[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

You may read that statement as referring specifically to evolution, but it is far from clear that that was what she meant. It could just as easily be talking about the origin of life - and in fact the phrase "life was a divine intervention", while making no reference to evolution, supports that interpretation.

So if she was speaking solely of evolution, it was not clearly worded.

I think the important thing to remember is that she was speaking to a room of scientists and academics. She was praising their work and the importance of science

In the course of that speech she had a section criticizing those who reject the findings of science. Those include climate change deniers people who believe in astrology and people who believe in creationism rather than evolution. In that context her meaning is clear.

[Grey Fox]

and she is right.

[crazy canuck]

and she is right.

But still Scheer picks the fight.  I wonder why. BB assures us Scheer doesn't have a social conservative agenda - so what could it be

[Grey Fox]

BB just supports his side. From this side of the country Scheer is  a deep fundamentalist.

[Barrister]

You may read that statement as referring specifically to evolution, but it is far from clear that that was what she meant. It could just as easily be talking about the origin of life - and in fact the phrase "life was a divine intervention", while making no reference to evolution, supports that interpretation.

So if she was speaking solely of evolution, it was not clearly worded.

I think the important thing to remember is that she was speaking to a room of scientists and academics. She was praising their work and the importance of science

In the course of that speech she had a section criticizing those who reject the findings of science. Those include climate change deniers people who believe in astrology and people who believe in creationism rather than evolution. In that context her meaning is clear.

You can't play "context" as a political figure.  If Andrew Scheer made some pro-life comments when speaking to a pro-life group you wouldn't be explaining it away as "context" - you're a national figure who should expect your words to get national publicity.

The tone of her comments were that she mocked those that believe that God created life.  I can't believe you guys don't see why that is objectionable.  It's not the end of the world - if she would have said "my comments were poorly worded and I understand many have different beliefs" it would be over in a moment.  But no - the Liberals doubled down on the GG's speech.

[crazy canuck]

You may read that statement as referring specifically to evolution, but it is far from clear that that was what she meant. It could just as easily be talking about the origin of life - and in fact the phrase "life was a divine intervention", while making no reference to evolution, supports that interpretation.

So if she was speaking solely of evolution, it was not clearly worded.

I think the important thing to remember is that she was speaking to a room of scientists and academics. She was praising their work and the importance of science

In the course of that speech she had a section criticizing those who reject the findings of science. Those include climate change deniers people who believe in astrology and people who believe in creationism rather than evolution. In that context her meaning is clear.

You can't play "context" as a political figure. 

context is "played"?

[Zoupa]

You may read that statement as referring specifically to evolution, but it is far from clear that that was what she meant. It could just as easily be talking about the origin of life - and in fact the phrase "life was a divine intervention", while making no reference to evolution, supports that interpretation.

So if she was speaking solely of evolution, it was not clearly worded.

I think the important thing to remember is that she was speaking to a room of scientists and academics. She was praising their work and the importance of science

In the course of that speech she had a section criticizing those who reject the findings of science. Those include climate change deniers people who believe in astrology and people who believe in creationism rather than evolution. In that context her meaning is clear.

You can't play "context" as a political figure.  If Andrew Scheer made some pro-life comments when speaking to a pro-life group you wouldn't be explaining it away as "context" - you're a national figure who should expect your words to get national publicity.

The tone of her comments were that she mocked those that believe that God created life.  I can't believe you guys don't see why that is objectionable.  It's not the end of the world - if she would have said "my comments were poorly worded and I understand many have different beliefs" it would be over in a moment.  But no - the Liberals doubled down on the GG's speech.

Serious question: what's objectionable about it? Specifically.

[Barrister]

Serious question: what's objectionable about it? Specifically.

"Can you believe that still today in learned society, in houses of government, unfortunately, we're still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the Earth warming up or whether even the Earth is warming up, period," she asked, her voice incredulous.

"And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process."

Yes.  We're still debating whether life was a divine intervention.  A great many Canadians believe in God, and that the existence of life was not some "random process".

I get that maybe you're an stone-cold atheist, to whom God means nothing.  But literally millions of Canadians do believe in God (of whatever particular faith).  If Payette wants to take pot-shots at horoscopes, fine.  If she wants to critique climate change sceptics, good.  But why of why does she want to insult anyone who believe that God created life?

[dps]

But why of why does she want to insult anyone who believe that God created life?

'Cause atheists are douchebags?

[Jacob]

If she wants to critique climate change sceptics, good.  But why of why does she want to insult anyone who believe that God created life?

Because disputing evolution is idiotic. Trying to parlay the defence of that idiotic position to political capital is not a good move, imo.

Scheer and his crew - and that includes you - looking for office to start a fight to defend fundamentalist anti-science is not a good look.

[Monoriu]

I thought the governor general is supposed to be politically neutral? 

[dps]

If she wants to critique climate change sceptics, good.  But why of why does she want to insult anyone who believe that God created life?

Because disputing evolution is idiotic. Trying to parlay the defence of that idiotic position to political capital is not a good move, imo.

Scheer and his crew - and that includes you - looking for office to start a fight to defend fundamentalist anti-science is not a good look.

Go back and re-read what Camerus stated in post #10658 in this thread. 

Personally, I'd read her statement as referring to the origin of life, not its subsequent evolution.  I agree that it could be given a different interpretation, but frankly I can't see how you can be so certain that your interpretation was what was intended.

[Zoupa]

Serious question: what's objectionable about it? Specifically.

"Can you believe that still today in learned society, in houses of government, unfortunately, we're still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the Earth warming up or whether even the Earth is warming up, period," she asked, her voice incredulous.

"And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process."

Yes.  We're still debating whether life was a divine intervention.  A great many Canadians believe in God, and that the existence of life was not some "random process".

I get that maybe you're an stone-cold atheist, to whom God means nothing.  But literally millions of Canadians do believe in God (of whatever particular faith).  If Payette wants to take pot-shots at horoscopes, fine.  If she wants to critique climate change sceptics, good.  But why of why does she want to insult anyone who believe that God created life?

Millions of canadians also believe in their horoscope. It's all mumbo jumbo man. Dude walked on water and made fish appear magically in baskets or whatever the story is.

Come on now. Y'all had your fun for like a couple of thousands of years now. Can we cut the crap already and get rid of the noise?

Have all the faith you want, just don't let it affect policy.

[Barrister]

If she wants to critique climate change sceptics, good.  But why of why does she want to insult anyone who believe that God created life?

Because disputing evolution is idiotic. Trying to parlay the defence of that idiotic position to political capital is not a good move, imo.

Scheer and his crew - and that includes you - looking for office to start a fight to defend fundamentalist anti-science is not a good look.

The word "evolution" does not appear in Julie Payette's speech.  What she said was:

And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention

[crazy canuck]

If she wants to critique climate change sceptics, good.  But why of why does she want to insult anyone who believe that God created life?

Because disputing evolution is idiotic. Trying to parlay the defence of that idiotic position to political capital is not a good move, imo.

Scheer and his crew - and that includes you - looking for office to start a fight to defend fundamentalist anti-science is not a good look.

Go back and re-read what Camerus stated in post #10658 in this thread. 

Personally, I'd read her statement as referring to the origin of life, not its subsequent evolution.  I agree that it could be given a different interpretation, but frankly I can't see how you can be so certain that your interpretation was what was intended.

Yes, Camerus said that her statement could be interpreted in two ways.  I then gave the context in which the speech was made which makes her meaning clear. But BB says we should ignore that context.  Really, that is the only way this becomes an issue.