Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 12:45:18 AM
Grim!

I don't know the answer to the question for myself. Then again I live in a massively cosmopolitan city, so there's not exactly a type around here. And that is then the problem.

I think you should move here for a few years and see if your opinions change!

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 01:40:01 AM
I think it's one of the least worst of the possible options.

Noone knows your situation, but you may want to make sure you aren't just making excuses.
I don't know about you guys, but I love my under-120s. They're so cute and funny. Just yesterday one stole my GPS unit and another one took a dump in my yard. Ha ha, they're such cards.

Phoenix

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 02:09:37 AM
I think it's one of the least worst of the possible options.

Noone knows your situation, but you may want to make sure you aren't just making excuses.

If you must know, I don't know where the ideal place is, but for now, finances considered, this place will suffice, and it will suffice relatively well.

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 02:17:18 AM
So what we have, as I see it is this:
In Canada, at least, leftism has evolved into a totalitarian censorship system, that really needs no overseeing, since it enforces itself.
People are stopped, in their tracks, from expressing any conclusions they may have come to, from observing and/or directly experiencing their lives.
If they do so, they are called stereotypers, or generalizers, or bigots.
Stereotyper: One who assigns certain behaviours to certain groups.
It escapes the ones who label such people 'stereotypers', that they themselves are stereotyping the ones they so label, as being part of a certain group, known as 'stereotypers'.
The same goes for any such labeling of individuals.
Oops, supper is ready, gotta go...

(Damn, I have a superior sort of wife :)

 
Squawk!

Phoenix

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 02:29:12 AM
The way you see it is offensive, because it is illogical and ignores the facts (and then excuses itself with fancifulness).

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 02:59:03 AM
Your comment is ambiguous.
Have I offended you?
If I have, then I am glad, even though it was the last thing I set out to do.
You, yourself, are extremely offensive, and gratuitously so.
Not that I mind.
I have nothing to prove.
And as for the size of my ego...


Squawk!

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 03:16:34 AM
In short;
When a man knows his worth, it looks like ego to the worthless.
Ego is the portrayal of worth, in place of the worth, itself.

The life of The Canadian Liberal revolves around the giving, and taking, of offense.
It's about the only thing 'equal' about liberals.
They give, and take, this thing, equally.
Squawk!

Phoenix

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 04:57:42 AM
Your comment is ambiguous.

Let me ignore the remaining fancifulness of your reply and address this first point. My comment is ambiguous? I said you are illogical and ignore the facts. In this thread you are framing my apparently huge ego as typical of the Liberal Canadian, yet you cannot establish what defines me as particularly liberal or even as particularly Canadian. I personally hold no favour towards liberalism or Canada, yet you continue to bombard me with these rediculous labels--you who just recently started the thread "label this!" in which you criticize the use of labels. I express that I do not vote for the Liberal Party of Canada and that I believe I am extremely unrepresentative of the average Canadian, yet you do not engage me along these lines of discussion. Instead, you continue to bombard me with derogatory stereotypes, and further assert that one of my faults as a "Liberal Canadian" is that I will fault you for stereotyping me. Please try to understand, the offense has nothing to do with you calling me a liberal, with you calling me a Canadian, or with you disparaging either of those two labels. The offense you speak of arises from an impersonal place, from a universal place, where logic is over-archingly the dominant hierarchy and establishes that which is true and just. In effect you offend yourself, and I simply point it out. That you appropriate the good name of Eastern spirituality as part of you ruse makes you all the more sorry.

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 05:06:20 AM
Fine, but what are you saying?
You admit voting NDP.
That is as left-wing as it's possible to get, unless you go the Marxist-Leninist route.
You hang yourself by your own petard, mon vieux.
And leave the logic out. You have no clear grasp of what logic is.
What you are referring to, is emotional delusion, which was what I designed the thread to explore.
This isn't a battle, and I am not engaging you.
Why would I?
Shadow-boxing is not my thing.
I dug a hole and you jumped in.
Nobody made you do that, or even invited you to.
So you're in a hole. So what? Who cares, anyway?
Dig deeper, or climb out.
Have fun.
 


Squawk!

Phoenix

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 05:21:16 AM
The NDP party and the Liberal party are in hot contest against one another in Canada currently, and as I stated I do not identify with the label of "liberal". Furthermore I do not vote for the NDP because I believe they are the strongest party in the area of human rights, what appeals to me most is their economic policies, their environmental policies (which I forgot to mention earlier) and their military policies, but of course I did not have an opportunity to mention this since you never cared to engage me on this topic.

