TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Immigration in Canada.
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee I had no idea Ted Promo existed

It was kind of an accident.

quote:

Originally posted by AustralianGQ i totally agree, it is retarded, one reason why im glad to say im gonna move out of this country soon. canada is no longer canada, when i walk down the street and see no white ppl, just blacks and indians and asians...am i racist? nope, do i dislike these kind of ppl everywhere i go to the point where i feel very uncomfortable in my own canada...yes!

wait... So, do u have a problem with immigrants or ppl of a colour different from yours?
Do u include Europeans in that list? what about ppl of hispanic backround? do they make u unconfortable?

Im white and an immigrant... do u have a problem with me?
And from what I know you are yourself an immigrant, or atleast your parents were since you call yourself Austalian... do you have a problem with yourself?

Maybe... just maybe... you didnt really think this through?

quote:

Originally posted by Ub3rBreaker wait... So, do u have a problem with immigrants or ppl of a colour different from yours? Do u include Europeans in that list? what about ppl of hispanic backround? do they make u unconfortable? Im white and an immigrant... do u have a problem with me? And from what I know you are yourself an immigrant, or atleast your parents were since you call yourself Austalian... do you have a problem with yourself? Maybe... just maybe... you didnt really think this through?

LMFAO

uber response!

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree And yes, Diginut, I didn't offer much evidence; just like yourself I was merely playing with definitions but instead of keeping a narrow approach based strictly on theory, I was approaching the issue with a wider scope and looking more at the practical application of your suggestions (e.g. role of the Queen).

That's interesting, please elaborate. I maintain that I haven't played with any definitions, and if you think I have, I humbly ask that you point to specific instances of this.

Your widening of the scope is precisely the problem here. Practical definitions of ownership don't have such a wide scope. You even went so far as to assert that actual ownership isn't physically possible (which, by the way, is precisely what anarcho-socialism is, and it's the furthest thing from the democratic capitalism that actually drives Canada's economic and political activity), and this is a strong indicator that you're using a definition of "ownership" with a scope far too wide to be of any practical use.

You can accuse me of playing with definitions, and claim that your argument trumps mine because you uh... looked at the big picture? But that doesn't make any of it true. I've mentioned several facts in support of my stance and while I haven't cited a reference for every single one of them, most of them are easily cross-checked on Google or Wikipedia. I don't think you've stated any facts in support of your own argument, aside from some highly specious ones about the royal family; you are merely, as you yourself put it, playing with definitions, and in broader terms, playing the relativism card.

Let me tell you right now that relativist arguments won't sway me, and are unlikely to sway anyone who doesn't already agree with your position. Without objective definitions and objective measurements and observations, any kind of constructive debate is impossible. So please, if you think something's wrong with my definition, then state yours and explain where you got it from. Otherwise, you aren't providing much more than a chimerical tautology.

quote:

Originally posted by goodgreef if you don't want to meet any new people, or make friends, why are you on a site that is made specifically for that - meeting people! dood... stop contradicting yourself, it makes you sound really uneducated, self-conscious and silly. While it is only the internet, your dim-witted answers to every post speak louder than you can imagine. Just stop. Please. Before you hurt your brain even more.

my brain is quite fine thnx for the concern. who said TA is specifically here to mee new ppl? its a forum to discuss crap, like any other forum, its not facebook.

quote:

Originally posted by goodgreef ur = your - not a spelling mistake however: ur = you're - wrong their = there - a spelling mistake alot = a lot - another spelling mistake immigrans = immigrants - another one hoever = however - yep thr = the - yep bottem = bottom - yep

alright, u are right, i made a few. that doesnt mean i dont know how to spell the words if thats what u are thinking...

quote:

Originally posted by FunkyCrew sounds like someone dropped out at 16, not finished highschool, over 10 spelling mistakes

oh jesus, c'mon. dropping this comment is so irrelevant. so many posts on here have a multitude of spelling errors. it happens, and not a big deal. it doesnt prove anything, esp re: the ones he made.

quote:

Originally posted by goodgreef ur = your - not a spelling mistake however: ur = you're - wrong their = there - a spelling mistake alot = a lot - another spelling mistake immigrans = immigrants - another one hoever = however - yep thr = the - yep bottem = bottom - yep

we're honestly criticizing the legitimacy of using "ur" to mean "you are" or "you're" as well??!! JESUS. I use 'ur' for BOTH 'you are' and 'your' all the time. its intentional, and the point is understood. it does and can generally rep a short for for both.

