Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jariax

  1. I would love it if Bill Gates controlled the world. Pretty sure he'd do a much better job than whoever is in charge now.
  2. In terms of feasibility: 1) Trudeau wouldn't have a problem with it. He is the least Catholic PM we have ever had, including the guy who put the communion wafer in his pocket. 2) As others have pointed out, the Constitutional protections could be gotten around, if there is an appetite for it - it would just take longer. 3) Ford would never do it. He's the front runner for Christian votes right now, and he isn't going to screw that up, and send them to the Liberals. 4) Just because 51+% support the idea, doesn't mean it makes political sense. That's not how politics works. In terms of economics: 1) Yes, one study said there would be huge savings. This isn't gospel. (See what I did there?) 2) Other amalgamations (that promised big savings) actually ended up costing more. https://fcpp.org/pdf/FB036AmalgamationCostSavingsIllusory.pdf 3) The main cost is the cost of educating the students. The administrative costs are a drop in the bucket comparatively. 4) There's already decent cooperation between Catholic and TDSB in terms of bussing etc. 5) There would be a tremendous upfront cost of amalgamation - as well as community division. Do some schools shut down? Do the boundaries get redrawn? In terms of fairness: 1) There is something inherently wrong with one religion getting government-funded schools and not the others. 2) Tory suggested funding all the religions, which is the main reason he lost the Provincial election after leading. 3) The current public school system could really be called the 'atheist' school system, where all symbols of religion are forbidden, and Christian traditions are being stamped out - carols, Christmas trees etc. Religious children are essentially told to 'keep it in the closet' 4) So, transforming all schools into secular schools seems fair if you're an atheist, since your beliefs will be upheld at the expense of all others. 5) Instead, they should look at expanding the faiths in the Catholic schools - to include other religions - so that there are religious and secular schools.
  3. I understand the parallel that you guys are drawing, but there's something that you are overlooking: All of those groups - blacks, LGT, Aboriginals etc, have a history of being oppressed - and generally by whites. They are also much smaller (at least in North America), than the white population. Instead of celebrating whiteness, you can celebrate your German, Polish, Italian, Irish, English, Scottish, Danish etc ancestry. But to take all those cultures together, and call them white, and celebrate that, seems exclusionary, because whites make up such a large percentage of the North American population.
  4. The sheen has worn off Trudeau Jr. And his bag of tricks seems to only contain feel-good announcements, oversimplified vilification of his detractors and contrived outrage at the most minor of sleights.
  5. Anyone who believes a referendum should be used to determine economic policy puts far too much faith in the general populous.
  6. Which is it? Do you want women treated equally in politics? Or do you want 50% women in politics? You can't have both.
  7. I think I prefer the openness, as opposed to companies that don't come out and say they aren't hiring a white male candidate, and waste everyone's time.
  8. Not a fan of Trudeau, but Shapiro comes across looking like an ass here. Quote: "The guy's only famous because his dad was Gary Trudeau."
  9. Disagree. The government needs to charge enough to cover: - profits for the provincial government - profits for the federal government - profits for the producers, and their costs covered. - generous salaries and benefits to all government employees involved in the sale and distribution. - extra money to pay for drug rehab programs etc, to put a good spin on things, So, based on that, they'll need to have a high price, which they can maintain by ensuring some fentanyl slips into the black market supply, so that people will feel more comfortable going to the MCBO instead of the local drug dealer. It worked for alcohol. You could get illegal moonshine for $5 a bottle, but do we know anyone who does that?
  10. If that's what we're using to decide what should be legal, then it follows that we should also ban alcohol, junk food and video games.
  11. An oversimplification, that if followed could get you fired. Would I ask my mother for a hug? yes. Co-worker? No. Would I compliment my mother, if she changed her hair, bought a new outfit? yes. Co-worker? No. Would I ask my mother to lunch, and buy her drinks? yes. Co-worker.? No. Would I make a joke that has some element of sex in front of my mother? Yes. Co-worker? No.
