Canadian Muslims to stage 'Million Person March' to protest against Trudeau Liberal's push for LGBTQ indoctrination in schools

[Guest]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I still don't understand why anyone thinks a religious persons views should be respected by anyone else, except in the respect of the right to hold them.

You're correct. However, to impose your views onto their religious beliefs is precisely what this gender ideology movement is doing.

What am saying, is that it is unnacceptable from either vantage point.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Discriminating against homosexuals is immoral.  

Agreed but that shouldn't be in question.  There's a thin line that the parent still has domain over in my opinion.  The state can only provide aggregate guidelines, their obligation of caring is far less than the parents '

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You're correct. However, to impose your views onto their religious beliefs is precisely what this gender ideology movement is doing.

What am saying, is that it is unnacceptable from either vantage point.

If the gender ideology movement tries to make any religious person change their gender against their will, let me know and we'll go kick their arses.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Be careful what you wish for.  Yes modern medicine can be tremendously beneficial.  Technology can be used for good or ill. Ask the descendants of Hiroshima survivors. The problem is that without a solid ethical framework, (and it doesn’t have to be religious), there is no guidance for the application of technology.  We have the technology to enhance the vision of legally blind people. We also have the tech to merge the brain with computer chips. We face the possibility of artificial intelligence advancing far beyond our ability to control it.  All of this is happening in the context of MAID, an epidemic in transgender surgeries, especially among women, and deep fake misinformation.

As a humanist, let alone a religious person, I think it’s important to keep life natural where possible, including on the environment front.  Clean air, water, mind, and body.  I include family life and the principle of subsidiarity in this mix: Keep decisions as local as possible, among the people most impacted by decisions.  Keep the big corporations and elites at bay in your lives, so you can live freely and in accordance with nature (and God if you’re religious).

Sure.  I have as little time for Monsanto as the next man, and I'm sure AI is going to give reason to pause (it'll be too late. Suckers!) sometime in the future, but the only technology I quoted that aided in the production of a human was artificial insemination, and the only couple I know personally who had it done are heterosexual.  I sure don't see homosexuals using it as a problem.

Your second paragraph I agree with. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed but that shouldn't be in question.  There's a thin line that the parent still has domain over in my opinion.  The state can only provide aggregate guidelines, their obligation of caring is far less than the parents '

Sure.  That's why I was opposed to the book that was mentioned in another thread.  I think parents should have some say over what goes on in schools.  Someone mentioned teachers advocating breast binding for students.  I don't know of that happening, but if it did, I would be against it.

Teaching tolerance of people and lifestyles that should be tolerated is something schools should do, however.  Humanities, or Social Studies class, or whatever they call it now, is a good place to do it.

They can also teach how intolerant some religions are of such things. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

After the Nazi comment comes the made up argument.

 

Nobody even mentioned the word Nazi.  Those voices in your head acting up or something?

Quote

You're totally bereft of ideas.

Says the man who can't even make an intelligent counter argument.  Your entire argument is "Muh Feels".  As i've noted an you've agreed after doing it your way for a reasonable amount of time now things are getting worse. Hostility is increasing.  And i've explained why that's human nature.

Your only argument is "THOSE WHO DISAGREE MUST BE PUT DOWN!!! BAARRG!!!!

That's not an argument.  Yet you accuse me of being 'out of ideas'.

You were the one who brought up nazi's, but  i can see why you had them on your brain.

Well - just remember as things get worse and the situation deteriorates.... you literally asked for it.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody even mentioned the word Nazi.  Those voices in your head acting up or something?

Says the man who can't even make an intelligent counter argument.  Your entire argument is "Muh Feels".  As i've noted an you've agreed after doing it your way for a reasonable amount of time now things are getting worse. Hostility is increasing.  And i've explained why that's human nature.

Your only argument is "THOSE WHO DISAGREE MUST BE PUT DOWN!!! BAARRG!!!!

That's not an argument.  Yet you accuse me of being 'out of ideas'.

You were the one who brought up nazi's, but  i can see why you had them on your brain.

Well - just remember as things get worse and the situation deteriorates.... you literally asked for it.

You brought up Nazis.  Unless you were referring to some other event when you said

"we can make them wear little stars and have to have numbered tattoos"

If you were, let me know what it was.

And then you made up another argument for me. In capital letters this time.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

You brought up Nazis.  Unless you were referring to some other event when you said

"we can make them wear little stars and have to have numbered tattoos"

If you were, let me know what it was.

And then you made up another argument for me. In capital letters this time.

Brave new world.  A gram is better than a damn after all. You wouldn't get the reference.  But Sure - with you nazi's work too.

And no- that's not a made up reference.

