Canadian Politics Thread

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Future potential voter for Pee-Pee!:

 

 

[Master Mind]

5 hours ago, Bob Long said:

Oh look @Master Mindwith his usual insight 

 

Often times I feel that you make fair points, but I think these arguments you posted were flawed, and that we weren't going to find common ground so I left a couple reacts and moved on. Not sure why we need to keep talking about emojis so often, I've explained this before.

 

No need to react to random posts in other threads in some form of retaliation though. While I find it amusing, it's childish and hypocritical given the lengths you went to on the old forum to stop people from doing exactly that.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

16 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

While I find it amusing, it's childish and hypocritical given the lengths you went to

New Canuck Fan <---Guilty as charged.

 

[Dizzle]

4 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

Thank you for discussing this. You make some very strong points.

 

I come froma stance that, we humans are no better than any other animal. It's the reason I dont eat them. 

Life has soo much suffering. Sentient beings are destroyed and consumed by humans... it is celebrated.

 

But when it comes to, undeveloped, unwanted, 'future human animals', ones that I dont believe are sentient yet, the general 'we' see it different cause they are human.. i dont. We are all animals. 

Though I understand it can be sad for some....It has to be the womans choice. It's her life. That being is effecting her life, massively 

 

I appreciate the consistency in your approach. We obviously disagree but I think if you are going to be okay with allowing abortion you have to say that humans are not a unique species. I do again have major concerns of where that type of ideology could lead... I believe that there are many who hold it who simply allow it to be that, but it would seem that it would open the door for the discrediting of other human life as well? 

 

4 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

It's about who gets to make the choice. If you are not the mother, why should you have any say in it?

 

Again, it's only about who gets to make the choice if what/who is being impacted by the choice is not a human. Would you be okay with a mother killing her toddler? I would assume not... why? Because the toddler is a human being and most of us agree taking human life is a moral evil in most circumstances.

If the unborn child is indeed a human being then it is a moral evil to end its life. That's why I continue to ask the question that you refuse to answer, is it wrong to take human life and if so what constitutes being a human person? If the definition includes unborn children, abortion is wrong and I - along with every other person out there - has a right to weigh in on the choice. If the unborn child is not a human than you are right, I should not have much - if any - say on the issue. 

 

 

[Dizzle]

4 hours ago, Satchmo said:

Can you answer those questions or can you just tell us how you feel about it?

 

I am not trying to diss how you feel about it, just pointing out that's all it comes down to. 

 

EDIT - not sure how bishopshodan was quoted.  This was meant for @Dizzle

 

 

before I jump in.. I'm assuming you're referring to the question of what constitutes being a human? 

[Bob Long]

40 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

Often times I feel that you make fair points, but I think these arguments you posted were flawed, and that we weren't going to find common ground so I left a couple reacts and moved on. Not sure why we need to keep talking about emojis so often, I've explained this before.

 

No need to react to random posts in other threads in some form of retaliation though. While I find it amusing, it's childish and hypocritical given the lengths you went to on the old forum to stop people from doing exactly that.

 

I think if you were inundated with so many stupid emojis that you couldn't follow conversations you were in anymore, you might feel differently, one day alone was over 200 of them, it was getting stupid. 

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, Dizzle said:

 

Again, it's only about who gets to make the choice if what/who is being impacted by the choice is not a human.

 

and again, thats just your pov. You have no legal frame of reference to make that argument in Canada. 

 

4 minutes ago, Dizzle said:

 

Would you be okay with a mother killing her toddler? I would assume not... why? Because the toddler is a human being and most of us agree taking human life is a moral evil in most circumstances.

 

Most. But not all. So again, who are you to decide for someone else? 

 

4 minutes ago, Dizzle said:

If the unborn child is indeed a human being then it is a moral evil to end its life. That's why I continue to ask the question that you refuse to answer, is it wrong to take human life and if so what constitutes being a human person? If the definition includes unborn children, abortion is wrong and I - along with every other person out there - has a right to weigh in on the choice. If the unborn child is not a human than you are right, I should not have much - if any - say on the issue. 

 

morality is relative. Even the bible has some justified killings in it, even of children.

 

I'm not refusing to answer, its just your pov. Thats the point - its your pov.

 

You can't use your particular morality to force another to do something you want to in this country.

 

[112]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

and again, thats just your pov. You have no legal frame of reference to make that argument in Canada. 

 

 

Most. But not all. So again, who are you to decide for someone else? 

