WANTED: Civics 101 Refresher Course

[Eddy]

Many -- if not most -- Canadians to-day are in desperate need of a refresher course in Grade-10 high school "Civics"...specifically the fact about deliberately discriminating against whomever it may be making a run for political office due to their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, whatever. 

Indeed, such bias well-extends beyond politics, & easily enters into the realm of the appointment of police chiefs, judges, CEO's of major corporations-institutions -- anything.

What I'm referring to here is the preconceived bias that, "So-and-so would be a good MP because he's obviously not of this culture..." or, "She'd make a great corporate head because she's a woman..." or, "He'd be a wonderful judge because he's of Indigenous ancestry..." etc. etc. etc. Such thought & opinion essentially asserts that the proverbial middle-aged white-coloured guy currently in the job deliberately & pre-meditatively disregards the issues & matters of all others, allowing only those relating to "...proverbial middle-aged white guys" to garner his attention.

So by consequence, can we expect that the exact reverse will hold true if we specifically vote based solely upon gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation...? That a recent arrival into Canada from an off-shore culture will deliberately  focus all of his energy & effort only upon the heretofore neglected others of his kind? Or that a woman CEO will base all of her corporate decisions to favour only the advancement past the "glass ceiling" in some way of other women? Or that an Indigenous judge will be more lenient toward other Indigenous People in his courtroom to the detriment of all others...?

Again, hearkening back to high school Civics, an elected member of parliament represents all of his constituents, & not just those who may have voted for him. ALL of them. And the same applies (one would expect, & hope) to the selection of judges, police chiefs, CEO's, etc. We should be colour-blind of those over us, just as any & all in within places of authority should be essentially colour-blind relating to anything else beyond the fact that we're merely constituents, corporate executives, or cases in court. It's not me personally asserting this -- it's Civics.

Think of it this way: you were crossing a busy street on your way to an appointment when a speeding bus accidentally struck you. You are now lying in a hospital operating room, about to receive life or death surgery performed by a prominent doctor. So tell me this: do you want this surgeon to be in that position specifically because of the doctor's gender, colour, religious faith, or sexuality -- or do you instead, prefer that surgeon to have graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard University, & been on the dean's list at the time of their graduation...?

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Eddy said:

Many -- if not most -- Canadians to-day are in desperate need of a refresher course in Grade-10 high school "Civics"...specifically the fact about deliberately discriminating against whomever it may be making a run for political office due to their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, whatever. 

Indeed, such bias well-extends beyond politics, & easily enters into the realm of the appointment of police chiefs, judges, CEO's of major corporations-institutions -- anything.

What I'm referring to here is the preconceived bias that, "So-and-so would be a good MP because he's obviously not of this culture..." or, "She'd make a great corporate head because she's a woman..." or, "He'd be a wonderful judge because he's of Indigenous ancestry..." etc. etc. etc. Such thought & opinion essentially asserts that the proverbial middle-aged white-coloured guy currently in the job deliberately & pre-meditatively disregards the issues & matters of all others, allowing only those relating to "...proverbial middle-aged white guys" to garner his attention.

So by consequence, can we expect that the exact reverse will hold true if we specifically vote based solely upon gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation...? That a recent arrival into Canada from an off-shore culture will deliberately  focus all of his energy & effort only upon the heretofore neglected others of his kind? Or that a woman CEO will base all of her corporate decisions to favour only the advancement past the "glass ceiling" in some way of other women? Or that an Indigenous judge will be more lenient toward other Indigenous People in his courtroom to the detriment of all others...?

Again, hearkening back to high school Civics, an elected member of parliament represents all of his constituents, & not just those who may have voted for him. ALL of them. And the same applies (one would expect, & hope) to the selection of judges, police chiefs, CEO's, etc. We should be colour-blind of those over us, just as any & all in within places of authority should be essentially colour-blind relating to anything else beyond the fact that we're merely constituents, corporate executives, or cases in court. It's not me personally asserting this -- it's Civics.

Think of it this way: you were crossing a busy street on your way to an appointment when a speeding bus accidentally struck you. You are now lying in a hospital operating room, about to receive life or death surgery performed by a prominent doctor. So tell me this: do you want this surgeon to be in that position specifically because of the doctor's gender, colour, religious faith, or sexuality -- or do you instead, prefer that surgeon to have graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard University, & been on the dean's list at the time of their graduation...?

 

Oddly enough...that might just be the same person.

[Eddy]

"...Oddly enough...that might just be the same person..."

Yes, by under the most fortuitous of circumstances, it just might be. Maybe.

I consider the situation to be not unlike the one single clever thing that any member bearing the Trump name said once npt too many years ago. It may have been either Trump's immediate son, or his son-in-law, who likened gambling to -- as he put it -- "...putting a lethally poisonous Skittle candy intermixed with a bowl of other Skittles.  Would you be willing to take a fistful out of that bowl, & place it into your mouth...?"

