Anthony
-
Posts
48 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Anthony
-
-
20 hours ago, Rue said:
Anthony I do appreciate your points. How prevalent a problem men being tricked by women into impregnating them is probably hard to define as one would think many of such situations would not be reported by men but I am not sure whether this warrants any legal reform. As for biasthe articles are not I agree infallible I just offered them up so you can see its a problem for women as well and there are stats for it but they would be reported by wome.. Having worked with men in the court system, most of them abusive, I do have a bias yes from seeing so much domestic violence but I hope you see I am not trying to be deliberately bias with you but I admit it so you d not think I am white washing your concern. I also think the subject matter is inherently bias in this sense, that pregnancy does not happen to men physically , so ultimately it happens to a woman and presents that added issue to them we men do not have.
By the way, proving criminal fraud is almost impossible in Canada. You have to be able to show a premeditated plan to deceive someone to specifically get money out of them. The need to prove that beyond reasonable doubt is very difficult indeed to do with fraud and this is why you see when it is done there is usually written evidence and/or videos. Its a tough thing to prove even when in a civil tort case you need only show on a balance of probabilities your position, then it switched to the defendant to prove beyond reasonable doubt they did not do the sabotage. The easiest defence to it is stupidity by the way.
Yes as you said condoms leak but if we are specifically talking about pin holes put in condoms, as I told you any woman found to have done this and who gets caught is probably not going to be able to force child support on men if it was proven and as I said the child will probably be taken away from her if the courts find out that was the motive of pregnancy and they suspect the mother is unfit. So my explanation is trying to show you the system has not necessarily allowed this to be a major problem.
I am aware of domestic violence studies of women beating men or sexually assaulting them but not coercing them by poking holes in condoms. I worked on both the criminal prosecutor side and then in the family courts on sexual assault and violence issues, particularly of children. Some women genetically can get pregnant even on the pill. I am no expert but I was always told iud's were the safest of the contraceptions devices to prevent pregnancy but obviously they do not stop transmission of diseases and they can infect women. As for men, if they are that worried maybe they should put the contraceptive on themselves out of the package.
That may not be a legal issue but a trust issue.
Anyways Anthony what do I know I am a virgin.
Rue, I was not aware of difficulties pertaining to premeditated sabotage. This is concerning for both parties involved as that means realistically two people having sex take an extremely high risk by assuming that both parties are of the same opinion for the outcome of the sex.
You could be right, it is a trust issue between the two parties. I was more proposing that if people continue to have sex without a strong trust between them, that either party may not fully understand the risks involved. I was hoping to mitigate the risks by creating a choice for both parties if an unwanted outcome emerges.
I agree it is also the men responsibility to verify contraception integrity. From an anecdote : friend found that all his newly bought unused condoms had small pin holes through the package, this was discovered after filling up the condom with water for integrity verification. Later he found his girlfriend had decided to get pregnant and decided to "adjust" the contraception with a few pin holes without his knowledge. That relationship ended very quickly. But again as you said very difficult to prove, I would also question the decision to be in an untrustworthy relationship.
But to some degree it should be more apparent especially to younger generations that even though contraception is used, it does not mean there is no pregnancy risk, which at least from my experience has been assumed. (Basically don't have sex with someone with whom you would not potentially want a child)
-
1 hour ago, Rue said:
Anthony I was not clear on your premises, specifically: "" My proposal was walking through the idea that a contraceptive was used or that an unjustified deliberate action taken by the man or the woman was used to sabotage the contraceptive. "
If a man could show a woman deliberately sabotaged a contraceptive to get pregnant she commits a deliberate or pre-meditated act.
However I would advise you its usually the other way around, i.e.,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2896047/
https://www.stdaware.com/blog/cutting-holes-in-condom-sabotage-legalities/
I also know this myself from anecdotal evidence having worked with abusive men in the family court system.
Do women trick men and get pregnant. Of course it may happen. How often does it happen I do not know.
I can tell you if a man pokes a hole in a contraceptive and makes a woman pregnant without her consent it could constitute a sexual assault in Canada: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/man-who-sabotaged-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault-top-court-rules/article17367231/
(Sorry I do not want to quote the entire text as it might get a little long. )
None of those links have statistical facts, they are based on a single survey. I also question the intended bias, why were only women surveyed?
"Reproductive control including pregnancy coercion (coercion by male partners to become pregnant) and birth control sabotage (partner interference with contraception) may be associated with partner violence and risk for unintended pregnancy among young adult females utilizing family planning clinic services."
