Entitled refugees

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Hahaha, you apologized once this month? We both know that you're wrong way more than that eyeball. 

Can you see where you've been wrong twice now in these last two posts?

[Rue]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

Nonsense. The main purpose of residential schools was to educate young people and thus allow them to join the rest of Canada, rather than keeping them out in the bushes out of sight the way you want to. Nor was it purposefully violent.

It's legal to rape your wife in every Muslim country today.

Women in today's Muslim world can't leave the house or make an appointment with their doctor without their husband's permission. And they are, by law, worth only one quarter of a man.

It's legal to beat your wife today in the Muslim world.

Gay people in the Muslim world are being beaten, tortured, imprisoned and executed TODAY throughout the Muslim world.

On the contrary. Christianity allowed for that progress where Islam has not. Christianity allowed for different opinions and interpretations of the bible, and allowed people to discuss the meaning and morality of some of the old testament stuff to the point they decided it wasn't really Christian to do things like that. Such discussions are banned in the Muslim world, on pain of imprisonment or death. Because the Koran is considered the literal word of God anyone who disagrees with it is blaspheming and subject to dire punishment.

Drivel. Muslim countries are nothing like what the West was in 1970. We didn't execute gays, then or ever. We didn't execute adulterers. We didn't put people in prison or threaten to kill them for wanting to change religions. You couldn't be killed in the West for blaspheme. Not by the government and not by rabid mobs of fundies. Nor was it ever codified in law that a woman's word was worth one quarter that of a man.

The Muslim world would need enormous progress to get to where we were fifty years ago. But they're not progressing. They're not getting more liberal but more conservative, more strict in their observance of religious law.

 

In regards to 1 your attempt to spin the purpose of the residential school system in Canada is noted. Some of us would state instead that the residential schools were in fact government sponsored Christian religious schools created to focrefully remove aboriginal children from their families, existing school systems and culture because it was felt their aboriginal values were undesireable for a Canadian to have based on the assumption that dominant Christian values were superior and the proper Canadian values to have. The fact you white-wash it should be no surprise to anyone.

2. Your second comment makes no mention of the fact that Canada only made it a crime to rape one's marital spouse 26 years ago and it still is not a crime to rape someone in North Carolina or Oklahoma  and to put someone in jail for raping their wife in the following US states it must be linked to another crime, its not a stand alone crime..Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming?

Do you want to discuss how few convictions there are in Canada because of how problematic it would be for a spouse to accuse their other spouse of rape and so  you have no clue as to the actual rate of marital rapes in Canada or any other  non Muslim country as compared to any  Muslim country?  In fact you have no objective basis to extrapolate anything about marital rape rate sin any country. You can't  even provide a reference to where you concluded there are no marital rape laws in any Muslim country. Not that it matters but in Indonesia (most populous Muslim country) , Benin, Bhutan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan,  Mauritius,  Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Turkey, Niger, Sudan,Qatar,   it is illegal to rape your wife. 

Since you brought it up here are countries that are not Muslim that have no laws against marital rape-are you concerned about getting immigrants and refugees from these countries as well?..the Bahammas,  Botswana,Cameroon, Cambodia, China (which by itself has more people than all Muslims in all countries combined), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Congo, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, India (it has almost as many people as the entire population of world Muslims), Mynammar, North Korea, saint Lucia, Sri Lanka, Tuvalu, Uganda.

Provide the reference for the 3rd sentence and claim.

The 4th sentence is yet another unsubstantiated claim that is false. All the countries I listed for example under the above reference to marital rape, also have references to battery that do not exclude husbands.

In regards to the fifth sentence...gays are being beaten and discriminated against in many non Muslim countries, starting with for example, Russia, Uganda and Jamaica? What is your point?

In regards to your references that Christianity has allowed progress and Muslim has not are you now saying there are no progressive or  moderate Muslims?

In fact you again clearly demonstrate above you throw out subjective negative stereotypes to negate all Muslim people. Your accusations are not even substantiated. Then you accuse others of drivel.  You just engage in bigoted rants at this point.

You can't even be bothered before you spew off at the mouth to research a damn thing such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_laws_by_country

In regards to actual Islamic religious laws on marital intercourse I provide people this reference:

https://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewFatwa.aspx?ID=6033.

