ScottSA
-
Posts
3,761 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ScottSA
-
-
There are cross cultural issues and gender issues involved here. This could happen to any group or any particulr group moving from one culture to another. What we say is a clash or conflict in cultural values. Yes of course cultural values are deeply entwined with issues as to gender, religion, sexuality, social norms, economic status, language, etc.
This kind of tragedy is bound to happen. As the world shrinks and people move from very fundamental traditional societies where their relgions and cultures teach them particular concepts as to the role of males, morality and God to our Western one, this happens as one generation begins to make the transition to the Western culture while their parents do not.
Our democractic values nurture multi-culturalism and encourage people to retain their cultural identity and yet at the same time we also expect people to conform to our laws, i.e., fmaily laws, freedom of expression rights. So we send conflicting signals. On the one hand we say-its cool retain all your traditions we are cool in Canada.
On the other hand this open acceptance has limitations for us all. None of us is above the law. None of us from any culture(religion) has the right to put our hands on women, beat them.
Some of us as you can see by the Keng responses use religion as a pretext to try rationalize the compulsion to control people and if need be humiliate or abuse them if they do not do what their Master says.
We see religions (all religions) used as weapons and tools of coercion and abuse. Is it typical of immirants black dog says? I do not blame imigrants or stereotype them. What I do say, frankly and candidly is yes-anyone coming from a different culture to ours, and will try prevent their children from changing and sees our values as hostile to what they want to teach their children, will experience this. Will they become this violent, hopefuly not.
All parents fight with their teen-agers, whether they are from another culture or not. Teen-agers create their own culture. They try make the transition into adulthood at the best of times by doing a very common exercise. They keep one foot in the door, so they can come home to dinner and hopefully a shower and parents who don't need to be their friends but are there for them, but on the other hand they stretch with that other foot as far as they can go experimenting, developing their identity by contrasting new with what is in their family and of course their family becomes the reference point to contrast and test new views.
I would say this family obviously was clinging to what it thought were values it expected of its daughter and it saw her friends as an extension of a corupt society changing their daughter from a humble obedient extension of her father's identity to some individual whose identity was not dependent on her father or traditional culture values but on what her peers deemed normal. Thus they shut the world they see as hostile out of their funeral blaming it and its symbol her peers as coruption influences.
Condensed top it's unadorned particulars, this post says: 'the west sends conflicting signals between rule of law and multicult, and people will be people.'
Of course, coming from Rue, it couldn't stop there, but had to rumble dustily along with all sorts of streetcorner psychology, confused concepts (multicult = democracy etc), and a few kicks at Keng.
-
This video reminds me of a practise in India; beggars wait for a well heeled car to come by, throw their daughter in front of it (not son, of course, because he's worth more for sale), and claim damages. I can't believe you would actually post something that clearly represents the opposite of the scam you're trying to fabricate here. This is so obviously a setup that I don't know how it could be made more so.
BTW, do all Indian women have pottymouth like that? I thought the residential schools were supposed to teach manners...at least in between burying cadavers in the backyard and sexually assaulting everything that twitched.
-
After all the gazillion threads on the legalization of innocuous marijuana some people still think it's an "evil" weed that causes "reefer madness". For pete sake people that was propaganda from a few generations ago... get over it.
Hey Wilber, I never called YOU a dumbass, I called the govt a dumbass (you are not the gov't are you?). I expect an apology. Thank you in advance.
You righties, I tell yah...!
"Oh no, if we legalize marijuana the USA will implode, or stop trading with us, or invade or something really really terrible."
And yes, chicken little, the sky IS falling.
Pffffffft.
I see the inanely shallow analysis of yours is not confined to religion. Do you treat all topics with cartoonish simplicity?
-
Jdobbin - you started this thread. Usually, people start threads so that other people can share their thoughts. I noticed that half the posts in the thread are yours. There's a tee-shirt I once saw that you might look for - on the front it says "Everyone's entitled to my Opinion".
Oh Dobbin is doing nothing new...he does it three times a day. He's pissed because the Tories hulled the Good Ship HMS SinkaLib, again, leaving it floundered, listing to port, and dead in the water, so the best he can do is try to start a mutiny on the privateers. It seems to have backfired, what with Dobbin backed up against the mast with a dozen cutlasses trimming his beard...
-
It is hard to disagree with a policy or system where individuals are free to choose among a series of actions and their choice leads to the best choice for others. IOW, there is no wasted or lost potential. When it is in my interest to do something and it is also in your interest to do the same thing, then, as they say, we have an alignment of interests.
...
Let me return to this voluntary idea. When relations are voluntary (ie. a market setting), then the nice guy has the advantage. Who would choose voluntarily to deal with a bully? But when relations are involuntary (ie. a bureaucracy, international relations), the tough guy has the upper hand. He gets his way since the meek and mild run away.
So, how can the meek and mild deal with bullies in involuntary relations? They join together. Most of military training amounts to reassuring a soldier that he is not alone. His buddies will back him up.
