• 7 Posts
Joined 5M ago
Cake day: Nov 14, 2023


Oh you’re Christian, if religion makes you think churches, you are Christian. Every actively religious person I know has never said the word “church” in our conversations unless it’s specific to those Christian people.

Holding public prayer does not equate to participating in whatever faith. Allowing something is not endorsement of it.

It’s not possibke to be in government and someone not push what they believe. Since they are the ones making decisions that affect the lives of other people, then they are ultimately propagating some kind of a message. If you are anti-religion, then the government is run on an anti religion belief system and preaching a government message of anti-religion.

There is zero seperation between being a part of government and personal beliefs for those in government. If members of government practice their religion pulibly in office, in hinders on no one else.

If you are atheist, that is still a religion because you put your faith and belief in there beig ni God. So everybody is pushing sone kind of a message. Your argument is entirely one sided, a demand that the government can only be run in a way that suites you.

It’s revealing how there are religious people who have no concerns about if others are religious or not, they live their own life regardless of others, but someone active avainst all religions seems to demand that others are not allowed to be religious in public. Very childish and self absorbed. It sounds like the issue is you you want zero accountability. You can’t handle anybody criticizing your choices and criticiing your lifestyle.

No, there must be no establishment of religion, abd no restrictions there of. Members of government are free to pratice their faith in office.

If there is restriction on every and all forms of religion while in upblic office, there must restrictions on those who are against religion, they will be denied speech to comment on religion and be denied the ability to express any objection to religion.

They are butt hurt. This is nothing more than crying over individuals expressing a belief that there is something more important than themself, greater than themself.

It actually is possible to reject someone’s belief while allowing them to pray in a public space. If it’s not in a dedicated reigious building, they are not harming anyone by saying words.

How would a handwritten note not be binding, as long as it was not written under duress?

Since the bulk of you in this group are ideologues, how do you discern between respectful disagreement with someone and if someone is pushing conformity to only one acceptable viewpoint and belief?

First Shot
Is everybody still a strong supporter for anyone getting their first covid vaccine that they should should still get their first vaccine shot if never had a vaccine?

Murder is a daily occurance everywhere, this is not a news story.

You’re suggesting to be delicate with everybody and never believe someone is a confident adult until they’ve shown that they don’t get irrationally emotional over unpleasant words.

Overall I would say yes I could counter but I’ll leave it, you’ve made it more complicated than what I was pursuing, but also seemingly sounding like a lot of locals or more empty than I thought and I have to understand that the people of Vancouver operate on a lower functional level and have lower standards so people can’t recognize what is wrong with how they conduct themself.

I do agree that depending on the topic, if someone doesn’t know the perspective you are coming from, then it’s better to stay silent about it. I only share full honesty of my views with people who come specific cultures, so they would know the references and background when I say my full uncensored opinion.

I don’t believe a disagreement even has to be explained. If while someone is talking, you say “I disagree” and the person can continue their point, you’ve expressed your disagreement, and they don’t need to inquire further, simply leave it tht you disagree and that’s that.

By original question is why it seems if tere is a simple expression of disagreement, people either end the conversation there and shut it down, or make up a reason to run away from the conversation as if they were harmed by someone saying “I don’t think so, I can’t go along with that.”

It sounds like you presume a confrontational nature to disagreeing or the nature of the disagreement has a extremist nature to what you are against. Married couples can have strong disagreements and be happily married, but on a single specific topic, they can’t agree, but most other things in the marriage is working wsll. What I’m referencing is someone talking about something, another person says “I don’t think so, I don’t support that.”, to which the reply can be something along the lines of “Oh you don’t agree? I’m curious hear your take or why you dont.”. After said explanation, the original person says “I get that, but we don’t agree, all right, no sweat.”

