Diversity is not a strength, it's a weakness. And why are the Laurentian Elites fixated on DEI?

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Why is antisemitism rising and getting nastier in Canada? It's a complete puzzle!

The vast majority of what you people call anti-Semitism is simply anger at Israel.

Albert Einstein predicted that a "real and final catastrophe" would be the result of Zionist terrorism in 1948.

FYI.  Einstein was a pretty smart guy.

 

[I am Groot]

22 minutes ago, User said:

Of course!

And if a woman gets married and changes her name, then all that history just before she was married is no longer hers either! 

And what percent age of the people in Canada in 1867 were here in 1793?

There were about 175k people in canada in 1793, and 3.5 million in 1867. That means the vast majority of people you insist bear terrible guilt for there having been slaves were not even here.

Just like the vast majority of the blacks you insist must be given preferential hiring, promotion, grants, loans, etc., had no ancesters living here then.

So how come Carny doesn't call out indigenous slavery? How come the CBC doesn't run documentaries on the vicious violence, genocide, torture and slavery of indigenous Canadians? 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The vast majority of what you people call anti-Semitism is simply anger at Israel.

Albert Einstein predicted that a "real and final catastrophe" would be the result of Zionist terrorism in 1948.

FYI.  Einstein was a pretty smart guy.

Being against zionism in the 1940s is not the same as being anti-zionist in 2026. Being against zionism in 2026 is to demand the destruction of a nation of millions of people on behalf of a group of savages whose death cult religion demands they take over every square inch of land on Earth and kill anyone who gets in their way.

[I am Groot]

In Denmark, they organized IQ test results by first name.

 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

That means the vast majority of people you insist bear terrible guilt for there having been slaves were not even here.

This is a real question: can you read? 
No where have I insisted anyone bear any guilt. 
 

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Being against zionism in the 1940s is not the same as being anti-zionist in 2026.

Of course it is when they're still behaving the same way.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, User said:

Of course!

And if a woman gets married and changes her name, then all that history just before she was married is no longer hers either!

 

If she doesn't just change her name but also transforms into a new life form then yeah. 

Canada didn't just 'change it's name".   A bunch of different colonies each with different laws and different histories decided to create something new.  Something which had not previously existsed, something independent of the previous attachments and shackles.  

THat new thing was  .... wait for it..  a new thing. And no, it does NOT have the history of the other colonies before hand that decided to end their existence to create this new thing 

AND slavery had LONG been abolished in ALL of those colonies before this happened. 

You're smart and you're generally a good debater but you're starting with an answer and trying to work your way back to an argument and you're getting slaughtered.  Canada never had slavery.  At all. Not even a little. 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

If she doesn't just change her name but also transforms into a new life form then yeah. 

But she didn’t just change her name!

No!

She is married. This was a union of two different people now becoming a new household, something new! 
 

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, User said:

But she didn’t just change her name!

 

Sure she did. Her Partnerships with other people are relevant, all that really changed was her name as far as who she is and her history

But when many groups of people come together to form a new country something is born that was not there before. It is a new entity. What's your arguing is the same as pretending that America is just Britain with a name change and it's still Britain, we just call it something else

That's really not how it works.

Candida did not change its name. Different people's and different:Ies with different laws and different histories came together and created something new.

Canada is a Gestalt, it is more than the sum of its parts. It was new and wondrous and has its own history just as you were born of your mother and father and yet are something new and have your own history

As much as you want to pretend the candidate existed before Canada existed, Canada did not exist before Canada existed    That's just the way it works.

Canada never had slavery, and even the groups of people who would eventually come together and form Canada had abolished slavery long before they gave birth to Canada. Canada has no history of slavery

[User]

47 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure she did. Her Partnerships with other people are relevant, all that really changed was her name as far as who she is and her history

But when many groups of people come together to form a new country something is born that was not there before. It is a new entity. What's your arguing is the same as pretending that America is just Britain with a name change and it's still Britain, we just call it something else

That's really not how it works.

Candida did not change its name. Different people's and different:Ies with different laws and different histories came together and created something new.

Canada is a Gestalt, it is more than the sum of its parts. It was new and wondrous and has its own history just as you were born of your mother and father and yet are something new and have your own history

As much as you want to pretend the candidate existed before Canada existed, Canada did not exist before Canada existed    That's just the way it works.

