Moonbox
-
Posts
8,707 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
Canada's modern census has grown far, far beyond that. It has become a juggernaut and worse, its size (like government itself) gives a false sense of accuracy and security.
I did not realize that. I know a lot of groups have been upset with this and personally I really don't see why people are so upset to have to fill out a few pages of information to give to the gov't.
-
The point is that logic has no bearing on a factual conclusion
This is the most ignorant and flat out retarded thing I have ever read. I'm done here and I've seen all I need to see.
charter.rights, I wish you luck in life, because you're going to need all the help you can get.
May God have mercy on your poor soul.
-
Why even a census?
If it is so important won't people pay for the data?
Private collections etc...?
Does the government make money from this, why not, what use is it?
It helps the government determine public policy. Knowing what the average income throughout various regions of Canada, for example is very useful information for the government to have. Knowing the number of children households have is another useful tidbit for helping to determine where schools need to be built and what sort of immigration is necessary to support our aging population.
There are hundreds of examples for how this information can be used to the betterment of Canada.
-
So now that we have established that logic is needed, and a integral part in justice.... we can go back to the topic of this thread
You, me and almost everyone else in this thread have. I think charter.rights is a lost cause. His entire argument hinges on a court system, government and reality completely devoid of logic.
-
The next on a list of things the Tories have done lately that flat out disgust me. The census has been a hallmark of civilization for about 2000 years and pretty much every secular country in the world uses is for VERY good reason. It's a helpful tool for policy makers and helps people get a good idea of what areas and types of people need help the most.
EDIT:
It seems I was rather ignorant on the subject. Having read a little further about it, I feel like it makes sense. The current census as it currently stands is a fair bit more invasive than I had thought.
-
Logic is a delusion.
Logic can't be a delusion. That comment itself is the biggest delusion possible. Let's dumb it down for you even more.
You are hungry. You want to not be hungry. Eating food would make you not hungry. What's the logical solution?
The bullet wound could be shrapnel. It could be an arrow hole. It could even be a puncture wound with around object. It could even be a post-surgery laparoscopic entry wound, left open for drainage. There are lots of possibilities. The bullet could be a red-herring placed there to make people like you come to the wrong conclusions. You can pretend it is a bullet hole and pretend on that basis you have the murder weapon, but until the autopsy is completed and the facts are revealed all we have is a dead guy.
No, what we have are some facts. We have a wound that looks like a bullet hole. We have a dead man. We have a bloody bullet nearby. Logic and reason take us the rest of the way to make an assumption. It is not a certainty, but it is a likelihood, and it's almost certain to be correct.
With the given facts, and with even a sniff of intelligence, most people would be able to come to this conclusion. It makes SENSE to assume that man died of a gunshot wound.
I'll grant that your imagination is pretty good with coming up with those other possibilities, but there was no mention of shrapnel in the area, no blood trail or other foreign object and no mention of the man having any surgery. You came up with that with pure imagination. Most of your arguments have worked that way as well, because, like I said before, you've been quoted about 50 times here with EASILY PROVEN falsehoods.
The courts don't care about your delusions or your theories. They want the facts - evidence and witness testimony. Anything less is a witch hunt....which if you remember from the middle ages was propagated by delusional thinkers who tried to use their logic to convict witches of casting magic spells over them.
Reason is not a delusion. To say so is absolutely insane. The phrase, "Beyond a REASONABLE doubt" is simple evidence that this is how a court of law operates. Logic is not a delusion, because it is the application of reason. The facts and evidence are things that HELP a judge make a reasonable decision.
If, for example, you have a hundred witnesses and a video tape of a man killing a woman, the judge would use these facts to come to the logical conclusion that the man killed the woman. If logic and reason are a delusion, as you claim, the judge could just as easily decide that Winston Churchill came back from the dead, doctored the video tape and bribed 100 witnesses to testify against the man.
This is the sort of lunacy your arguments have contained thus far. I'm finding it hilarious.
-
This man died of what looks like a bullet wound. Ah there is the bullet, logic concludes the man was shot with a gun.
Wait...wait...I think I get it now. This is how it works:
The man died of what looks like a bullet wound. Ah, there is the bullet. It's pretty clear he died of food poisoning. He must have eaten some bad meat.
charter.rights I'm catching on now, right???? Logic is a myth right???
-
Since when is mocking an idiotic post called backpeddling?
You just tried to tell us that logic (the study and application of reason) has no place in a justice or legal system. That's your whole argument this entire thread broken down into one simple sentence. As far as your concerned, logic and reason have no place in the application of law in Canada.
We've already learned that that you don't believe that the People have any influence over the Crown (patently false) and now we learn that logic and reason also have no influence over them. This is indeed what you've been saying the whole thread. As far as your concerned, the Crown's decisions will be based entirely on what YOU tell them.
You've been caught in quotation about 50 times in this thread by various posters either telling us something totally false (and easily proven to be) or so childishly stupid and contradictory that even a 5th grader could point out their fallacies.
My advice is for you to is to just stop embarrassing yourself. I only half-heartedly mean that, however, because every time I log on to the site I get to read something hilariously dumb.
-
Logic is not particular to law. Facts and reason, yes, but only so far as the facts form a reasonable belief in accordance with legal precedence. Logic is a schizophrenic concept and has no place in justice, at all, whatsoever.
And this, my friends, is by far the single most idiotic thing I have read in 2 years on this forum. I invite everyone in this thread to put their face squarely in their palm, and feel sorry for this poor wretched soul.
log·ic (ljk)
n.
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logic
The rest of your back-peddling is comical to say the least and no doubt is an attempt to hide your incompetence. That we will dismiss and move onward.
We need not look any further than your posts to get glorious examples of stupidity and shining examples of complete and utter ignorance in our search for comedy.
According to you, logic (which by definition is the study and application of reason) has no place in a justice or legal system. Apparently reason does have a place in law, according to charter.rights, but not logic...
I'm beginning to wonder if you even finished highschool with a comment like that.
-
Logic is a delusion one keeps telling themselves. It is not a universal measure of fairness or correctness. Reason is based on the collection of prejudices and experience one has. It too does not define fairness or correctness. That is why we have laws and courts to weigh out justice.
The laws themselves are based on the concepts of cold hard logic, reason, justice and fairness. The judges make their decisions based on the law, precedence, and their interpretations of logic, reason and fairness.
Sometimes their decision defies individual logic and reason (individual delusions and prejudices). We hear outrage at court decisions all the time and mostly they are void of facts.
That's entirely true. Individual logic and reason are not how the laws were formed. They were formed with about 2000 years of precedence, experience and collective logic and reason which we continue to build on today.
Section 25 over-rides all law that conflicts with it.Silly boy, Section 1. is not primary just because it appears in first order. It is Section 1 only because it is the most general of principles.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're absolutely clueless. Section 1 was placed first because it was meant to limit the sections that came after it. Indeed, it's widely known as a limitations clause and that's the intent with which it was written. I dare you to google "Canadian Charter Limitations Clause" and tell me what comes up in your search results.
But maybe you haven't throughly read the Constitution and missed this:
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Interestingly enough, the Charter is Part 1 of the Constitution Act.
Aboriginal Jurisprudence is a well studied philosophy of law. It is not precedent. It is jurisprudence. Maybe if you studied law you might better understand how wrong you really are in all of this.
Another example of your pathetic critical reasoning skills. Your right. Aboriginal Jurisprudence is not precedence. I never said that, however, so the fact that you brought it up just shows how much you're flailing around here. I said that you don't understand what the word jurisprudence means. In legal terms, the concept that previous settlements and court cases determine how following cases will be viewed is called precedence. You were calling it jurisprudence. I was highlighting how little you know about our legal system. I have studied law and while I haven't gone to law school, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you've never opened a legal text book in your life.
Your dreaming about natural law over-riding a constitution is about as whacky as right-wing nuts justifying murdering someone because they believe in abortion.
