# Are we becoming to sensitive to everything?



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

"Won't somebody pleeeeeease think of the children".

Oh, we shouldn't say that, not that either, don't drive your car for more than 2 blocks, spanking is bad, jail is bad, why not hug instead. 

I beginning to sicken with the fact that society has turned into a bunch of tree-hugging, anti-punishment, walk on egg shells society...I am 30 and hate to think of what it's going to be like when I'm old and supposed to grump about these things...

I think in the proper place a spank can do wonders, and I think criminals get off way to easy. Running out of jail space, BUILD MORE JAILS! Tighten up on immigrations, and deport those out on the first convicted offense. Really push work-fare as a standard. If I wanna go out an follow the laws and harvest game to eat; I am going to!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I have awlways bean sensitive to wyrds spelt rong myself.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I'm with you, I don't bother holding my tongue in public anymore, if old people can say what they want and not care, why can't I? You're offended, suck it up. As for online, I tend to choose words cautiously, not because I'm afraid of offending someone, I just don't want to be kicked off ehMac.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I beginning to sicken with the fact that society has turned into a bunch of tree-hugging, anti-punishment, walk on egg shells society...I am 30 and hate to think of what it's going to be like when I'm old and supposed to grump about these things...


If society really did gravitate towards tree-hugging, anti-punishment, walk on eggs kind of attitude, that would be one thing. But what we have is a "don't care and don't want to know" kind of society. Preserving nature by using advanced technologies to advance is ahead is not only doable, but a noble cause. Instead, we have a "preserve everything in my own backyard and go ruin some other place because I am really not going to change my lifestyle one iota" kind of attitude. Same with all of the other effete politically correct notions that this society had managed to collect. One does not have to go far to see the fact that our society is entirely hypocritical, sapped of all strength because of the corrosive effects of excess liberality.

I think it is sad that the reason they do not close down Crack Houses in The Hammer is because the police service can not afford the 12 hours of paperwork that has to be filed by every officer that is involved in the bust, plus any possible time spent dragging it out in court...

I don't know if anyone has watched the show "Flashpoint", but that demonstrates the problem we face. The dude does his job, saving lives from a deranged maniac - so he ends up out of work and facing inquiry after inquiry. To me, it would be faster and better to just string the criminal up, and if prisons happen to become filled, then we should just resort to the Roman practice of decimation.

It's like Tasers, no honest people are ever Tasered. It's always some belligerent drunkard or some dude spun out on drugs that gets Tasered, and they deserve it, since they did resist arrest. I say that they should turn the juice up, and extra Tasering for losers that are on the highway causing accidents because they are fooling with their Crackberry.

Welfare has created a culture. There are a bunch of losers across the street that are on welfare. The chick keeps popping out kids so she doesn't have to work, and half the kids end up being taken away from them and put into foster homes. And the "husband", that is, the guy that stays there and drinks cases of beer everyday, works full time somewhere, but obviously does not use any of his money to raise the family that may or may not be his. It's time to close the doors on the losers, and make Welfare a benefit for those in need.

And I have long seen the Welfare fraud at work, having volunteered at a number of places, seeing children that are in real need and suffer because they have parents that will do anything to score some crack or some weed or some booze. Time to put these losers to work, real work, and shape them into contributing citizens. It's not like there isn't enough potential projects to work on in The Hammer.

We really have no pride left, seeing that we have witnessed Mississauga re-elect their derelict antique of a mayor who pretty much ruined half of Peel County singlehandedly over the past third of a century. And no pride left because we elected King Harpo to his self-perpetuating minority because there is no one left with even a shred of integrity nor even two clues to scrape together.


----------



## johnb1 (Aug 6, 2006)

*Yeah probably*

'round here (edmonton) we have a tax n' spend mayor. Our taxes have gone up, up, up, and just by a narrow vote we managed to avoid spending money on a couple of stupid pyramid-like things for the entrance back into Edmonton. He did, however, manage to vote himself and his "friends" on the council a nice fat raise. We have homeless people, crazy drivers, high electricity rates, potholes, and lots of construction, and what does the mayor care about ? Oh, we need a new art gallery so badly (but not trolley buses)

Is it just me or are kids these days getting ruder, not to mention people?

maybe it's just me

Jon B


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

He just wants a building named after him, is all. beejacon


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Jails just teach people how to do better crimes. Nerds have math club to get better at math. Criminals go to jail and learn how to move bricks easier. Canada has something like 76% better return rate than the US because prisoners can go to high school, university and college to do something other than crime when they get out. 

There is a difference between sensitivity and social advancement.

That is the type of attitude that would land us private health and education and toll booths.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I am offended by this poll.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> I am offended by this poll.


Time to swallow a bit of your own medicine is it? :baby:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Time to swallow a bit of your own medicine is it? :baby:


Methinks GT was being ironic.


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> I am offended by this poll.


I'm offended by your offense to this poll.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

This thread's subject topic goes hand-in-hand with the thread entitled, "Will Obama get assassinated?" when it comes to sensitivity.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Hitting is wrong. Showing people that they did something wrong by hitting them is wrong. Parents that resort to hitting their child in place of teaching them otherwise are failures.

Unless your child is Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo, and you _know_ this, you should not be hitting them.

Hitting your child is against the law for a reason. Respect this law, or go live somewhere else.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I think this fits the topic Remind you of anyone? (it's a link to a YouTube video)


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> I am offended by this poll.





skinnyboy said:


> I'm offended by your offense to this poll.


Offensensitivity ...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> If society really did gravitate towards tree-hugging, anti-punishment, walk on eggs kind of attitude, that would be one thing. But what we have is a "don't care and don't want to know" kind of society. Preserving nature by using advanced technologies to advance is ahead is not only doable, but a noble cause. Instead, we have a "preserve everything in my own backyard and go ruin some other place because I am really not going to change my lifestyle one iota" kind of attitude. Same with all of the other effete politically correct notions that this society had managed to collect.


I entirely agree with the above paragraph



> One does not have to go far to see the fact that our society is entirely hypocritical, sapped of all strength because of the corrosive effects of excess liberality.


And disagree with this one. LUXURY has sapped our society of what you call strength, nothing else.

If one still believes that "liberality" is the cause, I invite you to examine Exhibit A: eight years of all-Republican control in the states, and a year-and-a-half of Harper. Funny how that hasn't turned things around in the slightest, quite the opposite effect in fact ...



> To me, it would be faster and better to just string the criminal up, and if prisons happen to become filled, then we should just resort to the Roman practice of decimation.


I think I've identified what I don't like about conservatives. They always go for this option about as quickly as a PC tech reaches for "reinstall the system," never seeming to realise that this view represents the exact opposite of the "civility" they wish society would return to.



> It's like Tasers, no honest people are ever Tasered. It's always some belligerent drunkard or some dude spun out on drugs that gets Tasered, and they deserve it, since they did resist arrest.


Yeah, that Polish guy in the Vancouver airport for example! He was -- wait.

Oh, and what about that "don't tase me bro!" guy in Florida! He was asking a question and then already subdued on the floor and -- oh wait.



> I say that they should turn the juice up, and extra Tasering for losers that are on the highway causing accidents because they are fooling with their Crackberry.


Surely the high accident/injury/death rate of such people is its own punishment? Or should we taser their parents as well for raising such a nitwit?? 



> And I have long seen the Welfare fraud at work, having volunteered at a number of places, seeing children that are in real need and suffer because they have parents that will do anything to score some crack or some weed or some booze.


You're right. Cutting off food to these people will surely solve the problem ... of excess kids.



> And no pride left because we elected King Harpo to his self-perpetuating minority because there is no one left with even a shred of integrity nor even two clues to scrape together.


