|
^^ ownsTeam THEOLOGY posted:I suppose unfortunately I don't care how it comes off. Especially when you put into context the BC election and prior to the last federal one. Short memories, and further, they almost never get what the majority wants because intelligent voting has become a faux pas in Canada. That being said I have expressed this thought before and election after election seem to prove me right. I can't say I am unhappy because usually my party comes out on top, but man it's got to be frustrating.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
HookShot posted:^^ owns But it's premised on the idea that the system is dysfunctional because of the voters in it, rather than the system itself currently favouring such an outcome. The idea that at some point in history previous to this voters were voting intelligently, and that now they are not, is faulty reasoning that doesn't bear out in reality. Getting angry at the common voter is counterproductive and stupid, the system generates the results we see, and no amount of voter engagement exercises will change that. For every one person who votes strategically, there are two who never do, and this has always been the case. So advocate for systemic change, hell, advocate for the NDP or the liberals to go into a hole and die to stop dividing the left, but don't delude yourselves into believing that if only the public were up to snuff, democracy would work, because it doesn't. At least not int he way you believe it should.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:But it's premised on the idea that the system is dysfunctional because of the voters in it, rather than the system itself currently favouring such an outcome. The idea that at some point in history previous to this voters were voting intelligently, and that now they are not, is faulty reasoning that doesn't bear out in reality. Getting angry at the common voter is counterproductive and stupid, the system generates the results we see, and no amount of voter engagement exercises will change that. For every one person who votes strategically, there are two who never do, and this has always been the case. So advocate for systemic change, hell, advocate for the NDP or the liberals to go into a hole and die to stop dividing the left, but don't delude yourselves into believing that if only the public were up to snuff, democracy would work, because it doesn't. At least not int he way you believe it should. I don't think that if the public were up to snuff democracy would work at all, because the public will never be up to snuff. Your average person is an uneducated idiot who will vote against their interests at the drop of a hat because they're incredibly easy to manipulate. I don't think voters have ever voted intelligently, and I don't think democracy is a good system of government. Unfortunately it's better than all the other options we have right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Strategic voting is counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:Strategic voting is counterproductive. I don't think I mean strategic in the way you do, I mean strategic in actually voting for their own interests. Also I never said it would work if people were up to snuff. I'm specifically just referencing my opinion as seen from elections so far. It's not nice, I know, but it just seems to be the case. Also if I came off as angry I really am not, is an observation not a condemnation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I don't think that if the public were up to snuff democracy would work at all, because the public will never be up to snuff. Your average person is an uneducated idiot who will vote against their interests at the drop of a hat because they're incredibly easy to manipulate. I don't think voters have ever voted intelligently, and I don't think democracy is a good system of government. During the last election I had a friend who voted Conservative for one reason and one reason only "None of the other parties are going to win, might as well vote for the one that will.  ".
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:I don't think I mean strategic in the way you do, I mean strategic in actually voting for their own interests. I have a buddy that a year after Harper was first elected, that was complaining to me about how poo poo child care in Ottawa was and how could it be so hard find a spot. To which I reminded him that he could blame everyone that voted Conservative since canceling it was the only item on their platform other than ADSCAM! You could hear the  through the phone. This is an educated man who isn't a sucker, and with two kids that need daycare spots voting to cancel the child care initiative.  I think we can all point to an anecdote like that, so it isn't like we don't agree with with you. It just disappoints me though, since it doesn't inadvertently work to my advantage. I think if we were lazily electing social progressives I would echo your sentiment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Sorry for the off topic post, but does anyone have the parody election videos that Daryn Jones did back in the day about Harper. Basically he's dressed up in a sweater vest and reminiscing about various points in his life (like the time he ran over a prostitute).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:I have a buddy that a year after Harper was first elected, that was complaining to me about how poo poo child care in Ottawa was and how could it be so hard find a spot. To which I reminded him that he could blame everyone that voted Conservative since canceling it was the only item on their platform other than ADSCAM! You could hear the Yea I definitely see what you are saying. I never really understood it either. I have my reasons for voting Conservative and nothing they have done have changed the reasons that I voted for them - but it always seemed odd to me when the above happened, though I suppose you can't blame people to many there are more important things than politics (or in the very least they think there are, until they realize politics have tentacles in everything).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
