I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies therefore have jurisdiction to discipline their
members who don't meet professional standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here. Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some very
nasty things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and the professional body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him a gentle tap on the wrist
by ordering him to take some kind of basic sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a narcissist and someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it instead of just quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn something,
as 99+% of other professionals would do. So he took them to court and the court affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one of their members under these circumstances. I suspect the court relied on s.1 of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my emphasis)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

Why ask this asshole, you know he's going to give you the runaround?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:34:26 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies therefore have jurisdiction to discipline

their members who don't meet professional standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here. Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some
very nasty things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and the professional body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him a gentle tap on the
wrist by ordering him to take some kind of basic sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a narcissist and someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it instead of just quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn
something, as 99+% of other professionals would do. So he took them to court and the court affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one of their members under these circumstances. I suspect the court relied on s.1 of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my emphasis)

Not sure who Dr. Peterson is. Some hacks flavor of the day probably. I think an American judge has done something similar to Lawyers for Southwest Airline. Not by any body of professional standards, though...

C

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 1:17:31 PM UTC-7, C Mayhem wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:34:26 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies therefore have jurisdiction to discipline

their members who don't meet professional standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here. Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some
very nasty things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and the professional body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him a gentle tap on the
wrist by ordering him to take some kind of basic sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a narcissist and someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it instead of just quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn
something, as 99+% of other professionals would do. So he took them to court and the court affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one of their members under these circumstances. I suspect the court relied on s.1 of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my emphasis)

Not sure who Dr. Peterson is. Some hacks flavor of the day probably. I think an American judge has done something similar to Lawyers for Southwest Airline. Not by any body of professional standards, though...

C

He's sort of a philosopher psychologist guy who questions the approved narrative in the Socratic method. I decided to check out who he was after my son told me he read his book and listened to him on the radio and being that my son was from the internet
age who doesn't read books, I figured I better check him out and see what perked my son's interest. He seems thoughtful and intelligent and decidedly unwoke, but as with anyone, I wouldn't buy into 100% of whatever he says. My interpretation of him
getting my son's interest is that he's finally seeing now that other guys believe in a lot of the same fundamentals that I do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an addict and
then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 10:34:26 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies therefore have jurisdiction to discipline

their members who don't meet professional standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here. Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some
very nasty things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and the professional body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him a gentle tap on the
wrist by ordering him to take some kind of basic sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a narcissist and someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it instead of just quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn
something, as 99+% of other professionals would do. So he took them to court and the court affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one of their members under these circumstances. I suspect the court relied on s.1 of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my emphasis)

Here is the decision: https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/Peterson-v.-College-of-Psychologists-of-Ontario-dec.pdf

I haven't read it (past the first page), so if you do, let me know how close I came in my explanation. I was kind of just winging it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:12:09 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 10:34:26 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies therefore have jurisdiction to discipline

their members who don't meet professional standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here. Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some
very nasty things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and the professional body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him a gentle tap on the
wrist by ordering him to take some kind of basic sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a narcissist and someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it instead of just quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn
something, as 99+% of other professionals would do. So he took them to court and the court affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one of their members under these circumstances. I suspect the court relied on s.1 of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my emphasis)

Here is the decision: https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/Peterson-v.-College-of-Psychologists-of-Ontario-dec.pdf

I haven't read it (past the first page), so if you do, let me know how close I came in my explanation. I was kind of just winging it.

All this proves is that every single group on earth devolves into situation where talentless control freaks make it a point to invest their time climbing to the top of the group in order to control the thoughts and speech of those more talented people
engaging in the group. It's pure jealousy. Happens in all groups including RGP. If I was Jordan Peterson, I'd grab my crotch, yank it up and down a few times, and tell them to take a bite of this.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:25:35 PM UTC-7, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:12:09 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 10:34:26 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies therefore have jurisdiction to discipline

their members who don't meet professional standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here. Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some
very nasty things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and the professional body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him a gentle tap on the
wrist by ordering him to take some kind of basic sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a narcissist and someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it instead of just quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn
something, as 99+% of other professionals would do. So he took them to court and the court affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one of their members under these circumstances. I suspect the court relied on s.1 of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my emphasis)

Here is the decision: https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/Peterson-v.-College-of-Psychologists-of-Ontario-dec.pdf

I haven't read it (past the first page), so if you do, let me know how close I came in my explanation. I was kind of just winging it.

.

All this proves is ...

We'll take that as a, "Bill was right on."
.
.
.
.
.
.







that every single group on earth devolves into situation where talentless control freaks make it a point to invest their time climbing to the top of the group in order to control the thoughts and speech of those more talented people engaging in the group.
It's pure jealousy. Happens in all groups including RGP. If I was Jordan Peterson, I'd grab my crotch, yank it up and down a few times, and tell them to take a bite of this.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"BillB" wrote in message news:980712a1-f433-47f5-9a3e-d471f8df5204n@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and
several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies therefore have jurisdiction to discipline their members who don't meet professional standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here.
Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some very nasty things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and the professional
body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him
a gentle tap on the wrist by ordering him to take some kind of basic sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a narcissist and someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it instead of just
quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn something, as 99+%
of other professionals would do. So he took them to court and the court affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one
of their members under these circumstances. I suspect the court relied on
s.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my emphasis)


__________


Yes, Bill, like you, I am a lawyer. I don't need a lecture on how
government professional organizations work. I'm aware of how they work.
And I'm also aware that you would spin it this way.

I'm more interested in an actual Canadian court opinion on it and what the Canadian court had to say about it. Is there an opinion on this that you
could find easily since, you know, you're a lawyer in Canada?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Paul Popinjay" wrote in message news:65bae777-a7f9-4220-ae43-d01ee5626bf8n@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

Why ask this asshole, you know he's going to give you the runaround?

_______


I dunno. I want to read the actual Canadian court opinion on it, so I
figured, you know, I'd ask a Canadian lawyer if he could find it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"BillB" wrote in message news:da106ba8-44a5-4c24-9f45-6931978a8a5bn@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 10:34:26 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies
therefore have jurisdiction to discipline their members who don't meet professional standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here. Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some very nasty things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and
the professional body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him a gentle tap on the wrist by ordering him to take some kind
of basic sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a
narcissist and someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it
instead of just quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn something, as 99+% of other professionals would do. So he took them to
court and the court affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one of their members under these circumstances. I
suspect the court relied on s.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed
by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my emphasis)

Here is the decision: https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/Peterson-v.-College-of-Psychologists-of-Ontario-dec.pdf

I haven't read it (past the first page), so if you do, let me know how close
I came in my explanation. I was kind of just winging it.

____________


Looks like the court deferred to the findings of the College and did not conclude that they were unreasonable. So, Peterson will have to go to the re-education camp or be disciplined.

It is an interesting legal issue resolving the tension between free speech
and being a member of a regulated professional group. I hope to takes it to
a higher appellate court in Canada.

It has interesting parallels to the speech of lawyers as well.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

.
"BillB" wrote in message news:da106ba8-44a5-4c24-9f45-6931978a8a5bn@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 10:34:26 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies
therefore have jurisdiction to discipline their members who don't meet professional standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here. Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some very nasty things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and
the professional body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him a gentle tap on the wrist by ordering him to take some kind
of basic sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a
narcissist and someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it
instead of just quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn something, as 99+% of other professionals would do. So he took them to
court and the court affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one of their members under these circumstances. I
suspect the court relied on s.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed
by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my emphasis)

Here is the decision: https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/Peterson-v.-College-of-Psychologists-of-Ontario-dec.pdf

I haven't read it (past the first page), so if you do, let me know how close
I came in my explanation. I was kind of just winging it.


________


Ok, ty

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:14:21 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB" wrote in message
news:980712a1-f433-47f5...@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies therefore have jurisdiction to discipline their members who don't meet professional standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here. Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some very nasty things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and the professional body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him a gentle tap on the wrist by ordering him to take some kind of basic sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a narcissist and someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it instead of just quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn something, as 99+% of other professionals would do. So he took them to court and the court affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one of their members under these circumstances. I suspect the court relied on s.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my emphasis)
__________

Yes, Bill, like you, I am a lawyer. I don't need a lecture on how
government professional organizations work. I'm aware of how they work.
And I'm also aware that you would spin it this way.

I explained it as best I could on the fly, not just for your benefit, but for anyone who read it. And this is the thanks I get? You called it "thought police" and "re-education camp," and then have the gall to say *I* am "spinning it?" Wow, talking
about living in an alternate universe! You must be a Trump voter.

I'm more interested in an actual Canadian court opinion on it and what the Canadian court had to say about it. Is there an opinion on this that you could find easily since, you know, you're a lawyer in Canada?

