Nice thread :) I like reading people's opinions to see where they come from, even if I don't agree with them.

1) Climate change – It's real and caused by human activity. That is the scientific consensus. As a Physics degree holder, I'm a bit vested in the issue myself. I'm also a capitalist, and believe we need to put a price on market externalities. There are many ways to do this, but the best way I know of is a carbon/GHG emissions tax. All revenue generated from the carbon tax should be rebated to the population and corporations. In its purest form, those who pollute less than average would earn money, those who pollute an average amount wouldn't pay anything, and those who pollute more than average would pay up. This will drive competition and encourage people to reduce their carbon and greenhouse gas emissions and drive investments in green technology. Absolutely no/minimal environmental regulations beyond that. Case-by-case regulations do more harm than good.

2) Abortion - Whether life starts at conception or at birth I think is beside the point. Even if the fetus is life (which I would argue against), the fetus has no right to zap and use the bodily resources of the mother if she does not want to give it. Nor should she have to subject her body to go through the painful procedure of labour so that the baby can continue to live. It's her body, it's her choice. In a future where the fetus can be removed and put into a test tube to develop externally, then yes, I could see the argument against abortion then, but that isn't now.

3) Gay marriage – I'm gay, and I'm happy I can marry the person I love and receive the same rights as straight couples. While we're on the topic, I think gay couples should also have the same rights to adoption.

4) Transgender bathrooms – Transgender people have been using the bathrooms that match their gender expression since at least the 1950s, but all of a sudden now people are fearful about the possibility of rape? The fears are unfounded: there is no evidence that transgender people rape others in washrooms at any notable rate. Quite the opposite actually: a disturbingly high percentage of transgender people are victims of sexual assault.

5) Gun ownership – I'm not American, so this issue is a bit foreign to me. I see guns as a privilege, and not a right, for the same reason that people shouldn't be allowed to own grenades or nukes: items that are the solely designed to kill living things do not belong in the hands of the general public.

6) Capital punishment – I think murder is wrong, except in reasonable self-defence, and that goes for government too. No capital punishment.

I'm not sure what country you're from. Over here in Canada, client in both English and French means someone who is receiving a service, whether at a restaurant or convenience store. Regardless, I think you're getting way too caught up in semantics. My point is the person who enters the store (from henceforth will be referred to as the client) agrees to a contract with the owner. If the owner feels the contract is violated (say the client is talking loudly on their phone), they can terminate the contract and ask the client to leave the store. I see no reason why goods have to be exchanged and a receipt has to be issued for there to be a contract. Not all contracts are written, there is such a thing as an oral agreement. And needing to explicitly exchange goods isn't necessary either. You can purchase services and that is also a valid agreement. The store and storefront is part of the shopping service.

This is all under the assumption that you need to be a customer to criticize the store. You would have it that, say, a farm that uses slave labour not be criticized unless you are a customer of said farm? And boycotting said farm is an attack on their free speech? It's a bit silly.

"Client", then. I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant.

I'm arguing that -entering- the store is when the contract begins. The contract ends when the client and owner want it to. When the contract ends, the owner can ask the client to leave the store.

According to whom? I would argue the agreement is made earlier than that: when the customer crosses the store owner's private territory and enters the store. The owner allowed the customer to enter the store because the store was open and browsing the store eventually leads to a purchase, but from this point onward the owner can freely remove the customer from the store if they please. On the customer's end, they browsed the store, didn't like what they saw in the store, left, and "terminated the contract" so to speak by choosing not to return until the experience is returned to an acceptable standard (removal of the shirt).

And one can argue that that the buying and selling of the shirt is a contract between customer and retailer. If the customer feels they didn't get the shirt they want, they can terminate this contract and not buy the shirt.

So isn't the contract an "attack on free speech", if it has "no free speech" literally written into the clause?

I think you're taking "free speech" quite too literally. Free speech means the government can't prosecute you for what you say, it doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without repercussions (in a social context). If we took your brand of free speech to its natural conclusion, it would be illegal for an employer to fire an employee who said obscenely rude things to a customer and lost business as a result.

Also, freedom of association and freedom of expression are other fundamental freedoms. There are more ways to express your ideas than through speech. This includes boycotts. People can say things you disagree with, and you are free to disapprove of it (freedom of expression), and you can choose to boycott the company (freedom of association).

@iandizion713: Yeah, but it got 7.5 here, so check your hype! xD

@FireEmblem_Man: What's wrong with Toronto? Also, Toronto can't be the worst city in Canada when there is Edmonton.

When it comes to ranking Zelda's, it has to be –

Ocarina of Time > Majora's Mask > Link To The Past > Twilight Princess > Wind Waker > Skyward Sword

Skyward Sword had such potential, I really like the game's charm, but the never-ending tutorial and broken controls really ruined it. I think a remake of the game with regular controls can really save it.

That's also why I'm not particularly surprised by EDGE's 10/10 review of Breath of The Wild. They gave a 10/10 to Skyward Sword too.

Yooo, we should totally meet up! I live in Richmond Hill. How are you liking it here? What brought you here? xD