benny Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 That's complete nonsense. "Honor" has never been a preeminent western value. "Honorable" is still the title of our prime ministers. Quote
Smallc Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 No it's not. That's the title of members of the privea council and premiers. Quote
benny Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 "Hon." is also the title of our Senators. Quote
Smallc Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) "Hon." is also the title of our Senators. Right you are there. My list wasn't all inclusive. Edited July 25, 2009 by Smallc Quote
benny Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 Right you are there. My list wasn't all inclusive. Our judges!? Quote
August1991 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Dumb thread hijack. "Honorable" is still the title of our prime ministers.Canadian prime ministers are "Right Honourable" because a Canadian PM is automatically a member of the British Privy Council."Hon." is also the title of our Senators.Honourable is the generic title/term used in England for a commoner. All members of the UK House of Commons are "Honourable Members", unless as UK cabinet members they become members of the British Privy Council and a "Right Honourable".Americans admirably adopted this title and so Kennedy, Bush (both) and Obama are Honorables - as well as the Governor of the Great State of Oregon, for example, and a State Senator in Louisiana. In America, all politicians are"honorables". What a country! ---- Since this thread is about domestic violence and "mistreatment" of women, the following point seems appropriate. Stephen Harper and Jean Chretien are both Right Honourables but, to my knowledge, Jean Chretien is the only Canadian Right Honourable to have a son convicted of sexual assault. Edited July 25, 2009 by August1991 Quote
Smallc Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 Canadian prime ministers are "Right Honourable" because a Canadian PM is automatically a member of the British Privy Council. Ummm, no. Quote
benny Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 Since this thread is about domestic violence and "mistreatment" of women, the following point seems appropriate. In Canada, democracy is articulated on monarchy. Monarchism is all about forcing women into marriages. Quote
Shady Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 In Canada, democracy is articulated on monarchy. Monarchism is all about forcing women into marriages. Which gets us back to radical Islam, and it's violent mistreatement of women. Quote
Moxie Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 One honour killing is one to many in Canada. A female who didn't fry the bacon to an abusive man's satisfaction being beaten to death is one to many. A women beaten and left dead in a ditch for merely being pregnant with a female fetus is one to many. Women in Canada fought hard to make domestic abuse a criminal offense, and then the bleeding hearts inacted Multicultural Policies and told new comers to continue practicing their cultures even when that culture is seeping with misogynistic subjugating practices. Mosque allow books to be placed in their libraries describing how to "Beat Women" and is it really a stretch to assume they also teach from the pulpit it's okay to harm women who refuse to be submissive and subservient? I for one am extremely angry at the flippant response by women who simper "It's just domestic abuse" well I beg to differ forcing the court of public opinion to tolerate the intolerable for twenty years has brought Canada to a tipping point. Either we stop tolerating and allowing immigrants to espouse anti-western female hatred or we own up that we created the atmosphere that currently exist that empowers these men to abuse and kill women in the name of their religion or culture. Quote Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy
Smallc Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 One honour killing is one too many in Canada. So what measures do you prose we take to present these rare events. How do we stop them without discriminating against everyone? Quote
scorpio Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Jean Chretien is the only Canadian Right Honourable to have a son convicted of sexual assault. Your point? Quote
August1991 Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Your point?In a thread about honour killings, domestic violence and violence against women that strayed into the definition of "honourable", it seemed justified to mention that even the son of a Canadian PM (a right honourable) was found guilty of sexual assault:He was convicted of sexually assaulting a Montreal woman, who said he took her home from a bar, cut off her clothes, tied her up and forced her to have sex. Chrétien was sentenced to three years for the crime. CBCScorpio, you can draw any point you want. Quote
kimmy Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 I think the relevant point is that attempting to equate the "honorable" duels of swordsmen or gunfighters of days gone by with fathers killing teenaged girls is clearly moronic. Someone attempting to create such an analogy to suggest that honor-killings are a long-standing part of western civilization is clearly suffering from mental impairment of the most severe kind. How can one even address such stupidity? The only rational response to that comment is pure, blinding hatred. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)
benny Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Which gets us back to radical Islam, and it's violent mistreatement of women. What about radical paparazzi and their mistreatments of starlets: the death of Lady Diana was very close to an honor killing. Quote
lily Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 In a thread about honour killings, domestic violence and violence against women that strayed into the definition of "honourable", it seemed justified to mention that even the son of a Canadian PM (a right honourable) was found guilty of sexual assault:CBCScorpio, you can draw any point you want. I don't see a point either. If the son was an "honourable", maybe. But he wasn't. His behaviour is his own, and has nothing to do with his father. Quote I'll rise, but I won't shine.
