Hicksey

I would be the ultimate hypocrite to campaign for free speech and then whine when people say things I don't like. So as you would expect I would not censor them. But I think that in order to protest within the cemetary limits they should need the permission of the executor of the dead person's estate. Otherwise they should be restricted to picketing the gate of the cemetary. They shouldn't be able to interrupt a private engagement, but there should be no restriction against them picketing reasonably outside the gate. On a related note, if I recognized one of our cemetary protesters that applied for a job from me, I'd laugh his ass out the front door. Who wants people like that around them? I love free speech because we find out what people are really all about. There's a reason for the saying "Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an ass than to open it and remove all doubt." Remember the thing I said about consequences? It applies everywhere. If our protestor doesn't like the conequences of the action in which he made a conscious decision to portake, then he should refrain from doing it. We may have to tolerate a few idiots to have free speech, but once we all realize who they are we can avoid them like the plague. And as well we should.

Uh huh....so you are saying you are curious because there are gays but it is guilt that is keeping you back? Quit baiting him, he does not speak for us all, but I see his point. It is frustrating to see how much the "minority" card is being used. As a white, english speaking, straight male, we are destined to be punished for the sins of our forefathers!! Yes, I said "punished" and I mean it, because we are being punished by watching how a lifestyle we strongly disagree with is being exalted to the point of them teaching it in schools! We are not welcome to apply for government jobs, because we are not a visible minority. If we only speak english, we are punished in many ways, by being intolerant to the french language. I call it the demise of western civilization, because the "weak" not the "meek" are inheriting the earth! If this offends you, it is too bad, because it is not meant to offend, it is truly how I feel! Offended? no...Amused? Absolutely. Any white male who feels hard done by has a inferiority problem and nothing more. No mate, it ain't your race keeping you back, we rule...the problem must lie within yourself. The problem isn't that we are being held back or don't rule. The problem is that a bunch of guilty liberals want not just to give equality (which I am for), but make them more equal. And that I disagree with. I seek to make everyone equal before the law. If we all have equal oppotunity to make something of ourselves, and some people don't then that is their problem. Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. If you are not willing to put in what it takes to pull out what you want, then you don't deserve it -- and IMO that should apply to white, black, gay, muslim or any other racial or religious identifier you can dream up.

Dont go too hard on your employees now though or your going to wake up and realize that none are left. You may put everything you own at risk to create the jobs.....but your not creating jobs for anything but your own profit. Ill give you some business advice: happier, respected workers produce more profit. I would pay my workers well unlike most people. Well paid workers usually stay on. I would not be a disciplinarian to the point of being a militant boss. And I am smart enough to know that it is every bit as important to let people know when they do things right as it is to provide enforced boundaries so they know when they have done something wrong. I also believe in profit sharing. There are many ways to keep employees that they will view as much more important than just a mere tie. If the tie remains that important and becomes a problem, I would likely dispose of that employee before their probationary period ended.

The pollster also indicated that there was a pretty firm opinion that Canada should be out of Afghanistan at the end of its comittment in 2010. Harper is already indicating that he thinking beyond that. All an 'exit strategy' does is tell the terrorists they will eventually win. We must judge our deployments on pre-set goals and leave when they are achieved.

Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept. When you say punishment you must mean the criminal code etc. Everything I can think of we punish for because some harm has been done to another which clearly fits into my definition. Find me an example of something we punish for that doesnt fit into what Im saying. No, I do not mean just the criminal code. Rules and structure continue down from there through about every part of our lives. Who is to say that a business cannot make rules and tell you if you don't like them or they don't meet your moral standards to find another? Instead, people sue and demand they be able to do what they want. I submit that we should disallow it. In the instance of a business, I am putting my own money at risk. I should be the sole dictator, beyond basic human rights of course, of what is allowed or disallowed there. If you don't like that get another job. If I tell you a tie is a part of the uniform and you refuse, start packing. Simple as that. If I do not treat people well I will not be able to keep them. Much like pay structures, people consider how they are treated when they choose a job. Let them find one that suits them if they don't like the rules of the one I have provided. Those who are invested should be protected first. As the generations pass each gets to be more like a spoiled brat, expecting everyone cater to them. Discipline seems to be more elusive to each new generation. We need to stop catering to people. When you keep giving in to people they come to expect it. There comes a point where doing these things in the name of progress hurts society more than it helps. IMO we have already passed that point. I dont think what your saying goes against what Im saying though. I fully agree that a business should be able to set their policies. I explained that it doesnt harm people. I see no conflict yet with using a harm principle for allowing people to have their own morals and beliefs. I have rules, you obey them. As long as you work for me, thats how it goes. If you do not, you are deemed insubbordinate and released. Like I said, if I am going to put everything I own at risk to create your job, it is only right I should get to make the rules. How I am to keep order if everyone gets to decide which rules they want to obey and which they do not? How do I justify to the others when I reprimand everyone else for not following our exemplary dress code and not our guy who has decided he thinks it is wrong? In my workplace, as long as you come to work and follow the rules, I don't care if you are black, white, blue or purple as long as you do what is asked of you in the manner you are asked to do it. If you have a problem with doing things the way I have asked then it time for you to move on. There are consequences to EVERYTHING in your life. If you are averse to wearing a tie you ought not seek work in an office environment. The office should not be required to bow to you.

I'm not sure why you raised the crackwhore issue because it just demonstrates your hypocritical double standard. You think people should be free to spew as much hate as they want, even if it hurts other people, but the crackwhore still can't go about her business, even though she's just hurting herself. We're highjacking a thread here. Like I said this is a subject for another day. The point was that there are going to be people who think what she is doing is wrong no matter what you legislate and she will we subject to their opinions should she continue the behavior. You simply cannot legislate away hate. Anyone that thinks so is naive. All it causes is yet more resentment and hate. IMO it hurts nobody. If you are proud of who you are it should not matter to you what other people think. I know who and what I am. I am perfectly happy to spread your ignorance about and let everyone know what kind of idiot you are if you choose to spew anything about me. I am proud of who and what I am and what I believe. If you think that being against gay-marriage is bigotted, then I am proudly bigotted. What ever happened to the day when people stood on their character? Do we really have to legislate character? Why is it that people want the government need to intervene in every little thing in our lives? Are we such brittle creatures that we need people legislating what we can and cannot say because we are afraid of hurting peoples' feelings? Its nonsense. IMO If people took responsibility for their lives, it wouldn't be necessary.

I'm not sure why you raised the crackwhore issue because it just demonstrates your hypocritical double standard. You think people should be free to spew as much hate as they want, even if it hurts other people, but the crackwhore still can't go about her business, even though she's just hurting herself. Please what is the meaning of a "crackwhore?" Is it a person who is a whore in order to support the crack habit? The modern updated versions of bar slut and booze hound..... Its an inside joke between Bubber Miley and I. History basically. The history is contained in the legalizing of marijuana thread.

Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept. When you say punishment you must mean the criminal code etc. Everything I can think of we punish for because some harm has been done to another which clearly fits into my definition. Find me an example of something we punish for that doesnt fit into what Im saying. No, I do not mean just the criminal code. Rules and structure continue down from there through about every part of our lives. Who is to say that a business cannot make rules and tell you if you don't like them or they don't meet your moral standards to find another? Instead, people sue and demand they be able to do what they want. I submit that we should disallow it. In the instance of a business, I am putting my own money at risk. I should be the sole dictator, beyond basic human rights of course, of what is allowed or disallowed there. If you don't like that get another job. If I tell you a tie is a part of the uniform and you refuse, start packing. Simple as that. If I do not treat people well I will not be able to keep them. Much like pay structures, people consider how they are treated when they choose a job. Let them find one that suits them if they don't like the rules of the one I have provided. Those who are invested should be protected first. As the generations pass each gets to be more like a spoiled brat, expecting everyone cater to them. Discipline seems to be more elusive to each new generation. We need to stop catering to people. When you keep giving in to people they come to expect it. There comes a point where doing these things in the name of progress hurts society more than it helps. IMO we have already passed that point.

We must protect all Canadians equally. We should not being picking and choosing who should and should not be protected.

Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept.

