The Left is Destroying Western Civilization

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

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

Well as i've mentioned and you've been unable to refute we know that's not the case. Sorry

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, because a duel had to have two willing partners to be lawful, and if it was lawful then it wasn't murder. 

It certainly is murder by our definitions. So - i guess they really DID need to be told what murder was

And there's plenty of other examples. Shoot a man for stealing your horse - not murder.  etc etc.

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

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. ?‍♂️

Uhhhh - yea -  because of christian values. Prior to that contact, not so much

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

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

It's perfectly valid.  You just realize that it's correct and there's no counter argument so you choose to attack it's validity rather than address it.

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If someone was trying to argue that eating and cultivating tomatoes originated in Italy, you'd at least have a parallel argument. 

Nope - it would be the same either way.  Again - the fact it originated in one place doesnt mean it didn't also originate somewhere else independently.  And in the case of tomatoes that's actually not far off as several species came about in different places.

And it's 10 times easier for an idea to pop up in more than one place independent of each other

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

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.  

You've realized you don't have a very good point haven't you SImply repeating something instead of making an argument doesn't make it true.

As i've shown there are massive differences in laws from place to place, the christian version of morality is unique to itself even if similar (but different) elements appear in other beliefs.  Sorry this upsets you so much but yet - the christian belief model is unique and there can be no doubt it's been formative.  And as i've noted it didn't exist for "thousands" of years before

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

What laws were these again? ?

Oh - are we back to pretending you didn't mention any laws? I quoted one, did you want me to do some mo

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That they existed prior means that they were based on something that came before Christianity.  This is pretty simple stuff. 

So simple that it's wrong. And "based on' is not the same as "are"   If they are "based" on something they they are by definition different than that thing. So they have evolved or grown into something new.  So even though i've demonstrated that you're wrong and these morals are NOT ubiquitous nor are they what came before, even if you were right and they were BASED on something that came before they would still be unique and stand alone.

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

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.

Sorry - that statement is false demonstrably.  The bible was never adapted into law. And roman law bears little resemblance to our laws, which use the bible as a base for the moral portions of the law.  So the statement is just plain wrong across the board.

 

And with that i think you've pretty much exhausted your argument. 

The biblical code of morality did not exist before the bible even if some general concepts are somewhat vaguely similar. In fact most are very different.

There is no universal set of ethcis that the bible is based on.

Our laws are not derrived from the bible but many are based on the morality within it.

I get that you desperately want the bible to have no relevance in our system but for better or worse it is patently obvious that it does. Or at least did in the early days. Sorry for the inconvenience

 

[herbie]

45 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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

The bias that it reports the news and is clear what is opinion? Or that it reports the government's side is on an issue more often than some Joe Id10t's?

It doesn't hold back on reporting gov't mistakes and scandals, regardless of the party in power.

Or is the issue that it will report on consumer issues, environmental issues, native issues and worker issues that no other outfit even will but you don't like and don't want to hear?

Or is it the issue that anyone anywhere in Canada can out up an antenna and recieve it for free - and you're so Americanized you'll sing out Who Must Pay? Who Must Pay? Why should I pay for his?

This bias bullshit is a Big Lie repeated over the last few decades so that people actually believe it is true. A reporters job is to report the events, and if the powers that be have a statement that too. Not to seek out 2nd opinions. hat's your job, and their Editorial board.

[TreeBeard]

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

We still have laws banning sexual activities between consenting adults and blasphemy laws - though they're about offensive or 'hateful' speech rather than religious speech.

Blasphemy is specific to religion.  So, no, hate speech laws are not the same thing.  You can’t promote hate against a religion, but you can blaspheme without risk of prosecution. 
 

 

[Moonbox]

37 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It certainly is murder by our definitions. So - i guess they really DID need to be told what murder was

And there's plenty of other examples. Shoot a man for stealing your horse - not murder.  etc etc.

By our definition, not by the Bible's.  ?

37 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Uhhhh - yea -  because of christian values. Prior to that contact, not so much

I'll stop right there.  Murder was not a punishable offense in Japan until the Christians came along.  

I thought maybe I was debating someone reasonable, but it turns out you're just long-winded.  

 

[I am Groot]

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Blasphemy is specific to religion.  So, no, hate speech laws are not the same thing.  You can’t promote hate against a religion, but you can blaspheme without risk of prosecution. 

Hate laws are the new blaspheme laws against the woke religious beliefs of DEI and anti-racism.

[I am Groot]

19 minutes ago, herbie said:

This bias bullshit is a Big Lie repeated over the last few decades so that people actually believe it is true. A reporters job is to report the events, and if the powers that be have a statement that too. 

The CBC is definitely biased. And it shows in the stories they choose to cover, and in how they cover stories they have to cover. It can't very well refuse to cover Liberal government scandals, but it can do so less intensively than Conservative government scandals. It can choose to interpret what Liberals say harmlessly while interpreting what Conservatives say in the worst possible light. It can choose to interview 'third parties', like academics, who will give the opinion they want them to give.

This organization actually launched a lawsuit against the Conservative party during the last election for snippets of news stories every party had been using since TV advertising was invented. And they attached the name of its main political commentator to the lawsuit.

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, herbie said:

 

It doesn't hold back on reporting gov't mistakes and scandals, regardless of the party in power.

It absolutely does.  Liberal issues go seriously underreported and conservative mistakes stay in their news cycle.

33 minutes ago, herbie said:

Or is the issue that it will report on consumer issues, environmental issues, native issues and worker issues that no other outfit even will but you don't like and don't want to hear?

They don't report on anything that other papers don't.  And it's not about not wanting to hear - i can always change the channel.  But i shouldn't HAVE to pay. It would be like being forced as a tax payer to pay for fox news.

33 minutes ago, herbie said:

Or is it the issue that anyone anywhere in Canada can out up an antenna and recieve it for free - and you're so Americanized you'll sing out Who Must Pay? Who Must Pay? Why should I pay for his?

A valid point - in 1970.  There is virtually no where in canada right now that you can't get internet service and have access to all kinds of news. 

But sure - you're correct, they should pay for it if they like it.

It is a completely bias news source. That is the simple truth.  Which is fine, most are - but not if they're going to be on the public dime.

So defund them and let them make a go at it in the public market.  If people like you find the coverage good you won't mind paying for it out of your own pocket right?

Or is it that you just demand your agenda be pushed for free?

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I thought maybe I was debating someone reasonable, but it turns out you're just long-winded.  

 

Wow - how childish.  You "lose" a discussion and have a hissy fit.

Sorry kiddo - the bible is in fact a unique and seperate collection of values and it did influence canada's creation.  And you haven't been able to offer a single example otherwise.  You say "Roman" then are forced to admit they had different laws and moral values. I don't know what to tell you,

You run along now, sounds like you could use a cookie and a nap. You're at that level of debate at this point.

[I am Groot]

So here's another example of how the woke left is destroying our society. A teacher was in a grade 12 class when the discussion turned to native residential schools. And the teacher dared to question the woke narrative.

A student said priests had murdered and tortured the children at the school and then left them to die in the snow. McMurtry pointed out that most children at residential schools died from disease, primarily tuberculosis.

“I wasn’t trying to be inflammatory,” said McMurtry in an interview. “It was one comment. It was not done with callousness.”

It took one complaint, and before the hour was out McMurtry was being frog marched out of the school.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-higgins-truth-ignored-as-teacher-fired-for-saying-tb-caused-residential-school-deaths

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 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.

You know what really gets up a nationalist's nose? Identifying as an Earthling. I dare anyone to tell me I'm not indigenous.

And the sooner ya'll get your countries off my planet the better off everything will be.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And the sooner ya'll get your countries off my planet the better off everything will be.

Man, there are days where if i could only think of a way to get off the planet....

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Man, there are days where if i could only think of a way to get off the planet....

Well, if you think about this is actually a way on getting everyone on it instead of orbiting the place in the quasi-detached states they're in.  Which are states of mind as much as anything - simple conventions as opposed to something more substantial like Terra Firma.

[TreeBeard]

51 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Hate laws are the new blaspheme laws against the woke religious beliefs of DEI and anti-racism.

No, they’re not.  Laws against promotion of hate/violence against specific groups is not the same as criticizing Jesus. 

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

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

No it didn't.  

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.  

Because they balanced the budget and ran surpluses.  ?

I fixed that for you.  

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).

 

Or maybe you just like my posts...

That is a matter of opinion, where i was sitting most of the security apparatus in Canada was cut to the bone, at a terrific cost, of training, equipment, and personal, it was here that DND suffered massive reductions, closing of Germany, the cancelation of an entire brigade, and costing much more than they ever saved to regain all that was lost. 

Like i said if it was that bad then, can't wait to see what our future looks like after the liberals doubling the deficit

Quote

ut 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 

What do you call it then when you spend almost all your effort on here defending liberal actions and policies, infact i might have heard you express or defend conservative values a couple of times. I get it the conservative crowd here is a tough bunch, some even on the fringes, but thats where you spend your time, and if i had not seen you post you where a conservative , i would have called you a liberal. I'm not the only one here that has brought that up,why is that ?

No, your painting everyone with the same brush, there maybe some people with ideas on the fringe but they are far from the extreme right that we have seen make splashes all over the media...far from being a clown show as you suggest...

and the great thing about a forum is YOU get to decide who to engage, YOU are not a member of the moral police, it is not YOUR job to engage and protect the forums integrity, not saying you can't engage, but is anyone actually getting anything out of those conversations, except your blood pressure,  unless that is what you do for entertainment.

Guilty as charged, if i think there is some truth to what is being said then sure i will defend that person, I've also spoke on your behalf, dialamah, Michael, and many more, if i think it is the right thing to do, or they are speaking of the truth.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

No, they’re not.  Laws against promotion of hate/violence against specific groups is not the same as criticizing Jesus. 

You'd have to be a devout believer of the new religion to believe that

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You'd have to be a devout believer of the new religion to believe that

Any examples of these unjust prosecutions of people who are, apparently, just expressing their views?   

 

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Hate laws are the new blaspheme laws against the woke religious beliefs of DEI and anti-racism.

Again, examples of these unjust prosecutions would be nice. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

Any examples of these unjust prosecutions of people who are, apparently, just expressing their views?   

 

tonnes. But is there a point? I'm thinking that even if i provided 100 or 1000 no matter how good they are you'd find exception or excuse for them.

I mean, it seems a little disingenuous that you're claiming you know NOTHING of any such language laws in canada where speaking against the established doctrine is an offense.  Seriously you've NEVER heard of anything like that, absolutely cannot possibly guess what i'm talking about, that's your position is it? And you don't think it's still going on?

 

Oh btw - just gonna leave this here ....  enjoy

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-residential-school-denialism-declared-hate-speech-1.6744100

[TreeBeard]

Just now, CdnFox said:

tonnes

No examples given. 
 

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Oh btw - just gonna leave this here ....  enjoy

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-residential-school-denialism-declared-hate-speech-1.6744100

Fringe view from a fringe politician and not an actual law.  

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

No examples given. 
 

Fringe view from a fringe politician and not an actual law.  

So what you're saying is you didn't read my post and/or can't address the concern.

Well - you may be a bit of a troll but you're an honest one   I appreciate that.

[TreeBeard]

Just now, CdnFox said:

So what you're saying is you didn't read my post and/or can't address the concern.

Well - you may be a bit of a troll but you're an honest one   I appreciate that.

If you would provide 1 example, we could at least analyze it.   Maybe @I am Groot won’t be afraid to show one example where people are prosecuted for speaking against established doctrine.  

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

If you would provide 1 example, we could at least analyze it.   Maybe @I am Groot won’t be afraid to show one example where people are prosecuted for speaking against established doctrine.  

You can't even read my post and respond to it sensibly and you feel you're going to 'analyse' Canadian law?

If what you were hoping for was a rational discourse, don't you think starting off with a little honesty and fairly addressing the concerns raised would have been appropriate?

By failing to do so and making demands of others all you demonstrate is that a) you have no interest in a reasoned discussion and  b) you suspect that deep down we have a point and would like to avoid it.

Next time come to the table as an honest player and we can try again - but don't mistake me for someone who suffers foolishness lightly.

