Jump to content

The Left is Destroying Western Civilization


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You said there were more amendments in the U.S.   I replied that is because the U.S. is far larger with far more governments.  So what would one expect?  That's not rocket science.

why would population size have an effect of the number of enumerated rights?

Wouldn’t it mostly depend on how they’re grouped?  
 

The larger our population gets in Canada, the more we will add to our Charter of Rights?

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

why would population size have an effect of the number of enumerated rights?

Wouldn’t it mostly depend on how they’re grouped?  
 

The larger our population gets in Canada, the more we will add to our Charter of Rights?

Sorry, I think we are going down a rabbit hole on that subject with no clear objective.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

What is that supposed to mean?

It's supposed to mean that there's no evidence of who wrote them, and they are attributed to anonymous writeres.  

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Yes, the gospels have evidence as to who wrote them.  It is not difficult to find out who wrote them.  Google will also help.

It's just too bad that's not at all true.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's your take on this.  She changed one word to remind people of where we came from.

Oh please. Remind people where we come from? In the context of the current relationship with natives - a relationship which has never been more tense and antagonistic due to the actions and statements of the Liberal government - her single word change was like spitting in the face of Canadians. ON native land vs OUR native land is to embrace the bullshit use of words like 'colonizer' currently flung at anyone not native (anyone white. Never heard it used for the likes of her for some reason). It's symbolic of the empty-headed, sanctimonious Left that places virtue-signaling above progress.

ON native land suggests we're all trespassers. Vs OUR native land which says this is our home.

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Black people are mistreated throughout the European countries and colonies.  Just because America ended slavery 39 years or so later isn't a big enough difference for us to feel smug IMO.

And White people were mistreated throughout North Africa and the Ottoman empire. So? Canada had no slaves. The number of slaves in pre-Canada times was limited to a few hundred. And the UK put a ton of time, money and blood into ending slavery throughout the world and compensating slaves. 

And to reiterate, even by 1970 there were only about 30k blacks in Canada. There basically IS no Black history in Canada.

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. It was an analogy.

Which did not fit.

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

21 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's supposed to mean that there's no evidence of who wrote them, and they are attributed to anonymous writeres.  

It's just too bad that's not at all true.  

"

The authorship of the New Testament books is one of the most contested matters of all time. But Christians mostly concur that the apostles and their disciples wrote the books. 

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to the different early churches. Then John wrote the Book of Revelation from a vision he received while in exile.

Matthew and John were some of the twelve apostles of Jesus. Mark and Luke were evangelists who wrote down the recollections of other Christian leaders in Jesus’ time.

For most biblical scholars, the undisputed letters of Paul are the Letters to the Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Romans, and Philemon. The rest of his epistles are believed to be dictated by Paul. But written by his scribes and disciples.

For the other epistles, scholars believe that these workers come from scribes and followers writing down the oral teaching of the apostles."

The New Testament: Overview and its Importance - FaithGiant

Do you have any better information from a trustworthy source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fact that I specifically brought up the Gospels should answer that question.

There is no written record or mention of the Gospels until 180 AD, by Iraneus in Southern France.  That's literally the first recorded reference to these texts, and they weren't even called the Gospels at the time.  They were written long after Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were dead, though they certainly may have been inspired by these men and their teachings.   

 

Edited by Moonbox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you consider spreading division and racial hatred a worth while goal?

Nope. I do however feel that rubbing salt in the right-wing's wounds is appropriate under a large growing number of circumstances - like the notion that the left is destroying Western civilization.

?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"

The authorship of the New Testament books is one of the most contested matters of all time. But Christians mostly concur that the apostles and their disciples wrote the books. 

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to the different early churches. Then John wrote the Book of Revelation from a vision he received while in exile.

Matthew and John were some of the twelve apostles of Jesus. Mark and Luke were evangelists who wrote down the recollections of other Christian leaders in Jesus’ time.

For most biblical scholars, the undisputed letters of Paul are the Letters to the Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Romans, and Philemon. The rest of his epistles are believed to be dictated by Paul. But written by his scribes and disciples.

For the other epistles, scholars believe that these workers come from scribes and followers writing down the oral teaching of the apostles."