Uh, I don't think you need to be a Canadian lawyer to find it. I just Googled it in about three seconds. I guess that's why I thought you really wanted my interpretation/explanation of what happened, because the actual decision could be found in seconds,
even by an Oklahoman lawyer, probably.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:28:45 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB" wrote in message
news:da106ba8-44a5-4c24...@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 10:34:26 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies therefore have jurisdiction to discipline their members who don't meet professional standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here. Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some very nasty things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and the professional body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him a gentle tap on the wrist by ordering him to take some kind of basic sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a narcissist and someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it instead of just quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn something, as 99+% of other professionals would do. So he took them to court and the court affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one of their members under these circumstances. I suspect the court relied on s.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my emphasis)

Here is the decision: https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/Peterson-v.-College-of-Psychologists-of-Ontario-dec.pdf

I haven't read it (past the first page), so if you do, let me know how close I came in my explanation. I was kind of just winging it.
____________

Looks like the court deferred to the findings of the College and did not conclude that they were unreasonable. So, Peterson will have to go to the re-education camp or be disciplined.

It is an interesting legal issue resolving the tension between free speech and being a member of a regulated professional group. I hope to takes it to a higher appellate court in Canada.

It has interesting parallels to the speech of lawyers as well.

Yes, they deferred to the College's findings. It's not up to an appeals court to replace their opinion with that of a trial court or administrative body. They used the standard administrative law tests and concluded the College's order was lawful and
reasonable and didn't violate Karen's...er, I mean Jordan's...constitutional rights. So now, he has to take a refresher course on professional standards and either quit the College or start acting like a halfway decent human being in public. WAH! The
only difference from before the appeal is now it's going to cost him an extra $25,000 in court costs. lol

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:53:09 PM UTC-5, jack roth wrote:

Not sure who Dr. Peterson is. Some hacks flavor of the day probably. I think an American judge has done something similar to Lawyers for Southwest Airline. Not by any body of professional standards, though...

C

He's sort of a philosopher psychologist guy

Thanks. You could have stopped there. Flavor of the day.

C

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:06:26 PM UTC-7, C Mayhem wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:53:09 PM UTC-5, jack roth wrote:

Not sure who Dr. Peterson is. Some hacks flavor of the day probably. I think an American judge has done something similar to Lawyers for Southwest Airline. Not by any body of professional standards, though...

C

He's sort of a philosopher psychologist guy

Thanks. You could have stopped there. Flavor of the day.

C

He's very big on you cleaning and organizing your bedroom. It's like the key to enlightenment, or something.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:26:49 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:06:26 PM UTC-7, C Mayhem wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:53:09 PM UTC-5, jack roth wrote:

Not sure who Dr. Peterson is. Some hacks flavor of the day probably. I think an American judge has done something similar to Lawyers for Southwest Airline. Not by any body of professional standards, though...

C

He's sort of a philosopher psychologist guy

Thanks. You could have stopped there. Flavor of the day.

C

He's very big on you cleaning and organizing your bedroom. It's like the key to enlightenment, or something.

I resent the morons who insist we all need to make our bed every morning. What a stupid meaningless task. Similarly, who the fuck are you people who make your own beds in a hotel?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:26:49 PM UTC-4, BillB wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:06:26 PM UTC-7, C Mayhem wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:53:09 PM UTC-5, jack roth wrote:

Not sure who Dr. Peterson is. Some hacks flavor of the day probably. I think an American judge has done something similar to Lawyers for Southwest Airline. Not by any body of professional standards, though...

C

He's sort of a philosopher psychologist guy

Thanks. You could have stopped there. Flavor of the day.

C

He's very big on you cleaning and organizing your bedroom. It's like the key to enlightenment, or something.

And Karl Jung.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an addict and

then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an addict and

then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all the time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:00:06 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:26:49 PM UTC-4, BillB wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:06:26 PM UTC-7, C Mayhem wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:53:09 PM UTC-5, jack roth wrote:

Not sure who Dr. Peterson is. Some hacks flavor of the day probably. I think an American judge has done something similar to Lawyers for Southwest Airline. Not by any body of professional standards, though...

C

He's sort of a philosopher psychologist guy

Thanks. You could have stopped there. Flavor of the day.

C

He's very big on you cleaning and organizing your bedroom. It's like the key to enlightenment, or something.

And Karl Jung.

Niles Crane is Jungian. Then again, he was a gay guy playing a straight character, too.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"BillB" wrote in message news:c946afba-ff21-4e30-a0f5-2c2bad259cfcn@googlegroups.com...


Yes, they deferred to the College's findings. It's not up to an appeals
court to replace their opinion with that of a trial court or administrative body. They used the standard administrative law tests and concluded the College's order was lawful and reasonable and didn't violate Karen's...er, I mean Jordan's...constitutional rights. So now, he has to take a refresher course on professional standards and either quit the College or start acting like a halfway decent human being in public. WAH! The only difference from before the appeal is now it's going to cost him an extra $25,000 in court costs. lol

_____________



Is there a political leaning of the Supreme Court of Canada? I would assume
it is far left-leaning, but maybe not. I wonder if it would take this case
and what do you suppose the result would be?

I don't know of a parallel case from the U.S. involving lawyer speech and
our First Amendment, but maybe there is one. I am curious about how the Supreme Court of Canada would view this issue.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"BillB" wrote in message news:d4ff144b-8066-4c9d-a5be-69c6176351f2n@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:06:26 PM UTC-7, C Mayhem wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:53:09 PM UTC-5, jack roth wrote:

Not sure who Dr. Peterson is. Some hacks flavor of the day probably. I think an American judge has done something similar to Lawyers for Southwest Airline. Not by any body of professional standards,
though...

C

He's sort of a philosopher psychologist guy

Thanks. You could have stopped there. Flavor of the day.

C

He's very big on you cleaning and organizing your bedroom. It's like the key
to enlightenment, or something.

_________


I think his claim to fame was that the Canadian fascists insisted on him addressing persons by their preferred pronouns and he refused on the basis
that the government cannot legally tell him to do this, which is itself an interesting legal issue.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message news:e6f19788-ac47-40e8-a583-cf798aa878d9n@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a
court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at
age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he
somehow become both an addict and then get treatment that same year? I
don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

_____________


Sometimes you can tell he has some sort of an emotional/mental problem.
He's an interesting guy. His lectures, interviews and YouTube videos often show brilliance and insight, but sometimes the opposite.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 11:57:53 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB" wrote in message
news:c946afba-ff21-4e30...@googlegroups.com...
Yes, they deferred to the College's findings. It's not up to an appeals court to replace their opinion with that of a trial court or administrative body. They used the standard administrative law tests and concluded the College's order was lawful and reasonable and didn't violate Karen's...er, I mean Jordan's...constitutional rights. So now, he has to take a refresher course on professional standards and either quit the College or start acting like a halfway decent human being in public. WAH! The only difference from before the appeal is now it's going to cost him an extra $25,000 in court costs. lol
_____________

Is there a political leaning of the Supreme Court of Canada? I would assume it is far left-leaning, but maybe not. I wonder if it would take this case and what do you suppose the result would be?

I don't know of a parallel case from the U.S. involving lawyer speech and our First Amendment, but maybe there is one. I am curious about how the Supreme Court of Canada would view this issue.

You aren't going to get sympathy in any court in Canada, left or right, by using your professional status to promote the idea that any group of people, let alone a historically marginalized one, are "contagions." That kind of effort to dehumanize people
and promote hatred just doesn't fly here. This is just an administrative decision. He had his hopeless appeal. That will be the end of it. There is nothing novel about the law or facts in this case, and Karen Peterson will no doubt find a way to monetize
his or her temper tantrum.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an addict

and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all the time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 3:01:29 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message news:e6f19788-ac47-40e8...@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an addict and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.
_____________

Sometimes you can tell he has some sort of an emotional/mental problem.
He's an interesting guy. His lectures, interviews and YouTube videos often show brilliance and insight, but sometimes the opposite.

Over the past couple of years, he has begun to ramble and just make stuff up to support a very weak position.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On September 5, jack roth wrote:

All this proves is that every single group on earth devolves into situation where talentless
control freaks make it a point to invest their time climbing to the top of the group in order
to control the thoughts and speech of those more talented people engaging in the group.

wow, a man more cynical than me. I didn't know such a creature existed.

"' 'cynic' is the epithet hurled at those who see the world with 20-20 eyesight,
by those who lack such vision."

