Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
I'm really not comfortable thinking of things in those terms, because historically it hasn't taken a huge leap to get from "____ isn't useful to society" to "hey let's get rid of____." I coach Special Olympics and, by pretty much any measure, the intellectually disabled are a net drain on society. But without some of these "undesirables" we would probably lack empathy and compassion, which are really damn important emotions.
Oh I agree , it might not be a good approach for a whole society , but I'm comfortable to think of things in those terms on a personal level , because I know I won't ever take that leap.
You can't lock yourself to think like large groups of people.
No, my answer to your one post was exposed, and I thought we were already in agreement.
Here's the logic, I'll throw in a new qualifier for your pedofiles, thought it would be a given:
- Homosexuality does no harm to society
- Homosexuals are useful to humanity
- A happy and accepted homosexual is more useful to humanity
- Homosexuality is useful to humanity
You are confusing homosexuals and homosexuality.The pro-gay community has spend decades trying to convince the mass that gay people are just like any other , except they are sexually attracted to people of their own gender.By this philosophy , the usefulness of an homosexual has nothing to do with his homosexuality or homosexuality alone.The chemist who happens to be gay would still be a good chemist if he woke up as a straight man one day out of nowhere.
You are confusing homosexuals and homosexuality.The pro-gay community has spend decades trying to convince the mass that gay people are just like any other , except they are sexually attracted to people of their own gender.By this philosophy , the usefulness of an homosexual has nothing to do with his homosexuality or homosexuality alone.The chemist who happens to be gay would still be a good chemist if he woke up as a straight man one day out of nowhere.
At least we can agree that this is entirely fruitless and saying something like, "homosexuality is useless to humanity" is a waste of breath?
Sex is useful to humanity, some people prefer homosexual sex, homosexuality is useful to humanity.
This just seems so inherently right that it's boring to try to whittle it down. Again, there are a million things that exist that more useless to humanity than homosexuality.
At least we can agree that this is entirely fruitless and saying something like, "homosexuality is useless to humanity" is a waste of breath?
Sex is useful to humanity, some people prefer homosexual sex, homosexuality is useful to humanity.
Sex is only useful to humanity for survival of the species by reproduction.
It COULD be argue that the sexual energy in a person could make him do great non-sexual things if he manage to use it for something else than dating and having sex , but even with this argument the heterosexual sex drive would still be enough for the usefulness of using the sex-drive energy to create great things.
A lot of bad and illogical things are happening because of humanity's sexuality as well , lots of decisions are clouded by the primitive sexual instincts.
Step 3. The poster says it's an opinion, not the law.
Step 4. YOU ARE IGNORANT AND UNINFORMED.
Repeat ad Naseum.
I'm sure the people who dissented to other laws in the past, slavery, the fact that whites could not marry blacks, the fact that gays were sub-human, etc. were simply "uninformed and ignorant" as well because they dissented with the law (which they knew at the time), right?
Same old story.
Pretty much. I have tremendous respect for Wetcoaster's knowledge of relevant statutes and Canadian law - I would not have asked him for clarifications on a few points in this thread otherwise - but I do wish that someone like him who is obviously intelligent would step outside of the box for a moment and think a little more creatively.
He comes across more as an accountant sometimes than a lawyer, truth be told.
One can have an opinion that runs contrary to the content and spirit of a law without being saddled in ignorance after all. Laws certainly are ever-changing and not at all infallible in a modern society.
Pretty much. I have tremendous respect for Wetcoaster's knowledge of relevant statutes and Canadian law - I would not have asked him for clarifications on a few points in this thread otherwise - but I do wish that someone like him who is obviously intelligent would step outside of the box for a moment and think a little more creatively.
He comes across more as an accountant sometimes than a lawyer, truth be told.
I wish that too sometimes, but I'll defend him to the bitter end.
Rizer is (vomit) right. It's not a government service, it's a private business. They should have the right to refuse for any reason.
The barber is a horrible piece of a ****, and I hope they go out of business and suffer poverty for being that idiotic and prejudiced, but they have a right to being that idiotic and prejudiced, as long as there is no public interest involved.
Certainly I have no personal love lost for Islam. I consider it, much like many of the Abrahimic faiths, to be antiquated and unsuited for the realities of contemporary society (a monopoly it by no means holds over other religions mind you). At the same time though, as expressed previously, I find there to be an inherent value in granting small business owners broad levels of freedom when it comes to conducting their business.
The public is free to boycott then or not solicit their services and the barbers should be free to conduct their business operations in the manner that best suits them. A company that wants to maximize its profits will allow patrons of all demographics to utilize its services. Ideally common sense could have prevailed here: why would you want to go some place where you are not wanted? The other consideration for me is that there are very few "safe" places for men around these days. People may scoff at the notion, but women have numerous single sex locations and businesses available to them. I think it's important to periodically take a break from one another and the neighbourhood barbershop was one of the last vestiges of male solitude.
That may not be a popular opinion but its certainly worth considering. I think BenchBrawl alluded to something similar earlier in this thread. I also come to this conclusion partially based on my undergraduate experiences with militantly sexist feminist factions on my school's campus and abroad, that repeatedly protested the notion of men's groups, even as those same men supported their women's groups.
To me this isn't as much a matter of gender rights as it is a matter of private religious and personal rights.
What the hell are you guys talking about? Wetcoaster is the most useful poster on this board.
I respect a lot of posters , and many of them have a lot that they could teach me , but Wetcoaster is the one providing useful informations on the most consistant basis.
No one is criticizing Wetcoaster. We are simply saying that it is precisely *because* we value his legal knowledge that we wish he would step forward with his personal position a little more.
I will say though: I am exceedingly giddy to see him just eviserate Justin Trudeau on a fairly regular basis around here, so that's one nugget of personal bias he's allowed to slip through.
I would prefer not to look at the individual, but specific viewpoints.
There are many religious beliefs and ideologies that are obviously rooted in rational thought and others that aren't. For example I would say half of the Ten Commandments are fine, the others aren't.
If an individual has religious beliefs or takes actions which can only be justified by pointing at text that has been altered hundreds of times over thousands of years, it isn't rational.
You're worshipping at the altar of the golden calf as we speak, aren't you!
Pretty much. I have tremendous respect for Wetcoaster's knowledge of relevant statutes and Canadian law - I would not have asked him for clarifications on a few points in this thread otherwise - but I do wish that someone like him who is obviously intelligent would step outside of the box for a moment and think a little more creatively.
He comes across more as an accountant sometimes than a lawyer, truth be told.
One can have an opinion that runs contrary to the content and spirit of a law without being saddled in ignorance after all. Laws certainly are ever-changing and not at all infallible in a modern society.
Any one of us can get on a free legal database (or a subscribed one such as quicklaw, westlaw, etc.) and post the same stuff he does. Legal research is a pretty easy skill that anyone anyone can excel at. He's not that impressive, quite frankly.
My beef with him is, as you seem to agree with, his inability to distinguish a personal opinion (clearly stated) from a matter of law. He simply quotes the law (duh, it's public knowledge and easy to look up) and then says "you are ignorant, you are wrong".
No, sir, I am not. I offered a dissenting opinion, and if you don't like it then screw off or debate the point. I know what the law says, I know what the charter says, and I simply disagree. But he clouds the issue by simply quoting books and then labeling the detractors under the umbrella of some 'tough guy lawyer' who fights bad guys. Please. I know plenty of lawyers, on both sides of the fence, and I've had these conversations with them many times, and not one of them was such a ****** bag that they simply quoted the law to me and said "YOU ARE WRONG, YOU ARE IGNORANT. THE END." We had an actual discussion about the finer points of it, as human beings.
He, whoever he is in real life, clearly lacks that ability. I guess he is too obsessed with being the 'online lawyer guy' that he forgets life is about more than quoting statutes or precedent from westlaw (or whatever) to realize that.
Too bad most of the other people around here are too caught up in his bravado to realize that.
