IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Canada issues , Canada politics , monarchy

Reply
Old 18th December 2018, 07:38 PM   #761
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It is who HAS the authority that counts. Why is it so hard to understand that the Conventions are not enforceable? That they obscure the REAL SOURCE of Authority?
Yes, I know the Queen doesn't hear cases. That's not the point.
But she is the highest authority in the land. That's an indisputable fact.
Whether or not the power is used, is certainly disputable.

Would you be kind enough to answer my previous question about what you think would happen if today, the Queen refused RA on a bill?
Very soon after Canada would be a republic with a democratically elected head of state.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:43 PM   #762
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I've never seen the Moon fall from the sky and crash to earth either. Does that mean that it has never happened?

The absence of observation of an event does not prove that it hasn't happened. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that something has not happened. All you can do is demonstrate that it has. If it has happened, there would be some observable evidence that it has happened.

You can't demonstrate that. You haven't, and you can't. There is no evidence. All you have is "what if".

That leaves only two options: one where she has exercised that power, in secret, such that nobody knows about it except for those who actively covered it up, or one where she never has. Both options are indistinguishable from each other for all practical purposes, unless you can somehow get a cover-upper to fess. So the option that proposes the fewest unjustified assumptions is more likely to be true.

Furthermore, even if she has, so what? Can you demonstrate that any harm has been caused by such an action? Can you demonstrate that the state of reality is in any way different from the way it would be if she had not done so? You can't do that either.

You can ask "what if?" all you like, and it may be a good basis for a thriller novel if you've got the skills, but don't expect anyone else to take the question seriously.
I've repeatedly said the use of the monarch's power can neither be proven nor disproven because if it is exercised, it is under the Conventions.

The only argument to suggest (not prove) the monarch uses the powers it legally has, is a common sense notion that people with immense power do in fact use it.

People here disagree. They think people or organizations who have supreme legal authority over other people or organizations just lay back and do what they're told.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:47 PM   #763
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Very soon after Canada would be a republic with a democratically elected head of state.
OK, thanks. But can you briefly outline the steps that would be taken to do so?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 08:00 PM   #764
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK, thanks. But can you briefly outline the steps that would be taken to do so?

This has also been done. It is called a referendum. Round, and round, and round we go...


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 08:02 PM   #765
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK, thanks. But can you briefly outline the steps that would be taken to do so?
Government announces intention to do so, setting out the reasons it is necessary.

New constitution is drafted with consultation with the major stakeholders (Provinces, First Nations, general public).

New constitution is approved.

Remaking legislation is updated to remove the monarch, replacing with the title of the new head of state.

My military unit reverts to its previous title of Canadian Field Artillery.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 08:12 PM   #766
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I've repeatedly said the use of the monarch's power can neither be proven nor disproven because if it is exercised, it is under the Conventions.

The only argument to suggest (not prove) the monarch uses the powers it legally has, is a common sense notion that people with immense power do in fact use it.
Right. You have no evidence. None whatsoever. You have nothing but "what if". And, I note, now a "yes but". So like I said, the world where the queen does have the power and uses it secretly is indistinguishable from the world where she has the power and has never used it.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
People here disagree. They think people or organizations who have supreme legal authority over other people or organizations just lay back and do what they're told.
In this very specific instance, yes. Because there is no evidence that anything is otherwise. No-one is interested in "but it might be". We want to know how the world is, not how it might be. And that means positive evidence for claims.

Furthermore, no-one is suggesting the general case as you put it - that "people and organisations" with power don't exercise it. We're talking about one specific person and/or organisation - Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II and the British Monarchy.

If the Queen were exercising her power in the way that you describe, there would be evidence. There would be a paper trail. How many people do you think would need to be keeping this secret? How many people are actively covering this up? How many people would need to be in on the conspiracy?
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 08:24 PM   #767
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
In the post about the imaginary whistle blower I outlined what might happen if pre-approval was called attention to.

You said my example was naive and suggested another scenario.
I explained what might happen in your scenario - where pre-approval didn't necessarily come up. If it did come up in your scenario, I refer you to the whistle blower post.

Pre-approval, if it exists, is under the Conventions. They would rather it not be widely known because it taints the "we rubber stamp everything" image. More people might start questioning that.
But as was pointed out in the whistle blower post, any damage is easily mitigated because pre-approval is characterized as a strictly voluntary courtesy under the Conventions.

