Jump to content

The Left is Destroying Western Civilization


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

So the NBA held its all star game the other night. And they apparently consulted some Canadians about who to get to sing the Canadian anthem. Now, the thing about Canada's media and artists are they've taken their cues from academics. Anti-patriotism is fashionable. They chose some nobody who's black because, after all it's 'black history month' in Canada. Who then went on to shit on Canada in front of tens of millions of American viewers.

Shitting on Canada gets you praised for your bravery and honesty by the rest of the mostly talentless welfare artists of Canada's cancon. So I'm quite certain she'll be fawned over and praised and the politicians won't dare say a word of criticism - particularly since she'll hold up the race shield. 

Now, it's her right to be a shrill, Canada-hating c*nt. This is a free country, after all. And none of the laws the Liberals are considering to control offensive or hateful speech will ever challenge people who deliberately set out to offend large groups of people who aren't members of preferred identity groups. 

But this talentless, Canada-hating sow is the child of immigrants we allowed to come and stay here from Jamaica. So it seems to me if she doesn't want to be dismissed as a sanctimonious hypocrite she should stop being a colonizing occupier of native land and leave. Wouldn't that make sense? She and her parents and her siblings should pack up, leave whatever land they might own here to the natives, and go back to the shithole they came from. They've all still got Jamaican citizenship, after all. Most Canadians don't have that option. They do. But they've decided to stay here and occupy the natives' land. 

While shitting on Canada in front of American audiences. 

I can sense you're upset.

I think most people know it's all bollocks.  Canadians and Americans.

I do agree though, that if she feels that way she should lead by example and f*ck right off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Western civilization has its basis in 6th century Greek rationalism, Roman law, and Jewish moral codes (which predated but were passed on to Christianity). However it was Christianity which largely spread these beliefs to the rest of the world and for the next couple of thousand years western civilization has evolved into what it has become today. That's it in a nutshell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think that's a bit of a circular argument and to be honest it's not accurate. Laws vary a GREAT deal all around the world. If morality was ubiquitous as you suggest that wouldn't be the case.

The broad strokes are ubiquitous, and the fact that even places like China base their legal systems on civil (Roman) law tells you how deeply "Christian" it all is.  

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No it isn't. In fact, the definition of it varies a HUGE amount. What is murder in one place might be perfectly lawful homicide somewhere else.  Consider the US - there are places where in some circumstances you can shoot and kill someone legally where the same circumstances in Canada would be called murder...

We're not talking about the individual laws themselves.  We're talking about the "morality" behind them.  Your example hurts your point more than helps it, considering Canadian and US legal systems come from basically the exact same place.  What's the argument?  That Canada is less biblical, or something?  

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And? Is your point that if the bible didn't create the language for something then it's not biblical?  Nobody claimed that perjury didn't exist before the bible.  Murder did too, and the bible touches on that, so did coveting for that matter :)  The bible didn't CREATE these things, it only discusses how "god" sees these things and how you should view them.

The point was that folks already knew these things were wrong, and formal legal systems were organized to enforce laws around them long before Jesus walked the Earth or Christian morality was ever a thing.  Christianity, in many instances, was actually a step backwards for human rights and law, particularly with women and their status post-Rome.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

My narrative must be worth something you keep coming back to it.

Hard not to, when you're repeating it every chance you get.  

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I agree, but what he did was declare war, and stripping government departments to the bone for a full decade was a perfect example of what not to do. It cost the federal government more to repair the damage done to all these departments than what was actually saved.

No it didn't.  

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

And then the question of was it all worth it, all the gains was destroyed by successive governments within a short period of time. He had lots of options available to him, burning the place to the ground should have been the last resort. 

It was worth it because without it we were headed for a debt spiral, with weakening credit ratings and therefore more expensive debt leading to worse credit ratings and so on until nobody would lend to us or extend our debt, and we defaulted.  It literally was getting to that point.  

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

It seems that kicking things down the road is the liberal way, and to be fair most other parties as well. You call it leadership i call it excessive, if it was as bad as you described why did successive governments not continue with the program of cuts

Because they balanced the budget and ran surpluses.  ?

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

You don't need to have examples of bias, I freely admit I do not like many ideas, policies, or actions from the left Liberals. That been said i have been vocal of the right down falls as well.  

I fixed that for you.  

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

But one can say the same thing about your posts, you spend 50 % of them defending liberal actions, and the other 50 % arguing with the right side of the house... And if you had not openly declared yourself a conservative no one would have been able to tell. And of course there is your bias 

The difference between us is that I've voted for the Conservatives probably 80% of the time federally, and 100% of the time provincially, and you're implying I'm a biased lefty. 

