News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Admiral Beez said:
True. Also worth noting that today's Republican part is not the same as the 1980s, or even 1990s when before the evangelicals took over. That's the one good thing about Trump, that his womanizing and irreligiosity must be driving the bible base insane, sort of like when Harper said the abortion question was dead, and now they had no champion.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, the Guns and Bible evangelicals aren't particularly peeved - the Mormons on the other hand are - and while HRC isn't going to win Utah, she is way more competitive there than she would otherwise be.

AoD
 
Admiral Beez said:
True. Also worth noting that today's Republican part is not the same as the 1980s, or even 1990s when before the evangelicals took over. That's the one good thing about Trump, that his womanizing and irreligiosity must be driving the bible base insane, sort of like when Harper said the abortion question was dead, and now they had no champion.
Click to expand...
Trump is seen as the lesser of two evils, and with Pence they think they can control The Donald, or at least stabilize things to keep the cults factions on board. The fear of Hilary is so intense that they are willing to literally make a deal with the devil promoting Trump, at best is a deist and secularist at worst.

Harper knew discussing abortion is like playing Russian Roulette with yourself and your party.

Anyway, Canadians generally support protests but do not sit down and take orders, different people have higher thresholds for crap but are capable of bearing their teeth if they feel threatened.

A good example of authoritarianism are those at TheRebel, they are convinced that Canadians have no identity, and they are pushing for co-opting the American identity, including gun culture, etc. They believe in over reacting, and want us to be like Trump and his bumbling haze of words, not unlike the Fords. BLM(TO) is no different in their nationalism, they are pointing out how we are a failure, and a traitor to their vision, and so we must become puppets to their dogma.

(sorry it was a little ranty)
 
PinkLucy said:
Not just gasps. Sheer and utter disgust. Rape is an act of violence, not a loss of control because an attractive woman dared to walk past looking attractive. Rape is about the men who rape, not about how women look. It's off topic for this thread, but I needed to respond to that before blocking you, not that you care. I'd been going to put you on my (very short) ignore list anyway based on all of your other posts, and now I will.

I had pretty much stopped reading your posts (right about the time you started blaming blacks for being criminals because of single mothers or some such nonsense) because they were so cringeworthy and ridiculous, but the photo of Miley Cyrus was so big that I wondered what she had to do with BlackLivesMatter and made the mistake of reading.
Click to expand...
I fully understand where you're coming from. I personally think that I should be able to wear short shorts and a tank top on a hot summer day without the fear that some creep will jump on me but I think the outrage needs to go towards the rapists not against clumsy articulated statements like that from Armour. I'm assuming that he's a decent human being and therefore against women being raped for dressing a certain way but the thing is that rape is already illegal and the rapists don't care about whether you are outraged with their deeds or whether there are slut walks. In my experience if somebody tells you to be careful if you dress too revealing they are not saying it's your fault if you get attacked, they're being realistic because they are psychos out there. You have every right to be outraged but just make sure you don't misdirect it to the wrong person who was simply showing some concern. I myself wore short skirts sometimes and I definitely wasn't "asking for it" but we don't live in an ideal world and everybody needs to understand that.

Anyways just wanted to say since I don't post very often and probably won't since I find this forum a bit too PC..
 
I'm not just outraged at Armour, but I'm outraged that he would continue to propagate this train of thought ... not to mention all of the other statements he has made about the topic of this thread and sweeping generalizations about certain groups of people. I don't think he was showing concern, I think he was being judgmental -- he said Cyrus was dressed like a slut, for example, and I simply didn't want to read his posts any longer to (selfishly) spare myself some outrage.
 
BlackLivesMatterJeff said:
I've outlined some of BLM's and ARA's demands here. The goal is to stop the killing of innocent blacks like what happened in Milwaukee a few days ago but that's just the beginning. We fight also for other oppressed minorities like Muslims and some of are demands are:

- Stop portraying blacks and Muslims as thugs and terrorists in the media. France has already stopped publishing terrorists' names so I think it is Canada's moral obligation to do the same. Any media outlet that posts a picture or name of a so called Muslim "terrorist" should be banned for inciting hatred against Muslims. Same thing for blacks. I'm against censorship but the media has to know what they can and cannot publish since they have a responsibility.
- Ban all non-progressive candidates/parties from running. Nazis like Trump and Harper should therefore be excluded from the voting ballot including their fascist parties.
- Redistrubtion of land and wealth to give oppressed minorities a fairer playing ground.
- Stop jailing black people
- More oppressed minorities in police, universities, congress, the courts etc
- Government funding for the BLM movement. Yes I know the conservative Nazis will say "I ain't giving my tax dollars" but in countries like Sweden, Germany and Holland Antifa protesters is funded by the Green party, Social Democrats that are in parliament in order to make sure that the cities remain a Nazi free zone. The people there don't complain about their "tax money" because they know what's good for them.
Click to expand...

