Liberal steps down due to comments made as a teenager.

144 posts / 0 new
Last post
jjuares

Pondering wrote:

I think the people passing laws that will apply to all Canadians should be fully matured and that a salary of 150K ought to be able to attract some very qualified people with fully developed brains.


LOL What if we lowered their salaries to 100,000? Could we then elect people with brains that are only 66% developed?

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I think the people passing laws that will apply to all Canadians should be fully matured and that a salary of 150K ought to be able to attract some very qualified people with fully developed brains.

LOL What if we lowered their salaries to 100,000? Could we then elect people with brains that are only 66% developed?

I was using a turn of phrase that indicates someone with considerable ability and experience. If someone volunteered with the underprivileged for ten years that too would indicate some maturity and ability assuming they had a good reputution.

Your attitude is a perfect example of why the left fails.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Lower their salary to the national minimum wage and make their pensions the basic federal program.

I promise you we'd have a $25/h minumum wage and a decent guaranteed pension instantly.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I think the people passing laws that will apply to all Canadians should be fully matured and that a salary of 150K ought to be able to attract some very qualified people with fully developed brains.

LOL What if we lowered their salaries to 100,000? Could we then elect people with brains that are only 66% developed?

I was using a turn of phrase that indicates someone with considerable ability and experience. If someone volunteered with the underprivileged for ten years that too would indicate some maturity and ability assuming they had a good reputution.

Your attitude is a perfect example of why the left fails.


My attitude!? Some people obviously react negatively because your hyper-partisanship support of Trudeau. What I dislike is your constant use of bait and switch to weasel out of some of your own ugly and unsustainable assertions. No, it was not just a turn of phrase as you now falsely claim. Indeed, in your earlier post you quoted from some website backing up your claim that young people had undeveloped brains. This is the bait and switch of which I speak. You say something indefensible and then try to spin it hoping to derail the conversation. As another poster says your original post was "disturbing" and so is the crap you posted about underdeveloped brains. But what is even more disturbing is you trying to pretend that you did not write what in fact is in plain view for everyone to read.

socialdemocrati...

Ageism is still one of those frustrating things that stick around. You might see people quote statistics about gender inequality or racial inequality to say "see? this is why ___ shouldn't be allowed to ___". But at best, it's a misuse of statistics. The idea that older people are always more intelligent, competent, ethical, or otherwise qualified falls apart the moment you look at the past 30 years of government in Canada.

 

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Ageism is still one of those frustrating things that stick around. You might see people quote statistics about gender inequality or racial inequality to say "see? this is why ___ shouldn't be allowed to ___". But at best, it's a misuse of statistics. The idea that older people are always more intelligent, competent, ethical, or otherwise qualified falls apart the moment you look at the past 30 years of government in Canada.

 

Except I specifically stated that some young people could be exceptions. However, when you look at the roster of young people elected tol parliament that isn't the case. The NDP admitted that they didn't expect the young people they placed in some ridings in Quebec were expected to lose. It is the unexpected orange crush that put them in parliament. This Liberal young woman isn't exceptionally mature for her age and neither are the two NDP members who were sexually harrassed. The parties aren't choosing these candidates because they want youth represented in parliament or because these young people are exceptionally talented. If they could have gotten more mature candidates with more extensive resumes they would have. My point is that the competition to become a parliamentarian should be stiff. It's a very high profile lucrative job that many people would be thrilled to have.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Ageism is still one of those frustrating things that stick around. You might see people quote statistics about gender inequality or racial inequality to say "see? this is why ___ shouldn't be allowed to ___". But at best, it's a misuse of statistics. The idea that older people are always more intelligent, competent, ethical, or otherwise qualified falls apart the moment you look at the past 30 years of government in Canada.

Of course this is correct, but you should not forget that ageism happens at both ends. For example, in my trade, software development, it is nearly impossible for a highly skilled 55 year old with 30 years of experience to get a job. Almost all employers want to hire only young developers. If an older developer admits their age in their resume, they'll never even get an interview.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

The problem as I see it is that anything a lawmaker did 4 years ago shouldn't be about their teen years. Of course there are child prodigies but they are not that common.

This job pays around 150K a year and after six gives a lifelong very generous pension and the best we can come up with is people who would normally be unable to get even 30K a year.