The "right" side of this house as you describe it, is the conspiracy and culture-war clown parade.  Most of the older and more recognizable posters from when we joined this forum are posting on a different site now, sparing themselves from the constant stupidity and raving of "Reee MSM fake News!  KLAUS SCHWAB!  Election was STOLEN!  Vaccines cause autism/sterility/heart attacks!  Something about BioLabs in Ukraine!  Hunter Biden's Laptop!  Wokism is DESTROYING western culture!!"  

Before you mention that you're not the one repeating (most) of these stories, I know that, but can't be said for a large section of the forum (and whom you are often rushing in to defend).

 

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Jully Black (who's Black) is not a nobody.  I have heard of her and not you.
2. Yeah... you are overreacting.  Just like people who are going out of their way to say this is a monumental change .... getting all snowflakey about it isn't helpful either.

She just changed a word to make a point, let's move on lest people think white people can't take a poke...

That's a really inappropriate attitude.  It's not an overreaction for someone to be upset about someone disrespecting their country.  And make no mistake, it is disrespect.

Now - it's one thing to say 'well lets put it in perspective" or have a discussion but your attitude is "Screw you, your feelings on the subject don't matter and  go Screw yourself".'   and if that's not what you MEANT to say - that's absolutely what you actually said so be aware of that.

We get NOWHERE when we just dismiss people's concerns like that. Sorry - it is a big deal to many and it deserves honest discussion.  Words matter.  Ask black people if being called N---  is ok.  Canadians don't like being told they aren't native to this land - which land do you THINK those of us who are born here are from?  And we're not going anywhere.

If you don't want to be part of the solution maybe at least don't be part of the problem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

The broad strokes are ubiquitous, and the fact that even places like China base their legal systems on civil (Roman) law tells you how deeply "Christian" it all is. 

No they are not. Not at all. And no, they don't base their legal system on rome. Sorry.  There are similarities because it's not a bad system but in fact the roman system and china's legal system are very very different.

 

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

We're not talking about the individual laws themselves.  We're talking about the "morality" behind them.  Your example hurts your point more than helps it, considering Canadian and US legal systems come from basically the exact same place.

No, you were speaking of specific laws. You can't just backtrack now.  And no, my example is perfectly good - it shows that while the laws may be BASED on bibilical principles that is not to say they are the same, so even with THAT reference there's diversion.  So the idea there's one ubiquitous morality for all people is obviously false.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

 

What's the argument?  That Canada is less biblical, or something?  

Nope - it's that we base our laws on christian beliefs, but everybody around the world has different moral values. But the fact that ours are based on christian beliefs does distinguish them from some other systems of morality.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

The point was that folks already knew these things were wrong, and formal legal systems were organized to enforce laws around them long before Jesus walked the Earth or Christian morality was ever a thing.  Christianity, in many instances, was actually a step backwards for human rights and law, particularly with women and their status post-Rome.  

Then your point is false. Sorry - many many things the romans considered perfectly fine INCLUDING MURDER are not part of the christian moral code.

 

So - basically if that was your point you were wrong entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. That's a really inappropriate attitude.  It's not an overreaction for someone to be upset about someone disrespecting their country.  And make no mistake, it is disrespect.

2. Now - it's one thing to say 'well lets put it in perspective" or have a discussion but your attitude is "Screw you, your feelings on the subject don't matter and  go Screw yourself".'   and if that's not what you MEANT to say - that's absolutely what you actually said so be aware of that.

 

1. I don't see it that way.
2. I know this poster, he's not actually a snowflake so he can take it.  I mostly agree with him, and he's on record as being quite direct about emotionality in politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, you were speaking of specific laws. You can't just backtrack now. 

I definitely did not mention or speak of any specific laws whatsoever.  Not sure what you figure I'm "backtracking" on.  Perhaps you mixed me up?  

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And no, my example is perfectly good - it shows that while the laws may be BASED on bibilical principles that is not to say they are the same, so even with THAT reference there's diversion.  So the idea there's one ubiquitous morality for all people is obviously false.

Nobody said that there was one ubiquitous morality, rather that many questions of morality have near-universal answers.  That you can't just murder someone you don't like, for example, is a universal morality.  What constitutes murder, and what justifies taking someone's life might differ around the world, may differ, but nobody ever needed the Bible to understand that murder wasn't okay.  

