Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by GGG

So if you were to agree that under Kenny Line 3 and TMX are more likely to operate sooner than under Notley a utilitarian case could be made that more harm is reduced by electing a UCP government.

Are you trying to convince me that the completion of TMX and Line 3 are likely to improve the situation where LGBTQ youth will be at less risk of being outed against their will?

You can't be serious?

I . . . . I don't . . . . I can't even . . .

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is quite the statement. There's simply no line that a politician can cross, short of being convicted of a criminal offense, that is even relevant to your voting decision?

Let's say the UCP's platform had included a plank about establishing a new pro-Third Reich museum extolling the virtues of Hitler's leadership style and ambitions. Presumably this would have minimal impact on the economy. It probably wouldn't be against the law, provided that it didn't explicitly promote anti-semitism. You would dismiss this as "background noise"?

Haha, perhaps a bit of a blunt statement, I'll admit. But context is always important. So, in the context of the discussion that Shantz and I were having, I stated that my main concern for the election was the economy and fiscal policy. The UCP/Wildrose merger theatrics, stalking horse, etc. wasn't something I paid much attention to in making my decision.

My statement taken in isolation, is blunt. But, taken in the context of the conversation being had, it probably doesn't warrant invoking Godwin's law in an Alberta election thread. But kudos to you for making the connection, I've always found hyperbole to make for much more enjoyable reading.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

"Almost assuredly untrue"? Why would it be illegal? [DavidKhan] As a constitutional lawyer, I don't agree at all with that statement. [/DavidKhan]

I mean, I can substitute something else that would be horrible yet legal, like establishing a provincial holiday to mourn babies murdered by abortion, or altering the school curriculum to include extensive material on the benefits of authoritarianism as a system of government. The illegality isn't the point. The point is that for most people, there is a line somewhere that a politician or party can cross that will disqualify them as a candidate, no matter how appealing their fiscal policy appears to be. His statement was therefore quite remarkable, and, I suspect, he wouldn't stand by it in the corner cases.

And either way, it still wouldn't be a straw man.

The two things you "substitute" are not even remotely as offensive as a museum dedicated to the virtues of Adolf Hitler.

Your final point, perhaps revealingly, is presented without support (I mean, I was almost convinced by the italics, but not quite).

By the way, I do agree that his statement was ridiculous. I interpret is at mostly hyperbolic, though. It is meant to be taken as a measure of how much importance he places on the economy, not as a literal guiding principle.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Are you trying to convince me that the completion of TMX and Line 3 are likely to improve the situation where LGBTQ youth will be at less risk of being outed against their will?

You can't be serious?

I . . . . I don't . . . . I can't even . . .

You clearly know that's not what he said. He's talking about overall societal impact. Stop being disingenuous.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Are you trying to convince me that the completion of TMX and Line 3 are likely to improve the situation where LGBTQ youth will be at less risk of being outed against their will?

You can't be serious?

I . . . . I don't . . . . I can't even . . .

I’m not sure how you read that into what I wrote.

No I’m saying general economic prosperity improves social outcomes in aggragate. It would reduce suicides in the general population.

So if your concern is the general betterment of social outcomes you should vote for the party you believe will do the best for the economy.

You asked if LGBTQ youth should have to wait until after pipelines are built to be relevant. My response is Maybe, from a Utilitarian standpoint the general social improvement caused by a better economy may outweigh harm cause by removing the no notification policy.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by GGG

So if your concern is the general betterment of social outcomes you should vote for the party you believe will do the best for the economy.

Wow, so LGBT Americans should have been voting GOP all along?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

source? interesting graph

[Muta]

Originally Posted by nik-

You clearly know that's not what he said. He's talking about overall societal impact. Stop being disingenuous.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Are you trying to convince me that the completion of TMX and Line 3 are likely to improve the situation where LGBTQ youth will be at less risk of being outed against their will?

That isn't remotely what he said. He didn't draw any connection between the two things, simply that the benefits of completion of those two pieces of infrastructure outweigh the harm created by rolling back the clock on education policy.

