Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 3:04 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 2:26 am
If the Kamloops thing was paramount in your news, it wasn't in mine!
It was major national news in Canada. Why did you think your flags were all at half-mast?
For someone pretending that he's not Canadian, you seem to know a lot more than I do!
The flags were on half mast for all those CONFIRMED deaths found. As to WHY, I EXPLAINED that our system is doing it to favor the very one thing that you are FOR: keeping the power of your own religious fucks enabled to make laws regarding religious CONSERVATION.
They were not even being 'hypocritical' because 'they' are not the same people who found the actual bodies elsewhere.
Well, I don't know about "bodies elsewhere." Those could be something bad, or something very ordinary...we all end up in the ground eventually. But I can say that Kamploops looks to have been a fraud. And if it's not, let's see the bodies.
You seem to be more on top of my news than I am. I never paid attention to CLAIMS of
POSSIBLE bodies. Unlike you who trusted that Hillary Clinton had a child pedophile ring WITHOUT even RATIONAL reflection, let alone actual proof, I don't LISTEN to news ABOUT someone's
claims unqualified.
I already doubted sincerity of the concern and ignore Trudeau's tendency to support it. They already had discovered bodies elsewhere and suffices to make Justin demand half-masting flags. I'm not even FOR 'half-masting' flags but get why they jumped on it. It is INTENTIONAL for the Liberal government to BLINDLY SUPPORT the claims of the Natives because it is their party who devised the formal layout of the Constitution and they NEED to demonstrate they are compassionate of the Aboriginals because the party does not want people questioning the flaws of your fucking religions.
Unless you are interested in changing our Constitution to remove the religious protections that I'm interested in, the logic of those WANTING to HAVE laws that go against free speech and FOR religious intoleration, are sound, regardless of whether I like it or not.
Your rhetorical approach to counter-evidence is circumstantial and non-representative of the general issues involved.
My approach isn't rhetorical at all. It's evidentiary. And apparently, there are no bodies at Kamloops...or if there is, it's time they were produced.
I don't know why you don't feel the same. I would think that you would want the proof for Kamloops, too. Why you're afraid to advocate for a proper investigation, I cannot imagine.
I do NOT see this issue being capitalized in MY news. I welcome pointing out the flaw. But to presume that you can take a rogue accusation, not even aligned to the Liberal Party interests, and then transfer the fault of the accuser to those who happened to trust them, at best shows why one should NOT BLINDLY TRUST ANY source. That's the only lesson here.
And given you have hypocritical support for the political side that ALWAYS uses intentionally deception and fraudulent 'news' by defautl regardless of the absurdity of the claims, you cannot presume that anyone
should pay attention to your pretentious 'shock' you hold for NORMAL faulty claims. The credibility of the scientist using (Lidar?) was what Trudeau would have 'trusted' and so not even the Natives' here were at fault where they would be expected to jump quick on the issue. So go attack the particular scientist daring to suggest conclusions as reasonable.
....OR do you now think that Science as a whole is now too at fault too?
I GET the reason for why one would counterjump on this. It is for the same reason religious apologists always DEFAULT to arguing what they KNOW are bad arguments for religion. They are only concerned about the outcome of the effect of the argument that STUPID people would BUY regardless of its flaws: unless one is intellectual enough to challenge it, such rhetoric serves the ENDS sought, namely agreement and votes. So such 'news' only appeals for those emoting the
potential of mass murders as
real prior to evidence. IF you were intending to use this instance as a case to argue against hypocrisy, STOP supporting this KIND of reasoning when YOU argue using CLAIMS you here in the news, ...especially those sources you find personally most trustworthy with the same (or worse) degree of faith.