Is this religion of misogynistic, paedophiles and perverts the same one people say we shouldn't criticize out of respect for a culture that is "different" than our own?
Why?
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Objectivist Round Up #159
Benpercent is this weeks host over at Musing Aloud. Get it while it's hot!!!
Your Body, Their Choice.
Whether Dr. Zamboni is a snake oil salesman or not. Whether his procedure is a real treatment or a fake, tested and proven or unproven and untested, the fact remains that the government ought not to be in the business of prohibiting or condoning what rational people in the maturity of their faculties do with their own bodies.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Being Dog Walked to the Ultimate Inversion
This is disgusting.
We have already determined the legal ages of certain aspects of our society, and this is reasonable. Although one might argue about the arbitrary establishment of a certain age for certain privileges, the need to have an appropriate level of maturity is not in question in most cases.
The reason that we have set 16 as the age limit for driving is because the majority believe that at that age most teens are mature enough to be given the responsibility. McGuinty decided that that was not good enough and instituted the graduated licencing system citing facts which listed young drivers as being more liable to be involved in an accident. Now he's extending the reach of the nanny state even more. Changing the rules again, shifting the goal posts away from personal responsibility. More control for the state, less responsibility for individuals. Death by a thousand cuts along the long road to the ultimate inversion.
Paternal is too timid a term for this school marm turned political hand holder.
Look at this legislation closely and you will see that the driving force behind this, and the graduated licence system is a deep distrust of the ability of individuals to act reasonably and rationally. It also incorporates the deep seated belief that the job of government extends far past protecting the rights of citizens to the belief that governmentneeds to must protect its citizens from themselves.
That kind of forced benevolence is one shackle short of a set of manacles. McGuinty and all those who think like him would have us behave like dogs on a chain, with the great hand of government holding the other end, ready to haul us up short should we happen to stray off their preferred path. Actually, in McGuinty's case it is worse. Having already told us to "heel" he feels the need to constantly pull the chain tighter till we are choking in obedience.
The thing a statist like McGuinty will never understand is that individual liberty and freedom not only means that you can do all that is legal but it also allows that you as an individual have the ability to make a mistake, regardless of the consequences. Indeed, consequences that are understood and known beforehand are a mark of a free society. Not allowing an individual to make a mistake is a sign of totalitarianism.
This guy has to go.
We have already determined the legal ages of certain aspects of our society, and this is reasonable. Although one might argue about the arbitrary establishment of a certain age for certain privileges, the need to have an appropriate level of maturity is not in question in most cases.
The reason that we have set 16 as the age limit for driving is because the majority believe that at that age most teens are mature enough to be given the responsibility. McGuinty decided that that was not good enough and instituted the graduated licencing system citing facts which listed young drivers as being more liable to be involved in an accident. Now he's extending the reach of the nanny state even more. Changing the rules again, shifting the goal posts away from personal responsibility. More control for the state, less responsibility for individuals. Death by a thousand cuts along the long road to the ultimate inversion.
Paternal is too timid a term for this school marm turned political hand holder.
Look at this legislation closely and you will see that the driving force behind this, and the graduated licence system is a deep distrust of the ability of individuals to act reasonably and rationally. It also incorporates the deep seated belief that the job of government extends far past protecting the rights of citizens to the belief that government
That kind of forced benevolence is one shackle short of a set of manacles. McGuinty and all those who think like him would have us behave like dogs on a chain, with the great hand of government holding the other end, ready to haul us up short should we happen to stray off their preferred path. Actually, in McGuinty's case it is worse. Having already told us to "heel" he feels the need to constantly pull the chain tighter till we are choking in obedience.
The thing a statist like McGuinty will never understand is that individual liberty and freedom not only means that you can do all that is legal but it also allows that you as an individual have the ability to make a mistake, regardless of the consequences. Indeed, consequences that are understood and known beforehand are a mark of a free society. Not allowing an individual to make a mistake is a sign of totalitarianism.
This guy has to go.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Arguement
If you disagree with me tell me how. Attempt to show me where I have gone wrong. Explain to me your reasoning and your reason.
