Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 08-24-2019, 11:00 AM   #4921
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Was this whole argument some attempt at justifying Scheer’s homophobia?
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 11:17 AM   #4922
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Sigh.

No.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 08-24-2019, 02:51 PM   #4923
powderjunkie
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
It's more that I think a long-winded post about my various moral influences and underpinnings is really only of interest to me, and I just don't like the smell of my own farts that much.
Not that anybody cares, but most of my posts are mostly a navel-gazing exercise where I try to consider why I believe what I believe. For instance, I am utterly perplexed by how strongly I am considering voting for Scheer. You might try it sometime. I'll raise my hand as being interested in hearing why you believe what you believe (FWIW I often agree with you)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
I can't even comprehend CHL's argument. It's pretty simple.
Scheer doesn't personally believe gays have the same rights to marriage as straight people. Many of us think that is morally wrong, and can't support a man who doesn't believe in equality for marriage. It isn't any more complicated than that.
I'm not sure I want to go too far down this road because I haven't fully researched or considered it, but what exactly are 'marriage rights'? The word marriage didn't come up in a search of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...of course it could fall under: Section 15: equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
. Does formal recognition/validation by the state really make a difference in one's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness (please forgive my US-centric summation of the CCRF)?

FTR, I don't think same-sex marriage should differ in any way. I'm just not sure exactly how the sky would actually fall on the LGBTQ community in the unlikely event that Scheer wins a majority and commits poli-suicide by trying to limit SSM and it somehow gets through the SCC and the senate so an official document in Ottawa has different words on it for a few years until he gets voted out in a landslide...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
What moral justification do you need that denying rights for one group is wrong, while allowing them for another is not? If you can't figure that out, I don't even know what to say. Are you trolling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
I guess it just seems pretty obvious to me that all people should be treated equally. If that isn't obvious to someone else I'd love to hear why.
Why does there seem to be so much hesitancy to apply this logic to groups other than over-zealous Christians? There are plenty of other examples in society where individuals are deprived of 'equal rights' (ie. the orthodox versions of pretty much any religion). Sadly, the social mobility of oppressed individuals seeking escape from these groups seems far more difficult. Why do we all care so much more about the state's validation of a relationship between two adults (who are otherwise by and large free to participate in society) than the thousands of women who can't expose an ankle or even leave their home without their husband's permission?

That is, if equal rights are as important as we all like to say they are...


Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
... If Pepsifree and EVman are actually interested in why their view of what morality is doesn't make any sense, I'll commend this piece to them by Louis Pojman. I'm not going to teach an intro philosophy course (partly because I don't want to and partly because an undergraduate degree doesn't qualify me to do so), but this is a pretty accessible piece.

https://www.homeworkmarket.com/sites.../20/04/1_0.pdf
What's the title of the article? The link is weird and/or my computer is acting strange.

Also, thank you for your posts. It's a shame so many posters seem to be disagreeing in such a lazy manner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Listen guys, we were looking for at least a 1000 word count for you to qualify, so if you can't even be bothered then just beat it.
Lame. Weak. Lazy. Keep sticking with your gut feelings, though.
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 03:47 PM   #4924
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
Lame. Weak. Lazy. Keep sticking with your gut feelings, though.
Do some people need a reminder that there are no style points for arguing in the internet? That nobody is grading your paper?

Have in depth, drawn out back-and-forths if you want. But crank back the condescending farts when someone doesn’t engage on the same level.

Oh no, someone is being “lazy” in a meaningless internet debate. Call the police.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 04:46 PM   #4925
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Isn’t it more than mere government validation of two adults relationship? I think most people are talking about equal benefits that weren’t there before - adoption, parental leave, tax allowances, etc.
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 04:50 PM   #4926
powderjunkie
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Do some people need a reminder that there are no style points for arguing in the internet? That nobody is grading your paper?

Have in depth, drawn out back-and-forths if you want. But crank back the condescending farts when someone doesn’t engage on the same level.

Oh no, someone is being “lazy” in a meaningless internet debate. Call the police.
C+. You only earned the + by dropping a condescension bomb on top of my condescending fart. Ironic. Or is it? What do you think this time, Mr. Merriam?

Did you miss the first part of my post where I clearly laid out the many reasons why I thought this was such a high-stakes, meaningful internet debate?
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Old 08-24-2019, 05:38 PM   #4927
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
C+. You only earned the + by dropping a condescension bomb on top of my condescending fart. Ironic. Or is it? What do you think this time, Mr. Merriam?

Did you miss the first part of my post where I clearly laid out the many reasons why I thought this was such a high-stakes, meaningful internet debate?
Also not ironic. And Webster was the word guy, not the Merriam bros
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 06:15 PM   #4928
Ozy_Flame

Posted the 6 millionth post!
 
Ozy_Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
C+. You only earned the + by dropping a condescension bomb on top of my condescending fart. Ironic. Or is it? What do you think this time, Mr. Merriam?

Did you miss the first part of my post where I clearly laid out the many reasons why I thought this was such a high-stakes, meaningful internet debate?
Man you need to get laid or something, it's Saturday, chill out my dude
Ozy_Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Old 08-25-2019, 10:45 AM   #4929
evman150
#1 Goaltender
 
evman150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Richmond, BC
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
You don't have to get a degree. Just incorporate a little humility and self-doubt into your moral pronouncements. Everyone could stand to be less certain that what seems "right and just" to them has any weight to it.
You speak from the perspective of one school of thought on this matter as if it is the only voice, while rudely and uncharitably dismissing dissenting views. This is wrong, and incredibly "sophomoric," as you might say.

A little "humility and self-doubt" would serve you well.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan
Freedom consonant with responsibility.

evman150 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to evman150 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-25-2019, 11:27 AM   #4930
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

If you were a deontologist, or something, you might have a case. It doesn't qualify as "another school of thought" if it doesn't make any sense and isn't informed. I'd be equally dismissive of the "dissenting views" of anti-vaxxers.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno

Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 08-25-2019 at 11:31 AM.
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 03:58 PM   #4931
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
Not that anybody cares, but most of my posts are mostly a navel-gazing exercise where I try to consider why I believe what I believe. For instance, I am utterly perplexed by how strongly I am considering voting for Scheer. You might try it sometime. I'll raise my hand as being interested in hearing why you believe what you believe (FWIW I often agree with you)...

I'm not sure I want to go too far down this road because I haven't fully researched or considered it, but what exactly are 'marriage rights'? The word marriage didn't come up in a search of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...of course it could fall under: Section 15: equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
. Does formal recognition/validation by the state really make a difference in one's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness (please forgive my US-centric summation of the CCRF)?

FTR, I don't think same-sex marriage should differ in any way. I'm just not sure exactly how the sky would actually fall on the LGBTQ community in the unlikely event that Scheer wins a majority and commits poli-suicide by trying to limit SSM and it somehow gets through the SCC and the senate so an official document in Ottawa has different words on it for a few years until he gets voted out in a landslide...

Why does there seem to be so much hesitancy to apply this logic to groups other than over-zealous Christians? There are plenty of other examples in society where individuals are deprived of 'equal rights' (ie. the orthodox versions of pretty much any religion). Sadly, the social mobility of oppressed individuals seeking escape from these groups seems far more difficult. Why do we all care so much more about the state's validation of a relationship between two adults (who are otherwise by and large free to participate in society) than the thousands of women who can't expose an ankle or even leave their home without their husband's permission?

That is, if equal rights are as important as we all like to say they are..

Snip.
I can have those discussions too, but currently as far as I am aware only one party leader holds anti-equality views, and he is Christian. If a leader believed in those things you mention, then absolutely they would be up for discussion.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 12:46 PM   #4932
calculoso
Franchise Player
 
calculoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ontario
Exp:
Default

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/amp/entr...0b59d25779537/

Quote:
A release from the party says “Choose Forward” is the official campaign theme that will be stamped on a series of national ads featuring Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

....

The ad concludes with the prime minister facing the camera and saying that “in October we’ve got a choice to make — keep moving forward and build on the progress we’ve made, or go back to the politics of the Harper years. I’m for moving forward for everyone.”
Choose forward, indeed
calculoso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 12:50 PM   #4933
Iggy City
#1 Goaltender
 
Iggy City's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Exp:
Default

Could I instead fast forward to the next Federal election and hope for some better candidates?
Iggy City is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Iggy City For This Useful Post:
Old 08-26-2019, 12:50 PM   #4934
FireFly
Franchise Player
 
FireFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen View Post
If the Prime Minister can be an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage nutcase, provincial leaders will also realize they can get away with it, it's trickle-down politics in that regard.

We already had this in Harper, no? I'm fairly certain that policies progressed regardless.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420 View Post
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23 View Post
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
FireFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 12:53 PM   #4935
GordonBlue
First Line Centre
 
GordonBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calculoso View Post
think he'll keep bringing up harper as much during his second term? frack Liberals. get over harper already.
GordonBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 01:09 PM   #4936
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly View Post
We already had this in Harper, no? I'm fairly certain that policies progressed regardless.
This is also exactly the argument that everyone was having in 2006 before the CPC won that election.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 08-26-2019, 01:09 PM   #4937
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Hopefully someone doesn't say it too fast because then it sounds like Choose Ford
__________________
A good death is its own reward
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 08-26-2019, 01:15 PM   #4938
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Anyone with a brain knows that the CPC will never roll back the Canadian consensus on LGTBQ and women's rights.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...andrew-scheer/
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-26-2019, 01:16 PM   #4939
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Questions around the possibility of McKenna backing off of her claim of not raising the Carbon Tax to $50.00/tonne


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mcke...source=twitter


Its going to be a weird election now around Environmental Plans. The Liberal's will slam the Conservatives Plan. Probably the Cons, Greens and NDP will waive the report by the Climate Action Network slamming the current Canadian Climate Plan as one of the poorest of the G-7 nations.
__________________
A good death is its own reward
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 01:19 PM   #4940
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
Anyone with a brain knows that the CPC will never roll back the Canadian consensus on LGTBQ and women's rights.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...andrew-scheer/

A roll back would be rightfully destroyed by the Supreme Court. And Scheer rolling it back would guarantee that he would be destroyed in the next election and his own policies would be rolled back.
__________________
A good death is its own reward
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:00 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016