OT - 11/13/2015 Paris

[elocomotive]

I'm really interested in knowing where these people are going to live.

Welcome?

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

No, I don't mean that. I mean the idea of what "community" means is really absurd and misused by people. Being of a certain race doesn't mean you belong to a community of people of that race. I certainly don't think of myself as belonging to a "white community" or think that even exists. So why is there this national "black community" that people talk about surrounding these issues. My dad is a gun enthusiast and avid shooter, but he abhors the NRA and has rejected a possible "community" to be engaged with about guns.

Communities are built around local geography and common interests. And even when a localized community does exist along those lines, it doesn't mean that people within it have the same participation level or value structure as the community as a whole.

Well, I'm first generation Portuguese-Canadian and in the area I'm from we make up a pretty decent portion of the general population. When people go on about the "Portuguese community", or the "Italian community" or whatever and it gets talked about in a negative light, I think the "leaders" of these communities do go out of their way to either a) defend themselves against bullshit allegations, and b) try to solve problems that appear to be blighting that particular "community".

I think that's what people mean by "black community", but I think the problem is the black community is fucking massive so lumping them all together seems pretty dumb. In that regard I agree, but I also think this whole phenomenon that has accompanied modern day civil rights organizations where we totally absolve black criminals of any fault for their actions based on the fact that they are essentially marginalized by default in modern American society is nuts. Talking about "black-on-black crime" is now considered inflammatory and racist. I don't understand that shit at all. How the fuck is anything supposed to improve if you deny there's a problem to begin with?

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Welcome?

View attachment 54142

They would out-pace the current population in a matter of days lol

 

[forty_three]

I don't think conservatives understand how that game works. When liberals are upset about something, THEY threaten to move to Canada or Europe. When conservatives are upset, they need to look to places like Nicaragua or Chile.

 

[dash]

Give me a call the next time someone going off about "changing" the second amendment suggests actually using the proper procedure to do it. Hopefully my great great great grandchildren will be able to get the message to me in my urn somehow, if they haven't already spilled me.

I can't speak to the procedure in attempting to change the second amendment, but I'm certain it's a very long and arduous process. However, I don't think it can be disputed that things change over time and laws/policies that made a lot of sense 200 years ago might not be as applicable today. I think Thomas Jefferson sums it up best (with a hat tip to comeds)

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

 

[Darkstone42]

I'm really interested in knowing where these people are going to live. Toronto has an affordable housing backlog of thousands of people, existing TCHC facilities are falling apart, the suburbs aren't doing much better...

If 10,000 are coming to Ontario, and assuming at least 8,000 are located to the Toronto area, are we dropping tenements from the sky? Are the people who have been waiting years on affordable housing lists just going to get bumped in favour of refugees? That is a massive number of new residents in an instant and I'm seriously starting to doubt they have even a tenth of this well thought out.

We're going to suck at accommodating them, and I don't think the refugees have any illusions about that. They know they're risking homelessness, but they're risking it because that's better than what they have right now. But hey, maybe this sudden influx of people in need and the associated desperation will force us to learn how to actually take care of people. That'd be a nice best-case scenario, I think.

Besides that, just because we suck at something doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Nor are accommodating refugees and accommodating our own needy mutually exclusive goals. We can and should do both.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

We're going to suck at accommodating them, and I don't think the refugees have any illusions about that. They know they're risking homelessness, but they're risking it because that's better than what they have right now. But hey, maybe this sudden influx of people in need and the associated desperation will force us to learn how to actually take care of people. That'd be a nice best-case scenario, I think.

Besides that, just because we suck at something doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Nor are accommodating refugees and accommodating our own needy mutually exclusive goals. We can and should do both.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but given who we have in government here both provincially and federally I have very little faith they are capable of doing either let alone both.

 

[elocomotive]

...In that regard I agree, but I also think this whole phenomenon that has accompanied modern day civil rights organizations where we totally absolve black criminals of any fault for their actions based on the fact that they are essentially marginalized by default in modern American society is nuts. Talking about "black-on-black crime" is now considered inflammatory and racist. I don't understand that shit at all. How the fuck is anything supposed to improve if you deny there's a problem to begin with?

I don't think that's really true though. NOBODY is pro-criminal regardless of race. What I see is people getting upset about media attention. I remember after Trayvon a bunch of news stories on the politics board that people posted about saying "how come this guy isn't getting attention?!?" And it was like... 'well, because that guy is going to fucking jail.'

 

[dash]

I can't foresee too many outside cook-outs at these camps...

Canada considering constructing camps to house Syrian refugees

 

[elocomotive]

^A post so nice he made it thrice!

 

[Darkstone42]

I gather dash can't foresee many outside cook-outs at those camps.

 

[elocomotive]

I gather dash can't foresee many outside cook-outs at those camps.

I can't foresee too many outside cook-outs at these camps.

 

[dash]

lol - damn SportsHoopla glitch.

 

[elocomotive]

lol - damn SportsHoopla glitch.

I can't foresee too many outside cook-outs at these camps.

 

[Darkstone42]

lol - damn SportsHoopla glitch.

Sure it was...

 

[dash]

I can't foresee too many outside cook-outs at these camps.

What's the score?

 

[forty_three]

I can't speak to the procedure in attempting to change the second amendment, but I'm certain it's a very long and arduous process. However, I don't think it can be disputed that things change over time and laws/policies that made a lot of sense 200 years ago might not be as applicable today. I think Thomas Jefferson sums it up best (with a hat tip to comeds)

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Next thing you're going to tell me is that things written 2000 years ago should not be interpreted literally.

I don't think that's really true though. NOBODY is pro-criminal regardless of race. What I see is people getting upset about media attention. I remember after Trayvon a bunch of news stories on the politics board that people posted about saying "how come this guy isn't getting attention?!?" And it was like... 'well, because that guy is going to fucking jail.'

Depends on whether or not he is on their fantasy team.


I kid, I kid.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I can't speak to the procedure in attempting to change the second amendment, but I'm certain it's a very long and arduous process. However, I don't think it can be disputed that things change over time and laws/policies that made a lot of sense 200 years ago might not be as applicable today. I think Thomas Jefferson sums it up best (with a hat tip to comeds)

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Sure. But I'm going to guess that Thomas Jefferson was OK with the Constitutional amendment process the way that it was written. So I'd say that statement actually shows him to be on "my side" here as much as the opposite.

As I said before, there is a clear process for amending the Constitution. And it's not OK to simply try to ignore it or "get around" it every time you don't think you can get the results that you want by using it.

 

[elocomotive]

Sure. But I'm going to guess that Thomas Jefferson was OK with the Constitutional amendment process the way that it was written. So I'd say that statement actually shows him to be on "my side" here as much as the opposite.

As I said before, there is a clear process for amending the Constitution. And it's not OK to simply try to ignore it or "get around" it every time you don't think you can get the results that you want by using it.

"It's okay to go around the Constitutional amendment process if you think it's right" -Thomas Jefferson

"Everything written on the Internet is true." -Abraham Lincoln

 

[Darkstone42]

What's the score?

2-1