Again no one on this board is arguing Islam is being practiced in a sexist manner or manner many of us would find questionable. What I am challenging is the exercise of unsubstantiated negative accusations thrown out that necessarily ask you to stereotype all  Muslims as thinking in the same way and behaving the same way.

 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Rue said:

In regards to 1 your attempt to spin the purpose of the residential school system in Canada is noted. Some of us would state instead that the residential schools were in fact government sponsored Christian religious schools created to focrefully remove aboriginal children from their families, existing school systems and culture because it was felt their aboriginal values were undesireable for a Canadian to have based on the assumption that dominant Christian values were superior and the proper Canadian values to have. The fact you white-wash it should be no surprise to anyone.

Get a life Rue.

Have you ever spent a winter's night on the prairies in a home with just candlelight and wood heat? The sun is up for a bit more or less than 8 hours, depending on how far north you are, and aside from that you're in the dark, and it's miserably cold for 3 full months. And that's just the prairies. North of the prairies the daylight on Dec 21 is 7.5 hrs or less, and it goes down to basically zero. 

If someone wanted to raise children in Alberta in 2020 without electricity, central heating, without teaching them to read and write, without teaching them to speak english or french, without any education at all or access to computers do you think that would be a good idea Rue? Would you let your grandchild grow up like that if they were Metis? 

Of course you wouldn't. Not a hope in hell. It would be cruel. Not advancing their access to opportunities would be cruel. 

And don't forget that back in my parents' day and age, the government of Canada wasn't running all the schools and hospitals in remote/rural areas of Canada. The Catholic Church footed the bill for a lot of those places. 

I get that forcing religious change on those people was wrong, I'm not a fan of religion in general. At all. Especially the Abrahamic faiths - they're actually the worst of the worst. But even as a devout atheist I won't deny that overall Christianity has been a positive force in general. 

If the aboriginals were living on the Yucatan Peninsula or the Amazon Basin then the concept of residential schools would have come in well below 'necessary' and they wouldn't even be guaranteed to have an overall positive impact on the lives of the next generation. The indigenous people that you're talking about live west of Edmonton. North of Flin Flon. Or In the Yukon. 

Good riddance to life in igloos, and to life in the stone age.

My mom grew up in a home where they didn't have electricity until she was 15. They had a coal stove, oil lamps, no fridge, no radio, the only music they could even listen to was live, but she could get some books to read in lamplight. Yay! They did a lot of canning, they had lots of chores before and after school, they didn't hate life but no one would choose that life over the life our kids have. 

The aboriginals of the residential school era basically grew up in wartime-like conditions. Theirs was a generation that was basically lost in a lot of ways. But they have opportunity now like they never would have had otherwise. 

If I had the answers that would help aboriginal people live a more fulfilling life I'd give them out. They get access to all the education they want for FREE, they get FREE housing, they can do all the hunting and fishing they want.... It's not a cruel life, but it does seem as though handouts don't work out very well in the long run. What can I say? I just don't know the answers.

[Rue]

56 minutes ago, Argus said:

Uhm. No. The Nazis did not take power by demonizing Jews. Or rather that was merely a byproduct of their hyper nationalism. 

When I quote PEW research polls and other surveys into Muslim attitudes I am not lying nor distorting the truth. When I mention these attitudes and values in relation to whether it would be wise to bring in large numbers of such people into Canada without even attempting to discern how severe a particular applicant's social views are I am embracing logic..

Because logic and evidence plays no part in your thinking.

Because the experience of Jews in Europe is unimportant. Because all the surveys and polls and reports are to be shrugged off.

Sorry. I don't operate that way.