The New Testament: Overview and its Importance - FaithGiant

Do you have any better information from a trustworthy source?

Many Christians take it on faith.  But reputable biblical scholars generally think the authors are unknown.  
 

Even the preamble to the gospels in many bibles says the authorship is unknown.  
 

I know you’ll dismiss it by saying it’s the wrong version of the book, or Satan did it….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The only groups that supported slavery in Canada were the Northwest Pacific Coast Indigenous, who kept slaves and maintained rigid dominance hierarchies.

Really? That must mean slavery is okay if it's good enough for 1st Nations.  Closing Roxham Road is a big mistake, it should be turned into a auction-market don't you think?  Hopefully they'll set up an online ordering system so I can get a couple slaves shipped to me.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Oh please. Remind people where we come from? In the context of the current relationship with natives - a relationship which has never been more tense and antagonistic due to the actions and statements of the Liberal government - her single word change was like spitting in the face of Canadians. ON native land vs OUR native land is to embrace the bullshit use of words like 'colonizer' currently flung at anyone not native (anyone white. Never heard it used for the likes of her for some reason). It's symbolic of the empty-headed, sanctimonious Left that places virtue-signaling above progress.

ON native land suggests we're all trespassers. Vs OUR native land which says this is our home.

And White people were mistreated throughout North Africa and the Ottoman empire. So? Canada had no slaves. The number of slaves in pre-Canada times was limited to a few hundred. And the UK put a ton of time, money and blood into ending slavery throughout the world and compensating slaves. 

And to reiterate, even by 1970 there were only about 30k blacks in Canada. There basically IS no Black history in Canada.

Which did not fit.

I’m all for justice, but the reason people feel cynical about the current obsession with race, colonialism, and narratives of oppression is because we all know in our heart of hearts that people generally did the best they could with the knowledge they had and that none of the identity groups flagged as victims worthy of special treatment were on aggregate any better than the whites or colonialists in their treatment of each other and other identity groups.  Indigenous kept more slaves in Canada than the European settlers.  They warred and invaded each other’s “territories” and property meant something quite different for most Indigenous groups living hundreds of years ago than it does today. Much of the dispute about land claims and compensation relate to settler notions of property and money, and most settlers were simply seeking better lives without considering impacts on Indigenous that happened incrementally in Canada, as there were very few battles or attacks by settlers on Indigenous in Canada.  There might have been more Indigenous attacks on settlers.  No one was innocent.

Much of the residential school push early on was by progressives who believed they were helping by providing literacy and opportunities.  Was it misguided?  Well, everyone has biases and people saw things very differently a century and a half ago.  There was no systematic attempt to kill Indigenous   That narrative is a lie.

With regard to Black slaves in Canada, there were probably under a 1000 in total over the 200 years leading up to when slavery was banned in the British Empire in 1834   Canada wasn’t founded until 1867.

We don’t have to get into the fact that blacks traded blacks in the slave trade.

So, how much do you want to make stories of oppression and systemic racism the centrepiece of the Canadian story?   How helpful is it?  When is justice served?   Who today deserves extra stuff based on race or ethnicity and who should give it?

It’s unhealthy and infantilizing to treat groups as victims who need special treatment, but it’s the main narrative today pushed by government and media.  Does anyone honestly think that a government leader is going to eventually say, “Okay, enough on this subject, groups that got a raw deal have gotten enough”?  Do you think everyone will accept such a judgment?  No, the victim narrative will continue.  Our federal government uses it for political gain by claiming to be the servers of justice and giving handouts, maintaining the unhealthy dependence.

It’s much healthier to instil independence and confidence in people so that they chart their own course.

The Liberal/Democrat oppression narrative and the culture of dependency/victimhood are two sides of the same coin.  Can’t have one without the other.

Individual acts of injustice must always be addressed and any racist codes/laws/systemic racism must be eliminated.  If you want to improve attitudes and health for all, emphasize that we are all human and everyone is individually accountable and judged on their own merit. It’s what you do with what you have that counts.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

You said there were more amendments in the U.S.   I replied that is because the U.S. is far larger with far more governments.  So what would one expect?  That's not rocket science.

