Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Clanscorpia

Member
  • Content Count

    4,372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Clanscorpia


  1. 11 hours ago, JokerProduction said:

     

    As others have said wait times are insane once you get past the GP level of healthcare.  Need a CT 6month wait minimum, Consult with a specialist 4months...  Go to the emergency room with something like a broken arm expect to be waiting 6hours on a good night.

     

    When I broke my wrist and elbow I was in the hospital for 8 hours, and I had to come back because the idiot doctor forgot I told him my wrist was in pain and I couldnt move it, and even after I made them take an Xray, they still said it wasnt broken at all, and then I get a call with them telling me my scaphoid bone was broken and I needed to go back so I could get it immobilized. Then I paid 40 dollars for a brace I wore for a week before I got my cast, with a ridiculous week long wait which should have been 2-3 days. The doctors even sat in the ER while I waited an hour for my xrays which were literally on the screen. They really dont care and are extremely lazy in ERs here. When I had a severe case of poison ivy on my face it took them 6 hours to spend 5 minutes trying to tell me it was sunscreen (I knew it was poison ivy, I touched it that day), and gave me prednizone. During that time my face and neck could have swollen shut, but it wasnt immediately life treating so I had to wait a ridiculous amount of time. All around here the non life threatening care here is total crap, and I would much rather pay 20 dollars to get my care faster. 


  2. 3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

     

    It's really not up for debate,  Researchers have been monitoring these things for decades now and the US literally falls short every time while countries like the UK and Sweden and Australia are ranked the best.    If you want higher infant mortality, forced private health insurance bills, lower life expectancy and so then by all means try to encourage a free market in health care. 

     

    Also are extremely in debt, have high taxes, and are fairly single cultural. The US is extremely broad with a huge amount of issues that can cause those with healthcare being a small part of it. ITs not a true free market system because as you said, things like forced private heath insurance bills are caused by the government putting influence on the system driving prices up. 


  3. 14 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

    Does it cost $1000 to be taken in to an ambulance to the hospital? Or do medical procedures cots $30,000 in Canada? Or does two epi pens costs $600. Because thats the costs in the US. While I understand you have to be put on a waiting list for some procedures. I rather that, then have to declare bankruptcy when I need to use our health care system. 

    About half that in most provinces, some of them do, and about a third, on top of the massive taxes we pay.


  4. 1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

    ...Wow...  You crying that 'Wah, legal language while talking about law is too hard!' is not doing you any favors in this discussion about law...

    Its not legal language, its Wikipedias tendency to overuse unnecessary amounts of complicated language that are not needed making basic comprehension difficult without reading.

     

    2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

    I can't understand where you keep getting this idea that an imagined power has influence over the courts.... But considering the above I can only credit it to reading comprehension issues.o.O

    Its not an imagined power, its the legislature that can push the laws and argue this, they are the defendants in the cases going to the court, and can provide evidence against the plaintiffs case. 


  5. Just now, AshleyAshes said:

    I'm going to ask a very simply question since you are demonstrating such utterly poor comprehension of Canadian Law:

     

    Without Googling it, do you know what the 'Oakes Test' is?

     

    And to be clear, I learned about the Oakes Test IN HIGH SCHOOL so none of this is some kind of university learned legalese.

    Currently in high school so no I do not but I can google stuff which is nice about having the internet. So looking at it quickly through the overly complicated language of wikipedia I can see that the test is basically seeing if the law will have an overly harsh effect on people and making sure the law doesnt overstep exactly what needs to be done. But looking at this even it is extremely vague and basically goes with whatever side is in power for minimizing free speech as it still uses the language "free and democratic society" which is highly subjective as to what you believe that means. It also talks about a balance, which with a small enough group at the other end, or enough power on one could sway towards one end. 


  6. 2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

    That's not how it works at all.  The actual final interpretation of Canadian laws are up to the courts, an extreme minority of the Canadian population, and 'reasonable' is determined by the courts.  The 'Majority' as in, the voting citizens and their elected representatives, can pass laws which violate the charter or constitution and then have those laws struck down by the courts.  That's the embodiment of the majority NOT being able to determine what is 'reasonable'.

     

    A prime example of this would be Sauvé v Canada.

     

    Our democratically decided Canada Elections Act banned prisoners from voting.  This was legally challenged.  Courts found the ban to be unconstitutional.  The courts weighed the violation of s3 of the charter against s1 and s1 couldn't save the law.  It was struck down.  Then the government passed a NEW law, saying that only prisoners serving 2 years or more couldn't vote.  Ah, sneaky democratic majority!  If your law gets struck down again just make a NEW one! ...The supreme court chastised parliament a second time around:

     

    I -LOVE- that quote.

     

    So anyway, no.  Your belief that you need 'Absolute Freedom of Speech' in Canada or the majority will oppress the minority is not a real concern.  It only stems from an ignorant understanding of Canadian law.  Which, I gotta be honest, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.  Every case I've cited in this thread I first read about in my 11th grade high school law text book from an Ontario high school.  I have NO idea how no other Canadians in this thread have no knowledge of the most fundamental trials in Canadian history...  You guys at least know about the will etched into the tractor fender, right?  I mean, that fender is in a MUSEUM!

     

     

    Except it can be constitutional, it literally says their in the constitution the laws can be passed, its in the first charter.


  7. 7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

    Can you elaborate on how that could be abused?

     

    In the example you gave before, where a person said "black people are less intelligent". Well, yeah, that'd be a hate crime, since there's no science backing up his statement.

     

    That's a bad example. It just goes to show that Hate Speech should indeed be a crime.

