Men-only barber shop controversy

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Well I was accused of harassment, leering, called repugnant and a scumbag while not using any emotional language so it seems like you are again, making false assumptions. I'm done here, you guys are out to lunch.

I didn't call you repugnant or a scumbag. I called your argument repugnant and the guys who leer at girls scumbags. You, on the other hand, have resorted to calling the people who don't agree with you clowns. Maybe if you weren't so sensitive to all of this your reading comprehension would be better.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

They are almost always dressed like this because they want attention. A girl dressed in a barley there halter top and lululemon pants so tight you can see through them is in the same boat IMO.

You are saying this as a woman right, because you are privy to women's motivations, one would assume.

This is gross.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

rubecube, please stop being a self righteous jerk. Your posts generally make sense and I assume you've got some education in this field, but constantly attacking other posters is doing nothing to help your cause.

I don't see him as attacking. I see AcGold taking the same approach he took in the following threads:

• NHL 15
• Organic veggies/fruits
• autism vaccination

and other.

He is quick to pull the "you are all attacking me" card.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

rubecube, please stop being a self righteous jerk. Your posts generally make sense and I assume you've got some education in this field, but constantly attacking other posters is doing nothing to help your cause.

I'm trying very hard to attack the arguments and not the poster. If I've erred along the way, I apologize. It's clearly a very heated discussion.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by AcGold

When did I say I stare?

You're splitting hairs. You were still excusing men staring at women based on their attire. If you had said looking or glancing, I don't think we'd be in this mess.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by AcGold

When did I say I stare?

COME ON MAN.
It's been quoted like four times! lol

Originally Posted by AcGold

The gym is not a workplace and women choose to wear revealing clothing on their own freewill, you don't decide where my eyes go in public. If a women chooses to show her butt and wear a shirt that barely holds in her chest it's not really harassment, she'd be chastised for wearing it at work so how can you chastise people for looking at women that choose to wear revealing clothing? I don't walk around in a speedo and get pissed off if people stare, that's silly.

Some serious over sensitivity and misplaced political correctness. Wearing revealing clothing around a bunch of men exercising and acting dismayed at being looked at is ridiculous. Go to Curves if it's that much of an issue, it's not against the law to look at women wearing revealing clothing in public. Just because men look doesn't mean their going to harass her, it's unreasonable to ask men not to stare at the one thing that drives their brain the most when flaunting it around.

Again, very isolated:

Originally Posted by AcGold

it's unreasonable to ask men not to stare at the one thing that drives their brain the most when flaunting it around.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

If this guy complained about being leered at by girls in the gym, I'm betting he would get zero sympathy from any quarter. In fact, guys that dress like this when going to the gym are routinely mocked by pretty much everyone as dude-bros and D-bags.

They are almost always dressed like this because they want attention. A girl dressed in a barley there halter top and lululemon pants so tight you can see through them is in the same boat IMO.

Individuals need to realize that they have some control over how they are treated and act accordingly just as the people they encounter need to do the same. It's a two way street.

I think you're using the wrong example. The female equivalent of that is the chick that does her hair and cakes on a tonne of make-up so she can leisurely use the recumbent bike for half an hour. I think Lulus and tight-fitting top is pretty standard for most women, or at least most women at the gyms I go to.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't see him as attacking. I see AcGold taking the same approach he took in the following threads:

• NHL 15
• Organic veggies/fruits
• autism vaccination

and other.

He is quick to pull the "you are all attacking me" card.

All? Why do you feel the need to make such sweeping generalizations like this? As if some of you never once made a statement could be skewed. You are the ones making accusations and slandering me, I have no bone to pick and generally go out of my way to avoid arguments. It's Rubecube and Chill Cosby trying to attack me but that makes me quick to pull the you are all attacking me card?

Some of you need to realize that in many of your posts there are also small fallacies that can be picked apart to fit whatever argument I've got but I don't. The need of a select few to make yourselves feel self-righteous is tiring, if I say something that has a small fallacy so what? None of you is perfect either. No need to make sweeping character generalizations, you wonder why I complain? How about not jumping off the handle so quickly if something offends you.

In the NHL 15 thread I said EA has the sole rights to NHL, which I was wrong about, and people flipped the hell out not even giving me the chance to say oh, I guess they don't. It's like you interpret one statement as wrong and see the possibility to exploit it to the maximum extent to elevate yourselves while putting down someone else.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think you're using the wrong example. The female equivalent of that is the chick that does her hair and cakes on a tonne of make-up so she can leisurely use the recumbent bike for half an hour. I think Lulus and tight-fitting top is pretty standard for most women, or at least most women at the gyms I go to.

Ummm doesn't this contradict the argument from before?

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

If this guy complained about being leered at by girls in the gym, I'm betting he would get zero sympathy from any quarter. In fact, guys that dress like this when going to the gym are routinely mocked by pretty much everyone as dude-bros and D-bags.

They are almost always dressed like this because they want attention. A girl dressed in a barley there halter top and lululemon pants so tight you can see through them is in the same boat IMO.

Individuals need to realize that they have some control over how they are treated and act accordingly just as the people they encounter need to do the same. It's a two way street.

This type of woman typically takes a "going to the gym" selfie as well, complete with duckface. Problem is, there are guys who know and enjoy this, and go to the gym to try and pick up or just stare and creep.

In the case of the woman at the barbershop, she knows it's men only. She actively sought out the response from the business, and now it isn't enough. Personally, I would have just cut her damn hair and let her have the "victory." Really though, a stable and rational person would have just gone to their regular hairdresser.

