User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 166

  1. #91
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I'm worried about both; the ambiguous wording makes a law that is already wide open to abuse by those in power that much worse. The most vital and fundamental rights that make all other rights possible (namely freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality under the law) should not be so casually dismissed, and it is dangerous to do so.
    I'm impressed that you didnt rank property rights as more important than either of those three, I suspect there's more common ground between us than I would have at first thought.

  2. #92
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Its about the issue, not the actor. I figured that was pretty self-evident, but apparently not...
    Well I think who the individual is IS relevant. I think there's room for interpretation on a case-by-case basis, and if large swaths of people understand that Ann Coulter only speaks to provoke and stir shit up (and some stupid people actually agree with her and take her seriously, all the while I believe she is but a mere acting parody of those people, and does it sheerly for financial gain and her own amusement...and whoever else is "in" on the joke) ...and the problem is that she clearly serves no serious or intellectual purpose for debate about the very real dangers of EXTREMIST MUSLIM GROUPS (versus just saying childish racist things about ALL Muslims) ...then I don't really blame them.

    People should be able to decide on an issue based on individual cirumstance and interpretation. People know Ann Coulter wants to cause trouble, and not to any purposeful or intelligent end.

  3. #93
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    She's an entertainer who panders to her audience. Nothing more. She'd go away if people would just stop paying attention.
    Coulter? Aye, same was Rand, same as a lot of the other writers in a similar vein, giving people what they want to hear works and easing their conscience or tell them enjoying themselves (often at others expense) is the way to go will always have a wide open market or audience.

  4. #94
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Coulter? Aye, same was Rand, same as a lot of the other writers in a similar vein, giving people what they want to hear works and easing their conscience or tell them enjoying themselves (often at others expense) is the way to go will always have a wide open market or audience.
    The thing I love most about Ayn Rand is her fetish for watching men work. I think she had erotic fantasies about carpenters, pool boys, and gardeners sweating, their muscles rippling in the hot noonday sun. One of her books actually begins with the description of a beautiful, nude man.

    Yes, indeed, Ayn Rand - very entertaining individual, but also possibly batshit crazy. I honestly feel that she was an INTJ who made more decisions with her Fi than she realized...I think her beliefs were structured around an emotional overreaction to her experiences to Soviet-style communism...which is both understandable, and yet not really the best basis for a truly rational economic philosophy. Paranoid Ni/Fi loop FTW.

  5. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Its about the issue, not the actor. I figured that was pretty self-evident, but apparently not...
    What issue? There is no issue. You're trying to create an issue out of thin air, babbling about "Canadian laws violate freedom of speech".

  6. #96
    Senior Member countrygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ISFx
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by countrygirl View Post
    The details of a person's beliefs are conditioned by society. This normally entails the religious or secular nature of them. We, as an individual person, do not grow up in a vaccuum, we are conditioned by our society. Any given society will employ child-rearing practices that tend to produce the particular type of personality that is functional for adult life in that society.
    And society in turn is shaped by the diverse beliefs of the populace,
    Nicely sumed up.

    and the beliefs of contemprary Christians (fundamentalist or otherwise) are overwhelmingly not theocratic in nature. Comparing modern social conservatism to theocracy is like comparing Ralph Nadar to Stalin
    .

    You are correct that contemprary Christians (or other relgions for that matter) are overwhelmingly not theocratic in nature. However, isn't the nature of fundamentalist of whatever religion, a literal interpretation of that religion? And mixing that mindset in any culture, with politics becomes theocractic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    Rawr liberals! I know many of you are well intentioned, but your arguments sound irrational to me. Combining a godless worldview and naive idealism to form a clever argument amounts to useless brilliance that ignores reality. One such naive idealism is a perfect world with perfect equality and freedom. It's those types of liberal fantasies that have proven to be the most dangerous delusions in our world's history, but yet liberals still desire to hold on to their fallacies where they find some type of irrational comfort. It's perplexing. Logical, rational, healthy folks learn from their mistakes, become self-restrained, moral, and surrender to a higher authority (which includes God). Logical, rational, healthy, self-restrained folks consider the innocent life that is the unborn child and opt not to support abortion. Conservatism is *not* following a 'feel good' herd of sheeples aimlessly off the edge of a cliff! Conservatism is more like a passionate belief in the rewards of hard work, and innovation...
    This religious comment is political suicide in politics especially a country that is diverse as Canada with our Consitutional Laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    ...In any event, this entire tangent started as an off-the-cuff example to illustrate that social conservatives with religious convictions are not a greater civil liberties threat than other societal groups.
    Doesn't that depends on who's civil liberties are at stake?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    However, if Canadians have different laws, that's fine. One of the things I fucking hate about Americans is how we attempt to impose our values on the rest of the world - it really fucking pisses me off - because everyone sits around here talking about "freedom" but they want to go to OTHER PEOPLE'S COUNTRIES and act however they damn well please. Well, what about the "freedom" of those countries to make their own laws and have their own culture?

