Mike Harris did nothing wrong.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear err,

I'm impressed that you have chosen to quote me on this matter. If you'll look at the posts that this wording came from, you'll see that I said something like... "We shouldn't take down the social safety nets that are there for the millions because of the small percentage that choose to use it as a hammock"

Well done. I do recall your comments, but did not realize I quoted them verbatim. The only thing I would challenge is the term 'small', and argue that it is quite a large percentage.

I do not object to reforms that will prevent some parasite problems, as long as they do not hurt those who really need the system.

Reforms were made to the EI system when the abuses became overwhelming. I think the same can be done for 'welfare'. The only way to save it from extinction is to reform it.

And if you go to ANY city in the USA, you will see appalling living conditions in slums that should break your heart.... Given the choices between the two, I would prefer see what you see in Calgary...

Probably. However, what I mean is that I see the worst abuses of welfare. There are plenty of 'social service' enterprises around there, which provide free beds, free meals,...and free money. 'Welfare' cheques go straight to booze or crack. Social services should be called 'the great enablers', as they provide no incentive to change.

[Renegade]

The Canadian financial picture is not too bad, as I have stated, so as a result, I think that our government should put more money in to funding healthcare (which it has plundered to achieve the surpluses), education (which has been plundered to achieve the surpluses) and our welfare system (which has been plundered to achieve the surpluses).  I also agree with Jack Layton that upping our foriegn aid to the levels recommended by prior Canadian prime ministers would be a good idea. 

(Acually, if you look at the thread on NDP policy, you'll see a few other good ideas of the NDPs to help foriegn countries).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, you are right in line with the NDP in its determination to spend as much as it can of taxpayer dollars. Thankfully at a federal level, the public has NEVER CHOSEN the NDP to run the country, and likely NEVER will. At least in Ontario, the memory of their disasterous NDP choice is still fresh enough that they won't make the same mistake again for a while.

[Riverwind]

It's amazing how some of you only look to one source of funding.. How about reducint our country's corporat tax cuts so that Canadian companies pay the same taxes as American companies... And take your surplus funding from there.....

If Canadians really want public money to support the third world then it should come from taxes paid by everyone like the GST. But we both know 90%+ Canadians would tell you to screw the 0.7% target if that require raising the GST to 9%.

[err]

It's amazing how some of you only look to one source of funding.. How about reducint our country's corporat tax cuts so that Canadian companies pay the same taxes as American companies... And take your surplus funding from there.....

If Canadians really want public money to support the third world then it should come from taxes paid by everyone like the GST. But we both know 90%+ Canadians would tell you to screw the 0.7% target if that require raising the GST to 9%.

GST is a bad choice... because only citizens pay GST... Companies effectively do not pay a cent of GST.

[Argus]

GST is a bad choice... because only citizens pay GST... Companies effectively do not pay a cent of GST.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Theoretically, taxing corporations makes no sense. If they turn a profit, that profit will either go to the investors - who should be taxed - or is put back into the enterprise to expand it and thus create more jobs for more citizens.

Perhaps we should only tax the money if it leaves Canada in the form of return on investment to foreign owners, or investments in foreign enterprises.

[err]

GST is a bad choice... because only citizens pay GST... Companies effectively do not pay a cent of GST.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Theoretically, taxing corporations makes no sense. If they turn a profit, that profit will either go to the investors - who should be taxed - or is put back into the enterprise to expand it and thus create more jobs for more citizens.

Perhaps we should only tax the money if it leaves Canada in the form of return on investment to foreign owners, or investments in foreign enterprises.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like the Tobin Tax ??? Taxing monies that leave the country could be a good idea... The NDP thinks so...

The investor class largely escapes taxation on their profits. They have so many tax shelters, that our tax system is not really progressive, as it would appear if you were to read the tax schedules. For example, you can say that the rich spend more, so they pay more GST... However, when they spend, they do through their businesses, and hence, pay no GST...

In the '50s, Corp. Canada paid 50% of taxes in Canada... Now they pay less than 20%.... I think it shouldn't be too big a problem to raise the corp tax rate to that of the USA, and we'd have billions more in revenue....

[cybercoma]

In the '50s, Corp. Canada paid 50% of taxes in Canada... Now they pay less than 20%....  I think it shouldn't be too big a problem to raise the corp tax rate to that of the USA, and we'd have billions more in revenue....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That doesn't sound right...where do you get these stats?

