Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
In other news In other news

03-12-2025 , 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossnerd
That was one of the more memorable admonitions by a Politics mod. Was that an original CN formulation? If so, congrats.
In other news Quote
03-12-2025 , 10:07 PM
FWIW :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
Is it your position that all religions, and all individuals that are religious, have the exact same beliefs? Perhaps you should do some more research.
Let's go back to where I started this conversattion. (I know it wasn't you that made this comment, but it seems you are on board with it.My only objection is that this is an overly broad brush to paint with. And how can one's personal beliefs not drive you to act in certain ways. I'm not arguing that one way is good and the other bad - that's for everyone to determine by themselves. Montreal has seemed to determine that everyone that is religious is a sheep that follows marching orders from... someone.
Because its probably because it was in the middle
Of a discussion , some confusion about my pov got misinterpreted.

Yes there is moderate religious people , they are not a problem ..
But laws are usual for the moderate in general aren’t they ?
Despite w.e field those laws are for .

It got started from there :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealcorp
Slow down ….
Secularism doesn’t mix with theocracy .
If someone is too fundamentalist to be unable to put aside his beliefs while doing his job in public office , an office that usually shouldn’t promote discriminatory beliefs ( which is what religion is) , then yeah me I have a problem .
Like judge for instance.
How can u trust a judge to use the secular law and not his own religious rules if he can’t himself respect a certain secular decorum ?

Or when you have to « gives » public services to the public you are a representative of all of them as a whole .
Neutrality should be a necessity to respect everyone .

Now if you are « receiving » public services or just being outside in the street or w.e , then I don’t give $h!t , it’s on your own free time so u can do w.e the f you want shrug .

Ps: the bolded part is funny , if there is something that try to control your personal freedom, even in your bed and sex, is precisely religion .
That circular reasoning , to use personal freedom to defend religion that restrain personal freedom itself shrug …
Hope my point is clearer with the beginning of my intervention .
In other news Quote
03-12-2025 , 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
You are using religion - and specifically Christianity - as a catch-all for things you find unacceptable. It is no different than others that think "illegals" are the cause of all their problems. It is shallow and simplistic thinking. Of course there are some, even many, religious adherents that show the traits you are talking about. But it is by no means exclusive to them, nor is it universal among the religious.

I also find it very odd that you don't think peoples individual morals should factor into their decisions.

I live in a very conservative congressional district. My Rep. is Eli Crane. Before they redrew the lines it was Paul Gosar. And yet, I regularly drive by two churches that always have rainbow flags flying out front. Both of them have large signs saying "All Are Welcome". One has a woman lead pastor (I don't know about the other one). And they both are part of main-stream protestant denominations.

Like I said, your post was colossally dumb.
I’m certainly not , no idea where you got that in my posting .
Christianity is less a problem then it use to be 50 years ago + but there is still some « pockets » here and there that are way too fundamentalist -> Aja jets teach the theory of creation in science ideas for examine ….



- so I figured you would call them moderate or even using a « weaker » term ?
Like I said in the beginning , the principle of secularism shouldn’t be aiming at them .


Usually laws aims at those that are on the extremes of the spectrum right ?
In other news Quote
03-12-2025 , 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
You have an incredibly distorted view of religion. If others showed such a prejudiced opinion on other topics you would rant and rave about how awful they were.


FTR: I do not deny that there are many that fit your view. Maybe even the dominate situation these days. But to brand all with your assessment is intellectually lazy.
This answer was towards gorgo but since we share the the same view I think we agree then ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

FWIW:
To make sure freedom of religion to be protected , you need the state to be secular . Unable to favour any religion over another .
And to protect a democracy from theocracy , you need the religions to be expelled out of the government duties .

Both are reciprocally enforcing each other value .
The Marjorie Taylor green of this world are as dangerous as the talibans .

Last edited by Montrealcorp; 03-12-2025 at 10:28 PM.
In other news Quote
03-12-2025 , 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
I would have no problem acquitting Donald Trump, Chauvin, or anyone else if I thought the prosecution had failed to carry its burden of proof.
Exactly !
But people like Lucien that are intoxicated by hate towards the left and other lines of thinking can’t just conceive that ….
That is why Luciom easily can bring up violence to end people life’s while others are less prone to do it because of well you know -> freedom to be free ?
In other news Quote
03-12-2025 , 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
Luciom should read The Swerve. I think it would cause him to vibrate at a higher frequency.
FWIW I said previously he should read or watch “Les misérables”.
He fits perfectly the character of inspector javert .
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 01:45 AM
Remember when covid came from a bat at the wet market and you were ostracized and banned for suggesting otherwise

In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 01:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts
Remember when covid came from a bat at the wet market and you were ostracized and banned for suggesting otherwise

lol just scanned that guys twitter feed. What a nutcase.
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 02:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jchristo
lol just scanned that guys twitter feed. What a nutcase.
Ya maybe but there's articles on the Germans. Most of them are paid sites.

