Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Kevin Biestra

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Kevin Biestra last won the day on December 6 2015

Kevin Biestra had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,691 Gaming the system

About Kevin Biestra

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Let Canucks management know you want King Richard Brodeur in the Ring of Honour!


Recent Profile Visitors

6,679 profile views
  1. Again, you are arguing dishonestly here. I only needed to provide one piece of successful evidence the first place to make my point in the original post. I went above and beyond that and provided several. You are now engaging in a dishonest tactic and a logical fallacy, pretending that if there are two good pieces of evidence and one that you don't find compelling, the latter piece of evidence means the others don't exist and aren't valid. And you know you're doing it. On top of which, I stand by the Pelosi quote and clip as effective evidence anyway.
  2. I stand by the quote I provided as tacit support of the activities of those people, especially in the context of the question and answer. And even if you don't agree, it has no bearing on the validity of the other examples. You're harping on one piece of evidence when I told you discard it if you wish. I have more than met my duty here.
  3. If you don't find that example compelling, just discard it then and go with the other ones I provided.
  4. I don't think you and the other person are arguing honestly in this case. Celebrities like Seth Rogen, Steve Carell, Chrissy Teigen etc. bailing out rioters sounds like support to me. The other poster said nobody legitimate would support rioting for any reason. Okay... Nancy Pelosi on people destroying statues... "People will do what they do" (shrug) The other poster said nobody legitimate would support rioting... Okay, is he/she saying this BLM leader is not legitimate? Like I said, you don't have to agree
  5. We just saw all kinds of public figures supporting riots. You can't have forgotten this already. You don't have to agree with Donnelly about masks or anything else to know that.
  6. I never said free speech is without consequences. As to whether it's absolute, it's as absolute as a given set of laws allows it to be. It's very easy for all of us to say the line should be drawn exactly where we want it to be at a given time. You might prefer that person X be silenced and person Y might prefer to silence you. Of course speech has consequences. But a lot of people are pretending there aren't any potential consequences to some of the things that the people they don't like are protesting about.
  7. Well here's the author's own summary of the article. "A system that tolerates "hate speech" is probably superior to the alternatives, but defenders of an absolute right can't pretend no one gets hurt." For one thing, I don't think anything Donnelly did comes close to hate speech. For another, I never said such speech isn't hurtful. In fact, I don't even think I've stated any position at all on hate speech.
  8. Those administering the purity tests today often fail it themselves tomorrow when the standard goes up.
  9. I don't have any argument that you shouldn't wear one. And I don't hear that argument much from anyone. Some others may have an easier time making arguments that you should choose for yourself whether you want to wear one. Maybe they'll convince you or someone else, maybe they won't. But the argument could come from several other places than the motives you ascribed to everyone making it.
  10. No they don't. They just have to view the risks associated with COVID and the actual reduction in that risk that masks provide as X, and then view either civil liberties or the effect of setting a precedent of reducing those liberties or anything else as Y and then come to some determination where Y > X. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong but there are other ways for someone to develop an opposing philosophy to yours on this or any other issue. And if you group them all together, project one singular motive onto them and then shame them, all you really do is stifle discu
  11. Every policy decision, every allocation of resources, every right is issued, ordered or protected in a system with moving parts against all other funding, demands, resources, scarcity of those resources and other rights. What do you think the survival and mortality rate of this particular virus actually is? Now you can take all resources and rights and redistribute and curtail them or do anything else you want in order to address that mortality rate. Or I should say, you can campaign and lobby for whatever you think the proper allocation is to combat it. Bu
  12. And there you go, logic out the window and pure emotional appeal. That tactic makes reasonable discussion about anything impossible.
  13. Based on the actual mortality rate and statistics he would need an extremely large family to kill one member of it.
  14. Now I bet you're gonna try to force Mark Donnelly to wear underwear.
  15. I don't think all politicians are trying their best to help people. I think you'll have to look substantially harder to find unethical corrupt doctors. The latter do exist, but they have their licenses revoked for stuff that politicians can do before breakfast.
  • Create New...