'their' for 'there'... $10 says its just a quick over sight while typing. i have no disillusions that he knew "there" was the correct usage.

alot for a lot... we all know that its two words... but c'mon... how often is it spelled as 'alot' on here... VERY. see it all the time. just quicker to spell it out that way i guess. i dunno -- it happens constantly by the masses. i think every knows its two words, and if writing an essay or paper for example would have done it as such.

and all the other points are just little things missed when typing fast no doubt, as im sure dude is eager to defend himself.

its not like his post was so garbled it was hard to follow...



And before i get attacked for siding on the issue at hand w/ him, I'm not saying i support his comments. I'm only attacking the ridiculousness of somehow holding these spelling oversights against him; somehow throwing it into the mix as further "fuel for the fire" when attacking him for his comments and views in general.

quote:

Originally posted by AustralianGQ my brain is quite fine thnx for the concern. who said TA is specifically here to mee new ppl? its a forum to discuss crap, like any other forum, its not facebook.

lol! you don't discuss crap on facebook?

quote:

Originally posted by The Highroller Not that I'm trying to defend the guy or anything, but I always found that pointing out someone's spelling mistakes in a debate on here pretty lame. Get to the issue at hand.

^^ WHOA! HAHAHA we're exactly on the same page Graham. Awesome. Agreed. ^5

It's entirely irrelevant since it often is indicative of nothing or than one typing too quickly (often bc one is probably in a hurry to type out long responses to defend oneself), or a simple errors that are made all the time when typing... but since this IS NOT an essay or report, the poster has not gone back to double check that all is 100% perfect for the TOTA readers.

(Granted, if said post was a heaping pile of dog shit littered w/ such errors as it was rendered a complete chore to decipher and read, i think one may have a valid point in bring up such a criticism... then.)

quote:

Originally posted by Ub3rBreaker wait... So, do u have a problem with immigrants or ppl of a colour different from yours? Do u include Europeans in that list? what about ppl of hispanic backround? do they make u unconfortable? Im white and an immigrant... do u have a problem with me? And from what I know you are yourself an immigrant, or atleast your parents were since you call yourself Austalian... do you have a problem with yourself? Maybe... just maybe... you didnt really think this through?

OMG! SUPERSTAR!!! YOU HAVE MY LOYALTY FOR LIFE BROTHER!! HAHAHA

what a fucking post dude -- intensity 200 fold!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut That's interesting, please elaborate. I maintain that I haven't played with any definitions, and if you think I have, I humbly ask that you point to specific instances of this. Your widening of the scope is precisely the problem here. Practical definitions of ownership don't have such a wide scope. You even went so far as to assert that actual ownership isn't physically possible (which, by the way, is precisely what anarcho-socialism is, and it's the furthest thing from the democratic capitalism that actually drives Canada's economic and political activity), and this is a strong indicator that you're using a definition of "ownership" with a scope far too wide to be of any practical use. You can accuse me of playing with definitions, and claim that your argument trumps mine because you uh... looked at the big picture? But that doesn't make any of it true. I've mentioned several facts in support of my stance and while I haven't cited a reference for every single one of them, most of them are easily cross-checked on Google or Wikipedia. I don't think you've stated any facts in support of your own argument, aside from some highly specious ones about the royal family; you are merely, as you yourself put it, playing with definitions, and in broader terms, playing the relativism card. Let me tell you right now that relativist arguments won't sway me, and are unlikely to sway anyone who doesn't already agree with your position. Without objective definitions and objective measurements and observations, any kind of constructive debate is impossible. So please, if you think something's wrong with my definition, then state yours and explain where you got it from. Otherwise, you aren't providing much more than a chimerical tautology.

