CdnFox
-
Posts
16,460 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
165
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CdnFox
-
-
1 minute ago, blackbird said:
You seem to place what you call facts or reason above divine revelation (Biblical truth)
They. Are. Not. The. Same.
It's like saying you put a screw above a bolt and nut. They do different jobs - they are used in different places for different things.
Your problem is you inappropriately conflate them. And to be honest that weakens your position because that's a sign of bad judgement, which calls into question your judgement regarding the scriptures
-
27 minutes ago, blackbird said:
That may be the criteria in Canada.
Not currently. They throw in 'hate speech' which is basically just saying you don't like something.
27 minutes ago, blackbird said:I am not sure about the part about infringing on the right of others because many people interpret anything contrary to their own view as infringing on their rights.
Well that is always the risk. Having said that we do have our rights relatively well defined by the courts and such a law would require that someone else demonstrate how your speech hurts their rights to a judge, and that's a little less frivolous. But sure - it has the potential to be a problem.
-
6 hours ago, blackbird said:
There are countries that outlaw any public criticism of someone else's religion. I don't think that is the case in America or Canada. There are some authoritarian countries that forbid public speaking about many subjects, places such as China, Russia, Iran, and N. Korea. Some countries you could end up in prison or even sentenced to death for saying the wrong thing.
I was wondering how far freedom of speech should be permitted to go. Should there be limits and what should those limits be? Who determines what the limits should be?
I would tend to argue that it should go to the point where you're either putting someone's life at risk, infringing on a right of theirs, or advocating for harm or illegal activty
-
2 hours ago, southwest said:
Hi,
I'm in the southwest, Australia. There's an intriguing tradition from ancient Greece where the population or state is compared with a ship. The poet Alcaeus wrote about it in sixth century BC then others such as Plato took it up. Then Cicero in Rome.
Anyway, it arrived in Ottawa. https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/HistoryArtsArchitecture/collection_profiles/CP_ship_of_state-e.htm
So I'm hoping for readers' comments on what this means. Does the idea have general support? Do people use the words 'ship of state' in party policy or in parliament? Do you think of a ship when you see images of parliament? All contributions are gratefully received.
The term has been used, i wouldn't call it common use. There is a 'state of the nation" or 'state of the union' address that happens in Canada and the us and that term may get used slightly more. But i've certainly heard the term ship of state used in the past.
Of course - there's only so many times you want to hear your country be compared to the titanic before you tune it out
-
13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
Like Okanogan? That might be my favorite part of Canada.
Well thats actually considered the interior, the lower mainland would be more like hope/chilliwack out through greater vancouver and out to squamish. But pretty close - the okanagan isn't much of a car ride from me.
13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:It doesn't help that the feds are such dinks.
No. No it does not.
13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:I will never understand why this nation is so strapped. Man, we have just about every resource needed in abundance. Yet we skimp and regulate ourselves to death.
We chronically go through cycles of over spending which is then followed by periods of underspending to correct. The weird thing is we time it in such a way that the overspending tends to happen during GOOD times and the underspending then comes during bad times. The other way around would at least make SOME sense - but for whatever reason if the economy is good we tend to elect tax and spend gov'ts and when the economy sucks and we SHOULD be borrowing we have to tighten our belts.
That's democracy for ya
-
6 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:
The story doesn't give his name, so I can't fact-check this. Which I'm sure was the point.
I did try to find this story, but I'm not getting any new sources, only right-wing blogs.
Nobody believes you tried even for a second.
It's easy enough to find the story is true. You don't need the name. You're just desperate to try to avoid the truth, "GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE!!! " "here's an example.' "UHHHHHH UUMMMM er .. NOT FAIR!!! "
Right. Go have your cookie and your nap.
Oh - and your own link shows that that paper is not terribly bias. Right of center, not extreme or even right wing. So your claim that they're too bias to use is also in the garbage can.
-
5 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:
China has State Capitalism, not Socialism. I
NO, sorry but yet again you are incorrect.
And i think i touched on this before - apologies if i'm remembering that wrong.
China allows some individual ownership of it's industries BUT the gov't is SO heavily involved and controlling of the industries that it is far closer to socialsm than capitalism. As you say - it's not about the name its about the reality. THe state is required to own either directly or by proxy major shares in everything and control exactly what can and cannot be produced and what can or cannot be exported or imported.
Capitalism requries a free market. in the real world nobody does pure capitalism because it would have issues, they have a slightly regulated free market to ensure a level playing field. The chinese have no free market.