And yet, when a visionary leader who can obviously unite people and lay out his plans articulately comes along, some moron on here starts a betting pool to guess WHEN he will be assassinated.

Maybe -- just maybe -- that's why all the great leaders seem to have vanished from politics. They're hiding for their lives.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> And yet, when a visionary leader who can obviously unite people and lay out his plans articulately comes along, some moron on here starts a betting pool to guess WHEN he will be assassinated.


Look in the mirror before dishing out such name calling. That poster has a right to his opinion whether YOU like it or not.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Lars said:


> This thread's subject topic goes hand-in-hand with the thread entitled, "Will Obama get assassinated?" when it comes to sensitivity.


On the button Lars; that thread did in fact spawn this poll as nobody wanted to face the truth in that Obama is at potential risk. 

However, I'd like to make a clear distinction between hitting and spanking; they are night and day. I got spanked from time to time and it kept me in check; sure I got into trouble but never with the law, don't agree with fighting of the ice or not in the ring, would never steal or shoplift or destroy something for the sake of destroying something. I always had just a bit of fear of getting tossed outta the house or worse; and it kept me somewhat in line but never down the wrong road.

Look back in time, the generation before us got whooped; and they were more clean cut then our generation. Now we only wanna hug our kids (which is cool, to an extent, I share similar beliefs as Cliff Huxtable) but as punishment went down, crime, drop outs, and stupidity in kids rose.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> On the button Lars; that thread did in fact spawn this poll as nobody wanted to face the truth in that Obama is at potential risk.


People objected to the poll, no one denied the potential risk. As far as I can tell, none of the respondents are burying their heads in the sand. Sometimes it's not about sensitivity, but about the proper way to approach a "sensitive" subject.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

People objecting to the poll is the point... I agree I would have worded it differently but the message from those is that they didn't think the poll was proper and thus we end up here.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Any subject is as sensitive as you make it, I think the thread title alone should have steered clear those too sensitive from reading. I ignore threads that don't interest me all the time, just don't click.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Any subject is as sensitive as you make it, I think the thread title alone should have steered clear those too sensitive from reading. I ignore threads that don't interest me all the time, just don't click.


I think assassination attempts or assassination in general on presidential candidates would fall under the category of "sensitive subjects" no matter which side of the fence you're sitting on or wether your arse is firmly planted on one of the pickets.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

While there is little doubt the wording could have been better chosen, the hard cold fact remains that assassination is an ongoing concern to many in the USA and world wide.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

kps said:


> I think assassination attempts or assassination in general on presidential candidates would fall under the category of "sensitive subjects" no matter which side of the fence you're sitting on or wether your arse is firmly planted on one of the pickets.


Doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, if you're too sensitive then don't. 

BTW not sure what you're implying there with the picket fence, but from the sounds of it I'm not the one with the stick up my arse.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

I remember having a discussion about the spanking issue a few months ago and I realized that I couldn't remember my Dad spanking me. 

Mom did the general 'smacks' and never above the shoulders, that was a rule that Dad had. Of course the odd time that Mom would cuff us above the shoulders it was more in frustration and rarely if ever in anger i.e. when we were teenagers and bigger than her. We'd do the "Dad, Mom hit us above the shoulders" thing and Mom would get the lecture from Dad while my brother and I would sit back and chuckle. Mom never abused us and was as good a parent as I could ever have asked for. Many parents would have done well to have taken lessons from both of my parents. They weren't perfect, they were learning as they went as all parents do, but they were pretty damn good at working without a user manual. 

It was always the 'threat' of Dad spanking us that I think kept us in line most of the time. Today's generation doesn't have that, nor do they have the same respect for Police and other authorities because of the young offender act. 

Unfortunately we have become a society that doesn't have common sense. So we need rules that to those of us with common sense, seem foolish.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> It was always the 'threat' of Dad spanking us that I think kept us in line most of the time. Today's generation doesn't have that, nor do they have the same respect for Police and other authorities because of the young offender act.


Bingo! The last time I got spanked I was likely 4 or 5. It was the fear indeed. On Everybody Loves Raymond; Frank was saying the same thing about Ray and Robert. He said he instilled the fear, they denied it and he just made a quick lean into them and they took a step back pretty quick proving his point.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Spare the rod and spoil the child has never been more solidly proven than by the behaviour of recent generations. I got spanked a few times in my childhood by loving parents who cared for me. It was the fear of another that kept me in line. After those initial few, I learned how to avoid them. Behave.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I was the youngest child, and was never spanked, but apparently my oldest brother got spanked once - apparently with a wooden spoon - and the story got passed to me. All my mother had to do was rattle the drawer where she kept the wooden spoons and we all 'settled down'.

When I was raising my daughter, I just told her that something more horrible than she could ever imagine would happen if she didn't stop whatever it was she was doing by the time I counted to three. Fortunately she never pushed beyond that point of 1 ... 2 ... (I never got to three). No idea what I would have done. All she had to know was there WOULD be ramifications, and that was enough.

But the biggest lesson I would like to teach parents is "YOU ARE THE PARENT". Not the buddy. Not the friend. The PARENT. So many families I observe and see the kids are running the show. Sure, it's easier to give in than to say 'No', but once the kids realise that 'no doesn't mean no' - and it only takes once - they will whine until you give in. The precedent has been set, the exception made. Give into a temper tantrum once, and you've guaranteed it WILL happen again.

Proper parenting isn't easy - it means saying 'no' sometimes, to both yourself and to your children - and the problem we have is that today's society is geared towards instant gratification and motivation for self (as opposed to greater good of society). I blame the boomer generation (of which I am one), because it was also known as the 'me' generation. And that's what kids today are being taught. "Me first."

I know this is a bit of a divergence from the original 'are we too sensitive' topic. Sorry.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Seeing as the "Will Obama?" thread was shut down by our venerable Mayor (his right to do so, as it is his Forum) I am repeating my comments here with some edits. 

Yes we are too sensitive as a society (at least as is indicated by some of the responses here at ehMac),

I have to say that everyone who is saying this is in bad taste or inappropriate are being overly sensitive, *perhaps* because of their admiration for the man. Perhaps not. However, if you read the pre/postamble to Adrian's poll you can clearly see that he is asking a seriouos question and has serious concerns... "rings the alarm for me". There is nothing remotely racist in his question, it is a simple realistic recognition of a reality that still exsists in the US.

Obama is the poster boy of the moment and so to publically ask a completely reasonable question that I believe most thinking people have at least asked themselves and probably their friends and family is in this "politically correct" day and age a reason for outrage.

I think we must remember that this forum is still really small potatoes in the public realm, it isn't like Adrian is Howard Stern and is asking the question for shock value and to boost ratings. It is more akin to sitting around at a dinner party and seeing what people think.

As for the those who say that to discuss the matter is one thing but to take a poll is another I would say the poll merely provides a quick synopsis of people's opinions.

I doubt that Adrian thought for one minute that his poll would be so controversial, I'm sure he wasn't trying to be provacative, but merely address an issue that he had thought about and wanted to see what other people thought.

Absolutely those that feel it is in bad taste have the right to say so and my comment to those people is that I think you should lighten up and not be so ready to be "outraged". It is that kind of intolerance in general over relatively inocuous "harms" that gets the ball rolling towards larger disuptes and "feuds" that afflict the world today. 

As Richard Carlson says in his book entitled the same; "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff... and it's all small stuff: Simple ways to keep the little things from taking over your life". Not that a potential assassination of Obama is small stuff, but asking the question about its likelyhood and conducting a poll on ehMac sure is.