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:42:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an addict

and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all the time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

You fucking moron, he wasn't hooked on Oxy. Rush Limbaugh was hooked on Oxy, as well as, millions of other morons. Jordan Peterson claims he was hooked on Clonazepam...but nobody gets hooked on that shit and the detoxed from it right away. Real
addicts try to last forever before they get help. I feel Jordan was being Melodramatic about it to get some been there-done that street cred.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"BillB" wrote in message news:91907137-3d0a-41f1-b8b8-aaf3ee84520fn@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 11:57:53 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB" wrote in message
news:c946afba-ff21-4e30...@googlegroups.com...
Yes, they deferred to the College's findings. It's not up to an appeals
court to replace their opinion with that of a trial court or
administrative
body. They used the standard administrative law tests and concluded the College's order was lawful and reasonable and didn't violate Karen's...er,
I
mean Jordan's...constitutional rights. So now, he has to take a refresher course on professional standards and either quit the College or start
acting
like a halfway decent human being in public. WAH! The only difference from before the appeal is now it's going to cost him an extra $25,000 in court costs. lol
_____________

Is there a political leaning of the Supreme Court of Canada? I would
assume
it is far left-leaning, but maybe not. I wonder if it would take this case and what do you suppose the result would be?

I don't know of a parallel case from the U.S. involving lawyer speech and
our First Amendment, but maybe there is one. I am curious about how the Supreme Court of Canada would view this issue.

You aren't going to get sympathy in any court in Canada, left or right, by using your professional status to promote the idea that any group of people, let alone a historically marginalized one, are "contagions." That kind of effort to dehumanize people and promote hatred just doesn't fly here. This
is just an administrative decision. He had his hopeless appeal. That will be the end of it. There is nothing novel about the law or facts in this case,
and Karen Peterson will no doubt find a way to monetize his or her temper tantrum.


_____________


No sympathy needed, just a constitutional right to free speech uninhibited
by the government. That used to mean something.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 9:00:02 PM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB" wrote in message
news:91907137-3d0a-41f1...@googlegroups.com...
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 11:57:53 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB" wrote in message
news:c946afba-ff21-4e30...@googlegroups.com...
Yes, they deferred to the College's findings. It's not up to an appeals court to replace their opinion with that of a trial court or administrative
body. They used the standard administrative law tests and concluded the College's order was lawful and reasonable and didn't violate Karen's...er, I
mean Jordan's...constitutional rights. So now, he has to take a refresher course on professional standards and either quit the College or start acting
like a halfway decent human being in public. WAH! The only difference from before the appeal is now it's going to cost him an extra $25,000 in court costs. lol
_____________

Is there a political leaning of the Supreme Court of Canada? I would assume
it is far left-leaning, but maybe not. I wonder if it would take this case and what do you suppose the result would be?

I don't know of a parallel case from the U.S. involving lawyer speech and our First Amendment, but maybe there is one. I am curious about how the Supreme Court of Canada would view this issue.

You aren't going to get sympathy in any court in Canada, left or right, by using your professional status to promote the idea that any group of people, let alone a historically marginalized one, are "contagions." That kind of effort to dehumanize people and promote hatred just doesn't fly here. This is just an administrative decision. He had his hopeless appeal. That will be the end of it. There is nothing novel about the law or facts in this case, and Karen Peterson will no doubt find a way to monetize his or her temper tantrum.
_____________

No sympathy needed, just a constitutional right to free speech uninhibited by the government. That used to mean something.

But he voluntarily relinquished part of that right by joining a professional organization and agreeing to abide by their standards. He agreed to abide by customary standards of decorum and more specifically the Code of Ethics and Conduct for that
profession. He can resign his membership and say all the bigoted crap he wants or he can stay and follow the rules he agreed to in the first place (after he completes his "Being a Human Being for Dummies" course). No court is going to back him up, and
the reality is that being a sympathetic figure in court is always a huge advantage over being an evil villain who is obviously wasting everyone's time just for the fun of it and to create more YouTube content.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:42:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an

addict and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all the time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

You fucking moron, he wasn't hooked on Oxy. Rush Limbaugh was hooked on Oxy, as well as, millions of other morons. Jordan Peterson claims he was hooked on Clonazepam...but nobody gets hooked on that shit and the detoxed from it right away. Real addicts

try to last forever before they get help. I feel Jordan was being Melodramatic about it to get some been there-done that street cred.

My apologies, it was benzos. It appears to have pushed him over the edge, though. However, claiming that "nobody gets hooked on that shit" will come as a surprise to the medical community, including my wife.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:02:52 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:42:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an

addict and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all the time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

You fucking moron, he wasn't hooked on Oxy. Rush Limbaugh was hooked on Oxy, as well as, millions of other morons. Jordan Peterson claims he was hooked on Clonazepam...but nobody gets hooked on that shit and the detoxed from it right away. Real

addicts try to last forever before they get help. I feel Jordan was being Melodramatic about it to get some been there-done that street cred.

My apologies, it was benzos. It appears to have pushed him over the edge, though. However, claiming that "nobody gets hooked on that shit" will come as a surprise to the medical community, including my wife.

Also, you are way over the top yourself trying to claim he's over the edge. People all don't follow the same personality type...anyone should be able to recognize that these days. Just because his style is different than yours doesn't mean he's the
one whos going off a cliff. Some people are more black and white and some people are full of grays. The people who see grays in everything think black and white people are extreme. They may be right, but that doesn't mean they are off a cliff.
Imagine police officers....it doesn't take long for them to recognize instantly the types of people they need to look out for...it'll seem very black and white to people who don't know what to look for themselves and very judgemental, but you'll find
police officers know exactly what they are doing because experience allows them to recognize the same bullshit people try or other evidence. For example, acne on adults combined with very behaviors and other things will instantly signal to a cop
someone is a meth addict.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:02:52 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:42:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an

addict and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all the time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

You fucking moron, he wasn't hooked on Oxy. Rush Limbaugh was hooked on Oxy, as well as, millions of other morons. Jordan Peterson claims he was hooked on Clonazepam...but nobody gets hooked on that shit and the detoxed from it right away. Real

addicts try to last forever before they get help. I feel Jordan was being Melodramatic about it to get some been there-done that street cred.

My apologies, it was benzos. It appears to have pushed him over the edge, though. However, claiming that "nobody gets hooked on that shit" will come as a surprise to the medical community, including my wife.j

You need to learn how to read, Hoss. I said nobody gets hooked on that shit from it right away....and the time frame for Jordan Peterson to get hooked and then cleaned up was WAY too quick. So, ya, I'm not buying it at all.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:36:08 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:02:52 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:42:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an

addict and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all the time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

You fucking moron, he wasn't hooked on Oxy. Rush Limbaugh was hooked on Oxy, as well as, millions of other morons. Jordan Peterson claims he was hooked on Clonazepam...but nobody gets hooked on that shit and the detoxed from it right away. Real

addicts try to last forever before they get help. I feel Jordan was being Melodramatic about it to get some been there-done that street cred.

My apologies, it was benzos. It appears to have pushed him over the edge, though. However, claiming that "nobody gets hooked on that shit" will come as a surprise to the medical community, including my wife.

Also, you are way over the top yourself trying to claim he's over the edge. People all don't follow the same personality type...anyone should be able to recognize that these days. Just because his style is different than yours doesn't mean he's the one

whos going off a cliff. Some people are more black and white and some people are full of grays. The people who see grays in everything think black and white people are extreme. They may be right, but that doesn't mean they are off a cliff. Imagine police
officers....it doesn't take long for them to recognize instantly the types of people they need to look out for...it'll seem very black and white to people who don't know what to look for themselves and very judgemental, but you'll find police officers
know exactly what they are doing because experience allows them to recognize the same bullshit people try or other evidence. For example, acne on adults combined with very behaviors and other things will instantly signal to a cop someone is a meth addict.

Not quite. Watch some of his older lectures, where he is overly rational.

More recently, his arguments are just bonkers, often in a bizarre attempt to defend religious ideas.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 4:13:36 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:36:08 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:02:52 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:42:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an

addict and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all the time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

You fucking moron, he wasn't hooked on Oxy. Rush Limbaugh was hooked on Oxy, as well as, millions of other morons. Jordan Peterson claims he was hooked on Clonazepam...but nobody gets hooked on that shit and the detoxed from it right away. Real

addicts try to last forever before they get help. I feel Jordan was being Melodramatic about it to get some been there-done that street cred.

My apologies, it was benzos. It appears to have pushed him over the edge, though. However, claiming that "nobody gets hooked on that shit" will come as a surprise to the medical community, including my wife.

Also, you are way over the top yourself trying to claim he's over the edge. People all don't follow the same personality type...anyone should be able to recognize that these days. Just because his style is different than yours doesn't mean he's the

one whos going off a cliff. Some people are more black and white and some people are full of grays. The people who see grays in everything think black and white people are extreme. They may be right, but that doesn't mean they are off a cliff. Imagine
police officers....it doesn't take long for them to recognize instantly the types of people they need to look out for...it'll seem very black and white to people who don't know what to look for themselves and very judgemental, but you'll find police
officers know exactly what they are doing because experience allows them to recognize the same bullshit people try or other evidence. For example, acne on adults combined with very behaviors and other things will instantly signal to a cop someone is a
meth addict.