It is obvious to me that most of these people are placeholders no matter which party they are in. The only reason they are "qualified" is because they are grunts intended to take orders and pass along messages.

Something someone did when they were 17 years old should be ten to fifteen years in their past if they are sitting in parliament.


Well actually this is the ageist comment that started this discussion. Notice you need to be 10 or 15 years older than 17 to sit in parliament unless of course you are a " child prodigy". LOL

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

This Liberal young woman isn't exceptionally mature for her age and neither are the two NDP members who were sexually harrassed.


I guess if you are going to engage in a little ageism you should top it off with some personal attacks on victimized young women. Just when I thought your posts couldn't get any uglier.

socialdemocrati...

Victimizing women who were sexually harassed, after attacking young people for having underdeveloped brains. You going to walk that one back too now, Pondering?

I should know better than to waste my time on someone who cares more about spin than facts. The problem is the partisans running things for the past 30 years have underdeveloped principles.

jjuares

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Victimizing women who were sexually harassed, after attacking young people for having underdeveloped brains. You going to walk that one back too now, Pondering?

I should know better than to waste my time on someone who cares more about spin than facts. The problem is the partisans running things for the past 30 years have underdeveloped principles.


Good post.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Victimizing women who were sexually harassed, after attacking young people for having underdeveloped brains. You going to walk that one back too now, Pondering?

I should know better than to waste my time on someone who cares more about spin than facts. The problem is the partisans running things for the past 30 years have underdeveloped principles.

Good post.

Bullshit. I didn't say their brains were underdeveloped and no I am not walking it back. They did not handle the media as well as they will be able to handle the media in the future if they are given the chance. That's because they will have more life experience in the future than they did when they decided to share the details with the media and allowed themselves to be used as tools by the NDP to attack Trudeau.

It's not agism to acknowledge that people gain maturity and experience as they age that informs their decisions. Maybe you haven't matured since you were 21 but I have.

Sean in Ottawa

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

This Liberal young woman isn't exceptionally mature for her age and neither are the two NDP members who were sexually harrassed.

I guess if you are going to engage in a little ageism you should top it off with some personal attacks on victimized young women. Just when I thought your posts couldn't get any uglier.

 

Was there some context to this quote of Pondering's or is victim blaming now quite okay here?

The idea that someone could connect in the same sentence being victimized and being immature is mind-blowing -- and it would be for an ultra right wing site. Never thought I'd see it here.

I don't think that the gender of the poster should be a shield for posting something that is oppressive, sexist, and disempowering. I would assume that a comment as vile as this should not be recieved any better if posted by a female. We don't have to guess what would happen next if a man posted this.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

This Liberal young woman isn't exceptionally mature for her age and neither are the two NDP members who were sexually harrassed.

I guess if you are going to engage in a little ageism you should top it off with some personal attacks on victimized young women. Just when I thought your posts couldn't get any uglier.

 

Was there some context to this quote of Pondering's or is victim blaming now quite okay here?

The idea that someone could connect in the same sentence being victimized and being immature is mind-blowing -- and it would be for an ultra right wing site. Never thought I'd see it here.

I don't think that the gender of the poster should be a shield for posting something that is oppressive, sexist, and disempowering. I would assume that a comment as vile as this should not be recieved any better if posted by a female. We don't have to guess what would happen next if a man posted this.

You are not equipped to pass judgement on a comment you didn't read, just ignorant and arrogant. Shockingly people can be both victims and inexperienced and female. Also, one person being less mature than another does not mean they are immature.

You might want to try reading comments prior to pontificating on them.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Victimizing women who were sexually harassed, after attacking young people for having underdeveloped brains. You going to walk that one back too now, Pondering?

I should know better than to waste my time on someone who cares more about spin than facts. The problem is the partisans running things for the past 30 years have underdeveloped principles.

Good post.

Bullshit. I didn't say their brains were underdeveloped and no I am not walking it back.


Well here is your exact quote from post 100."I don't think people should be allowed to join the military until 25 because the brain isn't fully developed until then."
So yeah, Pondering you have tossed all this right wing sewage about brain development onto this site.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Victimizing women who were sexually harassed, after attacking young people for having underdeveloped brains. You going to walk that one back too now, Pondering?

I should know better than to waste my time on someone who cares more about spin than facts. The problem is the partisans running things for the past 30 years have underdeveloped principles.

