Este by bolo fajn si to precitat cele, lebo takto vytrhnute z kontextu je to len Clickbait .

The mature student was reported by younger classmates after she said women were born with female genitals and that “the difference in physical strength of men versus women is a fact”. The complaints have prompted a formal investigation into her conduct.

Platit ani registrovat sa tam neplanujem, ale uz len tento odsek mi nahana zimomriavky...

platit ani registrovat sa nepotrebujes... a nahana ti to strach, lebo to bol plan a spapal si to aj s navijakom.

mj: Mozes mat mesiac zadarmo, ale musis sa zaregistrovat.
A co som spapal? Mas nejake informacie ze to je hoax? Ze sa to nestalo? Ze spoluziaci neudali spoluziacku za to, ze povedala ze muz a zena sa fyzicky odlisuju? A ze ju kvoli tomu nezacali vysetrovat?

keby si len trochu chcel mat realne informacie, mal by si ich :) , bez akehokolvek platenia ci registrovania.

mj: ziadna konkretna odpoved? Realne informacie su tie, ktore ty povazujes za realne? Este raz: je to, co je uvedene v tom clanku hoax?

ideme hra tu hru, ze ja nieco k tomu napisem a ty napises, ze si vymyslam ?


Abertay University

We are disappointed by inaccurate press reports and comments relating to freedom of speech at Abertay.
To be absolutely clear, freedom of speech within the law is not only permitted at Abertay but is strongly encouraged.
All Universities should be places where controversial, challenging or even upsetting issues can be debated in a constructive and collegial way.
The University does not comment on student disciplinary cases and is duty bound to investigate any complaints received.

mj: napisal som niekde ze si nieco vymyslas? Pytal som sa, ci mas informacie o tom, ze uvedeny clanok je nepravdivy.

Pokial je pravda to, ze spoluziaci udali spoluziacku za jej vyjadrenie (to konkretne ktore je uvedene, nie ze sa chysta vystrielat ucitelsky zbor), je to samo o sebe mrazive. Take veci sa stavali v nacistickom Nemecku, komunistickom Rusku, alebo aj CSSR.

Pokial je pravda, ze ju udali za to, ze povedala to, co sa uvadza v clanku, je to velmi nebezpecne. Takze veci sa diali... vid vyssie. Alebo mas pocit, ze by to bolo v poriadku? Ze treba potlacat uvadzanie prostych faktov?

Pokial je pravda to, ze ju kvoli tomu zacali vysetrovat, je to opat velmi znepokojujuce. Aj ked v tomto pripade sa moze jednat len o formalnu zalezitost.

Pokial nic z vyssie uvedeneho nie je pravda a cely clanok je nafuknuta konspiracna bublina ako z hlavnych sprav, budem len rad. Preto sa ta pytam: mas relevantne info, ze sa jedna o hoax?

Pretoze vyjadrenie univerzity, ktore si uviedol je vseobecne a irelevantne. Sice sa stazuju na "nepresne informacie" a vyrazne sa stavaju za slobodu prejavu, nijako vsak nevysvetluju v com je reportaz nepresna a ako to teda v skutocnosti bolo.

ale vysvetluju, len ty necitas. Mali debatu, ktora zasla za akceptovatelnu hranicu, padli nejake urazky a aj na temu transgender ludi. Niekto sa citil dotknuty a stazoval sa (to nie je udanie). A kedze babenka studuje za pravnicku vedela presne na aku strunu zabrnkat a na ake medium sa obratit. Samozrejme, ze ked sa v mediach omiela len ta nepodstatna cast konfliktu a to este sposobom, aby sa nasralo co najviac ludi (co viditelne funguje, aj ty si uz stihol spomenut komunistov aj nacistov) potom to tak dopadne.
Univerzita jasne napisala, ze su povinny presetrit akukolvek staznost. To znamena bezohladu na jej opodstatnenost.

Pokial mas taketo informacie, daj linku, rad si to precitam. Zaujimalo by ma, co konkretne zaslo za ciaru, cim konkretnym sa dotycna osoba citila dotknuta a akym konkretnym sposobom bola staznost podana. Pretoze ano, presne informacie su dolezite, bez nich sa da cela vec dezinterpretovat. Ale to ako z jednej, tak z druhej strany.