In the meantime i'm sure if you try real hard you can find plenty of examples of people being cancelled or fired or arrested for their speech. Sadly, the examples are legion.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

A valid point - in 1970.  There is virtually no where in canada right now that you can't get internet service and have access to all kinds of news. 

I won't go on that you've bought the rightwing pitch on 'bias', I'll just note you don't get out much.

A - 'the Internet' is the worst place to get news

B - You haven't noticed the paywalls on legacy news sites

C - You bought the CRTC bull about Canadians and Internet access. They lie thru their teeth, claim it's available without regard to price and under-define the concept of high speed Internet. I had a 30Mb up& down unlimited connection in 2014 for only $4200 a month. In 2005 I paid $5000 a month for 10 Mbps to resell & share to the whole town.

D- you're sold on the concept that people should have to pay for news and information on their own country, to some private for profit corporation. Knowing well that the country can't maintain a PBS like system. We run a local OTA rebroadcast here funded by the local taxes, I'm used to hearing ppl stand up and swear that satellite and cable TV only costs about $10 a month so why should they have to pay (like $25 a year) just cuz someone else can't pay for satellite. Total lie, and I was the only one with guts to stand up and say so.

Our local rebroadcast was set up in the early 1970s - when ppl had the brains to understand what was better and less expensive rather than if the idea was "left" or "right". They did so because they knew the cable outfit would only connect the densest downtown core and leave everyone else with nothing. As they DID - 40 years later when rules were rewritten. Then a few years ago the Telco bought the cable company out, boosted the rates on lower Internet packages so it wouldn't hurt the old 'diesel" lines and yeah - now you can get 120 Mb if you want to pay $120 a month. Pay the telco $120 or the cable $120, or the WISP $120 or Elon $150 and you can get your new for free.
BTW the OTA broadcast is still going. 31 TV stations and 10 FM radio. And thanks to co-op management and digital tv all for less than the original grant. And there really are a few who are flatly opposed won't watch it and pay $100 for satellite instead, because it's communist.

Edited February 22, 2023 by herbie

[TreeBeard]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

examples of people being cancelled or fired

Why are you moving the goalposts?  
 

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

arrested for their speech

I’m not denying that we have laws against certain forms of speech.  There are hate laws, libel laws, etc.   But the argument is whether these are the same as blasphemy against religion.  I think there’s a clear difference between inciting hate and/or violence against a particular group and being prosecuted for speaking out against religion. 
 

To analyze the difference, we’d need an example.  I haven’t seen one yet.  

Edited February 22, 2023 by TreeBeard

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, herbie said:

I won't go on that you've bought the rightwing pitch on 'bias', I'll just note you don't get out much.

Awww muffin Don't go away mad

Quote

A - 'the Internet' is the worst place to get news

So the cbc website is the worst place to get news? Well - i'm not saying you're wrong but i'm surprised you feel that way.

 

Quote

You haven't noticed the paywalls on legacy news sites

There are TONNES of free access news sites and you've ALWAYS had to pay for newspapers.

Quote

You bought the CRTC bull about Canadians and Internet access. They lie thru their teeth, claim it's available without regard to price and under-define the concept of high speed Internet.

I've used those services. more than enough to read a newspaper or even watch a cbc news broadcast online.

12 minutes ago, herbie said:

D- you're sold on the concept that people should have to pay for news and information on their own country,

Did you think the CBC was free? We're paying for the news one way or another. I just dont' want to pay for YOU to watch the news. You pay for you and i'll pay for me

13 minutes ago, herbie said:

Our local rebroadcast was set up in the early 1970s

So i was right

13 minutes ago, herbie said:

now you can get 120 Mb if you want to pay $120 a month. Pay the telco $120 or the cable $120, or the WISP $120 or Elon $150 and you can get your new for free.

Well that's a HELL of a lot less than i pay in taxes so sounds good!!!! Lets go with that

Look - if someone somewhere wants to give you free service then great - grab it. But - don't expect ME to pay for YOUR 'Free' service.  And don't complain if i don't want to.

The cbc will be defunded and if people want it they can pay for it. If they don't it dies as well it should.  It was necessary once upon a time - those times are long gone and they are bias as crap.