This is a bias sample set, this is only women utilizing family planning clinic services. They did not sample the average female population they sampled women already in need of family planning, which generally have been abused or are in a unwanted pregnancy situation. Where is the survey of men for reproductive control coercion,? Again we have a one sided sample set.
"I also know this myself from anecdotal evidence having worked with abusive men in the family court system." I am sure there are many abusive men and women that is awful, abusive partners are horrible and destroy future relationships. But for those partners that are not abusive yet have accidental pregnancies how can we make it fair in terms of choice to both sexes?
It is good to see that it is illegal to sabotage contraception, I am not sure how a man or a woman could totally prove in court sabotage of a contraceptive without a guilty plea, as in the link. I was also remarking upon the failure of contraceptives since they can fail and result in a accidental pregnancy.
-
On 9/24/2019 at 3:00 PM, Rue said:
I am sorry but I mediated family disputes for over 20 years. You mind telling me how a pregnancy is accidental? You either use a contraceptive or you do not as a male. Unless a woman deliberately pokes a hole in the contraceptive while the man is not looking there is no accident. Give me a break.
Your entire premises tries to make up an excuse for discharging your sperm in a vagina without a contraceptive. It then comes up with an absurd payment, to avoid responsibility for the consequence of that action, i.e., "the man can optionally pay the abortion equivalency financial amount or give a certain amount of time so that he is released of all liabilities to the baby after birth as a father/caretaker? "
Your payment scheme is absurd. Tell it to the child as they grow up that their biological father paid the equivalent of an abortion fee, so does not have to help them with expenses.
How much is the abortion fee? You do realize it ranges from $0 to $1,200? I know that for a fact. Is that it? Is that what you think you should pay for consequence free ejaculation? You realize if you have sex and spread a sexually transmitted disease to a woman she can sue for more then that?
Use a contraceptive.
"use a contraceptive" My proposal was walking through the idea that a contraceptive was used or that an unjustified deliberate action taken by the man or the woman was used to sabotage the contraceptive.
" You mind telling me how a pregnancy is accidental?" Failure rate of common contraceptives: Male condoms 13%, female condoms 21%
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm
"Your entire premises tries to make up an excuse for discharging your sperm in a vagina without a contraceptive." It does? Did you read what I wrote?
"We have a man and a woman, they agree to have sex with each other for the sake of pleasure, thus a strong birth control is used"
"Tell it to the child as they grow up that their biological father paid the equivalent of an abortion fee, so does not have to help them with expenses." This has nothing to do with what I am proposing, feel free to start a new thread for the long term effects to the failed contraceptive children.
"You realize if you have sex and spread a sexually transmitted disease to a woman she can sue for more then that?"
If there was a possibility that she could decide to have a sexually transmitted disease "abortion" then I would disagree with such actions. But since she is forced to be infected by the STD, she is without choice and thus has the right to sue.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, dialamah said:
In which case, women are in a lose-lose situation because even in our progressive society, if they have a baby out-of-wedlock, they are censured, especially if they don't have much money. If they have an abortion, they are censured for being careless "using abortion as birth control", and being a murderer.
Men are only censured if they fail to pay child support, and you'd be surprised by how many men simply disappear, even on kids they said they wanted, leaving the woman to raise them.
It isn't fair, I agree. Men and women make mistakes and there are consequences. Men who think abortion availability should be their "get out of jail free" card do not understand that many women, while supporting abortion in the abstract, would never have an abortion themselves for moral or religious reasons. They underestimate the effect birth control, abortion and pregnancy can have on a woman's body and mental health and over-estimate women's dishonesty and avarice to justify their desire for consequence-free sex. It isn't fair, and men have to take their lumps just like women do when it comes to unintended pregnancy.
"Unspoken contract" does not exist. If you want a contract, get it in writing.
Yes women will be censured for making bad decisions and carelessness with sex since they are the key holders to reproduction. Yes men will be censured for making bad decisions and carelessness with sex since they are the providers of sperm. I do not think this is a bad thing, you do not want to encourage people to make bad decisions in society.
Men are censured especially if they go around having unprotected sex with women, not only STI transmission but also the high risk of getting a woman pregnant. It is very irresponsible and looked down upon in a social setting, even with other men.
