CdnFox

I'm not a massive meme fan either (except where it's genuinely funny and not part of the discourse). Codswallop. The context is created by how you post it. Once you take it out of it's original context you're controlling the context. Arguably true - but again not really intended to be one either. It's not like it was a rebuttal to a specific point. Its dishonest whether it's your intent to be or not. It attempts to suggest that he has said memes are unacceptable and then used memes when that's not the case once you look at the context. His condemnation of memes was specific to a circumstance - attempting to use them to rebut an argument. I would assume that honesty is a principle you're aspiring to. It's not an honest representation. .... But not as an argument. Clearly. And that's where the 'twist' comes. Again - the twist. That was not his claim. His claim was that exclusively using a meme as a counter argument to someone is not acceptable. That doesn't mean memes are not perfectly good ways of conveying ideas. In fact they can be very effective at conveying ideas. That's why they're popular. Just not an effective tool for conveying a logical or reasoned counter argument in most cases. So you took what he said and slightly twisted it from "not an effective debate tool" to "not effective for conveying an idea". SImilar - but sitll very different. Well - i don't know that your behavior is per se the issue, i think that honestly is a perspective issue. Did you ever play that game where you take the lyrics of a song or something and run it through google translate to another language and then run it back to english? The results can be pretty hilarious - it's not that the translations are technically entirely wrong ,but once you do that the context of the words is lost and you get very different meanings. The song from "Frozen" that goes "let it go, let it go" comes back as "give up! give up! it's not that the translators weren't doing a decent job, but they don't get the context and that leads them to translations that are dishonest to the original meaning. I feel that way looking at some of this.

I guess - but that kind of makes it feel like it's not really all that crisis-y. I mean if a giant meteor was plummeting towards the earth we'd all likely agree it was a crisis. Well if they're all going to die if we don't then i feel like they may have to take a different route. And if it's NOT that serious then why are we changing what WE do? There no 'taking the lead' - we're going to advance faster with tech no matter what but i thought the issue here was the climate crisis? If there's no crisis then we'll just do what we usually do and i'm sure the tech will get greener over time. It has been so far. Not in canada. The carbon tax is not only rising but unlike almost all our other taxes it's cumulative. Lets put that in perspective. Lets say there was gst on food. The producers would not actually pay any gst - they get the credits. Only the end consumer would pay. So - the tax is applied to the final price only once. Now - lets take the carbon tax. That is charged to the guy who makes and delivers the fertilizer to the farmer - so he has to build it into his mark up. That increases the costs to the farmer - who then grows food with it. He pays the carbon tax on growing the food. So now he's got to add HIS costs to the markup AND the fertilizer as well - so he's basically had to pass on the carbon tax twice. The produce is now at the distributers - who has to pay carbon tax to get it to the stores who order it. Guess what happens there So - the carbon tax PLUS mark up on the carbon tax has now been baked in and marked up 3 times. FINALLY it gets to the store where the carbon tax will be added again due to the cost of fuel to transport it and energy to keep the store running. I believe when you work all the math out it works out to about 850 or so for a year for 2 people. 70 bucks a month or so (MIGHT have been 4 people, cna't remember). Either way it's substantial. And it applies to one degree or another to just about everything. New home construction, lumber, food, you name it. So no - the war is not affecting us that much. But we're still paying a massive tax that has had NO impact on anythnig - and nothing we do will have a significant impact anyway. So - it is quite reasonable to say if the major polluters are increasing their pollution by more than our entire output every couple of years - whats' the point of worrying about our output?

Irrelevant. It' wasn't a crisis. Supposedly climate change is a serious crisis. Sure - great stuff. I'm all for less pollution and more green as the tech matures and becomes a viable replacement. But - at the end of the day either we have a climate crisis or we don't. If we do then we need the big polluters to stop polluting or NOTHING we do will help and if we don't then fine, what's the rush. Lets get it done over time as tech matures

