Halifax prof quits after sexual relationship with student revealed


Angstrom
#31
Unlike many I do not argue to only fulfil a need to feel right. If you guys can give me a good argument based on something real like nature or other reality I will agree and adopt it in my beliefs.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

And that's the strawman fallacy. Make up an argument you think you can beat, ascribe it to your interlocutor, and argue against it.

Essentially it's talking to yourself (well, that and lying). Both very natural, I'm sure. For you.

Then explain the straw man fallacy
 
Tecumsehsbones
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

Unlike many I do not argue to only fulfil a need to feel right. If you guys can give me a good argument based on something real like nature or other reality I will agree and adopt it in my beliefs.



Then explain the straw man fallacy

I just did.
 
Angstrom
#33
And how it fits into basing decision and opinions on the fact that humans are natural.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I just did.

Oh! Ok then that just means you don't understand what I'm saying.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

And how it fits into basing decision and opinions on the fact that humans are natural.

It doesn't. That's the whole point.
 
Angstrom
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

It doesn't. That's the whole point.

Then you can prove that you understand what I'm saying by giving me a example of why humans ain't natural like you keep insisting.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

Then you can prove that you understand what I'm saying by giving me a example of why humans ain't natural like you keep insisting.

Depends on your definition of "natural." And I never said humans aren't natural. I just pointed out that your definition "natural" appears to be "whatever Angstrom likes."
 
Angstrom
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Depends on your definition of "natural." And I never said humans aren't natural. I just pointed out that your definition "natural" appears to be "whatever Angstrom likes."

Yes as soon as opinions are added into anything it has the potential to go wrong I agree.
Gerryh pointed that out to me in the girl killed herself because of gay conversion therapy thread.
If you care to read it.

I changed my beliefs in that case. I will do the same with you if you can point out where I erred,
And explain why.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

And that's the strawman fallacy. Make up an argument you think you can beat, ascribe it to your interlocutor, and argue against it

How is that different then any other discussion? That's why it's called debating.... If you can't give me a good argument to counter my logic then we must try harder. How else can we discover the truth of our world?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post



How is that different then any other discussion?

Same way masturbation's different from sex, son.
 
Angstrom
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Same way masturbation's different from sex, son.

Lol.

So no one wants to debate with me because they know they can't win.
 
SLM
#40
Geez, do you cheat at solitare too and declare yourself victorious?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Geez, do you cheat at solitare too and declare yourself victorious?

Probably buys his left hand flowers.
 
Angstrom
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Geez, do you cheat at solitare too and declare yourself victorious?

Well you do win at solitaire sometimes lol
 
SLM
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

Well you do win at solitaire sometimes lol

Not the question I asked was it?
 
Angstrom
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Not the question I asked was it?

How did I cheat in our discussion?

I cheated cause I based my argument on the fact that humans are natural?

Sounds like you two are just butt hurt from not being able to find a good argument to counter my logic. Lol
 
SLM
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

How did I cheat in our discussion?

I cheated cause I based my argument on the fact that humans are natural?

Sounds like you two are just butt hurt from not being able to find a good argument to counter my logic. Lol

Now you're just being obtuse. Either purposefully or because you're obtuse.

Regardless, it's time to come to an end.
 
Angstrom
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Now you're just being obtuse. Either purposefully or because you're obtuse.

Regardless, it's time to come to an end.

Well when you can explain how I cheated in our argument please explain it to me. I'd love to be able to understand you.

Or you can be a grown adult and admit you are wrong and I'm right.

But like the morally handicapped, some humans are incapable of admitting that they are wrong.
 
SLM
+1
#47
 
Angstrom
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Lol

I can explain it for you.


You're opinion is that everyone should have the moral ability and capacity to control their sexual impulses an that this mans behaviour is unacceptable.

And I argued. If he had the ability to control himself he wouldn't have done it. Obviously he lacks the ability.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

Lol

I can explain it for you.


You're opinion is that everyone should have the moral ability and capacity to control their sexual impulses an that this mans behaviour is unacceptable.

And I argued. If he had the ability to control himself he would have done it. Obviously he lacks the ability.

Where would she be without a big, strong, virile, natural man to tell her what she thinks?
 
Angstrom
#50
And then you stopped arguing and said I was wrong.
There we go. That sums up this discussion.

Then you said you had no crayons to explain why I was wrong. Lol

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Where would she be without a big, strong, virile, natural man to tell her what she thinks?

Would you say my summary of the thread is correct?
 
damngrumpy
#51
The fact is the family pays twice. This man is a jerk first class.
He does the deed and cheats because it is a fact they got
back together so he didn't intend to leave his wife forever.
Its revealed there is a relationship and it is public domain and
the family pays again from adverse publicity and the fact the
man loses his job because he violated a position of public
trust. The is not normal behavior its selfish and lousy behavior.
 
Angstrom
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

The fact is the family pays twice. This man is a jerk first class.
He does the deed and cheats because it is a fact they got
back together so he didn't intend to leave his wife forever.
Its revealed there is a relationship and it is public domain and
the family pays again from adverse publicity and the fact the
man loses his job because he violated a position of public
trust. The is not normal behavior its selfish and lousy behavior.

Yes, If he could control it he wouldn't do it obviously.

The same way a homosexual would not be homosexual if he could control it.

Just cause you can control it doesn't mean everyone can.
Just like cause you can walk every one can.
 
tay
#53
Christie Blatchford served with libel notice

The National Post columnist falsely defamed her and never contacted her to get her side of the story, says Tarrah McPherson.

Tarrah McPherson filed notice Thursday that she intends to sue Blatchford and Postmedia for a column that ran in The National Post and other Postmedia newspapers, online on March 17, 2017 and in print editions the next day. It bore the headline: “ Again, a man’s life left in ruins, while his sexual-assault accuser goes about hers .”

The column dealt with a highly publicized case of alleged sexual misconduct at Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax. Instructor Michael Kydd resigned after admitting to a sexual relationship with McPherson, who was then a student. The nature of that relationship is disputed.

Until today, McPherson has not identified herself publicly.

“I have tried to engage processes that should have respected the privacy and integrity of everyone involved — his [Kydd’s] family, my family, even the institutions involved,” writes McPherson in a statement given to the Halifax Examiner.

“I did not choose to name anyone publicly and I have fought for my right to privacy,” McPherson continues in the statement.

“However, now I have decided to sacrifice my privacy and attach my name to a Notice of Libel served on the National Post and Christie Blatchford.”

In her column, Blatchford “asserts that Mr. Kydd had a consensual sexual relationship with Ms. McPherson which ‘retrospectively morphed’ into misconduct complaints against Mr. Kydd,” Radnoff writes in the notice. “The relationship between Mr. Kydd and Ms. McPherson was not consensual. (Blatchford) also inaccurately suggests that Ms. McPherson wanted to attack or injure Mr. Kydd and dishonestly or inaccurately claimed, in order to accomplish this objective, that their relationship was not consensual.”

Blatchford wrote that “Postmedia has managed to confirm many significant details about Kydd’s case” in suggesting that the information in the article is accurate. She doesn’t name these sources or provide any information about them.

The notice served on Postmedia, The National Post, and Christie Blatchford on Thursday contains a laundry list of alleged faults with Blatchford’s column.

Click here to read the Notice

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featu...-libel-notice/