The Mayor believes that "sometimes, there are random thoughts we think in our head, but are best left dwelling internally, rather than posted on a public forum." I have to respectfully disagree that this is not a random thought. I know that this posibility has been the topic of discussion at work and amoungst family and friends. I am relatively certain that my experience is not anomalous, but actaully quite common.

I don't think we should be afraid to discuss issues that we may find unsettling in a free society. Now some would ask what good does it do, there is no resolution to be derived from such a discussion. However, I would turn the question on it's head and ask what harm does it do? Sometimes the simple act of debate and being forced to justify ones own thinking clarifies what one believes and at other times actually leads (to the open minded) to the changing of ones mind. 

As I was growing up my father would frequently play the devil's advocate and take a position that was contrary to what he actually believed in discussions that went on around the kitchen table. This would always end up in lively debate in which all participants were forced into really thinking about what they believed and why they believed it. It made you *think*. I am so grateful that my father had an open mind and was not afraid of where a discusion might lead. He was a true believer in the Socratic Method: "in which the questioner explores the implications of others' positions, to stimulate rational thinking and illuminate ideas. This dialectical method often involves an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point."

I think we *are* too sensitive about certain things and so long as our words do not promote hatred or discrimination or are slanderous, let freedom reign.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, the old wooden spoon trick. That was indeed my Mom's weapon of choice. As I stated earlier, I found a way by behaving to keep that wooden spoon occupied for its original intent. Mixing.

I, like screature, see little to gain by refusing to allow debate on a subject that is far from an occasional thought. It is foremost in the minds of most people I converse with and a real concern to most. Locking it away solves nothing. It only fosters the desire to bring the matter to the forefront.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Lars said:


> This thread's subject topic goes hand-in-hand with the thread entitled, "Will Obama get assassinated?" when it comes to sensitivity.


On that matter, I hate it when an on-going thread is killed like that.

If it has no social merit, then spike it at the start. Don't just close it and change the thread title so the search engines may not find it.

PS: I didn't vote here because, frankly, the wording blows chunks. Sorry.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Yes, fear is an effective way to control your children. Rattle that kitchen drawer, or snap that belt, and your kids with get back in line.

Even better, you can control your neighbour with a baseball bat.

Why stop there? Control your neighbourhood with a gun!

People who resort to violence and fear as a tool to control their children are one of the most pathetic forms of human beings. "Oh, it worked on me as a child" only clarifies your level of ignorance.

Violence begets violence.


----------



## johnb1 (Aug 6, 2006)

*uh, yeah*

I suppose so. I would only see spanking as a last resort-ie if the child's life was in danger. IF you wanna make a child listen-take something away, or make 'em do a chore, ie weeding the garden. My dad made us weed a pine tree farm every weekend during the summer for a few years, and even to this day, I remember that
still, ya have to remember-some people are like wine-as the years go by, they get better and a bit more mellow-and some folks start out sour and stay that way

Oh, and how about the McGuinty , or Mayor Mandel Waste Management facility
I've heard down in the US, they're planning to name a sewage treatment facility
for George W. Bush...makes sense to me...

just my 2 cents

J B


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> *snip*
> I, like screature, see little to gain by refusing to allow debate on a subject that is far from an occasional thought. It is foremost in the minds of most people I converse with and a real concern to most. Locking it away solves nothing. It only fosters the desire to bring the matter to the forefront.


Agreed. It's been a major topic of debate at my workplace and with good reason. Perhaps, as some have said, the poll could have been worded better but the issue is a very real one.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> I entirely agree with the above paragraph


This is like, what, the first time ever?!



> And disagree with this one. LUXURY has sapped our society of what you call strength, nothing else.
> If one still believes that "liberality" is the cause, I invite you to examine Exhibit A:


Actually, luxury is simply a subset of liberality. Liberality is not a political viewpoint, ie. it does not mean liberal as opposed to conservative; but rather, to be liberal in morals, ethics, free spending and not disciplined, etc. Some of the most hard core reactionary regimes in the world resort to excess liberality, at least amongst a certain clique, in order to retain power. Such cases, like Mugabe's regime, is also called a Kleptocracy...

Some amount of liberality is required to make a society function, such things as the "dole" have been around since the beginnings of society. Romans would have referred to it as the "corn dole", we may refer to it as "welfare" - but it serves a similar function. But when governments begin to fail, they try to cloak those failures up by increases in such liberality, eventually it becomes excessive and corrodes the very society that feeds the machine. Liberality can also corrode the other pillars of society; so in the name of freedom we allow moral relativism, and in the name of right we allow the criminal to go free and continue their reign of terror...

And it is appropriate that you pointed to the Republican administration in the US, since they have engaged in some of the greatest schemes of excess liberality ever witnessed. It would be cheaper if they had just purchased the votes outright. Harper continues the tradition here, or rather, he has redirected the excess liberality to a host of his own cronies.



> They always go for this option about as quickly as a PC tech reaches for "reinstall the system," never seeming to realise that this view represents the exact opposite of the "civility" they wish society would return to.


It is just a different perspective. The conservative looks at the society as a whole, and seeks a system that can protect that society; while the liberal looks at the individual and seeks a system that can protect that individual. A conservative views a criminal as a cancer within the society that must be dealt with, and that the crimes committed were attacks against the society as a whole; while a liberal views a criminal as someone that needs assistance, and that the crimes were committed against another individual.

Someone who has liberal tendencies will see a conservative as someone who is cruel and bloodthirsty - while a conservative will see a liberal as someone who is willing to place an individual above the want of a secure society.

So when a conservative talks about severe punishment, they are not viewing it as an attack imposed by society upon an individual, but rather, the remedy for the crime. A conservative will rarely if ever see a crime as being committed against one individual, but as an attack launched upon the entire corpus of civilized society; while a liberal will rarely if ever see a crime as being committed against the society as a whole, but of an isolated incident.



> Yeah, that Polish guy in the Vancouver airport for example! He was -- wait.


The Polish dude should never have been left alone for ten hours, so the crime is actually less of the Tasering and more of a blatant case of malfeasance on behalf of the airport administration.

Cases of Tasering in the US, well, we probably will never know the real story. People went on the rampage because of Rodney King (even though he had a long record of drunk driving and resisting arrest) because it was a race issue. But when he resisted arrest in the City of Brotherly Love year later, this time when it was black cops that beat him up, well, it was a different tune. With all of the guns and stuff going on in the US... Plus, why was the guy trying to ask questions when the cops were clearly telling him to get down or they were going to Taser him - especially in a gun happy area of the country like Dade and Broward Counties...



> Surely the high accident/injury/death rate of such people is its own punishment? Or should we taser their parents as well for raising such a nitwit??


The solution is simple, they could just put an accelerometer into the Crackberry so it won't work when the vehicle is in motion. Frankly, I could care less if some luser wraps their giant SUV around a pole because they were fixated on their cell phone, that is just Darwin at work. However, I really care when they are fixated while trying to wipe all the other cars off the road. Like the moron last month that drove out of the gas station without paying (and without the nozzle being removed from the tank), who promptly crashed into a bus because she was fooling with her cell phone and her daytimer. I could care less if she torched herself because of her stupidity, but it did scramble the innocent people on the bus, as well as delaying me because I was a witness and had to wait for the cops.



> You're right. Cutting off food to these people will surely solve the problem ... of excess kids.


The problem is not food. For all of the welfare these people get, they certainly do not spend it on much food for the kids. The priorities are to buy booze, buy drugs, and buy smokes. We used to have one kid that would come to school pretty much naked, so we would give him clothes. The next day, the kid was naked again because the parents took the clothes we gave the kid and sold them so they could buy smokes or booze. This stuff happens all of the time, and certainly the kids are the biggest victims, but no amount of welfare will help, because the more welfare we dole out, the more that is spend on the vices. So the solution to the problem is not easy or clearcut.