If you can not convince me don't resort to calling me names. Do not assume that I am "dogmatic", "pig headed", "brainwashed" or "stupid" for I will always use reason and reality to form my opinions. I will not resort to emotion, fiction, fantasy or faith.
If you can assure me of the same then perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle of our individual beliefs and we will both be proven wrong by a better argument still to come.
If you can not assure me of the same, then you have no business trying to convince me in the first place.
If you can not convince me don't resort to calling me names. Do not assume that I am "dogmatic", "pig headed", "brainwashed" or "stupid" for I will always use reason and reality to form my opinions. I will not resort to emotion, fiction, fantasy or faith.
If you can assure me of the same then perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle of our individual beliefs and we will both be proven wrong by a better argument still to come.
If you can not assure me of the same, then you have no business trying to convince me in the first place.
Judge...
Right and wrong are simple concepts, easily divisible, easily discernible. Applied with the proper principal it is quite simple and quite correct to say…
“I’m right. You’re wrong.”
Applying Equity, Equally
When I read this article, I thought, like most Canadians, that the issue at hand was about equality. With that in mind I indignantly criticized the policy for trying to correct discrimination by discriminating.
But it's not about equality its about equity, a word with a much more, shall we say, fuzzy (and therefore politically useful) definition. The equity in question is specifically Canada's version of affirmative action called employment equity.
To quote from the act itself:
Tell me, which of these is true? Is the act designed to achieve equality so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability? Or is it to correct conditions of disadvantage through special measures and the accommodation of differences?
Pick one, have your cake or eat it. You can not do both. The two stated goals are incompatible, they are contradictory and therefore can not and will not be mutually satisfied. You can have equality based on merit or you can ignore merit and satisfy physical, gender or racially based criteria. But you can not consistently claim to do both.
Yes, it may very well be that the best person for the job also happens to be one of the preferred class (a woman, or disabled or a minority or aboriginal) but it will happen only by chance.
Sara Landriault commented;
So I was thinking, since it is clear that the Employment Equity Act is really not about equality of any sort, only equity, and since the population of Canada consists of people, 88.79% of whom are designated as part of the "Non Visible Minority Population" (read the majority); by my calculations in order to apply this equitable policy equally, those identifying as "Visible Minorities" ought only to be permitted to apply for 11.21% of all jobs in Canada.
That is truly an equitable solution. What is more it applies the principle which denied Mrs. Landriault the opportunity to apply for the job to all Canadians as equally as possible. So lets do it that way instead!
I'm joking of course.
The idea is as ridiculous as it is distasteful to any reasonable rational person, we all know it and we all recognize it. So what makes the very same idea reasonable to seemingly rational people when applied unequally based on the same criteria of race, gender, handicap and ethnicity?
But it's not about equality its about equity, a word with a much more, shall we say, fuzzy (and therefore politically useful) definition. The equity in question is specifically Canada's version of affirmative action called employment equity.
To quote from the act itself:
"The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences."Whoa!
Tell me, which of these is true? Is the act designed to achieve equality so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability? Or is it to correct conditions of disadvantage through special measures and the accommodation of differences?
Pick one, have your cake or eat it. You can not do both. The two stated goals are incompatible, they are contradictory and therefore can not and will not be mutually satisfied. You can have equality based on merit or you can ignore merit and satisfy physical, gender or racially based criteria. But you can not consistently claim to do both.
Yes, it may very well be that the best person for the job also happens to be one of the preferred class (a woman, or disabled or a minority or aboriginal) but it will happen only by chance.
Sara Landriault commented;
“I do not wish to take anyone’s job, my only wish was to be allowed to apply based on my qualifications. No government should have the right to ask you your race or gender to see if you are qualified for a job. That is discrimination.”She is correct. It is discrimination, but what is more is that she is only appealing to the very principle for which this act was apparently created to address, she is only trying to appeal to the equality part of the act, to have an equal chance based on merit to get the job. The response built into this flawed, discriminatory and racist act is predictable. Your merit does not matter, sorry you don't meet the (in this instance) racial criteria.