SO what they've got is a socialist economy with capitalistic elements. VS something like ours which is capitalistic with socialistic elements.
But you coudln't say china had a capitalist economic model.
-
11 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:
Define "Socialism" and "Communism" for me.
Define it yourself. You will anyway - whatever definition i provide you'll claim its something else
-
8 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:
Nazis think it's the Jews.
Well then i guess there's no nazis anymore because these days nobody thinks its the jews.
8 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:If you believe in the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, but you don't think it's the Jews, then you're not a Nazi, but you're still falling victim to Nazi propaganda.
No, you're not. That's not how logic works. In fact - based on what you've said it wouldn't even be CMCT anymore.
It's like saying if you think the gov't should have some control or regulation over industry then you must be spreading communist propaganda because communists think the people should own production. NO - that's not how it works.
It's just SO wrong it's disappointing that i'd need to explain it.
-
56 minutes ago, blackbird said:
Did you mean to say "my faith is not a substitute for YOUR reason or facts"?
No. That's dumb.
Faith shouldn't be a substitute for reason for ANYONES reason or fact - facts and reason stand on their own divisible from the individual.
56 minutes ago, blackbird said:Of course that's what you meant.
Sigh. and the dumb continues....
56 minutes ago, blackbird said:My faith is based on Biblical truth according to how I understand it. It is perfect? No, but it seems a lot closer to the truth.
Well that's great but it's still no substitute for reason or facts. If you came to me and said "the sun will rise in the west tomorrow because my bible said so", i would point out if that's what your bible says your bible is retarded. You can say "no no no no - it will because that's the truth as i understand it" to your heart's content but it won't change the facts.
Biblical faith is not a replacement for facts or reason. AND in those cases where what we are talking about is about belief rather than facts or reason'd logic then - you have to recognize that it's YOUR belief and everybody else's beliefs are JUST as valid if 'belief' is relevant.
56 minutes ago, blackbird said:Your reason or facts is based your world view which is the liberal world view.
First - the liberal world view has NOTHING to do with facts and very very little to do with reason.
Second - 'world view' is not relevant. A fact is a fact regardless of your global stance. Gravity is a temporal distortion which causes objects of mass to move towards each other. That's a fact. It's the same fact no matter how you look at the world. Look at it any way you like, that's still what gravity is.
Do not confuse opinion and belief and facts and logic and reason. They are not synonymous. Opinion and belief do occasionally have a relevant spot in discussions but you cannot substitute them for reason or facts.
-
1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:
Good thing I wore my boots today,
cause your bullshit is getting real deep.
Awww muffin - considering how often you crap yourself here i'd expect you'd be more than used to the smell
Sigh, No brains AND no sense of humour. You must be the life of the party.
-
1 hour ago, Nationalist said:
Sure. I should have noted we live in Toronto.
Where are you that your hospitals were full?
The lower mainland in bc. It's a chronic problem. There was an article in the paper just before the pandemic about one hospital taking over the starbucks and keeping patients in there (I'll have a colonoscopy and a late pls. I mean the jokes write themselves. ) This time it was pretty bad, only those who needed specialized care were in rooms, or people who were going to be there longer term, but those who were there for 5 or 6 days were in the hallway.
1 hour ago, Nationalist said:HC is a tough thing to manage. On one side you have the bleeding hearts who think all medical services need be paid for by the government, and on the other the private hospital crowd. Personally I think we should have both. The problem with that is, of course, who do you tax for that? What if a person never uses the public option? I don't really believe the Canadian government couldn't afford to provide blanket HC, but the budgets would need some very serious re-negotiation. Again, yet another sticking point.
Well the problem is we've got some of the funding coming from the feds, who can turn down the taps whenever they want, but it's the provinces who wear the political heat for it.
Before we had "universal health care" we still had it - it was just entirely provincially driven. The federal plan was supposed to make sure everyone could get the same services in all provinces and would fund it because that way it helped provinces who weren't doing so well and shared the cost a little across all the provinces.
But they raised the taxes to pay for that - then stopped paying for that. NOw the provinces can't really raise the taxes to cover it because the fed taxes are so high but they don't have the money to provide the services.
-
1 minute ago, Nationalist said:
The fact is...the hospitals were not lacking beds or space...the hospitals were lacking STAFF!
It really varies. Some places that's true, some the opposite is true entirely and some lack both. I recently had to spend time in the hospital and the hallways were absolutely lined with gurneys full of people because there were no rooms. It's like that in most of the hospitals around here these days.
