The Shotgun Blog
« Words of wisdom | Main | How Canada’s Liberals Have Run Out of Ideas »
Monday, January 15, 2007
The setting Sun
The Rev. Michael Ingham, the liberal Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster, must have thought he had died and gone to heaven (if he believes in heaven, that is) when he picked up this morning's Vancouver Sun and saw that a recent letter he sent to B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell had scored front-page, above the fold treatment. Ingham, whose pronouncements in favour of same-sex marriage are usually the only newsworthy topic emanating from his office, hit the news-hole bullseye with a missive to the premier, hectoring him about his failure to set binding goals for greenhouse gas reduction.
Now, Ingham is no global-warming authority, of course, but the Sun's editors obviously concluded that his moral heft was so considerable that his scolding of Mr. Campbell warranted "war declared" treatment. This makes a perverted sort of sense, of course, if you appreciate the fact that the fight-global-warming movement (of which the Sun is apparently a member) is a moral, quasi-religious movement above all else.
The lack of scientific rigour that global-warming fanatics, including the Sun, bring to the subject was also evident in a second front-page story in today's paper. This one headlined, "Climate change linked to increased disease, food-poisoning." The story quotes an infectious disease expert as saying that, "Over the longer period, if a milder climate is sustained in Canada, then there is a possibility that [new] diseases could be introduced and established [emphasis added]."
Problem #1 with this story: The expert's use of two (count 'em, two) qualifiers, is a pretty tenuous "link."
Problem #2: The story utterly fails to look at any possible benefits associated with global warming, benefits that might balance deleterious effects. What sort of benefits? Well, for starters, if Canada does, indeed, warm by a few degrees, our growing season will be longer, and we'll be able to produce more food for ourselves and the world. And surely increased food production is associated with positive health outcomes.
One final observation: Strangely, confusingly and paradoxically, the Sun's two global-warming stories surround a single front-page photo showing two boys playing shinny on a frozen farmer's field in suburban Vancouver -- an unusual sight in B.C.'s usually balmy Lower Mainland, and one that one wouldn't think would be associated with hysterical stories about the earth's warming.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 15, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8350cfbb869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The setting Sun:
Comments
So, let me get this straight. The church has no place in politics when the debate is about same-sex marriage, but its fine when the debate is about global warming? A little bit of consistency from the lefties would be nice.
Posted by: Natedawg | 2007-01-15 1:33:55 PM
The BC Anglican diocese is a joke and should merge with its ‘Christ was a socialist' brother in Venezuela.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-15 1:34:43 PM
next they'll blame AIDS and obesity on global warming.
Posted by: pixologic | 2007-01-15 1:56:41 PM
"A little bit of consistency from the lefties would be nice."
Your kidding right? Hypocrisy is their middle name.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-01-15 2:17:47 PM
Good Point Natedawg.
Religions dosent hold no place in politics.
The Libs using church followers would be like a cheval de Troie in Alberta. Without the Religious vote, the CPC aint noting. The CPCers are now tasting some of dem bad medecine on dirait...
I know I'm on the Shotgun but religion dosent belong in politics. I have much respect for my catholic origins/background and from what Canada was built on; but frankly, it never interfer whith my views on the world. We sure know whats happening when you mix them...
Aint we ?
Dont answer guys.
By the way, I dunno if it's interesting for you but there's a major inquire right now in Quebec looking to establish if Les Québecois form a racist Nation...
http://lcn.canoe.com/lcn/infos/national/archives/2007/01/20070115-130256.html
Sorry, french Only. But if you're nice enough, maybe I'll translate it for you...
Seriously, the media research will continue all week.
Stay tuned.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-01-15 2:50:58 PM
Marc:
And, on the issue of gay marriage, politics does not belong in the religious realm.
Marriage was a established religious practise before states were even formed.
The state has no place in the bedrooms of our nations, within a united Canada.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-15 3:04:14 PM
Marc:
And, on the issue of gay marriage, politics does not belong in the religious realm.
Marriage was a established religious practise before states were even formed.
The state has no place in the bedrooms of our nations, within a united Canada.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-15 3:05:13 PM
Set, there's nothing taking place in your bedroom anyways...
