dialamah

Wow, three times! My friend, who is much more social than I am, has been exposed once, but because she's double vaccinated, she was told her risk was low, no need to quarantine. Still, her daughter and some friends chose to avoid her anyway. The person who exposed her was her trainer, a young healthy guy who didn't think he needed to be vaccinated. All three times, it was fully vaxxed people who were the spreaders. Given the inaccuracies of your previous posting history, I'm inclined to take this with a huge grain of salt. Anyway, if you are being exposed on a monthly basis, I'm worried about you - especially with your heart condition. Covid is really hard on the heart. I might think you are extremely misguided, but wouldn't want anything to happen to you.

Here's a word for you:. Consequences. You have the right to refuse the vaccine; doing so results in consequences. The potential consequences are:. 1:. More likely than vaccinated people to get sick, go to the hospital, get put on a ventilator, suffer long haul Covid, die. 2. Be prevented from going places where you might spread or more easily contract the virus due to your unvaccinated state. Choices have consequences, even when you don't like those consequences. Unlike you, Jews had no choice at all. BTW, nowhere here am I suggesting you should be shot or denied medical care. Only that you accept the consequences of choice If you are one of the very few who cannot be vaccinated, then my heart goes out to you that you are caught in the same group as those who choose to remain unvaccinated. OTOH, if you are already that vulnerable, you are probably not interested in going anywhere the virus might be, anyway. My heart also goes out to people who must check vaccines and workers who are abused by anti-vax idiots. But if you've let yourself be misled by anti-vax propaganda, then don't cry when your gullibility bites you in the a$$.

? If only the Jews had realized they need only engage in a single, socially responsible action, they could have avoided being slaughtered. Imagine comparing someone's inability to attend a few public places to being rounded up, taken to camps, starved, tortured and killed. These anti-vaccine arguments are getting dumber by the minute.

There's a strange pretzel shape to @Yzermandius19's arguments

Why did God give different rights to Canadians than he did to Americans?

People can protest; why would you think they cannot? The objection is where they were carried out and how they impacted sick people, not the protests themselves. But "you people" seem to find it necessary to lie to support your arguments. Why is that?

Let me put it into simpler terms so you can understand. 1. In his ward, there were 5 beds, 4 of which were on use. Three of the beds were in direct site of the nurse's station; 2. There were 3 nurses for 5 beds, less than 2 patients per nurse; 3. As the sickest, he was in the room right beside the nurses station; 4. One nurse was always at the nursing station and could monitor him closely and get to him quickly; 5. After two days, he was moved to the step down unit, where the ratio of patients to nurses was around 3-4 to 1; 6. Covid patients on ventilators are going to need care similar to the level my partner had after his surgery; 7. Burnout and departures are reducing the care we're able to give patients in ICUs, whether due to Covid or something else; 8. In BC,we have about 510 ICU beds and 474 of them currently occupied, about 150 of those are Covid patients; 9. Of those 150 patients, 112 are unvaccinated; 10: We are down to 36 ICU beds in the province to deal with other emergencies - like the two burn victims in Burnaby this morning; 11: Patients from Northern health are being sent south because of lack of beds. I believe that's your area of BC - hope nothing serious happens to you and you don't need intensive care in a hospital with no ICU beds. Maybe they can put you in the hallway, but that won't be optimum for your recovery. We could sure use the beds those unvaccinated people are using just because they didn't want to get vaccinated.

Another lie. Every report I've seen differentiates between one-jab, two-jabs, unvaccinated. I was never told that, nor were my partner, daughter, son, granddaughter, or several friends. Are you lying again?

You lie so much. "There was little in the way of real information that supported my opinion." There, FIFY

Yup. And anti-vaxers use that as an excuse to not care if it gets worse due to there actions. Just sloughing off responsibility. So everybody is lying, right. Alberta calling for help and sending people out if Province because they're out of beds is just a big hoax. Kenney laughing up his sleeve at how gullible we are. Yup. Let's have the health care system pay $30,000 per person instead of $20 so the anti-vaxers won't be inconvenienced. After all, it's not their money being spent. So let's see how many people we can kill now, is that your idea? And I've *heard* that anti-vaxers have sawdust for brains. Doesn't make it true, does it. This is incoherent. Like all the "reasons" used by anti-vaxers.

