Sociologist says pandemic may have made Canadian youth less empathetic, meaner

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You go out first, Master Gepetto. There is evidence the world is getting meaner and... dumber out there.

I heard this was an issue in jobs where on-the-job training is vital for knowledge transfer. Jobs that require a mentor, or an apprenticeship. A large number of people retired during covid and left a vacancy, but there was no time for appropriate knowledge transfer. This leaves a potentially dangerous technical skills loss.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/retirement-labor-force-dropouts-march-morning-consult/

 

 

However my experience more recently is... just getting someone who can speak clearly in English on the phone, AND who actually knew what they were talking about.

 

 

I didn't mean to actually leave the forum, I mean to metaphorically leave the garden of ignorance and bliss.

As for the economy well something has to give.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I didn't mean to actually leave the forum, I mean to metaphorically leave the garden of ignorance and bliss.

Yes I know. What I said is, you go first! I'm sleeping in today.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes I know. What I said is, you go first! I'm sleeping in today.

There's no going, we're both already there

[Goddess]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If that's the case - the left wing children who heard all about how their fellow canadians were all misogynists and bigots and were wastes of space we shoulnd't tolerate and who deserved to be killed (prevelant left wing position) if they don't agree with vaccines and who were all trying to kill grandma  would be in far worse shape.

One of the comments made here on this forum, has always stood out to me:

In a discussion about whether the jabs should be forced on everyone, @Aristides commented to someone (I don't remember who) that "My 8 year old granddaughter says to tell you that you're a wussy for being afraid of a needle or a sore arm."

When I read that, I thought Wow.  

And we wonder why our children have no empathy or compassion.

For the record, one of my children had the jabs so he wouldn't lose his job, the other one lost her job (with the government) because she didn't want the jabs, thinking she might want to have children one day and not knowing what the long-term effects might be.  We had discussed that the shots were not tested for this.

The one who took the jabs, once said that myself and my daughter should just get the jabs, but never pushed it.

Now, he tells us we were right to avoid them - he sees quite a few of his friends suffering health-wise, including one friend who is severely vaccine injured and will likely pass away soon.  Mid 30's. 

On the other hand, MY 8 year old granddaughter couldn't care less who is jabbed or not, and would be disciplined for calling someone a "wussy", not encouraged to do so.

Edited April 22, 2023 by Goddess

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Now, he tells us we were right to avoid them - he sees quite a few of his friends suffering health-wise, including one friend who is severely vaccine injured and will likely pass away soon.  Mid 30's.

How many people in your circle have died?  It seems it must be up into the double digits now.

I don't know of a single person whose been injured beyond a sore arm myself.  Is anyone else around here experiencing high injury and death rates amongst family, friends and associates?  Is there any reason why these rates shouldn't be more or less equal right across the board? 

Edited April 22, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

One of the comments made here on this forum, has always stood out to me:

In a discussion about whether the jabs should be forced on everyone, @Aristides commented to someone (I don't remember who) that "My 8 year old granddaughter says to tell you that you're a wussy for being afraid of a needle or a sore arm."

When I read that, I thought Wow.  

And we wonder why our children have no empathy or compassion.

For the record, one of my children had the jabs so he wouldn't lose his job, the other one lost her job (with the government) because she didn't want the jabs, thinking she might want to have children one day and not knowing what the long-term effects might be.  We had discussed that the shots were not tested for this.

The one who took the jabs, once said that myself and my daughter should just get the jabs, but never pushed it.

Now, he tells us we were right to avoid them - he sees quite a few of his friends suffering health-wise, including one friend who is severely vaccine injured and will likely pass away soon.  Mid 30's. 

On the other hand, MY 8 year old granddaughter couldn't care less who is jabbed or not, and would be disciplined for calling someone a "wussy", not encouraged to do so.

Yeah, there was some intolerance on the vax hesitant side but the lack of tolerance and outright hatred from the pro side was absolutely astounding. Simply uncanadian.

