Misappropriation of Funds and Racist Favour

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So you think if you asked Canadians if they oppose racism and if they are in favour of eliminating benefits for First Nations people the answers would be identical ?  Do you think perhaps some people don't see things as you do ?

Either we’re fair in our policies or we aren’t.  Once you set up any single group as more entitled than others on the basis of superficial identifiers such as skin colour or ethnicity, the problems I identified will follow.  You can try to solve a problem by creating others, but don’t be surprised or disappointed when the negative consequences follow.

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Either we’re fair in our policies or we aren’t.  Once you set up any single group as more entitled than others on the basis of superficial identifiers such as skin colour or ethnicity, the problems I identified will follow.  You can try to solve a problem by creating others, but don’t be surprised or disappointed when the negative consequences follow.

Human history is a story of causing problems while solving other ones.  Hopefully the new problems will be smaller.  

But, ok.

[Zeitgeist]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Human history is a story of causing problems while solving other ones.  Hopefully the new problems will be smaller.  

But, ok.

They won’t be, but ok.  

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

They won’t be, but ok.  

How are you so sure about the future ?  I mean, I am sure sometimes also, but not about political trends.  It's hard to predict where the wind goes.  Could you have predicted support for gay marriage would flip to favourable so quickly in the years before ?

Sincere question here.  

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

How are you so sure about the future ?  I mean, I am sure sometimes also, but not about political trends.  It's hard to predict where the wind goes.  Could you have predicted support for gay marriage would flip to favourable so quickly in the years before ?

Sincere question here.  

I don’t think that many people support gay marriage.  I just think that the supporters of it are very vocal and activist. Basically they’re good lobbyists.  That’s a concerning trend in politics today.  Because politicians are so scared of being negatively portrayed in social media, our candidates are scared to take positions.  It used to be called having the courage of your convictions.  This is why social conservatism is dead.  All that’s left is a kind of hollow materialist populism that defines itself in opposition but won’t take an ethical stance.  If a candidate says that they oppose abortion or gay marriage on religious or ethical grounds, even if 30-50% of the population agrees with him or her, that candidate has no real chance of surviving the Cultural Marxist-Nihilist rampage that will inevitably follow on social media.

Perhaps reducing the size of government and taxes is still a moral position, but it’s only half the equation of what we’d traditionally call conservative.   Nevertheless, the Conservatives still have some members who take a socially conservative stance.

The Liberals are a joke in this regard.  Trudeau is a pro choice activist who bribes Canadians and party members into following suit through summer jobs funding and requiring all caucus members to be pro choice, yet he also calls himself Catholic.  Ridiculous.  He wants membership without following the tenets.

 I guess my dream candidate would say what he or she really thinks, have a consistent code of ethics, and be a smart and powerful enough speaker to disarm critics through words.  I don’t really see such people in politics today.

There was a time when agreeing with much but not all of what someone thinks was okay if it meant that supporting that politician would create an overall gain.  Instead today we vilify and pile on so fast for so little that politicians are afraid to say anything of substance.  It was okay for Chrétien to say he personally opposed abortion because of his faith but that he couldn’t do anything about it because the highest court had made its judgement. Junior Trudeau will instead pretend that he can be Catholic and take a radical pro choice stance.

I personally don’t have an issue with gays who enter into a commitment, but my faith still opposes gay marriage, so it’s a challenging issue for me.  I’d prefer that politicians are honest about what they believe and support, even if I don’t always agree with them about a specific issue.  I think it would be refreshing and might challenge the social media pile-ons.

While I prefer O’Tool to Trudeau, they’re both too politically correct for my liking.  Trump wasn’t scared of social media.  I’ll give him that, but he was a bit too amoral to make much good use of it, as far as I could tell.

Also Michael, better or worse isn’t about what’s politically popular.  Unfair policies are unfair whether or not the public can be hoodwinked into supporting them.

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. I don’t think that many people support gay marriage.  I just think that the supporters of it are very vocal and activist. 

2. Also Michael, better or worse isn’t about what’s politically popular.  Unfair policies are unfair whether or not the public can be hoodwinked into supporting them.

 

1. Why do you think that?

2. Do you personally favour any policies that are worse?  It's politics, so you have to accept the majority.

You predicted that problems would be worse, and a backlash would happen.  But you're predicting public opinion on that count.  If you aren't right about support for gay marriage, just saying that you may not be in touch with the public opinion.

 

Long ago I started to read a lot of polls because I was also out of touch.

[Zeitgeist]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why do you think that?

2. Do you personally favour any policies that are worse?  It's politics, so you have to accept the majority.

You predicted that problems would be worse, and a backlash would happen.  But you're predicting public opinion on that count.  If you aren't right about support for gay marriage, just saying that you may not be in touch with the public opinion.

 

Long ago I started to read a lot of polls because I was also out of touch.

I’ll rephrase it.  I think many people support it but not that many, not everyone and probably not a large majority.  

Again, morality isn’t a popularity contest, though even when popularity matters as in politics, it’s sometimes the loudest voices in minority that drown out the majority.  I do think that’s happening a lot.

[Michael Hardner]

52 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. I’ll rephrase it.  I think many people support it but not that many, not everyone and probably not a large majority.  

2. Again, morality isn’t a popularity contest, though even when popularity matters as in politics, it’s sometimes the loudest voices in minority that drown out the majority.  I do think that’s happening a lot.

I would only repost my last post again in response to this.