Rob Ford's Toronto

[archanfel]

I think his point is that whether homosexuality is 'natural' or not is totally irrelevant. Even if it wasn't natural, there still wouldn't be anything immoral/unethical about homosexuality.

According to whose ethical code? Yours or the church's? And what if you and the church can't agree? What makes you superior to the church? The acceptance of homosexuality is nothing more than an equilibrium of conditions which are constantly shifting. There was a time marrying anybody with the same last name was frowned upon. Now, we forbid two close relatives from marrying each other. If you remove all the moral mumbo jumbo, you would realize both were for very practical reasons. Better understanding of genetics allowed us to ease the limitation.

 

[Spoonman]

According to whose ethical code? Yours or the church's?

Actually, according to Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument against equal gay rights, on ethical grounds or otherwise, that doesn't ultimately deteriorate into an admission that it makes some people feel "icky" about the thought. That's simply an unacceptable reason to deny equal rights to an entire demographic.

Also, the comparison to forbidding close relatives from marrying is a poor one. Genetic inbreeding causes all manner of deletetious mutations, whereas a gay couple cannot breed, so the point is moot.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

According to whose ethical code? Yours or the church's? And what if you and the church can't agree? What makes you (graphic matt) superior to the church?

i think if i were to try to explain the reasons why graphic matt is superior to the church, UT's servers would run out of space. even rob ford is morally & ethically superior to the church.

of course, this all depends on what you define morality and ethics as.

 

[archanfel]

Actually, according to Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument against equal gay rights, on ethical grounds or otherwise, that doesn't ultimately deteriorate into an admission that it makes some people feel "icky" about the thought. That's simply an unacceptable reason to deny equal rights to an entire demographic.

Also, the comparison to forbidding close relatives from marrying is a poor one. Genetic inbreeding causes all manner of deletetious mutations, whereas a gay couple cannot breed, so the point is moot.

So it's a legal issue, not a moral issue.

I don't know any compelling argument against equal gay rights either and that's why I support equal gay rights. However, that's for logical reasons, not for moral reasons. Funny enough, it's more likely for people to be against gay rights on moral ground. I certainly can't think of a logical reason to be against gay rights. And private sector businesses have long treated gay customers equally. Well, ripping them off equally as much as their heterosexual customers.

And back to topic, I am against social housing for practical reasons, not moral reasons, whereas the supporters are mostly doing it on moral ground.

 

[nfitz]

No surprises there. I can live with Karen Stintz as TTC chair. She always struck me as pretty reasonable.

Given that she was campaigning against Rob Ford's desire to cancel the underground Eglinton RT line, then I guess we can assume that Ford's Scarborough subway fantasy plans are dead.

So we have representation from Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough on the Executive Committee. Hmm, and none from Toronto/East York?

 

[archanfel]

i think if i were to try to explain the reasons why graphic matt is superior to the church, UT's servers would run out of space. even rob ford is morally & ethically superior to the church.

of course, this all depends on what you define morality and ethics as.

Just so you know, section 15 also covers discrimination based on religious beliefs.

The church's problem is not that it's immoral. The problem is that it bases everything on their moral standards and try to force those standards onto others. Well, maybe not the church officials (they are politicians), but some of their faithfuls.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Just so you know, section 15 also covers discrimination based on religious beliefs.

you're not a very consistent libertarian.

were does it say i can't criticize the church?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Fifteen_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

 

[GraphicMatt]

I don't think archanfel has hit a bingo yet but I'm holding out hope.

 

[archanfel]

you're not a very consistent libertarian.

were does it say i can't criticize the church?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Fifteen_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Where did I say you can't criticize the church?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Where did I say you can't criticize the church?

criticizing the church (and stating an obvious fact) was what i was doing when i stated matt was ethically superior to the church. you obviously interpreted it as discrimination because you said "Just so you know, section 15 also covers discrimination based on religious beliefs.". why else would you make such a reply? you conflate criticism of the church with discrimination, so indirectly, you said that i couldn't criticize the church because of section 15.

there is a big difference between me saying/ believing that matt is ethically superior to the church and lets say somebody denying a person health care because they're catholic, or for another reason, like not eating healthy for whatever cause (ring a bell?).

