Where do we draw the "tolerance line"?

[sharkman]

Photo enforcement should take care of that for you.

Uh, no. See you've done it again. In B.C. photo radar is banned. You were just making assumptions I suppose.

It seems my slippery slope comments struck home with you. Anytime you need some conservative viewpoints explained, I'd be happy to help.

[stignasty]

x None of the above because stereotyping all individuals of a group is never appropriate.

[BubberMiley]

It seems my slippery slope comments struck home with you. Anytime you need some conservative viewpoints explained, I'd be happy to help.

No, they didn't stike home. Maybe I'm just too stoned to understand what your point was. Are you saying there shouldn't be speed limits because they cost too much to enforce and we go down the slippery slope to rampant disregard for driving at a safe speed? Gee, rather than demonstrating why slippery-slope arguments make sense, you've provided a perfect example of why they're so stupid. But I guess you wouldn't have caught that, would you?

[Drea]

Do all your posts start out "What about Liberal...?"

Yeah, all slippery-slope arguments are stupid and based on the premise that we can't make a rational decision now because, if we do, we will never be able to make a rational decision again. Conservatives use them more often because stupid people.--pardon me, their base--fall for it every time.

Same-sex marriage, stem cell research, marijuana decriminalization--you name it.

What an arrogant ass.

I am so sick of the Liberal assertion that everyone who doesn't support their point of view is stupid, bigotted, racist, etc ...

I am so sick of the NEO-CONservative assertion that everyone who doesn't support their point of vew is

a.) on the far left

b.) immoral

c.) hedonistic

d.) hates the freedom of the west

e.) love and cheer for terrorists

f.) the women are dikes and the men are pussies

Also this "slippery slope thang"...

SSM -- someday some guy will get to marry his dog!

Decrim marijuana -- all the kids in school will be high by first period!

Stem cell research -- we're going to be getting women pregnant and harvesting their fetuses!

[GostHacked]

x None of the above because stereotyping all individuals of a group is never appropriate.

I think this poll is quite retarded imho.

[BubberMiley]

In B.C. photo radar is banned.

Really? That would be cool. But it does work. Since we got it in Wpg, there's barely a yahoo left on the road. It's too efficient and, therefore, prohibitively expensive to speed.

[betsy]

It's interesting to note that our Canadian media supported the Muslim position in that they(media) refused to print the cartoons, even though the media is rapidly pro-everything gay. I suspect if a gay person gets attacked by Muslims in Canada, the gloves will come off, and Muslims will be portrayed as christians now are. And in all of this the sad thing is, actual news reporting takes a back seat to the media agenda.

If a gay gets attacked by muslims in canada, somehow the blame will end up squarely on Christians' laps.

[uOttawaMan]

It's interesting to note that our Canadian media supported the Muslim position in that they(media) refused to print the cartoons, even though the media is rapidly pro-everything gay. I suspect if a gay person gets attacked by Muslims in Canada, the gloves will come off, and Muslims will be portrayed as christians now are. And in all of this the sad thing is, actual news reporting takes a back seat to the media agenda.

If a gay gets attacked by muslims in canada, somehow the blame will end up squarely on Christians' laps.

Something to do with that whole turn the other cheek deal. Unless of course they are discussing gays, then they'd rather not hear anything about cheeks.

At any rate, for lack of a better term in this thread, I think flame on applies.

[JerrySeinfeld]

wrong - exposition of the problem with tolerance thread

So you're saying that tolerance is just a slippery slope, and that once you start being tolerant to one thing, it just snowballs until you are overwhelmed with conflicting tolerances? I'm starting a collection of conservative slippery-slope arguments and that one tops the list.

Funny - i'm starting a collection of lefty straw-man fallacies and that will be near the top.

In other words, i'm not drawing a slippery slope. There is no slope to slip down - this is a real and living thing right now in our world - not a prediction of future issues.

But you're gith on one thing: we do seem to have conflicting tolerances don't we on this issue?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Do all your posts start out "What about Liberal...?"

Yeah, all slippery-slope arguments are stupid and based on the premise that we can't make a rational decision now because, if we do, we will never be able to make a rational decision again. Conservatives use them more often because stupid people.--pardon me, their base--fall for it every time.

Same-sex marriage, stem cell research, marijuana decriminalization--you name it.

Or privatization of health care...free trade with the US, signing the missile defense deal...global warming...you name it!

