U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-16-2016, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,937 posts, read 27,326,583 times
Reputation: 8601

Advertisements

Didn't Slate Moonstone just give an example?


I know I personally spent hours and pages last summer and fall arguing with mostly gay forumers about various form of religious accommodation and what may or may not be considered reasonable. Almost all of them were totally in favour of the greatest level of accommodation without hardly any restrictions. While it is true that in most cases these were not accommodations that would have affected the rights of gays, but did involve religions that are not known for their openness to homosexuality.


That's taking the old Voltairian thing about "thinking they're deathly wrong, but defending to the death their right to say it" pretty far if you ask me.


And as I said before, I doubt these same people would be so passionate about defending the rights of their grandparents' religion (or even the religion they were raised in) to have things exactly as they see fit and with plenty of "opt outs" from societal convention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-16-2016, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,937 posts, read 27,326,583 times
Reputation: 8601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
It's like me saying "straight people really have penchant for ..." fill in the blank.
There is a pretty good chance that I'd agree with what you'd fill in the blank with for straight people...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2016, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,811 posts, read 4,433,356 times
Reputation: 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slate Moonstone View Post
Yup. The perennial desire to demonize Israel at the TO Pride parade is something I've never, ever understood. First, it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand - why not have a "Meat is Murder" float while you're at it? And secondly, the vast majority of Palestinians - like other Arabs and Muslims - loathe homosexuality.
Which is ironic because Isreal is one of the few, possibly the only country where gays actually have some rights in that region of the world.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2016, 09:37 PM
 
1,300 posts, read 828,748 times
Reputation: 3625
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
The election was over back in October of 2015. I think Canadians spoke loud and clear Max, so its not just me. Clearly Canadians have a more parallel view with me on these matters than they do of yours. Clearly their values and my values are more closely aligned. Since you like logic, seems like a logical conclusion for one to make.
Complete incorrect. First of all the election was more about Canadians being tired of Harper and the PC running the country, the economy under their management and Trudeau being a good leader that Canadians could get behind. The Syrian refugee issue was a side topic to all that.

Secondly talking about the refugees, according these polls over a number of months many, MANY Canadians have been and STILL ARE opposed to bringing in refugees:

Canada Refugee Resettlement Plan | Angus Reid Institute Survey

Look at the data and it shows that Canadians were 51% opposed during the end of the election, 54% opposed after the Paris attacks and even most recently at February 2016 44% opposed the idea. So CLEARLY this shows that NOWHERE CLOSE to the majority of Canadians agree with bringing in refugees to Canada and if the government had put this issue to a national vote maybe there wouldn't be any refugees in Canada right now.

Also many Canadians felt the whole process was far too rushed and that we should've taken more time to bring refugees in and also:

Quote:
This puts the government at odds with a majority of Canadians, who are reluctant to exceed the originally pledged 25,000. In fact, fully two-fifths (42%) would like to see Canada stop short of that total. Another three-in-ten (29%) say 25,000 is enough.
So even if people were open to accepting refugees 42% didn't even want to go to the full 25,000 and all combined 71% of Canadians said that 25,000 or less was more than enough. So yeah doesn't seem like many Canadians agree with your views does it?

Quote:
btw - what evidence do you have that the Syrian Refugees will engage in a certain level of violence. Let us not forget that Omar Mateen was a U.S citizen and not a refugee or even an immigrant. In this day and age, it could have been a lily white kid from an Evangelical Christian background that became influenced by Islamic fundamentalists. There were plenty of Lily white boys that ISIS recruited! Some of them blew themselves to bits as martyrs for the cause.

As Hillary Clinton said, I don't know how you build a wall to keep the internet out.
Of course you can't keep the internet out, but that doesn't mean you need to compound the problem by bringing in more Muslims to spread their crap religion to even more people and make them more susceptible to being turned into a terrorist. Its much more likely that someone who's already a Muslim will become radicalized than someone who's a Buddist or a Christian to become radicalized. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure most if not almost all Canadians who have gone to join ISIS where already Muslims rather than people of other religions or atheists becoming radicalized and going overseas to fight.

And as you said Mateen was a US citizen born from Muslim parents and that's why you want LESS of them in your nation rather than more. By having so many Muslims in your country you have to constantly watch them within your borders as well as outside of them and again why should we be FORCED to spend so much time, energy and resources to watch over these people? If all the Muslims in Canada were instead asians, think of how much money we would be saving by not having to watch them all the time and how all the money wasted on national security could be better used for more social programs or paying down the debt etc.