Good post.

Bullshit. I didn't say their brains were underdeveloped and no I am not walking it back.

Well here is your exact quote from post 100."I don't think people should be allowed to join the military until 25 because the brain isn't fully developed until then." So yeah, Pondering you have tossed all this right wing sewage about brain development onto this site.

Not fully developed is not the same thing as underdeveloped. Underdeveloped implies falling short of peers. There is lots of evidence that the brain continues developing, specifically the prefrontal cortex, until 25 or even 30. Even if that were not the case it is ridiculous to claim that the average 21 year old doesn't mature and learn from experience over the next couple of decades.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

Not fully developed is not the same thing as underdeveloped. Underdeveloped implies falling short of peers. There is lots of evidence that the brain continues developing, specifically the prefrontal cortex, until 25 or even 30. Even if that were not the case it is ridiculous to claim that the average 21 year old doesn't mature and learn from experience over the next couple of decades.

Shorter Pondering: It depends what the definintion of "is" is.

Sean in Ottawa

Ok Pondering. You had me there. I have now read the entire pile of absolute shit you have written in this thread.

It does of course justify to a large extent why I normally keep you blocked and do not read your shit as a rule.

Back to blocking.

 

jjuares

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Not fully developed is not the same thing as underdeveloped. Underdeveloped implies falling short of peers. There is lots of evidence that the brain continues developing, specifically the prefrontal cortex, until 25 or even 30. Even if that were not the case it is ridiculous to claim that the average 21 year old doesn't mature and learn from experience over the next couple of decades.

Shorter Pondering: It depends what the definintion of "is" is.


Actually both terms are used interchangeably in education. So this is just spin. And how do you know the two women who accused the Liberals lacked maturity? Or were you just smearing them because they happened to belong to the wrong party.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Well here is your exact quote from post 100."I don't think people should be allowed to join the military until 25 because the brain isn't fully developed until then." So yeah, Pondering you have tossed all this right wing sewage about brain development onto this site.

I am pretty sure "the right wing" would strongly object to soldiers having to be 25 or over.

There is nothing right wing about the science on brain development.

 

When does human brain development end? Evidence of corpus callosum growth up to adulthood.Pujol J1, Vendrell P, Junqué C, Martí-Vilalta JL, Capdevila A.Author informationAbstract

To locate structural changes in the brain accounting for the increasing effectiveness in cognition and skills that occurs at the final stage of behavioral development, we attempted to determine the age at which the corpus callosum completes its active growth period. We assessed the growth rate of the corpus callosum by measuring its area twice on midsagittal magnetic resonance imaging scans separated by a 2-year interval, in a series of 90 subjects with a wide range of ages. We observed an increase in the size of the corpus callosum as long as human mentation expands, up to the middle 20s. Clinical and experimental data about the corpus callosum, together with the present findings, suggest that the corpus callosum is part of the highest order-latest maturing neural network of the brain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8517683

and

AAMODT: So the changes that happen between 18 and 25 are a continuation of the process that starts around puberty, and 18 year olds are about halfway through that process. Their prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed. That's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses and to plan and organize your behavior to reach a goal.

And the other part of the brain that is different in adolescence is that the brain's reward system becomes highly active right around the time of puberty and then gradually goes back to an adult level, which it reaches around age 25 and that makes adolescents and young adults more interested in entering uncertain situations to seek out and try to find whether there might be a possibility of gaining something from those situations.

COX: So this is important. Are the physiological changes in the brain, in terms of the development of young people, as significant and impactful as the cultural changes and environmental changes that they go through vis-a-vis peer pressure things of that sort?

AAMODT: Well, actually, one of the side effects of these changes in the reward system is that adolescents and young adults become much more sensitive to peer pressure than they were earlier or will be as adults.

What if the young woman were 31 and made the comment when she was 27, or 41 having made the comment when she was 37? Would she not be judged more harshly? We recognize that the early twenties are a time when most people are still maturing.

My point is not that we should have age limits, it is that the competition should be stiffer for such an illustrious position. I think there are too many barriers to running as an independent.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Ok Pondering. You had me there. I have now read the entire pile of absolute shit you have written in this thread.

It does of course justify to a large extent why I normally keep you blocked and do not read your shit as a rule.

