Jump to content

bcsapper

Members
  • Posts

    13,000
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

Everything posted by bcsapper

  1. As long as they give them the "barbaric cultural practices" lecture. Oh, right, it's the Liberals...
  2. A million dollars is a lot of happy meals. I might have run out of gas. I fully understand the point you are trying to make. I disagree with you, is all.
  3. I always thought I was Libertarian. Pro-choice, gay marriage, freedom of speech, assisted suicide, that kind of thing. I never minded taxes. In fact, I would like Alberta to establish a sales tax.
  4. I must admit, I had to show proof of vaccination to get my chicken meal last week. But, I could have gone to a drive through and got a burger. Were there no drive throughs in The Count of Monte Christo?
  5. No, they are not. You obviously think that being given a choice you would find very difficult to make is the same as being forced, but it is not.
  6. But what you seem to be doing then, is setting yourself up as arbiter. Everything you say is okay should be allowed, and everything you say is not okay should not be allowed. I don't know what the difference between promote the idea and express the view would be, but I definitely think people ought to be able to say those things if they want. I would disagree with many of them, but so what? I didn't deny it. I asked how one could possibly know what the effect of one's words would be, and how much such effect is the reponsibility of the speaker. I would say a person's actions are their responsibility, and no-one who did not deliberately incite such action is responsible. Saying some of those terms are just expressing an opinion. Saying others is accusing them of a crime. There is a difference there. I agree that anyone who falsely accuses someone of a crime should not have that speech protected. That said, it would have to be directed at someone in particular. Just expressing the opinion that you think a certain group of people are a predators or pedophiles would not be enough for sanction. My opinion often differs from the law. I think that, while "abusive" can have a physical component, the law probably refers to the term generally defined as being "extremely offensive and insulting". Whilst I would never be extremely offensive and insulting towards anyone, I support the right of others to be.
  7. Sure, if you like. As far as I'm concerned, no-one has been forced to be vaccinated.
  8. There's not a lot there that I would argue with, (given the assumption that agreeing what the legal definition of hate speech is in Canada does not imply approval of the laws around it) but when you make the distinction between it's okay to say and it's not okay to say are you saying that the not okay speech should be proscribed? Because there's an awful lot there that I would say should be allowed, regardless of what I think of it. I don't think people who have an abortion are baby killers, but I could never see denying that view to anyone else. The idea that the Nazis had the right idea is utterly abhorrent to me, but I can't see charging someone with a crime for expressing that view. I'm an immigrant, but I support the right of those who say immigration should not be allowed to say it. From specific countries, if they like. I don't know how someone can take reponsibility for their words if they have no control over what others are going to do. For instance, I don't think a man is a woman just because he says he is. Luckily I can still say that in Canada. (I think) I don't know that I would be allowed to in my home country. What if someone read those words and hurt a transgender person. Should I take any responsibility for that? What if they hurt me because they thought I was a TERF? Did I deserve it? Is someone who thinks I'm a TERF guilty of a hate crime? In your comment above you bolded a definition of hate speech that, in my opinion, highlighted all the wrong words and left unbolded the only word that really matters "Threatening". And then it would have to be shown to represent an actual threat. Abusive and prejudiced don't reach the level where a ban on such speech would be warranted. In my opinion.
  9. To you, obviously. And I support your right to both hold and express that view. Of course, I would argue that he's doing nothing of the sort, and request you provide evidence of some one who has been vaccinated against their will, rather than simply given a choice between two things they do not like, just as those who choose to have an abortion have been.
  10. Is it okay to say you hate the people attending the KKK rally, hidden in the backwoods of Arkansas, planning the elimination of non-Christians and Liberals, or the guy casually swinging a golf club as he grins at a brown family coming to visit their parents/grandparents? Is it okay to say you hate the people that want to ban abortions, that might result in the shooting of doctors outside of abortion clinics? Is it hate speech to tell the truth about how vile are those religious extremists who want to control what other people can and cannot do with their bodies? Let's face facts: When most people talk about hate speech in the west nowadays, they are mainly talking about Islamophobia. Is there any reason the truth as you know it to be, not just as I know it to be, should not be discussed openly, just because someone might take it upon themselves to do something we would not?
  11. You do realise none of that is actually true, right?
  12. Oh, well, the Maga institute! You should have said. What with them and SomeGuyonYouTube.com giving their opinions, it's a wonder anyone trusts the BBC anymore.
  13. You should tell someone. That can't be right! The wrong president in the White House? You know what? You and some of your mates should have gone down to Washington on the day they certified the votes and put them straight!
  14. Wait a minute! All those media outlets claiming the audit confirmed Biden's win, they didn't read the whole thing? It's a good job you did, or we wouldn't know about the massive fraud! I'm sure they'll all be printing retractions tomorrow, and the new inauguration will be held shortly. You know what you should do though? You should have another audit, in a state Trump won. Just to show how fair you are. Texas would be good.
  15. Oh no, what happened to the Chickadee Kraken?
  16. I questioned one of them. Number 12,416. They never got back to me. Those bastards...
  17. I don't know, I've never thought about it. Is there any reason I should?
  18. You'd think someone would tell the poor dear that if he lives to 2100 he's going to be 436% better off.
  19. Hmmm... I have a bunch of leftover deck stain I don't know what to do with. Not only will it prevent them from getting COVID, but they won't have to worry about getting wet for a while too.
  20. Peaceful protest anywhere, about anything, should be allowed without question. Preventing access by anyone to anywhere, or any form of harassment, disturbance of the peace or vandalism, regardless of the cause, should be stopped and the perpetrators charged.
×
×
  • Create New...