Stop Bill 367

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Canada is creeping toward becoming a Communist state.

"The Liberal government’s proposed Bill C-63, the online harms act, is terrible law that will unduly impose restrictions on Canadians’ sacred Charter right to freedom of expression."

I chaired the Human Rights Tribunal. It has no business policing 'hate speech' (msn.com)

Totalitarian state.   They still want you to go out and strart businesses so they can tax them, so not quite communist  

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Canada is creeping toward becoming a Communist state.

"The Liberal government’s proposed Bill C-63, the online harms act, is terrible law that will unduly impose restrictions on Canadians’ sacred Charter right to freedom of expression."

I chaired the Human Rights Tribunal. It has no business policing 'hate speech' (msn.com)

It’s truly frightening what the Trudeau regime pushes to legislate.  Bill C-63 is the end of free speech.  Bill 376 is the end of freedom of religion.

Any view that someone dislikes can be viewed by some as hateful.

Really we need to get away from the idea of banning “hate speech”.  Speech isn’t violence.  Threatening violence isn’t okay and there are already laws to prevent that.

There are laws to protect children from online harm and revenge porn, but they must be enforced.

There are ways to prevent people from being targeted by verbal insults that don’t require speech bans, jail terms, and fines.  Employers and institutions have codes of conduct. 

Parents can prevent young kids from having cell phones or going online unsupervised.  So can schools.  

[ExFlyer]

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

I just did a search for Canadian bill C367 and it comes up right away.   Why can't you do that?  It is so simple.  It is a private member's bill, which may be why media doesn't bother much with it.

And will get nowhere except with the cons here LOL

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Before you write off entire media platforms because they aren’t the ones with which you grew up, ...
2. and before you play the game of worldly superiority by writing off content before viewing it because it has the word “Christian” in its title,
3. ... give a moment to considering your biases and ideological capture.
4. I keep waiting for some kind of breakthrough where you realize it’s no longer 1995. I suggest you take a risk and get out of your comfort zone.
5. Here’s some misinformation from a couple of dumb hacks. I wonder if you’ll see any value in it or if you’ll approach with the same pretence and miss an opportunity for growth.

 

1. I don't write off any platforms, I write off sources based on signifiers and markers.  You do this too.
2. Your perceptions are that I'm superior.  I don't think that.  Also I'm Christian so you're making yet another bad assumption.
3. I am very familiar with said biases and ideology, believe me.
4. I enjoy a lot of digital content, but it's named and has a body of work and reputation behind it.
5. I have spent countless hours on Peterson and he's not worth my time, except on a meta level ie. me analyzing his use of media, and how his audience and "the" public reacts to him.

This is all basic stuff, I don't understand why I have to explain this.

[Zeitgeist]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Totalitarian state.   They still want you to go out and strart businesses so they can tax them, so not quite communist  

That’s totalitarian capitalism, China style, except our system imposes a state LGBTQ religion and may soon euthanize children and the mentally ill who don’t have decision-making capacity (how can someone who is mentally ill?). Oh and don’t forget legal hard drugs.

Canada is removing freedoms and incentivizing bad health and self-destruction in unprecedented ways.

Edited March 13 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't write off any platforms, I write off sources based on signifiers and markers.  You do this too.
2. Your perceptions are that I'm superior.  I don't think that.  Also I'm Christian so you're making yet another bad assumption.
3. I am very familiar with said biases and ideology, believe me.
4. I enjoy a lot of digital content, but it's named and has a body of work and reputation behind it.
5. I have spent countless hours on Peterson and he's not worth my time, except on a meta level ie. me analyzing his use of media, and how his audience and "the" public reacts to him.

This is all basic stuff, I don't understand why I have to explain this.

So you didn’t watch the videos. Your comments on Peterson have weakened your position.

[Black Dog]

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s truly frightening what the Trudeau regime pushes to legislate.  Bill C-63 is the end of free speech.  Bill 376 is the end of freedom of religion.

Bill 376 isn't a Liberal bill.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Bill 376 isn't a Liberal bill.