Back to blocking.

 

There is no need to justify blocking me. I am sure I am not alone in my appreciation.

For the most part I have avoided responding directly to any of your posts preferring to let sleeping dogs lie but I knew it couldn't last forever and you weren't really blocking me. By not logging in you can see my posts.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Well here is your exact quote from post 100."I don't think people should be allowed to join the military until 25 because the brain isn't fully developed until then." So yeah, Pondering you have tossed all this right wing sewage about brain development onto this site.

I am pretty sure "the right wing" would strongly object to soldiers having to be 25 or over.

There is nothing right wing about the science on brain development.

 

When does human brain development end? Evidence of corpus callosum growth up to adulthood.Pujol J1, Vendrell P, Junqué C, Martí-Vilalta JL, Capdevila A.Author informationAbstract

To locate structural changes in the brain accounting for the increasing effectiveness in cognition and skills that occurs at the final stage of behavioral development, we attempted to determine the age at which the corpus callosum completes its active growth period. We assessed the growth rate of the corpus callosum by measuring its area twice on midsagittal magnetic resonance imaging scans separated by a 2-year interval, in a series of 90 subjects with a wide range of ages. We observed an increase in the size of the corpus callosum as long as human mentation expands, up to the middle 20s. Clinical and experimental data about the corpus callosum, together with the present findings, suggest that the corpus callosum is part of the highest order-latest maturing neural network of the brain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8517683

and

AAMODT: So the changes that happen between 18 and 25 are a continuation of the process that starts around puberty, and 18 year olds are about halfway through that process. Their prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed. That's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses and to plan and organize your behavior to reach a goal.

And the other part of the brain that is different in adolescence is that the brain's reward system becomes highly active right around the time of puberty and then gradually goes back to an adult level, which it reaches around age 25 and that makes adolescents and young adults more interested in entering uncertain situations to seek out and try to find whether there might be a possibility of gaining something from those situations.

COX: So this is important. Are the physiological changes in the brain, in terms of the development of young people, as significant and impactful as the cultural changes and environmental changes that they go through vis-a-vis peer pressure things of that sort?

AAMODT: Well, actually, one of the side effects of these changes in the reward system is that adolescents and young adults become much more sensitive to peer pressure than they were earlier or will be as adults.

What if the young woman were 31 and made the comment when she was 27, or 41 having made the comment when she was 37? Would she not be judged more harshly? We recognize that the early twenties are a time when most people are still maturing.

My point is not that we should have age limits, it is that the competition should be stiffer for such an illustrious position. I think there are too many barriers to running as an independent.


I notice that you didn't answer my question about the smear you placed on those two woman who made the accusations of harassment. You said they lacked maturity. How do you know that or smearing victims without evidence an acceptable practice?

Brain research is not right wing but unfortunately it is too often misused as you are doing here. Now I don't claim to know as much as you do. You obviously have spent a couple of hours looking up info on the internet. Unfortunately the only knowledge I have on this topic is from my post-grad work and from supervising a team of psychologists.

And finally you actually did make the point about age limits. Specifically for the army and certainly the whole thrust of your argument was based on brain development and its interaction with age as you understand it. (If you were reflective about this at all you would realize that opens up another whole can of worms.eg cognitive ability. )
Now what I find so awful about your post is your bald- faced stating of this
falsehood. You mentioned age limits and now you deny it.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
I notice that you didn't answer my question about the smear you placed on those two woman who made the accusations of harassment. You said they lacked maturity. How do you know that or smearing victims without evidence an acceptable practice?

It wasn't a smear it's an observation and it is based on the way in which the information was released to the parties and to the media. I fault Nicole Turmel and Megan Leslie more because they should know better and don't have the excuse of youth and that goes for Mulcair too. All three major parties have had candidates that are unusually young to be sitting in parliament.

You read my posts with the specific intend of interpreting anything I say in the worst possible light. That's just sad.

Any job that pays 150K+ a year usually has lots of accomplished people vying for the position and other than in sports and entertainment I suspect most are well over the age of 25 before they can demand any where near that amount. It isn't agism to acknowledge that generally speaking most people become more accomplished and wiser as they age and that has value.