I responded to your statement  "The fact that the Charter of Rights in Canada is weaker that the U.S. Constitution is also demonstrated by the lack of property rights in Canada."

Yes there are more amendments to the US constitution than the Canadian one.

Population and size of the country is irrelevant.

Also, as I have shown you, property rights are not needed in the Canadian constitution.

Your statements are irrelevant and make no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope. I do however feel that rubbing salt in the right-wing's wounds is appropriate under a large growing number of circumstances - like the notion that the left is destroying Western civilization.

?

Well that's not what you said.  Sounds like you're changing your tune after someone pointed out your racism.

What is it with "the left" these days that  they're so blatantly racist like that until you point it out? If you think it's wrong AFTER i pointed it out, don't you think you should have thought it was wrong BEFORE i pointed it out?

And your 'new' position is that no no - you just like causing harm and suffering to others.  Yeah - that's much better. Yeash,

Don't let hatred run your life like that. It's a bad bad thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Much of the residential school push early on was by progressives who believed they were helping by providing literacy and opportunities.  

Just to add to that - the first nations REQUIRED that the gov't provide education. This was included in the agreements at the time. So the gov't was going to have to provide schooling one way or another.

Another thing that is often missed is that it wasn't manditory unit the 20's.  People often speak as if they were arresting kids and dragging them away to school in 1890 -  but that didn't happen.

None of this changes the genuine horrors that did take place nor does it belittle the very real issues. But you are absolutely correct - when looking at what happened it's critical you look at ALL the circumstances that went into the decision making process.

People are indeed getting sick of the over vilification and demonization of people in the past and pretending that somehow their sins are our responsibility. The gov't of the day had a legal requirement to provide education, the churches were already doing this and had a structure in place, it wasn't manditory, and they honestly believed that the best thing was for these kids to learn how to be 'proper english people' and then go back to their villages with this knowledge instead of just teaching them to read and write. "if you teach a 'savage' to read all you get is a savage who can read" and all that.

Some of their thinking was very wrong but they woudln't have known that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Just to add to that - the first nations REQUIRED that the gov't provide education. This was included in the agreements at the time. So the gov't was going to have to provide schooling one way or another.

Another thing that is often missed is that it wasn't manditory unit the 20's.  People often speak as if they were arresting kids and dragging them away to school in 1890 -  but that didn't happen.

None of this changes the genuine horrors that did take place nor does it belittle the very real issues. But you are absolutely correct - when looking at what happened it's critical you look at ALL the circumstances that went into the decision making process.

People are indeed getting sick of the over vilification and demonization of people in the past and pretending that somehow their sins are our responsibility. The gov't of the day had a legal requirement to provide education, the churches were already doing this and had a structure in place, it wasn't manditory, and they honestly believed that the best thing was for these kids to learn how to be 'proper english people' and then go back to their villages with this knowledge instead of just teaching them to read and write. "if you teach a 'savage' to read all you get is a savage who can read" and all that.

Some of their thinking was very wrong but they woudln't have known that.

Context is everything.  I knew we were dealing with radical ignorance when the revolutionaries tore down Ryerson’s statue.  The guy died before the first residential school, yet this founder of public education might as well be Hitler.  He learned Ojibwe, lived among Indigenous and taught them farming techniques, and advocated for Indigenous treaty rights.  Some educational leaders today refer to him as a “notorious racist”, as always judging the people of yesterday with the values of today.  Lincoln is also terrible by today’s standards.  No sense of what was considered progress at the time.  Of course today’s revolutionaries will be judged with similar derision a century from now.  Their hypocrisy and oppression is already notorious.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Some of their thinking was very wrong but they woudln't have known that.

Except there were people who knew it was wrong, wasn’t there?

For instance, the actual indigenous people whose children were taken. 
 

People like Dr. Bryce knew it was wrong.  So the excuse that they couldn’t have known any better and they thought they were doing the right thing are very flimsy excuses.  In fact, they’re apologetics for the horrors inflicted.  
 

https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/canada/2021/6/9/1_5462902.amp.html

https://archive.org/details/storyofnationalc00brycuoft/page/n5/mode/2up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Except there were people who knew it was wrong, wasn’t there?

