Jump to content

Peter F

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Peter F

  1. Objective or Subjective definition?
  2. But I do have a standard of what good is and that standard is entirely subjective. My standard of Good may or may not be compatible with yours or anyone elses. The same applies to you and everyone else. There is no objective standard of Good because if there was then we would all share that standard and there would be no variation. But since there is variation there is no standard. Now, to you and the OP that would mean that there is no God. But that too is wrong there since I believe (without one iota of evidence to support that belief) that God exists nonetheless.
  3. I don't think the video explains that at all. The video assumes God = good. It is a subjective assumption. I can imagine an existence without God and I expect good would still exist. The video shows misfortune befalling someone whose wallet is then taken by someone else. The victim feels a great injustice has been perpetrated and the video then proclaims the victim appealing to objective good. Therefore God. However that argument fails to recognize the good that fell upon the bandit who picked up the wallet. The video assumes that a personal or societal 'good' applies always and at all times to all people. Good is always subjective not objective. According to the video that means there is no God. Yet good befell the bandit and possibly his children and the sun still shone warming the earth, plants grew and people laughed. In my subjective opinion, it doesn't matter one whit wether Good is subjective or objective. Without God, Good can still exist just as it can with God.
  4. I don't. I can't. Not enough information. If I were to hypothesize though, I would say the only apparent reason is to experience it. And that may not be the reason at all. Could be something else entirely or, equally possible with the information at hand, no reason whatsoever.
  5. I think Mercator created his projection for navigational purposes and not propaganda. The projection here sucks for navigational purposes unless one uses a computer to deal with the distortions if one is sailing the equatorial or polar areas. But, with a Mercator chart there is not much problem at all despite the distortions. However, in a classroom it is pretty good for area, though I would suggest an actual Globe would be the better thing. Globes have been around for quite a while.
  6. I'm glad the Dutch are still mostly reasonable folks. But Mr. Wilders isn't going anywhere.
  7. OffsettingLiability? How is that balancing off money created out of thin air? Their is no cash associated with a liability. Thats why its a liability. The bank creates the money out of thin air then creates liability on the books in the form of the thin air they lent out. Debtor owes them real non-thin air cash because the bank lent them thin air cash. The Liability does absolutely nothing to counter the invented debt.
  8. Sounds to me like Steven Blaney, MP, is seeking fame and to be adored. Citizens will be safe as they can be with murdering single/dual/triple/quadruple/multi citizenship holders sitting in prisons for their crimes. In fact citizens will be safer after the murdering scum is released (if ever) by keeping tabs on him ourselves instead of having terrorist-loving foreigners do it for us. Do you trust foreigners to keep us safe? of course not. So why go nuts about his citizenship? Unless, of course, you would rather not even think about him anymore by assuming that since the criminal is booted out of this country we are somehow safer now. Its so much better when we transfer our worrying ex-prisoners to worry some other folks stead of us.
  9. ...and the attempt at betterment brought poverty, misery, disease and suffering.
  10. "A Thinking Person's Guide to Islam. The Essance of Islam in 12 Verses from the Qur'an" by H.R.H. Prince Ghazi Bin Muhammad. Turath publishing, 2016. I like it. Very enlightening.
  11. no. The fact that 10 out of 10 muslims in this country have been tolerating you (amongst others) for the last 20 years speaks for itself.
