Michael Hardner Posted January 15 Report Share Posted January 15 16 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: If we’re talking about judging moral actions, why does the weight of chickens need to be brought up? Because you are trying to state that your opinion is objective fact ? Am I quibbling over terms ? Possibly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted January 15 Report Share Posted January 15 6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Because you are trying to state that your opinion is objective fact ? Objectively, is it better for gay people to be treated equally under the law or for them to be arrested for being gay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 15 Report Share Posted January 15 6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: Objectively, is it better for gay people to be treated equally under the law or for them to be arrested for being gay? I prefer a society where gay people are treated equally. How would you assess "objectively" the best society ? If that could be done, we should just print out the formula and hand it to someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted January 15 Report Share Posted January 15 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: I prefer a society where gay people are treated equally. How would you assess "objectively" the best society ? If that could be done, we should just print out the formula and hand it to someone. You reframed my question to suit your answer. Not unlike the poster in the other thread about free will, ironically enough. It’s not what you prefer, it is what is objectively better for the wellbeing of, in this example, gay people. It is objectively better for them not to be arrested for being gay. Edited January 15 by TreeBeard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 15 Report Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, TreeBeard said: It’s not what you prefer, it is what is objectively better for the wellbeing of, in this example, gay people. It is objectively better for them not to be arrested for being gay. It's objectively better for mass murderers not to go to jail for mass murder, but that does not make it ipso facto undisputedle better for "society" at large. Defining what is "Better" is ALWAYS subjective. It is never objective. It depends on the person's frame of reference and personal opinions. There are those who would argue that it's better that gay people be arrested. You argue otherwise. Subjective. And if actions are taken to support YOUR version of 'better' today how would it not be ok for someone with a different opinion to take action based on that later? The only thing we can use or fall back on is personal rights and freedoms provided they are applied universally and without prejudice. What you're claiming simply doesn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 3 hours ago, TreeBeard said: It’s not what you prefer, it is what is objectively better for the wellbeing of, in this example, gay people. It is objectively better for them not to be arrested for being gay. I agree that that's true. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 (edited) On 1/15/2024 at 5:12 AM, Nationalist said: Now there's a statement that's just pure bullshit. Toronto is a shithole.! We have twit who is not above cheating welfare, as mayor. She's trying to raise property taxes by more than 10%. Why? Because Libbie doctrine filled Toronto with refugees and The Rona gave them license to shut down the city...except for big box stores...of course... Fools and their money. If you want to refute what I wrote.. then list some cities with populations greater than 100K that you would not deem as a $hithole. Only place that I would deem as a $hithole is Bakersfield, CA. Have only been there once (2009) and it was simply decrepit. Not necessarily dirty or ghetto. Just looked like a ghost town where no one had bothered to maintain a building in 20 years. Every road/sidewalk was in disrepair. Edited January 16 by impartialobserver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, impartialobserver said: If you want to refute what I wrote.. then list some cities with populations greater than 100K that you would not deem as a $hithole. Only place that I would deem as a $hithole is Bakersfield, CA. Have only been there once (2009) and it was simply decrepit. Not necessarily dirty or ghetto. Just looked like a ghost town where no one had bothered to maintain a building in 20 years. Every road/sidewalk was in disrepair. I don't have to refute squat. Ridiculously high housing costs. A crosstown transit line that may never run. Some of the worst traffic in the world. Bike lanes on major roads. A social assistance abuser as mayor. Who now wants property tax raised by 10% or more. Toronto is a bonified shithole. I'm now gonna raise the rent on all my properties 20%, retire and to hell with this dump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 2 minutes ago, Nationalist said: I don't have to refute squat. Ridiculously high housing costs. A crosstown transit line that may never run. Some of the worst traffic in the world. Bike lanes on major roads. A social assistance abuser as mayor. Who now wants property tax raised by 10% or more. Toronto is a bonified shithole. I'm now gonna raise the rent on all my properties 20%, retire and to hell with this dump. My comment was not only about Toronto. It was about how most Conservatives view all cities as $hitholes. Interesting how you can't refute that but keep on responding so passionately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 18 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Bike lanes on major roads. Why is that a bad thing? Bike lanes, trams, etc make a city more “liveable”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 32 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: My comment was not only about Toronto. It was about how most Conservatives view all cities as $hitholes. Interesting how you can't refute that but keep on responding so passionately. Refute what? The city is a dysfunctional shithole.! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 Just now, Nationalist said: Refute what? The city is a dysfunctional shithole.! Can you refute my very clear statement that All Conservatives view all cities (not just Toronto but every single one of them) universally as $hitholes. Now read this again... not just Toronto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: Can you refute my very clear statement that All Conservatives view all cities (not just Toronto but every single one of them) universally as $hitholes. Now read this again... not just Toronto. They like those Hallmark Christmas special towns right ? They DON'T like 15-minute cities we know that... because it's a UN plan to stop people from being stuck in traffic for half their lives. Hmmmmm.