PM is distressed

[betsy]

Again i am not NOT asking anyone to tweak or modify any of our current freedoms.

Like not telling Western Standard that they should not print those cartoons because they are considered insulting by a group.

That Western Standard and the people who wanted to see those cartoons printed are rednecks because they don't want to give another inch by gaining the approval of this group.

TELL ME: WHY HAVEN'T YOU TOLD THIS GROUP, "YOU'VE GOT A CHOICE. DON'T READ THE WESTERN STANDARD!"

[betsy]

The root of the problem is that the radical muslims who represent a small portion of the muslim population have pissed all of us off, and now we are punishing or blaming all the muslim population for thier actions.

That is what i find wrong, that cartoon could have said every thing we wanted to say if it had depicted bin laden. But i guess i'm the only one that sees that.

No, we are not punishing all muslims! We are making a statement that intimidation, threats and violence should not succeed in suppressing a nation's freedom to practice the foundation in which this culture had been built on! If all Muslims living in this democratic country refuses to recognize the difference and insist that it is insulting to all of them...then that's just toooo bad! They'd just have to live and learn, like the rest of us from other minority groups...and adjust to these new way of life!

This cries of outrage from so-called moderates who had CHOSEN to live in a democratic society...and for them to threaten (as you've claimed)...does not make them "moderates" at all!

[Army Guy]

Argus:

No, there aren't, or you'd have posted them. I don't, frankly, know why you've even posted these.

So now you have a back ground in Law, impressive, And frankly i don't know why i posted them, perhaps i thought they had something to do with this topic, but with your background in law i guess not.

Yes, indeed, it is illegal to deliberately publish lies which damage people, and the hate laws do indeed make it mildly criminal to publish hate speech. I think that was acknowledged earlier

I think if you read them you'll find they are alittle more detailed than what you have describe.

Your argument still seems to be that because there are a very few restrictions on freedom of speech it's okay to impose more

I did not say, or imply that.

I know sufficient to make that judgement, yes, and to trust the judgement over others who have so pronounced

No, you think you know, there is a difference. and by judging by your statements your don't know squat.

Yes, quite true. Not many can meet my high standards. Only those who try.

For a person with high standards your not making a convincing argument, but then again niether am i.

Do you even know what the term means? Do you know its origins? Have you ever met any soldiers? Yeah, yeah, I know. You're Sergeant Rock and you've done ten tours of Afghanistan hunting terrorists in the hills.

yes, i'm aware of the what the term means, yes i know of it's orgins, and if the shoe fits then wear it. As for the Sgt Rock comment thanks i'll take that as a compliment. As for the 10 tours, sorry only one in Afgan.

If you really are a soldier you shouldn't need one.

No what this really means is you really don't know, and you can't find a link to back up your comments.

[Wilber]

It's unfortunate this thread seems to be changing from a debate on free speech to a critique of our military. I don't see a connection. Soldiers are entitled to opinions to, even when I don't agree with them.

[Argus]

It's unfortunate this thread seems to be changing from a debate on free speech to a critique of our military. I don't see a connection. Soldiers are entitled to opinions to, even when I don't agree with them.

Didn't say they weren't. But he's using his position as an (alleged) soldier to suggest a greater insight or right to critiquing this matter than others.

My point was that, let's face it, infantry soldiers are not know as the world's great thinkers.

Somewhat unfair, I admit, but fair in the context of his behaviour.

[Wilber]

"My point was that, let's face it, infantry soldiers are not know as the world's great thinkers."

But now you are stereotyping infantry soldiers which is what he is accusing people of doing to Muslims.

[geoffrey]

"My point was that, let's face it, infantry soldiers are not know as the world's great thinkers."

But now you are stereotyping infantry soldiers which is what he is accusing people of doing to Muslims.

You should have quoted and commented in context of the broader statements made by Argus. None the less...

They aren't 9 out of 10 the brightest people... nor are 9 out of 10 of the Canadians (or anyone actually) I've talked to either. In fact, there are very few intelligent people involved in anything... genius is at what percentile of the scale? 95th? 96th? The rest are just average.

I'm sure there is variety in the distribution between intelligent people in the forces and in society... but I know there are many bright soliders (doctors, techs, and some general infantry folks) that are very smart people.

[Argus]

"My point was that, let's face it, infantry soldiers are not know as the world's great thinkers."

But now you are stereotyping infantry soldiers which is what he is accusing people of doing to Muslims.

So? I stereotype groups of people all the time, most of us do. You just have to be careful not to believe that your stereotypical view of the group will always follow for individuals.

