Chungwawema
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Chungwawema
-
-
Forgive my ignorace, but what are the differences between Red and Blue Tories?
We're not just talking about more left vs. more right Tories, are we?
-
But Jerry, MY city's better than yours! (please ignore that we *probably* live in the same city).
-
And on this glorious day we got from Paul Martin (the ultimate Canadian cheerleader):
"The flag is an enduring presence. It's in our lives wherever we go," said Martin. "It's why we pin it on our lapels, it's why we sew it on our backpacks. It's why, including one of my own sons, tattoo it on ourselves."
Maybe Paul should tattoo a flag on one of his ships to show how proud a Canadian he is.
Paul's philosophy: Do as I say and not as I do.
*sigh* Was it foolish of me to think we would have ONE thread where we would all get a long and just say, "have a good day!" or something similiar?
At any rate, have a great Canada Day, and a long weekend - even if we all disagree we can still have good times
-
Even though I'm not religious, I always cringe when someone says "religion is for the weak." The complete and total superiority of that statement annoys the heck out of me.
Being religious is a wonderful thing for some people. Being non-religious is also a wonderful thing for other people.
Religion has, unfortunetly, been used as a scapegoat for many power-hungry groups and people. It's probably a safe bet to assume that when two religious groups are fighting, religion is more likely propped up as an easy explanation for the problem - usually it's just two groups that want the same thing and if one, or both, groups weren't religious someone would find another reason for some good 'ole killing.
But, religion shouldn't play a major role in public policy - it's fine if some people want it to be a major part of their lives, but for those who don't want it, they should be free of it.
-
Please, then, explain why study after study shows the exact opposite of what you claim. That is, caucasions get away with far more, and recieve far lesser sentences, than those minorities that you claim have it so good.
Do you happen to have any links (or just a name) to these studies? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am curious to see them for myself.
-
Peanut Butter and Jam sandwiches are terrible, disgusting food items. They are the worst type of an already contemptible breed of food.
1. They pretend to be something unique and wacky when they are nothing more than gooey, gross mush. How FALSE they are!
2. When you first make these hypocritical sandwiches they act as though they bring both the best of Peanut Butter and the best of Jelly - but they really only capture of oil of the Peanut Butter and the, uh, slime... slime! of Jam.
3. They think they're better than Ham sandwiches! How can they even suggest this? But it's true, not ten months a go they suggested that Ham sandwiches were "over-rated" and "excessively fatty." But, then, in the ultimate flip flop maneuver, they suggested that we, the food consumers, would be best served by a PB&J - Ham alliance - what unholiness is this?
Both the Peanut Butter and the Jam are old and moldy. We need new life in our sandwiches, we need INTEGRITY in our sandwiches!
But Peanut Butter and Jam sandwiches have muscled their way into the hearts of the naive! It is truly disgusting that so many unknowing souls sit down for lunch, or maybe a light dinner, and eat these foul beasts!
-
And many different cultures and religions that are morally supportive of it. I'm sorry, but just because you scream the loudest doesn't mean that you get your way.
Could you tell me one (or more) religions that actively support SSM? I'm actually curious (forgive my ignorance) - not trying to argue against you as I suspect we agree on the issue.
-
I'm all for that!
Gosh. Well. That ruined my point.
-
Forcing people who are morally opposed to same sex marriage to accept it as marraige
I can accept that forcing those opposed to ssm to accept ssm is wrong so long as you can agree that people who don't really love each other don't have a "right" to marriage, fair deal?
-
The racism practised in the US is much more overt than it is in Canada.
Generally I would say that about many things in the US. Americans tend to be very open about things Canadians wouldn't discuss in public.
It doesn't make it right (of course), but it DOES allow for upfront communication about touchy issues.
Canada has racism all over the place, but as a country we like to have a reputation of being tolerant and inclusive so we bury our hatred deep deep down where the rest of the world can't see it.
I would argue that aboriginal people in this country have been treated almost as badly as african americans have been treated in the US.
And the marginalization continues. Everyone has heard people in this country make terrible jokes about drunk indians etc. It's just under our breath.
In the southern US the hatred is there but it's more apparent due to their history.
I read an article written by a journalist from the LA times who was one of only two journlists covering that mississipi murder trial way back in the sixties. Her basic point was that the south has changed dramatically from back then. Sure, there is still some racism, but it's far far far less than a few decades ago. Perhaps this swift improvement comes from the more candid dialogue they have about this issue in the US.
