New Submarines: Carney vs Poilievre

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, User said:

Good thing the discussion was not centered on any claim by me or others that science is a religion. 

Once again... you can't engage honestly. 

Liar.

[User]

23 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Nope...followed your lead when blackturd went off....you seem to be very easily swayed LOL

Wandering off topic again eh??  So easily swayed LOL

You need to get off your pedestal or confux's basement and maybe gain some credibility. LOL 

Well, you can't actually defend your stupid assertion and are not brave or honest enough to admit you were wrong, so this is all you are left with now. 

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Liar.

LOL, you are so pathetic. At least you are not a coward like some of the other leftists on here, though. 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

I bet some sort of Judge Dredd system would be to your liking.

Meanwhile...

Founders of B.C. drug 'compassion club' file Charter challenge

Co-founders argue their rights and rights of users were violated when the club was shut and they were arrested

The pair had operated a "compassion club" that sold heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine bought on the dark web and tested for contaminants.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/dulf-drug-compassion-club-charter-challenge-1.7352605

 

It's only a matter of time before the government's hands will be tied. Ater that it'll have to be up to vigilantism I guess.

Perhaps you can show me where in our rights does it say you can break the law because it is for a good cause .....when it suits them, those drugs are illegal period, having these drugs is illegal, dealing drugs is illegal...regardless of your intentions... how is this not black and white...

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Nothing hypocritical about what I said.

Sure there is when you say science can't debunk your religious beliefs while using your religious beliefs to debunk science.

 

[User]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

LMAO!

All you can do is laugh... because you can't engage honestly.  

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, User said:

Well, you can't actually defend your stupid assertion and are not brave or honest enough to admit you were wrong, so this is all you are left with now. 

LOL, you are so pathetic. At least you are not a coward like some of the other leftists on here, though. 

Really??? LOL

I tried real hard to get this thread back on topic but you...ya gotta keep playing footsie and my bible is bigger than yours with blackturd LOL

Methinks it is you that is pathetic LOL

[User]

25 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Subs to surface navy guys is on the same level as grunts yelling tanks to our front....for a reason....they spark fear because they are deadly...

Exactly. They are also a first-strike weapon, providing both stealth and lethality. I am not up to speed on sub technology these days, but fast attack subs are able to trail other people's ballistic submarines as well. They also provide a covert weapon with the ability to operate strategically in various locations. 

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Really??? LOL

I tried real hard to get this thread back on topic but you...ya gotta keep playing footsie and my bible is bigger than yours with blackturd LOL

Methinks it is you that is pathetic LOL

Yes, you have been trying very hard to run away from your ignorant comment instead of admitting you were wrong. 

[ExFlyer]

1 minute ago, User said:

...

Yes, you have been trying very hard to run away from your ignorant comment instead of admitting you were wrong. 

Its over little man...get over your hurt feelings LOL LOL

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure there is when you say science can't debunk your religious beliefs while using your religious beliefs to debunk science.

 

No, I already explained science is a man-made pursuit of knowledge of our universe, which is fine.

The Bible is about the supernatural or spiritual matters and was given to us by God.  It is nonsense to argue.  One either believes in God and his word or believes science is some kind of god and has all the answers.  When it comes to the origins of the universe and life, science does not have the answers and cannot because it all happened long ago.  Nobody observed evolution and it is admitted to be just a theory.

[User]

11 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Its over little man...get over your hurt feelings LOL LOL

Once again, you were the one who started crying about this because you were wrong. 

[ExFlyer]

12 minutes ago, User said:

. 

Yes, you have been trying very hard to run away from your ignorant comment instead of admitting you were wrong. 

I do not run away, I provide evidence and if some will not accept it, they behave like you do and keep on keeping on.

3 pages ago and you are still on it...how sad you cannot move on LOL

Oh and I am not wrong.... it is you are not open to discussion that is why I returned to topic and you have not....typical of a complainative LOL

[eyeball]

Just now, Army Guy said:

Perhaps you can show me where in our rights does it say you can break the law because it is for a good cause 

It doesn't.  A good cause basically requires one to effectively invoke a personal notwithstanding clause.

As I understand it the Charter is to prevent the government from illegally suspending or failing to protect our rights. The beauty of breaking laws to force the government to do so is that the right is revealed as something that was inherent if and when a ruling comes down on the side of the defendant.

