April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I simply believe some areas are best left to parents. Sex and religion being a couple.

You can add hos in Forrest Lawn to the list. You think it would be unwise for female politician to tackle this topic, wouldn't it?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

In doing so, you condone a system where children of (typically) religious parents get an inferior education compared to the general public. You are sanctioning a "right to keep your children ignorant", and placing a higher value on that than on the quality of the child's education.

I find this highly objectionable. A person, and a society do not develop by censoring ideas. Some ideas have more merit than others, but the ideas that don't have merit should be evaluated as such, rather than censored. Don't believe in evolution? Great, defend your position. Don't plug your kid's ears and go "LA LA LA LA".People have equality. Rights do not. Religious rights have to take a backseat to other, more important rights. Otherwise I can go around shooting people, as long as it's because God told me to.

Are you seriously suggesting that the government has a better idea on what is more apt for children to learn...than parents of those children? Or is it merely only in those instances that you disagree with the parents beliefs?

Im not sure how children getting censored from being taught evolution (an extreme example btw) is any different than a myriad of other things parents prefer their children learn from them.

Your suggestion borders on totalitarianism....and i cannot beleive you or anyone else with a conscience would support that.....and more to the point, i would wager any amount that the WRA or any political party in this province would never even consider such.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Are you seriously suggesting that the government has a better idea on what is more apt for children to learn...than parents of those children? Or is it merely only in those instances that you disagree with the parents beliefs?

Im not sure how children getting censored from being taught evolution (an extreme example btw) is any different than a myriad of other things parents prefer their children learn from them.

Absolutely, the government is better positioned to determine the minimum that a child (or teen) should learn than leaving it up to parents (which is equivalent to having no minimum at all).

And evolution is hardly an extreme example. It is probably one of the most relevant (sex ed being the other - and studies have proven the value of sex ed). And you think the parents who pull their kids out of evolution will teach their kids about it themselves? It's not a question of who the kids learn it from, it's whether they learn it all.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

^^^^^^
That doesn't mean much, it's so vague and it's just some buzz words with no depth to it.



It's an issue that I would like to know where their stance is, it will help me make up my decision on voting, why is this a problem?

Diversity is important to me to. I understand the wr position to be that they leave marriage to be a federal issue. As important though is that Danielle smith is in favor of equal rights in her personal capacity. Her personal position can be found if you google it as I believe it has come up before.

The wr has no plan that I am aware of to introduce an anti gay law.

I am ok with that because for me there are much larger issues to fight about

this election.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

Absolutely, the government is better positioned to determine the minimum that a child (or teen) should learn than leaving it up to parents (which is equivalent to having no minimum at all).

And evolution is hardly an extreme example. It is probably one of the most relevant (sex ed being the other - and studies have proven the value of sex ed). And you think the parents who pull their kids out of evolution will teach their kids about it themselves? It's not a question of who the kids learn it from, it's whether they learn it all.

Why?

The government is nothing more than a bunch of people themselves with their own ideas and beliefs. How is it that they have the right to decide what your children learn in school over what you decide? I simply cannot fathom that/

And yes the evolution example is extreme in Alberta because it would be so incredibly rare for any significant amount of parents to go to that measure. This isnt the deep south crazy baptist brigade we are talking about here. Granted there are a small amount of nutbars where ever you go, but you cant legislate against silly belief systems.

As for sex-ed, again entirely up to parents to decide how and, more importantly, when their children are ready for it.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why?

The government is nothing more than a bunch of people themselves with their own ideas and beliefs. How is it that they have the right to decide what your children learn in school over what you decide? I simply cannot fathom that/

And yes the evolution example is extreme in Alberta because it would be so incredibly rare for any significant amount of parents to go to that measure. This isnt the deep south crazy baptist brigade we are talking about here. Granted there are a small amount of nutbars where ever you go, but you cant legislate against silly belief systems.

As for sex-ed, again entirely up to parents to decide how and, more importantly, when their children are ready for it.

It's not just about sex-ed. The actual specific issue that is actually more applicable to Alberta and this election is that homeschoolers and 'faith-based schools' want to continue teaching their kids as part of their religion curriculum that homosexuality is a sin.