 

[archanfel]

criticizing the church (and stating an obvious fact) was what i was doing when i stated matt was ethically superior to the church. you obviously interpreted it as discrimination because you said "Just so you know, section 15 also covers discrimination based on religious beliefs.". why else would you make such a reply? you conflate criticism of the church with discrimination, so indirectly, you said that i couldn't criticize the church because of section 15.

there is a big difference between me saying/ believing that matt is ethically superior to the church and lets say somebody denying a person health care because they're catholic, or for another reason, like not eating healthy for whatever cause (ring a bell?).

Wow, you got all those from my post? Even when I put a smiley face? Man, aren't you the sensitive one. You can criticize the church all you want. Even if you were discriminating, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Actually, it does not ring a bell at all. What are you talking about? As long as somebody is willing to pay, he/she should get the healthcare no matter what. The government should charge health premium based on the risk factors though, just like every private insurer does. Is that discrimination according to section 15? And if somebody can't pay for goods and services, would section 15 legalize stealing?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Wow, you got all those from my post? Even when I put a smiley face? Man, aren't you the sensitive one. You can criticize the church all you want. Even if you were discriminating, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Actually, it does not ring a bell at all. What are you talking about? As long as somebody is willing to pay, he/she should get the healthcare no matter what. The government should charge health premium based on the risk factors though, just like every private insurer does. Is that discrimination according to section 15? And if somebody can't pay for goods and services, would section 15 legalize stealing?

you're an idiot. <--smiley face.

Actually, it does not ring a bell at all. What are you talking about? As long as somebody is willing to pay, he/she should get the healthcare no matter what. The government should charge health premium based on the risk factors though, just like every private insurer does. Is that discrimination according to section 15? And if somebody can't pay for goods and services, would section 15 legalize stealing?

it is discrimination. if someone is poor, you'd support charging them more for healthcare because being poor is a risk factor. you'd be essentially pricing them out of healthcare services. same goes for people with genetic predispositions to certain conditions and people who were perfectly healthy but get afflicted by a condition which they had no control over or responsibility in acquiring and are now at high risk for other conditions. just because the private sector gets away with discrimination (one of the most obvious examples is charging men more for auto insurance because being a man is a higher risk factor) doesn't make it okay. the main purpose for the private insurance company is for the private insurance company to make a profit. the public system was setup with the main purpose of helping people equally, regardless of their risk factors, without profit as motivation.

for you to even compare people with risk factors receiving healthcare services without said risk factors being taken into consideration for payment of services, to stealing, says alot about your moral character. i can imagine you saying the following:

the poor person who eats non-nutritious food because they can't afford it is a higher risk for developing detrimental health conditions but doesn't have to pay more for health care! thief!

women's urethras are shorter than men's and their urethral openings are in closer proximity to their anuses , putting them at higher risk for infections than men who have longer urethras yet they are not charged more for this? thiefs i tell you!

bob, i don't give a shit if you took care of yourself all your life. ever since that hit and run, you have become disabled, poor, and therefore a higher risk. you are stealing because the government didn't adjust your costs to be higher!

betty, the excuse of your father molesting you as a child & having to run away to escape is no excuse for being depressed, homeless and a drug abuser. all those things are high risks, and being the thief you are, you're not paying your share!

 

[archanfel]

you're an idiot. <--smiley face.

it is discrimination. if someone is poor, you'd support charging them more for healthcare because being poor is a risk factor. you'd be essentially pricing them out of healthcare services. same goes for people with genetic predispositions to certain conditions and people who were perfectly healthy but get afflicted by a condition which they had no control over or responsibility in acquiring and are now at high risk for other conditions. just because the private sector gets away with discrimination (one of the most obvious examples is charging men more for auto insurance because being a man is a higher risk factor) doesn't make it okay. the main purpose for the private insurance company is for the private insurance company to make a profit. the public system was setup with the main purpose of helping people equally, regardless of their risk factors, without profit as motivation.

for you to even compare people with risk factors receiving healthcare services without said risk factors being taken into consideration for payment of services, to stealing, says alot about your moral character. i can imagine you saying the following:

the poor person who eats non-nutritious food because they can't afford it is a higher risk for developing detrimental health conditions but doesn't have to pay more for health care! thief!

women's urethras are shorter than men's and their urethral openings are in closer proximity to their anuses , putting them at higher risk for infections than men who have longer urethras yet they are not charged more for this? thiefs i tell you!

bob, i don't give a shit if you took care of yourself all your life. ever since that hit and run, you have become disabled, poor, and therefore a higher risk. you are stealing because the government didn't adjust your costs to be higher!

betty, the excuse of your father molesting you as a child & having to run away to escape is no excuse for being depressed, homeless and a drug abuser. all those things are high risks, and being the thief you are, you're not paying your share!

