The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Radagast wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2026 6:57 pm So now I'm thinking - is it not the case that "inhabited" Canada stretches quite far north - a few hundred miles anyway - and merely seems not to do so because of the inevitable comparison of that distance with what you point out is Canada's quite extraordinary width?

Not really. Penny's mom (now deceased) used to live in Thunder Bay and we visited several times. Quite a drive from here but we could do it in two days, sometimes just pulling into one of the parks, park near where privies, put the seats back, and catch some sleep. The last time I intentionally took that northern route back (instead of the route close to Lake Superior) just to experience that stretch Longlac to Hearst. Only about 100 miles north of the Lake Superior route (well the length of Lake Nipigon since turning east at that point)

Population in Canada is dense (for Canada) from the US border to Toronto and west to London. Also within 100 miles or so of the north shore of Lake Ontario or within 100 miles of he Saint Lawrence (Montreal, Quebec, etc. are on the Saint Lawrence.

To give you folks in the UK some sense of the difference, PEI is one of the densest population areas at about 30/sq km. Ontario, which contains Toronto (biggest city in Canada) has about 40% of the total population of Canada. But the density is only about 16/sq km. Now think about England and the least densely populated districts like Torridge, Northumbria, or West Devon. These have densities between about 70 and 50/sq km. So yes, Totonto a BIG city (6 1/2 million) and another half million each around Windsor and London. But then the rest of Ontario's 16 million spread over a large of a million sq kms << Ontario is four times the size of the entire UK with about 1/4th the population ---- so about 1/16th the density >>

And that is just Ontario. There is a LOT more Canada.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2026 8:04 pm So it depends on what you call "inhabited." Statistically, 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of that US border. There are people further north, but their habitations are almost (for a European) unbelievably small and sparse. Canada has real influence from the jet stream, you see...and the climate is much colder than in the UK, which is geographically farther north than much of Canada.

Well Canada isn't cold because of the "jet stream". The UK is warm because of the AMOC (the surface flow going NE aka "the Atlantic Current). If the AMOC stops (it is slowing down) climate change in Western Europe will be drastic. But oh yes, officially declared "fake news", reporting from the researchers halted.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2026 8:21 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2026 8:04 pm So it depends on what you call "inhabited." Statistically, 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of that US border. There are people further north, but their habitations are almost (for a European) unbelievably small and sparse. Canada has real influence from the jet stream, you see...and the climate is much colder than in the UK, which is geographically farther north than much of Canada.

Well Canada isn't cold because of the "jet stream".

Sorry...I meant "Gulf Stream." https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/2025/ ... uk-weather

Just a mental substitution of one word for the other. And I didn't say it made Canada cold, but that it makes the UK warmer than it should otherwise be.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2026 8:21 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2026 8:04 pm So it depends on what you call "inhabited." Statistically, 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of that US border. There are people further north, but their habitations are almost (for a European) unbelievably small and sparse. Canada has real influence from the jet stream, you see...and the climate is much colder than in the UK, which is geographically farther north than much of Canada.

Well Canada isn't cold because of the "jet stream". The UK is warm because of the AMOC (the surface flow going NE aka "the Atlantic Current). If the AMOC stops (it is slowing down) climate change in Western Europe will be drastic. But oh yes, officially declared "fake news", reporting from the researchers halted.

AMOC is slowing down... no more running amuck...

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2026 8:44 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2026 8:21 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2026 8:04 pm So it depends on what you call "inhabited." Statistically, 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of that US border. There are people further north, but their habitations are almost (for a European) unbelievably small and sparse. Canada has real influence from the jet stream, you see...and the climate is much colder than in the UK, which is geographically farther north than much of Canada.

Well Canada isn't cold because of the "jet stream".

Sorry...I meant "Gulf Stream." https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/2025/ ... uk-weather

Just a mental substitution of one word for the other. And I didn't say it made Canada cold, but that it makes the UK warmer than it should otherwise be.

