Don't ask me. I wouldn't allow them the franchise if it were my decision to make.
The women who agree with me politically would still have their interests represented, and much more frequently than they do now while they have the false opportunity to have their voice heard. The women who disagree with me politically are the enemy, and I don't particularly care how they feel about it.
Men and women have different distributions for intellect, and when you are talking about being inferior you are talking about comparing the tops of that distribution not the bottoms. Nobody cares which side has more retards, we care who has more geniuses.
It cannot be an identity attack when it is true; smart men FAR outnumber smart women, and women, as a group, are in fact the intellectual inferior of men, as a group.
the final logical step here is understanding that mainstream scientists will willingly rubber-stamp government tyranny. scientists who disagree will keep their head low and cower in fear. very few will speak out.
in other words, "a few scientists" is actually "most scientists" and the government here is not misrepresenting the scientists, the scientists simply adapt to whatever the regime says is the truth. and as seen in 2020, this adaptation can happen remarkably fast.
We don't need a media, just a whole hell of a lot of (licorice)* and (floss picks)*.
This comment has been reposted with Rule 2 friendly descriptors. Please replace the indicated items with whatever strikes your fancy, madlibs style. Ideally the first item should be fibrous, and the second item sharp, but I am literally not the boss of you so have fun with it.
But the restrictions were in place and justified, Hampston noted
Peak gaslighting. There was no justification for what the government did. Especially no justification for banning people from meeting outdoors. Nor is invoquing "they were maskless" an argument, because masks don't work, and even if they worked, would be irrelevant outdoors.
Especially not "justified" when this guideline depended entirely on POLITICS ( BLM gathering ).
“The limitations were in place. They ought to have been respected.”
The limitations were unconstitutional. She was literally arrested for gathering in public. If I am required to obey unconstitutional laws then the constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on and this court has no authority other than state violence.
Public prosecutor Jack Huber encouraged Hampson to impose even heftier fines to send a strong message to Neudorf and the community. He asked for a total of $53,500 in penalties.
“You have to let the community know that if you’re going to organize this type of activity which affects the lives of hundreds of people, that you’re going to pay a price dearly in order that someone is not going to do it again,” Huber said.
Unless you do the EXACT SAME THING in the name of BLM or any other lefty cause.
Fuck this corrupt judge.
I see a judge that needs to be fired
Laws exist only to punish enemies of the regime.
...in a failed state.
In any state that exists long enough.
States, like people, can only exist so long before declining into incoherence and irrelevance.
Out of a cannon?
I’m open to that
Into a woodchipper
Sounds unfair to the volcano.
Nonono... he's into something. Volcanos have a bigger target area.
Active volcano by means of wood chipper?
If we're feeling lenient and merciful.
The real question is: why are we still letting women be judges?
Don't ask me. I wouldn't allow them the franchise if it were my decision to make.
The women who agree with me politically would still have their interests represented, and much more frequently than they do now while they have the false opportunity to have their voice heard. The women who disagree with me politically are the enemy, and I don't particularly care how they feel about it.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
This suggests women are inherently inferior at an intellectual level
It doesn't suggest it. It says it outright, Dom.
First, a source.
Men and women have different distributions for intellect, and when you are talking about being inferior you are talking about comparing the tops of that distribution not the bottoms. Nobody cares which side has more retards, we care who has more geniuses.
It cannot be an identity attack when it is true; smart men FAR outnumber smart women, and women, as a group, are in fact the intellectual inferior of men, as a group.
Nah. Just make a law that he's not allowed to leave his home because of the risks he poses to society.
Your rights are fake if a few scientists say so
Your rights are fake if the government says a few scientists say so.
the final logical step here is understanding that mainstream scientists will willingly rubber-stamp government tyranny. scientists who disagree will keep their head low and cower in fear. very few will speak out.
in other words, "a few scientists" is actually "most scientists" and the government here is not misrepresenting the scientists, the scientists simply adapt to whatever the regime says is the truth. and as seen in 2020, this adaptation can happen remarkably fast.
They're so brazen nowadays, and without an independent media (that normies trust) to hold them accountable, I fear there's no coming back from this.
We don't need a media, just a whole hell of a lot of (licorice)* and (floss picks)*.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent speech
Do not advocate for mass murder.
Who's the turd in the punchbowl running around reporting this shit like a faggot?
An absolute farce of a corrupt justice system.
Peak gaslighting. There was no justification for what the government did. Especially no justification for banning people from meeting outdoors. Nor is invoquing "they were maskless" an argument, because masks don't work, and even if they worked, would be irrelevant outdoors.
Especially not "justified" when this guideline depended entirely on POLITICS ( BLM gathering ).
Don't pay it and fight like hell when they try to collect
I agree with the sentiment but they’ll just take it out of your bank account like they did to Dankula
Close your accounts now before they’re closed for you.
Any Canadian paying attention liquidated their bank accounts in February 2022.
The limitations were unconstitutional. She was literally arrested for gathering in public. If I am required to obey unconstitutional laws then the constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on and this court has no authority other than state violence.
Canada needs to boog
smashing storefronts and setting cars on fire doesn't hurt the regime. Peacefully defy them though, here comes the hammer. Without further elaboration, I've completely lost faith in the ability of peaceful protest to effect change.
Violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived
Ah, content-based speech restrictions. Sure does suck not to have a First Amendment.
…and a Supreme Court that actually believes in it, of course, since there are plenty of Americans who would cheer for this result if it happened here.
I'm from Ontario, and this outcome makes me feel like I have to do something, but I don't know what. This shit really makes one feel powerless.
We're supposed to get a decision on the invocation of the Emergencies Act soon as well.
Unpossible!!!
Fundamental freedoms – section 2
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
Seems that some people are more free than others.
All null and void if the government says 'doesn't count'.
We should just delete all of Ontario.
State-sponsored terrorists like BLM have free reign to burn, loot and murder with no consequence. This is why the second amendment is so important.
Canada Sucks.
Canada is full of globalist faggots.
Moar boosters.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech