Do you mean a country where you are free to drive across the country to protest at the nation's capital? A country where you are free to fly our national flag upside down and/or covered with swastikas?
|
|
|
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
When did I do this exactly?
I do actually, and have debated that some here. But I choose my words and arguments carefully and look for evidence to support my concerns.
Evidence by the way means statements of fact and citations among other things.
But it also means understanding arguably the most fundamental precept of debate.
Its about persuading others of the validity of your positions.
There are those here I know I will not convince that some specific measures are or were excessive and not justified. But I can, and will persuade many.
I do so not only by providing evidence, but by not trying to tell people writ large they are sheep/morons/cowards, etc.
I don't confuse unjustified actions, or unreasonable actions based on evidence with tyranny.
I can and will argue for greater restraint in some areas, but arguing that any or most restraint is not particularly sensible, and even if it were, it would not be convincing here and now.
That means there is value is choosing one's battles, and arguing for or against specific policy choices, as the evidence may allow.
Arguing that democracy is uniquely imperiled by policy, that often has the support of the majority of people is rather problematic, and certainly not the best route to recruiting friends and allies for a bit more restraint.
Leaping from specific policy to tyranny; and leaping from sound arguments to 'but truckers are uniquely swell folks' (never mind the majority of truckers who may feel different than those in the convoy)
Argue ideas, with facts; not conjecture and anecdote.
I agree, there's been harsh generalizations at times of critics of gov't policy/mandates that is itself over-reach instead of sticking to the facts.
However, here we're talking about minority of a certain employment sectors, a very tiny one at that, whose arguments don't seem particularly cogent or thoughtful.
This is not the hill to die on, literally or figuratively.
We can, and we should. But we ought to do so with facts and evidence and not speaking in terms of conspiracies or great evils or the like.
Even if that were true (which I'm not suggesting); it would not help one's cause to frame the argument in those terms.
Remember the object of debate is not to here oneself speak; and confirm to oneself your own righteousness. Rather it is to persuade others of the virtue of your ideas.
You rightly critique excessive criticism at anyone with concerns or questions; yet you dole out insults or worse in the opposing direction that do nothing but get people's back up.
Slow down. There are bits of your argument with which I'm inclined to agree.......
But when you wildly step beyond......its just too much.
Right there, that's your problem. In a nutshell.
Instead of, "They are trying to raise public awareness over the serious consequences of specific policies" ; 'they're trying to protect freedom' is offered instead'
The former sounds like.....hey, maybe there's something I should pay attention to; while the latter sounds like 'what's that nutter on about again'.
You frankly make it more difficult for those like me who want to argue for more restraint in certain measures, when you have people associate such ideas with extremism.
gibsonm
Active Member
puritanical, oppressive, nanny state
Northern Light
Superstar
Over-wrought. You're not winning any converts w/that language.
If failure is your goal, congratulations; if successful persuasion if your goal, it ain't workin.
gibsonm
Active Member
No the the overreach is too pervasive. I’ve responded point by point. I say freedom because that’s the word the “freedom convoy” uses. They don’t qualify it with equivocation or attachments to ideology, as some posters here keep trying to append. I agree that words like freedom and liberty may seem abstract. We balance individual liberty with the interests of the society and form social contracts. There are fundamental rights, including of minorities, that are protected in our Charter, which is essentially a bill of rights. Those continue to be violated without proven necessity. Quite simply, there hasn’t been a debate, just executive orders to fight a two year long “crisis”. How long do we sell the crisis to justify the breach of our rights?
picard102
Senior Member
A dictionary makes me able to speak on when someone is using a word incorrectly as you are. If you find being called out for it to be pretentious and arrogant, I wont shed any tears.
Good news, no charter breaches have occurred.
gibsonm
Active Member
You’re contradicting one of the Charter writers. I’ve listened to his arguments and your dreams about how to further crush the unvaccinated. I think about the important Charter language with regard to freedom of movement, assembly, religion, speech. I think about the continued lack of accountability to the Charter protections in our pandemic measures. Anyway, I’ll dismiss myself from the self-congratulatory one-sided conversation. Enjoy the state-approved groupthink. No popcorn allowed because Covid.
tiffer24
Senior Member
The freedom to steal food from the homeless. Classy.
APTA-2048
Senior Member
Once again showing their deep respect for and solidarity with frontline workers.
Waiting for the excuse that this behaviour doesn’t represent the protestors, it’s just one guy, blah blah blah. How many of these examples do people need?
APTA-2048
Senior Member
They're setting off fireworks from the war memorial. I don't know why this area still hasn't been secured by the police.
zang
Senior Member
This imply that a) the writers of the charter were in lock step ideologically, rather than a group of varying positions who reached mutual compromise.
And b) that Peckham is the ultimate authority, rendering null and void any and all others, including the Supreme Court of Canada.
I’ll ask this question yet again, expecting it will again be glossed over, however…
What is the government to gain with keeping the pandemic going forever? I’d really like to know where you think this is going. Because whenever this question gets posed of the anti-lockdown crowd, there’s always a nebulous “control” given as a non-answer. Ultimately, if whittled down far enough, a general pre-existing dislike of [insert politician here] appears. This dislike serves as a negative conclusion in need of a theory, and ultimately that politician in question becomes Velcro for every vague, ridiculous and often unrelated problem the accuser wishes to throw. Your previous wish that government be dissolved points to this being your own position, too.
What does a government gain by keeping itself in a state where it’s spending billions on aide? What does a government gain with mask mandates? What does a government gain by mandating vaccines for health, education and logistics sectors? What does a government gain by depriving itself of tax revenue, giving rebates and creating a situation where businesses and individuals are forced to default on their creditors?
Personally, I don’t think you can answer this. Primarily because I don’t think you’ve even thought that far ahead. You seem intent on just throwing half-baked arguments out to try and validate your own dislike of current restrictions. The goalposts are moving more than the ball is, and instead of just acknowledging your opinion is just emotionally driven, you repeat fallacy after fallacy trying to convince others that they’re somehow being duped into ignorance of a non-existent jackboot on their neck, while you hand-wave away cogent and intelligent responses.
FFS, you keep bandying the word democracy about while simultaneously supporting a tyranny of the minority.
Last edited:
Richard White
Senior Member
Is there any chance we can get this protest moved to it's own thread?
It's starting to go off the rails.
It's starting to go off the rails.
Jonny5
Senior Member
What people should do is select the ignore option in the user profile and stop amplifying these people by engaging them. Every retweet and exasperated "look at what these people are doing" comment is exactly what they want; it pushes out their messaging even more. Don't engage and legitimise the willfully ignorant through their childish games and illogical arguments. Don't satiate their sense of entitlement for a response at all. They will leave as quickly as they show up to find somewhere else people will pay attention to their temper tantrums. Attention is how they thrive.
Last edited:
tiffer24
Senior Member
We should not look away from this.