 

In regards to 1, you provide an absolute rejection of the role anti-semitism played in Hitler's rise to power and unification of his people  without any basis. You again state an unsbstantiated  subjective opinion or assumption without any basis pronouncing it as an absolute fact. Your ignorance speaks for itself and I will not in response attempt to debate well documented history but limit myself to a few references to show yet again you  make comments that are patently untrue or inaccurate:

https://www.ecronicon.com/ecpp/pdf/ECPP-08-00467.pdf

In regards to the second comment you introduce "attitudes" as a component from which to justify prohibiting all Muslims from coming to Canada and you claim the using of such "attitudes" or  Pew Polls of attitudes embracing logic. So now you would have us believe basing conclusions on "emotions" is logical. So of course, based on that, because the majority of Germans who would have been polled during Hitler's peak of power loved him, what he did was acceptable. Now all we have to do, when defining morality and what is right, is to base it on the popular attitudes of the day according to you, for that is logical. Mob rule is logical. An attitude  by definition is in fact a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone else reflected in one's behavuour. So according to you as long as that settled way of thinking is expressed by a majority, it automatically is logical.  That makes no sense because for something to be logical it must be shown to have been based on reasoning, i.e., a principle or axiom based on a validated cause and effect. Something being widely held does not make it valid. Group hysteria for example is a classic form of a wide spread belief that is not based on logic or reality. This is precisely the phenomena Hitler and Goebbels used to whip his followers into a frenzy at gatherings. It is precisely the behaviour that led to followers whipped up by Priests during Easter to rush out and burn down Jewish villages because the majority were told Jews killed Jesus. This is what enabled  Germans and so many other Europeans to gas and kill Jews, because they believed Jews were not human. It didn't make it logical simply because it was a wide spread view. I have to even explain that to Argus?

Then Argus claims I do not engage in logical and evidence in my thinking because I ask him to provide a basis of validity for the comments, generalizations, suppositions, assumptions, negative stereotypes he makes and the conclusions he draws from them? Because I ask him for an objective basis for his conclusions this is illogical?

Then wait, I read the comment "the experience of Jews in Europe is unimportant".  There you have it. The fact that the exercise of negative generalizations led to anti-semitism which led to over 2,500 years of  killing Jews and leading to extermination of 6 million of them,  not to mention triggering a World War and using the same exercise the extermination of Jehova's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, gays, socialists, other principled Christians fighting Nazism because of their Christian beliefs or saving Jews, that all means nothing.

Righteous gentiles mean nothing. Holocaust survivors mean nothing. Wars mean nothing. Why we so easily create massive scales of hatred that kill people whether they be Ukrainian, Irish, Armenian, Abriginal, Yazidi, Kurd, Bahaii, Zoroastrean, specific types of Christians or just Christians in general, Wiccans, visible minorities for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, oh hell it means nothing. As long as people have a widely held view we should negatively hate an entire people. its fine. Why question it? What could be possibly wrong with that?

Yah I know, you don't operate that way.  That is clear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Can you see where you've been wrong twice now in these last two posts?

Can you see a place where you've truly been right twice in all of your posts combined eyeball? 

You've justified terrorism twice in your last few posts ffs. That makes you an actual, real-life terrorist supporter. 

[Rue]

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Get a life Rue.

Have you ever spent a winter's night on the prairies in a home with just candlelight and wood heat? The sun is up for a bit more or less than 8 hours, depending on how far north you are, and aside from that you're in the dark, and it's miserably cold for 3 full months. And that's just the prairies. North of the prairies the daylight on Dec 21 is 7.5 hrs or less, and it goes down to basically zero. 

If someone wanted to raise children in Alberta in 2020 without electricity, central heating, without teaching them to read and write, without teaching them to speak english or french, without any education at all or access to computers do you think that would be a good idea Rue? Would you let your grandchild grow up like that if they were Metis? 

Of course you wouldn't. Not a hope in hell. It would be cruel. Not advancing their access to opportunities would be cruel. 

And don't forget that back in my parents' day and age, the government of Canada wasn't running all the schools and hospitals in remote/rural areas of Canada. The Catholic Church footed the bill for a lot of those places. 

I get that forcing religious change on those people was wrong, I'm not a fan of religion in general. At all. Especially the Abrahamic faiths - they're actually the worst of the worst. But even as a devout atheist I won't deny that overall Christianity has been a positive force in general. 

If the aboriginals were living on the Yucatan Peninsula or the Amazon Basin then the concept of residential schools would have come in well below 'necessary' and they wouldn't even be guaranteed to have an overall positive impact on the lives of the next generation. The indigenous people that you're talking about live west of Edmonton. North of Flin Flon. Or In the Yukon. 

Good riddance to life in igloos, and to life in the stone age.

