Michael Hardner

That's like the deal I have with Greg on this forum. I instructed him to get rid of all the losers and ne'er do wells.... It was quite the deal 🤣

A thread with insults in every post is not very inviting. 😕

IOW I want a fresh traditional girl I can make dirty... 🤔 Just wait five years for the AI model...

Myths are the fuel for the ignorant machine that is American politics. Who would seriously consider ending that?

Funding for electric cars, funding environmental research... I suppose so. It's not a double-standard if you say "we should do this thing more" and you can't do it for practical reasons... "You'll have nothing and be happy" is a meaningless nothing, which has been copy/pasted to shock people into thinking that Marxism is imminent, IMO. You're proving my point by mis-attributing the quote that you remember. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-the-world-economic-forum-does-not-have-a-stated-goal-to-have-people-idUSKBN2AP2SP/ This says someone named Ida Auken wrote it. Anyway, moving on...

1. Yeah, maybe ? What's your point ? Did Harper ride around on an electric bike ? 2. The LEAP ! 3. Yeah, and your assertion regarding CBC coverage is adddressed. 4. Yes, some of them...

Actually Carney would look good in a top hat, taking off in a balloon to go Around the World in 80 Days... He's kind of a David Niven type...

1. So if someone believes in the long-term reduction of Carbon they should walk everywhere or bike ? That's ridiculous. He's the PM. 2. Good for you for recognizing our stake in dirty fuel. I would think Carney is not involved in Brookfield anymore, or at least is arm's-length from any investment there. 3. I found more than ten pages of stories on coal when I googled "Coal exports" site:CBC.ca Example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/potential-plan-keep-coal-power-plants-running-1.7441046 Good word play on "Carney in the coal mine" btw ...

I've been listening to the CBC in the mornings, as usual, but now trying to find examples of things that favor a liberal, small l. L. Liberal viewpoint In the selection of stories, I see things like the Alberta anti separatist movement, a lot of stories about labour and Trump forever. Of course these are covered by right-wing media also, a differently. As for the environment, you have to listen closely but I did hear something interesting... A kind of casual mention that there would be a piece coming up above the Texas floods, and other climate disasters. Climate scientists would back away from tying. Any specific event to climate change? Because as you know, disasters, natural disasters I mean, happen all the time. We can say that climate change will cause more natural disasters, generally, because that conclusion is supported. But as I said real climate scientist would not and or should not say this particular event was a climate change caused event. Of course it's a far cry from people saying that volcanoes cause climate change, or that it's a conspiracy theory etc. But there you have it, from what I can see it's misreporting on the science. Small? Sure, but we're just talking about evidence of bias here.

I accept the wording of the articles, as they're contemplative and speculative. But we'll never know for sure. The inability to assess the truth to a high degree of certainty means objective knowledge again is elusive, in our time.

I had to scroll back to check... I didn't mention "Left Wing" media, I said 'liberal'. There may be left-wing media, but there's really no left-wing mass media such as TV, radio, or newspaper networks.

Why Trudeau ? Harper was part of it too: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100015644/1571589171655 Nobody is telling white Canadians that they're guilty of crimes, that's hyperbole. I don't know who Selam Debs is, the individual quoted. You're critiquing "people of the left" generally, which is fine - I addressed that angle with Graham. I don't think mythology has been used in court as evidence by anyone. It would be a pretty easy thing to shoot down. I imagine the 40% are unhappy with their prospects and a terrible economy. Anyway... we're not talking about the system teaching people to hate Canadians any more. We're talking about divisiveness, economy, morality... and all of these fights are happening all over the west. We've strayed into the general malaise of the zeitgeist...

Yes, that's what it is - sensationalism. I wasn't talking about the CBC but generally. An example would be covering a story where someone makes an untrue claim about climate effects without challenging or fact checking. I think the President of the Maldives was in the news, for example, saying his country would be underwater in seven years. Such extreme claims are not given the same rigourous test of truth as if you had a hayseed on the news saying it was volcanic activity or somesuch. And, for the record, I don't think that these mainstream examples are anything like the outright lies, especially those that are planted intentionally and/or funded, that we see from climate deniers. But it is a thing.

1. That's fair. I don't have any examples right now. If I listen to the radio tomorrow, I'll bet you I would come up with a few 2. I bet you that 1/3 could convince the other 2/3 more than Dr. David Suzuki could. Moral arguments on this topic have their limits. 3. No, I hear mainstream reporting with exaggerated claims on climate change all the time. Why not? They've had some success in the past... No reason to imagine that it's impossible for them to succeed.

1. I listen to it, and there's a presumption that right-wing viewpoints are exceptional. 2. There are lots of conservative viewpoints on climate change that aren't conspiracy theories. You do realize that liberal viewpoints are also prone to errors and unscientific claims don't you ?

