[Admiral Beez]

Yes, Mods, can you please remove the science/theism crap--we're supposed to be debating politics, not religion. (In Canada there is a difference ;-)

One can only assume that the Mods have taken the weekend off. Is anyone's hand on the tiller here?

 

[Mandeep]

You have to remember the John Tory of today is not the same one in 2007. Those who think that, will be doomed to defeat.

Ever since he had a very popular radio talk show, and he was a great host. Seemed very reasonable and I think that likely softened his image to a massive swath of the population, especially the older demo.

Then he was a part of a lot of organizations and really got his name out there.

I used to dislike Tory but in 2011, he came and spoke to our company and whatever his faults may be, he came off as reasonable and logical.

I think compared to Chow and Ford, those qualities superseded whatever his faults may be.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

When did Tory say he was a pro-creationist? Please provide proof. Thanks....

Tory, while trying to defend his 'great-in-theory-but-dumb-as-a-sack-of-hammers' funding of faith-based schools policy said something along the lines of 'fundamentalist Christian schools could teach Creationism alongside the Theory of Evolution', and then compounded the mistake by pulling out the old 'it's just a theory' canard. No, dimwit, you mean 'it's just a hypothesis', and it's not. Once we start calling something a theory, we're pretty damn sure about whatever it is.

The whole QAIA commenting was done in front of an audience of conservative Jews, IIRC, and that's Tory's problem -- and it's a much smaller problem than his detractors seem to think. He has a bad habit of getting caught up in the moment with various talking points and going over the edge into an ill-advised proclamation. It's his personal form of foot-in-mouth disease, and it might be partially based on his background in talk radio.

Quite frankly, this thread has really been derailed on the subject of Tory. He's a competent manager of people and agendas. Assuming he hires a competent Chief of Staff and listens to the planners and Council, he'll be a very good Mayor. I'm willing to take that bet if he's the front runner on polling day, because the only real thing that needs to happen in this election is the boil that is Rob Ford needs to be excised and the devil that is Doug Ford needs to be sent back to Hades. Or Chicago.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Evolution isn't definitive proof of where we came from. Science isn't omnipotent.

Science isn't trying to be omnipotent. It's building a construct to support the most reasonable view of how a complicated system works. But, until other scientists come up with a major fault in a theory (e.g. the major flaws in Newton's theories that led Liebniz/Einstein/etc to the Theory of Relativity), a theory is held as being our best explanation of said complicated system. And, whether you like it or not, the Theory of Evolution has stood the test of time and many, many attacks. It's a verified explanation of how biology 'works'.

 

[pman]

I do think science needs a vigorous defense. Actually, it needs a vigorous offense against religion in this case. My daughter's grade 11 biology class just started a unit on evolution, and the teacher had to go into a lengthy explanation of why it isn't inconsistent with religious belief. The fact that a science class teaching a well-supported theory needs to pander to the sensibilities of religious nutbars is really disturbing.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

That's a fair position to believe that creationism is a lie. However, can you prove that it is a lie? Nope. So, it's just your opinion.

Umm... yes, you can prove it's a lie. According to Creationism, the world was created a very short time ago. By dating by radioactive decay, we know that the world is much older than Creationism espouses. Therefore, Creationism is a lie.

Our man upthread who spoke about being an engineer and his belief in a creator not being in conflict, I respect. It's quite possible. But advocates of the Christian fundamentalist Creationist myth are not espousing a belief in a Creator, but rather a belief in a specific myth that has been well documented to be false. It's a lie.

 

[nohostages]

What's wrong with praying? Even if you don't believe in God, isn't it still a nice gesture to pause before one eats and say thank you for the food they have, instead of just scarfing it down and not thinking/caring of how that food got to your table? We take life for granted now because most things are done for us. Imagine if we all had to personally harvest our own crops and go out into the woods to hunt for meat. We're forgotten to be thankful for the luxuries of modern life, so I think it is nice to reflect on how fortunate we are everyday.