Woman are not the victims of pregnancy, they have an equal role in decision to have unprotected sex, they currently have the unanimous decision of continuing until birth. Fortunately, We live in a society were women can say no at any point during sex, we are not talking about women who are forced into sex/rape, we are talking a woman and man enter into a mutual agreement to have sex, if that sex is not protected both the man and the woman are at fault for not stopping.
"They underestimate the effect birth control, abortion and pregnancy can have on a woman's body and mental health" I agree some men do underestimate those effects, that is true. But coming back to my post, what happens when a man does take the responsibility of using a condom, it breaks, it has a hole in it or somehow she gets pregnant, either by choice or by accident and she wants to keep the baby. It can not be that even though the man took the required responsibility and use birth control, he is still forced to provide or be a father to the kid just because she demands it of him.
Would an acceptable system work if every time a man and woman have sex, they sign a contract stating it is purely for pleasure and not reproduction, in that it would automatically void any responsibility to the possible child by of either party?
-
2 hours ago, dialamah said:
No, but it's his risk as much as the woman's that sex will result in s pregnancy. Men need to understand that.
Too many men, and women, want to put all the responsibility of birth control and all the consequences of pregnancy on the woman, with the man "opting in" if he feels like being a dad, financially or otherwise. Women not men, deal with societal censure for getting pregnant when they lack money, and getting an abortion for any reason including because they lack money.
Men need to understand that a possible consequence of pregnancy is a child who will need a father. If they don't want that, they should use a condom regardless of the birth control the woman uses. They should know the woman's moral or religious stance on abortion before having sex. Boys should be taught this from a young age the same way girls are taught to avoid putting themselves in situations where they could be raped.
Life isn't fair, the best we can do is mitigate risk.
Absolutely, both men and women contribute to reproduction and share the risk of reproduction. Yes women are at a higher risk and are affected by the consequences of pregnancy. Women are the holders of reproduction, women inherently have to be smart when having sex, because it effects them more than a man. IE if this is a one night stand and not a long term possible "dad" then maybe strong birth control should be used. Vise versa if a man has a one night stand and the woman is not a long term possible " mother" than strong birth control should be used, yet he has no control after the fact if the birth control fails, where as she does.
Women deal with societal censure, why? Societal censure come from making bad decisions made by men or women, not from pregnancy or abortion.
I think men do understand the possible consequences of pregnancy. In my opinion if you told a man or a woman right before sex that this would result in pregnancy I doubt most would continue.
My concern is that there is an unspoken contract where if you use a condom or women use birth control and have sex, the intent of that sex is for pleasure and specifically not to reproduce. Yet once pregnancy is confirmed, that contract is assumed to be void, why?
The other option is to terminate:
Man and woman have sex, birth control was used by either or both participants, she gets pregnant. Since birth control was used it means the woman goes through an automatic abortion by law, she has no choice, he has no choice since the choice was made before the act of having sex by using birth control. Simple and equal.
-
6 hours ago, Boges said:
Condoms do break or fall off. Plan B is there for that, but what if the woman refuses to take it?
I'm astonished that men will automatically believe a woman, that she's regularly and responsibly taking a pill and that means they don't have to control their seed.
I was not aware of how known this is, known enough that Dave Chapelle can talk about it freely apparently, thanks for sharing.
I agree, and what ends up happening is completely up to the woman even though the intent was not to reproduce.
Or the " you know how hard it is to get pregnant, it wont happen just this one time", many children have been made by irrational in the moment decisions. But I do wonder how many children would exist if both parties had a choice in the manner. I also wonder how many children would still be around if the mother knew that she would get no financial support of the would be father.
-
14 hours ago, dialamah said:
People who don't want to be parents don't leave all the birth control up to the other person.
I agree a responsible person generally does not get surprised by a pregnancy, since they have the self control to use proper protection. I was more referring to failed birth control or possible malicious actions caused by either party ( ie poking holes in condoms). One of the more common surprised pregnancies is when birth control pills are accidentally not taken.
-
Over the past few years I have learned that some pregnancies were accidental and not entirely preventable. But I have also learned that a lot of those accidents ended in full term pregnancy and birth with the intent of only the woman.
For example : We have a man and a woman, they agree to have sex with each other for the sake of pleasure, thus a strong birth control is used. However due to potential statistical birth control failure it turns out two months later she finds out that she is pregnant. Now legally speaking she has a few options, she can abort the pregnancy or allow a full term pregnancy with post birth options.