Why is that necessarily so ? I mean that they would attack Conservatives ? Do you think Conservatives aren't Canadian enough that there aren't any with any influence on the public sphere, media at all ? I'm not so pessimistic as you. I think we would hugely benefit from a strong public broadcaster that is centrist and includes voices from the right. I was making these suggestions since at latest 2010.

If we agree that there's value in a public broadcaster - as a supermajority of wealthy open democracies do - we can talk about building a new frame for news and entertainment. As R. Buckminster Fuller indicated, it's best to build a new structure beside the old one. Once the new one is functional, the old one will be redundant.

1. The thread is pretty specific. And, yes, if you're bringing up conspiracies to add to the agenda I can give the response that is: "this is not important". As for 'unity'... I do think that's an important issue. If you think it is, then frame the problem properly before starting a discussion. If you forgot, this thread is about people (apparently) saying that reconciliation is not worth discussing in schools... so that is "we need to stop talking about this" as well - but from your side. 2. Right, and in this I agree with your complaint to a degree and your objection to the fabric of what "Canada Day" is. But it's a general gripe, and only tenuously tied to what is taught in schools. I mean, you seem to say "we have a truth and reconciliation day".. so if you agree with that, presumably you want to explain to the kids why they're staying home to watch Paw Patrol that day. But as a complaint along the lines of "people make too much of this"... yeah, sure. 3. Me neither. I also don't see anything anywhere that tells people how to feel, at least from official circles. Individuals may express moral outrage over our relationship with First Nations etc. but that's just a voice, expressing an opinion. 4. I don't like myths etiher but I think we have to allow groups to have their myths since G*d knows Christians have 40 loaves and fishes worth. 5. Agreed. 6. Because you are on the other side of the line, clearly. I don't think asking people to think about something is divisive, but characterizing people who are asking for that as teaching hatred of Canada is more so, IMO.

1. I don't know who. Do you ? Was it the people who are accountable to setting curricula in Canada ? 2. I have made the decision to not pursue research when there's a red flag from the outset, such as inflammatory language. We should all be doing that, to filter out the noise. 3. Ha ha ha... so of course it turns to me personally because it's impossible for people to discuss common goals objectively, right ? Believe me, I think you're an asset to this board but both you and Graham succumb to your emotions when dealing with people you see as unreasonable. I get it - I do too. But I also have *admitted* to succumbing to TDS, and it's incumbent on all of us to try to lazer focus on what is measurable and doable in this climate. Only reasonable people will get us through this. Enjoy your day.

You're right, they're also doing that. It's horrible, of course I don't support that.

The one thing that is distinctive about the current era, is the common expectation that American natural disasters like this will inevitably result in ridiculous finger-pointing and divisive stupidity. Sad, if you care about people... funny if you want them to fail.

"My ilk" would look at that and ask ... where exactly does it tell people to hate Canada ? Answer: it doesn't. I invite you to attend a school board meeting and tell the audience that the school board 'hates Canada'... You can start your movement there, I suppose. If you want to reboot our little discussion and tell me what your issue is that, let's wipe the slate clean and do that.

1. No, it's not whattaboutism it's a statement on the way we collectively discuss problems. 2. I don't think anybody knows much about our history, young or old. It's more like they know about general themes of what the history of the country is. Maybe that's a problem, but it deserves a serious discussion not a conspiracy theory of left-lib teachers conspiring to make us hate Canada and destroy it. 3. My guess is that the people designing the system are trying to do that. You probably don't agree. 4. Keep throwing conspiracy theories out there, Graham, that will help things. Keep making it about me, that will help things. If you don't have the discipline to discuss issues with your opponents without saying they hate Canada, you won't be taken seriously and maybe that's a good thing. 5. I agree with you, but demonizing people isn't helpful either.

The conspiracy is right in the tag line "taught to hate Canada". If you think there are problems with the system, or rogue teachers departing with the curriculum then those are serious issues to be dealt with seriously. The first step in the discussion is to state the problem, and allow that we will be taking this seriously with parties that have strong and opposing views. To state that students are taught to "hate" Canada is deceptive, at best, and not the way to start a serious conversation on this. My kids have seen enough of this country to have an opinion on it, and they like it and appreciate it. Nobody in the school system is "taught" to "hate" Canada. It's a conspiracy theory, and I will continue to call it that until you take the discussion seriously. And to you...

Same tired conspiracy horsesh1t. We should be focusing on education cuts and tax breaks for the super wealthy, not this made up claptrap about 'hating Canada '. We have never known a lot about our history nor has the USA. They repeat a handful of significant events over and over... That's all. I might wait until grade 3. Of course, the goalposts change from hating Canada to knowing the name of the 2nd PM. This made up controversy is so old, it's boring... Why can't Johnny read?