So I was thinking, since it is clear that the Employment Equity Act is really not about equality of any sort, only equity, and since the population of Canada consists of people, 88.79% of whom are designated as part of the "Non Visible Minority Population" (read the majority); by my calculations in order to apply this equitable policy equally, those identifying as "Visible Minorities" ought only to be permitted to apply for 11.21% of all jobs in Canada.
That is truly an equitable solution. What is more it applies the principle which denied Mrs. Landriault the opportunity to apply for the job to all Canadians as equally as possible. So lets do it that way instead!
I'm joking of course.
The idea is as ridiculous as it is distasteful to any reasonable rational person, we all know it and we all recognize it. So what makes the very same idea reasonable to seemingly rational people when applied unequally based on the same criteria of race, gender, handicap and ethnicity?
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Objectivist Round Up #158
LB has this weeks Round Up neatly filed away in her 3 Ring Binder. Check it out!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Peace at any Cost
"Canada is supportive of it because there are no conflicts in the world that have been able to resolve themselves without any reconciliation and reintegration so we have indicated our support for that process."
Minister Canon is correct. but not in the way he believes he is.
Conflicts, or should I say wars, because war is where we are at, don't "resolve themselves". They are won or they are lost. Apartheid, the first "conflict" to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a war that the forces of freedom and equality won. Then they chose to engage the enemy in dialogue.
Just what are our politicians trying to reconcile with the Taliban? Do they so naievely believe that the Taliban and their fellow travellers are going to "renounce violence" when it has already gotten them so much?
The terrorists and Taliban have fought NATO to a virtual standstill. Why? Because NATO is not permitted to wage the kind of war that would see the Taliban defeated. NATO is becoming a UN light, hamstrung by feel good policies where the desire to reduce collateral damage is more important than winning the war. Could you imagine Churchill demanding that the bombing of Dresden be halted because of collateral damage?
What sort of negotiations would take place under this reconciliation commission? What concessions would the Taliban get in return for laying down their arms? Maybe they would only be able to stone adulterers every other day? Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays are kill an infidel day, but Tuesday Thursday and weekends are reserved for religious secularism? Girls schools are fair game for beatings and acid throwing but they promise not to kill homosexuals?
When the South Africans developed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission it was because they knew that there was some value, some good in the white South African culture. They knew that their country would be less able, less stable and less prosperous without the whites and their skill, knowledge and experience. So someone please tell me what value is there in anything that comes out of the Taliban's twisted ideology?
Nothing.
Stop this insanity now. Don't offer any deal, no capitulation no reconciliation.
Lets get back to work and fight this war like it really matters, because you know what... it does.
Because for every Taliban scumbag hiding in a cave there are 40 or 50 more psychopathic fascists watching the goings on in Afghanistan on the Internet in Saudi Arabia, Iran Pakistan and Indonesia waiting for us to fail...
There is a cost that must be paid for peace. That cost is nothing short of total war. It's time for us to get our peace at any cost.
Minister Canon is correct. but not in the way he believes he is.
Conflicts, or should I say wars, because war is where we are at, don't "resolve themselves". They are won or they are lost. Apartheid, the first "conflict" to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a war that the forces of freedom and equality won. Then they chose to engage the enemy in dialogue.
Just what are our politicians trying to reconcile with the Taliban? Do they so naievely believe that the Taliban and their fellow travellers are going to "renounce violence" when it has already gotten them so much?
The terrorists and Taliban have fought NATO to a virtual standstill. Why? Because NATO is not permitted to wage the kind of war that would see the Taliban defeated. NATO is becoming a UN light, hamstrung by feel good policies where the desire to reduce collateral damage is more important than winning the war. Could you imagine Churchill demanding that the bombing of Dresden be halted because of collateral damage?
What sort of negotiations would take place under this reconciliation commission? What concessions would the Taliban get in return for laying down their arms? Maybe they would only be able to stone adulterers every other day? Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays are kill an infidel day, but Tuesday Thursday and weekends are reserved for religious secularism? Girls schools are fair game for beatings and acid throwing but they promise not to kill homosexuals?
When the South Africans developed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission it was because they knew that there was some value, some good in the white South African culture. They knew that their country would be less able, less stable and less prosperous without the whites and their skill, knowledge and experience. So someone please tell me what value is there in anything that comes out of the Taliban's twisted ideology?