When my partner had back surgery, he was right next to a nurses station so that all three nurses could monitor him for his first two days (in case the bunch of pain killers he was taking for the pain caused him to OD). There were other 4 or 5 other patients in that ward, but none who was as sick as him. At that time, there was no Covid so the resources were available for the care he needed. Patients in the hospital with Covid on oxygen and on ventilators also need a lot of monitoring, and for longer than a couple of days. But resources for that care not there because there are so many patients, burnout of medical care and the departure of nurses and other medical staff due to the stress of this pandemic. You have no clue, so STFU.

My partner has essential tremors; it's now affecting his speech and will soon start affecting his ability to walk. There's surgery he can have, but so long as the hospitals are full of critically ill people who didn't think they should be vaccinated, he'll have to wait. There is no vaccine for essential tremors. Lockdowns and vaccines both reduce the spread of Covid and reduce hospitalizations, giving people like my partner a better chance of having the surgery they need. So yeah, if it takes vaccine passports and restrictions to keep Covid under control and hospitals free to care for non-Covid patients, bring them on. And note Alberta, whose Premier took to heart the anti-mask, anti-lockdown and anti-vax sentiment: look at where they are now.

@Yzermandius19 - Here's some periods for your sentences - ...... Here are the capital letters you forgot: P, T, J, I. I'm done discussing with you because you make no sense. But I don't mind helping you with your grammar and punctuation.

Ok, done with someone so clearly confused and illogical.

Wow, that's such a weird conclusion. Take a look at Western countries that limit hate speech and you'll notice hate motivated violence than the States. Can it really be coincidence that the country that allows hate speech has more hate-motivated crime than countries that limit hate speech?

Than why hasn't Canada had a Charlottesville? Or anywhere near the hate-motivated crimes the States have had? If hate speech is limited, how do haters find like-minded people so they can group up? Or even persuade others to join their "cause"? Sure, haters can hope to find like-minded people in the pub or Church through in-person conversation, but if their message isn't acceptable in public, than they're not going to be able to find enough supporters to pull off a Charlottesville.

Canada hates hate speech, that's why they restrict hate speech. Fify Don't know if you live in Canada, but if you do, perhaps you'd be happier in the States.

A better analogy would be that the first plate has steak, veggies and potatoes (able to enjoy all activities), second plate has lettuce and chickpeas on it (some limits on activities) First choice has better outcomes, the second plate sucks but it's survivable. You make the choice, nobody is forcing you to eat lettuce and chickpeas for the foreseeable future.

Those channels are free in Egypt, because how could someone buy something that doesn't exist inside the borders of Egypt? Dunno if Afghanistan has the same arrangement with reality and fantasy, but it seems repressive societies play these kind of wink-wink games a lot.

Canada already restricts what people can say. According to the courts, one cannot, for example, use the words "filth," "propaganda" and "sodomy" when distributing anti-gay pamphlets because that constitutes hate speech. The court has ruled that teaching anti-Semitism constitutes hate speech along with phoning people with hateful messages and writing racist and symbols on one's child and sending them out into the world. James Sears, who published "Your Ward News" was sentenced to a year in jail for the hate speech contained in his 'newspaper': “It consistently blamed, demonized and maligned Jews. Women were represented as inferior, immoral and less than human. Physical and sexual violations against them were counselled and celebrated,” (the judge) said. “Mr. Sears, in his mid-fifties, promoted hate over a lengthy period of time to a vast audience in an era where online exposure to this material inexorably leads to extremism and the potential of mass casualties.” Do you disagree with the outcome of these cases and the judge's comments? There isn't any right to hate speech in Canada, consequently there is nothing for you to preserve. I'd say you have to prove that the current laws in Canada are too limiting. So far, you don't even seem to have an idea of what hate speech is, let alone presented a coherent argument as to why it should be unlimited.

Then I'd say you support hate speech. And yes, I think hate speech should be proscribed. The government agrees with me, although we may differ on where and what constitutes hate speech. I agree they should be able to say that, and give rational reasons why not. What I don't agree they should be able to promote is the idea that immigrants from certain areas of the world are lazy, inclined to crime, not fit for our society. That, to me, is hate speech. It targets a certain group of people, it lies about those people as a group, and it supports the idea that they immoral, evil and unworthy. I've said this to you before, and I'll say it again: If you deny that words can sway or influence people in certain directions (good or bad), then you have no clue about how and why humans communicate. Sure you can say that. Promoting the idea that such people are delusional, predators, pedophiles, immoral, evil and unacceptable is different, imo. Your opinion differs from the law, and mine. Abusive language directed toward a group creates hatred for that group. I'd agree that there is a fine line between free speech and hate speech, and that the line drawn by one judge may not be shared by other judges. The link I included in another post looked at 7 cases in Canada that helped define the difference between hate speech and free speech. One in particular was about a guy who distributed posters protesting homosexuality. Two of them were fine, per the court's decision, but the other two were not because they promoted hate against homosexuals. None of the pamphlets included threatening language. So your opinion differs from law, but I concede that law is not always right and may need objecting to. However, in this case I think Canada has the right idea - there has to be a limit on speech, not all speech is acceptable.