LOL Aaron, stop acting like you care.
You don't give a sh*t about the British Monarchy and no matter how much you tweak official definitions of ownership - that won't change the fact that HM has had no significant impact whatsoever on your life (as a Canadian Citizen) other than when you flip a coin and call heads or tails. So don't put a negative spin on Fahad's practical interpretations - they serve as a vehicle for facilitating the comprehension of complex ideas (which requires not only a profound understanding of such ideas, but also the ability to apply them to reality). We live in the real world - we don't live in a dusty library of government documents.

and PS. Fahad - I can't BELIEVE you made a chimerical tautology! That's just unacceptable abuse of the right of every citizen to chimerically tautologize! Further chimericization of tautolotitties only results in a catastrophe of unprecedented supercalifradgalisticexpialidocious! I think you owe Aaron here one serious chimerical APOLOGY

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar (Granted, if said post was a heaping pile of dog shit littered w/ such errors as it was rendered a complete chore to decipher and read, i think one may have a valid point in bring up such a criticism... then.)

Iff yer tring to maik a sireus pont then u shud endevver 2 speel yur werds korrecktly. Actually, I agree with you and Graham that pointing out a person's spelling and grammatical errors accomplishes precisely nothing in the way of debunking their argument; however, that doesn't change the fact that a large number of posts are steaming piles of dog shit and make me want to gouge my eyes out.

Of course nobody wants to believe that they're in this category (that's the Lake Wobegon effect, everybody is better than average according to themselves). But the fact is, some people are. Firefox has a built-in spell checker that puts a little red line under every misspelled word; we officially have real-time spell checking for The Internet, so the validity of any excuse for being unable to string an English sentence together on this forum is rapidly diminishing.

Does god-awful writing style undermine one's argument? Absolutely not. Does it undermine the writer's credibility? You'd better believe it.

In the end, I'm honestly not sure who is worse, the spelling Nazis or the people who write the fodder for them.

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox LOL Aaron, stop acting like you care. You don't give a sh*t about the British Monarchy and no matter how much you tweak official definitions of ownership - that won't change the fact that HM has had no significant impact whatsoever on your life (as a Canadian Citizen) other than when you flip a coin and call heads or tails.

I repeat - it doesn't matter if I care or you care. Ted Rogers may not intervene much in the daily affairs of Rogers Corporation, but he still owns it. Not caring about reality doesn't change reality, although that doesn't seem to stop a lot of people from thinking that it does, in many branches of economics and geopolitics.

quote:

So don't put a negative spin on Fahad's practical interpretations - they serve as a vehicle for facilitating the comprehension of complex ideas (which requires not only a profound understanding of such ideas, but also the ability to apply them to reality).

I'm amazed at how many words you can write without actually saying anything. Allow me to translate: "Fahad smart, you dumb, you just no understand him."

I will ask you, as I asked him, to please address the content of the debate instead of getting tangled up in meta-debates. That's three times in a row you've done this; if you don't have a point to make, then don't say anything.

P.S. No hard feelings.

wrong wrong wrong

You weren't adressing the CONTENT of this "debate" when you began to criticize the WAY that Fahad argues his points by suggesting that you feel his ideas are overly practical, oh Supreme Dingle Nuts.
(in case you missed my POINT)

and there is NOTHING you can say to defend yourself there

although you can try... and I know you will... and I heart you for it

xoxoxoxoxoxo

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Does it undermine the writer's credibility? You'd better believe it.

OK -- but honestly, how much does/should it truly undermine one's credibly on such a web forum, this one in particular?

On any kind of more 'formal' media, I'd whole heartedly agree. By that I even mean, say, if this was a CBC forum and the original post and comments in question were brought up there.

The audience and tone in such a forum would be drastically different too than the one present here.