Why does it seem that people actively avoid expressing disaagreements on what somone says when they are out somewhere having a conversation? Why arwe people more concerned about trying to sound nice rather than being honest? It's not provactive or antagonizing to simply say "I can't agree with you on that, I disagree." I suspect that if someone articulates the reasoning behind their disagreement, a lot of people would not be bothered by it, unless someone wants everybody to believe the same things and are easily disturbed by contrary points of views.

Can you share any news links that is not the state broadcaster, not government sponsored, and has never received free governemt money handouts?

Are you expecting people to care about this? How is this a news story worth anything?

He lives with parents and only pays for utilities, no rent, so he spends $1200 a month on flights instead of $2000 or $2500 on rent.

You mean they’ll be returning more of people’s money that they take from people by force and imprisionment if people don’t pay. This a bribe. The government has no money except fr the money that they take from everybody else. This is nothing more than giving people back their own money that the government took from them.

Do you speak on behalf of all ethnic native groups?

Saying “British Columbian” is too offensive
Remember kids, geographical grammer is offensive.

Please help me understand, is that supposed to hurt my feelings or am I supposed to be overwhelmed by that? Am I supposed to ask how you can be obtuse?

I am fully with you on your general premise, I’m in agreement with you. It’s people completely lose their minds and lose all self control as soon as someone says “I don’t believe in vaccines”, without thinkingabout the people around them everyday in public who never got it and they will never know.

That’s what I mean about responding to rage and anger, and not having the humility to care for others without getting wrapped up in having contrary views and being of service and gentle care to others.

I don’t ask for agreement or complience in order to be close friends with anyone.

I understand what you’re saying, social media runs on anger to get that engagement, getting those clicks. There does not seem to be a single site that is ruled my reactions, even Mastodon and Lemmy push having the correct opinions. Due to all of tue deletions, both Lemmy and Mastodon will never grow, never catch on, and there is no future in them. As bad as Twitter is, users are not punished for having the wrong view. Mastodon is a wonderful site, the censorship is why Mastodon will forever be nothing.

The one big thing that I see would drasticly change both the internet and the real world is if there is strict protection of offensive opinions. If someone is not insulting anyone but express a completely diffetent view on a topic, it harms nobody by someone taking a contrary position during a discussion. It seems that people van’t deal in nuances, everything gets politized and label, and those labels are always a marker of “Those people have the wrong opinion and they don’t have the correct belief like we do, we know better than them.”

What you say about a morbid curiosity to see the affects of an accident, I don’t. When I’m out and see an ambulance going at full speed, I silently start praying while I continue on and pray for whoever that ambulance is going to help, asking for healing, recovery, and to be made whole again. I’m nt bothered when I’m out if someone has a stupid attitude, and if someone’s visibly emotional, check on them and see if there is anyway to be of service to them in their moment of grief.

All I’m talking about is having a heart for humanity, and taking an interest in other people’s life and well being, eventually it will come around and someone will go out of their way to care for you because they are interested in see you doing well or being successful in your own life.

It sounds like you live by fear and self preservation, giving no consideration for how to show care for others and being an example of a better way of interacting with others to leave a positive impact on people’s life.

You missed my entire point. I was driving at the exact opposite. Why can’t people be good to each other in person, stop using internet to live out a delusional fantasy. I was ask why do people talk tough online and insult everyone, but that same person is a coward on the steet. I suspect if Canadian born people had a stronger sense of hospitality, speak with humility, and showed a gentle care for people around, there wouldn’t be people spewing rage online.

Since it’s clear that people are angry and lonely, if they want someone to care, there has to be a reason to care, but North Americans are a callous self indulgent people. They want change, want better, but won’t put in the work to start changing the social dynamics. There really are cultures that will invite new people into their home, that’s how I grew up, and those culturals don’t have the same social problems when out in public.

Because in my experiences, it’s always been easier talking with people who have a specific cultural background, traditions, cultural foods their parents make, usual another language, so they have a sense of identity, family history, some kind values they learn, and that is mainly, but not always, been with immigrants and children of immigrants.