'Jeff,' I'm not sure about the extent to which you represent BLM, or their ideals; I'll direct this reply to you anyway but hopefully some others might want to chip in.

If this is truly what you want, then you don't want to live in a modern liberal democracy. Looking at your list, you seem keen to use an extremely heavy hand to ban, punish or silence people or voices that you disagree with. This is worrying, and in modern history these sorts of impulses (banning political parties, re-possessing land, censoring the press) have not taken us to good places.

One of the most challenging, and at the same time, miraculous, developments of post-enlightenment society is that everyone gets a voice. Political parties who you personally find contemptible are in fact allowed to run, and you're free to denounce them publicly and vote for someone else. Newspapers are allowed wide latitude because a free press is crucial to a liberal democracy. You may wish to be rid of these things, but you're advocating a fundamental break from modern liberal society; I've spent time in countries like that, and they're places I'd rather not live in.

Practically, I wonder how you imagine operationalizing some of these demands. Who decides which political parties should be banned? Which names can the newspapers print? Is it ok to print bin Laden's name? Or Timothy McVeigh? Why, or why not? Why constitutes an acceptable number of 'oppressed minorities' in the police, universities, etc? Who decides who is a member of an oppressed minority? Which land should be redistributed? Whose should be taken away, and who should it be given to?

Again, Poe's Law being what it is, I'm not sure whether this message is missing the point. Regardless, I'd be interested in your reply.
 
Banning Harper from running? I don't like him, but what good grounds do you have from barring him from running as a party leader and a candidate - and better yet, who is to vet as to someone is "progressive" enough? And equating Harper to Nazi is downright unfair (to put it mildly) and brings to question one's soundness of judgement.

Plus what does "stop jailing black people" even mean? There are the guilty and the guiltless - race should not play into it. We understand that it isn't a perfect world, that the criminal justice system is not necessarily fair - but the goal should be to ensure justice is served where it should be, not a blanket no (fill in group here) should be jailed just because of their personal characteristics. Ditto coverage of terrorism/terrorists. They are what they are - there is no sugarcoating what the reality is - just care need to be taken to ensure that no group is unfairly implicated to be criminals as a whole.

Let's not push grievance politics too far - we do require some level of personal responsibility of their actions for society to function.

AoD
 
Last edited:
gabe said:
He got what he deserved:

Milwaukee officials say Sylville Smith had gun in hand before being fatally shot http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/15/milwaukee-officials-say-sylville-smith-had-gun-han/
Click to expand...

As I've said more than once before: there's a reason Milwaukee is rioting. And it's because 'the police said so' is not taken as truth anymore.

Also -- in my Canada, we don't have a death penalty even for murderers. There's a reason for that. No one 'deserves' to die at the hands of the police. If it turns out that the police were legitimately defending themselves, his death is sad. If it didn't go down that way, it's horrific. In neither scenario is it 'deserving.'
 
In Canada, police have to complete a report each and every time a gun is removed out of their holster. When a gun is fired causing injury or death, the Special Investigation Unit if called to investigate, not the police.

Not so in the States.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
Also -- in my Canada, we don't have a death penalty even for murderers. There's a reason for that. No one 'deserves' to die at the hands of the police. If it turns out that the police were legitimately defending themselves, his death is sad. If it didn't go down that way, it's horrific. In neither scenario is it 'deserving.'
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no - holding a gun in and on itself puts the individual in a higher category of risk where lethal force could very well be used - which of course is even further down the list than say the Driver case. I can't honestly say "sad" when one presented a serious threat and got neutralized one way or another - but there better be good reasons for using that level of force.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well, yes and no - holding a gun in and on itself puts the individual in a higher category of risk where lethal force could very well be used - which of course is even further down the list than say the Driver case. I can't honestly say "sad" when one presented a serious threat and got neutralized one way or another - but there better be good reasons for using that level of force.

AoD
Click to expand...

I understand your point of view, but obviously I don't agree. People dying is sad to me, even if they're irredeemable criminals. And, again, 'having a gun in hand' is not the same thing at all as shooting at the cops.
 
Even when lethal force is applied as a last resort or in self defence, I don't know that anyone "deserves" it.
 
The Police have a right to protect themselves, this young man did the wrong thing and paid for it with his life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top