curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
But Saint Trudie is in charge now. Him and his ministers can make a difference, not previous administrations.
Yep, thats how parliment works!
I'm not a Canadian citizen and I don't even have a daughter of my own but I'm as mad as hell about it.
I take it you are from the UK, and you seem to also suffer under deficient laws. I would suggest you put your anger to good use and write Ms. May's government and demand they fix the laws!
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
LoveUniHateExams, well, we seem to have roughly the same standards for limits of free speech then, or perhaps you are a bit more restrictive than I am because I would stress a "clear and present danger" element.
Regarding your comment on page 9: I don't see your point. I hope Trudau is not in charge of the judicial branch in Canada, and if the law against FGM is to week I suppose you could blame any administration from 1997 onwards for that.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
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.
nah.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
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.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
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.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
Simon, did you even read my post? I wrote SPECIFICALLY that I don't consider "harm" to be sufficient to limit free speech (this was in response to free mind fade who brought up harm as a criteria for limits on speech). In fact I wrote:
"btw, nowhere did I suggest that speech should be banned simply for being harmfull."
holy cow I am beginning to understand why visual aids are considered usefull by many posters on this forum.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
I feel you guys are having a discussion with some other person than me who has ideas that are contrary to those I actually express.How about giving each other the benefit of the doubt?
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
freemindfade:
Ok, so you agree with me that some forms of speech should be banned after all? i.e. (in your words) speech that is "harmfull"?
Our discussion began with you disagreeing with me on free speech so if you don't know what the discussion is about you can perhaps return to what I have said you think is wrong :-).
(btw, nowhere did I suggest that speech should be banned simply for being harmfull. That is WAY to restrictive in my oppinion. This is also why I use a more specific examples of speech I think should be limited).
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
no, cofty. but your question feels pretty random and has a bit of a "do you beat your wife" quality. You must have misread or misunderstood something I have written severely to ask me that...
to be clear: I believe in a very broad definition of free speech but with some limits (fire-in-theater)
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
cofty, my comment was aimed at freemindfade. I don't see why your question is relevant. Do you think my comments suggests such a link?