[Guest eureka]

Actually, CC, I saw those figures in a newspaper article not long ago. I don't recall which one but they give pause to think.

[mockingbird]

There is no indication one way or another that people have turned to their family for help and your supposition that they have "already tried this possibility" is nothing but conjecture. It's true that some families are abusers and molesters, but then your outrage should be directed at them for shirking their obligation. But that is not where your outrage is directed, is it?

This isn't about outrage. When you're hungry and have nothing to eat, you seek food and shelter, not family counseling.

You fail to address the point. In many societies it has been the role of charities and churches to care for those who needed the help. You fail to provide any reason why charities and churches shouldn't fill that same role today.

Churches never took upon themselves any role. The origins of churches helping the poor stems from missionary activities which continues until today in the third world.

Charities are not required by law to fill an role. People out of the kindness in their hearts donate. Not because somebody with a name like Stockwell wants to live just a comfortable distance to the city with an overpriced automobile, and completely ignore the people who suffered and toiled in the city.

The suburbs was meant for farmers. Fine, you want to enjoy your money, good for you. Once you develop a powerful political force however (Due to the ultimate failure of some urban societies, and the restlesness of the people therein), you are directly competing with the poor and homeless.

Now that I have answered your question

You haven't answered any of my questions. I asked a reciprocal question of how many homeless shelters are located between vaughan and Newmarket. You freely proclaim that homeless shelters are "the role of charities and churches".

I'm not failing "to provide any reason why charities and churches shouldn't fill that same role today." I am telling you however that they aren't in certain areas.

Why do you presume it is a governmental responsibility to provide a guaranteed standard of living?

We discussed this before. You lost that argument. You want to go through this again? In addition to the fact that such a government in itself OWES the public a certain guaranteed standard of living, I'll also mention that Canada is a participating member of the UN. It often likes to gloat that it is one of the best places to live, yada yada yada.

Each federal government in succession also enjoys bringing in large hordes of immigrants especially when times are tough, in order to compete with the surviving population and "To replace the aging population and diving birthrates."

Gee, I wonder fucking why the birthrates are diving.

[mockingbird]

I also like the work for welfare principle. It implys a exchange of one value for another instead of a simple handout because of entitlement.

This is the most fucking dumb thing I have ever heard. It's like saying:

"I like the walk for your wheelchair principle. It employs an exchange of one valur for another instead of a simple handout because of entitlement."

If not, according to your logic, then you should deserve to die, should you require one of these devices and have not the means to pay for the said products and services.

I have already answered this before. I'm not going to waste my time and answer it again.

No, you haven't. But I'll answer for you.

Renegade's logic is that if you're in a slow tortuous process leading to death, that's ok. However, if you're going to die soon, then you should be helped.

I understand that you are happy paying taxes to save people's lives, just don't presume what others want to do with THEIR taxes. It does seem that it not sufficient for you where your taxes are spent. If the government didn't tax you, you can easily choose to donate it to charities which would also save lives.

Your principle is sound, however in the real world, err's system works better.

You seem to keep insisting on the efficacy and efficiency of the government, yet you fail to answer me why the government is open and willing to pay $40 a day for an adult to sleep in a shithole, rather than pay two thirds of that giving that person a chance to live on their own, get a job, and be what you would call a "productive ciitizen".

Don't you see a little conspiracy in the fact that the government continues this behavior and keeps lugging in more immigrants, rather than to correct the problem?

The answer is that there is a terrible evil strain of narcissism in the Canadian government. The conservatives, the liberals, but not so much in the NDP.

1. The Canadian population is extremely well off relative to other countries.

A homeless Canadian has better food than a homeless Indian but has to brave a freezing cold winter.

2. Many other countries have extreme poverty. Some of their population is so poor that their survivability is at risk.

Let's not judge by survivability. You can't compare. I am sure that there are many homeless people who wish they could drop dead.

3. The standard of living of many parts of the population is well below ANY welfare reciepient in Canada (even with lower welfare levels)

No. This is not true. How many other countries have you been to? I have been to Europe, the Middle East, America... You can't compare apples to apples on this one. There are many torturous miserable places to live in Canada as well.

You claim that Canada has "limited resources" (despite the fact that it is relatively well-off) and that it should help those at home before helping others.