But the victims of crackwhorism come only as a result of criminalization. Neighbourhoods are destroyed, diseases are spread, and organized crime flourishes, but that's just because their activity is unregulated, not because they choose to get high and have sex for money. I'm all for free speech and freedom of movement until it hurts another person, and encouraging hatred of a particular group hurts other people. That's the difference. We are not advocating nor encouraging people to hate. But we are allowing them to speak their mind. If they want to open their mouths and remove all doubt about how much of an idiot they are, then let them. And if that lunacy costs them their job, oh well. Why? Because as I have said over and over ... we are free to do, not from the consequences of doing. I don't feel for that guy one bit. The point is that no matter how much you try, all you will ever achieve by this legislation is to further anger those affected and make them resent the party they already resent now -- more. And for another day ... The crack whore is only victimized by her own decisions. She knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If you can't deal with the consequences of an action, then don't do it.

Why is it that failures are regarded with such negativity? Is it not through failure we learn the most? Your life is what you make it. You can write your own vows now. Why not do it yourself? Why does the government need to step in and protect people for themselves? Are we all that helpless?

Isn't this almost exactly what the current hate-crime legislation does? Instead of conferring protections upon everyone it specifically names those who are to be protected. They are both unnecessary. There should be no abridgment of free speech. If you want to express those beliefs in the open today you'll be the idiot if there is to be one. See my quotes below. Bubber Miley says it all. Right after our First female Prime Minster explains what is involved in freedom. IMO a person's ability to refuse to do things against their core beliefs falls under both freedom or religion and freedom of speech rights. All it means is that the places that will do it will receive more traffic. If we can be forced to travel hundreds of kilometers for health care why not to get married? I think the only thing that ever should have been done was to double sentences for violent hate crimes. The legislation should not single anyone out. If they cannot confer the protections to everyone equally then they ought not be conferred. Everyone should be equal before the law, neither the Liberal Hate Crimes bill or the one that the CPC seems to be pondering if the reports on it are to be believed.

Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves what is right and wrong? At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment?

Since when is gay bashing a freedom of speech issue? I don't want any hate mongers and homophobia legitimized especially by our national government. Im not very happy about the 'others who critisize homosexual behaviour' idea, who exactly are the others and what are legitimate grounds for refusing to do business with gays? Isn't there a court case going on now in Montreal because a bar refused to serve a black guy because he was black? I guess were back to 'separate but equal' Tread lightly Mr. Harper... I do support legislation regarding people not having to marry gay couples if they think its against their religion... sure fine... but discriminatory business practices based on sexual preference... just sounds... well... wrong. Of course we have yet to see the actual legislation so, we will know soon enough i suppose... sigh... 1 step forward 3 steps back The hatespeech law is in essence a bunch of liberals telling us that if we agree with them and think as they do, then they can be as biased as we please. But if our biases go against the fiber of their values we must be censored. Why is it that someone can defacate on a statue of Jesus and that is considered art, but a picture of the prophet Muhammed is hatespeech? If we are going to protect people from hate speech should not such a law protect every man equally before the law? Until that law does that it is unconstitutional and IMO should be repealed. Today, being a racist is looked down upon by just about anyone with a brain. In operating a free society you have to be willing to tolerate hearing things you do not like. And in the words of the ever-knowing Bubber Miley below (I put it there because I knew it would be useful one day ... that day is today) "If someone doesn't mind being known as a crack whore, let them do crack and be a whore." So if someone doesn't mind being thought of as an intolerant bigot let him spew his lunacy. It hurts his credibility more than anything. Anyone with half a brain that is proud of who and what they are should hardly care that others may not approve. There will always be people that don't. You won't be able to change a closed mind so why bother worrying about it? You can pass a million such laws and it won't change a single mind. You cannot legislate what goes on in peoples' heads. If their bigotry turns to physical violence, then lock the idiot up for as long as the law allows. But this should apply to every racially motivated crime regardless of who is the aggressor and who is the victim. A white guy who assaults a black guy over race should be considered no less guilty than a black guy who assaults a white guy over race. Any protections conferred should be applied equally to everyone.