For instance, the actual indigenous people whose children were taken. 
 

People like Dr. Bryce knew it was wrong.  So the excuse that they couldn’t have known any better and they thought they were doing the right thing are very flimsy excuses.  In fact, they’re apologetics for the horrors inflicted.  
 

https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/canada/2021/6/9/1_5462902.amp.html

https://archive.org/details/storyofnationalc00brycuoft/page/n5/mode/2up

Yes Dr. Bryce knew how crowding would spread infection, but he was one among many competing voices.  It’s like the voices today advocating for expanded assisted suicide versus those who see how it might lead to the suicides of people who are facing economic or mental capacity challenges but seek suicide because no better solutions are offered.

The zeal for free education and economic opportunity competed with the zeal for public health.

The zeal for protecting the cultures of minority groups is relatively recent.  Still today in most parts of the world you conform to the dominant groups or risk your safety and well-being.  Think of western Christian women or atheists travelling through the Middle East.

Yup, this generation will be judged for producing new injustices for sure.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

... as always judging the people of yesterday with the values of today....

Said the guy who routinely passes judgement on the people of today by comparing them to Stalin and Hitler.  You should listen to yourself.

In any case, you have the tiresome habit of attempting to sweep away the need for reconciliation by declaring that everything happened in the past.  I've told you this before, a good number of these injustices and crimes suffered by 1st Nations happened within living memory - I have good friends my age who were raped by teachers in residential and non-residential schools.

All this water will eventually pass under the bridge but just not in our lifetimes.  You have to get over that and if you think you're helping speed the passage of that water by whining that it's not passing fast enough for your liking you're sadly mistaken. The angst you're suffering is entirely self-inflicted.

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Except there were people who knew it was wrong, wasn’t there?

For instance, the actual indigenous people whose children were taken.
 

Except it's a lie that their children were taken wasn't it. Until the 20's it was the parents choice. So those people we were discussing who came up with the schools didn't force anyone's children to do anything,

And this is the kind of falsehood people are getting sick of.

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

People like Dr. Bryce knew it was wrong.  So the excuse that they couldn’t have known any better and they thought they were doing the right thing are very flimsy excuses.  In fact, they’re apologetics for the horrors inflicted. 


 

Except that bryce came along about 40 years after those people we were talking about. The schools had been up and running for a long time by that point, long long after the system was put in place, obviously.   Soooooo  - are you suggesting he had a time machine?

How exactly are you saying that they had his report 40 years before he wrote it? I"m very curious. You wouldn't be trying to ... LIE.. about it would you? Naaaaaaaaahhh .

The people who put it in place thought they were doing the right thing and didn't have bryce's report despite your bizarre attempt to claim otherwise.

Sure - other gov'ts ignored the problems later on. Bryce reported his findings to wilfred laurier's gov't.  A liberal. He did nothing,

ALthough even there context is important.  The gov't did not RUN the schools at that point, NOR WERE THEY MANDITORY at that point, the gov't just gave some funding to the churches on a per child basis.  AND - to top it off, conditions on the reserves were about the same and so was the tuberculosis death rates. First nations people die at about 3 times the rate of other populations from it for some reason, even today the rate of  infection for first nations is almost 50 TIMES higher than the gen pop for tuberculosis.

Soooooooo - still no children "ripped from their homes", still no evidence that the founders did anything they didn't think was the right choice for  the natives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes it is, it's just not what you heard.  Stop discussing this with the caricature of me that you've created in your mind - it's not me.

Nope, it's what you said. Pretty straight forward. i can see why you'd try to gaslight your way out of it now, it was pretty disgusting,

You should really think about what that says about you.  Maybe you should re-evaluate some of your ideas if you don't like them when you look at them. Racism and hatred don't help anything.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Except there were people who knew it was wrong, wasn’t there?

As I recall we had this 2000 year old moral code, actual laws in some people's minds, that commanded us to do unto others yadda yadda but...instead our forefathers ran around the place changing the subject and saying it really meant doing unto others as they do unto others makes doing it them okay.

  • 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
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • 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
  • Recently Browsing

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