April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Knalus]

I've noticed that as the election date nears, not only are the members of the different parties sounding dumber and more shrill, but otherwise intelligent posters have been suffering from similar fates. Perhaps it is a smart thing to be quieter nearing the end of this election - people start saying some pretty provocative things the longer they argue. This thread is a perfect example of this.

On a totally related note, the topics being discussed have gotten progressively less rational as well. It's starting to sound like American politics, a lot of personal attacks in the absence of rational discussion.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Knalus

On a totally related note, the topics being discussed have gotten progressively less rational as well. It's starting to sound like American politics, a lot of personal attacks in the absence of rational discussion.

And that makes me sad. But I'd argue society as a whole is just getting dumber. But then again I've been accused before of being a liberal minded intellectual dou***

[SebC]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Not as important as what the guy you vote for WILL do. If you are afraid of WR, why do you vote PC? There are NDP, LIB, Green Party, Alberta Party for you to vote for. The reason you vote PC for the fear of of WR is that you actually like PC to begin with. Whether WR is scary or not is largely irrelevant.

Fear mongering doesn't work because there's no guarantee even when it works, the voter will vote for you. And if voters do vote for you, they probably vote for you anyway to begin with.

Nope, I'm voting for whoever polls highest out of non-WR parties. I'd vote for my favorite party if we didn't have a broken electoral system, but we do, so I vote for my preference out of the top two in polling (unless it's clear that the outcome is already determined prior to the election, such as federally).

And I assume by "you" you aren't referring to me specifically, because I'm not voting PC. If I lived in another riding, I might though.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by SebC

If I'm choosing between to canadidates, what the other guy might do is important information for me to make a good decision. I lean the other way from you. I think if there was more calling other people out on their BS, there would be less BS, and that would be better for everyone.

Instead of using valuable time calling out people, why not use it instead to expand what your party plans to do for me. If your policies are good enough you won't have to worry about me voting for the other guy. Don't be like the car salesman who runs down the competiton as a means to get me to buy.

For example, Wildrose's promise to keep infrastructure spending below Canada's average. Sounds good on the surface, but the implications are terrible (way below average infrastructure development). I don't have faith that voters will figure that out unless the other parties and/or media point it out to them. If they don't point it out, I see that as not doing their job. Ideas should be challenged, not coddled. (So that natural selection can kill of the weak ones and we evolve into a better society!)

I have no problems with party policies being challenged. Just don't twist facts in an attempt to make them look bad. Politicians are bad for this - just look at the attack ads that get posted in both provinicial and federal elections. The WR has an ad attacking the PC's on the no pay committee when in fact all parties are to blame for taking the money.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Sorry, I'm not familiar with Christianity. I thought that the Old Testament was still an important book. I think my first question is still valid though. Is Leech saying that all sin is morally equivalent? (I'm not trying to score points; I'm sincerely curious.)

That is abundantly clear.

Leech is not saying that all sin is morally equivalent. Leech is explaining the definition of sin as equivalent to "wrong". Just like it is "wrong" to lie and gossip about a person, and it is "wrong" to swear at your grandma, and it is "wrong" to murder. If anyone said this, no one would question it. But because there are people like you who no longer are familiar with Christianity, they equate "sin" with "crime" - and this is not what it means. It is a logical fallacy.

In short: All crimes are sins. Not all sins are crimes. All men are sinful, but not all men are criminal.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Dion

Instead of using valuable time calling out people, why not use it instead to expand what your party plans to do for me. If your policies are good enough you won't have to worry about me voting for the other guy. Don't be like the car salesman who runs down the competiton as a means to get me to buy.

I still disagree. One heavy negative will outweigh many small positive. If voters don't hear the negatives, they're not making a proper comparison.

Originally Posted by Dion

I have no problems with party policies being challenged. Just don't twist facts in an attempt to make them look bad. Politicians are bad for this - just look at the attack ads that get posted in both provinicial and federal elections. The WR has an ad attacking the PC's on the no pay committee when in fact all parties are to blame for taking the money.

I can agree with you a bit here. There's a line where in explaining the opponent's BS you start BSing yourself. But when you do, you should be held to task for it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

That is abundantly clear.

Well, its not like I'm pretending otherwise.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Leech is not saying that all sin is morally equivalent. Leech is explaining the definition of sin as equivalent to "wrong". Just like it is "wrong" to lie and gossip about a person, and it is "wrong" to swear at your grandma, and it is "wrong" to murder. If anyone said this, no one would question it. But because there are people like you who no longer are familiar with Christianity, they equate "sin" with "crime" - and this is not what it means. It is a logical fallacy.

I never equated "sin" with "crime".

And I'm still left a bit confused by your explanation. Can there not still be a spectrum of "wrongness"? For example, I believe that, although they may both be wrong, murder is more wrong than swearing at my grandmother.

Also, haven't there always been lots of people who are not familiar with christianity?

[My apologies for going so far off topic. I'm curious about this idea though.]

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, its not like I'm pretending otherwise.



I never equated "sin" with "crime".

And I'm still left a bit confused by your explanation. Can there not still be a spectrum of "wrongness"? For example, I believe that, although they may both be wrong, murder is more wrong than swearing at my grandmother.

Also, haven't there always been lots of people who are not familiar with christianity?

[My apologies for going so far off topic. I'm curious about this idea though.]

Maybe we should take this to PM?


But the simple answer is no. To the divine, there is no spectrum. As humans we have qualified sin and may a hierarchy of wrongs, murder is worse than petty theft.