So - what that tells me is the real problem with our system is it can't adequately adapt to the needs of the communities. They don't hire enough staff, over here they don't build enough facilities, over here they don't have enough seats for training so there isn't staff, over here, etc etc etc.
Private healthcare is much more flexible and tends to produce the right amount of care and the right staffing levels with much more accuracy.
Which is why you tend to see a bit of a blended system in most places around the world. We're actually in the minority - most places have some private care mixed in with their public care.
-
34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
I am open to debate but the details are tricky and it's not helped by shouting. Protest school bathrooms but the school isn't going to contravene Ontario's guidelines so what is the point of such a protest really ?But in this case the school was NOT open to debate, or even discussing it with him. So all they had left to force discussion was protest.
I'm not a big fan of protest as a method of change at the best of times. I don't think it's been an effective tool for the most part with a few exceptions. But - if it's all you got left ...
Kennedy had a saying - "if you make peaceful revolution impossible you make violent revolution inevitable". And that would seem to apply here. Denying him the choice of having a discussion about it forced them to more extreme lengths like a protest in order ot be heard.
-
47 minutes ago, blackbird said:
Already explained all that at length. I didn't mean to offend you by talking about the Bible and what it says. You forbid me to talk about my beliefs. So that's where we are.
You did not explain it at length in the slightest. Or at all.
It cannot be done. Brilliant minds have tried for generations. The states tries harder than anyone else ever has and even THEY admit it's not possible to make sure it NEVER happens. It does happen even tho them.
And the COST of trying to prevent it is insane.
No rational or intelligent person can look at the facts and suggest there's a way to make sure it never happens, other than not doing it at all.
Lock them up, throw away the key, let them die alone and out of society. THat's the best we can do.
And i did not forbid you talking about your faith. But if you bring it into the discussion, you're going to get made fun of and not taken seriously. Your faith is not a substitute for reason or facts.
-
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:
No, you said the stock market crashed into the ground (hyperbole), then proceeded to worthlessly tell us that "some people" are down 50%. Wow! ??
Which turned out to be true
Which has been posted. Sorry for the inconvenience
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:Some people are up 100%. Some people are up 400%.
Who.
The vast majority of stocks are down, and as i pointed out the number that have lost 50 percent is at an all time high. So the vast majority have lost money.
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:Some people are down 38.7623%. Some people are down 3%. Some people are up 5%. I can quote arbitrary useless numbers too.
Yes - but yours are just lies made up in your head with nothing to back them up. I'm talking about real people and have posted the stock market reports that prove that this is happening to people.
So sure you can lie. we knew that about you already.
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:It was 16k to 10.8k (roughly) and it took 7 months to do that, and that works out to less than 33%. In the same timeframe, BTC lost 60% of its value.
Sooooo - i was right. More than 25 percent. Imagine that.
And bitcoin has vastly outperformed stocks many many many times. Both assets can go up, or down. Bitcoin actually has the better history for going up.
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:You chose to compare the Nasdaq, one of the most speculative and volatile stock market indexes out there,
Ahhhhh - actually, YOU chose nasdaq. That was YOU who decided that's what we'd look at. Remember? Now some how YOUR choice is MY fault.
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:and it still has around ~50% of the volatility of Bitcoin. Take a broader, more inclusive index like the S&P, and those numbers look even worse for BTC.
Not if you look at the 5 year performance. Many times bitcoin outperformed stocks by a longshot,
Take a look for yourself:
https://buybitcoinworldwide.com/price/
if you bought bitcoin 5 years ago, your investment is doing much better than the average for the stock market that's for sure. It's still up higher than it was in 2020, and its climbing.
Soooo - yeah. Actually a good performing investment over all. And it's going up again.
Real estate prices are down to right now - but up since 2019 or so. Is real estate a cccrrraaaazy stupid investment too?
Sorry kiddo - any way you look at it you've lost this one. Bitcoin has done very well for those who've invested in it for the most part, and it's performance does go up and down just like stocks and other higher risk investments. It's no different.
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:Regardless, none of this even really matters because the fundamental difference between any stock market (even the Nasdaq) is that you're getting audited financial statements and you're buying a portion of a company's assets and future cashflow.
No you're not. There's no requirement for most of those companies to do an audit, and there is ZERO guarantee they'll share their profits. MOST go without declaring dividends in any given year. MOST of the value in the stock market is in speculation.