You mentioned helping your kin etc... etc... Canada has to treat it's own citizens like family first.

but also because of good work ethic (or the resources would lie fallow).

Hmm... Maybe it's because we're next door neighbors to the richest country in the world.

I work in one of the worst neighbourhoods in Calgary, and I see what welfare 'with no strings attached' does. It is appalling. I also advocate a reform (not abolishment) of our 'social safety net', WITH strings attached, (work for welfare eg.).

Elaborate.

I've got some good ideas for a welfare reform in Ontario:

1) Redistribute some of the money paid to homeless shelters to the welfare system. This way you keep out as many that CAN survive on their own.

2) Hire normally paid inspectors. You have suspicions that people on welfare are stealing the beluga caviar from your mouth, fine. Send an inspector to the basement to confirm that the guy is living in shit.

3) Lower the wages of the welfare politburo. Stop paying some idiot narcissist manager in the welfare office a tenth of a million dollars a year. Government jobs are suited to serve the public. There is no need, reason, or excuse for a narcissistic boss in a government position. He's not selling high priced packages, he's supposed to help the public and not hold round the table meetings with an abundance of starbucks and bottled water to discuss how he suspects Singh is buying too much fast food and how to come up with a plan to kick him off.

I've got some more ideas but that's it for now.

[Renegade]

This is the most fucking dumb thing I have ever heard.  It's like saying:

"I like the walk for your wheelchair principle.  It employs an exchange of one valur for another instead of a simple handout because of entitlement."

Oh grow up. If you have to resort to profanity it is clear you can't make an argument.

What are you saying? Someone on welfare is incapable of working?

No, you haven't.  But I'll answer for you.

Renegade's logic is that if you're in a slow tortuous process leading to death, that's ok.  However, if you're going to die soon, then you should be helped.

When I want you to speak for me, I'll hire you as my advocate, till then answer for yourself as your answers make no sense.

Your principle is sound, however in the real world, err's system works better.

You seem to keep insisting on the efficacy and efficiency of the government, yet you fail to answer me why the government is open and willing to pay $40 a day for an adult to sleep in a shithole, rather than pay two thirds of that giving that person a chance to live on their own, get a job, and be what you would call a "productive ciitizen".

Actually I agree with you that the government should not be wasting $40/day on shelters. That money is better returned to the taxpayer.

Don't you see a little conspiracy in the fact that the government continues this behavior and keeps lugging in more immigrants, rather than to correct the problem?

So you are anti-immigration? Could it be because many immigrants will work their asses off to get ahead even if it means taking jobs that some on welfare won't touch?

The answer is that there is a terrible evil strain of narcissism in the Canadian government.  The conservatives, the liberals, but not so much in the NDP.

The answer that all the political parties have some kind of evil conspiracy going is hardly an answer to anything.

A homeless Canadian has better food than a homeless Indian but has to brave a freezing cold winter.

Interesting since many case workers have a difficult time getting the homeless off the streets and into a shelter. There is no shortage of homeless Indians who would give almost anything to trade places with a homeless Canadian. Interesting too, that many immigrants come to Canada with no money, no home, and not much more than a will to succeed.

Let's not judge by survivability.  You can't compare.  I am sure that there are many homeless people who wish they could drop dead.

Can't compare? why not? How is it relevant that many homeless have a death wish?

3. The standard of living of many parts of the population is well below ANY welfare reciepient in Canada (even with lower welfare levels)

No. This is not true. How many other countries have you been to? I have been to Europe, the Middle East, America... You can't compare apples to apples on this one. There are many torturous miserable places to live in Canada as well.

I highly doubt you've seen as many miserable places as I have, and even more unlikely that you've actually lived there. Can you actually say that in the slums of Calcutta, or Manila, Mumbai, or Jakarta the standard of living is comparable to the welfare recipient in any part of Canada? If you think that you lack any credibility.

You mentioned helping your kin etc... etc...  Canada has to treat it's own citizens like family first.

Yes I do support supporting kin. I also said that it shoudl be voluntary. So I'm fine with the startement if by Canada helping its own citizens you mean voluntary giving to other Canadians. Taxes used to support welfare are not voluntary.

[Renegade]

There is no indication one way or another that people have turned to their family for help and your supposition that they have "already tried this possibility" is nothing but conjecture. It's true that some families are abusers and molesters, but then your outrage should be directed at them for shirking their obligation. But that is not where your outrage is directed, is it?

