mikeydale007
New Member
I live in Ward 1 and I have no clue who to vote for, lol. Ford (ew), Crisanti (ew), and a wide field of progressive candidates that will all split the vote with each other and will each get 4%.
|
|
|
Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy
In Ward 1 if I lived there I'd vote for Naiima Farah. Long shot, I know, but she seems like a good person, and qualified.I live in Ward 1 and I have no clue who to vote for, lol. Ford (ew), Crisanti (ew), and a wide field of progressive candidates that will all split the vote with each other and will each get 4%.
Has Mikey Ford actually done anything?I live in Ward 1 and I have no clue who to vote for, lol. Ford (ew), Crisanti (ew), and a wide field of progressive candidates that will all split the vote with each other and will each get 4%.
How can you possibly know that? This is pure prejudice on your part.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or are really that out of touch.The real victims of prejudice in these politically correct times are white males.
So you’re saying ok to dismiss someone’s opinion on UT because you assume they’re a white male? Aside from the ad hominem fallacy, which used to be taught as a logical error back in the bad old days before education faculties got woke, that is simply mindless prejudice. Of course, your position makes sense if you argue from the premise that prejudice is always wrong, except when directed against white males or those under suspicion of being white males, in which case it seems to be obligatory. But the premise stinks.The real victims of prejudice in these politically correct times are white males.
So you’re saying ok to dismiss someone’s opinion on UT because you assume they’re a white male? Aside from the ad hominem fallacy, which used to be taught as a logical error back in the bad old days before education faculties got woke, that is simply mindless prejudice. Of course, your position makes sense if you argue from the premise that prejudice is always wrong, except when directed against white males or those under suspicion of being white males, in which case it seems to be obligatory.
“If you’re first of one kind of representation, you never want to be the last and I want there to be more — more young people, more women, more people of colour, Black, Indigenous people in leadership positions who are working for everybody,” Malik said in an interview. “I think that’s really exciting to me in putting myself forward for city council and hopefully to invite a new face of council in 2018.”
So here’s a thought. Argue against the actual statement using facts and reason. Don’t argue the statement is false because it was made by a white male.Thorns_Embrace brought up Chris Moise and Ausma Malik as "not good candidates" and "not electable", then went on to quote her:
As though her saying that greater diversity in Council somehow implies that his voice will not be heard or respected, despite her saying "people in leadership positions who are working for everybody". How does her wanting greater diversity in council mean white people are going to be treated lesser? You want to talk logical fallacy, I've got one for ya—"hasty generalization".
If that isn't the definition of white fragility, I don't know what is.
(I live in Ward 27, and Moise is well liked and an excellent candidate, especially by those of us with kids in the TDSB)
John Nunziata seeks to intimidate Chiara Padovani and her supporters:
https://twitter.com/_rileypeterson/status/1043219300516020224
(BTW I saw him at one of the recent rallies against Ford's cuts, I assume he was there for a nefarious reason).