As it happens our representatives are really mostly party mouthpieces. I think the difficultly of competing as an independent is giving the parties too much power.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
I notice that you didn't answer my question about the smear you placed on those two woman who made the accusations of harassment. You said they lacked maturity. How do you know that or smearing victims without evidence an acceptable practice?

It wasn't a smear it's an observation and it is based on the way in which the information was released to the parties and to the media. I fault Nicole Turmel and Megan Leslie more because they should know better and don't have the excuse of youth and that goes for Mulcair too. All three major parties have had candidates that are unusually young to be sitting in parliament.

You read my posts with the specific intend of interpreting anything I say in the worst possible light. That's just sad.

Any job that pays 150K+ a year usually has lots of accomplished people vying for the position and other than in sports and entertainment I suspect most are well over the age of 25 before they can demand any where near that amount. It isn't agism to acknowledge that generally speaking most people become more accomplished and wiser as they age and that has value.

As it happens our representatives are really mostly party mouthpieces. I think the difficultly of competing as an independent is giving the parties too much power.


Well it's a smear because we don't even know these women's names and yet you feel compelled to make an observation about their maturity. An observation based on what? Who knows?Yeah, go ahead attack the victims and the thinner the evidence for the attack the mysgoistic it becomes. And I notice you won't even address the fact that you claimed that you weren't in favour of age limits based on your interpretation of brain theory and yet there it is in glorious black and white in post 100. And that's even sadder, that you tell such a blatant falsehood. You treat this site and everybody with contempt when you tell such blatant falsehoods and carry on like it does not matter. It matters. The way out of this for you is to apologize for telling a falsehood and then move forward.

Mr. Magoo

Saying that young people's brains simply haven't fully developed in a cognitive sense:  "Ageism".

Saying that young people are inevitably going to say the darndest things on Twitter:  "Not Ageism".

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
  Well it's a smear because we don't even know these women's names and yet you feel compelled to make an observation about their maturity. An observation based on what? Who knows?Yeah, go ahead attack the victims and the thinner the evidence for the attack the mysgoistic it becomes. And I notice you won't even address the fact that you claimed that you weren't in favour of age limits based on your interpretation of brain theory and yet there it is in glorious black and white in post 100. And that's even sadder, that you tell such a blatant falsehood. You treat this site and everybody with contempt when you tell such blatant falsehoods and carry on like it does not matter. It matters. The way out of this for you is to apologize for telling a falsehood and then move forward.

I've gone into detail in other threads as to the manner in which the information came out. They didn't realize the ramifications of approaching Trudeau directly and they didn't realize how the media and the general public would react to the details being released in dribs and drabs so throughout the month they kept digging themselves in deeper. The most talkative young woman thought she was doing the guys a favor by explaining exactly what went down which was shockingly naive. The minute I read each installment I knew they were going to be mocked and ridiculed unmercifully and they were. As to their ages, Leslie and Turmel both made that clear in interviews as they shared how difficult Ottawa is for young women some of whom are away from home and family for the first time.

Yes I am absolutely in favor of age limits for entering into mortal combat. I think age limits are very reasonable for driving as well, and living independently. I did not suggest there should be an age limit for being a parliamentarian. I think it's an important enough job that the competition would be too great for most young people to qualify.

When I think of a parliamentarian it's disconcerting to be told it's their first time away from home because it indicates limited life experience.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Why does EVERY SINGLE THREAD on here turn into a NDP attack thread regardless of the topic. Some posters on here should start showing a little bit of respect for others and confine their comments to the appropriate thread. I wish the Mods would do something about this. I recall there being a thread about the topic of MP sexual harrassment having been created. I can't understand why this discussion can't be conducted there. I'd ask anyone to please stop trying to derail threads. With most of you do it, we KNOW what you think and its the SAME old arguments over and over. Enogh already. As Tom Mulcair said "show a little respect"

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I still say this candidate should have been allowed to run, but based on the Lib position on tings like the clarity act, they don't care whether voters should have the right to a dmeocartic say at the ballot box. I feel badly for this young women; LPC politics is nasty!

Mr. Magoo

I'll just say again:  if making assumptions about a person's intelligence, wisdom or cognitive abilities based on their chronological age is "ageism" then why is this thread titled "Liberal steps down due to comments made as a teenager."?

