Jump to content

Why Canadians re-elected a Liberal government?


CITIZEN_2015

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. And yet here we are.  I'm comfortable with it, in any case.
2. Says you.  Tyranny of the masses is a fact of life, maybe you just can't see it. 

constitutional rights supercede the whims of the masses and regardless of what you are comfortable with

no one cares what you are comfortable with or the masses are comfortable with

it isn't your call and it's not the masses call either

y'all ain't the arbiters of free speech

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

So then only some lies are free speech.  Some lies should be illegal, according to what you just said.

What about inciting violence?  Just free speech?

inciting violence isn't allowed and shouldn't be

speaking ill of a group of people or a person because of their group affiliation

isn't inciting violence though

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Then I'd say you support hate speech.  And yes, I think hate speech should be proscribed.  The government agrees with me, although we may differ on where and what constitutes hate speech.  

But what you seem to be doing then, is setting yourself up as arbiter.  Everything you say is okay should be allowed, and everything you say is not okay should not be allowed. 

 

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I agree they should be able to say that, and give rational reasons why not.  What I don't agree they should be able to promote is the idea that immigrants from certain areas of the world are lazy, inclined to crime, not fit for our society.  That, to me, is hate speech.  It targets a certain group of people, it lies about those people as a group, and it supports the idea that they immoral, evil and unworthy.    

I don't know what the difference between promote the idea and express the view would be, but I definitely think people ought to be able to say those things if they want. I would disagree with many of them, but so what?

 

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I've said this to you before, and I'll say it again:  If you deny that words can sway or influence people in certain directions (good or bad), then you have no clue about how and why humans communicate.

I didn't deny it.  I asked how one could possibly know what the effect of one's words would be, and how much such effect is the reponsibility of the speaker.  I would say a person's actions are their responsibility, and no-one who did not deliberately incite such action is responsible.

 

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Sure you can say that.  Promoting the idea that such people are delusional, predators, pedophiles, immoral, evil and unacceptable is different, imo.  

Saying some of those terms are just expressing an opinion.  Saying others is accusing them of a crime.  There is a difference there.  I agree that anyone who falsely accuses someone of a crime should not have that speech protected.  That said, it would have to be directed at someone in particular.  Just expressing the opinion that you think a certain group of people are a predators or pedophiles would not be enough for sanction.

 

 

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Your opinion differs from the law, and mine.  Abusive language directed toward a group creates hatred for that group.  

My opinion often differs from the law.  I think that, while "abusive" can have a physical component, the law probably refers to the term generally defined as being "extremely offensive and insulting".  Whilst I would never be extremely offensive and insulting towards anyone, I support the right of others to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, cougar said:

You mean physical force?  No.

But yes, people are forced to vaccinate.

No, they are not.

You obviously think that being given a choice you would find very difficult to make is the same as being forced, but it is not.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, they are not.

You obviously think that being given a choice you would find very difficult to make is the same as being forced, but it is not.

The "choice" ???

Like in the Count of Monte Christo, a choice was given to Danglar - pay $1,000,000 for your chicken meal or die of hunger.  This type of choice?

No, this was not a choice; it was forcing Danglar to pay up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. constitutional rights supercede the whims of the masses and regardless of what you are comfortable with

2. it isn't your call and it's not the masses call either

1. Ok.  Well, go ahead and challenge... I'll be sure to read about the ruling when it comes.
2. Ok then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

some people have to pay money

if they serve a customer who isn't vaccinated

that's force

You mean a fine for not checking the vaccination status?  Like they’d be fined if they didn’t check a minor for ID to buy booze?

Do you think most people would use the term “force” in that way?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, cougar said:

The "choice" ???

Like in the Count of Monte Christo, a choice was given to Danglar - pay $1,000,000 for your chicken meal or die of hunger.  This type of choice?

No, this was not a choice; it was forcing Danglar to pay up.

 

I must admit, I had to show proof of vaccination to get my chicken meal last week. 

But, I could have gone to a drive through and got a burger.  Were there no drive throughs in The Count of Monte Christo?

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Libertarians will tell you taxes are an implicit threat of violence.  So that 13 cents tax on the Crispy Crunch is akin to being slashed in the face, basically.  

I always thought I was Libertarian.  Pro-choice, gay marriage, freedom of speech, assisted suicide, that kind of thing. 

I never minded taxes.  In fact, I would like Alberta to establish a sales tax.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

But, I could have gone to a drive through and got a burger.  Were there no drive throughs in The Count of Monte Christo?

Maybe you should have gone through the drive through a few times, over and over, to hopefully understand the point I make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cougar said:

Maybe you should have gone through the drive through a few times, over and over, to hopefully understand the point I make.

A million dollars is a lot of happy meals.  I might have run out of gas.

I fully understand the point you are trying to make.  I disagree with you, is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Is it useful to have a discussion where people are using different meanings of the same word?

What would you call it, 

they are giving you a choice do it or else, well not much of a choice really they are telling you, it is the law, and if you disobey the law you will face consequences. and you will be "forced" to carry out those consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

What would you call it, 

they are giving you a choice do it or else, well not much of a choice really they are telling you, it is the law, and if you disobey the law you will face consequences. and you will be "forced" to carry out those consequences.

Can you refuse the vaccine?

If so, then no one is forced, so I wouldn’t use that word. 

It’s like saying people are “forced” to get a licence to drive on public roads….  I suppose, in the loosest sense of the word, that it’s true.  But no one has to get a licence.

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Can you refuse the vaccine?

If so, then no one is forced, so I wouldn’t use that word. 

It’s like saying people are “forced” to get a licence to drive on public roads….  I suppose, in the loosest sense of the word, that it’s true.  But no one has to get a licence.

Yes you can but once again there are consequences, where they narrow the field for you, do it or this will happen, you'll only be able to go to the places deem essential no where else...you want to have complete freedom of movement then you are forced to get a shot...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes you can but once again there are consequences, where they narrow the field for you, do it or this will happen, you'll only be able to go to the places deem essential no where else...you want to have complete freedom of movement then you are forced to get a shot...

 

So they’re forced to get the vaccine in the same way people are forced to get a licence, insurance and keep their car maintained if they want to drive on public roads.  

Doesn’t sound so bad…. Sounds cheaper and easier than getting a licence!

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, I'm banning it because it is useless and ugly.  Did the Quebec City Mosque shooter like the anti-Muslim content for its interesting analytical content ?  Maybe.  Anyways.

Do I get to ban stuff I think is useless and ugly and incites people to do nasty stuff? Do we all?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

ok, a hunch then.  Got it.

Well, there's this. In Western Europe, which has had many hate speech laws far and away more restrictive than ours for decades there are actual huge racist organizations, even political parties. If there are any in Canada beyond the internet they consist of a half dozen guys bitching at each other in some barn somewhere. I mean the British National Party has been able to elect members of the European parliament, as well as various local officials. Other large racist organizations participate in elections in Europe, too, and often elect people. Marie Le Pen could win the next election in France.

You think the KKK could openly run candidates and get elected in Canada or even the US?

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Is it useful to have a discussion where people are using different meanings of the same word?

update your definition of force to the actual definition

and stop chastising others for using the actual definition

instead of your arbitrary definition of force that only includes a particular kind of a force

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...