[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

A teacher or professor should have the right to request the removal of any student who is behaving in a way detrimental to the harmony of the classroom or in a manner that is in violation of the school or faculty's code of conduct. This is something that should happen more often, not less. I doubt there's too many people who don't have some negative memories from school where the class idiot/bully/psychopath should have been booted out but instead was allowed to remain and cause endless disruption. The university should have acted quicker instead of foot-dragging and the situation wouldn't have gone as far as it did.

These guys wouldn't have been allowed to behave this way at work. So why should they/were they allowed to behave this way at school?

I disagree with that. Universities are public institutions. They should have to respect individual rights and freedoms, whcih includes freedom of speech.

Bullies? Good luck. When I went to school, the bullies were generally liked by the teachers. The bullies would seek out the unliked. That's how they operate. So if you start expelling everyone based on whether or not the profs like them, the bullies will all still be there.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I stand corrected. I could find no defintion of violence in Canadian statutes, however, you can be charged for assualt for threatening someone.

That's because assault is a crime of threats, while battery is a crime of physical contact. They are commonly mixed up or battery is outright ignored.

The term I was looking to have defined is "violence." Despiute the fact the word appears 40-odd times in the criminal code it is nowhere defined. I note that it commonly referes to "an act of violence, or the threat of such..." which would lead me to believe that, as far as violence goes, there is difference between the violence and the threat of violence. However, onthe balance of probabilities, and knowing that judges are liberal in their interpretations in Canada, I found the Doc's argument more convincing than mine.

[Thanos]

$1:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

These guys wouldn't have been allowed to behave this way at work. So why should they/were they allowed to behave this way at school?

I disagree with that. Universities are public institutions. They should have to respect individual rights and freedoms, whcih includes freedom of speech.

Thus begins another age-old debate on why exactly the majority is obligated to respect the deviant while the deviant is under no such obligation at all to return the favour. The kids whose parent paid good money to go to class to learn something and become a useful citizen? Well, fuck them because Moquisha and her free speech now have the floor.



The civilizational crossroads we're at is because the protection of the rights of the dumbest and worst among us have been elevated to almost the level of a religious mantra. The right to be a disruptor, and not even a bush-league revolutionary who claims to be doing it to make things better, and not suffer any consequences for it at all is probably one of the worst things that the equivocators out there have ever imposed on the rest of us. The worst and the putrid always winning is probably the main factor that's sent my misanthropy into such a spiralling deathspin lately.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

Thus begins another age-old debate on why exactly the majority is obligated to respect the deviant while the deviant is under no such obligation at all to return the favour. The kids whose parent paid good money to go to class to learn something and become a useful citizen? Well, fuck them because Moquisha and her free speech now have the floor.

The civilizational crossroads we're at is because the protection of the rights of the dumbest and worst among us have been elevated to almost the level of a religious mantra. The right to be a disruptor, and not even a bush-league revolutionary who claims to be doing it to make things better, and not suffer any consequences for it at all is probably one of the worst things that the equivocators out there have ever imposed on the rest of us.

I'm seeing a massive tempest in a teapot. As I've stated, what these guys printed on their Facebook page I could see anytime, anywhere on any internet page or on any TV channel, with the possible exception of Nickelodeon.

The level of deviancy here is--to my mind--suitable for having these guys publicly spanked and move on.

Am I the only one that finds the response of the Ontario dentists to be creepy: that if the names are not released they will interrogate all Dalhousie grads?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you you can say what you want as long as I agree with it. It means you can say what you want to

[Unsound]

Thanos Thanos:

Thus begins another age-old debate on why exactly the majority is obligated to respect the deviant while the deviant is under no such obligation at all to return the favour. The kids whose parent paid good money to go to class to learn something and become a useful citizen? Well, fuck them because Moquisha and her free speech now have the floor.



The civilizational crossroads we're at is because the protection of the rights of the dumbest and worst among us have been elevated to almost the level of a religious mantra. The right to be a disruptor, and not even a bush-league revolutionary who claims to be doing it to make things better, and not suffer any consequences for it at all is probably one of the worst things that the equivocators out there have ever imposed on the rest of us. The worst and the putrid always winning is probably the main factor that's sent my misanthropy into such a spiralling deathspin lately.

You don't see a difference between standing up in class shouting and carrying on and making rude posts on Facebook?

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Am I the only one that finds the response of the Ontario dentists to be creepy: that if the names are not released they will interrogate all Dalhousie grads?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you you can say what you want as long as I agree with it. It means you can say what you want to

Yes, and the Ontario dentists are free to react to that speech. If one of these creeps attacks a patient, you don't think they would be on the hook for licensing them in the first place? We've had this argument many times - nobody is charging the criminally, which is what freedom of speech means. But it doesn't mean that people that don't like that speech can't react to it.

Primarily these guys should be outed, so people can make their own decision if and how they want to deal with them. If they are licensed, their patients should be made aware of this free speech, so they can decide it they want to continue to be their patient. Free speech ain't free speech if is't anonymous.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Yes, and the Ontario dentists are free to react to that speech. If one of these creeps attacks a patient, you don't think they would be on the hook for licensing them in the first place? We've had this argument many times - nobody is charging the criminally, which is what freedom of speech means. But it doesn't mean that people that don't like that speech can't react to it.