To point about all being sinners not criminals, in the eyes of God when we sin, (a child disobeys it's parents) that isn't criminal, but it's sinful.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Also, haven't there always been lots of people who are not familiar with christianity?

Or even some Christians not familiar with other denominations of Christianity.

I think Ron Leech's perspective is that sin separates you from God, regardless of what that sin is. God is righteous and cannot abide sin. And the consequences of sin is separation from God (hell). Jesus was sent to fix this.

And for a Christian, all sin will harm your relationship with God.

I don't think he would say the consequences of all sin are (or should be equal) in our earthly lives.

Not everyone would agree with that, as there are scriptures that talk about different sins being different, some greater than others, some different than others, and would have different judgments from God (earthly judgments).

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by photon

Or even some Christians not familiar with other denominations of Christianity.

I think Ron Leech's perspective is that sin separates you from God, regardless of what that sin is. God is righteous and cannot abide sin. And the consequences of sin is separation from God (hell). Jesus was sent to fix this.

And for a Christian, all sin will harm your relationship with God.

I don't think he would say the consequences of all sin are (or should be equal) in our earthly lives.

Not everyone would agree with that, as there are scriptures that talk about different sins being different, some greater than others, some different than others, and would have different judgments from God (earthly judgments).

That is what I was alluding to earlier. Within Catholicism Venial Sin damages your relationship with the Divine, and Mortal Sin destroys it completely.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Dion

Not me personaly but if someone else voted him in based on what he says he will do for his region, i'd have no problems with that.

I would have a problem voting for a bigot or a racist. Therefore I would not vote for Hunsperger or Leech. Incidentally, I also have a problem voting for someone who directly lies to me when I ask him a question - therefore I will not be voting for the PC candidate in my riding.

I can see why someone might not consider the character of the individual they are voting for, but I always will. It is important to me. I don't care if they are Christian, Liberal, Ultra-right wing, Chinese, from Mexico, College educated or a PEI potato farmer, but I do care about what that person will do when their back is against the wall. I care if they will do the right thing. I care if they will lie, steal or cheat to get ahead. I care if they promote hatred against other people. I also care if they are just too plain stupid to realize that they shouldn't say anything.

Its cool if you don't think the same thing. That's why we have elections - because different things are important to different people.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

That is what I was alluding to earlier. Within Catholicism Venial Sin damages your relationship with the Divine, and Mortal Sin destroys it completely.

The way I see it...Jesus died for our sins

So if I don't sin he died for nothing


Now back to the thread please...

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

The way I see it...Jesus died for our sins

So if I don't sin he died for nothing


Now back to the thread please...

Ahh, but even if you didn't sin yourself, you're stricken with Original Sin.


Theologically lawyer-ed.

[SebC]

Bwahaha

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

For example, Wildrose's promise to keep infrastructure spending below Canada's average. Sounds good on the surface, but the implications are terrible (way below average infrastructure development). I don't have faith that voters will figure that out unless the other parties and/or media point it out to them. If they don't point it out, I see that as not doing their job. Ideas should be challenged, not coddled. (So that natural selection can kill of the weak ones and we evolve into a better society!)

Just wanted to clarify that this is not the case. Wildrose promises to keep spending more in line with the Canadian average, but their budget would still put them as the highest spending province in Canada (at least in 2012) on infrastructure.

They are simply stating that instead of spending double or triple what every province spends, we should probably limit infrastructure spending to a more reasonable level.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Just wanted to clarify that this is not the case. Wildrose promises to keep spending more in line with the Canadian average, but their budget would still put them as the highest spending province in Canada (at least in 2012) on infrastructure.

They are simply stating that instead of spending double or triple what every province spends, we should probably limit infrastructure spending to a more reasonable level.

Edmonton Journal's Election tracker says: "- Keep provincial per-capita infrastructure spending at level consistent with Canadian average."

Is that wrong? I don't see how we can be the highest yet consistent with the Canadian average.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...ker/index.html

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

Edmonton Journal's Election tracker says: "- Keep provincial per-capita infrastructure spending at level consistent with Canadian average."

Is that wrong? I don't see how we can be the highest yet consistent with the Canadian average.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...ker/index.html

Poor wording, according to the policy document they mean stopping fluctuations and bring it more in line with the Canadian average. It is clear in the budget policy they would remain the highest spending province.

Regardless of wording your initial characterization of keeping spending BELOW the Canadian average is definately false.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by SebC

I still disagree. One heavy negative will outweigh many small positive. If voters don't hear the negatives, they're not making a proper comparison.

IMO It's based on the assumption that I as a voter cannot make an informed descion, which I find insulting.

I can agree with you a bit here. There's a line where in explaining the opponent's BS you start BSing yourself. But when you do, you should be held to task for it.

Agreed!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Poor wording, according to the policy document they mean stopping fluctuations and bring it more in line with the Canadian average. It is clear in the budget policy they would remain the highest spending province.

Regardless of wording your initial characterization of keeping spending BELOW the Canadian average is definately false.

Fair enough, I'll edit the post.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Dion

IMO It's based on the assumption that I as a voter cannot make an informed descion, which I find insulting.

Not without information you can't. And even if you can, you should welcome assistance.

Going back to your car salesman analogy, if one guy knows the other guy is selling lemons but doesn't tell you, does that improve your ability to correctly determine where you should buy your car?

Sure, you might figure it out yourself, but not everyone will... and when we're talking elections, you get stuck with the car that the other buyers want.