CBC posted:The federal Conservative Party is denying the existence of a secret fund in the Prime Minister’s Office controlled exclusively by Stephen Harper’s chief of staff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:During the last election I had a friend who voted Conservative for one reason and one reason only "None of the other parties are going to win, might as well vote for the one that will. I think there's a lot of people who vote this way. I seem to remember reading some report about how voting for who they think will win allows them to feel like part of the winning team, which our brains really like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 02:34
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I vote for the candidate I like but actually am kind of relieved when they lose. For the "don't blame me, I voted for.." factor when they inevitably gently caress up or are exposed as corrupt shitheads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
I cheer for terrible sports teams and vote for people who never win. At least I'm consistent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:Since the courts have stopped the federal government from merely shutting down safe injection sites, the Conservatives are relying on local NIMBY mentalities to keep them from being opened: I know I'm a few days late on this, but this is incredibly frustrating, especially given that I work in a homeless clinic with drug addicts. Most big cities in Canada have a movement in place to get a safe injection site up and running since the Supreme Court decision on Insite, and this is just the most facile and transparent way for the feds to block something which clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, saves lives. Take Edmonton, for example - right now everything is at the 'behind-the-scenes consensus building' stage, but indications are that the Edmonton Police Service would be cautiously supportive, as would city council (although that might change depending on this fall's election), as would Alberta Health. The local community leagues are opposed to anything that would bring more 'low-class' (read: addicted) people into the neighbourhood, but the main thrust of building consensus is going to be pointing out that safe injection sites reduce the amount of drug use on the streets, reduce the amount of drug paraphernalia on the streets, and help divert people into treatment. Unfortunately, our local MP is Peter Goldring, who is an idiot. And now back in caucus. And if I'm reading this right, the opposition of the local MP would probably be enough to kibosh the whole thing in the eyes of our glorious health minister. So I'm now vacillating between incoherent rage and resignation to the fact that there won't be another safe injection site in Canada until the Tories are out of power. I shouldn't be surprised; years ago Tony Clement made some comments to the effect that any doctor who supports safe injection sites is unethical, which is about as insulting to a doctor as calling them a pedophile. I just want my patients to stop dying of overdoses, is that too much to ask? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:So I'm now vacillating between incoherent rage and resignation to the fact that there won't be another safe injection site in Canada until the Tories are out of power. I shouldn't be surprised; years ago Tony Clement made some comments to the effect that any doctor who supports safe injection sites is unethical, which is about as insulting to a doctor as calling them a pedophile. I just want my patients to stop dying of overdoses, is that too much to ask? Yeah, it's really loving atrocious. Especially since this law will force another long court battle that the government will eventually lose (again). And addicts will lose in the meantime. I live in Parkdale (Toronto) and there are used needles in our parks occasionally. Anytime I'm picking up a prescription for myself or my kid I see people getting their methadone drink at the Shoppers Drug Mart two blocks away. A safe injection site can't do anything but help my community. I'm considering sending an email to my local reps (all supporters of harm reduciton) and offering to make my family the 'poster child' for families who support safe injection sites because I really believe in them. I don't know what else to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:I know I'm a few days late on this, but this is incredibly frustrating, especially given that I work in a homeless clinic with drug addicts. Most big cities in Canada have a movement in place to get a safe injection site up and running since the Supreme Court decision on Insite, and this is just the most facile and transparent way for the feds to block something which clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, saves lives. There's your problem right there, thinking that the lives of the homeless and drug-addicted count as lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