A neodbijaj ma tym, ze si to mam najst sam. Pokial sem uvadzas take veci ako uvadzas, musis mat konkretny zdroj. Pokial sa jedna o platene medium, kludne sem pastni relevantny odsek/odseky. Verim, ze tym neporusis ziaden zakon. Naopak, prispejes k potlacaniu nepravd a konspiracii.

Dufam, ze tu rano od teba nieco pouzitelne najdem.

Vidis, pri clanku pri clanku si nic nepotreboval overovat (lebo confirmation bias), ja uz mam davat linky a kopirovat odstavce, presne ako som napisal. Ja chcem aby ludia sami overovali informacie.

Tak, zial, nenasiel som.

Clanok mi poskytol len zakladnu informaciu (pravdivu? nepravdivu?), tazko nejaky confirmation bias. Ja nie som biased, ja vnimam (zjavne na rozdiel od teba) problemy ako na jednej, tak na druhej strane.

Uviedol si urcite detaily ohladne daneho sporu. Kedze si to uviedol pomerne promptne, su len dve moznosti. Bud mas presnejsi a obsiahlejsi zdroj informacii, alebo si si to vycucol z prstu, aby si podporil svoj postoj. Kedze si moju ziadost o uvedenie daneho zdroja arogantne odbil, musis uznat, ze tentokrat si mi dal dost dobry dovod predpokladat, ze si vymyslas. Netvrdim, ze si naozaj vymyslas, avsak ak namiesto jednoducheho uvedenia zdroja skoncis pri pokusoch o shaming a virtue signaling ("Ja chcem aby ludia sami overovali informacie"), dava mi to urcitu predstavu.

Tazko viest debatu v spolocnosti, kde ucastnici nie su ochotni pocuvat a vnimat opacne nazory a postoje. Nabozenski fanatici stale bezhlavo obhajuju nabozensky crap, dezolati bezhlavo obhajuju konspiracny crap a sjws bezhlavo obhajuju sjw crap.

To ze bez akehokolvek naznaku ma obvinujes, ze nevnimam obidve strany problemu, hovori o tvojom konfirmacnom biase. Co konkretne z toho co som napisal ta k tomu vedie ? Ja ani neviem z ktorou verziou anonyma sa vlastne rozpravam. Ten clanok je vsade, ale ty si nic nenasiel, dokonca na to skocili aj niektori poslanci? Co to ma povedat mne ?

Za prve, neobvinujem ta. Napisal som, ze mam dovod predpokladat, ze zavadzas. Ten dovod som jasne popisal, takze tvoje "bez akehokolvek naznaku" je len dalsie zavadzanie. Ale kludne svoj dovod zopakujem: jednoduchemu uvedeniu zdroja svojich informacii sa vyhybas obvinovanim ma z konfirmacneho biasu, shamingom a pomocou logical fallacies.

Za druhe, celej veci by pomohlo, keby si sem ten zdroj uviedol, tak ako som ta ziadal uz niekolko krat. Ak sa potvrdi, ze clanok je hoax a ze cela vec bola nafuknuta bublina, velmi rad sa ti ospravedlnim a sam budem mat lepsi pocit.

Student investigated for saying women must have vaginas.

By Marc Horne, 15 May 2021.

A law student who said that women have vaginas and are not as physically strong as men is being investigated by her university.

Disciplinary action is being taken against Lisa Keogh, 29, over “offensive” and “discriminatory” comments that she made during lectures at Abertay University, Dundee.

The mature student was reported by younger classmates after she said women were born with female genitals and that “the difference in physical strength of men versus women is a fact”. The complaints have prompted a formal investigation into her conduct.

Keogh, a final-year student, fears that any sanction could end her dream of becoming a human rights lawyer. Her case is being backed by Joanna Cherry QC, the SNP MP for Edinburgh South West and deputy chairwoman of the Lords and Commons joint committee on human rights, who described the situation as farcical.

Keogh was astonished to receive an email accusing her of transphobic and offensive comments during seminars on gender feminism and the law. “I thought it was a joke,” she said. “I thought there was no way that the university would pursue me for utilising my legal right to freedom of speech.”

She was accused of saying women were the “weaker sex” and classmates were “man-hating feminists” when one student suggested that all men were rapists and posed a danger to women.

“I didn’t deny saying these things and told the university exactly why I did so,” she said. “I didn’t intend to be offensive but I did take part in a debate and outlined my sincerely held views. I was abused and called names by the other students, who told me I was a ‘typical white, cis girl’. You have got to be able to freely exchange differing opinions otherwise it’s not a debate.”

