Why Canadians re-elected a Liberal government?

[TreeBeard]

57 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

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

Just so I am getting this straight…. They’re not forcing people, as in forcibly injecting.  But they are forcing people by making it more difficult for the unvaccinated to be indoors in groups.  It seems more coercive than forceful.

Is that fair?

[Yzermandius19]

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Just so I am getting this straight…. They’re not forcing people, as in forcibly injecting.  But they are forcing people by making it more difficult for the unvaccinated to be indoors in groups.  It seems more coercive than forceful.

Is that fair?

it is both

coercive af

distinction without a difference

is there a point to your semantics?

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[cougar]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

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.

OK, I think disagreeing with me on what "forced" is, actually shows you did not understand my point.

Here you go, you are faced with choices

1.  Agree that current government policies are forcing people to vaccinate

2.  Admit you do not understand what "forced" or "under duress"  mean.

I am not forcing you to say anything.?

Edited September 27, 2021 by cougar

[cougar]

17 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

They’re not forcing people, as in forcibly injecting.  But they are forcing people by making it more difficult for the unvaccinated to be indoors in groups.  It seems more coercive than forceful.

Is that fair?

If you have to face the possibility of losing your job in case you refuse vaccination, I have no idea what can be more forceful than that - throwing a bag over your head in the street to get the needle into you, or maybe kidnapping your kid, so you are given a "choice", as bcsapper likes to call it?

 

[TreeBeard]

50 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it is both

coercive af

distinction without a difference

is there a point to your semantics?

You think it’s semantics to distinguish between holding someone down and forcibly giving them a jab, versus not allowing them in a few public venues?

[Yzermandius19]

33 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You think it’s semantics to distinguish between holding someone down and forcibly giving them a jab, versus not allowing them in a few public venues?

when no one is claiming the former is what's happening

obviously

semantical strawman

 

you are playing semantics with the use of the word force

and even when it comes to semantics you are wrong

the definition of force is not limited to just extreme forms of force

if you only want to use the word in that context and demand others do the same

that's your problem, not theirs

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[betsy]

12 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Did you think O’Toole talking about “canceling Canada Day” was a scare tactic, or did you take that message seriously?

What exactly did he say?

How is that even comparable to scaring voters of dying like what's happening in Alberta?

Edited September 27, 2021 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

 Do we all?

 

Yes, we all do it all the time.

 

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

1. 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.

2.If there are any in Canada beyond the internet they consist of a half dozen guys bitching at each other in some barn somewhere.  

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

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.

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.

3. It would be probably be illegal in Canada.

[Yzermandius19]

27 minutes 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.

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.

3. It would be probably be illegal in Canada.

2) Canada has less of a problem than many countries with more hate speech restrictions than it does, as does America

Canada and America are examples of less hate speech restrictions resulting in less hate

if Canada had less hate speech restrictions it would be even less of a problem

if America had more hate speech restrictions it would be more of a problem

free speech reduces hate

the countries with the most free speech are the least hateful countries on earth

that is not a coincidence

the idea that too much free speech cannot be allowed

because more people will do and say hateful things, if that is the case

is proven totally inaccurate both today and historically

there is no evidence to suggest that is the case, and tons of evidence that suggests the opposite

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

52 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

 

1. free speech reduces hate

2. there is no evidence to suggest that is the case, and tons of evidence that suggests the opposite

1. I already explained that a causitive relationship is a problem to prove.

2. So you say.  But you just keep stating the conclusion.  It's not enough.

[Yzermandius19]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I already explained that a causitive relationship is a problem to prove.