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope - it's that we base our laws on christian beliefs, but everybody around the world has different moral values. But the fact that ours are based on christian beliefs does distinguish them from some other systems of morality.

That's self-evidently false.  Most of these laws existed long before Christianity, so it's absurd say they're based on Christian beliefs.  Some of them might be, but you'd have to be specific.  Most of them are not, and many laws that were based purely on "christian beliefs" rather than secular jurisprudence have been stricken.  

Even worse for your argument is that most of the rest of the world have their own versions for these laws, developed completely separate from Christianity.  

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Then your point is false. Sorry - many many things the romans considered perfectly fine INCLUDING MURDER are not part of the christian moral code.

The Romans didn't consider murder "fine", and if that sort of logic is the basis for your argument, it's no wonder you're where you're at.  

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't see it that way.

Well that's what i hear from most racists and bigots when i point out the need to see both sides. I"m not sure that's the mindset you want to follow if you think about it.

Further - if you take that attitutde then you have no grounds to complain if someone chooses not to  respect the groups you DO care about. You should REALLY think about that before you settle on that idea permanently.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:


2. I know this poster, he's not actually a snowflake so he can take it.  I mostly agree with him, and he's on record as being quite direct about emotionality in politics.

Well fair enough  but there will be other people reading it as well. I guarantee that a percent who do will walk away with an attitude of "well  if THATS how they're going to be then Screw natives! It's us vs them!"

Now - you could successfully probably argue that that's not your responsibility but given the escalating racial and tribal tensions in Canada...   it might be something to just keep in the back of your mind. Racial and ethnic hatred and violence don't just magically appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Jully Black (who's Black) is not a nobody.  I have heard of her and not you.

She's a nobody as far as 98% of Canadians are concerned. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Yeah... you are overreacting.  Just like people who are going out of their way to say this is a monumental change .... getting all snowflakey about it isn't helpful either.

She just changed a word to make a point, let's move on lest people think white people can't take a poke...

It wasn't meant as a joke or a poke. It was yet another bullshit insult thrown at Canada, only in front of an international audience. The woke twat ought to be grateful as I'm quite sure she's benefited from all kinds of cancon grants over her career. But no, Canadian media, arts and academics are always eager to shit all over Canada. 

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It's still cutting costs, and considering the provincial governments are in charge of delivering health care in their provinces, it forced them to do their own soul-searching and cost-cutting.  

No the costs remain. Healthcare didn't go away. Social services don't go away. the other things the transfers pay for don't go away. He's just changing who's responsible for writing the cheque.  And the Canada health act is predicated on the FEDERAL gov't providing health care funding.

Are you suggesting the provinces should scrap universal health care as a reasonable response ?  As long as the feds are collecting tax dollars for heath care (which they do with the intent to divvy it up) then they do in fact have a responsibility there

So complete swing and a miss on that one.

 

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

So a defacto income tax.  Fine. 

No, a defacto insurance premium.  Then it was taken from that.  UI isn't a 'tax'.

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Because it isn't theft.  ?

Well the courts said it was but that the gov't can pass a law making theft not theft if it wants.  Remember that they sued the gov't to try to get the money back later.

Sorry - if you sell someone 70 billion dollars worth of insurance and then take their premiums, tell them you won't provide the benefits they paid for and spend the premiums somewhere else.... that's theft.  The fact that it can be done lawfully if you're a gov't doesn't really change that.

So he basically passed the bills to someone else then stole 60 billion worth of people's insurance money.

Thats only considered "good leadership" if you're a mob boss :)  Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Now - you could successfully probably argue that that's not your responsibility but given the escalating racial and tribal tensions in Canada...   it might be something to just keep in the back of your mind. Racial and ethnic hatred and violence don't just magically appear.

And backlashes don't magically appear either. They're created by actions, behavior, and statements, in this case the actions, behavior and statements of both governments and activists within certain communities. 

Why do so many people on the right support us selling off the CBC? Shouldn't people who are by nature traditionalists want to keep an organization meant to support Canadian culture? Well, sure! Except when they see the culture of that organization and the artists it supports turn against Canada and its heritage, traditions, and very legitimacy. 

Frankly, I'm at the point I'm not only willing to see the CBC defunded but ALL grants to all arts groups eliminated. Whether it's ballet, opera, orchestra, theatre, rock and pop singers, painters, sculptors, writers - f*ck them all. As far as I can tell the whole lot of them despise Canada and fall all over themselves to pour derision and contempt on Canada's values, culture, history and people. Let's see how many are good enough that ordinary people will be willing to pay them for their 'art' and keep them from having to hold down a real job.

