Remiel Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) Someone will have to notify my mother that, in the decades since she brought me up, two wrongs have suddenly come to make a right. I would've felt happy about that as a child. As an adult, however, it now fails to resonate well. Hardly. What is right and wrong are not fixed in that way. Though it is a rather more extreme example, this is of the same form: In World War II era France, if someone asked you to join the French Resistance and rebel against the government, would you say, " I am sorry, but two wrongs do not make a right, " ? Edited June 6, 2011 by Remiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 What is right and wrong are not fixed in that way. And yet, that's exactly how you put it. Harper lied about the validity and legality of coalitions, ergo Senate pages are justified in using their access to the Throne Speech to express their personal opinions. One wrong makes another wrong right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 And yet, that's exactly how you put it. Harper lied about the validity and legality of coalitions, ergo Senate pages are justified in using their access to the Throne Speech to express their personal opinions. One wrong makes another wrong right. Well, one should always be careful of substituting old sayings for proper judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 All she did was show the country 21 year olds are idiots and have no clue to what is going on here or in the world ,she made a fool out of herself about the arab spring, she actually insulted the people that have died in the uprisings while she sits here in canada, the safest and richest country in the world.Maybe she should be taken for a trip to the ME to see what she is missing out on, I would think she would have a change of heart. No, she spoke for herself only, not "21 year olds". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Well, one should always be careful of substituting old sayings for proper judgement. Indeed. And the same applies to the direct opposite of old sayings. "Two wrongs make a right" is not a substitute for proper judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 There are proper channels to lodge one's grievances, heckling the throne speech and interfering with our system of government isn't one of them. Multiple layered beaurocracy makes sure the complaints are hard to get heard. She just fast tracked the complaint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Indeed. And the same applies to the direct opposite of old sayings. "Two wrongs make a right" is not a substitute for proper judgement. How was I saying that two wrongs make a right to begin with? If someone steals your car, and then you (or we, as a society) put him in prison, have we made a right from the wrongs of theft and imprisonment, or has theft made imprisonment right? The language is beginning to get confusing. Did you mean to agree with me that Harper being a liar makes certain inexcusable acts excusable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 There are a significant portion of Canadians for whom being turned off for this will either mean they are hypocrites, ignorant, or both. The "vast majority" of those people voted Conservative in the last election. I don't think a June 2011 stunt of a 21 year old will have much impact on an October 2015 election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Fine call it what you will, the fact remains it was not the time nor the place.Says you. Over 60% of respondents in a recent CBC poll said that her actions were appropriate. It ... showed flagrant disregard for parliamentary procedure.Indeed. You could even say she was in contempt of parliament. If you want to change the system you need to work within it not fly in the face of it. That turns people off, and will earn you the title of "whackado" which she so rightly deserveNo meaningful change has ever come from within the system. Workers' rights and women's reproductive rights were not won by working within the system. Neither was civil rights for black Americans. Peaceful protests and civil disobedience are the only way to bring about meaningful change when the authorities are only concerned with maintaining the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Her firing is justified. No one has argued otherwise. I'm sure she would admit that herself. That's so far from the point that it doesn't even matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 appropriate protest forums"You may protest at the designated place and time or face punishment."Sorry, but I don't remember that being in the Charter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) How was I saying that two wrongs make a right to begin with? Firstly, one could look back at the post where you said "When the leader of the government lies about the law, what was an inappropriate way to protest can very easily become appropriate." But, you've just provided the answer to your own question in the very post in which you asked it: Did you mean to agree with me that Harper being a liar makes certain inexcusable acts excusable? Clearly I don't mean to agree with such an argument at all. [-] Edited June 6, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 It's likely that a combined progressive socialist party would get over 50% of the vote but, retaining all 60% support would be unlikely.I doubt it. The BQ is not going to go away nor are the greens. That leaves only 90% of the votes in play. A would say close to half of the remaing liberals would go conservative if forced to make a choice. That would still put the CPC over the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) Clearly I don't mean to agree with such an argument at all. Then explain your interpretation of what makes the justice system work. We have these simple premises: 1) Murder is wrong. 