renhogan

joined 1 week ago
 

Only in Mississauga I find this disgusting behaviour.

Why are people just openly littering. It never used to be like this. What happened ?

[–] renhogan@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

They aren't in the Top20 for World unaffordability.

[–] renhogan@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You must not drive on this street very much if that's your opinion on EMP. Vehicle operators don't seem to understand the speed of the street is 70 km/hr. It’s a 3-lane wide road that everyone seems to go 50-60km/hr on when the speed limit is posted to 70. It comes down to an awareness issue, which is evident as many drivers in this City don't seem to have any.

 
 

Why does NO ONE drive the 70km/hr posted speed limit. What's with the average speed of 50-60 km/hr on this road. It drives me INSANE.

[–] renhogan@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The War on Drugs absolutely caused serious harm and disproportionately impacted minority communities. That’s widely documented. But acknowledging that doesn’t make it equivalent to governments intentionally killing civilians. Harmful policy and discriminatory enforcement are not the same thing as deliberate mass slaughter. Conflating those two things is exactly the kind of false equivalence that derails serious discussion.

Are you actually arguing that the War on Drugs is equivalent to governments intentionally slaughtering their own civilians?

Because acknowledging that the policy caused harm and was discriminatory doesn’t make it the same category of wrongdoing as deliberate mass killing.

[–] renhogan@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Harmful policy and deliberate mass killing are not the same thing.

The War on Drugs has caused real damage, but comparing incarceration and social harm to governments intentionally slaughtering civilians is exactly the kind of false equivalence that makes serious discussions impossible.

[–] renhogan@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You need to understand both of these things are bad. they aren't mutually exclusive.

[–] renhogan@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You have to see the bigger picture in this context though, this is unprecedented. Iran obtaining and securing enriched Uranium and having Nuclear capable missiles will be a threat to the World.

This is bigger than sticking to a morale compass. This is why Humanity is the true plague of this Planet and why there will never be Peace on Earth.

I don't want more people to die, as many others don't. But to just sit back and let Iran become untouchable and thinking everything will continue to be OK is naive.

[–] renhogan@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don’t think anyone here is celebrating bombing or war. Military action is always a terrible outcome.

The concern many people have is what happens if nothing is done and WHEN Iran eventually acquires nuclear weapons. Once a regime that already sponsors militant groups and represses its own population has nuclear-capable warheads, the ability to prevent escalation becomes far more limited.

At that point, the world isn’t choosing between diplomacy and intervention anymore, it’s choosing between living with a nuclear-armed regime like that or risking a much larger conflict later. That’s the dilemma people are talking about.

[–] renhogan@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

You’re putting words in people’s mouths. No one said they’re “fine with” deaths in the U.S. Those are serious issues and they absolutely deserve attention and policy solutions.

The point being made was simply that domestic social problems and state-directed violence or terrorism are different categories under international law. Acknowledging that distinction doesn’t mean someone doesn’t care about both.

Both can be bad at the same time. Recognizing that isn’t controversial.

[–] renhogan@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Those are serious domestic policy failures and they absolutely deserve criticism. But they’re still not the same thing as a government deliberately carrying out mass violence against civilians or supporting armed groups abroad.

Recognizing that distinction isn’t “normalizing” loss of life, it’s acknowledging that different problems require different responses.

[–] renhogan@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

You're comparing social crises to state-directed mass killing. Those aren’t equivalent under international law or humanitarian doctrine. The threshold people talk about for intervention is typically genocide, ethnic cleansing, or large-scale state violence against civilians.

Social problems like drug overdoses and gun violence are not the same as a government slaughtering civilians. Conflating the two is a false equivalence.

[–] renhogan@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I didn’t choose the military as my line of work. If I had and was sent somewhere to intervene, I would accept that responsibility.

I support intervention when humanitarian law is being severely violated, but I don’t make the decisions on where those interventions happen.

I chose healthcare instead, and I help Canadians every day.

view more: next ›