Is Canada becoming a Communist state?

[Right To Left]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

Government proves over and over how bad Socialism is.  The pandemic response failure and slow vaccination rollout is a prime example of the disaster of Socialism and bureaucratic control.

When did multimillionaire trust fund baby - Doug Ford become a socialist? 

Actual socialist nations have done better (even sanctioned, embargoed states like Cuba) at managing this crisis than the richer capitalist nations, which have more resources have been able to muster!

[Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

I don't see drawing cartoons in France as having anything to do with the subject of women in the military.  You know there are a lot of Islamic terrorists in the world and nobody can guarantee being protected from them.

If you can't see the problem is the mixing men and women together in the military has proven to be disaster.  Nobody can predict who will be an abuser.  It is an enormous disaster based on liberal ideology of feminism and equality of the sexes but completely ignores the truth of human nature.

It’s in keeping with this strange, anti-scientific, anti-biological idea that men and women should be able to do all the same jobs with equal ability and opportunity.  Men cannot give birth.  Most women have less upper body strength and less speed than most men.  Nevertheless, we water down training standards for the military so that women can participate, then put men and women in stressful conditions away from their families and homes for extended periods of time and expect them to rise above temptation.  Some of these allegations are about men making unwelcome advances that were not physically aggressive.  How do men approach women to whom they’re attracted without at some point asking them if they would like to be intimate?

It’s easy to say that military are held to a different standard and shouldn’t have romantic relationships, but it’s an unrealistic expectation.  It sets people up for failure and distracts soldiers from doing a difficult life threatening job.  

Edited May 16, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Anything good regarding Amazon is vastly outweighed by what they do to their employees! So, just out of principle, I have dropped my Amazon account...even though I had been buying nearly all of my books from Amazon for several years. And buying other stuff as well that was otherwise hard to find...such as new wheels for a somewhat expensive pair of rollerblades that I bought elsewhere several years back. 

It certainly is convenient having a source that has just about everything you could imagine buying, with one click of a tab online, but when I learn that their overworked, underpaid staff are forced to piss in bottles because of high and rising work and delivery quotas, while some warehouse operations don't even bother having available washrooms....just for managerial office staff only!

Amazing that you consider Amazon an example of capitalism's superiority over socialism, when Amazon is effectively already a monopoly and like a few other near monopolies which have risen up in recent decades, functions as a socialist system within its operations! Except for sucking up most of the profits to reward shareholders....most of whom happen to be superrich owners of a majority of those stocks. 

There are no capitalist principles of competition within the divisions of any of these massive operations, and the few that do invoke internal competition for earnings and even supplies, end up going out of business - like Sears Canada, when internal 'competition' destabilized the whole company and led to theft, cheating and massive corruption, because the workplaces had turned toxic and nobody trusted anyone else inside!

I disagree.  Working for Amazon is far better than living off taxpayers on the government dole and far better than the slave wages of the millions of workers in many other countries.  The world is not a perfect place and America and Canada are among the best places in the world to live and work, even if the job is not the best-paying.  Nobody is guaranteed to be paid at a high level, but everyone is guaranteed they can take training and leave the job and find a better-paying one.  People are free to move to a place and try to find better pay.  There is no right to have high paying jobs in a free and democratic society.  But there is freedom to quit and go somewhere else and try to get a better job.

[Dougie93]

13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s in keeping with this strange, anti-scientific, anti-biological idea that men and women should be able to do all the same jobs with equal ability and opportunity.  Men cannot give birth.  Most women have less upper body strength and less speed than most men.  Nevertheless, we water down training standards for the military so that women can participate, then put men and women in stressful conditions away from their families and homes for extended periods of time and expect them to rise above temptation.  Some of these allegations are about men making unwelcome advances that were not physically aggressive.  How do men approach women to whom they’re attracted without at some point asking them if they would like to be intimate?