However, in this case the man has no options, in fact the woman forces actions upon him, infringing on his freedoms as a would be father or none father. Given that the man and woman do not stay together as a family, If the would be “mother “decides to raise the child, the would be “father” would have to pay child support. If the “mother” decides to get an abortion the “father” has no rights to deny the abortion.
(Now I am not going to say the “father” should have a right to force the “mother” to give birth to a child she does not wish to have, although some arguments could be made for such cases. For instance, if she does not wish to have the baby and wishes to abort, then she would be liable for compensation to the “father” as he has lost the ability to have that child, “denial of child” support. So basically if the woman wants to abort she would have to pay the man “denial of child support for the next 18 years, a reverse of the situation. ( again this is too extreme and would never happen))
Lets look at a different option, say the woman wishes to have the baby, however the man does not wish to have the baby (he does not wish to become a father). Could a system be in place where when accidental pregnancy happens and the woman wishes to have a child, the man can optionally pay the abortion equivalency financial amount or give a certain amount of time so that he is released of all liabilities to the baby after birth as a father/caretaker? In other words, the would be father pays a certain amount equivalent to an abortion, to ensure that he is not legally the father and he has no duty to pay child care. This gives semi rights to both parties involved vs a system were all decisions are made by the woman.
Current system:
Sex Abortion? Accepting pregnancy? agree? Result?
Woman> yes/no yes/no they both agree equal, mother/none, success
Man > yes/no yes/no they both agree equal, father/none, success
Woman> no yes NO Mother, gets child support +18
Man > yes no NO Forced fatherhood, forced child support +18
Woman> yes no NO She has abortion, no further actionMan > no yes NO He has no father rights, no ability for further action
Amendment recommendation:
Sex Abortion? Accepting pregnancy? agree? Result?
Woman> no yes NO Mother gives birth to the baby, accepts abortion financial aid equivalency
Man > yes no NO He has no fatherly rights to the baby, pays financial abortion aid equivalency
Thoughts?
-
On 12/13/2017 at 12:44 AM, Altai said:
Being a working person justifies someone's right to have all their needs. Being a "more working" person does not justify that someones can have more than what they need. For example there are two persons and there are 20 apples and we will apportion it between these two. The Person One (PO) is working in accordance with working hours, the Person Two (PT) is sleeping less and working more. This does not justify that PT can have more apples. Because if we want to give him/her more apples, we have to take it from the PO's apples. Therefore PO will have less apples despite he/she received more. PO met all his/her responsiblities. He/she dont have to work more because of PT want to work more, its PT's personal choice, if PT wants to work more, he/she should do it for the benefit of people, not to have more goods personally.I do like your suggestion of encouraging a free society, but I have a feeling such a system is not based in the real world.
For instance, in a virtual world where everything was digital, everything would be "free" to all for all, with an infinite amount for all. Imagine a system where you would be able to craft your own "digital sandbox" world in every way, shape or form. Your world would be among the millions of other worlds available to people like yourself to experience.
Once food, shelter and safety are guaranteed, the only thing that is desired is experiences.
If you find yourself hungry for a juicy steak, there is infinite amount of digital steaks available. You would be able to have a mansion or a cabin. In case of accidents, you would be able to turn down the simulated pain. If you find yourself enjoying hyper cars, you could go and experience one without any cost or wear associated with the experience, much like a gamer does in a racing simulator, although near visual and physical reality.
The only real value to objects in this type of system would be creativity and availability of new experiences. In such a system valued creativity would become the only form of currency. The only damage you would sustain from such a system would be psychological from personal interaction with others, which already exists today.
Keep in mind a system like this would required complex automation and technological advancements that probably would take a century to acquire at our current rate. Pretty much a fantasy looking at it in 2019? yes, but possible given enough time.
In conclusion, although the idea of true freedom is sought after by many, the only logical way I could see such a system work, is with infinite supply of resources not dependent on human activity.
-
17 hours ago, turningrite said:
I agree for the most part with the sentiments expressed in your post, however I believe we'd still need politicians to deal with the legal minutiae associated with drafting and implementing legislation. Also, constituents often require representatives who can intercede on their behalf with often mind-numbingly obtuse bureaucracies. But I agree with the basic concept of direct democracy, whereby voters would provide direct input on policy direction, in a similar fashion to the way we now file taxes and submit census forms online. We'd all be provided a voter I.D. number (similar to a SIN) and would vote at regular intervals on matters of general importance based on public petition and/or on significant support in parliament (perhaps 1/3 of members) for obtaining such input. But I think these electronic plebiscites would have to be consultative rather than binding.
