450
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
450 points (97.5% liked)
Canada
7203 readers
135 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- Canada Politics
- General:
- By Province:
🍁 Social and Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Doesn't make it illegal bud. Learn how our system works before opening your COVID riddled mouth.
Why tf does it matter what the protests were about? You disagree politically so it's okay for the government to do that? That's a slippery slope.
I don't disagree politically bro, I disagree scientifically, and logically. Our government had a responsibility to remove you terrorists, they just did it a way that allows you twats to act like your oppressed.
You? I'm just a Yank who sees injustice. I don't know anything about it other than a person in power froze the people's bank account of some of its citizens and that's wild asf. If they were Nazis I wasn't aware but it's still not okay to take money someone earned. Make a law that fines Nazis if you have to but don't just freeze people's bank accounts, that's fucked up.
Most frozen accounts were organizers and people who were receiving money from others to continue with their "protests" or people espousing violent rhetoric. If you just believe the ticktoks you're never going to see reality. These fucking idiots are still protesting all over our country, afraid of digital IDs ,vaccines, demanding mandates be dropped, people be rehired. Like dude they crazy and don't mesh well with reality.
So let the idiots yell, don't stop them from being able to pay for necessities.
It’s always the people who weren’t there who continue to push the idea that it was a peaceful protest.
Why is this a reply to me? I never mentioned anything about peaceful protesting.
"Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.
The antivax cowards had many peaceful protests previously without issue. They weren't getting their demands met because their demands were idiotic.
So they escalated to disrupting the functioning of the government. Using psyops tactics against civilians. Harrassing civilians. Disrupting emergency services.
And for what? It wasn't to increase awareness of covid restrictions. These restrictions were placed on the entire population, we were all aware of them. No it was an attempt to affect a change using extortion. Changes contrary to the democratic will of the country.
Since you love the slippery slope fallacies, consider the slope in the other direction. If an organized crime outfit used intimidation tactics to get their way, could they declare it as a "protest" and get off scot free? Where do you draw the line in that direction?
Not commenting on the argument, but just FYI: "Slippery Slope" actually refers to an argument that could include a slippery slope fallacy, but not necessarily. A slippery slope fallacy is an informal fallacy, meaning that any errors are in the content and not the format of the argument (i.e. the slippery slope argument itself).
He either knows that, or it was on that list of logical fallacies he read the names of and thinks you can just say "Slippery Slope" and win.
"Slippery slope is a logical fallacy" is a phrase parroted by people who usually don't understand why it can sometimes be a logical fallacy. And sometimes not. You can't just say "Slippery slope is a logical fallacy" and then follow up with "Some motherfuckers always trying to ice skate uphill". Everything you said is deliberately disingenuous and not a good faith argument, and that's either intentional or you're not capable of better,
If it wasn't illegal then the government wouldn't have lost the court case.
These idiots think because the CBC supports the story, and the government inquiry pulled the cop trick of investigating themselves and finding they did nothing wrong in a kangaroo court, including gov lawyers by the handful and the opposition not allowed to defend themselves, that when it hit a real courtroom, and was found in violation of the charter, the actual half assed independent judge was the one in the wrong, not the fucking cabal.