They've been talking about putting a safe injection site in Ottawa for awhile, though the mayor says he doesn't want one. It's rumoured the province will force the city to accept one anyway. The intended target is the Byward Market, which is right downtown, and only a couple of blocks from Parliament, and 24 Sussex. I keep hearing conflicting information on these things, and I'd like a bit more info. Most of the vocal opponents say that Vancouver's downtown east side, where Insite is, is a wasteland of hopelessness and addicition and crime, and apparently police aren't allowed within a certain radius of the inejction clinic. What's the deal with that? Ottawa has a needle exchange program to try and cut down on dirty needle use. This is also opposed because they're not giving needles to diabetics for free, just drug addicts. But a lot of the criticism I've heard of Insite, et al. is that it isn't safe, and that it doesn't provide addiction counselling, or rehab services, or that the people who use it don't take advantage of those services, that they just shoot up in the street with dirty needles later, that the drugs they bring in aren't safe, or are laced with other things, and that the blocks surrounding it turn into crime havens because of the no-cop zone. I just find this entire debate confusing. Is it just ideology that's blocking this, on the perception that addicts aren't really people? Does it work, or doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
First of all, VPD agreed to not arrest anyone within a 5 block radius of Insite for carrying illegal drugs. Because you have to bring them there somehow and I'm pretty sure they're not gonna have a safety deposit box for your heroin. Second of all, Insite was started there because it was an urban wasteland. Insite has lead to a marked (35% according to a Lancet paper IIRC) reduction in discarded syringes in the area around its location. Basically everything you've heard is mostly bullshit or interpreting data as "the addicts are still there ergo Insite is useless".
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Leofish posted:But a lot of the criticism I've heard of Insite, et al. is that it isn't safe, and that it doesn't provide addiction counselling, or rehab services, or that the people who use it don't take advantage of those services, that they just shoot up in the street with dirty needles later, that the drugs they bring in aren't safe, or are laced with other things, and that the blocks surrounding it turn into crime havens because of the no-cop zone. That all sounds like "technically true but actually bullshit". As far as I know Insite itself doesn't offer rehab and counselling, but a place upstairs from it does. The facility also doesn't provide drugs (users come with their own) so of course the drugs that get consumed contain all sorts of nasty poo poo in them. There's been a fair amount of research showing that the number of deaths and overdoses has gone down significantly because of Insite (I think The Lancet published it). The facility has its own security too IIRC. Most of the information on Insite is easily Googleable. In my view most of the anti-Insite arguments are rooted in the morality of the situation rather than the reality that despite our best efforts, drugs are available and in use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
It is probably more that addiction isn't a real thing. If they don't want to be a drug addict, they should stop taking drugs. Also, all the negative consequences of their drug use are what they deserve for being drug addicts in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:It is probably more that addiction isn't a real thing. What?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
^^^I'm assuming he's being facetious. Also that drat safe injection facility will prevent developers from truly gentrifying the area into more valuable downtown real estate! Seriously though that area is pretty gross, it's definitely the worst urban area in Canada even though I felt like I'd have a higher likelihood of getting mugged in Scarborough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Update: Elizabeth May is still terrible. tldr she gets called out on homeopathy being bad policy, she says it's not policy, people point out the policy on the website, she denies reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
I don't get why people are so angry about homeopathy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
I suppose it's theoretically possible that she's right when she says that it's not part of a current Vision Green draft. But then, wouldn't you want to, oh I don't know, check the Vision Green document before saying "it's all there on Vision Green," in public, on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Because people take bullshit cures for real ailments and the lack of proper treatment often leads to conditions worsening or death. And the Greens want to divert healthcare dollars to covering these. e: To be more specific, homeopathy works by taking a given medicinal ingredient, diluting it down multiple times by orders of magnitude, shaking it to impart energy into the solution and then drinking it. The more you dilute, the more potent it becomes. If the "quackery" alarm bells aren't firing off at full volume by now... Eej fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
ZeeBoi posted:I don't get why people are so angry about homeopathy. At best, it's a waste of money. At worst, it distracts people from actually seeking real treatment for real conditions, possibly allowing malignant conditions to progress from curable to incurable. See Jobs comma Steve.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry, I was confusing it with naturopathy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
ZeeBoi posted:Yeah, sorry, I was confusing it with naturopathy. I think the Green Party did too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
