Thursday, February 23, 2012
Just putting it out there.
A motivational poster I made, and a clarification of "women's rights" picture (which I modified slightly).
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The cult of Abortion.
I steal the title of this post from Kevin Eder on Twitter (@keder), but it is because I believe it to be an accurate description.
There have been issues in the news lately that have brought up questions about abortion cultists. One of them was When a Tory Senator said that the worst offenders should “have the right to a rope in his cell and make a decision about his or her life.” (National Post Article.) This comment was hotly contested and attacked by the pro-abortion Left NDP and Liberals, which brought me to my current query.
Why are people that condone, accept, and fight for a woman's right to kill an unborn child, so opposed to someone saying that wasted unrepentant killers should be allowed to commit suicide? Can't we just consider this an extremely late term abortion, after the potential of the "victim" is already known? I mean honestly, if you are so willing to kill the unknown potential of an unborn child, why would you defend the indefensible convicted violent criminal from being allowed to kill themselves? (Or for that matter, how can you oppose Capital Punishment?)
Even further I have to wonder how and why these pro-deathers get so upset when anyone dies if they are so adamant that killing the unborn is ok? Really they seem to be all over the board with who they think should live, and who they want to die. Support for violent criminals, but disdain for unborn children. Yeah, sure, makes total NONsense to me too.
Obviously it's not as simple as that, because the ideology that they've been fed (and gladly swallowed) has them believing that they are justified in their beliefs. The problem is simply that they have had no one to teach them #1. How to logically reason. and #2. Morals. Obviously weak minds easily succumb to warped ideologies, unfortunately they tend to hang on to them without further thought like a dog to a bone.
There have been issues in the news lately that have brought up questions about abortion cultists. One of them was When a Tory Senator said that the worst offenders should “have the right to a rope in his cell and make a decision about his or her life.” (National Post Article.) This comment was hotly contested and attacked by the pro-abortion Left NDP and Liberals, which brought me to my current query.
Why are people that condone, accept, and fight for a woman's right to kill an unborn child, so opposed to someone saying that wasted unrepentant killers should be allowed to commit suicide? Can't we just consider this an extremely late term abortion, after the potential of the "victim" is already known? I mean honestly, if you are so willing to kill the unknown potential of an unborn child, why would you defend the indefensible convicted violent criminal from being allowed to kill themselves? (Or for that matter, how can you oppose Capital Punishment?)
Even further I have to wonder how and why these pro-deathers get so upset when anyone dies if they are so adamant that killing the unborn is ok? Really they seem to be all over the board with who they think should live, and who they want to die. Support for violent criminals, but disdain for unborn children. Yeah, sure, makes total NONsense to me too.
Obviously it's not as simple as that, because the ideology that they've been fed (and gladly swallowed) has them believing that they are justified in their beliefs. The problem is simply that they have had no one to teach them #1. How to logically reason. and #2. Morals. Obviously weak minds easily succumb to warped ideologies, unfortunately they tend to hang on to them without further thought like a dog to a bone.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Mental deceptions.
I was initially going to talk about the varied mental deceptions that we as humans perpetrate on ourselves, but it seems that I have focused more on that perpetrated on students who actually pay to have these deceptions carried out on them either unknowingly, and/or unwillingly.
It started with a conversation on Facebook where a college student is outraged that the Catholic Church doesn't want to be forced by the US Government to pay for contraception (via insurance), unfortunately (and all to commonly) however this individuals implies that this is somehow a violation of human rights and women’s health. I tried to explain that not only does this not violate any Human Rights, it also in no way jeopardizes women's health. What it was about, as I tried to point out, was how employers should not be forced to do something that goes against "company policy", even if that policy is based on moral beliefs. However the discussion came down to: "Religion was trying to repress the human right to contraceptives and damage women's health" on their side, and "an employer has the right to choose a benefits package for employees based on company values" on mine.
However I have noticed that trying to tell a University students that what they believe (or are being taught) might not be the most logical of interpretations, is like trying to push a camel through a keyhole.
Now I have a couple of thoughts I attribute this to:
1. These young people somehow see their ability to accept everything, no matter how appalling, as having intellectual superiority over those of us who may take issue with with moral or social items like abortion, or socialism.
2. The teachings they are receiving could be more along the lines of brainwashing, than that of opening their minds for advanced intelligent thought.