What stood out to me was the medical staff. Again and again i saw when it was pointed out that there was no reason to fire medical staff if they didn't get the  shot, there were other ways, the supporters demanded insistantly that they should be fired not just because of that  but for moral reasons, and when it was pointed out that there's a desperate shortage of those staff many times i heard "I would rather people die than let those people work".

I mean think about that. They are so hate filled they would rather see their fellow Canadians DIE than accommodate the vaccine hesitant. And thats not one or two random nutjobs  - that was a commonly expressed sentiment.

How do we even come back after that as a society?  Canada the 'loving caring' country where neighbour helped neighbour is GONE - it's not coming back. Justin managed to kill it.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Canada the 'loving caring' country where neighbour helped neighbour is GONE - it's not coming back. Justin managed to kill it.

As much as you yourself are in denial about God, the evidence for God is all around us.  The fact that Canada is not a loving, caring country was always a fact.  Many people became worse during the pandemic, but mankind has always been a fallen, corrupt being with a wicked heart.  The level of crime was high before the pandemic and new problems were created by the pandemic.  That's why man needs to read or listen to the Bible and repent and believe the gospel.  There is no other solution.  You cannot command people to change their attitude or heart which is corrupt.  It doesn't work that way.  Everyone needs to be born again.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

As much as you yourself are in denial about God, the evidence for God is all around us.

No, that's stupid. Sorry. The only reason you think the evidence is all around you is because that's all you think about 24 hours a day and that's all you see.

If you spend all day thinking about hammers, everything looks like a nail.  you have to be 7 different kinds of stupid to think there's ANY evidence of god - the whole POINT is to require 'faith'.  Go read up on the babel fish argument and leave your imaginary friends out of it. 

Not to mention that more people have killed other humans in the name of 'god' than pretty much any other cause over the years.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not to mention that more people have killed other humans in the name of 'god'

That's because most religions are false.  They were not following the teachings in the Bible.  You would know that if you knew what it teaches.  True Biblical Christianity is not just "religion".  Criminal acts and bad behavior are not taught in the Bible.  The Bible actually teaches the opposite.  Jesus taught to love thy neighbour as thyself.  So the argument that Christianity is the cause of killing is a false argument.

[herbie]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's because all religions are false

FTFY

[Guest]

On 4/21/2023 at 12:55 PM, CdnFox said:

think that they were done with no though to what the consequences long term  might be

The major issue, is many governments became opportunistic at the new found powers that this pandemic gave them.

From spending, to overwhelming levels of social control, few were going to allow to pass up. 

I don't think there was a care about any long term implications.

We literally were hung out to dry, with many struggling immensely with mental health issues.

Trudeau pointed to stable suicide numbers,  but skipped over the explosion in overdoses, homelessnessness proving that point. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

That's because most religions are false. 

Like yours for example. How many people hae been killed in the name of the bible. You might as well be worshipping the nazi death camps as far as body count goes.

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The major issue, is many governments became opportunistic at the new found powers that this pandemic gave them.

 

It has always been said that the left never lets a good crisis go to  waste.

[blackbird]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Like yours for example. How many people hae been killed in the name of the bible. You might as well be worshipping the nazi death camps as far as body count goes.

Already explained. It is not the Bible believers who did it.  They have been the ones who were the victims of persecutions in history.   The wars in the past 1,300 years in Europe were fought between Islam which spread throughout the middle east and north Africa and was moving into Europe.  The people in Europe had to defend themselves.  Some of the crusades were also defensive nature.

WW1 and WW2 had nothing to do with religion.  Those were politics.  The Communist revolutions in Russia and China had nothing to do with religions.  100 millions people were killed by those.  There were wars in Europe in the 16th and 17th century which were between Catholics and Protestants.  But when people are attacked they have a right to defend themselves.   But a lot of that was not instigated by Bible believers.  Some of it was political fighting over control of populations and countries.   Mankind has always had wars for one reason or another because of his fallen, corrupt and wicked heart.  Non-believers political power struggles, and false religions were the most common causes of wars.

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Already explained.