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
  Well it's a smear because we don't even know these women's names and yet you feel compelled to make an observation about their maturity. An observation based on what? Who knows?Yeah, go ahead attack the victims and the thinner the evidence for the attack the mysgoistic it becomes. And I notice you won't even address the fact that you claimed that you weren't in favour of age limits based on your interpretation of brain theory and yet there it is in glorious black and white in post 100. And that's even sadder, that you tell such a blatant falsehood. You treat this site and everybody with contempt when you tell such blatant falsehoods and carry on like it does not matter. It matters. The way out of this for you is to apologize for telling a falsehood and then move forward.

I've gone into detail in other threads as to the manner in which the information came out. They didn't realize the ramifications of approaching Trudeau directly and they didn't realize how the media and the general public would react to the details being released in dribs and drabs so throughout the month they kept digging themselves in deeper. The most talkative young woman thought she was doing the guys a favor by explaining exactly what went down which was shockingly naive. The minute I read each installment I knew they were going to be mocked and ridiculed unmercifully and they were. As to their ages, Leslie and Turmel both made that clear in interviews as they shared how difficult Ottawa is for young women some of whom are away from home and family for the first time.

Yes I am absolutely in favor of age limits for entering into mortal combat. I think age limits are very reasonable for driving as well, and living independently. I did not suggest there should be an age limit for being a parliamentarian. I think it's an important enough job that the competition would be too great for most young people to qualify.

When I think of a parliamentarian it's disconcerting to be told it's their first time away from home because it indicates limited life experience.


So you seem to know a lot about these young women. (Please tell me the name of the mind reading course you took.) You know somehow that they believed they were doing the guys a favour which is different wording than they were trying to get educate them. But of course that allows you to mock these women more by wording it that way. And of course you try to redirect by saying you believe in age limits. The lie of omission you commit in this case is not stating why you believe young people should not be in parliament-their brains are not fully developed. If you are going to pedal misogynism and ageism you might as well give it a philosophical foundation, even if it is based on simply reading a couple of websites. Wow

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
So you seem to know a lot about these young women. (Please tell me the name of the mind reading course you took.) You know somehow that they believed they were doing the guys a favour which is different wording than they were trying to get educate them. But of course that allows you to mock these women more by wording it that way. And of course you try to redirect by saying you believe in age limits. The lie of omission you commit in this case is not stating why you believe young people should not be in parliament-their brains are not fully developed. If you are going to pedal misogynism and ageism you might as well give it a philosophical foundation, even if it is based on simply reading a couple of websites. Wow

I'm not mocking anyone. I judge based on what the women said themselves just like everyone else who read the interviews they gave coupled with how Megan Leslie and Nycole Turmel described them focusing on their youth, their thoughts and their feelings in the national media. They did that to sway public opinion. You cannot then cry foul when people have opinions when that was the entire point of publicizing what happened in the first place.

I have in no way suggested or insinuated that their sex has anything at all to do with the issue of their qualifications. You need to learn what misogyny means before flinging the term at anyone.

The notion that people gain experience and mature with age isn't controversial and isn't agism. Trudeau is being judged on what he has accomplished in relation to his age. The MP that was the cause of this thread is being excused partially based on her age.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
  Of course you attacked the victims calling them immature.

You've certainly proven that age does not guarantee maturity.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
So you seem to know a lot about these young women. (Please tell me the name of the mind reading course you took.) You know somehow that they believed they were doing the guys a favour which is different wording than they were trying to get educate them. But of course that allows you to mock these women more by wording it that way. And of course you try to redirect by saying you believe in age limits. The lie of omission you commit in this case is not stating why you believe young people should not be in parliament-their brains are not fully developed. If you are going to pedal misogynism and ageism you might as well give it a philosophical foundation, even if it is based on simply reading a couple of websites. Wow

I'm not mocking anyone. I judge based on what the women said themselves just like everyone else who read the interviews they gave coupled with how Megan Leslie and Nycole Turmel described them focusing on their youth, their thoughts and their feelings in the national media. They did that to sway public opinion. You cannot then cry foul when people have opinions when that was the entire point of publicizing what happened in the first place.

I have in no way suggested or insinuated that their sex has anything at all to do with the issue of their qualifications. You need to learn what misogyny means before flinging the term at anyone.