;-)
Posted by: Marc | 2007-01-15 3:16:25 PM
That's cause I'm too busy doing your mom.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-15 3:19:03 PM
But I have two papas...
Posted by: Marc | 2007-01-15 3:24:22 PM
Not as if that would be of any importance, but "marriage" had been established much before Christianity came into being.
Marriage today is a societal/legal construct, not a religious one. Theoretically, the state should not mix into religious isses at all; that means, the state should not dictate, whom the religious institutions marry or not marry. However, this would work only if the religious marriage did not have any legal meaning (as this should be the case). As long as a religious marriage will be recognized by the state (which is a long obsolate practice), the state has to ensure, that the consistency of the marriages as legal constructs is not violated.
This, of course, does not mean that the state should require religious institutions to marry someone; it is and should be used only as exclusion in certain cases (for example the state does not recognize a religious marriage in a polygamous context).
I don't think there is any danger, that the RCC or whichever Church will be *required* to perform same sex marriages. It's their business and their peril. Good for them.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-15 3:28:43 PM
Michael Ingham can marry the two guys in the photo in the following link.
Apparently, these two men (one a leader of a nation of terrorists) kissed eachother, and the one guy's wife decided he had had enough of her husband's homosexuality, and she decided to leave him.
Take a look. You will not be dissapointed!
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/10345.htm
Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-15 3:30:26 PM
Ta-bar-nack !
...and I tought us, Quebecers, were dirty and open mind...
Congradulation Lady. I dont know what to say about that.
Truly speaking, I'm a bit shocked right now.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-01-15 3:39:22 PM
Cato:
You figure?
Christianity came into being just less than 2000 years ago.
Before that, I seem to recall Old Testament versions of weddings.
‘Go ye forth and multiply' is just a recognition of a natural fact, that children are NATURALLY created through the union of a man and a woman.
Marriage says the man damned well better be looking after the child he had a part of creating.
That's more of a responsibility issue. Even though it's important that natural parents of a child create a loving atmosphere, the prime function of marriage for thousands of years has been to ensure a child has a strong enough foundation to withstand life's storms as an adult.
I suppose you could build a house without a foundation, but at the first sign of trouble, the house would fall over. Same as with a child.
Without a strong foundation, the child will fall for any of the modern-day baloney about the prominence of the state on moral issues.
Throughout history, the state cared little about the welfare of its citizens ... as many examples of its misguided ideas of compassion inevitably fail ... as they did in the Soviet Union and other marxist states.
The state certainly can register marriages, but it has absolutely NO business defining them.
The Anglican Church, the United Church, Hugo Chavez are one and the same ... they're just busybody politicians who have cleary demonstrated their prime motivation is weilding power over other human beings.
Those are not religions. They are political movements which cloak themselves with the legitimacy of modern thinking while rejecting ancient wisdoms.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-15 3:42:46 PM
Marc,
Don't bother. I would rather give you my translation. Chances are, it would surpass yours any day of the year.
"Inquiry into the tolerance.
A result which does not surprise the Inhabitants of Quebec, The survey Leger Marketing carried out for the account of VAT, the Newspaper of Montreal and 98.5 FM, on racism in Quebec, made a reaction considerable number of people this morning. According to this investigation, 59% of the questioned people said they are "strongly, fairly or slightly racists".
This result does not really surprise the people met by our deferring Denis Therriault. In a general way, people suspected that the Inhabitants of Quebec were racist, but not in a proportion of almost 60%. "Yes I agree with that.
Perhaps that I form part from these 59%... I was not racist up front, but, quietly, I start to have a small tendency. I do not like that, known as an interviewed man. There are certain nationalities, without naming any ethnic group, which are essential a little bit too much... ", continues....
The recent conflicts in the world - in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Lebanon - seem to have influenced the perception of the Inhabitants of Quebec. All questions of our survey "With all that one lately hears in the media, since a few years, concerning the Arabs particularly, the Jews, the war which occurs to Afghanistan... I think that it is a little normal ", explains another questioned man.
For another Inhabitant of Quebec living in Vancouver for the past dozen years, the result of the survey carried out here contrast with what it saw every day. "One saw, in Vancouver, with so much of nationalities which come from Asia... One lives in international community then one can be racist, but it is necessary to pass over that because if not one cannot live... ", indicates it.
End of translation.