You're talking in the first paragraph about so-called "enlightened self-interest," a Pearsonian thesis if ever there was one. Theoretically, of course, you're right; when there is an alignment of interests, a common goal, actions can coincide in a win-win situation. The most obvious example I can think of is the Allied-Soviet alliance of 1942-45. But built into that very example is a dialectic of sorts...the convergence of interest was against someone else, and part of the alliance was a bully in his own right, by your own criteria.
The problem with your military analogy is that his buddies DO back him up, in the military arena, but not in the international arena. In fact, the strong can't even get it together to act in the latter case; witness Ethiopia, Manchuria, Iraq. What you're really saying is that if the past of least resistence leads to cooperation, cooperation works just fine. The trouble is that while a liberal trade regime seems in the interests of all, it's not. Not when BoogaBooga in Swatziland looks around and notices that HoogaBooga in Shitziland has lots of diamond mines and a weak army, and no one is really paying attention at the moment...
-
Human nature will eventually succumb to the realization that the pacifist has the moral authority. Slaughtering people is no fun when they don't fight back--it kind of grates on your conscience. Even the Germans in WWII were fueled, ultimately, by a population that is not far different from you or me. Without atrocities like Dresden to get their dander up and without their own sons being killed in battle, they would sooner realize the error of their ways and agree to peace.
What rot. You obviously don't have the slightest historical background.
-
This study would suggest that you're being dishonest with your reply.
Although making no particular statement about devout Christians themselves, the study did have this to say:
This seems to contradict what you're saying.
This has got to be the silliest "study" I've seen in a while, and I actually used to review feminist studies, so it's got some stiff competition in the silly department. One could as easily draw the same conclusion based on consumption of fresh fruit, or meat, given that the US also eats more of that; or on energy consumption; or miles travelled per capita; or any of a plethora of things. The "author" is just doing the usual European America-bashing and stupidly trying to draw a correlation between religion and crime, by virtue of the fact that the US has more of it. This year, anyway; I daresay if the 1930s, 40s, 5os, 60s, and 70s were included in the "study," we'd find a few more crimes in the USSR, Germany, China, and Cambodia...and only one of those can be gotten rid of by means of his other careful parsing (developed world).
-
The above post sounds like Gore Vidal on steroids.
-
Devout Christians commit other crimes because they live in different social situations. And since Christians and Christian morality is the majority around here, their crimes are usually shielded by the law.
For instance, I believe it is a crime to arrest somebody for the possession of illegal drugs. I think it constitutes false imprisonment, kidnapping and usually assault. Devout Christians tend to support these things because they would rather see people's civil liberties walked all over then see them have a choice about how to live.
They might also molest children.
Or indirectly support the spread of AIDs because they can't stand people talking about sex in school, even though sex is one of the most important processes of humanity and doing it responsibly requires education and discussion, not ignorance and fear.
Religion is willful ignorance.
Interesting way of arguing that it's actually bad that Christians commit fewer crimes. Were you bullied a lot in school, Jenny?
-
I am god. I am watching you and judging you! Git down on yer knees and pray boy!
You cannot prove me wrong can you?
edited to add -- I am doing a helluva lot more right at this second than your invisible daddy has done in over 2000 years.
Helluva guy that invisible daddy is!
Sorry, I don't believe you. I suppose next you'll tell me you're the princess of darkness too? I need proof; not just more empty claims.
-
I think the OP refers to this:
Ahhhh...the up-and-coming Cindy Sheehan of the Global Warming hoopla? Future leader of Code Stink, which will adopt huge huge bulbous beaks in remembrance of the Dodo bird; one of the first casualties of Global Warming and/or flintlock rifleswhateverGlobalwarmingisstillHoRriBlE!!!!!!
-
I stand corrected...thanks LC!
I mock the people who follow the notion of an invisible daddy. As the daddy-thing is fictional it is difficult to mock it.
But never mind, you guys mock fiction all the time! Who was it mocking Dumbedork or whoever (a fictional character) for being gay.
It's fiction sillies!Prove that you exist. To me. Here. Now. You can't.
-
Alcan up 3 points today.
-
Then they should face the new reality without self-pity and paralysis.....better to retool and adapt. Haven't they heard....automobiles are not "green".
That's exactly the irony of the GW hysteria. The left is all in a tizzy as to why the evil conservative menace won't do something NOW! to stop the sky from falling, or at least from eking up a degree or two over the next century. After all, we'll just change jobs, and new technologies will bloom forth creating new green jobs and we'll live happily ever after and then some. That's how it sounds from the safety of a so-far secure job, anyway. But when the actuality hits home..."oh you mean MY job?" ...it's a very different story. Then it's the evil capitalists uprooting jobs and taking them to the squalor of Asia, because, after all, Asia can pollute all it wants under Kyoto, and eco-regulations and the unions don't make it impossible to do business.
The left should realize that there are costs to all the do-gooding they have in mind. Real costs that will hit them personally, and simply wearing hemp sandals and pasting "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers of their cars won't be enough. And they should realize that asking the "government" to help means that they have to pay for it themselves, through taxes. I honestly don't think many of them actually get that.