Primarily these guys should be outed, so people can make their own decision if and how they want to deal with them. If they are licensed, their patients should be made aware of this free speech, so they can decide it they want to continue to be their patient. Free speech ain't free speech if is't anonymous.

No I don't think the Ontario board is free to react as they please. They are a publicly instututed body, not a private entity. The right to freredom of speech protects citizens from repercussions from government.

I agree they should be outed. I agree that information should be shared with people. That's responsibility. Your idea of "monitoring" them and preventing them from ever having a job is not on, in my opinion. Not that it matters--we're all being monitored anyways.

Nobody will care anyways in a couple of weeks. I know. I was an engineer at UBC. Guys that were dragged through the mud on national news for the same kind of thing are now managers in large companies and successful entrepreneurial. most have kids. One--ironic since he was nationally "outed" as a homophobe--came out after graduation. None of them, to my knowledge are in jail for rape.

[andyt]

Monitoring just means the licensing body keeps a closer eye on them to make sure they are keeping to the straight and narrow. Happens quite a bit with medical professionals who cross the line.

But outing them to the point of telling their patients about this incident would certainly have an impact on their practice - maybe they'd have to specialize in male patients.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Monitoring just means the licensing body keeps a closer eye on them to make sure they are keeping to the straight and narrow. Happens quite a bit with medical professionals who cross the line.

But outing them to the point of telling their patients about this incident would certainly have an impact on their practice - maybe they'd have to specialize in male patients.

The part that really crosses the line for me is where these minor bureaucrats say that they will interrogate all graduates of Dalhousie. Kind of got the Stasi vibe from that one.

Interesting turn of evetns with Charlie Hebdo--another publication of highly offensive matieral. Quite a different persepctive, though, from the political left.

[andyt]

OK, now I'm really confused. Isn't it the political left that's supposed to all be closet Muslims? Yet, here you're saying they're defending being able to insult Muslims.

I've had the same thoughts. But nobody is suggesting a jihad against these students. If you didn't like Charlie Hebdo, you didn't have to buy it. Outing these dentists to their patients seems like the same thing - you don't have to use their services if you don't want to.

I have to admit, that the few dentistry students I've known all seemed to be a bit off. They all seemed to only be going into it because of the money, vs many doctors who at least claim they want to help people.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

I've had the same thoughts. But nobody is suggesting a jihad against these students. If you didn't like Charlie Hebdo, you didn't have to buy it. Outing these dentists to their patients seems like the same thing - you don't have to use their services if you don't want to.

Well you seem to suypport a muscular state response in response to the offensive humour of these students. Yet for the offensive humour of Charlie Hebdo, I don't hear any calls for state intervention or "monitoring" by some regulatory body to "keep them on the staright and narrow."

Is it because deliberately offending people's sacred beliefs serves more of a socail good than reprinting old Seth McFarlane jokes?

[andyt]

IN the Case of Charlie Hebdo, the monitoring is done by the public - ie whether they buy the publication or not. Also, the paper was not talking about raping Muslims. What they did would be equal, IMO, to the dentists just listing which of their classmates they'd most like to fuck - might offend the women, but has no hate or threat in it. If all they had come up with is what's called "sexist" comments, I would say just leave them alone. It's the hate and rape that puts me over the line.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

IN the Case of Charlie Hebdo, the monitoring is done by the public - ie whether they buy the publication or not.

The front page of that publication is visible to all, whether one buys it or not.. And that is where their most offensive cartoons were.

$1:

Also, the paper was not talking about raping Muslims. What they did would be equal, IMO, to the dentists just listing which of their classmates they'd most like to fuck - might offend the women, but has no hate or threat in it. If all they had come up with is what's called "sexist" comments, I would say just leave them alone. It's the hate and rape that puts me over the line.

So the arbiter of what is acceptable then is what offends your sensibilities--rape? I would argue that, for a pious Muslim--or Christian for that matter--they would be more offended by the debasement of their most scared beliefs. Why is it that their sensibilities should not be taken into account by the state?

Better yet, why not be consistent and supprt free speech, because you're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to reconcile your position.

[andyt]

I guess, but it feels so good. But fine. Free speech - give free speech and allow these guys to be outed. Give free speech to the Dentistry Assn, which would warn any patients of these guys about what they said. Free all around.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

I guess, but it feels so good. But fine. Free speech - give free speech and allow these guys to be outed. Give free speech to the Dentistry Assn, which would warn any patients of these guys about what they said. Free all around.

Yes I would support that. Like I said, when it happened to the Engineers at UBC (for publication of racist, homophobic and sexist jokes), the names were not protected. We (engineers in general--I wasn't directly invovled) were dragged through the mud, publicly pilloried, figuratively spat on whereever we went. We lost our dues for a couple of years. Student court. Letters to the editor from companies saying they would no longer hire enigneers from UBC. Fine. That seems a more appropriate response to me.