|
Post by Lee on Jan 10, 2014 1:29:07 GMT -5
The rare unicorn was recently filmed in Vietnam here. Where these supersede the existence of God the creator, yes I do.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 10, 2014 1:42:41 GMT -5
Ever heard of Joe McCarthy?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 10, 2014 1:44:02 GMT -5
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God (The Word of Elohim) Muslim scripture.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 10, 2014 1:46:48 GMT -5
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God (The Word of Elohim) King David, or whoever wrote these words, has a right to his opinion. You're right -- it wasn't Elohim after all.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 10, 2014 1:57:30 GMT -5
It reads like something written in the "Enquirer" -- avoiding all pertinent specifics for the sake of sensation. It doesn't even tell us what the requirement was. My first reaction is that the professor refused his request for non-academic reasons.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 10, 2014 2:06:16 GMT -5
I'm with Dr Grayson on this one. It sets a dangerous precedent of sexism. Dr. Grayson argues that approving the request would make him “an accessory to sexism,” and could give others a precedent to avoid interacting with students of a given race, creed or sexual orientation. Rather than disrupt western society to accommodate wacky religious beliefs it would be better for these folks to live in countries that are more compatible with their belief system. There are many countries that treat women appallingly e.g. the testimony of one man is equal to the testimony of multiple women in court. Some deny education and workplace participation to women. You don't even know what the course was all about -- and you don't know anything about Dr. Grayson. And what does custom in primitive countries have to do with how Canadians define sexual discrimination?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 10, 2014 2:06:42 GMT -5
It reads like something written in the "Enquirer" -- avoiding all pertinent specifics for the sake of sensation. It doesn't even tell us what the requirement was. My first reaction is that the professor refused his request for non-academic reasons. What would your academic reasoning be?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 10, 2014 2:07:35 GMT -5
King David, or whoever wrote these words, has a right to his opinion. What right? It says: the right to his opinion.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 10, 2014 2:09:12 GMT -5
I'm with Dr Grayson on this one. It sets a dangerous precedent of sexism. Dr. Grayson argues that approving the request would make him “an accessory to sexism,” and could give others a precedent to avoid interacting with students of a given race, creed or sexual orientation. Rather than disrupt western society to accommodate wacky religious beliefs it would be better for these folks to live in countries that are more compatible with their belief system. There are many countries that treat women appallingly e.g. the testimony of one man is equal to the testimony of multiple women in court. Some deny education and workplace participation to women. You don't even know what the course was all about -- and you don't know anything about Dr. Grayson. And what does custom in primitive countries have to do with how Canadians define sexual discrimination? People with primitive religious convictions would be better to live in primitive countries that treat women appallingly. I don't need to know anything about Dr Grayson. I'm responding to the statement he made, and I'd agree with it even if it was you who said it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 10, 2014 2:40:40 GMT -5
It reads like something written in the "Enquirer" -- avoiding all pertinent specifics for the sake of sensation. It doesn't even tell us what the requirement was. My first reaction is that the professor refused his request for non-academic reasons. What would your academic reasoning be? I'm not involved in that dispute, so I have made no decision about it that would require my reasoning. However, I can imagine a few non-academic reasons why the professor refused the request: (1) Perhaps he was the kind of professor who is offended when a student asks for an alternate assignment .. it offends his concept of his superiority and authority as a professor. (2) Perhaps he has a special hatred of the religion of the student, so he (a) gave an assignment he knew would offend the student, and/or he wanted to make a public statement about his prejudices. (3) Perhaps he just doesn't want those people in his classes, so he uses abrasive tactics to get them to drop the course. (4) Perhaps he's just kind of a lunatic. We don't even know how this professor decided ( his reasoning) an alternate assignment would make it look like he (the professor) was condoning sexism. York University is a public university, and it cannot allow its professors to make unprofessional or illegal decisions about students according to their own preferences. The professor may have good grounds to stand on IF the course involved communications, societal interactions, gender studies ... or anything of that nature. If you're not willing to interact with the people the course addresses, you shouldn't be there. But if it were, say, Math, or some course where it didn't matter what the gender of students you're partnered up with, what excuse would the professor have for not accommodating him? It may just be a notice to professors who teach courses where interaction between the genders is expected ... to list it in the course requirements so such a student would not have the excuse that he/she was not misled. That kind of notice is used all the time in college courses.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 10, 2014 2:43:50 GMT -5
You don't even know what the course was all about -- and you don't know anything about Dr. Grayson. And what does custom in primitive countries have to do with how Canadians define sexual discrimination? People with primitive religious convictions would be better to live in primitive countries that treat women appallingly. I don't need to know anything about Dr Grayson. I'm responding to the statement he made, and I'd agree with it even if it was you who said it. Really?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 10, 2014 3:12:47 GMT -5
The rare unicorn was recently filmed in Vietnam here. Where these supersede the existence of God the creator, yes I do. You do what?