Here's some
https://globalnews.ca/news/11078297/...igins-reports/

https://www.dw.com/en/covid-pandemic...bnd/a-71897701
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 02:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts
Ya maybe but there's articles on the Germans. Most of them are paid sites.

Here's some
https://globalnews.ca/news/11078297/...igins-reports/

https://www.dw.com/en/covid-pandemic...bnd/a-71897701
yeah i saw the reports are real, not making a comment on that (although not a smoking gun by any means and no new info). Neither source would really surprise me and I'm not sure it matters too much. Can't trust the Chinese state to be transparent.
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 06:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
there is a profound difference in the anglo victorian (or Confucian Chinese) ethos of elites actually believing the **** they say to a large degree, and Roman/southern Mediterranean "we obviously know how things actually work and as long as I can get by it's fine" ethos.

it's like marital infidelity in France/Italy (which wasn't even a negative for a politician even 50 years ago) vs the USA/UK
Victoria middle and high society was highly hypocritical, preaching family values, the cloaking of table legs and sexual abstention outside of procreation while having affairs and visiting prostitutes.

Its like you have fixed and inchoate ideas in your head about how some cultures were/are and wilfully break facts to suit them.
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jchristo
yeah i saw the reports are real, not making a comment on that (although not a smoking gun by any means and no new info). Neither source would really surprise me and I'm not sure it matters too much. Can't trust the Chinese state to be transparent.
Uh wait a sec. It isn't new info that german intelligence was pretty sure it came from a lab in 2020? That's new to me. It means they had some exceptionally relevant information and they suppressed it. This wasn't something we knew before, did we?
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 06:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
Victoria middle and high society was highly hypocritical, preaching family values, the cloaking of table legs and sexual abstention outside of procreation while having affairs and visiting prostitutes.

Its like you have fixed and inchoate ideas in your head about how some cultures were/are and wilfully break facts to suit them.
Yes, which wasn't the case for the other examples i provided.
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 08:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
Yes, which wasn't the case for the other examples i provided.
You posted about Anglo Victorian "elites actually believing the **** they say to a large degree"

Do you even believe the **** you say to any degree?
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
You posted about Anglo Victorian "elites actually believing the **** they say to a large degree"

Do you even believe the **** you say to any degree?
Yes, they behaved "immoraly" (bad from the pov of the masses morality) far less than catholics. Those who did were ultra-hypocrites and shocked others when it was found. There was this whole shaming culture, even among elite.

While others elite i use as examples were just proud of their different moral sets of rules that didn't apply to the masses.

But anyway as usual you want to argue in bad faith, so let's not waste time and move on
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
Uh wait a sec. It isn't new info that german intelligence was pretty sure it came from a lab in 2020? That's new to me. It means they had some exceptionally relevant information and they suppressed it. This wasn't something we knew before, did we?
Correct, but it's cool that governments suppress that it came from a lab, so no material new information here.
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
Yes, they behaved "immoraly" (bad from the pov of the masses morality) far less than catholics. Those who did were ultra-hypocrites and shocked others when it was found. There was this whole shaming culture, even among elite.

While others elite i use as examples were just proud of their different moral sets of rules that didn't apply to the masses.

But anyway as usual you want to argue in bad faith, so let's not waste time and move on
Quoting your own gibberish back at you is bad faith in la la Lucy land.
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts
Correct, but it's cool that governments suppress that it came from a lab, so no material new information here.
The new info that they suppressed the lab leak is a very important proof of bad faith.

Because if the lab leak was the hypothesis most people considered the default one, then OF COURSE chinese-style lockdowns would never have been an option for any western country.

We wouldn't have copied any of their strategy nor take any suggestion from them nor believed any of their videos (remember the people dropping dead in the streets in china, pushed to grotesquely exaggerate the fear of covid?) nor believed any of their data (3% fatality rate remember?).

Proof of chinese cover up of the disease would have moved the whole western world against china in full, including not trusting the WHO.

(here for proof the WHO was in bed with China)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02...th-soft-power/

Basically the suppressing the fact that the lab leak was actually by far the most likely hypothesis had a domino effect of gigantic proportions, and now we know for a certainty they did that ON PURPOSE in Germany.