Um yeah okay. I attend a silent retreat where gratitude for food is given mi ndfully. But I was actually referring to and backing up your assertion that a higher number than 15% believe in creationism in U.S.A. and that particularly in the south they are not shy about it in public places. Why does it freak me out? Because its so foreign to one who was raised I T.O. where its rarely seen.

 

[NorthYorkEd]

I learned a long time ago that trying to explain science to creationists is like trying to explain calculus to a three year-old. Tory's statement about evolution being just a "theory" does not sit well with me, but it could have been an honest misunderstanding of what a "theory" means in the context of science. After all, he comes from the conservatives, where comprehension and respect for science are low priorities, if they are priorities at all.

 

[ShonTron]

Sorry none of us caught this earlier. But you can always get our attention by reporting a post for suspected spam, advertising, abuse, or thread derailments, etc.

 

[Civdis]

You're free to have that opinion (although I disagree that there's actual evidence to support it), but all that does is make you a deist.

But it's a huge leap to teach children that the Genesis creation myth is a historic fact. And that's what Tory suggested would be just fine to do in the education system. And it's not fine.





Hold on there Newton....what are you talking about????

First of all, as someone who "knows a thing or two about science", you should be aware of the idea that science is never "beyond reproach" (unlike theism).

And what "wholes" in evolution do you think there are, that are likely to overturn the established facts that we teach children in school about it? Exactly....it's about as likely as finding new evidence to suggest the heliocentric theory is incorrect.

Since more than 50% of our population hold to some kind of spiritual belief system, it is hardly a stretch to say that a very large portion of our population would want creation taught in school. By the way, why shouldn't I be allowed to have a choice about where to send my children to school? What is so bad about choice and channeling tax dollars to those choices. All Tory was trying to do was allow parents to send their children to schools of their choice. Instead, Christian families have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to send their kids to a private school which simply teaches what I was taught 40 years ago while we continue to pay for the public system. That is called double taxation.

With regard to science not being "beyond reproach", "science" has become the new "religion" of choice with folks like Al Gore acting as their evangelists.

Thanks for pointing out a simple spelling mistake, feel better?

 

[freshcutgrass]

Originally Posted by Watts
So do you believe that science is omnipotent? Can the scientific method prove anything to be true?

I don't believe the concept of omnipotence is even possible, so naturally I don't apply it to "science" any more than I do to imaginary beings.

Originally Posted by JGHali
STOP the creationism debate. Take it elsewhere if you must continue. If you don't have anything more to say about the election I suggest you stop posting.

Yea ok Mr. 24 posts.

If people stop defending the obvious serious political blunders Tory made in the past, it wouldn't need to be debated. And Tory's track record is very relevant to the thread. Tory supporters simply want to diminish his bad political track record, and I'm not going to let that happen on my watch.

Originally Posted by Mandeep
You have to remember the John Tory of today is not the same one in 2007.

My guess would be he is exactly the same guy as in 2007. The one thing about guys like Tory, is they aren't very progressive at all.

Originally Posted by Mandeep
I used to dislike Tory but in 2011, he came and spoke to our company and whatever his faults may be, he came off as reasonable and logical.

I think all politicians should possess the basic qualities of being "reasonable and logical". But that doesn't get the cream in the cupcake.

We need leaders who have the balls to stand up to populist political notions, and Tory's track record is not good on that. He will try and appease every single group he runs into, and that is not only never going to work, it's exactly how not to run a city. Sometimes you have to not be the "nice guy", and you better know when and when not to do that. And during this campaign, Tory has proven he hasn't changed.... at all.

reasonable and logical is a nice start, but if you want what the city requires....a progressive city-builder, with the ability to cultivate that within Council and upper levels of government, then I don't think Tory is the best candidate for that at all. His last mayoral opponent was one of those guys.

 

[nfitz]

Everyone at some point has uttered a racist comment or has stereotyped someone that belongs to another race.

This is so far from the truth that it's embarrasing.