HAHA - lefties LOVE the slippery slope - they've based most of their opinions on it. Problem is, history keeps proving them wrong.

[uOttawaMan]

Do all your posts start out "What about Liberal...?"

Yeah, all slippery-slope arguments are stupid and based on the premise that we can't make a rational decision now because, if we do, we will never be able to make a rational decision again. Conservatives use them more often because stupid people.--pardon me, their base--fall for it every time.

Same-sex marriage, stem cell research, marijuana decriminalization--you name it.

Or privatization of health care...free trade with the US, signing the missile defense deal...global warming...you name it!

HAHA - lefties LOVE the slippery slope - they've based most of their opinions on it. Problem is, history keeps proving them wrong.

Isn't that in itself a slippery slope?

[tml12]

Hehehe...a real conundrum for lefties...

I chose the latter option but in all seriousness it is also a conundrum for right-wing guys too.

I am no fan of "PC" and I support all Muslims and gays who live in this country call themselves "Canadian" before they ask for a special label.

[Spike22]

Hehehe...a real conundrum for lefties...

I chose the latter option but in all seriousness it is also a conundrum for right-wing guys too.

I am no fan of "PC" and I support all Muslims and gays who live in this country call themselves "Canadian" before they ask for a special label.

They should all be labelled as FREAKS!

[BubberMiley]

Or privatization of health care...free trade with the US, signing the missile defense deal...global warming...you name it!

HAHA - lefties LOVE the slippery slope - they've based most of their opinions on it. Problem is, history keeps proving them wrong.

None of these are good examples of a slippery-slope argument, at least how I defined it as a rational decision being made that trumps any further rational decisions. Free trade was no slippery slope; it was more like dropping off a cliff. Once the deal was signed, that was it. There was no gradual erosion of our sovereignty; we gave it up right then and there.

Missile defence is exactly the same thing.

Arguments against privatizing health care have been irrationally slippery-slope at times, but most of them are just based on ideology: Do we want a two-tier system or not?

And global warming isn't a slippery slope. It's more like a provable scientific fact.

Try again.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Or privatization of health care...free trade with the US, signing the missile defense deal...global warming...you name it!

HAHA - lefties LOVE the slippery slope - they've based most of their opinions on it. Problem is, history keeps proving them wrong.

None of these are good examples of a slippery-slope argument, at least how I defined it as a rational decision being made that trumps any further rational decisions. Free trade was no slippery slope; it was more like dropping off a cliff. Once the deal was signed, that was it. There was no gradual erosion of our sovereignty; we gave it up right then and there.

Missile defence is exactly the same thing.

Arguments against privatizing health care have been irrationally slippery-slope at times, but most of them are just based on ideology: Do we want a two-tier system or not?

And global warming isn't a slippery slope. It's more like a provable scientific fact.

Try again.

The fact is the world has trended warmer in recent years. What's not proven is why. Collectively the world's scientists in the 1970's were convinced we were headed for the next ice age. None of these predicted disasters and calamities ever comes to pass. Hence: slippery slope.

We already have a two tier system. The slippery slope argument that things will become "americanized" is used ALL THE TIME by lefties.

Gave up our sovereignty with the FTA? You lost all of your credibility right there. And FYI, lefties back before we signed, were all running around warning how we were about to become the 51st state, that this was the beginning of the end for Medicare etc. BIG TIME slippery slope.

[Hicksey]

Some of the debates around here lately just make me laugh.

We're having a debate over who likes the slippery slope the most?

Well here's the biggest two ...

Lefties keep telling us that all this privatization is going to lead to US type health care system. I'd say this qualifies.

Right-wingers keep warning the lefties that the legalizing of gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy and any perversion you can imagine. This qualifies too.

I'd say both sides just love it.

[BubberMiley]

The thing with free trade is it had a slippery slope built into the agreement. Once something is privatized, it's privatized for good, and corporations can sue the government if they feel they're interfering in that privatization. And if that isn't giving up sovereignty, what is?

[geoffrey]

The thing with free trade is it had a slippery slope built into the agreement. Once something is privatized, it's privatized for good, and corporations can sue the government if they feel they're interfering in that privatization. And if that isn't giving up sovereignty, what is?

Trudeau nationalised the oil industry remember. It's not once its gone, its gone for good with the privatization issue.