This isn't about outrage. When you're hungry and have nothing to eat, you seek food and shelter, not family counseling.

Well if it isn't about outrage, why is it that err seems to have so much of it? Yes when you are hungry you seek food and shelter. Why isn't it that family and friends are the first ones you should turn to? Why wouldn't they help? And if they can't/won't help why not turn to a charity?

You fail to address the point. In many societies it has been the role of charities and churches to care for those who needed the help. You fail to provide any reason why charities and churches shouldn't fill that same role today.

Churches never took upon themselves any role. The origins of churches helping the poor stems from missionary activities which continues until today in the third world.

Charities are not required by law to fill an role. People out of the kindness in their hearts donate. Not because somebody with a name like Stockwell wants to live just a comfortable distance to the city with an overpriced automobile, and completely ignore the people who suffered and toiled in the city.

I don't claim that churches have fill the role of charity in all societies, but they have in SOME. Where they have, they have taken on that role themselves because they saw a need and it was in line with their moral beliefs. I agree that charaties are not required by law to fill a role, and yes people donate out of the kindness of their hearts. But that is exactly the way it shoudl be, we should donate to the poor out of the kindness of our hearts, not because of a sense of entitlement by the poor.

You haven't answered any of my questions.  I asked a reciprocal question of how many homeless shelters are located between vaughan and Newmarket.  You freely proclaim that homeless shelters are "the role of charities and churches".

I'm not failing "to provide any reason why charities and churches shouldn't fill that same role today."  I am telling you however that they aren't in certain areas.

I didn't see that your answer was relevant to the question. I have no idea how many homeless shelters are located between vaughn and Newmarket. Probably none. I don't live in either area. The onus on homeless needing shelter is to get themselves to where the shelters are. It's not like they need a plane ride to get there.

Why do you presume it is a governmental responsibility to provide a guaranteed standard of living?

We discussed this before. You lost that argument. You want to go through this again? In addition to the fact that such a government in itself OWES the public a certain guaranteed standard of living, I'll also mention that Canada is a participating member of the UN. It often likes to gloat that it is one of the best places to live, yada yada yada.

Lost the argument???? Hardly!!! And since you didn't even respond till now it is hardly a qualified comment to make.

The governments OWES NOTHING to the public in terms of a guaranteed standard of living? Where on earth are you dreaming this up? I agree that political parties like to gloat on the world stage, but show me any mandate for the Canadian government which says it OWES the public a GUARANTEED STANDARD OF LIVING.

Each federal government in succession also enjoys bringing in large hordes of immigrants especially when times are tough, in order to compete with the surviving population and "To replace the aging population and diving birthrates."

so what's your theory on the "real reason" why the government is promoting immigration? I can't wait to hear.

[mockingbird]

It's pointless arguing with you. It's like a human arguing with an animal on why we require indoor toiletry.

Go back to your child pornography surfing. Along with your pc buddies who saw it fit to reduce the minimum age of consent to 14.

[Renegade]

It's pointless arguing with you.  It's like a human arguing with an animal on why we require indoor toiletry.

Go back to your child pornography surfing.  Along with your pc buddies who saw it fit to reduce the minimum age of consent to 14.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, such remarkable insight and with analogies too. You must be clairvoyant since you know so much about my habits. Where did you get that? Oh, it must be the same place you got your theories, out of thin air.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear mockingbird,

Elaborate.

I've got some good ideas for a welfare reform in Ontario:

1) Redistribute some of the money paid to homeless shelters to the welfare system. This way you keep out as many that CAN survive on their own.

Somewhat backwards. Unless you will agree that the welfare system should stop handing out cash, and go back to the voucher system.

For every 10 'single moms' there exists an opportunity for them all to work. If one or two are qualified to look after the children of the rest, then they could open a 'subsidized daycare' for the other 8 or 9. Further, they should qualify for tax breaks equal to, if not more, than any amount they might have lost from 'welfare' say, for at least the first year. The 8 or 9 would then be able to work, and enjoy a discounted rate for daycare, as they lessen the burden on the 'welfare system' (with a minimum 'subsidized' income to not fall below the previous welfare income that they had). It is late, I must go to bed, but there are ways around everything if one is willing to think them through, and more importantly, be willing to work for them.

BTW,

Go back to your child pornography surfing. Along with your pc buddies who saw it fit to reduce the minimum age of consent to 14.

