..... Why are you flogging gross government overreach?
When did I do this exactly?
I thought maybe you had an appreciation for what has been compromised by restrictions and mandates.
I do actually, and have debated that some here. But I choose my words and arguments carefully and look for evidence to support my concerns.
Evidence by the way means statements of fact and citations among other things.
But it also means understanding arguably the most fundamental precept of debate.
Its about persuading others of the validity of your positions.
There are those here I know I will not convince that some specific measures are or were excessive and not justified. But I can, and will persuade many.
I do so not only by providing evidence, but by not trying to tell people writ large they are sheep/morons/cowards, etc.
I don't confuse unjustified actions, or unreasonable actions based on evidence with tyranny.
I can and will argue for greater restraint in some areas, but arguing that any or most restraint is not particularly sensible, and even if it were, it would not be convincing here and now.
That means there is value is choosing one's battles, and arguing for or against specific policy choices, as the evidence may allow.
Arguing that democracy is uniquely imperiled by policy, that often has the support of the majority of people is rather problematic, and certainly not the best route to recruiting friends and allies for a bit more restraint.
Leaping from specific policy to tyranny; and leaping from sound arguments to 'but truckers are uniquely swell folks' (never mind the majority of truckers who may feel different than those in the convoy)
Argue ideas, with facts; not conjecture and anecdote.
I don’t like seeing thousands of essential workers being characterized as extremists or morons.
I agree, there's been harsh generalizations at times of critics of gov't policy/mandates that is itself over-reach instead of sticking to the facts.
However, here we're talking about minority of a certain employment sectors, a very tiny one at that, whose arguments don't seem particularly cogent or thoughtful.
This is not the hill to die on, literally or figuratively.
What, we can’t question government policies that are likely an extreme breach of Charter rights? C’mon.
We can, and we should. But we ought to do so with facts and evidence and not speaking in terms of conspiracies or great evils or the like.
Even if that were true (which I'm not suggesting); it would not help one's cause to frame the argument in those terms.
Remember the object of debate is not to here oneself speak; and confirm to oneself your own righteousness. Rather it is to persuade others of the virtue of your ideas.
You rightly critique excessive criticism at anyone with concerns or questions; yet you dole out insults or worse in the opposing direction that do nothing but get people's back up.
Slow down. There are bits of your argument with which I'm inclined to agree.......
But when you wildly step beyond......its just too much.
There are many fully-vaccinated truckers in the convoy. They’re trying to protect freedom in Canada.
Right there, that's your problem. In a nutshell.
Instead of, "They are trying to raise public awareness over the serious consequences of specific policies" ; 'they're trying to protect freedom' is offered instead'
The former sounds like.....hey, maybe there's something I should pay attention to; while the latter sounds like 'what's that nutter on about again'.
You frankly make it more difficult for those like me who want to argue for more restraint in certain measures, when you have people associate such ideas with extremism.