dialamah Posted November 13, 2016 Report Posted November 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said: This is why there are protests in the U.S. Sorry if I'm dense but not sure what your point is?
WestCoastRunner Posted November 13, 2016 Report Posted November 13, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, dialamah said: Sorry if I'm dense but not sure what your point is? Why do you think there are protests in the U.S. against Trumps values? I don't mean to derail this thread but you gave the exact reason why protests are held. Edited November 13, 2016 by WestCoastRunner I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Charles Anthony Posted November 13, 2016 Report Posted November 13, 2016 Folks, Please avoid derailing this thread. We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
dialamah Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 1 hour ago, WestCoastRunner said: Why do you think there are protests in the U.S. against Trumps values? I don't mean to derail this thread but you gave the exact reason why protests are held. I think people are afraid that the Christian right will get a lot more leeway in setting laws that suit their religious agenda. I hope this remains on topic enough to stay.
Argus Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 4 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said: So it's an either/or when it comes to helping people in need? That's certainly not a Christian value. Do you really think these women and children living in dire circumstances hate foreigners? Give your head a shake. Yes, it IS an either or. There isn't enough money to feed, clothe and shelter the whole world, so we should focus primarily on our own. And YES, they do in fact. Their religion teaches them that anyone who does not abide by their religious values must die. End of story. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 3 hours ago, dialamah said: 67% (approx 24 million) of Canadians consider themselves Christian; if the anti-abortion, anti-gay fanatics among them couldn't stop the march of Liberal morality, I don't think the anti-abortion and anti-gay Muslims will have any better luck. Even if they combined forces, I don't think they'd get any farther. Here's the thing you don't seem to get. The "anti-gay fanatic" in Canada would be considered a wild-eyed liberal in the middle east. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 3 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said: How many of those children of refugees will gather in numbers to overthrow our Canadian values? These are children living without education, exposed to violence, lack of food and health care. Come on Argus. But one thing you can be absolutely guaranteed they've also been exposed to is Islam and the cultural and moral values it demands. And as we've seen, the children of first generation Muslim immigrants are not more laid back and more Canadian than their parents, they are more religious than their parents. You people all seem to assume they'll see how nice and enlightened we are and convert. But the ultra-orthodox Jews never converted. They've been here a lot longer and they're not one single iota more liberal than they were a century ago. Of course, they're non-violent, and their population isn't growing wildly. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 3 hours ago, dialamah said: How is that going to garner support or acquiesence? Are you going to give into them? Am I? Is Argus? What do suppose would happen if any group attempted acts of terror in order to impose their vision on the rest of us? Ask the French. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 Between your posts here and in the US politics section, it's almost as if you're two different people. Some of the things are very ironic.
The_Squid Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 21 minutes ago, Argus said: Here's the thing you don't seem to get. The "anti-gay fanatic" in Canada would be considered a wild-eyed liberal in the middle east. Actually, no. Ant-gay people here would be fine with how they teat gays in the middle east. It's just that they've been forced to accept the secular humanist vision of gay rights in Canada.
Guest Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 10 minutes ago, The_Squid said: Actually, no. Ant-gay people here would be fine with how they teat gays in the middle east. It's just that they've been forced to accept the secular humanist vision of gay rights in Canada. Disagree fundamentally with this.
Smallc Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 That's fine, but he's not far off of the truth.
Guest Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, Smallc said: That's fine, but he's not far off of the truth. I guess I disagree fundamentally with that then, too.
Smallc Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 I know too many people who would fit right in with the prevailing wisdom on gay rights in Saudi Arabia.
Guest Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Smallc said: I know too many people who would fit right in with the prevailing wisdom on gay rights in Saudi Arabia. Really? They would actually kill them just for being gay? Where do you hang out, for Pete's sake? Edited November 14, 2016 by bcsapper
Smallc Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 They don't actually say they'd kill them - though many of them make none to subtle hints that they'd rather they be dead than allowed to marry, for example. One guy I know on Facebook was quite concerned about the gay parade the Trudeau and Clinton would have together if she would have won. I know people who don't believe in dinosaurs - that believe God put the bones there to test their faith.
Guest Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 Notwithstanding the occasional looney, I think one has to be born to, and conditioned for, the type of brutality that would legally execute someone for being gay. What would your aquaintances consider an appropriate punishment for balsphemy or apostasy?
Smallc Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) But you're not understanding. Squid is right. Change the environment and people's tolerances to what's acceptable will change. Western society has moderated our crazies (though that seems to be reversing somewhat at the moment). Edited November 14, 2016 by Smallc
Guest Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) The change would have to be drastic and would take generations. I don't think a Hitler could work today, never mind a Trump. I used to have a signature, when they were allowed, that said men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. Or something like that. I think that kind of indoctrination is required and it takes a long time. Edited November 14, 2016 by bcsapper
Smallc Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 And again, that's the point - without the moderating effects of western civilization, we were no better.
Guest Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) Were, not are. I mean, without the wheel, we're no better than woolly mammoths. But we are better, because we invented the wheel. The original post I argued against used the present tense. Edited November 14, 2016 by bcsapper
Smallc Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 I don't necessarily agree with the present tense (for most people, anyway).
dialamah Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 1 hour ago, bcsapper said: Really? They would actually kill them just for being gay? Where do you hang out, for Pete's sake? There are people in Canada who would not object to laws imprisoning gays. Perhaps death would be acceptable too, if we had any capital punishment laws. Its not like people won't beat them up for being gay; how far is that from wanting to kill them?
Bryan Posted November 14, 2016 Report Posted November 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Smallc said: I know too many people who would fit right in with the prevailing wisdom on gay rights in Saudi Arabia. No you don't.
Recommended Posts