Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

#-3 · 12-23-2025, 02:42 PM

To be clear my hang up is that Wolven in particular but others too have repeatedly said that this is a terrible policy because more harm will result.

I have tried to bring facts to bear that say the statement "More harm will occur" seems to be untrue from the plurality of evidence. Then they say "I don't care what the evidence says, I know more harm will occur".

And that last statement is where I get hung up. This is the exact attitude that has driven the right down a rabbit hole where they are no longer a legitimate political movement.

Some times they instead bring some evidence that is very very easily refuted by any sensible standards like comparing a small urban country with low rates of motor vehicle commuting on a per capita basis to large suburban countries. And I've made fairly reasons refutations to those pieces of evidence without response.

I'm fine, say you want lower speed limits, just don't say the evidence says more people will be harmed by the higher limits, it's unfactual.

I really want us to attack this government on the merits of there bad policy, but if we attack them for their OK to neutral policy, it diminishes the impact of us attacking their bad policy. This is bait so people here us complain about the un-realized harm of hire speed limits, instead of talking about all of the corporate welfare to legacy industries and donors. Or the dropping math grades, and increasing medicals wait times / personal costs. People hear us complaining about speed limits and listen less when we talk about them lighting $11,000/year/house of Alberta's money on fire.

12-23-2025, 02:42 PM	#29153
#-3 Franchise Player Join Date: Mar 2008 Exp:	To be clear my hang up is that Wolven in particular but others too have repeatedly said that this is a terrible policy because more harm will result. I have tried to bring facts to bear that say the statement "More harm will occur" seems to be untrue from the plurality of evidence. Then they say "I don't care what the evidence says, I know more harm will occur". And that last statement is where I get hung up. This is the exact attitude that has driven the right down a rabbit hole where they are no longer a legitimate political movement. Some times they instead bring some evidence that is very very easily refuted by any sensible standards like comparing a small urban country with low rates of motor vehicle commuting on a per capita basis to large suburban countries. And I've made fairly reasons refutations to those pieces of evidence without response. I'm fine, say you want lower speed limits, just don't say the evidence says more people will be harmed by the higher limits, it's unfactual. I really want us to attack this government on the merits of there bad policy, but if we attack them for their OK to neutral policy, it diminishes the impact of us attacking their bad policy. This is bait so people here us complain about the un-realized harm of hire speed limits, instead of talking about all of the corporate welfare to legacy industries and donors. Or the dropping math grades, and increasing medicals wait times / personal costs. People hear us complaining about speed limits and listen less when we talk about them lighting $11,000/year/house of Alberta's money on fire.