IT doesn't make a god damn bit of difference. Either we have to get emissions down or we dont. End of story. If we have to then the reasons don't make a single bit of difference - that's what has to happen. If we DON"T and it's ok for china's emissions to increase then there obviously is no crisis, and ours going up a tiny bit means nothing. Your entire argument is that there is ONLY a climate crisis if it's fair. That is NOT how a crisis works. Either there is or there isn't. And if china's can go up then yeah obvoiusly ours can too rather than trash our lives. But we're not going with that. We've gone with the 'stick head in sand' policy. Now we're committed. If people reallyl cared about climate change they wouldn't support carbon taxes, they'd be demanding better solutions. They woudln't support the liberal party who's been making commitments and breaking them religiously for about 3 decades or more. Harper reduced emissions far far more than trudeau ever did. I'm sorry but the story is becoming less believable. We have a huge crisis but we're not worried the biggest causes are increasing? We care about climate change but we keep voting in people who do nothing about climate change? But i'm supposed to eat less food and have a lower quality of life because this is so important? The climate change people are going to lose the audience here pretty quick. Bullshit. Industrialization was not a 'crisis'. The world didn't need to 'industrialize' or face catastrophic and devastating catastrophe. Yet we're being told that's what we're facing now. But - our leaders don't care enough to do anything and apperently the crisis will tolerate china's emissions based on fairness because Eff science. Whether it's a scam or not it's sure being presented as one.

But their emissions are going up. But... their emissions are going up. Climate change doesn't care why. It is a good question. I'm sure the liberals will tell you a carbon tax will solve it

And that turned out to be false. Buying our politicans resulted in them owning us Wheeling and dealing with them actually gives us a tiny bit of power over them. Ahhh yes - that would be the liberals. So concerned about it that they signed kyoto. And then did nothing about it ever. So that we could have a new tax?

We are repeatedly exposed to trans ideology and issues. if you take ANY instance in isolation for anything it's singular. But - the fact is you were exposed to trans issues before that and after that. And that's where we get the 'constantly' part from. On the weekend it was a flag, yesterday and today it was social media (waves!) tomorrow it could any number of newspaper articles the day after your kid's school may have an issue, then you might find it's a bill in Parliament next -etc etc etc. It's constant. Give it time. In the meantime you'll get it when you travel to san francisco, when you open a paper, when you drink a beer, when you come here - it's constant. CONSTANTLY!!!! I WENT THE ENTIRE WEEKEND WITHOUT BEING OUTRAGED!?! REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! LOL - kidding of course It's much easier to ignore the issues in daily life. But sure - the internet tends to be a place where people discuss their concerns and issues, so it's hardly a shock that you see more of it here. But - it's there in daily life too, it's just easier to keep your head down and not pay attention. I mean did you actually look for and count the number of homeless people you passed on your drive to work today? Or did you just head in and not think about it? Does that mean there's not homeless people in your city? Hmmmm.

Allow "ME' to crow? Are you being a dishonest poster? i've never said a thing about Ontario;s carbon emissions. Did you just realize you were wrong here and you're trying to change the channel? What does that have to do with equalization? Batteries. But again - nothing to do with equalization. Again with the 'you'. So your only defense here is to make it personal and try to be insulting. I live in british columbia !diot. So - lets get to brass tacks. You probably did a bit of google searching and realized i was entirely right. And that you cannot possibly defend your position on equalization as you stated it. RATHER than make peace with that you've decided to try to change the discussion entirely AND because you're mad at me for pointing out the truth you're going to try to make this about me. I'm sure that tactic would work very well in most kndergarten classes. You'll have to step it up here tho. Equalization isn't impoverishing Alberta and Alberta isn't even the biggest contributor to it at all. And Eff you for making me agree with treebeard.

No - they developed it, their hydro (and neufoundland's which they have a highly corrupt deal to abscond with) are not calculated in equalization. If they were quebec probably wouldn't be a have not province. that's what's unfair. I mean if you said alberta didn't have to calculate it's oil then it would be a have not too - if you exclude the resources then SURE quebec is a have not. But they're allowed to develop them but not include them in the calculation.

Almost there And here's your reward - special shout out to blackbird: Jesus might love you, but everyone else definitely thinks you’re an !diot. Keep going little guy I've got money on it that you can do it!

THis is a perfect example. IN a thread where one person is using memes INSTEAD of debate @Perspektiv calls them out on it and says they should not use memes INSTEAD of arguments In a completely different thread where he has FREQUENTLY debated the issue normally he makes ONE post that's meme based which isn't even presented as an argument and you want to claim that somehow it's the same thing as using memes ONLY to debate. It is beyond dishonest of you. He did NOT say in his original post that using a meme at all or ever was a bad thing. He wasn't even debating anyone when he posted those memes - he was just making a separate statement. But you're choosing to twist what he said ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT to suggest a conflict that simply doesn't exist. At best you could say he didn't make a very STRONG point with his memes, and i think he would probably agree, but he obviously also wasn't trying to. As we have noted - that's a dishonest position. THe lack of principles here is yours. You have taken something entirely out of context to create the ILLUSION of an ethical or principle conflict RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE POINTS I MADE TO YOU. There is no conflict there. Those aren't rules. Those are guidelines. Says so right in the link. This is a TOTAL swing and a miss on your part. If you can't debate a subject with facts and reason directly then you should be seriously questioning your position on the matter. Not trying to twist a previous conversation into some sort of distraction or smoke screen.