Which, to be fair, I have no idea how to measure, but what else is new when it comes to utilitarianism in practice.

Originally Posted by evman150

The two things you "substitute" are not even remotely as offensive as a museum dedicated to the virtues of Adolf Hitler.

If you say so. I would think that changing education policy to indoctrinate kids about the virtues of authoritarianism is worse than a monument to evil that no one has to visit, but whatever. The point is to create a horrible piece of policy that has nothing to do with the economy and ask if he'd stand by his statement in that case. Which, as he now says, he wouldn't.

Further, you still haven't established that building said monument to evil would actually be illegal. I seriously doubt that it would (again, with the caveats I included in my post).

Your final point, perhaps revealingly, is presented without support (I mean, I was almost convinced by the italics, but not quite).

There was no attempt to substitute his position for a position he did not hold, or attribute to him a view that he would reject. The attempt was to demonstrate that the position he did hold would have absurd consequences, and to ask him to either endorse or reject those consequences. My premises can then be attacked (in the manner you did, for example, though apparently without success).

In other words, there is a huge difference between trying to attribute views to someone that they don't actually hold, and trying to show that views they DO hold would have bad outcomes.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by GGG

You asked if LGBTQ youth should have to wait until after pipelines are built to be relevant. My response is Maybe, from a Utilitarian standpoint the general social improvement caused by a better economy may outweigh harm cause by removing the no notification policy.

There is quite obviously no pressing reason to rollback LGBTQ protections, and no such lateral improvement on the economy and pipelines exists in doing so.

This was unnecessary, dangerous, and an ideological move which makes Kenny and the UCP hypocritical when they say they are focusing on the important things.

Just sheer arrogance and hypocrisy by that group in their actions versus their words.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by evman150

Wow, so LGBT Americans should have been voting GOP all along?

No GOP economic policies don’t lead to social improvement or even necessarily economic growth. See Kansas.

Also in any utilitarian analysis there are clear losers.

Also the state of US LGBTQ rights and the republican stated position on LGBTQ rights is far different levels of harm than this discussion on being the world leader in protections around GSAs to being with the front of the pack.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Muta

Your brother is going to be ok, you don't need to treat him like a damsel in distress.

[stang]

Originally Posted by stone hands

source for this please as i have a really hard time believing that every provincial government in albertas history prior to 2015 has only spent 10 billion dollars

Think its debt

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

There is quite obviously no pressing reason to rollback LGBTQ protections, and no such lateral improvement on the economy and pipelines exists in doing so.

This was unnecessary, dangerous, and an ideological move which makes Kenny and the UCP hypocritical when they say they are focusing on the important things.

Just sheer arrogance and hypocrisy by that group in their actions versus their words.

Absolutely agree with you. It’s dumb shortsighted policy and not even the most harmful part of the education act they hope to pass. Their education plan is a disaster.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In other words, there is a huge difference between trying to attribute views to someone that they don't actually hold, and trying to show that views they DO hold would have bad outcomes.

I agree. And I'm very aware that's what you were trying to do (though apparently without success).

[Muta]

Originally Posted by nik-

Your brother is going to be ok, you don't need to treat him like a damsel in distress.

[nik-]

yeah, there you go.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by stang

Think its debt

yeah, i figured that after thinking about it for a few minutes. would still like to see a source though, i'm not a fan of images with unsubstantiated text on them

[Muta]

"Imagine a joke failing horribly and your reaction is to try the same one again."

- nik-

....
...
..
.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by evman150

It is meant to be taken as a measure of how much importance he places on the economy, not as a literal guiding principle.

This sums it nicely.

I have a finance background and work in the energy industry. Fiscal policy and the economy meaningfully impact my life, and are naturally areas that I follow closely and value highly.

That doesn't mean I don't consider other things, like social policies, when determining where my vote will go.

But, given imperfect options, one has to make choices.

If there was a fiscally conservative, socially liberal option, that had a realistic shot of winning, they would receive my vote.

It is comforting to know though, that should the UCP form government, the sun will rise the next day and that equal rights for all Albertan's will continue to be protected by section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, among other things.