My mom grew up in a home where they didn't have electricity until she was 15. They had a coal stove, oil lamps, no fridge, no radio, the only music they could even listen to was live, but she could get some books to read in lamplight. Yay! They did a lot of canning, they had lots of chores before and after school, they didn't hate life but no one would choose that life over the life our kids have. 

The aboriginals of the residential school era basically grew up in wartime-like conditions. Theirs was a generation that was basically lost in a lot of ways. But they have opportunity now like they never would have had otherwise. 

If I had the answers that would help aboriginal people live a more fulfilling life I'd give them out. They get access to all the education they want for FREE, they get FREE housing, they can do all the hunting and fishing they want.... It's not a cruel life, but it does seem as though handouts don't work out very well in the long run. What can I say? I just don't know the answers.

First off I have a life  and so do aboriginals who now you think you can talk about and criticize as you do.

You again do what Argus does. You state subjective anecdotes as the basis for  your conclusions about another people. That is not logical. Its just you expressing your attitude about aboriginals.

Thank you but what happened to your family or how you were brought up would be germaine to your values it does not explain the values of aboriginals, simply your basis of stereotyping their values negatively.

If I want to understand their values I speak to them directly as a starting point. Then I look to objective criteria from science to also help explain natural phenomena they discuss with animals or the environment or read old laws and study history and see many perspectives as to what motivated people to make the decisions they did in Canada in the past and now present.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2020 by Rue

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

First off I have a life  and so do aboriginals who now you think you can talk about and criticize as you do.

Next , my views or take on aboriginals will come from them thank you.

You have a life of jumping on bandwagons and checking your brain at the door. 

People tell stories, throw down some facts, and then riddle their testimony with their own version of "the dire intentions behind the actions that were taken" and you instantly give those dire intentions 100% credibility. Was that because the bad people in this instance were majority Christians, and not Jews?

FYI Jews lived in Canada back then Rue. Some of the people who were part of that decision-making process were Jews Rue. Were they actual human beings with actual/altruistic concerns for children who seemed destined to be raised with stone-age educations in 1960, or should we guess at what dire ulterior motivations they had? 

[Rue]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Can you see a place where you've truly been right twice in all of your posts combined eyeball? 

You've justified terrorism twice in your last few posts ffs. That makes you an actual, real-life terrorist supporter. 

Are you capable or willing to ask yourself the same question? 

You ridiculed my words when I opined that  I have worried about the evil within myself and the evil in all of us. Everyone of us with evil also has the ability to  be good or a  peacemaker not just a  terrorist. You describe yourself as a man of reason with no fear of being violent.May I suggest such personal references are pointless and not germaine to the subject matter of the thread. Your need to point out Eye is wrong and therefore you are right can be easily rectified-stop looking in the mirror.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

I find it strange being a member of a group who were mass exterminated because of negative stereotyping, someone would claim we Jews should know better and should  negatively stereotype Muslims because "they" hate us.

 For anyone to tell me I should repeat the exercise with anyone else after what happened to my family is absurd and you need not apologize. You get that.

There was an attempt to eradicate my rebellious family of oatmeal savages from the highlands of Scotland a little over 300 years ago by a clan of genocidal lickspittles from the lowlands who were working for their English masters.  I often wonder if my bellicose contempt for interfering governments and their local sycophants is genetic. 

Flash forward to a lunch break with a mixed native and non-native crew working on stabilizing a slope failure on a clear-cut mountainside that was threatening to fill a salmon spawning channel down below. We were all pretty much refuges from the collapse of fishing and logging in our region - an ugly painful political and socio-economic process I wouldn't wish on anyone.

From our height we could see for miles in all directions and a couple of the native guys from different bands started pointing out where territorial landmarks were and slowly the talk turned to past conflicts over them and the mood kind of darkened a little when I asked about a certain village's name which means clubbed-to-death in the native tongue.  It was the scene a genocidal revenge based on a chief's daughter being raped.  No survivors were allowed because they'd be bound by honour to keep up a cycle of avengement.  

At that point I could only chuckle and the other foreman on the crew sort of laughed too and said oh oh...he of course was a filthy Campbell - a member of the clan that had tried to wipe mine out.  The native guys listened as we recounted the story as best we could and when we finished one of the native guys told the rest of the crew to keep an eye on us in case we started swinging our axes at one another.  At that point we pretty much all started laughing our assess off as we got back to work. The camaraderie was palpable.

