Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

This Would Never Happen In Canada


Recommended Posts

Here's something to add to the pot.

Excerpt:

They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?' -- 'That's my seat, I was there first' -- 'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm' -- 'Why should you shove in first?' -- 'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine' -- 'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong.

End of excerpt

Religious principles are based on natural law.

Very interesting excerpt, thanks.

In regard to your final comment, if religious principles have their root in the 'common standard' of natural law your excerpt discusses, it is probably more accurate to describe them as distortions of it arising from the 'special excuses' that offenders plead from the standard. If religion was not about seeking a variance from the natural law, then why would it bother to differentiate itself. We would have no separate word or concept of religion as distinct from the natural law/common standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And are religious principles based on reason? Absolutely not.

Sure they are...

!!

Like the injunction in the Koran for men to have dominion over their wives, for example?

What nonsense!

I guess it's obvious why you cut out the rest of my post: "...Reason is simply a fancy name trotted out of the renaissance to describe the rationalism of Plato. Are you suggesting that something like the ten commandments are unreason?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hindus used to practice the Suttee until the Brits put a stop to it. I notice India didn't bring it back when they left. Would we now respect it as a valid expression of religion if they had? Gere is guilty of stupidity and possibly a misdemeanor like taking a leak in a public place but a crime, I don't think so unless the lady wants to charge him with assault.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... Are you suggesting that something like the ten commandments are unreason?"[/i]

Parts of the Ten Commandments can be justified on the grounds of reason, other parts not. Most notably, the First Commandment is ludicrous. More generally, the notion that a 'Supreme' being gave the laws to Moses is a kind of childish superstition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... Are you suggesting that something like the ten commandments are unreason?"[/i]

Parts of the Ten Commandments can be justified on the grounds of reason, other parts not. Most notably, the First Commandment is ludicrous. More generally, the notion that a 'Supreme' being gave the laws to Moses is a kind of childish superstition.

You don't realize how arrogant this pronouncement by you is, I take it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ten Commandments

1. You shall have no other Gods but me.

2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.

4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.

5. Respect your father and mother.

6. You must not kill.

7. You must not commit adultery.

8. You must not steal.

9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.

10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.

The last six make sense but the first four do not.

Remember folks -- these were written by men centuries ago. (Not laser-beamed down by an entity)

If people were worshipping numerous entities it would be more (much more) difficult to control their actions. Having one diety ensures that people will "follow orders".

Link to post
Share on other sites
For those of you who think our religious leaders are bad for being against gay marriage, get a load of this:

Richard Gere is now the subject of possible legal action in India for a smooch gone awry after three attorneys filed formal complaints alleging the actor committed an "obscene act" by kissing Bollywood beauty Shilpa Shetty at a public conference Monday.

The PDA sparked a firestorm of controversy in a male-dominated country that prides itself on modesty and touched off protests organized by religious conservatives that saw Gere and Shetty burned in effigy throughout the country.

Per India's Press Trust news agency, two lawyers filed an obscenity claim in Ghaziabad, a town outside the Indian capital of New Delhi, against Shetty, as well as several private TV news broadcasters for airing the incident. Another lawyer, Poonal Chandra Bhandari, filed a separate complaint blasting the Chicago star for his overly exuberant behavior.

(End quote)

Interestingly, in the US......

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=3143...TC-RSSFeeds0312

California Man May Go to Prison for Kissing on a Plane

A California man may pay with prison time for a public display of affection on a plane.

Carl Persing was convicted Thursday of interfering with flight attendants and crew members after he and his girlfriend, Dawn Sewell, were seen "embracing, kissing and acting in a manner that made other passengers uncomfortable," according to a criminal complaint.

Related Content

According to assistant U.S. Attorney John Bowler, Persing will likely serve jail time for the federal felony conviction, the Associated Press reports. He was convicted after a three-day trial in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Va.

According to an FBI indictment, Persing's face was pressed to Sewell's vaginal area during the September Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Raleigh, N.C. When a flight attendant gave them a second warning, Persing reacted angrily and the couple, both in their early 40s, were arrested when the plane reached its destination.

At the time, the couple's lawyer claimed that Persing had his head in Sewell's lap because he wasn't feeling well and that the flight attendant had humiliated and harassed them.

so they were kissing, for sure, then maybe more, maybe not.

as of late it is interesting to note airlines have been a little wacky with all manner of people

so kissing in public, can get you jail time in the US!

wackiness abounds everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL I think it was a little more than kissing, more like lewd behaviour.

