grainfedprairieboy

I haven't been on CKA since what?........four or five years ago? I obviously left quite an impression on you however you'll forgive me if you are of such little consequence that I don't recognise you.

I have no such social reservations either online or in real life. When you see that asshole berating the cashier for something not her fault while everyone looks sheepishly at the ceiling, I'm the one that comes forward and tells him to piss off. When it comes to limitations regarding insults I don't see anything as off limits because anyone can choose to ignore another's writings. Labelling people in order that they feel obligated to defend themselves is generally the first step in acknowledging you have little direction to take in the debate. So if I oppose your view on the age of sexual consent and demand that you defend yourself against my allegations that by extension you are a pedophile looking for a legal loophole clearly I have little to offer to counter your point. However, if you call me a bible thumping right wing nazi extremist because I disagree with your position then certainly I can use the pedophile pejorative. (BTW, I am an atheist and still won't buy German or Jap cars) I shall quickly rise to the top of the fabled ignore list but until such time as you place me there, you will find that I am harsh but I am fair and hopefully in the short term that is both entertaining and refreshing.

I reckon so, I consider conservatives and liberals to be essential one in the same. And the final volley was a deliberate smack. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

I do not know the poster, I do not pretend to know his or her family relations, marital status or sexual predilications for that matter. But I can draw some conclusions fairly quickly. Regardless, I understand your point and don't necessarily disagree with the spirit, however, to be Frank, I'm not one much to stand around being insulted but for what it's worth, I never carry the grudge from thread to thread.

My oh my but you're a sensitive little fellow ain't ya? I meant "you" in the royal sense of the word. As in the community itself or base generics. Regardless, I suppose if the shoe fits.............

You will see nothing from me that is derogatory until such time as an adversarial poster draws first blood. I start civil and allow the others to set the tempo and merely match. I have a relatively small posting history here which should confirm this quickly.

And should I produce such credentials do you really think it would have the remotest influence on your current perceptions? Of course, if you are serious about any studies on the topic I suggest your start here: My link

I disagree. I don't want to come off as some holier then thou jackass Green party type but I once was involved with a halfway home for wayward former prostitutes called Exodus House in Calgary back in the 1980s. Here I realised that pretty much every girl involved in the trade had serious issues surrounding family, perceptions of worth of self etc. I did have a similar position as you (mainstream) but now I have nothing but contempt for any guy who would abuse someone so vulnerable. These girls need help more then most and we seem to turn our backs on them even more. The fantasy of some safe government regulated brothel is just that and the whorehouses of Amsterdam or Nevada are little different then the Escort agencies of Vancouver or Toronto. We need to revolutionize our thinking as men in this country and start seeing women as beyond sexual objects. That is not to say we should become asexual Victorians or forsake our swing clubs. Lord knows we all need a good menage every now and again. But my experience suggest that prostitutes, strippers and most in the sex trade are far from consenting adults.

Cheers I have yet to form an opinion on the subject and the OP was strictly to lubricate the angles of debate. By nature I am a staunch libertarian so I do believe government has no role to play in social behaviour. However, I am also a realist and I know that whether I like it or not, for the foreseeable future the Canadian government will be assuming the responsibility for my health care despite my objections. Now since as a Canadian I have signed over all rights to the government to decide what medicines they will allow for my treatment, how timely I will be seen by a physician, which surgeon will see me and whether the surgeries, diagnostics or, hospital stay, etc etc will even be performed.....all at my expense of course courtesy of a tax funded system averaging 50% of every penny collected and rising.......it seems to me that I have to accept that the greatest drain on our healthcare system is a result of the effects of smoking itself. So trying to raise the first tobacco free generation attacks no current smokers right, presumably the ones too addicted to cease the habit. And I see little difference between my grandson not being allowed to buy or inherit certain ammunition and products with which to discharge them and not being allowed to buy or inherit tobacco and certain products with which to smoke them. In essence, I am looking for a good reason that a state who demands the citizens accede to their healthcare monopoly, and are forcing them to pay for it, then you see a reduction in services, should continue to make available a product which is the root of the greatest drain on resources of the system. No business or household would operate this way. It is akin to heating a prairie box with three walls.