I dont feel, personally, that it should (to the extend as was exhibited in that post which we're discussing) really undermine one's credibly to a greater extent at all.

Dude - go back and read his reply to my post.
He FULLY suggested that he is better than me and anyone else who didn't finish high school at 16 and followed it with some BS banter on his skewed perceptions of race and equality.
That kind of arrogant attempt to highlight one's academic success followed by a mess of a response that is littered with all kinds of linguistic errors warrants all kinds of criticism.

Although I really DO feel sorry for him now that everyone has verbally beaten him up.

Furthermore... good grammar is sexy.

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar And before i get attacked for siding on the issue at hand w/ him, I'm not saying i support his comments. I'm only attacking the ridiculousness of somehow holding these spelling oversights against him; somehow throwing it into the mix as further "fuel for the fire" when attacking him for his comments and views in general.

I think the point of using such ridiculous arguments is to help show how crazy his arguments are.

It also shows that he fits into the stereotypes he is bashing.

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar

oh common, get on with the program he's being an arrogant, condescending prick, who prides himself with finishing high school at 16 and having a secondary education but can't even spell? especially since he's trying to make some sort of a "valid" argument? he was asking for it!

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox Dude - go back and read his reply to my post. He FULLY suggested that he is better than me and anyone else who didn't finish high school at 16 and followed it with some BS banter on his skewed perceptions of race and equality. That kind of arrogant attempt to highlight one's academic success followed by a mess of a response that is littered with all kinds of linguistic errors warrants all kinds of criticism.

THANK YOU!

TOTA isn't the same without some Diginut induced drama

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm amazed at how many words you can write without actually saying anything. Allow me to translate: "Fahad smart, you dumb, you just no understand him.

lol just because you are an absolutist it doesn't mean you have to criticize relativists when they demonstrate their perspective of an issue. Your argument doesn't stand as fact, no matter how many Wikipedia references you make. Also, I never attempted to "trump" your argument as absolutists and relativists will always agree to disagree.

I was trying to highlight what I believe to be a more important point in this immigration issue which is that the norms and values of Canadian society have evolved over the years to a more egalitarian society. I don't need facts to prove this. This means that realistically, the Queen is not some supreme being above us, however we respect her sovereignty by labelling our court cases, "R. v. ABC" or other immaterial aspects of life, where we could easily replace "R" with "Canada" and none of us would notice the difference.

This is why I don't think a discussion of ownership is the question here, and I criticized you for attacking Ania's discussion of the same (in her highlighting Aboriginal rights to this land). In a way, she was making the same argument as me because she's saying if Aboriginals don't own this land (which they don't), then no one does.

Those people who fought wars centuries ago did so to establish the foundations of a democratic system which has evolved to what it is today. Please save us from your opinions of what dead white men's intentions were when they founded Canada, because what they fought for wasn't the same as when Trudeau established the Charter.

Canada has a very unique history which evolved very slowly, impacted by both the U.S. and the U.K. No need to give any facts here, just go read up on Canada's history on Wikipedia.

This is the content I was providing to support my claim that you're focusing on the wrong aspects of this issue. I can only imagine that you were doing so to demonstrate your intelligence using a very convenient "absolutist" angle.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I will ask you, as I asked him, to please address the content of the debate instead of getting tangled up in meta-debates. That's three times in a row you've done this; if you don't have a point to make, then don't say anything.

lol so you believe a debate can only occur in the form of logical statements of fact? Unfortunately with this type of issue, opinion and perspective (i.e. relative vs. universal) are necessary so good luck with your line of reasoning, where only your friends will support you.

ps.

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox and PS. Fahad - I can't BELIEVE you made a chimerical tautology! That's just unacceptable abuse of the right of every citizen to chimerically tautologize! Further chimericization of tautolotitties only results in a catastrophe of unprecedented supercalifradgalisticexpialidocious! I think you owe Aaron here one serious chimerical APOLOGY

LMFAO

pps.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Ted Rogers may not intervene much in the daily affairs of Rogers Corporation, but he still owns it.

