Forgot your password?
Malcolm, January 18, 2018 in Non Aviation Discussion Forum
2 hours ago, Jaydee said:
Wrong!!!! You can never win an argument with a Liberal.
Any time a Liberal tries to silence me with one of their buzzwords against me I throw the term BIGOT right back at them. Pisses them off to no end!
However as soon as someone makes a disparaging remark against someone based on race, creed, sex, colour, religion or nationality. They lost the argument. Because if you have to stoop to that level you never had an argument to begin with.
Liberal ideology is rife with inconsistencies, but none is greater than how its supposedly animating motivation — human compassion — is contradicted by its devaluation of human life.
Liberals have long claimed superior compassion and demonized conservatives as being uncaring. This has always been untrue while superficially appearing to be true, and liberals have evangelized countless young minds with this seductive canard.
It's difficult to convince embryonic liberal activists that individual liberals may be compassionate but their governing ideology and the inevitable consequences of their policies are not. It's also difficult to make them see that conservatives are compassionate and tolerant when we stand for unchanging moral standards and openly disagree with policies that liberals successfully peddle as compassionate.
But beyond the superficial rhetoric, liberalism does not stand the test of compassion, because it subordinates individuality to identity groups and the collective and degrades human dignity. One of the great ironies of secular humanism is its purported championship of mankind as the measure of all things while undermining what makes us human. How can a philosophy that devalues human individuality ultimately be compassionate toward human beings?
The most obvious example is liberals' extreme advocacy of abortion, making it a holy sacrament that is not about individual choice but a paranoid conviction that pro-lifers threaten women's rights, health care and autonomy.
Another example is socialism, which the leftist-dominated Democratic Party is virtually embracing today. Throughout history, socialists have duped millions of well-meaning people into believing that free market capitalism is evil and socialism is noble. I don't even subscribe to the glib pitch that it is wonderful in theory but doesn't work in practice. It's also unappealing in theory because it is fundamentally at odds with human nature and the human spirit. It arrogantly assumes it can remake human beings as irresponsive to incentives and devoid of their competitive spirit and their natural yearning for liberty.
In practice, socialism has consistently impoverished and enslaved. With its top-down control of the economy, it obliterates individual economic liberty and thus robs individuals of an essential part of their humanity. Government-forced transfer payments — taking other people's money to satisfy one's sense of moral self-worth — is a far cry from charity and compassion. I know of no conservatives who oppose a social safety net for the truly needy, provided it incentivizes the able-bodied to return to the workforce.
When it comes to health care, of course conservatives want to maximize people's access to the highest-quality care at the lowest prices and most choices, but they dispute that forcing everyone to be insured helps achieve any of those goals efficiently. What is true of socialized medicine is true of socialism generally: It doesn't work anywhere in the long run — including in Sweden, truth be told. How compassionate are socialism and less extreme big-government liberalism when they destroy economic growth and prosperity and, left to their own devices, often lead to totalitarianism? Socialism, just like much of economic and political liberalism, is more about people seeking power and control over individual lives.
The latest rage is intersectionality, which establishes new hierarchies of victimhood and privilege based on the overlapping and interrelated categories of disadvantages that groups of people have experienced. We must no longer look at discrimination through the "single-axis framework" of race, gender, class, disability, etc., but understand how the various identities intersect. Some people have multiple "burdens" or "disadvantages," such that black women, for example, suffer more discrimination than black men and white women. Unless we refine our thinking to account for these combinations of disabilities, the most disadvantaged will be ignored. Isn't this exhausting? Who really thinks like this if not forced to?
This is why feminists have recently been shamed for promoting their singular cause while presumably ignoring the plight of transgender people, gay people, the disabled and black women in particular. It is why intersectionality zealots are questioning whether Sen. Kamala Harris is "black enough" to be president, as her father is Jamaican and her mother is Indian. She may not be black enough because she is not African-American — a bona fide descendant of American slaves. It is why race- and gender-obsessed people are upset that the three Democratic presidential front-runners are white men.
It doesn't seem to occur to these self-described supporters of democracy that three white guys happen to be ahead because people are voicing their opinions. It also doesn't seem to bother the Democrats expressing their preference for white men that though they won't dare challenge the orthodoxy of intersectionality, they are violating its premises with their voting inclinations.
Among other things, intersectionality is dehumanizing because people are demonized or protected depending on their group, not on what they have done or what they have personally experienced. How can people not see that this kind of thinking violates our basic sense of justice and accountability? Intersectionality, perhaps even more than the rudimentary forms of identity politics that preceded it, is also damaging to people because it forces them to focus on themselves as victims of disadvantaged groups rather than encourage them to strive, as individuals, to be the best they can be.
If the results of liberals' policies — as opposed to their good intentions, posturing and virtue signaling — count for anything and if the ideas they promote are as dehumanizing as they appear, though many individual liberals may have enormous hearts, the ideology to which they are in thrall is stunningly uncompassionate.
Hoping to beat back Conservative claims that their environment-friendly agenda is a costly jobs killer, the Liberal government has been burnishing its economic record lately, insisting that it has done better at creating jobs than its Tory predecessor.
