Religious Right in Canada

[Canadian Blue]

Well I'm not surprised, considering that I've been debating with a suburban Marxist who's praised Communist Dictatorships because they provide "free college" I shouldn't be surprised at the nuts on here.

[Visionseeker]

Stop calling yourself a conservative Progressive Tory, especially since you're an advocate of handing over freedom of speech to bureaucrats, support abortion on demand, and also oppose tradition. All you've proven to me is that you never really have views that are outside of the politically correct mainsteam and will abandon your principles whenever the mainstream media tells you.

If I might interject…

Canadian Blue you too support abortion on demand. If the prohibitive stance which you favour should come to pass, two things would be accomplished: access to the procedure would be reduced (to those who can find and pay handsomely for it) and the location where they are performed would move from licensed medical facilities to less sterile and appropriate surroundings. In short, you would have society replace Dr. Morgentaler with Dr. Coathanger, no more, no less.

Your ideological differences with Progressive Tory on this issue have little to do with the right-left/conservative-socialist political spectrum. For the pro-choice/prohibitionist argument plays itself out on a totalitarian-libertarian spectrum. On this issue, Progressive Tory is rather libertarian whilst you are totalitarian.

Further, your use of the tired “political correctness” to smear an argument rather than challenge its tenets is the mark of lazy intellectualism; the ultimate anathema to true conservative philosophy (Mr. Burke has my back on this score).

Lastly, this notion of a “corrupting” MSM being somehow responsible for illegitimately creating a class of libertarian-conservatives, conservatives who repudiate 19th century progressive ideas of prohibition, eugenics, and racial segregation is utter childish nonsense. The media is a vital source of information and information provides the rational building blocks upon which the individual can form a reasoned opinion. And reasoned opinion is the only legitimate path for conservative thought.

A true conservative believes that the resources of the state have no place in the bedrooms of the nation. A true conservative believes that employing state resources to prohibit free enterprise is an abomination. A true conservative protects a Morgentaler with full knowledge that his alternative serves to give the state the beginnings of tyranny by granting it power over the individual. A true conservative recognizes that only values that can stand on their own merits are worthy of retaining. And only a true conservative can re-assess his or her surroundings and recognize when their own notions are in contradiction to their fundamental philosophy and correct themselves accordingly.

To be conservative is to favour the measured progress of society while ensuring the minimal intervention of the state.

I'm wondering how much more bastardized Progressive Tory can make conservatism. By her definition Joseph Stalin would be considered a conservative in Russia instead Aleksandr Solzhenytsen.

OPEN QUESTION TO THE GROUP: is there a Stalinist equivalent to Godwin's law?

[eyeball]

So pointing out that a certain action that the community wants take would go against the Charter is seditious because?

What you're really pointing out is that the RCMP won't take an action because it's against the Charter, but since they mentioned that the reason they can't take action is due to the Charter, thus automatically making them critical of the Charter, even though they just pointed out the fact that they are suppose to follow the Charter.

Mind telling me how that's seditious eyeball.

Despite pointing out the fact they are supposed to follow the Charter they councilled a segment of the community on how to commit actions they're not allowed to do themselves such as un-warranted surveillance. I fail to see how advice of this nature from an official who represents the state could be called free speech.

I admit I really don't know if this is seditious or not, so I think I might call the HRC and see what they think, but for what its worth and amongst other things Wikipedia says...

Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

Source

You tell me. Is circumventing the Charter the same as subverting it? If a uniformed RCMP who was a member of LEAP councilled a group of paranoid pot-heads on how to stage in a smoke-in would you say that's closer to sedition or free speech?

Edited March 10, 2009 by eyeball

[Canadian Blue]

Canadian Blue you too support abortion on demand. If the prohibitive stance which you favour should come to pass, two things would be accomplished: access to the procedure would be reduced (to those who can find and pay handsomely for it) and the location where they are performed would move from licensed medical facilities to less sterile and appropriate surroundings. In short, you would have society replace Dr. Morgentaler with Dr. Coathanger, no more, no less.

