The Existential thread

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by someone123

The amount of weight given to eyewitness testimony, particularly on events from decades ago, seems completely crazy to me.

The reality of what happened in a private gathering 40 years ago is basically unknowable at this point unless there was some kind of contemporary recording.

This is a good reason for having a statute of limitations. It's not about having a time beyond which a criminal gets off without punishment, it's can merely be an admission of the fundamental reality that time causes evidence to degrade.

Statutes of limitations are bullshit. Should a priest who molested children decades ago get off because there isn’t a recording of it? There are things like circumstantial evidence in spite of what CSI might tell you.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Statutes of limitations are bullshit. Should a priest who molested children decades ago get off because there isn’t a recording of it? There are things like circumstantial evidence in spite of what CSI might tell you.

You are begging the question with this argument, assuming the priest is guilty. The whole point is that it can be hard to determine whether or not somebody is guilty.

Other evidence might make a case stronger, sure. My comment was specifically about the value of testimony from one person about an event from many decades ago. If that is our bar for convicting criminals then we will have a lot of false convictions, not just because of bad memory but because of maliciousness.

Many of the priests who got in trouble had a large number of victims (10+) and there were contemporary cover-ups by the church. They were not subtle or borderline cases.

The priest scenario is also inherently very different from two teenagers at a party. There is zero tolerance for a priest having any sexual contact with a child. Two teenagers may choose to have sex legally.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by someone123

I travel to the US frequently. I spend a lot of time in Vancouver and Seattle, two cities only a couple hundred km apart that should be very similar. The political conversations I have in Seattle are markedly different from here. There's a much larger contingent of religious people, survivalists/gun nuts, pro-military (in a "world police" or "I worked as a mercenary in Iraq" sense), and hardcore libertarians.

If you want statistics for this, look up religion in the two countries. Evangelicals make up a much larger percentage of the population in the US and non-religious people make up a much smaller percentage.

Canada can have similar political shifts to the right without the presence of religion as a motivating factor, as evidenced by Quebec's and Ontario's recent provincial elections. Convincing people to have a nonmyopic perspective of reality is always a challenge.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Architype

Canada can have similar political shifts to the right without the presence of religion as a motivating factor, as evidenced by Quebec's and Ontario's recent provincial elections. Convincing people to have a nonmyopic perspective of reality is always a challenge.

Does a shift to the right look the same on both sides of the border though?

We keep hearing about how Doug Ford is like a northern Trump, etc. Where's Doug Ford's "build a wall" or Muslim immigration ban?

“I’m a huge supporter of new Canadians. I’m a huge supporter of new immigrants coming to this country … They call me up — I give (my personal cellphone number) to all new Canadians — I give it to everyone actually. They say, ‘I have credentials in another country, Doug, but they aren’t recognized here.’ So we’re going to speed that process up.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/05/...d-immigration/

This quote suggests that he sometimes talks in a disjointed way similar to Trump and I don't doubt that they may have comparable mental wattage but are the policies truly similar, or do they both just happen to be on the "right" end of two different Overton windows?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

The amount of weight given to eyewitness testimony, particularly on events from decades ago, seems completely crazy to me.

The reality of what happened in a private gathering 40 years ago is basically unknowable at this point unless there was some kind of contemporary recording.

This is a good reason for having a statute of limitations. Time causes evidence to degrade.

The reality of what happened 40 years ago in a private gathering of sober adults is pretty much unknowable at this point unless there was some kind of contemporary recording; in this particular case it's even beyond that.

[O-tacular]

This isn’t a criminal trial (yet). It’s a job interview. As someone who has to hire and fire people on a semi regular basis I wouldn’t even hire a janitor with allegations like these, let alone a Supreme Court justice. Beyond the allegations his unhinged, lying, partisan speech itself should have been disqualifying.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by someone123

You are begging the question with this argument, assuming the priest is guilty. The whole point is that it can be hard to determine whether or not somebody is guilty.

Well, not when you subscribe to the modern philosophy according to which anyone who is a member of certain classes of people are guilty of whatever anyone who is a member of certain other classes of people accuse them of. Then it's all really easy. You don't even need rules of evidence, judges, courts or anything much else. Twitter usually suffices.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

This isn’t a criminal trial (yet). It’s a job interview. As someone who has to hire and fire people on a semi regular basis I wouldn’t even hire a janitor with allegations like these, let alone a Supreme Court justice. Beyond the allegations his unhinged, lying, partisan speech itself should have been disqualifying.