So - seems like now that you have NO defense for your Nazi-esque (to use your definitons) attitude - you're simply trying to dismiss it as "oh well now i'm just too offended to answer".

Dude that is beyond pathetic.  And it strongly suggests you know you're in the wrong here.

Muh Feels is a  BAD reason to disrespect other people's rights. So either you teach both sides - Gays are fine and gays are condemned by god, -  or you teach NEITHER side and instead teach kids to respect everyone even if they're different in general.

I've said it many times - we've been doing it your way and look at the results, snd your only defense is we should stomp over those who disagree.  Do you hate gays or something? Do you WANT to turn the public against them? Are you pleased with the rising hatred and violence and the tide turning is it is?

And please - if all you've got left is "i'm too offended to comment"  go tell it to a kindergarten class, THEY might think it's valid.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Brave new world.  A gram is better than a damn after all. You wouldn't get the reference.  But Sure - with you nazi's work too.

And no- that's not a made up reference.

So - seems like now that you have NO defense for your Nazi-esque (to use your definitons) attitude - you're simply trying to dismiss it as "oh well now i'm just too offended to answer".

Dude that is beyond pathetic.  And it strongly suggests you know you're in the wrong here.

Muh Feels is a  BAD reason to disrespect other people's rights. So either you teach both sides - Gays are fine and gays are condemned by god, -  or you teach NEITHER side and instead teach kids to respect everyone even if they're different in general.

I've said it many times - we've been doing it your way and look at the results, snd your only defense is we should stomp over those who disagree.  Do you hate gays or something? Do you WANT to turn the public against them? Are you pleased with the rising hatred and violence and the tide turning is it is?

And please - if all you've got left is "i'm too offended to comment"  go tell it to a kindergarten class, THEY might think it's valid.

I'm sure it isn't made up.  What was the little stars and numbered tattoos comment in reference to?  I thought I had read Brave New World a long time ago but I don't remember the reference.  It won't bother me to be wrong on that.  I hope I am.  It did seem desperate.

Tell me seriously that little stars and numbered tattoos do not put you in mind of the Holocaust and I'll believe you.

But I see now you've reached the point of telling me I know I'm wrong.  ?

You're nothing if not predictable.

[CdnFox]

46 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm sure it isn't made up.  What was the little stars and numbered tattoos comment in reference to?  I thought I had read Brave New World a long time ago but I don't remember the reference.  It won't bother me to be wrong on that.  I hope I am.  It did seem desperate.

Yeah - this is usually moonbat's little game. Once you've given up trying to defend a hopeless position try to deflect onto a different subject entirely.

Pathetic.

Quote

But I see now you've reached the point of telling me I know I'm wrong. 

I told you that you were wrong at the very beginning.  And i see you're trying to steal ANOTHER page from his book When you've given up - blame the other person. 

You're an intolerant bigot who feels that forcing their opinion on others in a public school setting is appropriate.  It isn't.  And i see once again you weren't able to address a single point. Well at least you've given up pretending to be honest.

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - this is usually moonbat's little game. Once you've given up trying to defend a hopeless position try to deflect onto a different subject entirely.

Pathetic.

Well, we're reasonable people.  We can do both.  Let me know what that reference was, and whether or not you seriously think that a reference to little stars and numbered tattoos does not put you in mind of the Holocaust, and then we can move on to my position, which I am still defending, easily, which was, if I remember correctly, that schools should teach tolerance of homosexual relationships as they are no different from heterosexual relationships.  Socially, I mean.  Not biologically. 

 

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I told you that you were wrong at the very beginning.  And i see you're trying to steal ANOTHER page from his book When you've given up - blame the other person. 

You're an intolerant bigot who feels that forcing their opinion on others in a public school setting is appropriate.  It isn't.  And i see once again you weren't able to address a single point. Well at least you've given up pretending to be honest.

Yeah, but now you're telling me I know I'm wrong.  It was always a step in your MO that we were going to reach, so no surprises there.

And of course, because I am advocating for tolerance, I'm an intolerant bigot.  And then you made something up about me not being able to address a single point.

You're an open book.

 

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Sure.  That's why I was opposed to the book that was mentioned in another thread.  I think parents should have some say over what goes on in schools.  Someone mentioned teachers advocating breast binding for students.  I don't know of that happening, but if it did, I would be against it.

Teaching tolerance of people and lifestyles that should be tolerated is something schools should do, however.  Humanities, or Social Studies class, or whatever they call it now, is a good place to do it.

They can also teach how intolerant some religions are of such things. 

The argument has mostly come down to tolerance vs. promotion/celebration/affirmation

Tolerance isn’t always the answer, however, as some behaviour would be considered intolerable by some.  I guess it comes down to whether people can live according to their own values without interfering with each other’s values.   I think that’s been mostly the case until recently.  Not only are schools requiring tolerance of lifestyles and identities that disagree with the values of many people, such lifestyles and identities are celebrated by public schools with a designated month and flag.  Not even crucifixes are allowed in public schools, nor are particular countries (other than Canada) or political causes hoisted up on flag poles, yet the Pflag is.  The fact that gender affirmation and these lifestyles/identities are given centre stage can only be interpreted as contempt for the values of millions of families, not just Muslims, not just religious people.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The argument has mostly come down to tolerance vs. promotion/celebration/affirmation

Tolerance isn’t always the answer, however, as some behaviour would be considered intolerable by some.  I guess it comes down to whether people can live according to their own values without interfering with each other’s values.   I think that’s been mostly the case until recently.  Not only are schools requiring tolerance of lifestyles and identities that disagree with the values of many people, such lifestyles and identities are celebrated by public schools with a designated month and flag.  Not even crucifixes are allowed in public schools, nor are particular countries (other than Canada) or political causes hoisted up on flag poles, yet the Pflag is.  The fact that gender affirmation and these lifestyles/identities are given centre stage can only be interpreted as contempt for the values of millions of families, not just Muslims, not just religious people.

 

No it doesn't.  It actually comes down to tolerance/affirmation vs.celebration/promotion.  The former is what I'm advocating.  The latter is what you think you are getting.  If you are, it's not what I'm advocating.

 

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well, we're reasonable people.  We can do both. 

 

 

Not really.  And i let you know the reference and you're still trying to use it as a distraction.

And if we were "doing both" then you'd put forward a reasoned argument at the same time - and you didn't.

Quote

Yeah, but now you're telling me I know I'm wrong

.I"m observing your actions.   It's like if i saw you walking down the street and said "hey, where are you walking to?" and you freaked out and said "So now you're telling me i'm walking?!?!!?"

A person who doesn't think they're wrong might say "i don't want to talk about it anymore" or We'll lets agree to disagree or the like  - but when you try cheezy grade school debate tricks to dodge the fact you can't defend your position, it's pretty obvious you know you're wrong.

And you STILL can't defend your position

Weak. I had thought you to be more intelligent than some here, but at the end of the day flailing about trying to blame others for your own failings is the best you can manage.

 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not really.  And i let you know the reference and you're still trying to use it as a distraction.

And if we were "doing both" then you'd put forward a reasoned argument at the same time - and you didn't.

.I"m observing your actions.   It's like if i saw you walking down the street and said "hey, where are you walking to?" and you freaked out and said "So now you're telling me i'm walking?!?!!?"

A person who doesn't think they're wrong might say "i don't want to talk about it anymore" or We'll lets agree to disagree or the like  - but when you try cheezy grade school debate tricks to dodge the fact you can't defend your position, it's pretty obvious you know you're wrong.

And you STILL can't defend your position

Weak. I had thought you to be more intelligent than some here, but at the end of the day flailing about trying to blame others for your own failings is the best you can manage.

 

It's not a distraction.  We are capable of doing two things.  And not even at once.  One after the other.

It should be easy.  I already argued for my position in this thread, which I have also reiterated from time to time. 

Could you let me know how the reference you provided relates to little stars and numbered tattoos, and just confirm that a reference to little stars and numbered tattoos does not put you in mind of the Holocaust.  This is a genuine request for information, because I don't know the former, and I'm a little staggered by the latter.

I'll state my position again, so you don't feel that I am taking advantage of you, making you type more than I am.

Here we go:

Homosexuality is both natural and legal. Homosexual relations are as valid as heterosexual relations and all this should be taught in schools.  Tolerance for homosexual relationships that include marriage and children should be taught in schools.

It's easy to defend.  Homosexual relations, which include marriage and children if desired and avalable, are legal in Canada.  Intolerance of such things is bigotry.  (Allowed, freedom of expression and all that, but nasty)  Tolerance of such things should be taught in schools so children can avoid growing up to be bigots like their parents.  In some cases.  Not all, of course.

Edit>  I should add that I am not advocating for stuff like that book you introduced in another thread.  I'm not advocating for breast binding(?) as someone else seemed to think, nor am I advocating for teachers providing any kind of medical advice, either physical or psychological.  I think there is an age when a student can reasonably expect privacy from a teacher informing parents of issues they feel are important but I don't know what that age is.  Sixteen?

Edited August 8, 2023 by bcsapper

[Guest]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Humanities, or Social Studies class, or whatever they call it now, is a good place to do it.

Kindergarten is not. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Kindergarten is not. 

Yes, okay.

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's not a distraction. 

It's nothing but a distraction.  A cheap trick to avoid having to address the issues and flaws in your argument.

 

And no - you didn't address your points earlier.  Your position was that it should be taught because its "natural" etc, which as i noted is just an opinion and is no more valid than the opinion of those who think it's not natural in humans and is a sin. Your only logic here was "Muh Feels".  You offered no defense of why it would be reasonable or prudent to take one side over another in a matter of opinion that is contentious or divisive.

You then went on to say those who disagree and have another opinion should be repressed and pushed aside  And again - no logic for this.  I pointed out that repressing people and tryign to make everyone conform is exaclty what you said you didn't want to see happen and asked you to explain.

Worse - you acknowledge that we're doing this now and still seeing GREATER divisions - and can't explain that. You tried briefly to write it off as 'religion' - forgetting perhaps that religion isn't exactly new?

And when you got called on all of this - your defense was that you were too offended to carry on (snif)  and then tried to distract the conversation and then blame me for the fact you were acting badly.

You should be pretty substantially ashamed of that behavior.  You've always been one of the smarter ones on the left of the spectrum here and usually avoid the preteen antics we see from most of the others.

If your whole position is "i know it may not be rational but i want to see this continue despite the problems and i can't defend that rationally  but i feel it's important"  then fine.  We'll agree to disagree and move on. But stop embarrassing yourself  - this is just pathetic.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's nothing but a distraction.  A cheap trick to avoid having to address the issues and flaws in your argument.

 

And no - you didn't address your points earlier.  Your position was that it should be taught because its "natural" etc, which as i noted is just an opinion and is no more valid than the opinion of those who think it's not natural in humans and is a sin. Your only logic here was "Muh Feels".  You offered no defense of why it would be reasonable or prudent to take one side over another in a matter of opinion that is contentious or divisive.

You then went on to say those who disagree and have another opinion should be repressed and pushed aside  And again - no logic for this.  I pointed out that repressing people and tryign to make everyone conform is exaclty what you said you didn't want to see happen and asked you to explain.

Worse - you acknowledge that we're doing this now and still seeing GREATER divisions - and can't explain that. You tried briefly to write it off as 'religion' - forgetting perhaps that religion isn't exactly new?

And when you got called on all of this - your defense was that you were too offended to carry on (snif)  and then tried to distract the conversation and then blame me for the fact you were acting badly.

You should be pretty substantially ashamed of that behavior.  You've always been one of the smarter ones on the left of the spectrum here and usually avoid the preteen antics we see from most of the others.

If your whole position is "i know it may not be rational but i want to see this continue despite the problems and i can't defend that rationally  but i feel it's important"  then fine.  We'll agree to disagree and move on. But stop embarrassing yourself  - this is just pathetic.

I see.  Normally I'm not the sort of poster who would insist, preferring instead just to let it go to save you any further embarrassment, and take all the garbage you posted about "Nazi" being my idea as just that.  Garbage. 

No skin off my nose.

But you just can't help yourself.  Even though you've been shown to be a complete clown with regard to those comments you don't know enough to just stop.  You have to have to keep on using terms like preteen and pathetic and making stuff up like my defense was that I was too offended to carry on.

 If you do want to carry on, provide me with the stuff I asked for and show me where I was "too offended to carry on".

You won't of course.  You don't have the wit or the balls to ever admit you screwed up.  You will keep doubling down in the hope that attrition will do the trick for you. 

Well, you're not wrong.  I really do have better things to do.  I will know though.?

 Anyway, I addressed all the points, and if you want to bring sin into it that's another good reason to stop there. 

Sin.  ???

So go ahead, have the last word, but remember, I know.

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Quote

I see.  Normally I'm not the sort of poster who would insist, preferring instead just to let it go to save you any further embarrassment, and take all the garbage you posted about "Nazi" being my idea as just that.  Garbage. 

 

 

Still not a single word in defense of your faulty arguments

And you were the ONLY one who used the word nazi. So "all the garbage i posted about nazis"..  is nothing.  

But amazingly - as soon as you realized you couldn't defend your argument - suddenly it's all about nazi's

Well i guess in the end you're just another typical leftie - when they can't win an argument they have a hissy fit and blame everyone else.

Quote

So go ahead, have the last word, but remember, I know.

Yeah. You do. You know everything i said was true, and that you ran and stuck your head in the ground because you couldn't grow a pair and admit you didn't have a defense for your position.   Instead you drummed up imaginary nazi's to be offended at and point to one sentance as "alll that garbage about nazis" that didn't even say nazi.

Crawl back under your bed and hide little man.  We'll let you know when it's safe to come out again, where you won't have to face any criticisms of your arguments that make you such a p*ssy.