  12. "The Trudeau government has earmarked more than $100 million to compensate members of the military and other federal agencies whose careers were sidelined or ended due to their sexual orientation, The Canadian Press has learned." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/100-million-apology-gay-purge-victims-1.4421921 Now, on the surface it seems asinine. But if the money is being used to settle a variety of lawsuits which would have had the same result plus plenty of time and money being wasted in the courts, it may actually make financial sense. The bigger problem is the constant barrage of lawsuits and handouts to aggrieved groups 20+ years later. The fact of the matter is that our values change from generation to generation.Will the government be sued for not allowing gay marriages? Will they be sued for allowing discrimination against trans people in housing and employment? Will they be sued for not allowing people to use their preferred pronouns on all correspondence? Fifty years from now, will bigamists and incestuous couples be suing the government because they weren't allowed to be married/because they were imprisoned? We need to put a statute of limitations on the egregious lawsuits that all taxpayers are on the hook for, as values change over the years, and we look back twenty years ago, and realize some of the things we did were wrong.
  13. It's a bit disengenuous to say that he voted against a woman's right to choose. "M-312 called for the formation of a committee "to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth"." Really not the same thing at all. Not sure if you're just parroting Liberal talking points or you're being intellectually dishonest.
  14. Election signs serve three purposes: 1) Increase brand awareness for the candidate. This means if the voter is indifferent at the ballot box, they'll most likely vote for the candidate that they have heard of. Additionally, the candidate will be better received when canvassing, when people are already familiar with their name. 2) Potential supporters are more likely to volunteer for, or donate to, someone who they are familiar with, as well as someone who seems very active. The big supporters always prefer to back a winner, because they are more likely to wield power at the end of an election. 3) Letting people know which parties are in the race. If a casual voter sees that most of the signs are predominantly two parties, they will assume the other parties don't have a chance, and will therefore, vote for one of the two parties with the most signs. No one wants to waste their vote.
  15. He doesn't need to be Tim Hudak. Conservative voters are going to vote for him anyways. He doesn't need to pander to them. These policies are intended to attract the red tory voters, and given the disdain voters currently have for Wynne, a leftist Conservative, should capture the majority of Liberal-Conservative swing voters.
  16. Our 'democracy' is already fairly tenuous. The party already has too much control over which candidates get accepted. In addition to having unelected people determine who is acceptable and who is not, to run in the nomination process, the party can also ignore the internal election, and simply appoint someone to run in the riding. The nomination process generally involves being well known in the community and having many deep-pocketed friends. So, the idea of giving parties even more power, to simply create the party candidate lists, and put them in office. so that the top X (based on their share of PR vote), get their seats, gives the parties far too much power, and will ensure partisan hacks are greatly over-represented in Ottawa. Ranked ballots is a much fairer system.
  17. I'm not arguing government controlled vs private sector controlled, I'm arguing legal vs illegal, and yes, I think legalized pot will be safer. Eventually, the majority of it will be controlled by big corporations, and those corporations are going to do everything they can to protect themselves from lawsuits. And sure, a carcinogenic pesticide is bad, but not as bad as getting a little fentanyl mixed in. https://www.metro.us/news/the-big-stories/fentanyl-laced-pot-causes-panic-massachusetts-ohio And the 'back alley' reference, is in regards to people having to buy the drug illegally. When something is illegal, you can't just buy it from the store, or order it online. I know the law has been a little gray on that lately, but it wasn't that long ago. And I suspect the government will get even tougher on 'illegal' pot sales once it's for sale in the MCBO's. All they need is a couple stories about people dying from impure pot, and they can have all the justification they need. And I think the pot industry will more closely resemble the alcohol industry (at least in Ontario). Yeah, you can make alcohol at home, and sell it for much less than it costs at the LCBO, but who does that. What percentage of the market do illegal bootleggers control? The reason for the underground tobacco market is the loophole with the reserve system, and the politicians fear of doing anything to upset FN special interests.