Why is it that when some people do wrong they compulsively try to argue it is right? The only important marks of right and wrong, are the law, legislators and the surpeme court. If they say it is wrong, for all intensive purposes it is. Whether you think it is right or I agree with the law that it is wrong, is of zero consequence. I thought hate-speech laws were overstepping because they selectively shielded people instead of a blanket set of protections for everyone. Did they listen to me? Or the politicians that agreed with me? Nope. Laws designed to reign in an entire society cannot make everyone happy. If you choose to disobey you can as long as you are willing to assume the risk of being caught and punished. That's freedom at work. The problem is that nobody seems to see how that freedom doesn't make them free from the consequences of their actions.

Its a bunch of politicians that don't have faith in their own idealogy. If they did they wouldn't feel they have to water it down for mass consumption.

Are we in the minority or does a majority of people view the vultures and fame-seekers as the fools they are? I have gone so far as to stop watching the news and started reading instead. At least there we get a smidgen of the good that happens in the world, and I don't have to sit though the garbage to get to something worthy of my time.

What I cannot understand is how people want their own Fifteen Minutes of Fame. I have watched the press and the general sense they get that the lives of celebrities are everyone else's business regardless of whether that person wishes to share it or not. If I had to have fame to get rich I'd tell them to keep the money. I'd even go so far as to try to keep it quiet if I won the lottery. Who needs a bunch of friends they never had in the first place? To take it even further, I am baffled that all these idiots (say what you will, that is how I view them) feel the overwhelming need to go on shows like American Idol and the like and make asses of themselves before millions of people. My pet name for that show is American Idiot. Fame is overrated.

The laws are there to make order and to balance competing interests. The fact that some laws are based on right and wrong is incidental. If enough people want a law, we will write something down in our "law books" regardless of whether it is right or wrong. How else would you have it? What you are saying is that we should be able to selectively obey/disobey laws according to whether or not we can justify disobeying them to ourselves? And how does that create order again? Actually, it would create order by ensuring that laws are made in consideration of what people actually want. Those who pay extra on their bills because people like you create a need for costly higher security measures would certainly not want that. Nor would the provider, or anyone that works for them. The question here is: whose wants should be respected first?

I'm with you on this one. This is a man who blames his own lies on other people. Batch that with his incessant whining, and that he closely resembles a weasel ... Instant winner. I think only John Kerry could best him.

Nobody is 100% moral. We ask all these questions about right and wrong and it really serves nothing. We can argue it all day long to no consequence. Morality is relative. Some of the more recent debates around here concerning abortion, the death penalty, satellite piracy, marijauna use, copyright violations, etc ... all come back to one thing: our beliefs or more accurately what we believe to be moral. But because the morals of different people vary so greatly according to their religion and personal biases, we have laws -- a core set of morals under which all of society should operate. It is under this unmbrella that we judge what is right and wrong. As Mr. Anthony so eloquently put it "The laws are there to make order and to balance competing interests" which dictates that we must must consider what is right and wrong as it pertains to keeping societal order. In keeping order we must view right and wrong on a scale that everyone is equal under -- even if that means some people will not be happy.

That's right. But regardless, it is wrong to break it. If we want to break it anyway, we shouldn't be whining about a fate that we ultimately chose for ourselves.

What do you think is an appropriate punishment for your transgressions? if you get caught after the authorities deem it is worth their while to target their investigation upon you. Of course I would try to get the best deal I could, but anything less than the minimum sentencing guidelines would be a miscarriage of justice.

I am curious to learn more about your perspective of the law vis-a-vis right and wrong. Please answer my follow-up question: If you do not get caught nor punished, why would that be? I think it would be because it is not worth the effort nor the money to catch or punish you -- regardless of any concept of right or wrong. Unless, maybe, if we accept the pursuit of wealth or power to be a baseline for right and wrong. I guess upon reflection I only addressed half of your post. I don't run our police agencies. However I would hope all of our criminal codes are enforced with as much vigor as resources permit. A lack of resources to enforce a crime does not make it right. The pursuit of wealth and power is the basis for existence in a capitalist society. Allowing you to steal a signal is akin to allowing you to steal the equivalent of the value of subscribing to that signal from their bank account. Even if not by specific design you are pursuing wealth because in stealing that signal you are saving the money you would spend on such entertainment to be spent elsewhere.