[kkgg7]

Also, most moderate Canadians understand that Pride drives a lot of money for the city and would deem it foolish on the part of the mayor to not support it, no matter what their 'personal' perceptions of the parade may be. At heart people in the GTA are not fundamentalist. If they don't 'appreciate' the parade they don't go... but this doesn't mean they would stop others from going or deny the money-generating benefits. Thankfully!!

If that's case (personal preference shouldn't matter), most "moderate Canadians" should have no problem with running a casino or a red light disctrict in Toronto as well. If they don't appreciate them, they don't go, but it doesn't mean they should deny their money generting benefits.

 

[flonicky]

Given that bigotry is usually defined as applied against groups of people, rather than abstract entities, I'd say that you're actually wrong to do so.

bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance - webster's

 

[kkgg7]

Given that bigotry is usually defined as applied against groups of people, rather than abstract entities, I'd say that you're actually wrong to do so.

Fine. I define those who are against the 1% bigots in that case.

 

[flonicky]

Fine. I define those who are against the 1% bigots in that case.

That's still not how the word is properly used. Used that way strips it of any meaning.

 

[PinkLucy]

If that's case (personal preference shouldn't matter), most "moderate Canadians" should have no problem with running a casino or a red light disctrict in Toronto as well. If they don't appreciate them, they don't go, but it doesn't mean they should deny their money generting benefits.

Vastly different things. Pride is an annual event, as is Caribana, Nuit Blanche, Luminato and many other revenue-generating public events. Casinos and red light districts are ongoing businesses and venues that generate revenue but also have significant social implications that can result in costs, e.g., health costs related to addictions.

You are comparing apples with oranges.

 

[cdr108]

Fine. I define those who are against the 1% bigots in that case.

and i define you as a troll for bringing up such ridiculous comments

 

[kkgg7]

Vastly different things. Pride is an annual event, as is Caribana, Nuit Blanche, Luminato and many other revenue-generating public events. Casinos and red light districts are ongoing businesses and venues that generate revenue but also have significant social implications that can result in costs, e.g., health costs related to addictions.

You are comparing apples with oranges.

They are different because you choose to view them differently (in favour of one and against the other). I am not speaking for myself, but don't you think there are people out there who think casinos makes more sense than running the pride parades? They can argue that a casino brings in continuous revenue and jobs, while the parade is just a one time thing.

I don't see the health costs isse related to addictions to prostitutes/gambling as an argument, at least not more than they relate to any other bad habits running out of control, eg: eating too much and getting fat. Should we deny people of the right to become obsese because it brings social costs? That's addiction too.

Allowing a casino/red light district doesn't exactly encourage people to be addicted to them or have unprotected sex, only irrresponsible behaviors lead to those problems. It is like many people are obese and have diabetes, but that's because they are not responsible when it comes to eating, but because eating food itself is a bad thing. Like eating, recreational gambling and buying sex are normal healthy adult behavior, there is nothing wrong with either of them. It is when you overdo it when they become a social problem.

 

[PinkLucy]

They are different because they are different, not because of how I view them. Health costs related to addictions is a major topic of conversation when it comes to casinos. Try doing some reading.

Did I say I was in favour or not in favour of casinos and red light districts? No, I didn't. You made an assumption.

 

[nfitz]

bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Which is the perfect description of Rob Ford in so many ways. It's been quite clear that obstinately devoted to his opinions and prejudices on many issues, and this has created such a barrier between him and working with council. Be it on subways, service cuts, or whatever. It should be no surprise that his anti-gay views also create such obstinate devotion by him.

I fail to understand why anyone gets bothered when we start using the B word with Ford. The description of a person who is obstinately devoted to his opinons and prejudices is such a clear description of him. Now I'm sure one of you is going to say I'm obstinately devoted to my anti-Ford prejudice. Which I'm not ... if someone can sit and show me that I'm wrong about Ford, and he isn't bigoted - I'll quite listen to it and take it to heart. But the only way people have tried to do this is to narrow the definition of bigot to someone who has hatred, particularly based on skin colour.

 

[Tewder]

They are different because they are different, not because of how I view them. Health costs related to addictions is a major topic of conversation when it comes to casinos. Try doing some reading.

Did I say I was in favour or not in favour of casinos and red light districts? No, I didn't. You made an assumption.

Yes, and there is an enormous conflict of interest with governments running gambling and prostitution yet trying to regulate those things as well. Doesn't really work.

Like Pinklucy I'm not sure I understand how Pride is in any way to be viewed in the same way as gambling and prostitution. Apparently Kkgg7 views the choice to participate in a community event as the same thing as the choice to gamble or get it on with a hooker. Nice.

Then again...

Fine. I define those who are against the 1% bigots in that case.

What do you expect of somebody who advocates for the rich and priviledged?

Please sir, can I have some more soup?

 

[kkgg7]

They are different because they are different, not because of how I view them. Health costs related to addictions is a major topic of conversation when it comes to casinos. Try doing some reading.

I agree that casinos have the potential to bring addiction issue. However, it is a well known fact that eating high calory food has the potential to bring obsesity problems, which may cause a social healthcare problem, does that mean the city should not ALLOW restaurants which offers unhealthy food to open and operate? I don't see the difference here.
TO say one project has may bring problems is not a good justification for prohibiting it.

 

[PinkLucy]

You really need to work on your reading comprehension and stop jumping to conclusions. Your logic and reasoning leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Tewder]

Yes, now he equates 'eating' with gambling. What next.... tickling with torture (both are hands-on after all)?

 

[RC8]

kkgg7, casinos lead to social problems as does unhealthy food. I think arguing for more regulation or refusing to attend a ceremony promoting casinos and unhealthy food is perfectly acceptable and if Rob Ford or anyone chose to have a personal negative view of these issues he or she would be entitled to them.

What social problems does Pride lead to?

 

[kkgg7]

Yes, now he equates 'eating' with gambling. What next.... tickling with torture (both are hands-on after all)?

they are similar in the sense that it is fine to do in moderate amount (both gambling and eating) and lead to problems if done excessively, which is why I think banning casinos because gambling too much is bad is as ridiculous as banning eating because eating too much makes one fat and unhealthy.

Where is the logic flaw here? Enlighten me.