Not quite. Watch some of his older lectures, where he is overly rational.

I was only curious about him because my son mentioned he had read a book. I'm not nearly interested in listening to any of these personal angst type self help gurus.

More recently, his arguments are just bonkers, often in a bizarre attempt to defend religious ideas.

See, I think this is your personal personal hatred of religion that is wrongfully prejudicing you here. The bible/Quran/BookofMorons doesn't have to be factually correct about the concept of God in order to teach some valuable life skills, lessons
about life, or our history. I'd recall your failing here when you outright attacked me for pointing out some of historical stories in the bible and connecting them to weather/spaceweather events. And, while even those stories will of course be
dramatized in their own way, there's a reason they got there...which your hatred of God somehow feels the need to deny any part of even if I don't say they are form acts of a god.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:15:31 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 4:13:36 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:36:08 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:02:52 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:42:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both

an addict and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all the

time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

You fucking moron, he wasn't hooked on Oxy. Rush Limbaugh was hooked on Oxy, as well as, millions of other morons. Jordan Peterson claims he was hooked on Clonazepam...but nobody gets hooked on that shit and the detoxed from it right away. Real

addicts try to last forever before they get help. I feel Jordan was being Melodramatic about it to get some been there-done that street cred.

My apologies, it was benzos. It appears to have pushed him over the edge, though. However, claiming that "nobody gets hooked on that shit" will come as a surprise to the medical community, including my wife.

Also, you are way over the top yourself trying to claim he's over the edge. People all don't follow the same personality type...anyone should be able to recognize that these days. Just because his style is different than yours doesn't mean he's the

one whos going off a cliff. Some people are more black and white and some people are full of grays. The people who see grays in everything think black and white people are extreme. They may be right, but that doesn't mean they are off a cliff. Imagine
police officers....it doesn't take long for them to recognize instantly the types of people they need to look out for...it'll seem very black and white to people who don't know what to look for themselves and very judgemental, but you'll find police
officers know exactly what they are doing because experience allows them to recognize the same bullshit people try or other evidence. For example, acne on adults combined with very behaviors and other things will instantly signal to a cop someone is a
meth addict.

Not quite. Watch some of his older lectures, where he is overly rational.

I was only curious about him because my son mentioned he had read a book. I'm not nearly interested in listening to any of these personal angst type self help gurus.

More recently, his arguments are just bonkers, often in a bizarre attempt to defend religious ideas.

See, I think this is your personal personal hatred of religion that is wrongfully prejudicing you here. The bible/Quran/BookofMorons doesn't have to be factually correct about the concept of God in order to teach some valuable life skills, lessons

about life, or our history. I'd recall your failing here when you outright attacked me for pointing out some of historical stories in the bible and connecting them to weather/spaceweather events. And, while even those stories will of course be dramatized
in their own way, there's a reason they got there...which your hatred of God somehow feels the need to deny any part of even if I don't say they are form acts of a god.

It's not that. You would have to see the interview to grasp the inanity. As for hating God, how can I hate something that I do not believe exists?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:05:41 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:15:31 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 4:13:36 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:36:08 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:02:52 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:42:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become

both an addict and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all the

time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

You fucking moron, he wasn't hooked on Oxy. Rush Limbaugh was hooked on Oxy, as well as, millions of other morons. Jordan Peterson claims he was hooked on Clonazepam...but nobody gets hooked on that shit and the detoxed from it right away.

Real addicts try to last forever before they get help. I feel Jordan was being Melodramatic about it to get some been there-done that street cred.

My apologies, it was benzos. It appears to have pushed him over the edge, though. However, claiming that "nobody gets hooked on that shit" will come as a surprise to the medical community, including my wife.

Also, you are way over the top yourself trying to claim he's over the edge. People all don't follow the same personality type...anyone should be able to recognize that these days. Just because his style is different than yours doesn't mean he's

the one whos going off a cliff. Some people are more black and white and some people are full of grays. The people who see grays in everything think black and white people are extreme. They may be right, but that doesn't mean they are off a cliff.
Imagine police officers....it doesn't take long for them to recognize instantly the types of people they need to look out for...it'll seem very black and white to people who don't know what to look for themselves and very judgemental, but you'll find
police officers know exactly what they are doing because experience allows them to recognize the same bullshit people try or other evidence. For example, acne on adults combined with very behaviors and other things will instantly signal to a cop someone
is a meth addict.

Not quite. Watch some of his older lectures, where he is overly rational.

I was only curious about him because my son mentioned he had read a book. I'm not nearly interested in listening to any of these personal angst type self help gurus.

More recently, his arguments are just bonkers, often in a bizarre attempt to defend religious ideas.

See, I think this is your personal personal hatred of religion that is wrongfully prejudicing you here. The bible/Quran/BookofMorons doesn't have to be factually correct about the concept of God in order to teach some valuable life skills, lessons

about life, or our history. I'd recall your failing here when you outright attacked me for pointing out some of historical stories in the bible and connecting them to weather/spaceweather events. And, while even those stories will of course be dramatized
in their own way, there's a reason they got there...which your hatred of God somehow feels the need to deny any part of even if I don't say they are form acts of a god.

It's not that. You would have to see the interview to grasp the inanity. As for hating God, how can I hate something that I do not believe exists?

If I didn't know you hated the notion of god, then how else would I have inferred you didn't believe he existed? Your wreak of hatred for religion....not an insult to you....I don't like those parasitic televangelists either, but you are as easy to spot
for me as born agains are easy for me to spot. Again...not an insult to you that you need to get defensive about....just something I observed readily in you that you now admit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's "reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an addict and

then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

A good crash course on who he is: Bill Maher has a YouTube channel/podcast called "Club Random," and Peterson was recently on it for an hour with Bill Maher (sp? whatever)

It's a great video-podcast; Robert Kennedy Jr was just on it a few weeks ago. It changed my opinion of him dramatically; as I knew only the limited, superficial but negative image the media has been putting-out about this particular Kennedy for decades.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:02:04 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:05:41 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:15:31 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 4:13:36 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:36:08 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:02:52 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:42:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become

both an addict and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all

the time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

You fucking moron, he wasn't hooked on Oxy. Rush Limbaugh was hooked on Oxy, as well as, millions of other morons. Jordan Peterson claims he was hooked on Clonazepam...but nobody gets hooked on that shit and the detoxed from it right away.

Real addicts try to last forever before they get help. I feel Jordan was being Melodramatic about it to get some been there-done that street cred.

My apologies, it was benzos. It appears to have pushed him over the edge, though. However, claiming that "nobody gets hooked on that shit" will come as a surprise to the medical community, including my wife.

Also, you are way over the top yourself trying to claim he's over the edge. People all don't follow the same personality type...anyone should be able to recognize that these days. Just because his style is different than yours doesn't mean he's

the one whos going off a cliff. Some people are more black and white and some people are full of grays. The people who see grays in everything think black and white people are extreme. They may be right, but that doesn't mean they are off a cliff.
Imagine police officers....it doesn't take long for them to recognize instantly the types of people they need to look out for...it'll seem very black and white to people who don't know what to look for themselves and very judgemental, but you'll find
police officers know exactly what they are doing because experience allows them to recognize the same bullshit people try or other evidence. For example, acne on adults combined with very behaviors and other things will instantly signal to a cop someone
is a meth addict.

Not quite. Watch some of his older lectures, where he is overly rational.

I was only curious about him because my son mentioned he had read a book. I'm not nearly interested in listening to any of these personal angst type self help gurus.

More recently, his arguments are just bonkers, often in a bizarre attempt to defend religious ideas.

See, I think this is your personal personal hatred of religion that is wrongfully prejudicing you here. The bible/Quran/BookofMorons doesn't have to be factually correct about the concept of God in order to teach some valuable life skills, lessons

about life, or our history. I'd recall your failing here when you outright attacked me for pointing out some of historical stories in the bible and connecting them to weather/spaceweather events. And, while even those stories will of course be dramatized
in their own way, there's a reason they got there...which your hatred of God somehow feels the need to deny any part of even if I don't say they are form acts of a god.

It's not that. You would have to see the interview to grasp the inanity. As for hating God, how can I hate something that I do not believe exists?

If I didn't know you hated the notion of god, then how else would I have inferred you didn't believe he existed? Your wreak of hatred for religion....not an insult to you....I don't like those parasitic televangelists either, but you are as easy to

spot for me as born agains are easy for me to spot. Again...not an insult to you that you need to get defensive about....just something I observed readily in you that you now admit.

But I don't hate the notion either. There has not been evidence presented that such an entity exists.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:04:50 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:02:04 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:05:41 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:15:31 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 4:13:36 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:36:08 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:02:52 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:42:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie.

