[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Yes, that is the attack in Conservatives used during the election and it didn't work out very well for them.

Jacob, it will be interesting to see what he does as premier. I have seen him speak in front of a banquet hall of lawyers, and he had us all both laughing and tearing up throughout his speech.  Which is an example of both his power as an orator and his immense charisma. He is a person who will be able to get things done. The question is, what will he do?

How is it an "attack"?  I stated facts and provided links.  I offered no opinion on the man whatsoever.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, that is the attack in Conservatives used during the election and it didn't work out very well for them.

Jacob, it will be interesting to see what he does as premier. I have seen him speak in front of a banquet hall of lawyers, and he had us all both laughing and tearing up throughout his speech.  Which is an example of both his power as an orator and his immense charisma. He is a person who will be able to get things done. The question is, what will he do?

How is it an "attack"?  I stated facts and provided links.  I offered no opinion on the man whatsoever.

Great, so you have the defence of truth if you're ever sued for defamation, but that doesn't mean that when those same fax are used in an election campaign to try and convince the electorate that they should not vote for a candidate because of their personal passed it is not an attack.

[Barrister]

Yes, that is the attack in Conservatives used during the election and it didn't work out very well for them.

Jacob, it will be interesting to see what he does as premier. I have seen him speak in front of a banquet hall of lawyers, and he had us all both laughing and tearing up throughout his speech.  Which is an example of both his power as an orator and his immense charisma. He is a person who will be able to get things done. The question is, what will he do?

How is it an "attack"?  I stated facts and provided links.  I offered no opinion on the man whatsoever.

Great, so you have the defence of truth if you're ever sued for defamation, but that doesn't mean that when those same fax are used in an election campaign to try and convince the electorate that they should not vote for a candidate because of their personal passed it is not an attack.

I don't understand your point here.

So mentioning facts as part of a political campaign makes those facts irrelevant or unimportant?

[crazy canuck]

Not sure if you are just playing dumb or you really don't understand the difference between attacking a person rather than their ideas.

[Barrister]

Not sure if you are just playing dumb or you really don't understand the difference between attacking a person rather than their ideas.

Sometimes it is perfectly valid to attack the person.

Donald Trump was a bad president because he attempted to overthrow the government.  I don't care whether or not I agree with what his ideas or policies are.

Wab Kinew appears to have turned his life around from his early 20s, for which he is to be commended.  I still think the stuff he did in his early 20s should disqualify him from being Premier of Manitoba.

[crazy canuck]

Not sure if you are just playing dumb or you really don't understand the difference between attacking a person rather than their ideas.

Sometimes it is perfectly valid to attack the person.

Donald Trump was a bad president because he attempted to overthrow the government.  I don't care whether or not I agree with what his ideas or policies are.

Wab Kinew appears to have turned his life around from his early 20s, for which he is to be commended.  I still think the stuff he did in his early 20s should disqualify him from being Premier of Manitoba.

Ok, at least you are now acknowledging it is an attack.

[Barrister]

Not sure if you are just playing dumb or you really don't understand the difference between attacking a person rather than their ideas.

Sometimes it is perfectly valid to attack the person.

Donald Trump was a bad president because he attempted to overthrow the government.  I don't care whether or not I agree with what his ideas or policies are.

Wab Kinew appears to have turned his life around from his early 20s, for which he is to be commended.  I still think the stuff he did in his early 20s should disqualify him from being Premier of Manitoba.

Ok, at least you are now acknowledging it is an attack.

'Is expressing an opinion an attack?

[crazy canuck]

In my opinion you are being an obtuse ass, is that an attack?

[Barrister]

In my opinion you are being an obtuse ass, is that an attack?

It's insulting, if that's what you were going for.

So what's the definition of "attack":

attack
1 of 3
verb
at·�tack ə-ˈtak
attacked; attacking; attacks
Synonyms of attack
transitive verb

1
: to set upon or work against forcefully
attack an enemy fortification
2
: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
a politician verbally attacked by critics
3
: to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
plants attacked by aphids
4
a
: to set to work on
attack a problem
b
: to begin to eat (food) eagerly
At the table he attacked his meal with such singleminded ferocity as to be, as Boswell put it, disgusting to those whose sensations were delicate.
—Donald R. DeGlopper
5
chess : to threaten (a piece) with immediate capture

Second definition appears most similar - to assail with unfriendly or bitter words.

My words about Wab Kinew were not meant in friendship, but I don't know if they were bitter.  As mentioned, they were statements of fact, then followed up with an opinion.

I suppose they could be characterized as an "attack", but I feel like you are doing so in order to dismiss them without engaging with the facts themselves.  You've commented on how engaging Kinew is as a speaker, but you've never commented on his history of domestic violence or assaulting a cab driver.