  12. You're bombarded by the likes of Dog on Porch and Betsy's GatesofVienna.com. You're bombarded by tons of non-muslims telling you how horrible all the muslims are - Jihad! and Terrorism and killing all the gays and beating and raping all the women - especially all the western women, like your wife and daughters. Make no wonder you think if one in ten stories are true then we're all screwed. Fact is one in ten stories from Dog or gates of vienna or the horrors of Sweden are mostly bullshit. The only islamic terrorist voice are the crackpots Dog pronounces as the true followers of Islam, ISIS itself and you hearing all this have come to believe one in ten muslims in this country are terrorists -- or in the Mark Steyn manner -- secretly support terrorism. Again, because some non-muslim says so. Especially from the mouths of self-appointed pseudo Imams, again like Dog on Porch. I suspect that your experiences in Afghanistan, in a war, have naturally coloured your view. But you know very well that most muslims are fine - or certainly tolerable. You have said so yourself. You worry about the one in ten. The other nine don't get your pants all wet. It's that other nine that you brush off as meaningless that actually put the truth to what Dialamah has said. And what you have said: " much larger than any good muslim group has, which over shadows the good muslim message.." You want muslims to stand up and denounce this crackpot-dangerous Islam, and you sit glued to the TV and stuff like this blog in hopes that you will hear them, that perhaps they will come to you and explain, much like Dialamah tries to do but gets swamped by the horseshit from Dog about what ISIS does and therefore they want you dead or paying for their halal certification.
  13. No. To him there is no place for Liberal candidates who oppose abortion. There may be all sorts of place for the opposers of abortion in parliament.
  14. No one is challenging or even supporting illegal immigration. That the cops arrest illegal immigrants, put them in cuffs and haul them off is just fine. They're illegally entering the country and so they get arrested. Thats all good. If folks from far flung lands wish to emigrate to Canada then get the paper-work done, get the visa's, make the declarations. Nobody is for illegal immigration. Arrest illegal immigrants. If they claim refugee status then hear the claim. This is how it has been done for years and years and nothing has changed. I am all for more immigration, not less and so conflict with those who want less immigration and not more. You accused me of favouring illegal immigration in an earlier post and told me I know nothing about how illegal immigrants live. You missed my point entirely. My point was that when the USofA cracks down on illegal immigrants, some of those said illegals, fearing deportation to places they definitely do not want to be, will flee to Canada. This is not rocket science. No tweets required for that to happen. You blame Trudeau as if it was some great secret that Canada accepts immigrants. You seem to think that illegal immigrants will be welcomed with open arms by me and trudeau. They won't. Such illegal entrants will be arrested and probably deported. You know this, because you told me all about illegal immigrants living in squalor. Not immigrants living in squalor. But illegal immigrants living in squalor. The illegality of them being in the country results in the squalid conditions in which they live. And you don't like that, naturally, so think we should have less illegal immigration (as if there was some policy in place for how many illegal immigrants we allow in the country alongside how many legal immigrants we take in!). Unfortunately, how many illegal immigrants enter this country is not up to us or Trudeau's iPhone but entirely up to how many folks decide to enter Canada illegally. To take one further whack at the dead horse; Trudeau's tweet has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and it makes no rational sense to blame him for illegal immigration. I did not realize that the minister of immigration sits on refugee boards. ... thats for good reason too, since he doesn't sit on refugee boards. I have not heard that refugee boards were tossed when Trudeau tweeted what he tweeted. I am quite sure that they are still in place and functioning. I am quite sure that the immigration minister does not yet sit on these boards and hear claims. In order for your Conflicting Intersest claim to be true there must be some indication that the minister would be in conflict with his duties. So far the only thing you have proffered is that , 1. He is a refugee himself and 2. He is Somali. This seems to mean that since he is a refugee he, the minister, will be sympathetic to illegal immigrants making refugee claims. I would agree with you if he sat on refugee boards, or reviewed the decisions of refugee boards and had the power to over-ride or reverse decisions of those boards He does not have such powers. The government can certainly challenge the decision of a refugee board but that challenge is done through the federal courts - not by ministerial waves of the hand. See the case of Ms Harvey who fled florida after being found guilty of rape in that state, entered and resided in Canada illegally then, when finally picked up by the RCMP claimed protected status. The Minister of immigration (RtHon Jason Kenney I believe) at that time was appalled at the decision appealed to the federal court for them to decide wether the boards decision was correct or not. The minister simply could not overide the boards decision on his own simply because he wanted to. As for point 2. He's a Somali therefore he must favour Somali refugees. The answer is the same as above; It's not up to him to decide. Its up to the refugee board to decide. Therefore I say there is no conflict with the Right Honourable Ahmed Hussen being immigration minister.
