Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Canadiens is it true? [Sanuk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sanuk wrote:
First, if you are referring to the hockey team in Montreal, it is "Canadiens" but if you are referring to people who live here, it is "Canadians".

Yes, it is true that our government has nothing better to do than change our national anthem to be gender neutral. Instead of "in all thy sons command" it is going to be "in all of us command".

It's the single most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of but is typical of our Prime Minister. He will do anything to avoid offending anyone in the world and wants to be loved by everyone.

I can't stand him. :)

"single most ridiculous thing"? Indeed life is good in Canada if this is the single most ridiculous thing you've ever heard of. I take it you're a man; as a woman I prefer the more gender neutral version.

Wanda
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
A legitimate reason for NOT changing it, and keeping the "sons" reference, would have been as a memoriam for the sacrifices of WW1 and 2. Lot of boys lost their lives.

Men weren't the only one who made great sacrifices during the wars - Mothers, wives, sisters & daughters sacrificed a lot as well. War is ugly both on the frontlines and the homefront.

Wanda
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
A legitimate reason for NOT changing it, and keeping the "sons" reference, would have been as a memoriam for the sacrifices of WW1 and 2. Lot of boys lost their lives.


Been privileged to serve alongside some tremendous Soldiers from Canadian armed forces

Vimy Ridge

*salute*


/r

Steve
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [Wanda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How many men died? How many women died?
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [Wanda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wanda wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
A legitimate reason for NOT changing it, and keeping the "sons" reference, would have been as a memoriam for the sacrifices of WW1 and 2. Lot of boys lost their lives.

Men weren't the only one who made great sacrifices during the wars - Mothers, wives, sisters & daughters sacrificed a lot as well. War is ugly both on the frontlines and the homefront.

And now you're a joke.
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [owen.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Death is the only way to have sacrificed during the war?

Wanda
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
Wanda wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
A legitimate reason for NOT changing it, and keeping the "sons" reference, would have been as a memoriam for the sacrifices of WW1 and 2. Lot of boys lost their lives.


Men weren't the only one who made great sacrifices during the wars - Mothers, wives, sisters & daughters sacrificed a lot as well. War is ugly both on the frontlines and the homefront.


And now you're a joke.

Well that devolved quickly.

Wanda
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [Wanda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"single most ridiculous thing"? Indeed life is good in Canada if this is the single most ridiculous thing you've ever heard of.

It's the single most ridiculous thing that I've seen national governments fight over. Life is good here but surely the politicians can spend more time on other things.

I take it you're a man; as a woman I prefer the more gender neutral version.

Yeah, maybe my being a male means I can't understand. Funny how most of the people (including women) I know also agree this is more than silly but if changing a single word in an anthem makes you feel more equal, at least all the time and effort has paid off.
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [Harry] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Harry wrote:
Are you changing your national anthem to be gender neutral?

The Montreal Canadiens don't have a national anthem.
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [Wanda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wanda wrote:
windywave wrote:
Wanda wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
A legitimate reason for NOT changing it, and keeping the "sons" reference, would have been as a memoriam for the sacrifices of WW1 and 2. Lot of boys lost their lives.


Men weren't the only one who made great sacrifices during the wars - Mothers, wives, sisters & daughters sacrificed a lot as well. War is ugly both on the frontlines and the homefront.


And now you're a joke.

Well that devolved quickly.

Agreed you lowered the intellectual bar in here substantially, and that's saying something
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [Wanda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wanda wrote:
Death is the only way to have sacrificed during the war?

Death is pretty final.
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [racin_rusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
racin_rusty wrote:
Wanda wrote:
Death is the only way to have sacrificed during the war?


Death is pretty final.

Agreed; it is the ultimate sacrifice; but is it the only sacrifice?

To stay on point, as a woman and a Canadian, I prefer a gender neutral anthem. I don't believe the anthem is just to honour the casualties of war.

Wanda
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [Wanda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wanda wrote:
windywave wrote:
Wanda wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
A legitimate reason for NOT changing it, and keeping the "sons" reference, would have been as a memoriam for the sacrifices of WW1 and 2. Lot of boys lost their lives.


Men weren't the only one who made great sacrifices during the wars - Mothers, wives, sisters & daughters sacrificed a lot as well. War is ugly both on the frontlines and the homefront.


And now you're a joke.


Well that devolved quickly.

And we wonder why more women don't post regularly in the LR.

