War of the Worlds U.N. Migration Compact

[Argus]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

The sad reality in Canada is that proponents of our immigration system seem utterly unable or unwilling to subject it to objective evaluation. My guess is that there are too many vested interests involved, particularly where family reunification is concerned. Thus, the political answer will likely have to emerge from outside the current mainstream party clique in Ottawa.

It's not even as logical as that. The basic fact is most of our immigrants are visible minorities. Thus if you call for less immigration (immigration being an unvarnished good in every way, shape and form) then your motive must be (no matter what you say) that you want fewer visible minorities. Therefore, you are, of course, a racist.

If, on the other hand, you call for more immigration (most immigrants being visible minorities) you are clearly a wonderful, inclusive, and totally unbigoted person!

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Argus

[paxamericana]

25 minutes ago, Argus said:

Thus if you call for less immigration (immigration being an unvarnished good in every way, shape and form) then your motive must be (no matter what you say) that you want fewer visible minorities. Therefore, you are, of course, a racist

This is the great lie mainstream academic and media globalist been telling you. Post industrial nation need more people yes but that can be achieve through child birth as well as immigration. It is not racist to call out certain cultural practices as incompatible with western democracies. Ie female genital mutilation, sharia law, etc... there are certain western societal norm that must be upheld , most of which are written on the bill of rights and constitution. 

[Michael Hardner]

Dr. David Suzuki and other environmental activists call for reduced immigration.  They don't get called racists, because their agenda isn't in doubt like most of you.

[Shady]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Dr. David Suzuki and other environmental activists call for reduced immigration.  They don't get called racists, because their agenda isn't in doubt like most of you.

In doubt by whom?  For what reasons?

[turningrite]

57 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 They don't get called racists, because their agenda isn't in doubt like most of you.

It's good of you to cast yourself as the arbiter of (assumed) virtue. In fact, there are several valid arguments one might pursue to challenge the efficacy of Canada's current large-scale immigration program. Suzuki's position focuses on the negative environmental implications of population growth for Canada as well as the deleterious social and economic consequences of Western migration for the developing nations from which we now receive most of our immigrants. But there are also strong economic arguments grounded in domestic realities to counter the assumed logic and efficacy of our current approach to immigration. Further, the "demographic deficit" argument for immigration is being discredited and some of the cultural arguments against large-scale migration are being validated by objective analysis. A federal government study reportedly concluded that Canada's ability to absorb immigrants at current levels is declining, noting the increasing tendency of some immigrants to segregate and fail to assimilate. Sometimes, pontificating in support of your preferred ideological perspective, as you appear to do, only serves to undermine the perspective you strive to promote.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Dr. David Suzuki and other environmental activists call for reduced immigration.  They don't get called racists, because their agenda isn't in doubt like most of you.

Suzuki can call for reduced immigration because A - he's a brown person - and B - he's never shown the slightest interest in anything BUT environmental activism.

In the same way that only women can call out metoo overreach and only a Pakistani like British home secretary Sajid Javid can call out Pakistani rape gangs in the UK.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Truth Detector said:

In doubt by whom?  For what reasons?

By everyone.  Because they mix xenophobia in with practical concerns.

Are you bringing up the topic because you care about Canada, don't like foreigners, or both?

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

In the same way that only women can call out metoo overreach and only a Pakistani like British home secretary Sajid Javid can call out Pakistani rape gangs in the UK.

You make it sound almost reasonable.

[Argus]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You make it sound almost reasonable.

There's nothing new in people having a sort of immunity based on race. Jewish comedians can tell jokes about Jews. Nobody else can get away with it. Black comedians can tell jokes about Blacks. Anyone else would be run out of town on a rail. If you're a native, you can call out native behaviour and castigate them for it. If you're white and say the exact same thing you're in big trouble. The Southern Poverty Law Center got into trouble when it published a list of "Islamophobes" because a number of moderate Muslims were on it. Even liberals ridiculed them for that and they had to withdraw it.

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Argus

[Shady]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

By everyone.  Because they mix xenophobia in with practical concerns.

Are you bringing up the topic because you care about Canada, don't like foreigners, or both?

Perhaps what you see as xenophobia is somebody's actual concern with the undermining of Canadian values.   Equality of women, etc.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Truth Detector said:

Perhaps what you see as xenophobia is somebody's actual concern with the undermining of Canadian values.   Equality of women, etc.

So... let me get it straight - we're not talking about blocking traffic anymore ?  I'm confused.

Can you see why people don't trust you with your shifty agenda ?

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Suzuki can call for reduced immigration because A - he's a brown person - and B - he's never shown the slightest interest in anything BUT environmental activism.

In the same way that only women can call out metoo overreach and only a Pakistani like British home secretary Sajid Javid can call out Pakistani rape gangs in the UK.

Suzuki is a actually of Japanese descent. Not 'brown'.

[Argus]

20 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Suzuki is a actually of Japanese descent. Not 'brown'.

Pedant.

[Selivan]

18 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Suzuki is a actually of Japanese descent. Not 'brown'.

As I recall, the Japanese company Suzuki was the first to produce SUVs.
-------------------------------------------------- ------
Americans believe that they were the first, but this is not true ...
(Americans believe propaganda and do not know the history)

In fact, the first American SUV Jeep has a "carrying body" ...
If you talk to people who are addicted to "off-road races," you will learn that a real SUV should have a "carrier frame."
This SUV was first created in Japan on the basis of American trucks.
The second such SUV was created in the USSR
-------------------------------------------------- -----
By the way, Americans still do not know how to make SUVs "carrier frame" ... Very funny.
They only do trucks and pickups.

[GostHacked]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

Pedant.

It's called being precise.

[Goddess]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So... let me get it straight - we're not talking about blocking traffic anymore ?  I'm confused.

What is so confusing about there being several reasons why blocking public streets for religious prayers is a bad idea?  Why does it have to just boil down to just one single reason?

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Goddess said:

What is so confusing about there being several reasons why blocking public streets for religious prayers is a bad idea?  Why does it have to just boil down to just one single reason?

See my post above about questioning your agenda.  'I don't like when foreigners block traffic but I don't complain when it's not foreigners'.  What problem do you think the claimant has in this example ?

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

See my post above about questioning your agenda.  'I don't like when foreigners block traffic but I don't complain when it's not foreigners'.  What problem do you think the claimant has in this example ?

I don't know because I don't see where anyone said that.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I don't know because I don't see where anyone said that.

I answered your question why having several reasons muddies the water: the reasons are not independent and reflect an unprincipled application of morality.  Rules and law are geometric in theory and human in practical application, but the claimant usually at least tries to assert objectivity.  So somebody complaining about traffic is actually a trojan horse for complaining about other things, as evidenced by your statement.

"Perhaps what you see as xenophobia is somebody's actual concern with the undermining of Canadian values.   Equality of women, etc."

[scribblet]

19 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I don't know because I don't see where anyone said that.

They haven't, and obviously the issue is not about just 'blocking traffic' as explained elsewhere.   I wouldn't like it if any group did it en masse every Friday, or whenever they felt like praying.  

Whataboutism is a red herring designed to deflect from reality,  and maybe why liberals generally don't like to hear or even refuse to hear any criticism of Islam but rather see Islamists as victims.  Maybe because they feel superior if they defend Islam, but if they really do believe in western values such as women's equality, social justice, freedom and liberty, apologizing for Islamic beliefs and actions is a total contradiction to those values you supposedly hold dear.

 

 

 

[Goddess]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

as evidenced by your statement.

"Perhaps what you see as xenophobia is somebody's actual concern with the undermining of Canadian values.   Equality of women, etc."

Well, that wasn't MY statement - so it's no wonder I can't follow WTF you're trying to say to me when you can't even follow the convo yourself.

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Well, that wasn't MY statement - so it's no wonder I can't follow WTF you're trying to say to me when you can't even follow the convo yourself.

Sorry, not your statement, but my explanation stands.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Please avoid making the discussions personal. 

[Selivan]

1 hour ago, Charles Anthony said:

Folks, 

Please avoid making the discussions personal.  

Laugh ...
And where are the "Persons"
----------------------------------------
Here, only anonymous "letters on the monitor screen"
I see only one gentleman with a tobacco pipe, but unfortunately, he is from сanada

Edited December 28, 2018 by Selivan

[paxamericana]

9 hours ago, Selivan said:

As I recall, the Japanese company Suzuki was the first to produce SUVs.
-------------------------------------------------- ------
Americans believe that they were the first, but this is not true ...
(Americans believe propaganda and do not know the history)

In fact, the first American SUV Jeep has a "carrying body" ...
If you talk to people who are addicted to "off-road races," you will learn that a real SUV should have a "carrier frame."
This SUV was first created in Japan on the basis of American trucks.
The second such SUV was created in the USSR
-------------------------------------------------- -----
By the way, Americans still do not know how to make SUVs "carrier frame" ... Very funny.
They only do trucks and pickups.

Actually certain model T could be considered suv