Toronto Pride once again allows perverts to expose genitalia in front of children

[blackbird]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I never said anything about right and wrong.  I talked about settling as in settling a dispute. 

You put a long post together that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.  I'm not talking about right and wrong nor will I.

You avoided the subject completely.  You said "I would point out that "unrighteous" is a plainly subjective word so you have to go back to the law, ultimately, to settle it."

What does this mean?  

I did speak to your statement which I quoted here.

You said "unrighteous" is a plainly subjective word.  I explained why it is not a subjective word.  You did not read what i said.  You never explained what you meant by "law" either.

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. You avoided the subject completely.  You said "I would point out that "unrighteous" is a plainly subjective word so you have to go back to the law, ultimately, to settle it."

2. I explained why it is not a subjective word.  You did not read what i said. 

3. You never explained what you meant by "law" either.

1. Yes, exactly.  I think morality is subjective and public morality is subjective to "the" public.

Your response is to give me a religious backing, which is your opinion, ie. subjective.  I don't accept metaphysical supposition as objective, so you're back to square zero.

2. No, you said generally, and I quote an excerpt "Man's laws should be built on God's law and written revelation"  I don't care about what you think "should be".  I'm talking about practical matters of how governance works.

3. I mean the legal system.

[blackbird]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, exactly.  I think morality is subjective and public morality is subjective to "the" public.

Your response is to give me a religious backing, which is your opinion, ie. subjective.  I don't accept metaphysical supposition as objective, so you're back to square zero.

2. No, you said generally, and I quote an excerpt "Man's laws should be built on God's law and written revelation"  I don't care about what you think "should be".  I'm talking about practical matters of how governance works.

3. I mean the legal system.

You made your choice to reject God's written revelation, the Bible.  I explained that is because you worship the false god of liberalism and secular humanism.  You stated in effect you are not willing to change.  That is your choice.  Be prepared to accept the consequences in this life and the next. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, blackbird said:

1. You made your choice to reject God's written revelation, the Bible. 

2. I explained that is because you worship the false god of liberalism and secular humanism.   

3. You stated in effect you are not willing to change.  That is your choice. 

4. Be prepared to accept the consequences in this life and the next. 

1. Yes.
2. Yes... maybe not "worship" but I choose that context.
3. I don't think I said I'm not willing to change, no.
4. I don't think you can prepare for that.

And it's still all irrelevant to how to settle these questions.

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Yes... maybe not "worship" but I choose that context.

Do you believe in liberal ideology, i.e. that everything is subjective and if liberals decide some practice is acceptable, you consider that is acceptable?  What is your basis for acceptance of some practice that liberals or any politicians endorse?

 

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I don't think I said I'm not willing to change, no.

I accept that and take it to mean you are  willing to change.

[CdnFox]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I never said anything about right and wrong.  I talked about settling as in settling a dispute. 
 

But how does it settle it? Do you think it's settled and nobody thinks about it any more? 

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

1. Do you believe in liberal ideology, i.e. that everything is subjective and if liberals decide some practice is acceptable, you consider that is acceptable?  What is your basis for acceptance of some practice that liberals or any politicians endorse?

2. I accept that and take it to mean you are  willing to change.

1. That's what is called a loaded question.  I consider mya Christian by philosophy.  The Golden Rule, as a fundamental principle, is a great foundation for a community and for a personal credit.

2. I change constantly.  It's a good thing too because everything else does as well.  

[Moonlight Graham]

On 7/12/2024 at 9:28 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. They reviewed it and decided to allow it.  That's what I mean about 'dealing with it'.  You don't like the nudity and you suspect that they're all perverts.  Many feel the way you do but the decision came out the other way.

2. Aaaaand... even though I expressed regret over how this plays out, you read my objective tone as being absolutely in favour of this.  You are a serious poster, but this is a serious flaw.