Multigenerational Canadians have no culture, no traditions based their own family background, no customs, no culural foods, no religion, so Canadians have no common values they share for living in society and instructed from birth about proper social values and the punishments that can happen for not showing proper considerations for peopley. Acting nice does not equate to caring for individuals. Canadians talk about being a good person, but have no objective standard for that is based off of, and only talk about themself being a good person, not about their obligation to be good to others.

What you’re saying is people don’t want the responsibility of their own words. Life has a way of punishing people for bad things nobody witnessed. I say that in the sense of “Death is coming for you, how are you going to get out of it?”.

Internet vs Real World
Why does it seem people online will openly degrade anyone but out in public everone runs from confrontation? Why is there such social paranoia in public and too scared to socialize with strangers but will happily insult everyone online? If people are so lonely, why don't they talk with people whil le they are out and exchange contact info? It seems more enjoyable talking with immigrants and better to avoid Canadians. I'm not bothered by dealing with someone talking stupid or if someone wants a friendly hug, it's quite easy to have a good time with strangers and I have no concrns about giving my number to continue talking.

Who is tryig to ban adult trans surgeries? Who is saying that adults are not allowed to change their bodies?

You still have to handle the people around you everyday who have never receieved an injection. You have stop living my emotions and opinions and actively seek out verified information that goes against what you believe in and see if you can provide your own counter information to disprove it. If you can’t be friends with someone without knowing if they got injected, you are in a cult of invinsible ignorance.

Does it help you cope in the world by condemning someone with a different view? If someone says “I am against vaccines” they might agree, “Yes, I am anti-vax” and say it’s an accurate description, you’re not insulting them.

What is the universally recognized definition of “hate speech” that all people agree on?

Are all people obligated to have the same view and same opinion, or are people allowed to disagree and not associate with certain types of people?

You can’t demand someone publicly endorse gay/trans if you won’t publicly support people who have never got a vaccine in their life.

Emergencies Act unconstitutional
"The use of this powerful law was unauthorized because the legal threshold to use the law was not met."

Does everybody outraged about the treatment and mockery by the RCMP also in support of the Freedom Convey proresting covid restrictions that got shot by police for one reporter, another reporter getting peppersprayed, a police horse stomped on a grandma laying on the ground, others getting beat up by police for protesting against the federal government?

That’s why firearm restrictions or “gun control” is wholly irrelevent to someone planning to commit murder.

It’s strictly a political facade for the government to manipulate society into deceptively believing they are safe, but when there is a need for self protection from violence or rape, people are helpless victims.

It’s always easier to shoot people where guns are banned because people who obey gun restrictions are easier to kill.

Can you provide a news source that has never recieved government money in the last 10 years?

It’s contrived, self aggrandizing, pretentious, and delusional.

Trying to scare people into complience only makes people getting better at hiding their intoxicated driving since police can’t do this along every main road in a city, people always find ways to get around restrictions.

Plants and trees breath in CO2 that humans exhale, and plats exhale oxygen that humans breath in.

The more CO2 there is the better for trees and plants. Anyone wanting to cut CO2 wants to kill plants and it means eliminating nature that depends on it to breath in.

Having potted plants in the home is nature’s air filter for the people’s house.

Let each person rise and fall according the merits of their work and quality of their duties. No person is entitled to anything. Even respect has to be earned and prove why anyone should treat someone with dignity and honour.

As wages go higher for everybody, inflation costs goes up and pay higher costs for living.

Pay to start a company, then pay to hire a few people, and see what you think of how expensive it is to hire someone and if it’s worth the cost out of your own cash.

The higher mandatory wages go the less people will have a job.

The quality of a peron’s work has to match the salary. If a person’s work is worth $10 and a company must pay $16, it will not be worth hiring the person so they won’t have a job.

Also run the risk of as mandatory salaries goes up, current employees will be laid off to pay the ones that small companies can still afford to keep on staff.