Good idea! That fine Mowich poem mentioned something about measuring a man's treasures, and I think I feel a limerick coming on...
Poll:- life better now or in 1959?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Good idea! That fine Mowich poem mentioned something about measuring a man's treasures, and I think I feel a limerick coming on...
Now you are changing the parameters here, JLM. This is what you said in your previous post.
Freedom is definitely more important, it doesn’t matter what others feel about it. If it has any other impact on them (makes them treat somebody as an equal when they otherwise wouldn’t have to), again that is irrelevant, freedom is still more important.
But now you have shifted gears, you are talking of well being of others. If freedom of one person is going to harm somebody else, then definitely that freedom is not a good idea. That is why we don’t give freedom to a murderer, we lock him up.
So don’t change parameters in the middle of discussion.
Last edited:
Yep, and the likes of Paul Bernardo, Colin Thatcher and of course we can't forget sweet little Karla. :lol:
Reading the second one is a bit tricky, with all those strikouts going on. But, we must remember this is part of progress and freedom. Everybody should have an equal chance to express themselves without any fear of having their self-esteem damaged. Snoop Dog is obviously enriching our lives with his interpretation of what appears to be some sort of relationship with a person of the female gender. This is a sterling example of how much we've gone forward since 1959 in the literary skills department. (How does one express the sound of a grunt in words with less than 5 letters, whilst avoiding the dreaded knuckles-dragging-on-the-ground issue?)
That Cohen guy is obviously so old-fashioned that he hasn't learned how to scale all those big thoughts and words down to a level - the lowest common denominator - that everyone in society should have a chance to grasp and appreciate. What an unfeeling man he must be! If he doesn't straighten up, he'll go nowhere.
:lol:
Under our Charter, our constitution, all the citizens enjoy equal rights. Even a drug pusher is entitled to the due process of law, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
On the other thread, the one about Amanda Knox, everybody is beating their breast, wailing about how unfair the Italian system of justice is, how Amanda would never have been convicted under American and Canadian justice system.
And here are some who want to get rid of our justice system and replace it with something else, whereby somebody accused of drug pushing won’t have due process of law. Well, some jurisdictions don’t, and we saw what happens in such jurisdictions, with Amanda Knox in Italy.
So don’t knock our justice system, we have presumption of innocence, not presumption of guilt, like some jurisdictions do. Presumption of innocence means that it doesn’t mater if 100 guilty men go scot free, but one innocent man must not be convicted.
One slight problem - we can't tell when freedoms are extended when and if they are going to harm others. Like I said earlier, people can generate their own freedoms.
No they don’t. Decent people are subject to the same prejudices, the same biases as everybody else. 50 years ago, most people did not acknowledge that women were equal of men, or that blacks were equal of whites. Are you saying that most people 40 years ago were not decent?
I remember reading that in the 50s, one town in Ontario, Dresden, held a referendum, as to whether local businesses should be allowed to discriminate against blacks. It passed by a margin of 4 or 5 to 1, most people thought that it was OK for local businesses to deny service to blacks etc.
Are you saying that most of the people of Dresden were not decent folk? The fact is, decent people are subject to prejudice, bias, racism, and sexism etc, same as non decent people. That is why the constitution, the Charter, the laws are necessary.
Well, I don’t’ think extending equal rights to blacks, women, gays etc. is going to harm others. And if some white men (and some heterosexuals) think it is going to harm them, that is just too bad.
As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, men made the claim that giving women the vote will infringe upon men, it will deny men their rights (they meant the God given right to be the master, the boss in the home). That kind of infringement means nothing.
Infringement means if we let a murderer, a rapist, a robber etc. lose, he may harm others. That is where freedom should be curbed. Equality for minorities must not be denied because it supposedly may infringe upon majority rights.
Decent at the time may well not be the same as what is considered decent today. You cannot apply one generations standards on another.
If you like to live in a dictatorship, go for it. I would much rather live in a democracy, with all its problems rather than live in a dictatorship where there are no problems, but where there is no freedom of speech, freedom of expression etc.
So if you want to live in a dictatorship, that is your choice. Just remember, you may not be able to post in a forum in a dictatorship. Somebody representing the dictator will parse your every word to see if there is any implied, hidden criticism of the dictator. And woe unto you if he finds anything.
And in 1959 we didn't have due process. I see.
Maybe Italy is still living in 1959? lmao
Who wants to get rid of our system? I think you are exaggerating again. (Er, as usual I mean)
Presumption of innocence. Is that why accused are printed, DNAed, photoed, etc. before conviction? Is that data thrown out when the accused is acquitted? No.
Quite so, Cliffy, those were the good old days. Not only we had capital punishment, we also locked up the perennial trouble makers, the gays for several years in prison. I am sure that made the streets really safe.
We had our priorities right in those days, we did not worry about inconsequential things. Thus, who cares about child sex abuse by the Priests? That is something to be hushed up, the priest moved over to the next parish, and it is all over. Where is the need to hold the priest or the church accountable?
Another inconsequential crime was wife battering. Bible says man is the boss, so what is wrong, it he knocks about his little woman a bit? These days people worry about the silliest of things, they didn’t back in the good old days.
It was much more important to worry about homosexuals practicing sodomy, people having sex before marriage, etc.
Yes, those indeed were the good old days.
wow That's quite a spin you put on JLM's point. You should be in politics, Pompass; you'd fit right in.
Anecdotal = worthless.
I don't think he said anything about Dresden and its people.
Sorry, Tenpenny I posted before I read your post. I am working my way down from where I left off before.
But as I said, that is a minor point. We executed innocent people? So what? Some want to replace our system, which says that it doesn’t’ matter if 100 guilty men are found innocent, but one innocent must not be convicted, some want to replace it with it doesn’t matter if hundred innocent men are convicted and given the noose, as long as we get that drug pusher b*astard and give him the noose.
Then we can all live happily ever after.
I'd rather live in a direct democracy than an oligarchy. But ithe difference between Switzerland and here isn't enough for me to move from Canada.
The difference between a dictatorship and our oligarchy is that we have more choice. We can screw up if we want to and not be killed for it. lol