Yes By me.  It was absolutely bible believers who did it.  Bible believes shed blood as fast or faster than anyone. That's what happens when you allow a work of fiction to control your life.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Yes By me.  It was absolutely bible believers who did it.  Bible believes shed blood as fast or faster than anyone. That's what happens when you allow a work of fiction to control your life.

quote

Aren't Christians Responsible for Most Wars?

Amy Orr-Ewing

I am often asked how I can believe in God when there have been so many wars caused by religion. The implication is that if only people would leave behind their convictions about the existence of a God the world would be a much better, more peaceful place.

Of course very few people ever reflect on the fact that the very reverse of this was demonstrated in the 20th century, which saw the atheistic communist and Nazi ideologies rise. In fact, that century saw more killing than the previous 19 put together.

None of this is to say that religion has not at times been a cause or significant factor in war. In fact, because of our current context with the rise of Islam and, in particular, of violent Islamic terrorism all over the world, it is true that horrific acts played out on our televisions day after day are religiously motivated.

It may be that someone who is asking questions of us is unable to distinguish between Christianity and Islam and is equating the two. The first task here is to draw clear distinctions between Christ and Muhammad, as well as the Bible and the Qur’an, on the issue of violence.

It may be important to point to Jesus Himself, as He healed the ear of the arresting soldier when Peter had drawn a sword in defence of Him and cut it off.

True Christian Responses

Christians, however, would be the first to hold their hands up and say that violence committed in the name of Christ in history, such as the Crusades or the Inquisition, is certainly not a true reflection of what Jesus came to say and accomplish. In fact, true Christian responses at the time of the Crusades resounded from leaders such as Francis of Assisi and John Wycliffe, who roundly condemned any killing or warfare in the name of Christ. 

But what is a Christian view of war, if killing people in the name of Christ is wrong? The New Testament itself does not condemn the vocation of a soldier if the work is carried out in a responsible and lawful fashion (Matthew 8.5, Luke 3.14, Acts 10.1-8 and 34-35).

And yet other passages such as the Beatitudes seem to point towards pacifism: “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5.9).

There are broadly four historical Christian positions when it comes to seeking a biblical position on the concept of war:

Militarism – any war, anytime, any place, any cause.

Selective Militarism – only when the state declares the cause is just.

Selective Pacifism – only when the individual thinks the cause is just.

Pacifism – no fighting anytime, any place, on any cause.

Most Christians today would fall into the middle two. However, the early Church response to war was initially pacifism that allowed for the possibility of Christian converts staying on in the army. Pre-Constantinian theologians and Church leaders such as Tertullian took the rebuke of Peter as an absolute position; they spiritualised the battles in the Old Testament and did not allow for any Christian approval of war.

It is the great Christian thinker Augustine who introduces “just war” theory into Christian thinking. “Just war” thinking originates in classical civilisation, but Augustine developed it, building on this and the work of the 4th century theologian Ambrose.

The first set of principles deal with reasons for a nation going to war (jus ad bellum): The only just cause is defence against aggression. The only just intention is to restore a just peace to friend and foe alike. The use of military force must be a last resort after all other negotiations have failed. The decision must be made by the highest governmental authority.

The second set of principles deal with the modus operandi or conduct of a war (jus in bello): War must have limited ends only sufficient to repel aggression and redress its injustice. The means must be limited by proportionality to the offence. Non-combatant immunity from intentional and direct attack must be respected. Combat should not be prolonged when there is no reasonable hope of success within these limits.

Most protestant and Catholic churches adhere to these rules about war, and Scripture is clear that war is a disastrous tragedy from which the innocent always suffer along with the guilty. The psalmist laments war, the prophet looks for the day when swords will be beaten into ploughshares and the kingdom of Shalom appears, and the New Testament blesses peacemakers, while Jesus resists being made king by force.

unquote

For the whole article go to:

Aren't Christians Responsible for Most Wars? - bethinking.org

 

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, blackbird said:

quote

Aren't Christians Responsible for Most Wars?

