Former astronaut Julie Payette to be Canada's next governor general

I don't recall saying you did.

But the question of how free this decision was has definitely been put on the table here.

I think it is fair to ask how valid that question is, and how relevant it is to the question of whether the government should be allowed to force transfusions.

 

Here's what happened in the two cases. In one there was a complaint by an aunt of her being pressured, but the family has denied that. The complaint is being investigated to ensure that the standards for informed consent were met. But they also have records that the issue was raised repeatedly during the pregnancy, and the mother said she would rather die than have a transfusion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jehovahs-witnesses-blood-transfus...

 

Payette as a public figure should not be involved in religion. But the conversation was brought to the public by religious people -- she did not go to religion, it came to her. Many religious believe that religion should be the basis for all questions in education, law, policy and science. The religious direct the policies and public life of many nations. They and their beliefs are on track to destroy our planet and they atttack any who stand in their way. Their beliefs, they think should govern human rights and all social structure. They brought the debate to public figures and not the other way around. But we are to feel upset that the religious feel offended when the conversation that they brought to the public sphere is being responded to in the place they seek to dominate. The religious want an unquestionned God-inspired one-way traffic of conversation into the public sphere, and they always have. They do not want a dialogue. They are not the ones who should be offended. Their attempt to silence someone who is pushing back -- in a science context is shameful.

The religious, you may say should be used to the problem that their beliefs contradict objective reality. But their answer is not to tolerate it and get used to it but seek to silence any who stand for objective reality. They feel that their right to not be offended is greater than the right of people to not automatically be governed by their unquestionning belief in a God.

People who are believers, need not be offended by Payette's statements. She is not the one offending them. They are offended by objective reality. Instead of reconciling this internally they seek objective reality and those who represent it to stand down to avoid offending them, while they make the world based on their beliefs not giving a damn for the beliefs of anyone else. Such is the arrogance of the religious. It is this arrogance that causes wars over beliefs that people not only want the right to hold but the right to build their societies and those of their neighbours around. their confidence in their rightiousness gives them license to demand that everything including science step back. But the religious cannot agree on their beliefs and want to impose their conflict on the world. Without objective fact the only thing that can resolve these are violence and of course the end of all humanity.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You would think this story is the most important one in the last decade according to the number of replies.

Here is the comment again:

"Can you believe that still today in learned society, in houses of government, unfortunately, we're still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the Earth warming up or whether even the Earth is warming up, period," she asked.

"And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process."

This is not mocking. Those who are religious should check themselves becuase this is not a conflict started by Payette. This is one started by believers in religion who have sought to supress science. It is something they ahve done for centuries and are not stopping.

Payette is not addressing religious people who are keeping their beliefs apart from science or other people. The context is that believers of religion have brought religion into politics, education and science policy of nations so powerful that their decisions affect the world and could end the ability for the world to support human life. No, what she said was push back not mockery. The context is her statements about climate change.

The religious who claim offence are the same people who want their religion imposed on the science policy of the world, as ther eis no individual national science policy, effective without international involvement.

The religious who scream offence -- where were they as one after another of those who claim religion attack the secular views of others? What is it about religion that demands that everyone conform to them, yet nobody is allowed to question them?

Sure, her comment was not political but it was in a context that is being ignored. And the offence to people who are not believers, every time a religious belief is used to demand policy change is disregarded.

When she says we are debating the issue of devine intervention she does not mean in homes and churches, she means  in the halls of power, in schools that are paid for by the public, in education policy, in human rights and legal areas and with respect to a response to climate change.

Good point! If you look at Payette's statement carefully she was stating that unprovable religious beliefs have no place in the evidence based secular debate of public issues. She never said that religious beliefs should not be held by Canadians. So these claims that she mocked religious people is just manipulative petty partisan politics perpetrated by puny partisan Conservatives and other petty partisan politicos. It was no accident that the Harper government went to war against evidence based policy making.

From Pondering:

Ford and Trump rose as much because of the left as the right.

​I will point out once again that Trump was not the popular choice for president. He won because of an artefact of their electoral system, not because he got more votes.

As far as the part about wanting to win by 'conversion' instead of addressing real concerns, I think it's worthwhile to ask, if voters are concerned that too many black people are immigrating to Canada how does the left address this? How would you go about assuaging those who thought that to be true?

The left has, or should have, principles. They have to stick to those principles. One of the residual benefits of such a policy to the NDP is the fact that early CCF and NDP politicians were seen as people of integrity, even at the expense of electoral success. If it wasn't for that, I doubt the NDP would even exist today.

