Rob Ford - Why the Supervillian?

[W. K. Lis]

Why did Rob Ford not quit his job as chief financial officer for Deco Label? Other councilors quite their old jobs, ie. Adam Vaughan quit CITY-TV.

Reason: to get office supplies from his company, which the others who quit could not do.

 

[tkip]

Gavin. How do you read my views on traditional marriage remaing between men and women and then arrive at the conclusion that what I actually meant was a return to human ownership and slavery? Is this how you try and discredit someone in a discussion? By making outrageous claims suggesting that others are secretly zealots hoping to strip away human rights that have views that are contrary to your own?

 

[GraphicMatt]

Because there is no rational reason to believe marriage should be limited to people of the opposite sex. The only justification bandied about is the old because-that's-how-it's-always-been chestnut which applies just as nicely to even-older traditions like child brides and dowries and Taming Of The Shrew-level BS.

 

[SlickFranky]

tkip: He was critisizing your use of the term 'traditional', not calling you pro-slavery.

To my knowledge, Ford has not resigned as CFO of his daddy's company. He was asked point blank at the last CP24 'debate' if he would, and he dodged the question.

 

[duper]

It's kind of ridiculous to say that there is such thing as a traditional definition of marriage. Marriage has been changed multiple times to reflect changes in society.

Recall, the definition of marriage was changed to allow interracial marriages. Shall we return to that more traditional "stick with your own kind" type of marriage?

 

[Gavin]

Gavin. How do you read my views on traditional marriage remaing between men and women and then arrive at the conclusion that what I actually meant was a return to human ownership and slavery? Is this how you try and discredit someone in a discussion? By making outrageous claims suggesting that others are secretly zealots hoping to strip away human rights that have views that are contrary to your own?

It's because clinging to the so-called "traditional" definition of marriage, as if it being "traditional" is reason alone for it not to evolve, is ridiculous when you examine those traditions in whole.

You can't claim to support the "traditional" definition then also get to define what those "traditions" are.

Edit: or, more importantly, what those traditions aren't.

 

[tkip]

Because there is no rational reason to believe marriage should be limited to people of the opposite sex. The only justification bandied about is the old because-that's-how-it's-always-been chestnut which applies just as nicely to even-older traditions like child brides and dowries and Taming Of The Shrew-level BS.

Pure and utter bullshit and you know it. I'm not talking about deciding on what traditions remain. I'm questioning the rush to push one gender out of the picture when it comes to children.There are good reasons why so much dysfunctional behaviour is so rampant nowadays. And children not knowing their fathers and now mothers, is part of it.

The fondation of all societies has been fathers and mothers making up the family unit and it was a extremely successfuly model that worked. Up until now. Then, in less than a generation someone has decided that the other gender is no longer necessary. It's another social experiment meant to re-engineer families with no thought being given to the outcome down the road.

Basically we're and making deliberate attempts to restrict one gender from being involved with children and I think it's horribly selfish and destructive. Children need fathers and mothers but we're trying to trivialize and negate the roles that both genders play in the developement of children especially as they grow and become adults.

 

[doug]

The fondation of all societies has been fathers and mothers making up the family unit and it was a extremely successfuly model that worked.

Pure BS...you should review history before publically revealing your own idiocy.

Then in less than a generation someone has decided that the one gender is no longer necessary for raising children.

It's not.

 

[nfitz]

Pure and utter bullshit and you know it.

The fondation of all societies has been fathers and mothers making up the family unit and it was a extremely successfuly model that worked. Up until now. Then in less than a generation someone has decided that the one gender is no longer necessary for raising children. It's another social experiment meant to re-engineer families with no thought being given to the outcome down the road.

There's always a outcome dispite what people would have you believe otherwise. Children need fathers and mothers but we're trying to trivialize and negate the roles that both genders play in the developement of children.

Anyone who publicly talks about being against gay marriage is a bigot - it's pretty simple. They deserve to be imprisoned for violating the hate laws.

 

[Justin10000]

Pure and utter bullshit and you know it. There are good reasons why so much dysfunctional behaviour is so rampant nowadays. And children not knowing their fathers and now mothers, is part of it.

The fondation of all societies has been fathers and mothers making up the family unit and it was a extremely successfuly model that worked. Up until now. Then, in less than a generation someone has decided that the one gender is no longer necessary for raising children. It's another social experiment meant to re-engineer families with no thought being given to the outcome down the road.

Children need fathers and mothers but we're trying to trivialize and negate the roles that both genders play in the developement of children especially as they grow and become adults.

Wow.. I have read a lot of crap on this board. Your statements take the cake. You not only managed to trash same sex couples, but you trash single parents too with your

Your statements are bullshit, and the issue has been studied to death with the same conclusion: Children from same sex marriages grow to be just as well-rounded, and successful as children from a traditional marriage.

 

[tkip]

tkip: He was critisizing your use of the term 'traditional', not calling you pro-slavery.

To my knowledge, Ford has not resigned as CFO of his daddy's company. He was asked point blank at the last CP24 'debate' if he would, and he dodged the question.

Here's his quote..... "So then can we assume that when you say that you support the "traditional" definition of marriage you mean the purchase of a female for the purpose of sexual exclusivity and the assurance of offspring?" It was a cheap shot. Unless this was directed at someone else but it seems to be directed in my direction because I've been vocal on the boards about traditional marriage.

 

[Rowe]

Pure and utter bullshit and you know it. I'm not talking about deciding on what traditions remain. I'm questioning the rush to push one gender out of the picture when it comes to children.There are good reasons why so much dysfunctional behaviour is so rampant nowadays. And children not knowing their fathers and now mothers, is part of it.

The fondation of all societies has been fathers and mothers making up the family unit and it was a extremely successfuly model that worked. Up until now. Then, in less than a generation someone has decided that the other gender is no longer necessary. It's another social experiment meant to re-engineer families with no thought being given to the outcome down the road.

Basically we're and making deliberate attempts to restrict one gender from being involved with children and I think it's horribly selfish and destructive. Children need fathers and mothers but we're trying to trivialize and negate the roles that both genders play in the developement of children especially as they grow and become adults.

Who let Sarah Palin into Toronto?

 

[nfitz]

Unless this was directed at someone else but it seems to be directed in my direction because I've been making bigoted comments on the boards about traditional marriage.

Fixed.

 

[tkip]

Wow.. I have read a lot of crap on this board. Your statements take the cake. You not only managed to trash same sex couples, but you trash single parents too with your

Your statements are bullshit, and the issue has been studied to death with the same conclusion: Children from same sex marriages grow to be just as well-rounded, and successful as children from a traditional marriage.

I come from a single family background. My mother tried raising both my brother and myself without my father but she tried to have male role models around and later told us both that we needed men in our lives particularily a father figure. She flat out told us that as a woman, she didn't know how to shape boys into men. She understood the importance of the other gender with raising children.

And she was right. There are no clear cut studies that have studied the long term consequences of same sex rearing of children because it's such a new construct in our society. But we sure as hell have seen the results of single family units primarily that of single mothers and the fallout when fathers aren't involved.

But once again, when anyone including myself raises the importance of both genders being involved or the absence of one gender in the equation of children such as we find in the examples of same sex marriages or single family units and the potential consequences, we're automatically labelled as being intolerant or somehow nuts.

 

[doug]

Just because your mother failed in raising you, doesn't mean others will fail.
Your ignorance of history is truely revealing, your 'broad brush' statements do nothing to help your case.