So, if the big 'secret' of pre-approval got out, what damage would it do?
ETA: It might mildly taint the 'rubber stamper' image, but that would soon be forgotten.
What catastrophe do you envision?
This is just a whole load of "who shot John?"

I'm not suggesting that a backbencher sprouts a conspiracy theory like yours. They would be taken as seriously as you are if they did.

If the Queen was really directing the contents of bills like you say then the simplest way to expose this would be for the Prime Minister to run a bill through Parliament that the Queen objects to. She would then be be in the awkward position of having to choose between rubber stamping a bill she has previously objected to or vetoing it and giving the game away.

It would be a win for the PM either way. Either the Queen's authority has been compromised or the PM gets lots of favourable publicity for standing up to that unelected overseas entity. This is worth lots of votes for him.

ETA In case you try to argue that the GG would do such a thing, remember that the GG is the PM's pick and does his bidding. Very rarely has a GG invervened in parliamentary affairs and it has always been very controversial when it happens.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 08:44 PM   #768
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
If it has happened, there would be some observable evidence that it has happened.

Furthermore, even if she has, so what? Can you demonstrate that any harm has been caused by such an action? Can you demonstrate that the state of reality is in any way different from the way it would be if she had not done so? You can't do that either.
"If it has happened, there would be some observable evidence that it has happened."
Not necessarily.

You might ask the Native Indians what harm has been caused. That's the only thing we have to compare to. A 'before' and 'after'.

In the 'after' the white people's society just continued pretty much the same ways they did in England and France. So no obvious, visible harm was done - to the white people.

Then again, it depends what you call 'harm'. An example of what I would call 'harm' is the recent Ontario change that allows the police to stop you for a breathalyzer, without have to have any suspicion that you're intoxicated.

(This has nothing to do with the Queen directly - it's just an example of what I consider 'harm' that many would not consider to be harm.)

What is the harm in the above law change? Previously, you could go about your business without police intrusion, unless there was a reasonable suspicion that the law was being broken. Now you can be stopped anytime for any reason. Many non thinkers will welcome this change, believing it will make the roads safer, not taking into account the major loss of freedom.

In general, our freedoms are being eroded bit by bit over a long period of time so it's not so noticeable. There was a time where you could find yourself a patch of land here and build a cabin, start a farm. You didn't need anyone's permission. That freedom is long gone. If you wanted to escape formal society and go live in the woods, you can't do it legally anymore.
Each generation grows up with a lesser degree of freedom than the previous generation, and because only a little freedom is lost each generation, nobody notices. Until it's too late.

In some indirect, obscure, probably unprovable way, the monarchy has to be responsible for that because that condition only came about after the takeover of Canada.
If the monarchy was not the cause of loss of freedom, they also didn't object or intervene to preserve freedoms.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 08:53 PM   #769
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 8,843
Itch, my boy, you've

really got to try harder not to be so

BORING.
__________________
When I spoke out against the bullies, they called me woke.

When I lashed them with a length of chain, they called me sir.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 08:54 PM   #770
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
This is just a whole load of "who shot John?"

I'm not suggesting that a backbencher sprouts a conspiracy theory like yours. They would be taken as seriously as you are if they did.

If the Queen was really directing the contents of bills like you say then the simplest way to expose this would be for the Prime Minister to run a bill through Parliament that the Queen objects to. She would then be be in the awkward position of having to choose between rubber stamping a bill she has previously objected to or vetoing it and giving the game away.

It would be a win for the PM either way. Either the Queen's authority has been compromised or the PM gets lots of favourable publicity for standing up to that unelected overseas entity. This is worth lots of votes for him.

ETA In case you try to argue that the GG would do such a thing, remember that the GG is the PM's pick and does his bidding. Very rarely has a GG invervened in parliamentary affairs and it has always been very controversial when it happens.
IF the Queen continues to refuse RA, then her authority hasn't been compromised. Nor does vetoing the bill give any game away because she has the express legal authority to do so.

And I've explained twice now what the narrative would be if it became public that bills were submitted for pre-approval. And I've explained the narrative would not be a lie. Not to mention the fact that the Queen has a lot of public support in Canada, so someone 'standing up' to the Queen isn't going to rock the boat much. The monarchy would easily whether the storm. And RA would remain intact.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 09:03 PM   #771
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Right. You have no evidence. None whatsoever. You have nothing but "what if". And, I note, now a "yes but". So like I said, the world where the queen does have the power and uses it secretly is indistinguishable from the world where she has the power and has never used it.