  15. Well geez Rue. You're no help. Whats the Conflict of Interest? Is the Immigration Minister going to grant himself refugee status again? You are correct that I do not see the Conflict of Interest. You, who claim there is one, think its a grand debating point to respond that there's no point in explaining your claim? The conflict is so obvious that words cannot possibly explain it? Being uninterested in explaining the conflict of interest justifies your claim? Whats the conflict of interest? But, Rue, do we not agree the rules and regulations have not changed one whit? Events beyond Canada's borders have caused many to seek refuge in Canada. They hope and perhaps actually believe that Canada never kicks anyone out. Maybe the Coyotes even tell them that! And these poor suckers believe it! Doesn't matter a smidgen. We still have refugee boards that hear the claims and decide the issue. We may very well need more of them operating in the future, yes. You think Trudeau's tweet changed everything? Nothings the same anymore because Trudeau tweeted one of Canada's decades long jerk-off point that Canada is a wonderful place full of immigrants and Aren't We Wonderful? As you acknowledge, Trudeau's tweet changed nothing. Trump's tweet has convinced hundreds that perhaps Canada is a better prospect. But the refugee boards still stand and will continue to function even if they come as a great shock to the claimants. Or perhaps you think because tweets = legislation we have to accept everyone of them because if we don't then Trudeau is a tweeting liar. You are ignoring the questions posed by the press to him and his responses. No we do not have the open borders you think his tweet enacted. We still vet. We still investigate. The boards still review the claims. If the claim is legitimate you're in. If not you're rejected and out. I am tolerant, Rue. Extremely tolerant. So tolerant you cannot believe it. Yet, with such vast amounts of tolerance, even I feel my tolerance tested at times. Your Cuban example being a great test. What was the point of bringing up Castro throwing the contents of the prisons onto boats? Was it not an example of the times we are facing? Was it to warn us smug types that these refugee's are not the good folks we smugly assume they are? Were you not warning us that the USofA is an example of what happens when the head honcho says something silly like 'We welcome immigrants'? Look what happened there when they took in many many Cubans from Cuban prisons because Castro tossed them out because Carter said something nice. The USofA was forced to accept drug addicts, mental patients and serial killers. Those were the only people you mentioned, Rue. Nobody else. I think your inference and warning was very clear. If Trudeau doesn't keep his trap shut then we will be flooded with all those 'Bad Dudes' Trump keeps blathering about. Unlike you, I believe that the refugee boards determine who is a bad dude; a serial killer; a drug addict; a mental patient. Not you. And so, that answers another assumption you had made about my tolerance levels - which I say again, are wayyyyy up there. I do not want open borders or instant citizenship (except for newborn babes. They get insta-citizenship right off the bat. No vetting, investigations, background checks, citizenship oaths or refugee boards for them.) You assume that since I see nothing wrong with Trudeau's tweet that I must therefore let everyone in and let everyone stay. You are wrong Rue, foolishly wrong. I like vetting refugee's and immigrants. I like background checks. I like deporting criminal claimants, liars, cheats. Maybe not the mentally ill. Certainly not parents of Canadian citizen children. Regarding the thousands of illegal immigrants - sorry, not thousands: Hundreds of thousands - hiding out in Toronto... What? They were here before Trudeau's tweet? Whats up with that? Maybe Trudeau's tweet really isn't the opening of the floodgates you're making it out to be. Perhaps the flood has already occurred. The rest of your post paints me as an ignorant fool with no idea of how the hundreds of thousands of illegals live. I agree! I have no idea how an illegal immigrant lives. I am quite sure that when you say Peter F wouldn't like to live like that if he knew how they live, I would agree. On the other hand, so what? Is there a point there? About illegal immigrants and how they live? Are they Cubans?