Arguments for and against the issue aside: the unfortunate conclusion is the underlying mentality that often won't allow “academics” to believe they might be mistaken. They can't seem to join in real open dialog with opposing/dissenting opinions, and then come to a conclusion, because they already enter a conversation assuming their conclusion is the only one valid. It disturbs me because I believe that Higher Education has become closed to ideas it dislikes, leading students down a narrow corridor guided by the prevailing ideology, instead of opening the students mind to think, reason, and rationalize every issue from every viewpoint.
I might be mistaken, but these are the attitudes and mentalities that I have recognized when talking to a number of people associated with Universities on multiple levels.
It started with a conversation on Facebook where a college student is outraged that the Catholic Church doesn't want to be forced by the US Government to pay for contraception (via insurance), unfortunately (and all to commonly) however this individuals implies that this is somehow a violation of human rights and women’s health. I tried to explain that not only does this not violate any Human Rights, it also in no way jeopardizes women's health. What it was about, as I tried to point out, was how employers should not be forced to do something that goes against "company policy", even if that policy is based on moral beliefs. However the discussion came down to: "Religion was trying to repress the human right to contraceptives and damage women's health" on their side, and "an employer has the right to choose a benefits package for employees based on company values" on mine.
However I have noticed that trying to tell a University students that what they believe (or are being taught) might not be the most logical of interpretations, is like trying to push a camel through a keyhole.
Now I have a couple of thoughts I attribute this to:
1. These young people somehow see their ability to accept everything, no matter how appalling, as having intellectual superiority over those of us who may take issue with with moral or social items like abortion, or socialism.
2. The teachings they are receiving could be more along the lines of brainwashing, than that of opening their minds for advanced intelligent thought.
I tend to favour idea number two, “Indoctrination”, because of one noticeably disturbing trait from both University students and teachers I know display it. This trait is that they both seem to have no option for the possible validity of dissenting opinion, there appears to be no questioning on their part that they might be wrong (or for that matter that the other persons idea may be somewhat correct.). This more than often results in their dismissal of any dissenting opinion for no other reason than they don't like it or don't want to hear it. Sure I guess it could be confidence, a strong belief in the subject, or could it be unwillingness fostered by a mentality prevalent, and passed on to them, in our higher education system which forces beliefs on students because it is required knowledge to “pass” a course?
Arguments for and against the issue aside: the unfortunate conclusion is the underlying mentality that often won't allow “academics” to believe they might be mistaken. They can't seem to join in real open dialog with opposing/dissenting opinions, and then come to a conclusion, because they already enter a conversation assuming their conclusion is the only one valid. It disturbs me because I believe that Higher Education has become closed to ideas it dislikes, leading students down a narrow corridor guided by the prevailing ideology, instead of opening the students mind to think, reason, and rationalize every issue from every viewpoint.
I might be mistaken, but these are the attitudes and mentalities that I have recognized when talking to a number of people associated with Universities on multiple levels.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
The "poisonous" Native/Government relationship.
A fine list of examples of this "poisonous" relationship between First Nation Reserves and the Government is written by the National Post. The one issue they fail to address in all their "The numbers you hear are incorrect, they only get 5.8 million in 2010-2011 for houses", is the fact that most people that read this will be paying for their own homes and upkeep themselves (and through their taxes obviously paying for First Nation Homes)!
I agree with funding Education and Health care, everything that every Canadian expects already. But when you have to work for something you take pride in it and take care of it, and that is where handing out houses turns into a money pit because they expect it to be kept up for them too. You want First Nation houses to last, let First Nations people buy them for themselves like the ROC.
I agree with funding Education and Health care, everything that every Canadian expects already. But when you have to work for something you take pride in it and take care of it, and that is where handing out houses turns into a money pit because they expect it to be kept up for them too. You want First Nation houses to last, let First Nations people buy them for themselves like the ROC.
Saturday, December 03, 2011
Attawapiskat First Nation.
One of my best childhood friends for a number of years was a native boy named Hubert. Now Hubert and I would sleep over at each others houses, and I even spent time on the band reservation that he and his family were a part of. I never gave a second thought that we were in any way different, he was just another kid that was one of my closest friends. So when I talk about reserve life, I speak from someone with first hand experience having not just visited, but been a apart of their daily life.