I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become

both an addict and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all

the time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

You fucking moron, he wasn't hooked on Oxy. Rush Limbaugh was hooked on Oxy, as well as, millions of other morons. Jordan Peterson claims he was hooked on Clonazepam...but nobody gets hooked on that shit and the detoxed from it right away.

Real addicts try to last forever before they get help. I feel Jordan was being Melodramatic about it to get some been there-done that street cred.

My apologies, it was benzos. It appears to have pushed him over the edge, though. However, claiming that "nobody gets hooked on that shit" will come as a surprise to the medical community, including my wife.

Also, you are way over the top yourself trying to claim he's over the edge. People all don't follow the same personality type...anyone should be able to recognize that these days. Just because his style is different than yours doesn't mean he'

s the one whos going off a cliff. Some people are more black and white and some people are full of grays. The people who see grays in everything think black and white people are extreme. They may be right, but that doesn't mean they are off a cliff.
Imagine police officers....it doesn't take long for them to recognize instantly the types of people they need to look out for...it'll seem very black and white to people who don't know what to look for themselves and very judgemental, but you'll find
police officers know exactly what they are doing because experience allows them to recognize the same bullshit people try or other evidence. For example, acne on adults combined with very behaviors and other things will instantly signal to a cop someone
is a meth addict.

Not quite. Watch some of his older lectures, where he is overly rational.

I was only curious about him because my son mentioned he had read a book. I'm not nearly interested in listening to any of these personal angst type self help gurus.

More recently, his arguments are just bonkers, often in a bizarre attempt to defend religious ideas.

See, I think this is your personal personal hatred of religion that is wrongfully prejudicing you here. The bible/Quran/BookofMorons doesn't have to be factually correct about the concept of God in order to teach some valuable life skills,

lessons about life, or our history. I'd recall your failing here when you outright attacked me for pointing out some of historical stories in the bible and connecting them to weather/spaceweather events. And, while even those stories will of course be
dramatized in their own way, there's a reason they got there...which your hatred of God somehow feels the need to deny any part of even if I don't say they are form acts of a god.

It's not that. You would have to see the interview to grasp the inanity. As for hating God, how can I hate something that I do not believe exists?

If I didn't know you hated the notion of god, then how else would I have inferred you didn't believe he existed? Your wreak of hatred for religion....not an insult to you....I don't like those parasitic televangelists either, but you are as easy to

spot for me as born agains are easy for me to spot. Again...not an insult to you that you need to get defensive about....just something I observed readily in you that you now admit.
.

But I don't hate the notion either. There has not been evidence presented that such an entity exists.

.

Nor Santa Claus nor the Tooth Fairy. But for Jack, if you don't believe it, you must HATE it...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/6/2023 11:57 AM, BillB wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:14:21 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB" wrote in message
news:980712a1-f433-47f5...@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court >>> opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional
self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and
several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies therefore >> have jurisdiction to discipline their members who don't meet professional
standards or who violate the profession's written code of conduct/ethics for >> professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here.
Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some very nasty >> things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and the professional >> body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional
psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they gave him >> a gentle tap on the wrist by ordering him to take some kind of basic
sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a narcissist and
someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it instead of just
quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn something, as 99+% >> of other professionals would do. So he took them to court and the court
affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order for one >> of their members under these circumstances. I suspect the court relied on
s.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2 claim of >> constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and >> freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by >> law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*. (my >> emphasis)
__________


Yes, Bill, like you, I am a lawyer. I don't need a lecture on how
government professional organizations work. I'm aware of how they work.
And I'm also aware that you would spin it this way.

I explained it as best I could on the fly, not just for your benefit, but for anyone who read it. And this is the thanks I get? You called it "thought police" and "re-education camp," and then have the gall to say *I* am "spinning it?" Wow, talking

about living in an alternate universe! You must be a Trump voter.

I'm more interested in an actual Canadian court opinion on it and what the >> Canadian court had to say about it. Is there an opinion on this that you
could find easily since, you know, you're a lawyer in Canada?

Uh, I don't think you need to be a Canadian lawyer to find it. I just Googled it in about three seconds. I guess that's why I thought you really wanted my interpretation/explanation of what happened, because the actual decision could be found in

seconds, even by an Oklahoman lawyer, probably.

