Federal Government in a Surplus

[RedDog]

Alberta can be saved. CanaDUH is lost and aimlessly adrift.

Even so, the extorted money has to be repaid.

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

No.  You’re into social engineering immoral/amoral behaviour and the  abuse/death of the vulnerable to suit the young and able.  

How am I “into social engineering”?

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

How am I “into social engineering”?

Ponder that question and see what comes out of the ether.  

[TreeBeard]

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Ponder that question and see what comes out of the ether.  

That’s not how this works…. I can’t ponder what is in that brain of yours that would make you say I am for social engineering.  

“You hate dogs”

”why do you say that about me?”

”Why don’t you think about it”?

[TreeBeard]

Isn’t it “social engineering” to outlaw freedoms, like marriage equality for gay people, in favour of “traditional” or “biblical” marriage?

The state is enforcing, through laws, a moralistic view.  Can’t get much more engineered than that. 
 

Whereas the opposite view, that marriage is available to whomever wants it, is increasing liberty for its citizens.  

[Yzermandius19]

51 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Isn’t it “social engineering” to outlaw freedoms, like marriage equality for gay people, in favour of “traditional” or “biblical” marriage?

The state is enforcing, through laws, a moralistic view.  Can’t get much more engineered than that. 
 

Whereas the opposite view, that marriage is available to whomever wants it, is increasing liberty for its citizens.  

the government should just get out of the marriage sanctioning business altogether

if you want to increase liberty for all

and avoid the government taking a moral stance on the issue

best of both worlds

Edited September 2, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[TreeBeard]

7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the government should just get out of the marriage sanctioning business altogether

if you want to increase liberty for all

and avoid the government taking a moral stance on the issue

best of both worlds

Ok.  Sounds good to me.

But, you weren’t advocating that.   You were advocating social engineering by the state by removing liberty from people YOU feel don’t deserve it based on some moral grounds.  

 

[Yzermandius19]

12 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Ok.  Sounds good to me.

But, you weren’t advocating that.   You were advocating social engineering by the state by removing liberty from people YOU feel don’t deserve it based on some moral grounds.  

you have me confused with someone else

[TreeBeard]

23 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you have me confused with someone else

You’re right. That was the other guy.  
 

Since the government will not get out of the business of regulating marriage, do you think it should be open to gay people?

[Yzermandius19]

36 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You’re right. That was the other guy.  
 

Since the government will not get out of the business of regulating marriage, do you think it should be open to gay people?

I see no good reason why the government should ban it

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

except married and husband are not terms someone pulled out of their ass…. They’re governed by federal law. 

So are gender identities and pronouns in federal law. Which is why i brought it up, And if they can pull that out of their ass and then plant it in our education system and laws with out any real resistance from the public or subject matter experts ...

Which begs the question is only the LGBT community allowed to do this or is it open for any one to just change our language, laws, education. Or was everyone afraid of being canceled for challenging it . 

[TreeBeard]

13 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

So are gender identities and pronouns in federal law. Which is why i brought it up, And if they can pull that out of their ass and then plant it in our education system and laws with out any real resistance from the public or subject matter experts ...

Which begs the question is only the LGBT community allowed to do this or is it open for any one to just change our language, laws, education. Or was everyone afraid of being canceled for challenging it . 

On your gender point - You’re comparing apples and bowling balls.  It’s a nonsensical post.  Who cares what gender someone identifies as?   You’re free not to accept it, just like you’re free to tell two guys that, in your opinion, they’re not really married.   But….  They’re still actually married.  😱
 

2nd point - Anyone can change the language.  Words are descriptive and not prescriptive.  They change all the time spurred by the common usage by many different people.  

[Army Guy]

20 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

On your gender point - You’re comparing apples and bowling balls.  It’s a nonsensical post.  Who cares what gender someone identifies as?   You’re free not to accept it, just like you’re free to tell two guys that, in your opinion, they’re not really married.   But….  They’re still actually married.  😱
 

2nd point - Anyone can change the language.  Words are descriptive and not prescriptive.  They change all the time spurred by the common usage by many different people.  

