Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

nationalpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 414 posts

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#231

Post by close04 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #118
bawolff wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People overuse the word ad hominem. The post above is not an example of one. Ad hominen is when you use an irrelavent insult in an argument. Not every criticism of a source is an ad hominem. Edit: to clarify, i think there is a huge difference between saying something like: national post is known to lean right and not really like the liberals so we should verify they are fairly summarizing the liberal proposed law by…

> Ad hominen is when you use an irrelavent insult in an argument No, it’s when you argue the truth based on dismissing the speaker. So if Carl is an idiot, and Carl says cats are real, it would be ad hominem to say cat’s aren’t real because Carl said so. (Dismissing an argument isn’t ad hominem per se . Neither is name calling. It’s concluding based on not liking the speaker.)

Pointing out bias when debating an opinion hardly sounds ad-hominem, and in this case it looks more like OP's way to strengthen the veracity of the report while showing surprise rather than dismissal.

Is it still ad-hominem if you actually agree with Carl? Doesn't it make Carl's argument even stronger when you say "I'm always against Carl but this time he's right" which is the opposite of dismissing his idea, ad hominem or not?

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#232

Post by kazinator »

How would you keep them away from free Wi-Fi all over the place?

Or, from giving fifty bucks a month to their neighbor?

Or from a phone plan that has next to no background check: buy a cheap SIM from a convenience store, activate with credit card and you have data.

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#233

Post by SirSavary »

hunterpayne wrote: post #228
aceofspades19 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Yes. Members of the National Guard have been deployed, and government officials have publicly stated their intent to deploy additional forces.

From the Wikipedia page on the US National Guard [1]:

> The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the U.S. military's reserve components of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force when activated for federal missions.

The National Guard constitutes military troops under federal activation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#236

Post by spoiler »

SirSavary wrote: post #216
hunterpayne wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So sure, if you ignore all Communist countries and lump in Islamist countries with the western 'right' you can make that argument. Back on earth, its always the left that is motivated by ideology. The only right wing governments who turn authoritarian do so for money and power, not ideology. The ideology of the right (in the west) is specifically designed to be against that. That's why the biggest body counts always…

1. When discussing "the most repressive Western governments", we exclude Communist and Islamist regimes by definition. The West refers to North America and Western Europe, where no Communist or Islamist government has held power. You can't reasonably claim the Western right is less authoritarian by pointing to non-Western examples. 2. The claim that "it's always the left that is motivated by ideology" ignores that ri…

tldr is "kettle calling the pot black"

Both extremes don't listen and arguments always fall on deaf ears, especially when perceived as ideologically different. Merits of the argument are irrelevant. Most don't evolve past"My dad is stronger than your dad", it just morphs into "my God is better than your god", or in more recent years "my politics/policy smarter than your policy".

The people at the top want the same thing: to remain in rule. They agree the best way is oppression, they just don't agree who the oppressors should be.

People in the middle usually all want the same thing: better lives, but can't agree which oppressors are the lesser evils

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#237

Post by tvier »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #230

I think countries with division and low social trust and cohesion necessarily require increasingly authoritarian measures from the government to hold them together. Increasing dependence on government for their own security will reduce peoples' ability to question and change the government. One might think it's all part of the plan. Real freedom and self determination has been a fleeting blink of an eye in the histor…

The power given to the masses vs the ruling class is always in flux. The light may go out, but it won't be forever.

I'm also hopeful that the requirement for a well educated workforce will nudge societies towards more freedom than the historical norm.

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#238

Post by donkeybeer »

hunterpayne wrote: post #206
standardUser wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few fascist movements sprang out of leftist movements, or had some small overlap in rhetoric with the left, but by and large the most repressive Western governments have come firmly if not exclusively from the right.

So sure, if you ignore all Communist countries and lump in Islamist countries with the western 'right' you can make that argument. Back on earth, its always the left that is motivated by ideology. The only right wing governments who turn authoritarian do so for money and power, not ideology. The ideology of the right (in the west) is specifically designed to be against that. That's why the biggest body counts always…

[flagged]

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#239

Post by donkeybeer »

hunterpayne wrote: post #206
standardUser wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few fascist movements sprang out of leftist movements, or had some small overlap in rhetoric with the left, but by and large the most repressive Western governments have come firmly if not exclusively from the right.

So sure, if you ignore all Communist countries and lump in Islamist countries with the western 'right' you can make that argument. Back on earth, its always the left that is motivated by ideology. The only right wing governments who turn authoritarian do so for money and power, not ideology. The ideology of the right (in the west) is specifically designed to be against that. That's why the biggest body counts always…

Why aren't you answering these two well thought out replies with specific points that disprove you?

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#240

Post by standardUser »

hunterpayne wrote: post #206
standardUser wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few fascist movements sprang out of leftist movements, or had some small overlap in rhetoric with the left, but by and large the most repressive Western governments have come firmly if not exclusively from the right.

So sure, if you ignore all Communist countries and lump in Islamist countries with the western 'right' you can make that argument. Back on earth, its always the left that is motivated by ideology. The only right wing governments who turn authoritarian do so for money and power, not ideology. The ideology of the right (in the west) is specifically designed to be against that. That's why the biggest body counts always…

Islamic fundamentalism is undoubtedly right wing, no lumping required.
Post reply on HN