Everyone has uttered a racist comment? I don't think so. Why would anyone ever stereotype based on race? This is just bizarre that people would suggest this.

I fail to see the need to justify Rob Ford's racist comments by saying everyone does this. This is wrong. Calling someone a nigger while you are hitting them is wrong and racist. Everyone does not do this - it is racist. Supporting someone who does this is wrong - it is racist.

STOP the creationism debate. Take it elsewhere if you must continue. If you don't have anything more to say about the election I suggest you stop posting.

I agree there is no point in debating either creationism, or the plot line to Desperate Housewives here. However like it or not - the leading candidate in this election has made comments suggesting that evolution is just a theory, and raising the spectre of creationism. John Tory's comments about evolution are fair game. If John Tory were to comment about who shot JR, his comments too would be fair game ... but we shouldn't be debating if it was Cliff Barnes or Bum Jones who pulled the trigger.

 

[Ramako]

The notions that Tory is a racist because he supported Ford or a creationist wacko because he supported religious schools seem far fetched to me based on what I know about the man from simply listening to him speak about various cultural and political matters on a regular basis. What he's actually guilty of is being a panderer and an opportunist. That being said, there are far worse things out there in the world of politics, especially when the mayor's job is about finding and creating consensus.

Anyway, my fear with voting for Olivia (aside from her lobbying against the OMB and re-opening the Scarborough subway debate) is that it will only serve to maintain the narrative of a left-right division in the city that Ford rode to victory in 2010. I really don't want to have to deal with a Ford or Ford-style politician again in 4 or 8 years due to some kind of manufactured conservative backlash against progressive policy that can be mischaracterized as being "socialism" or "gravy". Tory's not ideal but I think he'll do a better job of being a bridge for a lot of Ford Nationals back to something resembling a moderate position.

 

[nfitz]

The notions that Tory is a racist because he supported Ford or a creationist wacko because he supported religious schools seem far fetched to me based on what I know about the man from simply listening to him speak about various cultural and political matters on a regular basis.

I don't think anyone is saying John Tory is a creationist because he supported religious schools. The issue is that he dismissed evolution as a theory. That's very different.

If you knowingly support a racist, you are a racist. Tory's only defence is that a paid, astute, political observer was unaware of what was widely discussed during the 2010 election. If he's not a racist, he's very ignorant and a of questionable intellect. I'm not convinced that John Tory is that stupid - but perhaps I could be convinced - but I haven't seen the case made yet.

Anyway, my fear with voting for Olivia (aside from her lobbying against the OMB and re-opening the Scarborough subway debate) is that it will only serve to maintain the narrative of a left-right division in the city that Ford rode to victory in 2010. I really don't want to have to deal with a Ford or Ford-style politician again in 4 or 8 years due to some kind of manufactured conservative backlash against progressive policy that can be mischaracterized as being "socialism" or "gravy".

That is indeed a valid concern. I wish there was a centrist. Here we have right-wing Tories and left-wing NDPers. Even a left-wing Tory (is there such a thing any more) or a right-wing of NDP (Miller, Rae, etc.) would be more unifying. And were the frig are the Liberals who dominate Toronto politics on the provincial and federal levels?!?

 

[ShonTron]

I dislike John Tory for a lot of reasons. He's an opportunist, he panders. He's out of touch with the real world (being born into a rich family and succeeding mostly thanks to your friendships and connections can do that to you). His transit plan is garbage. He's been at best, lukewarm to the needs of cyclists and pedestrians, caring more about traffic congestion. He probably won't take on the police, he probably won't make the necessary investments in the TTC (particuarly the surface system). He will be able to continue a Ford agenda, but with a more urbane face to it.

But I wouldn't call him a racist even though he financially assisted Rob Ford's 2010 campaign. That's taking it too far. The vast majority supported Ford for his platforms, not because of his racism. I would never equate the support of Ford in 2010 with support of racism/bigotry.

Give it a rest.