Perhaps it is apples and bowling balls, but both are built and protected under federal law, who cares? well perhaps you should tell the father that is being forced to call is daughter, son by a court of law or face criminal charges. so in your mind your free to think what ever you want, but in the law you can be charged with continuing to misgender or screw up the pronouns. 

Yes, you can you can make up words anytime you want, but what you can't do is change the meaning such as they and them meaning people in plural sense. tell me how it got changed to mean one person, or have more than one meaning. So if they can off the cuff change words definition without any back lash, or opposition then why can the rest of Canada not make up their own definitions as well.

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

but what you can't do is change the meaning such as they and them meaning people in plural sense.

Yes…. people can and do change the meaning of words all the time.  LOL.  That’s what descriptive and not prescriptive means.  

 

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

tell me how it got changed to mean one person,

seriously?   This is the first you’re hearing of this??   LOL

Well, back in the 14th century, it was used thusly.  

from Google:  The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf.

 

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

well perhaps you should tell the father that is being forced to call is daughter, son by a court of law or face criminal charges.

I have no idea about the case you’re referring to, but I bet that guy was a real piece of shit who mentally abused his kid because he hates liberals and communists.  

[Zeitgeist]

14 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

You’re right. That was the other guy.  
 

Since the government will not get out of the business of regulating marriage, do you think it should be open to gay people?“

It’s a new definition of marriage that not everyone supports   If it’s about having the same legal protections of marriage as straight people, I think most people support that, so we have legal gay marriage.  People can still think it’s wrong.  Seeing how our society is pushing gay lifestyle rhetoric in early learning, I’d say the pendulum has swung too far for sure   

With regard to language:

“They” isn’t singular.  

A biological man isn’t a woman or vice versa, whatever one may feel about oneself.  I’m sure the feeling of dysphoria is real for some people.

Language does matter.  The term racialized that’s being pushed by some academic activists means that race is a social construct, yet skin colour is a biological fact that isn’t socialized.

We have gotten away from factual language like person of colour and moved to political language like racialized. 

Putting pronouns under one’s email signature is a way of calling attention to one’s political stance.  It’s very much a political bumper sticker.  Not everyone wants to proclaim their political views.  Not everyone wants their use of pronouns to be highlighted.

People shouldn’t be mistreated just because they don’t identify their personal pronouns.  

Edited September 3, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[TreeBeard]

9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

“They” isn’t singular.  

If you can’t understand the useage and definitions of words, and the fact that ‘they’ has been used as a singular since the 14th century, you may need some remedial schooling before you’re able to carry on a conversation about the definition of ‘they’.  
 

In simpler terms:  pick up a bloody dictionary because you don’t seem to understand simple English.  

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

If you can’t understand the useage and definitions of words, and the fact that ‘they’ has been used as a singular since the 14th century, you may need some remedial schooling before you’re able to carry on a conversation about the definition of ‘they’.  
 

In simpler terms:  pick up a bloody dictionary because you don’t seem to understand simple English.  

I can’t inject you with brain cells.  You don’t understand subject-pronoun agreement.  It’s grammatically incorrect to say of a person touching her own ear, “Shirley touched their ear.”   You can make believe anything you want though.  Lol.  I have a graduate degree in literature, but I’m sure your English language skills are unparalleled.  

Edited September 4, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[August1991]

On 9/1/2022 at 1:10 PM, TreeBeard said:

Is it absurd to him and his husband?  Why should we go by your definition of what is absurd?

I have no objection to Elton John living with a partner - signing a civil contract.

But please don't don't tell me that Elton John is "married" and has a "husband".

====

Mayonnaise requires whole eggs. Otherwise, it's just salad dressing. 

[TreeBeard]

5 hours ago, August1991 said:

I have no objection to Elton John living with a partner - signing a civil contract.

But please don't don't tell me that Elton John is "married" and has a "husband".

====

Mayonnaise requires whole eggs. Otherwise, it's just salad dressing. 

Why should we go by your definition of marriage and not the legal definition?

[TreeBeard]

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I can’t inject you with brain cells.

Please…. Stop…. Learn from someone. 
 

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s grammatically incorrect to say of a person touching her own ear, “Shirley touched their ear.”  

