The Power of Positive Thinking to Reverse Aging!

[countryboy]

That is called empathy, countryboy. There is no need to explain our laws to them, they already know our laws. As to customs, they don’t have to follow our customs, they can form their own customs, sometimes even import the customs from their country, provided the customs don’t break any of our laws (arranged marriage is a good example).

However, first generation immigrants (especially from Indian subcontinent) are used to arranged marriages. Their marriage was arranged by their parents, their friends, relatives, acquaintances etc. everybody’s marriage was arranged by their parents. No doubt they were looking forward to arranging the marriage of their son.

Instead of that, not only their son arranges his own marriage, but he marries a Bengali. In some respect, Bengali culture would be as alien to them as say, Ukrainian culture.

It was time to show some empathy. Again, they have to follow our laws, if they had tried to forbid the banns, I would not have supported them in that. However, once they decided not to oppose the marriage, it was perfectly legitimate to point out to them that the difference in culture, language, food etc., that they were worried about was nothing compared to if he had married a white girl or a man. That is making them more comfortable. I am not supporting them in breaking any laws, I am simply comforting them by pointing out that it could have been worse (as they saw it).

I wonder what things would be like if you went to these extreme lengths to try and accommodate all those who don't share your views on things - like other not-so-new Canadians. We have a number of different "cultures" in Canada, not all of which are in favour of gay marriage (for example)...

Are people born in Canada not entitled to the same level of tender loving care that you extended to these folks from India?

By the way, I'd love to meet those folks you mentioned, as they already know our laws. Maybe they could explain a few of them to me. :lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I wonder what things would be like if you went to these extreme lengths to try and accommodate all those who don't share your views on things - like other not-so-new Canadians. We have a number of different "cultures" in Canada, not all of which are in favour of gay marriage (for example)...

Are people born in Canada not entitled to the same level of tender loving care that you extended to these folks from India?

By the way, I'd love to meet those folks you mentioned, as they already know our laws. Maybe they could explain a few of them to me. :lol:

Well, native Canadians or second generation immigrants are a different thing altogether. They have been here all along; they are familiar with our constitution, our Charter, if they don’t like it, that is their problem.

While first generation has made great sacrifices, have had to abandon a lot of their traditions, culture etc. to come to Canada, that is not the case with native Canadians. Native Canadians have been active in opposing equal right for gays, in opposing an end to discrimination, some of them want to make abortion illegal again, etc.

They don’t deserve empathy, they are political opponents. First generation immigrants are not politically active; they are too busy trying to settle down in this country. They don’t pose any threat to our way of life. Those who want to change Canadian society, want to turn the clock back (deny equal right to gays, ban abortion, bring back death penalty etc.), they definitely are a threat to the current society and they must be opposed at every turn.

There is really no comparison between first generation immigrants and others.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Let me illustrate it with the example of polygamy. Suppose I know a first generation Muslim immigrant who is bemoaning the fact that he cannot take more than one wives here in Canada. Now, he probably grew up in a traditional Muslim society, where it was common to take more than one wives, if one could afford it.

Suppose he was saving his money in his own country to acquire more than one wives. Then there was turmoil in his country, he lost everything and had to come here as a refugee. I wouldn’t argue polygamy with him; I would try to comfort him, as to how things could have been worse, as to how he should count his blessings.

However, if a second generation immigrant or a Mormon here tries to mount a Charter challenge to the polygamy laws, he won’t get my sympathy or empathy, but my uncompromising opposition.

 

[countryboy]

Well, native Canadians or second generation immigrants are a different thing altogether. They have been here all along; they are familiar with our constitution, our Charter, if they don’t like it, that is their problem.

While first generation has made great sacrifices, have had to abandon a lot of their traditions, culture etc. to come to Canada, that is not the case with native Canadians. Native Canadians have been active in opposing equal right for gays, in opposing an end to discrimination, some of them want to make abortion illegal again, etc.

They don’t deserve empathy, they are political opponents. First generation immigrants are not politically active; they are too busy trying to settle down in this country. They don’t pose any threat to our way of life. Those who want to change Canadian society, want to turn the clock back (deny equal right to gays, ban abortion, bring back death penalty etc.), they definitely are a threat to the current society and they must be opposed at every turn.