You mean that you "willingly deny" that elves, unicorns, fairies, little green men on Mars exist?
If so, then you believe that they exist to start with if you "willingly deny" them.
Just as you basically accused me of "willingly denied" God!
As I said, I can't "willing deny" something that I don't believe in to start with!
But apparently you do?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 10, 2014 3:36:25 GMT -5
What would your academic reasoning be? I'm not involved in that dispute, so I have made no decision about it that would require my reasoning. However, I can imagine a few non-academic reasons why the professor refused the request: (1) Perhaps he was the kind of professor who is offended when a student asks for an alternate assignment .. it offends his concept of his superiority and authority as a professor. (2) Perhaps he has a special hatred of the religion of the student, so he (a) gave an assignment he knew would offend the student, and/or he wanted to make a public statement about his prejudices. (3) Perhaps he just doesn't want those people in his classes, so he uses abrasive tactics to get them to drop the course. (4) Perhaps he's just kind of a lunatic. We don't even know how this professor decided ( his reasoning) an alternate assignment would make it look like he (the professor) was condoning sexism. York University is a public university, and it cannot allow its professors to make unprofessional or illegal decisions about students according to their own preferences. The professor may have good grounds to stand on IF the course involved communications, societal interactions, gender studies ... or anything of that nature. If you're not willing to interact with the people the course addresses, you shouldn't be there. But if it were, say, Math, or some course where it didn't matter what the gender of students you're partnered up with, what excuse would the professor have for not accommodating him? It may just be a notice to professors who teach courses where interaction between the genders is expected ... to list it in the course requirements so such a student would not have the excuse that he/she was not misled. That kind of notice is used all the time in college courses. It was a sociology course. I applaud Dr Grayson's decision as a victory for women's right to be treated as equal human beings - something that is denied them in many primitive countries where oppressive religious law rules. This is the outcome:
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jan 10, 2014 9:00:12 GMT -5
It is a statement of belief. I am telling the truth about what I believe. Beliefs don't always correspond to the truth. What makes something true? I am content to be truthful (to the best of my ability) about what I believe in this moment. I consider my beliefs works in progress, subject to revision. I am also reasonably comfortable with ambiguity and change and that I will probably never know the answers to many questions I might ask. Philosophy books have been filled by people trying to answer the question, "What makes something true?".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 10, 2014 9:04:30 GMT -5
I'm with Dr Grayson on this one. It sets a dangerous precedent of sexism. Dr. Grayson argues that approving the request would make him “an accessory to sexism,” and could give others a precedent to avoid interacting with students of a given race, creed or sexual orientation. Rather than disrupt western society to accommodate wacky religious beliefs it would be better for these folks to live in countries that are more compatible with their belief system. There are many countries that treat women appallingly e.g. the testimony of one man is equal to the testimony of multiple women in court. Some deny education and workplace participation to women. While I also agree with Dr. Grayson, your line of thinking is a bit off. For example, in our part of Canada we have Old Order Mennonites who enforce strict separation by gender in church and school life. Problem is, they were the first white settlers here, long before the Protestants and Catholics that came later. They still practice their lifestyle as they always have, so you're being a bit presumptuous in thinking they should move to another country. The second fact is that this student wasn't asking for the system to be changed. He was asking for an accommodation for himself only. He does have an argument. This was an online course and in the past they willingly accommodated disabled or long distance students who were not able to make it to class. All this student did was request the same accommodation but on religious grounds. All that being said, I would agree with denying the accommodation because it sets a dangerous precedent. On no basis, religious or otherwise, should male students in a public school be allowed to opt out because there are "females" in the class. If that is an issue, as it might be with orthodox Jews, Muslims, or even Old ORder Mennonites, they have the option of setting up their own school system. However, I see no need to turn an issue like this into another anti-immigrant rant as too many people are inclined to do these days. I find this very alarming.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 10, 2014 9:19:09 GMT -5
You don't even know what the course was all about -- and you don't know anything about Dr. Grayson. And what does custom in primitive countries have to do with how Canadians define sexual discrimination? People with primitive religious convictions would be better to live in primitive countries that treat women appallingly. I don't need to know anything about Dr Grayson. I'm responding to the statement he made, and I'd agree with it even if it was you who said it. I think you're being overly judgmental. I like to use Old Order Mennonites as an example because I'm quite familiar with their lifestyle. To be fair, their lifestyle can be considered repressive to women. That is, women are subject to traditional female roles, and in their subculture they have no option to live any other way. It is indeed desirable for any culture or ethnicity to move beyond that stage as we have done. And there are problems of wife abuse in that culture. That is, most of the men don't abuse their wives, and the people are against abuse, but