Forum menu
You'd be, as that student, entitled to think your professor of clinical psychology was an ass-hole, but no, neither of those people in that scenario is committing a crime.
OK I understand better now, thank you for explaining. I think it's likely that his protests are less about the intentions of the Bill and more about what he perceives to be the intentions of the lobby groups behind it. That's where his arguments do transcend empirical data and move into the political arena. I don't think he makes any secret of that fact though.
But likewise, JP doesn't have the moral authority to decide on what he gets to call trans-people either.
That's a really interesting statement (and I don't mean that in either a patronising or challenging way!) I think it's said with sincerity and good intention, but I also think that it's a hugely complex statement, so much so, that while I want to agree with you, I realise I can't unless we pick apart the nuance it contains.
I think the tricky part is where you equate 'moral authority' with 'individual choice', or perhaps where you link those two concepts. You could for example argue, that 'moral authority' is irrelevant in deciding how you choose to behave when that choice doesn't break any laws. Of course, it will have consequences, as everything does and you as an individual have to bear those consequences. But the concept of 'moral authority' itself suggests that there is both an absolute right and wrong [u]and [/u] tehre exists a power to enact sanction that overides all others by virtue of the authority position from which it was made.
In essence, I am questioning the very existence of 'moral authority'; there is certainly quite broad agreement on what we see as being positive morals and that agreement extends to this being the preferred way of behaving. If that agreement constitutes authority, then I agree it (moral authority) can exist, I'm just not sure it does.
I would be happier concluding that JBP or indeed anyone else has the right to be an asshole if they wish and we have the right to not like them as a result.
But the concept of 'moral authority' itself suggests that there is both an absolute right and wrong
True it does suggest some truths are always true immutable - you should not sexually assault someone being one, its always bad to be a sexist, its bad to be a racist - or the positive all people should be treated equally - care to give an account of when its actually ok to do this ?
IMHO you over think things My experience of teaching philosophy is there is no issue or point that one can apply reductionist points and/or either ask why
Sometimes you just have to accept you get what they mean whilst accepting you can define it perfectly. intelligence is one example - we all know* what we mean though we cannot scientifically define it
* may be fallacy if equivocation here but lets overlook that please.
I think you would benefit from reading the wiki page as you have slighty misconstrued what it means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_authority
Chuckles but there are far worse areas in Psychology - your critique is fair though as I found aspects of it to be like apply science to alchemySuppose I am a professor of some scientifically dubious field like, say, clinical psychology.
I think the tricky part is where you equate 'moral authority' with 'individual choice',
I haven't done that, You have, and I used "Moral authority" specifically, understanding it's meaning, as opposed to "personal choice" as these concepts are not equivalents. JP argues that to use a personal pronoun chosen by some-one he doesn't recognise as allowed that pronoun is "intellectual genocide", to him it's precisely NOT a personal choice, it an imperative that he must adhere to because of his philosophical views.
by all means let's have a debate. Don't however, put words in my mouth or insert meanings in my posts where there is none.
That just looked like every other journalistic attempt to get an expert to say something they didn't really mean, but he was too clever and precise to be trapped.
you should not sexually assault someone being one, its always bad to be a sexist, its bad to be a racist
Hang on, one of those things is illegal and the other two are just repugnant.
I read the wiki page on 'moral authority'. It clearly states:
As such, moral authority necessitates the existence of and adherence to truth.
So I think I understood it perfectly well. The problem is we cannot all agree on what is 'truth', which was the point I was making.
IMHO you over think things
Yes possibly. In my opinion you tend to be very weak at remaining objective in discussion about politically sensitive subjects. But I don't think these observations are helpful or conducive to our understanding of things.
I think there are two separate laws, the relatively new Federal law C18 and the more long standing state law Ontario Human Rights Code and the original issue arose under the latter. It is also clear that whatever the rights or wrongs in law, that some people including Ontario Human Rights Commissioner believe that using the wrong pronouns can give rise to fines under the law.
Refusing to address a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, is discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code (employment, housing, and services like education).
See [url= https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/yes-xer-acts-of-misgendering-considered-discrimination-in-ontario ]here[/url]
whilst your point is obviously true it has nothing to do with my point? Is it always true that those things are bad? Is there is "an absolute right and wrong". I think you are going to struggle to find someone who argues sexual contact without consent is not always wrong. That is there is an absolute. Very few i can think off to be fairHang on, one of those things is illegal and the other two are just repugnant
I have no idea what that means but none of us are without flaws.you tend to be very weak at remaining objective in discussion about politically sensitive subjects
Junky, interesting example, I think we could agree on that one, but of course what constitutes “consent” has been remarkably flexible (eg. marital rape only being outlawed in 1991)
Slept in this morning. Sat down to pee rather than turning the toilet light on.
Have I slipped in a gender neutral zone ?
Good to see that Ninfan, enfht etc support logical, rational discourse from "experts" when it supports their own worldview. It makes a change from some of them accusing experts of being part of the "liberal elite", eg scientists, economists, lawyers and just about anyone who disagrees with them.