Since we formed government, the Canadian economy has created over 60 per cent more full-time jobs than the Conservatives did over the same time period,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Aug. 14.
READ MORE: Canada adds nearly 32K jobs in June, raising the odds of a July 11 rate hike
It’s an important exercise in spin for a government whose central brand is about convincing Canadians that “the environment and the economy go hand
in-hand” – that fighting climate change, in other words, needn’t come at the expense of economic growth.
Hence the recent message from Trudeau and other cabinet ministers that since being elected in 2015, the Liberal government has created 60 per cent more jobs in Canada than the Conservatives did during the same time period.
Are they telling the truth?
Spoiler alert: The Canadian Press Baloney Meter is a dispassionate examination of political statements culminating in a ranking of accuracy on a scale of “no baloney” to “full of baloney” (complete methodology below).
This one earns a rating of “a lot of baloney.” Here’s why.
Officials in the Prime Minister’s Office pointed to Employment Minister Patty Hajdu’s office to provide a breakdown of how Trudeau came up with that 60 per cent figure.
Veronique Simard, a spokeswoman for Hajdu, said the Liberal government created 542,500 full-time jobs in the 33 months since winning the 2015 election, while the Conservatives under former prime minister Stephen Harper “created just 322,300 full-time jobs in its last 33 months in office.”
Trudeau wasn’t the only one spreading the message: in a response to Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre deriding the Liberal carbon plan as a “job killer,” Environment Minister Catherine McKenna tweeted, “Our government has created 60 per cent more jobs than the Harper Conservatives did in the same time period.”
“The Canadian economy is humming,” she wrote. “Our emissions are dropping. We have a plan and it’s working.”
To calculate the number of jobs created over a specific period, The Canadian Press relied on figures from Statistics Canada for full-time jobs each month. The agency reports the total number of people employed monthly, which stood at 15.1 million full-time workers in July.
Calculations by CP confirmed the data provided by Hajdu’s office: 542,500 new full-time jobs between October 2015 and July 2018, and just 322,300 new jobs between January 2013 and October 2015 – a difference, for the record, of 59.4 per cent.
But there’s more to the claim than just the numbers.
For one thing, there’s the familiar political convention of taking credit for economic growth – a practice that brings to mind the old saw about “lies, damned lies and statistics.”
Any suggestion that the Liberals are “somehow responsible” for those numbers confuses the sequence of events with causality, said Stephen Gordon, an economics professor at Laval University.
“The fact that this is done so often doesn’t make it any less wrong,” said Gordon – no fan, he said, of using such statistics to suggest that the arrival of any new government results in more jobs.
But for the sake of argument, the Liberals should be comparing their first 33 months not with the end of the Harper era, but the beginning – a period that saw 635,400 new jobs between January 2006 and October 2008.
READ MORE: Half of Canadian jobs will be impacted by automation in next 10 years
“If you’re going to argue that the arrival of a Liberal government leads to increased employment, you might as well argue that the arrival of a Conservative government has an even stronger effect on employment,” Gordon said.
“It’s a stupid game to be playing, and I wish politicians would stop playing it.”
Governments often “claim credit for – and take blame for – economic performance for which they often have little control,” added Emmett Macfarlane, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo.
“Stephen Harper was no more responsible for the 2008 global recession than Justin Trudeau was for job growth in the month he was elected.”
Using month-by-month statistics to measure performance in the job market can be unreliable, since the story can change dramatically, depending on which months are chosen as reference points, said Sheila Block, senior economist from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
During the Conservative government’s first 33 months in office, the economy was booming, while their last 33 months included a collapse in oil prices, she noted.
In truth, governments of all stripes take credit for short-term and medium-term economic indicators that are actually beyond their control. And they are selective about the data they choose to promote, as well as the time frames, to ensure it supports their narrative.
Indeed, by contrasting their first 33 months with the Conservative government’s last 33 months, they are effectively comparing apples and oranges.
The Baloney Meter is a project of The Canadian Press that examines the level of accuracy in statements made by politicians. Each claim is researched and assigned a rating based on the following scale:
No baloney – the statement is completely accurate.
A little baloney – the statement is mostly accurate but more information is required.
Some baloney – the statement is partly accurate but important details are missing.
A lot of baloney – the statement is mostly inaccurate but contains elements of truth.
Full of baloney – the statement is completely inaccurate.
It has been pointed out before, but it bears mentioning, how many of these jobs are government positions? And how many are related to an unsustainable real estate and building boom?
I would maintain that there are logical and predictable consequences to policy development based on agendas and the inability to look around corners. Sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration law lead to sanctuary 2nd amendment cities that refuse to enforce gun control laws. The premise “why would anyone need a handgun” leads to why would anyone need a car or motorcycle capable of going faster than the speed limit.
If your hobby is muscle cars and sport bikes I don’t automatically assume you drive dangerously or need to be regulated simply because others might. But, if the question “why do you need it?” becomes governing and applies across the board, people who previously took refuge in that argument (for their own purposes) may be bitten by the unintended consequences beast.