 

 

morality is relative. Even the bible has some justified killings in it, even of children.

 

I'm not refusing to answer, its just your pov. Thats the point - its your pov.

 

You can't use your particular morality to force another to do something you want to in this country.

 

Morality is objective.

 

Philosophically it's highly difficult to demarcate a fetus from a human; and it's likewise difficult to separate potential for life from life itself.

[Bob Long]

Just now, 112 said:

Morality is objective.

 

Philosophically it's highly difficult to demarcate a fetus from a human; and it's likewise difficult to separate potential for life from life itself.

 

sure, one can make that argument. 

 

But for me to adopt or make up a moral pov, that then forces you to do something, isn't legal in Canada. 

 

These folks want the power to force someone to have a child, with all of the risks and issues that can come with that. They'd even go as far as not allowing Plan B pills.

 

Where will these moralists all be if the mother needs help or the kid ends up in the system? 

 

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

sure, one can make that argument. 

 

But for me to adopt or make up a moral pov, that then forces you to do something, isn't legal in Canada. 

 

These folks want the power to force someone to have a child, with all of the risks and issues that can come with that. They'd even go as far as not allowing Plan B pills.

 

Where will these moralists all be if the mother needs help or the kid ends up in the system? 

 

And make no mistake, there's a high likelihood that a woman who needed an abortion and was forced to carry to term would need help or the child would end up in the system.

[Dizzle]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

and again, thats just your pov. You have no legal frame of reference to make that argument in Canada. 

 

 

Most. But not all. So again, who are you to decide for someone else? 

 

 

morality is relative. Even the bible has some justified killings in it, even of children.

 

I'm not refusing to answer, its just your pov. Thats the point - its your pov.

 

You can't use your particular morality to force another to do something you want to in this country.

 

I’m asking two very specific questions about your moral framework. 
 

1.) is it wrong to take an innocent human’s life?

 

2.) how do you determine who/what is a human? 
 

since you’ve said morality is relative I’ll add in one more. Was the chattel slavery practiced in the states wrong?

[Dizzle]

4 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

And make no mistake, there's a high likelihood that a woman who needed an abortion and was forced to carry to term would need help or the child would end up in the system.

I’ve worked with over a dozen kids who are ‘in the system’ through foster care or other means. Those kids lives are often difficult but no less precious than anyone else’s. 

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, Dizzle said:

I’m asking two very specific questions about your moral framework. 
 

1.) is it wrong to take an innocent human’s life?

 

It depends. What happens if I don't? 

 

Are you arguing that there is to be no killing of any kind in the absolute? 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Dizzle said:

2.) how do you determine who/what is a human? 
 

 

Good question. Where are the margins of that?

 

4 minutes ago, Dizzle said:

since you’ve said morality is relative I’ll add in one more. Was the chattel slavery practiced in the states wrong?

 

Yes. That has no bearing tho on the decision to have a child in the first place.

 

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, Dizzle said:

I’ve worked with over a dozen kids who are ‘in the system’ through foster care or other means. Those kids lives are often difficult but no less precious than anyone else’s. 

And also no more precious than the lives of the women who would be having them and would be ruined by doing so.

[Dizzle]

8 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

It depends. What happens if I don't? 

 

Are you arguing that there is to be no killing of any kind in the absolute? 
 

I’m asking specifically in regard to innocent life. 
 

8 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

 

 

Good question. Where are the margins of that?

 

definitions usually set margins by practice? Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re asking though. Let me know if I am… I just want to know what constitutes being a human. 

8 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

 

Yes. That has no bearing tho on the decision to have a child in the first place.

 

it does as you said morality is relative. If it is relative how do you decide that slavery was wrong… rather it’s just something you don’t like. 
 

ultimately I don’t think you actually believe that morality is relative as you would generally be talking about whether things are socially beneficial or not and you haven’t hinted at that. Most of us recognize moral objectivity when it comes to things like slavery/holocaust/school shootings etc. 

 

The point is, if morality is objective and killing innocent humans is morally wrong, than what I’ve been saying all along utterly matters, because if an unborn child is human than we’re taking human life under the auspices of choice. 
 

I would go one step further and suggest that most moral evils against people groups have historically been committed by one group dehumanizing another… for example, it’s a lot easier to fully enslave Africans if they are less human than white people. It’s a lot easier to put indigenous people in residential schools if their humanity is less than ours. 