Nope - they dead. The country is still here but a gov't isn't a human being. The people who made those decisions are dead. And holding other people, many of whom didn't even have ancestors here at the time, responsible is stupid. It's almost as stupid as not knowing what a dog whistle is.

Uhhhh - yeah. That's what a dog whistle is. A whistle only dogs can hear. They have a range of hearing that is different than humans. THat's the point, Holy crap did you not know that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle Did you HONESTLY not know that? ROFLMAO - you are a complete retard Dogs can hear sounds we can't - and political "Dog whistling" refers to 'silent messages' to specific groups contained within a statement. For example saying "Our party respects property rights" in canada might be seen as a 'dog whistle' to gun owners who hate having their guns randomly confiscated. I mean seriously - would it KILL you to actually learn what you're talking about before looking like an !diot? Sigh ROFLMAO - rarely have i ever met anyone who works as hard as you do to discredit themselves. you're an !diot

It's not remotely childish and the characterization of it as so severely weakens your argument. The argument put forward by those demanding action on 'climate change' is that "if we don't make reductions immediately we will face catastrophic results and the world population is in danger " Woah - sounds pretty bad. So - if it's that urgent a crisis we have to do whatever it takes right? "Well no - in fact the worst polluters won't have to do anything because they're trying to make a buck". Hold it - is this a serious crisis or isn't it? Do we have to take action or not? It's utterly pontless if we do it by ourselves. "well it's a crisis and the world could end - but we want to be 'fair' about it so we're not going to address the biggest issues"/ How do you expect ANYONE to take this seriously after that? Why should we do anything when we know it won't make ANY difference unless we address the big polluters? Do you think the weather won't get hotter out of respect to the developing nations? Either this is a serious crisis or it is not. You're saying it is not. Cool story. But if they won't control their pollution then nothing we do matters. So don't ask me to care unless you're serious about trying to get them on board. And to say thats "childish" tells me you don't get how math works and that seriously damages your credibility on the subject.

It's pretty hard to defend that given the supposed premise of 'equalization'. I mean, the point of it literally is to level the playing field by taking a little from provinces that are blessed with good fortune and topping up provinces who don't have those natural advantages so that everyone has a similar level of gov't services. So resource revenue is PRECISELY that kind of natural advantage. My problem is inconsistency. We DO look at alberta's oil. We DO look at bc's lumber (which was the 'oil' of its day). But - we refuse to consider Quebec's hydro - which they sell to the states at a profit and which is a huge natural advantage for them. And that's not fair. It's entirely the point. Alberta doesn't pay any more than anyone else - no 'impoverishing' is going on. Other than we all pay more tax than we should. For many decades Ontario was excluded entirely from equalization payments even when it qualified. THey didn't take it even when the formula said they were eligible. So if you're going to use THAT comparison, i think you're going to find Ontario actually comes out worse than Alberta - they should have gotten it but didn't no matter HOW you calculate the formula. Not by equalization it's not. I'm no fan at all of equalization. I question if it has ANY value and if it does the way it's done is NOT fair or reasonable. But the largest contributor to "equalization' by a landslide is ontario. The second biggest is quebec i believe. And for ages ontario was excluded from even qualifying under any circumstances. Now - you want to talk about the western provinces like colonies, lets talk NEP. Lets talk repression of SEVERAL industries including oil and aeronautics and pharmaceutical to protect industries in the east, etc etc etc. But equalization? No - that's a kind of myth that alberta politicians tell albertans exists to get them angry. But that really isn't quite what the story is.

First off - no, reason and logic also play a large role in a healthy argument. Principles would be a distant second to those in most healthy arguments. Important but only so much so. Secondly - principles are often applied differently in different specific circumstances. For example - do you believe in killing people? NO. Do you believe in self defense including lethal force if someone is trying to kill you? Yes. So - does that mean you really DO support killing people? Or not? Why are your principles changing so much? You see the problem. Which is why it's dangerous to drag one statement from one conversation into another. And finally - principles can be a little too nuanced to explain perfectly on an internet forum and allowances have to be made for that. up to a point - but you have a bad habit of dragging the whole argument into that, which is a dishonest debate technique. It's very safe for you because now all we're talking about is whether or not the other poster feels one way or another and you can't really lose that discussion - but it's basically changed the channel and you're no longer discussing the original point. I think the hypocrisy in that case is more conveniently percieved than actual You can depending on the circumstance but it becomes a bit of a cheat quite quickly. As i noted - arguments are not based on principles. They are based in fact and logic and reason. If you can't address the argument based on that, falling back on your perception of another persons principles is seriously iffy territory. Well - that is a slightly different tactic. Its not the same. But i'm not a huge fan of that one either. Asking a clarifying question is legit. Asking someone to reconcile an apparent discrepancy in their position is legit. Pinning YOUR argument on it is questionable.