Amy Orr-Ewing

I am often asked how I can believe in God when there have been so many wars caused by religion. The implication is that if only people would leave behind their convictions about the existence of a God the world would be a much better, more peaceful place.

Of course very few people ever reflect on the fact that the very reverse of this was demonstrated in the 20th century, which saw the atheistic communist and Nazi ideologies rise. In fact, that century saw more killing than the previous 19 put together.

None of this is to say that religion has not at times been a cause or significant factor in war. In fact, because of our current context with the rise of Islam and, in particular, of violent Islamic terrorism all over the world, it is true that horrific acts played out on our televisions day after day are religiously motivated.

It may be that someone who is asking questions of us is unable to distinguish between Christianity and Islam and is equating the two. The first task here is to draw clear distinctions between Christ and Muhammad, as well as the Bible and the Qur’an, on the issue of violence.

It may be important to point to Jesus Himself, as He healed the ear of the arresting soldier when Peter had drawn a sword in defence of Him and cut it off.

True Christian Responses

Christians, however, would be the first to hold their hands up and say that violence committed in the name of Christ in history, such as the Crusades or the Inquisition, is certainly not a true reflection of what Jesus came to say and accomplish. In fact, true Christian responses at the time of the Crusades resounded from leaders such as Francis of Assisi and John Wycliffe, who roundly condemned any killing or warfare in the name of Christ. 

But what is a Christian view of war, if killing people in the name of Christ is wrong? The New Testament itself does not condemn the vocation of a soldier if the work is carried out in a responsible and lawful fashion (Matthew 8.5, Luke 3.14, Acts 10.1-8 and 34-35).

And yet other passages such as the Beatitudes seem to point towards pacifism: “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5.9).

There are broadly four historical Christian positions when it comes to seeking a biblical position on the concept of war:

Militarism – any war, anytime, any place, any cause.

Selective Militarism – only when the state declares the cause is just.

Selective Pacifism – only when the individual thinks the cause is just.

Pacifism – no fighting anytime, any place, on any cause.

Most Christians today would fall into the middle two. However, the early Church response to war was initially pacifism that allowed for the possibility of Christian converts staying on in the army. Pre-Constantinian theologians and Church leaders such as Tertullian took the rebuke of Peter as an absolute position; they spiritualised the battles in the Old Testament and did not allow for any Christian approval of war.

It is the great Christian thinker Augustine who introduces “just war” theory into Christian thinking. “Just war” thinking originates in classical civilisation, but Augustine developed it, building on this and the work of the 4th century theologian Ambrose.

The first set of principles deal with reasons for a nation going to war (jus ad bellum): The only just cause is defence against aggression. The only just intention is to restore a just peace to friend and foe alike. The use of military force must be a last resort after all other negotiations have failed. The decision must be made by the highest governmental authority.

The second set of principles deal with the modus operandi or conduct of a war (jus in bello): War must have limited ends only sufficient to repel aggression and redress its injustice. The means must be limited by proportionality to the offence. Non-combatant immunity from intentional and direct attack must be respected. Combat should not be prolonged when there is no reasonable hope of success within these limits.

Most protestant and Catholic churches adhere to these rules about war, and Scripture is clear that war is a disastrous tragedy from which the innocent always suffer along with the guilty. The psalmist laments war, the prophet looks for the day when swords will be beaten into ploughshares and the kingdom of Shalom appears, and the New Testament blesses peacemakers, while Jesus resists being made king by force.

unquote

For the whole article go to:

Aren't Christians Responsible for Most Wars? - bethinking.org

 

 

Yeah - nobody's interested in whatever lies you drag up. Nobody's interested in whatever liar you found who is equally as desperte to defend the indefensible. You've already proven you have no ability to think even remotely rationally about your favorite book.

Christians kill and slaughter wholesale, not only despite what the bible says but often in the name of the bible.

I suppose i can at least be thankful that you didn't fall in love with harry potter or something, or you'd be pointing your mouse at the screen yelling 'expelliamus' or the like.