Again, I didn't say that. You're REALLY struggling here haha. I said that Natural Law is one the central pillars of jurisprudence and any worthwhile legal system in the world. It's the use of reason to analyze a situation and create rules and judgements. Section 1 of the Charter is an EXAMPLE of Natural Law in our legal system and is indeed PART of our Constitution. Are you starting to get it? You're flopping around like a beached fish.
No, we are discussing jurisprudence, not just precedent.
Actually, we were discussing how your use of the word jurisprudence in this thread clearly highlighted that you didn't have any understanding of EITHER.
-
Of course not. But supposing I ask: how can you be so certain?
Because we wouldn't allow it. I wouldn't allow it. Smallc wouldn't allow it. Anyone with a brain wouldn't allow it. Thus far it's only continued because the settlements have been relatively small and reasonable. If they started to get unreasonable, the Canadian people would start to care about it and do something about it.
-
You can go on (as you have been) about "this or that COULD happen" but in reality - especially as a civil and peaceful society - there is little appetite in Canada for change, or for its more extreme revolution.
It's a two way argument. So far small settlements here and there have been made with the government that are hardly noticeable on the provincial or federal books. That's what HAS HAPPENED and what will CONTINUE to happen. PRECEDENCE, not jurisprudence (you still don't know what that means but I'll forgive you because it's clear you've never read a page of philosophy or law), has already been set on what sort of land claim settlements we can continue to expect. They'll continue to happen as they HAVE been but not how you say (in your demented little world) they SHOULD.
Whether or not a judge COULD rule against First Nations is a moot point since judges HAVE RULED in their favour, and the jurisprudence (you know that big word that baffles you) points that they will continue to rule in their favour as well as to reinforce prior rulings, exactly as the Supreme Court of Canada is doing presently.
Keep using that word. The more you use it the less educated you look. The word you're looking for is precedence. Look it up in the dictionary. I DARE you to learn something from this discussion. Aside from that, you're right. Precedence has been set in settling native land claims. Cash and land settlements in the millions of dollars range have been made and will continue to be made. The more settlements happen like that the more that will reinforce the precedent for future rulings and the more it will ensure the hundreds of billions worth of settlements you so desire and wet your bed over will never happen.
The Crown's job is to enforce this fundamental guarantee and right now the laws prescribing limitations for native people, including the refusals by government to acknowledge their obligations for consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation guaranteed by sections 25. and 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being thrown out of court or redefined, just as they should be in a free and democratic society.
The Crown's job is to safeguard and promote the interests of ALL Canadians. I know it suits your infantile arguments to pretend that first and foremost its job is to promote only the interests of First Nations, but that's no reflection of reality.
25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada....
Subject to Section 1 of the Charter (BTW thanks for quoting it so I didn't have to). The whole Charter is subject to Section 1. That's why it's Section 1, and not 25. It was written first as a preamble to the entire document to ensure that people knew that any use of the Charter to support legal arguments would have to follow the standards of fairness and justice in a DEMOCRATIC society.
If the arguments don't follow simple logic, reason and fairness, the Charter can't support them. The concepts of logic, fairness and reason are the fundamental principles of Natural Law (one of the pillars of Jurisprudence, a word you don't understand and continue to misuse) and none of your arguments thus far have passed those tests.
Please keep trying though. I'm actually REALLY fascinated by how your mind works and how the jumbled messes in your head actually end up here in writing.
-
I don't think Pierre Trudeau is held in as poor regard throughout Eastern Canada as people here think. You have to remember, most people can't be bothered with the boring details of his tenure as PM (how we're still paying off the debt he accumulated 30 years later and will be for another 30 years).
No, the majority of the sheep in Canada instead remember instead only the sensational. They remember his rockstar persona. They remember how he "stuck it" to the Americans, repatriated the Constitution, his floozy wife and how he spent lavishly.
They don't care that he sold out Canada's future to finance his legend. They only care that they had something interesting to watch on TV and that life was easy for a couple of years.
Justin Trudeau is, in my opinion, the scariest thing on the Liberal horizon and I wouldn't be at all suprised if he took over leadership over the next few years. He's young, decent looking, articulate and popular in his riding. It doesn't matter that he's not hugely educated or qualified. Look how that worked out for Ignatieff. All that matters is that he's something the Liberal brand might be able to 'sell'.