There is really no comparison between first generation immigrants and others.

That's a very liberal approach - "selective comfort and understanding." I can't imagine how confusing that might be for some immigrants...encountering a Canadian who is so vehemently opposed to the views of his own fellow citizens. It might be enough to drive them back to their homeland, where - chances are - there is at least a sense of unity. You gotta' be careful with all that self-serving do-gooding...and all that dividing of generations and people that you have lodged in your mindset.

I think it's better to treat people equally and fairly - instead of confusing them by presenting different pictures of reality...I figure most people are smart enough to figure it out on the own, as long as the rules are consistent.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think it's better to treat people equally and fairly - instead of confusing them by presenting different pictures of reality...I figure most people are smart enough to figure it out on the own, as long as the rules are consistent.

I am all for treating people equally and fairly. At the same time, one must make allowances for special circumstances, one must try to empathize, try to relate to the people.

Pointing out to the Indian woman that it would have been worse if her son had married a white girl or a man was the right thing to do. It would have been totally inappropriate to say that to a Canadian.

Let me illustrate by another example, smoking. I have never smoked in my life, I think it is a filthy habit. If one of my friends smokes I will strongly urge him to give up smoking, tell him that he is cutting his own throat.

But suppose one of my friends has a terminal cancer, has maybe a year to live, and tells me that smoking relieves his pain. Will I urge him to give up smoking? No way, I would offer to buy him cigarettes. That is called empathy.

 

[JLM]

I am all for treating people equally and fairly. At the same time, one must make allowances for special circumstances, one must try to empathize, try to relate to the people.

Pointing out to the Indian woman that it would have been worse if her son had married a white girl or a man was the right thing to do. It would have been totally inappropriate to say that to a Canadian.

Let me illustrate by another example, smoking. I have never smoked in my life, I think it is a filthy habit. If one of my friends smokes I will strongly urge him to give up smoking, tell him that he is cutting his own throat.

But suppose one of my friends has a terminal cancer, has maybe a year to live, and tells me that smoking relieves his pain. Will I urge him to give up smoking? No way, I would offer to buy him cigarettes. That is called empathy.

You're talking good sense this morning S.J. - You must have had a good night's sleep. :smile::smile:

 

[countryboy]

I am all for treating people equally and fairly. At the same time, one must make allowances for special circumstances, one must try to empathize, try to relate to the people.

Pointing out to the Indian woman that it would have been worse if her son had married a white girl or a man was the right thing to do. It would have been totally inappropriate to say that to a Canadian.

Let me illustrate by another example, smoking. I have never smoked in my life, I think it is a filthy habit. If one of my friends smokes I will strongly urge him to give up smoking, tell him that he is cutting his own throat.

But suppose one of my friends has a terminal cancer, has maybe a year to live, and tells me that smoking relieves his pain. Will I urge him to give up smoking? No way, I would offer to buy him cigarettes. That is called empathy.

I'm all for empathy. I guess I just like to spread it around a bit more generously...

 

[TenPenny]

I am simply comforting them by pointing out that it could have been worse (as they saw it).

Quite so, quite so.

And by doing so, one could argue that you are implying your agreement with that perspective.

Of course, we all know that is not the case, because we know you better than that.

 

[VanIsle]

Quite so, quite so.

And by doing so, one could argue that you are implying your agreement with that perspective.

Of course, we all know that is not the case, because we know you better than that.

TenPenny, you never miss a chance to take a shot do you? Why is that? We don't all know that is the case. I believe I have known SJP much much longer than you and I believe what he has to say.
Like him and CB, I too am all for empathy. What I'm not for is new comers to this land who impose their way of life on us by expecting us to change. It's time we all took a stance on this because we are about the only country that accepts such nonsense. I've never ever understood why people come to this country for a better life and then try to make it into the country they left. They will succeed as long as we continue to be so obliging. We bend over backwards to accomodate and they certainly accomodate us for doing so.