women who are abused can be trapped. There is nothing in their society for them to reach out to, and obtain help. But I don't believe that, on balance, these people treat their women appallingly. In fact, the men treat the women very well. Their marriages last much longer, and there is a much lower incidence of rape and assault, I believe, because of their strong sense of community and involvement that avoids the problems of alienation and mental health issues endemic to our modern society. What I'm arguing with is your characterization that there are "primitive countries that treat women appallingly" while presumably our society treats our women quite well. All I see is different countries, different societies, and characteristics in each, some good, some bad. No I don't like the idea of women wearing a full burkha, and it is repressive. I do want that society to move past repressing women in that way, so I have no defence for that particular aspect of their tradition, and indeed, for how their society treats women. But where you and I differ, is that I don't think that our traditions and way of living are better on balance. I do like the quiet reverential style by which many Muslims live. I don't see anything systemically wrong with the religion as a whole, other than the problems endemic to all religious hierarchies. I also believe in universal human rights, and those should never be compromised, nor matters of the law. But are we better? If you want to do a report card, you better also look at our mass consumerist lifestyle, our dedication to pleasure, to bombing the hell (used descriptively, not as a swear word) out of people to support the industrial-military complex, our squandering of the earth's resources, and that's just a start. I'm also not saying we are any worse, but we can't make a case that we're better either. I just see how they live, and how we live, and I believe in our society every subculture or minority should be able to organize and live how they best see fit. All come under the law, but that's about it. Occasionally, cultures clash, but then a policy of accommodation is best. We don't need people to adapt to "our ways" unless they want to. It's a free country, not a totalitarian regime insisting that everyone be a mindless robot conforming to someone's view of how people should live.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 10, 2014 14:46:25 GMT -5
...to bombing the hell (used descriptively, not as a swear word) out of people to support the industrial-military complex... I don't believe that is what western society is about.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 10, 2014 14:53:43 GMT -5
...to bombing the hell (used descriptively, not as a swear word) out of people to support the industrial-military complex... I don't believe that is what western society is about. I don't believe it is what anyone is "about", but certainly it is something we "do", and there is no getting around it.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 10, 2014 15:48:34 GMT -5
I do like the quiet reverential style by which many Muslims live. I don't see anything systemically wrong with the religion as a whole, other than the problems endemic to all religious hierarchies. I also believe in universal human rights, and those should never be compromised, nor matters of the law. I applaud your support for universal human rights, but why aren't they implemented in Islamic societies?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 10, 2014 19:33:42 GMT -5
The quiet reverential style by which many Muslims live. Take Syria, Egypt, and Iraq for example.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 10, 2014 19:51:31 GMT -5
I do like the quiet reverential style by which many Muslims live. I don't see anything systemically wrong with the religion as a whole, other than the problems endemic to all religious hierarchies. I also believe in universal human rights, and those should never be compromised, nor matters of the law. I applaud your support for universal human rights, but why aren't they implemented in Islamic societies? Well, why you aren't willing to grant human rights to Muslims, insisting they have to conform to your way of life? Is that because you feel they don't grant such rights, so therefore you don't have to either? I think we should have the kind of open societies in the West that allow people of every persuasion to live as they best see fit. As far as why some countries don't implement human rights, I really can't speak for each of the other 205 countries around the world, and why should I?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 10, 2014 19:57:33 GMT -5
The quiet reverential style by which many Musins live. Take Syria, Egypt, and Iraq for example.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 10, 2014 21:34:10 GMT -5
I applaud your support for universal human rights, but why aren't they implemented in Islamic societies? Well, why you aren't willing to grant human rights to Muslims, insisting they have to conform to your way of life? Is that because you feel they don't grant such rights, so therefore you don't have to either? I think we should have the kind of open societies in the West that allow people of every persuasion to live as they best see fit. As far as why some countries don't implement human rights, I really can't speak for each of the other 205 countries around the world, and why should I? I don't expect you to speak for other countries, but I think its important that we appreciate the freedom we have and ensure that its not endangered by immigrants who despise our laws. Its an interesting experiment to welcome seemingly incompatible cultures into western countries and hope that they'll come to respect our appreciation of human rights over time. It may work, but only time will tell. I don't have a problem with alien cultures as long as they respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations: www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 10, 2014 21:47:13 GMT -5
It says: the right to his opinion. Why's that a right?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 10, 2014 21:48:57 GMT -5
The rare unicorn was recently filmed in Vietnam here. Where these supersede the existence of God the creator, yes I do. You do what?