To further democratize the electoral and parliamentary systems, I favor proportional representation, which would serve to break down the ideological stranglehold now held by the traditional parties. I agree with those who argue the current system is much too restrictive and offers voters far too little choice. Most support parties at election time on the basis of a couple major issues or promises but in so doing end up endorsing a party's entire agenda, which seems to me to be anything but democratic. Imagine the poor suckers who voted for the federal Libs because they thought they'd actually see electoral reform implemented. (I know a couple people in this category.) And look what we're stuck with!
Thank you Turnigrite, I am curious what you mean by consultative rather than binding, can you elaborate?
There appears to be a few major problems within some representative democratic government, for the elected to be held accountable for action/inaction and conflict of interest for personal gain resulting in corruption. One could hope with the implementation of direct democracy the citizens could prevent concentration of power and hold those in power accountable for complacency.
Again a lot of direct democracy is a bit of a fantasy as most citizens will not partake in the voting or educate themselves on the topics at hand.
-
2 hours ago, turningrite said:
I'm not sure what you mean by referencing this comment to a decontextualized sentence fragment ("why would you join a site like this?)? The full sentence from which it's extracted reads as follows: " If you don't want to listen to the Western perspective, why would you join a site like this?" The member had expressed in a series of comments his/her objection to the Western view of free speech without, in my opinion, providing a philosophically consistent context within which another system might be superior and then resorted to outright insult ("You are an idiot.") rather than engage in further debate. Why would somebody join a site like this merely to insult other members with whom they disagree rather than to engage in fair debate? I think it a fair question
I apologize if you felt I decontextualized your sentence, I was merely remarking upon the same premise of "if you do not want to listen to others perspectives why join a site like this?".
I agree, your question is valid and fair.
-
5 hours ago, Altai said:
I think my posts are pretty clear. Read them again instead of asking similar things.
From this response it seems to me that you have no intentions of explaining your proposed system, other than generalized statements which lack in depth exploration. I evolved my questions to match your idea, since your have changed your ideas structure, you have not answered any of my examples to support your idea, I will revert to turningrite statement
On 6/21/2018 at 8:34 PM, turningrite said:why would you join a site like this?
If you have no intention of having a discussion or elaboration on your or others ideas what is the point in all this?
If this is true, we are just wasting time making others feel good by thinking they have "contributed" to society, yet they do not want to hear about discussion of their own idea. One can live in a bubble, but do not expect to live in a bubble on a political discussion forum. This idea of "agree with me or don't post your comment" is not going to progress anyone.
-
31 minutes ago, Altai said:
Yes, it only would be allowed if the speaker also says that it will make the voting invalid.
By this token it more seems that your are implying any misleading comments should be censored, not comments that hurt others on a physical or emotional level, so for a hypothetical example someone saying: " hurt all blue eyed people" would be allowed in your system, since it is not a misleading statement.
or
Hypothetically if someone says " I have evidence to believe brown eyed individuals are not human, and should not be treated as human" is this considered allowed speech according to your logic based analysis?
-
5 hours ago, Altai said:
You can find millions of examples yourself. As I said logic based on the same info does not vary from person to person, its the same for everyone.
For examle saying "Vote for Tredeau and put a cross on other candidates on your ballot". It will make your choice invalid when you mark more than one person or party.
Well I am not the one who is trying to support the claim " logic based" negative speech protocol, it is up to you to do the work and find us some example of what you would like to propose for a control measure. When does something become negative speech in this " logic based negative speech" what are the logical steps one would follow?
QuoteFor examle saying "Vote for Tredeau and put a cross on other candidates on your ballot". It will make your choice invalid when you mark more than one person or party.
Okay so this would be an example of something that would be illegal to say or censored from speech Altai?
What if someone were to question an ideology or a belief or a emotional felling, since critical thinking, science and philosophy tend to intact such actions. Could this be construed as Negative speech?
-
3 hours ago, PIK said:
WTF are you talking about. He was talking about low voter turnout and lazy is one reason. That is why libs would love to have it set up ,so all the lazy kids can vote liberal from thier parents basement and thier phones. And of course wanting to lower it to 16. My solution ,raise the age to 21. That way they may have some experience paying taxes and buying homse and not just voting because you want legal weed.
