Jump to content

Moonbox

Senior Member
  • Posts

    5,850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Moonbox last won the day on November 24

Moonbox had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Go Leafs Go!

Recent Profile Visitors

14,461 profile views

Moonbox's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

660

Reputation

  1. Sure, but the Americas were thousands of years behind in development for everything, so this is just one of innumerable ways the settlers outcompeted the natives. I would feel a lot better about it if we were approaching it as we do other disadvantaged groups. We can talk about fixing things, but I don't think that's possible under the current state of affairs with the reserves or special native status etc. We have 3 sets of people in Canada who cannot legally own property: children, the mentally incompetent, and natives living on reserves. That's an unworkable system and a recipe for perpetuated hopelessness. I think a good start would be ripping up the Indian Act and similar legislation and coming to agreement with the First Nations that actually makes sense. That's probably a hopeless endeavor and would be a Constitutional Issue, but I don't think it's any more hopeless than resolving/fixing things under the status quo.
  2. Everything seems to be cancel-culture bullshit as far as your concerned. If a thread goes on long enough, you're almost guaranteed to bring it up. Yes, they're public knowledge, which is why it was so awkward that you presented the bogeyman case of all of purple-haired ninnies giving away friendly positions, considering it wouldn't even be allowed in a combat zone. because you're not asking intelligent questions? Stuff like: I'm not really sure you're using the term flow-chart properly, but nobody's said merit-based hiring and promotion is bad. You're making up stuff to debate against. The effort has been ongoing for 10+ years, and started long before the Liberals took over. The Conservative administration understood the issue and where demographics were headed. No doubt there are differences, but then your explanation that ethnic minorities just aren't interested in the military (as a symbol of ethnic repression/colonialism or whatever) falls flat on its face simply by examining the US forces and it's more diverse makeup. Maybe you could explain why black people in the US join up in outsized numbers, but in Canada we somehow have more colonial baggage...or something? We have the same problem across the board. The occupations are not attractive for anyone right now. I considered it after university (RCAF mainly), and the idea of spending years rotating through buttf*** nowhere places (like Cold Lake) turned me away. I suspect a large part of the problem is millennial tendencies towards researching every decision they make and, like me, not liking what I was finding, not to mention hearing from people coming back how frustrating it was in general. They've also done studies on how poor the recruitment practices have been, sending out grey-haired sergeants almost old enough to be the prospects' grandfathers to career fairs and expecting them to be able to communicate effectively with kids less than half their age. I don't have the answers for why recruitment has been failing. I DO know that listening to dinosaurs like Michel Maisonneuve ramble is not going to attract the young people the military needs, because by and large they just don't share those attitudes.
  3. It's still not confirmed. The only thing we can say now is that the body of evidence would point towards this rather than it just being natural spillover, since we don't really have any evidence whatsoever of that when we should. It's unlikely we're going to get helpful information out of China either way, so absent of some whistleblower/defector providing evidence this is probably going to continue as another reason not to trust China. Good gob on providing a credible source though. Funny how easy it is to do when it aligns with your worldview. 🤷‍♂️
  4. You're layering complexity on top of complexity. Economic and climate sciences are both exceptionally complicated, with so many variables at play that even the brightest in their respective fields can at best offer guesses, probabilities and scenarios. Any model meant to integrate them would therefore be an order of magnitude more complicated and probably inaccurate to the point of uselessness. That's not to say that economists don't try to make WAGs and encourage businesses and governments to incorporate environmental costs into their long-term plans, but that's far outside the scope or purview of the central banks and their raison d'etre.
  5. I think he has at least a kernel of a point. It wasn't his fault. It probably wasn't his parents' fault, or his grandparent's faults either. The pre-Columbian First Nations were enslaving and exterminating each other for millennia before the first settlers ever came, so it was hardly the agrarian utopia that some folk seem to think. More competitive cultures supplanting and overtaking less competitive ones has been the way of the world since pre-recorded history. The difference here is that Europeans were far better organized and developed and operated at far greater scale than anything seen before in the Americas. The other difference is our capacity for self-shame and guilt for this. While we should certainly be acknowledging things like residential schools and reconciling for that (particularly considering some of these folk are still alive, or their direct/immediate descendants are), we're not going to fix much of anything dredging up centuries-old grievances from bygone days with ways of life (both aboriginal and colonial) that no longer exist. Practical solutions for impoverished aboriginal communities are not going to come out of the Indian Act, the reserve system or reparations/treaty settlements.