So, you couldn't find it, eh?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gOS8xMS8yMDIzIDk6MTcgQU0sIFZlZ2FzSmVycnkgd3JvdGU6DQo+IE9uIFN1bmRheSwg U2VwdGVtYmVyIDEwLCAyMDIzIGF0IDE6MDQ6NTDigK9QTSBVVEMtNywgVGltIE5vcmZvbGsg d3JvdGU6DQo+PiBPbiBTYXR1cmRheSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDksIDIwMjMgYXQgNTowMjowNOKA r1BNIFVUQy00LCBqYWNrIHJvdGggd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4gT24gU2F0dXJkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJl ciA5LCAyMDIzIGF0IDEyOjA1OjQx4oCvUE0gVVRDLTcsIFRpbSBOb3Jmb2xrIHdyb3RlOg0K Pj4+PiBPbiBGcmlkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciA4LCAyMDIzIGF0IDk6MTU6MzHigK9QTSBVVEMt NCwgamFjayByb3RoIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+Pj4gT24gRnJpZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgOCwgMjAy MyBhdCA0OjEzOjM24oCvUE0gVVRDLTcsIFRpbSBOb3Jmb2xrIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+Pj4+IE9u IEZyaWRheSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDgsIDIwMjMgYXQgMTI6MzY6MDjigK9QTSBVVEMtNCwgamFj ayByb3RoIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+Pj4+PiBPbiBGcmlkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciA4LCAyMDIzIGF0 IDk6MDI6NTLigK9BTSBVVEMtNywgVGltIE5vcmZvbGsgd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4+Pj4+PiBPbiBU aHVyc2RheSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDcsIDIwMjMgYXQgNzozMDoyMeKAr1BNIFVUQy00LCBqYWNr IHJvdGggd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gT24gVGh1cnNkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciA3LCAyMDIz IGF0IDEyOjQyOjQ24oCvUE0gVVRDLTcsIFRpbSBOb3Jmb2xrIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+Pj4+Pj4+ PiBPbiBUaHVyc2RheSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDcsIDIwMjMgYXQgMTI6MDE6NTDigK9BTSBVVEMt NCwgamFjayByb3RoIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gT24gV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1i ZXIgNiwgMjAyMyBhdCA3OjU5OjA04oCvUE0gVVRDLTcsIFRpbSBOb3Jmb2xrIHdyb3RlOg0K Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IE9uIFR1ZXNkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciA1LCAyMDIzIGF0IDk6MjM6NTni gK9QTSBVVEMtNCwgamFjayByb3RoIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBPbiBUdWVzZGF5 LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgNSwgMjAyMyBhdCA1OjQ2OjI44oCvUE0gVVRDLTcsIFRpbSBOb3Jmb2xr IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gT24gVHVlc2RheSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDUsIDIwMjMg YXQgMTI6MTg6MDHigK9QTSBVVEMtNCwgTW9zc2luZ2VuIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+ Pj4+IEknbSB0cnlpbmcgdG8gZmluZCBvdXQgd2hhdCB0aGUgYWN0dWFsIGlzc3VlIGlzIHdp dGggRHIuIFBldGVyc29uJ3MNCj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiAicmVlZHVjYXRpb24iIHNpdHVh dGlvbiBieSB0aGUgQ2FuYWRpYW4gdGhvdWdodCBwb2xpY2UuIElzIHRoZXJlIGEgY291cnQN Cj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBvcGluaW9uIG9uIHRoaXMgdGhhdCBleHBsYWlucyB0aGUgbGVn YWwgaXNzdWVzL2NvbmNlcHRzPw0KPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gSGUgd2VudCB0b3RhbGx5IG9m ZiB0aGUgcmFpbHMgb25jZSBoZSBiZWNhbWUgYSBkcnVnZ2llLg0KPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBJ IHRoaW5rIGhpcyBhZGRpY3Rpb24gd2FzIG1heWJlIGJ1bGxzaGl0IHRvIGdpdmUgaGltIHNv bWUgc3RyZWV0IGNyZWQgd2hlbiB0YWxraW5nIGFib3V0IGRlYWxpbmcgd2l0aCBhZGRpY3Rz Li4gSSBtZWFuLCBoZSBzdGFydGVkIHRha2luZyBwaWxscyBhdCBhZ2UgNTguLi4uYW5kIGJ5 IGFnZSA1OSBoZSBoYWQgYWxyZWFkeSBmaW5pc2hlZCB0cmVhdG1lbnQuLi4uLkRpZCBoZSBz b21laG93IGJlY29tZSBib3RoIGFuIGFkZGljdCBhbmQgdGhlbiBnZXQgdHJlYXRtZW50IHRo YXQgc2FtZSB5ZWFyPyBJIGRvbid0IGJ1eSBpdC4NCj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBJIGRvbid0IHRo aW5rIGhlIHN0b3BwZWQgdGFraW5nIHRoZSBwaWxscy4NCj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IEkgZG9uJ3Qg Z2V0IHRoZSBmZWVsaW5nIGhlJ3MgYW4gYWRkaWN0IGF0IGFsbC4gQnV0LCBhIGd1eSBvZiBo aXMgYWdlLCBwcm9iYWJseSBvbiBudW1lcm91cyBtYWludGVuYW5jZSBtZWRpY2F0aW9ucy4u LmFuZCBhIGxvdCBvZiB0aG9zZSBpbnRlbGxlY3R1YWwgdHlwZXMgYXJlIHByb2JhYmx5IGFs bCBvbiBwcm96YWMsIHRvby4gSXQgY2FuJ3QgYmUgdGhhdCBoZWFsdGh5IHF1ZXN0aW9uaW5n IGxpZmUgYWxsIHRoZSB0aW1lLg0KPj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBIZSBpcy93YXMgaG9va2VkIG9uIG94 eS4gQ29tcGFyZWQgd2l0aCBoaXMgdGFsa2luZyBhIGZldyB5ZWFycyBhZ28sIGhlIHNvdW5k cyBkZXJhbmdlZC4gVGhlbiBhZ2Fpbiwgc28gZG9lcyBXaWxsaWFtIExhbmUgQ3JhaWcuDQo+ Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gWW91IGZ1Y2tpbmcgbW9yb24sIGhlIHdhc24ndCBob29rZWQgb24gT3h5LiBS dXNoIExpbWJhdWdoIHdhcyBob29rZWQgb24gT3h5LCBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzLCBtaWxsaW9ucyBv ZiBvdGhlciBtb3JvbnMuIEpvcmRhbiBQZXRlcnNvbiBjbGFpbXMgaGUgd2FzIGhvb2tlZCBv biBDbG9uYXplcGFtLi4uYnV0IG5vYm9keSBnZXRzIGhvb2tlZCBvbiB0aGF0IHNoaXQgYW5k IHRoZSBkZXRveGVkIGZyb20gaXQgcmlnaHQgYXdheS4gUmVhbCBhZGRpY3RzIHRyeSB0byBs YXN0IGZvcmV2ZXIgYmVmb3JlIHRoZXkgZ2V0IGhlbHAuIEkgZmVlbCBKb3JkYW4gd2FzIGJl aW5nIE1lbG9kcmFtYXRpYyBhYm91dCBpdCB0byBnZXQgc29tZSBiZWVuIHRoZXJlLWRvbmUg dGhhdCBzdHJlZXQgY3JlZC4NCj4+Pj4+Pj4+IE15IGFwb2xvZ2llcywgaXQgd2FzIGJlbnpv cy4gSXQgYXBwZWFycyB0byBoYXZlIHB1c2hlZCBoaW0gb3ZlciB0aGUgZWRnZSwgdGhvdWdo LiBIb3dldmVyLCBjbGFpbWluZyB0aGF0ICJub2JvZHkgZ2V0cyBob29rZWQgb24gdGhhdCBz aGl0IiB3aWxsIGNvbWUgYXMgYSBzdXJwcmlzZSB0byB0aGUgbWVkaWNhbCBjb21tdW5pdHks IGluY2x1ZGluZyBteSB3aWZlLg0KPj4+Pj4+PiBBbHNvLCB5b3UgYXJlIHdheSBvdmVyIHRo ZSB0b3AgeW91cnNlbGYgdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGNsYWltIGhlJ3Mgb3ZlciB0aGUgZWRnZS4gUGVv cGxlIGFsbCBkb24ndCBmb2xsb3cgdGhlIHNhbWUgcGVyc29uYWxpdHkgdHlwZS4uLmFueW9u ZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgYWJsZSB0byByZWNvZ25pemUgdGhhdCB0aGVzZSBkYXlzLiBKdXN0IGJl Y2F1c2UgaGlzIHN0eWxlIGlzIGRpZmZlcmVudCB0aGFuIHlvdXJzIGRvZXNuJ3QgbWVhbiBo ZSdzIHRoZSBvbmUgd2hvcyBnb2luZyBvZmYgYSBjbGlmZi4gU29tZSBwZW9wbGUgYXJlIG1v cmUgYmxhY2sgYW5kIHdoaXRlIGFuZCBzb21lIHBlb3BsZSBhcmUgZnVsbCBvZiBncmF5cy4g VGhlIHBlb3BsZSB3aG8gc2VlIGdyYXlzIGluIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgdGhpbmsgYmxhY2sgYW5k IHdoaXRlIHBlb3BsZSBhcmUgZXh0cmVtZS4gVGhleSBtYXkgYmUgcmlnaHQsIGJ1dCB0aGF0 IGRvZXNuJ3QgbWVhbiB0aGV5IGFyZSBvZmYgYSBjbGlmZi4gSW1hZ2luZSBwb2xpY2Ugb2Zm aWNlcnMuLi4uaXQgZG9lc24ndCB0YWtlIGxvbmcgZm9yIHRoZW0gdG8gcmVjb2duaXplIGlu c3RhbnRseSB0aGUgdHlwZXMgb2YgcGVvcGxlIHRoZXkgbmVlZCB0byBsb29rIG91dCBmb3Iu Li5pdCdsbCBzZWVtIHZlcnkgYmxhY2sgYW5kIHdoaXRlIHRvIHBlb3BsZSB3aG8gZG9uJ3Qg a25vdyB3aGF0IHRvIGxvb2sgZm9yIHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMgYW5kIHZlcnkganVkZ2VtZW50YWws IGJ1dCB5b3UnbGwgZmluZCBwb2xpY2Ugb2ZmaWNlcnMga25vdyBleGFjdGx5IHdoYXQgdGhl eSBhcmUgZG9pbmcgYmVjYXVzZSBleHBlcmllbmNlIGFsbG93cyB0aGVtIHRvIHJlY29nbml6 ZSB0aGUgc2FtZSBidWxsc2hpdCBwZW9wbGUgdHJ5IG9yIG90aGVyIGV2aWRlbmNlLiBGb3Ig ZXhhbXBsZSwgYWNuZSBvbiBhZHVsdHMgY29tYmluZWQgd2l0aCB2ZXJ5IGJlaGF2aW9ycyBh bmQgb3RoZXIgdGhpbmdzIHdpbGwgaW5zdGFudGx5IHNpZ25hbCB0byBhIGNvcCBzb21lb25l IGlzIGEgbWV0aCBhZGRpY3QuDQo+Pj4+Pj4gTm90IHF1aXRlLiBXYXRjaCBzb21lIG9mIGhp cyBvbGRlciBsZWN0dXJlcywgd2hlcmUgaGUgaXMgb3Zlcmx5IHJhdGlvbmFsLg0KPj4+Pj4g SSB3YXMgb25seSBjdXJpb3VzIGFib3V0IGhpbSBiZWNhdXNlIG15IHNvbiBtZW50aW9uZWQg aGUgaGFkIHJlYWQgYSBib29rLiBJJ20gbm90IG5lYXJseSBpbnRlcmVzdGVkIGluIGxpc3Rl bmluZyB0byBhbnkgb2YgdGhlc2UgcGVyc29uYWwgYW5nc3QgdHlwZSBzZWxmIGhlbHAgZ3Vy dXMuDQo+Pj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4+PiBNb3JlIHJlY2VudGx5LCBoaXMgYXJndW1lbnRzIGFyZSBq dXN0IGJvbmtlcnMsIG9mdGVuIGluIGEgYml6YXJyZSBhdHRlbXB0IHRvIGRlZmVuZCByZWxp Z2lvdXMgaWRlYXMuDQo+Pj4+PiBTZWUsIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBpcyB5b3VyIHBlcnNvbmFs IHBlcnNvbmFsIGhhdHJlZCBvZiByZWxpZ2lvbiB0aGF0IGlzIHdyb25nZnVsbHkgcHJlanVk aWNpbmcgeW91IGhlcmUuIFRoZSBiaWJsZS9RdXJhbi9Cb29rb2ZNb3JvbnMgZG9lc24ndCBo YXZlIHRvIGJlIGZhY3R1YWxseSBjb3JyZWN0IGFib3V0IHRoZSBjb25jZXB0IG9mIEdvZCBp biBvcmRlciB0byB0ZWFjaCBzb21lIHZhbHVhYmxlIGxpZmUgc2tpbGxzLCBsZXNzb25zIGFi b3V0IGxpZmUsIG9yIG91ciBoaXN0b3J5LiBJJ2QgcmVjYWxsIHlvdXIgZmFpbGluZyBoZXJl IHdoZW4geW91IG91dHJpZ2h0IGF0dGFja2VkIG1lIGZvciBwb2ludGluZyBvdXQgc29tZSBv ZiBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIHN0b3JpZXMgaW4gdGhlIGJpYmxlIGFuZCBjb25uZWN0aW5nIHRoZW0g dG8gd2VhdGhlci9zcGFjZXdlYXRoZXIgZXZlbnRzLiBBbmQsIHdoaWxlIGV2ZW4gdGhvc2Ug c3RvcmllcyB3aWxsIG9mIGNvdXJzZSBiZSBkcmFtYXRpemVkIGluIHRoZWlyIG93biB3YXks IHRoZXJlJ3MgYSByZWFzb24gdGhleSBnb3QgdGhlcmUuLi53aGljaCB5b3VyIGhhdHJlZCBv ZiBHb2Qgc29tZWhvdyBmZWVscyB0aGUgbmVlZCB0byBkZW55IGFueSBwYXJ0IG9mIGV2ZW4g aWYgSSBkb24ndCBzYXkgdGhleSBhcmUgZm9ybSBhY3RzIG9mIGEgZ29kLg0KPj4+PiBJdCdz IG5vdCB0aGF0LiBZb3Ugd291bGQgaGF2ZSB0byBzZWUgdGhlIGludGVydmlldyB0byBncmFz cCB0aGUgaW5hbml0eS4gQXMgZm9yIGhhdGluZyBHb2QsIGhvdyBjYW4gSSBoYXRlIHNvbWV0 aGluZyB0aGF0IEkgZG8gbm90IGJlbGlldmUgZXhpc3RzPw0KPj4+IElmIEkgZGlkbid0IGtu b3cgeW91IGhhdGVkIHRoZSBub3Rpb24gb2YgZ29kLCB0aGVuIGhvdyBlbHNlIHdvdWxkIEkg aGF2ZSBpbmZlcnJlZCB5b3UgZGlkbid0IGJlbGlldmUgaGUgZXhpc3RlZD8gWW91ciB3cmVh ayBvZiBoYXRyZWQgZm9yIHJlbGlnaW9uLi4uLm5vdCBhbiBpbnN1bHQgdG8geW91Li4uLkkg ZG9uJ3QgbGlrZSB0aG9zZSBwYXJhc2l0aWMgdGVsZXZhbmdlbGlzdHMgZWl0aGVyLCBidXQg eW91IGFyZSBhcyBlYXN5IHRvIHNwb3QgZm9yIG1lIGFzIGJvcm4gYWdhaW5zIGFyZSBlYXN5 IGZvciBtZSB0byBzcG90LiBBZ2Fpbi4uLm5vdCBhbiBpbnN1bHQgdG8geW91IHRoYXQgeW91 IG5lZWQgdG8gZ2V0IGRlZmVuc2l2ZSBhYm91dC4uLi5qdXN0IHNvbWV0aGluZyBJIG9ic2Vy dmVkIHJlYWRpbHkgaW4geW91IHRoYXQgeW91IG5vdyBhZG1pdC4NCj4gLg0KPj4gQnV0IEkg ZG9uJ3QgaGF0ZSB0aGUgbm90aW9uIGVpdGhlci4gVGhlcmUgaGFzIG5vdCBiZWVuIGV2aWRl bmNlIHByZXNlbnRlZCB0aGF0IHN1Y2ggYW4gZW50aXR5IGV4aXN0cy4NCj4gLg0KPiANCj4g Tm9yIFNhbnRhIENsYXVzIG5vciB0aGUgVG9vdGggRmFpcnkuIEJ1dCBmb3IgSmFjaywgaWYg eW91IGRvbid0IGJlbGlldmUgaXQsIHlvdSBtdXN0IEhBVEUgaXQuLi4NCg0KU28sIEplcnJ5 IC4uLiBkbyB5b3UgYmVsaWV2ZSBpbiAiZ29kIj8gIERvIHlvdSBsaWtlIG9yIGRpc2xpa2Ug b3IgY2FyZSANCm9yIGRvbid0IGNhcmUgZm9yIHNvbWVvbmUgd2hvICJiZWxpZXZlcyIgaW4g YSBzdXByZW1lIGJlaW5nPyAgSSB3YXMgZ29uZSANCmEgd2VlayBhbmQgdGhpcyBpcyB3aGF0 IEkgZ2V0IGJhY2sgdG8/DQoNCkRvIHlvdSAiaGF0ZSIgInJlbGlnaW9uIj8NCg0KRG8geW91 ICJoYXRlIiB0aG9zZSB3aG8gZGlzYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB5b3VyIHBvbGl0aWNhbCBwcm9ub3Vu Y2VtZW50cz8NCg0KRG8geW91IHRoaW5rIE1hdiAiaGF0ZXMiIHlvdT8NCg0KDQo=