Recently in the news the Attawapiskat First Nation has declared a "State of emergency" and has put out their hands to the Government to finance their recovery. Here is where I start to question the dis-service we are doing to the Native population by continuing to assist them at every turn financially, instead of allowing them to grow in both pride and self reliance. I'm not saying that the Government shouldn't be there to help, but I think some personal responsibility needs to be taken on the part of the Attawapiskat First Nation as to how and why they feel they NEED to delare this state of emergency.
I am going to regress for a moment, and look at the point of the "Reservation". This was a place set aside for native peoples to manage and hold as their own, where they could raise their children in their traditional culture. This seems to me to be a noble cause, worthy of a noble people. I may be mistaken, but I believe Reservations falls outside any number of Federal Legislations, and is even given money and houses by the Government. Which is why I question how they came to be in a state of emergency. I really think the problem starts with the way a native mentality has changed to one of entitlement rather than self reliance, "you took our lands, now you owe us". Let's think for a moment about the state of being when the Europeans started settling Canada, are the native people better or worse off for it? Sure there were a number of problems that the settlers brought with them, but I would still have to say that European influences and settlement has improved life for most natives that have embraced it as also theirs.
I'm not saying don't help when it's needed, what I am saying is that the current relationship between the native community and Government is unhealthy, and it is primarily so for the Native community. What I say to the First Nations people is simple; Don't give up your culture and heritage, but embrace the society around you to become healthy, proud, and self relient Canadians. I say this also after having read a disturbing stat that 80% of Prairie correctional inmates are Native, which I also believe is another disturbing effect of this unhealthy relationship, as well a number of factors/attitudes being handed down in native communities.
I don't have all the answers, but I find the problem serious enough to point out that it's been there too long.
** addition; The day after I write this I see an article in the National post is saying basically the same things I've said here, but it does touch on the subject of how some First Nations haven't any idea on how to govern themselves. National Post Article.
Recently in the news the Attawapiskat First Nation has declared a "State of emergency" and has put out their hands to the Government to finance their recovery. Here is where I start to question the dis-service we are doing to the Native population by continuing to assist them at every turn financially, instead of allowing them to grow in both pride and self reliance. I'm not saying that the Government shouldn't be there to help, but I think some personal responsibility needs to be taken on the part of the Attawapiskat First Nation as to how and why they feel they NEED to delare this state of emergency.
I am going to regress for a moment, and look at the point of the "Reservation". This was a place set aside for native peoples to manage and hold as their own, where they could raise their children in their traditional culture. This seems to me to be a noble cause, worthy of a noble people. I may be mistaken, but I believe Reservations falls outside any number of Federal Legislations, and is even given money and houses by the Government. Which is why I question how they came to be in a state of emergency. I really think the problem starts with the way a native mentality has changed to one of entitlement rather than self reliance, "you took our lands, now you owe us". Let's think for a moment about the state of being when the Europeans started settling Canada, are the native people better or worse off for it? Sure there were a number of problems that the settlers brought with them, but I would still have to say that European influences and settlement has improved life for most natives that have embraced it as also theirs.
I'm not saying don't help when it's needed, what I am saying is that the current relationship between the native community and Government is unhealthy, and it is primarily so for the Native community. What I say to the First Nations people is simple; Don't give up your culture and heritage, but embrace the society around you to become healthy, proud, and self relient Canadians. I say this also after having read a disturbing stat that 80% of Prairie correctional inmates are Native, which I also believe is another disturbing effect of this unhealthy relationship, as well a number of factors/attitudes being handed down in native communities.
I don't have all the answers, but I find the problem serious enough to point out that it's been there too long.
** addition; The day after I write this I see an article in the National post is saying basically the same things I've said here, but it does touch on the subject of how some First Nations haven't any idea on how to govern themselves. National Post Article.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Western freedoms under seige. Oct 23rd 2011.