I often think about that day and how by-gones become by-gones and how they also don't - especially when I'm confronted by Islamophobes who appeal to me to reach as far into the past as they do to justify not letting their by-gones go the way of the dodo.

That said I see no justification for not stoking or sustaining a smoldering desire to avenge, or maybe reconcile is a better word, the deep unabiding disregard that exists between distant absentee lords, kings and governments and people on the ground that have to suffer their powerful interfering indifference.  That's definitely one bygone I'm not passing on to my kids and grandkids before I die.

Edited January 20, 2020 by eyeball

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

You're intentionally hate and fear mongering with crap posts like this dialamah. 

That's an odd accusation.  Why do you think talking about what happened to indigeuous kids is "hate and fear mongering"?  Its not like I've suggested you or even Canadians in general are like this.   It is off-topic though, so if you don't like it you should report it, you won't have to see it plus I'd get my wrists slapped.

If there's amy "hate and fear mongering" here, its coming from those who take the example of a single individual and use that to claim all people of that group are the same.

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

That's an odd accusation.  Why do you think talking about what happened to indigeuous kids is "hate and fear mongering"?  Its not like I've suggested you or even Canadians in general are like this.   It is off-topic though, so if you don't like it you should report it, you won't have to see it plus I'd get my wrists slapped.

If there's amy "hate and fear mongering" here, its coming from those who take the example of a single individual and use that to claim all people of that group are the same.

It's not odd at all. 

You're presenting the information in a manner that lends itself to harsh generalizations being made which would be incorrect.

EG, you added the death count there without stating the fact that the main cause of death was TB and typhoid, and that Canadians who didn't live in residential schools were dying of the exact same things. This gives the impression that murder was rife there, or even on a genocidal scale. That's pathetic and underhanded. Inaccuracies of that magnitude are rarely, if ever, coincidental. 

[dialamah]

15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's not odd at all. 

You're presenting the information in a manner that lends itself to harsh generalizations being made which would be incorrect.

EG, you added the death count there without stating the fact that the main cause of death was TB and typhoid, and that Canadians who didn't live in residential schools were dying of the exact same things. This gives the impression that murder was rife there, or even on a genocidal scale. That's pathetic and underhanded. Inaccuracies of that magnitude are rarely, if ever, coincidental. 

Ok well thanks for your explanation. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

In regards to 1, you provide an absolute rejection of the role anti-semitism played in Hitler's rise to power and

I'm beginning to think English is your second language. Or else you simply have a colourful way to 'interpret' what other people say. You appear to be incapable of understanding conditional or qualified statements. To you, everything is an absolute with no distance between absolute yes and absolute no. If one points out that the major impetus behind the Nazis' rise was economic and the chaos in the streets then one must be absolutely rejecting that anti-semitism had any part in it. Even if no one says such a thing. If one suggests that we should be careful about bringing into Canada hundreds of thousands of people from areas of the world with extremely harsh social views, well then, one "hates' all people from those areas and from that religion and wants to destroy them.

Then you rant in self-righteous fashion, condemning through an interpretation you alone create.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

In regards to the second comment you introduce "attitudes" as a component from which to justify prohibiting all Muslims from coming to Canada and you claim the using of such "attitudes" or  Pew Polls of attitudes embracing logic. So now you would have us believe basing conclusions on "emotions" is logical.

Once again, your cognitive skills are sorely lacking. You conflate simple observation of people's deeply held religious views with equating emotions and logic. Your position is incoherent and is nothing but raw emotion ungoverned by intellect. The rest of what you write is drivel driven by your sanctimonious insistence that no one can judge any group for any reason even if acknowledging there are variations within that group.

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

In regards to 1 your attempt to spin the purpose of the residential school system in Canada is noted. 

I"m not going to apologize for being better educated than you are, Rue. I read a considerable amount about how and why this system was set up. I'm guessing you read approximately nothing.

Quote

2. Your second comment makes no mention of the fact that Canada only made it a crime to rape one's marital spouse 26 years ago and it still is not a crime to rape someone in North Carolina or Oklahoma  and to put someone in jail for raping their wife in the following US states it must be linked to another crime, its not a stand alone crime..Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming?