 

[TenPenny]

TenPenny, you never miss a chance to take a shot do you? Why is that? We don't all know that is the case. I believe I have known SJP much much longer than you and I believe what he has to say.
Like him and CB, I too am all for empathy. What I'm not for is new comers to this land who impose their way of life on us by expecting us to change. It's time we all took a stance on this because we are about the only country that accepts such nonsense. I've never ever understood why people come to this country for a better life and then try to make it into the country they left. They will succeed as long as we continue to be so obliging. We bend over backwards to accomodate and they certainly accomodate us for doing so.

Quite so, quite so.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Quite so, quite so.

And by doing so, one could argue that you are implying your agreement with that perspective.

Of course, we all know that is not the case, because we know you better than that.

Empathizing with somebody, sympathizing with them does not necessarily denote an agreement with their viewpoint. It only indicates that a person, a real live human being is more important than any philosophy.

Indeed, that is why some Fundamentalist parents, when they find out that they son or daughter is gay, still continue loving him or her. Not all of them do, some of them throw out the kid (like Alan Keyes), but some others love their gay kid (like Darth Vader, Dick Cheney).

To some people (including me), a person is more important than a philosophy. To some others, it is the other way round, philosophy (conservatism, Fundamentalism or whatever) is more important than any person.

 

[TenPenny]

Empathizing with somebody, sympathizing with them does not necessarily denote an agreement with their viewpoint. It only indicates that a person, a real live human being is more important than any philosophy.

Quite so.
Perhaps you might take the time to re-read my post, so that you can understand what I wrote.

 

[darkbeaver]

If a man can afford two or three wives, and survive, what's the problem?

 

[TenPenny]

If a man can afford two or three wives, and survive, what's the problem?

He'd certainly get my sympathy.
Not that I agree with you, I'm simply expressing my empathy.

 

[countryboy]

If a man can afford two or three wives, and survive, what's the problem?

I met a guy (a farmer) in Malaysia once, and he had 5 wives. He looked pretty happy to me. Not even tired. He explained how they laid out (excuse the expression) the "nightly schedule" and it all seemed to work quite well.

 

[AnnaG]

I am all for treating people equally and fairly. At the same time, one must make allowances for special circumstances, one must try to empathize, try to relate to the people.

Pointing out to the Indian woman that it would have been worse if her son had married a white girl or a man was the right thing to do. It would have been totally inappropriate to say that to a Canadian.

roflmao Why would it be appropriate? Because you assumed that the Indian lady is as bigoted as you?

Anyway, making healthy kids is the biological way to immortality. Anything else is fantasy.

 

[TenPenny]

roflmao Why would it be appropriate? Because you assumed that the Indian lady is as bigoted as you?

Anyway, making healthy kids is the biological way to immortality. Anything else is fantasy.

I don't know SJP well enough to know if he knew the lady in question well enough to know if she would be in tune with his empathy.

In fact, I'm not sure that I know you well enough to know if you know SJP well enough to know....

 

[darkbeaver]

I met a guy (a farmer) in Malaysia once, and he had 5 wives. He looked pretty happy to me. Not even tired. He explained how they laid out (excuse the expression) the "nightly schedule" and it all seemed to work quite well.

Five! FIVE! Happy? I can't think thinking about it. I'm at a complete loss to imagine myself into a domicile so completely alien to my ideas of marriage. FIVE! I can't even think of a joke.

 

[AnnaG]

Five! FIVE! Happy? I can't think thinking about it. I'm at a complete loss to imagine myself into a domicile so completely alien to my ideas of marriage. FIVE! I can't even think of a joke.

I heard once of the Islamic ideal: 4 wives. One gets lonely. Two bicker. Three wives results in two ganging up on one. Four is optimum because no-one gets lonely, bickering is no worse than with two wives, and no-one gangs up on anyone. I don't know if it's true or was a joke, though.
Even more optimum would be one woman and 4 husbands. They'd not wear out so fast, when the one that justfinished went to sleep after ejaculation another could take over, one could be a househusband, and the other three could bring in the multiple income.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I met a guy (a farmer) in Malaysia once, and he had 5 wives. He looked pretty happy to me. Not even tired. He explained how they laid out (excuse the expression) the "nightly schedule" and it all seemed to work quite well.

Do they let them have five wives in Malaysia? I thought Islam permitted only four.