Freedom of Movement

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, cougar said:

I think you are mixing two different concepts - the right to freedom from oppression with the right to puke carbon in the atmosphere for absolutely no sound reason.

So the restrictions are about more than fighting the pandemic?   That's all I need to know.  So basically the pandemic is an excuse to beat people back into feudal life before industrialization vastly improved living standards.  Fighting the pandemic is an excuse to subjugate the population for other reasons.  

[cougar]

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Fighting the pandemic is an excuse to subjugate the population for other reasons.  

I didn't say that.  It may or may not be the case.

What I say is that flying or driving to that far away property of yours or your favorite vacation spot is not a basic right.  It is a huge privilege.  It affects the lives and basic rights of many people and wildlife.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

I didn't say that.  It may or may not be the case.

What I say is that flying or driving to that far away property of yours or your favorite vacation spot is not a basic right.  It is a huge privilege.  It affects the lives and basic rights of many people and wildlife.

I still don't understand what you're saying.  Do you mean that these restrictions are worthwhile for reasons other than fighting the pandemic?  You think it's worth destroying the hospitality, airline, construction, and other industries for the benefits to wildlife and fighting global warming?   If so, and if there are many people with similar ideas, that's more alarming to me than a virus that will eventually pass.  

[brett 1]

a response to original post

(sorry cougar didnt mean to interrupt your discussion, im reading you too, intreresting)

 

Politicians sending out mixed messages doesn't help things at all. On one hand they permit flights, but then they tell the public not to travel and to stay home..

yes i agree with original  poster, if you open up flight, then you cant say don't use it while your the one responsible for having it open.

But to beg the public to stay home and not set the example yourself puts you and your political associations integrity on the hook.  If a political associations members joined that association to become leaders in the community and nation then they must be held to lead by example. They are bound by the policies they and their party set. And though not a written policy , it was made apparent by pleading and begging to the public on tv that not flying was what the parties was endorsing as proper behaviour by members and the public . And many companies do have policies regarding company conduct and behaviour that can be grounds for termination if not upheld.

The average none political person should be able to have flown with no repercussions or fear of job loss.

But a political "Leader" or "association member" if they truly desire to lead the people then it starts with the words the say to the public.

also this situation is not a mere matter of government asking people not to were blue jeans while their members do...lol... this is very serious times and many lives are at stake now, so when governments go on air and plead and beg people not to fly, and then their own membership slaps the party in the face by taking that sort of thing  lightly and sneaking on to a plane, well they should be fired, with the urgency of these times weighing against them(its not just blue jeans were talking about, its lives)

yours B.

 

Edited January 14, 2021 by brett 1
clairify who i responded too

[cougar]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

  If so, and if there are many people with similar ideas, that's more alarming to me than a virus that will eventually pass.  

The most alarming thing is a majority of people like you who can't see further than their noses and believe the World is some sort of a lunapark created for their personal enjoyment.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, cougar said:

The most alarming thing is a majority of people like you who can't see further than their noses and believe the World is some sort of a lunapark created for their personal enjoyment.

Don't make assumptions regarding my care or concern for nature.  I bet you value the property you enjoy and the opportunity that allowed you to buy it.  My guess is you're older and you had decades to enjoy choices that you don't think future generations deserve.  

Edited January 14, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, brett 1 said:

so when governments go on air and plead and beg people not to fly, and then their own membership slaps the party in the face by taking that sort of thing  lightly and sneaking on to a plane, well they should be fired,

It should be noted they didn't "sneak" on a plane. The leader knew they were going.

[Zeitgeist]

The Surete are causing shit again.  This is why checkpoints and restrictions on movement in general are bad news.

https://apple.news/ATb_7F4CVQDaXCBZTsNHcuA

 

[cougar]

On 1/14/2021 at 12:00 AM, Zeitgeist said:

My guess is you're older and you had decades to enjoy choices that you don't think future generations deserve.  

