Jump to content


Photo

It's not a protest, demonstration or strike, IT"S ANARCHY!


190 replies to this topic

#16 Black Dog

Black Dog

    Critical of Saudi Arabia

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,613 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:07 PM

My point is obvious. They are not hard done by. They have no tuition 'cause' but only childish 'wants' as spoiled entitled self centered anarchists.



“Entitlement.” We hear that word associated again and again with student protesters in Quebec. Usually, it’s preceded by the words, “sense of.”

“They think someone owes them a living,” disgruntled critics harrumph. “Wait until they get into the real world.”

Setting aside the fact that this intergenerational hectoring dates back to Socrates, let us ask: Who exactly is making the charge? Quebec has had low tuition rates for a half century. That means almost every living adult in the province, having already been afforded a plum goodie, is now wagging his finger at the first generation that will be asked to pay the tab. So who really is entitled here?

Canadians now aged 55 years and older will collect Old Age Security when they hit 65. The rest of us will have to work two more years. Those who came of age in the 1960s enjoyed Employment Insurance and Medicare when they were still unfunded liabilities. They cash a Canada Pension cheque that depends upon today’s working men and women. The plan probably won’t exist by the time the rest of us reach whatever age of retirement the government decrees by the time we are old.

In the 1970s, parents pulled on the (now discontinued) Family Allowance program. The employed could count on a level of job security that allowed them to take on debt to own houses, cottages and cars. They paid them off and retired to indexed pensions.

It’s almost like Canadians had a “sense of entitlement,” or something.

In the ’90s, this same well-entitled generation began the drumbeat for lower taxes, never once offering up a government program they were willing to sacrifice. When the economy tanked, it fell to money-starved governments to bail everyone out. Today’s youth had nothing to do with that profligacy, but are being called upon to “grow up” and shoulder the adult responsibility of paying the debt off.

We hear a great deal these days about how we have to be reasonable about the times we live in. Corporate officers pulling in massive salaries and bonuses even as their companies lose money say average working men and women have to understand that the age of job security, pensions and even a middle-class wage are behind us. Have any of them offered to take the lead by surrendering even a fraction of their benefits? Are Federal Labour Minister Lisa Rait and Quebec Premier Jean Charest prepared to trim their gold-plated pensions to set an example to the students and workers they condescendingly lecture about the “new reality”?

Today’s youth face a grim future not of their own making. Is it any wonder that they’re angry about it? What they are asking for is what previous generations so eagerly gobbled up for themselves. If those generations now believe their entitlements were too generous, then, perhaps, in the spirit of sharing the burden, they might want to give some of them back.

Didn’t think so.

-Link
America...."the world’s largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell

#17 Peeves

Peeves

    Genius emeritus

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:13 PM

-Link

Yeh, I read his article too. It's a diversion from the facts by bringing in other issues having no bearing on the riots. Those others he cites are not breaking the law nor have anything to do with the French students in Quebec. Another 'red' herring by our 1010 socialist Johnny Moore. (Must be kin to Michael eh!)

http://www.newstalk1010.com/Hosts/MooreintheMorning.aspx

Caveat:

The entered post in part or in entirety may be arbitratrarilly deemed, judged or ruled as trolling, incendiary, inciting or otherwise condemnable if there is a want to censor any individual that is targeted.

 

 


#18 Black Dog

Black Dog

    Critical of Saudi Arabia

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,613 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:20 PM

Yeh, I read his article too. It's a diversion from the facts by bringing in other issues having no bearing on the riots.


Yes, much as the riots themselves are a distraction from the real issues. The point is a response to your contention that the students are "spoiled entitled self centered anarchists" for merely wanting what others have already benefited from.

Those others he cites are not breaking the law nor have anything to do with the French students in Quebec


What "others?"

Another 'red' herring by our 1010 socialist Johnny Moore. (Must be kin to Michael eh!)

http://www.newstalk1010.com/Hosts/MooreintheMorning.aspx


Ad hominem fallacy.
America...."the world’s largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell

#19 Peeves

Peeves

    Genius emeritus

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:30 PM

Yes, much as the riots themselves are a distraction from the real issues. The point is a response to your contention that the students are "spoiled entitled self centered anarchists" for merely wanting what others have already benefited from.

You had best explain that for me. What others benefited beyond what Quebec students have past or present. They have now, have in the past, and even after any tuition increases will still have by far the lowest tuition in North America. So please

What they are doing is anarchy. How they are acting is self centered since they are denying others their rights freedoms and business,And if I have to explain spoiled, it would of course apply to all of Quebec.


What "others?"

The older generation he inserts as if it was pertinent to the riots in Quebec.

Ad hominem fallacy.


Edited by Peeves, 25 May 2012 - 12:32 PM.

Caveat:

The entered post in part or in entirety may be arbitratrarilly deemed, judged or ruled as trolling, incendiary, inciting or otherwise condemnable if there is a want to censor any individual that is targeted.

 

 


#20 Black Dog

Black Dog

    Critical of Saudi Arabia

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,613 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:35 PM

You had best explain that for me. What others benefited beyond what Quebec students have past or present. They have now, have in the past, and even after any tuition increases will still have by far the lowest tuition in North America. So please


Other generations of Quebecers. That's pretty clear. As to "entitlement" in general, there's a host of other programs that the current generation will not have that past generations enjoyed. But it's the kids who are the spoiled, entitled ones?

What they are doing is anarchy. How they are acting is self centered since they are denying others their rights freedoms and business,And if I have to explain spoiled, it would of course apply to all of Quebec.