It’s easy to say that military are held to a different standard and shouldn’t have romantic relationships, but it’s an unrealistic expectation.  It sets people up for failure and distracts soldiers from doing a difficult life threatening job.  

having served with females in the Canadian infantry, I didn't find that we watered down the standards for them

the result of that however was that most of them failed to meet the standard

then those females would claim that they were being "harassed"

but they were being treated the same as everybody else

so really the problem was toxic femininity, they were bald faced liars, they made up stories

in the male dominance hierarchy, lying was not acceptable, it was the most the shameful thing you could do

but lying was acceptable in the female hierarchy, they didn't have any qualms about making false accusations

you can't trust the females in the ranks, so that breaks down the cohesion in the unit

eventually the whole unit becomes paralyzed with investigations based on false accusations

Edited May 16, 2021 by Dougie93

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s in keeping with this strange, anti-scientific, anti-biological idea that men and women should be able to do all the same jobs with equal ability and opportunity.  Men cannot give birth.  Most women have less upper body strength and less speed than most men.  Nevertheless, we water down training standards for the military so that women can participate, then put men and women in stressful conditions away from their families and homes for extended periods of time and expect them to rise above temptation.  Some of these allegations are about men making unwelcome advances that were not physically aggressive.  How do men approach women to whom they’re attracted without at some point asking them if they would like to be intimate?

It’s easy to say that military are held to a different standard and shouldn’t have romantic relationships, but it’s an unrealistic expectation.  It sets people up for failure and distracts soldiers from doing a difficult life threatening job.  

Are you like Blackbird?  Would you be unable to contain yourself?

How on earth is the expectation that men should refrain from abusing those women they are working with in keeping with a "strange, anti-scientific, anti-biological idea that men and women should be able to do all the same jobs with equal ability and opportunity"?

[Dougie93]

in terms of romantic relationships in the ranks, I don't think that was much of a problem

usually what happened is that the female would realize that the infantry was not for her

so she would change trades to a service support role that she was better suited

then she'd pick an NCO to be her boyfriend, her protector in the ranks

the troops generally respected that, you didn't mess with another troops girlfriend

a lot of those NCO relationships went on to be happy marriages with kids, so it wasn't a bad thing in the end

I'd say the social life was pretty good in the army, once you got the females out of the trenches

Edited May 17, 2021 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

personally. I didn't date females in the military, I swore off of that

I was super gung-ho at the time, I felt like it would undermine my authority as the Section / Det Commander

once in awhile I female would throw herself at me, they'd get drunk and come on to you

I just told them to get back in ranks with their peers, but I didn't report them for it

in terms of females who were the girlfriends of other troops, I was protective of them

but that was all about the brotherhood,  it wasn't on behalf of the female herself, it was for my brothers

Edited May 16, 2021 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

17 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Are you like Blackbird?  Would you be unable to contain yourself?

How on earth is the expectation that men should refrain from abusing those women they are working with in keeping with a "strange, anti-scientific, anti-biological idea that men and women should be able to do all the same jobs with equal ability and opportunity"?

Will you stop?  No one is saying that it’s acceptable to harass women.  You’re definitely proving Dougie’s point.  I don’t have an issue with women being in the military if they can meet standards that are not watered down and if it’s possible to maintain separation for long term and overnight assignments.  This isn’t a typical day job.  I do think the current scenario sets people up for failure.  Serious career destroying accusations are made sometimes quite lightly to get out of a jam.   For example, maybe two soldiers are tempted to get together and one of them has a spouse at home.  In almost all such cases the male is an easy mark to throw under the bus.  It doesn’t have to be an accusation of rape  either.  “He took advantage of me” or “He made me feel uncomfortable” is enough to draw sympathy and tug at heartstrings in the media.   I can see many men worrying about how something might be construed to an extent that it impacts job performance and recruitment.  Of course.  

Edited May 16, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[blackbird]

30 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

having served with females in the Canadian infantry, I didn't find that we watered down the standards for them

the result of that however was that most of them failed to meet the standard

then those females would claim that they were being "harassed"

but they were being treated the same as everybody else

so really the problem was toxic femininity, they were bald faced liars, they made up stories

in the male dominance hierarchy, lying was not acceptable, it was the most the shameful thing you could do

but lying was acceptable in the female hierarchy, they didn't have any qualms about making false accusations

you can't trust the females in the ranks, so that breaks down the cohesion in the unit

eventually the whole unit becomes paralyzed with investigations based on false accusations

Nobody knows how many allegations are false.  There have been no reports of false allegations on the news, but repeated reports of large numbers of sexual abuse cases.  Whether they have all been verified as legitimate I don't know.  The news reports don't say.  But I can say mixing women among men in the ranks was a huge mistake.  It is against human nature and ignores the natural sex drive of males.  There should be a separate branch of the military as I believe there was back in the 1940s.  The liberal ideology of feminism,  i.e. treating men and women as if they are sexless and the same, is a total failure.  Of course men are going to be attracted to females in their ranks.  That has been the way it has been since the creation of men and women.  That's the way God created mankind.

