CouchPotato

But he isn't wrong. The current response in NB and NS is similar in many ways. It is an emotional overreaction. Like making people follow arrows and socially distancing. Let's just make up all kinds of random senseless rules and impose ridiculous fines because of a crisis. It doesn't make sense to ban people from doing something that is harmless simply because they could choose to do something which is harmful while doing it. That's a precedent that should be avoided. Hiking in and of itself is not a fire risk.

It's pretty much impossible to police a lot of things. Police can not be everywhere at once. There is all kinds of space out there in Canada that isn't being policed and people can do all kinds of nasty things there until they get caught. You know what can help to some degree, though. Witnesses. If the police can't be at the scene of every bad thing, it may also be that they take much longer addressing it because they don't even know it happened. In other news, I see they have just upped the rain forecast for today to 20 - 25 mms here in Northern NB. That's awesome. They were originally giving out 5 to 10. Cmon rain.

But I didn't say it was an absolute right did I? I said things like rights. And you don't decide these things based on polls. Highway use can be restricted as well for various reasons. But it would be draconian if we started restricting access without a valid reason and fining people absurd amounts of money. And there is no valid reason. First off, no one is a potential fire risk for simply going into the woods. I could go into the woods today and guarantee I am not going to start a fire. I simply don't ignite anything, right? Or I don't toss a glass bottle out there. (I suppose I could spontaneously combust). So it's not that people in general are an actual fire risk. They aren't. It's that some people either a) do malicious things or b) are careless. And everyone else is being punished because of what they could potentially choose to do. Not because they are any more risk to do so than anyone else. Now I could possibly start a fire intentionally or I could do something careless which results in a fire. That is a possibility. But people can endanger lives recklessly anywhere. You can kill someone by drinking and driving. But you don't restrict road access for everyone because some people choose to do dangerous things on the road. And we don't fine people 25 grand when they do those stupid things. Someone who chooses to drink and drive is more of a danger than someone who decides to walk in the woods, unless that person does something additional which is stupid like smoking back there. Simply going in the woods is not a risk. How is it reasonable to fine someone 25k for doing something that is not a risk because they could potentially choose to do something else which is? That is insane. We rarely fine people that much when we know they have chosen to do stupid things. As for the emergency response thing, it is total BS. There is no way around that. If you are worried that people getting hurt is a drain on emergency services, then why should it matter where the injury happens? If you wanted to stop people from injuring themselves you would restrict them from doing activities most likely to cause injury, not that that is a good idea either. I've seen more people injured playing sports than I have ever seen while hiking (which is zero).

This is why things like rights aren't subject to the tyranny of the majority.

You bet? What kind of an argument is that? I live in NB, it's been tinder dry for most of the summer, and at no time did I hear anyone complaining that the government wasnt banning people from the forest or fining people 25 k. I have heard people complaining about people having fires or doing careless stuff. As for lack of an emergency response, I go hiking and never once have I been injured and seen anyone injured. If lack of an emergency response were an issue why not ban cycling or skateboarding? Why should it matter whether its in the woods or not? If emergency response is an issue right now why would it matter where you are being injured?

You just have that effect on men whenever you come round. And yet you are the one with Trump in your avatar.

That's not how I remember it. You were the biggest Trumper on here. You used to say things about how everyone who disagreed with you couldn't get it up and how Trump was all man.

This stuff is kind of interesting to think about though. I find the Basques kind of fascinating. They apparently have a fairly close genetic relationship with other Iberians as well as the Irish and Welsh. But Basque is a language isolate. It's not related to any Indo-European languages. Kind of a mystery.

I don't think so, Tim. I mean it's possible that a lot of Palestinian people may have descended from them, yes, that wouldn't be a stretch. But as a relatively intact ethnic group, I don't think that's very likely. There have been all kinds of people in Israel since the days of the Palestinians. There is no mention of Palestinians in the New Testament. There were so many tribes present in and around the Holy Land, there is no way any of them could exist today. They have all been assimilated by other peoples. Have you ever heard anyone claim to be an Edomite or a Moabite or a Hittite? Are the French Franks or Gauls, Visigoths... etc etc?

I am from just north of that area where that largest fire is. Except for a few homes evacuated on one back road, no one has been affected yet and it's still confined to uninhabited areas. As of right now, some thunderstorms are moving in and while that could make things worse, I think they are getting a pretty good rain right now over that area. Probably won't make much of a difference but man it's good to see some rain.

That article is from Aug 9. The fire was up to 1100 hectares yesterday. I think it's close to 1400 today last I checked. That said, I think the restrictions on simply going in the woods are overboard.

I know when I go hiking I usually end up with several broken bones, so I am glad Susan Holt is protecting me. She should just outright ban us from hiking at all times, now that I think of it. And then what if you break a bone cycling on the street or skateboarding.... that could be a drain on emergency services as well. We should just ban everything.

Uhhhh.... what's that supposed to mean?

Gerald Butts

Sean Feucht is dangerously unsafe? What laws has he broken here? He was coming to sing. You don't know he was going to promote hatred. He has come for years apparently with no issue. Meanwhile the Church where he performed was smokebombed and then fined. That should be the real story here. Not Nasty MAGA Singer Comes to Corrupt Canada.

There is no two state solution. Only one state. Israel.

Sounds about right.

Did anything actually happen to the guy who threw smokebombs in the church to protest this guy? I mean shouldn't that have been a priority over someone singing in church without a permit?

There are way more people here in the Maritimes than you think. It's just so many of them wear camo all the time and it's hard to count them.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/after Just figured I would get ahead of the game and post a definition of the word after before robosmith starts a 5-page debate on the subject.

No. This is Hitler.

I understand your point, but I don't understand the point of your point. Hitler wasn't Hitler until he was Hitler, ergo Trump who also isn't Hitler could still be Hitler. But then so could anyone who isn't Hitler (everyone), so your point really has no point.

Ahhh, the good ole "Hitler wasn't Hitler until he was Hitler" argument. You really can't trust anyone who isn't Hitler because Hitler wasn't Hitler until he was Hitler.

Hope he's got a permit for that.