All of the above is bullshit, except the part of about Canada outlawing it 26  years ago, which I had no reason to state since it was stated in the post I was replying to. You clearly didn't bother to research any of that because marital rape is indeed illegal in all those states. Hell, you didn't even need to research. Anyone with more than half a brain would know that California, the most liberal state in the union, would have laws against marital rape.

Quote

Do you want to discuss how few convictions there are in Canada because of how problematic it would be for a spouse to accuse their other spouse of rape and so

Why  would I? I wasn't the one who brought up marital rape in the first place. Of course few people want to accuse their spouse of marital rape.

Quote

y. You can't  even provide a reference to where you concluded there are no marital rape laws in any Muslim country. Not that it matters but in Indonesia (most populous Muslim country) , Benin, Bhutan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan,  Mauritius,  Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Turkey, Niger, Sudan,Qatar,   it is illegal to rape your wife. 

Some of those aren't even Muslim countries. Some great legal researcher you are. Others have rape laws which neither include nor exclude marital rape. Only a very few even mention it, such as Turkey, which used to be secular. So I will concede I was wrong to say "all". That was an error on my part.

Quote

In regards to the fifth sentence...gays are being beaten and discriminated against in many non Muslim countries, starting with for example, Russia, Uganda and Jamaica? What is your point?

My point was replying to someone who brought it up. And 13 countries carry the death penalty for homosexuality. One guess how many are Muslim.

Quote

In regards to your references that Christianity has allowed progress and Muslim has not are you now saying there are no progressive or  moderate Muslims?

No, because that would be moronic. Stop attributing absolutes to everything I say.

 

Edited January 20, 2020 by Argus

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Are you capable or willing to ask yourself the same question? 

I would love for you to show me one place where I lied Rue. Or where I made a "factually correct but intentionally misleading" post.

I'll be waiting over here, where the cricket sound is coming from.

Quote

You ridiculed my words when I opined that  I have worried about the evil within myself and the evil in all of us.

So?

Quote

Everyone of us with evil also has the ability to  be good or a  peacemaker not just a  terrorist.

I'd agree that we're born that way, but with properly applied religious zeal you can eliminate the chances of someone being good, or a peacemaker, in the majority of humans.

Quote

You describe yourself as a man of reason with no fear of being violent.

After 50+ years I have a pretty solid understanding of my propensity for committing unreasonable acts of violence. We all do.

Quote

May I suggest such personal references are pointless and not germaine to the subject matter of the thread. Your need to point out Eye is wrong and therefore you are right can be easily rectified-stop looking in the mirror.

You know what I do lack Rue? The ability to smile and nod my head when people say extremely stupid things or lie through their teeth. It makes my skin crawl. I honestly feel like I'm being tortured if I watch Joy Behar, Morning Joe or Lawrence O'Donnel talk. But even in that moment when someone is regurgitating CNN drivel to my face, I never feel like I want to punch them. 

And truth be told, we both know that people are lying when they pretend to believe CNN drivel. People just want to believe it because they like the feeling of moral superiority that comes along with jumping on the bandwagon. Most people have a desperate need to "fit in" with the cool celebs and they live in abject fear of saying anything controversial. I passionately don't give a rip. I have no no need for a huge circle of fake friends. 

I wish people would really think hard when they're allowing a TV station to pump 'information' into their heads. I wish that they'd take stock of where a Newz Channel's credibility actually is before they get behind the shiny new story without questioning it. But that's not the world we live in.

As a result, us Canadiots are stuck with Justin Trudeau.

[Teena]

So today I went  to Walmart. I have been going to this same Walmart for 20 years! In the New Year they now have security on your way out, like Costco. They check your bill and cart. This area is mostly immigrants ... just saying. Theft and crime is on the rise? Could be the 'riff-raff' already living here in my hometown LoL

Edited January 21, 2020 by Teena

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, Teena said:

So today I went I went to Walmart. I have been going to this same Walmart for 20 years! In the New Year they now have security on your way out, like Costco. They check your bill and cart. This area is mostly immigrants ... just saying. Theft and crime is on the rise? Could be the 'riff-raff' already living here in my hometown LoL

WalMart has always had security and greeters at their doors and they often check receipts.  I don't think it's because of immigrants.  Theft and crime on the rise - yes.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

WalMart has always had security and greeters at their doors and they often check receipts.  I don't think it's because of immigrants.  Theft and crime on the rise - yes.