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No the costs remain. Healthcare didn't go away. Social services don't go away. the other things the transfers pay for don't go away. He's just changing who's responsible for writing the cheque.  And the Canada health act is predicated on the FEDERAL gov't providing health care funding.

Exactly.  Healthcare and Social services didn't go away.  The transfers were reduced, and so services suffered, but if the money isn't there, then the money isn't there.  You could argue the Feds could have tried to cut elsewhere (and they did), or they could have raised taxes even more, so if you want to do that, go on ahead.  

When something like 40% of every tax dollar was going towards debt servicing costs alone, it was going to be hard/impossible to bring down program expenditure without health care spending taking a hit.  

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Are you suggesting the provinces should scrap universal health care as a reasonable response ?  As long as the feds are collecting tax dollars for heath care (which they do with the intent to divvy it up) then they do in fact have a responsibility there

So complete swing and a miss on that one.

Gosh, talk about a red-herring.  Where did I say that, or anything even remotely like that?  Swing and a miss, as you say.  

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, a defacto insurance premium.  Then it was taken from that.  UI isn't a 'tax'.

The raiding of the EI piggy bank was the "defacto" tax.  Maybe look up the meaning of the word.  

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry - if you sell someone 70 billion dollars worth of insurance and then take their premiums, tell them you won't provide the benefits they paid for and spend the premiums somewhere else.... that's theft.  The fact that it can be done lawfully if you're a gov't doesn't really change that.

Call it whatever you want.  They could have done it as a temporary income tax levy instead, but the results would have been the same - more off your income, and less in your pocket.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Sorry - if you sell someone 70 billion dollars worth of insurance and then take their premiums, tell them you won't provide the benefits they paid for and spend the premiums somewhere else.... that's theft.

No, it's the definition of insurance policy. Milk them for as much as you can and deny them as much as you can.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I definitely did not mention or speak of any specific laws whatsoever.  Not sure what you figure I'm "backtracking" on.  Perhaps you mixed me up?  

Oh - you DIDN"T mention murder for example? Did you want to go back and read your posts before we continue that?

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

Nobody said that there was one ubiquitous morality, rather that many questions of morality have near-universal answers. 

You literally said "The broad strokes are ubiquitous,"  And as i pointed out that's not true AND it is not true that they have near universal answers,

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That you can't just murder someone you don't like, for example, is a universal morality. 

Nonsense. In fact there have been many times in history where you absolutely COULD do that. You could challenge people to a duel and kill them and walk away scott free. In fact that practice was still going on only 150 years or so ago and as i understand it it's still allowed in many areas.

So - wrong. That is not universally agreed on.

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

What constitutes murder, and what justifies taking someone's life might differ around the world, may differ, but nobody ever needed the Bible to understand that murder wasn't okay.

They literally do. Many many societies were just fine with murder before being exposed to the bible. Japan comes to mind.

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That's self-evidently false.  Most of these laws existed long before Christianity, so it's absurd say they're based on Christian beliefs. 

That's logically incorrect.  First - the fact that a thing exists prior to it existing somewhere else does not remotely suggest that it doesn't exist somewhere else.  You could say that tomatoes are an important part of italian cooking - if you then tried to claim it was not because greeks used tomatoes too then you'd be seriously wrong.

And as we've seen  - many of the 'laws' you claim didn't in fact exist in the first place.

So whether they did or did not exist prior that does not change the fact that they represented a part of the christian belief system and that our laws are based on that. What we can say with certainty is they did NOT exist universally everywhere else at all, So they are not 'inherent' parts of human belief.

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

Some of them might be, but you'd have to be specific.  Most of them are not, and many laws that were based purely on "christian beliefs" rather than secular jurisprudence have been stricken.  

Even worse for your argument is that most of the rest of the world have their own versions for these laws, developed completely separate from Christianity.  

Yeah - the fact that not ALL places did proves my point nicely, and the fact that SOME did doesn't take away from the fact that christians did as well.  It's possible that the ancient messopotamians had a law that said to remember the sabbath and not work - but i bet that the provinces that had no working sunday regulations probably weren't basing it on that :)

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

The Romans didn't consider murder "fine", and if that sort of logic is the basis for your argument, it's no wonder you're where you're at.  

Sure they did. They practiced murder all the time. Half the later roman emporors came to power murdering their predecessor. Not one did jail time. In fact it was considered a sign of strength.  If you murdered someone people liked then they may well kill you in return, but that's not the same.