It has only been used that way for some 600 years, off and on….  Yes, it fell out of favour, but it’s nothing new.  
 

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

This use of singular they emerged by the 14th century,^[3] about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error.^[4] Its continued use in modern standard Englishhas become more common and formally accepted with the move toward gender-neutral language.^[5][6] Though some early-21st-century style guides described it as colloquial and less appropriate in formal writing,^[7][8] by 2020 most style guides accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun.^{[9][10][11][12]}

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I have a graduate degree in literature, but I’m sure your English language skills are unparalleled.  

No, you don’t have a graduate degree in literature.  You can’t.  Or you went to the shittiest school on the planet.  Trump U.?

Edited September 4, 2022 by TreeBeard

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Please…. Stop…. Learn from someone. 
 

It has only been used that way for some 600 years, off and on….  Yes, it fell out of favour, but it’s nothing new.  
 

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

This use of singular they emerged by the 14th century,^[3] about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error.^[4] Its continued use in modern standard Englishhas become more common and formally accepted with the move toward gender-neutral language.^[5][6] Though some early-21st-century style guides described it as colloquial and less appropriate in formal writing,^[7][8] by 2020 most style guides accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun.^{[9][10][11][12]}

No, you don’t have a graduate degree in literature.  You can’t.  Or you went to the shittiest school on the planet.  Trump U.?

You constantly reveal your idiocy and total subservience to flavour of the month identity politics trends.  Just know that I consider your views to be the basis of much of what is destroying the social fabric of our society and our democracy. You repeat recycled sound bytes that we’ve already heard a thousand times and know are just more shrill whining from the victimhood club.  You attack what’s left of the strengths that maintain anything of real value, yet you don’t have anything to offer instead except vapid nihilism and communist tropes.  Calling me a liar is your last gasp at a pitiful retort, but it rings hollow because I have no reason to lie and nothing to prove to someone I don’t respect.  

[Michael Hardner]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:10 PM, TreeBeard said:

1. The state is enforcing, through laws, a moralistic view.  Can’t get much more engineered than that. Whereas the opposite view, that marriage is available to whomever wants it, is increasing liberty for its citizens.  

1. Interesting view. I think that the state sanctioning marriage on any level is the kind of social engineering.  It's a religious and moral institution.  Let it be.

[eyeball]

22 hours ago, August1991 said:

Mayonnaise requires whole eggs. Otherwise, it's just salad dressing. 

Salad dressing requires mayonnaise.

Otherwise, it's just ketchup.

[Army Guy]

On 9/2/2022 at 10:31 PM, TreeBeard said:

Yes…. people can and do change the meaning of words all the time.  LOL.  That’s what descriptive and not prescriptive means.  

 

seriously?   This is the first you’re hearing of this??   LOL

Well, back in the 14th century, it was used thusly.  

from Google:  The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf.

 

I have no idea about the case you’re referring to, but I bet that guy was a real piece of shit who mentally abused his kid because he hates liberals and communists.  

Quote

Is it absurd to him and his husband?  Why should we go by your definition of what is absurd?

This was your quote above, it is your question, So why do we go by your definition of what is absurd, it seems you answer this one already, people do it all the time .LOL.  That’s what descriptive and not prescriptive means.  

Yes, I'm hearing of this for the first time, i did not a English major, and going back to 1300's is a reach, do I have to now believe the earth is flat, the moon made of cheese, And I'm pretty sure thats not what they are teaching in school just 10 years ago before you could identify as a cat. 

Google it, there are dozens of cases out there. And if it makes you feel better or superior, then yes all Conservatives are pieces of shit, abuse their kids, and hate liberals and commies...shit google, that as well it has got to be true if it is on the intra net.

So what happens now we spend 10 pages calling each other names, or whip out our penises to see who is bigger, ...or your favorite my dad can beat up your dad...or is this how you debate now, becasue i was just getting use to the screaming and yelling... 

[Queenmandy85]

On 9/4/2022 at 6:10 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Interesting view. I think that the state sanctioning marriage on any level is the kind of social engineering.  It's a religious and moral institution.  Let it be.

Traditional marriage is the union between a man and a woman's estate, dowery and status.