The SCC will probably do a better job of explaining the various shades of gray that exist but I doubt you'll like it any more hearing it from me.

[User]

11 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I do not run away, I provide evidence and if some will not accept it, they behave like you do and keep on keeping on.

3 pages ago and you are still on it...how sad you cannot move on LOL

Oh and I am not wrong.... it is you are not open to discussion that is why I returned to topic and you have not....typical of a complainative LOL

LOL, you have gone on for pages crying about being off topic now = running away. 

[eyeball]

29 minutes ago, User said:

All you can do is laugh... because you can't engage honestly.  

I gave you an honest answer to a presumably honest question.

I was laughing at how you, like so many other rightists around here, run away when that happens.

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Nobody observed evolution and it is admitted to be just a theory.

LMAO!

You can put the theory into practice with simple experiments in high school science class as easily as you can prove anthropogenic climate change.

In fact you could run the experiments simultaneously to test and prove the effects of AGW.

[User]

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I gave you an honest answer to a presumably honest question.

I was laughing at how you, like so many other rightists around here, run away when that happens.

You laughed, that is not an answer, or honest engagement. 

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, User said:

You laughed, that is not an answer, or honest engagement. 

I was laughing at your accusation I wasn't engaging you honestly in the posts preceding the one you're presently whining about.

First I corrected your impression I didn't understand what science is, and then I freely offered you an opinion on what it isn't. Two separate things you apparently can't handle at once except to say this is engaging with you dishonestly and now you're doubling down on it.

Just my opinion but that basically makes you both a liar and a douchebag.

 

[User]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I was laughing at your accusation I wasn't engaging you honestly in the posts preceding the one you're presently whining about.

You are such a sad pathetic liar. That is not what you laughed at:

I said:

"People who have faith, beliefs, and religions or whatever you want to try to call it now, all acquire knowledge with scientific methods too. In fact, the study of faith, from a Christian perspective, is a scientific endeavor that utilizes facts, evidence, and methodology to interpret biblical writings."

Your response:

"LMAO!"
 

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

First I corrected your impression I didn't understand what science is

You did not correct anything. Your response was:

"In any case science is a method - it definitely isn't a religion."

And I pointed out:

"Good thing the discussion was not centered on any claim by me or others that science is a religion. 

Once again... you can't engage honestly. "

 

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Just my opinion but that basically makes you both a liar and a douchebag.

This is you admitting what you are. 

[eyeball]

25 minutes ago, User said:

You are such a sad pathetic liar. That is not what you laughed at:

There's an awful lot that's worth laughing at. It's hard to keep track of sometimes I guess.

What I was laughing at in the first case and still am is your statement In fact, the study of faith, from a Christian perspective, is a scientific endeavor that utilizes facts, evidence, and methodology to interpret biblical writings."

The rest was all worth laughing at too.

25 minutes ago, User said:

This is you admitting what you are.

No it's not...its clearly pointed at you. If you're seriously implying  you can't see that it's because you're deliberately lying.

 

 

[User]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There's an awful lot that's worth laughing at. It's hard to keep track of sometimes I guess.

Yes, I know what you were laughing at. I literally quoted the progression to you. The issue was that you lied, like you usually do, about what you were laughing at. 

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No it's not...its clearly pointed at you. If you're seriously implying  you can't see that it's because you're deliberately lying.

 

Except you are the one who is the lying douchebag right now. 

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

LMAO!

You can put the theory into practice with simple experiments in high school science class as easily as you can prove anthropogenic climate change.

In fact you could run the experiments simultaneously to test and prove the effects of AGW.

No,  evolution has never been proven.  No science class in high school has ever proven evolution or that man is the cause of climate change.  You are making things up now.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, User said:

Using what thing? Who proves you are correct?

Yes, but you were trying to make the argument as if it being written by man somehow diminished its validity. 

No, when it is divinely inspired, there are no mistakes like that. 

You are entirely missing the point of saying it is divinely inspired. 

Well, no offense, your arguments here certainly do not convey this at all. 

You continue to completely butcher basic concepts, such as those surrounding the divine inspiration of the Bible. 

Well, not for those who study this stuff, but you are here struggling. 

