Jump to content

The Left is Destroying Western Civilization


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

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

Criticizing your country. We're strong enough to take it.

I mean, some people choose to park a truck in a residential neighborhood and blare the horn for weeks. Other people change one word in a song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

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

Blaspheme laws aren't just about criticizing a specific religious figure. You can say something which violates doctrine and be guilty of blaspheme. In the Muslim world they kill people for that. Salmon Rushdie didn't deliberately insult anyone but has been running from assassins for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.  

Actually, I just posted one about a guy who was fired for violating doctrine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Criticizing your country. We're strong enough to take it.

I mean, some people choose to park a truck in a residential neighborhood and blare the horn for weeks. Other people change one word in a song.

And I don't like either, But the twat blaring his horn isn't working for the taxpayer. Whereas just about every music video, recording, tv show, book, or performance in Canada is subsidized by the government. This chick is a welfare artist and turns around and backhands the country that lets her be more than the waitress she was destined to be. And she's hardly unique. All too many members of our barista welfare artistic community will be applauding her and congratulating themselves on their virtue over shit like this. A more smug group of sanctimonious woke arseholes you won't find anywhere.

Except, of course, in their peers in the US and UK. But those people are, for the most part, actually being paid for their artistry by the private sector. 

But no one will dare challenge her, especially since she's Black. Unless it's Bernier, but it's not like he can be canceled since as far as I know he lives in a cave somewhere and has no job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Fired?  
Is that a law?  LOL

The goalposts change again. 

Oh, are you from the If-you're-not-shot-by-the-government-then-you-have-free-speech-even-if-you-lose-your-job,-your -house-and-are-driven-off-the-internet-and-out-of-town-by-a-frenzied-mob-of-my-friends-threatening-death crowd?

You know the government is just putting in the internet blaspheme laws now, right?

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

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Oh, are you from the If-you're-not-shot-by-the-government-then-you-have-free-speech-even-if-you-lose-your-job,-your -house-and-are-driven-off-the-internet-and-out-of-town-by-a-frenzied-mob-of-my-friends-threatening-death crowd?

You know the government is just putting in the internet blaspheme laws now, right?

I am they type that if I am talking about laws, then I mean laws.  If you want to talk about reasons people can get fired, then let’s discuss that.   But, you completely moved the goal posts to try and win a point.  

You’re not an honest interlocutor. 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I am they type that if I am talking about laws, then I mean laws.  If you want to talk about reasons people can get fired, then let’s discuss that.   But, you completely moved the goal posts to try and win a point.  

You’re not an honest interlocutor. 

I am talking about blaspheme laws, however they are applied and whoever applies them. Treating differences of opinion or viewpoints on topics that a certain group has basically declared 'sacred' as something demanding punishment is basically treating those views as a blaspheme. There are laws being put in place for such things on the internet, and as the cite points out, some of the NDP want laws in place to make it a crime to disagree on the residential schools topic.

Your pretending its all good because the laws aren't yet in place is also disingenuous. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Your pretending its all good because the laws aren't yet in place is also disingenuous. 

It is all good.  Some people want blasphemy laws in place so criticism of Jesus and/or Allah are illegal.  Some people want criticism of fat people to be illegal.   But, it’s all good, since they aren’t in place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

And I don't like either, But the twat blaring his horn isn't working for the taxpayer. Whereas just about every music video, recording, tv show, book, or performance in Canada is subsidized by the government. This chick is a welfare artist and turns around and backhands the country that lets her be more than the waitress she was destined to be. And she's hardly unique. All too many members of our barista welfare artistic community will be applauding her and congratulating themselves on their virtue over shit like this. A more smug group of sanctimonious woke arseholes you won't find anywhere.

Except, of course, in their peers in the US and UK. But those people are, for the most part, actually being paid for their artistry by the private sector. 

But no one will dare challenge her, especially since she's Black. Unless it's Bernier, but it's not like he can be canceled since as far as I know he lives in a cave somewhere and has no job.

Ok, so you don't want people who are subsidized by Canada in any way to criticize it?

This is getting interesting.

Bernier is subsidized by Canada isn't he?  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I think you are not telling the truth.  Muslims protest in the streets and execute people for blasphemy.  That doesn't happen in Christianity in the west.  No Christian churches are calling for blasphemy laws.

Excuse me if I use Canada’s history as my example, as we do live here….  In Canada, It was always Christians who enforced blasphemy laws.  

Trudeau’s Liberals finally removed them from the law books a few years ago  

“…the charge itself has been used as recently as 1980. The owners of a movie theatre in Sault Ste. Marie were charged with blasphemous libel for the “crime” of screening Monty Python’s Life of Bryan, a British satire film about the life and death of Jesus Christ. ”https://globalnews.ca/news/3512946/commentary-at-long-last-canadas-blasphemy-law-is-dead/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Excuse me if I use Canada’s history as my example, as we do live here….  In Canada, It was always Christians who enforced blasphemy laws.  