benny Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 I think the relevant point is that attempting to equate the "honorable" duels of swordsmen or gunfighters of days gone by with fathers killing teenaged girls is clearly moronic. Someone attempting to create such an analogy to suggest that honor-killings are a long-standing part of western civilization is clearly suffering from mental impairment of the most severe kind.How can one even address such stupidity? The only rational response to that comment is pure, blinding hatred. -k In such duels, one can easily imagine young men acting just like you in the defense of young unwed girls unfairly terrorized by their abusive fathers. Quote
CANADIEN Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 (edited) Now that's amusing. First, I'm not sure you can even spell those words without resorting to your spell checker. Second, while I constantly argue from the point of view of cold (which is your real problem) hard logic, your responses are replete with emotional whiny complaints about my being mean to this or that group. In fact, I have a point of view which tends to be conservative. And I judge every individual and group irrelevant to their national origin, religion or ethnic identity based on that point of view. If, according to my standards, they act, think and behave like morons, then I tend to dismiss them as such My most sincere apologies. I shoud have specified I was talking about the other Argus. I am so glad to see that you would never, let's say, treat Muslims like if they all thought and acted the same. You would never peddle around negative stereotypes about immigrants like if it applied to all of them. You would not resort to drivel everytime you join a discussion about gays and lesbians. You would not wax nostalgically on how your neighbourhood was once better andmore white. Because you know, OF COURSE, that the mesure of an individual is that individual's actions and words, not that of other people who may share the same skin colour, the same country of origin or the same religion. That, you will readily admit, is the start of logic and common sense. Edited July 26, 2009 by CANADIEN Quote
CANADIEN Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 That's complete nonsense. "Honor" has never been a preeminent western value. It's always been more of an eastern or mid-eastern preeminent value (ie Japan).You're tying yourself in knots in order to make excuses for radical Islam. Stop the insanity. And I thought that Sicily was part of the Western World. As well, I wasn't aware that Argentina, where the law impose lesser sanction for murder when a husband kills his wife, has stopped being a country founded to a large extent on European immigration. Quote
benny Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Because you know, OF COURSE, that the mesure of an individual is that individual's actions and words, not that of other people who may share the same skin colour, the same country of origin or the same religion. That, you will readily admit, is the start of logic and common sense. But, we should not forget that the basis of individuals' self-respect is in large part made of a social context. Quote
kimmy Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 In such duels, one can easily imagine young men acting just like you in the defense of young unwed girls unfairly terrorized by their abusive fathers. Given the opportunity, I'd be proud to have attempted to defend these girls. Honored, even. With 2 years of boxing and 20 years of judo at my command, I'm confident that I would turn that fat old bastard's face into a crimson mask of anguish. However, protecting someone from murder is about as opposite as it gets to the sort of "honor killing" being discussed. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)
scorpio Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 I don't see a point either. If the son was an "honourable", maybe. But he wasn't. His behaviour is his own, and has nothing to do with his father. That's correct, but lost on August. He'd rather go into attack mode with an irrelevant and polticial driven smear on P.M. Chretian, a tactic perfected by their beloved leader. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 DogOnP,By 'ours' I guess you mean Canada 1967. Well, you indeed have gone indeed farther than HydraBoss - who wants to restrict Muslim immigration. You, Dog, want to only allow immigration from Canada. Just because you'd gladly turn Canada into the planet's garbage dump doesn't mean everyone else is behind you. Many Canadians are a little sick of all this culture shock at OUR culture's expense. Maybe you thought P.E.T. was a hero. To me he was just a big douche-bag that wouldn't go away. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Just because you'd gladly turn Canada into the planet's garbage dump doesn't mean everyone else is behind you. Many Canadians are a little sick of all this culture shock at OUR culture's expense. Maybe you thought P.E.T. was a hero. To me he was just a big douche-bag that wouldn't go away. lol What culture Canada doesn't have anything that could be defined as it's own culture. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 lol What culture Canada doesn't have anything that could be defined as it's own culture. Said by someone with "TrueMetis" as a handle. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.