So you have changed your statement to " lazy is one reason." instead of "Basically they are to lazy to vote. " which is different in terms of numbers. (all vs some)
I agree some are lazy to vote. I am pointing out, what happens to those who do not support any of the representatives who do not share their vision of the future? Do these voters have the option to show their lack of support for the choices at hand?
On 6/21/2018 at 11:48 AM, Hates politicians said:Realistically they voted none of the above
This is what I was talking about, maybe there should be a veto vote on the ballet so we can gather factual data on those that do not vote due to laziness vs those who do not support the available choices.
I think all parties would love to have an online voting system since all parties could reach the "lazy kids" through advertising.
QuoteMy solution ,raise the age to 21. That way they may have some experience paying taxes and buying homse and not just voting because you want legal weed.
I think the issue is deeper, it is not so much that paying taxes or buying homes gives one have a solid foundation to make a logical choice in voting, instead it is an understanding of the world, economy, psychology, game theory, and basic critical thinking that gives one a solid foundation to make a logical choice in voting.
But I would explore the possibility of both a raise and a cap to the voting ages, maybe on a different thread.
-
1 hour ago, Altai said:
Logic determines the negative speech.
Great, give me an example where logic determines negative speech?
Since universal logic is not based on emotions or feelings, any and all speech could be construed as positive speech for the purpose of logical progression both in an individual level and on a collective level.
36 minutes ago, turningrite said:In my opinion, negative speech is telling others what they can't say so you can maintain power.
Wait what you mean it is just about maintaining power? no that cant be
(I agree)
-
17 minutes ago, Altai said:
Logic based on the same information does not var from person to person. It is the same for everyone. Any negative speech will harm others.
Logic based on what same information? What are you referencing?
My question does not change, who determines what is "negative speech"? If one were to question the reason for the existence of a certain ideology would that be negative speech?
-
1 hour ago, Altai said:
Look you are proving my point further. You dont even believe in me that I didnt intended to insult you but I was just trying to show you how it will affect our communication, because hate speech is harmful and any negative speech which is not proven is hate speech.
Please stop rejecting science when it does not fit with your interests. You should have heard about suggestion method which is often used by intelligence services and media. Because talks affect you and you dont have right to affect people in negative manner just because of you want to talk. You rights end up when it starts to harm others."you rights end up when it starts to harm others."
Who defines what harms others? The people it harms? Corporations? or Government?
-
1 hour ago, PIK said:
Basically they are to lazy to vote.
So instead you would rather them vote for someone that does not share their vision of the future, just because you would label them as too lazy to vote if they did not?
I think it is better at minimum not to vote if the representatives do not share their vision of the future, since once you vote, you are now responsible for your representatives actions.
20 hours ago, Hates politicians said:According to voting results about half the eligible voters dont vote. Realistically they voted none of the above, but politicians refuse to put none of the above on the ballot because that would put the power into the peoples hands. When you put in a blank ballot they throw it in the garbage. Saying you have to elect one of them brings this to mind. If you owned a business and you hired a manager who then raped and pillaged your business, you then fired/voted them out, and hired/voted a new one in who did the same things, and you did this 3 times, ie 3 different political parties when they all came back to you and said hire us again because you need a new manager which one do you hire?
Sounds like there needs to be a veto vote on the ballet, which would at least indicate the amount of voters that disagreed with the available representatives at hand. But as you said "politicians refuse to put none of the above on the ballot because that would put the power into the peoples hands." How could one encourage such a veto system into the voting ballet?
-
1 hour ago, dialamah said:
I agree with that. That "Muslims are going to turn us into a Sharia State" seems pure hysteria to me. Sure, it *could* happen but I think we'd become a "Christian State" before we'd become a Muslim State and I think the chances of that are pretty much non-existant. And if anyone thinks living under Christian rule would be better than living under Muslim rule, they haven't been paying attention.
I would point to the example of the Harper Government suspending aid to third world agencies that offered abortions along with other family planning and health care. Sure, he said his reason was to avoid offending local governments but other governments didn't seem concerned about that
By the same token I don't think Trudeau should have forbidden people who are pro-life from running as Liberals.
I am not entirely sure that is a good example, if this was a moral imposition just pulling funding for abortions then yes I would agree. But because it also included family planning and healthcare. By that frame of logic one could speculate that the Harper government wanted certain people to die by pulling funding for also the healthcare. I am not sure one can make a case that the Harper government pulled funding just because of the funding for abortions. This may be true, but there also may be other reasons, both are speculative. By no means am I interested in defending the Harper government, but I would prefer direct factual information rather than speculation.