Please do not post crap like this again.

[mockingbird]

Where did you get that?

Personal observation over the last few years. It's no secret any longer where some of these canadians are getting their mean spirited devilish narcissism from. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people were investigated a little further you'd find some really sick and disgusting stuff.

In 1988, Ramon Hnatyshyn, a member of your bequeathed conservative party repealed any previous laws that would protect girls under the age of 16.

In 1981 JEAN CHRETIEN introduced a bill (c-53) that would have PROTECTED girls under the age of 16. Maybe he's a criminal, but he's not a child molester.

In 1988, the conservative party legalized pedophilia. No surprise, since without this, they would probably have some issues staying afloat.

[Renegade]

Where did you get that?

Personal observation over the last few years. It's no secret any longer where some of these canadians are getting their mean spirited devilish narcissism from. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people were investigated a little further you'd find some really sick and disgusting stuff.

In 1988, Ramon Hnatyshyn, a member of your bequeathed conservative party repealed any previous laws that would protect girls under the age of 16.

In 1981 JEAN CHRETIEN introduced a bill (c-53) that would have PROTECTED girls under the age of 16. Maybe he's a criminal, but he's not a child molester.

In 1988, the conservative party legalized pedophilia. No surprise, since without this, they would probably have some issues staying afloat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me get this straight. From personal observation you have concluded that canadians are becoming "mean spirited devilish" narcissists, because they are viewing too much child porn? So based upon this observation, when you see behaviour you consider narcissistic, you conclude the narcissist has subjected himself to child porn?

Please stop, I can't even type because I'm ROTFLMAO.

[mockingbird]

No.

I've made the conclusion that there is serious corruption both morally and financially -

In the Canadian government -

With the Conservative government having a deep mean spirited attitude -

based on their narcissistic personality -

fueled by pedophilic behavior (or vice versa)-

as evidenced by their 1988 bill which lowered the age of consent to 14 - something unheard of in America -

And yes - If you take a look at some of these guys' computers, I guarantee that you will find child porn there, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people are engaged in / have engaged in illegal activities with minors.

And yes - child pornography is common amongst certain types of narcissists.

It's based on simple psychology you see. In my opinion, child pornography is based on the narcissists need to empathize with the child. Logic will dictate that someone who is seeking empathy from a child (I hope they all rot soon), cannot or is not capable of empathizing with an adult.

Someone who cannot empathize with an adult, and has no need to (Is raised in a wealthy home, etc...), and for some cruelly unknown reason is elected to government, will either bankrupt the economy, or impose cruel and heavy punishment amongst the citizens, and quite often particularly amongst the poor.

Why don't you have any empathy? I don't know. Maybe I came on a bit too strong on you. Maybe you're a little naive.

[Melanie_]

If you take a look at some of these guys' computers, I guarantee that you will find child porn there, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people are engaged in / have engaged in illegal activities with minors.

Mockingbird, you are making some pretty offensive allegations with nothing but speculation to base them on. Back off.

[Renegade]

No.

I've made the conclusion that there is serious corruption both morally and financially -

In the Canadian government -

With the Conservative government having a deep mean spirited attitude -

based on their narcissistic personality -

fueled by pedophilic behavior (or vice versa)-

as evidenced by their 1988 bill which lowered the age of consent to 14 - something unheard of in America -

And yes - If you take a look at some of these guys' computers, I guarantee that you will find child porn there, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people are engaged in / have engaged in illegal activities with minors.

And yes - child pornography is common amongst certain types of narcissists.

It's based on simple psychology you see.  In my opinion, child pornography is based on the narcissists need to empathize with the child.  Logic will dictate that someone who is seeking empathy from a child (I hope they all rot soon), cannot or is not capable of empathizing with an adult.

Someone who cannot empathize with an adult, and has no need to (Is raised in a wealthy home, etc...), and for some cruelly unknown reason is elected to government, will either bankrupt the economy, or impose cruel and heavy punishment amongst the citizens, and quite often particularly amongst the poor.

Why don't you have any empathy?  I don't know.  Maybe I came on a bit too strong on you.  Maybe you're a little naive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your position is completely without basis in fact and your recent posts does more to undermine your credibility than anything I could say.

[mockingbird]

I don't need any credibility. This is the internet.

Ah the internet, a stab in the heart to socio-communist methodolgy countries.