    Canadian laws violating free speech rights cracks me up...hoo boy. Just because they set the bar at a different place doesn't mean they're actually violating anyone. Ann Coulter can come back to the U.S. and talk all the shit she wants. It's not exactly a crying shame that she wasn't allowed to incite hatred toward Muslims in another country on a college campus, of all places.

    Americans just want to be able to do whatever the fuck they want, whatever they want. It's arrogant and ironically a threat to the freedom of other people.
    I didn't think there was an American who understood this.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Advocating for the full protection of rights that one deems as 'universal' is hardly imposing values on someone else, its merely challenging them. I make no apologies for considering real freedom of speech to be one of the most important things in the world.
    And nor should you apologize. I have throughly enjoy your debate with Radmonity. However, I agree with Marmie Dearest bolded below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    I think human physical safety and peaceful tolerance amongst groups takes higher priority over the right to verbally assault people. I mean, don't get me wrong, I value free speech too - but the line in which that "free speech" becomes dangerous is debatable and each nation has a right to democratically decide amongst their own citizens where that line is.
    I also wonder how you deem something to be 'universal' in all cultures?

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    No kidding, I kinda noted that in one of my earlier posts. By the same token, there are far worse things than the agenda of religious conservatives in Canada.
    I do agree and usually take a more moderate view about religion and politics. However, to keep it in context, Filedia ask me why it mattered about a politicians religious views. And I do understand that my comment sounds extremist.

    You asked,

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck
    Its the details of a person's beliefs....
    And how do I know the details of a person's beliefs? Especially a politican who wants my vote? Do we not judge people by their actions?

    The way that Harper has conducted himself in parliment leaves alot to be desired and definately not one to be trusted. He has violated Parliment law and has used shady and underhanded motions but not illegal tactics, to get his minority government to pass laws. This does not sound like someone who would respect the people's wishes regardless his platform promises. Mix in some fundamentalist religious belief and I believe there will be alot more to worry about than violations of free speech.

    Speaking of which, would you not agree that cherry picking your media so that you are only reported in a favourite light a form of censorship? Isn't that something a dictorship does? For I tell you, there is no freedom of speech without freedom of press and this has currently happened here in Canada.

    It is only two to three seats for a majority government where a government can regein irregardless of what the opposition does. In other words, he has his dictorship to rule as he wants and we could crown him king.

    We Canadians tend to have a good running government when it is a minority government that can work with the opposition party.

    So even tho it sounds extremist for a demoncratic country in North America to become a theocratic country, in practice, if not in name, it could happen.

    Randomnity says it best:
    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity
    A lot of fundamentalist Christians (I know many personally) seem to have this drive to force as many people as possible to live a "christian" lifestyle, so it's worrying when it's the government. Same thing for fundamentalist Muslims. I don't see Hindus or Buddists pushing their beliefs or lifestyles on others, although that's not to say it doesn't or couldn't happen.

    He's said that he won't touch the social issues, but does he really look like someone you can trust?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    Really?

    Number one. You and many non Americans, Post about American politics and other world politics all the time.
    In fact the above quote by you, contains a comment about American Politics.
    Yes you are making a comparison. That is a comment about American Politics.
    What is your qualification to make this comparison?
    Why shouldn't an American be able to comment on Canadian Politics?.
    Why would you say the American Left and Right are so vastly different from the Canadian Left and Right?This is simply not true. The policies may vary, but then it's two different sovereign nations with different needs, this is known to happen when two nations are being compared.
    However the political spectrum is a "world wide" tool and is universal across the board. Left is left and right is right.
    Also, you have not questioned the "business" of any other American that has posted in this thread, for being here.
    Is it possible that is because only NG is disagreeing with you?

    Some tough questions I am sure.
    Most people who post are defining what Canadian Liberals are and what Canadian Conservative are, tend to be American. Shouldn't Canadians define it for themselves?

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    I'm a Canadian (who also happens to be Albertan) who thinks it's appalling that petty namecalling and demonizing other Canadians is an accepted political strategy in this country. It's easier for a politician to buy votes from Ontario and Quebec by characterizing Albertans as 'rednecks' (and every connotation that comes with it) than it is to come up with coherent arguments and sound policies.

    I also find it extremely hypocritical that most of the people who like to use these divisive jibes are the first to claim they're "true Canadians", that somehow putting down entire regions of this country is 'patriotic'. I'm sick of the political discourse in this country.
    Excellant point about Canadian politics!

    I don't particularly like Stephen Harper. He's about as charismatic as a turnip and comes across as deeply paranoid. I think his economic policies are short-sighted and more a byproduct of pandering to the other parties for 'compromise' than a result of good thinking and the proper analyses. I'm glad he's shoved the socially conservative wing of the party to the back burner (which was Preston Manning's downfall as leader of the Reform Party) because things like gay marriage are dead issues and aren't worth talking about.