[crazy canuck]

Lets quote what you said "Sometimes it is perfectly valid to attack the person."

And then you went on to deny it was an attack.

I stand by my view that you are being an obtuse ass.  That judgment is based on what you are doing right now, rather than what you have done in the past.  So I think it is a valid question whether that is an attack or not.

[Barrister]

Lets quote what you said "Sometimes it is perfectly valid to attack the person."

And then you went on to deny it was an attack.

I stand by my view that you are being an obtuse ass.  That judgment is based on what you are doing right now, rather than what you have done in the past.  So I think it is a valid question whether that is an attack or not.

Dude.

When I said

Sometimes it is perfectly valid to attack the person

It was in response to you saying

Not sure if you are just playing dumb or you really don't understand the difference between attacking a person rather than their ideas.

So my replying to your point does not mean that I was adopting your point.

Let me be very specific though: what do you think of the documented allegations of domestic violence (and violence more generally) that have been alleged against Wab Kinew?  Are you aware of them?  Do you think they are true?  If true, do you think they should be disqualifying of him?  Do you think he has properly or fully acknowledged those allegations?

Because while it may in soome occasions be appropriate to attack the person, not the argument (aka it's okay to hate Hitler for being Hitler, and not comment on how he built the autobahn), I get the feeling that you're spending all your time attacking me, and not commenting on Wab Kinew.

[Barrister]

Crazy Canuck - I see you've replied to posts on other threads, but not this one.

You don't owe me anything.  We all post here on our free time.  You're free to engage with any topics you find interesting, and ignore those you find uninteresting.

But just let me say your failure to respond to my questions has been noted.

Because I'm not sure what to think about Kinew myself.  I don't necessarily think he should be 100% disqualified from being Premier.  But I don't think his past history of abuse (which I do believe) should just be memory-holed either.

And it's perfectly acceptable to just say "I haven't formed a strong opinion one way or another".  I get it - Manitoba is far away.  I care because it's my home province, but it's not yours.  But then I come back to why are you just dismissing my comments as "attacks".

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cannabis-5-year-1.6989993

Journal article on the effects of cannabis legalization 5 years later.

So the good:

Though the CMAJ commenters did not cite any direct health benefits from legalization, the paper notes the important social justice benefits from substantial reductions in criminal arrests and charges, along with the associated stigma.

But the bad:

The study focused on three time periods: pre-legalization (January 2015 to September 2018); post-legalization with product and store restrictions (October 2018 to February 2020); and post-legalization with commercialization, resulting in more stores and product access (March 2020 to March 2021). The latter period overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the early years of legalization, with tightly controlled products and limited store access, the rate of hospitalizations didn't notably change. However, data suggests that the commercial period was accompanied by an increase in cannabis hospitalizations, particularly among people aged 25 years and older, the study's authors said.

From his work in public health and as a researcher, Myran said people, mostly young men, commonly show up in emergency departments after using cannabis because they're experiencing withdrawal or are intoxicated but not displaying cannabis-related psychosis. Myran said they are at risk — slight but there — of developing a serious mental disorder.

"They have almost a two per cent risk of developing schizophrenia within three years," said Myran. In comparison to the general population, the risk is well below one per cent.

Cannabis-induced psychosis had the largest relative increase for hospitalizations, the study said

Said Myran: "Our data, while not conclusive, is hinting that as the market expands, when you see greater levels of market maturity, new products, that you do see these increases in cannabis harms."

None of which should be surprising, even though I was told the opposite numerous times - as something becomes legal, as it becomes more easily available, use goes up.

Whether the pros outweigh the cons I'll leave to the reader.  But there are cons.

[Grey Fox]

I think CC you are going nowhere wanting to make attack in a political sense a kin to strategy.

[crazy canuck]

Crazy Canuck - I see you've replied to posts on other threads, but not this one.

You don't owe me anything.  We all post here on our free time.  You're free to engage with any topics you find interesting, and ignore those you find uninteresting.

But just let me say your failure to respond to my questions has been noted.

Because I'm not sure what to think about Kinew myself.  I don't necessarily think he should be 100% disqualified from being Premier.  But I don't think his past history of abuse (which I do believe) should just be memory-holed either.

And it's perfectly acceptable to just say "I haven't formed a strong opinion one way or another".  I get it - Manitoba is far away.  I care because it's my home province, but it's not yours.  But then I come back to why are you just dismissing my comments as "attacks".

I think what you have done here is as reprehensible as what the Conservatives did in the election.  And you won't even admit that what you did was an attack on his character.

Clear enough?