[Dizzle]

13 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

And also no more precious than the lives of the women who would be having them and would be ruined by doing so.

This is just silly Heffy. Theres an entirely qualitative difference between ending a human life and ‘ruining’ one. You would have to establish that having a child at a time of inconvenience actually ruins peoples lives to begin with… I’d be interested to see the study that establishes that… or even the anecdotal evidence really. 

[Satchmo]

36 minutes ago, Dizzle said:

 

before I jump in.. I'm assuming you're referring to the question of what constitutes being a human? 

Yes, but don't worry about it.  You've already told us how you feel.   That's the point I was making - in this matter there are no definitive answers; there are just gut feelings.

[Dizzle]

3 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

Yes, but don't worry about it.  You've already told us how you feel.   That's the point I was making - in this matter there are no definitive answers; there are just gut feelings.

You have gut feelings about who is and isn’t a human? 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

3 hours ago, Spring Salmon said:

What's basically going on is this

Wait, didn't a conservative MP literally just bring it up? Lol

 

[Satchmo]

Just now, Dizzle said:

You have gut feelings about who is and isn’t a human? 

That's bait....

 

People have gut feelings about abortion.

[King Heffy]

8 minutes ago, Dizzle said:

This is just silly Heffy. Theres an entirely qualitative difference between ending a human life and ‘ruining’ one. You would have to establish that having a child at a time of inconvenience actually ruins peoples lives to begin with… I’d be interested to see the study that establishes that… or even the anecdotal evidence really. 

Had a nasty scare a few years ago, and it was the only time I've ever had suicidal thoughts in my life.  Luckily it was dealt with and steps were taken to prevent the possibility of it happening again.

[Elias Pettersson]

1 minute ago, Satchmo said:

That's bait....

 

People have gut feelings about abortion.

I think what Dizzle is saying is that if indeed a fetus is a human being then killing it via an abortion would constitute murder. Murder is illegal under our Canadian Constitution and people would go to jail for life for committing murder. 
 

This is why he keeps asking the same question over and over again, “What is a human?”  Is a fetus a human life?  Is so then 100% arborting it is murder. If it is not a human life then Dizzle is basically saying he doesn’t care what the woman does with the fetus. 
 

So, is a fetus a human being?  If the answer is no, then who gets to decide that?  Scientists, doctors?

[Dizzle]

10 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

That's bait....

 

People have gut feelings about abortion.

Im not really basing my questions or arguments on feelings (although I do have strong feelings about the issue). I’m asking people to think about what constitutes a human person, whether an unborn baby fits into that definition, and if so whether that makes abortion morally wrong. It’s a fairly standard philosophical practice of logic. 
 

framed in a more modus ponens type of way I’m suggesting 

 

1.) killing innocent humans is wrong 

2.) most definitions of ‘human’ include unborn children. 
3.) killing unborn children is wrong. 
 

edit: spelling 

Edited May 11 by Dizzle

[Dizzle]

2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I think what Dizzle is saying is that if indeed a fetus is a human being then killing it via an abortion would constitute murder. Murder is illegal under our Canadian Constitution and people would go to jail for life for committing murder. 
 

This is why he keeps asking the same question over and over again, “What is a human?”  Is a fetus a human life?  Is so then 100% arborting it is murder. If it is not a human life then Dizzle is basically saying he doesn’t care what the woman does with the fetus. 
 

So, is a fetus a human being?  If the answer is no, then who gets to decide that?  Scientists, doctors?

thanks Petey. I smiled reading this. Its nice to have someone take the time to understand what you’re saying (but maybe I’m just not communicating clearly )

[Satchmo]

Just now, Elias Pettersson said:

I think what Dizzle is saying is that if indeed a fetus is a human being then killing it via an abortion would constitute murder. Murder is illegal under our Canadian Constitution and people would go to jail for life for committing murder. 
 

This is why he keeps asking the same question over and over again, “What is a human?”  Is a fetus a human life?  Is so then 100% arborting it is murder. If it is not a human life then Dizzle is basically saying he doesn’t care what the woman does with the fetus. 
 

So, is a fetus a human being?  If the answer is no, then who gets to decide that?  Scientists, doctors?

I know all about him asking the same question over and over again.

 

I'm mildly interested in what answer he may give though I can give a good guess.

 

To answer your last question:  Judges -  in consultation with doctors, scientists, philosophers, and hopefully a woman or two.   For the rest of us it's our gut.