"HATE" crime legislation IS 'hate'-ful....

[Argus]

36 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Sure, because you describe European immigrants like this too:

I guess next time you demand that Canada bring in more Western Europeans, Australians, British etc, I can remind you that you include them as part of the barbarous, illiterate foreign-speaking, diseased riff-raff that are swelling our line-ups for health care.

Barbarous, illiterate foreigners who don't speak English and have no job skills are a sizeable portion of what Canada has been taking in. I'm not saying all immigrants are like that, by any means. But we're getting far, far too many.

[Argus]

37 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Bin Laden was a CIA asset. Also proven time and time again.

Even your goddam cite says nothing of the sort. It says he was part of the Arab group who went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, and that this group was handled by Pakistan's intelligence service - which anyone with even a slight inkling of knowledge knows is not exactly hand in hand with the CIA. Pakistan encourages Muslim fanaticism because they figure that makes it very unlikely the Indians will ever decide to conquer them and take them back.

Quote

Again I'll point to that 50+ page on Syria that has all those facts.  Proven time and time again. And not even refuted by the USA.  But here.

Again, even your own cite only says the US armed more moderate rebel groups in Syria, not that it armed ISIS. It hoped the moderate rebels would prosper and take over, but instead they were targeted by the fanatics.

Quote

Come on Argus.  I thought you were better than that? But I have now proven you wrong on both accounts.

You've proven nothing except you can't stick to a topic and have to find some excuse to attack the US wherever you can.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

27 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Does anyone here not agree that there appears to be an odd discrepancy between supporting the Immigrant with the same force as the Aboriginal?

Is it rational to hold compassion for one but not the other? Can you be compassionate to both? 

Even the word 'hate' is a dumbass term that the idiots on the Left came up with for everyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs. You can't simply be prejudiced against someone now. No, you have to hate them! You can't just want fewer immigrants, you have to hate them all. It's typical of the neurotic feminism of the Left to use loaded terms like that.

People become prejudiced against groups which do not behave in the way their culture says they ought to. Any group which acts noticeably different from the mainstream, esp if it acts in a way people consider harmful to the mainstream, will be the subjects of prejudice. That's especially so if that behaviour includes violence.

 

[Scott Mayers]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

36 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

"Does anyone here not agree that there appears to be an odd discrepancy between supporting the Immigrant with the same force as the Aboriginal?

Is it rational to hold compassion for one but not the other? Can you be compassionate to both? "

 

Even the word 'hate' is a dumbass term that the idiots on the Left came up with for everyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs. You can't simply be prejudiced against someone now. No, you have to hate them! You can't just want fewer immigrants, you have to hate them all. It's typical of the neurotic feminism of the Left to use loaded terms like that.

People become prejudiced against groups which do not behave in the way their culture says they ought to. Any group which acts noticeably different from the mainstream, esp if it acts in a way people consider harmful to the mainstream, will be the subjects of prejudice. That's especially so if that behaviour includes violence.

 

I'm already in agreement with this. I'm trying to find common grounds of the confusion. 

Assume that I live in a house next door to my twin who has the same size house but has 4 kids where I might have 2. Assuming also that we begun 'equal' in income but my brother OPTED to have 4 kids which made their family suffer for having to split their energies to the two extra kids, is it incompassionate of me to turn any of my brother's kids away if they came to my door to LIVE permanently? If one of my kids complains should I let their cousin move in, is my kid being 'hateful'? 

[Argus]

50 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm already in agreement with this. I'm trying to find common grounds of the confusion. 

Assume that I live in a house next door to my twin who has the same size house but has 4 kids where I might have 2. Assuming also that we begun 'equal' in income but my brother OPTED to have 4 kids which made their family suffer for having to split their energies to the two extra kids, is it incompassionate of me to turn any of my brother's kids away if they came to my door to LIVE permanently? If one of my kids complains should I let their cousin move in, is my kid being 'hateful'? 

The people in the middle east and Asia are not our brothers. You would be better off asking yourself if it's reasonable to turn down helping your brother so you could help strangers who live on the far side of the world instead.

[Scott Mayers]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The people in the middle east and Asia are not our brothers. You would be better off asking yourself if it's reasonable to turn down helping your brother so you could help strangers who live on the far side of the world instead.

My purpose is to reduce the problem to a thought experiment. This can help everyone here to see possibly that no one is wrong, we are all wrong, or that something is a better option should no option be favorable. 

I thus used twins, not to necessarily mean they have to be loving towards each other, but to imagine everyone beginning on equal grounds. I think the problem may be reduced to this kind of model to try to show each person's perspective neutrally. Much of reality is careless about humans. As such, the dilemmas that arise may have no ideal solution. If so, the question arises if we should opt to split the share of the world to EACH individual or to permit selfish interests to allow certain cruelties to occur regardless of faults, etc.

For example, continuing with this example, imagine that each half of this world of two families beginning with everything equal. Then, like real life, imagine, ignoring the 'parents', that each person/child requires at least 1/3 of the household energy in order to survive in some period. (or 1/6 for both houses together)

For my children, then, they each have a 50% share of the energy of my household in some period. Since 1/3 (= 33.3%) is minimally needed to survive for any child in this world, my children are certain to survive since each has (50-33.3 = 17.6% excess energy), while my brother's kids cannot meet ALL the children's needs in the same period because their share EACH is 25%. Since 33.3% energy is needed per kid, all of my brother's kids would die if they had to attempt to live on what they have without fighting each other or asking for my help. 