    Michael Ignatieff is an effete creep and his run at becoming Prime Minister is born of the thinking that the Liberal Party is "Canada's natural governing party" and not about doing anything different or 'good'. He's also about as charismatic as a root vegetable. The Liberals won't win, or at least shouldn't win, as a result of picking apart the Conservative government's policies because a great deal of them were crafted to get Liberal approval anyway. The Liberals bring nothing new to the table. The only reason we are even having an election right now is because the Liberals think it's a politically advantageous time. That's the reason we've had, what: four elections in seven years? What a waste of time and money.

    I can't fathom why anyone with a job would ever vote for the NDP, but at least Jack Layton sticks to his guns and doesn't waffle on his position like Harper and Ignatieff. That the Bloc Québécois exists is a bit of a joke but I can't blame Quebeckers for creating a party that solely represents their interests. Like Layton at least Gilles Duceppe stands by his policies and doesn't compromise to curry favour and buy votes. (at least, not outside of Quebec)

    All the other parties are pointless and exist for no other reason than as a protest vote. Including the Greens.

    I ask the rhetorical question: why should I vote? Why should I vote at all? I'd never vote for the Green Party or NDP, and I don't trust the Conservatives or Liberals. Why bother? I consider myself economically conservative and socially liberal and not one party out there stands for what I believe in. I want the government to stay the hell out of my life and if I was in government I'd strive to stay the hell out of everyone else's life.
    Nice points.

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    And what is this CRAP about Ann Coulter? The less attention paid to that attention whore the better.
    4w5

  7. #97
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    I'm a Canadian (who also happens to be Albertan) who thinks it's appalling that petty namecalling and demonizing other Canadians is an accepted political strategy in this country. It's easier for a politician to buy votes from Ontario and Quebec by characterizing Albertans as 'rednecks' (and every connotation that comes with it) than it is to come up with coherent arguments and sound policies.
    I lived in Alberta for many years. I understand and appreciate many of their values. However, ignoring the connotations, the redneck characterization accurately illustrates their far right standing on the Canadian political spectrum.

  8. #98
    Senior Member countrygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ISFx
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    I lived in Alberta for many years. I understand and appreciate many of their values. However, ignoring the connotations, the redneck characterization accurately illustrates their far right standing on the Canadian political spectrum.
    Out here in the east, Alberta is known for its different political stance on the political spectrum. Almost American in outlook.

    However, I am curious as to know what happened with Trudeau and the infamous middle finger gesture? What was the major political strife?
    4w5

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,278

    Default

    Most people who post are defining what Canadian Liberals are and what Canadian Conservative are, tend to be American. Shouldn't Canadians define it for themselves?
    I am not sure I follow this.
    Most people in this thread?

    Left and right is not a Canadian invention. Left and right wing policies are a world wide phenomena and do not change depending on the nation.
    Americans have every right to define left and right wing policies regardless of the nation they are discussing.
    The American members of this forum have every right to post in this thread.
    I see no such comments being made against Americans who are supporting the left, only the right.
    And finally Canada, is open to world wide critique and definitions alike.
    Canadians are entitled to define whatever they choose, but they can't tell others what they might or might not define, even of it's about them.

    You don't get to tell others what their opinion of you, is. They get to decide what their opinion is all by themselves.

  10. #100
    Senior Member countrygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ISFx
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    I am not sure I follow this.
    Most people in this thread?

    Left and right is not a Canadian invention. Left and right wing policies are a world wide phenomena and do not change depending on the nation.
    Americans have every right to define left and right wing policies regardless of the nation they are discussing.
    The American members of this forum have every right to post in this thread.
    I see no such comments being made against Americans who are supporting the left, only the right.
    And finally Canada, is open to world wide critique and definitions alike.
    Canadians are entitled to define whatever they choose, but they can't tell others what they might or might not define, even of it's about them.

    You don't get to tell others what their opinion of you, is. They get to decide what their opinion is all by themselves.
    I see what you are saying. It's just that when Americans who have posted on this thread defining liberals and conservatives, it sounds backwards to how I interepret our parties. I'm not sure the Canadian Liberal party are right wing the way Americans define the right. I believe that they have socialist policies that makes them sit on the centre of the political spectrum. More to the left of that would be our Conservative Party and more left of that would be our New Democratic Party (NDP). And I assume the extreme left is a Communist Party which we have but not recognized as an offical party and therefore doesn't get on the voting ballot.

    Does this make sense?
    4w5

Similar Threads

  1. [ISTP] In praise of ISTP's
    By substitute in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 01-15-2017, 04:15 PM
  2. [INFP] In praise of INFP's
    By substitute in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 212
    Last Post: 05-20-2016, 02:10 PM
  3. list of functions in order of awesomeness
    By Prometheus in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-09-2009, 12:55 AM
  4. Okay we have one kitty in need of a name
    By Xander in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 03-17-2008, 12:02 PM
  5. [ENFP] ENFP changes her clothing and hair right in front of me.
    By Yomama99 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 04:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO