Speaking with reporters at the end of his visit to the capital Kiyv, Justin Trudeau accused Putin of “executing” opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

  • Hootz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Doesn’t make it illegal bud. Learn how our system works before opening your COVID riddled mouth.

    • CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      Why tf does it matter what the protests were about? You disagree politically so it’s okay for the government to do that? That’s a slippery slope.

      • Hootz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t disagree politically bro, I disagree scientifically, and logically. Our government had a responsibility to remove you terrorists, they just did it a way that allows you twats to act like your oppressed.

        • CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          You? I’m just a Yank who sees injustice. I don’t know anything about it other than a person in power froze the people’s bank account of some of its citizens and that’s wild asf. If they were Nazis I wasn’t aware but it’s still not okay to take money someone earned. Make a law that fines Nazis if you have to but don’t just freeze people’s bank accounts, that’s fucked up.

          • Hootz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Most frozen accounts were organizers and people who were receiving money from others to continue with their “protests” or people espousing violent rhetoric. If you just believe the ticktoks you’re never going to see reality. These fucking idiots are still protesting all over our country, afraid of digital IDs ,vaccines, demanding mandates be dropped, people be rehired. Like dude they crazy and don’t mesh well with reality.

          • Samus Crankpork@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s always the people who weren’t there who continue to push the idea that it was a peaceful protest.

      • SpaceCowboy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Slippery slope” is a logical fallacy.

        The antivax cowards had many peaceful protests previously without issue. They weren’t getting their demands met because their demands were idiotic.

        So they escalated to disrupting the functioning of the government. Using psyops tactics against civilians. Harrassing civilians. Disrupting emergency services.

        And for what? It wasn’t to increase awareness of covid restrictions. These restrictions were placed on the entire population, we were all aware of them. No it was an attempt to affect a change using extortion. Changes contrary to the democratic will of the country.

        Since you love the slippery slope fallacies, consider the slope in the other direction. If an organized crime outfit used intimidation tactics to get their way, could they declare it as a “protest” and get off scot free? Where do you draw the line in that direction?

        • hydration9806@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Not commenting on the argument, but just FYI: “Slippery Slope” actually refers to an argument that could include a slippery slope fallacy, but not necessarily. A slippery slope fallacy is an informal fallacy, meaning that any errors are in the content and not the format of the argument (i.e. the slippery slope argument itself).

          • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            He either knows that, or it was on that list of logical fallacies he read the names of and thinks you can just say “Slippery Slope” and win.

        • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          “Slippery slope is a logical fallacy” is a phrase parroted by people who usually don’t understand why it can sometimes be a logical fallacy. And sometimes not. You can’t just say “Slippery slope is a logical fallacy” and then follow up with “Some motherfuckers always trying to ice skate uphill”. Everything you said is deliberately disingenuous and not a good faith argument, and that’s either intentional or you’re not capable of better,

    • pipsqueak1984
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      If it wasn’t illegal then the government wouldn’t have lost the court case.

      • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        These idiots think because the CBC supports the story, and the government inquiry pulled the cop trick of investigating themselves and finding they did nothing wrong in a kangaroo court, including gov lawyers by the handful and the opposition not allowed to defend themselves, that when it hit a real courtroom, and was found in violation of the charter, the actual half assed independent judge was the one in the wrong, not the fucking cabal.