Fair point.  It comes from the secular fascists in Quebec, but Trudeau often kowtows to the Bloc and Quebec.  

Edited March 13 by Zeitgeist

[blackbird]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. I have spent countless hours on Peterson and he's not worth my time, except on a meta level ie. me analyzing his use of media, and how his audience and "the" public reacts to him.

That's funny. 

Do you believe Socialism is evil?

What about wealth redistribution?  Is that wrong?

What about homosexuality?  What do you believe about that?

What do you believe about gender fluidity?

 

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. So you didn’t watch the videos.
2. Your comments on Peterson have weakened your position.

1. I didn't watch the video based on reasons I already gave.   I want to hear different points of view but not people who are exaggerating points out of the gate.  Why would you watch such things?
2. What ?  That I have watched hours of his material and gave up on him?  Please be aware that I was very very hopeful at the outset that he would be a much-needed voice in the rational void that is public dialogue.  He disappointed me very much.  By the time I had spent many hours on him, he started going from someone I didn't agree with to someone whose methods I didn't trust to charlatan to fraud to ... well, whatever he is now... a kind of Kermit-sounding calmish maniac and weirdo.  No, I don't have any interest in the content of his opinions at this point.

Do you only like things that agree with your already-formed opinions ?  I don't.

[blackbird]

14 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Bill 376 isn't a Liberal bill.

We know it is a private member's bill.  It came from a Bloq Quebecois member.

Still a very dangerous bill.

[blackbird]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also I'm Christian so you're making yet another bad assumption.

You need to explain yourself.  I see much of your comments as trying to be evasive and trying to ride both sides of the fence.  

What do you believe about homosexuality or gender change?

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We know it is a private member's bill.  It came from a Bloq Quebecois member.

Still a very dangerous bill.

It ties in directly with the onine harms bill and its part of the same general 'package'.  The libs seem poised to support it and it just removes that much more freedom of speech and gives rise to greater gov't abuse.

[Zeitgeist]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I didn't watch the video based on reasons I already gave.   I want to hear different points of view but not people who are exaggerating points out of the gate.  Why would you watch such things?
2. What ?  That I have watched hours of his material and gave up on him?  Please be aware that I was very very hopeful at the outset that he would be a much-needed voice in the rational void that is public dialogue.  He disappointed me very much.  By the time I had spent many hours on him, he started going from someone I didn't agree with to someone whose methods I didn't trust to charlatan to fraud to ... well, whatever he is now... a kind of Kermit-sounding calmish maniac and weirdo.  No, I don't have any interest in the content of his opinions at this point.

Do you only like things that agree with your already-formed opinions ?  I don't.

I read and consider opposing views.  When you comment on something you haven’t read or viewed, you lose credibility.

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You need to explain yourself.  I see much of your comments as trying to be evasive and trying to ride both sides of the fence.  

What do you believe about homosexuality or gender change?

Hardner is Christian the way that Trudeau is black.  

[Michael Hardner]

The number of posts I have seen on Facebook calling this a Trudeau bill...

[Black Dog]

The idea that this bill would mean people could be arrested for quoting the Bible is absurd. There's a difference between saying, for example, "the Bible forbids homosexuality" and saying "we should murder homosexuals because that's what the Bible tells us to do".

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. I read and consider opposing views.  When you comment on something you haven’t read or viewed, you lose credibility.

2. Hardner is Christian the way that Trudeau is black.  

1. I don't have to look at every single thing.  I can comment on the Meta level as in "why is this source part of the dialogue".  It's not my issue if you don't understand the importance of the public sphere.
2. You can refer to me directly, I'm right here.  Yes, I'm Christian and your refusal to accept that says a lot more than my willing to watch an offshore video that drums up fake outrage about a foreign country.

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

The idea that this bill would mean people could be arrested for quoting the Bible is absurd. There's a difference between saying, for example, "the Bible forbids homosexuality" and saying "we should murder homosexuals because that's what the Bible tells us to do".

We already had a ruling here from HRC that admonished/sanctioned someone from quoting Levicitus (and Leviticus only) in flyers so banning the bible is nothing new...

