Why Canadians re-elected a Liberal government?

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, EastCanada90 said:

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

it's not okay

but it should be legal

not everything that isn't okay has to be banned

especially when what you want to ban is protected by a right as important as free speech

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[EastCanada90]

8 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it's not okay

but it should be legal

not everything that isn't okay has to be banned

especially when what you want to ban is protected by a right as important as free speech

 

wow lol hate speech that is racism should be Legal ... LOL. okay dude nothing you say on here can be taken seriously anymore.

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, EastCanada90 said:

 

wow lol hate speech that is racism should be Legal ... LOL. okay dude nothing you say on here can be taken seriously anymore.

I never take anything you say seriously

because you are unable to raise your reasoning above a kindergarten level

it's like talking with a five year old

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[EastCanada90]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

I never take anything you say seriously

because you are unable to raise your reasoning above a kindergarten level

you can't go up to people spewing racism infront of them and insulting there culture/race and proclaim free speech..   grow up lol

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, EastCanada90 said:

you can't go up to people spewing racism infront of them and insulting there culture/race and proclaim free speech..   grow up lol

I don't do that to people 

but others should be free to do so

I can claim free speech all I like

just watch me

 

[EastCanada90]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I don't do that to people 

but others should be free to do so

I can claim free speech all I like

just watch me

 

 

 

disgusting that you think people should be allowed to do that.  nothing but a troll. no wonder  your ppc  only got 5% of vote with supporters like you

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, EastCanada90 said:

 

disgusting that you think people should be allowed to do that.  nothing but a troll. no wonder  your ppc  only got 5% of vote with supporters like you

cry me a river

freedom hater

[EastCanada90]

29 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

cry me a river

freedom hater

yes i am fighting for  no racism.. you are fighting to allow people to say it if they want.. wake up jesus.

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, EastCanada90 said:

yes i am fighting for  no racism.. you are fighting to allow people to say it if they want.. wake up jesus.

like I say kindergarten

banning hate speech doesn't end racism

it emboldens racists and gives them the moral high ground on the free speech banners

it's like you are trying to make racism cool

and you are attacking me for thinking that's a bad idea?

sad

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

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

And yet already they do it.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

 

Should we allow child porn and threats on the president too then?  

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Should we allow child porn and threats on the president too then?  

no

those are different

America doesn't have stupid hate speech laws for a reason

but child porn and threats of violence are illegal for obvious reasons

apples to oranges

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

 America doesn't have stupid hate speech laws for a reason

Your arguments are increasingly dependent on your personal views only "fck the courts" "we don't need common law" "hate speech laws = stupid"

[Yzermandius19]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your arguments are increasingly dependent on your personal views only "fck the courts" "we don't need common law" "hate speech laws = stupid"

your arguments are dependent on logical fallacies

I already made multiple arguments

that are better than anything you have offered yet

by several orders of magnitude

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. your arguments are dependent on logical fallacies, I already made multiple arguments

2. that are better than anything you have offered yet by several orders of magnitude

1. I'm arguing public morality, you are arguing what you think is ok.  ie. 'fck the courts'
2. ok then

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm arguing public morality, you are arguing what you think is ok.  ie. 'fck the courts'
2. ok then

I am arguing in favor constitutional rights

the morality of those rights

and why banning hate speech it is a bad idea, if your goal is to reduce hate, because it increases hate

 

you are arguing that popularity makes morality, argument ad populum fallacy

you are arguing that legality makes morality. appeal to authority fallacy

you're getting blown out of the water

Edited September 28, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

 you're getting blown out of the water

Alright, enough of this.  Fck the French Revolution.  I accept that I'm getting blown out of the water, mea culpa; let's you and I get back in the swimming pool then and drop it for now.
 

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Alright, enough of this.  Fck the French Revolution.  I accept that I'm getting blown out of the water, mea culpa; let's you and I get back in the swimming pool then and drop it for now.

fair enough

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

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

We already have this freedom, and i bet everyone has used it atleast once today, be it joking with family or friends, or when someone cuts you off, or does something else just as stupid that is hurl an insult...... The problem here is once we start restricting free speech, where does it stop. and who is deciding what is free speech ?

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

and who is deciding what is free speech ?

God?

[Argus]

21 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.

The Netherlands is a small country wrapped in the protective economic and military embrace of the EU. Things might go differently for other countries trying the same system.

 

[Cannucklehead]

17 hours ago, Army Guy said:

We already have this freedom, and i bet everyone has used it atleast once today, be it joking with family or friends, or when someone cuts you off, or does something else just as stupid that is hurl an insult...... The problem here is once we start restricting free speech, where does it stop. and who is deciding what is free speech ?

Not necessarily.  In Canada the criminal code has penalties for hate speech.  In the u.s. you just get sued.  

https://www.genolaw.com/nuisance-vs-free-speech-citizen-vs-protester/

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Cannucklehead said:

Not necessarily.  In Canada the criminal code has penalties for hate speech.  In the u.s. you just get sued.  

https://www.genolaw.com/nuisance-vs-free-speech-citizen-vs-protester/

 

 

Sure but these are apples and oranges comparisons anyway.  The case you cite is about competing rights of expression, on a disturbing the peace angle.  In Canada, somebody standing on a street corner quietly denying the holocaust could conceivably be charged and hauled off.

[Yzermandius19]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

In Canada, somebody standing on a street corner quietly denying the holocaust could conceivably be charged and hauled off.

barbaric af

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

barbaric af

"Jews didn't die... they are evil and deserving of extermination... the Nazis were right !" not barbaric ? Ok then... 

[Zeitgeist]

Facts substantiated by accredited research should speak for themselves.  Where we have to be careful is when those claiming to speak truth are merely expressing opinion.  I think that the problem with laws against opinions, even offensive ones, is that they’re an attempt to control people’s thoughts, which is more dangerous than any opinion.  Opinions can be exposed as such through the presentation of facts.  Some opinions may be more compelling than others, which is fine.  Let open dialogue with facts and opinions flow freely.  Consensus will form around the most sensible opinions when open dialogue is allowed.  When it isn’t, we get a warped sense of reality.  Essentially we get manipulated.  What person or committee gets to decide what opinions people should hold?   That’s the essence of totalitarianism.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Zeitgeist