ass out for 15 minutes"
In this case the charges were dropped and according to her she got a "2 minute oral caution",
and her license remains intact...intact after an OCT investigation.
Are you saying she was found guilty?

 

[Valcazar]

No it's not.
If a judge is able to send you to jail, that means you've been found guilty,
then he/she can choose to send you to jail or "ream your ass out for 15 minutes"
In this case the charges were dropped and according to her she got a "2 minute oral caution",
and her license remains intact...intact after an OCT investigation.
Are you saying she was found guilty?

No. He's saying that the OCT decided she wasn't worth a formal reprimand or removal of license but that she should still be reminded that what she did wasn't good.
That she is offended that they dare question her or give her a reprimand is a sign of how entitled she appears to be.

 

[mandrill]

No it's not.
If a judge is able to send you to jail, that means you've been found guilty,
then he/she can choose to send you to jail or "ream your ass out for 15 minutes"
In this case the charges were dropped and according to her she got a "2 minute oral caution",
and her license remains intact...intact after an OCT investigation.
Are you saying she was found guilty?

Sounds like it.

First of all, a tribunal doesn't have to do everything a court does and in the same way.

Second of all, if they were exonerating her, they wouldn't reprimand her, now would they?.... As in "You did nothing wrong, but we're going to publicly bitch you out anyway" ???.... Nah. No one does that. Basically, she got given a soft landing instead of a hard ass-kicking. And then she spat in their face the very next day.

 

[mellowjello]

No. He's saying that the OCT decided she wasn't worth a formal reprimand or removal of license but that she should still be reminded that what she did wasn't good.
That she is offended that they dare question her or give her a reprimand is a sign of how entitled she appears to be.

She appears to be entitled to you because you don't agree with her, you don't believe in her cause.
She believes in what she's doing, a lot of people do, more people than meets the eye for sure.

So the question is, is everyone who fights a charge in court, stands up for a belief, do they appear to be entitled?
Is everyone who fights to enact legislation for what they believe in, do they appear to be entitled to you?

 

[mellowjello]

Sounds like it.

First of all, a tribunal doesn't have to do everything a court does and in the same way.

Second of all, if they were exonerating her, they wouldn't reprimand her, now would they?.... As in "You did nothing wrong, but we're going to publicly bitch you out anyway" ???.... Nah. No one does that. Basically, she got given a soft landing instead of a hard ass-kicking. And then she spat in their face the very next day.

That's the way you would look at.
Why should she do anything different, she's doing what she and a lot of people believe is right.
She wasn't convicted of anything, she still has her license, I don't know, did they give her a warning if she did it again?
I don't know why anyone would change what they were doing out of principle if there were no repercussions.
Was Morgentaler, spitting in anyone's face when he continued performing abortions despite the criminal abortion laws?

 

[Erosboy]

the guy just isn't that important or interesting

 

[Valcazar]

She appears to be entitled to you because you don't agree with her, you don't believe in her cause.
She believes in what she's doing, a lot of people do, more people than meets the eye for sure.

So the question is, is everyone who fights a charge in court, stands up for a belief, do they appear to be entitled?
Is everyone who fights to enact legislation for what they believe in, do they appear to be entitled to you?

Of course not.
That would be deeply stupid.


That's not what I am commenting on, though.

That post was all "WTF! How dare they reprimand you after deciding you didn't need your license stripped!"
Normal people know that "they decided not to strip your license" doesn't mean "they decided you were right and they were wrong".

That she thinks anything other than everyone agreeing with her completely is bad is a sign of her being entitled to me.
I know dick all about her otherwise.[/QUOTE]

 

[mitchell76]

the guy just isn't that important or interesting

In this case, it's a lady, not a guy.

Chanel Pfahl and the Ontario College of Teachers

www.thedemocracyfund.ca

 

[mandrill]

That's the way you would look at.
Why should she do anything different, she's doing what she and a lot of people believe is right.
She wasn't convicted of anything, she still has her license, I don't know, did they give her a warning if she did it again?
I don't know why anyone would change what they were doing out of principle if there were no repercussions.
Was Morgentaler, spitting in anyone's face when he continued performing abortions despite the criminal abortion laws?

Morgentaler was never found guilty.

She'll step across the line far enough and often enough that she'll get charged again at some point soon. She actually wants this to happen. If she didn't, she'd watch her P's & Q's.

Here's my issue with her. Initially I felt some sympathy. There should be room for some divergence of opinion and it was expressed in private in a professional discussion group. But it became pretty obvious that she was milking it and running with the far right and Rebel News tribe. Now it's a free country and you're allowed to choose your friends. Etc. But it sure shoots the tits off the argument that you're just an ordinary teacher with opinions that are heterodox but earnestly held, when you run with people who make money off your shtick. It makes me think that YOU want to make money off your shtick as well.

Same thing with that little grade 12 Catholic kid. Initially I felt a little sympathy for him. But then it becomes evident that he and the Rebel News / far right people set up and film all his escapades and run them on Twitter with misleading framing.

So - just like Peterson - they're intent on fucking with the system and provoking backlash because they want to monetize it as social media content. And that's pretty alienating.

 

[mitchell76]

Sounds like it.

First of all, a tribunal doesn't have to do everything a court does and in the same way.

Second of all, if they were exonerating her, they wouldn't reprimand her, now would they?.... As in "You did nothing wrong, but we're going to publicly bitch you out anyway" ???.... Nah. No one does that. Basically, she got given a soft landing instead of a hard ass-kicking. And then she spat in their face the very next day.