-
Not at all.
Who holds the higher authority? The people or the Crown in this situation?
The argument is that, since the Crown derives its authority and legitimacy from the People, it is in fact beholden to the People to make fair and rational decisions. In the case that the Crown lost its mind and even TRIED to judge in favour of the idiotic claims you make, they would be removed from and replaced. Every single aspect of Canadian law can be rewritten. The constitution can be rewritten. New Supreme Court judges can be selected. We can remove the Queen as the Head of State. All it takes is agreement across the country. The Supreme Court knows this, and as such, rules accordingly. After all, it's the Supreme Court of CANADA -- not the Supreme Court of Give the First Nations Everything they Want.
Revolution is a tool that can and has been used in the past when the Crown does not act in the best interests of its people. That's not going to happen, however, because nothing you say the Crown will do will actually happen either.
-
it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about...and so you're making it up as you go along.
Biingo. charter.rights replaces facts and logics with his/her own desires, and thus creates an alternate universe where fancy and desire become reality.
-
You are still on the wrong path. We were talking about "The Crown" and its power in Canada, aside from "The People" and over "The Government". Your confusion about the Queen is nothing more than a red herring, and you have been caught with your pants down on this one.
Direct quotation:
The Crown is only represented by the Queen and the Governor General. The
Aside from this, you and I were talking about the Queen, and by extension the Crown, and I provided official citations indicating that their power and legitimacy were derived ENTIRELY from the people. You've told me it's a myth, and I'd like you to provide a direct reference contradicting the ones I've shown you.
Your arguments, thus far, have not followed any sense of logic, they've been blatently false and now you're lashing out at everyone here and spouting nonsense because we don't see things the way you want us to.
Most people learn this in kindergarten, but I think you need a refresher: Things don't become true just because you want them to.
Now be a sport and answer Shwa's question. Your whole opposition is sunk with the answer.
It's a red herring. The question is not whether the Crown can seize land. It obviously can. The question is under what circumstances can it and will it do so. This is what you and I have argued about for the last several pages so the fact that Shwa's completely irrelevant question somehow supports your argument only serves to underline how bad you are at following an argument from start to conclusion. Your logic sucks.
-
This thread is just getting so comical. If I didn't know better, I would think we were all getting trolled.
-
It is a myth. Dumb is the one that believe it.
The Monarchy believes it. It's on their own official website. If you're correct, then absolute power is vested in a dumb monarch who doesn't even know she actually has that power and thus it doesn't even matter.
Regardless, you have no facts to back up that it's a 'myth', and I have direct quotation from the Queen of Canada's own website stating it is NOT a myth.
Keep it up. Show everyone here how many more dumb things you can say.
-
It's not the system that's to blame. The system would work perfectly if people weren't stupid and apathetic about it.
That's the whole reason the system works the way it does now. People are too dumb and too lazy to actually learn about individual candidates stand for and instead base their opinions on two minute commercials (from the parties themselves) while they're on the couch getting fat watching Survivor or something stupid like that.
-
It's because the VAST majority of Canadians don't share the views of the tiny minority that makes a career of complaining and protesting. Most protests are regarded with about as much respect as the drunks downtown in whatever city you live in. They're the unsuccessful and indignant part of society who blames everyone else for their failures.
We don't listen to them because of who they are: Generally speaking...big losers.
-
Now I agree with you. That is the Crown.
Well I'm glad we sorted that out
Nope. That is "The Myth". The real Crown has no responsibility to the people.
Try to answer Shwa'a question above and you'll find where the myth lies.
A myth? Hmm...
As in all her realms, The Queen of Canada is a constitutional monarch, acting entirely on the advice of Canadian Government ministers. She is fully briefed by means of regular communications from her ministers, and has face-to-face audiences with them where possible
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensroleinCanada.aspx
If it's a myth, then it's one the Queen is also unaware of. Keep digging that hole. The more you talk the dumber you look.