In Canada, our racism just continues to fester under the surface and everyone pretends its not there.
Having lived three years in the US (and 18 years in Canada) - I'm not absolutely sure I agree with you. In the US I've lived in, mostly, very small, mostly white, towns - so the racism seemed rampant.
I don't think your comments are going to bring very friendly replies though
-
I really wanted to pick "no." Deep down, I think, I believe that choices needn't be reasonable to also be good - but I can't justify that.
-
August1991,
Obviously Christians (or members of other religions) have the capability to be scientists (be they "Westerners or not) - that was not at all what I was talking about when I said Christianity does not emphasize the scientific method in its beliefs.
I guess what got me a little confused was your definition of "the scientifc method" being the same as scepticism. Granted, I don't see scepticism and smashing a broken car with a rock as being, necessarily, at opposition.
The differences you bring up between the Great West and other countries, all in all, I suppose I agree with (if there are a greater percentage of uneducated, then more people will seem ignorant). The internet can't always get tone and emotion across very well and I guess that I just caught a wif of Western superiority from your post that I probably shouldn't have.
Sweal,
My point was that the demand you were making for theocrats was unreasonable - I see the point you're making, though. Rather, I just don't think that demanding something that is admittedly impossible is a fair - or, an especially 'good' - way to make it. I think we can agree that Theocrats should keep their ideas out of public policy, though
-
We have far from a "functional consensus" and I never suggested such. While we have some basic principles - the ones I noted about lying and cheating - even these are open to interpretation in specific cases. Some politicians argue that it is "right" or "moral" to have same-sex marriage and other politicians argue that it would be "wrong" or "immoral".
I was trying to make the point that religion is simply an aspect of one's "culture" or moral code or "beliefs". Atheists have a "culture" or a moral code or "beliefs" too. IMV, the defining characteristic of an indvidual's beliefs is whether the individual employs the scientific method; that is, whether one is sceptical or not. Western religions all went through a reformation several centuries ago on this basic point.
Sweal, I suspect you are trying to equate Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. The comparison is entirely superficial.
Please, don't tell me you're trying to say that Western Religions stress the scientific method in their beliefs. A truly religious person doesn't need (or want!) the scientific method applied to religion (faith, remember?).
I apologize if I missed your point entirely (granted, to me, a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, whether they're Chrisitian, Islamic, or otherwise).
-
How about a trumped up sense of relevance?
That amounts to the same thing
-
If we're dicusses changing the structuring of the senate then, as someone else mentioned, we must also discuss changes in what the senate does.
In its present state adding or subtracting senators doesn't make much sense unless we also change the purpose of our senate.
Should we be changing the senate's purpose? Is our senate broken?
-
Religion?, what is religion, why is it there in the firts place? well if you were going to say it's a belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods. Maybe you could have said it's a particular system of faith and worship including a pursuit of interest followed with great devotion. While you could be right and you could be wrong. If you are very religious and don't like topics on the none possibilities of religion please don't continue reading if interested continue. We have all heard that the Holy Bible, Co'rean and other religious materials are a philsophy written by the best philosophers' ever to have lived and no one knows there identies to prove that religion is a political aim to bring law and order. Religion wasn't just for law and order but to gain wealth as well for the masterminds behind these great philosophys'. Anywhere this is my theory about faith if you think religion is true do tell me?
If someone here argues that the purpose of religion is to give weak-minded people a trumped up sense of importance I'm going to cry. Not so much because I'm religious (which I'm not), but because the sheer arrogance of statements like that offended my senses.
-
First, I did not suggest some vague manipulable concept of 'major' faiths. I said ALL faiths. They all claim God is speaking to them, so it shouldn't be that hard to get the message clear.
Second, this is not a matter of slicing off some things (e.g. SSM) to agree on or not. It is the overarching question of whether religious belief can have currency in public policy at all.
Finally, there is substantial support in many faith communities for SSM, including the United and Anglican churches.
You're as game as a pitbull sometimes, kimmy. Don't let that trait lead you into dangerously fallacious positions.
I'm sure if you read what you wrote again you'll see how silly you're being. I'm not a religious person, and I certainly don't think religion should have a place in public policy, but the argument you're using isn't really very strong.
By sweeping aside the notion of "major" faiths you're being very pigheaded. To suggest ALL faiths must agree is quite unreasonable (as I'm sure you're aware) - you're basing your argument on the correct assumption that what you suggest religious groups do is impossible (not a very fair stance, is it?)