No, i don't think there will be massive pressure. She's still popular as a person within the party. I think it's going to be more like soul searching. "hey, notley's great but.. can she do it?" A lot will depend on how she handles this. We can look to other examples of that. Scheer for example - in his election people looked at the loss where he had similar advantages over trudeau that notley had over smith and said "we blew that one, we made a bunch of mistakes, that was a REALLY horrible campaign". And what they were expecting Scheer to say was "well - we made real mistakes there but we learned a lot and here's what we did wrong and we'll do better next time and i humbly ask for another shot at it from the party" . What scheer said was "I did great! We're awesome! And i'm totally leading you biatches into the next election whether you like it or not!!!!! *boott!* If notley does an honest evaluation of the election and is honest about her performance and gives people the belief she can learn and do better next time then they could well give her another crack at it. But unless something radical happens chances are next election is going to be even harder.

Maybe try china - they talk like you.

Thanks Biatch Here's your reward: If your brain was dynamite, there wouldn’t be enough to blow your hat off. Just a few more little guy - keep going!

So far she seems like she wants to stay on. I suspect the core party members are still quite fond of her. She did pretty good in her own riding. But i think even the party faithful who like her have to wonder if she can win an election at this point. She looked old and haggard in this election - she's not going to look younger or more fresh next one. She had MASSIVE gifts from god - scandals galore, judgement rulings that came in mid way, wildfires that were crippling, and polling that had them very close going into it. What more do you want? This is as good as it gets. And she couldn't make it happen. Or even come terribly close. People might love her to death but they're going to be asking themselves - is that our horse in 4 years? And if not shouldn't we change horses now?

We would probably be much farther ahead if we focused on adaption rather than prevention. I don't think anything we do can stop it. i'm all over reducing pollution in general anyway. It's nice to have smog free cities or the like. So as tech allows for it to be done responsibly, sure. But sacrificing our people's lives and livelyhood on the alter of climate change when it makes no difference is insane.

Loathe as i am to even approach agreeing with treebeard, the whole equalization thing is a little misunderstood. Alberta doesn't actually pay any more to equalization than anyone else does. I know the way we talk about it sometimes makes it feel like some how Alberta cuts a cheque to the feds for equalization, but that doesn't happen. Equalization is paid for from income tax. Everyone everywhere pays the same federal income tax. A guy making 70,000 in alberta pays the same income tax as a guy living in quebec earning 70,000 all else being the same. I'm not a big fan of equalization, i think if we have it at all it should be radically simplified and scaled back, i think in some respects we already do have it - that was the WHOLE POINT to the feds paying for half of the medical costs for the provinces tho they've cut that back but kept the money. But - it's not impoverishing albertans more than anyone else. It just feels that way because for a while there wages were higher in alberta on average so on average they pay more taxes.

Fellow Canadian? This guy is literally saying that Canada is illegitimate and doesn't exist. Not just that canada is bad or has problems or that the current or past gov't is bad or has had problems but that Canada itself does not exist and does not deserve to. He insists that there should be no loyalty to this fake 'canada'. He craps on Canada on a daily basis, most usually without it even being in context. And then he tries to hide behind his "Service" to canada, all the while claiming he didn't serve canada in the first place but england. Can you show me where my fellow Canadian is in all of that? I take pretty serious umbrage to someone who claims he's enjoying all the benefits of canada while at the same time shitting on it and claiming it' illegitimate.

Nope. Just a lone loser who hides behind other people's honour

False equivalency. One is direct responsibility, one is holding someone else responsible for something they didn't do. But beyond that - we can agree that the person who murdered one person shoudn't get WORSE than whatever you give the person who murdered ten. Ten is worse. In this case NO reparations were given to the slave race that got it worse. So nothing or less than nothing is what is owed to the ones who got it better. When people give the ones who got it 10 times worse money, then we can talk about giving 1 10th of that to the blacks in america and see if it makes sense. And you know how i know you KNEW your argument was bullshit from the get go? You had to try to make it emotional by making it 'your' son. You knew your argument woulnd't stand on logic so you tried to make it about emotion. Fail. LOL - that's because @ironstone's killing your argument Don't be mad at HIM - just learn to do better yourself.