So, Marc, are you surprised?
Actually, the truth is, Quebecers have been racist since the inception of Quebec. Their opinions, on observation of what the media presents to them, has fomented their latent (jack latent) racist tendancies. The concepts of "Arab" or "Jew" gives them an opening whereby they can permit their tendancies to be articulated.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-15 3:47:51 PM
"The state certainly can register marriages, but it has absolutely NO business defining them"
I'm happy to tell you, that I don't live in a theocracy; accordingly, I don't give a fig for the definitions by religious institutions. Do YOU live in a theocracy?
To the rest: I guess you are chastizing your congregation, because in average half of them have divorced or will be divorcing. Furthermore, I am sure that you oppose marriage betwen elder people or other couples, who can't have children.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-15 4:01:19 PM
What is VAT ?
Lady, I'm glad those inquiries are taking place. The vast majority of Quebecers are glad too. I think you have missed the point that 50% of those ethnic respondents are also racists; based on the same survey.
Those surveys are made to light up our politicians on our views about the "Reasonable compromises" and to put an end to it.
The "Jews" the common Québécois are referring to are from the Hasidim community; who tries to impose to us some restrictions...
They don’t talk to anybody and they don’t get involved inna social Mtl...
I believe its lack of understanding from the two parties.
Anyways, I'm not sure about the "arab" “concept” of yours but lemme tell you: You're certainly not the one who's gonna give one a lesson…..:
Cato,
As a self proclaimed "undeterred defender of FACTS" then you must also agree with me that the Palestinian terrorists are a bunch of deranged ignorant sons of monkeys and pigs.
Posted by: Lady | 12-Jan-07 12:15:48 PM
________________________________
Anyways, let’s wait until they answered why they had chosen this province and not another.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-01-15 4:19:07 PM
Marc,
Hasidim are gentle people. They compare to some of the pacifist Christians. I don't know why anyone would want to take issue with them as a group. And, they, like anyone else in Canada, are permitted to have their own opinions. They are diverse within their poopulations. If you knew any Hasidim, and what that word actually means, you might hold a different opinion.
And, we all learn lesons. When we stop, then we are in big trouble.
I am surprised you did not pick up on the issue, that many French speaking canadians are not racist.
What would be interesting is to know, from good research and not just simpleton polling, what populations the non-racist people come from.
Racism, like terrorism, is ugly.
Take care,
Lady.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-15 4:38:00 PM
Cato:
"To the rest: I guess you are chastizing your congregation, because in average half of them have divorced or will be divorcing. "
I consider this comment of yours fair play. The actual root of the problem of the family in society that we are dealing with did indeed first surface with the very issue you mention. However, the root itself is something different that I will not pursue in this post. The breakup of the idea of marriage "till death do us part" was the thin edge of the wedge. Government is not the solution to this as this is a problem within the human heart.
Now to the point you raise. In what is generally called "Christianity", your numbers are not inaccurate as the general society at large has had more impact upon this version of "Christianity" than other generations have had in the past and therefore, the numbers within the larger society are reflected within "Christianity".
I belong to one of the more conservative branches within the larger branch of "Sola Scriptura" and we refer to ourselves as Historical Fundamentalists. We have a very low divorce rate; between 2-10% (depending upon the assembly) and these are almost all due to the divorce taking place before at least one was converted to the Christian faith. When one factors those out, my estimate is that it would be less than 2% of our members and adherents who are divorcees. Please keep in mind we are atypical.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-15 4:40:36 PM
Mr. Ingham presides over a diocese where several churches (including one of the most highly educated around - these are no rednecks) have chosen the supervision of a Nigerian Bishop. This is a man whose leadership has managed to drive stodgy, risk-adverse Anglicans (ANGLICANS, for Pete's sake!) to radical action.
With a story like that on his resume, you'd think he has enough on his plate. Actually, with a story like that on his resume, you'd wonder why he is a credible source on any subject.
Posted by: pete e | 2007-01-15 4:49:11 PM
There must be an error concerning the bishop's affiliation. He clearly is a bishop in the Church of Liberalism as per A. Coulter's definition. They worship at a different alter and following a different bible - one that changes according to whim.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-01-15 5:05:11 PM
Re the Historical Fundamentalists:
it is very commendable, if people not only talk but live according to their principles. I admire (though I don't envy) such principled, strong communities.