I really don't think we agree at all on what is meant by not taking every word literally here. 

You continue to downplay The Bible as flawed and merely being written by man, butchering concepts about divine inspiration... translation, interpretation...

No, you are conflating several things, that I just pointed out. You are conflating flaws (being written by man) with translation, and then interpretation. These are all very different things. 

See, you continue to prove my point, that you fail to understand what divine inspiration is and to my point earlier, we do not agree at all on what it means to not take the Bible literally. 

Wrong. The inability for men to agree has nothing to do with what they are arguing about being accurate or not. 

If 2+2=4, that doesn't cease to be true or accurate because I disagree. 

You clearly do not understand what divine inspiration means at all. 

No, you are resorting to emotional arguments now. 

This is not the same thing as you saying The Bible should not be taken literally because it is flawed and written by man as you were saying. This goes to my belief, that some parts of the Bible were written as parables, stories, allegory, just like anyone else would tell a story to make a point, it doesn't make the story literally true, but it does mean there was a person who accurately wrote that story as divinely inspired to do so to convey the point being made at that time in that historical context. To that point it means that we can't literally take a word for word understanding today, because we live in a different culture and words convey different meanings, but that word as recorded is still accurate and true. 

Attempting to understand meaning and intent, doesn't change not believing it is the authoritative word of God. 

We do know a great deal, it is the very foundation of Christianity and why Christians believe what the Bible says... 


 

When you note that there are many interpretations you prove my point. 

nobody is questioning the validity, i'm saying that humans are imperfect communicators. That doesn't make the bible wrong, it just means you can't take it word for word. 

There are numerous elements in the bible which are unclear and are the subject of debate as a result, so yes there are "errors" like that, tho i wouldn't call them that. 

Nobody ownplayed the bible, you've got that in your head and you're not paying attention to what's being said. 

and yes, if something can be interpreted in numerous ways then it is imperfect in conveying the author's intent.  That doesn't make it wrong, but it means that it can't be taken literally word for word ipso facto. 

And I haven't made any emotional arguments, I am observing you becoming emotional and irrational and I'm advising you that that's not necessary because it's a result of your misunderstanding rather than somebody attacking your beliefs.

It is literally the same thing as me saying the bible should not be taken literally as a result of man and his communication being flawed.

I noticed you tried to switch that into me saying the bible is flawed. I did not say that, I said man wrote the bible and he is flawed as a communicator.

The fact that there are many interpretations to various passages proves that Beyond any arguable doubt. If the communication was perfect it would be crystal clear what was intended and there would be no arguing it

And nobody is saying that making an effort to interpret or understand the work somehow invalidates it or means it isn't from god. That's something you got into your head and can't seem to shake out of your head no matter how many times you are told that it's ridiculous to think that

And while there may be consensus on a great number of things that doesn't change what I said one tiny bit

Now get over yourself. Nobody challenged your bible, nobody challenged god, and I'm about fed up with your childishness. There is no possible way for human communication to be precise and perfect and you cannot take the bible verbatim word for word which is agreed upon by every single religious expert out there. So give your head a shake and move on

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, User said:

LOL, you have gone on for pages crying about being off topic now = running away. 

And you have gone off topic for pages and pages... LOL

13 hours ago, User said:

 

Yes, you have been trying very hard to run away from your ignorant comment instead of admitting you were wrong. 

Nope, it is over but you cannot seem to get it...as usual.

Get back on topic LOSER LOL

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There is no possible way for human communication to be precise and perfect

Yup, it's all lies. 😇

[John Stone]

On 11/14/2025 at 9:07 PM, herbie said:

Admiral 2025 says there's no need at all for a Cdn sub to remain submerged for an extended length of time. They're not nuclear missile subs nor is there an intention to be used in an attack roll.
If you can explain otherwise, then do so sparing the sales pitch for spending even more besides having an even bigger deficit to shreik at the Liberals  about.

re: Admiral 2025 says there's no need at all for a Cdn sub to remain submerged for an extended length of time

Gotta be the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. No need? For god sakes 'Admiral' that is how they remain undetectable. 

If the Soviets ever surge their fleet of nucs I can guarantee you they'll head for the arctic ...... 3rd strike, eh? Okay lets call it deterrence.