It's not a job interview. It's an adversarial appointment process. Half of the US doesn't want the nominee to be appointed. Just about every significant person involved in US federal politics has some kind of dirt paraded around in public. Sometimes it is real and sometimes it is invented.

I don't have an opinion on Kavanaugh. But do we think that he shouldn't be hired as a janitor because of accusations, or even if he did the things he was accused of when he was a minor? Do we also believe that these "rape culture" type sex parties are happening at campuses all over the US and maybe Canada? Does this mean that 50% of the male population or whatever it is just shouldn't have a job? Hopefully the ultra-virtuous politicians who fill the vacant slots will figure out a solution to this problem.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's not a job interview. It's an adversarial appointment process. Half of the US doesn't want the nominee to be appointed. Just about every significant person involved in US federal politics has some kind of dirt paraded around in public. Sometimes it is real and sometimes it is invented.

I don't have an opinion on Kavanaugh. But do we think that he shouldn't be hired as a janitor because of accusations, or even if he did the things he was accused of when he was a minor? Do we also believe that these "rape culture" type sex parties are happening at campuses all over the US and maybe Canada? Does this mean that 50% of the male population or whatever it is just shouldn't have a job? Hopefully the ultra-virtuous politicians who fill the vacant slots will figure out a solution to this problem.

And of course, the Republicans' only barely subtle plan B if Kavanaugh gets rejected is to come back with a female candidate who's even more right wing. 'Cause we all know that females can't be accused of sexual misconduct. Right?

Forward progress?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by someone123

Does a shift to the right look the same on both sides of the border though?

We keep hearing about how Doug Ford is like a northern Trump, etc. Where's Doug Ford's "build a wall" or Muslim immigration ban?

“I’m a huge supporter of new Canadians. I’m a huge supporter of new immigrants coming to this country … They call me up — I give (my personal cellphone number) to all new Canadians — I give it to everyone actually. They say, ‘I have credentials in another country, Doug, but they aren’t recognized here.’ So we’re going to speed that process up.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/05/...d-immigration/

This quote suggests that he sometimes talks in a disjointed way similar to Trump and I don't doubt that they may have comparable mental wattage but are the policies truly similar, or do they both just happen to be on the "right" end of two different Overton windows?

Doug Ford's speaking style presents an area of study all on its own. It doesn't seem to matter whether he is reading a text or speaking "spontaneously", every sentence seems to have the same stilted intonation in which there's a rise in the middle of each short sentence , one which reminds me of a teenager making his first speech in public. The end effect is not at all natural and, personally, I find it off-putting.

[wave46]

Back to the original topic:

O-tacular,

"It was the best of time and it was the worst of times..."

People still had kids and believed in the future in 1942, when Nazism had spread across most of Europe and the Japanese empire had a huge chunk of the Pacific.

People still had kids in the 1950s, when the forces of Communism had spread across Eastern Europe and China and the Soviet Union seemed to leave the West in the dust by launching Sputnik.

People still had kids in the oil crunches, inflationary spirals and stagflation of the 1970s.

This too shall pass.

Indeed, perhaps these times are a catharsis. For the 'liberal order' that previously governed got soft, fat and contented. It forgot about those who had been left behind by the changes of the past 20 years. It isolated itself as part of the elite and became surprisingly tone-deaf to the needs of those who had propelled it to power.

I look forward to the future. I think these times are a necessity. It reminds us of what we stand for in the West and reminds us that perhaps being fat and contented is not the ultimate goal of humanity. Maybe humanity needs a purpose.

That's why I wish you and your family the best. Maybe the next generation will find purpose in correcting our generation's mistakes - that's why we need the next generation.

Enjoy the adventure of raising kids, O-tac. Also, tune out the background noise a bit - social media, news, etc. - and treasure the simple moments of real life.

[Acajack]

Both my parents were born during the Second World War.

[Acajack]

2018 Canada is probably one of the best times and places to bring a child into the world - ever.

With good values and upbringing your child will help make the world a better place, not a worse one.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

2018 Canada is probably one of the best times and places to bring a child into the world - ever.

With good values and upbringing your child will help make the world a better place, not a worse one.

My wife and I are expecting our first child to be born any day now. I definitely believe that this (quoted) is true. Despite its many warts, I believe that contemporary Canadian society is one of the most fair, most just, most advanced societies in human history. This is of course not to say that there is not significant injustices and problems that need to be addressed. But I believe that we have the institutions, the sense of community, and the resources to continue to address such injustices and problems. Its just up to us (middle and lower class Canadians) to make it happen.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

My wife and I are expecting our first child to be born any day now. I definitely believe that this (quoted) is true. Despite its many warts, I believe that contemporary Canadian society is one of the most fair, most just, most advanced societies in human history. This is of course not to say that there is not significant injustices and problems that need to be addressed. But I believe that we have the institutions, the sense of community, and the resources to continue to address such injustices and problems. Its just up to us (middle and lower class Canadians) to make it happen.