So what we can say with certainty is that while lots of people had various ideas about 'morality', some similar to the christian and some not,  The christian version is in fact it's own unique collection and it's what our laws were generally based on as far as the 'moral' component of them goes.

Sorry - if you're going to try to make the argument that christian values are the same as everyone else's values you're just not going to win that one.  Values are different across many religions and many parts of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Exactly.  Healthcare and Social services didn't go away.  The transfers were reduced, and so services suffered, but if the money isn't there, then the money isn't there.  You could argue the Feds could have tried to cut elsewhere (and they did), or they could have raised taxes even more, so if you want to do that, go on ahead. 

No, the deficits just got shifted to the provinces.  But it's the same taxpayer.

So your argument that he 'balanced the books'  by 'reducing costs' is fundamentally wrong. And what i said is correct. Chretien was no leader in that respect.

 

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

When something like 40% of every tax dollar was going towards debt servicing costs alone, it was going to be hard/impossible to bring down program expenditure without health care spending taking a hit. 

Well setting aside the fact that it was only that high due to the libs in the first place :) ....

Yeah - it's hard to deal with those issues.   That's why you need a REAL leader.  And he didn't do that, he took the easy way out. So - no leadership points there

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Gosh, talk about a red-herring.  Where did I say that, or anything even remotely like that?  Swing and a miss, as you say. 

You said it precisely where you claimed the feds had no responsiblity in provincial health care.  It's not a red herring, its the canada health act. And that was the whole deal - we HAD public health care before that but the deal was the feds would raise the tax money and distribute it for half the costs to make sure all provinces had equal funding for health care even if they didn't have the same tax base provided the agreed not to have any private health care.

So - the provinces kept their end - but chretien did not. You seem to be suggesting that the health act shouldn't exist and the provinces should be responsible for everything.

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The raiding of the EI piggy bank was the "defacto" tax.  Maybe look up the meaning of the word.  

No, simply putting the word 'defacto' in front doesn't change the facts.  raiding the ei fund was not a 'tax' , defacto or otherwise.

 

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Call it whatever you want.  They could have done it as a temporary income tax levy instead, but the results would have been the same - more off your income, and less in your pocket.  

Ahhhh - no they couldn't  A 70 billion dollar 'temporary' income tax levy? ROFLMAO!  they would have driven the country right back into recession :)

It took decades to collect that money in the UI fund. it was the cash reserves to pay for people if there was ever a major downturn. And they stole those savings.

There's no way to sugar coat this. Chretien was a HORRIBLE leader financially - he "balanced the books'  by keeping taxes and trade agreements he promised to scrap, by stealing 70 billion dollars in insurance reserves from workers, and by downloading a lot of costs to the provinces who then had to pay the bills.

Compare that to harper, who during a massive recession increased spending to the provinces , passed new laws protecting the ei program from theft  and still brought the books back into balance.

Chretien was a crappy leader.  Sorry

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

1. Well that's what i hear from most racists and bigots when i point out the need to see both sides. I"m not sure that's the mindset you want to follow if you think about it.

2. Further - if you take that attitutde then you have no grounds to complain if someone chooses not to  respect the groups you DO care about. You should REALLY think about that before you settle on that idea permanently.

 

 

1. This person can take strong medicine.  They don't believe in Black History Month so they're open to big discussions on the social landscape.
2. You mean like if somebody says Black History Month is garbage ?  I don't think I complain about such perspectives, at least I'm not personally offended.  It's pretty hard to stake out a moral ground on a board where people advocate such things as anti-Jewish conspiracy theories although that's one that I do take a stand on.
 
All I'm saying is that it's a comment, a political act, made with (one assumes) good intentions on her part.  I'm open to that.  

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. This person can take strong medicine.  They don't believe in Black History Month so they're open to big discussions on the social landscape.

As i noted, this person may not be the only one reading it tho i do get your point,

Just now, Michael Hardner said:


2. You mean like if somebody says Black History Month is garbage ? 

More like if they said black history is garbage. Or that blacks don't belong in America and only live on the country "we" built.  That'd be a pretty upsetting thing for a lot of blacks to hear. That might not make tensions better between the races. I would argue you should think about that before making a statement like that. Would you disagree?

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think I complain about such perspectives, at least I'm not personally offended.  It's pretty hard to stake out a moral ground on a board where people advocate such things as anti-Jewish conspiracy theories although that's one that I do take a stand on

Well my point is if someone does take such a position, you're not helping by saying they are invald as a person for thinking that way. Even if you don't like them as a person as a result, the fact is everyone has a reason for believing what they do and it's better not to simply dismiss them like that imho.

we've probably said our piece on the subject, but just something to think about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

 

Why do so many people on the right support us selling off the CBC?

It's bias, expensive and people should't be forced to pay for it'? Do you need more?

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Shouldn't people who are by nature traditionalists want to keep an organization meant to support Canadian culture?

The right aren't traditionalists. You're about 100 years too late for that. But they do tend to be patriotic which leads to your next point,

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Well, sure! Except when they see the culture of that organization and the artists it supports turn against Canada and its heritage, traditions, and very legitimacy. 

Well i think all that would probably still be an issue whether they were traditionalists or not  :) LOL Then there's the constant propping up of the liberals.

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

 

Frankly, I'm at the point I'm not only willing to see the CBC defunded but ALL grants to all arts groups eliminated. Whether it's ballet, opera, orchestra, theatre, rock and pop singers, painters, sculptors, writers - f*ck them all. As far as I can tell the whole lot of them despise Canada and fall all over themselves to pour derision and contempt on Canada's values, culture, history and people. Let's see how many are good enough that ordinary people will be willing to pay them for their 'art' and keep them from having to hold down a real job.

well whether they despise canada or not the fact is that it's highly questionable to force people to pay for them. If people care about that art they should be willing to fund it from their own pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This person can take strong medicine.  They don't believe in Black History Month so they're open to big discussions on the social landscape.

My sense of logic is offended by the idea of a "Black" history month when we had virtually no Black people in Canada prior to the 1970s and almost all Black people in Canada are immigrants or their children. My local radio station plays a song by a black artist because it's 'black history month' every morning while I'm brushing my teeth. Today's was Michael Jackson. Yesterday it was Whitney Houston. I'm like, whaaaa? It's all patronizing bullshit drawn from an obsession with American culture war topics.

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

All I'm saying is that it's a comment, a political act, made with (one assumes) good intentions on her part.  I'm open to that.  

Good intentions? Like shitting on Canada on an international stage? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CdnFox said:

Oh - you DIDN"T mention murder for example? Did you want to go back and read your posts before we continue that?

You literally said "The broad strokes are ubiquitous,"  And as i pointed out that's not true AND it is not true that they have near universal answers,

Yes, the broad strokes.  The common themes.  The big and obvious items.  No Bible was ever required to deal with these.  

Just now, CdnFox said:

Nonsense. In fact there have been many times in history where you absolutely COULD do that. You could challenge people to a duel and kill them and walk away scott free. In fact that practice was still going on only 150 years or so ago and as i understand it it's still allowed in many areas.

No, because a duel had to have two willing partners to be lawful, and if it was lawful then it wasn't murder.  If you challenged someone to a duel and they refused, you didn't get to kill them.  Whether or not the practice was silly or barbaric is irrelevant.  Both parties had to be willing participants in the sad affair.  

Just now, CdnFox said:

They literally do. Many many societies were just fine with murder before being exposed to the bible. Japan comes to mind.

Or...all of Christian Europe, depending on your definition of murder.  As long as Japan was in contact with Europe, murder was a punishable offense. ?‍♂️

Just now, CdnFox said:

That's logically incorrect.  First - the fact that a thing exists prior to it existing somewhere else does not remotely suggest that it doesn't exist somewhere else.  You could say that tomatoes are an important part of italian cooking - if you then tried to claim it was not because greeks used tomatoes too then you'd be seriously wrong.

This example is junk - a lazy analogy that's absurd at face value, and doesn't even fit this argument.  

If someone was trying to argue that eating and cultivating tomatoes originated in Italy, you'd at least have a parallel argument.  It would be wrong, but it would at least be parallel to this weird idea that biblical laws were somehow special or formative, rather than the adoption and adaptation of hundreds/thousands of years of existing legal tradition that already existed in the same area.  

Just now, CdnFox said:

And as we've seen  - many of the 'laws' you claim didn't in fact exist in the first place.

What laws were these again? ?

Just now, CdnFox said:

So whether they did or did not exist prior that does not change the fact that they represented a part of the christian belief system and that our laws are based on that.

That they existed prior means that they were based on something that came before Christianity.  This is pretty simple stuff.  Roman Law predated the Bible, which was written by Roman scholars/clergy/leaders in the first place.  The Bible was adopted and adapted into this system, rather than the other way around.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...