 

Timebandit,

This is a well thought out, articulate and accurate post. 

Thank you.

Timebandit wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Listen to the comment, there is a clip on youtube, it was definitely mocking. This thread has a lot of comments because "the left" is every bit as partisan as the right, even more so. The right knows when to drop a topic in order to win broad support electorally.

Ford and Trump rose as much because of the left as the right.

The left wants to win by conversion rather than winning through addressing voter's actual concerns.

Or it could be that it's an argument because you're being very dogmatic about your read of the situation, and several people are taking exception to the expression of your opinion as demonstrable - and exceptionally uncharitable - fact.

It's your opinion. We get it. Got it. Several times over. In spades. Several of us disagree with your assessment. We have our own opinions. Move the fuck on, already.

Rev:   "As far as the part about wanting to win by 'conversion' instead of addressing real concerns, I think it's worthwhile to ask, if voters are concerned that too many black people are immigrating to Canada how does the left address this? How would you go about assuaging those who thought that to be true?"

There is no general answer to this, Rev.  

I share Pondering's opinion that there is a general wrong response to your question  -   viewing your hypothetical  racist voters as having an individual pathology that arose from nothing concrete in their circumstances, and then ridicule and shame them until they change their mind.

Timebandit wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Listen to the comment, there is a clip on youtube, it was definitely mocking. This thread has a lot of comments because "the left" is every bit as partisan as the right, even more so. The right knows when to drop a topic in order to win broad support electorally.

Ford and Trump rose as much because of the left as the right.

The left wants to win by conversion rather than winning through addressing voter's actual concerns.

Or it could be that it's an argument because you're being very dogmatic about your read of the situation, and several people are taking exception to the expression of your opinion as demonstrable - and exceptionally uncharitable - fact.

It's your opinion. We get it. Got it. Several times over. In spades. Several of us disagree with your assessment. We have our own opinions. Move the fuck on, already.

Nobody is forcing you to respond to me so move the fuck on yourself.

It seems you are more concerned with being right than with winning. If a right winger used that tone when speaking of trans rights you would be all over it. I can give you another example. The NDP did a terrible job handling the situation when two of their MPs were abused (they protected the abusers) but not one person here would admit it.

I bet Payette will not comment on  divine intervention or any aspect of religion regardless of tone for the rest of her tenure. She won't use that "tone" on any topic however it is you classify it.

Long, long overdue. Go Payette Go!

I'm all for making racist, sexist, homophobic - anything hateful, really - being made fun of, called out, etc, so that they're less likely to be expressed. Because giving quarter, taking the soft approach, it all just gives them oxygen. If more people just said, "That's a horrible thing to say, stop it." perhaps we'd hear less about it. By tone policing, we're helping hateful views get a toe hold in the public square. Expressing hate may be your right, but expect blowback. And if you can't handle the blowback, STFU.

Pondering - you're right, no one's making me respond. However, there's potential for an interesting and meaningful discussion and your self-satisfied bloviating is getting in the way. And as much as you're allowed to pontificate on tone, I'm allowed to tell you you're full of beans.

You're full of beans, Pondering. So full.

I also disagree that going softer will change people's minds. I've been reading about changing minds a lot lately, and it's highly unlikely that you will change the more extreme opponents of reality in their thinking. So this "winning" you're talking about is pretty goshdarned moot to begin with. Perhaps the only "winning" to be done here is to contain the message with ridicule and public chiding so that it doesn't spread quite so much. So perhaps it's less about "wanting to be right" (I don't want, I already am) and more about a disagreement on technique.

Well to go around the mulberry bush again, continuing to spin this as ridicule kind of reminds me of those who cry not all men, or all lives matter.

Not only was it a straightforward, and true comment, their belief wasn't actually the point, despite some  digging for something to be offended over.

There are plenty of reasonable people, religious and non-religious, who get that she was talking about something a little bit more important that people's personal myths. She was making simple and true comments about education, evidence-based knowledge, health care, and the future of this planet.

Whatever the motivation, either being protocol freaks, or religious freaks, or just trying to score political points, these people might want to give their heads a shake and consider the importance of what she was really saying.

I was commenting on the fact that word keeps coming up. You aren't the only person who has used it, but the more it does get used without underscoring that some of us reject it, the more her comments get framed that way.

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I was commenting on the fact that word keeps coming up. You aren't the only person who has used it, but the more it does get used without underscoring that some of us reject it, the more her comments get framed that way.