Trudeau on the other hand forbid people who were pro life from running as liberals is a direct moral imposition onto others within the country. But then again it was not enforced through the government but through the party. One could discuss the problem with requiring a certain morality to join a party, especially if that party leads to governance of the people. But I think inherently all parties require certain morals and ideologies to become commonplace within the party members.
-
40 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
I wasn't specifically referring to Canada or US but throughout history we have had many religious governments of more than one religion which made the life like hell for people. If I wish to be an example in Canada I would pick Harper government as one example of conservative religious right. He was of course voted out by 70% of participating voters.
I agree there have been many forms of governance in history where church and state have been intertwined. I would doubt such a system would exist in the future of Canada unless the population drastically accepted only one religion that demanded church and state become intertwined.
What example would you pick where the Harper government "imposed their moral values on others" through their system of governance, specifically one that was not shared by the majority of the country?
-
24 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
Well I never pointed my finger to muslims in Canada or any other religion in Canada but to respond to your question I don't think that taxman who is posting about returning to moral things and decency and normal again in Canada is a muslim (neither was Harper which I pointed out in my post) in fact I am sure taxman is not muslim and my post was quoting him. Btw, I am sure the majority of muslim population in canada would also not wish a religious state. So lets not unnecessarily scare people of certain group or minority (who is scary here?). My issue is with religious right who wish to impose their moral values on others no matter what religion.
I am curious, what example are you referencing of a "religious government (or conservative religious right)" in Canada or the US that has "imposed their moral values on others" through their system of governance Citizen_2015? Specifically one that has been seen as unacceptable by the majority of the country governed by this conservative/right religious government.
-
26 minutes ago, paxrom said:
I think this issue is a non starter because it doesn't solve one fundamental fact. How to reconcile with those you disagree.
How can you turn something that is potentially a zero sum game into a win win game.
By making a trade agreement, those you disagree with may want to have X but you want Y maybe there is a middle ground. Would those that disagree so strongly desire to die for their belief? If so then those who are on the opposing side have to decide if it is also worth the sacrifice of life. I mean this is an extreme case and most likely would never happen, yet it is the end result of an extreme disagreement over resources for example. Thus, making a trade arrangement would benefit the collective of the two parties.
QuoteSo you have to have leaders willing to do the right thing with feedback and hold them accountable. But that feedback has to be tempered. We all know too well of public hysteria and knee jerk reaction, mob rule essentially.
Great, I like this idea, what happens to these leaders at the time where we hold them accountable for their action or inaction?
40 minutes ago, paxrom said:The process for reconciliation start with your core fundamental values, to respect one another (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc...).
Technology can solve many problems but It can't solve what is essentially a human problem.
I agree, unless I misunderstood you the problem is that people inherently lack morals or at least core fundamental values. How do you address this? At one point people were able to murder, but through a system either law or religious morality people have not been able to legally or morally murder one another.
Unless there is some type of universal core fundamentals that can be introduced into people from a young age we will never be able to create universal people which follow these core fundamental values. Thus, it is through a system that one can encourage people to make the right choices. ( “right” meaning for the benefit of the collective) Hence a system of governance that is directed either by the people or representatives for the people.
-
20 minutes ago, Hates politicians said:
I think political parties should be abolished. every person who claims to represent their constituancy should be doing exactly that. not what their leader tells them to vote for. When someone has a good idea it should be supported. Not oh, thats an ndp idea so you have to vote against it etc. All the persons who are elected can then vote for a leader. Everybody has a say in the budget as it affects everybody. That way no party whips exist. The right of the people to fire for cause no severence. When your term is up thats it no big fat payouts.
Since we have the technology, why have representatives at all? Create a system of direct democracy, something less extreme but along the lines of a Geomocracy.
I agree, political parties have the ability to force an ideology onto a voting collective even though they may have not agreed entirely with ideology.
-
2
-
Is climate change, a major concern for Canadians ....
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
It is assumed that climate change will be disastrous for the planet/ vast population of people, yet there is very little talk on how it might benefit the planet/vast pollution of people.
Ignoring the causes, I would like to see a real debate between two professional scientists on opposing sides, one pro climate change and one against. But as far as I know, for phd climatologists and physicists that would be a career wrecker if they were seen to be debating on the "wrong" side. When did science become a religion? Where if you show opposing views of the climate status quo, you are a blasphemer/denier.