Jesus was a Liberal

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,335
8,704
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Tax was talking about censorship. You were responding to him about censorship not being a thing because it hasn’t happened yet. It’s in the wind. Let’s see which way the wind blows.

Your interpretation of C-11 & C-18 are not necessarily the same as others. Time will tell what is smokescreen and what is not. Some of it may be about big tech, and some of it may be about making things like exposing SNC-Lavalin misinformation or disinformation….& thus publishable. Let’s see what the CRTC does with this new found powers, along with the current and future governments.
….I'm thinking of the globull warming truthers, maskers, and the race baiters, that are “demanding criminal sanctions for anyone questioning their version of truth.”
…As for your "the globull warming truthers, maskers, and the race baiters, that are demanding criminal sanctions for anyone questioning their version of truth." you do have proof, I suppose, that these people are taking over and making it a criminal offence to question theories or positions on a subject?
And that’s what I was relating to.
Last I checked, you can still deny global warming, still refuse masks and, well... the race thing is complicated. You'd have to clarify what you mean by race baiters.
Let’s watch and wait and see. The push to bring in a new online censorship law is an attempt to offload the individual responsibility of citizens to evaluate what they see on the internet and place it on the government. Sure, the legislation is being informed by consultations, but the results are politically guided and too vague to be useful….so why bother then? There’s already laws for hate speech, so it’s not that, & already laws for other crimes (online or not) so it’s not that….
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,317
2,195
113
New Brunswick
And that’s what I was relating to.

And you never proved the statement true in any case. Instead, it's "wait and see".

At best, you are promoting fear.

If people dwelled on and believed all the fears that were made up about everything Government did, we'd still be under the rule of Nobles, Kings, Emperors or maybe not even out of the caves yet.
 

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,292
996
113
after witnessing government from the inside for forty years it's a safe bet that it's back to the caves we're headed.

give it another decade or two.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,317
2,195
113
New Brunswick
after witnessing government from the inside for forty years it's a safe bet that it's back to the caves we're headed.

give it another decade or two.

I'm sure people thought that during the Cold War.

And yet, no caves yet.

Even I won't go so far as that, regardless of who is in power.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,335
8,704
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
And you never proved the statement true in any case. Instead, it's "wait and see".

At best, you are promoting fear.

If people dwelled on and believed all the fears that were made up about everything Government did, we'd still be under the rule of Nobles, Kings, Emperors or maybe not even out of the caves yet.
Yeah, that’s got to be it. No political party would endorse such a thing, except it happened in July of this year…But Trudeau says he’d never do such a thing in spite of what his Party (which is a cult of personality) wanted.
The only thing that went too far was their polling numbers in a southerly direction, or there wouldn’t have been a last minute denial until their fortunes improve if ever. The above is from just under two months ago.

Liberal supporters adopted the policy at their national convention on Saturday (so 07/15/23), and ranked it 10th out of 24 top priorities. Under the auspices of “combating disinformation in Canada,” the resolution urged the federal government to “explore options to hold online information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms, and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.”…so no whistleblowers or anonymous sources that can’t be punished, or those like Wilson Raybould that conflicted the party line.

I’m sure glad Canada is waking up & they (Libs) are tanking ‘cuz I’m positive Jagmeet would’ve backed the Liberals on this for another handful of magic beans to try and be relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,317
2,195
113
New Brunswick
Yeah, that’s got to be it. No political party would endorse such a thing, except it happened in July of this year…But Trudeau says he’d never do such a thing in spite of what his Party (which is a cult of personality) wanted.

So the Liberals are pushing "criminal sanctions for anyone questioning their version of truth".

What criminal sanctions? Again, I don't see you or I or anyone being arrested for disagreeing with their BS.

"the resolution urged the federal government to “explore options to hold online information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms, and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.”"

This... this is absolute BS and I hope it's the thing that gets the Libs kicked out of power. Because while misinformation is all over the place thanks to the internet, holding those people accountable - depending on what accountable means, but likely monetary wise - is going to be harder than they think. And it will backfire and bite them in the ass.

Misinformation is just a fact of fucking life now. The BEST way to combat it isn't to go after the assholes spreading it, it's to actually get the truth out there and teach the next generation how to know the difference between bullshit and truth.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,335
8,704
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
So the Liberals are pushing "criminal sanctions for anyone questioning their version of truth".

What criminal sanctions? Again, I don't see you or I or anyone being arrested for disagreeing with their BS.

"the resolution urged the federal government to “explore options to hold online information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms, and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.”"

This... this is absolute BS and I hope it's the thing that gets the Libs kicked out of power. Because while misinformation is all over the place thanks to the internet, holding those people accountable - depending on what accountable means, but likely monetary wise - is going to be harder than they think. And it will backfire and bite them in the ass.

Misinformation is just a fact of fucking life now. The BEST way to combat it isn't to go after the assholes spreading it, it's to actually get the truth out there and teach the next generation how to know the difference between bullshit and truth.
For example, what is meant by this?: Canada should give "urgent consideration" to legal mechanisms as a way to combat residential school denialism, says a new report from the independent special interlocutor on unmarked graves.