If your daughter is 18 and beyond and you still have no discernible influence in her life then she is probably giving it up for the boys (and girls) pretty routinely already in a misguided quest for male attention. That is the psychological characteristic of any promiscuous female and no amount of politically correct drum thumping or feminist whitewashing will change it. This is why your hot to trot wife or girlfriend, the gal who put out any where, any time gets married and now is so frigid a little light comes on when she does open her thighs. Until of course - you neglect her enough because you can't get anything anywho and she needs "daddy" again and up goes her profile on Ashley Madison. And your knocked up teenage or unwed daughter? Just shrug your shoulders and proclaim there is nothing you could have done to prevent it because kids screw each other. Of course, deep down you know if you spent half the time with her that you do on the internet you wouldn't be a grandpa and your second or third wife wouldn't be a Nana or whatever it is you "blended" family types would call her. How noble of you. So let's change hooker career day from high school to community college and you're suddenly all in favour? You would have to climb to the top of a mountain to get the kind of sage advice I offer. Start taking notes and I'll make you a better person. I can't believe she told you that. Maybe I was wrong about your relationship with her.

Interesting how so many on the left are so quick to defend HRCs and government intrusion in everything from 100% state funded healthcare to forced social laws such as SSM because it works for them but express shock and outrage when their own heavy handed governments do something they are opposed to. Where is the Liberal outrage that anti abortion protesters can be locked up for wearing a T-shirt objecting to abortion in a bubblezone? Oh ya....they support a woman's right to choose so then it is OK. Where is the left wing outrage when the Liberal government jailed a group of prairie farmers for donating grain to a 4H club in Montana instead of selling it to them? Oh ya......they support Quebec and Ontario farmers in that prairie grain growers should not have the right to compete so then it is OK. We reap what we sow.

I oppose any laws curtailing the wearing of a Burka. I would prefer if some men could see that women are more then a life support system for a vagina.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI9GLSGyssc

I find it interesting that the prevailing sentiment over a political philosophy that should a government enforce it's own legislative authority over product safety and gradually remove one of the only products that used correctly will result in premature death or disease, it must be a nefarious Conservative plot. Some of you should give your head a shake on several counts: 1. This is thread is about political philosophy rather then partisan politics. We are just exploring the feasibility of such a bill. 2. Anyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" and sees such a bill as a government invasion of personal rights must be losing their mind over tax funded hospitals, cancer research and a regulatory body to approve the safety of consumer goods and enforce pharmaceutical regulations.

The funny thing about all the folks interested in legalising (or decriminalising)or otherwise legitimising prostitution and the sex trade is they hypocritically draw the line when it comes to their daughters being recruited at the escort booth on high school career day. Now it's not like Canadian women aren't pretty easy as it is. Combined with the internet to wave their womenhood around looking for takers it amazes me why anyone would actively seek to pay for sex.

You're cute when you attempt to be both witty and polite. What you missed genius, is that my sole objection is to your statement which I highlighted in post #26 I believe it was. You're so focused on trying to be an indignant liberal you're oblivious to the substance of what you are even debating. I'm just new here but I'll bet dollars to donuts this is your normal method of operandi when it comes to political discourse. A true cowpoke would've said: 'You'd think there was a moraine tree shortage the way this makes some of you Eastern bastards hotter then Svend Robinson's ass in a pepper batch.

I submit you personify the Liberal sensitivities I alluded to earlier and will soon add me to your ignore list lest you be offended by what you read. Agreed Your conclusion is wrong. I protest the Universities considering the potential for mass demonstrations in not considering some speakers or events. This belief of mine is purely circumstantial given I can't prove it. Then again, you can't prove I am wrong and given that Israeli speakers on campus in the 1990s vs 2000 are pretty disproportionate I reckon I'm probably right. I never claimed she did or didn't. I used her as an example of what University officials likely don't want on their campus if they want to keep the peace.