Um actually, it's a he said/she said scenario.

Laying one's head in someone's lap, could possibly be perceived as lewd, by a prig, and, that is the airline's version, the couples version is laying head in lap because, spouse does not feel well, and there is nothing lewd about that.

I would say, it's actually a case of the airlines making a mountain out of a molehill, particularily in light of other incident's on planes, did you read the entire article?

as cited in the article

*One passenger on a Delta flight from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City was arrested for leaving his seat to go to the lavatory less than 30 minutes before landing (due to the incident, air marshals ordered all passengers to put their hands on their heads for the rest of the flight).

*And an Orthodox Jewish man was kicked off an Air Canada flight for praying, which attendants claim was making other passengers nervous.

*Other passengers have been taken off flights for making jokes, such as asking attendants if they had "checked the crew for sobriety" and "where do you keep the bomb?" Some have been booted for taking onboard hand cream, matches and bottles of water, and for sniffing something in a bag.

* In 2005, a United Airlines flight out of Chicago was delayed because a small boy said something inappropriate.

then there's the other passengers being over the top.......

*"In September, Seth Stein, a London interior designer returning from his vacation in Turks and Caicos, was put in a chokehold and physically pinned to his seat by another passenger on an American Airlines flight. Stein's crime: He used an iPod, went to the lavatory and his tan made him appear "Arab.""

as stated wackiness abounds EVERYWHERE.!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a woman can tell pretty accurately what the guy is doing to another woman. He was told to stop twice, and this was not what got him in trouble. When he reacted angrily and got up out of his seat to confront the stewardess, he violated flight rules. THIS action is what got him possible jail time, not merely his lewd behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a woman can tell pretty accurately what the guy is doing to another woman. He was told to stop twice, and this was not what got him in trouble. When he reacted angrily and got up out of his seat to confront the stewardess, he violated flight rules. THIS action is what got him possible jail time, not merely his lewd behaviour.

"He got out of his seat, and responded angrily"

maybe because the woman flight attendant, was being rude? presumptious?

what do you suppose that little boy said, to get him kicked off the plane?

how about the nursing mother?

How about the guy with the tan?

face it, wackiness abounds everywhere!

as was my point all along, so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the time to analyze all of your examples, but suffice it to say, in a context of where you get arrested for merely saying the wrong word (bomb), I'm not surprised to hear that some witless people get in trouble with the airlines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have the time to analyze all of your examples, but suffice it to say, in a context of where you get arrested for merely saying the wrong word (bomb), I'm not surprised to hear that some witless people get in trouble with the airlines.

witless people?

or overzealous airlines in a climate of purposely perpetuated fear??

I'd say the second, is the more accurate narrative.

when fear runs rampant, rationality, goes out the window!

as I stated, wackiness is everywhere!!!

it is NOT limited to one country/group of people, etc.,

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have the time to analyze all of your examples, but suffice it to say, in a context of where you get arrested for merely saying the wrong word (bomb), I'm not surprised to hear that some witless people get in trouble with the airlines.

Don't you horny people who can't wait the appropriate place :)-

Most people with an ounce of intelligence know you are on your best behaviour while flying these days. Whos to say it wouldn't happen in Canada, I bet it would

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Native North Americans had culture but no "religion" per say.

Really? What was all that stuff about animism and the great spirit and stuff?

Not to mention immigrants from India bringing their culture/religion into Canada - abusing and even murdering their women!

How, I wonder would Drea respond to that....being a feminist and all!

"Indo-Canadian women in B.C. gathered together this week for a ground-breaking forum on domestic abuse, sharing stories about a cycle of violence often kept hidden behind closed doors.

The forum was prompted by a rash of violence against South Asian women in recent weeks. He said there is a deep rooted inequity ingrained in South Asian culture that needs to be addressed. Quite simply, women and men are not treated equally -- he cited the dowry system, where women are treated almost as property, as an example."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1103?hub=Canada

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't realize how arrogant this pronouncement by you is, I take it?

You don't know how arrogant it is to proclaim there is a God without any credible proof, do you?

Nobody can prove the existence or non-existence of God!

Link to post
Share on other sites

See!

