Confederation?

[Kitch]

1. 
   

Driven by money?

What is wrong with that? The biggest funding will go to the most promising research.

There is nothign inheritently evil about money. It is merely a device that appropriates societies desires.

If your research isn't receiving much money I would say that's because the research isn't very promising.

the rest of your claptrap is a very young, nieve view on the world.

You just need to spend a few years on this planet to acquire some wisdom.

What a benevolent master you are.

See? Even with an honest, polite and completely valid response to a question, some of you people can do nothing more than ridicule as a way of discrediting.

In actuality, if you must know, I was working for the world renowned scientist Dr. Peter St. George Hyslop. Look him up if you want. His research, as well as that of his associates, is VERY promising. The rest of your rant is closed minded and ignorant blabbering. Good day.

[Michael Bluth]

Would it be fair for me to hope that teacher's with views that oppose mine wouldn't influence their students as well? If so, why is that?

That is a totally fair thing for you to hope for.

Why? I'm not really sure if there is a need to justify the belief that teacher's shouldn't be bringing their personal beliefs into the classroom. But, maybe because they are paid to follow a curriculum and not to air their personal views?

[August1991]

But despite my forceful method of conversing here, I have grown to believe that NOBODY has the right to determine how I ought to live my life, and conversely, I too have NO right to determine the way others ought to live. So no, I wouldn't allow myself to have that type of influence on my students.

IOW, you believe that people should be free to choose.

I suggest that you apply that concept to its logical conclusion, using your beloved "scientific method", and imagine what it means if a society is composed of individuals who are free to choose.

[Michael Bluth]

IOW, you believe that people should be free to choose.

I suggest that you apply that concept to its logical conclusion, using your beloved "scientific method", and imagine what it means if a society is composed of individuals who are free to choose.

Great point.

Also, does he also mean free to choose their religious beliefs. I always have problems with people who cite the free to choose mantra yet limit it if they don't like other people's choices. I always get a chuckle out of people who argue that people of faith should be forced to perform marriages that go against their religions principles.

[White Doors]

See? Even with an honest, polite and completely valid response to a question, some of you people can do nothing more than ridicule as a way of discrediting.

In actuality, if you must know, I was working for the world renowned scientist Dr. Peter St. George Hyslop. Look him up if you want. His research, as well as that of his associates, is VERY promising. The rest of your rant is closed minded and ignorant blabbering. Good day.

Yes.. Because you have been so honest and polite.. You truly are here to expand your horizons.. Your mind isn't made up at all..

Whatever dude. The people we label as terrorists have reasons for being upset with the U.S. and whoever else they attack. You're obviously an example of what I was talking about when I said TRUE COMMUNICATION is necessary for peace. You don't KNOW that 'normal' international relations are the cause of violence. You don't KNOW that the things you speak of are 'normal'. You're regurtigating what you'll hear on the news and from conservative sources, who have their own motives for spreading such nonsense! If you want references for what I just said, well, read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky.

Also, both of your sarcasm/ridicule is VERY conservative like

I've found, in talking to business types, that I cannot drop a thought that I consider a given without being ridiculed while everything that comes out of their mouth is supposed to be a given and anyone who doesn't understand/disagrees isn't intelligent/realistic.

Economic growth as we know it is bad for everyone.

growth is bad for everyone. We just can't see it through the windshields of our BMW's

along with our inconsiderate and ignorant view that human life is 'special'

meaning, the ideal society, to me, is Marxist

since none of these other conservative clowns even attempted to take my words seriously

To all you other people talking trash about me being a teacher... and this M.Dancer clown, living at Bathurst and St. Clair (a pretty rich neighbourhood if I recall... indicative of your closed minded, elitist views if it is) talking about my education

You conservatives can relax and go jerk off your shot guns. I'll be happy to take your tax money and raise your kids for you since you'll only limit the scope of thought their minds are capable of comprehending.

People with money tend to like to keep it and get more of it and oppose anything that hinders their ability to do so... even if it is detrimental to other people and living beings

you stated that you wanted to come here to learn but quite clearly your mind is already made up.

You cannot learn with the blinkers on so tight.

People see that and so most do not bother.

Your initial post was a lie.