Canada never had slavery, and even the groups of people who would eventually come together and form Canada had abolished slavery long before they gave birth to Canada. Canada has no history of slavery

But when two people come together to form a marriage, something is born that wasn’t there before. It is a new entity. What you’re arguing is the same as pretending that a married couple is just two single people with a label slapped on, like nothing actually changed and we just call it something else.

That’s really not how it works.

The individuals didn’t just change their names. Different lives and different histories, with different experiences and perspectives, came together and created something new.

A marriage is a Gestalt, it is more than the sum of its parts. It is new and distinct, with its own identity and its own history, just as a child is born of two parents and yet is something entirely new.

As much as you want to pretend the marriage existed before it actually did, it didn’t. It only came into being when those two people chose to form it. That’s just the way it works.

And just like that, whatever came before belongs to the individuals, not the marriage itself.

[I am Groot]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Of course it is when they're still behaving the same way.

Defending themselves from being slaughtered, you mean?

Damn those Jews!

10 hours ago, User said:

This is a real question: can you read? 
No where have I insisted anyone bear any guilt. 
 

Of course you have. You and those like you bring up shit like this because you want everyone to feel as guilt-ridden and ashamed of themselves as you are. You want to use it as a stick to beat everyone else who's white so we give all our money to the Siberians who came here before us and built... uh... nothing.  All because you cry yourself to sleep every night at us being more sophisticated and technologically advanced than then were.

[I am Groot]

In the Netherlands, only about a third of those on weflare are dutch. The rest are either migrants, or the children of migrants/immigrants. You will never see anything like this in Canada because our governments would never gather such information, much less allow it to get out.

 

[User]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Of course you have. You and those like you bring up shit like this because you want everyone to feel as guilt-ridden and ashamed of themselves as you are. You want to use it as a stick to beat everyone else who's white so we give all our money to the Siberians who came here before us and built... uh... nothing.  All because you cry yourself to sleep every night at us being more sophisticated and technologically advanced than then were.

I didn’t bring this up. I responded to your comment talking about this. 
 

So… now what do you have?

 

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, User said:

 

But when two people come together to form a marriage, something is born that wasn’t there before.

No there isn't. The two things that are still there are the things that were there since the beginning. nothing has changed.  They have an agreement but they are still exactly what they've always been. There's nothing transformative about it. They are still two people they don't magically become one person

Unless of course you mean that they might have a child. But that child has its own unique history it's not the history of the parents is it

Your analogy is starting to get a silly as the idea that if I steal a wallet in Japan I'm Japanese. 

11 hours ago, User said:

The individuals didn’t just change their names.

They just changed their names. In fact one of them didn't even bother to do that

When they got married they still exist. When the:Ies came together to form Canada the:Ies ceased to exist. Their laws cease to exist, the rights and titles ceased to exist.

11 hours ago, User said:

A marriage is a Gestalt,

A marriage is absolutely nothing like a Gestalt. It is simply a partnership. Plus I bet dollars to Donuts you didn't even know what a Gestalt was before I mentioned it and now you're trying to use the word.

11 hours ago, User said:

As much as you want to pretend the marriage existed before it actually did, it didn’t.

What? I am certainly not the one trying to pretend the marriage existed before it did and now you're just making no sense.

Kid. Canada never had slavery. And Canada did not exist before it existed

I'm sorry this is causing you such brain damage but it's as simple as that.

Edited April 5 by CdnFox

[User]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What? I am certainly not the one trying to pretend the marriage existed before it did and now you're just making no sense.

Yes, I know marriage is not the same thing. That is why it is called an analogy. I am taking your logic, swapping the nouns, and showing you how absurd it sounds when applied somewhere else.

If your argument is that once a new legal entity is formed, everything that happened before magically no longer counts because “technically it wasn’t that entity yet,” then by that same logic a marriage would have no connection to anything either spouse did before the wedding.

That would obviously be a stupid argument. Which is exactly why I used it.

No, a married woman is not literally a brand new human being with no connection to her prior life. And likewise, the political body that became Canada did not descend from the heavens untouched by the histories of the colonies, territories, and institutions that formed it.

That is the point.

You are trying to play a word game where you erase continuity by changing the label. “It wasn’t Canada yet” is not some magic historical bleach that wipes away everything that led into Canada.