Of course we could choose not to monitor Muslims and then if there should ever be an attack by them, people will be outraged that we didn't do more to stop such an attack. So we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. This is the kind of crap every nation will have to face if it takes in too many Muslims as opposed to taking in non-Muslim immigrants and not having to deal with this stuff AT ALL. Again just look at Japan and South Korea. Few Muslims, few Muslim related problems. Done and done, so simple compared to Europe where many Muslims equals many crimes and acts of terrorism against them.

Quote:
Also regarding blacks - can you clarify that you would shut our borders to ALL black immigrants or would you just use a more intense screening process for them. Maybe infringe on their rights just in case they decide to engage in violence? You know, pre-emptive strikes and be damned with their rights so to speak. Also, what would you do if another group of immigrants started to develop a propensity for violence than other groups - would you advocate a sort of immigration system that looks at crime rates by ethnicity and if it goes above an arbitrary percentage you would implement closing the border to said ethnicity. Where does it end Max?
I don't think its realistic to completely close our borders to blacks or any group of people, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't screen them more closely and don't bring masses of them in like we did with the Syrian refugees.

And with regards to your hypothetical what if of another group of immigrants becoming more violent and criminal then yes I would say they should be more closely looked at as well. BUT guess what? That hasn't EVER happened in decades and decades. Namely in the last 30-40 years other than blacks has there been any other group of people that has been consistently as violent, criminal and dangerous as them? Other than aboriginals and Muslims to an extent, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ELSE has become more violent and criminal.

So your hypothetical is just that, a forever hypothetical that has yet to ever come true because no other race/ethnic group of people have been shown to have high crime rates in Canada. Why else do you think black crime is such a problem? Because ABSOLUTELY ZERO OTHER GROUPS of people have anywhere near the crime rates that they have and that's why they need to be scrutinized more much like Muslims. Seriously if blacks want to be treated like everyone else, then maybe they should BEHAVE like everyone else and not cause crime and trouble all the time. It really is that simple but its something that blacks seem incapable and/or unwilling to do all these decades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2016, 06:45 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,937 posts, read 27,326,583 times
Reputation: 8601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Sterling View Post
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure most if not almost all Canadians who have gone to join ISIS where already Muslims rather than people of other religions or atheists becoming radicalized and going overseas to fight.

.
That's not true. It's f-ed up I know but a number of Canadians who have no Muslim roots have joined ISIS. That Couture-Rouleau guy in St-Jean was a "Couture-Rouleau". Greek and Asian Canadian kids from London On were involved in something in Algeria. A kid named McGuire from south of Ottawa. A kid from Calgary whose mom I heard on the radio recently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2016, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,670 posts, read 8,740,385 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Didn't Slate Moonstone just give an example?


I know I personally spent hours and pages last summer and fall arguing with mostly gay forumers about various form of religious accommodation and what may or may not be considered reasonable. Almost all of them were totally in favour of the greatest level of accommodation without hardly any restrictions. While it is true that in most cases these were not accommodations that would have affected the rights of gays, but did involve religions that are not known for their openness to homosexuality.


That's taking the old Voltairian thing about "thinking they're deathly wrong, but defending to the death their right to say it" pretty far if you ask me.


And as I said before, I doubt these same people would be so passionate about defending the rights of their grandparents' religion (or even the religion they were raised in) to have things exactly as they see fit and with plenty of "opt outs" from societal convention.
Slate Moonstone's example is one PRIDE societies politics. It doesn't reflect the whole gay community, and I'm sure you know that.

However as for muslims etc, there are gay muslims and even gay muslim groups. So i'm not sure I understand your statements? Yes certain brands of religion would throw and do throw gay people under the bus, or worse, but people make the distinction between supporting the person who is muslim and not supporting a religion that does not support them.

As for your experience on CD in this regard, I would take their take with a pinch of salt. In the real world gay people have fought and won AGAINST those religions that don't support them.

Allowing freedom of religion is a pillar of our democracy. Allowing people to believe gay people are evil or sinners doesn't mean I support those religions or views. Once again, it's when those beliefs cross the line into secular life, that's when gay people have historically fought back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2016, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,670 posts, read 8,740,385 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
There is a pretty good chance that I'd agree with what you'd fill in the blank with for straight people...
Oh so tempting for a lot of jokes here

Honestly I don't think you would agree, because I sure wouldn't. No one group deserves to be labelled with any one trait.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2016, 05:35 PM
 
261 posts, read 202,909 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
These days it seems like it's not cool to bash on religions that are predominantly practised by immigrants (regardless of the compatibility of their belief systems and practices with Canadian values), whereas it's perfectly cool to bash on your grand-parents' religion (likely to be Christianity).