The notion that people gain experience and mature with age isn't controversial and isn't agism. Trudeau is being judged on what he has accomplished in relation to his age. The MP that was the cause of this thread is being excused partially based on her age.


Of course you attacked the victims by calling them immature. And your ageism was based on your misunderstanding of brain theory not experience etc. Those are your words.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'll just say again:  if making assumptions about a person's intelligence, wisdom or cognitive abilities based on their chronological age is "ageism" then why is this thread titled "Liberal steps down due to comments made as a teenager."?

The context of being a teenager includes:

1) many adults did not have social media when they were teens

2) teens are normally not assuming a political career or any adult responsibility

3) adulthood has a social and community accepted start -- at age 18. It is not ageist to suggest that at some point before that they are children. This is different than to continue a bias against younger adults into adulthood.

 

-- Wisdom is associated with experience -- it is not unreasonable to set Children under 18 apart from other adults while considering other adults equal. Wisdom is also assocated with basic education --- which is normally complete at 18 and two years away at 16.

-- intelligence has not been part of the discussion here and if it were we would have to discuss when this peaks in the average human being and when it starts to decline. The reality is it peaks and starts to decline early mechanically, even as the increase in experience and coping counter balances the decline-- at least for a few decades.

-- Cognitave abilities -- judgement have been observed to develop in different time frames for teens. However by the time they are adults most catch up to where they will be. More importan -- we have the expectation that they have when that expectation is not there for those under that age. As a rule the differences in age that are significant in the teen years are much less a factor by they time a person is 18. So we draw this line of expected responsibility at age 18 which has some advantages as well as additional presumption of responsibility at the demarcation line of being an adult.

We decide as societies to draw the line of adulthood at age 18 with remarkable concensus and few exceptions. This is the age we say you are "good to go."

Finally, there is no test for minimum intelligence after age 18 -- for voters or candidates. This presumption of fitness and equality is a social and legal norm. To say that we would distinguish between a 24 and a 22 year old or a 30 and 32 year old in the way we distinguish between a 16 year old and a 18 year old is obviously flawed. We do not set other minimum requirements for democratic participation either.

The thread title is factual and relevant given the legal and social distinction between teens and adults. The continuing of that distinction a half a decade or more later is prejudice.

***

The association of victims of violence to age and how they react is repulsive as it raises the spectre of responsibility and judgement of victims of sexual violence as relevant. It is incredible that we could even broach this topic on a site that prohibits oppressive behaviour.

A site that declares itself as embracing a "pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought." Would not be expected to go there.

I recognize that some people apparently have a pass to ignore the comment policy when they feel like it. Others do not have a right to approach those operating the site and even expect a reply -- and so complaints from the likes of me to moderators are without purpose. There is established an undeniable inequality among the participants here. This is not something to judge as the site operates as a private space as it wishes without pretence of equality or fair process. As such, it has been established that my opinion about personal attacks or comment policy violations are not relevant to the people running the site, or subject to the expectation of an answer. However, at some point as a community the rest of us may want to distinguish between the expectations we have for the community and the intended and stated rules, from the rather clearly biased enforcement (and lack of) of these principles here. The difference being what the intention and rules are and what is permitted for whatever unknown reason. None of this would be stated in an open thread if this bias were not so obvious that writing it to the moderators would have purpose. However it is very relevant as what is considered acceptable here is learned over time.

At least while I am still permitted to post here I have, I think, the right to state that this thread -- in my opinion at least -- includes comments that violate not just presumptions of human dignity and equality but also the conditions advertised for posting here.

jjuares

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
  Of course you attacked the victims calling them immature.

You've certainly proven that age does not guarantee maturity.


Glad to be of help.

Sean in Ottawa

As expected comments 126, 131 and 133 are blank for me. But I don't know why 135 (which presumably includes a reply from jjuares) is also blank and so is 136.

This is odd as before even a pondering quote showed up in a quote that I saw. Not sure if it was quoted differently now.

I would want to block a poster I want nothing to do with but not all replies to that person from people I am interested in reading. Otherwise, this could cut to pieces whole conversations when trying to block trolls. Ideally, it would be great if this tool would block the initial posts of a target but not when the person is quoted and a reply is made -- or perhaps at least not the replies. This way when others are not replying a person doing the blocking would see nothing but would still be able to address a reply if someone made one.