[Kitch]

Yes.. Because you have been so honest and polite.. You truly are here to expand your horizons.. Your mind isn't made up at all..

you stated that you wanted to come here to learn but quite clearly your mind is already made up.

You cannot learn with the blinkers on so tight.

People see that and so most do not bother.

Your initial post was a lie.

I've been honest, maybe not polite to everyone, but to those whose first post wasn't aimed at discrediting me as a teacher I absolutely was.

Actually, I did learn from that Geoffrey guy, and am enjoying the conversation with Michael Bluth, but the rest of the people here (and I apologize to those who were also polite and informative) responded to things that I said with insults.

If a person is constantly learning, does this mean that they are devoid of opinions? And can learning not include the opinions of others, whether or not I agree with them? True, I initially intended not to talk about my personal views here (in this thread) because I knew that people would stop posting (I'm aware that my anti-corporation views aren't well liked here). There is very little that I can say now to convince people (as if I cared to) that... well, I don't know what I'd try to convince people about myself. Some have made up their mind already... some justifiably so given the way I reacted to some comments. But what the hell!?! Had I come here and said 'Canada should divide because Ontario would be financially more fit on its own', and that 'we need privatized health care (for example)' I don't think that I'd have so many people questioning my ability as a teacher or insulting my views. Somebody ASKED me why I had anti-corporate views, so I answered... I didn't want to have to defend myself from people who disagree with me... I just answered a question. I'd be happy to try to defend my opinions, but to have to defend myself is ridiculous. Boo hoo for me right? F that. All I'm saying is that some of you people talk a whole lot of shit with VERY limited knowledge of the natural world.

My initial post was not a lie. I wanted to know what conservative/pro business/whatever you call such people (no insult intended with those labels) thought about confederation and what value they saw in it. Somewhere the conversation moved on to other things.

[Kitch]

That is a totally fair thing for you to hope for.

Why? I'm not really sure if there is a need to justify the belief that teacher's shouldn't be bringing their personal beliefs into the classroom. But, maybe because they are paid to follow a curriculum and not to air their personal views?

I totally agree that the classroom shouldn't be used as a forum to announce ones political views. But teacher's are paid to be mentors as well as instructors in a given area of the curriculum. If a student were to ask me what I thought of something I'd be open and honest (depending on the student of course). We are not supposed to simply follow the curriculum though. (Again though, in a science class I'll have little opportunity to talk about things like this).

[Kitch]

Great point.

Also, does he also mean free to choose their religious beliefs. I always have problems with people who cite the free to choose mantra yet limit it if they don't like other people's choices. I always get a chuckle out of people who argue that people of faith should be forced to perform marriages that go against their religions principles.

Perform marriages? You mean, for example, a catholic priest marrying a gay couple?

I do mean that I believe people are free to choose their religious beliefs. People are free to have their opinions about other people as well. But people have no right to determine the way in which others live. I was raised catholic... I no longer practice nor do I believe. I have reasons for that and I won't hesitate to express how I feel about catholicism if asked, but I'd never try to force someone else to live a certain way because of how I feel. Example, I have a problem with our society because we hinder the ability of certain animals to survive and evolve. I wouldn't ever want to regulate human life though... policing is just as bad to me. I'd rather try to show people why it is important to consider animals when building a road through a forest, for example.

What I'm getting at is that people are free to choose, as well as free to like or dislike the choices of others. But to impose one's views on another is wrong, in my opinion. Here, impose does not equal influence. Influence does not control the actions of others... it shines light in some directions and not others, but the 'actor' is the one who chooses to 'act'. (Sorry if my thoughts are all over the place).

[Michael Bluth]

Perform marriages? You mean, for example, a catholic priest marrying a gay couple?

That's exactly what I mean. Do you belief that, for example, a catholic priest should be forced to marry a gay couple or lose his licence to perform marriages?

[Kitch]

That's exactly what I mean. Do you belief that, for example, a catholic priest should be forced to marry a gay couple or lose his licence to perform marriages?

Not at all. That's exactly the kind of thing that I'm opposed to. That would be society imposing their beliefs on that priest. You'd have to consider both parties in the situation though. Perhaps the gay couple are catholic. The priest should absolutely never lose his licence for that though... it's his choice. Just because the couple are/claim to be catholic doesn't have anything to do with any priest.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Kitch