Yes indeed, the Gulf Stream is why palm trees grow wild along the coast of Cornwall, despite that being on about the same latitude, I think, as Newfoundland. We take it for granted, but we'll miss it if it stops.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2026 7:35 pm Pierre Poilievre finally has a platform... it's Donald Trump's! | This Hour Has 22 Minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrH3XZvWM3E

Thanks. That's quite helpful in terms of filling out a little my understanding of Poilievre's policies (or lack thereof).

However, I'm not quite convinced by the depiction of Poilievre on this basis as being "just like Trump" or "been copying Trump's homework". I mean, take the first one about cutting the number of government employees. It might be a good idea or a bad idea, but either way it is a very common thing for small-c conservatives to advocate in a lot of countries, including Britain. Similarly, scepticism about the idea that there are more than two genders. (Though I see that Poilievre, unlike Trump, frames this in a libertarian way as keeping the government's nose out of people's private business). So the Trump stances cited in the clip are not, I think, peculiar to him. If Poilievre said "Let's hit our neighbours and biggest trading partners with huge and arbitrary tariff increases", then I'd say certainly he'd been copying Trump - but I am not convinced by the actual examples given in this clip.

Radagast wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2026 10:02 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2026 7:35 pm Pierre Poilievre finally has a platform... it's Donald Trump's! | This Hour Has 22 Minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrH3XZvWM3E

Thanks. That's quite helpful in terms of filling out a little my understanding of Poilievre's policies (or lack thereof).

However, I'm not quite convinced by the depiction of Poilievre on this basis as being "just like Trump" or "been copying Trump's homework".

It's interesting, isn't it? The Left always behaves like this. The people they hate (always their opposition) are always comparable to the worst thing they can think of. Poilievre is a "Trump," and Trump is "Hitler." And they think you won't notice that all their doing is trying to slander some politician by association, and pay no attention to their real politics.

Like him or not, Poilievre is no more than an accountant-type, not an ideologue at all; and he has stridently opposed the pro-US economics of the Trump admin. But it doesn't stop the Leftists calling him "Trump." And Trump is an escaped Democrat, but it doesn't stop them calling him "Hitler." There's actually no evidence for any such associations. In their world, everything is "sexist," "racist," "homophobic," "Nazi," and whatnot. They label...they don't really analyze, because they don't think the average person is very smart...so very unsophisticated slanders are all that are needed to redirect Joe Public. Leftists seem to hope we're all so simple-minded that we can't notice their silly game.

But more and more people are noticing it. And you seem to see it. And really, anybody with a brain in their head sees it. Maybe it's one of the reasons the Leftists are starting to lose so badly; their contempt for the ordinary man, and their conviction that they can manipulate him with the most transparent ruses, is now starting to wear thin, in a big way. People are now fatigued of being called stupid names, and and no longer care so much who calls them "sexist," or "racist," or "Islamophobic," or "Hitler." The freshness date for all that seems to be wearing out.

Forgive me for saying so, but "The Left always behaves like this. .... And they think you won't notice that all they're doing is trying to slander some politician by association, and pay no attention to their real politics." But isn't that you doing pretty much exactly the same thing?

Radagast wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2026 3:43 pm Forgive me for saying so, but "The Left always behaves like this. .... And they think you won't notice that all they're doing is trying to slander some politician by association, and pay no attention to their real politics." But isn't that you doing pretty much exactly the same thing?

Not at all.

I criticize their agenda, and in specific terms, and with reasons. I work very hard at avoiding insulting their persons or their character -- not just because it's mean-spirited, petty and childish to do so, but because it's also entirely irrelevant. For I know that there are some well-intended people on the Left...some who are my close friends, in fact...and my complete opposition to their politics in no way entails besmirching their character or calling them "Stalin" or "Pol Pot." So I don't associate them with anybody but themselves, and I studiously avoid that sort of thing.

For me, disagreeing with me is not personal. I can still like people who see the world differently. At the same time, I feel no obligation whatsoever to compromise my own principles in order to shmooze with them. And I suspect they wouldn't like me as much as they seem to, were I willing to be that sort of slimy individual.

But calling non-Leftist people "Nazis" or calling liberal-conservative politicians like Poilievre "Trump" and Trump "Hitler," that's the kind of absurd gesture I'm pointing out. And the Left is rife with it. You won't find it's hard to locate examples, even here.

All to say, I expect you to disagree with me. I also anticipate that I won't hate you for it, or assassinate your character instead of taking issue with your views. And if I ever slip up, you can call me on that, because I'm keen to eliminate any such inclination from my conversation style.

Let's not slander Hitler by comparing him to Trump.

If Poilievre said "Let's hit our neighbours and biggest trading partners with huge and arbitrary tariff increases", then I'd say certainly he'd been copying Trump - but I am not convinced by the actual examples given in this clip.

I think Poilievre is realistic enough to understand that Canada doesn't have that much economic weight to swing around and that trade wars would not be beneficial to Canada.

He does like tariffs on China and they would be the same as US tariffs on China.

There going to be similarities shared by politicians who call themselves conservative. But one wonders about some of the issues that Poilievre is raising. For example, was birthright citizenship an issue for anyone in Canada until Trump talked about it in the US and then Poilievre picked it up?

Indeed. Mein Führer was as opposed to capitalism as he was to communism. Was a real working-class populist hero if there ever was one. Once a soldier, once a broke-ass mediocre artist wandering coffee shops, once a prison con, once a Roman fascist style dictator badass who damn near brought a fourth Reich to fruition, and always a philosopher.

Trump, alternatively, experienced his first and only great battle against his siblings, vying for attention from his old man. His first great victory was renting apartments built by invading immigrant workers he hired under the table to struggling working class New Yorkers and vacationing bourgeoisie. His military service includes making a five minute stop at a memorial one time to make a few inaccurate and/or insincere comments about our boys. His racial theory is simple: sell the black people stuff but make em live over there, please. Some of his intellectual interests extend into the fields of aviation and aerodynamics with special interests in 17th-century aviation technology. That much is true, but in any other conversation, mein Führer would seat himself as if in a small cottage in the black forest and eat him like a fresh strudel right out of the oven. One of those real-deal stone ovens when you got intimately involved with whatever you were baking and weren't bouncing around the kitchen with your earbuds in waiting for the microwave to finish your pizza so you can engulf it and rush off to the gym. No. You sat back and you made a fuckin event out of eating that strudel. You didn't just inhale the thing. You recognized your part, your labor, in its becoming, its rich german history, and how your fathers before you helped to create it. How making a strudel is not just the superficial activity of a meaningless being but the very dasein that defines a way of life and the traditions of a culture.

I wrote:

But calling non-Leftist people "Nazis" or calling liberal-conservative politicians like Poilievre "Trump" and Trump "Hitler," that's the kind of absurd gesture I'm pointing out. And the Left is rife with it. You won't find it's hard to locate examples, even here.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2026 8:18 pm Let's not slander Hitler by comparing him to Trump.

Were you trying to prove my point for me?

I mean, thanks...but I didn't need the help. Everybody already knows it's true.

Your one-sided hypocritical rant just proves that you have blinders on.

You're completely blind to the "absurd" statements made about democrats, liberals and anyone believed not be on Team Right.

Calling them "enemy within", "vermin", "terrorists", etc comes directly from Trump and his administration as well as the MAGA base.

So try to be a bit more balanced and fair in your outrage.

Start with this video :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N58Mywa2hQE

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2026 12:18 pm Your one-sided hypocritical rant just proves that you have blinders on.

You're completely blind to the "absurd" statements made about democrats, liberals and anyone believed not be on Team Right.

No, you can find people on both sides who say absurd things. It's possible to find an extremist in any camp, and ranters happen in every political cause. But on the Left, we have to say, Trump = Hitler, or Trump = King is part of the normal Leftist vernacular. They've had whole rallies premised on the latter, and as for the former, you yourself have demonstrated it above.

In particular, the Poilievre = Trump = Hitler equation asserted earlier is really quite absurd and utterly implausible for anybody who knows the first thing about the Canadian Conservative party, which is the most Leftist bunch of conservatives you'll probably ever find. It's very clearly just a shoddy attempt by Leftist propagandists to tie every opponent to the "Hitler" motif. The speaker knows nothing about it, obviously.