Why Canadians re-elected a Liberal government?

[Yzermandius19]

21 minutes ago, dialamah said:

@Yzermandius19 - Here's some periods for your sentences - ......

Here are the capital letters you forgot: P, T, J, I.  

I'm done discussing with you because you make no sense.  But I don't mind helping you with your grammar and punctuation. 

okay grammar nazi

[Yzermandius19]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, well let's just say it's public morality to tolerate other groups as established in our culture and legal precepts then.
2.  Ok that's interesting.  What are you thinking about here ?  What examples ?
3. Yes, Canada abhors hate speech don't you know ?  I don't know how I would prove it other than to show you polls that show Canadians are concerned about system racism curtailing hate speech and so on.

1. public morality isn't a thing

the public supporting something, doesn't make it moral

2. slavery used to be legal and slavery used to be popular

that didn't make it moral

3. popularity is not morality

legality is not morality

stop conflating them

if you can't come up with any other way to claim moral high ground

than popularity and legality, you have no moral high ground

 

if that is all you got, then you got nothing of relevance to support your position

either logically or morally

and yet want to restrict rights anyway

your feelings and opinion

do not supersede rights, morality and/or logic

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't think that you have shown the relationship between the existence of the groups and the laws, only that they exist in the same place.

But we can say that the hate speech laws have been useless to deter hate and racism in Europe.

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. If I were to use the approach you used above, I would say that Canada has more restrictive laws than the USA and less of a problem, therefore the laws are having an effect.  I don't know that 100% though, even if I lapse into saying it sometimes.

The US's problem with racism comes from their history, not their present. Ours, like that of the Western Europeans, comes from immigration.

 

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, we all do it all the time.

I don't ban anyone. 

[-TSS-]

In the Netherlands where they have a PR electoral system they elected 17 parties to their parliament. That's a bit overdoing PR. In other countries with PR they have thresholds between 3-5% to stop splinter-parties from entering parliament.

However, nobody can deny that the Netherlands is one of the best places to live in the world. Therefore the claims that changing the electoral system to be fairer would somehow lead to turmoil are rubbish.

[Army Guy]

7 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

A more realistic analogy is mandatory vaccines to go to a different country.  You’re forced to get these…. Except you don’t have to.  Sooo…. Is it really so bad?

Are you using the word for hyperbole or to try and make your case?

I can see this conversation is going places.... you have 2 choices available for you to freely choose... one get the needle and pray everything turns out well, nobody has stepped forward and said this vaccine is 100 % effective, or there are no side effects and they don't know of any long term problems So you take your chances. and i know this is hard to understand but some people are not comfortable with this choice for many reasons....But they are (forced) to decide between their health and their families health , or their jobs, education, providing for their family, being excepted by the herd... you have to make one or the other.... 

two, don't get the needle and your labeled as anti vaxer and a danger to the rest of us your quickly separated from the herd........ regardless of your reasons or concerns because the other side does not want to hear any of them....the consequences for this action are the government will take away some of your freedoms, and if you do not comply with these new consequences well you face the law and face the courts plus a lot of people are risking their jobs, risking in house higher education, risking everything like home, car, toys, and a rocky future on these choices....and very restricted freedom of movement, either way you eat shit...Now if this was the plague with a high mortality rate i would agree, roll up the sleeve your going to feel a pinch, or the slapping of handcuffs....but like most things today we make mountains out of mole hills...like climate change we have people running around saying the world is going to end tommorrow, that our generation has stole their future...., or it's perfectly fine to push the country into almost 400 bil in debt and going up every day for something a little more potent than the flu...    

[Yzermandius19]

3 hours ago, -TSS- said:

In the Netherlands where they have a PR electoral system they elected 17 parties to their parliament. That's a bit overdoing PR. In other countries with PR they have thresholds between 3-5% to stop splinter-parties from entering parliament.

However, nobody can deny that the Netherlands is one of the best places to live in the world. Therefore the claims that changing the electoral system to be fairer would somehow lead to turmoil are rubbish.

not rubbish

it would lead to more minorities governments and more elections

Canada has enough of those at is

PR sucks

FPTP is way better

especially in a parliamentary system

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. public morality isn't a thing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_morality#:~:text=Public morality refers to moral,to conduct in public places.

Public morality refers to moral and ethical standards enforced in a society, by law or police work or social pressure, and applied to public life, to the content of the media, and to conduct in public places. A famous remark of Mrs Patrick Campbell, that she did not care what people did as long as they "didn't frighten the horses" shows that in some sense even high tolerance expects a public limitation on behaviour

[Yzermandius19]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_morality#:~:text=Public morality refers to moral,to conduct in public places.

Public morality refers to moral and ethical standards enforced in a society, by law or police work or social pressure, and applied to public life, to the content of the media, and to conduct in public places. A famous remark of Mrs Patrick Campbell, that she did not care what people did as long as they "didn't frighten the horses" shows that in some sense even high tolerance expects a public limitation on behaviour

none of which is good excuse to restrict free speech rights

individual rights > "public morality"

negative rights > positive rights

fck that french revolution bullshit and the horse it rode in on

there is no right to not have to encounter being offended by someone's free speech

whether that speech is hate speech or not

nor should there be

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

none of which is good excuse to restrict free speech rights

individual rights > "public morality"

negative rights > positive rights

fck that french revolution bullshit and the horse it rode in on

The right to use hate speech infringes on the targeted groups rights, or do you not see that?  To quote the u.s., "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

The right to use hate speech infringes on the targeted groups rights, or do you not see that?  To quote the u.s., "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  

there is no infringements on their rights whatsoever

groups don't have rights

individuals have rights, regardless of what group they belong to

and there is no individual right to never be offended by someone else's speech, whether it is hateful or not

 

this is totally ridiculous grasping at straws to claim their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is imposed upon if someone offends them

that is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard, and that is saying something

next you'll be invoking "general welfare" to ban speech you don't like

what a clown show

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

59 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

there is no infringements on their rights whatsoever

groups don't have rights

individuals have rights, regardless of what group they belong to

and there is no individual right to never be offended by someone else's speech, whether it is hateful or not

 

this is totally ridiculous grasping at straws to claim their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is imposed upon if someone offends them

that is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard, and that is saying something

next you'll be invoking "general welfare" to ban speech you don't like

what a clown show

Lol groups have no rights eh?  I guess that whole women's movement was a crock then.  Better they stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant and leave all the important decisions like voting to us men.  

Hows life as a neanderthal going?  ?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. individual rights > "public morality"

2. fck that french revolution bullshit and the horse it rode in on

1. 2. You realize that you are making a moral argument here, but based on your personal morality ?

At this point, you are just saying "fck this, fck that" ... the courts ... the French revolution.  

[Yzermandius19]

37 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Lol groups have no rights eh?  I guess that whole women's movement was a crock then.  Better they stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant and leave all the important decisions like voting to us men.  

Hows life as a neanderthal going?  ?

women are individuals

they have the same rights as other individuals

they don't get extra rights for being chicks

same goes for other groups

one group should not have more rights than other groups

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

women are individuals

they have the same rights as other individuals

they don't get extra rights for being chicks

same goes for other groups

So you're saying its wrong to categorize people based on sexuality but its ok to categorize people based on religion and skin colour?  ?

No one is asking for any extra rights, the argument you were presenting was the right to hurl insults at people freely.  

[EastCanada90]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

none of which is good excuse to restrict free speech rights

individual rights > "public morality"

negative rights > positive rights

fck that french revolution bullshit and the horse it rode in on

there is no right to not have to encounter being offended by someone's free speech

whether that speech is hate speech or not

nor should there be

there is no room for hate speech in  free speech there just isn't

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

So you're saying its wrong to categorize people based on sexuality but its ok to categorize people based on religion and skin colour?  ?

No one is asking for any extra rights, the argument you were presenting was the right to hurl insults at people freely.  

invoking group rights as justification for restricting individual rights is asking for extra rights for some groups at the expense of more important rights for everyone 

you can be against something and yet not for it being banned

you can be for something and not for it being mandatory

smart people know this

dumb people don't

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, EastCanada90 said:

there is no room for hate speech in  free speech there just isn't

yes there is

offensive speech is free speech

no matter how many people are offended

free speech is a right, specifically to protect controversial speech

no wants to ban uncontroversial speech, so there is no need for a constitutional right to protect speech everyone likes

if you don't get that, you don't understand free speech at all

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

invoking group rights as justification for restricting individual rights is asking for extra rights for some groups at the expense of more important rights for everyone 

you can be against something and yet not be for it to be banned

you can be for something and not for it being mandatory

smart people know this

dumb people don't

Not just some groups, all groups.  All people.  I think the problem you have is that your not a member of a group that has that problem.  Ask my classmate in grade school what happened after he called my parents "wops".  

 

FYI wop is a derogatory term meaning without papers.  

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Not just some groups, all groups.  All people.  I think the problem you have is that your not a member of a group that has that problem.  Ask my classmate in grade school what happened after he called my parents "wops".  

 

FYI wop is a derogatory term meaning without papers.  

I'm Italian, I'm well aware

anyone can call me a wop anytime

whoop dee doo

I certainly don't want their free speech rights restricted to prevent that

I respect free speech

unlike some overly sensitive snowflakes who put their feelings above free speech

those who want to restrict free speech are committing a far worse offense than anyone using slurs

grow up

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[EastCanada90]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

yes there is

offensive speech is free speech

no matter how many people are offended

free speech is a right, specifically to protect controversial speech

no wants to ban uncontroversial speech, so there is no need for a constitutional right to protect speech everyone likes

if you don't get that, you don't understand free speech at all

 

lol hate speech is becoming a  thing  and it won't be tolerated for much longer.. you are  really sickening that you want to allow hate speech  .

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, EastCanada90 said:

 

lol hate speech is becoming a  thing  and it won't be tolerated for much longer.. you are  really sickening that you want to allow hate speech  .

you are really sickening that you want to restrict free speech for no good read

far more sickening than those who want to allow hate speech

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I'm Italian, I'm well aware

anyone can call me a wop anytime

whoop dee doo

I certainly don't want their free speech rights restricted to prevent that

I respect free speech

unlike some overly sensitive snowflakes who put their feelings above free speech

those who want to restrict free speech are committing a far worse offense than anyone using slurs

grow up

What purpose does having that freedom serve other than to offend and anger people?  

 

[EastCanada90]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you are really sickening that you want to restrict free speech for no good read

far more sickening than those who want to allow hate speech

you seriously think its okay for hate speech  that involves racism  ?   

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

What purpose does having that freedom serve other than to offend and anger people?  

to protect free speech from restriction just because some people are offended by the way other use the right

that sets a terrible precedent, the government cannot be trusted with that authority

they will use that to ban all sorts of speech that shouldn't be banned and often isn't even hate speech

just by claiming it is hate speech

and they already are doing that

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19