In this very specific instance, yes. Because there is no evidence that anything is otherwise. No-one is interested in "but it might be". We want to know how the world is, not how it might be. And that means positive evidence for claims.

Furthermore, no-one is suggesting the general case as you put it - that "people and organisations" with power don't exercise it. We're talking about one specific person and/or organisation - Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II and the British Monarchy.

If the Queen were exercising her power in the way that you describe, there would be evidence. There would be a paper trail. How many people do you think would need to be keeping this secret? How many people are actively covering this up? How many people would need to be in on the conspiracy?
We've already covered why there would be no paper trail. The Conventions and everything that happens under them is word of mouth.
And I've explained ad nauseum now that there's no big secret. There's no big cover up.

The Conventions, being uncodified, can be whatever they say they are.
The rules are not written, so they can't be examined.

Just because an unwritten rule is not expressly made public does not make it a big secret that, if exposed, would shock the world.
I've explained why, if pre-approval were exposed, there would be no serious consequences.

And again, I'm not claiming pre-approval exists because there's no paper trail. I'm just demonstrating how easy it is to arrange for RA to appear to be 'rubber stamped'.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 09:12 PM   #772
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Oh, my. I know it's not Canada, but Victoria (Australia) has had random breath testing since 1977, and now has moved down to having one of the lowest rates of Alcohol related road deaths in the Western World, and our world has not come to an end. I think I much prefer to know that the chance of being hit and killed by a random drunk driver is much lower than it used to be.



And I do note that this has nothing to do with your hypothesis. You have just provided more evidence for one of my points by attempting to change the topic into something which has nothing to do with your hypothesis.


But then, the rest of us already knew that this is the sort of thing that CT'ists have to do because they have nothing else.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 09:13 PM   #773
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Furthermore, no-one is suggesting the general case as you put it - that "people and organisations" with power don't exercise it. We're talking about one specific person and/or organisation - Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II and the British Monarchy.
If, in your opinion, the royal family is the exception to the 'people use their power' rule, then so be it.

In my view, a family that possesses the level of power the British royal family does will never willingly give it up and they will never stop using it to their advantage. More sensible, from their point of view would be to find ways to obscure their true power and exercise it from behind the scene as they do with the Conventions.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 09:17 PM   #774
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Oh, my. I know it's not Canada, but Victoria (Australia) has had random breath testing since 1977, and now has moved down to having one of the lowest rates of Alcohol related road deaths in the Western World, and our world has not come to an end. I think I much prefer to know that the chance of being hit and killed by a random drunk driver is much lower than it used to be.



And I do note that this has nothing to do with your hypothesis. You have just provided more evidence for one of my points by attempting to change the topic into something which has nothing to do with your hypothesis.


But then, the rest of us already knew that this is the sort of thing that CT'ists have to do because they have nothing else.


Norm
It was an aside, not a change of topic. I was trying to point out the creeping erosion of freedoms, which I said went unnoticed by the public.
And that the monarchy was at least partially responsible for that.

ETA: Somewhere down the line the next step will be where authorities will no longer require a warrant or any suspicion to come in and search your home.
The monarchy may or may not be directing these actions, but at the very least, they allow them to happen.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 18th December 2018 at 09:25 PM.
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 09:24 PM   #775
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If, in your opinion, the royal family is the exception to the 'people use their power' rule, then so be it.

In my view, a family that possesses the level of power the British royal family does will never willingly give it up and they will never stop using it to their advantage. More sensible, from their point of view would be to find ways to obscure their true power and exercise it from behind the scene as they do with the Conventions.

We have also gone down this road before. You must have missed that part of the thread.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 09:26 PM   #776
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It was an aside, not a change of topic. I was trying to point out the creeping erosion of freedoms, which I said went unnoticed by the public.

You are suggesting that nobody notices random breath tests?


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 09:33 PM   #777
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,384
This has been going on for 20 pages?
__________________
Your grandchildren will be brown, trans, and Islamo-Communist.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 09:42 PM   #778
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
You are suggesting that nobody notices random breath tests?