If parents who were in economic difficulty were responsible, and I am sure that some actually are, there would be adequate resources for the kids. But it surely seems that most of these parents are simply lazy, and care more about ingesting all the drugs and booze that they can get their hands on. This is something that in The Hammer, you do not have to travel too far to see. In fact, entire neighbourhoods have been converted into slums featuring crack houses and prositution... (But then again, it's probably the only place where one can get stabbed right in front of the cop shop!)



> And yet, when a visionary leader who can obviously unite people and lay out his plans articulately comes along...


I missed the discussion about Gordon Brown...



> some moron on here starts a betting pool to guess WHEN he will be assassinated.


Only because these kinds of people are prone to assassination - as proven by the entire corpus of history. I think it would be ironic if Obama was knocked off on March the 15th...



> Maybe -- just maybe -- that's why all the great leaders seem to have vanished from politics. They're hiding for their lives.


Some actually do. Tiberius was quite afraid of assassination attempts, and spent a great deal of time loafing around the Isle of Capri because Rome was too dangerous. The Man'chu dynasts built the Forbidden City in order to protect themselves from the Chinese people they ruled, and were entirely isolated; as was the Emperor of Japan.

It was a feature of most regions in Islamic times for the leaders to live in a city apart from the city where the citizens live, just to stay away from all of the assassination action. In fact, Constantinople was quite a violent place, and a ruler who succeeded to the throne was expected to murder his brothers in order to consolidate power. Plus the fact that the Janissaries quite often would be involved in the various plots, perhaps to be outmanouvered by the Berzerkers and the Assassins...

For all of the talk - assassinations have always been a factor in political life, and just because our world is "modern" only leads to yet newer ways of assassinating. Like the dioxin method they were using on Yushchenko in the Ukraine recently - couldn't do that without the petrochemical industry...


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Yes, fear is an effective way to control your children. Rattle that kitchen drawer, or snap that belt, and your kids with get back in line.
> 
> Even better, you can control your neighbour with a baseball bat.
> 
> ...


A bit harsh don't you think? You've basically condemned what 90% of the world? You can add to that nuns, priests that used to teach (kids got whacked) too.

I think you are confusing a parent disciplining a child and someone like Vladimir Dracul...

I'm guessing you are gonna support the hug army in getting guns off the streets and getting kids to respect themselves, others, parents, and get back into school, and quit being little punks.

Hug Army Kernel "Hi, Kids, I love you, have a hug, stay in school, be nice to one another"...Wow that was great, crime is already dropping substantially. "Oh, look a gang member, I like his neat bandana, come have a hug, doesn't that feel" BANG...

So much for that idea...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Yes, fear is an effective way to control your children. Rattle that kitchen drawer, or snap that belt, and your kids with get back in line.
> 
> Even better, you can control your neighbour with a baseball bat.
> 
> ...


And hug a thug is working out well for TO, who has had how many shooting victims this month? 2006 they blamed it on the heat, what the excuse this year? Crazy from the rain? :lmao: 

Toronto Police Service :: To Serve and Protect


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Some people just can't understand the difference between violence and discipline with love. We're talking about the latter here and a slap on the butt does more good than any hug ever did. Look at the world around you and see the results of mamby pamby parents treatment of their teens. Some of them in our city are just plain distasteful in their public behaviour as they obviously understand neither respect nor discipline.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> People who resort to violence and fear as a tool to control their children are one of the most pathetic forms of human beings. "Oh, it worked on me as a child" only clarifies your level of ignorance.


Then I suppose you support the "giving the misbehaving child some kind of reward, like a chocolate bar, method"? Or perhaps the "logical discussion" method that is doomed to failure. Physical punishment is nothing more than the proof that punishment actually exists and is actually strict.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> Then I suppose you support the "giving the misbehaving child some kind of reward, like a chocolate bar, method"? Or perhaps the "logical discussion" method that is doomed to failure. Physical punishment is nothing more than the proof that punishment actually exists and is actually strict.


EP I want you to sit in the corner and think about what you just said, only when you understand your ignorance can you post again.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Don´t go that far to find the sensitivity. I suppose sentiment has surpassed logic and reason these days. Unfortunate.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Yup.

Just remember these wise words, and you're set:

Spock: Logic and practical information do not seem to apply here.
McCoy: You admit that?
Spock: To deny the facts would be illogical, doctor.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, if you're too sensitive then don't.
> 
> BTW not sure what you're implying there with the picket fence, but from the sounds of it I'm not the one with the stick up my arse.


Not at all. We can and perhaps even should talk about it. My objection was at the way Adrian approached the matter and not with the subject itself.

Although I was replying to your post, I was not implying or directing anything toward you personally with respect to the "fence sitting". I was talking in generalities.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

No corporal punishment means kids run the house.

By extension, they only do those things that are self-indulgent, and then are left to wallow throughout life.

Remember what George Carlin said about Education?? 

The Government loves it just the way it is. I grinds out what are essentially serfs, to keep the grist mills working.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> EP I want you to sit in the corner and think about what you just said, only when you understand your ignorance can you post again.


That's no good, then EP will feel alone and that is sad...now I'm sad...let's all go sit with EP and give him chocolate..see how happy he is....

Parenting Teacher: See what just happened parents, you have just told EP he can do whatever he wants...What EP should have gotten was a firm whack on the patoote...next time he'll think twice about giving you some sass...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Spanking = lazy ass parents. 

Pondering if Obama will get assassinated = Pointless, Tasteless and racist


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

On corporal punishment...

The elementary school I attended used the strap on the hand.

Some kids never saw it.

Some kids seen it more than once.

Obviously, this type of deterrent has as much success as any other.

Round round she goes...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

ehMax said:


> Spanking = lazy ass parents.
> 
> Pondering if Obama will get assassinated = Pointless, Tasteless and racist


The above = absolutely.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The old spanking question? At age 5 I decided that I would never cry again when spanked, no matter how badly I was beaten. Relying on the last resort first, my parents had no other strategy but hitting harder. That just created a period of escalation where I refused to cry as the beatings got worse. Perversely, I felt that I was earning my father's respect for NOT crying.

I think in most cases this is what happens, but at a later period in the child's life--maybe even at the point when they can beat the [stuffing] out of their parents instead. Being beaten taught me that punishment is random and excessive and likey to come from those I needed to love and trust the most. I think of the dog that licks its masters hand as it's being whipped. It also taught me that he who has the biggest physical presence gets to wield the fist.

If I could find the study I would post it, but the best long-term study on corporal punishment I've seen essentially said that mild spanking results in a toss-up: works for some but not for others, but causes no long term psychological damage. Anything beyond that and you're likely to do far more harm than good.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Pondering if Obama will get assassinated = Pointless, Tasteless and racist


Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. 

By your very statement you are saying then, that the New York Times, The London Telegraph and the London Daily Mail are all pointless, tasteless and racist?

I think not.

Take a look at these: (Emphasis mine.)

*In Painful Past, Hushed Worry About Obama*

DALLAS — There is a hushed worry on the minds of many supporters of Senator Barack Obama, echoing in conversations from state to state, rally to rally: Will he be safe?

In Colorado, two sisters say they pray daily for his safety. In New Mexico, a daughter says she persuaded her mother to still vote for Mr. Obama, even though the mother feared that winning would put him in danger. And at a rally here, a woman expressed worries that a message of hope and change, in addition to his race, made him more vulnerable to violence.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world,” Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said in an interview, reprising a line he tells supporters who raise the issue with him. “So stop worrying.”

