HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1001  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2016, 6:22 PM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman23 View Post
Speaking of pseudo science, Stryker's here.
Hilarious coming from a leafs fan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1002  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2016, 7:45 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 9,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
This is such crap.

Divorce rates are down because no one is getting married or having kids.
No. Yes, the marriage rate is down, but the divorce rate has gone down even faster.

For people who do get married, the chance that they stay together has gone up considerably over the past few decades and it continues to rise. Divorce is not the social pandemic people are claiming it to be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1003  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2016, 7:51 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 9,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
Anyone that watches a tonne of porn can't really claim to be 100 percent straight.

Part of the reason I think it's so odd that people still have a hang up on being gay.

Virtually any guy under the age 30 has seen more throbbing penises in their lives than any man born before 1900.

Alot of people claiming to be bi, are just overly prideful that they like every other normal person doesn't collaspe into a meltdown upon being close to another mans manhood.
There is some truth to this. I came out a few months before I graduated high school and on a few occasions in those last few months I had straight boys come up to me and say "I think I'm gay because I got turned on by a dick I saw in porn." Even then it made me roll my eyes.

That said, I think this sort of thing fades away rapidly with age and/or education because I never had these experiences in university... there, people know who they are. For example, at Queen's I had straight men compliment my body in the locker room without feeling insecure about their sexuality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1004  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2016, 5:03 PM
big W big W is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: E-Town
Posts: 5,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post

This is where the delusion of gender equality comes in.

Men and women are not equal and how they attain status is not equal.

We live in a world where femtards are propagating the notions that women can compete with men on a 1:1 level.

The reality is our biologies give us very different advantages.

And the femtards are sabotaging a generation.
I will completely disagree with the statement I bolded. Now what I will give you is that they are not the same in everything. Genetics ensures that they are different but that does not mean they are not equal. They can easily be equal but different. Just like I may be better at something then the guy next to me and he better than me at something else. Equal does not mean we are the same at everything. On average men are physically taller stronger faster but on average woman are better at feeling empathy, understanding others etc. Not one of these are characteristics is overall better than the other but we as a society need both equally.
__________________
SHOFEAR- "The other goalie should have to turn in his man card. What a sorry display that was." - March 24, 2008
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1005  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2016, 5:15 PM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by big W View Post
I will completely disagree with the statement I bolded. Now what I will give you is that they are not the same in everything. Genetics ensures that they are different but that does not mean they are not equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by big W View Post
They can easily be equal but different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by big W View Post
Just like I may be better at something then the guy next to me and he better than me at something else. Equal does not mean we are the same at everything. On average men are physically taller stronger faster but on average woman are better at feeling empathy, understanding others etc. Not one of these are characteristics is overall better than the other but we as a society need both equally.
Your snipering in on the word Equal.

I don't disagree with what your saying but, your making it sound like these two things happen spontaneously
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1006  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2016, 7:20 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 32,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
I blame for porn for this one.


Anyone that watches a tonne of porn can't really claim to be 100 percent straight.

Part of the reason I think it's so odd that people still have a hang up on being gay.

Virtually any guy under the age 30 has seen more throbbing penises in their lives than any man born before 1900.

.
OTOH even in my dad's generation males (friends or strangers) walked around in the nude in front of each other a lot more readily and comfortably than they do today.

I've played sports with my male friends and never seen most of them naked.

Guys in general cover up a lot more in the presence of other guys these days (locker rooms, etc.) because of more self-consciousness about body shape, body hair, penis size or even out of a fear of being checked by gay guys.
__________________
SSP Canada's Most Interesting Man
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1007  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2016, 3:05 AM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 2,439
Getting back on topic...a bit..the next U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is quite anti-LGBT. Just research that guy and it's quite scary how ultra-conservative he is and how he seriously wants to eliminate same-sex marriages and even human rights for LGBT people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1008  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 3:37 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 9,167
The electoral college met to cast its votes today.

There were a total of 10 faithless electors (electors who violate the convention of voting for the candidate who won their state's popular vote), although 3 were later overturned. This is the highest number of faithless electors in American history.

-3 Democrat electors (1 in each in Hawaii, Maine, and Minnesota) voted for Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton (the ones in Maine and Minnesota were overturned).
-1 Democrat elector in Colorado voted for failed Republican primary candidate John Kasich (overturned).
-In Washington State, 4 of the 12 electors in the state went faithless: 3 voted for Colin Powell (a former Republican Secretary of State) and 1 voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American activist leading the Standing Rock protest
-2 Republican electors in Texas voted against Donald Trump. 1 one voted for John Kasich, and another voted for Paul Ryan

As a result, the results of the electoral college are:
-Donald Trump: 304
-Hillary Clinton: 227
-Colin Powell: 3
-Paul Ryan: 1
-John Kasich: 1
-Faith Spotted Eagle: 1
-Bernie Sanders: 1

Last edited by 1overcosc; Dec 20, 2016 at 3:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1009  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 3:57 AM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Way more faithless electors against Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. Fancy that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1010  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 4:07 AM
rousseau's Avatar
rousseau rousseau is online now
Registered Drug User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 4,547
The excitement/disgust of the U.S. election cycle has faded a bit, but every now and then I catch myself thinking just how amazing it is that Donald Trump is going to be president of the U.S. Tonight on As It Happens a media spokesperson for some dictionary declared the word of the year to be "surreal." This was based partly on upticks in searches of the word after the truck massacre in Nice and then again in early November.

It really does feel surreal, doesn't it?

Is there any aspect of what he's said and done so far or of what he plans to do that isn't objectively idiotic, regressive, terrifying and/or bad for humanity in general? Anything at all?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1011  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 4:23 AM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
Is there any aspect of what he's said and done so far or of what he plans to do that isn't objectively idiotic, regressive, terrifying and/or bad for humanity in general? Anything at all?
It seems patently absurd to me how anyone can non-ironically utter the sentiment that "There is absolutely zero redeemable qualities of this political figure who I disagree with, I simply can't understand how anyone could possibly support them".

Just the frame of mind it takes to utter such rhetoric is very telling.

I don't think anyone can argue the fact that people like rousseau (and similarly MolsonExport, who is a professor IIRC) are extremely intelligent people. They express themselves very well, and can utter multi-layered multi-faceted satire almost on a whim. They can share deep insights across a variety of cultural dimensions and their contributions to this forum, when they put in the effort, are invaluable.

But then, when it comes to politics, the discourse short circuits to this kind of banal commentary that "There is simply no understanding why anyone supports this individual who I happen not to support".

Politics does strange things to people. It puts up blinders and all of a sudden things have this sense of gravitas that causes only "one true way" to open up, and inevitably it comes with a label, be it Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democrat. The alternative is unthinkable, unimaginable, incomprehensible, and we cannot possibly make any attempts to understand it.

We have all been witnesses to a slow slide into extremism. With Huffington Post, The Daily Show, John Oliver, and others shouting misinformation on the left, and institutions like Fox News and The Rebel, and others shouting misinformation on the right. Facebook is the megaphone.

And the scariest aspect to me of all, is how the current political atmosphere can turn otherwise reasonably intelligent people like Rousseau and MolsonExport into rabid zealots incapable of understanding their fellow man and putting up blinders for any conceivable argument for an individual who disagrees with their political leanings.

The end result is viewing their political opponents as sub human, as stupid, to quote Animal Farm - as not being equal, which leads to more extreme behaviour such as the rioting and violence seen in the USA after Trump's election. Because with rhetoric like rousseau espouses above, it seems justified to use violence if your enemies are in fact "racist", "xenophobic", "sexist", "terrifying", and "bad for humanity".

Politics does very strange things to people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1012  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 4:36 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 32,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
It seems patently absurd to me how anyone can non-ironically utter the sentiment that "There is absolutely zero redeemable qualities of this political figure who I disagree with, I simply can't understand how anyone could possibly support them".

Just the frame of mind it takes to utter such rhetoric is very telling.

I don't think anyone can argue the fact that people like rousseau (and similarly MolsonExport, who is a professor IIRC) are extremely intelligent people. They express themselves very well, and can utter multi-layered multi-faceted satire almost on a whim. They can share deep insights across a variety of cultural dimensions and their contributions to this forum, when they put in the effort, are invaluable.

But then, when it comes to politics, the discourse short circuits to this kind of banal commentary that "There is simply no understanding why anyone supports this individual who I happen not to support".

Politics does strange things to people. It puts up blinders and all of a sudden things have this sense of gravitas that causes only "one true way" to open up, and inevitably it comes with a label, be it Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democrat. The alternative is unthinkable, unimaginable, incomprehensible, and we cannot possibly make any attempts to understand it.

We have all been witnesses to a slow slide into extremism. With Huffington Post, The Daily Show, John Oliver, and others shouting misinformation on the left, and institutions like Fox News and The Rebel, and others shouting misinformation on the right. Facebook is the megaphone.

And the scariest aspect to me of all, is how the current political atmosphere can turn otherwise reasonably intelligent people like Rousseau and MolsonExport into rabid zealots incapable of understanding their fellow man and putting up blinders for any conceivable argument for an individual who disagrees with their political leanings.

The end result is viewing their political opponents as sub human, as stupid, to quote Animal Farm - as not being equal, which leads to more extreme behaviour such as the rioting and violence seen in the USA after Trump's election. Because with rhetoric like rousseau espouses above, it seems justified to use violence if your enemies are in fact "racist", "xenophobic", "sexist", "terrifying", and "bad for humanity".

Politics does very strange things to people.
I appreciate a lot of what you're saying and even share it, but I think you're being a bit unfair. I don't think they'd ever be apologists for violence. In a sense you're kinda doing the same thing you're accusing them of doing...
__________________
SSP Canada's Most Interesting Man
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1013  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 4:39 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 18,943
One interesting statistic I happened to stumble upon was that close to 6% of Vermont voters wrote in Bernie (he wasn't on the ballot). Johnson and Stein, who were, came in 4th and 5th place, respectively.

The number of Vermonters who wrote Bernie's name on their ballots was over 10% of the total number of Hillary votes cast in the state.

I'm glad he got at least one elector (that Hawaii one) for his troubles... I know some states don't allow faithless electors, what happened exactly in ME and MN? (Feels weird to ask, given I could easily google it...)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1014  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 4:41 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 18,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
... but I think you're being a bit unfair. I don't think they'd ever be apologists for violence.
Except against Chadillaccc, in the case of MolsonExport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1015  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 4:47 AM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I appreciate a lot of what you're saying and even share it, but I think you're being a bit unfair. I don't think they'd ever be apologists for violence. In a sense you're kinda doing the same thing you're accusing them of doing...
I don't think you understand what I'm saying if you think I'm doing what I am accusing them of.

To be clear I don't think they would be apologists for violence in any way shape or form - but at the same time there is consequences to rhetoric. And this frame of mind that starts from a position of offering absolutely zero understanding of another fellow human being is a dangerous rhetorical position to be starting from (and espousing).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1016  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 4:52 AM
rousseau's Avatar
rousseau rousseau is online now
Registered Drug User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 4,547
We're not talking about Reagan. Or Bush the first. Or even, gawd help us, Harper. The disagreements on policy with people who voted for them were often constructive and mostly civil.

These are polarizing times, sure. But we're talking about Donald Trump. Donald...fucking...Trump. Your intellectually dishonest parlour game of equivalence, of "meh, left, right, Clinton, Trump, they're all the same" doesn't pass the barest scrutiny. Like, the Daily Show and The Rebel are both producers of misinformation?

Christ. Where do you come up with this stuff? Have you ever actually seen those two shows? There's an argument to be made that Jon Stewart and his ilk are merely preaching to the choir in the same way as the alt-right media cretins do, but the idea that there is equivalency in terms of accuracy and honesty is just ridiculous. It's objectively untrue.

You're just calling black white, and up down. It's a measure of the times we live in. No shame, no tentativeness, just bald-faced idiocy and lying about the most obvious of things.

Like suggesting that it's those of us on the centre and left who are demonizing the political opposition as "sub-human." That's a blatant falsehood that embodies so much that is "post-factual" about the alt-right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1017  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 4:55 AM
csbvan's Avatar
csbvan csbvan is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
It seems patently absurd to me how anyone can non-ironically utter the sentiment that "There is absolutely zero redeemable qualities of this political figure who I disagree with, I simply can't understand how anyone could possibly support them".

Just the frame of mind it takes to utter such rhetoric is very telling.

I don't think anyone can argue the fact that people like rousseau (and similarly MolsonExport, who is a professor IIRC) are extremely intelligent people. They express themselves very well, and can utter multi-layered multi-faceted satire almost on a whim. They can share deep insights across a variety of cultural dimensions and their contributions to this forum, when they put in the effort, are invaluable.

But then, when it comes to politics, the discourse short circuits to this kind of banal commentary that "There is simply no understanding why anyone supports this individual who I happen not to support".

Politics does strange things to people. It puts up blinders and all of a sudden things have this sense of gravitas that causes only "one true way" to open up, and inevitably it comes with a label, be it Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democrat. The alternative is unthinkable, unimaginable, incomprehensible, and we cannot possibly make any attempts to understand it.

We have all been witnesses to a slow slide into extremism. With Huffington Post, The Daily Show, John Oliver, and others shouting misinformation on the left, and institutions like Fox News and The Rebel, and others shouting misinformation on the right. Facebook is the megaphone.

And the scariest aspect to me of all, is how the current political atmosphere can turn otherwise reasonably intelligent people like Rousseau and MolsonExport into rabid zealots incapable of understanding their fellow man and putting up blinders for any conceivable argument for an individual who disagrees with their political leanings.

The end result is viewing their political opponents as sub human, as stupid, to quote Animal Farm - as not being equal, which leads to more extreme behaviour such as the rioting and violence seen in the USA after Trump's election. Because with rhetoric like rousseau espouses above, it seems justified to use violence if your enemies are in fact "racist", "xenophobic", "sexist", "terrifying", and "bad for humanity".