Nothing.
Stop this insanity now. Don't offer any deal, no capitulation no reconciliation.
Lets get back to work and fight this war like it really matters, because you know what... it does.
Because for every Taliban scumbag hiding in a cave there are 40 or 50 more psychopathic fascists watching the goings on in Afghanistan on the Internet in Saudi Arabia, Iran Pakistan and Indonesia waiting for us to fail...
There is a cost that must be paid for peace. That cost is nothing short of total war. It's time for us to get our peace at any cost.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Objectivist Round Up #157.
Rachel has the Round Up this week at The Playful Spirit. It's the 3 year anniversary!
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
A Veiled Threat?
Well the French Parliament has decided to ban the Veil.
With all the problems that country has with a growing Muslim population accompanied by growing extremism, that is the French solution?
Gee, If they'd only been this pro-active in 1939... They could have stopped the Germans cold by outlawing Lederhosen.
With all the problems that country has with a growing Muslim population accompanied by growing extremism, that is the French solution?
Gee, If they'd only been this pro-active in 1939... They could have stopped the Germans cold by outlawing Lederhosen.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Attempting to Have His Cake and Eat it Too
"When Jeremy Dyer was selected to represent his province because of his human rights art, he had no idea he'd find himself in line to shake Prime Minister Stephen Harper's hand.
The notion was an affront to Dyer, an activist who vehemently disagrees with many of Harper's policies."
Well, isn't that special.
To put this in perspective...
This young a--, activist was chosen to take a trip covering almost 3000km on the government's dime. He was put up in a hotel, at taxpayer expense and fed at government expense for the chance to get national exposure (read free publicity) for his artwork and his cause in a National (Government run) museum and when the Prime Minister shows up for the money shot - the handshake - this ungrateful little snot is rude enough to refuse to, to turn a phrase - dance with the one what brought him?
Perhaps if young Jeremy was so opposed to the government's policies he should have discovered the backbone to stand for his principles before he became the governments artistic whore, not after.Later, talking with reporters about being asked to remove himself from the reception line, which he did, Mrs. Dyer's little boy commented that “That was the breaking point — when I was suppressed for my beliefs.”
Suppressed?! This mooching scab of an "artist" was suppressed? How? Was it the free flight, food and accommodation? The national exposure? The support of the cause of human rights as demonstrated by the PM and the government he is so quick to disrespect?
I hope that Jeremy Dyer learns a lesson from this which is best summed up by another marvellous saying, one about laying down with dogs.
Oh, I also hope that the government is paying attention. Its lesson is that Jeremy Dyer is a capricious, churlish, child and should never be given an opportunity like that ever again.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
O Canada CON?
While I'm not sure how many Canadian Objectivists there are, or how many even visit this site I though I would ask if anyone would be interested in a Canadian version of the OCON event going on now south of the border.
Now I'm not suggesting that it would involve anything as extravagant as renting a floor in the Chateau Laurier (though given time it might be able to grow into that), hell I'd be happy with (and was actually thinking of) a weekend of camping by a nice lake somewhere shooting the philosophical breeze with like minded people...
As for events, perhaps Paul McKeever could be convinced to host a lecture or something, and I'm sure there are passionate Canadian O'ists out there who could be convinced to give a short talk followed by a collaborative bull session on subjects near and dear to them.
Couple that with good food, beautiful scenery and stimulating people, or any combination thereof, and I'd say you have the makings of a really good time.
Let me know if your interested...
P.S. Our Objectivist friends wherever they may be from would be most welcome of course.
Cheers,
Zip
Now I'm not suggesting that it would involve anything as extravagant as renting a floor in the Chateau Laurier (though given time it might be able to grow into that), hell I'd be happy with (and was actually thinking of) a weekend of camping by a nice lake somewhere shooting the philosophical breeze with like minded people...
As for events, perhaps Paul McKeever could be convinced to host a lecture or something, and I'm sure there are passionate Canadian O'ists out there who could be convinced to give a short talk followed by a collaborative bull session on subjects near and dear to them.
Couple that with good food, beautiful scenery and stimulating people, or any combination thereof, and I'd say you have the makings of a really good time.