Yet worry they do, with the spring of 1968 seared into their memories, when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated in a span of two months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/politics/25memo.html

*'They will kill Obama if he becomes US president':* 

Outcry over Nobel Prize winner's assassination warning

British Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing caused uproar last night by predicting the assassination of Barack Obama if he becomes the first black U.S. president.

The 88-year-old novelist's remarks came as the Democratic candidate toasted the most successful day in his White House campaign.

Mr Obama, the 46-year-old son of a black Kenyan man and a white American, dismissed Mrs Lessing's comments.

Miss Lessing said: "He would probably not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would kill him."

'They will kill Obama if he becomes US president': Outcry over Nobel Prize winner's assassination warning | Mail Online

*Confronting the Barack Obama assassination fears*

Just back from Memphis, where today Friday April 4th at 6.01 pm it will be exactly 40 years since Martin Luther King was shot dead outside Room 306 of the Lorraine Motel. The anniversary is all the more poignant because today Barack Obama is arguably the front runner to become the next president of the United States the first black man to win the White House.

Some worry Obama could suffer the same fate as Martin Luther King

But in Memphis, almost every black person I spoke to, from the Reverend Billy Kyles, who was with the civil rights hero for the last hour of his life, to the ordinary folks at the bus station fretted that Obama might suffer the same fate. This is something I have heard from black voters, unprompted, across the United States.

*And it's a phenomenon that, however regrettable and unsavoury, needs to be addressed.* 

Here's my news piece in today's paper on the subject is here. So what are we to make of these fears?

First of all, we need to separate the different strains of thought on the possibility of an Obama assassination. Of the top of my head, I can think of several, many contradictory.

Confronting the Barack Obama assassination fears

As I stated earlier, the subject is important and needs to be confronted. It was the poor choice of wording that scuttled the debate.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Sticking ones head in the sand because a topic is unsavory accomplishes nothing and can actually be very dangerous. Just ask the creators of the colorectal cancer ads.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In regards to the orignal question--YES! People become sensitve on the Bell Curve. Whatever the prevailing condition, people will become sensitive about less and less important things.


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

I was in Toronto this weekend. I forget the exact wording - maybe our T.O. friends can help out - but the Toronto Sun's Saturday edition had a front page headline something along the lines of "Ontario is becoming the nanny state".

The UK over the last 10 years has been accused of this too (forgive my indulgence, as that's my home land), where 'health and safety', 'hug a hoodie', handouts have become the norm, with the left learning, social, PC-correct elite ruling the roost, afraid to face life in the real world.

A case a little closer to home for Ottawa residents - this year's BlueFest. How many letters were published in the Citizen and Sun, the gist of which were complaining about the noise at an outdoor music festival. Sure, it may have been noisy, but it lasted 7 days out of 365 days. I wonder if the same people wrote to complain when the classical music festival took place in the same venue a few days later?


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

nick24 said:


> The UK over the last 10 years has been accused of this too (forgive my indulgence, as that's my home land), where 'health and safety', 'hug a hoodie', handouts have become the norm, with the left learning, social, PC-correct elite ruling the roost, afraid to face life in the real world.


Though I don't know if it's fair to paint "left-leaning" with such a broad brush. Strictly speaking liberal (i.e. left) people should be following the adage "live and let live" - and most liberally minded (the ideology, not the political party) people do follow it. And quite frankly, "right-leaning" people are just as guilty of complaining and attempting to police things that don't need policing and don't affect them in any material way. Gay marriage being a perfect example.



> A case a little closer to home for Ottawa residents - this year's BlueFest. How many letters were published in the Citizen and Sun, the gist of which were complaining about the noise at an outdoor music festival. Sure, it may have been noisy, but it lasted 7 days out of 365 days. I wonder if the same people wrote to complain when the classical music festival took place in the same venue a few days later?


I think you meant to say Chamber Music festival, but yes, I agree with you. When people decide to be offended (and that's what they're doing - _deciding_) they're doing everyone, including themselves a disservice. When we start to make laws based on arbitrary "offenses" it ends up coming back to haunt us sooner or later.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Pondering if Obama will get assassinated = Pointless, Tasteless and racist


Perhaps pointless, but no more pointless than pondering if the TiCats are going to lose their next game or not. People speculate on many things, and as I had pointed out, assassinations have been a feature of political life, perhaps dating backto the very first politician.

Tasteless, perhaps but considering that leaders are continually subject to assassination attempts, just as Bush was recently, it is a very real possibility at any time. One must think about the fact that even Stephen Harper has three taste testers - this is imposed by an Order in Council that dates back to Trudeau - and that bomb proof cars date back even further, and were made mandatory by Pearson. Perhaps because we are Canadian we do not think about it too much, simply because it has been a long time since McGee was assassinated, and not many people will recall Lortie hijacking Parliament (or more recently, the dude that shot four ministers in the National Assembly in Quebec City).

As for racist - I see no racism attached. He is a public figure reaching for high office, and is the number one target for any nutcase. People remember the names of assassins - people like Gravillo Princip, Sirhan Sirhan, John Wilkes Booth, Harvey Lee Oswald... The memory goes back far because people may also recall the assassins of Caesar - Brutus, Cassius, Tullius Cimber et. al... Even a failed assassination attempt brings forth memories, so people like Guy Fawkes, Robert Damiens, and Claus von Staffenburg are relatively familiar.

Perhaps people are talking more about the chance that Obama being a target simply because of the fact that White Supremast groups (like the Klan, the WCC, the Neo-Nazis amongst others) as well as various militia and splinter groups, are so prevalent. (Though they do exist here, groups like the Heritage Front do exist though in stunted form, as well as elements of the FLQ in Quebec that may or may not have an "agenda").

But it does go without saying that these groups would probably not promote such a scheme because they know how the law would crush them entirely. Perhaps the Klan promotes segregation, but they know better than to bring the full ferocity of the law upon them.

It is more likely that Obama, and for that matter, McCain, would become a target by virtue of the Presidency - and really, any nutcase may make the move. The nutcase more than likely would be some kind of anarchist with a peculiar agenda (like the dude that wanted to prove his love to Jodie Foster, or the Unibomber that wanted his diatribe published in the New York Times), rather than some racists involved in a splinter group.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The fact remains that when you write about people getting killed, even though it's a political and human reality, it *can* be in bad taste. Sometimes this applies no matter how you go about it, especially in a forum where anybody can sign in and comment. You don't get the thoughtful reflection of, say, a newspaper column (which can still be in extremely bad taste, of course), from *every* commentator.

Does that make us too sensitive? How about not sensitive enough?

These days, politicians themselves have to stick to positive messages about change and hope or they get lambasted. When they go negative, like the swiftboat stories about Kerry which were debunked quickly, they leave that to their party or sponsors so they aren't themselves directly associated with the flak that results. If they don't, like the Conservatives dreadful portrayals of Chretien's face some years back, they pay at the polls. Oddly, criticizing Stephane Dion for caring about the environment has worked out fine; notice the ads got very personal about Dion for supporting what may or may not be a good idea; there was certainly no discussion of ideas in the rebuttal. Where was the outcry about that?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Both  left and right wing factions wish to use the state to control the activities of others. If they can't do that, they try to take people's money from them instead so they can do their various good works. Only a strong libertarian streak can save us from both sets of creepy characters.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

SINC I understand where you're coming from, but let's keep in mind that this is a Mac tech board with a very diverse membership. Some will perhaps take offense sooner that others and it remains true that there is some political discussion, it is not a board dedicated to politics (or religion or whatever). I think the Mayor is very generous with his allowances in this respect.