Not really, if it's against the law and violates an individuals right to live then nobody would legally be allowed to buy said procedure. To make that kind of argument is absurd however. Since the crux of the anti-abortion argument is that a fetus is a living human being that happens to be in an early stage of development. So by your logic even if 100% of society were to agree that a fetus is a person you would say that infanticide should be legal due to the fact that you don't want Dr. Coathanger.

However I'd question if you even know what the debate about abortion is about ethically.

Your ideological differences with Progressive Tory on this issue have little to do with the right-left/conservative-socialist political spectrum. For the pro-choice/prohibitionist argument plays itself out on a totalitarian-libertarian spectrum. On this issue, Progressive Tory is rather libertarian whilst you are totalitarian.

Not that simple, if it's considered an act of aggression against another individual then it would be libertarian. As I stated before, when your dealing with human life it's much different, whether it be in the form of a fetus or an elderly person.

Further, your use of the tired “political correctness” to smear an argument rather than challenge its tenets is the mark of lazy intellectualism; the ultimate anathema to true conservative philosophy (Mr. Burke has my back on this score).

Not really, if you bothered to read any of Progressive Tory's posts you'll note that they tend to shirke any substance in favour of platitudes you would often hear on daytime TV. Mr. Burke doesn't have your back, likely because he made politically incorrect statements himself. Edmund Burke would have known this since he was often attacked as being "mad" for writing "Reflections on the Revolution in France."

Lastly, this notion of a “corrupting” MSM being somehow responsible for illegitimately creating a class of libertarian-conservatives, conservatives who repudiate 19th century progressive ideas of prohibition, eugenics, and racial segregation is utter childish nonsense. The media is a vital source of information and information provides the rational building blocks upon which the individual can form a reasoned opinion. And reasoned opinion is the only legitimate path for conservative thought.

No it isn't, if I were to base all my opinions around what the mainstream media says I would have no deeper knowledge of issues. In fact in George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" he often found himself amused at how inaccurate media reports in Britian on the situation in Spain were. The media is largely based on sensationalism instead of substance, always has been, always will be.

A true conservative protects a Morgentaler with full knowledge that his alternative serves to give the state the beginnings of tyranny by granting it power over the individual.

Actually Burke argued that society is not simply a contract with the living, but with those who are dead, those who are living, and those about to be born. I'm not sure if he would have approved of infanticide or abortion since it doesn't give much concern to those about to be born.

To be conservative is to favour the measured progress of society while ensuring the minimal intervention of the state.

That's minarchism.

OPEN QUESTION TO THE GROUP: is there a Stalinist equivalent to Godwin's law?

I didn't call her Joseph Stalin. I pointed out that her definition of "conservative" in the political sense was so abstract that it could be used for any politician regardless of how little they might believe in tradition, natural law, aristocracy, or free enterprise.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

Despite pointing out the fact they are supposed to follow the Charter they councilled a segment of the community on how to commit actions they're not allowed to do themselves such as un-warranted surveillance. I fail to see how advice of this nature from an official who represents the state could be called free speech.

You're going to have to point out where they said it. I've never heard of neighbourhood watches being in conflict with the Charter.

I admit I really don't know if this is seditious or not, so I think I might call the HRC and see what they think, but for what its worth and amongst other things Wikipedia says...

Go ahead, record the call, then post it hear for all of us to listen. I require a good laugh.

If a uniformed RCMP who was a member of LEAP councilled a group of paranoid pot-heads on how to stage in a smoke-in would you say that's closer to sedition or free speech?

Neither, you don't know what sedition is, if you did you'd realize that people are free to criticize the law and government of this country without being thrown in jail. However if the RCMP member was breaking the law by encouraging illegal activity he or she would likely be fired. But neighborhood watches aren't illegal so the point is moot.

[Visionseeker]

Not really, if it's against the law and violates an individuals right to live then nobody would legally be allowed to buy said procedure. To make that kind of argument is absurd however.