Good for her. I'm glad she literally spat in the OCT's face, the very next day on twitter. IMHO, the OCT deserved it!! The OCT put her through at least a year of hell, and uncertainty etc

 

[mitchell76]

Morgentaler was never found guilty.

She'll step across the line far enough and often enough that she'll get charged again at some point soon. She actually wants this to happen. If she didn't, she'd watch her P's & Q's.

Here's my issue with her. Initially I felt some sympathy. There should be room for some divergence of opinion and it was expressed in private in a professional discussion group. But it became pretty obvious that she was milking it and running with the far right and Rebel News tribe. Now it's a free country and you're allowed to choose your friends. Etc. But it sure shoots the tits off the argument that you're just an ordinary teacher with opinions that are heterodox but earnestly held, when you run with people who make money off your shtick. It makes me think that YOU want to make money off your shtick as well.

Same thing with that little grade 12 Catholic kid. Initially I felt a little sympathy for him. But then it becomes evident that he and the Rebel News / far right people set up and film all his escapades and run them on Twitter with misleading framing.

So - just like Peterson - they're intent on fucking with the system and provoking backlash because they want to monetize it as social media content. And that's pretty alienating.

Hi Mandrill. According to her twitter, she's not even working as a teacher, right now.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626760056166293504

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625966701857632257

 

[mellowjello]

Of course not.
That would be deeply stupid.


That's not what I am commenting on, though.

That post was all "WTF! How dare they reprimand you after deciding you didn't need your license stripped!"
Normal people know that "they decided not to strip your license" doesn't mean "they decided you were right and they were wrong".

That she thinks anything other than everyone agreeing with her completely is bad is a sign of her being entitled to me.
I know dick all about her otherwise.

But I agree with that post.
If I really did something wrong, do something about it or leave me the fuck alone, especially after dragging me through the mud publicly.
Actually, I think normal people would believe the opposite of what you said, even if it wasn't entirely correct.
At the very least, the message is that they decided you were not wrong.
Right or wrong, that would be the most reasonable perception for most people, I believe.

 

[The Oracle]

Good for her. I'm glad she literally spat in the OCT's face, the very next day on twitter. IMHO, the OCT deserved it!! The OCT put her through at least a year of hell, and uncertainty etc

I watched this one last night.....Thought you would enjoy it as much as I did.

Tulsi is just impressive here.

 

[Erosboy]

In this case, it's a lady, not a guy.

Chanel Pfahl and the Ontario College of Teachers

www.thedemocracyfund.ca

I meant Peterson.

 

[Valcazar]

But I agree with that post.
If I really did something wrong, do something about it or leave me the fuck alone, especially after dragging me through the mud publicly.
Actually, I think normal people would believe the opposite of what you said, even if it wasn't entirely correct.
At the very least, the message is that they decided you were not wrong.
Right or wrong, that would be the most reasonable perception for most people, I believe.
[/QUOTE]

Most people aren't that stupidly binary.

Your kid does something wrong.
You tell your kid that they are in trouble, and you might ground them for a month.

In the end, you say you won't ground them for a month, but give them a lecture about how what they did was wrong.

I don't think most kids would complain that it was completely unfair that you didn't ground them, but gave them a lecture anyway.

 

[Valcazar]

I watched this one last night.....Thought you would enjoy it as much as I did.

Tulsi is just impressive here.

Peterson AND Gabbard?

That must be a shitshow.

 

[mellowjello]

Morgentaler was never found guilty.

She'll step across the line far enough and often enough that she'll get charged again at some point soon. She actually wants this to happen. If she didn't, she'd watch her P's & Q's.

Here's my issue with her. Initially I felt some sympathy. There should be room for some divergence of opinion and it was expressed in private in a professional discussion group. But it became pretty obvious that she was milking it and running with the far right and Rebel News tribe. Now it's a free country and you're allowed to choose your friends. Etc. But it sure shoots the tits off the argument that you're just an ordinary teacher with opinions that are heterodox but earnestly held, when you run with people who make money off your shtick. It makes me think that YOU want to make money off your shtick as well.

Same thing with that little grade 12 Catholic kid. Initially I felt a little sympathy for him. But then it becomes evident that he and the Rebel News / far right people set up and film all his escapades and run them on Twitter with misleading framing.

So - just like Peterson - they're intent on fucking with the system and provoking backlash because they want to monetize it as social media content. And that's pretty alienating.

Morgentaler was never found guilty, and neither was she.
You are so blinded by your own prejudices that you will attribute every motive to these people
except the possibility that they are fighting on principle, as if it's so inconceivable to hold such beliefs.
People become poster childs (children?) within movements, and many times unwillingly.
The fact that something can be monetized doesn't necessarily mean it's corrupt.
You've got it backwards, Peterson is spearheading a response against a system that has been fucked with,
a system that doesn't reflect the will of the majority in that aspect.
They wouldn't dare take a referendum on this.

 

[The Oracle]

Peterson AND Gabbard?

That must be a shitshow.

Well you can always watch it and find out can't ya....But we know you ain't going to do that are you, lol.

Would kind of break your MO on here of commenting on topics you haven't investigated.

Just sayin...

 

[mellowjello]

Most people aren't that stupidly binary.

Your kid does something wrong.
You tell your kid that they are in trouble, and you might ground them for a month.

In the end, you say you won't ground them for a month, but give them a lecture about how what they did was wrong.

I don't think most kids would complain that it was completely unfair that you didn't ground them, but gave them a lecture anyway.

That analogy is so simplistic and naive I don't even want to get into it.