If it was, I'd say "have at 'er" and we can post all the polls and assassination threads we like. Since it isn't a political board, but a Mac user board set up for the enjoyment of all members, let's respect the fact that some might find the topic inappropriate for this board and rather not see it discussed on ehMac.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

"Community discussions about Canadian life!" <--- doesn't include politics? ... refers to Mac tech only?

"I think the Mayor is very generous with his allowances in this respect."

That's my laugh for the day. THANKS!!!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

HowEver said:


> These days, politicians themselves have to stick to positive messages about change and hope or they get lambasted.


This has always been true...



> Oddly, criticizing Stephane Dion for caring about the environment has worked out fine; notice the ads got very personal about Dion for supporting what may or may not be a good idea; there was certainly no discussion of ideas in the rebuttal. Where was the outcry about that?


Because there was no need for discussion - Dion's only plan was to hijack more cash out of the taxpayers pocket so he can fund special interest groups in Quebec in order to buy votes. He cared not one iota for the environment, he only cares about the continuation of his power over a party he hijacked.

There was no need for an outcry because the only fools in this country are those that live in BC, where the electors allowed their government to gouge even more cash out of the pockets of the citizens. Not one red cent of that tax will ever go to the environment, it will just end up as kickbacks and special contracts for those with "political connections". But the electors will never learn.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mississauga said:


> "Community discussions about Canadian life!" <--- doesn't include politics? ... refers to Mac tech only?
> 
> "I think the Mayor is very generous with his allowances in this respect."
> 
> That's my laugh for the day. THANKS!!!


Glad I made your day...you big lug...and don't get so _sensitive_ about the semantics. 

AFAIK, this board was founded for discussing Macs, if the admins allow a broader discussion to take place, it's at their discretion.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

kps said:


> Glad I made your day...you big lug...and don't get so _sensitive_ about the semantics.


----------



## darrenlovesmac (Apr 29, 2008)

I think the bigger problem is a lack of common sense, respect and courtesy. Not to mention concern for our fellow man. The general sense I get from the majority of the populous is a "me, me, me" mentality, which is popularized by television shows such as Big Brother, Survivor and so on. Why would anyone watch a show that shows human behaviour at one of it's lowest point? The selfish and back stabbing lies that get propagated on these television shows, combined with the rewards received by the so called "winners" result in a trend towards individuals replicating the actions they have witnessed. 

On corporal punishment, I tend to think a bit of a smack can be a deterrent, but look at dogs, as someone else mentioned previously; if a dog is hit with a hand, she becomes afraid of the hand, but will still commit a lot of the same infractions. Does that mean the master should hit harder? More frequently? Or, does that mean the master should resort to more, and better, training? Leading by example (to a degree anyway with a dog).

Each individual will his own opinion, which in a lot of cases is based on individual experience. Thus, if someone was spanked a great deal and she feels that type of punishment is excessive and harsh, she may then resort to different punishments. My father decided when I was about seven or eight years old he was no longer going to 'spank' me. I overheard him telling one of my uncles, who had just had his first child' that he felt spanking may leave an emotional scar on me. Instead my father resorted to emotional punishments such as the dreaded "I am a dissapointed in you", as well as the variants of that phrase, insults and basic degradation. Which form of punishment is worse? I do not know.

I think one of the main problems in society is less what our parents do in the way of punishment but more in what the community does. Remember, it takes a village to raise a child, and when I was a kid, if I lipped off to an older kid/teenager I was going to face a beat-down. In that scenario I accepted my fate and learned not to repeat that mistake. It appears today, if a kid gets mouthy and someone decides to stop the negative behaviour the offending party plays the victim card and gets the relevant authority involved. 

This is just my two cents. I am sure the problem is far more complex and detailed than anyone can dare to post, but, this is but a small example of what I feel are some of the salient points. 

Regards,

Darren


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I agree with a lot of what you say Darren. Although the vast majority of people are contributing positively to society, sometimes it seems like we've become a society of individuals with expectations of 'entitlement', while fewer and fewer are willing to take responsibility for their own actions and the ramifications, on themselves or on others, of the choices they have made. It's a complex issue, and certainly one with no simple solution, because it has become systemic: society rewards the whiners, and ignores those who just 'deal'. 

Some people will use any excuse to deflect personal responsibility - focusing only on the negative and ignoring the positives - while others just seem to take all the horrible things that happen to them in life and become happy, productive people _despite_ it. And many times the only real difference is in attitude.

Perhaps life has just been too easy? Steel becomes stronger only when it has been tempered. Our society has 'lost its temper' in more ways than one.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Very good post MLeh! :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Our society has 'lost its temper' in more ways than one.


Look at the society we have in Canada. We've decided that we:
a) can't be expected to look after our own health care
b) can't be expected to see our way through a period of unemployment
c) can't choose what we want to watch on television or listen to on the radio
d) can't be trusted with 60% of our income
e) can't be trusted to run a lottery
f) can't smoke a cigarette unless it is first shut up behind a steel door
g) can't take care of our own children unless the government gives us money to do so
h) can't own an animal unless we tell the government about it first
i) can't park at midnight on a street without traffic without fear of being fined

The list goes on and on. This isn't some sort of enlightenment, but infantilism of the first order. Most of the weeping and gnashing of teeth comes from people who want MORE of this.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Look at the society we have in Canada. We've decided that we:
> a) can't be expected to look after our own health care
> b) can't be expected to see our way through a period of unemployment
> c) can't choose what we want to watch on television or listen to on the radio
> ...


priceless.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think groovetube needs his diapers changed. Though I suppose I should welcome a response beyond the usual "LOL." 

Who's a sweety, giggly baby, then?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

macfury, you're too easy.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The list goes on and on. This isn't some sort of enlightenment, but infantilism of the first order. Most of the weeping and gnashing of teeth comes from people who want MORE of this.


I suppose the whining, complaining and sour grapes come from those who want LESS of this?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I suppose the whining, complaining and sour grapes come from those who want LESS of this?


Far less by a wide margin, oh ward of the state.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Far less by a wide margin, oh ward of the state.


Oh, I guess I should add name calling to the list. Good luck with your cause. Soapboxes are relatively inexpensive to build and you could apply for a grant if the resources aren't available to you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What's so embarrassing about being a ward of the state? Many of your posts ask for increased involvement of government both in terms of oversight, regulation and in financial support as well as specific support of government empowerment of unions.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What's so embarrassing about being a ward of the state? Many of your posts ask for increased involvement of government both in terms of oversight, regulation and in financial support as well as specific support of government empowerment of unions.


Better the Government than profit mad Corporations. 

The only embarrassment is the one who lashes out from his lonely ideological corner.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Better the Government than profit mad Corporations.
> The only embarrassment is the one who lashes out from his lonely ideological corner.


Ah, a blight on the utopian nanny state am I? Proud to be so.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes less! LESS!

I fully trust the corporations, to have me and my family's health and welfare in mind when they are allowed to inspect themselves with no outside involvement.

Food inspection 'disaster' looms


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Ah, a blight on the utopian nanny state am I? Proud to be so.


I wouldn't say blight. Perhaps just a whisper.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube, you're a little off topic here--I suggest you move it to a new topic about your fears over the safety of beef. But I did read through the article and it appears that some of the people interviewed think it's a good idea. I appreciate you supplying an article that presents a balanced view.

But back to the original thread. Either you take responsibility for yourself or give it away to others--essentially an infantalizing of the adult. Much of the whining, moaning and complaining today comes from people who have already been infantalized and want more. They have a teat pressed to their lip 24/7 but they see candy and toys as well and want those too. 

