Mass absences break out at London schools as Pride flag flies

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

I went to school in the 70's, and we were all taught that. So this perceived need to make a correction (by whom?) is not necessary imo.

We learned to accept gays. To wit - Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for decades.

Well not in 1970 it hand't been - we only got gay marriage in 2005 

But i was in school in the 70's as well and for sure there was not only acceptance of gays but a very strong general principle of 'accept everyone' taught that basically suggested that everyone's got differences - find what you have in common and learn about the differences and we'll all be better off. 

You wouldn't call it 'colorblind' or 'genderblind' or anything  - just more like 'ok - so you've got this thing about you that's different than me and that's cool, i'd like to learn how it affects your life but we can both agree that we should order a pizza and watch this movie right?

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It was noted that it was the muslims organizing it.  Are you saying that all muslims are redneck arseholes? You're islamaphobic?

He's infophobic. All leftists have it.

The part about the muslims is an inconvenient truth, so it's quite beyond his ken, and he wanted to throw in a racially divisive comment along with it, Trudeau/Biden style. 

The post is a factual dud with a side of divisiveness, that makes it a perfect 10 with the leftard judges. 

[OftenWrong]

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The part about the muslims is an inconvenient truth,

Yeah my thought exactly, it exposes the naivete of those who think everyone in the middle east are as non-judgemental as they.

Eventually the leftist snake eats its own tail.

ETA- Why are my seperate replies getting merged?

Edited May 20, 2023 by OftenWrong
replies getting merged

[herbie]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

4 hours ago, herbie said:

Don't wear a poppy because that's discrimination against all the civilians that died in wars.

That's called sarcasm.

The same logic that anything pushing inclusion is discrimination against something else.

- Like "Black Lives Matter" doesn't mean black lives matter too, it means only black lives matter.

- Like claiming rainbow flags discriminate against someone.

I wonder how many of the kids that didn't show were told not to go by their parents. Or how many, many more just thought 'convenient excuse' and skipped like we would've?

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well not in 1970 it hand't been - we only got gay marriage in 2005 

Never said it was.

[Perspektiv]

9 minutes ago, herbie said:

"Black Lives Matter" doesn't mean black lives matter too, it means only black lives matter.

Black Lives Matter is a scam. They've piggy backed on hot button topics (police brutality, but eliminated context from the conversation), to line their pockets, doing nothing for actual black lives, other than reducing police in some areas, furthering the loss of black life.

Someone flying the BLM flag stating they care about black people to me might as well loot a black owned business, and spit in the owner's face. Caring about a cause only when it meets your propaganda filled message, is ridiculous at best--dangerous at worst.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Never said it was.

I misread it - it looked like you were saying you accepted gays and HAD gay marrage....  but rereading it i can see what you mean is that we have it now. My bad.

 

[OftenWrong]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I misread it - it looked like you were saying you accepted gays and HAD gay marrage....  but rereading it i can see what you mean is that we have it now. My bad.

 

Not a problem. Reading comprehension not being your biggest strength  

[CdnFox]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

Not a problem. Reading comprehension not being your biggest strength  

LOL -  well i guess that'll teach me to admit a mistake  

At least when I make one  it's rare enough that people comment.  Yours are so frequent we just let them slide 

[OftenWrong]

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL -  well i guess that'll teach me to admit a mistake

There you go fella. It's like my pappy used to say,

"Never apologize. It's a sign of infectious leftist disease."

Lessons that made me the paragon of humanity and intellect I am today.

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

At least when I make one  it's rare enough that people comment.

It's just that no one likes to talk to you, is all

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I realise it.  I just disagree with them.

 

It is not rational to imagine something created it.  Far less rational, imho.  You can't see that, obviously, as you are blinded by your upbringing and your faith.

 

Did you ask them to comment on the probability of there being a God, combined with the probability that if there was, it would be your God? 

 

You have no answer either.  To say God created it is a cop out, as it is far less likely than it all happening by accident.

You can’t explain why there is anything at all instead of nothing.  The belief in God like the belief that there is no God requires a leap of faith.  You can’t point to anything for incontrovertible evidence.

Disparaging Blackbird is disparaging yourself.  Your views are no more and no less faith-based.  