  18. There's plenty of reasons why some people are rich and others are poor. It's a combination of luck, talent, hardwork and inheritance. But the question is how much should the wealthy share with the poor? Canada's poor certainly don't have it as bad as the poor of Africa, Asia or Latin America, and I'd prefer to give my money to the really poor, rather than the Canadian poor, who aren't as badly off, as they would like to make us believe. But there is that sense of nationalism that suggests that every Canadian should be given a certain standard of life - that includes health, food, shelter and a little bit more, regardless of what they contribute to society. And from my experience, the people that are reluctant to give to Canada's poor are just as reluctant for Canada to increase foreign aid.
  19. Difficult situation. Much like alcohol, it makes absolutely no sense to jail people for smoking marijuana. We've gone after the sellers for awhile, but wherever there's a market, there's a seller. And ultimately, adults should be allowed to make their own choice. And since we're going to decriminalize it anyways, it makes a ton of sense for the government to get on board, and make a lot of money from it. It will pay for a lot of government programs and create a lot of new jobs - just as the LCBO does now. Additionally, they can regulate it to ensure that there aren't extra substances sneaking their way into the mix. While there will be some black market competition initially, it will eventually fade out, as people come to trust the regulated product much more than drugs bought from some shady guy in an alley. Additionally, we're going to be hitting the criminal element pretty hard. Drug dealers that weren't paying taxes are gonna have to get real jobs now, and the gangs that controlled the pot trade are gonna take a big hit. But is it good for our society as a whole? Absolutely not. But then again, either is alcohol. The arguments to make pot illegal could just as well be used against alcohol. The only difference is we're more familiar with booze - and we seem to accept the added deaths, fights, and trouble that it brings. I'm actually quite pleased with the way the Ontario government is handling it. This might be the one thing that saves Wynne in the upcoming election.
  20. Wish that was true, but I think you severely overestimate the average Canadian voter. I'll wager that less than 20% of eligible voters know who Bill Morneau, is, and of that 5% only 40% know about the scandal, and of that 40%, only 10% are upset about it. And of that 10%, 90% vote for the same party every time anyways.
  21. I think the problem which TaxMe alludes to is that we are very quick to cast blame where appropriate to various established groups. However, when that same group is responsible for something good, that's often completely ignored as we focus solely on the fault. And it applies at the individual level as well. Men do a lot of bad things. No doubt about it. More than women. But they also do a lot of good things. The same can be said of white people, the Catholic church, and plenty of other large institutions. Take Bill Gates as an example. He's likely the most generous person in history, but there are still people that find nothing but fault with him. You can be good for an entire lifetime, but a few seconds of bad erases all of it.
  22. 1) The professors overstepped when establishing boundaries for what is, and isn't proper in a University setting. 2) The references to Hitler/nazis aren't really important here. It's just used as an obvious example of free speech that should not be allowed, and public figures who should not be discussed in a neutral manner. Fair game. 3) Firing these three wouldn't do any good. We already have a culture where people demand people to be fired for the tiniest of infractions, besides which the professors were likely just trying to cover their asses, and obey the mandates and dictates passed down by University superiors. 4) Instead of scapegoating these three, and pretending it's an isolated incident, the University should be looking to change its culture and find a better balance between free speech and letting minorities groups feel safe on campus. 5) The professors are right in that not all speech should be permitted. But to automatically restrict any speech that could potentially hurt the feelings of any identifiable group is taking things too far. 6) The link between allowing someone to show a TVO debate of people discussing the need to use gender-neutral pronouns, and suicide is absurd. 7) We, as a society, need to stop automatically accepting every claim of harm made by every identifiable group. Some sort of vetting process needs to occur, rather than the ubiquitous fear that engulfs all politicians and government employees, where they can not object to any claim of suffering made.
  23. No. The only reason Laurier apologized was because she taped the interaction, showed it to the press, and Laurier was bombarded by former students cancelling their annual donations. She told them she had the recording, and nobody gave a shit before. This is not the case of a couple rogue professors. This is the climate being intentionally created at Laurier, and I highly doubt they are alone on this. The mantra seems to be 'we support free speech' as long as that free speech isn't counter to our ideals. Also, they seem to be dwelling more on the fact that the professor made an exaggerated comparison to Hitler's speech, than the fact that they accused this young woman of a hate crime, and causing violence against trans students by showing a TVO video.
  • Create New...