The marriage analogy is intentionally dumb because it exposes the dumbness of the underlying move:

“Before the wedding, she wasn’t a wife, therefore her past has nothing to do with the marriage.”

That sounds ridiculous, because it is.

Same basic problem here:

“Before Confederation, it wasn’t Canada, therefore the entities and systems that became Canada have nothing to do with Canada’s history.”

You can keep repeating “Canada never had slavery” in that narrow technical sense, but all that really means is you are hiding behind the date of the label instead of addressing the historical continuity of the places, institutions, and people that became Canada.

So no, I am not claiming marriage creates a mystical new being. I am mocking your logic by putting it in a different outfit and showing how silly it looks.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, I know marriage is not the same thing.

Then don't bring it up. An analogy is an effort to explain one thing by showing something that is very similar. There's nothing remotely similar about a marriage and the creation of a new country.

And yet you persist with it. Get it through your head a marriage is not the same thing as the creation of something brand new.

When two people get married the law does not recognize their marriage as a separate legal entity. They were two people, now there are two people with an agreement. They retain their individual legal rights as people and their own individual legal commitments

When a country is formed the participants give up their legal rights and a new thing is formed that has its own unique legal existence.

In addition it has its own laws its own customs etc.

When a baby is born of two parents the baby does not inherit the parents' history as its own

If Mom was a skier the baby is not a skier and has no history of skiing. If Dad robbed a bank the baby did not rob a bank.

That is what we are talking about here. This is not a marriage this is the birth of something new that did not exist prior to this

There are no word games here.  This is simple fact

You seem desperate to make it seem like canada had slavery.  That's very left wing of you, and i have no idea why you're being so dishonest. 

But Canada never had slavery. And the colonies who at one time had allowed slavery had abolished it so far in the past  that those who created canada would not likely have been old enough to ever have even met one  never mind owned one.  There was no slavery in the colonies when they gave birth to Canada, and Canada never had slaves 

This is simple.  You're trying to argue that black is white and i'm worried about your safety at the next zebra crossing  

 

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Defending themselves from being slaughtered, you mean?

No, stealing land at gunpoint and killing people who resist.

 

[User]

49 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This is simple.  You're trying to argue that black is white and i'm worried about your safety at the next zebra crossing  

You’re still missing why I used the analogy.

I’m not saying marriage and a country are the same thing. I’m taking your rule and applying it somewhere else to mock your logic. 

Your are making some absurd technicality argument:
“If something didn’t exist under its current name yet, then anything that happened before doesn’t count as its history.”

That’s the part I’m mocking.

You say Canada is a completely new thing with no connection to what came before. Fine. Then explain this:

Did the laws come from nowhere?
Did the institutions appear out of thin air?
Did the people suddenly become unrelated to the places they lived in the day before?
Did the people making Canada magically appear out of nowhere?

Of course not.

Canada is a continuation and consolidation of the colonies that formed it. You don’t get to pretend there’s a hard reset just because the label changed.

Your baby example actually hurts your argument more than it helps it.

A baby doesn’t inherit the actions of the parents, sure. No one is saying Canada personally “owned slaves” like an individual commits a crime.

But a baby absolutely inherits context, lineage, and conditions from the parents. That’s the whole point. It doesn’t pop into existence disconnected from everything that came before.

Same idea here.

And no, this isn’t about “trying to make Canada look bad” or whatever political box you want to shove it into. It’s about basic historical continuity.

Saying “Canada never had slavery” in that narrow, technical sense is like saying “this company never polluted” when it was formed by merging companies that did. It’s technically tidy, but it ignores how reality actually flows over time.

So yeah, it is simple:

Changing the name doesn’t erase the past.
Forming a new entity doesn’t sever it from what created it.

You can keep repeating the label argument, but it’s just semantics doing heavy lifting for a conclusion you already decided on.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

You’re still missing why I used the analogy.

Sigh. i'm not missing anything. 

Quote

I’m not saying marriage and a country are the same thing. I’m taking your rule and applying it somewhere else to mock your logic. 

No. you're not..  There is no logical comparison between the two. You are not applying the same "logic" in the slighest.  It is completely apples and oranges. Like i said,  a more reasonable application of the same logic would be to consider their child.  