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:36:33 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:

On 9/11/2023 9:17 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:04:50 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:02:04 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:05:41 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:15:31 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 4:13:36 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:36:08 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:02:52 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:42:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-4, jack roth wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:46:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-4, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He went totally off the rails once he became a druggie. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think his addiction was maybe bullshit to give him some street cred when talking about dealing with addicts.. I mean, he started taking pills at age 58....and by age 59 he had already finished treatment.....Did he somehow become both an

addict and then get treatment that same year? I don't buy it.

I don't think he stopped taking the pills.

I don't get the feeling he's an addict at all. But, a guy of his age, probably on numerous maintenance medications...and a lot of those intellectual types are probably all on prozac, too. It can't be that healthy questioning life all the

time.

He is/was hooked on oxy. Compared with his talking a few years ago, he sounds deranged. Then again, so does William Lane Craig.

You fucking moron, he wasn't hooked on Oxy. Rush Limbaugh was hooked on Oxy, as well as, millions of other morons. Jordan Peterson claims he was hooked on Clonazepam...but nobody gets hooked on that shit and the detoxed from it right away.

Real addicts try to last forever before they get help. I feel Jordan was being Melodramatic about it to get some been there-done that street cred.

My apologies, it was benzos. It appears to have pushed him over the edge, though. However, claiming that "nobody gets hooked on that shit" will come as a surprise to the medical community, including my wife.

Also, you are way over the top yourself trying to claim he's over the edge. People all don't follow the same personality type...anyone should be able to recognize that these days. Just because his style is different than yours doesn't mean he's

the one whos going off a cliff. Some people are more black and white and some people are full of grays. The people who see grays in everything think black and white people are extreme. They may be right, but that doesn't mean they are off a cliff.
Imagine police officers....it doesn't take long for them to recognize instantly the types of people they need to look out for...it'll seem very black and white to people who don't know what to look for themselves and very judgemental, but you'll find
police officers know exactly what they are doing because experience allows them to recognize the same bullshit people try or other evidence. For example, acne on adults combined with very behaviors and other things will instantly signal to a cop someone
is a meth addict.

Not quite. Watch some of his older lectures, where he is overly rational.

I was only curious about him because my son mentioned he had read a book. I'm not nearly interested in listening to any of these personal angst type self help gurus.

More recently, his arguments are just bonkers, often in a bizarre attempt to defend religious ideas.

See, I think this is your personal personal hatred of religion that is wrongfully prejudicing you here. The bible/Quran/BookofMorons doesn't have to be factually correct about the concept of God in order to teach some valuable life skills,

lessons about life, or our history. I'd recall your failing here when you outright attacked me for pointing out some of historical stories in the bible and connecting them to weather/spaceweather events. And, while even those stories will of course be
dramatized in their own way, there's a reason they got there...which your hatred of God somehow feels the need to deny any part of even if I don't say they are form acts of a god.

It's not that. You would have to see the interview to grasp the inanity. As for hating God, how can I hate something that I do not believe exists?

If I didn't know you hated the notion of god, then how else would I have inferred you didn't believe he existed? Your wreak of hatred for religion....not an insult to you....I don't like those parasitic televangelists either, but you are as easy to

spot for me as born agains are easy for me to spot. Again...not an insult to you that you need to get defensive about....just something I observed readily in you that you now admit.

.

But I don't hate the notion either. There has not been evidence presented that such an entity exists.

.

Nor Santa Claus nor the Tooth Fairy. But for Jack, if you don't believe it, you must HATE it...

.

So, Jerry ... do you believe in "god"?

No.

Do you like or dislike or care or don't care for someone who "believes" in a supreme being?

Only if it affects me or mine. i.e. When flying commercially, I worry that the plane would have a
problem, and while going into a death dive, a religious pilot would release the controls, put
his hands together in prayer, close his eyes, bow his head and start praying. "God answers
all prayer."

I was gone a week and this is what I get back to?

I wouldn't know.

Do you "hate" "religion"?

No. What is there to hate. It's superstition. Do YOU hate superstition?

Do you "hate" those who disagree with your political pronouncements?