ZeeBoi posted:Yeah, sorry, I was confusing it with naturopathy. The allopathic model is pretty good, methinks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Eej posted:To be more specific, homeopathy works by taking a given medicinal ingredient, diluting it down multiple times by orders of magnitude, shaking it to impart energy into the solution and then drinking it. The more you dilute, the more potent it becomes. If the "quackery" alarm bells aren't firing off at full volume by now... Not just diluting, but diluting it so much that the chances of the original substance being present at all are vanishingly small, because the idea is water has "memory" and will remember the properties of, say, milk of ipecac, so It's like the most batshit crazy interpretation of vaccine theory possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
To best describe almost anything, watch a Mitchell and Webb Sketch. This sums up homeopathy pretty well and why you shouldn't support the Greens if they think this is seriously a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Not just diluting, but diluting it so much that the chances of the original substance being present at all are vanishingly small, because the idea is water has "memory" and will remember the properties of, say, milk of ipecac, so You know, I always wrote it off with out much thought because it's batshit crazy. Now that people have restated the main premise again in this thread, I just noticed a hole the size of a truck in the premise (well another one anyway). Let's take the idea that water memory works as a given. What about all the things you have in vanishingly small concentrations already? I mean any given glass of water will have had concentrations of heavy metals, rare nuclide of more common elements, and trace radioactive elements. All of these range from very low to vanishingly low concentrations, wouldn't all the negative effects being heavily amplified kill you? Or does only the beneficial stuff count in an even more blatant display of intellectual bankruptcy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
cafel posted:You know, I always wrote it off with out much thought because it's batshit crazy. Now that people have restated the main premise again in this thread, I just noticed a hole the size of a truck in the premise (well another one anyway). Let's take the idea that water memory works as a given. What about all the things you have in vanishingly small concentrations already? I mean any given glass of water will have had concentrations of heavy metals, rare nuclide of more common elements, and trace radioactive elements. All of these range from very low to vanishingly low concentrations, wouldn't all the negative effects being heavily amplified kill you? Or does only the beneficial stuff count in an even more blatant display of intellectual bankruptcy? No, really. They call it succussion and it's apparently key to how the magic works. Team THEOLOGY posted:The allopathic model is pretty good, methinks. Also - and not to derail the homeopathy derail - I find myself living in Laurie Hawn's riding. He seems like at least a reasonably decent and honest guy, albeit one who I'd disagree with on a number of points. Am off base here, THEOLOGY?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Well you gotta use distilled water. The succussion (tapping, shaking of the mixture in the vial/whatever you're mixing it in) is what really triggers the potency in your homeopathic remedy. Now imagine a homeopath standing in front of a class of pharmacy students saying this with a straight face. I don't think any of us walked out of that room with a greater appreciation for alternative medicine that day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:It's because you shake up the treatment that the substance gives its power to the water. For what I know, many of my good friends play on Hawn's baseball team, aptly named Hawntourage and say he is a fantastic boss and a great all round guy. Of course policy wise sure there maybe things even I agree with but for face value I'm told he is a pretty principled honest guy. Also he was among those not thrilled with the lack of transparency etc. so as far as Cons go, you could definitely have a worse MP as a person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:For what I know, many of my good friends play on Hawn's baseball team, aptly named Hawntourage and say he is a fantastic boss and a great all round guy. Of course policy wise sure there maybe things even I agree with but for face value I'm told he is a pretty principled honest guy. Also he was among those not thrilled with the lack of transparency etc. so as far as Cons go, you could definitely have a worse MP as a person. You could have Baird for instance. Or Pollivair! Or Anyone not named Marc Garneau.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
You know, the fact that the greens support homeopathy and acupuncture makes a lot of sense when I think about it. The only people I know who believe in that stuff are exactly the kind of yuppie progressive with disposable income I could see voting for the greens. Maybe it's a strategic consideration, for getting votes? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Update: Elizabeth May is saying the homeopathic paragraph screenshot its from 2011 and that it was fixed. While it's still live on the green party website. Where people are going and taking new screenshots of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
Twiin posted:Update: Elizabeth May is saying the homeopathic paragraph screenshot its from 2011 and that it was fixed. She seems like an extraordinarily poor politician.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 00:54
|
|