Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. Topaz, Twas always so. The new phenomenon, though, is making an example out of high profile folks who transgress in ways that you and I are able to.
  2. bjre, The point is, you can't argue a subjective thing such as "which is better, freedom or comfort ?". It's like arguing "which is better an apple or an orange ?". You may prefer to have full meals in jail over eating sparse meals in freedom. What is to be said about that ? I do find it odd that you feel that a state that doesn't allow you to speak freely is the same as an essentially free state with problems such as Canada. But then again, I once had a dog who preferred to stay in his carrying cage.
  3. As I have said in the past, we shouldn't be surprised when this happens. We elect lawyers to run multi-billion dollar service companies with no accountability and are continually surprised with the results.
  4. bjre, Certainly. However, with most things subjective values figure into the argument, not just objective facts. Your values seem to say: 1) Physiological and safety needs are more important than the need to express onesself. http://www.imteachingfrench.com/wp-content...7/11/maslow.gif 2) Things that are not perfect are basically the same to you. 3) There is no such thing as degrees of freedom. Unless absolute democratic freedom exists, then you feel the same in a police state, or a Western democracy. How can I argue against such things ?
  5. A minor point, but still kind of funny in the middle of a serious argument...
  6. bjre A shill can have real opinions, but it's his job to state the opinions he was given. We don't know if the pitchman for a bar of soap really uses that soap, but it doesn't matter because he'll never tell us. Likewise with you, there's no point in discussing soap.
  7. Molly, That's going too far in my opinion. If this is indeed the case, that they didn't see this person commit a crime and just detained them anyway, then they were rightly arrested IMO. No, they tied the person up. I doubt there's a legal definition for "catching" somebody. You can detain them, from my understanding, but not tie them up or assault them. If they assault you then you can defend yourself. They tied him up. I don't think it's reasonable to allow people to tie others up based on suspicion. That would lead to abuses, obviously. I guess it depends on how you define 'catching'.
  8. DoP Sure, but imagine saying... "They should be allowed to go as far as necessary, that is to the point of murder"
  9. There's really no arguing with bjre on this topic. He strikes me as somewhat a shill in this reagard.
  10. Molly, what are you talking about ? You're allowed to detain people that you catch in the act of committing a crime, from what I understand, but there's a grey area and that's the problem. If they had simply detained the suspect and called the police, there would arguably have been no charge.
  11. Morris, I'm backing off from my usual jibes as per your request but honestly are you baiting me with this post ?
  12. Molly, He's not entirely wrong if he says Canada has real problems. Nobody has argued that. He's not even wrong when he says that - to him - freedom of expression is secondary to being secure and having enough food. But he's wrong because he tries to say that the countries are "the same" because they both have problems.
  13. bjre, It's not about telling the truth, its about your basic logic which is dishonest and flawed. I gave you the reason above. Your lack of objectivity about China is puzzling, but I don't know you so there's no point in trying to argue with you about it. It appears other posters feel the same way.
  14. Molly, Please. Comparing that to a country with real human rights issues - where you can be arrested and detained without charge is ridiculous.
  15. Snippet: "Speaking your mind is seen as virtually anti-social because some opportunistic crybaby is sure to take offense and throw a tantrum, and that might threaten community cohesion." Thanks for that.
  16. This is basically a rant, without much substance. He cries out against 'weasel words' yet doesn't tell the truth himself about the UN resolution against defamation of religion. I cut it off at 4 minutes when he started railing on about unconstitutional provisions suggested by the US. He's not being forthright. He keeps pointing out that the US is supporting an unconstitutional proposal without explaining what it is. This is mostly an emotional appeal without much else to offer - which is why it's on video. The best ideas can come across in text, and don't need somebody whipping up your emotions. It's just more hyperbole and the same kind of alarmism we hear over and over again.
  17. Thanks. I remember also seeing North Vietnamese cartoons - however I can't find them on Youtube.
  18. bjre's method of argument is to compare two things, and if one is not perfect then to declare them equal. He principally does this in comparing China with Canada. It's intellectually dishonest, but it appears he's as dishonest with himself about it as he is with us on MLW.
  19. bjre, Ok, if we move to your definition of human rights - which seems to be about material comfort - Canada is still better off per capita, and I would attribute this to freedom of capital, freedom of movement, and freedom of opinion. What would you attribute it to ?
  20. bjre, Yes. You would also be happy in a harem, I suppose. A great quote I once heard from was Ayaan Hirsi Ali to an interviewer who tried to say we weren't free in North America "…you grew up with freedom so you spit on freedom…”. Doesn't seem to apply to you.
  21. It must be somewhat effective, or the Chinese government wouldn't ban them. Ok.... that's enough... you've stated that being able to protest isn't important to you. That's as far as we can take this discussion.
  22. Mr. Canada Wrong. Supporting a 22% corporate tax rate does not a far left wing party make. Left wing parties would support nationalizing industry or somesuch...
  23. Shady Shaking with rage in the dark, knowing that Bob Rae his old rival wields influence on the national stage while Harris does nothing, apparently. Harris' wiki page indicates no major achievements since 2006, when he testified at the Ipperwash inquiry about saying "I want the F*** Indians out of the park". Harris contradicted his own Attorney General in denying his statement. A real class act.
  • Create New...