But this fat American guy in a video is worried so let's post that here and wring our hands in anxiety everyone...

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

The idea that this bill would mean people could be arrested for quoting the Bible is absurd. There's a difference between saying, for example, "the Bible forbids homosexuality" and saying "we should murder homosexuals because that's what the Bible tells us to do".

Not by much. Many argue one implies the other.  It has LONG been argued that it is hate speech to say that the bible disapproves of one group or another and frankly there's a long history of crusades and religious wars to suggest that's probably not inaccurate entirely.

And any intelligent man with any sense of history knows you judge a law's value not by how well it might be used but how badly it could be misused.

Which is why i have to explain it to you  

[Zeitgeist]

47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't have to look at every single thing.  I can comment on the Meta level as in "why is this source part of the dialogue".  It's not my issue if you don't understand the importance of the public sphere.
2. You can refer to me directly, I'm right here.  Yes, I'm Christian and your refusal to accept that says a lot more than my willing to watch an offshore video that drums up fake outrage about a foreign country.

We already had a ruling here from HRC that admonished/sanctioned someone from quoting Levicitus (and Leviticus only) in flyers so banning the bible is nothing new...

But this fat American guy in a video is worried so let's post that here and wring our hands in anxiety everyone...

Deflection. You sound worse than when you started. What does “fat American guy” have to do with ideas, or is your stereotyping and prejudice so deep that you can’t smell your own farts? I no longer accept your self-descriptions of Christian or conservative because much of what you say is counter to any definitions I’ve seen of either attribute.

Edited March 13 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. What does “fat American guy” have to do with ideas, or is your stereotyping and prejudice so deep that you can’t smell your own farts?

2. I no longer accept your self-descriptions of Christian or conservative because much of what you say is counter to any definitions I’ve seen of either attribute.

1.  At a certain point of over explaining myself I get sarcastic.  How about "American guy" ?  Does that work better ?  
2. How so ?  Because I get sarcastic sometimes ?  Oh well... I can't think of why I wouldn't be seen as either.  

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

My point is clear but I’ll rephrase it: Before you write off entire media platforms because they aren’t the ones with which you grew up, and before you play the game of worldly superiority by writing off content before viewing it because it has the word “Christian” in its title, give a moment to considering your biases and ideological capture. I keep waiting for some kind of breakthrough where you realize it’s no longer 1995. I suggest you take a risk and get out of your comfort zone. Here’s some misinformation from a couple of dumb hacks. I wonder if you’ll see any value in it or if you’ll approach with the same pretence and miss an opportunity for growth.

 

I was just watching that video before you posted it

frankly, I've never paid any attention to Dr. Phil McGraw before

but after he went on Joe Rogan

then with Dr. Peterson interviewing him here

I have become a huge Dr. Phil fan

faith, family & freedom counterrevolution ftw

[Black Dog]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not by much. Many argue one implies the other.  It has LONG been argued that it is hate speech to say that the bible disapproves of one group or another and frankly there's a long history of crusades and religious wars to suggest that's probably not inaccurate entirely.

And any intelligent man with any sense of history knows you judge a law's value not by how well it might be used but how badly it could be misused.

Which is why i have to explain it to you  

More gibberish from our resident gibbon.

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

We know it is a private member's bill.  It came from a Bloq Quebecois member.

Still a very dangerous bill.

It is not a bill. It is just private members paper...nothing will become of it.

What panic artists here..LOL

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

More gibberish from our resident gibbon.

ROFLMAO - so that's your way of saying you were wrong and i was right but you're not happy about it i guess  

[Black Dog]

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO - so that's your way of saying you were wrong and i was right but you're not happy about it i guess  

No it's my way of saying your an illiterate baboon.

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

God bless counterrevolution in the face of Marxist Leninist traitors to the Crown

for Victoria, Queen & Empress

a solemn oath taken with hand on the King James Bible before the Nazarene Himself

beneath the laid up colours at Saint Andrew's Presbyterian Church

Sic itur ad astra

 

Hey man check this out.