Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
cofty, you are attempting argumentumt ad populum. This would be more convincing if the responses to me had not largely consisted of cartoons (sorry: visual aids), obvious misreadings, a confusion about the definition of "speech" and what appears to be a teenage girl having some sort of a breakdown.
cofty, here is an example of what I mean: Where in this thread did the concept of feelings and critique (as relating to free speech) enter the conversation? I was very, very clear about my examples and they had absolutely nothing to do with feelings or a general critique.
cofty, you are attempting argumentumt ad populum
No I'm doing no such thing. False accusations of fallacies are a dishonest technique. Please don't do that.
I'm making a simple observation that 4 or 5 intelligent posters (based on long knowledge of their posting history) are apparently misunderstanding your point. I'm suggesting you go back to square one and try to clarify.
You prefer ambiguity. Duly noted.
cofty, you wrote: I'm suggesting you go back to square one and try to clarify.
Clarify what, exactly?
Lets take an example: Simon came to the conclusion that I felt speech should be limited on a criteria of emotional harm. The example I brought up where I most clearly illustratted my attitudes towards banned speech was that of the hate-preacher who incited to terrorism and it singled out the danger of violence very clearly. Do you feel that example was too ambigious, or do you feel it was clear to understand?
You prefer ambiguity. Duly noted.
liberals literally destroy everything. Just look at Sweden. I seriously think some forms of liberalism should be banned bc they destroy free speech for everyone.
Jackass: you are a disgrace. You should be ashamed to come here and advocate hateful views such as banning free speech, and then not have the guts to stand by your ideas. you are a full of weasel words and arrogant to boot.
hothead - be respectful or shut up.
Jacobi - I honestly have not got a clue what your point is in this thread. Maybe I'm missing something. Good night.
Trudeau panders to his audience. This alleged joke was his attempt to win over a particular segment of society. It only became a 'joke' when he realized (or his staffers realized) it was not acceptable.
He will always include women, girls, LGBTQ2, and other special interests whether they are relevant to the conversation or not. I agree there are issues that need to be addressed with each of these groups but it is his apparent mandate to make everything somehow about these groups.
I prefer a leader that focuses on all of Society not just special interests. That said one group that deserves a lot more of his interest and passion are veterans. His focus on refugees versus those that made a country safe for refugees is despicable!
Personally from my viewpoint, if it is known that a person went to another country or a newly arrived immigrant is attempting to enter the country but it is known that they participated with a terrorist organization like ISIL, they should be blocked from entering or the recognized natural citizen should go through a conviction of unlawful behavior and be penalized accordingly.
Jacobi you are currently arguing on a sub -"Cathy Newman" leve'
FreeMind Jacobson if this thread runs long enough, I guarantee we'll hit the paydirt bearing Newman-tier solid gold.
Should it be allowed to post ISIS-related bomb-making guides? - no because the limit to freedom of speech and freedom of expression is always incitement to violence.
That's why bomb-making guides are banned. That's why the best method of beheading someone with a knife is banned.
BTW Jacobi, what do you think about my comments (p.9 of this thread) on the CBC article you gave a link to?
Did you even read the article?