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

[Fired] Mark Donnelly

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I don't necessarily agree with his opinion on wearing masks. In fact, I am against it. But I have trouble with the firing. You don't get fired for expressing your opinions. Apparently, speech is free only if it fits certain narrative.

  • Haha 1
  • Wat 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Where's the line and where does it end?

Will there be a day where I wear a t-shirt that says, "I'm Pro-Opera and I Vote"... and that will get me fired from a job or banned from certain establishments?  Will my potential "offensiveness" against the deaf and non-citizens be justification for detrimental actions towards me?  

 

Sounds very extreme.... but if you told someone 10 years ago that you can get fired for attending a public rally, you will notice that the goalpost has drastically shifted.  

Heck...when I grew up you could get beat up or killed for it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last Friday I had to go to Emergency

As part of my examination the Doctor did a Covid test

She asked me to put my cloth mask under my nose, but to leave it on

Once she did the test with the long swab

I had an uncontrollable urge to sneeze

I sneezed 3 times through my mouth with the Doctor directly in front of me

I did manage to get my hand up to my face.....but there was alot of force

I apologized to her

And she said that is why we ask you to wear a mask

I was very upset at myself

and again she said, and that is why I wear a mask

She was so professional...........

 

True story!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rush17 said:

time to bring in Michael Buble! :towel: He was our anthem singer in the bubble anyways. :gocan:

 

He is a part owner of the giants but thats ok :D canucks come first lets go!

I wouldn't mind Buble at all. He is a huge Nucks fan.

  • Like 2
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, peaches5 said:

Cloth masks stop large droplets that’s pretty much where their usefulness stops which she mentions in the interview and the paper she wrote. 
 

If you’re going to wear a mask wear an n95 or you’re not really any better than someone with no mask. 
 

I find it so hypocritical when people complain about people not wearing masks when they’re wearing a piece of cloth... like that cloth is useless. It’s common sense. If you want to protect yourself and others get a proper mask that designed to protect you and others. 

She is talking about people wearing t shirt fabric over their faces and acting like they dont have to social distance anymore. Of course that's ridiculous. 

 

This is one persons opinion piece from April. It doesnt take into account the numerous studies done on various types of mask efficacy since then. 

 

Fabric masks dont do as good of a job as an n95. However it's well documented that they have an effect, especially when of heavier material, double layered with a filter pouch in between, which is what is recommended for public use. 

 

Shes certainly correct in saying that the mask wont solve this problem alone. We need many more precautions in place. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, morgo said:

I know how to spell asinine, I was in a rush to finish my post before heading to work and missed the typo.  Maybe throwing words like that around "don't make me any smarter" (see, I can be a grammar nazi too) but it doesn't take a genius to realize that the official narrative of this entire debacle has more holes in it than swiss cheese.  You're not being kind and considerate by putting a piece of cloth over your face.  You're simply going along with the herd and using as an excuse to virtue signal and boss people around.   You should probably get over yourself.
 

Yeah, people who aren't sick not wearing masks are literally killing people :lol:.  And I'm being called dramatic.  Keep virtue signalling though.  Are you a real doctor?  Because your knowledge about this pandemic is absolutely blowing my mind.

 

CfkG6Dj.jpg
 

You do realise that the other masks are for personal protection to stop the individual inhaling fumes/dust etc.

 

the point of the cloth mask is not to protect the wearer it doesn’t, and governments/science isn’t suggesting that it does.

 

what evidence has shown is that they help to reduce (note not eliminate) the spread of the virus by limiting(note not stopping) the expelling of the virus from an individual who may be asymptomatic to others. 
 

this is not a single measure but by combining it with social distancing, (this helps reduce the any particles that get through from reaching someone as the spread from a mask is less than if it was uncovered. And with regular hand washing after touching surfaces/items which could have come in contact with contaminated reduces the risk of it then being spread further. 
 

To be honest people wearing a mask but not covering their nose may as well not bother wearing a mask as it’s mitigating the purpose of it.

 

if you want a mask that will protect the individual wear an N95 or equivalent along with a face shield or better yet get a hazmat suit with its own air filter/supply tank - however you may find that a - a bit expensive, b- a bit more restrictive

 

early on on the pandemic places like japan and Korea faced better due to a number of factors - Korea for aggressive contact tracing and isolation policies, but also because people in that culture regularly wear masks. This helped slow the transmission of the virus which allowed them to stay ahead of it.
 