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CaptainCanada wrote:
Wanda wrote:
windywave wrote:
Wanda wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
A legitimate reason for NOT changing it, and keeping the "sons" reference, would have been as a memoriam for the sacrifices of WW1 and 2. Lot of boys lost their lives.


Men weren't the only one who made great sacrifices during the wars - Mothers, wives, sisters & daughters sacrificed a lot as well. War is ugly both on the frontlines and the homefront.


And now you're a joke.


Well that devolved quickly.

And we wonder why more women don't post regularly in the LR.

I'm gender neutral with regard to my disdain for that comment
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:
Wanda wrote:
windywave wrote:
Wanda wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
A legitimate reason for NOT changing it, and keeping the "sons" reference, would have been as a memoriam for the sacrifices of WW1 and 2. Lot of boys lost their lives.


Men weren't the only one who made great sacrifices during the wars - Mothers, wives, sisters & daughters sacrificed a lot as well. War is ugly both on the frontlines and the homefront.


And now you're a joke.


Well that devolved quickly.


And we wonder why more women don't post regularly in the LR.


I'm gender neutral with regard to my disdain for common sense


FIFY

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Last edited by: CaptainCanada: Jun 23, 16 16:51
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [Wanda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wanda wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
A legitimate reason for NOT changing it, and keeping the "sons" reference, would have been as a memoriam for the sacrifices of WW1 and 2. Lot of boys lost their lives.

Men weren't the only one who made great sacrifices during the wars - Mothers, wives, sisters & daughters sacrificed a lot as well. War is ugly both on the frontlines and the homefront.

Yes, everyone sacrificed, but we usually give more consideration to the ones who risked their lives on the front to keep the rest of us safe. Not just the ones who died, but also those who experienced the horrors of war.

Btw, I'm not arguing that it should have stayed the same, just that there are legitimate arguments on both sides. I do understand the reasons behind changing it, so if inclusivity is more important than honouring the ones who lost their lives, then that's fine. If it's about recognizing that both men and women serve in modern times, then the anthem was rightly changed.

I, personally, don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, so like I did, let those with opinions duke it out. But, if you want to specifically reference sacrifices in war, then I am strongly of the opinion that the sacrifices of those who put themselves in harms way are more significant, and warrant greater respect and commemoration, than those who did not.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [Steve Hawley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have a number of friends in the services, including my brother in law. My nephew just joined Air Force to be an airframe mechanic. Passed basic a few months ago, he matured a lot in a very short time. We're pretty proud of him.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Last edited by: JasoninHalifax: Jun 23, 16 17:45
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
Wanda wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
A legitimate reason for NOT changing it, and keeping the "sons" reference, would have been as a memoriam for the sacrifices of WW1 and 2. Lot of boys lost their lives.

Men weren't the only one who made great sacrifices during the wars - Mothers, wives, sisters & daughters sacrificed a lot as well. War is ugly both on the frontlines and the homefront.

And now you're a joke.

That wasn't necessary. She's correct that a lot of people did sacrifice, at home and on the front.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
windywave wrote:
Wanda wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
A legitimate reason for NOT changing it, and keeping the "sons" reference, would have been as a memoriam for the sacrifices of WW1 and 2. Lot of boys lost their lives.


Men weren't the only one who made great sacrifices during the wars - Mothers, wives, sisters & daughters sacrificed a lot as well. War is ugly both on the frontlines and the homefront.


And now you're a joke.


That wasn't necessary. She's correct that a lot of people did sacrifice, at home and on the front.

To equate the sacrifices of the men on the front lines to those at home is preposterous.
Quote Reply
Re: Canadiens is it true? [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
good on your friends and your BIL. For what it's worth i pray for them all at each Mass.

some serve. many don't, and that's ok too. However, it cracks me up with the (didn't bother to serve but) more authoritative 'my father flew a spitfire' folks. whatever

my last job in Afghanistan there was a Canadian funded and supported hospital just beside us. Lots of Canuk doctors and nurses and medical support folks doing their job going to work every day. Super impressed by them. They did great work.

in former life worked w the Patricias. would willingly have them cover my flank any day. very competent.

I've a life long love affair with the poetry of Robert Service and as an American Soldier have been privileged to serve beside Canadians on many continents and several conflicts.

ya'll can change your national theme or not--i mainly hear it during the winter Olympics or during repatriation ceremonies down range. Either way you've my respect.

Steve
Quote Reply

Prev Next