Keogh claims that she was muted by her lecturer in a video seminar when she raised concerns about a trans woman taking part in mixed martial arts bouts. “I made the point that this woman had testosterone in her body for 32 years and, as such, would be genetically stronger than your average woman,” she said.

“I wasn’t being mean, transphobic or offensive. I was stating a basic biological fact. I previously worked as a mechanic and when I was in the workshop there were some heavy things that I just couldn’t lift but male colleagues could.”

The university’s definition of misconduct includes “using offensive language” or “discriminating against gender reassignment”. Punishment can be as harsh as expulsion.
Keogh, a mother of two, fears for her future. “I don’t come from a legal background and have worked incredibly hard to get to where I am,” she said.

“I’m worried that my chance of becoming a lawyer, and making a positive contribution, could be ended just because some people were offended.”

She believes that generational differences contributed to the episode. “Those girls fresh out of high school who accused me are training to be lawyers” she said. “There are no trigger warnings in a courtroom. The judge isn’t going to whisper softly or excuse them from listening to things they might not want to hear.”

Cherry confirmed that she had written to Abertay asking what steps it had taken to protect student rights, which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
She said: “Ms Keogh is being subjected to a disciplinary procedure in which the ultimate sanction is expulsion, for stating opinions based on biological fact and objecting to sweeping statements such as ‘all men are rapists’.”

Abertay University said that it did not comment on disciplinary matters.

JG: Dakujem, som rad, ze som si to mohol precitat cele.

@jeden z anonymov prosim cituj ma kde presne som napisal, ze clanok je hoax !!!

Ty si sam priznal, ze si clanok necital cely, ale robil si zavery, ako inak chces definovat konfirmacny bias ? Tu verziu co sem dal JG by si nasiel do par minut, keby si chcel. Uz z tychto informacii je jasne, ze nadpis je Clickbait (to je to co som napisal). Ta slecna nie je vysetrovana preto, ze povedala, ze zeny maju vaginu. Ale samozrejme pri tom nadpise na ten clanok takmer kazdy klikne, aj ja. V tom spore teda nejde o ten vyrok v nadpise a nikto nikoho zatial nepotrestal, univerzita napisala, ze media skresluju fakty a kazdu staznost MUSI vysetrit. Teraz odhliadnut od toho ci je to pravda, alebo nie, slecna udajne tvrdila, ze si zeny za znasilnenie mozu sami a vacsina zien si zasluzi byt znasilnena. Este raz zopakujem, to neznamena, ze to tak naozaj bolo, ale znamena to, ze univerzita ma dobry dovod to vysetrovat.

mj: vsetky anonymne komentare pod tymto prispevkom pochadzaju odo mna. Predpokladal som, ze je to zrejme. Ale neprekvapuje ma tvoj dalsi pokus o shaming.

Ziadne zavery som netvoril, len som na zaklade pristupnych informacii z ukazky clanku vyjadril znepokojenie. Pokial si mal ty pristup k celemu clanku, mohol si ho sem uviest, rovnako, ako to spravil JG. Na zaciatku debaty si totiz poukazal na to, ze by bolo dobre si cely clanok precitat. Ci som si ho mohol alebo nemohol najst sam je irelevantne. Implicitne (a logicky) som predpokladal, ze clanok nepovazujes za pravdivy, teda za hoax.

Teraz som si cely clanok precital a moje znepokojenie sa len prehlbilo. To je samozrejme podla teba len konfirmacny bias. Ty tvrdis, ze UDAJNE slecna povedala, ze si za znasilnenia zeny mozu same a zasluzia si byt znasilnene. Opat bez udania akehokolvek zdroja. Tebe staci "udajne", to samozrejme na tvojej strane ziaden konfirmacny bias nie je. Btw, velmi silne pochybujem o tom, ze by nieco take povedala. Ale to je zase len moj "bias", vsakze...

Este raz (a naposledy), uved sem zdroje na zaklade ktorych tvrdis co tvrdis. T.j. ze clanok je nepresny (nemyslim teraz vyjadrenie univerzity, to nic konkretne nehovori), v com je nepresny, ze dotknuta osoba vyvolala spor prekrocenim nejakej hranice, akej hranice a co konkretne bolo predmetom staznosti. Inak su tvoje predpoklady len konfirmacny bias (v tomto pripade par excellence, vychadzajuc z definicie).