Quote

 

Your are making some absurd technicality argument:
“If something didn’t exist under its current name yet, then anything that happened before doesn’t count as its history.”

That’s the part I’m mocking.

 

Not mocking anything. You're displaying your shocking inability to understand basic concepts.

It's not that it didn't exist under its current name. It didn't exist at all. This is not a thing that existed and changed it's name this thing NEVER EXISTED.  People came to gether and CAUSED it to exist.  Like two people having a baby. 

 

Quote

You say Canada is a completely new thing with no connection to what came before. Fine. Then explain this:

LOL well this isn't going to end well for you  

 

Quote

Did the laws come from nowhere?

Did the institutions appear out of thin air?

They are created by the constitution and by the process it grants.  They did not exist before the creation of the constitution. So they were created when canada was created or after as part of the process canada caused to come into effect. 

 

Quote

Did the people suddenly become unrelated to the places they lived in the day before?

They immiedately became unrelated to the gov'ts and country and colony they were before (depending ... remember they weren't the same colonies or even the same parent countries).  So yes, they became unrelated to the countries and colonies they were before and they lost their titles and legal standing and property and eveything. And were granted new titles and property and such under a brand new country. 

Quote

Did the people making Canada magically appear out of nowhere?

No, they came from Britain and france and europe and first nations, so they came from many places and histories and backgrounds  and gave all that up to become Canadian. 

Quote

Of course not.

Yeah that didn't go well for you at all   

 

Quote

Canada is a continuation and consolidation of the colonies that formed it.

Nope. That's dumb.  Are you claiming that america is actually Britain?

Quote

You don’t get to pretend there’s a hard reset just because the label changed.

No label change kiddo.  Sorry.

Quote

 

Your baby example actually hurts your argument more than it helps it.

A baby doesn’t inherit the actions of the parents, sure. No one is saying Canada personally “owned slaves” like an individual commits a crime.

 

That's precisely what you're claiming, that a baby owns and inherits the actions of its parents as if the baby itself didi it.

Quote

But a baby absolutely inherits context, lineage, and conditions from the parents.

There's no such thing as inheriting context.  And inheriting "lineage"  SPECIFICALLY separates you from those who came before noting that they are in the past and you are something different which occupies it's own space.  Swing and a miss

Quote

That’s the whole point. It doesn’t pop into existence disconnected from everything that came before.

Sure it does. The baby doesn't inherently speak ANY language. It has NO inborn cultural references. IT must be taught those things. 

Canada 'learned' what it is from it's creators and they did not allow slavery. Canada never had slaves. 

 

Quote

And no, this isn’t about “trying to make Canada look bad” or whatever political box you want to shove it into. It’s about basic historical continuity.

Yeah, it's about trying to make canada look bad.  Your argument is not rational. Yet you are a rational person by and large. Ergo, it's about something other than rational logic.

This is as simple as it gets.  Canada started when it was created by several nations and their people coming together to create something new that had never existsed. 

Those people did not believe in slavery and it was never allowed in canada.  Canada has never had slavery. that isn't a "technical' truth, that is a simple fact.  

America was a british colony before it became america, but america is not Britain.  Nor does it own any of britians actions. 

Canada was a british, french and first nations land before confederation, but it's not british, french or first nations even tho it pays homage to and respects that lineage the same as you might respect your grandfather.  But your grandfather's actions, for better or worse, are not yours. 

You're just plain wrong. No law anywhere in the world recognizes a country being responsible for what came before it. 

you MIGHT have had a point if slavery was legal in ALL of the colonies and right up until confederaton  but it had been banned a generation before. 

The people who created canada were not slave holders, nor did their laws allow for slavery and canada has never allowed slaves.   Simple truth.  You can rant till you're blue in the face but that won't be changing. 

Edited April 5 by CdnFox

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There is no logical comparison between the two.

I’m not claiming they’re the same thing. I’m taking your rule and applying it somewhere else to show why that rule breaks down.

If your logic only works in one very specific case and sounds ridiculous everywhere else, that’s usually a sign the logic itself is the problem.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It didn't exist at all.

That’s exactly where your argument fails. 

Yes, Canada didn’t exist before Confederation. No disagreement there.