Unfortunately in the west this didn’t happen for a variety of reasons partly may have been supply but also because masks were seen by the western word as not effective at stopping the virus and their missed the whole reducing the transmission impact of them as the nature of the virus wasn’t understood, in studies that have looked at the initial outbreak there is clear evidence for how effective masks were, and as such why we should have them. 
 

also bear in mind the rights of the individual are not absolute, they are balanced against the rights of others.

 

If you want to go out wear a mask, it’s not for long, it’s not going to harm you and you are helping in your part in reducing the virus transmission. This means that the sooner it gets lower the sooner things get back to some level or normality or less restrictions are placed. Which helps reduce the economic impact and also helps keep hospitals from being overloaded which helps reduce excess (none  COVID related) death figures. 
 

also for those saying the vaccine is almost here/ready so you can act normal - bear in mind depending which vaccine is used the supply will not be instantaneous, and there are storage issues and implications. Plus even if it were ready and enough was available right now it will takes months to get through the population, so helping keeping the transmission down helps keep people safe and will allow for phased fully reopened economy 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wesley said:

I don't necessarily agree with his opinion on wearing masks. In fact, I am against it. But I have trouble with the firing. You don't get fired for expressing your opinions. Apparently, speech is free only if it fits certain narrative.

Free speech doesn’t mean free from consequences. Plus absolute free speech is actually a novelty in most of the world including Europe. 

  • Hydration 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, UKNuck96 said:

Free speech doesn’t mean free from consequences. Plus absolute free speech is actually a novelty in most of the world including Europe. 

He sang a song at a rally where no violence happened, no businesses were destroyed, it’s a slippery slope we are going down. 

  • Haha 1
  • Wat 3
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dumb Nuck said:

He sang a song at a rally where no violence happened, no businesses were destroyed, it’s a slippery slope we are going down. 

Not really. In my contract at work if I bring my employer into disrepute I can be fired for gross misconduct.

 

In the UK the police are not allowed to be members of proscribed political parties and they must not participate in any activity that is likely to interfere with impartial discharge of duty or likpy to give the impression of that.

 

Just because a rally is peaceful and not I no inciting hatred/violence it’s the impact of the impression that gives. 
 

in the case of Donnelly he has a visual profile for the Canucks so his actions can and do reflect on the organisation whether they are done in a personal or professional profile. 
 

if it was say a back office worker or shop floor assistant in the store shop it’s more than likely they a) it wouldn’t be noticed that they were there and b) if there were that nothing would happen unless they got up on a podium and stated they worked for the Canucks organisation.

 

There is nuance that needs to be applied to the situation. 

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dumb Nuck said:

He sang a song at a rally where no violence happened, no businesses were destroyed, it’s a slippery slope we are going down. 

 

Those administering the purity tests today often fail it themselves tomorrow when the standard goes up.

  • Haha 1
  • Wat 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, x00x said:

Funny thing about the whole mask thing, people who are wearing 100% are still get infected, so its not 100% guaranteed and thats the problem, society thinks wearing a mask makes u immune but reality it doesn't and actually makes u even more susceptible/risk , since your guard is down and u become more clumsy with how you do things outside

This is wrong. Stupid is as stupid does. Wearing a mask does not make you more susceptible to infection. Poor decision making while out in public could increase your chances, like you said. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the mask, it's the person behind it.

 

Out of all my hundreds of patients since covid started coming into the clinic wearing a mask, I don't recall a single one of them thinking that wearing a mask makes then immune to Covid.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wesley said:

I don't necessarily agree with his opinion on wearing masks. In fact, I am against it. But I have trouble with the firing. You don't get fired for expressing your opinions. Apparently, speech is free only if it fits certain narrative.

It’s not free speech when your sole purpose is to spread lies and disinformation about things that are meant to help keep us safe. Attending and singing at said rally certainly didn’t help his case either. 

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, UKNuck96 said:

It’s not about purity tests. 

 

take a read of this 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/283672/

 

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.

Edited by Kevin Biestra
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

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.

The reason I linked wasn’t about hate speech it’s more to point out that free speech isn’t absolute, and even when it’s tipped more towards the US than the European version that the free speech isn’t free from impact or consequences 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, UKNuck96 said:

The reason I linked wasn’t about hate speech it’s more to point out that free speech isn’t absolute, and even when it’s tipped more towards the US than the European version that the free speech isn’t free from impact or consequences 

 

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -SN- locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...