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

There you go fella. It's like my pappy used to say,

"Never apologize. It's a sign of infectious leftist disease."

Lessons that made me the paragon of humanity and intellect I am today.

It's just that no one likes to talk to you, is all

So you're saying you're 'no one'

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

furthering the loss of black life.

Zigactly. Turns out the number-one killer of blacks, is other blacks. Therefore the accusing finger of BLM is pointed the wrong way.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Zigactly. Turns out the number-one killer of blacks, is other blacks. Therefore the accusing finger of BLM is pointed the wrong way.

We should get rid of all the blacks in order to keep the blacks safe. It's the right thing to do morally.

[OftenWrong]

Just now, CdnFox said:

So you're saying you're 'no one'

 

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

We should get rid of all the blacks in order to keep the blacks safe. It's the right thing to do morally.

Keep working on the comprehension. It may seem like a big hurdle to overcome, but there's always some hope for people like you.

-OftenWrong

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

That's called sarcasm.

The same logic that anything pushing inclusion is discrimination against something else.

- Like "Black Lives Matter" doesn't mean black lives matter too, it means only black lives matter.

It doesn't mean either.

It's to insinuate that people and especially police is the US don't care about the lives of black people. It's meant to be incendiary. It's meant to cause anger, hatred and division.

If that wasn't the case then they wouldn't be editing videos to try to make them look incriminating and then releasing them to the public. 

For example, if they alone had access to the original Rayshard video then it would start where the cops were wrestling with him, after he punched a cop in the head. We wouldn't know about the punch, the breathalyzer level, we wouldn't see him asleep in his car in the drive-through lineup, he'd just be remembered as "a gentle, loving father and husband who was harassed by some typical racist pigs while he was waiting in line for his burger." 

Obama would have said something like "I can't help but notice, he looks like me. It could have been me there, waiting in line for my Dave's Classic burger......... My fries.......... My Coca Cola....." *Pregnant pause while he look around the room with a somber gaze*

That's what CNN and the Dems did with the Trayvon story. That's what they did with the M Brown story. The Demmie AG had access to the bodycam video that showed G Floyd alone in the cop car saying "I can't breathe" for every minute of all that rioting but he kept it secret. When it was finally leaked the riots stopped almost instantly.

"They're not happy 'til you're not happy." 

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Contrarian said:

I disagree. It is important to analyze and evaluate trends, including those from the United States and the impact of the so-called "culture wars." Disregarding these trends would mean dismissing reality.

Parental involvement in education is crucial, and dismissing their concerns can lead to a breakdown in trust and a rise in anger. Neglecting parents' input may contribute to the rise of opportunistic figures. Just want to ignore those reactionary forces still, I see. Allow me a satire: if you were in the US, maybe you were the type of profile, Michael, that would lead to the rise ⬆️ of a profile such as Trump's, with all due respect.

Even if you are well intent, you tell parents to ignore their affairs with their children, that rumor travels, the anger grows and a cheap populist comes around and collects the votes. Where am I going wrong?!

When it gets to 2/3 we can talk.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You can’t explain why there is anything at all instead of nothing.  The belief in God like the belief that there is no God requires a leap of faith.  You can’t point to anything for incontrovertible evidence.

Disparaging Blackbird is disparaging yourself.  Your views are no more and no less faith-based.  

Actually, they are evidence based.  I see no evidence of a God, ergo there isn't one.  I do see evidence of a universe, ergo one exists.  Without a God (see two ergos back) the best explanation for it is that it came about by accident.

 

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, suds said:

Thank you! Your 'tolerance' of others is truly amazing.? 

It really is. But my intolerance for the sort of intolerance that triggers threads like this is legendary.

[CdnFox]

54 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

 

Keep working on the comprehension. It may seem like a big hurdle to overcome, but there's always some hope for people like you.

-OftenWrong

Ohhhhhhhh.... i had thought you were being amusing. Turns out y ou're just an !diot    Some times those can look very similar

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You can’t explain why there is anything at all instead of nothing.

No explanation is required. There isn't nothing, and nothing is an impossible to comprehend concept on its own.  