The fact remains that you call me a "Canadian Liberal", whereas in my paradigm I can find no term, label, stereotype or pigeonhole in which to place you. Perhaps you are unique, but I submit that I am also unique, yet you can stereotype me but I cannot stereotype you.

And since meta-politics are so much at play these days, allow me to clarify my intentions in making my previous post. I sought to allow other forum members to laugh at you and glimpse wisdom in the process, I sought to honor the responsibility of carrying the link that I do in my sig, and I sought to bolster my standing on these forums so that said if I seek to express more glimpses of said wisdom in the future that my words will be taken in good standing. On a personal level I could care less, except that it is part of the process of life and I am fervently engaged in it.

And yes, as I write this I am not angry, rather I am having fun, if you have not figured that out already!

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 05:44:17 AM
Whatever you say, Jack.
So 'human rights' is at the top of your must-have list?
That's no surprise. I wonder that you haven't realized what a death-sentence to humanity that idiotic fantasy is yet.
Are you one of those postcard-writing troopers exploited by Amnesty International?
And, as you say, you seek to impress forum members with your wisdom.
Well, a tip for the young: young people don't have any wisdom.
That's why it's called wisdom.
In order to impress people with it, it is necessary to first have some of it.
And, experience tells me, wisdom isn't something the non-wise are able to recognize.
They obviously - not being wise - don't know what it is.
And so they ridicule it, as being the pretense of wisdom.
Like you do, to me.
Often.

It might be better to graciously concede, before you start to look like you are beginning to look.
There is no disgrace in that. There is actually wisdom in that.
Dare you smile and accept it?
I invite you.



Squawk!

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 01:46:35 PM
I admit, I have trouble with this.
And since you'va all wanted to be Canadian Liberals, at some point, here's what I know about it...

There is a script you maust follow. It goes something like this:
1: "How are you today?"
2: You are supposed to respond with: "Fine thanks. How about you?"
3: "Fine thanks."
Then you're both supposed to end the conversation and ignore each other.
But if you don't respond to being asked how you are today, the initiator will respond as if you had, anyway.
If you do respond, but with any details about how you actually are, the initiator will become increasingly paranoid, and may well end up calling the police.

In stores, which is where Canadians spend almost all their free time, there is also a script.
This often takes the form of adding non-sequiturs to the end of any question:
1: "Do you have a telephone number, with us, today?"
Which is a sort of base starting point, for other random non-sequiturs, such as:
2: "Do you have a telephone number, with us, today, at all?" Or:
3: "Do you have a telephone number, with us, today, at all, or...?"
Notice, in example 3:, the addition of what I like to refer to, as 'The Hanging "Or"'. The Hanging 'Or' denotes your unwillingness to assume anything, which is a good indicator of your non-judgmentalism, and thus complete harmlessness, which is the most important thing a Canadian Liberal wishes to convey.

This is a very funny way to put it, and I realize (even though I'm not Canadian) that this pertains to a particular neurotic pattern of behaviour, but I still want to nitpick because the subject of discourse is always interesting.

You will have a hard time finding a culture in any place or time in which spoken discourse is entirely pragmatic. Similarly to body language the empty phrase has always worked as a much needed social lubricant, as anyone who has ever made friends or successfully courted a woman realizes. What is striking (and sad) is actually how we have less codes of conduct today than ever before, and how politeness is becoming less and less important. Acceptable behaviour in aristocratic societies required knowledge of many of these seemingly pointless linguistic subtleties, because "going the extra mile" for your conversational partner was seen as a proof of respect and politeness.

We should put this in your context again however. As you pointed out this is a time when all substance has given way for fluff and air, and indeed; lubricant should only be applied to achieve the sufficient amount of friction, and not to remove it altogether. The Anus demands the right amount of lubricant. :-D

Phoenix

Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 02:01:55 PM
So 'human rights' is at the top of your must-have list?

Just the opposite.

Quote
And, as you say, you seek to impress forum members with your wisdom.

Impress? Not at all. Nor do I try to make myself look like an incompetent, blathering idiot. Let me put it this way: I pay attention to how other forum members perceive me to help guard against the possibility of them misinterpreting my words. Fair enough?


Re: Adventures in Canadian Liberalism.
April 07, 2012, 06:09:55 PM
It may, too, set the standard of discourse, so we may, with some work, raise it from there.

Squawk!