And that's not new info? that Germany on purpose acted to push a false propaganda to justify following anti-scientific practices spearheaded by China for the first time in the history of the world?
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
The new info that they suppressed the lab leak is a very important proof of bad faith.

Because if the lab leak was the hypothesis most people considered the default one, then OF COURSE chinese-style lockdowns would never have been an option for any western country.

We wouldn't have copied any of their strategy nor take any suggestion from them nor believed any of their videos (remember the people dropping dead in the streets in china, pushed to grotesquely exaggerate the fear of covid?) nor believed any of their data (3% fatality rate remember?).

Proof of chinese cover up of the disease would have moved the whole western world against china in full, including not trusting the WHO.

(here for proof the WHO was in bed with China)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02...th-soft-power/

Basically the suppressing the fact that the lab leak was actually by far the most likely hypothesis had a domino effect of gigantic proportions, and now we know for a certainty they did that ON PURPOSE in Germany.

And that's not new info? that Germany on purpose acted to push a false propaganda to justify following anti-scientific practices spearheaded by China for the first time in the history of the world?
wait a minute, why would you have different response if it came from a lab or a bat?
It's like saying we know how to contain ebola but this time actually it comes from a yogurt so we need to change protocole.

Why you need to change protocole once the virus is out there?
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by weeeez
wait a minute, why would you have different response if it came from a lab or a bat?
It's like saying we know how to contain ebola but this time actually it comes from a yogurt so we need to change protocole.

Why you need to change protocole once the virus is out there?
Because from a bat, with the breakthrough in jan, you could believe the chinese were building up their best response possible so given they were "first in line" with the problem their attempted solution, especially if you believed wuhan cases crashed down to 0 in march 2020, were simply something you might believe could work.

From the lab in november 2019, massive attempt to cover it up, spread of months once seeded, then a lot of lies about the cases, the lethality and so on, you woulnd't have believe ANYTHING AT ALL from feb on since you knew they lied to you and acted very differently from what they tried to convince you they did.

There was no protocol to lockdown in case the spanish flu came back.

Spanish flu lethality was 2% and all countries had pandemic plans and none had lockdowns at all. Schools were to be close (BRIEFLY, 4-6 weeks at most) in basically all such plans (because the spanish flu kills kids though, not to "save granma"), how to manage cases varied country by country (some had quarantines of the infected in their plans, a few quarantine of them + their strict contacts, some had no quarantines). Some had closure of big events.

Not a single one had closure of all restaurants or "work from home requirements". Not a single one had "non essential businesses get closed", not a single one had "access to beaches or parks should be closed".

So , we DID CHANGE THE PROTOCOLS BECAUSE WE BELIEVED THE CHINESE. If instead, we got told they ****ing lied to us , we wouldn't have believed them, and we would have... used the protocol, like Sweden, Japan and others did.

We changed protocols because by believing chinese data we thought it was possibly worse than the spanish flu (when it was exceptionally less dangerous as the life of a child is worth hundreds of over 80s, and covid does nothing to the under 40 in some countries, under 30 in others). We changed data because we believed their lockdowns brought cases to 0 (absoluetly no reason to believe that actually happened, do you realize it now?). They lie about the lab you have to start from the idea they almost certainly lied about *everything covid related*.

Sweden did for different reasons, Japan simply structurally never ever believes China about anything so they were immune from that
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
Because from a bat, with the breakthrough in jan, you could believe the chinese were building up their best response possible so given they were "first in line" with the problem their attempted solution, especially if you believed wuhan cases crashed down to 0 in march 2020, were simply something you might believe could work.

From the lab in november 2019, massive attempt to cover it up, spread of months once seeded, then a lot of lies about the cases, the lethality and so on, you woulnd't have believe ANYTHING AT ALL from feb on since you knew they lied to you and acted very differently from what they tried to convince you they did.

There was no protocol to lockdown in case the spanish flu came back.

Spanish flu lethality was 2% and all countries had pandemic plans and none had lockdowns at all. Schools were to be close (BRIEFLY, 4-6 weeks at most) in basically all such plans (because the spanish flu kills kids though, not to "save granma"), how to manage cases varied country by country (some had quarantines of the infected in their plans, a few quarantine of them + their strict contacts, some had no quarantines). Some had closure of big events.

Not a single one had closure of all restaurants or "work from home requirements". Not a single one had "non essential businesses get closed", not a single one had "access to beaches or parks should be closed".