FTR my brother was in the infantry, and I had two uncles in the navy, while a third was an army MP. My father was in the air force and I was born on a military base and grew up moving from one to another. My first job as a teenager was in an officer's mess. I grew up, in other words, on stories, good and bad, of the military, not merely war stories, but inside stories of incompetent officers, undisciplined troops, and screwed up regulations and procedures. I have few illusions about the military. I respect the job it does, and the need for that job. I've consistently supported bigger budgets and think we need a lot more people overall and specifically in the combat arms (ie, the people who actually shoot at people). At the same time, you have to recognize that any military organization which has more HR clerks than it does soldiers is screwed up and needs a massive re-org.

[Argus]

"My point was that, let's face it, infantry soldiers are not know as the world's great thinkers."

But now you are stereotyping infantry soldiers which is what he is accusing people of doing to Muslims.

You should have quoted and commented in context of the broader statements made by Argus. None the less...

They aren't 9 out of 10 the brightest people... nor are 9 out of 10 of the Canadians (or anyone actually) I've talked to either. In fact, there are very few intelligent people involved in anything... genius is at what percentile of the scale? 95th? 96th? The rest are just average.

I'm sure there is variety in the distribution between intelligent people in the forces and in society... but I know there are many bright soliders (doctors, techs, and some general infantry folks) that are very smart people.

It's just common sense that when recruiters have someone who seems very bright and well-educated they guide him or her towards something more technical, like air traffic control or at technical or mechanical maintenance. The CF needs people who can rebuild helicopter engines as much as it needs guys who dig holes and carry guns. And almost anyone can do the latter. So if they get some big kid with little education who doesn't seem very bright well - it's combat arms for him!

Not saying all soldiers are uneducated and stupid by any means. Just saying that, by and large, well... they aren't Rhodes Scholars. As for sensitivity, urinating on each other for an initiation ceremony is not the mark of poets. And when some of them get together in bars it isn't to discuss the wholeness of the human spirit. They' re more apt to eat glass to show each other how tough they are, and then punch someone out.

[Wilber]

"My point was that, let's face it, infantry soldiers are not know as the world's great thinkers."

But now you are stereotyping infantry soldiers which is what he is accusing people of doing to Muslims.

You should have quoted and commented in context of the broader statements made by Argus. None the less...

They aren't 9 out of 10 the brightest people... nor are 9 out of 10 of the Canadians (or anyone actually) I've talked to either. In fact, there are very few intelligent people involved in anything... genius is at what percentile of the scale? 95th? 96th? The rest are just average.

I'm sure there is variety in the distribution between intelligent people in the forces and in society... but I know there are many bright soldiers (doctors, techs, and some general infantry folks) that are very smart people.

It's just common sense that when recruiters have someone who seems very bright and well-educated they guide him or her towards something more technical, like air traffic control or at technical or mechanical maintenance. The CF needs people who can rebuild helicopter engines as much as it needs guys who dig holes and carry guns. And almost anyone can do the latter. So if they get some big kid with little education who doesn't seem very bright well - it's combat arms for him!

Not saying all soldiers are uneducated and stupid by any means. Just saying that, by and large, well... they aren't Rhodes Scholars. As for sensitivity, urinating on each other for an initiation ceremony is not the mark of poets. And when some of them get together in bars it isn't to discuss the wholeness of the human spirit. They' re more apt to eat glass to show each other how tough they are, and then punch someone out.

The Simon Fraser University swim teams have been banned from going to the NAIA championships this year and they are the defending champions. Why? Because of an initiation ceremony that allegedly included sticking certain objects up certain backsides.

I've learned over the years that education is no guarantee against stupidity. Some of the dumbest things I have ever heard have come from so called well educated people. I have also learned to have a great deal of respect for someone who goes out of their way to do something well, regardless of how difficult or simple the task may seem. Even more so when it is something that I would not be willing to do myself, unless I had to. It is not an everyday occurrence and is a pleasure to see whenever it happens.

I find your condescending attitude toward the people who do your country's most dangerous and dirty work insulting. When my son was thinking about joining the military, you were the kind of person I was talking about when I advised him against it. There is little respect or support from this country for it's military unless they wind up in a body bag and then it's mostly lip service.

[Argus]

It's just common sense that when recruiters have someone who seems very bright and well-educated they guide him or her towards something more technical, like air traffic control or at technical or mechanical maintenance. The CF needs people who can rebuild helicopter engines as much as it needs guys who dig holes and carry guns. And almost anyone can do the latter. So if they get some big kid with little education who doesn't seem very bright well - it's combat arms for him!