My being not religious does not mean the least, that I would want to interfere in any way with the life of those, whose leading principles are different from mines. I only wish that this attitude were generally accepted and reciprocated.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-15 5:11:16 PM
'The Canadian Kyoto Foundation' - a privately run implementation of Kyoto by Canadians, it's our #1 issue apparently - so a bright young entrepeneur should go and implement Kyoto privately, why not?
Shrinking our economy by 30% isn't going to work, so the only other option is to buy carbon credits - NDP/Liberals/Bloc want to force massive increases on taxpayers to buy these credits, and they say they have a lot of support for this - those supporters don't have to wait, they could pool their cash and buy credits right now!
And an entrepeneur could pay themselves quite handsomely for 'saving the planet'.
Posted by: Philanthropist | 2007-01-15 10:58:33 PM
Cato:
When you say you admire people who live according to their principles ... are you suggesting people set their own standards of morality?
A moral code is kinda like a language. The more people that understand its basic rules, the better they can communicate.
So, it comes down to a choice.
1) Set your own rules and expect everybody else to understand them.
2) Understand the rules as agreed upon by many people, then a common understanding is possible.
A moral code is something by which an individual can feel comfortable with interacting with other human beings because it is something voluntarily undertaken. And, it is a culumination of how things works over many thousands of years.
It's regulated by an inner moral compass, an inherent ability to know the difference between right and wrong which is naturally present in all of us.
A state, or political solution, always is an imposition of somebody's opinion onto another and is neccessarily a change or ‘progression' that may or may not be an improvement.
But then, it's possible I may have misinterpreted your intent.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-16 12:01:42 AM
This Country was built on Judeo-Christian Principles. Much of that is evident in our Laws, thus we have so much controversy over things like Same-Sex Marriage still out there.
There are still strong feelings on many social issues but when governments , like the past Liberal government pander for votes , values go out the window for power.
The hierarchy in the Anglican and United Churches are now abandoning their Tenets in favor of embracing all manner of social degradation, including diminishing the family unit to enable any number of scenarios to raise children, even how they acquire the children in the first place.
Ethics has gone from the scene along with morals, things we always felt resulted from association with our Christian religions.
All this is going on and the doughheads are wondering why their followers are leaving in droves.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-16 9:04:29 AM
LIz:
It's the very fact their followers are leaving in droves that they try to reverse the trend by trying to attract a more ‘with-it' congregation.
The have succeeded in creating a new religion (within a much larger ecumenical movement), which bears no resemblance to the original tenets as articulated by Christ himself.
Those, like my late father-in-law, were horrified as the Anglican understanding he grew up with in southern Saskatchewan bore no resemblance to the gay lobby led diocese he ended up with in south-east B.C.
Through the fundamental flaw of blind obedience that had been instilled into him as a child, he was unable to counteract the hijacking of a church he held dear to his heart.
He did much work for them and in his later years was ordained a deacon by the sodomizers. Poor, naive man. May he rest in peace.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-16 9:22:08 AM
Liz:
This about sums it up:
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1).
Make no mistake, the destruction of those false teachings will become swifter and swifter.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-16 9:26:09 AM
"are you suggesting people set their own standards of morality?"
Of course we are. Some of us do this explicitely, others do it implicitely, by believing in this or that religion or adhering to some philosophy, anyway by accepting a set of given standards made up by others.
"A moral code is kinda like a language. The more people that understand its basic rules, the better they can communicate."
From here it is convoluted. Are you looking for an understanding of "morality"?
"Understand the rules as agreed upon by many people" and "It's regulated by an inner moral compass" are the *exact opposites*.
"an inherent ability to know the difference between right and wrong which is naturally present in all of us"
Inherent? Naturally present? That's ridiculous, to say the least. Do you think "right" and "wrong" are absolutes?
"A state, or political solution, always is an imposition of somebody's opinion onto another"
What about a religion? Religions, at least the mainstream ones are imposing their moral codes onto their followers (*and trying to impose those on others as well*).
Is *your* morality inherent to you, or have you been told what it should be, for example by religious brainwashing?
Independently of the above, I don't understand, how you came to this subject. I mentioned "leading principles", which is not the same as "morality".