Jason, it's ok for you take that bread without paying since you can't afford it. (And this smiley means I am being sarcastic and I don't think it's ok for Jason to steal the bread.)

As I said, section 15 is a legal issue not a moral issue. The law has no problem with insurer charging more for risk factor, so it's not discrimination according to the law. Although I do think auto insurance policies are discriminative, the law and thus our democracy thinks otherwise.

I have no problem with the government being a charity, a service provider, a customer advocate and a banker of taxpayer money. However, I think these roles should be separate and every branch should be run as non-profit businesses with clearly measurable costs and results. Take Betty (assuming she is an adult) for example. The goal should be to get her out of depression and drug use, not continue supporting her life style. Yes, it may take some tough love, it may means punitive measures to push her along which you may find appalling, but funding her in the current state is neither good for her nor sustainable for the country. Of course, in the end, it's her choice. The society can only make the choices clear and available. Letting her wait 3 years for a affordable unit while the city spends $800 million a year is not very effective in my opinion.

 

[toraerach]

There are entirely practical reasons for the government to fund community housing. Costs to the government, to business, and to private individuals begin to spiral out of control once community housing is taken out of the equation. If TCHC evicted all 164,000 of its tenants tomorrow, where do you think they would go? Many would have to come together to share the rent in a privately-owned, market-priced unit. This results in overcrowding, which results in disease, stress, stress-related violence and higher crime rates in general. Disease impacts how much we spend on healthcare. Stress takes its toll on productivity, both in the workplace and in schools (how do you do your homework in a two-bedroom apartment with 10 other people living in it? If you can't do it, how do you get an education and break the cycle of poverty?). Violence and crime burdens our police departments and the criminal justice system. The costs keep spiralling out: people turn to drugs to escape the misery of their everyday lives. More people doing drugs, more money going to criminal networks that can now afford to engage in more activities.

And that's just for those lucky enough to find legal accomodations. There will be thousands who simply cannot find a place to live - people who cannot afford it. Some end up on the streets making the city in general feel less safe, impacting tourism and the levels of investment from the private sector. The construction of shanty towns will probably follow, further fueling criminal activity (when your house is illegal, it becomes very easy for criminal organizations to force you to pay protection money). Extreme weather further burdens our healthcare system as those living in the streets and improperly constructed shanty towns succumb to the harsh cold of the winter, or brutal heat of the summer. Improperly constructed shelters run a greater risk of catching fire or collapsing further burdening government resources.

How many children now live in unsafe environments? How many lose their primary caregivers to disease? To drugs? To jail? How many children now live in conditions so bad that the state is forced to take them away from their parents? Now we have an overburdened foster care system, a need for more social workers who won't come cheap, and still more spent on police/the courts. And the costs don't end there - they keep building as society and the economy adjust to the fact that 6% of the population of this city can no longer rely on government support in meeting a basic life need.

The government, and citizens in general, have a vested interest in ending or alleviating chronic poverty. Our society and economy all function better when government programs allow for the possibility of economic advancement for the most people possible. Though you think being a TCHC tenant is an easy out, a service to be exploited for life by lazy poor people, far more people use it as a springboard for economic advancement (if not for them, for their children, etc.). Because of our social housing, it is far easier for the poorest in Canada to advance to some degree of economic stability than it is for the poorest in other countries. It is far easier to get out of Regent Park, for example, than it is to get out of a favela in Rio, a slum in Mumbai, even in some chronically underfunded "projects" south of the border. While most people feel a moral obligation to help out the most vulnerable in society, we know what the costs (financially, socially, and individually) of unmitigated poverty are. Allowing people to just die in the streets does not come cheap.

 

[SimonP]

The Globe and Mail has Ford's full list of executive members. Not a single progressive or member from Toronto-East York Community Council.