I suppose you could say that those who wish to live as responsible adults are "complaining" when they ask to be left alone to prosper as responsible individuals. The view is just a little different from the playpen.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Um ... guys ...?

How did we get from 'some' to 'all'?

Can you tone down the rhetoric just a wee bit?

Balance, moderation in all things - the government is supposed to be 'us, taking care of all of us' - for the benefit of all. There are certain places where there is economy of scale - infrastructure, road building, etc., where it just doesn't make sense for each individual to be responsible for their 'bit'. 

The problem, as I see it, is when we forget that the government is 'us', and think of it as 'them'.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The government is "them." It's gotten so big that it can't be significantly altered, cut back or disbanded.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Mleh, well said. That last line in particular.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> groovetube, you're a little off topic here--I suggest you move it to a new topic about your fears over the safety of beef. But I did read through the article and it appears that some of the people interviewed think it's a good idea. I appreciate you supplying an article that presents a balanced view.


were we not discussing the concept of the government taking care of you vs the private/corporate doing it?

I thought we were.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The government is "them." It's gotten so big that it can't be significantly altered, cut back or disbanded.


Certainly not with that attitude.

_"Be the change that you want to see in the world. "_ - Mohandas Gandhi


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> Certainly not with that attitude.
> 
> _"Be the change that you want to see in the world. "_ - Mohandas Gandhi


I see. My attitude makes the government more powerful. And I need merely ignore the dictates of government and be imprisoned so that I can "be the change I want to see in the world." Sweet.

And I do suggest we move this thread elsewhere.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

You don't like the truth? Your attitude is all 'talk' and no 'action'. Have the courage to act on the principles of your conviction. 

Is it easier to rail against the injustice of the world instead of just taking personal responsibility for your own actions?

There's only one way to change the world, and that's by starting with your little bit of it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Governments can always be changed... the populace has to want it, however, and want it very badly indeed. To claim that the individual is powerless in in itself an admission of impotence and dissolution. Governments have often fallen due to inner rot and to public dissatisfaction with the way in which it is governed. Look at the American Revolution - did it not come about because the colonials were fed up with British rule and decided not to be pushovers any more?

On the other hand, revolution is not possible when the subjects themselves believe they are victims - powerless pawns and nothing else.

If it is truly desirous of a change, the public will always take it upon itself to effect those changes. What's that precious line about the only prequisite for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing? I believe it applies here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> On the other hand, revolution is not possible when the subjects themselves believe they are victims - powerless pawns and nothing else. Look at the American Revolution...


They were well-armed and hadn't yet given up their right to own weapons.



> What's that precious line about the only prequisite for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing? I believe it applies here.


I'm not a Gandhi-ist. His strategy worked because he was squaring off against the British, not the Nazis, who would have cleaned his clock if he'd tried that stuff with them. 

But act on my convictions? I frequently do, as I'm sure the rest of you do.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"the rest of you..." my, my. Now there's the agenda, in broad daylight.

I rather doubt you personally have given up any right to bear arms... or to squirrel them away for an - ahem - rainy day.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Parsing too deeply, I'm afraid. Looking for hidden agendas under mushrooms and scraps of paper.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh, so you grow mushrooms as well as store those other implements, then? Fantastic! I suppose in the same underground spots, right? Ideal places for both purposes! I'm a big fan of portobellos and oyster ones myself. Care to divulge any info on the kinds you favour? Given your rock-jawed avatar and the wacky sensibilities of that rather enigmatic show which spawned him, I expect they would be rather... magical.

As for the scraps of paper, all I can say is I certainly hope you're doing your part to recycle. It's for the greater good, you know!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Work is a Four-Letter Word.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

So is Life, chum. So is chum!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'd surmise macfury's favorite chore would be the feeding part.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

To quote the greatest minds on Radio "It's the PUSSIFICATION OF AMERICA!"

Damn I love Covino and Rich!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You got it Elric. In fact, note the extreme sensitivity of the people who responded to my mild reproach.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Still playing the victim card, I see. Pretzel logic at work - lo, even in the most proper of circles!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The victim of what? Wailing and the wearing of hair shirts by others? Perhaps the more sensitive among us could explain how such a thing could make one feel like a victim.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

why?
We can all see who's whining right now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sensitive...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

and the beat goes on..... on and on and on.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> why?
> We can all see who's whining right now.


The cries from the wilderness echo loudly. But they are echoes just the same.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But...


> they are echoes just the same...same...same...same....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> The cries from the wilderness echo loudly. But they are echoes just the same.


true. 

Max's pretzel logic theory is a good one I think.

Years and years ago, I think we called it 'I know you are, but what am I'.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, thank you groovetube, but as yet it's only a theory. I think a good case could be made that MacFury's testy behaviour could well fall under the "I know you are but what am I" proviso. I am currently investigating this theory and find much compelling evidence - enough, perhaps, to warrant a full-blown classification and ensuing treatment regimen.

____________________

I've enjoyed jousting with my regular partners in crime here, MF included. And I will miss this place for the week that I am gone. Off to a different wilderness, and there ain't gonna be no intertubes there. I don't even think my cell will be of much use, at least for the first few days of the trip. Y'all have a great week. May many interesting new threads sprout and flourish in your Ehmac garden.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> true.
> 
> Max's pretzel logic theory is a good one I think.
> 
> Years and years ago, I think we called it 'I know you are, but what am I'.


I too enjoy a good pretzel. Preferably slathered in mustard to conceal it's form.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> The victim of what? Wailing and the wearing of hair shirts by others? Perhaps the more sensitive among us could explain how such a thing could make one feel like a victim.


As long as you don't start rending your clothing.

No one need see that.

Thank you.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I've finally clued in. This wasn't supposed to be a discussion. I thought it was a discussion. You know, one of those civilised things where people actually listen to each other, show respect, and respond to what was said rather than just continuing on their own agenda. Silly me.

Pass the mustard.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> I've finally clued in. This wasn't supposed to be a discussion. I thought it was a discussion. You know, one of those civilised things where people actually listen to each other, show respect, and respond to what was said rather than just continuing on their own agenda. Silly me.


You want "Sensitive Debate 101." It's down the hall.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> I've finally clued in. This wasn't supposed to be a discussion. I thought it was a discussion. You know, one of those civilised things where people actually listen to each other, show respect, and respond to what was said rather than just continuing on their own agenda. Silly me.
> 
> Pass the mustard.





Mustard is good.
Though...
I like the butter garlic combo myself on a fresh outta the oven myself.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Fresh outta the oven? Too soft.


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

Given that this sorta turned into the 'Will Obama be assassinated" thread, I note that a man allegedly found with a stash of guns, knives and body armour has appeared in court on charges he threatened to assassinate Barack Obama. 

Link > Barack Obama death threats: Man charged - Telegraph

Mods - If the intention was to stop talk like this, please feel free to delete this post.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

I think the Mods rejected the idea of a poll on this subject.

Open conversation is an entirely different thing.

Back to this nut-bar. Can you even imagine the uproar with the red-necks if Obama was 100% Black??

OMG.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Look at the society we have in Canada. We've decided that we:
> a) can't be expected to look after our own health care
> b) can't be expected to see our way through a period of unemployment
> c) can't choose what we want to watch on television or listen to on the radio
> ...



You raise a good point macfury and people have derailed you and dilluted what you want to say, I feel you, people cannot deal with the truth so they derail and dillute.

As much as I do resent a lot of the government control in Canada, and I routinely call Canada the country of "No,no,no!" because there are so many goddman laws and by laws and regulations. Nonetheless, I have to appreciate that Canadians do things the right way, we tend not to break the law, build our houses to code, park on the right side of the street, do not load pick up trucks with people (sometimes), keep our cars up to spec and licensed etc. All this is done for the safety and mediation of everything that goes on in the country. 