 

I specifically said it was not ridicule earlier. However, I thought about it and posted again because I do not think that ridicule is a useless expression. This is important as outragious beliefs ought to be ridiculed. In that sence as we pick our battles, I think the objective of defending the right to ridicule and the need to ridicule may be more important than establishing whether she did.

Ridicule is the most common and yes, effective, response to things that are so outragious that you cannot address them with logic.

We have spoken here many times about the idea that we should defend free speech and respond to bigots, for example, with ridicule. I think there is a problem with calling out what is outragious with ridicule.

Now the real issue here is that some felt that she was ridiculing people's beliefs. I do not think it was the beliefs themselves. I think she was ridiculing the situation where these beliefs are overruling science and have so occupied the public policy forum that rational policies based on evidence and science come second to beliefs based on neither. This you get from context.

I also think that she should be careful not to allow a misreading from those who want to misread what she was getting at. She is  inexperienced in politics and this is something I think we do not have to condemn her for.

The hypocrisy is that many of those attacking her often demand public policy to be aligned to their religios beliefs but they want those in public policy that they disagree with to back out of religion. They want it both ways. Those who agree with them to involve religion in politics and those who don't to respect their views and not insult them -- no matter how ridiculous they are in the public policy sphere.

All this I want to clarify here because we ahve a running debate here. I think there are those here who agree with her but are arguing that she ought to have known better and managed it differently. I disagree with that expectation. However, I think we are more aligned on this than the arguments suggest since most here recognize that science comes first and even that she could say that, This is a long thread devoted not to the principle of the supremacy of science -- nobody is arguing against that -- but the political skills used. I would be more forgiving. I would also accept that these positions are held by humans who in taking them must moderate their expressions but they still have some right to expression -- and even an expectation that they do so given that they are chosen for their background, personality and achievement and not designed to be a cookie cutter version that is bland to meaninglessness.

I am not a fan of monarchy. If we have a scientist brought to this position and she defends science over things that are damaging the potential benefit of science then I think there is a value there. She is not wrong to consider that this is why she was slected and part of her role. Yes she will have to manage the politics better but this is a big reason why she was selected and supported.

Yes, I understand the politics but the politics was to acknowledge this reason.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

She was making simple and true comments about education, evidence-based knowledge, health care, and the future of this planet.

None of which has been criticized. Had she not discussed divine intervention she wouldn't have even made the news which it barely did. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I was commenting on the fact that word keeps coming up. You aren't the only person who has used it, but the more it does get used without underscoring that some of us reject it, the more her comments get framed that way.

For me the conversation has moved on to a more general discussion.

I know what I heard (just the tiny part about divine intervention not the entire speech) on the tape. I'm not alone. You couldn't detect any change in tone. You're not alone. It isn't really something that can be discussed. People have to hear it for themselves to decide. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Um.

There is no evidence of divine intervention in evolution; that is the example she used in support of evidence based knowledge, and it is a critical one, whether you want to doublethink around it or not. Sorry, it either is or it isn't, and good on her for talking straight about it.

Should she have not mentioned it? Why not? It is true.

Not only that, so-called intelligent design is being used as the thin edge of the wedge in undermining science education, and as such it deserves to be called out.

Science education in Canada is not being undermined by intelligent design theory. Even in the US I believe it has been rejected by teachers and by the courts. 

Religion is faith based not science based so of course there is no proof. There is also no proof that God doesn't exist or that he didn't design the universe and know everything that was ever going to happen. Most religions aside from evangelicals acknowledge that science tells us the nature of the universe and the natural laws. Science is about the physical world not the spiritual world. Science doesn't deal with souls nor attempt to. It has no explanation for the creation of matter, of what came before the big bang. Maybe someday it will but until then religion will address the questions that science can't. 

I get the hostility towards evangelicals in particular but also religions in general because of their persecution of anyone who didn't fit in with their interpretation of God's laws. At the same time condemning all religious people based on the extremists is no different than blaming all Muslims for terrorism. 

In my opinion the left has to be better than the right and by that I do not mean pascifist. I have some disagreements with "the left" on some issues but for the most part I believe the genuine educated left has a far superior understanding of the mechanics of the world both physical and economic than the right does. I believe that if the left were in power that we would enter a new golden age of country-building through investment in education and green infrastructure. It would not take long to turn around if the government had the support of the people which it does not right now. In my opinion winning will take a professional approach as slick as the right. 