Get your facts straight.

im tempted to read over the last page....


.....but ive been practicing self control toward temptation...so i guess i wont...ah well

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Iff yer tring to maik a sireus pont then u shud endevver 2 speel yur werds korrecktly. Actually, I agree with you and Graham that pointing out a person's spelling and grammatical errors accomplishes precisely nothing in the way of debunking their argument; however, that doesn't change the fact that a large number of posts are steaming piles of dog shit and make me want to gouge my eyes out. . . . . In the end, I'm honestly not sure who is worse, the spelling Nazis or the people who write the fodder for them.

Hmm, spelling debate. I have to admit myself that although I usually try to spell all my words correctly, sometimes I do unintentionally make the occasional glitch. I agree that messages which don't properly assign their/they're/there or you're vs. your are annoying to read. It seems to be a simple concept, really: one is a contraction of the present continuous verb tense, and the other is a possesive pronoun, if I'm correct? Same thing with their/they're. People should really try to pay more attention to maintaining some sort of a "level" in their posts, if you get what I mean... However, as a true language freak myself, I have to admit that I myself sometimes make a few stupid spelling errors as well. For me, the reason so happening is simple: my first native language is a so-called "phonetic" language, which means that words are mostly spelled exactly as they are pronounced (mostly, because there are a lot of exceptions and a few rules which create some funny linguistic situations), and that for some reason makes it hard for me to remember the correct spelling of certain English words which have doubled consonants, such as happenned, tommorrow, and others (none come to mind right now, but when I write an e-mail, I sometimes utilise its spell-checker and I am often surprised as to how many of this kind of mispellings it finds). Although I started learning English at an age where you could still be considered acquiring it as a "native learner", somehow the L1 interference for this particular feature is still there with me. I find however, that it's improving a bit, after I had to manually correct all the mispelled words in a few of my e-mails.

Does that make me a spelling dimwitt who can't use the English language properly?

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox Dude - go back and read his reply to my post. He FULLY suggested that he is better than me and anyone else who didn't finish high school at 16 and followed it with some BS banter on his skewed perceptions of race and equality. That kind of arrogant attempt to highlight one's academic success followed by a mess of a response that is littered with all kinds of linguistic errors warrants all kinds of criticism. Although I really DO feel sorry for him now that everyone has verbally beaten him up. Furthermore... good grammar is sexy.

Which was after you called him an idiot, or stupid, or whatever it was. He was retaliating to whatever you said to him. So really, it was you that started the immature row.

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox Wow... I seriously seriously feel so bad for you like - from the bottom of my heart... you sound like a *FLAMING* IDIOT - LOL!!

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox Further chimericization of tautolotitties only results in ...

Uh uhuuuh huhhh uhuh... she thaid titties

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree In Canada (like most countries) you can earn the privilege to a free post-secondary education if you want it bad enough. Furthermore, the fact that there are waiting lists for international students wanting to attend our universities (despite increasing internation student tuitions) is not consistent with your theory.

The fact that you can earn a free pass wasn't really the point though, so I'm not really certain why you brought that up. Working to earn the priviledge opposed to knowing you can get into at least a 'basic' post-secondary education are different points.

Waiting lists are indicative of what exactly? Arguably, one can say that there are waiting lists in free overseas institutions as well (from my own experience). Furthermore, look at some of the schools in the US. They apparently have some fairly long waiting lists, accompanied by fairly large tuitions. Can that translate to better education, or merely more prestigious names and degree recognition?

Anyways, we might as well drop this one, its really pointless.

quote:

Originally posted by The Highroller Which was after you called him an idiot, or stupid, or whatever it was. He was retaliating to whatever you said to him. So really, it was you that started the immature row.

Actually, I said he *sounded* like an idiot and attempted to give him the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that perhaps what he had written was prompted by a momentary lapse in judgement (as we all experience those from time to time).

I was responding to what I found in HIS post to be immature and not properly thought out.

I'm a nice girl lol
I don't go around arbitrarily dumping censure on people.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.