Justice Minister David Lametti said he is open to such a solution.

Or this: Lametti, who appointed Murray to her role and joined the event in Cowessess First Nation by video conference on Friday, said that he is open to all possibilities to fighting residential-school denialism.

He said that includes “a legal solution and outlawing it,” adding that Canada can look to other countries that have criminalized Holocaust denial.

Or this?: Without debate, Liberal Party members passed a policy resolution to combat online disinformation this weekend that critics warn could give the government control over Canadian media outlets.

The resolution calls for the Liberals to "explore options to hold online information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms, and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced."

MP Rachael Thomas, the Conservatives' critic for Canadian heritage, pointed to stories that relied on journalists speaking to sources confidentially. She cited stories about the SNC-Lavalin affair and the ongoing controversy about the Liberal government's handling of foreign interference attempts.

Recent reporting by the Globe and Mail and Global News on foreign interference relied on confidential sources who risked arrest for violating Canada's official secrets law.

What criminal sanctions? Good question. It’s vague. What do you think is meant by legal solutions, etc…above? What are they dancing around?

Trudeau says he will never implement a policy, adopted by his own Liberal party mere days ago, that calls on the government to consider ways to stop online media from publishing material with sources that can’t be “traced.”
Amid criticism that the policy would trample press freedoms, Trudeau told reporters on Parliament Hill Tuesday that “rigorous” journalism is essential to hold authorities accountable around the world.
What policy is Trudeau talking about that at this point he says he’ll never implement? The one that doesn’t exist and thus must never have been considered for him to claim that he wouldn’t implement?

Anyway, sorry for sidetracking this thread, as there’s already a thread on the overreach being alluded to above:

So Jesus a Liberal? Hell if I know.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,317
2,195
113
New Brunswick
For example, what is meant by this?: Canada should give "urgent consideration" to legal mechanisms as a way to combat residential school denialism, says a new report from the independent special interlocutor on unmarked graves.

Justice Minister David Lametti said he is open to such a solution.

Or this: Lametti, who appointed Murray to her role and joined the event in Cowessess First Nation by video conference on Friday, said that he is open to all possibilities to fighting residential-school denialism.

He said that includes “a legal solution and outlawing it,” adding that Canada can look to other countries that have criminalized Holocaust denial.

You DO realize that denying the survivor stories and such of what happened at the schools, the mass graves, IS rather like denying the Holocaust, right?

Unless you can prove they're all a bunch of liars, is there any reason why they shouldn't be believed?


Yeah... denialism isn't harmful at all...

Well if you can deny this, then what's to stop others from denying the Holocaust and being held to account for that?



Now apparently Canada looked at putting in a law about Holocaust denial becoming illegal, but dunno if it will go/has gone anywhere. Actually first time reading about it so...


But nah, the survivors are lying about it, right? Just like the survivors of Residential Schools?

Or this?: Without debate, Liberal Party members passed a policy resolution to combat online disinformation this weekend that critics warn could give the government control over Canadian media outlets.

Could.

It was passed by Party members. We shouldn't be too afraid of that since these aren't a guarantee it'll be put out into actual law.

... or will it?

Should I be afraid now for the ideas the Cons just came out with?


The resolution calls for the Liberals to "explore options to hold online information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms, and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced."

MP Rachael Thomas, the Conservatives' critic for Canadian heritage, pointed to stories that relied on journalists speaking to sources confidentially. She cited stories about the SNC-Lavalin affair and the ongoing controversy about the Liberal government's handling of foreign interference attempts.

Recent reporting by the Globe and Mail and Global News on foreign interference relied on confidential sources who risked arrest for violating Canada's official secrets law.

And IMO, sources should be protected, not outed for backlash. Sure the Libs could try to push something like this through, but it'll get a LOT of blowback so... could'a/should'a/would'a.


What criminal sanctions? Good question. It’s vague. What do you think is meant by legal solutions, etc…above? What are they dancing around?

Since I'm not a mind reader, despite the assumption of people every day, it seems, I don't know.

Until it becomes a real thing, it's just talk.

Unless you think it's not just talk.

Should I look at what the Fed Cons want to put out as "not just talk"? Cause right now, again, I'm more of a "Meh, they're just affirming they're assholes, let them squawk" kind of mind set. (I separate the Fed and Prov Cons because the Provincial Cons have proven some of the Fed Con policies that passed in Quebec to be true. But Federally, I don't think the Cons would touch some issues because it'll get them shit from a national stance.)
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,741
7,677
113
Washington DC
Well if you can deny this, then what's to stop others from denying the Holocaust and being held to account for that?
"To save a fool from his folly the gods themselves contend in vain."
--Various, this version Isaac Asimov

What they think (though I hesitate to call it "thinking") isn't important. What they do is important.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,317
2,195
113
New Brunswick
"To save a fool from his folly the gods themselves contend in vain."
--Various, this version Isaac Asimov

What they think (though I hesitate to call it "thinking") isn't important. What they do is important.

Good point.

So to follow with that...

