dialamah

I'm not against the idea of well-trained, licenced people adding security. But most of the security guards (unarmed) make pretty low wages so I wouldn't expect them to risk their lives by engaging in a firefight with a robber. And I suspect most regularly targetted businesses wouldn't be able to afford the cost of someone with the degree of training, skills and dedication needed to risk their life.

1. Your cite is from 2008, and notes thats the first time since 1974, 34 years. Is it still true or was that year an anomaly? 2. Most guns are specifically for killing people; knives, cars and drunk drivers are not. Equating them fails; you might as well claim that guns are the same as rocks, because sometimes people kill using rocks. 3. I think there's some truth in that. But at the same time, you seem to be arguing against "making it safer for Canadians" by reducing guns and gun access. Perhaps one reason we don't "take on issues" - there's always pushback from someone. Seatbelts, helmets, safe injection sites, legalized abortion and prostitution - these measures all help "make it safer for Canadians" and there's always a fight to implement them.

The idea that a "good guy with a gun" is always the hero is disproven almost daily in the States. These good guys with a gun kill innocent bystanders, friends and family members more often than they save the day with their heroic gun waving. My Canadian son, attacked by another Canadian, survived because his attacker couldn't get a gun so he had to use a knife and its harder to kill with a knife. So my opinion is that the fewer guns we have in Canada, the fewer oeople will die from guns. Win-win.

Along with American culture exported in their media, and their guns across the border.

FIFY.

Aka: complaint. Or, Liberal "complaints" are only opposition to maintaining a status-quo that results from unfairness in our society. Yup, it hardly matters what name a a party claims, they can be progressive or conservative in action, as Army Guy has already pointed out to me.

Agreed. I fell into the trap of responding to "its all one way" with my own "its all one way". I'll try to do better.

1. Liberals support progressive issues before the fact; conservatives after. Example: Conservatives fought same-sex marriage and now pat themselves on the back that Canada is so progressive; 2. They seem to complain plenty: pay inequality, access to assisted dying, LGBTQ+ issues. In the past, conservatives complained about letting women vote, letting women access birth control without having to go through their husband, legalizing homosexuality, letting natives vote, letting natives off the reservation without permission. Conservatives complain lots about these sorts of things, and then when they're dragged - kicking and screaming - into a more progressive country, they suddenly realize it's what they wanted all along and how great Canada is to have these freedoms and rights and how dare anyone mention that Canada wasn't always such a great place for many non-white, non-male, non-Christian people. 3. Maintaining status-quo is not, by definition, 'plain and simple justice'.

How many ways can you come up with reject this study? Two consumer grade masks were as good as N95 masks; two and three layer cotton masks with high thread count were also high performers.

That's a choice you've made and has nothing to do with my actual views. I've noticed that when I express an opinion that isn't what you expect, you accuse me of lying. So, you've made the choice to cast me as something I'm not. That is equality of opportunity. Unless you think "old boys club" isn't a thing. Or that people aren't 'biased' preferring people that look, speak, and believe the same as them - but you've already made the case that tribal bias is a natural part of human behavior. Anyway, that tribal bias is exactly why women and minorities have historically been overlooked for things like serving on boards and why white men have historically maintained power of our institutions. Now, this I agree with to a certain degree - and I've said so before. There does need to be more focus given to the way in which societal and gender role changes affect men. Because it certainly does affect them. You mean, assigning women so that there is equal male/female representation in his government? Or is there something else? If it's just the way in which he's set up his government, it could be that the women he selected were equally as or more qualified then the men he didn't select. Historically, women have been overlooked in favor of men: the assumption you continue to make is that men have always been chosen on merit. As we know, due to our tribal bias, a roomful (or boardroom or government) full of men is going to be more comfortable with bringing in more men; how can you guarantee that the men selected were always more qualified than available women, always selected on merit?

When I think that the majority of Canadians, left or right, hold similar views in regards to social issues, I think that brings cohesiveness to our society. When I see moderates post here, I feel kinship with them. Pointing out our similarities brings us together and can help us reach solutions. Harping on differences and using hyperbole and generalizations to define the side you don't agree with promotes tribes. That works for both sides, me included when I've done that. 1. So we agree. 2. Do they? I think "the left" largely believes that equality of opportunity will lead to equality of outcome. Same goal, different approach - the "left", broadly speaking, wants to guarantee the opportunity; the right, broadly speaking, does not believe that guaranteeing even an opportunity is necessary. 2. That's the result of the sell job engaged in by certain elements of our society. I'd define them as very right wing religious types. Examples are people who claim that "the left" supports children changing their gender and third term abortions 'just cause.' Those are fringe beliefs, as far as I can tell, and do not reflect the values of most leftists. But they're regularly trotted out by a certain group as proof of how bad "leftists" are. Most leftists and rightists agree that kids should not change gender and that third term abortions are/should be the result of very serious health issues. The left trusts people to make such determinations themselves; the right thinks it must be legislated because people are untrustworthy. Same goal, different methods. If the majority of Canadians agree, broadly, on what a society should strive for, how does it help to tell yourself, and anyone who'll listen, that the extreme views of the minority represents the other side in it's entirety?

When I think that the majority of Canadians, left or right, hold similar views in regards to social issues, I think that brings cohesiveness to our society. When I see moderates post here, I feel kinship with them. When I see posts like your opening one - as MH pointed out, disparaging one side and using extremes to do define that side, I see that as encouraging diviseness and reducing the cohesiveness of our society. That is dividing us into tribes. Pointing out our similarities brings us together and can help us reach solutions. Harping on differences and using hyperbole and generalizations to define the side you don't agree with promotes tribes. That works for both sides, me included when I've done that.