FURTHER - there's ZERO guarantee the company will have profits to share. WE're about to go into a recession, so many of those companies will be taking a loss. And not only will you get no money for the 'profits' but safe bet your stock values will go down.
This is NOT some sort of secured loan. It's high risk speculation.
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:When you buy Bitcoin, you're buying a digital widget that does nothing, earns nothing, and can only make you money if you find a greater fool to buy it off you at a higher price.
Well you could say the same of a dollar bill. What does it do? PUt it in a drawer and 10 years later guess what you've got - a dollar bill. Yet - people trade in currency all the time speculatively.
And bitcoin is becoming a lot more standardized as a unit of actual payment, which gives it a special value.
So just like anything out there, because it is limited in amount and actually does have some value it's perceived value is high.
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:More importantly, however, nobody is proposing we use the Nasdaq as an alternative to fiat or central banking, because that would be retarded.
Sure - stocks are not a currency. BItcoin actually is a currency so that would make more sens but i've never heard anyone suggest we should change bitcoin to our nations currency and get rid of the fiat dollar. Have you? You sure didn't hear that from PP.
He DID say it could be a hedge against inflation and in fact RIGHT NOW that is actually true - it's going up faster than the rate of inflation. But like the stock market it's speculative and volatile so really it's no better than the stock market as a 'hedge' over time. Real estate seems better for that.
-
4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:
I will agree somewhat abut disagree to an extent.
the ultimate moderate
4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:Lifestyle and maintaining it seems more important to many than home ownership. Look at the horrendous travel issues at airports, the amounts of people travelling is nuts. Lots of money being spent. People are spending.
Oh no doubt many people are prioritizing it differently. But - if we're JUST talking about whether you save money renting vs owning, then what i suggested holds true.
And to each their own - but what does anger me is that those same people who DIDN'T care about owning a home and securing their living space will often be the first in line to scream about how nothing's affordable and homeowners don't deserve the equity they've built.
4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:Yes, rents are up but, so is the expense of building rentals and maintaining rentals. Who pays for that? Renters of course.
Well it gets worse even than that in most areas - there's no money in building a rental building anymore. The only time rentals get build (aside from some specialized luxury rentals) are when govt's force the developer to do so as part of a zoning deal to let them build more strata condos for sale. And that' s very limited.
So most rental construction is ACTUALLY condo construction that then gets sold and then THAT person rents the unit out - so all the costs associated with the condo PLUS the developer's profits PLUS whatever the homeowner wants on top get built in, and rents go up accordingly.
4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:If you bought a home 5 years ago at 1.2 % and today you had to re mortgage at 5.5 % you would be in trouble too.
Not really. Housing prices were actually considerably lower 5 years ago. In additon most people's incomes have gone up at least a those 5 years.
The people who are in trouble are the ones who bought 2-3 years ago - those guys are screwed. Their mortgages will be coming up right in the middle of the high cycle and they paid more money than they can get these days if they sell. And they've had no time to pay any significant amount down on their mortgage, s0 they won't be able to remortgage over a longer term.
-
10 hours ago, blackbird said:
I am sorry you took it that way. I apologize if I came across as arrogant. Actually you are blaming me for my God being the only true God,
LOL - you appologize for being arrogant and then go on to be unbelievably arrogant.
YOU BELIEVE that god is the one true god. And that's fine. But you DEMAND others accept that as truth. That is not fine.
Even god didn't force people to believe in him. Apperently you know better. And it would seem you aren't the slightest bit sorry for your arrogance or rudeness.
-
Just now, blackbird said:
What gives you the right to end an unborn baby's life?
Of course you require the obvious stated to you.
It is in question as to when a fetus becomes a human being. Prior to it being a human being there is no 'baby' to "kill". So with no real compelling evidence it becomes a moral issue. And what i'm saying is the moral issue should be left to the mother or at least the parents. Not "me". Or you per se.
Just now, blackbird said:If you were a doctor, what gives you the right to end someone's life?
The law. or it doesn't and i can't.
Just now, blackbird said:If you were a patient, what gives you the right to actively end your own life?
Ownership. If i own nothing else in this world i own my own life.
Just now, blackbird said:In other words, is suicide moral? Is it right or wrong to commit suicide?
The question is - is it moral to make that decision for other people?
Now the way you've explained your brain thinking i'd guess you'd say "well it's in the bible", take some verse out of context and demand that we force everyone to convert to your religion because their beliefs are wrong otherwise.
But - history doesn't look fondly on such things as the spanish inquisition. So i question how moral your views are or if you're actually able to speak to morality effectively considering .
-
8 minutes ago, blackbird said:
As I already said, the justice system could be improved and more safeguards put in place to avoid wrongful convictions.
And has already been pointed out, no it can't. And when improvements that CAN be done to LIMIT mistakes are suggested you freak out at the cost and the time delays.
Yet you keep repeating this as if it were true. SO much for 'god's wisdom'.
-
4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:
Didn't see where in the bible Jesus mentions anything about a Pharoah. Pharoah appears in the old testament to Moses.
Obviously you're a complete and utter Philistine.
I'm told jesus and god are related
it's literally like the Godfather, it's a family business!
Oh and yes, we should wipe out the philistines too.
-
38 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:
As a Christian in all seriousness I would ask the question - "Who would Jesus kill?"
Pharaoh. The answer is always Pharaoh. Or everyone. Take your pick,
Joking aside regardless of whether god is real or not the principles of the christian religion are a pretty reasonable and rewarding creed to guide your life with. As long as you don't substitute it for reason and as long as you don't demand others subscribe.
Anyway - i got distracted, are we kicking pharaoh's ass or what?
-
23 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
Or just allowing transgender people to use whatever bathroom they’ve used throughout human history. There have probably been transgender people since there have been humans. Why in the second decade 21st century is this suddenly an urgent problem that must be addressed with new laws and bans and tranny policing?
Because historically you didn't have public washrooms. If you had to go to the washroom in public you just crapped in the ditch or the like. When they DID have them they were more of the outhouse single person variety for most of history.
And frankly - i can't think of any parts of history where if a man was recognized in the woman's washroom where it would have been ok with the gents at the time.
Edit - side note, for huge hunks of history women weren't allowed far outside the home anyway because they were frequently 'unclean' (periods) and had other 'womanly issues', so it's not like very many of them were attending schools for much of history, and neither would the trans females)
-
16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
So are there any actual GIRLS at this school who have a problem with that or is it just this newly arrived boy in school who feels he needs to swoop in and save everyone from themselves whether they know it or not?
Apparently the girls complained that they had issues with it.
Seriously dude, read the stories.
Pierre Pollivere responds to questions of racism in his caucus (hilarious!)
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
You literally just posted in your previous post it was 33 percent -double your little estimate there
That's the problem with you - when you're wrong you just start pretending you didn't say things you very obviously did. If you have to lie to make a point, you haven't got a very good point.
That was a harsh crash, many many people lost a huge hunk of their savings.
But hey - lie about it some more and maybe the facts will change! Right? Thats how you guys on the left think isn't it
No, those are people i've really met. Yours by your own admission are fake. And - the numbers certainly show there's going to be a lot like the ones i met.
Ok - so according to you almost half those stocks went down by 50 percent, people own those stocks, but there's no way they could be down about 50 percent.
Math isn't your thing is it.
You're really just making yourself look dumber every post. Why are you doing that?
Well no, that's not the only market where stocks went down that much. And tech stocks are very popular.
Sorry kiddo - it's pretty obvious you're just crybabying at this point.
You. And other liberals for that matter. Oh wait let me guess - having been proven wrong you will claim yet again you never EVER said that bitcoin was worse off than stocks especially compared with markets other than Nasdaq. Sigh. You're so predictable.
Rats, you were right there. my mistake. Well even a broken clock
Nope, in a lot of cases there isn't. Intellectual property that could become useless overnight, etc etc.
And it's mostly based on speculation, not asset value.
Nope. You're not entitled to them if they're retained. Go ahead -buy a share in microsoft and walk into the office and demand your share of the profits they didn't declare dividends on and your share of the assets.
Not how it works.
Which is not what you previously claimed at all.
And most of that is true. The boc has done a lot of damage to our dollar which now buys less. Crypto being normalized would indeed reduce the central bank's influence. And Canadians should have choice
Most of the world's currencies are capable of swinging that much under the right conditions. Sorry to burst your bubble. And honestly the statement doesn't even make sense - it might drop that much against the us dollar but far less against the canadian if the canadian is dropping as well
and a reminder - it's still worth more than it was in 2019. which is more than we can say for the Canadian dollar.
Normalizing it will go a long way to remove the volatility So - there you go.
Sorry punkin
You were wrong again 
It works fine and will only get better - IF that's what people choose to use personally. I realize as a liberal you're not fond of people having choice but, sorry - they should.
It works just fine as an alternate currency same as any other currency and just like any other currency the more it's used the more it stabilizes.