Norm
No. I'm suggesting random breath tests, no matter how justified they may be, are an erosion of your freedom to go about your business without being treated like a criminal or suspect. Isn't that one of the main tenants of 'freedom and democracy' we hear so much about?

One erosion, or a few little ones go unnoticed, or are accepted by the 'justification'. Then when that's been forgotten, another little erosion takes place. Every freedom taken away has been 'justified'.

In the past, you could just start a business without anyone's permission.
Now you need a licence - permission from the gov't. I'm not sure what the justification for that was, but they made one up and people bought it.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 09:45 PM   #779
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Not to mention the fact that the Queen has a lot of public support in Canada, so someone 'standing up' to the Queen isn't going to rock the boat much.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 09:49 PM   #780
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
In general, our freedoms are being eroded bit by bit over a long period of time so it's not so noticeable.

[...]

In some indirect, obscure, probably unprovable way, the monarchy has to be responsible for that because that condition only came about after the takeover of Canada.
If the monarchy was not the cause of loss of freedom, they also didn't object or intervene to preserve freedoms.
Alternatively, perhaps that sort of thing happened after the takeover of Canada because that sort of thing was happening everywhere at that time. Can you really not think of any alternative explanations? That shows a tremendous lack of imagination on your part.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
We've already covered why there would be no paper trail. The Conventions and everything that happens under them is word of mouth.
And I've explained ad nauseum now that there's no big secret. There's no big cover up.
Then what the hell is your problem? Why are you so concerned? Why not just let her continue doing whatever it is she's doing? As if you could do anything to stop it anyway.
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 10:04 PM   #781
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
In the past, you could just start a business without anyone's permission.
Now you need a licence - permission from the gov't. I'm not sure what the justification for that was, but they made one up and people bought it.
What past is this? Buying and selling goods has been a regulated business in Canada since the first French settlements. Beer brewing has been regulated in Europe and The Americas since the Middle Ages if you weren't just drinking it yourself. Restaurants, hotels, pubs, green grocers, etc they have been licensed as long as there has been some form of central government.

There have been large number of reasons for regulations - protection of resources - that stupid Bavarian beer law was set up to guarantee that wheat and rye would be used for bread, not beer. Doctors and lawyers were licensed so that they had to meet minimum standards of training so as to minimize the chances of harming the public. The lists go on.

The role of government is to collectively go what the people need to do to make the society they want function and to protect its members - sometimes from themselves, sometimes from internal threats and sometimes from external threats.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 10:06 PM   #782
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post

In the past, you could just start a business without anyone's permission.
Now you need a licence - permission from the gov't. I'm not sure what the justification for that was, but they made one up and people bought it.

Not all businesses require a licence or permit with the City of Toronto. Examples include:
  • accounting offices
  • cheque-cashing business
  • clothing stores
  • consulting business or firms
  • daycares
  • dental offices
  • flower shops
  • fortune tellers/tarot readers
  • gyms, fitness centres, and personal trainers
  • import/export businesses
  • law offices
  • medical clinics
  • medical supplies stores
  • registered massage therapist
  • retail and products stores – that do not sell food (new items only)
  • seniors’/retirement homes
  • tutoring
  • wholesale businesses

https://www.toronto.ca/business-econ...nce-or-permit/


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 10:25 PM   #783
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,384
Would be interesting to know how often the average canadian citizen thinks about their Queen.

My bet is on "pretty much never".
__________________
Your grandchildren will be brown, trans, and Islamo-Communist.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 10:27 PM   #784
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Alternatively, perhaps that sort of thing happened after the takeover of Canada because that sort of thing was happening everywhere at that time. Can you really not think of any alternative explanations? That shows a tremendous lack of imagination on your part.

Then what the hell is your problem? Why are you so concerned? Why not just let her continue doing whatever it is she's doing? As if you could do anything to stop it anyway.
Yes, it was happening everywhere because the few at the top always want control of the masses.

As populations grew, it became more and more inefficient to control the masses by the old methods of whips, chains, and general terror.
Punishment temporarily puts a stop to undesirable behaviour but does not permanently reduce the victim's tendency to indulge in it.
To control large populations, some degree of public consent is required.
Noam Chomsky wrote a book about 'Manufacturing Consent' that explains in part how it's done.