Apart from being off-topic on this thread, this forum (Western Standard) is not very suitable for discussions (I mean it technically).
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-16 9:28:21 AM
Cato:
I feel sorry that you feel religion has somehow imposed itself upon you.
To me, it's a way to freedom, a way to escape the snares, traps and prisons of others who would control my life through political action.
I just take it as an accumulation of thousands of years of human wisdom and learn what others have observed about human nature before I was even born.
I have a grandfather. His grandfather must have had grandparents and so on back thousands of year. I assume they all had some semblance of intellectual capacity.
I'm curious as to how you cannot see how a thread whose first sentence mentions a false teacher's opinions would not be related to religion.
Nobody imposed my religion upon me. I came to that point out of a natural curiosity.
If you feel it's about control, there's only one question you need to answer: Which of the Ten Commandments do you feel opresses you and do you feel controlled by?
Until you answer that question in your own mind, you will not be capable of escaping the snare you yourself have agreed to be imprisoned by.
How does my purusit of trying to understand human nature threaten your freedom?
And yes, gay marriage is an unnatural abberation which does not reflect nature's reality.
King Canute could not change the flow of the tides through legislation. Mr. Ingram cannot redifine nature. It is beyond his power.
Pick-and-choose invented morality has never demonstrated any sort of effectiveness throughout human history and the false teacher Ingram will eventually be relegated to the scrapheap of history as a false teacher.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-16 9:50:56 AM
"Set you free",
Not only, that I don't want to impose my position on religiousity over others, but even more, I am not striving to prove religious people anything about their religiousity. I do understand, that religiousity means much for many people; in fact, many don't have anything else. If they find comfort, consolation, strength, etc. in the religion, good for them.
The *origin* of all religiousity is the fear of the inevitability of *absolute death*. Religions give a consolation (even "burning in hell forever" appears to be better than "not being any more, for ever"), and I would not want to take this away from anyone undeserved. (For example those, who are sacrifying themselves in the hope of rewards "on the other side of being" and take others with them deserve to be enlightened).
However, my benovalence ends immediately, when someone tries to impose his/her belief on others. For example I have no problem with you believing, that "gay marriage is an unnaturel aberration, which does not reflect nature's reality" (even though it is plain nonsese, as marriage is not a natural but a societal construct). However, I don't see any basis for you (or anyone else) on imposing this position on others, just like I don't see any basis for forcing Churches to perform same-sex marriages.
Anyway, not only that I don't find this forum suitable for a discussion on religion and religiousity, but I don't strive to convince others about the correctness or incorrectness of religiousity or the lack thereof.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-16 11:14:17 AM
Cato:
When I need to get my car fixed, I take it to a mechanic.
If I ever needed brain surgery (next week, I figure), it's not something I would like to try to fix myself.
I suppose I could try to figure out the meaning of life myself, but I defer to those who have actually addressed the issue for thousands of years. Better yet, a person who has actually studied those answers and would be able to answer my questions.
As you suggest, anybody is capable of creating their own reality.
“When I was 13, I believed my father was pretty stupid. By the time I was 20, I was amazed at how much he had learned in seven years.''
– Mark Twain
Learn from those who came before you.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-16 11:28:07 AM
"When I need to get my car fixed, I take it to a mechanic"
So do I, AFTER having checked out, that I can't do it myself. Self-reliance is an important aspect for me.
In the realm of intellectual subjects I need and accept only scientific recognitions (with some cautiousness) and proven history (though that is a hairy issue).
"I suppose I could try to figure out the meaning of life myself, but I defer to those who have actually addressed the issue for thousands of years. Better yet, a person who has actually studied those answers and would be able to answer my questions"
Welcome in the Flat Earth Society. I guess you don't let disturbe yourself by different, even contradicting statements of those, who "studied the answers".
The very nature, in fact the ultimate goal of brainwashing is to forestall independent thinking by the subjects (I mean those, who otherwise would be able to think for themselves.)
This is called "belief" in religions and "ideology" in politics.
For example the vast majority of the posters on this forum save the tiresome effort of informing themselves and thinking about the results. In relation to the recurring subject of Middle East, they simply accept whatever the AJC or some other center of liars and fraudsters present them, thereby saving lots of effort and being surprized by the actual facts.