People who deny the holocaust usually end up either teaching it (like Ross) or being very public about it to push antisemitism.

People who deny the mass graves at Residential Schools... aren't "doing" so much yet, other than yapping about it. They're not stating it in protests and whatnot, like holocaust denial.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,741
7,677
113
Washington DC
Good point.

So to follow with that...

People who deny the holocaust usually end up either teaching it (like Ross) or being very public about it to push antisemitism.

People who deny the mass graves at Residential Schools... aren't "doing" so much yet, other than yapping about it. They're not stating it in protests and whatnot, like holocaust denial.
Nothing wrong with antisemitism. Focus. You can't go around committing murder, assault, arson, robbery, and general mayhem. Don't much care if you're doing it because you hate Blacks, hate Jews, hate women, hate gays, whatever.

That's the proper position of the law. Love whom you will. Hate whom you will. Say what you will. Don't hurt people.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,317
2,195
113
New Brunswick
Nothing wrong with antisemitism.

Ouch.

While I know what you're getting at with this, I also have to disagree.

Focus. You can't go around committing murder, assault, arson, robbery, and general mayhem. Don't much care if you're doing it because you hate Blacks, hate Jews, hate women, hate gays, whatever.

That's true; you can hate all you want, you just can't do shit.

That's the proper position of the law. Love whom you will. Hate whom you will. Say what you will. Don't hurt people.

The problem is, hating and saying tend to lead to hurting people. Which is why there's "hate speech" laws in Canada.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
"To save a fool from his folly the gods themselves contend in vain."
--Various, this version Isaac Asimov

What they think (though I hesitate to call it "thinking") isn't important. What they do is important.
The original is “Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain,” from the 18th century German philosopher Friedrich Schiller. I think he was wrong, it’s belief in gods that enables much human stupidity.

To the extent that what people think guides what they do, I’d argue that it is important what they think.

We’ve come a long way from “Jesus was a liberal.” Still not sure whether he was or not, he’s reported as saying some very illiberal things about the law as laid down in the Old Testament, which is itself pretty illiberal. But the Bible is a sufficiently large and complex document that it’s easy to cherry pick it to find support for almost any position you’d care to take, though if that’s the sole justification for a position I think the argument is bankrupt. Besides, if you cherry pick the good bits, like the Sermon on the Mount, and reject the bad bits like the often illegal and immoral prescriptions for correct behaviour in the OT, you already have an ethical system separate from religion and don’t need the book to guide you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,741
7,677
113
Washington DC
The original is “Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain,” from the 18th century German philosopher Friedrich Schiller. I think he was wrong, it’s belief in gods that enables much human stupidity.

To the extent that what people think guides what they do, I’d argue that it is important what they think.

We’ve come a long way from “Jesus was a liberal.” Still not sure whether he was or not, he’s reported as saying some very illiberal things about the law as laid down in the Old Testament, which is itself pretty illiberal. But the Bible is a sufficiently large and complex document that it’s easy to cherry pick it to find support for almost any position you’d care to take, though if that’s the sole justification for a position I think the argument is bankrupt. Besides, if you cherry pick the good bits, like the Sermon on the Mount, and reject the bad bits like the often illegal and immoral prescriptions for correct behaviour in the OT, you already have an ethical system separate from religion and don’t need the book to guide you.
He wasn't. Liberal is a political position. Jesus had nothing to do with politics. Or religion.

His adherence to Jewish law was to advance his point. . . politics doesn't matter. Religion doesn't matter. Caesar doesn't matter. Money doesn't matter Law doesn't matter.

What matters is your own, personal, individual relationship with God, and how you reflect that in your treatment of others.

If Jesus were to show up again and see the organizations that have been built in his name, I calculate he'd be braiding some cords into a whip.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
110,713
11,981
113
Low Earth Orbit
He wasn't. Liberal is a political position. Jesus had nothing to do with politics. Or religion.

His adherence to Jewish law was to advance his point. . . politics doesn't matter. Religion doesn't matter. Caesar doesn't matter. Money doesn't matter Law doesn't matter.

What matters is your own, personal, individual relationship with God, and how you reflect that in your treatment of others.

If Jesus were to show up again and see the organizations that have been built in his name, I calculate he'd be braiding some cords into a whip.
Mosaic law not Judean.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
He wasn't. Liberal is a political position.
Certainly it sometimes is, especially with an upper case L, but I don’t think it’s necessarily always a political position. It might also just mean something like broad minded, or having empathy for the plight of others. But there are also those who’d argue that *any* set of values is a political position, which is a can of worms I don’t want to hijack this thread with. Politically it means someone who believes government should be active in promoting certain social and political causes, and in that sense I’d have to agree he wasn’t a liberal.
 
Last edited:

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,292
996
113
...But there are also those who’d argue that *any* set of values is a political position, which is a can of worms I don’t want to hijack this thread with.
yeah
that would be me
everything's political for the simple fact that we can't agree on everything
politics, religion, sex, drugs, rock and roll, coke, pepsi, glue, you name it - we don't all agree, which kinda makes it political, even if not always in the sense of 'partisan politics'.