2) Imprisonment is wrong. Become: 3) Imprisonment for murder is right. Yet, that results seems to be contrary to the simplistic rejoinder that "two wrongs do not make a right" . How is this any different, really, from: 1) Lying about the law is wrong. 2) Protesting in the Senate is wrong. Becoming: 3) Protesting someone in the Senate who lies about the law is right. Obviously there has to be some sort of necessary connection between the Senate and the liar, and there is, just as there has to be a necessary between the murderer and who is imprisoned, but the fact remains that the old saying "two wrongs do not make a right" could be reasonable argued to be more or less false in these situations. Edited June 6, 2011 by Remiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 There are a significant portion of Canadians for whom being turned off for this will either mean they are hypocrites, ignorant, or both. The "vast majority" of those people voted Conservative in the last election. That statement clearly says a lot about you..... and demonstrates the all too frequent anger and intolerance of the Left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 That statement clearly says a lot about you..... and demonstrates the all too frequent anger and intolerance of the Left. Is it considered a virtue on the Right to make worthless generalizations, or is it just you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 She just fast tracked the complaint. She just told the boss to take this job and shove it. Kids often do, 'cause they have their parents to take care of them. Is that a news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 2) Imprisonment is wrong. Rumsfeld had a great quote once. He told a reporter words to the effect "you have used impeccable logic to reach an illogical conclusion because you started with a false premise." This is a false premise. 1) Lying about the law is wrong. 2) Protesting in the Senate is wrong. Becoming: 3) Protesting someone in the Senate who lies about the law is right. I don't see how 1 & 2 lead to 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 1) Lying about the law is wrong. Should we lock up most Liberals? Or at least the MPs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) Is it considered a virtue on the Right to make worthless generalizations, or is it just you? Just a fact. Just read through any thread and you will see the anti-right or anti-Harper vitriole - bordering on hatred if not overtly so. You just don't really see that from what you would call the Right....there's humour, sarcasm, belittling and lots of criticism.....but you'll be hard pressed to find such anger and venom. I realize it's just from a few "out there" posters but it obviously has reared it's head in the antics of our juvenile page. Edited June 6, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 You just don't really see that from what you would call the Right....there's humour, sarcasm, belittling and lots of criticism.....but you'll be hard pressed to find such anger and venom. You must have missed this: "Little moron" - Saipan "21 year old moron" - Shady "Fucking moron" - CPCFTW "dumb bitch" - Tilter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Not all are accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_ON Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Says you. Over 60% of respondents in a recent CBC poll said that her actions were appropriate. Are these respondents aware that she was doing so during her working hours, when the tax payers were footing the bill for her protest? I some how doubt they are. Besides the law is not subject to the whims of the masses. No meaningful change has ever come from within the system. Workers' rights and women's reproductive rights were not won by working within the system. Neither was civil rights for black Americans. Peaceful protests and civil disobedience are the only way to bring about meaningful change when the authorities are only concerned with maintaining the status quo. I could care less about black civil rights in the US, we're not talking about the US. Further, how about the BNA act? Or the consitution act? What about equal marriage or a myriad of other changes? What protests sparked these meaningful changes? Or were they done through proper, orderly legal channels? Should a duly elected government be overthrown simply because some don't like the outcome? Of course not, to suggest such a thing is ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Rumsfeld had a great quote once. He told a reporter words to the effect "you have used impeccable logic to reach an illogical conclusion because you started with a false premise." This is a false premise. Is it? If I were to put you in a 6' x 12' cell, would it be right or wrong? I don't see how 1 & 2 lead to 3. It is Harper's Throne Speech being read in the Senate, Harper being protested, and Harper who is the liar. How is it unjust for his undeserved ceremony to be disrupted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 ....Neither was civil rights for black Americans. Yes they were...if you are going to invoke "black Americans" to justify a page's contempt, then you have to give the "system" credit too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.