I see young people on 4-wheelers ruining mountain trails, I see them driving snowmobiles, I see them in boats or in huge pickup trucks.  No doubt many of them fly around for the sake of it, any chance they get.  I NEVER DID ANY OF THAT! Nor do I intend doing it.

Now keep in mind the World's population has added over 4 billion people in the past 45 years.  You want to tell me that the extra 4 billion all deserve even more of those environmentally destructive choices and that somehow this is their basic right????

However cruel it might sound to you, I believe they should not have had even the basic right to exist!

Most have no conscience, just numbers, running around causing damage. 

 

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, cougar said:

I see young people on 4-wheelers ruining mountain trails, I see them driving snowmobiles, I see them in boats or in huge pickup trucks.  No doubt many of them fly around for the sake of it, any chance they get.  I NEVER DID ANY OF THAT! Nor do I intend doing it.

Now keep in mind the World's population has added over 4 billion people in the past 45 years.  You want to tell me that the extra 4 billion all deserve even more of those environmentally destructive choices and that somehow this is their basic right????

However cruel it might sound to you, I believe they should not have had even the basic right to exist!

Most have no conscience, just numbers, running around causing damage. 

 

Hitler was a vegetarian who saw value in protecting animals and the purity of German culture even if it meant the mass murder of entire peoples.  It's a sick outlook.  You value your pristine property and views over the freedoms of others and their right to exist.  Who made you the arbiter of who should live and how people should live?   Your views are dangerous and exactly why we need constitutional protections of freedom of movement, property, and the right to earn a living. There are enough people with views like yours to pose a real threat to human rights. It's an arrogant, elitist, and oppressive attitude.  

Edited January 16, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[cougar]

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 There are enough people with views like yours to pose a real threat to human rights.

Hopefully there are enough people with views like mine to make a change.  As to human rights, the more people on the planet the less rights you are going to have.

Be thankful there are smart people who can actually fight for you to make your life better.

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, cougar said:

Hopefully there are enough people with views like mine to make a change.  As to human rights, the more people on the planet the less rights you are going to have.

Be thankful there are smart people who can actually fight for you to make your life better.

No, your views are a danger to human rights and freedoms.  80% of Canada is mostly uninhabited pristine nature, but that's not good enough to keep your natural haven perfect. What you don't seem to connect is that the same beliefs/world view that says people shouldn't be able to drive ATV's will eventually prevent people like you from owning property like yours in the name of environmental protection. You can't have it both ways.  Your right to own a sweet spread in the mountains is no less a freedom than that person's right to have a day out on a trail on his four-wheeler.  You won't make that connection because it's all about keeping your trails clear of dirty humanity and its carbon footprint so you can have natural purity.  

Edited January 16, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[cougar]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 80% of Canada is mostly uninhabited pristine nature,

Go on Google Earth and try to find the 80% of uninhabited pristine nature.

Look at the rain forests - mostly gone - look at the north - mostly developed mining or oil and gas patches.

Then look at the prairies - either cities or farmland.

According to advocated of "human rights" like you, there is enough room to put another 70 million Canadians or more.  

But Nature will tell you what is right.   Too bad I have to suffer too for the idiocy of others.

[Zeitgeist]

13 minutes ago, cougar said:

Go on Google Earth and try to find the 80% of uninhabited pristine nature.

Look at the rain forests - mostly gone - look at the north - mostly developed mining or oil and gas patches.

Then look at the prairies - either cities or farmland.

According to advocated of "human rights" like you, there is enough room to put another 70 million Canadians or more.  

But Nature will tell you what is right.   Too bad I have to suffer too for the idiocy of others.

90% of Canada's population is on 20% of the land in the south.  There has to be room for people to live, work, and experience your pure Black Forest in this country, and there is.  Our planning policies are protecting sensitive lands like never before and driving up land/home prices in the GTA and cities across Canada.  Shoe-horning everyone into compact cities, densification, which I used to support because it protected more nature and made public transit more viable and cities more vital, has created vertical sprawl that hasn't served us well during the pandemic.

