Leaderboard

Lol this is someone who banishes people on her censor list the moment they disagree with her, complains to the moderator about insults to her while delivering them regularly and tells people what they are allowed to discuss and what they are allowed to say in their responses. Lol. The language in "her" responses range from perfect English to broken fragmented illiterate incomplete thoughts. See for me this is the great thing about forums. Anyone can come on them and pose as anything. Interesting Altai is the lone thread creator or participant who admits they are Muslim and at least she does not use a name that "sounds" British like oh say Baffin Smith or James Cove or I don't know say Thompon River or Iris or Aloe Vera or gosh let's see Dray Dull. Now as for the defence of Erdogan let's just respond with this because it says it all: "Most experts agree, though, that whether the joiner is young or old, certain predisposing factors may facilitate attraction to a cultic system, the success of recruitment and indoctrination efforts, and the length and depth of involvement. These factors include: A desire to belong Unassertiveness (the inability to say no or express criticism or doubt) Gullibility (impaired capacity to question critically what one is told, observes, thinks, and so forth) Low tolerance for ambiguity (need for absolute answers, impatience to obtain answers) Cultural disillusionment (alienation, dissatisfaction with the status quo) Idealism Susceptibility to trance-like states (in some cases, perhaps, due to prior hallucinogenic drug experiences) A lack of self-confidence A desire for spiritual meaning Ignorance of how groups can manipulate individuals." source:http://www.apologeticsindex.org/265-who-joins-cults-and-why Erdogan has created a cult and a dictatorship. The question is just how long does the Turkish military sit back on this one as it has with all his other power grabs? There will be a violent civil war in Turkey in the next year and/or a military coups. No problem "Altai" can come to Canada as a refugee. All you have to do is cross the border illegally and presto, yoy get free dental, medica,, free drug prescriptions a motel and hey Justin will come pose for a photo and hand out a rain coat.

Kevin O'Leary is, I think an 'open' personality type. He flies around the world constantly and seems to delight in it, rarely staying in the same place for long. Trudeau is much the same, also an "open" personality type. And I think this explains their enthusiastic support for immigration. I've been discussing immigration here for almost fourteen years. The continuing discussion (angry disagreement) on immigration which pits almost all conservatives (O'Leary is not a conservative) and almost all liberals on opposite sides with little agreement or compromise between them seems to me to be an argument over something other than just immigration. After all, immigration ought to be a fairly dry subject based on statistics, economics and demographics. But it rarely is. And it often gets emotional. My thinking on this is an outflow from a discussion recently held in the political philosophy area on a VIDEO presentation by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Haidt explains how his studies generally say people can be divided into two groups, which he calls "open" and "closed". Open people value change and diversity, like novelty, variety and travel, and speak for the oppressed, wanting change and justice, even if that causes chaos. Closed people, on the other hand, are traditionalists, and like things which are familiar, safe and dependable. They value order and speak for institutions which maintain that order. And clearly, as Haidt says, open people have an affinity for liberal political views while closed people tend to be conservatives. Haidt puts our sense of social morality into five distinct categories. Harm/care (protecting from harm, caring for the helpless) Fairness/reciprocity Ingroup/loyalty (tribal feelings, affinity for and loyalty to the group Authority/respect Purity/sanctity Open people ie liberals, only embrace the first two, and generally place little value or even oppose the last three. Closed people, ie conservatives, embrace all five. So it's not that they don't value harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, but they have these other values which they take into consideration. So now we look at how open people will treat immigration vs closed people. Open people love diversity, change (even if it causes chaos) and novelty. They don't have much respect for traditions and don't have much group loyalty. Conservatives are almost the opposite. They embrace group loyalty and respect for institutions and traditions. So if masses of immigrants from wildly different cultures are brought to Canada on a continuing basis, open people love it. They have no care or concern for how that might dammage or diminish our traditional institutions since they don't have much respect for them to begin with. Their care and concern, aside from loving the change and novelty, is an earnest desire to help those foreigners, be they immigrants or refugees, to lead a better life here. Conservatives place much higher value on our traditions and on loyalty to the group. They like things more or less the way they are and don't want our 'tribe' swamped by members of other tribes. They fear chaos and a lack of order. Since 'open' people( those on the left) place no real importance on the concerns which affect 'closed' people (those on the right) they tend to simply dismiss their concerns as racism or xenophobia. Conservatives, in turn, tend to regard the enthusiasm for immigration/refugees from those on the Left as the result of short sighted idiocy, with overtones of treason (betrayal of the need to be loyal to and protect the group). Douglas Murray talked rather eloquently about this in another video I recently saw, where he spoke of how liberals swooned with admiration for foreign cultures and were deeply respectful of them, while at the same time being dismissive of and mocking towards our own culture. What happens, he says, when the place we know, the place we grew up in, is swamped so much it changes beyond all recognition? Where do British people (this was a discussion in the UK) go to find a home when their home has been swept out from under them and they no longer feel welcome there? And why should anyone think they would simply accept that happening without resistance? So is it even possible to hold a reasonable discussion on immigration between two groups which have different social values?

You have a lot of assumptions yourself. Even if you have a God that is beyond space and time, there is no way for you to show me that such an entity exists. What you have is faith, a belief. And that's fine. But you cannot use science to prove something that cannot be described via science.

Don't we already have a 9/11 thread? Realistically, how many do we need?