2. So you say.  But you just keep stating the conclusion.  It's not enough.

it's better than any evidence you have on your side

meanwhile you want to restrict freedom of speech based on nothing but your whim and a hunch

as if that is enough to warrant restricting people's rights

you have a high bar to clear given the importance of free speech and you are nowhere near clearing it

and you still want to ban it despite that

the burden of proof is on you, since you are the one who wants to restrict rights, not on the people who don't want to restrict rights

you just default to wanting to strip rights away without a mountain of proof that it's a bad idea

I default to not wanting to strip away rights without a mountain of proof that it's a good idea

stripping rights is not something that should be done based on mere opinion and feelings

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it's better than any evidence you have on your side

meanwhile you want to restrict freedom of speech based on nothing but your whim and a hunch

as if that is enough to warrant restricting people's rights

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography.

 

I don't think Canada wants the same national values as the Germans during the 40's.  You could find that ideology in some parts of the southern u.s. 

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography.

 

I don't think Canada wants the same national values as the Germans during the 40's.  You could find that ideology in some parts of the southern u.s. 

I never said they were absolute

I said you need a good reason to restrict it

there is damn good reasons to restrict child porn

on the other hand

the justifications for banning hate speech suck

so if you want to restrict free speech, step your game up

the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict rights, not those who want to preserve them

as it should be

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. it's better than any evidence you have on your side

2. meanwhile you want to restrict freedom of speech based on nothing but your whim and a hunch

3. you have a high bar to clear given the importance of free speech  

4. the burden of proof is on you, since you are the one who wants to restrict rights, not on the people who don't want to restrict rights

 

1. I actually support this based on community morality, which means I'm in a different arena
2. No, read my posts again.
3. The 'free speech' claim is always context-dependent and claiming it's an absolute only works on rubes who are only familiar with the term and not its application.
4. I don't have to prove anything.  I am with the status-quo which is already in practice.  And I'm not making an evidentiary argument, just a moral one.

[Yzermandius19]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I actually support this based on community morality, which means I'm in a different arena
2. No, read my posts again.
3. The 'free speech' claim is always context-dependent and claiming it's an absolute only works on rubes who are only familiar with the term and not its application.
4. I don't have to prove anything.  I am with the status-quo which is already in practice.  And I'm not making an evidentiary argument, just a moral one.

1. supporting what is popular with the mob is not a moral argument

supporting individual rights against majoritarian mob tyranny is

individual rights > democracy

two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner

is not a moral position

3) never claimed free speech was an absolute

I claimed that the level of evidence needed to restrict it

is a very high bar indeed

4) if you want adequate justification for the status quo you support

then you do need proof

if you don't need that and want to infringe on people's rights anyway

then that is very far from a solid moral argument

 

you don't restrict something as important as free speech

with literally not a single good reason to do so

and plenty of good reasons not to

that is a supremely immoral position to take

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

your whole argument against hate speech is

1) the argument ad populum fallacy

by invoking that it is popular with the rubes

or

2) appeal to authority fallacy

by invoking that it is the legal status quo

and you alternate between these fallacies

to justify restricting hate speech

 

that is not a moral argument

and isn't a logical argument

popularity and legality

often have nothing to do with morality

and are often used to justify immoral positions

as you are doing now

 

slavery used to be legal and slavery used to be popular

that doesn't make arguments in favor of slavery when that was the case

the moral position to take

your argument sucks

so step up or step off

freedom hater

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

42 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I never said they were absolute

I said you need a good reason to restrict it

there is damn good reasons to restrict child porn

on the other hand

the justifications for banning hate speech suck

so if you want to restrict free speech, step your game up

the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict rights, not those who want to preserve them

as it should be

Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred—makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process.

 

Pretty sure that is usually easy to prove, what with cameras everywhere nowadays  

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred—makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process.

 

Pretty sure that is usually easy to prove, what with cameras everywhere nowadays  

inciting violence should be restricted

inciting hatred should not

it is not easy to prove that promoting hatred leads to incitement of violence

which is one of the many reasons

why the argument against banning hate speech sucks

no need to ban hate speech to ban incitement to violence, that's already covered without restricting free speech any further

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

inciting violence should be restricted

inciting hatred should not

it is not easy to prove that promoting hatred leads to incitement of violence

which is one of the many reasons

why the argument against banning hate speech sucks

I dare you to call the next black person  you see on the street a n******.  ?

