From the people who brought you covid lockdowns, All people banned from wilderness (now with snitch line!)

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Go touch grass, incel.  

Awww muffin, How's the math lessons going?  

[Shady]

6 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

CBC.  By your estimation, fake news.

I never said fake news, I said partisan news.

[LinkSoul60]

Just now, Shady said:

I never said fake news, I said partisan news.

Then you can't put much stock in the article....  slanted too much to the left

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Then you can't put much stock in the article....  slanted too much to the left

Can't put stock in the story that says your little dog might be causing climate change?

Yeah, you might be on to something there. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

wow. Such wit and reasoning  

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You're complaining that he's commenting on it despite not being from NB or NS and it not directly affecting him, as if he needs to be personally invested to have an opinion or...something.  On the flip side, you're completely fine with everyone commenting (including the OP) as long as they share your view.

Go touch grass, incel.  

look at you go there moderator....if he had any complaints i sure he would have said so...he is a big boy,

[LinkSoul60]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Can't put stock in the story that says your little dog might be causing climate change?

Yeah, you might be on to something there. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

wow. Such wit and reasoning  

You obviously don't know sarcasm, nor do you know much of anything else.  Little man.

[Aristides]

8 hours ago, Shady said:

You mean arson?

Doesn't really matter. Arson, accident or stupidity, the result is the same.

Edited August 15, 2025 by Aristides

[LinkSoul60]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Have you ever actually contributed to a conversation? I don't recall ever seeing that. You usually just jumped in, derail threads, they baseless insults or just disagree for the sake of it and then wind up looking like a complete twat attempting to defend that.

Your jackass gene is obviously a dominant one...  Can't help yourself can you, fool.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You obviously don't know sarcasm, nor do you know much of anything else.  Little man.

Oh kid everyone got what you were saying. But it was less sarcasm and more stupid   

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Your jackass gene is obviously a dominant one...  Can't help yourself can you, fool.

You sure you're not related to ex crier?  

Oh! My "jackass gene!"  How clever! How witty! How definitely not grade 3 level insult!  I shall now take 18  hours to re evaluate my life!!

I get it, your own stupidity makes you angry and you want it to be other's fault  But honestly while you're anger may be big your wit is duller than rebar.  

No wonder you're too intimidated to try to make an argument and fall back on crybaby insults   

[Goddess]

On 8/12/2025 at 11:09 AM, LinkSoul60 said:

I haven't read it myself but you said it has to do with emergency services not being available if needed. Considering and protecting the welfare of citizens is authoritarianism?  

If we can be banned from the woods in case we twist an ankle, you can be banned from anywhere, for anything.  Whenever the state feels like it.

What we oppose is governments ordering people to stop healthy outdoor activities JUST IN CASE.

Edited August 15, 2025 by Goddess

[Goddess]

It's "safetyism". 

Safetyism - Canadian Constitution Foundation

[Goddess]

 

[Goddess]

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

What we oppose is governments ordering people to stop healthy outdoor activities JUST IN CASE.

While all our resources are too busy dealing with a major emergency and until such time as they are available to respond to minor emergencies.

I think what's actually happening here is that because climate change is tied to the severity of the wildfires and since climate change is bullshit so too is the emergency.

It's just a heat wave that's killing old trees.

[Shady]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

While all our resources are too busy dealing with a major emergency and until such time as they are available to respond to minor emergencies.

I think what's actually happening here is that because climate change is tied to the severity of the wildfires and since climate change is bullshit so too is the emergency.

 

Then allow people to sign waivers instead of restricting their right based on "what's in their best interests" decided by the government.

[LinkSoul60]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

If we can be banned from the woods in case we twist an ankle, you can be banned from anywhere, for anything.  Whenever the state feels like it.

What we oppose is governments ordering people to stop healthy outdoor activities JUST IN CASE.

I don't share the idea that we're one step away from being an authoritarian state.  

If people generally do their 'healthy outdoor activities' in the now tinderbox woods, maybe they can do something crazy like going to a local park or walking/running on the streets.  

