Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

turningrite

Suspended
  • Content Count

    1,513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by turningrite

  1. There were supposed to be candidates running for a party called 'None of the Above' (NOTA) in the recent Ontario election. I found a list of their candidates a couple months ago and it included one in my riding but for some reason this candidate wasn't on the ballot when I went to vote. So, I'm not sure what happened. I seem to recall, based on what I read several weeks ago, that the NOTA party actually does have a platform, which focuses on direct democracy. I think many would find this appealing. Why can't we be issued voter I.D. numbers and be permitted to vote online on specific matters a
  2. I too believe there is unrest in much of the West relating to various aspects of progressivism and the globalist agenda. Personally, I think politically correct progressives naively serve the interests of the corporate globalists. Do you think any of the (federal) political options on offer in Canada provides much hope for change to the current globalist paradigm? I'm not convinced any of them does. I think the Conservatives are probably the least dangerous of the options at the present time, but they too are in some respects participants in the corporate globalist agenda. What else is ou
  3. While you clearly intended to insult me, I did nothing of the sort in responding to you. All I said is that I'm not beholden to (i.e. bound by) presumptive ideology (i.e. religion) and here in the West independent thought doesn't generally imply idiocy, as you appear to suggest to be the case. I'm not harmed. Your credibility in this debate, however, has been harmed by the nature of your response. There is no inherent harm in free speech. There are some limits on free speech in the West, particularly where such speech intends to incite violence or actual harm, but the state MUST demonstrate th
  4. I'm not beholden to religion and will never be. Sorry, but here in the West thinking for ourselves is generally seen as a positive trait. If you don't want to listen to the Western perspective, why would you join a site like this?
  5. Obviously, you don't understand the West. In the West, the state (i.e. government) must prove the illegality of any action or speech that's held to be harmful. The burden of proof placed on the state where hate crime or hate speech is concerned is quite onerous, as must be the case in any system based on free speech. Our system is not grounded in the notion that people can or must be forbidden from saying certain things without proving them to be correct. (If it were so, as I pointed out to you in an earlier post, religious speech would by definition have to be banned.) Perhaps it's the c
  6. You have to wonder how well trained the teacher was on these matters? I recall an instance when I was in the work world where the employer was conducting diversity sensitivity training. Most of the trainers were simply managers who were assigned to address with staff a package of materials. In one group, the trainer didn't apparently understand pretty basic distinctions relating to some ethno-racial groups, which led to consternation among the participants, most of whom were well educated and found the training to be condescending. I guess the lesson is that if you want to effectively address
  7. He needs to rein in his grin. Too often, he appears to look like the cat that ate the canary, which undermines his seriousness. It's an improvement on Harper's condescending smirk, though. His ability to extemporaneously speak and answer questions in English seems an improvement on Trudeau's halting verbal skills. It'll be interesting to see how Scheer's stump speech style works as the 2019 election approaches. Trudeau has mastered a theatrical, artificial, too-enunciated and overly-rehearsed stump speech style that scored him a lot of points in 2015. I find it irritating, but it seemed to con
  8. I find hidden taxes to be particularly problematic and regressive. I agree that cap and trade amounts to a hidden tax. And aren't free credits, which presumably can later be traded in open markets, effectively corporate subsidies paid for by consumers? If they are, then the system would appear to be even more skewed. Ford probably can't avoid having Ontarians subjected to a carbon tax. But his approach of allowing consumers to know what they're paying and assigning accountability for such taxation to the federal government, where it belongs, is probably very good political strategy.
  9. Okay, then. Let me be brief. The right to criticize and reject religion IS intrinsically and fundamentally a Western value. It is not "hate speech" and efforts to extend the meaning and breadth of hate speech laws or to impose more informal restrictions on free speech to try to prevent the criticism of religious institutions and/or beliefs are essentially assaults on democracy and freedom. Is that brief enough for you?
  10. Time and place, man. Time and place. Why would you choose to repeat the past mistakes of others? By the way, I saw a report on a news site stating that Trump has now signed an order to end the policy that separated migrant parents from their children. I guess he couldn't take the heat he was facing both domestically and internationally. As for your comment on the asymmetry applicable to levels of compensation awarded different classes of victims in Canada, I tend to agree with you. It seems that those who pursue Charter claims tend to fare better than do those whose rights were violated p
  11. Actual hate speech IS illegal throughout most of the West, as I understand it. The problem is that there have been ongoing arguments to expand the definition of the term "hate speech" to create an environment where only speech deemed to be "acceptable" is to be permitted. So far, we retain the ability to examine and criticize the bases and role of religion in the West. Were we to lose this, Western values in their own right would be seriously jeopardized. The philosophical foundations of the modern West rest in the Reformation and the Enlightenment, which both promoted ideas of intellectual fr
  12. You might have provided a link for or online description of the term "tu quogue fallacy," which in common discourse is generally referenced as an 'ad hominem' argument. I found this definition online: argumentum ad hominem tu quoque: (also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency) Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument. I think the point bush_cheney2004 is raising should be examined at face value. As was pointed out on a Canadian newscast I watched y