So you have no idea what you are arguing for. Hate speech needs people to lie for it's success in swaying others to hatred and violence. Even in the privacy between individuals, lies are not tolerated; why should they be tolerated in the public sphere? Anyway, there are limits to hate speech, but it's difficult to prove and so far, courts are willing to give people a lot of leeway. My opinion is that hate speech leads to more violence, but I'm happy to let the courts decide on individual cases.

Since you are so supportive of these people, can you explain why are they protesting at hospitals anyway; they have nothing to do with the immunization policies of the government? That just seems stupid to me.

This'll be the third time I've asked: What would YOU consider hate speech?

You ask good questions, thanks. 1. My opinion: It's not hate speech to say that you hate the KKK, or Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism because of ______. It It is hate speech to say that Muslims are terrorists (based on some extremists), Christians are murderers (based on some extremists), or Jews are out to rule the world and must be eliminated (based on nothing), Chinese Canadians are spies and not to be trusted (because you don't like China). 2. My opinion: It's not hate speech to say you hate abortion. It is hate speech say that people who are pro-choice are baby-killers, have no morals, are murderers. It is ok to say you hate misogyny, it's not ok to say that all men are misogynists, abusers, rapists. It not hate speech to deny the holocaust (however wrong you are); it is hate speech to say that the Nazi's had the right idea, that Jews are a blight on humanity. 3. Am not talking about Islamophobia in particular; was more remembering my neighbor, who targeted anyone who wasn't white; neighbors from Jamaica, South America, India and Greece. At the time, there were no Muslims living here. He brought home to me the problem of racism in Canada, and made me think about the way in which people like him are created - or radicalized. He wasn't born hating brown people; that attitude had to be shown him by the words and beliefs of others - whether his parents, friends or online groups. His behavior was on the verge of becoming violent, rather than just spouting hateful/abusive claims. Words people say influence others, for good or bad. I read a bunch and watched some documentaries on how people are radicalized, and that is how I came to my opinions on this. 4. Just because you (generic, not specifically you) wouldn't do anything, the words you use can empower others. They hear what you say, understand that you guys believe the same things but for some reason you don't or can't act on it - maybe you have a family you don't want to leave if you end up in jail; maybe you are just afraid; maybe you don't understand the true seriousness of the situation. Therefore, it is up to the extremist listening to you to do something. By denying the power of many voices who, (for example), claim that Muslims are barbaric, misogynistic, do not fit into our society, are lazy, refuse to work because they can take advantage of our social supports and should not be let into the country - you are creating hate for Muslims in general. Not terrorists, or extremists - but Muslims who simply want to live their lives, who work, who don't even talk about their religion to others - let alone coerce - who follow all laws, who don't beat their wives, who don't subject their daughters to FGM. Even the claim that immigrants from certain countries do not work hard, can't speak English because they choose not to as a way of rejecting Western society, who have lower education, who create criminals - those things create hate for immigrants. No group is monolithic and "hate speech", by default, must ascribe only the worst traits to whatever group is targeted - Muslim, Jews, immigrants, Christians, homosexuals, LGBTQ. If someone is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the huge variety of beliefs any group has, and focuses only the behavior of the very worst of the, that is hate. Definition of hate speech: abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. On this forum, that definition is regularly met. Criticism of Islam, or Judaism or Christianity is different. I criticize Christianity because of it's inbuilt paternalism, exclusion of others, judgement of anyone who is different; I criticize Judaism and Islam for much the same reasons. But not all Muslims, Christians or Jews are paternalistic, exclusionary or judgmental. Especially in Christianity many adherents fail to follow the worst of Christianity. I don't criticize immigrants, or even immigration policy; others criticize immigration policy without also demonizing immigrants. Some people criticize pro-choice because they believe that there is no point at which an individual isn't human. Other people demonize pro-choice people by calling them baby-killiers, murderers, immoral and by extension evil. Failing to take responsibility for the words you use is simply a cop-out. Just for the record, I don't hold it against people who may, in a moment of emotion, express hateful thoughts, but are overall do not indulge in hateful rhetoric. There are a few on this forum who'll do that (I've been guilty of that myself). In my opinion, hate speech must be consistently expressed by an individual or group, not a one-off situation.