Edited May 16, 2021 by blackbird

[Dougie93]

I think it's fine to have female officers in the infantry mind you

the officers are an elite, they are protected off in their own areas, they aren't expose to the ranks

but when you put teenage female Private Soldiers in the ranks of the Rifle Company, that's where it doesn't work

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

personally. I didn't date females in the military, I swore off of that

I was super gung-ho at the time, I felt like it would undermine my authority as the Section / Det Commander

once in awhile I female would throw herself at me, they'd get drunk and come on to you

I just told them to get back in ranks with their peers, but I didn't report them for it

in terms of females who were the girlfriends of other troops, I was protective of them

but that was all about the brotherhood,  it wasn't on behalf of the female herself, it was for my brothers

You should not have even been involved in having to deal with men and women situations in the military.  That is a huge distraction and not what the military should be involved in.

[Dougie93]

Just now, blackbird said:

Nobody knows how many allegations are false. 

true, but there are lots of allegations which I know are bullshit

like Major Kelly Brennan accusing General Vance of forcing her into something, that's bullshit

she was his girlfriend for years, of her own free will

he just went and married another woman, and American officer, so Brennan is basically the woman scorned

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You should not have even been involved in having to deal with men and women situations in the military.  That is a huge distraction and not what the military should be involved in.

one time this nineteen year old Private pulled me into the women's washroom, locked the door

she said she wanted do this and that with me, she was throwing herself at me

and she was beautiful, I won't say I wasn't tempted

but it just came down to the indoctrination at Battleschool, man of honour is the standard

my honour code kicked in, and so I resisted the temptation and declined her invitation, told her to go back to the mess

Edited May 16, 2021 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

true, but there are lots of allegations which I know are bullshit

like Major Kelly Brennan accusing General Vance of forcing her into something, that's bullshit

she was his girlfriend for years, of her own free will

he just went and married another woman, and American officer, so Brennan is basically the woman scorned

It’s terrible that this isn’t shared by media.  Much more sensational to paint people as victims.  The problem is that it also destroys people’s lives.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Will you stop?  No one is saying that it’s acceptable to harass women.  You’re definitely proving Dougie’s point.  I don’t have an issue with women being in the military if they can meet standards that are not watered down and if it’s possible to maintain separation for long term and overnight assignments.  This isn’t a typical day job.  I do think the current scenario sets people up for failure.  Serious career destroying accusations are made sometimes quite lightly to get out of a jam.   For example, maybe two soldiers are tempted to get together and one of them has a spouse at home.  In almost all such cases the male is an easy mark to throw under the bus.  It doesn’t have to be an accusation of rape  either.  “He took advantage of me” or “He made me feel uncomfortable” is enough to draw sympathy and tug at heartstrings in the media.   I can see many men worrying about how something might be construed to an extent that it impacts job performance and recruitment.  Of course.  

Stop what?

You obviously came late to the conversation.  The post by Blackbird to which you responded was part of an argument stating that the responsiblity for the abuse of women in the armed forces fell to the government for their attempts at integration.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with qualifications or standards.  The argument that it does is disingenuous. 

I assume your answer to my question would be: Yes, you would be able to contain yourself. 

Why shouldn't everyone else?

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

true, but there are lots of allegations which I know are bullshit

like Major Kelly Brennan accusing General Vance of forcing her into something, that's bullshit

she was his girlfriend for years, of her own free will

he just went and married another woman, and American officer, so Brennan is basically the woman scorned

I thought there were regulations against a high-ranking officer even having a girlfriend in the military.  Isn't it an extreme imbalance of power and enables him to manipulate her.  Doesn't that put him in the wrong?

