Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:36 pm**

Unbelievable. A judge in Canada sentenced this cat to no petting for 30 days after it caught an Aurora Trout, which is a threatened species. This is Canada under Trudeau.

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:52 pm**

that's tough, but fair.

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:53 pm**

Meanwhile..

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:50 pm**

--------I don't know....But I heard that a Father in Canada ,was fined or arrested...For calling his child...Daughter...You are not allowed to do that anymore in Canada ,I guess...It was on one of the Fox shows last week...... O:)

ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... O:)

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:34 am**

Nicely done Saxi. I didn't realize you sort of got me until this morning.

I was wondering why you put the cat in a photo of the airport customs dog vest and was talking about it catching the formerly endangered fish.

Best part is we don't have Auroras here so I had not heard of them before.

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:29 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:Unbelievable. A judge in Canada sentenced this cat to no petting for 30 days after it caught an Aurora Trout, which is a threatened species. This is Canada under Trudeau.

holy shit.. french canadians say "flatter" for petting? it means "to flatter" for you non french speakers. In france, you say "caresser" which means "to caress" for you non french speakers.
french canadians are strange. they flatter pets. I'm still not over it.

Posted: **Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:46 am**

It makes sense to me. Most people say something along the lines of "your such a good girl" or "pretty kitty" when the pet pets. That is probably the part this isn't cool for a k9 unit.

Posted: **Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:34 pm**

ConfederateSS wrote:--------I don't know....But I heard that a Father in Canada ,was fined or arrested...For calling his child...Daughter...You are not allowed to do that anymore in Canada ,I guess...It was on one of the Fox shows last week...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

FOX is not a credible news source. Their own lawyers, when defending a libel charge stated that "No reasonable person takes statements from Fox News seriously" .

Posted: **Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:38 am**

cdbridges wrote:
ConfederateSS wrote:--------I don't know....But I heard that a Father in Canada ,was fined or arrested...For calling his child...Daughter...You are not allowed to do that anymore in Canada ,I guess...It was on one of the Fox shows last week...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

FOX is not a credible news source. Their own lawyers, when defending a libel charge stated that "No reasonable person takes statements from Fox News seriously" .

Fox news is pretty dishonest, but not completely so. The story he's talking about did happen. Some broad who decided to become a boy went and got a court injunction to prevent her father from calling her by her real name and original gender. He did get arrested for violating the injunction.

I don't think it's a uniquely Canadian situation. Ignoring a court injunction will get you thrown in jail in most countries.

I suppose the number of countries where you could get an injunction against your father calling you by your real name is a smaller list, but still a lot more than just Canada.

Posted: **Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:57 am**

Dukasaur wrote:
cdbridges wrote:
ConfederateSS wrote:--------I don't know....But I heard that a Father in Canada ,was fined or arrested...For calling his child...Daughter...You are not allowed to do that anymore in Canada ,I guess...It was on one of the Fox shows last week...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

FOX is not a credible news source. Their own lawyers, when defending a libel charge stated that "No reasonable person takes statements from Fox News seriously" .

Fox news is pretty dishonest, but not completely so. The story he's talking about did happen. Some broad who decided to become a boy went and got a court injunction to prevent her father from calling her by her real name and original gender. He did get arrested for violating the injunction.

I don't think it's a uniquely Canadian situation. Ignoring a court injunction will get you thrown in jail in most countries.

I suppose the number of countries where you could get an injunction against your father calling you by your real name is a smaller list, but still a lot more than just Canada.

When you first hear the ‘facts’ the story seems ridiculous... and, Duk, even your regurgitation of the situation lacks nuance.

It wasn’t “some broad” who just went and got an injunction.

It is a 15yo kid who is going through transition.
A child and “some broad” are no synonymous.

Furthermore, the injunction wasn’t issued because he kept calling the kid “Sally” in their family home.
The injunction was issued because he was going out in public, in the media, and rallying against the transition publicly.
Essentially violating the person’s right to privacy.

There’s a bit of nuance there.

The father and mother are estranged and the kid’s transition is just another thing for them to fight over.

I can understand the dad’s desire to challenge the legality of allowing a minor to take hormone therapy... he wasn’t jailed for bringing the case to court. It was after he lost the case that he decided to bring the case to the court of public opinion, likely supported by religious groups. I respect his believe that the transition is wrong... that’s his religious view. Taking his kid’s personal issues and airing them publicly in the media however is wrong.

I am not a blind supporter of all “Trans Rights”. For example I don’t think a Male-to-Female transperson should be allowed to compete in athletic events as a female. I do however respect and support the Human Right of all people to privacy in personal medical issues.

Posted: **Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:14 pm**

people don’t like nuance?

Posted: **Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:14 pm**

cdbridges wrote:FOX is not a credible news source. Their own lawyers, when defending a libel charge stated that "No reasonable person takes statements from Fox News seriously" .

This is misinformation/disinformation designed to undermine our valued democratic norms by eroding public confidence in institutions, or whatever the lines of garbage are you people usually use.

Fox News' argument was specific to the Tucker Carlson opinion program that it airs, not Fox News informational content. You falsified a quote and attributed it to Fox when no such quote was made. You are a spreader of misinformation designed to deceive and erode faith in democracy, therefore, you're a fascist.

Anyway, what is factual, however, is this:

A New York state Supreme Court judge rebuked the Times last week for pioneering a novel defense against libel. The paper is now asserting it is entitled to assert opinions in news stories, without labeling or distinguishing the opinion from fact.

The Times’ responded to the defamation suit by asking for it to be dismissed on multiple grounds, including the notion that some of the most damning accusations the paper leveled at Project Veritas in its news stories were really matters of opinion. “In part, Defendants argue that their statements describing Veritas’ Video as ‘deceptive,’ ‘false,’ and ‘without evidence’ were mere opinion incapable of being judged true or false,” observes Wood in his opinion rejecting the motion for dismissal.

This isn’t the first time the paper has defended potentially defamatory reporting by claiming it is opinion ex post facto. The Times employed this defense successfully in federal court last year. In Peter Brimelow v. The New York Times Company, it was sued for calling an editor at VDARE, an immigration website accused of publishing racist material, an “open white nationalist” before stealth editing the article to merely calling him a “white nationalist.” Brimelow denies he’s a white nationalist.

The judge in that case, Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York, noted the news outlet’s defense of its description of Brimelow was that the term “constitute[s] nonactionable statements of opinion rather than false statements of fact.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 45476.html

Posted: **Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:29 pm**

jimboston wrote:people don’t like nuance?

No, it's good that you presented it.

I think there's a real crime there in terms of making his daughter the subject of a political crusade. No matter what your kid does, and how much you privately hate it, I think it's a real breach of faith to publicly humiliate him/her/it.

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:44 am**

Dukasaur wrote:
jimboston wrote:people don’t like nuance?

No, it's good that you presented it.

I think there's a real crime there in terms of making his daughter the subject of a political crusade. No matter what your kid does, and how much you privately hate it, I think it's a real breach of faith to publicly humiliate him/her/it.

Agreed.

If we were blue to look into his heart, I think we’d find it’s all tied up with his separation from his wife and the fact she’s supporting the kid’s decision.

Conquer Club

YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID

Re: YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE DID