In response LSN was told that faith-based schools and homeschooling families would not be able to teach that homosexual behavior is a sin in their programs. But after getting flooded with complaints over the remarks, the government is now hastening to assure parents that they can indeed teach their beliefs.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alb...=Google+Reader

Homeschoolers, including HSLDA and the Alberta Home Education Association (AHEA), are alarmed over section 16 of the bill, which requires schools, including homeschoolers, to “honour and respect” the controversial Alberta Human Rights Act that has been used to target Christians and conservatives

[Azure]

Even as much as I have a problem with certain things parents can teach their kids, I still don't agree with giving the government the power to tell the parents what they can and cannot teach.

Where does it stop?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by transplant99

As for sex-ed, again entirely up to parents to decide how and, more importantly, when their children are ready for it.

And how many parents will actually sit down and have this talk with their kids? I would bet that the majority of them wouldn't because of how socially awkward it is and at the same time by the time that people actually do sit down and have the talk with their kids they are undoing years of desensitization via television, the internet, magazines and their peers. I would rather have a basic understanding of the risks, ramifications and safety measures associated with sexual intercourse in a regular school curriculum than run the risk of someone merely plugging their ears because little Suzy is too young to hear about it - because the fact of the matter is that little Suzy should get this information from a reputable fact based source rather than off of some sleezy (god love them) porn site.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

And how many parents will actually sit down and have this talk with their kids? I would bet that the majority of them wouldn't because of how socially awkward it is and at the same time by the time that people actually do sit down and have the talk with their kids they are undoing years of desensitization via television, the internet, magazines and their peers. I would rather have a basic understanding of the risks, ramifications and safety measures associated with sexual intercourse in a regular school curriculum than run the risk of someone merely plugging their ears because little Suzy is too young to hear about it - because the fact of the matter is that little Suzy should get this information from a reputable fact based source rather than off of some sleezy (god love them) porn site.

I'm pretty sure most of us are in agreement with you here. I would also recommend that most kids get taught sex-ed in school because of the educational benefit. And I have a big problem with parents who pull their kids from classes like that.

But, I don't think I could ever agree with the government deciding what parents should teach at home.

We can hope they teach sex-ed, but we can't force them too.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Azure

Even as much as I have a problem with certain things parents can teach their kids, I still don't agree with giving the government the power to tell the parents what they can and cannot teach.

Where does it stop?

It is a difficult line to draw but I do think that the government needs to step in at a certain point if violence and hatred are being instilled in the minds of the young and vulnerable. Similar to if some racists were to polute their children's minds with praising Hitler and Nazism, I do think that the government has a responsibility to those children to intervene.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The government is nothing more than a bunch of people themselves with their own ideas and beliefs. How is it that they have the right to decide what your children learn in school over what you decide? I simply cannot fathom that.

That's why it's important to not elect theocrats. But say the majority wanted to teach creationism and that was the curriculum. I think I'd want my (hypothetical) kid to know about it, so I can explain why it's wrong and evolution is actually what happened. Censorship would only make it more likely that my kid would learn about creationism and I wouldn't get the opportunity to present counter arguments, or that my kid will lack an understanding of the world around him and get blindsided by it at some point.

Full disclosure: I support limiting free speech where it comes to hate speech, but to the best of my knowledge that isn't in Alberta curriculum. (Edit: okay, apparently this is kind of an election issue though.)

Originally Posted by transplant99

And yes the evolution example is extreme in Alberta because it would be so incredibly rare for any significant amount of parents to go to that measure. This isnt the deep south crazy baptist brigade we are talking about here. Granted there are a small amount of nutbars where ever you go, but you cant legislate against silly belief systems.

As far as I'm concerned, one is significant. And no, can't legislate against silly beliefs, but you can legislate against taking away people's rights because of other people's silly beliefs. Which is what I support.

Originally Posted by transplant99

As for sex-ed, again entirely up to parents to decide how and, more importantly, when their children are ready for it.

So... is "never" an acceptable determination? What about "once the kid is pregnant or has an STD"?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

In doing so, you condone a system where children of (typically) religious parents get an inferior education compared to the general public. You are sanctioning a "right to keep your children ignorant", and placing a higher value on that than on the quality of the child's education.

Just because a child lacks knowledge in one particular area it hardly makes them ignorant or indicate they have had an inferior education.

I find this highly objectionable. A person, and a society do not develop by censoring ideas. Some ideas have more merit than others, but the ideas that don't have merit should be evaluated as such, rather than censored. Don't believe in evolution? Great, defend your position. Don't plug your kid's ears and go "LA LA LA LA".

People bar their kids from learning stuff all the time (sometimes intentionally, other times unintentionally). But you know what, they grow up and if something interests them they will find a way to learn about it.