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

I dare you to call the next black person  you see on the street a n******.  ?

that isn't inciting violence

that's free speech

free speech doesn't only include inoffensive and tasteful speech

it includes all kinds of impolite things one can say

banning speech based on that

is utterly moronic

Edited September 27, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[dialamah]

34 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I never said they were absolute

I said you need a good reason to restrict it

there is damn good reasons to restrict child porn

on the other hand

the justifications for banning hate speech suck

so if you want to restrict free speech, step your game up

 

as it should be

Canada already restricts what people can say.  According to the courts, one cannot, for example, use the words "filth," "propaganda" and "sodomy" when distributing anti-gay pamphlets because that constitutes hate speech.  The court has ruled that teaching anti-Semitism constitutes hate speech along with phoning people with hateful messages and writing racist and symbols on one's child and sending them out into the world. 

James Sears, who published "Your Ward News" was sentenced to a year in jail for the hate speech contained in his 'newspaper':  “It consistently blamed, demonized and maligned Jews. Women were represented as inferior, immoral and less than human. Physical and sexual violations against them were counselled and celebrated,” (the judge) said. “Mr. Sears, in his mid-fifties, promoted hate over a lengthy period of time to a vast audience in an era where online exposure to this material inexorably leads to extremism and the potential of mass casualties.”

Do you disagree with the outcome of these cases and the judge's comments?

Quote

the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict rights, not those who want to preserve them

There isn't any right to hate speech in Canada, consequently there is nothing for you to preserve.  I'd say you have to prove that the current laws in Canada are too limiting.  So far, you don't even seem to have an idea of what hate speech is, let alone presented a coherent argument as to why it should be unlimited.

 

[ironstone]

37 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

I dare you to call the next black person  you see on the street a n******.  ?

Context is important too. The N word is very offensive apparently but is very commonly used by black people, for example in rap music. You can't incite violence or promote hate...unless it's in rap music.?

Anti-White Rap Lyrics - American Renaissance (amren.com)

So if I have this right, there are limits on what we can say...but if it's done in the form of rap music we can say absolutely anything? I guess if you're an artist there are no limits. Confusing.

I'm certain no black rapper has ever or will ever be hauled in front of a HRC.

[Cannucklehead]

19 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Context is important too. The N word is very offensive apparently but is very commonly used by black people, for example in rap music. You can't incite violence or promote hate...unless it's in rap music.?

Anti-White Rap Lyrics - American Renaissance (amren.com)

So if I have this right, there are limits on what we can say...but if it's done in the form of rap music we can say absolutely anything? I guess if you're an artist there are no limits. Confusing.

I'm certain no black rapper has ever or will ever be hauled in front of a HRC.

That's just their way, as is many people about contextual situations.  For example I have a bro and sis.  We would joke around with each other and call each other names but if an outsider said that to one of us they'd better be fast on their feet.  

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1) never claimed free speech was an absolute

2) I claimed that the level of evidence needed to restrict it

3) if you want adequate justification for the status quo you support 
then you do need proof

4) you don't restrict something as important as free speech

5) that is a supremely immoral position to take

1) Ok, so this is one of those.  Free speech doesn't mean you get to scream "Jew" in a crowded Juden theatre.
2) Or... zero.  Or, it just bothers people.  Maybe, like Sunday shopping, or gay marriage or somesuch ... the "public" will be able to handle racists distributing material trying to brainwash them.  I will reassess my position constantly.
3) No I don't.  Don't believe me.  Why don't we BOTH do nothing and see what changes ?  I predict... nothing.  Nothing will change.
4) Free speech isn't absolute - see 1)
5) I appreciate that your mob says otherwise.  Your mob is smaller, though so you lose.

If the city can restrict me from expressing myself through my lawnmower at 6 AM then they can restrict an ugly retard handing my kids material saying the holocaust doesn't happen.  Want to change that ?  Get to court...