This took less time than I thought it would…. now, given the drowning hazard to young children, why would anyone need a swimming pool in their back yard?
These people will never understand. you don't need a gun to hunt a rutabaga. You do to bag a deer or moose to feed your family. But the tree huggers make the greater case because they have the support of the fear mongering media and government who what you to live in fear. It keeps you compliant. Free thinking Gun owners are a dangerous thing (to them selves if you watch the video in the other thread).
Shooting is a sport whether it takes place on a range or in the bush. For many in this country it is also a method to feed their families. I know several people even in Southern Ontario that bag enough during hunting season to sustain their family for a year.
The Rutabaga crowd will never see it though.
Fined $55,000 for calling a Male a Male
“ We told you this was coming. We warned you it would happen. We were not crying wolf. We were telling you the truth. And now it is here, as a headline announces: "Canadian tribunal fines Bill Whatcott $55,000 for expressing Christian views on 'transgenderism.'" In other words, Whatcott called a biological male (who identifies as a female) a "biological male." That was his crime. “
Further to the above post...
For those who cherish a free society, the recent BC Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) ruling in Oger v. Whatcott is an alarming step toward a darker future in which the government actively punishes citizens who object to political correctness. The BCHRT has ordered a Canadian citizen to pay $55,000 for peacefully expressing the “wrong” opinions.
The case arose during the 2017 British Columbia provincial election, in which Oger ran unsuccessfully for the NDP. Whatcott distributed a one-page flyer stating, in part, that Oger “is a biological male who has renamed himself ‘Morgane Oger’ after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle. Ronan is running for the NDP in the Vancouver-False Creek riding and BC’s media and the NDP are promoting a false narrative that Ronan is a woman born into a male body.”
Whatcott further stated: “I am writing this flyer this election to share my concern about the promotion and growth of homosexuality and transvestitism in British Columbia and how it is obscuring the immutable truth about our God given gender. …. the media, NDP, and everyone in the riding might try to pretend Ronan is a woman. But the truth is Ronan’s DNA will always be male, he will never have a uterus, and no amount of cosmetic surgery, fake hormones, or media propaganda is going to be able to change these facts. … ‘transgenderism’ is an impossibility. A male cannot ‘transition’ into a female, nor can a female ‘transition’ into a male. One can only cross dress and disfigure themselves with surgery and hormones to look like the gender they are not. This practice is harmful and displeasing to God.”
Whatcott is no angel. He often uses inflammatory and offensive language that repels even those who might be his ideological allies. For example: “Those who embrace the transvestite and homosexual lifestyles put themselves at greatly increased risk of diseases such as HIV, syphilis, HPV of the rectum, anal gonorrhea, Hepatitis A,B & C, etc…. Homosexuals and transgenders are also at increased risk of drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, and domestic violence. In addition to the physical and social consequences of adopting a false sexual and gender identity, there are spiritual consequences too. Our God is a God of truth.”
In its ruling, the BCHRT reproduced Whatcott’s flyer in its entirety, including text not cited above. The BCHRT ordered Whatcott to pay $35,000 to Oger for having peacefully distributed offensive flyers during an election, plus $20,000 regarding “improper conduct” during the hearing. Most of Whatcott’s “improper conduct” consisted of referring to Oger as a man.
There can be little doubt that Whatcott’s flyer was, and is, upsetting and highly offensive to many people, including Oger. But a free and diverse country doesn’t punish the peaceful expression of ideas and beliefs, however offensive, hurtful, false, or wrong the majority might consider them. Most Canadians would likely consider Whatcott a jerk. But in a tolerant nation, being a jerk isn’t against the law, nor should it be punished to the tune of $55,000.
The fine for drunk driving, a Criminal Code offense which directly endangers the lives of other people, and an act that is strongly stigmatized as a profound societal evil, is $1,000 for a first offence. By contrast, a tyrannical and out-of-control government body has ordered Whatcott to pay more than what many Canadians earn, after tax, during an entire year, simply for distributing flyers peacefully during an election.
In a free country, Oger can identify as a woman. That’s Oger’s right. But it is equally the right of other people – all people – to disagree with Oger, and to voice that disagreement.
Even more scary than the $55,000 penalty is the Tribunal’s arrogant assumption that it has the right to determine truth on behalf of all citizens, in this case, the “truth” about transgenderism. In its ruling, the BCHRT claims that Oger is a “victim of oppression” whose “very existence” is in danger of being “marginalized,” simply by someone stating that Oger is biologically male and therefore not a woman. The BCHRT claims that Whatcott’s flyer somehow has the power to impede “meaningful participation in social and political decision‐making,” and concludes that the flyer “does not engage in topics of valuable ongoing public discussion.”
By imposing its progressive, post-modernist, and politically correct opinion on Whatcott, this government body likewise imposes it on all of society. The message is clear to all citizens: if you refuse to kowtow to political correctness, you will pay a heavy price.
Lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF.ca), which intervened before the BC Human Rights Tribunal in the Oger v. Whatcottcase.
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead
Only 75 emoji are allowed.
Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead
Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor
You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.