|
PT6A posted:We don't need to mention every bad thing explicitly every day. I feel like you really have an ideological axe to grind here, and I find it distasteful. You're right there's no reason to think critically about the military, particularly on the day specifically designated to think about the military.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
peter banana posted:You're right there's no reason to think critically about the military, particularly on the day specifically designated to think about the military. No, this day isn't to think about the military, it's to think about the veterans and the fact that our country sent a generation off to die in a pointless, lovely war that accomplished nothing, in addition to all the people who were killed or maimed in other conflicts. I don't think the tone of the ceremony today, or any of the coverage, glorified war or the role of the military. Again, if you think it did, you were obviously watching something way different from what I was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No, this day isn't to think about the military, it's to think about the veterans and the fact that our country sent a generation off to die in a pointless, lovely war that accomplished nothing, in addition to all the people who were killed or maimed in other conflicts. I don't think the tone of the ceremony today, or any of the coverage, glorified war or the role of the military. Again, if you think it did, you were obviously watching something way different from what I was. Then why is it controversial to say today that we should think critically before sending further people off to die in lovely wars? That's all I'm asking for and yes we must have been watching different ceremonies because I do not see that conversation happening anywhere today. I only see people saying they sacrificed "for us," which is pure propaganda and a line of thinking that easily leads to sending further people off to die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
jm20 posted:I don't believe you can separate a persons physical actions from their mental state of mind, it's fairly straightforward. In the case of episodic <<insert mental illness>> where the end result is physical violence and at the extreme causal to death, there should not be a blurred line where for instance Vince Weiguang Li or Guy Turcotte should be free by any frame of the word free. The same applies to drinking and driving deaths whereby the responsible party basically gets 4-5 years tops for murdering people such as the pending case against Marco Muzzo (who will likely serve under 5 years). Are you a psychologist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:language is a living thing, lol if u think ur not gonna see more of that 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
I do think we have a system that is both far too easy on truly abhorrent criminals, and far too hard on pretty much anyone else. (especially people who have to serve their sentences in provincial jails, or who have to await trial on remand in provincial jails)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
jm20 posted:I don't believe you can separate a persons physical actions from their mental state of mind, it's fairly straightforward. Yes, because the while development of a rule if law to have both a Actus and Mens component to a crime is something we just made up to let people go free. Great to see that the idea of permanent incarceration for the mentally ill is still alive and well in Canada. While we are at it, let's also extend our arrests to children under 5. They physically did a thing, they totally understood what they were doing an what the ramifications of those actions would be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Let's talk about the veterans who are pure human garbage, no not the Somalian airborne shitheels. I'm talking about a whole other echelon of loving stupid. Canadians who volunteered to fight for the Americans in Vietnam. Lol gently caress you guys and I hope you dumb jock fucks never get a cent of my taxes for treatment of whatever you're now whining about. gently caress you and gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Let's talk about the veterans who are pure human garbage, no not the Somalian airborne shitheels. I'm talking about a whole other echelon of loving stupid. Well, depending on who you believe, there are a couple kinds of Canadian vietnam veterans (each in smaller and smaller number)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Well, depending on who you believe, there are a couple kinds of Canadian vietnam veterans (each in smaller and smaller number) There were also points where peackeeping forces were deployed to Vietnam, and Canadian forces were involved there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
I find it interesting that taking Remembrance Day to reflect on less than acceptable aspects of our military history makes some people think it takes something away from veterans and current service members.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
I'm pretty anti-military the other 364 days of the year so I usually take this one day to remember and think of people like my grandparents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