Many polls show promise. People are not impressed with Trudeau's economic performance. That surprises me but it is very good news because the economy is the number one voting issue. People like Trudeau but if they feel someone else will do a better job on the economy they will vote for someone else. Another poll shows the majority do not want corporations to be able to sue governments. The economy, corporate power, corruption, climate change and pollution in general have become mainstream issues that unify citizens on the left and right. 

I agree that we should never tolerate denial of evolution, or climate change, or allow religion to guide public policy, or in any way disturb people whose lives they disagree with I can be respectful. You know how they say "hate the sin not the sinner".  It may not be easy but I think that is the approach that has led to success on many fronts from abortion rights to trans rights. It has been reasoned arguments and being right that has changed public opinion and laws. 

epaulo13 wrote:

Julie Payette doubles down on mythbusting

Governor General Julie Payette doubled down Wednesday on her comments attacking anti-science “myths."

Odd that the article doesn't quote her "doubling down". I haven't read it anywhere else so I don't think it's true. 

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ridicule may be cruel humour but it is an expression and has meaning. People do not like being ridiculed and sometimes that can lead to change. And it sure beats violence. Maybe after a bit of outrage or ridicule  we can then go to where we find some pleasant reasoning. But the ridicule and outrage may be needed to get our attention.

Maybe if only one person was being ridiculed but I think feeling disrespected and looked down on led to the elections of Ford and Trump. While Ford and Trump may secretly look down on their supporters publically they tell the elites to go fuck themselves which is good enough for a lot of people fed up with politicians. 

We are at a serious societal impasse as I believe that the crap coming from the right of US politics is something that would be very unhealthy to respect. In fact, I think the issue is that they were respected too much before they got elected than too little. Yes, I know that the right wants to insist that any narrative other than their own is disrespectful These are the people who felt that any immigration is disrespectful. That a Black President is disrespectful. The debate over taking a knee as being disrespectful should give a clue. Look how angry they are. They do not believe any expression contrary to what they want is respectful. Normalizing Trump is not the solution -- it is what got us into this mess. This is not an agree-to-disagree type situation they have. They thought it was and had the we go high when they go low mantra. It did not work because the low is far too low.

The US is screwed because they have a huge ignorant population. Enabling that and thinking it is normal won't solve anything.

Yes, they are not receptive to information. They hate it and they hate education. This is not going to be quickly fixed. But putting that off is not helpful.

Ridiculing large groups of people is a thing because large groups of people hold ridiculous beliefs and seek to impose them.

Religion is also a problem. It was designed to maximize when human population was low. It was fairly benign to the planet, and only potentially harmful to people, until recently. In the past it had some functions that even helped. Now religion over science with get humanity destroyed along with the planet.

Now, people are desperate. The religious because they are in a cause being disproven daily. They have to produce conspiracies and fake news just so their worldview can survive the day. The other side is also desperate because we are running out of time. Do not expect a consensus on the side of those who believe in science to stand down and be polite - comparisons with Nero would be plentiful. You can not choose such a counter-intuitive response to what humanity is facing. It is in us at an almost cellular level -- those who see. Don't make false equivalents -- they do not exist. There is a right and wrong and the sooner we get to that the better.

The only thing is the how and the place. But this must get done. The signal sent by this GG to the science community is important. It is important because they are demoralized and have been for years. In Canada we barely fund research. The government has acted like it does not believe in science and we all know that the US, beside us, has turned its back to science and learning:

"To the alarm of many educators, almost every state has cut funding to public colleges and universities since the 2008 financial crisis. Adjusted for inflation, states spent $5.7 billion less on public higher education last year than in 2008, even though they were educating 800,000 additional students, according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association."

http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2017/11/elitists_crybabies_junky...

Not since the Nazi regime has a "fairly well" educated society turned its back on knowledge. "58 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents think colleges and universities have a negative effect."

Slow, gentle, conversion is not possible. Ridicule is uncomfortable because it is impossible to ignore. Bring it on. the future of humanity depends on it.

The other side is angry. The reason they are angry is that they are uncomfortable. The reason for that is because it works. Not quickly or easily but it does. And nothing else would be quicker.

Your idea of introducing new facts is a non-starter. The people who place a God above all science are immune to facts. You make the false assumption that there is this balance of reasonable people that have this bizarre idea. You are mistaken. This collection of people is not reasonable and that is why they hold these ideas. You cannot reach them through logic. They are beyond that. But if they feel uncomfortable enough they just might want to fix that.

And yes, we have this problem in Canada as well.