This law and order bleating is all pretty meaningless to me. I'm more interested in the real issues.

Edited by Black Dog, 25 May 2012 - 12:41 PM.

America...."the world’s largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell

#21 g_bambino

g_bambino

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:41 PM

nobody even knows what democracy is anymore.

And you can count yourself among them.

#22 jacee

jacee

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,926 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:ON
  • Interests:Justice

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:42 PM

We have laws. We have punishments for breaking laws. Those that would ignore,subvert or test the laws with anarchy, violence and destructive rioting deserve to be met with whatever resources required within legal authority. Those that defend law breakers are quite simply encouraging the violence and denying the crimes. I would therefore consider such as enablers and terrorist supporters.


If you don't like protests, the hallmark of democracy, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in a non-democratic country where protest is outlawed.

Businesses are being threatened, other citizens, schools, students denied an education, tourism is suffering because spoiled brats want something no other Canadian or North American has, free everything. Who pays? the tax payer and those law biding citizens impacted by the anarchists.


That's why protest is the hallmark of democracy ... because it does put pressure on governments to negotiate solutions instead of imposing (eg) tuition increases and laws crushing dissent on people.

Protest is supposed to affect business, supposed to make people take notice, supposed to cause discussion, disrupt 'business as usual' ... so the decision-makers have to address the issues.
Yeh Towhey! Somebody give that man a job.

#23 Signals.Cpl

Signals.Cpl

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,649 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:43 PM

If you don't like protests, the hallmark of democracy, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in a non-democratic country where protest is outlawed.


That's why protest is the hallmark of democracy ... because it does put pressure on governments to negotiate solutions instead of imposing (eg) tuition increases and laws crushing dissent on people.

Protest is supposed to affect business, supposed to make people take notice, supposed to cause discussion, disrupt 'business as usual' ... so the decision-makers have to address the issues.




Replace protest with terrorism.
Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

#24 g_bambino

g_bambino

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:53 PM

Replace protest with terrorism.

She has one seriously twisted definition of democracy in her mind.

Of course, she would reverse it 180 degrees should it be she being prevented from getting to her destination or engaging in her planned activity by people protesting some government course of action she agrees with; those people would be selfish egomaniacs with no regard for the rule of law.

#25 jacee

jacee

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,926 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:ON
  • Interests:Justice

Posted 25 May 2012 - 01:08 PM

She has one seriously twisted definition of democracy in her mind.

Of course, she would reverse it 180 degrees should it be she being prevented from getting to her destination or engaging in her planned activity by people protesting some government course of action she agrees with; those people would be selfish egomaniacs with no regard for the rule of law.


I may disagree, but I will support your right to protest.
It is the defining characteristic of democracy.
Yeh Towhey! Somebody give that man a job.

#26 g_bambino

g_bambino

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2012 - 01:15 PM

I may disagree, but I will support your right to protest.
It is the defining characteristic of democracy.

It is not the "defining characteristic" of democracy, if there even is one, singular defining characteristic of the concept. You fetishise protest.

Perhaps its that which precludes you from understanding that democracy requires limitation on protest; ie. the prevention of anarchy, in which democracy cannot exsit. Your failure to grasp that is demonstrated in your support for the disruption of other people's businesses, other people's use of streets, other people's desires to go get the education they paid for; other people's rights, in other words. But, like I said, you'd change your mind completely when it was your rights being trampled by protesters you disagreed with.

#27 guyser

guyser

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,503 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 01:18 PM

look the definitions up. Their actions meet the test in many circumstance

Sure...
sedition - an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government

Insurrection- an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Edited by guyser, 25 May 2012 - 01:19 PM.


#28 jacee

jacee

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,926 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:ON
  • Interests:Justice

Posted 25 May 2012 - 01:21 PM

It is not the "defining characteristic" of democracy, if there even is one, singular defining characteristic of the concept. You fetishise protest.

What would you call a state that doesn't allow protest?
It wouldn't be a democracy.
What would it be?

Perhaps its that which precludes you from understanding that democracy requires limitation on protest; ie. the prevention of anarchy, in which democracy cannot exsit. Your failure to grasp that is demonstrated in your support for the disruption of other people's businesses, other people's use of streets, other people's desires to go get the education they paid for; other people's rights, in other words. But, like I said, you'd change your mind completely when it was your rights being trampled by protesters you disagreed with.


I would defend your right to protest.
Let me know when your next one is ... :)

But of course, the 1% doesn't protest, do they?
They just hire lobbyists, buy politicians and subvert democracy to their own greed.

The interference with people's rights and with democracy isn't happening in the streets, but in the 'backrooms' as usual.

It's really irritating to them to see that we 'common people' can actually influence governments. They're not used to having any competition in that.
C'est la vie! :)

Edited by jacee, 25 May 2012 - 01:32 PM.

Yeh Towhey! Somebody give that man a job.

#29 Signals.Cpl

Signals.Cpl

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,649 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario

Posted 25 May 2012 - 01:28 PM

What would you call a state that doesn't allow protest?
It wouldn't be a democracy.
What would it be?



I would defend your right to protest.
Let me know when your next one is ... :)




Since when does any province in Canada not allow protest?
Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

#30 g_bambino

g_bambino

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2012 - 01:31 PM

What would you call a state that doesn't allow protest?

Red herring. I didn't say anything about banning protest. Please respond to what I say, not straw men you built.

I would defend your right to protest.

Again, red herring. You would not defend my trampling on your rights as a means of protesting in favour of my cause.



Reply to this topic