Relying on brainwashing is certainly a comfortable habit.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-16 1:22:17 PM
Cato: I think that you will find that the majority of posters here actually understand much more about world events than the average "Joe". For some who tend to think that the Joooooos are to blame for everything that happens in the middle east, like yourself, apparently, there can be no logical explanation.
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-01-16 2:06:43 PM
Who better than professionals to push this newest religion?
Believe ye in global warming or thy souls will be cast into a cloud of greenhouse gasses!
Garage thy SUV lest ye be forbidden to enter the promised land of Kyoto.
Just as with religion,I demand proof before I will belief.
Just as with religion,I am challenged by those I question...
"How dare you ask for proof,we have already told you it is the truth"
Followed by pointing fingers and taunts of 'NONBELIEVER!!!"
There are not many topics in the blogosphere I can claim to be more informed on than most everyone else...but this is definitely one of them.
As a Sales Professional for over 20 yrs,I think I can tell the difference between a slick sales presentation which massages all the facts to create a false impression favorable to the seller as opposed to a clear summation and balanced study of ALL pertinent facts....even those which do not support the sellers agenda.
Rev.Ingham is simply a salesman...that's his chosen profession.
Berating others for failing to meet the standards of HIS chosen religion/s is part of the job description.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-01-16 2:23:21 PM
Marc,
You do understand that the idiot in the photo was none other than a person of the cult naturai karta, a group that has been excommunicated, for actions against the free world and the State of Israel?
Shocking, yet true.
And as a personal preference, I would not be too excited about men and men, women and women, or men and women, sucking face as a public display of affection. But seeing a head-of-state (albeit terrorist nation) do that, makes me want to run to the ladies room, and vomit profusely.
On another note....
Yet now you have meantioned it, Ta-bar-nac, or however you have written it, comes from what particular tradition?
Let us leave it at that, shall we....
Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-16 2:41:24 PM
Cato,
You really are trying desperately to convince yourself that you are informed.
Well, I am convinced that you have been brainwashed by the extreme left.
And, do not equate your ability to display copious quantities of grammar or intellect with the state of being informed, because truth is, they are not one and the same.
In relation to brains, you have one.
In regards to a state of mind and the informational contents, there is in fact a village in need of it's rightful idiot.
Congratulations, you have ben selected as the number one candidate.
Would you like to proceed with the competition?
The choice is yours....
Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-16 2:48:11 PM
"But seeing a head-of-state (albeit terrorist nation) makes me want to run to the ladies room and vomit profusely"
I guess you prefer *terrorists as the head-of-state*, don't you? (Do you know any other state, which had FOUR terrorists as Prime Minister, that within 55 years?)
Btw, they were *hugging* themselves (not kissing, like the communist leaders of the former East Block states, particularly Brezhnev and Honecker... yuck).
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-16 3:41:31 PM
"you really are trying desperately to convince yourself that you are informed"
Lady, you are posting so much garbage here, that one more or less does not make any difference. Btw, are you a dropout of a kindergarten level psychology course?
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-16 3:44:12 PM
Cato,
"For example the vast majority of the posters on this forum save the tiresome effort of informing themselves and thinking about the results. In relation to the recurring subject of Middle East, they simply accept whatever the AJC or some other center of liars and fraudsters present them, thereby saving lots of effort and being surprized by the actual facts."
And just how does this OPINION fit in? Please provide statistics on our demographics showing the breakdown of the uninformed vs. informed. Thx in advance.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-16 5:12:01 PM
Cato,
Still trying to convince yourself that you are informed.
I knew you would stoop to attacking with the education card.
Like I said, intelligence does not mean one is equated with being informed.
You don't know me, and choose to attack with all you have, which is zip, nil, nada and a bag full of horse manure.
And by the way, you will never know me.
Take a look at my charicature and weep little thang!
http://www.electricferret.com/callisto/cal_jes3.jpg
Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-16 5:43:21 PM
"Please provide statistics on our demographics showing the breakdown of the uninformed vs. informed"
This is not possible for me, because I don't know, which nonsense comes from lack of knowledge and which from being hopelessly biased or who is outright lying.
However, I have yet to see any balanced and well-informed post re the ME complex in those few threads, which I am reading. What I see is pure hatred and racism towards Muslims/Arabs/brown people, incessantly complaining about the hatred and the anti-Semitism of Muslims/Arabs/brown people.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-16 7:33:57 PM
Cato,
"For example the vast majority of the posters on this forum save the tiresome effort of informing themselves and thinking about the results. "
And
"This is not possible for me, because I don't know, which nonsense comes from lack of knowledge and which from being hopelessly biased or who is outright lying."
So you just make accusations of our ignorance based on your own ignorance. Wonderful!
"However, I have yet to see any balanced and well-informed post re the ME complex in those few threads, which I am reading. "
So you admit to making statements out of ignorance and then you back it up by admitting to reading only "those few threads" thereby confirming your original ignorance.
" What I see is pure hatred and racism towards Muslims/Arabs/brown people, incessantly complaining about the hatred and the anti-Semitism of Muslims/Arabs/brown people."
What you see is what you want to see...prejudice from us...thereby confirming your own prejudice.
Congratulations!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-16 7:46:31 PM
h2o273kk9,
Too much nonsense in a single post repells my attention. You have huge deficiency in the reasoning department.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-16 8:07:41 PM
Cato,
So show me my posts where what you "see is pure hatred and racism towards Muslims/Arabs/brown people, incessantly complaining about the hatred and the anti-Semitism of Muslims/Arabs/brown people."
Also, show me the breakdown of this hatred by other posters.
Show me the breakdown of my reasoning.
Enlighten me. I await your tutelage.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-16 8:34:12 PM
"show me my posts where what you "see is pure hatred and racism towards Muslims/Arabs/brown people, incessantly complaining about the hatred and the anti-Semitism of Muslims/Arabs/brown people."
Where are your related posts? I was *explicitely* referring to the ME complex; I have not seen any related post of you.
"show me the breakdown of this hatred by other posters"
I presume you can be serious too at times. For that case I post a few excerpts (but these pages don't allow copy/paste, so it's quite tiresome):
- "The Islamist/Iranian administration is boastin about an attack against Israel that may include tactical nuclear weapons"
- "Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism is already part of their curriculum, has been for years"
- "it never ceases to amaze me how others can bend over backwards to justify the hatred of Israel. How often has it happened that you have talked to someone who would expel the evils of racism and the glory of multi-culture and in the very next breath justify the blinding hatred of the Jewish and Israel?"
- "People like Cato, deny the Jews are from the lands of Israel, and are entitled to their homeland, while ignoring the rights of Jews around the world"
- "Israel gained the West Bank after repelling an attack by Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the SIx-Day War of 1967"
- "I think Iran will be subject to attack which will put the survivors if any on Valium forever. There will not be many survivors however, but what difference does it make"
- "they want to terrorize and disrupt the Western Democracies"
- "actually, we know where Iraq's nuclear materials went - to Syria"
- "Iran attacking the West will literally cause the sky to fall" (oops, that was you)
I got tired of reading that much garbage for your sake.
"Show me the breakdown of my reasoning"
If I say that some of the nonsense may be due to lack of knowledge, not to belligerence or outright lie, then I am not ignorant but charitable.
The rest of your post had no meaning whatsoever.
Now it's enough (more than enough).
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-16 10:34:47 PM
Cato,
It doesn't work that way. You said and I quote again
"For example the vast majority of the posters on this forum ... "
You quote a few excerpts from some people and extrapolated that to "the vast majority". This is no different than someone pointing to a few suicide bombers and extrapolating to say "the vast majority of (fill in the blank) are violent.
Additionally, you admit to reading only a few threads and state that you "have yet to see any balanced and well-informed post re the ME complex in those few threads... "
Yet, you have already made up your mind about "the vast majority" of posters here. Define balanced and well-informed. I may disagree with what several posters put forth but I wouldn't necessarily call it ill-informed. Also, balance isn't a goal in itself. Ideas generated and proffered for our consideration are what is important. Why should someone balance an argument for balance sake?
I believe in evolution yet I would never call an evolutionary scientist ill-informed because he doesn't balance his arguements with evidence of intelligent design. Same goes for political beliefs.