But again there should be no women in the same units or in positions where they are in proximity to men and can become familiar in the military.  That has proven a failure.  Liberals ignore human nature and are following their woke ideology of feminism.

[Dougie93]

you have to separate just being in the military, and being in the close combat role

most military jobs are not as intense as the infantry

but more importantly, the infantry relies on the male dominance hierarchy

that hierarchy is why men fight, why they push themselves beyond their limits, why they go over the top

the male dominance hierarchy is the hunting & fighting component of the species

females just didn't have it, they didn't feel it, they were not motivated nor constrained by the warriors code

female dominance is all about reputational destruction, that is how they dominate each other

so to a female, making false accusations to gain power is fair game, whereas with the males it is the height of dishonour

 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

I thought there were regulations against a high-ranking officer even having a girlfriend in the military.  Isn't it an extreme imbalance of power and enables him to manipulate her.  Doesn't that put him in the wrong?

she was supposedly a Major in the combat arms, if she was so weak willed, then that is her fault not his

[Dougie93]

it's like Johnny Vance was my boss, my DCO, he used to come on me like a ton o' bricks, regularly

he didn't scare me, he didn't have any power over me other than by chain of command

if Major Vance had ordered me to do something not backed by military authority, I would have declined

you have to have an iron will to serve in the infantry. you can't be so weak willed as Major Brennan claims to be

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

she was supposedly a Major in the combat arms, if she was so weak willed, then that is her fault not his

Don't forget he was the top ranking officer, far above her.  Therefore there was a huge imbalance of power.  He was in a position where he could do whatever he wished.  As commander he could demote her, re-assign her, or whatever he felt like doing if she didn't comply with his wishes.   Such situations should never even exist in the military.  Should be no women in the same ranks or branches of the military.

Edited May 16, 2021 by blackbird

[Dougie93]

Just now, blackbird said:

Don't forget he was the top ranking officer, far above her.  Therefore there was a huge imbalance of power.  He was in a position where he could do whatever he wished.  As commander he could demote her, re-assign her, or whatever he felt like doing if she didn't comply with his wishes.   Such situations should never even exist in the military between.  Should be no women in the same ranks.

the military is a dominance hierarchy, imbalance of power is inherent

if Major Brennan couldn't handle that, it just proves she should not have been there

it's not band camp, it's the infantry,  not everyone is made to do the job

[Dougie93]

really this is just about the Woke destroying the military, it's the ultimate symbol of hierarchy & dominance

so the Woke religion has to destroy the military institution first, which they have

this is a Stalinist purge, they are purging one officer from the ranks after the next

Edited May 16, 2021 by Dougie93

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

really this is just about the Woke trashing the military, it's the ultimate symbol of hierarchy & dominance

so the Woke religion has to destroy the military institution first, which they have

That's true.  Liberal ideology is anti-military.  They live in a kind of pacifist utopia in their mind.   They are not strong supporters of the armed forces.  Perhaps this is all part of their strategy to undermine the armed forces.   Most of the public can't see it or understand it.  Much of the public and politicians have been brainwashed into accepting the liberal woke thinking.

[Dougie93]

22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s terrible that this isn’t shared by media.  Much more sensational to paint people as victims.  The problem is that it also destroys people’s lives.  

well Johnny Vance was no angel, he definitely played fast & loose with the rules

Johnny Vance enjoys the rock star lifestyle, and the troops did like him for it

but he never forced Brennan into anything, he didn't pursue her, she pursued him

[dialamah]

Just now, blackbird said:

But I can say mixing women among men in the ranks was a huge mistake.  It is against human nature and ignores the natural sex drive of males. 

But again there should be no women in the same units or in positions where they are in proximity to men and can become familiar in the military.  That has proven a failure.  Liberals ignore human nature and are following their woke ideology of feminism.

Because men can not be expected to control themselves; it's against their nature.  Women therefore should not in places where men might be (unless perhaps accompanied by a male of their family) and should always dress modestly, showing no part of their body, lest a man be driven so wild they lose all sense and self-control.  This is the only way to keep women safe, and if they fail in keeping themselves safe, that's on them.  And the Liberals who allow the mixing of men and women.