I have no choice but to let them continue whatever they're doing.
The reason for this thread was to show that reality and what most people perceive as reality are not always the same thing.
And that people will fight tooth and nail to protect and preserve their perception of reality despite any and all contradicting facts and logic.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 10:32 PM   #785
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Yes, it was happening everywhere because the few at the top always want control of the masses.

As populations grew, it became more and more inefficient to control the masses by the old methods of whips, chains, and general terror.
Punishment temporarily puts a stop to undesirable behaviour but does not permanently reduce the victim's tendency to indulge in it.
To control large populations, some degree of public consent is required.
Noam Chomsky wrote a book about 'Manufacturing Consent' that explains in part how it's done.

I have no choice but to let them continue whatever they're doing.
The reason for this thread was to show that reality and what most people perceive as reality are not always the same thing.
And that people will fight tooth and nail to protect and preserve their perception of reality despite any and all contradicting facts and logic.
Uh-huh. Despite the fact that the only thing you have is that it might be possible. Why should we pay any attention to you whatsoever?
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 10:33 PM   #786
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Yes, it was happening everywhere because the few at the top always want control of the masses.

As populations grew, it became more and more inefficient to control the masses by the old methods of whips, chains, and general terror.
Punishment temporarily puts a stop to undesirable behaviour but does not permanently reduce the victim's tendency to indulge in it.
To control large populations, some degree of public consent is required.
Noam Chomsky wrote a book about 'Manufacturing Consent' that explains in part how it's done.

I have no choice but to let them continue whatever they're doing.
The reason for this thread was to show that reality and what most people perceive as reality are not always the same thing.
And that people will fight tooth and nail to protect and preserve their perception of reality despite any and all contradicting facts and logic.
Have you taken note of the hilited and adjusted your thinking accordingly? If you have then the thread has not been a complete waste of bandwidth.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 10:33 PM   #787
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,384
This guy is not for reals, right? I mean, he can't be. This is a joke?
__________________
Your grandchildren will be brown, trans, and Islamo-Communist.

Last edited by Lambchops; 18th December 2018 at 10:34 PM.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 10:47 PM   #788
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So your answer is 'no' ?

"He agrees to a number of "reforms" forced on him".
Isn't that an oxymoron? If you're forced to do something, by definition you are not agreeing. If he 'agreed' then it was his choice. If he did not agree, like Ed, his life could be made hell. But bottom line, it was his choice to give in to demands.
Did you happen to notice what happened to Charles II's dad? I would not use the word choice.
Craig4 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 11:06 PM   #789
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Not all businesses require a licence or permit with the City of Toronto. Examples include:
  • accounting offices
  • cheque-cashing business
  • clothing stores
  • consulting business or firms
  • daycares
  • dental offices
  • flower shops
  • fortune tellers/tarot readers
  • gyms, fitness centres, and personal trainers
  • import/export businesses
  • law offices
  • medical clinics
  • medical supplies stores
  • registered massage therapist
  • retail and products stores – that do not sell food (new items only)
  • seniors’/retirement homes
  • tutoring
  • wholesale businesses

https://www.toronto.ca/business-econ...nce-or-permit/


Norm
You're quite right. I stand corrected.
What I was poorly trying to get across is that one way or another you require permission for things you didn't before before the requirement was written into law. I call that erosion.
But that's only one avenue of erosion.

I must wear my seatbelt in the car or pay a penalty. Trivial as it may be, it's another micro erosion of my freedom. What is the justification for that? Or drug laws. Do I not own my own body and have the right to consume whatever I wish without risk of penalty? At one time that was true, but no longer.

Anyone who doesn't see the long, slow erosion of our personal freedoms simply isn't looking.

ETA: You have to 'register' your business if it is called anything but your own name. "John Smith" doesn't need to be registered, but "John Smith and Sons" does. Registration does not give you exclusivity to the name.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 18th December 2018 at 11:10 PM.
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 11:22 PM   #790
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Uh-huh. Despite the fact that the only thing you have is that it might be possible. Why should we pay any attention to you whatsoever?
By "it might be possible" I assume you're referring to the use of power by the royals. Yes, I've shown how it might be possible and given the logical reason why it's probable, in my view.

Was it you who said you can't prove a negative? You can't prove they don't use the power.
By the same token, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so I can't prove they do.

What I originally intended to prove was simply that contrary to popular belief, the monarchy POSSESSES the power.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 11:29 PM   #791
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
No. I'm suggesting random breath tests, no matter how justified they may be, are an erosion of your freedom to go about your business without being treated like a criminal or suspect. Isn't that one of the main tenants of 'freedom and democracy' we hear so much about?