Politics does very strange things to people.
The interesting thing about Donald Trump of course, is that he represents the most interesting facet of this phenomenon. He is not a conservative or a right winger, nor a Republican. He says things that would make Republicans' heads explode in a typical year. But because he represents their team, Republicans and even right wingers in Canada jump on board and forget about what they once believed in. Bizarre.

So I think what Rousseau highlights is less partisan than you make it out to be. In fact, I don't think your post makes sense in respect to Trump. Trump does not represent a political philosophy and the typical left-right divide that you were discussing, he rejected the philosophy of many of his own supporters (especially on foreign policy). What he represents is a team, and supporters blindly follow their team no matter what. Political beliefs, apparently, are fluid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1018  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 5:14 AM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
We're not talking about Reagan. Or Bush the first. Or even, gawd help us, Harper. The disagreements on policy with people who voted for them were often constructive and mostly civil.

These are polarizing times, sure. But we're talking about Donald Trump. Donald...fucking...Trump. Your intellectually dishonest parlour game of equivalence, of "meh, left, right, Clinton, Trump, they're all the same" doesn't pass the barest scrutiny. Like, the Daily Show and The Rebel are both producers of misinformation?

Christ. Where do you come up with this stuff? Have you ever actually seen those two shows? There's an argument to be made that Jon Stewart and his ilk are merely preaching to the choir in the same way as the alt-right media cretins do, but the idea that there is equivalency in terms of accuracy and honesty is just ridiculous. It's objectively untrue.

You're just calling black white, and up down. It's a measure of the times we live in. No shame, no tentativeness, just bald-faced idiocy and lying about the most obvious of things.

Like suggesting that it's those of us on the centre and left who are demonizing the political opposition as "sub-human." That's a blatant falsehood that embodies so much that is "post-factual" about the alt-right.
Politics does strange things to otherwise intelligent people.

When it comes to politics, you have one mode. Sensationalist rhetoric.

At the heart of my response is, it is patently absurd to say "This political opponent has zero appeal to other people and is obviously bad for humanity".

No where in this inflammatory response did you elicit any kind of self awareness for this absurd statement.

Trump has talked about a range of issues, from unfair trade deals, to systemic immigration problems, to corruption in Washington, to a re-imagining of a foreign policy that is a mess and has left many of the most troubled places in the world a mess.

It's important to note that, people do not support a candidate for his or her flaws. They support a candidate because they get the major stuff right.

If you are completely unaware of any possible policy position of Trump that could potentially appeal to a reasonable human being, I think it's fair enough to recognize that you have been living in an extreme political bubble echo chamber and have fallen far from the place you need to be to have a reasonable conversation about politics. And knowing that you are an otherwise intelligent person, it speaks volumes to the problems (and dangers) that the modern political environment has had.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1019  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 5:15 AM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by csbvan View Post
The interesting thing about Donald Trump of course, is that he represents the most interesting facet of this phenomenon. He is not a conservative or a right winger, nor a Republican. He says things that would make Republicans' heads explode in a typical year. But because he represents their team, Republicans and even right wingers in Canada jump on board and forget about what they once believed in. Bizarre.

So I think what Rousseau highlights is less partisan than you make it out to be. In fact, I don't think your post makes sense in respect to Trump. Trump does not represent a political philosophy and the typical left-right divide that you were discussing, he rejected the philosophy of many of his own supporters (especially on foreign policy). What he represents is a team, and supporters blindly follow their team no matter what. Political beliefs, apparently, are fluid.
I think you have vastly misunderstood my post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1020  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 5:15 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 9,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
I'm glad he got at least one elector (that Hawaii one) for his troubles... I know some states don't allow faithless electors, what happened exactly in ME and MN? (Feels weird to ask, given I could easily google it...)
In Maine, the tabulation officers declared his vote invalid. He was asked to vote again, and chose Clinton.

In Minnesota (and in Colorado with that one Democrat who tried to vote Kasich), the state's Secretary of State declared the faithless electors disqualified and replaced them with new electors who agreed to vote for Clinton.

All of these actions by officials were valid by the laws of the states in question. There is some debate about whether it's constitutional for a state to do that. If at least 37 Republican electors had gone faithless and thus denied Trump the presidency, but enough faithless votes were overturned to ensure Trump's majority, the faithless electors would have probably gone to court and the Supreme Court would have had to make a choice on the matter.

One interesting thing about the US is that it does not allow the election of a president or vice president without an absolute majority in the electoral college. So if the first place candidate has less than half the votes, the entire election is thrown out and Congress decides who the President and Vice President are according to a rather complicated procedure spelled out in great detail in the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:43 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.