One option is to have my brother (twin 2) let his kids fight it among themselves. One WILL at least die in this struggle because there is not enough energy to go around. I COULD offer to take one of my brother's kids in. But what if my brother was being irresponsible and opted not to use a condom at some point (well maybe two times relative to me) and thus only accidentally had 4 kids. Perhaps he had a religious belief too that you should not abort a child regardless of how it would affect others. 

Would my potential allowance of admitting at least one of my brother's children be appropriate? If I don't, do I 'hate' my brother's child(ren) that I turn away?

[jacee]

On 7/24/2019 at 2:01 PM, Argus said:

Barbarous, illiterate foreigners who don't speak English and have no job skills are a sizeable portion of what Canada has been taking in. I'm not saying all immigrants are like that, by any means. But we're getting far, far too many.

Clarify ... who are the "barbarous, illiterate foreigners" with no job skills? 

Do you know what the immigration criteria are? I don't know that "barbarous" is referenced, but literacy and job skills certainly are.

You really are a very extremist dude.

Are you thinking of running anybody down with a van? 

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, jacee said:

 1) You really are a very extremist dude.

 2) Are you thinking of running anybody down with a van? 

1) There is pretty much no rational discussion of immigration issues these days.  It's all fake news, Sharia law is coming etc. etc.  Same with trade policy discussion.  The conservatives have unleashed the dogs of ignorance to keep their paymasters happy.

2) Unkind.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) There is pretty much no rational discussion of immigration issues these days.  It's all fake news, Sharia law is coming etc. etc.  Same with trade policy discussion.  The conservatives have unleashed the dogs of ignorance to keep their paymasters happy.

2) Unkind.

You could have just let the "no rational discussion" comment stand for 1) and 2)

[WestCanMan]

On 6/28/2019 at 5:33 AM, Scott Mayers said:

*I don't have to agree to other group's opinions to know that they should have a right to a freedom to speak. I am extremely pissed at the present laws being PUSHED upon us non-democratically (other than the 'cult' as the minimal individual). Yesterday (June 27, 2019), CBC announced the new internet legislation telling us indirectly that the capacity of the polices here to IMPOSE REDIRECTION of our searches through Google by specifically targeting those who search for 'trigger searches' that tell us they KNOW what 'hate' is. This is VERY DANGEROUS to our DEMOCRACY!!*......

*Now while this may be considered 'good' by some, I assure you that when we have increasing 'MODERATION" of our own 'free speech' (like at the CBC's forums that hide and protect their secret censors of their own POLITICAL anti-democratic impositions)*........

Also, they are giving policing a power here of 'superior' judges by enabling them to decide what OUR rights are of 'privacy' and 'freedom'. 

 

Today, the news added more proof of the counter-hate evidence of this behavior by targeting some Nationalist group (Canadian Nationalist Party). What is ironic is THAT the thinking of these arrogant extremists making these laws ARE NATIONALISTS. Just because it is composed of different cults of SOME subset of competing groups, they ALL agree to 'disagree' with individual differences while they are not directly in power. But collectively, these actual HATE groups are constituted here to with such power and momentum that they are doing completely the opposite of the American means at every step of whistleblowers there regarding privacy and anti-free speech.: For every new realization of the American public about abuses of independent powers in policing or present government opportunists, we are CREATING means to spy and harm our 'citizens' here!

 

Like I said, I don't agree with certain views. But the way these laws and behaviors of other issues of our governments are making me concerned about these arrogant idiots in power imposing MORE anti-democratic laws. All parties here are 'conservatives' of just different subsets: so now even the NDP lacks concern for individual democracy. I don't know what we can do...but the way things are, the parties here are acting worse than the very Chinese by our own HIDDEN means to CENSOR our communications. 

 

I wish others here would get involved and try to overrule this danger. I already know that what HAS been done already limits us here from seeing much of the Internet we saw only ten years ago. And it IS of a select subset of religiously-propagated groups that operate as though they are 'democratically' shared of us all. 

 

FWIW I didn't chop out so much because it wasn't worth reading or responding to. It's just a forum rule not to use huge quotes when replying so I had to trim it a bit.

I just have a quick sec here but I though that I'd quickly just chime in with an example of how much our judges can even be trusted to undertsand what does and doesn't constitute a hate crime:

https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/indigenous-woman-yells-i-hate-white-people-before-punching-white-woman-but-its-not-a-hate-crime-judge-rules

Quote

Indigenous woman yells 'I hate white people' before [sucker-]punching white woman, but it's not a hate crime judge rules

 

[Argus]

12 hours ago, jacee said:

Clarify ... who are the "barbarous, illiterate foreigners" with no job skills? 

Is English a second language for you? The words are simple English.

12 hours ago, jacee said:

Do you know what the immigration criteria are? I don't know that "barbarous" is referenced, but literacy and job skills certainly are.

Barbarous is anyone who believes in Sharia law, just for a start.

12 hours ago, jacee said:

You really are a very extremist dude.

 Probably everyone to the right of Castro is an extremist to you. But you are so far from the centre you'd need a telescope to find it.

63% of Canadians want immigration cut
56% of Canadians think Canada is too welcoming to immigrants, 54% want immigration lowered, borders tightened, 48% immigrant are changing canada in ways I don't like.
68% want immigrants to assimilate better
75% want a values test for immigrants

 

 

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) There is pretty much no rational discussion of immigration issues these days.  It's all fake news, Sharia law is coming etc. etc.  Same with trade policy discussion.  The conservatives have unleashed the dogs of ignorance to keep their paymasters happy.

And the progressives continue to insist anyone who wants to cut immigration or who cares about our culture and values or who wants to prevent those who hate them from flooding into Canada is somehow morally deficient.