The WalMart in Langley BC has had greeters off and on. Most often not. I've never had a receipt checked there.

They're checking for receipts because of the deplorables. The Trump voters. Some say that you can smell them as soon as you walk in. 

[Rue]

On 1/20/2020 at 2:37 PM, WestCanMan said:

You have a life of jumping on bandwagons and checking your brain at the door. 

People tell stories, throw down some facts, and then riddle their testimony with their own version of "the dire intentions behind the actions that were taken" and you instantly give those dire intentions 100% credibility. Was that because the bad people in this instance were majority Christians, and not Jews?

FYI Jews lived in Canada back then Rue. Some of the people who were part of that decision-making process were Jews Rue. Were they actual human beings with actual/altruistic concerns for children who seemed destined to be raised with stone-age educations in 1960, or should we guess at what dire ulterior motivations they had? 

Your first comment is an attempt again to be insulting showing your insecurity.

Then you respond by making the ridiculous unsubstantiated accusation that Jews assisted the decision making process of placing aboriginals in  Christian reform schools.

Provide the proof for such an absurd accusation.

More to the point even if it was true you contend what exactly...that Christian's can not question their past behaviour and neither can Jews?

You clearly knee jerk respond at this point trying to deflect from the point made to you that you have no way to defend.

Negative generalizations put aboriginals in these schools using a cognitive process no different then the ones you now use against Muslims. Your attempt to suggest Jews are no better than Christians not only does not address the issue but shows how insecure you are and so how absurd your responses have become.

No one and not me suggested Christians were or are worse than Jews. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I would love for you to show me one place where I lied Rue. Or where I made a "factually correct but intentionally misleading" post.

I'll be waiting over here, where the cricket sound is coming from.

So?

I'd agree that we're born that way, but with properly applied religious zeal you can eliminate the chances of someone being good, or a peacemaker, in the majority of humans.

After 50+ years I have a pretty solid understanding of my propensity for committing unreasonable acts of violence. We all do.

You know what I do lack Rue? The ability to smile and nod my head when people say extremely stupid things or lie through their teeth. It makes my skin crawl. I honestly feel like I'm being tortured if I watch Joy Behar, Morning Joe or Lawrence O'Donnel talk. But even in that moment when someone is regurgitating CNN drivel to my face, I never feel like I want to punch them. 

And truth be told, we both know that people are lying when they pretend to believe CNN drivel. People just want to believe it because they like the feeling of moral superiority that comes along with jumping on the bandwagon. Most people have a desperate need to "fit in" with the cool celebs and they live in abject fear of saying anything controversial. I passionately don't give a rip. I have no no need for a huge circle of fake friends. 

I wish people would really think hard when they're allowing a TV station to pump 'information' into their heads. I wish that they'd take stock of where a Newz Channel's credibility actually is before they get behind the shiny new story without questioning it. But that's not the world we live in.

As a result, us Canadiots are stuck with Justin Trudeau.

You again respond to an accusation you claim I made I did not make and again provide fragmented subjective opinions as to your perceptions this time of the media. Thank you but I have not debated them nor do I care to. By the way it's nice to know your thoughts are divine and not influenced by any media especially Fox t.v.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Rue

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Rue said:

Your first comment is an attempt again to be insulting showing your insecurity.

Sure

Quote

Then you respond by making the ridiculous unsubstzntiated accusation that Jews assisted the decision making process of placing aboriginals in  Christian reform schools.

Provide the proof for such an absurd accusation.

Nope. Jews live in Canada. It was a Canadian decision to have the reform schools. Individual churches didn't just take it upon themselves to do that.

Quote

More to the point even if it was true you contend what exactly...that Christian's can not question their past behaviour and neither can Jews?

Not at all. I'm saying that the reasoning behind the res schools wasn't to give pedos a chance to f some kids up, or to kill them. That's just plain-ass common sense. If you think that people should be allowed to just give their kids a stone-age education in 2020 then why don't you start a website?

Quote

You clearly knew jerk respond at this point trying to deflect from the point made to you that you have no way to defend.