Not saying all soldiers are uneducated and stupid by any means. Just saying that, by and large, well... they aren't Rhodes Scholars. As for sensitivity, urinating on each other for an initiation ceremony is not the mark of poets. And when some of them get together in bars it isn't to discuss the wholeness of the human spirit. They' re more apt to eat glass to show each other how tough they are, and then punch someone out.

The Simon Fraser University swim teams have been banned from going to the NAIA championships this year and they are the defending champions. Why? Because of an initiation ceremony that allegedly included sticking certain objects up certain backsides.

Yup. Jocks will be jocks, whether they carry guns or not.

I find your condescending attitude toward the people who do your country's most dangerous and dirty work insulting.

Don't get your panties in a knot. I have the same condescending attitude towards almost anyone under thirty, towards ivory tower intellectuals, towards bleeding heart liberals, towards animal rights activists, towards anti-porn campaigners, towards cigar chomping, hard-hat wearing gun lovers, towards born agains and chanting anti-abortionists and snivelling, self-centred college students. In fact, I'm pretty much condescending towards almost everyone.

When one is as magnificant a human being as I am, one finds few people able to meet ones high standards.

When my son was thinking about joining the military, you were the kind of person I was talking about when I advised him against it. There is little respect or support from this country for it's military unless they wind up in a body bag and then it's mostly lip service.

You're quite mistaken. I do support and respect the military. But for what they do. I don't, however, expect young infantry soldiers to be broad minded intellectuals who consider history or precedents before pronouncing on government policy. I'm sure a few are - a very few - but I think I'm safe with this one as a general rule.

And as I said above, one has to be careful about applying general rules to individuals. I'd judge your son on how he spoke and what he said, not on his uniform, whether he was an infantry grunt or a helicopter pilot.

[Wilber]

[quote name='Argus' date='Mar 4 2006, 06:21 PM' post='10

Yup. Jocks will be jocks, whether they carry guns or not.

You're quite mistaken. I do support and respect the military. But for what they do. I don't, however, expect young infantry soldiers to be broad minded intellectuals who consider history or precedents before pronouncing on government policy. I'm sure a few are - a very few - but I think I'm safe with this one as a general rule.

And as I said above, one has to be careful about applying general rules to individuals. I'd judge your son on how he spoke and what he said, not on his uniform, whether he was an infantry grunt or a helicopter pilot.

You say you support and respect the military because of what they do. Don't you think what they do has anything to do with who they are? Yes I respect them but I expect them to be stupid. Some respect.

Yup, Jocks will be jocks. I guess well educated jocks occupy the same niche as "infantry grunts".

My son was an honors student, captain of his high school rugby and wrestling teams, voted his school's top junior and senior jock and was class valedictorian at his graduation. Although he didn't decide on the military, he has always felt a desire to serve his community (God knows why) so he went about doing what it took to become a police officer instead. I am extremely proud of his uniform and would have been just as proud if he had decided to be an "infantry grunt". I didn't advise him not to go into the military because of the military but because of the attitude this country has toward its military. Yes he carries a gun too, as well as pepper spray, a TAZER and a shotgun in his car. Scary what?

Ah, broad minded intellectuals, whatever the hell that means. Actually it means the ability to justify just about anything. You say one has to be careful about applying general rules to individuals yet that is exactly what you do when you judge peoples opinions by what they do for a living. I don't agree with AG on the cartoons issue either but I could care less what he does for a living, whether he has a PhD or didn't complete high school. The same goes for you.

Read the first sentence of your above quote and then read the second. Don't you see any inconsistency there?

[Argus]

You're quite mistaken. I do support and respect the military. But for what they do. I don't, however, expect young infantry soldiers to be broad minded intellectuals who consider history or precedents before pronouncing on government policy. I'm sure a few are - a very few - but I think I'm safe with this one as a general rule.

And as I said above, one has to be careful about applying general rules to individuals. I'd judge your son on how he spoke and what he said, not on his uniform, whether he was an infantry grunt or a helicopter pilot.

You say you support and respect the military because of what they do. Don't you think what they do has anything to do with who they are? Yes I respect them but I expect them to be stupid. Some respect.

Yup, Jocks will be jocks. I guess well educated jocks occupy the same niche as "infantry grunts".

First of all, I would argue that recruits to a swim team are hardly likely to be well-educated. In fact, most university graduates are not well-educated. They're simply better educated than most high school graduates.