Stalking people on threads. ;)

If you want to discuss this go back to the original thread instead of randomly picking threads to discuss the same topic (the "Betsy thinks women are worthless" topic LOL)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a woman can tell pretty accurately what the guy is doing to another woman. He was told to stop twice, and this was not what got him in trouble. When he reacted angrily and got up out of his seat to confront the stewardess, he violated flight rules. THIS action is what got him possible jail time, not merely his lewd behaviour.

"He got out of his seat, and responded angrily"

maybe because the woman flight attendant, was being rude? presumptious?

Whether the flight attendant was being rude or presumptous....or maybe the attendant was just envious....or having her mood swing...or just plainly being cranky....or obnoxious.....etc...these are all just assumptions you make of the scenario.

That "he got out of his seat, and responded angrily" is a fact (that is based on the news account you've relayed to us). From here we can assume that maybe the man made a threatening gesture when he got up....abusive language...threatening words....his reaction made passengers really agitated, not to mention the attendant...etc. But then that's just what these are: assumptions.

They'll sort that out later....during investigations.

But the man did cause a public disturbance.

So like Sharkman, I agree that it's his unwillingness to adhere to rules and his actions, that got this man into trouble!

Link to post
Share on other sites
See!

Stalking people on threads. ;)

If you want to discuss this go back to the original thread instead of randomly picking threads to discuss the same topic (the "Betsy thinks women are worthless" topic LOL)

Nah! I'm done with you in that discussion (21st Century Male Role). Your last two demand only proved clearly why talking to you in that topic was a waste of time: you don't even have a clue what the discussion was all about! Your demand was already given somewhere in that thread! But of course, you didn't recognize it! Well that's not my problem anymore! What can I say? If you don't get it, you don't get it! LOL

You are exactly like "the other"....moulded and baked from the same cookie-cutter, like a lot of other women who got duped and so easily brainwashed by the rad. fem. Why? Simply because you don't THINK!

You both don't seem to understand what you are supposed to be fighting for! Especially you! I expected more from you! If you do understand what you are fighting for, heck you'd be on Catchme like a rabid starving flea on a dog!

For telling me that "as a woman I had no right to say what I think!" LOL!

Hell, there's too much confusion in this world already....and I surely don't want to get dragged by you into that!

There is no discussion with someone who just automatically answers everything by spouting off the same mantra....chanting the same incantations.

Anyway, enough. So now you know why I'm done with you in that topic. Kaput.

But my question to you here is legit. Because you've made this statement:

I can see why you would be ticked if this happened here in our home -- but it didn't and as someone said earlier -- it's their country and us "westerners" should not think we can go anywhere in the world and do whatever we want.

It is perfectly acceptable for me to wear short shorts here in Canada -- should I run around India or Iran in my short shorts simply because I do at home? Of course not.

...when in Rome...

So I ask, what do you say to this?

"Indo-Canadian women in B.C. gathered together this week for a ground-breaking forum on domestic abuse, sharing stories about a cycle of violence often kept hidden behind closed doors.

The forum was prompted by a rash of violence against South Asian women in recent weeks. He said there is a deep rooted inequity ingrained in South Asian culture that needs to be addressed. Quite simply, women and men are not treated equally -- he cited the dowry system, where women are treated almost as property, as an example."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1103?hub=Canada

And the recent issue of Muslim women in Canada being threatened by Taliban members/supporters (also here in Canada) of violence and death, if these women don't follow the strict rules of their religion...and continue to pursue the freedom available to all women in Canada.

This is not just some "swooping kiss!"

Anyway, if you can't wear shorts in Iran....why should they wear bourquas in Canada?

So get back to the REAL ISSUE now and let us know what your opinion is about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the time to analyze all of your examples, but suffice it to say, in a context of where you get arrested for merely saying the wrong word (bomb), I'm not surprised to hear that some witless people get in trouble with the airlines.

Don't you horny people who can't wait the appropriate place :)-

Most people with an ounce of intelligence know you are on your best behaviour while flying these days. Whos to say it wouldn't happen in Canada, I bet it would

So this is the definition of a free state?

A place where you must tread extremely carefully, because one step to the left or to the right of the "right path" results in a reprimand (if you're lucky) or a jail sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So this is the definition of a free state?

A place where you must tread extremely carefully, because one step to the left or to the right of the "right path" results in a reprimand (if you're lucky) or a jail sentence.

Yes, a free state in which yelling 'fire' in a theatre, yelling 'bomb' on a plane, or having sex in a public place is considered by the community to be stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...