One erosion, or a few little ones go unnoticed, or are accepted by the 'justification'. Then when that's been forgotten, another little erosion takes place. Every freedom taken away has been 'justified'.

In the past, you could just start a business without anyone's permission.
Now you need a licence - permission from the gov't. I'm not sure what the justification for that was, but they made one up and people bought it.
I don't see what any of this has to do with the crown.

It's all politicians making up laws to justify their existence.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 11:44 PM   #792
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
By "it might be possible" I assume you're referring to the use of power by the royals. Yes, I've shown how it might be possible and given the logical reason why it's probable, in my view.

Was it you who said you can't prove a negative? You can't prove they don't use the power.
By the same token, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so I can't prove they do.

What I originally intended to prove was simply that contrary to popular belief, the monarchy POSSESSES the power.
You demonstrated that on page 1. What has kept you going since then? Why do you believe it to be so important?
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 11:50 PM   #793
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't see what any of this has to do with the crown.

It's all politicians making up laws to justify their existence.
We're told that The Crown is supposed to ensure good government of Canada. The government is eroding our freedoms. I don't consider that good government. The Crown therefore, in my view, is either not doing its job, or it's perfectly OK with the erosion of our freedoms.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 11:55 PM   #794
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,384
Having to wear a seatbelt = literal totalitarianism

Says the twelve year old mind.
__________________
Your grandchildren will be brown, trans, and Islamo-Communist.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 11:55 PM   #795
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
We're told that The Crown is supposed to ensure good government of Canada. The government is eroding our freedoms. I don't consider that good government. The Crown therefore, in my view, is either not doing its job, or it's perfectly OK with the erosion of our freedoms.
You sound like an American.

"Freedom" is a con. There is no such thing. You are as free as the government of the day says you are. If you want to go back to the Wild Wild West, there's nothing stopping you. Except the laws of temporal causality. And the Queen is probably behind those, too.
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 11:57 PM   #796
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
We're told that The Crown is supposed to ensure good government of Canada.
Where does it say that in Canada's constitution?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 12:02 AM   #797
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You sound like an American.

"Freedom" is a con. There is no such thing. You are as free as the government of the day says you are. If you want to go back to the Wild Wild West, there's nothing stopping you. Except the laws of temporal causality. And the Queen is probably behind those, too.
It's not like the "Wild Wild west" didn't have laws. Some laws where even more strict then than now.
__________________
Your grandchildren will be brown, trans, and Islamo-Communist.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 12:22 AM   #798
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You demonstrated that on page 1. What has kept you going since then? Why do you believe it to be so important?
Most posters kept maintaining that the Queen had no real power. Some still believe that.

Up until a few years ago, I believed it too. I would have argued much like people here have done. Circumstances led me to do some research on the subject and I came to realize that my perception of reality in this matter was false. I prefer to perceive reality as accurately as possible.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 12:49 AM   #799
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Where does it say that in Canada's constitution?
I don't know if the Constitution says that. But many descriptions of the role of the monarch in Canada have words to that effect.

Wiki: (emphasis mine)
"[...] thereby allowing the monarch to make sure that the government conducts itself in compliance with the Constitution.

[...] executive authority remains vested in The Crown and is only entrusted by the sovereign to their government on behalf of the people, underlining the Crown's role in safeguarding the rights, freedoms, and democratic system of government of Canadians, [...]
"
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 12:56 AM   #800
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Most posters kept maintaining that the Queen had no real power. Some still believe that.

Up until a few years ago, I believed it too. I would have argued much like people here have done. Circumstances led me to do some research on the subject and I came to realize that my perception of reality in this matter was false. I prefer to perceive reality as accurately as possible.
You need to read peoples' arguments more carefully. They are not saying that she doesn't have power. Pretty much everyone in the thread has agreed that on paper, power rests with the monarchy. What people are saying is that she does not and can not exercise that power - that her power is purely theoretical. And you have been given reasons why that is the case that go back to the 1600s. Yet you persist in your belief that the Queen is actively exercising that power to "erode" your so-called "freedoms" despite there being zero evidence that this is the case.

So I ask again. Why are you here, trying to convince us of your case? What's in it for you?
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.