  16. I like em. I think they should be given out even if they are not actually a penalty and the end of the day. I like pondering why I received the warning. What is it I did? Could I have done something else? Was it necessary I say the thing in the manner I said it? Criticism is not always a bad thing to be avoided. and further: They supposedly have certain debating standards that they have asked members to try, at least, to conform to. They are the Moderators who, I suspect, have agreed that the standards that members agreed too when joining this site, should be adhered to and encouraged. For the sake of our vocabularies (in my case) or to learn how to write concisely and effectively. The Mods should have a means of letting members know when they step away from the few rules they agreed to, through suspensions or warning points. Personally, I believe warning points should have some sort of actual point beyond mere advice. But hey, it's somebody else's site not mine.
  17. I have many issues with this post... They certainly could. But I doubt that they would. Trump and his audience are very pleased that the criminals and rapists are leaving. What possible reason would they agree to take them back? They're not welcome and they left for Canada. Canada can deal with them. And we will! We even have a system in place to deal with them. That system will no doubt require a big budget increase but nevertheless Canada will deal with them. The USofA will deal with those in their country and we will deal with those in ours. When they cross the border into our country they're not America's problem anymore. Lordy, it's like it was a secret that Canada is generous to refugee claimants. We've been doing it for years! Every immigration lawyer in Canada or out has been saying Canada will give a fair shake and treat you decently too. Its not a secret. Truduea was mentioning something that was very well known so how him mentioning it somehow opened the floodgates? The immigration and refugee laws in this country have not changed one iota since Trudeau's tweet. And you think there's something different now? The only thing different is that the USofA is endeavouring to change thier laws, not ours. The reason hundreds of folks have fled the USofA for Canada is because of what their government says its gonna do. What Trudeau tweeted is not the cause of the rush .Even when the weather gets nice and the supposed millions flee America, It still won't be Trudeau's fault. That fault belongs to the present US government and no one else. And the Americans took many, many of them in. They should be ashamed of themselves because the obvious answer was to send them back so Castro could dump them back again. Cubans and their children are not all drug addicts, serial kilers or mentally ill. Many of those booted out from Cuba were merely labeled that so that Castro could claim what Trump is now claiming "We're getting rid of the trash! Cuba will be great again! Love me, I'm your fuckin Hero!" What claptrap is that Rue? Tell us why a Somali refugee who made good should not be Immigration Minister? Perhaps only Old Stock Canadians should be immigration ministers? Whats the issue here? He not qualified appropriately? Some Non-ex Somali would have been a better choice? Maybe someone of the appropriate ethnic stock? A ethnicity or ex-nationality from somewhere we don't many immigrants/refugee's from? Maybe an American. or a Frenchman. Irish perhaps? Whatever but certainly NOT a Somali. What is this country coming to... Damn right we have such a law or would you prefer sending adulterers subject to draconian laws back to the hands of their oppressors? I like the idea that this Country has the kahonies to say 'Your laws are shit and we will not send this poor soul back to face your atrocious penalties'. end rant.
  18. Of course they can be, depending on what they think needs aggression - sorta like every other nation in the world. But lets not assume that the only purpose of fighters based in the north of Russia is to attack us.
  19. well, yah. The courts put a stop to the executive order. So things are back to sortofnormal. So you're right and I'm wrong because of that. Now the White House has been going on about coming up with a new order that will set things right America and illegals. Some folks think that its a good idea to steal a march on the Bannon administration and get out while the gettin's sort of good.
  20. So the threat isn't Russian fighters based in northern Russia. But bombers with VLR cruise missiles apparently. For strategic bombing purposes. .. of what? When? Has the USofA given up the whole nuclear deterrence thing?
  21. not really. Oft times assets are not deployed because the threat is vanishingly small. The cold war lasted many years and russian bomber fleets existed all that time yet interception from southern North American airbases (including in flight refuelling of course) was a perfectly rational and sensible defensive scheme. Has NORAD disappeared?
  • Create New...