     

    Can you give me a better example, one that would prove how the law in Canada could be destructive?

    The laws can be changed to anything that "Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society." Meaning any of those laws can be changed about free speech including hate speech. Going back to a place like Soviet Russia where saying anything against the state could get you killed or sent to a Gulag shows how a majority government can push down the minority for what the powerful/majority believe in, stifling conflicting views from going through. And if we ban anything that has no science backing it opinions and many left ideas which are currently the "majority" about white people would also be hate speech, but these are not charged as such, showing an inequality in the treatment of hate speech. Laws should place everyone equality not some people given benefits because of stuff that happened in the past.


  8. Just now, mr moose said:

    You didn't read that did you?

    Yes I did the results literally said at the end that private institutions beat them by around 11% in almost every statistic for performance.

     

    4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

    They wait years for elective and the only reason it happens in the US quicker is becasue the users pays a shit load more.

     

    This paragraph is just factually wrong.  These countries are all first world countries, have had free/supported health care since the 80's and easily best the US in every health metric.    Trying to claim some sort of "tax burden" on consumers is just ridiculous.    There exists no evidence or even anecdotal meanderings to think such a thing.  

    Considering how much we pay in taxes for healthcare it doesnt end up being that much more for the average person with significantly quicker times and quality.  

     

    And no its not, the reason why medication and its associated costs are so expensive in the US is because of government interference with the drug companies.

    http://time.com/money/4462919/prescription-drug-prices-too-high/

    Government lobbying is also a huge issue which occurs throughout the system.


  9. 3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

    The very law you quote, is what allows restrictions (as is reasonable) on Free Speech.

    I know, thats why I was pointing out how its damaging.

    4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

    Give me an actual example of someone saying a factual truth, and getting charged Hate Speech for it.

    I wasnt saying it had happened in Canada, I was pointing out how the law can be abused and how laws like it have been abused all over the world, specially for punishing minority political groups.


  10. 6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

    Canada

    Going to bring this one up specifically. Health care is literally ass here, and any Canadian will agree with you. Its overpriced, wait times are horrendous, and the hospitals suck. It can take months to get an MRI or a transplant with people waiting years for operations that would happen in days if you lived in the United States. The only reason the system there is so bad is because of interfering laws with insurance companies and the governments, driving prices up because the government is forcing them to pay so much. Ill also point out all those countries are severely in debt due to government overspending. Id also like to point out all those countries you mentioned have some of the highest taxes in the world, which is a huge burden on the taxpayer who could get better healthcare for cheaper in a free market. Education is also always better in privatized institutions which can be shown from the higher success rates of people coming out of private schools.


  11. 53 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

     

    The vagueness is that any kind of "hurtful" thing directed towards someone can be classified as hate speech. If I lay out the facts for you and say something like (not saying its true just an example) "black people are statically less intelligent and more aggressive than other races" and someone gets hurt, you can still get charged, even though youre saying the truth based on facts. A society cant progress if facts and opinions of the majority oppress that of the minority, thats how things like Soviet Communism, and Nazism became so damaging to their respective countries. The Canadian constitution itself states that "Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society."  This means the majority will always have a say over what the minority say because they are the ones who decide what is "reasonable" and why free speech needs to be absolute to protect the minority from repression by the majority.


  12. 1 hour ago, Not_Sean said:

    [N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to―

    1. be hurtful;
    2. be harmful or to incite harm;
    3. promote or propagate hatred.

    The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

    The crime of crimen injuria ("unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another") may also be used to prosecute hate speech


    In 2011, a South African court banned "Dubula iBhunu (Shoot the Boer)", a derogatory song degrading Afrikaners, on the basis that it violated a South African law prohibiting speech that demonstrates a clear intention to be hurtful, to incite harm, or to promote hatred

    Those are extremely vague 


  13. 42 minutes ago, Not_Sean said:

    God I'm so happy I didn't grow up with all this "Freedom", In Africa free speech is allowed, but you can't say whatever you want and hide behind a rule and say well I can call death to all jews as much as I want because it's my right, No that is hate speech, and fully punishable by law. not to mention the chances of you been slapped by a brick is pretty high. 

    sorry, but for us, if you are a person yelling Hate speech especially Racial hate speech (With South Africa's past) you will be prosecuted because we don't need that kind of stuff in our country and don't believe we should just accept it because its "Free Speech" 

    What defines hate speech? Someone cant decide what is and is acceptable or "hateful" to say or they will always always always abuse it.


  14. Im planning on going to RMC to get a Masters in Aerospace Engineering and Physics to become a fighter pilot or tactical helicopters pilot in the RCAF. After retiring Id like to work at Lockheed Martin or become a politician.


  15. 7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

    People on here seem to think that video game companies would make a loss if they didn't do online bullshit.

     

    The reality is that they made shit tons of money and could have started working on their next game after the amazing sales of GTA V.

     

    They made loads of profit. That is not making a loss. 

    Thats not their problem. If they can make way more money from doing online then thats an amazing buisness choice for them. More money is always better.


  16. 2 hours ago, WereCat said:

     

    I wonder what people think if the publishers did things the way Arma 3 does DLCs.

    You still get the DLC content even if you dont buy the DLC but if you pick up the DLC item you will get semi-transparent ad covering your entire screen every couple of minutes to buy the DLC.

    (You can't drive/pilot DLC vehicles, only use them as a passanger).

     

    It is prety annoying thing to do especialy if the ad appears in a middle of firefight which either makes you not want to pick the items or just go and buy the DLC... but hey, at least you have the option to use the damn DLC content for free if you really want.

    As long as I can go into the editor and force place myself as the driver of the new planes Im happy

×