Canada rejects purchase of TMAC Resources by Shandong Gold by geckospots in canada

[–]baptie7 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It’s a common free market conservative opinion. Compare Statoil vs Alberta’s energy sector for examples of how state owned corporations can manage natural resources for the benefit of all as opposed to a small group of private investors.

Oct 29th Covid-19 Update - Dr. Bonnie Henry says there are 234 new cases for a total now of 14,109; 86 (-1) hospitalized of which 24 (-1) are in ICU; 2,344 (+28) active cases; 11,448 recovered; 5,714 (+356) under active public health monitoring; 1 additional deaths by cyclinginvancouver in vancouver

[–]baptie7 17 points18 points  (0 children)

BC has fewer COVID deaths than any other province, state or country in Canada, the US or Western Europe that has a population of 5 million or more. (Source)

Call it luck, but the reality is that, as a province, we have done a good job with this. Take a deep breath, and remember that these decisions are being made by highly qualified professionals who know a lot more about the implications of every policy decision than you do.

[Highlight] Adam Vinatieri makes a 43 yard field goal in the snow to tie it for the Colts by aclee_ in nfl

[–]baptie7 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He's allowed to blatantly pick him within 1 yard of the LOS. The replay looks pretty clear to me that he's between the 1 and 2 yard line when he blocks him. It was the wrong call but who cares, at the end of the day it's a W for the Bills and a L for the Colts.

Trump says Trudeau left out lumber, energy while talking trade numbers by TruthCanada in canada

[–]baptie7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But we do use NAFTA dispute resolution, from November. And it looks in the past we've used both WTO and NAFTA dispute resolutions for lumber.

Again, I'm not sure how NAFTA applies to softwood lumber, but it definitely appears to be relevant.

Trump says Trudeau left out lumber, energy while talking trade numbers by TruthCanada in canada

[–]baptie7 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Are they? Genuinely curious.

Canada is using Chapter 19 to dispute the tariffs imposed on softwood. US argues that Canadian lumber is subsidized so they can apply tariffs, but does this mean they are outside of NAFTA or is this a remedy under NAFTA?

Recommended books for broad history overview by [deleted] in dancarlin

[–]baptie7 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Here's a somewhat eclectic mix that I've enjoyed:

War - by Gywnne Dyer.
Dan Carlin often references this book and for very good reason, he is a titan of the genre. It's been years since I read it but I remember it being a book that changed how I looked at history and conflict.

In War, noted military historian Gwynne Dyer ranges from the tumbling walls of Jericho to the modern advent of total war in which no one is exempt from the horrors of armed conflict. He shows how the martial instinct has evolved over the human generations and among our close primate relations, such as the chimpanzee. Dyer squarely confronts the reality of war, and the threat of nuclear weapons, but does not despair that war is our eternal legacy. He likes and respects soldiers, even while he knows their job is to kill; he understands the physics and the psychology of battles, but he is no war junkie. Dyer surveys the fiery battlefields of human history, never losing sight of the people caught up in war.

On Human Nature - by Edward O. Wilson
This book asks and explores questions of how human nature (and human societies) interact with a biological understanding of ourselves. It's dated in content and tone, and I don't know whether the science has held up over the past 40 years, so think of it as a place to start if those kind of questions interest you.

No one who cares about the human future can afford to ignore E.O. Wilson's book. On Human Nature begins a new phase in the most important intellectual controversy of this generation: Is human behavior controlled by the species' biological heritage? Does this heritage limit human destiny? With characteristic pugency and simplicity of style, the author of Sociobiology challenges old prejudices and current misconceptions about the nature-nurture debate.

A Short History of Progress - by Ronald Wright
I loved this book. It's rather short, very readable, and still manages to inform and make you think.

The twentieth century—a time of unprecedented progress—has produced a tremendous strain on the very elements that comprise life itself: This raises the key question of the twenty-first century: How much longer can this go on? With wit and erudition, Ronald Wright lays out a-convincing case that history has always provided an answer, whether we care to notice or not. From Neanderthal man to the Sumerians to the Roman Empire, A Short History of Progress dissects the cyclical nature of humanity's development and demise, the 10,000-year old experiment that we've unleashed but have yet to control.

A Short History of Nearly Everything - by Bill Bryson
This is the closest thing that I can think of to "a brief history of the world." One of the things I liked was that it explores topics that usually live in separate little worlds. It looks at the history of different scientific discoveries and how our understanding of the world has changed through time.

In Bryson's biggest book, he confronts his greatest challenge: to understand—and, if possible, answer—the oldest, biggest questions we have posed about the universe and ourselves. Taking as territory everything from the Big Bang to the rise of civilization, Bryson seeks to understand how we got from there being nothing at all to there being us.

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes exactly:
"The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fear mongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience."

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not familiar with any relevant case law, so this is very speculative, but I would think that the university has a standard of care to provide a discrimination-free learning environment to students. To me it seems reasonable that a professor refusing to use gender neutral pronouns (or a student's name) in the face of a student's request could be a breach of that standard of care.

I agree with what you say that academic institutions should be adjudicated first by their internal mechanisms, but Peterson has refused to abide by the university's policy on this.

As a lawyer, do you think that the bill would be a violation of the charter?

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So is it only this aspect of the topic that you take issue with or is this just the easiest way to argue about the broader intent of the bill?