The whole exercise is insulting. It is crass ethnic pandering. There is absolutely no excuse for looking at discrimination but only as it pertains to Islamic comments. The very selective choice of subject matter makes it defective. All forms of intolerance not just intolerance to Muslims would if there was a mandate, be the true mandate. To single out only one form of intolerance is inherently discriminatory and makes a mockery of the very process before it even started. Bottom line-its a feel good committee designed to pander to Muslim votes, no more no less. It will if anything cause resentment and backlash and incite the very thng it claims to be looking into. Get back to me when the jack ass who decided he needed to pander to Muslims explains why they have only singled out one form of alleged intolerance. Also get back to me when that jack ass can define what Islamophobia means. This jack ass of a government can't even define what they are questioning. This alleged concrn about Muslims is pathetic pandering. Does anyone think a committee of idiot politicians will do a damn thing other then giggle at the sound of it making farts? I am tired of the methane gas warfare this government uses on innocent civilians,

Here's my instinctive reaction. I don't have a problem with Christian clubs because I consider them, while not for me, to simply be interests that others might have, like chess or the science club. My instinctive reaction to Muslim religious organizations is that these are middle east based beliefs, values and ideas, and that those who engage in them are not a part of my community, are in fact, setting themselves apart on purpose, as not a part of the community, but as people with entirely different values and an entirely different culture - 'the other' in our midst, as it were, rejecting our own values and beliefs. This is an instinctive reaction and I recognize it is not intellectually sustainable. However, it arises from decades of exposure to the religious brutality and religious violence of this particular group, to decades of seeing so many members of this group commit violent outrages, largely against helpless civilians, across the world, and reading and seeing of their opinions on values which are extraordinarily hostile to my own, and the kind of values I want members of my community to hold. And while it is incorrect to reject all Muslims on that basis it is also incorrect to suggest a lot of them don't hold those views very tightly.

Of course there was a fraud in the whole election process but the bigger issue is the power that Erdogan is grabbing will have serious consequences for Turkey's future. It's a bad news and many Turks I have spoken to are very disappointed.....

It is not accidental that Donald Trump's White House was quick to call Erdogan to congratulate him on his victory --the US and Turkey now share two identically megalomaniac leaders. Unfortunately, one of the most democratically robust political cultures in the Muslim world is now manipulated by a power monger tyrant towards undemocratic terrains. Nearly 49% of Turks voted AGAINST Erdogan's outrageous power grab, plus credible reports of fraud are clear indications that this "victory" was manufactured for Sultan Abdul Hamid wannabe Erdogan

Insulting someone is not grounds for jail time. That's very oppressive and stifles free speech, period. Freedom of speech includes insulting , blasphemy and the like. Even hate speech is free speech. However people will be publicly ostracized when they get on the hate speech. Jail time is not effective in correcting the issue of Erdogan seeking more power via 'referendums'. Moving Turkey from a democratic trend to a dictatorship. If that is considered an insult, then Turkey has more of a problem than previously thought.

Okay, now I will show you my replies and this is going to be my last post in this forum. This forum has perfect rules but these rules are not applied most of the time. Another points is people are stuck in vicious circles which is called as "discussion". Many of posters are here to make their believes facts and impose on others. I really cant waste my time with that. Nice to meet you and bye to all. Below you said that; And I said that; Now I will show you the replies for your questions from my pre-post; First question was; If I insult you, should I go to jail ? In below posts, I openly meant that its against the constitution, so if you perform something against the constitution, you may be sentenced in various ways...pay penalty or jail or free service... Second question was; If so, WHY should I go to jail? I have replied this question too and I tried to explain what are the good and bad sides of insulting. You will see in below posts; Finally the third question was; The other question is , is warranted criticism being mistaken for insults? The answer for this question is in the replies for the second question. I tried to explain why its not accepted a part of "criticism". So criticism mean "disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings" according to its dictionary meaning. So criticism have to include an idea, insults are used to humiliate somethings/someones, not to express ideas in a constructive manner. The aim of freedom of speech is to have different/various ideas in a constructive manner, to find out what is true and what is wrong. For example telling someone; "This was a wrong action" is freedom of speech, telling the same person "You are an idiot" is an insult.

Well, there were two major religions around at that time. The other was Islam, which was their main enemy, which was more advanced militarily, scientifically and technologically while Europe was in the dark ages. And then it all changed. Europe began to thrive and to develop technologically and scientifically while the Muslim world stagnated. The reason is religion. For example, the fact that Christianity permitted banking (with interest) allowed for major projects to be developed. Islam did not permit the loaning of money for interest, so no banks developed to finance projects. In addition, interest in science and technology was discouraged under Islam. Even the science they had developed earlier was only used for religious purposes, to properly track the Prophet's birthdate, for example, and properly plot the exact direction of Mecca for prayers. So while science and technology developed under Christianity it failed to do so under Islam.

I have not noticed this Trudeau government being any more open to internal disagreement or criticism than the Harper or Chretien governments. As was noted the other day by someone I read. Both Harper and Trudeau promised a more open government in opposition, with beefed up parliamentary officers and freedom of information acts. Once in power, however, both of them lost their enthusiasm for openness. Of course, Trudeau's behaviour even before he got into power demonstrated that he had no interest in listening to opposing views.

I've read over those posts and nothing in there answers the questions I raised.

This government is a cluster fuck and this too will be screwed up. I hope everyone is happy for getting rid of the evil harper. This country would be moving in the right direction if he was still PM.

Just because your feelings are hurt, doesn't necessarily mean the other person did anything wrong.

I looked it up and she is correct in that the new constitution calls for two five term limits after the next election in 2019. I was wrong but if she is going to call me a liar every time I disagree with something she says, I have nothing more to say to her.

To Eyeball and Topaz, and others on here whose relatives have served, I'm so very grateful for their service.