Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts 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 few times a year? (We fill out census and tax forms online, after all.) Would the people be any worse at choosing policies than are politicians?

  2. 12 hours ago, August1991 said:

    There is a rumbling in Quebec, like in the rest of Canada (rest of North America? Europe?) and so-called analysts ignore it at their peril.

    They are wrong to dismiss these rumblings as "racist/backward/nationalistic".

    Walls? There's a fundamental difference between the Berlin Wall and a prison wall; one is designed to keep ordinary people in and the other is designed to keep bad people out.

    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 out there? In other countries movements and parties are emerging that offer different perspectives but I don't see that in Canada. And the U.S. has Trump, who in many respects seems confused by his conflicting corporate and populist loyalties. Perhaps that's why his approach seems so incoherent and scattershot?

    Finally, I don't understand your question about 'Walls'. I don't believe I raised the word in my post.

  3. 5 hours ago, Altai said:

    Sorry, I didnt inteded to insult you, I just wanted to see your reaction. So as you see, you start to target my person too by asking me why I join your site when I insult you. Because it harms you and you react it with the same manner. This is just a simple example for the harm of unlimited free speech to the community peace.  

    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 that clear harm (not offense) is intended where it asserts these limits. You've provided no argument, other perhaps than a weak emotional one, to substantiate your claim.

  4. 50 minutes ago, Altai said:

    Any speech is hate speech when it starts to pose danger for others. You must prove your claims in legal manners or you must not be allowed to speak. You cant disturb others just because of you dont like somethings. Iraq was invaded based on "unlimited freedom of speech". Britain claimed unreal things and they invaded Iraq together US. After long years and millions of deaths, Britain simply said that the claims were false.

    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 case where you live and if so you probably wouldn't like living in the West.

  5. 3 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

    Don't want to start a new thread but since you mentioned Kathleen Wynne and Ontario's sex-ed, I thought I'd add this anecdote. The 9 year old daughter of a close friend came home from school last week and frantically wanted to speak with her mother - but in her room with the door closed so nobody could hear. I'm paraphrasing but in her own words, this is what she told her Mom. In her health class, the teacher had told her that people have hormones and chemicals in their brains that can turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man. This could happen at any time of their life. This poor 9 year old was frightened that she was going to wake up as a man. Talk about nightmares!!! They also covered physical elements like "penises can be small and large. Luckily, the young girl and her Mom had a good relationship and was able to talk it through - other kids might not be so lucky.



    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 controversial and complex issues you need to ensure you do so with properly qualified and trained personnel who understand the content of the materials they're working with as well as the strengths and limitations of the audience(s) they're addressing.

  6. 40 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

    I'm a little on the fence with Andrew Scheer - he certainly has room to grow. I find him a little rushed in his delivery - needs to be a tad more deliberate - he can get a little excitable.

    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 convince a lot of voters that he was more competent than reality suggests is the actual case.

  7. 14 hours ago, ironstone said:

    Cap and trade IS a carbon tax! How on earth can you not understand that?If there was an initial cost to emitters(many of them received free credits to start with)they would have passed on or just added more cost to consumers.Companies don't pay....we pay.

    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.  

  8. 5 hours ago, Altai said:

    I said I wont read long posts.

    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?

  9. 2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

    Why would anyone expect Donald Trump to perform at a higher level than the best "moral" minds in Canada ?

    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 prior to the Charter's existence. The assumption appears to be that the Charter generated a higher standard of accountability. I'm not sure I agree with this and I like many Canadians have serious concerns about some of the Trudeau government's compensation decisions. 

  10. 9 hours ago, Altai said:

    Its a bad thing promoted like something good, unlimited freedom of speech. Anything has a limit. Especially when it start to be harmful. I think this was the subject of the topic. 

    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 freedom and rational critique where religion was/is concerned. The Reformation provided the framework within which the institutional framework of Christianity could be challenged. This was a massive advancement in promoting freedom. Later, as the German philosopher Nietzsche's maxim "God is dead" encapsulated, the Enlightenment fostered the development of a framework of intellectual rationalism that questioned the validity of belief in the existence of a God and thus challenged the actual legitimacy of organized religion.

