Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/24/2021 in all areas

  1. Really? You really believe that? Multi culturalism is destroying Canada? And that Pierre Trudeau was the architect?
    1 point
  2. Not even close. Being some sense back to the table. And why release the plan before the election, very stupid move. Anybody but Trudeau should be the call , but i think we have some closet Trudeau supporters here.
    1 point
  3. I’ve had some interesting conversations with Dougie but he and Y19 are the same person and I’m still not convinced he’s a real person. Seems like an American’s charicature created for the purpose of throwing Canada under the bus in favour of the US or some colonial notion of Canada as the infant child of the UK. What he doesn’t appreciate is that Canada is forging its own identity apart from its colonial past, while embracing the history and pageantry of that past. Most Canadians love Canada and are able to put that colonial past in context. There were many great things about that past but also some misguided ideas, which is fine. When we know better we do better. Canada was still a very progressive country relative to other countries at the time of Confederation and I’m glad we didn’t have the pain of the Civil War and slavery to contend with. Canada has more than demonstrated her independence and acumen, which really shone through for the first time in WW1 contributions. I agree that multiculturalism has threatened old Canada, but it has also been a great source of Canada’s success as a thriving cosmopolitan, harmonious country. Be grateful despite the challenges, because there are far worse places you could be. As a society goes, haven’t seen a healthier one.
    1 point
  4. Is it wrong to look for validation of ones own sanity in the insanity of others?
    1 point
  5. Yes, this is the most significant initiative of the Nazi's, therefore... You need to learn about the ignore feature. Soon you will appreciate that the dearth of lucid conservatives means that they have no future.
    1 point
  6. I fully support your right to live and die by those words. I fully support the right of anyone else to not do so, and I fully support giving them the means to not do so if they want.
    1 point
  7. how does being just like liberals encourage anyone to vote out the liberals since the result will just be more of the same? cucking is not the path to conservatives winning the election red liberals, blue liberals, same-same
    1 point
  8. Hey, how are you doing? I'm been less online lately given some people just "Kant" let logic interfere in their politics. While I understand your take, note that my own atheism is also logically nihilistic, and I'm relatively 'gnostic' when I argue against specific religious claims. That is, I don't even think the functioning concept of morals exist by nature and so my own interpretation of being atheist is very non-religious. Many peer atheists and agnostics DO act 'religious' when interpreting the nature of humanity and often under the label, "Humanist", though. You cannot have a belief THAT there is any moral reality that is universal without having the significant property of religions beyond speaking about life after death. I DO argue for moral higher grounds though and it is still something that ALL emotional beings require or they'd lack an incentive or drive to persist. My interpretation of morals though is about maximizing our means of coexisting or at least something that each of us selfishly feels personal comfort or value of with respect to how they are treated in life. We (all animals) learn to define emotional significance initially in a sort of arbitrary assignment of what we experience in windows of development. HOW you are initially treated during these periods assign what 'good' versus 'bad' are to us, including real physiological sensations, like pleasure and pain, ....where non-genetically evovled. Laws the people create act as 'morals' and vary depending on who is in charge in creating the laws and their enforcement. As such, the moral part that contributes to a religion in us independently is only reflected socially by how much our own ideals FIT with the laws our governing bodies artificially create and whether we also FIT in favor to those laws. Government then is the human means of 'atheistically' assigning morals. When looking at the forms of religions people have, they always hold some bias reflecting their politics and based upon how well they are doing with respect to those systems. Lately, I've found that many atheists tend to also favor religious-like beliefs based upon politics and their own fortunes or lack of it. As specific examples in our times, I find many of the supports by most (other) atheists today supporting certain extremes of beliefs, like censorship, safe spaces, strong advocacy of reversed racist or sexist idiologies, etc, very religious. Some Communist countries that are supposed to be non-religious, for instance, like North Korea, act religious by demanding their living human leaders as 'divine'. Also, one's willingness to sacrifice for some ideal future on Earth for the non-religious is at odds of still being religious because they themselves cannot be 'satisfied' when they cannot literally LIVE such Earthly paradise for themselves. So I agree in part. But I am exception. I still think that we CAN still best optimize our social comforts through governments if we remove any traces of 'religious' justification in governments. Our own system is highly 'theocratic' in that it DOES bias it to favor religious law making. The "Multiculturalism" of our system is actually an indirect secular rhetoric used to hide that we are such. All 'cultures' being protected constitutionally are always about conserving specific ways to make laws that are themselves hiding some formal religious biases.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...