See above. Do YOU hate a person, just because they disagree on something?

"I think it's going to rain."
"I don't think so."
"I hate you."

Do you think Mav "hates" you?

Don't know; don't care..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"BillB" wrote in message news:d9c08011-6c1b-405b-acc4-74941933cd9an@googlegroups.com...

But he voluntarily relinquished part of that right by joining a professional organization and agreeing to abide by their standards. He agreed to abide by customary standards of decorum and more specifically the Code of Ethics and Conduct for that profession. He can resign his membership and say all the bigoted crap he wants or he can stay and follow the rules he agreed to in
the first place (after he completes his "Being a Human Being for Dummies" course). No court is going to back him up, and the reality is that being a sympathetic figure in court is always a huge advantage over being an evil villain who is obviously wasting everyone's time just for the fun of it and
to create more YouTube content.

_________________



Is the professional organization he joined a governmental entity? I'm
unclear on that part. In other words, is the College of Psychologists of Ontario a truly private organization? If it grants government licenses to practice the it doesn't sound like it is.

If so, I am not convinced that the government can force him to relinquish
his constitutional rights like that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 1:56:01 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:

On 9/11/2023 3:08 PM, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB" wrote in message
news:d9c08011-6c1b-405b...@googlegroups.com...

But he voluntarily relinquished part of that right by joining a professional organization and agreeing to abide by their standards. He agreed to abide by customary standards of decorum and more specifically the Code of Ethics and Conduct for that profession. He can resign his membership and say all the bigoted crap he wants or he can stay and
follow the rules he agreed to in the first place (after he completes his "Being a Human Being for Dummies" course). No court is going to back him up, and the reality is that being a sympathetic figure in court is
always a huge advantage over being an evil villain who is obviously wasting everyone's time just for the fun of it and to create more
YouTube content.

_________________

Is the professional organization he joined a governmental entity? I'm unclear on that part. In other words, is the College of Psychologists
of Ontario a truly private organization? If it grants government
licenses to practice the it doesn't sound like it is.

If so, I am not convinced that the government can force him to
relinquish his constitutional rights like that.

He apparently could not find the case he was talking about.

You are apparently senile.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/11/2023 3:08 PM, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB"  wrote in message news:d9c08011-6c1b-405b-acc4-74941933cd9an@googlegroups.com...

But he voluntarily relinquished part of that right by joining a
professional organization and agreeing to abide by their standards. He
agreed to abide by customary standards of decorum and more specifically
the Code of Ethics and Conduct for that profession. He can resign his membership and say all the bigoted crap he wants or he can stay and
follow the rules he agreed to in the first place (after he completes his "Being a Human Being for Dummies" course). No court is going to back him
up, and the reality is that being a sympathetic figure in court is
always a huge advantage over being an evil villain who is obviously
wasting everyone's time just for the fun of it and to create more
YouTube content.

_________________

Is the professional organization he joined a governmental entity?  I'm unclear on that part.  In other words, is the College of Psychologists
of Ontario a truly private organization?  If it grants government
licenses to practice the it doesn't sound like it is.

If so, I am not convinced that the government can force him to
relinquish his constitutional rights like that.

He apparently could not find the case he was talking about.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 1:59:29 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

You are apparently senile.

Why don't you apparently go fuck yourself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:31:13 PM UTC-7, Paul Popinjay wrote:

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 1:59:29 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

You are apparently senile.

Why don't you apparently go fuck yourself.

You seem like a very angry, unhappy person. Your senile friend went out of his way to make two posts claiming I couldn't post the Peterson court decision when I had already posted a link to it. Or he could have just googled "Jordan Peterson decision pdf"
and it would have been the first result. That was apparently too difficult for TWO different American lawyers. lol

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 4:01:00 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

You seem like a very angry, unhappy person. Your senile friend went out of his way to make two posts claiming I couldn't post the Peterson court decision when I had already posted a link to it.

My friend is not senile, fuckface.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 1:08:15 PM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB" wrote in message
news:d9c08011-6c1b-405b...@googlegroups.com...
But he voluntarily relinquished part of that right by joining a professional organization and agreeing to abide by their standards. He agreed to abide by customary standards of decorum and more specifically the Code of Ethics and Conduct for that profession. He can resign his membership and say all the bigoted crap he wants or he can stay and follow the rules he agreed to in the first place (after he completes his "Being a Human Being for Dummies" course). No court is going to back him up, and the reality is that being a sympathetic figure in court is always a huge advantage over being an evil villain who is obviously wasting everyone's time just for the fun of it and to create more YouTube content.
_________________

Is the professional organization he joined a governmental entity? I'm unclear on that part. In other words, is the College of Psychologists of Ontario a truly private organization? If it grants government licenses to practice the it doesn't sound like it is.

If so, I am not convinced that the government can force him to relinquish his constitutional rights like that.

The government body is created by statute therefore their regulations would be subordinate to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the primary SCC case the Ontario Superior Court of Justice relied upon to deny Peterson's application:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7998/index.do

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 4:53:21 PM UTC-7, Paul Popinjay wrote:

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 4:01:00 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

You seem like a very angry, unhappy person. Your senile friend went out of his way to make two posts claiming I couldn't post the Peterson court decision when I had already posted a link to it.

My friend is not senile, fuckface.

I can only go by the best evidence available, and his posts here suggest something ain't quite right.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/11/2023 3:59 PM, BillB wrote:

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 1:56:01 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:

On 9/11/2023 3:08 PM, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB" wrote in message
news:d9c08011-6c1b-405b...@googlegroups.com...

But he voluntarily relinquished part of that right by joining a
professional organization and agreeing to abide by their standards. He
agreed to abide by customary standards of decorum and more specifically
the Code of Ethics and Conduct for that profession. He can resign his
membership and say all the bigoted crap he wants or he can stay and
follow the rules he agreed to in the first place (after he completes his >>> "Being a Human Being for Dummies" course). No court is going to back him >>> up, and the reality is that being a sympathetic figure in court is
always a huge advantage over being an evil villain who is obviously
wasting everyone's time just for the fun of it and to create more
YouTube content.

_________________



Is the professional organization he joined a governmental entity? I'm
unclear on that part. In other words, is the College of Psychologists
of Ontario a truly private organization? If it grants government
licenses to practice the it doesn't sound like it is.

If so, I am not convinced that the government can force him to
relinquish his constitutional rights like that.

He apparently could not find the case he was talking about.

You are apparently senile.

Still looking, eh?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/11/2023 11:37 AM, da pickle wrote:

On 9/6/2023 11:57 AM, BillB wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:14:21 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

"BillB" wrote in message
news:980712a1-f433-47f5...@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:18:01 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

I'm trying to find out what the actual issue is with Dr. Peterson's
"reeducation" situation by the Canadian thought police. Is there a
court
opinion on this that explains the legal issues/concepts?

It's not thought police; it's professional standards. Professional
self-governing bodies for doctors, lawyers, psychologists, teachers and
several other professions are created by statute, and those bodies
therefore
have jurisdiction to discipline their members who don't meet
professional
standards or who violate the profession's written code of
conduct/ethics for
professional behavior. As I understand it, that's what happened here.
Peterson took to the internet and called transgender people some very
nasty
things (reminiscent of the things Nazis called Jews), and the
professional
body stepped in and said that isn't conduct becoming of a professional
psychologist and does actual harm to transgender patients, so they
gave him
a gentle tap on the wrist by ordering him to take some kind of basic
sensitivity and professionalism course. Peterson, being a narcissist and >>> someone who craves attention, made a big deal about it instead of just
quietly taking the damn course and maybe trying to learn something,
as 99+%
of other professionals would do. So he took them to court and the court
affirmed the professional body's jurisdiction to make such an order
for one
of their members under these circumstances. I suspect the court
relied on
s.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter Peterson's s.2
claim of
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

s.1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the
rights and
freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits
prescribed by
law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
society*. (my
emphasis)
__________


Yes, Bill, like you, I am a lawyer. I don't need a lecture on how
government professional organizations work. I'm aware of how they work.
And I'm also aware that you would spin it this way.

I explained it as best I could on the fly, not just for your benefit,
but for anyone who read it. And this is the thanks I get? You called
it "thought police" and "re-education camp," and then have the gall to
say *I* am "spinning it?"  Wow, talking about living in an alternate
universe! You must be a Trump voter.

I'm more interested in an actual Canadian court opinion on it and
what the
Canadian court had to say about it. Is there an opinion on this that you >>> could find easily since, you know, you're a lawyer in Canada?

Uh, I don't think you need to be a Canadian lawyer to find it. I just
Googled it in about three seconds. I guess that's why I thought you
really wanted my interpretation/explanation of what happened, because
the actual decision could be found in seconds, even by an Oklahoman
lawyer, probably.

So, you couldn't find it, eh?

Still looking, eh?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)