    The process to minimize religion's role and thus create the world's most open and objectively tolerant societies progressed with the ascendancy of rationalism. I think many outside of the West don't realize the extent to which religion's role has been diminished. In Canada, the explicitly non-religious now constitute about a third of the population and if nominal (i.e. non-religious, lapsed or "cultural") Roman Catholics are included the proportion of the population that is non-religious jumps to more than 50 percent. Secularism is the only system that accommodates the greatest spectrum of religious beliefs and attitudes, from devoutly religious  views on one extreme to atheism on the other. Most people fit somewhere between the two. Secularism requires that religion be largely absent from the public sphere and instead be a matter of individual conscience and private practice. It is the basis for real freedom and harmony in diverse and pluralistic societies. 

  11. 6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    This is an example of the "Tu quoque" fallacy.  Canada's moral failings are irrelevant to the point.

    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 yesterday evening, Canadian policy, particularly where residential schools and the '60s scoop' were concerned, did involve forcibly removing children from their parents. I think the point you are trying to make is that this doesn't in its own right justify the events currently taking place in the United States. I don't think bush_cheney2004's position can properly be described as a tu quoque fallacy. Rather, I believe it falls into the category of being tangential to the debate occurring about Trump's current policy. One can, and perhaps must, examine Trump's detention policy (where children are concerned) on its own merits or demerits rather than by reference to events elsewhere or at a different time that in the current context are viewed as having been wrong. Were bush_cheney2004's position to be properly argued to its full extent, one would have to conclude that any analogy with Canada's past misdeeds actually renders Trump's policy morally insupportable.

  12. On 6/13/2018 at 11:19 AM, Argus said:

    The pride committee are BLM's bitches. BLM stops their parades with a half dozen people, makes demands, and the pride committee bursts into tears and agrees.

    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 suspect the whole thing was ripe for a takeover and that seems to be what's happened. I read a fascinating piece in the National Post a week ago where the author, who identifies himself as being gay, notes the irrelevancy of the parade in today's context. A good friend of mine, who is gay, believes it time the Pride festival be reconsidered. If it's no longer relevant to much of the LGBT community, why should it be relevant to anybody else? It's served its purpose.


    • Like 1
  13. 3 hours ago, Altai said:

    Yes, if it poses a threat for public life, it should be proven in the court to be applied. The same thing goes for any other believes including atheism. Its your idea as an atheist that nothing could be demonstrated to be true about religions. Atheist people rejects to recognize many facts when it does not fit with their interests. I had a topic before about it in this forum, you can see the atheist behavior there. So such a case filed in a court would probably end up with the banning of atheism. 

    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, as is the case in some Eastern religions and among many Indigenous peoples. Perhaps the most enlightened religious perspective is one that isn't, in the Western context, a true religion at all, Confucianism, which is grounded in humanistic and rationalistic philosophy. The world could survive and thrive without organized religion. The real concern is whether it can survive with it?

    • Like 1
  14. 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    Fair enough.  I thank you for reminding me that cites aren't necessary for opinions, or for 'the sky is blue' type facts and I will try to be less pedantic with you.  On the other side, I will state that I never received a supporting cite for the assertion that single-parent families are a problem, so I'll assume that we're good there.

    "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.

  15. 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    Now you are playing games also.  Sure, I will spell out this baby-simple point:

    We are comparing two situations:

    1) Doug Ford, when cannabis was illegal, was involved in selling it

    2) Justin Trudeau, our PM, is fulfilling a campaign promise to change the laws around cannabis.

    Also - teaching drama is an honourable profession and not illegal, I might add.

    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.

  16. 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

    You are playing games.  If that's the best you can do, then I'm ok with that.

    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 Angus, I think.

  17. 8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1) No, I just don't expect pushback when I ask for a cite.  Well, I do but I shouldn't.

    2) No.  You were complaining about 'single parent families' as a problem.  When I showed you a graph that showed a decline to 2009, you provided a cite that said single parent and stepfamilies were increasing - which is different.  I pointed that out already so this is just noise.