[To Be Quite Honest]

AAAAAAnd this thread is done.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

In the case of the woman at the barbershop, she knows it's men only. She actively sought out the response from the business, and now it isn't enough. Personally, I would have just cut her damn hair and let her have the "victory." Really though, a stable and rational person would have just gone to their regular hairdresser.

Apparently you missed this post from page 2: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...2&postcount=30

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by AcGold

All? Why do you feel the need to make such sweeping generalizations like this? As if some of you never once made a statement could be skewed. You are the ones making accusations and slandering me, I have no bone to pick and generally go out of my way to avoid arguments. It's Rubecube and Chill Cosby trying to attack me but that makes me quick to pull the you are all attacking me card?

Some of you need to realize that in many of your posts there are also small fallacies that can be picked apart to fit whatever argument I've got but I don't. The need of a select few to make yourselves feel self-righteous is tiring, if I say something that has a small fallacy so what? None of you is perfect either. No need to make sweeping character generalizations, you wonder why I complain? How about not jumping off the handle so quickly if something offends you.

No one is attacking you. We were attacking your arguments. You decided to take things personally. And I'm not trying to be self-righteous. I used to be one of the most thoughtless, insensitive #######s in the world, who used to believe that whenever I pissed someone off it was their fault for being too sensitive. Then I got a little older and realized that some of things I said and did were pretty god damn harmful to a lot of people, so I've endeavoured to be more empathetic, and have tried to look at issues from a variety of perspectives as opposed to just my own. I also stopped taking it personally when people would attack me for my beliefs or my arguments. They weren't not attacking me, just as I'm not attacking you. They were attacking all the oppression and nonsense that many of my beliefs represented to them. I don't think any of us can truly understand what a lot of these women, minorities, etc., go through from our varying positions of privilege. That's not to say we lack the ability to be sympathetic, but it's virtually impossible to understand what all those obstacles feel like when you're not the one constantly facing them (and I'm not discounting any of your own obstacles, which I guarantee I might not be able to understand).

So no, it's not self-righteousness. I'm trying to impress upon you that your actions and words have real-world consequences on people, whether you think they're being oversensitive or not.

[The Ditch]

this whole website is filled with the most ridiculous stereotype people that I sometimes think it could all be some sort of ironic masterminded plan between a group of people.

keep up the good work.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AcGold

All? Why do you feel the need to make such sweeping generalizations like this? As if some of you never once made a statement could be skewed. You are the ones making accusations and slandering me, I have no bone to pick and generally go out of my way to avoid arguments. It's Rubecube and Chill Cosby trying to attack me but that makes me quick to pull the you are all attacking me card?

Some of you need to realize that in many of your posts there are also small fallacies that can be picked apart to fit whatever argument I've got but I don't. The need of a select few to make yourselves feel self-righteous is tiring, if I say something that has a small fallacy so what? None of you is perfect either. No need to make sweeping character generalizations, you wonder why I complain? How about not jumping off the handle so quickly if something offends you.

In the NHL 15 thread I said EA has the sole rights to NHL, which I was wrong about, and people flipped the hell out not even giving me the chance to say oh, I guess they don't. It's like you interpret one statement as wrong and see the possibility to exploit it to the maximum extent to elevate yourselves while putting down someone else.

Mate you made this post:

Originally Posted by AcGold

I've never once questioned whether they work, tying the potential for harm with their efficacy is a mistake though. I've read a reasonable amount on the subject and don't see much if at all any addressing the scientific and logical basis for how they can be harmful. Not sure why the need to tie their efficacy and autism though, not that I think it even causes it, just have a reasonable doubt that they are harmless.

A bunch of posters (myself included) asked for link to your articles.

Your response:

Originally Posted by AcGold

I would post my thoughts and sources but this is a kangaroo court. What is the point discussing something where the verdict has been decided already? Vaccines are good to all of you and if I don't want kids vaccinated I'm a heretic, I get it.

There are other examples I am sure, but this one just jumped to my memory.

It seems to be you approach to posting.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

this whole website is filled with the most ridiculous stereotype people that I sometimes think it could all be some sort of ironic masterminded plan between a group of people.

keep up the good work.

Pfft...solipsist.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Mate you made this post:



A bunch of posters (myself included) asked for link to your articles.

Your response:



There are other examples I am sure, but this one just jumped to my memory.

It seems to be you approach to posting.

To be fair, he's not trying to make any empirical claims in this thread like he was in that one.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

T
Personally, I would have just cut her damn hair and let her have the "victory."

Personally, I'm glad that there are still people out there who have the will to stand up for themselves and their principles. The barbershop is his business which was modeled with a certain focus and as such I think he should have every right to decide whether or not he wants to cut someones hair.

[110%]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You're wrong.

A private business is not legally permitted to deny service on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. unless there is a legitimate justification in the eyes of the court for the discrimination (as photon noted earlier). The Charter doesn't allow you to open, for example, a clothing store that refuses to sell to black customers or a private school that won't accept Asian students. You could open a business that you advertise as a "Jewish Deli", but you would not be allowed to refuse service to non-Jews.

You could be right, but can you point me to some source or decision where the Charter is used as grounds to challenge a private business on something like this?

The Charter seems clear to me where it applies:

32. (1) This Charter applies a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; andb) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by 110%

You could be right, but can you point me to some source or decision where the Charter is used as grounds to challenge a private business on something like this?

The Charter seems clear to me where it applies:

32. (1) This Charter applies a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; andb) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

mavrickstruth corrected me in this post. I was correct when I stated that private businesses cannot legally deny service to customers on the basis of race/religion/etc., but that protection does not come from the Charter.