It's a serious allegation yes, and I have provided proof to back it up.

You're a girl melanie. Do you think it is normal for a supposed first world country to legalize pedophilia? The conservative government did this in 1988, that is my proof.

You wish to refute this?

It looks like I'm hitting quite a few strings here. the mods are coming down on me too:

No the rule don't just apply to you - in previous cases, I've warned other offenders the same as I've warned you.

It appears that you've got a serious victim complex.

One more mistake and you're gone.

Greg

Admin

This isn't canadian parliament, or canadian court. You can ban me, I'll be back under a different name, with a different ip. The internet killed off some of the oppression of the canadian government years ago, and I suggest you get used to that.

[tml12]

No.

I've made the conclusion that there is serious corruption both morally and financially -

In the Canadian government -

With the Conservative government having a deep mean spirited attitude -

based on their narcissistic personality -

fueled by pedophilic behavior (or vice versa)-

as evidenced by their 1988 bill which lowered the age of consent to 14 - something unheard of in America -

And yes - If you take a look at some of these guys' computers, I guarantee that you will find child porn there, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people are engaged in / have engaged in illegal activities with minors.

And yes - child pornography is common amongst certain types of narcissists.

It's based on simple psychology you see.  In my opinion, child pornography is based on the narcissists need to empathize with the child.  Logic will dictate that someone who is seeking empathy from a child (I hope they all rot soon), cannot or is not capable of empathizing with an adult.

Someone who cannot empathize with an adult, and has no need to (Is raised in a wealthy home, etc...), and for some cruelly unknown reason is elected to government, will either bankrupt the economy, or impose cruel and heavy punishment amongst the citizens, and quite often particularly amongst the poor.

Why don't you have any empathy?  I don't know.  Maybe I came on a bit too strong on you.  Maybe you're a little naive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is one of the most overly simplified logical arguments I have ever read in my life. Are you in grade 3? Seriously, are you insinuating that those who advocate keeping the age at 14 have child porn on their computers? That is not only a fallacious argument, it reveals your inability to be able to sustain a valid argument.

[mockingbird]

That is one of the most overly simplified logical arguments I have ever read in my life. Are you in grade 3? Seriously, are you insinuating that those who advocate keeping the age at 14 have child porn on their computers? That is not only a fallacious argument, it reveals your inability to be able to sustain a valid argument.

Yes. That is exactly what I'm insinuating.

The bill did not "keep the age at 14."

The bill REDUCED the age to 14, let's get that straight. Let's try to avoid the nazi-like technique of doing something and then claiming to do the exact opposite.

[Argus]

I don't need any credibility.  This is the internet.

Why are you here? Why are you bothering to post your inane drivel? Because you clearly want people to believe or at least consider your words. But the less credibility you have the less likely anyone will pay any attention to what you're trying to say.

You're a girl melanie.  Do you think it is normal for a supposed first world country to legalize pedophilia?  The conservative government did this in 1988, that is my proof.

If you are going to rant on a subject I suggest you try and at least read up a little on that subject. You clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You don't even know what a paedophile is, let alone how to spell it. You don't know anything about the law, and you are whining at the tories when it was they who tried to increase the age of consent recently - to be voted back by the Liberals, BQ and NDP.

[tml12]

That is one of the most overly simplified logical arguments I have ever read in my life. Are you in grade 3? Seriously, are you insinuating that those who advocate keeping the age at 14 have child porn on their computers? That is not only a fallacious argument, it reveals your inability to be able to sustain a valid argument.

Yes. That is exactly what I'm insinuating.

The bill did not "keep the age at 14."

The bill REDUCED the age to 14, let's get that straight. Let's try to avoid the nazi-like technique of doing something and then claiming to do the exact opposite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes I know that...it was 18 before that.

The legal age for consent should probably be 15 or 16 but I wouldn't call an election over it. Also, I believe that 14 year old shouldn't be able to have sex with anyone over 30. That would not be healthy in either case...even someone in their 20s...I think a 14 (or even a 13) year old having sex with someone in or around their age is OK.

A bigger debate is how we arbitrarily decide these ages (i.e. alcohol, tobacco, sex, age of majority) which are not only different in different countries but also different in the same country (i.e. apparently you can't drink and smoke in Ontario until you're 19 but here you can smoke and drink at 18.)

I think it is all rather stupid and that we would be better off without any of these laws which are just dumb I think.