Your previous statement that religious groups should get together and agree is not, by itself, unreasonable. But to them ignore an example of where the vast majority (which is all you're going to get, and all you should really expect) agree on the basis that 1) Not EVERYONE agrees and that 2) not EVERYONE agrees on EVERYTHING is just ridiculous, you can see that, can't you?
Also, I think your idea of "substantial" may be very different from most peoples. The Anglican Church, for example, is one of the most "pro-SSM" groups - yet only a very tiny fraction of Anglicans world wide actually support SSM.
Again, I agree with you in that religion shouldn't play a role in public policy - it's just that being so vehemently anti-religious is, in my book, about the same as being insanely pro-religious (you know the types, the ones who always try to convince you of your misunderstanding in not accepting God into your pathetically empty life).
-
2% increase in GST or 2% reduction in services so money can go to political oppressors who won't use the money to better their people's lives.
That's not really an accurate, or fair, statement. Many of the "oppressors" are quite honest leaders trying to help their countries. Not all, but many.
-
I have never went there, from what ive heard it wasn't really french anymore, im happy to hear what you say, im surprized to hear there are french-only speaking people. It would be great to know what % is french over there
I'm sure it wouldn't be especially high. I think Louisianna is really interesting place (one of the most interesting in the US). Though, to get this thread back on topic:
I don't see what's wrong with having the government help promote Canada's uniqueness. I don't speak French, and I don't plan on really ever learning the language (I'll finish with German before I really consider anything else) - but the French aspects of Canada are one of the things I most admire about our country - it's awesome that Canada isn't the same as other places and it's awesome that we're not the same for a darn good reason.
-
i was talking about the language used, correct me if im wrong but now its pretty much only english.
it may have a strong historical culture with buildings, touristic center and maybe a small part of the way of living that evry state has but its no more french, it naturally became english because of the need to learn english and prolly because the educational infrastructure became mostly english with the help of governmental policy and now they live the same way of living other american do.
I'm amusing you haven't seen how many normal Louisianians (I'm guessing that's not what they're called!) live. There are many French speaking people there and even a few French-only speaking people - What is this, people speaking a language other than English in the US? Never!
-
I never met a University Professor who "taught" his political views. I knew some whose views were commonly known but have never heard a complaint that tehy "taught" those views.
Interestingly, I once took an interest course in Canadian history at U of T. The lecturer was a young graduate student named David Bercuson I didn't know until many years later that he was a "mouth frothing Right Winger."
I'm attending a small public university in Illinois and it's very easy for the Professors to figure out a specific student's political tendencies. Yet I haven't had any problems with the Professors I've disagreed with. A good Professor will look at the merits of an argument, not whether or not they actually agree with the emotions behind the argument. I happen to think there are a lot more good Professors out there than a lot of people seem to think.
-
U of T may be a better school by some standards and that is probably attributed to a whole lot of factors other than funding. What I am getting at is that the Alberta Government MAY (I don't know for sure) ideologically be more accepting of higher tuition fees due to the long term benefits most students recieve from getting a post sec ed.
Okay, I understand what you're saying in that case.
-
Rutherford's a conservative? Sheesh, where have I been? (I *like* Rutherford!)
-
Many true conservatives believe that the long term rewards of a post secondary education justify the short term costs and that students should bear that cost in exchange for better long term income.
I appologize for having to ask you to spell this out for me (it is getting somewhat late, and my mind shuts down in the evenings), but how does this relate to the UofC and the UofT? I think the UofC is great school, but certainly "prestige" would be found higher at the UofT. I'm a huge believer in self-education, being that where you go to school (at the University level, anyway) doesn't really matter much if you actually have a desire to learn - but wouldn't "most" Canadians (even us Westerners) think that a "better" - relatively speaking - education could be got at UofT, a cheaper school?
British Columbia - High School portfolio
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
I agree that "mandatory volunteer" work seems like an odd idea. When I was in grade 10 my English 10 teacher got in trouble because he didn't make my class do volunteer work (which was supposed to be part of the class). While I have no problem doing volunteer work, the idea of forcing it does seem wrong.
While responses and reflections on things outside of the classrrom may, technically (though I'd argue strongly against that!), an invasion of privacy but it also is an invaluable skill. Asking "what do I think?" and then being able to express what 'you' think is something that EVERYONE will need later in their lives - whether for University or for a job, or just for living in general. Asking a student to reflect and respond on, for example, a political action (which is something outside of the classroom) is hardly an invasion of privacy.