By the time they are teens, kids that are well nurtured and thoughtful will also provoke their parents with new ideas and different outlooks on life and the world. This also helps make us better people. (OK, in some ways having teens also makes us worse people, but the overall impact still makes us better IMO. )

It's pretty cool sitting around the table discussing politics, world or moral issues with your kids.

[O-tacular]

Thank you to everyone who has imparted their wisdom on having children. I very much look forward to the ride.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's not a job interview. It's an adversarial appointment process. Half of the US doesn't want the nominee to be appointed. Just about every significant person involved in US federal politics has some kind of dirt paraded around in public. Sometimes it is real and sometimes it is invented.

He is the least popular nominee since they began polling. The majority of women oppose him.

I don't have an opinion on Kavanaugh. But do we think that he shouldn't be hired as a janitor because of accusations, or even if he did the things he was accused of when he was a minor? Do we also believe that these "rape culture" type sex parties are happening at campuses all over the US and maybe Canada? Does this mean that 50% of the male population or whatever it is just shouldn't have a job? Hopefully the ultra-virtuous politicians who fill the vacant slots will figure out a solution to this problem.

Can you clarify this please? Are you casting doubt on fraternity rape culture in general or are you asserting that 50% of the male population has raped a female at some point in their lives and therefore we should just let it slide? If it's the former, then I can tell you that I know an older woman in her 60's who was gang raped in her youth. One of her rapists is now part of the ministry. If it's the latter then let me call bullshit on half of men being rapists, and also point out that even if it were true it's still abhorrent and none of them should hold positions of power. Society is changing and men need to look themselves in the mirror and better understand consent.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Both my parents were born during the Second World War.

I got you beat. We have very long generation times in my family. I'm 61 and I don't expect to be a grandparent for at least another 5-7 years.

My mother was born in 1917, and my father born in 1909.

My maternal grandmother died in the great flu pandemic of 1918, and my mother was subsequently sent home to PEI to be raised by her own grandparents, who themselves were born in the early 1860s (pre-Confederation).

As such, my mother's social mores were shaped by being raised by individuals born in the mid 19th century. It was always fascinating hearing stories told to my mother (when she was a child) by her grandparents - stories now nearly 150 years old.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I got you beat. We have very long generation times in my family. I'm 61 and I don't expect to be a grandparent for at least another 5-7 years.

My mother was born in 1917, and my father born in 1909.

My maternal grandmother died in the great flu pandemic of 1918, and my mother was subsequently sent home to PEI to be raised by her own grandparents, who themselves were born in the early 1860s (pre-Confederation).

As such, my mother's social mores were shaped by being raised by individuals born in the mid 19th century. It was always fascinating hearing stories told to my mother (when she was a child) by her grandparents - stories now nearly 150 years old.

Having known three of my four grandparents, I've often been struck by the fact that they were basically Victorians (all born in the 1880s), two from old Anglo-Quebec and one from rural northeastern Scotland, and all of them very Presbyterian. In my mother's case, the greatest influence, apart from her parents, was the Great Depression.

For those being born today, I am somewhat less optimistic than others. Their lives will be dominated by technology, for better and for worse. All bets are off, however, when in the 2040s the USA and China go to war. If it's not contained ....

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I got you beat. We have very long generation times in my family. I'm 61 and I don't expect to be a grandparent for at least another 5-7 years.

My mother was born in 1917, and my father born in 1909.

My maternal grandmother died in the great flu pandemic of 1918, and my mother was subsequently sent home to PEI to be raised by her own grandparents, who themselves were born in the early 1860s (pre-Confederation).

As such, my mother's social mores were shaped by being raised by individuals born in the mid 19th century. It was always fascinating hearing stories told to my mother (when she was a child) by her grandparents - stories now nearly 150 years old.

I can relate. I'm under 40 and my paternal grandparents were born in 1888 and 1895. It's kind of crazy. My dad was born before WWII and remembered having ration cards during the war.

But to Acajack's earlier point, I agree that Canada 2018 is about as good as it gets in terms of when and where to bring a child into the world. Over the next 40 or 50 years I expect that the high standard of living will remain so. However, beyond that it gets murkier.