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The belief in God like the belief that there is no God requires a leap of faith.

Not making a leap of faith is not the same thing as making a leap of faith.  The former is a contentment/acceptance of things as they are, without the need for deeper meaning or explanation.  

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 You can’t point to anything for incontrovertible evidence.

No, because proving something doesn't exist is always impossible.  Arguing that God doesn't exist is pointless.   

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Disparaging Blackbird is disparaging yourself.  Your views are no more and no less faith-based.  

Disparaging Blackbird is disparaging an overbearing religious fundamentalist, who preaches to people who aren't even remotely interested.  

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No explanation is required. There isn't nothing, and nothing is an impossible to comprehend concept on its own.  

Not making a leap of faith is not the same thing as making a leap of faith.  The former is a contentment/acceptance of things as they are, without the need for deeper meaning or explanation.  

No, because proving something doesn't exist is always impossible.  Arguing that God doesn't exist is pointless.   

Disparaging Blackbird is disparaging an overbearing religious fundamentalist, who preaches to people who aren't even remotely interested.  

Blackbird has gone all in on his religious perspective, which I may not always agree with, but don’t pretend that your atheist perspective is more verifiable, because it isn’t.  You can’t point to anything that disproves God’s existence, nor can you disprove Blackbird’s position.  If you said that you don’t take a position on whether or not God exists because neither position is verifiable without evidence, which is the agnostic position, that would be less of a faith-based perspective.  What you don’t seem to appreciate about religious people is that their beliefs are faith-based, and some people have strong faith.  I don’t judge these people.  You do, yet you cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.  Your atheism is no less a belief than that of a theist.  In fact, it’s highly arguable that existence is miraculous, since it cannot be explained, yet it cannot be denied.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ohhhhhhhh.... i had thought you were being amusing. Turns out y ou're just an !diot    Some times those can look very similar

Wrong again but close.

I'm a genius

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

1. In my opinion, when it reaches 2/3, there may be concerns that populism has taken hold in society and you might complain while I will remind you again of the concept of reactionism in such situations. ?

2. However, from how I see it, it is crucial to recognize that he is tapping into a market that you might overlook, one that is gradually emerging from the US.

...

It appears that you may be disregarding this phenomenon, and I am curious to understand your perspective on this matter and why that is?!

1. Right, but at that point we have reached the level known as supermajority. That is a level at which there is enough support for values changes, reflected in policy through things like constitutional change.. changes to the rights of individuals in our nation. Like it or not, I would have to acknowledge that I live in a nation whose values are separate from mine.. something like what a hardcore religious person has to live through today. At that point I would have to either except my marginalized status, or move somewhere else.

2. I'm not against the market if ideas, I'm against the market of emotions.  Barry Goldwater held ideas but did not try to inflame citizens against institutions and government itself.  Ronald Reagan did take steps down that road, and in baby steps we got narcissistic populism.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Contrarian said:

In my opinion, when it reaches 2/3, there may be concerns that populism has taken hold in society and you might complain while I will remind you again of the concept of reactionism in such situations. ?

I noticed that you have expressed dissatisfaction with some populistic messages of PP (unrelated to this thread).

However, from how I see it, it is crucial to recognize that he is tapping into a market that you might overlook, one that is gradually emerging from the US.

While some aspects of this movement may stem from ignorance rooted in rigid traditions ->, sure, I can agree, it is driven, to a large extent, by the <- idealism of some and the belief that society should move at the speed that some want at.

This approach may not be practical or efficient, particularly given the growing wave of socially conservative immigrants. It has the potential to create tensions between different groups, even leading to unexpected alliances between religious communities (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu).

I want to clarify that I am not religious myself, which allows me to examine this phenomenon with an unbiased perspective.

It appears that you may be disregarding this phenomenon, and I am curious to understand your perspective on this matter and why that is?!

Michael will support whatever happens. He doesn’t take a position except to defend the status quo.

Populism doesn’t really mean anything.  People have input and vote.  My bet is that one third of parents like the woke shit, one third hate it, and one third either don’t care or are too busy or disengaged to do anything.

My one take away from this is that these Muslims have the courage of their convictions.  They’ll take and follow through on a moral position, which impresses me.