Most posters here know a lot more about the ME than the average Canadian. Maybe not as much as you or Eric Margolis or whomever but I would NOT put the sweeping label..."the vast majority...not well informed" on them.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-17 6:24:07 AM
h2o273kk9,
Cato speaks foolish words. He equates nation with racsim in the ME formula.
If a person is pro-Israeli, like I am, then they are racist as far as he/she/it is concerned.
If they are pro-his position, then they are not as far as he is concerned.
Last I checked the only people in the ME to have citizens from all around the world, were Israelis, including Arabs.
Why, even Arabs don't like Arabs. Look at who is killing who in Iraq?
And they don't like women either, except barefoot and pregnant, while covered in black sheets. Look at what happenned to Kazimi?
Having said that, the majority in Israel are native born, with all sorts of colours.
Meanwhile, if you try to take your own customs with you, for your own personal edification, into most other ME nations, other than Israel, you get all your books taken away from you, and burnt. You are either ejected and not permitted into the country, or you are thrown into jail, for who knows how long. And, they retain for themselves the right to whip-your-buttocks, should they so choose. And, all heck breaks loose, if they find out the person is a convert away from their religion.
And, if you have Israeli stamp on your pasport, then you are also not permitted into most of their countries. An exception are trans-Jordan (who have retained a large portion of the lands of Israel as their own) and Egypt.
And now, Cato says anyone who takes a position against his stupidity, is racist.
Last I checked, there was no way in which you could read the words written by someone posting here, to determine their exact colour of their skin.
So, he uses a posters position or opinion on a political subject matter, and plays the racist card, in order to add punch to his extremely weak and void position. When idiots cannot in fact win the debate with intelligent respectful discussion, and draw the race, sexual orientation, or whatever card, they, as far as I am concerned, have already lost the debate.
If they cannot articulate a position without drawing reference to the colour of whom they ascribe to backing them, then they have no position whatsoever, except one of extreme ignorance and agent-provocateur.
My guess is he is also an ignorant card carrying ndp.
Further to this, I would hazzard to anticipate that he would be one to volunteer himself to such conferences as the anti-holocaust conference in iran, at a second's notice, and out of his own pocket, or anyone elses, if he could get away with it. Probably feels that all Jews have benefitted from the holocaust as well, and would say it, or ignore what I have said, because it is true in his mind, even though there is not an ounce of evidence that people benefit from genocide.
Well done h2o273kk9
I have enjoyed watching him squirm.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-17 12:02:13 PM
"You quote a few excerpts from some people and extrapolated that to "the vast majority""
Honestly, what did you think? You can't be that stupid as to expect, that I comb through even more posts and retype them for your sake? Why have not you read them for yourself? If you have and don't see what I do, then it is obvious, that we have different concepts of "posting informed, balanced opinion", and probably that will remain so.
I have been reading these threads for over a week, and I have not seen virtually anything else but garbage in the ME relations (beside those post, which don't contain anything worthy to read). If it turns out, that this is a special time, because the more intelligent posters are on that cruise, then I will be very happy (otherwise this will not be my form, which might make you happy).
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-17 1:58:42 PM
Lady,
someone, who believes that Israel has been attacked by Egypt in 1967, not the other way around, can hardly engage in a meaningful discussion in this subject.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-17 2:02:11 PM
"What I see is pure hatred and racism towards Muslims/Arabs/brown people, incessantly complaining about the hatred and the anti-Semitism of Muslims/Arabs/brown people."
Posted by: Cato | 16-Jan-07 7:33:57 PM
Let's start with Muslims. Muslims are not a RACE.
If Islam is a race it is the only one I know of that somebody can convert to.
Maybe I'll convert to being Chinese on Thursday. They just opened a new T&T Market near my place and I could probably get discounts if I converted.
Then, on Friday, I could convert to being a Black Jamaican and go to the Kingston Cafe for some jerk chicken and gumbo.
Dat be sweet mon, avary ting goan be ah'ree.
"The Islamist/Iranian administration is boastin about an attack against Israel that may include tactical nuclear weapons"
Posted by: Cato | 16-Jan-07 10:34:47 PM
Yup, most Iranians are Muslims, but they're pretty much all white, AND they really have been boasting about nuking Israel, among others.
>The name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and literally means "Land of the Aryans.
from>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
Where's the rascism?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-17 3:17:10 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.