-
Hitler bullied Germany and then all of Europe. He intimidated in his personal affairs and his regime operated by intimidation. So did Stalin and so did Mao. (As to Mao, I suggest you read this fascinating and readable book.) Napoleon was the origin of the phrase "Napoleon complex" to describe bullies.
I have read many fascinating books, readable and otherwise (Das Capital and Mein Kampf are far from readable), and you are simply not correct in equating the nemeses of history with "bullying."
Cooperation achieves far more for individuals than competition does. A successful society fosters cooperation - not competition. The trick is to turn opportunistic behaviour into cooperative effort. For example, markets with prices are a sophisticated way to cooperate. Without such techniques, we are left with controlling opportunistic behaviour.Claiming a Rouseauian stag hunt as a universal truth has got us all in a lot of trouble in the past. Sometimes it's a good idea and sometimes it's not, but claiming it is all the time is damned dangerous; especially if one acts on that assumption.
It's the root of the intl relations "collective action" meme, as well as any number of buggered up scenarios, including 50 some years of eastern European enforced collectivity. In fact, some have argued that Marx's ideation stemmed in part from Rousseau's notions of cooperation, and almost without doubt the early socialists were influenced by him.
Perhaps the most telling example of the failure of this belief is Fukuyama's end of history thesis, which writ large is nothing but a rehash of classical liberal economic theory; the supposition that the system will self-govern as long as the upside of trade regime maintainance is greater than the downside. After the fall of the USSR, there was a resurgence of this idea; that a liberal globalist trade regime would obtain, eventually leading to global democratisation and global economic equilibrium. In fact it's the cornerstone of Bush's strategic doctrine. Like marxian analysis, it all looks really good on paper, but try explaining to a Jihadist that he'd be better off cooperating in a solution to peace that involves giving up 72 virgins and leaving pizza parlours unmolested, or to an Attila the Hun that things would be so much better if he cooperated with the Romans in finding a solution to the angst of the steppes.
Like I said, sometimes cooperation is more effective than competition, but certainly not always; and I would argue that competition is probably more effective in most cases. Against your blanket statement, even one counterexample is needed, and both of us can think of many.
-
I think most reasonable people would argue that Indians are the ones "interfering with the lives of other Canadians." I thought you were banned, Jenny.
-
No! StOP!1!!!1!! LimeyS! Go hOMer!1!1!!1!!!1 SpottED OwL!!! HornEdE bUFfaLo! Goner!1!!111!!! AlL GonER!!!!!!! SkY FaLl!!!!! GarBled WramMinG!!!!!!!
-
So, back to my question that you didn't answer. You would have no problem with me assuming that someone is violent based on the colour of their skin so long as, by sheer luck, my assumption turned out to be true?
That's a false question. A ridiculous one in fact. It's not even a strawman; it's the ashen remains of a strawman.
If someone walks down the street on their hands, and sues someone for not hiring them in their present state of mobility, and asserts that walking upside down is a "lifestyle choice," there's a high probability that they're screwed in the head. Call it bigotry, call it unprogressive, call it a kumquat, but chances are that when someone points out that they're screwed in the head, he's right.
That's a far cry from arbitrarly calling an entire race violent. It's not even in the same ballpark.
-
Did you read the excerpts I posted ?
How can you call these 'facts' and 'demographs' ?
Implying a global conspiracy and calling someone's faith a death cult are opinions, smears really.
Let's not hear any more whinging about political correctness - this type of hate mongering is something else entirely.
And the above post is called trolling. You are here to cause as much trouble as possible by taking inane positions and arguing them into the ground. One can only wonder why.
-
You must be very angry that the signatory for Canada is a Conservative and not a Liberal.
He must also be angry that the Liberals signed much the same thing and completely ignored it. He must be angry that we're not angry. What an angry man he must be.
-
I'm a bit surprised that you are defending scottsa on this one. I've always thought you were from the more progressive side of the Conservative party. Are you saying there is nothing wrong with stereotyping??
You must equate "progressive" with headinthesandism then? It may be common currency among the left to imagine that men who cut their naughty bits off and wear dresses are "just normal folks like you n' me," but not everyone lives in a neverneverland of radical equivalency.
-
Scott,
Well, it was well within your power to include said nuances in your argument. Instead, you declared victory and waved goodbye.
Nope. What I did is ignore you, as usual. I see no point in responding to insipid trolling of the sort you and your dopplegangers engage in. Toodles.
-
Let's be clear. He said that emissions cause global warming. He accepted that science. You don't think that is sincere? Yes or no?
What are you trying to do? Have Conservatives put words in Harper's mouth? To what end? Who cares if he "accepts" fairy tales? All I care about is that he doesn't plan to bankrupt the country over the emperor's new clothes.
-
We certainly know that a large part of the Tory base seems unhappy at the deal. Perhaps they will take their anger out on the party by not voting or voting for a true right wing party.
In your dreams, son
Chalk River nuclear reactor, medical isotope facility
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Really? Harper in a blind rage? What tipped you off? Did Harper scratch his left cheek? Clear his throat? I haven't seen Harper in a blind rage. What does it look like?