No need to defend common sense ffs. It's actually the people who think that residential schools were formed explicitly for the purpose of harming children. Grab a clue.

Quote

Negative generalizations put aboriginals in these schools using a cognitive process no different then the ones you now use against Muslims. Your attempt to suggest Jews are no better than Christians not only does not address the issue but shows how insecure you are and so how absurd your responses have become.

No, the reality of kids being given stone-age educations and facing a life without electricity, a common language, etc just didn't make sense to a lot of people Rue. 

Quote

No one and not me suggested Christians were or are worse than Jews. 

Religion is divisive. Plain and simple. Just ask the muslims and the Jews.

And yeah I can speak collectively for them both because it's well-known that they don't get along, on average. If you try to tell me some BS to the opposite effect I will laugh my ass off and believe me, I've got a trillion bullets for that one.

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Rue said:

You again respond to an accusation I did not make and provide fragmented subjective opinions as to your perceptions CV of the media. Thank you but I have not debated them nor do I care to. By the way it's nice to know your thoughts are divine and not influenced by any media especially Fox t.v. As for Trudeau I a  glad it did not influence you into voting for Justin and this appears CV to be a virtue of yours you nowxwish to share. Again thank you. Without you as a role model I would have voted for Justin.

What does Fox have to do with this topic? What does Fox have to do with Canadian politics?

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Teena said:

So today I went I went to Walmart. I have been going to this same Walmart for 20 years! In the New Year they now have security on your way out, like Costco. They check your bill and cart. This area is mostly immigrants ... just saying. Theft and crime is on the rise? Could be the 'riff-raff' already living here in my hometown LoL

Did they install self checkouts?  Apparently there's been a lot of theft with self checkouts because people aren't scanning and paying for some things they buy, so some companies are starting to check bags and receipts.

[Rue]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

I"m not going to apologize for being better educated than you are, Rue. I read a considerable amount about how and why this system was set up. I'm guessing you read approximately nothing.

All of the above is bullshit, except the part of about Canada outlawing it 26  years ago, which I had no reason to state since it was stated in the post I was replying to. You clearly didn't bother to research any of that because marital rape is indeed illegal in all those states. Hell, you didn't even need to research. Anyone with more than half a brain would know that California, the most liberal state in the union, would have laws against marital rape.

Why  would I? I wasn't the one who brought up marital rape in the first place. Of course few people want to accuse their spouse of marital rape.

Some of those aren't even Muslim countries. Some great legal researcher you are. Others have rape laws which neither include nor exclude marital rape. Only a very few even mention it, such as Turkey, which used to be secular. So I will concede I was wrong to say "all". That was an error on my part.

My point was replying to someone who brought it up. And 13 countries carry the death penalty for homosexuality. One guess how many are Muslim.

No, because that would be moronic. Stop attributing absolutes to everything I say.

 

Your need to pose as being more educated than me only serves to show your insecurity and inability to challenge opinions other than your own with civility. 

Your spin on the residential schools speaks for itself as does your other response to me denying the role of anti-semitism in helping the Nazis gain power and go on to inspire and implement what they did.

Your attempt to deny you speak in  absolutes is fun. Please show where you have qualified your negative generalizations.

You made a false sweeping statement that all Muslim countries make it legal for husbands to rape  wives. When shown a list of Muslim countries  you then did not qualify your statement as being incorrect, you chose instead to denyTurkey is a Muslim state. Please do advise Erdogan of that.

I also noted you ignored your other absolute false statement that  these listed countries make it legal as well to beat wives and now your latest false absolute statement that homosexuality is a capital offence in these countries.

You again provide no substantiation of your legal opinions you simply continue to make false absolute statements and contend such statements not substantiated and shown to be false are qualified. Do explain how unsubstantiated claims are qualified without substantiation.

As for your point yes I get it.. as I am sure others have...you feel the need  to keep throwing out unsubstantiated negative accusations about all Muslims  to defend banning their entry to Canada..even to the point you now try revise and deny that  the purpose of residential schools and the advent of Nazism were not predicated on negative generalizations about religion and culture.

Got it and thanks. Your reminder you do not like Muslims is most helpful when discussing government policies.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

What does Fox have to do with this topic? What does Fox have to do with Canadian politics?

The same as your comments about the media on this thread it responded to-nothing at all.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Rue