Let me know if your interested...
P.S. Our Objectivist friends wherever they may be from would be most welcome of course.
Cheers,
Zip
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Blamestorming and Guiltmongering
In 2006 Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for the Head Tax, a levee charged against Chinese immigrants to Canada. This tax is rightly considered to be among the most racist laws ever passed in Canada, and the apology was the right thing to do, regardless of how long ago this injustice took place. It was also proper to compensate those who had paid the tax.
For some raised in this age of collectivized guiltmongering and blamestorming that apology was obviously not enough.
So now the children of those Chinese immigrants that paid the head tax, but who died before the apology was issued feel that "The apology was not as meaningful to us as it was to other [Chinese families],” and that “The federal government left out a large chunk of people and you have to find some way you can meaningfully provide redress for them.”
Left out? Excuse me? I'll quote from the PM's speech, you tell me who was left out...
"On behalf of the people and government of Canada, we offer a full apology to Chinese-Canadians for the head tax and express our deepest sorrow for the subsequent exclusion of Chinese immigrants."
Did the PM say, that the apology was only to those that paid the tax? No. It was issued in good faith to all Chinese-Canadians.
That can only mean one thing... It means that the "meaningful redress" that these non-suffering survivors are talking about is nothing more (or less) than "victim" talk for give me some money.
That is ridiculous. I would like just one of these poor downtrodden souls to explain to me and to show me in objective terms just how a law to which they were never subjected, which has been rescinded since 1923 has ever affected them in the slightest possible way. Hell, Sid Chow Tan, the president of the Head Tax Families Society of Canada was born on May 20, 1949, 26 years after the law was removed from the books.
I would wager that since the law was repealed 87 years ago that at least 90% of those family members calling for "meaningful redress" (money) are like Mr. Tan, and were not even born when the law was struck down.
But this particular call for restitution (as opposed to the original) really isn't about the effects of the law at all is it?
No.
It's a not so subtle reminder that there were times when Canadians and their government acted with malice and racism. But more than that it is about holding current generations hostage to collectivized guilt.
Aside from the stated goal to "promote racial harmony amongst all Canadians" the Head Tax Families Society of Canada by pursuing this frivoulous claim to collective hardship is only continuing to divide Canadians from Canadians based on a historic aberration and race politics.
For some raised in this age of collectivized guiltmongering and blamestorming that apology was obviously not enough.
So now the children of those Chinese immigrants that paid the head tax, but who died before the apology was issued feel that "The apology was not as meaningful to us as it was to other [Chinese families],” and that “The federal government left out a large chunk of people and you have to find some way you can meaningfully provide redress for them.”
Left out? Excuse me? I'll quote from the PM's speech, you tell me who was left out...
"On behalf of the people and government of Canada, we offer a full apology to Chinese-Canadians for the head tax and express our deepest sorrow for the subsequent exclusion of Chinese immigrants."
Did the PM say, that the apology was only to those that paid the tax? No. It was issued in good faith to all Chinese-Canadians.
That can only mean one thing... It means that the "meaningful redress" that these non-suffering survivors are talking about is nothing more (or less) than "victim" talk for give me some money.
That is ridiculous. I would like just one of these poor downtrodden souls to explain to me and to show me in objective terms just how a law to which they were never subjected, which has been rescinded since 1923 has ever affected them in the slightest possible way. Hell, Sid Chow Tan, the president of the Head Tax Families Society of Canada was born on May 20, 1949, 26 years after the law was removed from the books.
I would wager that since the law was repealed 87 years ago that at least 90% of those family members calling for "meaningful redress" (money) are like Mr. Tan, and were not even born when the law was struck down.
But this particular call for restitution (as opposed to the original) really isn't about the effects of the law at all is it?
No.
It's a not so subtle reminder that there were times when Canadians and their government acted with malice and racism. But more than that it is about holding current generations hostage to collectivized guilt.
Aside from the stated goal to "promote racial harmony amongst all Canadians" the Head Tax Families Society of Canada by pursuing this frivoulous claim to collective hardship is only continuing to divide Canadians from Canadians based on a historic aberration and race politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