I'm not a gambling man. Are you...?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Eddy said:

Canadians to-day are in desperate need of a refresher course in Grade-10 high school "Civics".

Personally I think you'd get better results if everyone went back to kindergarten. Keep it simple. 

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Eddy said:

Think of it this way: you were crossing a busy street on your way to an appointment when a speeding bus accidentally struck you. You are now lying in a hospital operating room, about to receive life or death surgery performed by a prominent doctor. So tell me this: do you want this surgeon to be in that position specifically because of the doctor's gender, colour, religious faith, or sexuality -- or do you instead, prefer that surgeon to have graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard University, & been on the dean's list at the time of their graduation...?

 

If the surgeon was a Harvard graduate and I was Jewish, I think I would prefer my local butcher.

[Nationalist]

50 minutes ago, Eddy said:

"...Oddly enough...that might just be the same person..."

Yes, by under the most fortuitous of circumstances, it just might be. Maybe.

I consider the situation to be not unlike the one single clever thing that any member bearing the Trump name said once npt too many years ago. It may have been either Trump's immediate son, or his son-in-law, who likened gambling to -- as he put it -- "...putting a lethally poisonous Skittle candy intermixed with a bowl of other Skittles.  Would you be willing to take a fistful out of that bowl, & place it into your mouth...?"

I'm not a gambling man. Are you...?

Meh...me an' the boys play a little 7 card stud once in a while.

I enjoy blackjack in the casinos, but I very rarely go so.. 

[Eddy]

"...If the surgeon was a Harvard graduate and I was Jewish, I think I would prefer my local butcher..."

Hence the critical need for that "...colour-blindness" that I referred to, Logato...!

🐵

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Personally I think you'd get better results if everyone went back to kindergarten. Keep it simple. 

Makes sense. It's definitely your nap time  

[CdnFox]

I have to say, watching the bot respond is interesting.  How it tries to work through some of the nuance and say something that SOUNDS like it might be relevant is kind of cool.  Mind you - reading it's stuff certainly suggests that all these fears of AI replacing writers and such is probably a little unfounded at this point  

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Eddy said:

"...If the surgeon was a Harvard graduate and I was Jewish, I think I would prefer my local butcher..."

Hence the critical need for that "...colour-blindness" that I referred to, Logato...!

🐵

Who's Logato?

Beep

[Eddy]

"...Who's Logota...?"

Only the fat-fingered typist knows for sure... 🐵

[Eddy]

"...I have to say, watching the bot respond is interesting..."

CdnFx you really have nothing at all that might be insightful, or of any intellectual import, to share with others here, do you? I guess calling somebody a "bot" is the acme of your deep, pervasive wit & wisdom, isn't it...?

[Legato]

56 minutes ago, Eddy said:

"...Who's Logota...?"

Only the fat-fingered typist knows for sure... 🐵

Try eating a salad.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Eddy said:

"...I have to say, watching the bot respond is interesting..."

CdnFx you really have nothing at all that might be insightful, or of any intellectual import, to share with others here, do you? I guess calling somebody a "bot" is the acme of your deep, pervasive wit & wisdom, isn't it...?

LOL - i love that it's programmed to go after people who call it a bot with a stock response  

Well in fairness it IS smarter than some of our left wing posters here  

[Eddy]

"...Well in fairness it IS smarter than some of our left wing posters here..."

So that can only mean that you lose each & every time by default only...which hardly comes as any sort of a surprise to me as you're far less than even a "one trick" pony.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Eddy said:

"...Well in fairness it IS smarter than some of our left wing posters here..."

So that can only mean that you lose each & every time by default only...which hardly comes as any sort of a surprise to me as you're far less than even a "one trick" pony.

Oh I don't know.  @CdnFox puts irrational Tweenkies in their place daily. I've always suspected @robosmith is a bot...programmed by a Karen who's anger and hatred is monumental. 

Why not you?

[Eddy]

This entire site is fast becoming a disappointment to me. Instead of reasoned, well thought-out back & forth debate which I had initially expected, all I can see is relentless & senseless back-biting & an exchange of insults between those who might be still hopeful, & a cadre of belligerent trolls who think that reference to "bots" elevates them to some place of intellectual superiority.

I hate to admit it, but some push-back on my part has been simply irresistible as I foolishly allow myself on occasion to get drawn into the nonsense. And that's not a good thing.

Maybe it'd be best if I simply were to leave this castle of cards here, & let CdnFox & all the rest of his "running dogs" have at it in this their own little sandbox of a world...they all deserve one another, after-all.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Eddy said:

This entire site is fast becoming a disappointment to me. Instead of reasoned, well thought-out back & forth debate which I had initially expected, all I can see is relentless & senseless back-biting & an exchange of insults between those who might be still hopeful, & a cadre of belligerent trolls who think that reference to "bots" elevates them to some place of intellectual superiority.