So , we DID CHANGE THE PROTOCOLS BECAUSE WE BELIEVED THE CHINESE. If instead, we got told they ****ing lied to us , we wouldn't have believed them, and we would have... used the protocol, like Sweden, Japan and others did.

We changed protocols because by believing chinese data we thought it was possibly worse than the spanish flu (when it was exceptionally less dangerous as the life of a child is worth hundreds of over 80s, and covid does nothing to the under 40 in some countries, under 30 in others). We changed data because we believed their lockdowns brought cases to 0 (absoluetly no reason to believe that actually happened, do you realize it now?). They lie about the lab you have to start from the idea they almost certainly lied about *everything covid related*.

Sweden did for different reasons, Japan simply structurally never ever believes China about anything so they were immune from that
It's very naive to think
Quote:
we DID CHANGE THE PROTOCOLS BECAUSE WE BELIEVED THE CHINESE
.

spanish flu as in 1918 flu?
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by weeeez
It's very naive to think .

spanish flu as in 1918 flu?
yes which was cited explicitly in many/most pandemic plans active in first world nations up to 2019.

They had plans for airborne disease of 0.5-2% lethality across the population
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 10:52 AM
for ex weez, UK pandemic plan from 2011

pag 37

4.15 Although there is a perception that the wearing of facemasks by the public in the
community and household setting may be beneficial, there is in fact very little evidence
of widespread benefit from their use in this setting. Facemasks must be worn correctly,
changed frequently, removed properly, disposed of safely and used in combination with
good respiratory, hand, and home hygiene behaviour in order for them to achieve the
intended benefit. Research also shows that compliance with these recommended
behaviours when wearing facemasks for prolonged periods reduces over time.

pag 39

Restrictions on public gatherings and public transport
4.21 There is very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings will have any
significant effect on influenza virus transmission14. Large public gatherings or crowded
events where people may be in close proximity are an important indicator of ‘normality’
and may help maintain public morale during a pandemic.
The social and economic
consequences of advising cancellation or postponement of large gatherings are likely to
be considerable for event organisers, contributors and participants. There is also a lack
of scientific evidence on the impact of internal travel restrictions on transmission and
attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business
and welfare.
4.22 For these reasons, the working presumption will be that Government will not impose any
such restrictions
. The emphasis will instead be on encouraging all those who have
symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness.
However, local organisers may decide to cancel or postpone events in a pandemic
fearing economic loss through poor attendances, and the public themselves may decide
not to mix in crowds, or use public transport if other options are available.

(schools)

School closures
4.23 There is modelling data highlighting the potential benefit of school closures in certain
circumstances15, both in terms of protecting individual children from infection and in
reducing overall transmission of the virus in the population. However, to be effective
prolonged closures are required. This would involve schools over a wide area, but
carries a risk that social mixing of children outside school would defeat the object of the
closures.
4.24 However, under some circumstances head teachers (and their Boards of Governors
where relevant) may take the decision to close individual establishments temporarily.
Such closures should be guided by the following planning principles:
• Using a precautionary approach in the early stages of an influenza pandemic and
depending on the public health risk assessment, Directors of Public Health may
advise localised closures (individual schools or catchment areas). The purpose
would be to reduce the initial spread of infection locally while gathering more
information about the spread of the virus.

14 Impact of mass gatherings on an influenza pandemic. Scientific Evidence Base Review 2011
15 House T, Baguelin M, van Hoek AJ, White PJ, Sadique Z, Eames K, Read JM, Hens N, Melegaro A, Edmunds WJ, MJ
Keeling. Modelling the impact of local reactive school closures on critical care provision during an influenza pandemic.
Proceedings of the Royal Society series B (in press).
UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011
40
• Once the virus is more established in the country, the general policy would be that
schools should not close – unless there are specific local business continuity
reasons (staff shortages or particularly vulnerable children). This policy will be
reviewed in light of information about how the pandemic is unfolding at the time.
4.25 The impact of closure of schools and similar settings on all sectors would have
substantial economic and social consequences, and have a disproportionately large
effect on health and social care because of the demographic profile of those employed
in these sectors. Such a step would therefore only be taken in an influenza pandemic
with a very high impact and so, although school closures cannot be ruled out, it should
not be the primary focus of schools’ planning.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...k-flu-pandemic

Not even the vague idea of closing barbers at all. Remember, this was even with spanish flu mortality
In other news Quote
03-13-2025 , 04:49 PM
Former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte is turned over to the ICC to face trial for crimes against humanity, over his war on drugs during his presidency.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/ic...e-1739567.html
In other news Quote

      
m