In so many places around the world (wealthy and poor) the people do whatever the hell they want. The rules exist. No one follows them. You have some people who follow them and others who don´t. It results in having lazy people having cars without license plates, no break or head lights, balded tires etc. (sounds safe eh) and some with everything in check. You have people whose houses are build shotty, not finished and look horrible and others who are decent and nice (you can be poor and still be clean and tidy, so don´t drop that argument.) and the lists goes on.

In Canada most people follow the rules, although construction quality and cars tends to be because of the harsh climates we have, nonetheless, people tend to have agreed to live at a standard and follow it. In many other countries many just do not conform and it worsens the country (don´t pay taxes, license plates etc) and it becomes highly frustrating for those who want a better change. 

I am afraid it comes down to pure lazyness and disrespect for others and your country. Canadians tend to have a lot of respect for others and our country. It is sort of a double argument at this point and unclear which way to go; I will provide the options and let you make your own choices. Because we have such respect for others and our country we have adopted our regulation saturated nation or because our nation is saturated with regulation we live like we do, because we are used to it,and don´t actually respect anyone or our country.

Ps., I would really like to thank SINC, KPS and Missisauga for voicing some support for me. Nice to see reason prevails here, ironic given the nature of this thread. 

To ehmax, I try not to rock the boat here but I do feel that my thread was unfaily deleted. If the poll was seen as bad taste the POLL should have been taken down, not the post. But at last, this is your house.

I am not racist and often do a better job than the mods at comdemning racist comments that pop up from time to time here.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> ...and I routinely call Canada the country of "No,no,no!" because there are so many goddman laws and by laws and regulations.


But it is also a nation that does not generally enforce any of those laws and regulations, at least without resorting to endless litigation. What good is a regulation if the whole system is infested with nepotism and incest, so that we are to be sure to have the biggest idiot in control of the most important things, while those that are competent end up either driving a cab, picking mushrooms, or leaving for another country where they can get a real job.



> Nonetheless, I have to appreciate that Canadians do things the right way, we tend not to break the law, build our houses to code, park on the right side of the street, do not load pick up trucks with people (sometimes), keep our cars up to spec and licensed etc.


Are you living in Bizzaro Canada? Or is The Hammer a part of Bizarro Canada? Here in The Hammer, developers build stuff all the time without permits and without abiding by any codes. One house was so bad that the Holmes dude said it was a write-off and couldn't be fixed. Laws are broken all the time, and the people that break them are lionized and rewarded. Only the victims pay for crime in The Hammer. And parking on the right side of the street? I'd just wish people would drive on the right side of the street - or at least in the correct direction on one way streets...



> The rules exist. No one follows them. You have some people who follow them and others who don´t. It results in having lazy people having cars without license plates, no break or head lights, balded tires etc. (sounds safe eh) and some with everything in check.


Again, in Bizarro Canada, many cars do not even have license plates. I see it pretty much all the time in this town. I think they don't bother because the 407 is too expensive. It's all about driving stunts in this town, especially when one dude decided to try to get away from police by driving into the back of a truck filled with tar.



> Canadians tend to have a lot of respect for others and our country.


You are kidding, right? We are a country that pays people a great deal of money to oppose the existence of the country, and where one of the "opposition parties" is truly opposed to the nation. We have no self respect, and not only when it comes to Quebec, but in the shoddy treatment we heap upon the First Nations, and the even shoddier treatment we heap upon the immigrants that we bring to this country.

We are a country that places, first and foremost, the importance of paying huge amounts of cash to CEO's; while people end up in hospital waiting rooms for hours, perhaps days, only to die of horrible diseases caused by the amount of feces spread on the equipment and furnishings. Coupled with the fact that many people can not get medical care because they can't get a doctor, and even those with doctors can't get timely care. Yeah, we really respect people in this bizarro country.

In this country, if you are a hard worker or are educated, you can pretty much plan on a life of short term, low paying jobs because education, experience, ability and attitude count for nothing. And if you end up in a union, say goodbye to notions like collective bargaining and fair treatment. The whole system panders to nepotism and incest.

In this country, if you want fairness and equality for all, you are considered some kind of right wing freak. If you want justice, you are considered a heartless butcher. This country lacks basic self-respect, and without that, this country lacks any real dignity. I couldn't even say that we are free from kleptocratic tendencies, judging from the loot that the influence peddlers stuff in to their pockets through their acts of grandiose corruption - crimes that always go without any true justice.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> But it is also a nation that does not generally enforce any of those laws and regulations, at least without resorting to endless litigation. What good is a regulation if the whole system is infested with nepotism and incest, so that we are to be sure to have the biggest idiot in control of the most important things, while those that are competent end up either driving a cab, picking mushrooms, or leaving for another country where they can get a real job.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I had no idea what the hell "The Hammer" was... and I'm pretty sure (at least by those examples) "The Hammer" (whatever that even means lol) is definitely the Bizarro Canada.

There will always e exceptions to every rule (eg, Greyhound Beheading) so just because one knob wants a "Free ride" on the 407, doesn't mean we are all cheapskates or afraid of the scenic route.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I think he is trying to be humourous in his references to Hamilton??

I never heard the expression before this poster used it.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The Hammer is a _common_ euphemism for Hamilton.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

HowEver said:


> The Hammer is a _common_ euphemism for Hamilton.


Maybe for people FROM Hamilton, but 30 minutes away, it's lost.

Either way, I figured it out after reading where he was from, let it go.


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

There is good and bad in every country, not just Canada or the Hammer. There were asshats living close to me in the UK who, for many different reasons felt that the law of the land did not apply to them. However, we are lucky that the vast majority of people do uphold the law thereby ensuring that society as we know it continues and does not descend into chaos.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think that most Canadians are pretty good eggs and are regulated in excess of their desire to act as miscreants. But those heavy handed laws are unevenly applied and this causes friction.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

nick24 said:


> There is good and bad in every country, not just Canada or the Hammer. There were asshats living close to me in the UK who, for many different reasons felt that the law of the land did not apply to them. However, we are lucky that the vast majority of people do uphold the law thereby ensuring that society as we know it continues and does not descend into chaos.


I have lived on both sides of the Hammer, Brantford and Toronto so I can somewhat relate. No offense, but Hamilton is a pretty big whole.

To really see the defiance-non law respecting societies you have to some places in Europe (especially Italy). I guess it all boils down to more than half of the Canadian population is so old they dont bother to break laws anymore and other countries have more young people who tend to break laws.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> I have lived on both sides of the Hammer, Brantford and Toronto so I can somewhat relate. No offense, but Hamilton is a pretty big whole.


No offense taken, since it is the truth. This town has been falling apart for years, and nothing has really changed, except for the names of the corrupt. For instance, City Council decided last week to spend a wad of cash on a study to see how they can "preserve" one of the buildings that collapsed a few years go. They don't get it - the building collapsed, the ruins have already been hauled away - and they now want to "preserve" what isn't there? This, after they "spent" $30 million to "save" the building that collapsed (but the money has never been returned from wherever it went - probably Palermo...)

Crime is getting much worse in this town, considering that the police services board no longer wants to "spend money" on closing down the crack houses. Most neighbourhoods have crack houses, or grow-ops. There are even large apartment buildings that have had entire floors converted to agriculture - and they are usually closed down because of all of the hydro that is being stolen, rather than on police action.

It's pretty bad when people from Brantford come to Hamilton and say that Hamilton's downtown is burnt out!


----------