2 stories are striking examples of what I'm talking about this week:
First is that of the "Honour killings' in CANADA of 4 Muslim women by their husband/father. This attack is more than just against the Canadian acceptance of Women's obvious rights and freedoms, but it goes even deeper when the offender's religion can influence both assistance from authorities, or recognition as a mitigating factor in his trial. Charles adler speaks about it here: Charles Adler
Second is that freedom of speech is being "weeded out" in Universities, and indoctrination is taking it's place. When Universities (Either campus activists OR University Authorities) choose to shut down events, groups, or ideas just because they disagree with them, it set a dangerous precedent for the future of our freedom of speech. Universities should be a place of Diversity (not the opposite, as Kate from small dead animals points out), where dissenting opinions are not only tolerated, but encouraged for dialogue! When groups of people, or the powers that be in charge, start shutting the doors on freedoms of speech, it should anger us all! Read the Canoe article on the abismal behaviour of academia here: Free speech suppressed
For another example, Islam extremists force the cancellation of a speaker in Texas. Watch here: The Arena.
Our Culture and values are under attack, and if we don't fight back we may lose that which is dear to us!
First is that of the "Honour killings' in CANADA of 4 Muslim women by their husband/father. This attack is more than just against the Canadian acceptance of Women's obvious rights and freedoms, but it goes even deeper when the offender's religion can influence both assistance from authorities, or recognition as a mitigating factor in his trial. Charles adler speaks about it here: Charles Adler
Second is that freedom of speech is being "weeded out" in Universities, and indoctrination is taking it's place. When Universities (Either campus activists OR University Authorities) choose to shut down events, groups, or ideas just because they disagree with them, it set a dangerous precedent for the future of our freedom of speech. Universities should be a place of Diversity (not the opposite, as Kate from small dead animals points out), where dissenting opinions are not only tolerated, but encouraged for dialogue! When groups of people, or the powers that be in charge, start shutting the doors on freedoms of speech, it should anger us all! Read the Canoe article on the abismal behaviour of academia here: Free speech suppressed
For another example, Islam extremists force the cancellation of a speaker in Texas. Watch here: The Arena.
Our Culture and values are under attack, and if we don't fight back we may lose that which is dear to us!
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Equal rights for men!
The dictates of societal norms, and current laws prevent me from currently murdering others because they are an inconvenience to me. But this seems to me, in light of women's rights to murder unborn children, unfair and inappropriate! Why should I be denied the right to murder someone that is an inconvenience to me just because I'm a man? Is it just because I am unable to carry around the person I am legally allowed to murder within my body, supposing to be under my protection? I think if it's fair for Women to have the right to murder the most vulnerable members of society, the unborn child, I should be well within my Manly right to kill someone for inconveniencing me! After all we already know how stupid and inconvenient some people can be, and we have no idea of the potential of an unborn child, so it seems actually more logical to get rid of the people that have proven themselves unworthy of life than to kill off someone before they have the chance to prove themselves! (And can you imagine how much more productive we would all be if we knew that if we inconvenience someone else they might kill us?
Now I'm not trying to be facetious, sarcastic and condemning maybe, but be assured that I take the matter of abortion very seriously. I think that giving in to pressure from Feminazi's (Women's rights have killed more people than the nazi's, so the name is well earned) to allow women to kill children (and yes from the moment of conception they are children, they will not grow to be anything other than human being, so abortion is CLEARLY MURDER)is ridiculous, and shows a weakness of will and morals in the Governments that allowed it (Liberals.)
I'm posting this on Father's day, because as serious as it is, these are the things we talk about at our table, and when we were doing so this morning I was encouraged to post on it.
Life is no longer kill or be killed, so how can such an "enlightened" society still condone the reckless, wanton murder of innocent children? As I often say, if the Government wants to be my moral leader, they must be my moral superior. And as long as abortion is allowed by the Government, they have no chance of being such.
Bob
Now I'm not trying to be facetious, sarcastic and condemning maybe, but be assured that I take the matter of abortion very seriously. I think that giving in to pressure from Feminazi's (Women's rights have killed more people than the nazi's, so the name is well earned) to allow women to kill children (and yes from the moment of conception they are children, they will not grow to be anything other than human being, so abortion is CLEARLY MURDER)is ridiculous, and shows a weakness of will and morals in the Governments that allowed it (Liberals.)
I'm posting this on Father's day, because as serious as it is, these are the things we talk about at our table, and when we were doing so this morning I was encouraged to post on it.
Life is no longer kill or be killed, so how can such an "enlightened" society still condone the reckless, wanton murder of innocent children? As I often say, if the Government wants to be my moral leader, they must be my moral superior. And as long as abortion is allowed by the Government, they have no chance of being such.
Bob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