    3) Yes, and it was hysterical nonsense.  The idea that the government would make it illegal to criticize a religion is hyperbole and the fact that that didn't come to pass actually backs up the idea that freedom of speech is not under threat.

    4) 'Reading a lot' could be a good thing, but it depends on what you read.  It's up to you to recognize your betters and learn from them.  Here's a hint: most of what you read on the internet, including this forum, is hysterical chicken little bullshit.  Just my opinion though.

    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....

  18. 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 be higher than is the case in Canada. The U.S. features generally lower taxes and a lot more variety in terms of cities to which one might move and it has more employment options as well, so overall many people could be better off living south of the border, if they're legally able to do so. But people often choose to live where they do for reasons other than mere financial considerations, including political culture, crime rates and, of course, being close to social and family support networks.

  19. 25 minutes ago, betsy said:

    I tend to agree with you!  

    But......if society is recognizing homosexuality as a sexual orientation just because gay people claim it is......why shouldn't pedophiles who also make the same claim, be given the same right?  


    There is no scientific proof that people are born gay!  Someone no doubt will point to the so-called "gay genes."  

    Why are we suddenly looking for gay genes?  And voila.....eureka, someone claimed to have found it!    :lol:


    Anyway, before we get all excited about these genes.....

    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 pregnant. I think these potential scientific advancements should have people who dislike homosexuality, and particularly male homosexuality, cheering.

  20. 8 hours ago, betsy said:

    Anyway.....if society recognizes sexual orientation as a right, then it's discriminatory to pick and choose which sexual orientation is given that right.    What about pedophilia?  Just like the gay couldn't help it if he's sexually attracted to the same sex, could the pedophile help it if he/she is sexually attracted to children?


    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?


  21. 21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    M103 is old news which is evidenced by the fact that you can in fact criticize Islam, still.

    Uh, no.  The Rules and Guidelines settle your issue.  If you state a purported fact, you can be challenged on it and you shouldn't cry censorship.  

    There is no question of the rules here, nor of how this forum has successfully fomented discussion.  Furthermore, we have Canadian law that demarcates hate speech as not being protected and it works fine for us.  Most of what I read about 'censorship' is just noise but not all of it.  

    If you want to have liberal-minded Canadians be more tolerant and open to ideas, then you can lead by example and I am sure they will join you.


    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 opinions, which many on thus forum often state.

    In one of your posts on another topic ('Has society left men behind'), you accused me of just saying things based on things I've heard rather than on the basis of evidence. After you provided apparently non-contextual evidence on that topic to support your dismissal (a graph for which you only later copied a link after I pointed out the problem), and I furnished links to official Canadian and U.S. sources to substantiate my positions(s), fully in accordance with R&G stipulations, you responded by criticizing my post on rather tangential stylistic grounds. And in this string (about censorship) you say I've "pointed a flashlight at shadows in the corner," which I interpret as casting aspersions on my intent and/or motivations. I don't know whether you've ever studied logic and rhetoric, but I believe that such tactics generally fall into the category of 'ad hominem' criticism, which doesn't appear to meet R&G standards. I'm sure you too can lead by example by trying to be more constructive, consistent and respectful in your responses.

    As for your rather haughtily dismissive statement that "most of what I've read about 'censorship' being just noise but not all of it," this is merely your opinion, right? Maybe you don't read a lot, but concerns about freedom of speech and censorship have been widely disseminated and discussed over the past couple years. The M-103 controversy is merely one of the topics that's arisen as part of a much broader debate about the state of free speech in this country. I guess I read a lot, or at least more than most. Perhaps that's not a virtue in an environment where many would rather we simply accept the dictates of acceptable thought and speech as rendered by our self-appointed betters.

  22. 40 minutes ago, scribblet said:

    Quite a feat to have won that riding considering Trudeau pork barrelled 60 million into it.

    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 Canada' role. On this latter point, Trudeau's stance didn't help much in a riding where it should have mattered.

  23. 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 illegal migrant crisis may have undermined Liberal support, which could pose a big problem for Trudeau's crew in 2019 if the issue isn't resolved very soon. Is it time for Trudeau to look roll out "Plan B" if he wants to hold onto power next year as "sunny ways" has apparently lost its allure?

  • Create New...