-
"The People" of Canada hold absolutely no power, save and except voting if they feel like it. The Power, is the Crown and the Governor general is both the Head of State and the Commander of the Armed Forces. As long as the government is doing the right thing, there is no need to intervention...ie the Courts as "The Crown".
Your idiocy is highlighted in bold. It warrants absolutely no comment and the rest of the forum can judge it for what it is.
Before that the Crown (aka the Supreme Court of Canada) ruled that the government had violated Khadr's rights by not reaching out to defend him. Now the government is attempting to make an appeal and it is likely going to have to face contempt of court charges if they do not do as they are ordered.
No. The Supreme Court didn't order the government to do anything. It was a wrist-slap.
The Crown holds all the power.
The Crown as an institution holds all the power. It gains its power and authority from the support of the people. Without the support of the Canadian people, the Crown has no legitimacy whatsoever.
"The Crown is the institution that represents the power of the people above government and political parties."
Your error in thinking will be corrected.
Your ability to think critically, I think, will never be corrected.
-
You are out to lunch...still.
I am? Really? Let's examine your next sentence....
Jurisprudence is the "theory(ies) of law" and can be picked out of the Supreme Court rulings by the series of decisions that have been made over the years.
Oops. You f'd up again. You're talking about precedence.
Precedence, I'll grant, is at least part of legal theory, but it's still pretty clear you don't understand jurisprudence. If you look at the size and nature of the settlements made thus far, take that as your precendence (not jurisprudence
) for what future settlements will look like. The Crown is only represented by the Queen and the Governor General. The Courts hold a higher authority than the government or MPs. You understanding of the Crown is equally out to lunch. Go get an education.
My god you're all over the place. What's your point? I understand what the Crown is. Where we differ is on how the government and court systems work. We seem to have different opinions on our understanding of who ACTUALLY holds power in Canada. It's not the Queen, or the Governor General. It's the PEOPLE of Canada who determine its fate. While the Queen does hold symbolic reserve powers, if the people, parliament and Senate of Canada passed a bill and the GG or Queen didn't consent, we'd write her out of the constitution. She knows this, and thus has no reason or ability to interfere.
-
The system doesn't do that...the voters do. The voters refuse to elect independents in any real numbers, thereby creating the party control.
Yeah that's pretty much exactly right. The apathy, ignorance and laziness of the average voter turns politics into a pageant and media circus.
The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by Moonbox
You say I can't make a rational argument. Now let's look at a couple definitions:
rational [ˈræʃənəl]
adj
1. using reason or logic in thinking out a problem
2. in accordance with the principles of logic or reason; reasonable
3. of sound mind; sane the patient seemed quite rational
4. endowed with the capacity to reason; capable of logical thought man is a rational being
5. (Mathematics) Maths expressible as a ratio of two integers or polynomials a rational number; a rational function
Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Next:
rea·son (rzn)
n.
1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Notes at because, why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.
and finally:
logical [ˈlɒdʒɪkəl]
adj
1. (Philosophy / Logic) relating to, used in, or characteristic of logic
2. (Philosophy / Logic) using, according to, or deduced from the principles of logic a logical conclusion
3. capable of or characterized by clear or valid reasoning
4. reasonable or necessary because of facts, events, etc.
So here we have definitions for the words rational, reason and logical.
You have stated that logic is a delusion. This causes you a problem, because the definition of rational is "in accordance with the principles of logic". Also, the word "reason" is defined as "the capacity for logical, rational and analytical thought -- intelligence".
You've taken the absolutely retarded position that logic is a delusion. As such, by definition, so is reason and rationality. These are very simple and very easily illustrated FACTS.
If you've denounced logic (and by definition reason and rationality) there's very little point in arguing with you. Indeed you're position is unassailable. You've entered the realm of irrationality and in this realm the only reality that counts is in your own little head. By denouncing logic you've by default confirmed that any discussion with you moving forward will be irrational and make no sense.
There's nothing upsetting about this for me. Indeed, I find you hilarious as do a good number of other posters here. I've wasted enough time, however, and I have better things to do.
Once again, may God have mercy on your poor dumb soul.