  6. True enough, but that was likely because of the media attention the military was getting more than anything else. Debatable. Though as a sweeping generalization there's some truth to that, I've played enough co-ed sports throughout my life to know that there are plenty of women out there with the strength and intensity for combat roles. Nobody's suggesting we need 50% of our combat ranks filled with 100 lb waifs with no upper body strength though. Gee, the military's recruitment efforts focusing on visible minorities and women started long before Trudeau came to power. I wonder if that's because even the Harper Conservatives understood the changing times.
  7. It may have appeared from a biolab in China, though this is far from confirmed. Either way, what does this have to do with Ukraine? 🙃
  8. Not at all. It'd be more like trying to incorporate the long-term projections of dietary and demographic trends of Canadians over the next 30 years into your decisions about how to operate your fishing boat over the next 6-18 months. It's sort of related, but well outside of the scope of your business and certainly not something you can control.
  9. 🥱 Stop projecting. Your culture-war bullshit is exhausting. It's all you seem to care about these days and somehow you manage to swing almost every topic back to cancel-culture and wokeness, whether or not it has anything to do with the debate. I don't have to have served in the military to know when you have no idea what you're talking about. You didn't even know what the new dress rules were before you started bullshitting about purple-haired dandies giving away combat positions. While you pretend to know why minorities aren't joining the military, those same minorities are joining in outsized numbers in the US military, a country with similar history and demographic trends.
  10. Things like droughts and floods are part of scenario testing for economic models, but it's more of a stress-testing of external variables. Sure, they acknowledge it. They know that food prices this year are a result of this years crop yields (or even last years, or from the year before), and they account for that when trying to breakdown inflation factors for the year. On the longer time horizon, also yes. Economists are absolutely trying to include climate change into their models, though it's almost certainly in a very generalized/scenario sense. Like monetary policy, this is a complicated science and they probably don't integrate well or provide useful tools together. I don't really know, but this is well outside their wheelhouse/mandate, so I suspect you're right. That's a good thing. Probably not much. Their interests are much more focused on numbers than general policy.
  11. but the folks who understand the "body of evidence" aren't coming to these conclusions at all. The politicization of ignorance is all that's going on here. By all means ignore the economists when you go buy your house near the top of the market despite all the warnings of it being overheated and inflated. Go ahead and liquidate your investments in preparation of the calamity you think is coming but never will. You're only making yourself poorer, but sometimes ignorance and foolishness is a choice. This is true enough, but so much of the speculation is driven by the average person's greed and short-sightedness, and when it goes wrong they turn and look for someone to blame (like the economists who warned it would happen).
  12. I'm glad we have you to speak for them. 🙄 Well we just spent 13 years in Afghanistan... No question on the historical side of things, but then this isn't an ideal dynamic. In regards to STEM programs, we're not utilizing 50% of our best and brightest people in the fields where the best and brightest are required. Uh, because the recruiting pool is shifting away from the farm-raised beef-fed "ubermen" that apparently are all the army cares about.
  13. Uh huh. "NoBoDy KnoWs" is so sinister. I don't make a habit of knowing what's going on at every biolab around me, and neither do you. The only story you have here is the one the Kremlin barfed out to your "alt news" sources. We've seen the quality of your "sources". 👌
  14. It silly hyperbole, and there's no discussion to be had around his bogeyman exaggerated conjurations. He's literally asking whether we want farm-raised, beef-fed huntin' and hockey lovin' manly men in our military, vs prancing drama queens - as if this is the binary choice we're faced with. and yet we can't find recruits, and only around 10% of the makeup of the CF is composed of minorities despite them representing something like 40% of the population, or women who make up 50% of the population but only 15% of the forces. Diversity in the forces is necessary to reflect our constantly changing demographics. I can just imagine how eager all of the minorities, women and young people are going to be to join who read about or saw Michel Maisonneuve natter his culture war BS. Fortunately hardly anyone is actually talking about it or cares. As Army Guy said, this speech will be forgotten for what it was in short order - completely irrelevant.
  15. I don't have to believe the US military to also not believe anything coming out of the Kremlin. Yes, "inderpendernt" sources - blogs, reddit, telegram, news sites where "journalists" don't post their real names and provide fake bios etc. 🥴
×
×
  • Create New...