But it didn’t appear out of nothing either. It came directly out of existing colonies, legal systems, populations, and institutions. You’re treating “newly formed” as if it means “historically disconnected,” and those are not the same thing.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

They are created by the constitution and by the process it grants. 

The constitution didn’t summon a legal system out of the void.

It formalized and reorganized systems that already existed. British common law didn’t suddenly materialize in 1867. Governance structures didn’t spring into existence like a game loading screen.

They were carried forward and reshaped.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So yes, they became unrelated to the countries and colonies they were before and they lost their titles and legal standing and property and eveything. And were granted new titles and property and such under a brand new country. 

This is just flatly not how history works.

People didn’t lose their property overnight. Legal traditions didn’t vanish. Courts, systems, and administrative structures didn’t evaporate and get replaced with brand new ones from scratch.

There was continuity, adaptation, and consolidation. Not a total wipe.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Are you claiming that america is actually Britain?

No, and this is where you’re forcing a false choice.

Something can be a new entity and still be a continuation of what came before. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive.

The U.S. is not Britain, but it absolutely emerged from British colonies and inherited legal, political, and cultural structures from them.

Same concept here.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

That's precisely what you're claiming, that a baby owns and inherits the actions of its parents as if the baby itself didi it.

No, that’s something you keep inserting so you can argue against it.

No one is saying Canada “personally owned slaves” like an individual commits an act.

The point is about continuity of origin, not moral or legal guilt.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Sure it does. The baby doesn't inherently speak ANY language...

And yet it is still born into a context shaped entirely by what came before.

It doesn’t pop into existence in a vacuum. It inherits conditions, environment, and structure from its origins. That’s the only parallel being drawn.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You're just plain wrong. No law anywhere in the world recognizes a country being responsible for what came before it. 

This was never about legal liability.

This is about historical continuity.

You keep pivoting to “legal responsibility” because it’s easier to argue, but that’s not the claim being made.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The people who created canada were not slave holders, nor did their laws allow for slavery and canada has never allowed slaves.   Simple truth.  You can rant till you're blue in the face but that won't be changing. 

In a narrow, post-Confederation legal sense, sure.

But that framing only works if you ignore the continuity between Canada and the colonies, systems, and societies that became it.

You’re drawing a hard line at the label and pretending everything before it is unrelated. That’s not how history works, it’s just a convenient cutoff point.

A new entity can be legally new
and still historically continuous with what created it

You’re trying to treat those as mutually exclusive, and that’s where your argument keeps falling apart.

[CdnFox]

For god's sake kid nobody is claiming you said they were the same thing. But you are saying that they involve similar logic and for the last bloody time the point is they are not remotely similar in logic or reality. Don't make me get crayons and explain it to you again

And my logic works everywhere. When something new is created that never existed before then it doesn't have a past history prior to its creation. That's true of countries, that's true of children, that's true literally every single thing that is created.

When two people get married nothing is created. The two people are exactly the same as they were before and they existed before. Nothing new is created. When several colonies come together with different histories and different parent countries and they form a new entity, that entity is at that moment created

4 hours ago, User said:

Something can be a new entity and still be a continuation of what came before.

It cannot. Something cannot be both new and old. That's literally a contradiction. Something that was just created cannot be a continuation of something that already existed. You could say it was born of those things or you can say that it is descended from those things but it is not a continuation of the same thing

When a baby is born it is not a continuation of its parents

4 hours ago, User said:

The point is about continuity of origin, not moral or legal guilt.

You cannot have a continuity of origin. That is literally a contradiction in terms

4 hours ago, User said:

In a narrow, post-Confederation legal sense, sure.

In an absolute and literally every sense.

Canada did not exist in any form or shape prior to its confederation. It has never had slavery. The people that created it also never had slavery as individuals. Nor were any of the people that were associated with the previous:Ies allowed to have slaves when it was created

Canada has never had slavery. That is absolutely 100% true in every single sense of the word

Edited April 6 by CdnFox

[I am Groot]

20 hours ago, User said:

I didn’t bring this up. I responded to your comment talking about this. 
 

So… now what do you have?

You responded like a triggered woke girl. I attempted to teach you how foolish you were being. But your emotional response ignored logic.

[User]

57 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

You responded like a triggered woke girl. I attempted to teach you how foolish you were being. But your emotional response ignored logic.

You are the one engaged in an emotional outburst right now.