I hate to admit it, but some push-back on my part has been simply irresistible as I foolishly allow myself on occasion to get drawn into the nonsense. And that's not a good thing.

Maybe it'd be best if I simply were to leave this castle of cards here, & let CdnFox & all the rest of his "running dogs" have at it in this their own little sandbox of a world...they all deserve one another, after-all.

Well, you're right about the nature of this site. It was better in the past. But the frothing right-wing trolls leave after a while. The ones who stay the longest are the centrists like me and a handful of others who can discuss things seriously.

There was a guy reason 10 who was posting all the time a few months ago. Disappeared. Oh well.

Double post

 

[Eddy]

Michael I don't have need of any of the personal name-calling & other such nonsense as seems to be the purview of a select number of regular "contributors" here. And the amount of otherwise "normal" people here can -- literally -- be counted on the fingers of just one hand...

Frankly, I'm surprised that the moderator(s) overseeing this site might allow such a wide liberal latitude in the wording & verbal assaults of some the extremists. Not even so much as a verbal warning to the more prolific of them to "try & curb your enthusiasm"...? It's a pity -- but all just the embodiment of what's currently crippling American politics so, i.e. "My party, right or wrong!".

We can be collectively thankful that such attitudes didn't prevail in the early 1940's U.S.A., when one party put their shoulder to the wheel pushing a much-needed war wagon against Axist fascism up the hill, with the other on the opposite side, pushing back. Everyone appreciated the true worth of cooperation & strength in numbers back then. If this current crop was up & about at that time, to-day we'd all probably have perfected the art of goose-stepping, celebrating the Beer Hall Putsch as an annual federal holiday, & eating bratwurst sausage for supper...

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, you're right about the nature of this site. It was better in the past. But the frothing right-wing trolls leave after a while. The ones who stay the longest are the centrists like me and a handful of others who can discuss things seriously.

There was a guy reason 10 who was posting all the time a few months ago. Disappeared. Oh well.

Double post

 

LOL - Look at that Mike, you finally found an intellectual equal to share ideas with,  a poorly programmed AI bot    LOLOL!   

Seriously the more we engage with it the more it'll post.  But if that's your cup of tea i guess that's fine, it's responses are interesting from a 'how far the tech has come' point of view.

[Eddy]

"...It's responses are interesting from a 'how far the tech has come' point of view..."

And how very interesting how you've descended -- and are descending into -- complete irrelevance by your repeating that same old tired & shopworn reference that you most likely read in some "Bazooka Joe" bubble gum wrapper some time ago.

What do you for an ecore, I wonder...? Do you even have one...? OMG, do you even know what an "encore" is...?!

[CdnFox]

Bazooka joe bubble gum       LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!  Are you guys seeing this? It's not just me right?

Ok - eddy can stay, he's a great bot  

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Eddy said:

This entire site is fast becoming a disappointment to me. Instead of reasoned, well thought-out back & forth debate which I had initially expected, all I can see is relentless & senseless back-biting & an exchange of insults between those who might be still hopeful, & a cadre of belligerent trolls who think that reference to "bots" elevates them to some place of intellectual superiority.

I hate to admit it, but some push-back on my part has been simply irresistible as I foolishly allow myself on occasion to get drawn into the nonsense. And that's not a good thing.

Maybe it'd be best if I simply were to leave this castle of cards here, & let CdnFox & all the rest of his "running dogs" have at it in this their own little sandbox of a world...they all deserve one another, after-all.

I put CdnLIAR on ignore (first time ever), and now I can read freely without being tempted to get into another of his juvenile spats.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I put CdnLIAR on ignore (first time ever), and now I can read freely without being tempted to get into another of his juvenile spats.

ROFLMAOO!!!!!!! -   And apperently a poorly programmed AI bot is also a perfect buddy for Robosmith  

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, Eddy said:

This entire site is fast becoming a disappointment to me. Instead of reasoned, well thought-out back & forth debate which I had initially expected, all I can see is relentless & senseless back-biting & an exchange of insults between those who might be still hopeful, & a cadre of belligerent trolls who think that reference to "bots" elevates them to some place of intellectual superiority.

I hate to admit it, but some push-back on my part has been simply irresistible as I foolishly allow myself on occasion to get drawn into the nonsense. And that's not a good thing.

Maybe it'd be best if I simply were to leave this castle of cards here, & let CdnFox & all the rest of his "running dogs" have at it in this their own little sandbox of a world...they all deserve one another, after-all.

You're correct. This is not REDIT or like any of the Libbie run sites you'd gravitate to. I think most of us are Canucks. 

Be that as it may...you won't be the first or the last to come and find an impenetrable wall of common sense. See...the owner of this site allows conservatives to fight fire with fire, instead of banning them like most other sites. If you have the balls to stick around, know that modern liberalism...progressivism...comes here to find stiff opposition. 

Now...you have a decision to make. Do you face your opposition? Or run away back to some other site where the conservative point of view is...neutered?