People have equality. Rights do not. Religious rights have to take a backseat to other, more important rights.

You have got to be kidding. I don't have a religious bone in my body, yet I find it offensive that people think this way.
This has got to be the most asinine thing you have said yet. And people wonder way religions feel shunned and censored.

Have you read the charter of rights?

Otherwise I can go around shooting people, as long as it's because God told me to.

We have laws against murder.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Just because a child lacks knowledge in one particular area it hardly makes them ignorant or indicate they have had an inferior education.

Lacking knowledge is the definition of ignorant (as it pertains to a specific topic, or just generally). And yes, my education would have been inferior had I not learned about evolution in biology.

Originally Posted by First Lady

People bar their kids from learning stuff all the time (sometimes intentionally, other times unintentionally). But you know what, they grow up and if something interests them they will find a way to learn about it.

Sure. And what about the harm that gets done in between?

Originally Posted by First Lady

You have got to be kidding. I don't have a religious bone in my body, yet I find it offensive that people think this way.
This has got to be the most asinine thing you have said yet. And people wonder way religions feel shunned and censored.

Have you read the charter of rights?

Yes I have.

Originally Posted by First Lady

We have laws against murder.

Yet some religions (whether real, or just theoretically possible) sanction murder. Clearly your right to life is more important that any religious creed that might infringe upon it. Which apparently, is the most assinine thing I've said. You can't have it both ways. Either religious rights are absolute (and therefore, your right to life isn't), or they are lower down the totem pole (which you just called assinine and offensive).

[Azure]

I'm honestly not sure how going overboard in the points you want to make will help you at all SebC.

Its not as black as white as you're making it out to be.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm honestly not sure how going overboard in the points you want to make will help you at all SebC.

Its not as black as white as you're making it out to be.

That religious rights cannot be "uninfringable" is 100% black and white. Otherwise, you have no other rights. To not understand this is a failure of logic.

Assuming that's what you're talking about.

[Hatter]

First Lady,

What do you know about Cypress-Medicine Hat candidate Drew Barnes? Ever met or spoke to him? I'd like to get to know more about this guy and what sort of man he is before I cast my vote. The bio on wildrose.ca is pretty short.

Also, does Danielle Smith have any plans on visiting the area during the campaign?

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by SebC

Lacking knowledge is the definition of ignorant (as it pertains to a specific topic, or just generally). And yes, my education would have been inferior had I not learned about evolution in biology.

Sure. And what about the harm that gets done in between?

Yes I have.

Yet some religions (whether real, or just theoretically possible) sanction murder. Clearly your right to life is more important that any religious creed that might infringe upon it. Which apparently, is the most assinine thing I've said. You can't have it both ways. Either religious rights are absolute (and therefore, your right to life isn't), or they are lower down the totem pole (which you just called assinine and offensive).

Your rights end where they infringe on my rights, and vice versa. That is the difference between something obviously ridiculous (religion sanctioning murder) and something which we actually should respect (people's beliefs). If you can't see that, then you're being willfully ignorant. My right to believe that gays are sinners is absolute...you can't force me to change my opinions no matter how much you may dislike them. My right to harm you in light of that belief is not. The "hate speech" laws we deal with are already infringing pretty far into the "freedom of expression" arena, but it could be argued that such speech is powerful enough to incite *actual* harm.

And really, all of this is quite ridiculous. The whole idea of "rights" is a product of a civilization that has invented the concept. As such, ALL rights are subject to the whims of the majority (and therefore changeable). We long ago lost the ability (most of us) and will to defend ourselves against infringement of our own rights...including the ability to defend our own lives. Now, we just go about our business and expect 'society' -- including government -- to defend our rights ... or at least those rights that some old farts decided to write down 30 years ago.

What an aimless rant!

[Slava]

Finally some of the plans for where the Wildrose Alliance would cut are surfacing. We've all heard about the planned carbon capture halt and its alleged $2B in savings (despite $800M being spent already and who knows how many other associated costs. Now some other areas are slowly leaking out:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Stapl...542/story.html

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

So cutting money from public transit funding? I think that the Wildrose Party is intent on pushing Alberta back into the Klein years which have shown to result in the province having to play catchup with pretty much all infrastructure.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

So cutting money from public transit funding? I think that the Wildrose Party is intent on pushing Alberta back into the Klein years which have shown to result in the province having to play catchup with pretty much all infrastructure.

Then add to that the budget idea of inflation plus five percent. We might never catch up on the infrastructure deficit.