SkyHigh

what are you on about? Dude called me an academic, i was both amused and pleased by this Credentials? You consider high school dropout a credential, how unacomplished must you be in life? On a positive note you're off that foot fetish, at least that's something

Don't get me wrong, I of course have a certain bias based on personal experience, and yes to say I don't have any predisposed opinions on morals would be intellectually dishonest That being said, my values are based on secular morality, which essentially is based on empathy and well being. Though I believe in a certain objective morality, this philosophy promotes a subjective analysis of each individual situation Again, im not implying in any way, shape, or form that my ideology doesn't inform every decision i take, so because of that i take extra care to make sure my inherent bias is accounted for. A trick I (or anyone else for that matter) use is to simply put yourself in the place of the person(s) who's opinions differ from yours to try and see how, and why they came to their conclusions(empathy) Partisanship is a different matter all together, it intentionally uses that bias without even attempting to correct for it, partisanship makes one think they already have the only answer before even evaluating a specific topic or issue. That i can honestly, and without reservation say that i am not. You said " Activism is impossible within legit academics" what do you mean? Academics is about as far from my wheel house as you could get, but as the rest of your post was thoughtful and reasoned I would very much like to understand.

I did, he said everything, I then responded to you saying im building a straw man after I had asked him a follow up question directly quoting his response. But I'll gladly ignore you if you'd like? Not as id you're saying anything of substance anyway

Personally, I think it denigrates women and has no place in modern society Politically, other than voting and receiving public services, why would I care what someone wears and what right do I have to impose my views on them if I did care?

Again how is a question directly related to his point building a straw man?

I literally asked for what he "specifically"meant when he used fifth column. Ie who they were and who was the enemy. He responded with "everything" his word not mine, gow is that me building a straw man?

So because Australia we need the monarchy to stop confederation from fliing apart? Do explain

Everything is the enemy? Every teacher, administrator and bureaucrat is a Marxist? As I suspected nothing more than partisan rants Cant offer any actual argument

Yet both are living under mosaic law, go figure. You've chosen to ignore the posts that give examples of the tyranny committed by the Christian church. How about Jesus' own words Mathew 10:34

Define what you mean by conservative. I believe that i have the right to swing my arms up and until your face gets in the way, meaning my rights end where yours begin. The left is often to sensitive to their perceived affront against people's rights, when simply expressing ones opinion even if differs from yours is one of the most important rights we have The right on the other hand think that their idea of morality should supersede the rights of the individual. Both say they know what's "right" but neither care to know whether or not its true

Another witty retort, don't worry though only us academics ( seriously, thanks for the compliment) will understand that even you realize you have no logical leg to stand on, so you chose to deflect using the comedic genius of mike Myers Honestly, calling me an academic really made my day, I was in my late 30's before i had any diploma. Even though the source is questionable and you were trying to insult me ( was the idea im some sort of liberal elitist? ) it was a bit of an ego boost, so again Thanks!

Academic? Thanks!!! Im a high school drop out, that has spent almost twenty years part time earning three certificates that amount to a four year degree, and still can't write with proper grammar If you equate asking you to express your opinion in logical form to "academic" (don't know what fop means) not sure what to tell you

You do realize it's an Abrahamic religion right? That Mohammed was just the last in a line of profits that included Jesus?

Again, because we don't live under a theocracy and haven't for hundreds of years. Which denomination of Christianity are you referring to? ( tens of thousands in North America alone) My mom grew up French Catholic in small town new Brunswick, the church had no real power yet still told women how to dress and applied corporal punishment for using your left hand (pretty violent and authoritarian to us south paws) I could go back a while and talk about the biblical justifications for slavery, a lttle closer with voting rights, and more modern with how the westbourgh baptist church delt with abortion. Arguing about which is worse deflects from the fact that none of them are good moral guidelines

Yet they both share the same holy texts, go figure. The speed at which a society sheds the veil of darkness religion attempts to shroud them with, has nothing to do with the inherent lack of morality, that they each teach. Western culture advanced as we became more secular, not evolving because of the church but in spite of it

If we're dancing, post like "shrugs" make it clear who's leading

Yes Christianity is primarily based on the teachings of Jesus, but the idea that you can disregard the old Testament is patently and demonstrably false, not just open for debate but absolutely untrue. One can and does not exist without the other

Logic dictates? Please, you can't use logic while avoiding expressing a specific claim you made in syllogic form Then you just went on another rant about nothing. Just a suggestion read some Aristotle before trying to argue logic. Didn't ask and dont care about your feelings about Canada, i asked you to support ypur claim with actual logic, but if you don't think proving that what you claim is based in sound reason , you're right you offer nothing

Again, I said nothing of the sort, and pretending i did further proves you're being intellectually dishonest. What I did is that im aware of my prejudice and work to make sure it doesn't warp my vision on any particular issue. You on the other hand use it as a crouch to avoid having to analyze the way to come to understand things

And there in lies the problem, you're not looking for discussion you try and pick fights. Not only did i not say i have no prejudice, i specifically said that everyone has some. Partisanship is not only accepting that bias but intentionally using it to evaluate all situations But prove me wrong, go back to the last conversation about the queen you stopped responding to Give me a syllogistic argument to explain " Without the monarchy Canada would fly apart, should be easy

Partisanship implies a predetermined prejudice. The rational person looks at each issue independently without presuppositions based solely on opinion. Everyone's environment will create a certain level of bias, so we must be vigilant as not to let confirmation bias cloud our judgment. If you're already sold (like you appear to be) how can you honestly think your epistemology is sound?

Oh ya, silly me, you're right. I've never once heard a Christian talk about adam and eve, or Moses, or Noah. All those churches i went to as a child ( both Catholic and protestant) were just outliers. Come on! You should actually read the new testament, Jesus himself recognized the old Testament as gods word, not to mention that were it not for prophecy in the old Testament Jesus is not the messiah. But go ahead continue to cherry pick parts of your anonymous book to justify belief in your specific supernatural deity

Who is? And who specifically are the enemies they're fighting with. I as a general rule( unlike almost every person ive spoken with in the less than a week ive been here) try to be the least bias/partisan I can. These loaded statements like " fifth column" with obvious political leanings and no actual clarification of who and what you're specifically referring to (regardless of which way you lean) will never result in mutual understanding of varying points of few I encourage you to elaborate, im interested in what you actually believe and not just you waxing poetic

Oh ya, forgot the apologists "new covenant" , funny I thought the old Testament was Christian doctrine

Confederation (as I will define as a loose assembly of states, for the purpose of this conversation) is a much better system then a republic. Our biggest problem is centralization, how would electing one man ( ie; the president of the United States) be an improvement? I'm actually a strong proponent of confederation, though id change the borders as they exist now to make fewer "states" because i believe in a certain regional autonomy. Id be glad to elaborate at a later time but we're getting off topic. Your contention is without the Queen, who is nothing more than a ceremonial figure head with no actual want, desire or standing to effect change in Canada, is necessary to the ability of our gov't to function, because we inherited the parliamentary system from Britain? Does that mean that because Aristotle was from ancient Greece we all need to move to the Mediterranean, ignore every advancement since, and live like its 300 bc or epistemology flies apart? I know this argument is slightly fallacious, but I sincerely feel it's an honest comparison to