In the former case, criticizing them is, I guess, uncosmopolitan...
There's something I've been wondering : Catholicism is especially singled out as an acceptable target by progressives, and it does deserve part of it, what with the opposition to abortion and gay rights, to equal rights for women, and especially the child abuse scandals. But as the majority populations in Canada and the US keeps turning away from their religious roots, the practice of Catholicism might become increasingly a practice of ethnic minorities.

If we reach a point where "Catholics" start bringing to mind Latinos, Filipinos and Africans first and foremost, in the same way that "Muslims" bring to mind people from the Middle East, will we see progressive culture make a 180 degree shift in a record amount of time? One day you might criticize the Catholic church and get nothing but nods from your audience, and the next day you'll be informed that the only reason why you'd criticize the Church is that you hate brown people.

I'm not saying this will happen, but I wonder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2016, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Toronto
1,570 posts, read 2,810,914 times
Reputation: 1591
I think that the Pulse Nightclub shootings cannot be put in a little box and labeled neatly: terror, hate crime, mass shooting. It is all of those things. I am a Canadian and a licensed firearms owner and I blanch at the absurd politics of guns in America. Donald Trump thinks political correctness is hurting America? What about the kind of political correctness that prevents any common sense gun regulation from being passed or even discussed in Washington because politicians are too scared to alienate gun "culturalists." You think people in America are too sensitive to have honest discussions about race and culture? Try going on a forum or comments section and calling an AR-15 an assault weapon and watch how you get piled on by people who object viciously to that term. You think the phrase radical Islamic terrorism is controverisial? The term assault rifle seems to get people a lot more worked up. Try having a rational conversation about the Second Amendment with a Second Amendment absolutist. Try to talk about statistics and raw data about gun violence, and listen to people tell you that a handgun or AR-15 is no more dangerous than a car. The same people who object to an AR being called an assault weapon are the same people who buy said weapon because of its military pedigree. It is marketed as a military weapon with all the same features except the auto/semi-auto toggle switch. The same people who are "Originalists" when it comes to the Second Amendment are often the same ones who think people should be discriminated against because of their religion, or that the right to due process should not exist for certain classes of suspected criminals. Enjoy the lectures about knives and guns and cars being no different in their capacity to commit murder. Hear the catcalls, soak up the insults, witness the polarization, and it becomes clear that certain kinds of political correctness are perfectly acceptable to the same folks who lament that political correctness of another kind has stifled debate in America and made it more susceptible to acts of terrorism. But witness the silence when someone notes that the amount of gun murders committed in America in a single year dwarfs the number of murders at the hands of terrorists in America for the last hundred, or mentions how few instances there are of armed civilians being able to stop a mass shooting in progress, or the vicious objections raised when America's murder rate is compared to that of almost every country on Earth.

So while I think the Pulse murders are the products of bigotry, radicalism, deranged thinking, etc., I also think they are a product of political correctness on an epic scale, which prevents otherwise rational men and women from having a serious debate about gun violence in America and taking steps to stop it. The Pulse massacre does not fit neatly into one category, but there is one thing that all mass shootings in America have in common: the ubiquity of lethal weapons designed for war readily available to anyone who wants one, and the failure of America's political establishment to do anything about it. As much as anything, the innocent victims of this massacre are victims of gun culture. If radical Islam had a role in motivating a murderer to commit a horrific attack, American gun culture certainly enabled him to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2016, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Toronto
1,570 posts, read 2,810,914 times
Reputation: 1591
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanLuis View Post
Which is ironic because Isreal is one of the few, possibly the only country where gays actually have some rights in that region of the world.


It looks like Jordan, Bahrain, and Turkey do not prosecute or execute people for homosexual acts. Israel may be the only country in the Middle East with legislation designed to protect and grant rights to LGBT individuals, but these three other countries appear to be, with the exception of Indonesia, the only Muslim-majority countries where homosexual acts are not treated as crimes. They should be role models to other Muslim-majority countries whose barbarous treatment of LGBT individuals is shocking and a gross violation of basic human rights. I think it is terribly regressive and inhumane to make love a crime when it is between consenting adults. Why should someone be persecuted for who they love? It is appalling that in a world filled with hatred, violence, cruelty and epic human suffering, love between consenting adults is considered a crime in many nations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top