3. Will you at least acknowledge that it's not all gay people ?

4.  The bike ride folks aren't gay and the beach (I have been there, yes with my kids) is probably about 10% gay.  Mostly kids in their 20s... South American, indian, Black kids... splashing in the waves and having fun for free... a liberal woke dream and conservative nightmare right  

1.  It's not up to the police to decide which laws to enforce or ignore, that's not democracy, they aren't lawmakers, their job is to enforce the law without bias.  They don't want the bad PR of arresting gay people.  They should do their jobs and not pick and choose which laws to enforce based on PR.  The likelihood that these nude men are perverts is extremely high.  Odds are good they hang out at the nude beach, which is dominated by men including a lot of gay men.  Most gay men are there to look at other men's bodies/genitals and have other men look at them because men of all sexual orientations are horn dogs.

Note that I have no issues with nudity at all per say, I do have an issue with people imposing exposure of their genitalia in public, especially women and children, and especially by perverts with no consideration for people who don't want to see someone's dong.

2.  All you've done is defend it, so yes I have every reason to think you're in favour of this.

3.  I certainly never implied that all gay people expose their genitals in public so I don't see a need to make any qualifiers such as this.

4.  Having a nude beach is fine.  It's a separate nude-designated area where people have the expectation that they will see nude people, and so they have informed consent to be exposed to nudity, including women/children/families.  I see no potential harm.  I'm not against nudity, i'm against it being imposed on others in public like in the streets.  If you or others don't have an issue with nudity you're free to go to that beach and any other private or designated nude area.

[I am Groot]

On 7/9/2024 at 11:27 AM, Black Dog said:

It was started in the States by a Black scholar who wanted to "ensure that the overlooked role of Black people in American history was acknowledged by white historians."

And what's that got to do with Canada? Why do you progs always adopt whatever the Americans do? 

[I am Groot]

On 7/8/2024 at 2:14 PM, Black Dog said:

"Slavery was good" is the mask-off moment I was waiting for, thanks dawg.

I believe you are wildly exaggerating their statement.

[I am Groot]

On 7/8/2024 at 2:39 PM, Michael Hardner said:

What I can't comprehend is how you come skipping into a thread about Pride declaring that Slavery was awesome.

 

Masks off, this Halloween sir.  Just write "I'm a bad person" on your forehead... I'll give you an apple 🍏 

I do not believe your interpretation is correct. The thing pasted into their post suggested whites would, if they could go back in history, eliminate the period of Western slavery. Which is reasonable and logical.

It also suggested blacks living in the US today would not because doing so would mean that instead of living in a wealthy, western country their ancestors never having been brought there, they would be living in Africa. That also does not imply slavery was 'awesome' but merely that the descendants of those slaves are likely better off than the descendants of their former tribes/countries/nations who never got brought over. 

Canada never had slaves, of course, and the blacks in Canada are not descended from slaves unless they are immigrants from a country that had slavery. 

[taxme]

On 7/3/2024 at 7:58 AM, Michael Hardner said:

In theory or practice?  There are lots of examples of the system punishing white 🤍 collar crimes more lightly than you'd think, for example.

But justice is an amorphous value.  I'd say anyone discussing that has to agree, just to talk about the topic.

Try speaking in straight forward English. Get to the point. 🤡

[taxme]

On 7/3/2024 at 7:54 AM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

So I was right to say white heterosexual men have the least rights.

Dam right, you are right. 😇

[taxme]

On 7/13/2024 at 12:46 PM, I am Groot said:

I do not believe your interpretation is correct. The thing pasted into their post suggested whites would, if they could go back in history, eliminate the period of Western slavery. Which is reasonable and logical.

It also suggested blacks living in the US today would not because doing so would mean that instead of living in a wealthy, western country their ancestors never having been brought there, they would be living in Africa. That also does not imply slavery was 'awesome' but merely that the descendants of those slaves are likely better off than the descendants of their former tribes/countries/nations who never got brought over. 

Canada never had slaves, of course, and the blacks in Canada are not descended from slaves unless they are immigrants from a country that had slavery. 

It was the white man that eliminated slavery in America. Clap-clap. Their white descendants should not be forced to pay any kinds of reparations because they did help free the black slaves. Those white people should be praised and thanked for doing so instead of being treated like scum. 

So what if blacks in America are descendants of slaves. What gives them the right to demand money that they do not deserve? The blacks living in America today were never slaves. Enough already of this white guilt.  ☹️