My son was an honors student,

What's that mean in this day and age? He can spell?

captain of his high school rugby and wrestling teams, voted his school's top junior and senior jock and was class valedictorian at his graduation. Although he didn't decide on the military, he has always felt a desire to serve his community (God knows why) so he went about doing what it took to become a police officer instead. I am extremely proud of his uniform and would have been just as proud if he had decided to be an "infantry grunt". I didn't advise him not to go into the military because of the military but because of the attitude this country has toward its military. Yes he carries a gun too, as well as pepper spray, a TAZER and a shotgun in his car. Scary what?

I don't find it scary. But I don't think people are any more likely to expect great philsophical insights from your average cop than they are from your average infantry soldier. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Ah, broad minded intellectuals, whatever the hell that means. Actually it means the ability to justify just about anything.

That would be a part of it, yes. Because justifying anything means being able to examine various sides, various arguments, and see the justification in the minds of those who take those positions. That is why an intellectual can construct a logical and coherent argument which runs counter to his or her own beliefs.

In main, with regard to the current discussion, it means the ability to analyse a given political action with respect to the many likely or possible consequences, both immediate and future. This requires some knowledge of history and a certain level of judgement based on experience, of course.

You say one has to be careful about applying general rules to individuals yet that is exactly what you do when you judge peoples opinions by what they do for a living.

Nope. I'm judging a group. If I meet a soldier I would not assume he carries a gun, and if I learned he did I would not assume he was ignorant or stupid or uneducated. As for the person I was talking with I judged him, or at least, his political opinions on how short-sighted I thought they were. They seemed entirely concerned with the safety of the current mission in Afghanistan. My concerns were larger.

I don't agree with AG on the cartoons issue either but I could care less what he does for a living, whether he has a PhD or didn't complete high school. The same goes for you.

I agree that his job is irrelevent, except that he kept introducing it into the discussion as a defence for his opinions and the opinions he attributed to other soldiers when he was accused of not caring about or being willing to sacrifice a basic Canadian freedom. To which the reasonably obvious retort was that he and they were not broad-minded, knowledgeable or educated enough to make the determination as to what was and was not a threat to our freedoms.

[Wilber]

The average new hire cop is in his early thirties. They must have at least two years of college and real life experience. Many have several years in such things as victims services or corrections before joining a police force. A large number of them have degrees and you would probably be surprised at how many have masters. Police forces actively encourage their personnel to upgrade their skills with time off to take courses and by providing tuition. Our police department usually has over a thousand applications of file and trains ten to fifteen new officers a year.

I put it to you that there are people in this society who believe protecting your ability to walk down the street safely and sleep soundly at night is something worth doing. The majority of your police and your military fit that description. Some join the military just to challenge themselves or like many young people, they haven't figured out what they want to do with their lives and chose the military as a worthwile alternative to taking a bunch of college courses they may never want to use. None of them do it because they can't get a real job.

Quote

"You're quite mistaken. I do support and respect the military. But for what they do. I don't, however, expect young infantry soldiers to be broad minded intellectuals who consider history or precedents before pronouncing on government policy. I'm sure a few are - a very few - but I think I'm safe with this one as a general rule.

And as I said above, one has to be careful about applying general rules to individuals. I'd judge your son on how he spoke and what he said, not on his uniform, whether he was an infantry grunt or a helicopter pilot."

"I don't find it scary. But I don't think people are any more likely to expect great philsophical insights from your average cop than they are from your average infantry soldier. So I'm not sure what your point is."

No contrtadiction here?

You don't judge groups? Give me a break, you are doing it all the time. Excuse me if I interpret your self styled superior intelligence as flat out arrogance.

[Montgomery Burns]

Good for the Western Standard brave enough to keep Canadians politically informed and not politically oppressed.

The Western Standard is a tabloid trying to exploit a controversy. The cartoons were available on the web - there is no reason to further aggravate the situation by printing the cartoons.

The violent reaction of the Muslims unacceptable and unjustifiable but that is how they reacted and we cannot pretend it did not happen. One does not deal with a rabid dog by poking it with a stick.

A tabloid is full of sensational material. That doesn't describe the Western Standard.

Why do you want to appease the Muslims in this istuation? The caricatures were relatively harmless, yet you are willing to forsake freedom of the press over some trivial cartoons. Wake up! Look at Islam's teachings. It's just like the appeasing of Hitler. Europe is a powderkeg and is going to explode soon.

The MSM has no problems publishing pics of Piss Christ and a dung-covered Mary but when it comes to relatively harmless cartoons, they won't show them to the public because they don't want to offend Islam.

They are cowards. Why don't they come right out and admit it? They fear for their lives if they publish those cartoons. The cartoonists are in hiding in Denmark. The MSM is quiet when it comes to showing support for all the imprisoned journalists in the ME--just like Hollywood is silent when it comes to the death of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.