No, the absurdity here is the notion that making a practice illegal will simply bring an end to the practice. It doesn't. Criminalization does nothing more than affix penalties to those who are convicted of the given offence. Murder is against the law, yet murders take place every day. Drugs are prohibited, yet they are bought, sold and consumed every minute of every hour in this country. Sure, we throw a good number of such offenders in prison, yet there are always others who seem to step in and fill their place. Why? Because criminalization has limited preventative properties (fewer still when acts of desperation are involved).

The criminalization of abortion won't bring an end to its practice any more than the Criminal Code can lay claim to eliminating homicide. What it will do is move the practice underground; providing a handsome illicit income for abortion providers and exposes the women who have the procedure to significant health risks (not to mention the risks incurred by those who apply various methods to self-induce).

Your position then invites retribution. You wish to empower the state to punish women who have abortions and those who provide them. You know criminalization won't make the problem go away, but are willing to settle for a good dose of state sponsored terror to be visited upon those who are caught violating your moral sensibilities.

Since the crux of the anti-abortion argument is that a fetus is a living human being that happens to be in an early stage of development.

Which is why the argument is in error. Life only begins when a fetus is capable of surviving "independently of the maternal environment" and, as per the experts: "extrauterine viability may be possible if the fetus weighs over 500 g or 20 weeks have passed since conception, or both". Or do you question medicine's credentials in determining what is and what isn't living? If that's the case, might I suggest you turn your attention to the countless number of people who are buried or cremated every day as a result of declarations made by wholly unqualified physicians and surgeons.

So by your logic even if 100% of society were to agree that a fetus is a person you would say that infanticide should be legal due to the fact that you don't want Dr. Coathanger.

It's not infanticide. The world is not flat and sadly, there is no Santa Claus.

99.999999% of society could agree to reject the law of gravity and I (in full possession of evidence to the contrary) would invite them all to a profession of faith leap off the CN Tower (provided I get to go last). I suspect that at least 95.625% of the original adherents will become more receptive to my point of view soon after the first guy hits bottom.

However I'd question if you even know what the debate about abortion is about ethically.

That's OK. I recognized your state of confusion in my prior post. I'm sorry to see that it is so pervasive.

I am, in fact, quite acutely familiar with the ethical debates surrounding abortion. On the one side, I witness scientific, empirical evidence accompanying arguments of individual rights and on the other, supposition, sensationalism, citings of scripture and the convenient denial of established fact. And dare I say that only one side approaches the issue ethically.

Until the prohibitionists can demonstrate that viability is attained at conception and that the state's seizure of an inseminated womb is required to maintain the public peace, there is no ethical argument justifying the denial of a woman's right to choose.

Not that simple, if it's considered an act of aggression against another individual then it would be libertarian. As I stated before, when your dealing with human life it's much different, whether it be in the form of a fetus or an elderly person.

Well, as I have shown that a fetus is not a legal individual, yours is not a libertarian argument. Further, the retributional motives inferred from your prohibitionist stance lends heavy support to my totalitarian characterization of your position. And, for the record, a fetus and an elderly person bare no resemblence to each other: either in appearence or questions of legal rights.

No it isn't, if I were to base all my opinions around what the mainstream media says I would have no deeper knowledge of issues. In fact in George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" he often found himself amused at how inaccurate media reports in Britian on the situation in Spain were. The media is largely based on sensationalism instead of substance, always has been, always will be.

Right. Everything the media reports is crap unless it supports your previously formed opinion because Orwell captured the highly propagandized press of the 30s. If my sarcasm is misplaced, you should read Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke. The style is a little maddening. But a historian gets a good reminder of how certain myths have been made.

That's minarchism.

Uh, no. For this ignores context. A conservative is not, by definition, a revolutionary. So a conservative must work within existing constructs. In other words, a conservative in Canada does not oppose the principle of universal health care, but rather strives to make the system work in a manner that is more in keeping with conservative philosophy like instilling a greater measure of personal responsibility.