Trudeau’s Liberals finally removed them from the law books a few years ago  

“…the charge itself has been used as recently as 1980. The owners of a movie theatre in Sault Ste. Marie were charged with blasphemous libel for the “crime” of screening Monty Python’s Life of Bryan, a British satire film about the life and death of Jesus Christ. ”https://globalnews.ca/news/3512946/commentary-at-long-last-canadas-blasphemy-law-is-dead/

The blasphemy law was removed from the books a few years ago.  That's fine.  Then why did you claim people want blasphemy laws today?  I have never heard of any Christian who wants such laws.  Blasphemy laws exist in Islamic countries.   Nobody in Canada wants them here.  Lots of things happened in the past and there were lots of strange laws.  

Your problem is you have a hate for Christians and are very biased against them.  You have false ideas about Christianity it looks like.

I would question the idea of having hateful, blasphemous movies against Christianity though.  If someone put out a movie against transitioning or LGBTQ or specifically against Islam, I imagine there would be accusations of hate and attempts to shut it down.  

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The blasphemy law was removed from the books a few years ago.  That's fine.  Then why did you claim people want blasphemy laws today?  I have never heard of any Christian who wants such laws.  Blasphemy laws exist in Islamic countries.   Nobody in Canada wants them here.  Lots of things happened in the past and there were lots of strange laws.  

Your problem is you have a hate for Christians and are very biased against them.  You have false ideas about Christianity it looks like.

So, that’s one Christian value you don’t like?  Glad you’re finally seeing the secular light!

I hope you’re right that Christians don’t want laws against criticizing religion any longer.  A victory for the secularists, eh?  
 

If you could choose though….   In your ideal country….  would you prefer that pornographic, or other disrespectful depictions of Jesus be against the law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TreeBeard said:

So, that’s one Christian value you don’t like?

I also added I don't think blasphemous movies against Christianity should be allowed.  I am having second thoughts and thinking maybe the blasphemy law should be maintained for certain cases such as a blasphemous movie.

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If you could choose though….   In your ideal country….  would you prefer that pornographic, or other disrespectful depictions of Jesus be against the law?

Yes, those things should be against the law.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I also added I don't think blasphemous movies against Christianity should be allowed.  I am having second thoughts and thinking maybe the blasphemy law should be maintained for certain cases such as a blasphemous movie.

Yes, those things should be against the law.  

So, you just said no Christians want blasphemy laws.  
 

And then you admit that you want blasphemy laws.  Laws that would punish speech against Jesus.   
 

Right after you railed against Muslims who want to ban blasphemy.    You even told me that I was lying about it!  LOL
 

You.  Are.  Amazing.  
 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

So, you just said no Christians want blasphemy laws.  
 

And then you admit that you want blasphemy laws.  Laws that would punish speech against Jesus.   
 

Right after you railed against Muslims who want to ban blasphemy.  
 

You.  Are.  Amazing.  
Thank you!  

Yes, I admit I erred.  I would go for the blasphemy laws but for things like blasphemous movies.  I don't know if I would agree with punishing people for burning a book or using profane language.  That may be extreme.   Islamic countries will give the death sentence for blasphemy.  I don't agree with anything like that.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

And then you admit that you want blasphemy laws.  Laws that would punish speech against Jesus.   

Actually I find it repulsive to hear blasphemous language in McDonalds or a public place.  There should be some law and a fine for that kind of disrespectful behavour, don't you think?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You and bcsapper are birds of a feather.  Nothing surprises me.  Shows the level of intelligence, which we all knew anyway.

Do you think blasphemy against Allah should be illegal too, or just for Jesus?

I think I deserve an apology for being called a liar…?  False accusations are a sin. 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Why are you moving the goalposts?  
 

Why are you being dishonest about goal posts being moved?

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

 

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.
 

There is none.  At least when you look at our 'hate' speech as it's used today. 

It can be considered hate to state that a biological male is a male if they preferred to be thought of as a female.  But that is in no way hatred at all, it's a factually correct statement. Some people just don't like other people saying it and it offends their sense of what is right and wrong, but that's just their opinion.

It could be considered blasphemy to suggest that the universe MAY have come into being as an act of causation and evolution, and not by any deity's hand.  But that's a factual statement - that may be how it happend. Some people just don't like other people saying it and it offends their sense of what is right and wrong, but that's just their opinion.

The only 'difference' occurs when one group tries to claim the issues THEY care about are more important than the other's so it's "Justified" in their case.

But no, it's exactly the same thing. In both cases it's people saying something that another person doesn't like and that other person wraps themselves in 'righteous indignation' and demands the other person be prevented saying such things by force of law regardless if they're true or not.

Suppressing an "offensive" opinion or fact in the name of "A Greater Good" where no one is actually threatened and no crime is being proposed or committed is absolutely common to both. It's just a case of whether or not you prefer to wrap yourself in holy indignation or social justice outrage.

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

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

Bullshit. I just did it without one and frankly you have no interest in analyzing anything. You are pursuing a rather cheezy online debating trick where you are afraid you'll lose the discussion as is so you try to drag it into another direction by getting mired into the specifics of one example after another, possibly with a little sealioning thrown in for good measure.

As you tried to do with the native issue i posted. Very dishonest.

 

  • Like 1
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
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    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...