People have lost homes and livelihoods and we have a group of people who are more concerned about walking in the woods that are on fire.  I have a lot empathy for the people that have been affected.  I have zero for the people whining about this.  Just my 2 cents....

[Goddess]

4 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

people who are more concerned about walking in the woods that are on fire.  I

C'mon. Nobody wants the right to walk in woods that are on fire. You know that's not what this is about.

[Shady]

21 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Then you can't put much stock in the article....  slanted too much to the left

It sounds like something they’d do though.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

While all our resources are too busy dealing with a major emergency and until such time as they are available to respond to minor emergencies.

I think what's actually happening here is that because climate change is tied to the severity of the wildfires and since climate change is bullshit so too is the emergency.

It's just a heat wave that's killing old trees.

So announce that emergency services will be severely limited and people (and their ankles) are at their own risk if they decide to go into the woods. 

Honestly when I was a kid we went hunting and camping in the woods dozens if not hundreds of miles away from the nearest help long before there were cell phones or radios to let somebody know that we had sprained our ankle. You learn to take the proper precautions and deal with it. People were not dying in large numbers as a result of there being no emergency services available.

Are you telling me you're not capable of going into the woods unless you've got back up immediately available by telephone?

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, Goddess said:

If we can be banned from the woods in case we twist an ankle, you can be banned from anywhere, for anything.  Whenever the state feels like it.

What we oppose is governments ordering people to stop healthy outdoor activities JUST IN CASE.

Here's my big problem with it.

This isn't about government safety this is about government using overreach to compensate for its lack of competency

Everybody has heard about global warming. Every single government everywhere in Canada at every level is aware that we can expect more serious fire seasons from time to time.

So what did they do about it? What improvements did they make to deal with difficult fire seasons? Their job is to protect people and allow them to go about their day and enjoy their activities.

Do they improve forest fire fighting capability? Did they offer courses or anything to teach people about how to be in the woods? Hell they could have introduced a free permit system so at least they knew who was in the woods and where but people could still go in the woods if conditions were dry. Did they do that?

No they did absolutely nothing even though they knew this was going to happen. And now they want to pretend that it's a crisis that needs immediate resolution that involves curtailing people's rights to use canadian land.

So what we're doing is authorizing it's authority if it doesn't do its job by removing our rights to the activities their job to make sure we had access to in the first place.

That is an absolutely horrible precedent to set. The government can ban any activity instead of doing its job and making sure those activities are available.

Edited August 15, 2025 by CdnFox

[Legato]

There are people who need to told what to do every single day. 

Their lack of free thought is outstanding.

That's why we can't have nice things.

[LinkSoul60]

49 minutes ago, Goddess said:

C'mon. Nobody wants the right to walk in woods that are on fire. You know that's not what this is about.

It's about the province knowing that since 2009, 97% of forest fires in NS have been caused by humans and given the circumstances, they chose to ban people from the woods as a way to better protect their assets, citizens, and peoples homes.

Again, I'm not of the opinion that this takes away anyone's fundamental rights nor do I think we're on the road to authoritarianism.  I'm certainly not suspicious of government motives in an instance like this.  Just my 2 cents...

43 minutes ago, Shady said:

It sounds like something they’d do though.

Maybe 🤷‍♂️ 😂

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

It's about the province knowing that since 2009, 97% of forest fires in NS have been caused by humans and given the circumstances, they chose to ban people from the woods as a way to better protect their assets, citizens, and peoples homes.

 

If that's true then why didn't they deal with the problem over the last 12 years? Why didn't they improve their forest fire fighting capabilities or manage the forests better? Or use controlled burns or create a permit process for when fire risks are high or take any of a dozen other possible solutions?

All you're saying is the government completely failed to do its duty and is trying to compensate by taking away the rights of individuals to enjoy the province.

That's not a good thing.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Are you telling me you're not capable of going into the woods unless you've got back up immediately available by telephone?

Nope.