Besides, minarchism is a libertarian label. And it is a huge mistake to assume that conservatism and libertarianism are interchangeable terms.

I didn't call her Joseph Stalin. I pointed out that her definition of "conservative" in the political sense was so abstract that it could be used for any politician regardless of how little they might believe in tradition, natural law, aristocracy, or free enterprise.

No, you didn't. But citing Stalinism in an argument is just as weak as throwing out Hitler. The use of Stalin weakens your argument by opting for the sensational at the expense of more contemporary and possibly more fitting analogies. So the effect was the same.

[neutralguy]

Great post Visionseeker

[MontyBurns]

No, the absurdity here is the notion that making a practice illegal will simply bring an end to the practice. It doesn't. Criminalization does nothing more than affix penalties to those who are convicted of the given offence. Murder is against the law, yet murders take place every day. Drugs are prohibited, yet they are bought, sold and consumed every minute of every hour in this country. Sure, we throw a good number of such offenders in prison, yet there are always others who seem to step in and fill their place. Why? Because criminalization has limited preventative properties (fewer still when acts of desperation are involved).

I agree that jail time does not work. We should whip criminals in public places for minor crimes and have public hangings for serious crimes. That should bring an end to illegal practices. Look at how successful Saudi Arabia is in reducing crime.

[neutralguy]

I agree that jail time does not work. We should whip criminals in public places for minor crimes and have public hangings for serious crimes. That should bring an end to illegal practices. Look at how successful Saudi Arabia is in reducing crime.

I would hope society is too developed to lower ourself to such standards. I know you are not being serious but this notion that fear stops people from commiting crimes is a bit naive. I don't know, maybe petty theft, sure, but when it comes to serious crime, no. We are talking about people who need legitimate help, or people we legitimatley can't help. The fact that we can't keep a govt. website up, when its obvious loads of people will be using it, suggests we have a systemic problem in a lot of different areas.

[Alta4ever]

I would hope society is too developed to lower ourself to such standards. I know you are not being serious but this notion that fear stops people from commiting crimes is a bit naive. I don't know, maybe petty theft, sure, but when it comes to serious crime, no. We are talking about people who need legitimate help, or people we legitimatley can't help. The fact that we can't keep a govt. website up, when its obvious loads of people will be using it, suggests we have a systemic problem in a lot of different areas.

Why does the criminal need legitimate help? Why should they get more resouces and help handed to them then the victim of the crime? These people knowingly break the law, let them pay the piper, instead of rewarding bad behaviour with more attention.

We do have a systemic problem in this country feel good liberal losers and socialists who have done nothing but harm society for many many years.

[neutralguy]

Nobody said anything about not helping victims, right? I think we should be an understanding and compassionate society. I clearly said, there are people we can help (who have committed crimes) and there are people that we can't. The latter being that we aren't intelligent enough as a society to do so in some cases.

But just like I noted that I think fear tactics might stop petty crime, I also think in the same way, there might be things we can do to prevent or treat non-violent crime.

Why does the criminal need legitimate help? Why should they get more resouces and help handed to them then the victim of the crime? These people knowingly break the law, let them pay the piper, instead of rewarding bad behaviour with more attention.

We do have a systemic problem in this country feel good liberal losers and socialists who have done nothing but harm society for many many years.

Edited March 11, 2009 by neutralguy

[Alta4ever]

Nobody said anything about not helping victims, right? I think we should be an understanding and compassionate society. I clearly said, there are people we can help (who have committed crimes) and there are people that we can't. The latter being that we aren't intelligent enough as a society to do so in some cases.

But just like I noted that I think fear tactics might stop petty crime, I also think in the same way, there might be things we can do to prevent or treat non-violent crime.