But again, you can't have it both ways.  Not everyone can live in pristine nature as you do because there likely isn't enough of it.   That's why we plan, to find a balance.  The biggest driver of rampant development, certainly in Ontario and BC, is immigration.  We have come to rely on it for economic growth, so if you want reduced economic growth and development, probably start with immigration.  Personally I think the issue is that there are no incentives to settle in the far north, which means our land and cities in the south become ever more stressed.  

Edited January 16, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

a)  90% of Canada's population is on 20% of the land in the south.   

 b)  Personally I think the issue is that there are no incentives to settle in the far north, which means our land and cities in the south become ever more stressed.  

a)  That's where there's a probability/possibility of employment and services.

b)  Other than limited employment in a resource extraction, there's no way to sustain yourself/family in the 'far north'.

[Aristides]

Lots of prime real estate in the Antarctic. 

[Zeitgeist]

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

Lots of prime real estate in the Antarctic. 

Maybe not that far north, but places like Cochrane that have rail and highway access that are gateways to the north.  Very little resource development has happened in some of these places which are almost completely uninhabited once you leave town.  Personally I think 60% of immigration should have a northern address requirement for a minimum of five years.  Canada would attract enough interest and we'd finally have a northern workforce.   The northern uninhabited swath of Ontario is bigger than counties like Switzerland.  Anyway, that's another topic.  

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Personally I think 60% of immigration should have a northern address requirement for a minimum of five years.  

2. Canada would attract enough interest and we'd finally have a northern workforce.     

1. That's not where the jobs are.
2. It might make sense to promote de-populating the GTA, though.  There are plenty of people who would live in other centres but maybe not so far flung.

[Zeitgeist]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's not where the jobs are.
2. It might make sense to promote de-populating the GTA, though.  There are plenty of people who would live in other centres but maybe not so far flung.

Resource companies have complained for years about the lack of workers up north, the main reason companies provide higher location pay to incentivize work.  

[cannuck]

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Resource companies have complained for years about the lack of workers up north, the main reason companies provide higher location pay to incentivize work.  

We already have over a hundred thousand residents on the shield up in resource country, and there has been a HUGE effort to get them into jobs (some successful, most...not so).  I think 100% of new immigrants should have an on-reserve address - WTF they want to come here to enjoy the Canadian way of life, why not put them into the most privileged communities in the country and the ONLY genuine Canadians for neighbours.

Edited January 17, 2021 by cannuck

[cougar]

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Resource companies have complained for years about the lack of workers up north, the main reason companies provide higher location pay to incentivize work.  

The main reason is the higher cost of living in the North.  Who wants to live in camp just to pay bills?

[cougar]

12 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I think 100% of new immigrants should have an on-reserve address - WTF they want to come here to enjoy the Canadian way of life,

This will be no different than the way America brought slaves in the 17th century - only difference, now you want them to pay the travel costs.  WTF?

[cannuck]

10 minutes ago, cougar said:

This will be no different than the way America brought slaves in the 17th century - only difference, now you want them to pay the travel costs.  WTF?

I want them to stay the fuck home where they belong.

 

[cougar]

14 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I want them to stay the fuck home where they belong.

 

This is different from what you previously asked - them to stay on-reserve to help resource industries with labor shortages.

Edited January 17, 2021 by cougar

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

This is different from what you previously asked - them to stay on-reserve to help resource industries with labor shortages.

Yes, being fecetious to some extent, but:   Having SOME immigrants (i.e. ones from compatible cultures and qualified to be productive) would set an embarrassing precedent for SOME reserves (there are some who actually DO work) because they will dig to the bottom of the earth (that's a mining pun) to find the best paying jobs and the most hours of work.   Conversely, putting economic refugees from very incompatible cultures into the heart of "real Canada" would stem the tidal wave of people who genuinely would be better off (as will we) by them staying at home.