Jordan Peterson crushed like an insolent fly by panel of judges

[Not getting younger]

Anytime.
will say add. While I won’t say or hint what. My code of conduct/ethics covers SM extensively.

maybe it’s time to bring them in for Prime ministers ( oh wait)…..and presidents

 

[Frankfooter]

It actually isn’t that complicated, don’t muddy muddy the waters. Are the above distasteful things hate speech. A simple yes or no.

Its not whether it was hate speech, you're muddying the waters.

 

[Frankfooter]

So what?
You’re saying laws and the courts are god? And that decisions are always right? You must be by your response….

1) Where do you live, I’m truly curious. The courts have no domain over social media, or do those two words escape you.

2) if your best “rebuttal” is. Well we bobbleheads like it that way…..because we say so…

3 ) what argument do you have, that the courts ( outside of hate speech) should control Social media

We all get that he is a professional. Are you? If so, wtf are you doing here expressing opinions?

You say that on a board that has its own rules and if you break them you get banned.
Same with facebook and truth social, not so with X now.
Why do you think clubs aren't allowed to decide who can join and what rules members have to abide by?
Why do you think medical professionals don't have to abide by the rules of their profession?

Are they all playing 'god' in your mind?
Where exactly does this freedom exist?

 

[Frankfooter]

has he actually said that???

He was with Shapiro talking about the 'myth' of the female orgasm.

Of course that's really just Peterson and Shapiro admitting how horrible they are in the sack.

But maybe not getting younger really thinks that message needs to get out to women.

 

[DinkleMouse]

Now we’re getting somewhere. The courts do not have domain over SM.

You literally admitted when they do when you talked about "hate speech". They have the same authority to deal with social media as they do with any speech. If you commit libel, utter threats, engage in hate speech, criminally harass, or do any of the other forms of prohibited expression over social media, the courts do indeed have domain. Using social media does not insulate you from the law.

Ethics
Philosophical stuff here ( yes I’ve studied). Thank me I won’t bore you with what great philosophers have said on morals and ethics.

“Should” organization have domain over SM?
Me, I’m devil details. Some situations I might say yes, others no..

Standards of Professional Conduct – CPBAO Public

cpo.on.ca

Did you miss the part where I said the Court was never asked to rule on that? In fact, on their decision, the Court says specifically that Jordan Peterson never argued about the Code, merely that his speech should be protected and that the College's decision didn't adequately consider it.

Read the Court's decision before you comment again if you don't want to keep looking foolish.

 

[kippy]

Poor Kermit Peterson is going to be crying into his bowl of benzos tonight

 

[squeezer]

Read the Court's decision before you comment again if you don't want to keep looking foolish.

Won't help, one can read it over and over and over but something gets lost in translation. By the time it leaves the eyes it gets distorted at some point between the frontal lobe and the cerebellum.

 

[Not getting younger]

I asked a for a simple answer DM. No need to muddy the waters. Is/are the things he said hate speech. A simple yes or no will do.

And with respect to “did I miss the part”. That comically ironic albeit in a sad way……have you not been reading the thread and things I’ve said, and especially given I said “now we are getting somewhere”or is English your third language.

I will always respond, in kind. “Everyone is allowed”……what?

 

[mandrill]

He was with Shapiro talking about the 'myth' of the female orgasm.

Of course that's really just Peterson and Shapiro admitting how horrible they are in the sack.

But maybe not getting younger really thinks that message needs to get out to women.

How are faked orgasms "Marxist"?

 

[DinkleMouse]

I asked a for a simple answer DM. No need to muddy the waters. Is/are the things he said hate speech. A simple yes or no will do.

And with respect to “did I miss the part”. That comically ironic albeit in a sad way……have you not been reading the thread and things I’ve said, and especially given I said “now we are getting somewhere”or is English your third language.

I will always respond, in kind. “Everyone is allowed”……what?

It's not hate speech. But that's irrelevant. That's like saying a court wrong for finding someone guilty of rape by asking, "But is it murder?"

The Court was presented 2 questions by Jordan Peterson to decide on. Neither one was "but is it hate speech". Therefore all your talk about it if actually off topic and probably why no one is answering your "simple question". If you stay on topic you might have better luck.

Now back to my simple question, exactly which line item in the Court's decision do you find is unreasonable?

 

[Not getting younger]

I see, so perhaps the problem is you don’t understand what “now we are getting somewhere” means?

especially, given. I liked that post?

 

[drivewaypark]

It's not hate speech. But that's irrelevant. That's like saying a court wrong for finding someone guilty of rape by asking, "But is it murder?"

The Court was presented 2 questions by Jordan Peterson to decide on. Neither one was "but is it hate speech". Therefore all your talk about it if actually off topic and probably why no one is answering your "simple question". If you stay on topic you might have better luck.

Now back to my simple question, exactly which line item in the Court's decision do you find is unreasonable?

This argument about hate speech is extremely controversial and will be hard to determine.

 

[Frankfooter]

How are faked orgasms "Marxist"?

Only commies want everyone to have pleasure.
Real libertarians and free market types only need to pleasure themselves and the other person's enjoyment isn't relevant or necessary.

 

[mandrill]

Jordan calls CTV "You pathetic lying shills" and implies that they are lying about the wildfires.

He will clearly lose his psychologist's licence sooner rather than later.

 

[drivewaypark]

Let the Jordan speak of don’t agree don’t listen. Who is he hurting? Nobody. Leave him alone.

 

[Frankfooter]

I asked a for a simple answer DM. No need to muddy the waters. Is/are the things he said hate speech. A simple yes or no will do.

And with respect to “did I miss the part”. That comically ironic albeit in a sad way……have you not been reading the thread and things I’ve said, and especially given I said “now we are getting somewhere”or is English your third language.

I will always respond, in kind. “Everyone is allowed”……what?

The issue is not about hate speech, its about Peterson spouting ideas that run contrary to the practice of psychology, like saying female orgasms are a 'myth'.
Why would the college let someone be licensed to practice with such idiotic views?
Do they want every woman to believe that psychology thinks female orgasms are a 'myth'?

 

[toguy5252]

The college of Psychologists of Ontario is a joke.....LMAO

You have learned well from your master young grasshopper.

 

[Frankfooter]

Let the Jordan speak of don’t agree don’t listen. Who is he hurting? Nobody. Leave him alone.

I agree.

Just don't have him speak and represent the college of psychology.
Kick him out and let him say what he wants without including psychologists.

 

[DinkleMouse]

This argument about hate speech is extremely controversial and will be hard to determine.

By the law it's not hate speech, so it's not hard to determine at all. But given that this thread is about the Court ruling and the Court was never asked to rule on if it was hate speech, it's irrelevant.

 

[DinkleMouse]

Let the Jordan speak of don’t agree don’t listen. Who is he hurting? Nobody. Leave him alone.

According to CPO, he's hurting the credibility of the profession and many patients. Which is why they've determines he's violated their ethics.

Have you read the Court ruling? Jordan Peterson had an opportunity there to claim his words didn't violate the Code, or that the Code was unfair/irrelevant, but as the Court's Decision points out, he actually didn't have any issue with the Code, so it seems even he agrees with it.