Pew Research finds that 98% of Canadians support gender equality - a social justice issue. Again, this includes conservatives; it's not just a 'lefty' thing. This 2020 poll reveals that 70% of Canadians support greater acceptance of LGBTQ; 80% support doctor-assisted dying; 51% support abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 49% only in the first two trimester, unless there is risk to mother; 60% think we should keep god/religion out of public life. There's a lot of support among Canadians for improving "social justice" in our society. This includes moderate conservatives as well as lefties. Moderates of both the left and the right are the majority in this country, and our goals are more closely aligned than posts such as your opening post would have us belief.

Poll finds 90% of Canadians are patriotic; more women than men are proud of Canada. I bet these aren't all conservatives, btw.

I didn't use the words "Social Justice" in my post, so why did you define my words that way? In any case, the definition of social justice is "justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society." The habit of the extreme right defining "social justice" as you just did simply muddies the water. I can agree that some elements of the left are extreme; I do not support that just as I'm sure you don't support the extreme elements of the right. Do you? Defining the "other side" as it's most extreme elements is not debating in good faith. 2. Really? Because all I hear from conservatives generally is that Canada is a kind of shithole, full of people who only want short term gain, don't think of the future, who have no idea what the issues are and are selfish, thoughtless and stupid. I don't believe that attitude really defines the attitude of most conservatives in Canada, thankfully, and so while moderate conservatives may have different ideas than I do, I'm certain they are driven by pride in our country. No left-leaning person I know thinks Canada is the most " racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and islamophobic society on Earth"; many of us do think we could all do better. Wanting to be better does not mean 'everything is the worst'. You wouldn't think a company who made $1,000,000.00 in profit last year has to make the same this year, because doing better means they were worthless, useless and the 'worst ever' last year. So why should a person who wants their country to be better must therefore hate that country and consider it the worst country ever? Why do you define everything in extremes?

Why does nationalism and religion provide a more acceptable sense of purpose than seeking fairness and compassion for everyone, in your mind? Don't conservatives and religious people want that as well? Left leaning moderates (which most of us are) certainly have a sense of purpose in believing that everyone has a place, is entitled to respect, fair treatment, a place to live, enough to eat and enough income to sustain that bare minimum. How is trying to achieve that in our society, and even worldwide, not a valuable purpose? I don't know of a single person among my left-leaning friends who doesn't think Canada is the best country in the world, even while acknowledging our less than stellar performance at times, historically and in the present. I expect left-leaning moderstes in other countries feel the same. How is that not nationalism, even is less militant than the attitude that "my country may never be criticized nor acknowledge the ugly facts of our country."? My sense of purpose and what is right for the country I love is no less acceptable or valuable than yours.

Trump was pretty active on social media, liked his rallies and being in front of the camera; I certainly didn't need to have him filtered through any kind of media to realize how dumb he is, and how much he lies.

I didn't like him years before he ran for president, nothing to do with late night programming. He's always been an unlikable character for me, but I didn't realize how lacking in intelligence and honesty he was till he was running for office. I'll grant you that people are very easily programmed and strangely gullible. Oh well.

Of course, if nobody said anything about what the future for these kids is going to look like, us old fogeys could sleep better at night knowing we don't have to do anything. Kids would be screwed, of course, but we won't be around to be blamed. Here's the decrease in snowfall at Vancouver airport since 1950 - 6 inch average decline, but nothing to see here, per right-wing deniers.

I don't really give a fuck about what other leftists, liberals want to do. I think people who are willing to use violence to achieve their ends, or to encourage others to use violence are trouble makers and should be shut down. Peaceful Trump cultists protesting: no arrest. Violent Trump cultists and their eggers'on - arrest. Peaceful BLM Protesters, no arrests. Violent BLM protesters and their eggers-on - arrest. Etc. You can try to paint me as some kind of "my side can do no wrong" extremist, but if you'd ever read my posts with an open mind, you'd know I'm consistent about condemning violence and those who support or encourage it through their speech.

Christian Troll Technique. She knows people find it annoying and is gleeful about that. Very Christian is our Betsy.

I guess you missed the whole attack on the Capitol event. Maybe spend less time on Qanon sites and more time on current events, and you wouldn't have to ask dumb questions.

Only the freedoms of the trouble-makers are being curtailed; you are still free to spout any nonsense you want. Unless your nonsense has drifted into violence and you've also been banned from social media? This whining about conservatives being oppressed is stupid - there are forums and platforms everywhere for their views, and they post on Facebook, Twitter etc, just like liberals do. The real problem is that Trump supporters aren't so much conservatives as extremists, and their views aren't wanted. You guys have presented your ideas to the marketplace and they've been rejected - its not oppression, its rejection. Also, there's a difference between an attempted insurrection and a robbery, but I guess its all the same to you if the insurrectionists share your views. I think if some Islamic extremists were discussing, over social media, how to kidnap or kill Western politicians, and ensure their preferred leader were installed you'd have no problem curtailling their freedoms to shut them down. You'd probably be demanding it. Why should Trump or his cultists be treated any differently?

Social media platforms and the US gov gave people a lot of places to say whatever they wanted to, true or not. Ended up with the Capitol being invaded by an armed mob. So yeah, even words have consequences.

Provisional data on causes of death, January to April 2019 and January to April 2020.