You put the crimal first in your post, they are not the most important party in need of help. It is the victim, yet you mention the criminal first, and as far as I am concerned anything that we the taxpayer provide in the world of help is too good for them, all of that funding should go to the victim and let the criminal rot.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Alta4ever

[MontyBurns]

I would hope society is too developed to lower ourself to such standards. I know you are not being serious but this notion that fear stops people from commiting crimes is a bit naive. I don't know, maybe petty theft, sure, but when it comes to serious crime, no. We are talking about people who need legitimate help, or people we legitimatley can't help. The fact that we can't keep a govt. website up, when its obvious loads of people will be using it, suggests we have a systemic problem in a lot of different areas.

In my view, if you break the law you pay the price. For example, if you are caught traffiking drugs you should be whipped publicly then thrown in jail. You cannot have a world where there are no consequences for bad behavior. It would be anarchy.

[guyser]

For example, if you are caught traffiking drugs you should be whipped publicly then thrown in jail. .

How does one whip the state? I'd love to see the size of that whip.

[MontyBurns]

How does one whip the state? I'd love to see the size of that whip.

Not the state. The criminal's arse you fool.

[neutralguy]

I went through a war as a child (Former Yugoslavia) Neighbours got killed, some further removed relatives are gone, went through a lot, so what do I deserve?

One thing war thought me is, I am not special. My family is not special. They are just special to ME. But when you take an example, as extreme, where people are killed, tortured, raped, little children getting sniped from buildings, that tells me everything I need to know about the "fairness" of any individual life. When you experience something like that, the only way you can live life is by saying, "this world isn't about me, or my family (even though i care about them for obvious reasons), this is about humanity as a whole.

That is the simply the only way a victim becomes something more and regains some kind of meaning and purpose in their life.

So why do I bring up the criminal first? Because, the war wasn't about me, and no crime really is. I am interested, if at all possible, in finding ways to stop crime and treat criminals. Because, in the end, what I learned, was that, when the chips are down, any human is capable of doing wrong. And we need to try to see if there is a way to stop those kinds of "animal" instincts.

You put the crimal first in your post, they are not the most important party in need of help. It is the victim, yet you mention the criminal first, and as far as I am concerned anything that we the taxpayer provicde in the war of help is too good for them, all of that funding should go to the victim and let the criminal rot.

Edited March 11, 2009 by neutralguy

[MontyBurns]

And we need to try to see if there is a way to stop those kinds of "animal" instincts.

There is. It's called punishment.

[guyser]

Not the state. The criminal's arse you fool.

Gosh monty, you said "if you are caught traffiking (sic) drugs "

So, is it really big or just big....and the jail, whew, that would be big too.

[neutralguy]

I don't have a problem with harsh punishment for people that do wrong. But it is after the fact. I am more talking about drugs or treatments that can legitimatley treat people that have destructive instincts which they can't control.

We aren't all like that.

There is. It's called punishment.

[MontyBurns]

I don't have a problem with harsh punishment for people that do wrong.

Now you're talkin'.

I am willing to bet that gangs, drug dealers, pedophiles and the like could be dealt with more effectively by increasing the severity of the punishment. It would also be fun for citizens to gather at their local town square and see the criminals getting their arses whipped.

Edited March 11, 2009 by MontyBurns

[guyser]

I am willing to bet that gangs, drug dealers, pedophiles and the like could be dealt with more effectively by increasing the severity of the punishment

How so?

Does "more effectively " mean longer sentences?

Does "more effectively " mean quicker?

Perhaps a whip...so how big?

[neutralguy]

People on drugs don't think clearly..they dont' care about tougher sentences.

[guyser]

People on drugs don't think clearly..they dont' care about tougher sentences.

the tougher sentences dont work anyway. But some people have illusions......

Edited March 11, 2009 by guyser

[MontyBurns]

the tougher sentences dont work anyway.

They work in Saudi Arabia.

If punishment doesn't work then what does? Letting all criminals go free perhaps?

[Alta4ever]

I don't have a problem with harsh punishment for people that do wrong. But it is after the fact. I am more talking about drugs or treatments that can legitimatley treat people that have destructive instincts which they can't control.

We aren't all like that.

They can control it stop making excuses for them.