I don't understand how you defend sovereignty as government control over every aspect of the economy. Free trade is meant to give a level playing field (regulation-wise) for all players so that all nations can benifet on true comparitive advantage.

[BubberMiley]

Trudeau nationalised the oil industry remember. It's not once its gone, its gone for good with the privatization issue.

Trudeau nationalized the oil industry about 10 years before free trade was implemented. Canada doesn't have the power to do that anymore.

Government represents the people, and if you give corporations the ability to direct policy instead of the people, you have given up sovereignty.

[geoffrey]

Trudeau nationalised the oil industry remember. It's not once its gone, its gone for good with the privatization issue.

Trudeau nationalized the oil industry about 10 years before free trade was implemented. Canada doesn't have the power to do that anymore.

Government represents the people, and if you give corporations the ability to direct policy instead of the people, you have given up sovereignty.

Why can't corporations represent the people? I take that back...

We still do have the power, we can revoke free-trade if needed. You haven't given up sovereignty either, you've given up democracy. Canada would still be Canada in the sovereignty sense of the world.

The biggest question is why would you want to nationalise any industry?

[BubberMiley]

The biggest question is why would you want to nationalise any industry?

Well, sometimes when it comes to essential services, it is the only option. For example, around the turn of the last century there was no private enterprise willing to make the investment for a lot of the new untested technologies like the telephone system, the electricity system, the watermains, etc. Public ownership was the only option. Now that the investment is made and those services can turn a profit, corporations are happy to step in and make us all pay them dividends for the services we used to own.

Also, once you eliminate the profit motive, it is possible to have an efficient, publicly owned service. Take auto insurance. Manitoba has some of the lowest auto insurance rates in the country because it is an efficiently run government-owned monopoly that is operated at cost. Manitoba also owns its own hydro-electric company and has the lowest rates on the continent for electricity; the service generates a huge profit from sales to other provinces and the U.S., and that money subsidizes the Manitoba rates or goes into general revenues, which equals less taxation.

[cybercoma]

The biggest question is why would you want to nationalise any industry?

Well, sometimes when it comes to essential services, it is the only option. For example, around the turn of the last century there was no private enterprise willing to make the investment for a lot of the new untested technologies like the telephone system, the electricity system, the watermains, etc. Public ownership was the only option. Now that the investment is made and those services can turn a profit, corporations are happy to step in and make us all pay them dividends for the services we used to own.

Also, once you eliminate the profit motive, it is possible to have an efficient, publicly owned service. Take auto insurance. Manitoba has some of the lowest auto insurance rates in the country because it is an efficiently run government-owned monopoly that is operated at cost. Manitoba also owns its own hydro-electric company and has the lowest rates on the continent for electricity; the service generates a huge profit from sales to other provinces and the U.S., and that money subsidizes the Manitoba rates or goes into general revenues, which equals less taxation.

What is an essential service?

I'm sure the people in third world countries wouldn't consider municipal WiFi an essential service.

Phone, hydro, gas, auto insurance, etc. would not be essential services to these people.

When you're providing all of that to people, the bar for essential services will continue to be raised. What is average and available to everyone will remain basic and people will begin to dig for other things that need to be essential services.

Transportation is essential, perhaps the taxpayers should provide each other with vehicles.

Food is essential, perhaps the taxpayers should provide each other with something to eat.

Clothing is essential...

Toiletries are essential...

Air conditioning is essential...

Homes are essential...

Prescriptions are essential...

Medicare is essential...

Daycare is essential....

At what point do you stop and realize that it's more productive for society and it will make the general level of happiness in the nation higher if everyone used their skills and productivity to provide for themselves?

[BubberMiley]

You must not have read past the first four words. You missed the "sometimes...it's the only option" part. No one else was willing to make the investment for what have become essential services like telephone, electricity, etc.

And sometimes government providing them can be a better deal for everybody, like with auto insurance, electricity, etc.

[geoffrey]

I agree with you Bubber in terms of cooperative systems, such as insurance. It's a great idea. A monopolistic co-op corporation would be just as effective without involving political influence though.

(Co-op where everyone owns the company so they can't be price gouged, as the profits would just be returned to them)

[BubberMiley]

But monopolies can only work without corruption if they are accountable to the people. You can't just take your business elsewhere in a monopoly, so you need government involvement. I think (though I'm no expert) that Canadian Crown corporations have been successful for the most part in being run without too much government interference.