To be fair, of the 108,000 conscripts who served in the First World War, 48,000 served overseas and half as many actually made it to the front lines in 1918. Between 87 and 95% of men registered for conscription were given exemptions. Anyone conscripted during the Second World War in Canada actually made it into combat. If your attitude is "any conscripts are too many" then yeah, it can be frustrating, but it's worth remembering that conscription nearly tore Canada apart, and was only pulled together by the perceived need for bodies on the Western Front as the war was expected to carry on into 1919. It's still a sore subject for a lot of people. We have dealt with touchy subjects on Remembrance Day, like, for example, the soldiers who were executed for desertion in WW1 had their names added to the Book of Remembrance. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
peter banana posted:I find it interesting that taking Remembrance Day to reflect on less than acceptable aspects of our military history makes some people think it takes something away from veterans and current service members. Why are you trying to tie it to Remembrance Day, though? This day is about remembering the sacrifices made by Canadian soldiers, not for nitpicking the reasons behind them, nor for glorifying war, or even for engaging in the insipid hagiography surrounding our military history. EDIT: I'm not saying that we can't talk about touchy subjects, I'm saying that the veterans ought to be first and foremost. Can we discuss how our country is failing our veterans, and how it has failed them in the past, for example? Absolutely! This is the perfect day for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I do think we have a system that is both far too easy on truly abhorrent criminals, and far too hard on pretty much anyone else. (especially people who have to serve their sentences in provincial jails, or who have to await trial on remand in provincial jails) prison time isn't really an effective deterrent of anything at all and probably actually increases recidivism. almost completely eliminating the prison system probably wouldn't have a meaningful effect on crime prison should probably be reserved for those who are both a danger to society and uncontrollable through other means (which is basically like no one except serial violent offenders). everything else should be punished either by restricting rights (vehicular manslaughter? or multiple duis? you're never driving again. assault someone? you get to be at home or work or inbetween for a meaningful period) or by meaningful financial penalties (expressed as a measure of net worth probably, no paying a couple mil per sexual assault, sorry athletes)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:I'm pretty anti-military the other 364 days of the year so I usually take this one day to remember and think of people like my grandparents. Yeah that's my take on it too
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
peter banana posted:I find it interesting that taking Remembrance Day to reflect on less than acceptable aspects of our military history makes some people think it takes something away from veterans and current service members. my grandfather was a conscript (in the UK) and he'd be thrilled if we talked about that bullshit on days like today (or any day, really). the really appalling military history was perpetrated against veterans, not by them
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why are you trying to tie it to Remembrance Day, though? This day is about remembering the sacrifices made by Canadian soldiers, not for nitpicking the reasons behind them, nor for glorifying war, or even for engaging in the insipid hagiography surrounding our military history. That's literally what I said when I first posted. Tie it to Remembrance Day because there's a lot of bullshit jingoism that goes on today which should be kept in check, as it's an easy justification to send further people to die in lovely wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:prison time isn't really an effective deterrent of anything at all and probably actually increases recidivism. almost completely eliminating the prison system probably wouldn't have a meaningful effect on crime The obvious problem with fining someone based on net worth is that it hits older people much more severely than younger people. If you have poo poo all for savings, and no significant assets, you haven't lost anything you can't make back reasonably quickly. Theoretically, if you had few or no possessions, you could get away scot-free with anything punishable by a fine. If you've been saving up your whole life and are now retired, taking the same fraction of your net worth could erase literal years of the fruits of your productivity (and you have less time to earn it back). Basing it on taxable income, including capital gains, would be much more reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
peter banana posted:That's literally what I said when I first posted. Tie it to Remembrance Day because there's a lot of bullshit jingoism that goes on today which should be kept in check, as it's an easy justification to send further people to die in lovely wars. Where has the jingoism been today? If you're talking about what random morons on Facebook are saying or something, then I can't really help you. I think the official ceremony struck an appropriate tone and purposefully stayed away from jingoistic rubbish. I did see plenty of discussion about how we need to do better for our veterans, and recognition of how we've screwed them over in the past. It appears you're saying that's not enough, and I think that's an ignorant opinion. The exact point of Remembrance Day is so that we remember the human cost of wars -- and thus why we shouldn't have them unless completely unavoidable. We do that by focusing on the veterans of those wars, on this specific day, instead of discussions of the political contexts behind those wars, which are excellent discussion topics for literally every other day, or any time someone proposes to take us into a war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The obvious problem with fining someone based on net worth is that it hits older people much more severely than younger people. If you have poo poo all for savings, and no significant assets, you haven't lost anything you can't make back reasonably quickly. Theoretically, if you had few or no possessions, you could get away scot-free with anything punishable by a fine. If you've been saving up your whole life and are now retired, taking the same fraction of your net worth could erase literal years of the fruits of your productivity (and you have less time to earn it back). Basing it on taxable income, including capital gains, would be much more reasonable. i think you'd leave it to judges (or maybe some sort of jury) to figure out the details on a crime by crime basis. obviously fining the guy who is $450k underwater on his mortgage -$90k isn't going to work so maybe you force him to sell his acura and fine him some portion of his income for however long is warranted. the point is to apply punishments that actually act as deterrents
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Newfie posted:Yes, because the while development of a rule if law to have both a Actus and Mens component to a crime is something we just made up to let people go free. Great to see that the idea of permanent incarceration for the mentally ill is still alive and well in Canada. While we are at it, let's also extend our arrests to children under 5. They physically did a thing, they totally understood what they were doing an what the ramifications of those actions would be.  Jordan7hm posted:I do think we have a system that is both far too easy on truly abhorrent criminals, and far too hard on pretty much anyone else. (especially people who have to serve their sentences in provincial jails, or who have to await trial on remand in provincial jails)  but we should open a gallows for the most heinous criminals and hold a show during the Calgary Stampede
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
If there were a way to ensure guilt 100%, I would support the use of the death penalty for especially serious crimes (premeditated murder, or murder with an aggravating factor like sexual assault, or sexual abuse of anyone 10 or under), but there's not, so I can't. The chance that we execute even one innocent person is too much, really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
To be honest a lot of the adverse reactions to Remembrance Day probably have more to do with the giant hard on our society has for ARE TROOPS at every sporting event, country fair and most other prominent events people go to the other 354 days of the year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:To be honest a lot of the adverse reactions to Remembrance Day probably have more to do with the giant hard on our society has for ARE TROOPS at every sporting event, country fair and most other prominent events people go to the other 354 days of the year. Nothing like it is in the states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Comparing us to the states is like comparing us to the criminally insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:To be honest a lot of the adverse reactions to Remembrance Day probably have more to do with the giant hard on our society has for ARE TROOPS at every sporting event, country fair and most other prominent events people go to the other 354 days of the year. Yeah, I was also thinking that part of my personal feelings toward it are due to the fact that I have ancestors that fought on the "wrong side" of WW1 and WW2. This isn't the day to discuss who was right and who was wrong, but to remember all those who fought, who put up with that incredible misery and horror, regardless of why or even who they fought for. Ultimately, most people on any side had no real choice in the matter -- they simply did what their countries asked of them. PT6A fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
I think Remembrance Day is a day set aside to remember and reflect on the nature of war. Veterans are victims of war no less than anyone else, but I don't think it's appropriate to make them the only or even the primary focus of this day. To make this day about veterans as victims and ignore the causes and other injustices of war itself is to strip the holiday of all its significance. To do so is the treat war as some kind of natural disaster, a meaningless thing that "happens" to us, we endure, and then move on. On the contrary, this is precisely the day to focus squarely on the injustices, scandals, and human causes of war. This is especially important because we can't allow ourselves to forget that war is a disaster we visit upon ourselves and our fellows. War is always accompanied with rape and murder and exploitation of all kinds, and everyone involved, veteran and civilian alike, becomes both a victim and a perpetrator to various extents. So let's talk about how the Canadian and other governments exploited their own citizens and sent them to kill and to die. But let's also talk about how horrible it is that so many people, no matter their nation, think this is somehow appropriate and necessary. And if we can't have a frank discussion about and reflect on war, in all its ugliness, on "Remembrance Day" of all days, what hope is there for people to have that kind of reflection the other 364 days of the year? PhilippAchtel fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
The parade went by our office window this morning and for every 30 or so marchers there was a rifle-toting police escort. I don't remember that being a thing before. Terrorism concerns I guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
THC posted:The parade went by our office window this morning and for every 30 or so marchers there was a rifle-toting police escort. I don't remember that being a thing before. Terrorism concerns I guess? In New West they changed the plans this year, usually the crowd does a ceremony at the armory then walk down to city hall, this year it was only at city hall and they said "security concerns" so yeah :|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Never once have I seen an armed escort at a Remembrance Day parade and I've attended quite a few and have marched in them on a number of occasions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Peter Mansbridge really needs to retireCANADALAND posted:Did you see Peter Mansbridge's report on Justin Trudeau? Yes, the one where they ride on a bus. Here's Blatchford, who I can't stand, with a blistering review of some choice Mansbridge moments since Oct 19th. Christie Blatchford posted:But throughout the election CBC journalists, I thought, were caught in a difficult position: There they were, covering a campaign where one leader (Stephen Harper) had cut the CBC budget and seemed inclined to do more damage and two others (Trudeau and Tom Mulcair) were promising to reverse the recent cuts and pronouncing themselves in favour of stable, long-term funding for the public broadcaster. Mansbridge is not good at hiding his political leanings. It gives credence to conservative claims of "Liberal bias" at the CBC and a "liberal media" in Canada. Mansbridge should retire, and they should give the job to Ian Hanomansing. (Hey remember when Hanomansing won that award for best news anchor in Canada? And today he is no longer a regular host of any CBC program. I wonder why  )
Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
THC posted:Mansbridge is not good at hiding his political leanings. It gives credence to conservative claims of "Liberal bias" at the CBC and a "liberal media" in Canada. CBC has a Liberal bias because reality has a Liberal bias duh it's 2015.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
CBC really does have a Liberal bias but they should get someone who is better at hiding it. It's been more than 3 weeks since Oct 18th and Mansbridge still can't wipe the grin off his face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Mansbridge should retire if only because everything about his "news" voice sounds like somebody had a stroke in the middle of their horribly twisted and drunken Christopher Plummer impersonation
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Peter Mansbridge is a national treasure and y'all can go gently caress yourselves if you think otherwise. Is he the best actual journalist in the world? No, not really. But he's still a cool and good guy and I like watching him on the TV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
THC posted:CBC really does have a Liberal bias but they should get someone who is better at hiding it. It's been more than 3 weeks since Oct 18th and Mansbridge still can't wipe the grin off his face. I obviously super agree that CBC loves Liberals and it's not just Mansbridge but everybody there who enjoys being employed, Harper engineered it pretty well. There's every economic reason for them to be biased. I really don't think anybody other than you and Ezra Levant think that's a bad thing though or that something needs to or can be done about it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...en-ms-treatment This is bothersome, apparently the new science minister stubbornly advocates what seems to be a dis-proven, pseudo-scientific cure for MS. I don't know the exact details, and was hoping that she just jumped the gun once in an otherwise spotless career, but she still advocates it while hinting at conspiracy-like power clubs in the science world preventing its dissemination. The thing that bothers me about this is that one major blunder in the public eye over stuff like this, especially with the rhetoric which she uses, could really re-enforce the same distrust for science and science based-governance among some of the public, the same public which helped Harper's muffling go without much protest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...en-ms-treatment Poorly vetted ministers? Sounds like Trudeau is Just Not Ready.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Ikantski posted:I obviously super agree that CBC loves Liberals and it's not just Mansbridge but everybody there who enjoys being employed, Harper engineered it pretty well. There's every economic reason for them to be biased. I really don't think anybody other than you and Ezra Levant think that's a bad thing though or that something needs to or can be done about it Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:39
|
|