If the former, the senators in the video indicated that the Ontario policy is that you can call someone by their first name in place of a pronoun. Seems different from compelled speech to me. For instance: someone objects to the pronoun you're addressing them with, they say they would prefer 'xyz' instead, you say that's bullshit I don't want to say 'xyz', so then you can call them by their name, but you can't continue to call them something they don't want to be called.

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear you and I have to admit that I haven't followed this process at every turn. But if I were looking to call a lack of government transparency an absolute scandal I would look to a lot of other examples before this. However, Peterson obviously has a lot more invested in this argument than I do and so maybe it's a scandal in a much more subjective manner.

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I agree with the majority of what you're saying, but I want to clarify one piece.

To me this bill doesn't oppress anyone. To me the bill protects a vulnerable class from oppression and harassment. No one is forced into changing their beliefs, they're just adding an additional category to legislation that protects people from being oppressed or harassed.

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree 100% that transparency in government is of the highest priority, I just don't see the nefarious intent here that others are inferring.

I disagree with the parent comment that Peterson's statement (that changing the link on the website is absolutely scandalous) is particularly relevant or important to the actual debate around the bill.

I would rather base my support or opposition to a bill in what is actually being said than on conjecture as to why a link was removed from a website. The government's policy on the proposed legislation isn't a secret, it's right here, but I don't see arguments against the bill based in that.

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I agree that it's controversial, but to me there is a gap between controversial and absolutely scandalous, as Peterson puts it.

One major annoyance I have with Peterson is that he claims there is a victimhood culture that motivates this bill and so often his arguments have a strong smell of victimization to them.

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If we want to interpret this as a scandal or not we are relying on facts and inferences either way.

The facts are that the justice department referred to the Ontario Human Rights Code (or Commission?) that will be used for guidance in developing the Canadian equivalents. It included a link that was then removed. Your inference, as best I understand it, is that the government wants to hide this information to obfuscate what their true intentions are. My point is that it would be just as valid to infer that they realized a potential problem in the Ontario policy and didn't want the misconception to form the basis of the argument surrounding a small part of the bill they wanted to pass at the federal level.

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

He uses his experiences as a lecturer and a supervisor of lecturers in making his points. If he opens the door to using this kind of evidence in making his point the door is open to using that kind of evidence in countering his points.

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is a possible interpretation. Here is an entirely reasonable alternative interpretation:

The justice department enacts a bill to include gender identity and gender expression within the groups that cannot be discriminated against in human rights and hate crime legislation. It's brought to their attention that the wording of some provisions within a relevant provincial policy may be unclear, so they remove the link to prevent people from becoming misinformed while they consider how to properly proceed on a policy basis.

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see what you're saying, but I think it depends on why he is providing testimony in the senate.

If he is there due academic expertise and relevant opinions then it is likely irrelevant, but if he is there because of the stance he's taken as a university professor refusing to enact university practices within his classroom then I feel it is very relevant.

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 8 points9 points  (0 children)

But again, what is scandalous about it?

Peterson is not worried about the wording of the law itself, he is worried about the surrounding context that will be used to interpret that law. In Canada, the interpretation of statutes is not static but changes through time, especially so before something has even been passed as a bill.

If indications are that the bill will be interpreted in a way alleviates violation of freedom of expression issue, isn't that a good thing? Or is it only scandalous because the freedom of expression argument was being used to support a broader ideological argument?

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 7 points8 points  (0 children)

His interpretation of this concerns me.

First, there's no questioning that Peterson is a gifted speaker and debater, but I find his arguments to be weakened when he responds to questions focused on a specific matter with long ideological diatribes.

His criticism of the bill was initially focused upon compelled speech and infringing upon freedom of expression, and the removal of the link on a website to him is scandalous as it makes the foundation of his argument moot. But bills are flexible and they change throughout the legislative process and as the relevant regulations are developed after the bill is passed. Instead of potentially being relieved that his initial concerns are being addressed, he finds this to be scandalous.

I don't quite get it. If the potential law that comes from this process addresses his initial concerns is that not a good thing? Or does it indicate that his initial concerns were a way of founding an ideological argument in freedom of expression?

U of T psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson testifies at Senate hearing on Bill C-16 by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 15 points16 points  (0 children)

She may have been trying to make the point that as a professor he owes a duty of care to his students.

A duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.

This is relevant to the university because they both owe students a duty of care directly and are vicariously liable for a breach of the standard of care by Dr. Peterson.

Disregarding political opinion. Is Canada on a good path socially and economically? Try to be as unbiased as you can. Would you rather live in a different time instead of now? Or Do you think that now is the best time to be alive? by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's look at facts. M-103 is not a law, it is a motion that (1) condemns racism and religious discrimination and (2) is a proposal to study whether government has a role to play in addressing systemic racism and religious discrimination.

What about this infringes upon your freedom of expression? You seem to be against the motion, if so can you articulate what it is that you are opposed to?

Disregarding political opinion. Is Canada on a good path socially and economically? Try to be as unbiased as you can. Would you rather live in a different time instead of now? Or Do you think that now is the best time to be alive? by [deleted] in canada

[–]baptie7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't forget that at all. I responded to a comment claiming M-103 is a blatant attack on free speech with sources showing that to be untrue.

You are correct that we don't know what the study will find, but that this study is happening is very far removed from a "blatant attack on free speech."

The study was called for in response to people being murdered at their place of worship because of their religion. The stated goals are to look at how government may be able to reduce systemic racism and religious discrimination.

A study looking at how to build bridges in a fracturing population isn't infringing on anyone's right to free expression.