You can always tell a Liberal, ya just can't ever tell him much. The point here is: if the area in question is as important as you assert, then it's disturbance and subsequent penalty should reflect the seriousness of the crime. These penalties are established by bureaucrats. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Are you just especially dense? Agreed. As a good ole boy it would be irresponsible of me not to be prepared for whichever revolution comes. I'll leave the culture of living in your parents basement well into adulthood, playing video games and jacking yourself to internet porn for you folks out East.

Following the 2002 riots where Concordia University in cooperation with Montreal police canceled a visit by Benjamin Netanyahu after they failed to secure the campus then in 2003, York University canceled the "Barriers to Peace" conference after threats by the Middle East Students Association, it became pretty clear to the Universities to stop allowing keynote Israelis. So I submit that Universities now self censor over Israel in order not offend Muslim and Liberal political sensibilities and following Ann Coulter's recent visit I reckon that will extend to controversial conservatives. I said "could". Again, we both know that the Human Rights Commissions jurisdiction extends onto any campus. As such, you would have to prove to me how they could not be fined or prosecuted for openly opposing SSM, unless you also believe that HRs have never prosecuted anyone for actively objecting to SSM.

I think you offer an excellent rebuttal that is difficult to refute from the angle you perceive I am coming from. To be clear, I believe that Universities today are far more tolerant of what is deemed politically correct behaviour: Pro abortionism, anti Israeli sentiment, pro homosexuality just to name three of maybe 50 somewhat sacrosanct issues, at the expense of issues they perceive as closed and not open to debate such as SSM, anti abortionism, and Christianity again to cite only three examples. So where a protester could organise a campus rally in favour of gay marriage when it was against the law, that same student could be suspended or jailed for protesting against it now that it is legal.

You're a Liberal so I'll try and type slower with smaller words so you can hopefully manage to understand. In Canada we have many laws, some are perceived as good and others are not but all are ostensibly designed to steer behaviour within a boundary most accepted by society. Within those laws there are provisions for penalties should someone choose to violate their spirit or intent whether that is deliberate or accidental. These penalties again range from nothing to a life time incarceration and any varying amounts of financial penalties. In order to respect our own judiciary, we cannot arbitrarily assign wholly new penalties after the fact simply because you feel that is the right thing to do and it helps to assuage your anger. So in even simpler terms, you cannot in good practice fine someone several hundred dollars for accidentally driving 20KM over the speed limit and several thousand dollars for someone else who does so deliberately. While I agree the developer acted unethically, I draw the line at demanding extraordinary punishment. Justice must be blind and administered equally to all. The true culprits are the government wonks who put in place insufficient penalties to deter the developer.

I must disagree. It was during the 60s and 70s that the establishment was challenged on a social level like never before in our history. From issues such as racism, religious tolerance, gender equality, homosexuality etc etc etc. The Universities were the breeding grounds for social change and fostered an environment where the status quo could be challenged. But the commitment to freedom of speech and expression that allowed people to protest that it is a woman's right to choose, even though at the time administrators likely disagreed with the protesters, has vanished and been replaced with such a rigid dogma that any challenge to the current establishment can have you suspended, fined or even jailed. (And when I say jailed I am referring to people who might wear a T Shirt that articulates their opposition to abortion in a court mandated bubblezone)

Why does it not surprise me that a Liberal is incapable of meaningful nonpartisan political discussion? Is this not a thread devoted to political philosophy? Isn't your political extremism supposed to be reserved for the dedicated political threads? Anywho, for the record pal, I have never voted for Harper's Liberals and never will. The Conservative Party are way too far to the left for me and unlike most other Albertans who hold their nose and vote for the party because the alternative is one step next to economic Armageddon, I vote Liberal because it is the only hope of bringing about the "winning conditions" necessary for Alberta to move forward as an independent state. Now try and focus on the topic at hand................

Obviously the aliens neglected to remove your anal probe otherwise you'd clearly see I am not opposed to the protection of sensitive areas but rather opposed to asinine bureaucratic nonsense that leads developers into that direction.

IMHO, the tide shifted in the 1980s when the ranks of University professors were populated by the then student demonstrators of the 60s and 70s. They so fervently subscribe to their dogma they feel more then justified in suppressing any dissent. Without their support Human Rights Commissions and other tacit tools used to try and control thought and beliefs would never be employed.