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: They like those Hallmark Christmas special towns right ? They DON'T like 15-minute cities we know that... because it's a UN plan to stop people from being stuck in traffic for half their lives. Hmmmmm.... They profess to be such experts on human nature but can never explain why we voluntarily choose to not live in remote but scenic towns in Alberta or in the case of of the US.. Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 47 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: They profess to be such experts on human nature but can never explain why we voluntarily choose to not live in remote but scenic towns in Alberta or in the case of of the US.. Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. We weren't born there ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: We weren't born there ? Some are/were but of course not everybody. If everybody had been born in Bozeman, MT (just an example).. it would have been nor would be a sleepy mid-size city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, impartialobserver said: They profess to be such experts on human nature but can never explain why we voluntarily choose to not live in remote but scenic towns in Alberta or in the case of of the US.. Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. I think that's pretty obvious. Lets compare the opportunity for employment, education and advancement in, say, vancouver vs, say, moose jaw. Yeah. Big cities tend to have more of everything for obvious reasons. That's why they're big but the fact is a lot of people who WERE born in places like vancouver ARE moving out to the small communities around vancouver or on the island. https://financialpost.com/real-estate/people-leaving-canada-big-cities-housing-crunch https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-why-so-many-canadians-are-moving-out-of-vancouver-the-province-and-the-country Vernon Mayor Victor Cumming is highly aware that a lot of British Columbians are on the move. He’s getting to know the young parents who come to his mid-sized Okanagan city from Metro Vancouver to escape extreme housing costs and to stretch their money further while enjoying easy access to outdoor recreation. “They get a much higher quality of life for much less money,” Cumming said, noting many new families show up in the school system when their children are ready to enter Grades 3 and 4. This is the so called 'drive till you qualify' phenomenon where people move out to smaller towns or smaller communities (veronon has about 70k people just fyi). That's happening a lot - but there's only so much work in those areas and unless you can work remotely that's an issue. It's not rocket science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 7 minutes ago, CdnFox said: That's happening a lot - but there's only so much work in those areas and unless you can work remotely that's an issue. It's not rocket science. You hit the nail on the head. You can't blame someone for opting to live in or near Vancouver and therefore have options available to them that they would not have in Invermere, BC (yes, I have been there once). A lot of times we romanticize living in the remote wilderness away from everybody. And yet when you take someone to to the remote nothingness.. they are no longer so bold, brave, and enterprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 3 hours ago, impartialobserver said: Can you refute my very clear statement that All Conservatives view all cities (not just Toronto but every single one of them) universally as $hitholes. Now read this again... not just Toronto. No. I can't. I know lots of conservatives who love Toronto. They don't like Chow much but...who does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 Just now, Nationalist said: No. I can't. I know lots of conservatives who love Toronto. They don't like Chow much but...who does? So are you one of those who views all cities regardless of where as dirty $hitholes? I have been to the most remote parts of the lower 48 states and the small towns in those very remote, rural areas are not bastions of perfection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: So are you one of those who views all cities regardless of where as dirty $hitholes? I have been to the most remote parts of the lower 48 states and the small towns in those very remote, rural areas are not bastions of perfection. Dude...I've seen Canada from coast to coast. Seen a bit of the US as well. Stop blowin' that stupid little horn of yours...you may go blind. I dislike Toronto. I have done for a long time now. My career is hear but that's coming to retirement and I have no intention of retiring here. This Olivia Chow person is typical of Toronto. I hope my kids get out of here too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 10 minutes ago, Nationalist said: I know lots of conservatives who love Toronto. They don't like Chow much but...who does? Even her therapist has questions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 2 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Dude...I've seen Canada from coast to coast. Seen a bit of the US as well. Stop blowin' that stupid little horn of yours...you may go blind. I dislike Toronto. I have done for a long time now. My career is hear but that's coming to retirement and I have no intention of retiring here. This Olivia Chow person is typical of Toronto. I hope my kids get out of here too. so you can't refute the claim.. Typical. its quite simple. Not all cities are $hitholes and not all small towns are perfect. It is mostly case by case. A person does not change from being a terrible person to being some saint because they move from NYC to Jarbidge, NV. Humans are all flawed no matter where they call home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 1 hour ago, impartialobserver said: so you can't refute the claim.. Typical. its quite simple. Not all cities are $hitholes and not all small towns are perfect. It is mostly case by case. A person does not change from being a terrible person to being some saint because they move from NYC to Jarbidge, NV. Humans are all flawed no matter where they call home. So what? Toronto is still...a shithole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 Just now, Nationalist said: So what? Toronto is still...a shithole. But is every other large city a shithole 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.