  13. Well, in the West we are free to do so, at least for the time being. In much of the rest of the world, not so much. Unfortunately.
  14. I believe the BLM-Pride controversy reflects the fact that Pride no longer plays a vital role in promoting gay rights, which are now largely codified in law even if acceptance isn't universal in the general population. The Pride festival I most recently attended, about 6 or 7 years ago, seemed like a 'fin de siecle' event. It appeared to me a rather boring corporate-driven and cliche-soaked enterprise. When I'd previously attended the event in the mid 1990s, there was an edge to it as the gay community was at the time fighting for basic civil and social rights as well as AIDS treatments. I sus
  15. Well, we wouldn't likely talk about atheism if we didn't talk about religion, would we? Logically speaking, religion begets atheism. Religion is essentially superstition, particularly where the major monotheistic religions are concerned. If you study the origins of religion you understand that it largely developed out of folk superstitions. It eventually became institutionalized and monopolized, mainly in an effort to exert social and economic control over populations, which of course rendered it dangerous. In some parts of the world, however, religion exists mainly in the form of spiritualism
  16. "I never received a supporting cite for the assertion that single-parent families are a problem." Um, yes, I did provide a citation for this in the form of a federal study that indicates higher rates of incidence for certain negative behaviors, and particularly drug use, for children who grow up single parent-led households.
  17. Maybe you could have been explicit in making your point when responding to Angus' post? My point is that you attacked it without proving your assertion that "...there's the whole thing about it being legal and all." Hey, we've got to interpret your statements literally. Now, it seems you're moving the goalposts. It won't work. You don't get to make up your own rules. As for Trudeau background as a drama teacher, I said nothing about it. I, too, think Trudeau's a lightweight but I have nothing against drama teachers per se.
  18. It appears that Angus is correct. He's merely asked you to substantiate your apparent contention that marijuana is legal, as per your dismissive interjection that "...there's the whole thing about it being legal and all." Don't the Rules and Guidelines require you to actually prove your contention now that you've challenged the validity of his position? The Senate just passed the necessary legislation today and it likely won't be proclaimed into law for several weeks, or perhaps for a few months. Hint: Until it's proclaimed into law it's not technically legal. Who's playing games here? Not An
  19. I could respond to your points, but it's not worth doing so because you don't actually engage in rational debate. You appear to prefer to sit back and lob ad hominem critiques and haughty insults. I believe you've lost your arguments with me and you don't want to admit it. Oh well, move on....
  20. Housing prices in the U.S. are very much dependent on where you're buying, as is the case in Canada. If you want to live in a small town or city in Canada, particularly in Atlantic Canada, you face housing prices at levels comparable to those in many relatively inexpensive American locales. On the other hand, if you want to live in or near cities like New York, San Francisco or Los Angeles, you'll probably face housing prices very near to those seen in places like Vancouver or Toronto. I guess the biggest difference is that wages in the U.S., at least for highly skilled professionals, tend to
  21. As the article I've provided a link to notes, there's probably a multifactoral biological explanation for homosexuality, particularly among males. As the emerging research appears to suggest there are likely hormonal and immune system- related bases for homosexuality, it seems possible that the incidence of male homosexuality might be able to be reduced in the future with various interventions, including family planning to reduce the frequency of births, particularly following the prior birth of a male, and possibly with hormonal treatments for pregnant women and/or those contemplating getting
  22. Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation, rather it's a form of deviant behavior that exists among all sexual orientations. In my opinion, drawing a connection between pedophilia and homosexuality is an oft-used tactic that intends to equate homosexuality with sexual deviancy. If we were to apply your logic in a logical fashion, all except asexuals could be characterized as sexual deviants. The emerging scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is most likely biological, at least for males. But I guess this is inconvenient to your argument, right? https://brocku.ca/brock-news/2017/12/n
  23. I suspect you don't fully understand the Rules and Guidelines stipulations you appear to insist be applied to others. On the requirement for evidential support, for instance, the R&G stipulation is that "If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources." Instead, you hold that an initial failure to provide evidential references in its own right substantiates your dismissal of a post. But clearly that's not consistent with the R&G stipulation. Further, and quite reasonably, there is no R&G requirement to furnish evidence in relation to expressing opini
  24. I think the extent of the win is the most surprising aspect. The Conservatives apparently had a very popular local candidate this time around and the Libs only won the riding in 2015 by a whisker. Interpreting byelection results, of course, is like reading tea leaves, but I think there are some important issues that Trudeau's government will have to consider, including the impact of the migration crisis, which Trudeau carelessly worsened, as well as whether the trade battle with the U.S. will actually benefit Trudeau, as I think many Libs believe it will if Trudeau keeps playing the 'Captain C
  25. A news report indicates the Conservative candidate easily won today's Chicoutimi-Le Fjord byelection with more than 50 percent of the votes cast. The Conservatives ran 4th in the riding in the 2015 general election, suggesting that opposition to the Trudeau government is coalescing around the Conservative Party. The NDP and Bloc support sunk to single-digit levels in both cases. The result seems surprising given that this riding has a large aluminum production industry and Trudeau had appeared to gain support with his response to Trump's attack on Canada's steel and aluminum industries. The il
×
×
  • Create New...