You mean that you "willingly deny" that elves, unicorns, fairies, little green men on Mars exist?I deny they exist to the exclusion of God. If so, then you believe that they exist to start with if you "willingly deny" them. Just as you basically accused me of "willingly denied" God! As I said, I can't "willing deny" something that I don't believe in to start with! But apparently you do? No
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 10, 2014 21:56:36 GMT -5
Beliefs don't always correspond to the truth. What makes something true? I am content to be truthful (to the best of my ability) about what I believe in this moment. I consider my beliefs works in progress, subject to revision. I am also reasonably comfortable with ambiguity and change and that I will probably never know the answers to many questions I might ask. Philosophy books have been filled by people trying to answer the question, "What makes something true?". I thought philosophy books were primarily filled with the objectification of truth. That its a concept at all is an admission we're all touching something transcendent.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 10, 2014 22:12:52 GMT -5
Well, why you aren't willing to grant human rights to Muslims, insisting they have to conform to your way of life? Is that because you feel they don't grant such rights, so therefore you don't have to either? I think we should have the kind of open societies in the West that allow people of every persuasion to live as they best see fit. As far as why some countries don't implement human rights, I really can't speak for each of the other 205 countries around the world, and why should I? I don't expect you to speak for other countries, but I think its important that we appreciate the freedom we have and ensure that its not endangered by immigrants who despise our laws. Its an interesting experiment to welcome seemingly incompatible cultures into western countries and hope that they'll come to respect our appreciation of human rights over time. It may work, but only time will tell. I don't have a problem with alien cultures as long as they respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations: www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/I don't believe human rights in our country are endangered by Muslim immigrants, period. One reason is that first generation immigrants typically have little say or ability to upset the status quo. For one thing, most of them are far too busy learning the ropes of a new country, including a new language and things like where to catch the bus, not to mention working a menial, low paying job to have much time for politics. Also, in those sensational stories you are fond of trotting out, you'll find that in the final analysis the status quo always prevails. The second generation of immigrant cultures invariably come to understand the most important aspects of our way of life, and embrace them, perhaps even moreso than more established cultures who tend to be somewhat lazy and apathetic about what they've got. Long story, made short: immigrants are the lifeblood of our country, and we still accept several hundred thousand new Canadians every year as we have for decades. I'm an immigrant myself, having come as a child in the postwar migration from post WWII Europe with my extended family. In the 1970s I observed the thrust of immigration move from western Europe to visible minorities from countries like Jamaica and India. There was a great deal of concern at the time about dropping the colour barrier, but guess what. It's worked out just the same for these immigrants as it did for us. The younger people embrace the freedom and also the responsibilities that go with living in this country. Sure there are pockets of problems, but I know that in the main it's going to be the same for any culture, any people that come to live in Canada. That's because people everywhere are fundamentally the same. All it takes for a seed to grow is the right kind of soil, which maybe doesn't exist in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, but it does exist here. And Canada has a long history of welcoming incompatible cultures, so this is not "an interesting experiment". Chief justice Beverly Maclachlan famously said that in Canada the majority of the people belong to a minority. That's the way it has always been, and still is today.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 10, 2014 22:20:15 GMT -5
|
|