I guess I must have missed a lot of other posts that were in in response to posts that have been blocked. That's too bad.

jjuares

dp

jjuares

jjuares wrote:
jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
  Of course you attacked the victims calling them immature.

You've certainly proven that age does not guarantee maturity.


Glad to be of help.

Sean,
This is 136. I may be super sensitive but I believe Pondering is calling me immature.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The association of victims of violence to age and how they react is repulsive as it raises the spectre of responsibility and judgement of victims of sexual violence as relevant. It is incredible that we could even broach this topic on a site that prohibits oppressive behaviour.

It was the NDP that informed the public that the two MPs in question were young and unaccustomed to being away from home therefore vulnerable. Were it not for the NDP I would not have that information.

As victims their personal reactions are not up for judgement.

As lawmakers their opinions on suitable repercussions for sexual harrassment and abuse are pertinent.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The association of victims of violence to age and how they react is repulsive as it raises the spectre of responsibility and judgement of victims of sexual violence as relevant. It is incredible that we could even broach this topic on a site that prohibits oppressive behaviour.

It was the NDP that informed the public that the two MPs in question were young and unaccustomed to being away from home therefore vulnerable. Were it not for the NDP I would not have that information.

As victims their personal reactions are not up for judgement.

As lawmakers their opinions on suitable repercussions for sexual harrassment and abuse are pertinent.


But you did not criticize them as lawmakers or their opinions you simply belittled them based on your highly partisan reading of the interviews. Stop insulting these victims and using this as a political club. It is the ultimate in disrespect for all victims of harassment for them to be belittled by someone who thinks they know all the circumstances. It also discourages others from coming forward. For gods sake please stop attacking the victims.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
But you did not criticize them as lawmakers or their opinions you simply belittled them based on your highly partisan reading of the interviews. Stop insulting these victims and using this as a political club. It is the ultimate in disrespect for all victims of harassment for them to be belittled by someone who thinks they know all the circumstances. It also discourages others from coming forward. For gods sake please stop attacking the victims.

Bullshit. I didn't belittle them nor was my reading of their interviews even a little bit partisan. The NDP chose to release a lot of information in order to sway public opinion against the Liberals. That was disgusting.

You are abusing the topic of violence against women to attack me which I consider particularly slimy and misogynistic on your part.

As lawmakers, their opinions on how sexual harrassment and abuse should be handled are politically significant. I want political representatives that have zero tolerance for abuse of women in the workplace. I want lawmakers who believe that men who abuse women should suffer the consequences of their actions including the ruination of their personal and professional lives if that is the natural consequence of their behavior.

It was bizarre to read that the women wanted the men to continue sitting as MPs. As victims the women are entitled to their privacy but as lawmakers sharing that opinion publically brought it into the political sphere.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

As expected comments 126, 131 and 133 are blank for me. But I don't know why 135 (which presumably includes a reply from jjuares) is also blank and so is 136.

This is odd as before even a pondering quote showed up in a quote that I saw. Not sure if it was quoted differently now.

I would want to block a poster I want nothing to do with but not all replies to that person from people I am interested in reading. Otherwise, this could cut to pieces whole conversations when trying to block trolls. Ideally, it would be great if this tool would block the initial posts of a target but not when the person is quoted and a reply is made -- or perhaps at least not the replies. This way when others are not replying a person doing the blocking would see nothing but would still be able to address a reply if someone made one.

I guess I must have missed a lot of other posts that were in in response to posts that have been blocked. That's too bad.

Yes, what a shame no one has written a program to your precise specifications yet. Such a hardship.

Perhaps everyone can agree not to use the quote tags when quoting me and responding. Everyone could put what I wrote in italics instead so Sean won't miss anything he wants to read while still not being subjected to what he doesn't want to read, except for the parts in italics which he would put up with in order not to miss any part the conversation generated by my participation.

 

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

You are abusing the topic of violence against women to attack me which I consider particularly slimy and misogynistic on your part.

.


Excuse me. YOU brought this topic up even though the thread had nothing to do with it. This thread was about a Liberal candidate. You mentioned the victims by insulting their maturity. That was the first mention of it by anyone. I then responded by defending them and you kept attacking them. You vomit onto this website an attack on young women who did nothing to deserve your insults but we're simply harassed. Stop attacking the victims, it's that simple.

Pages