Leaderboard

Your reply is very politically correct, but if you're being truly honest, you're just an expert at ignoring the elephant in the room. There are over 100 terrorist attacks on the planet, month after month, and 99% of them come from 1/4 of the earth's population. You can consider that to come from pure randomness if you want, but people who can do simple math can use that info to make predictions about next month and the month after that. You stick to your religion and your strict moral compass to try to predict the future and I'll use math, thanks. FYI I'm well aware of my threshold for violence and I've never come close to being charged for any kind of assault, I don't care what you want to surmise from my posts. I tell the truth, it's usually uncomfortable for people in the post-truth age, so what? Trudeau still hasn't found a way to criminalize it, try though he may.

This is precisely why there is little if any reason for the west to get involved or interfere in the process of people overthrowing their oppressors. The oppressors can't help but do themselves in on their own. This process was well underway back in 1953 in Iran and other countries in the ME region and we fucked it all up by interfering in it. I think there is also a very good reason to believe that in doing so we also set back the same sort of reformation of Islam that Christianity was subjected to with the evolution of better human rights, greater freedom and more democracy. Getting back on track now may well be impossible given the eight-balls we still have a penchant for positioning ourselves behind like climate change.

This must be the longest continuous period in over three years when Brexit hasn't dominated the news headlines in the UK but after all this is much more important, isn't it?

She wasn't subjected to racism from day one, the Press welcomed her. I'm generally pro Royal but I don't like what they did to the Queen and how they did it... I'm disappointed in both of them. and I sure as hell don't think we should have to pay for their security, but Meghan has allready told us that they are 'internationally protected people' - so there. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7881661/PIERS-MORGAN-playing-despicable-race-card-Meghan-Harry-libeled-Britain.html Meghan & Harry haven’t been criticism because of her colour but because she’s a selfish social climber & he’s a weak whiner - and by playing this despicable race card they have grossly libelled all of Britain.

Your question and then second sentence make it clear your first question was not a question but in fact a statement that when read in conjunction with your second sentence tries to turn what I said into a point of subjective personal ridicule in regards to my previously stated reservations about violence and further that you do not understand what it means to be asked to kill someone and/or be placed in a position as a result of witnessing violence about how difficult it is to control the instant reaction to that violence by becoming violent. Your third sentence makes it clear that you; i-felt the need to pose yourself as reasonably violent; an ii-lack the insight to see the inherent contradiction in that contention. Given the above it also does not surprise me you can't see a co-relation in how negative stereotyping of an entire group of people dehumanizes them and makes it easier to be hateful including violent towards them. Finally since you chose to turn this into a pissing contest, I leave it to others to ask what is more disturbing: 1-someone who worries about how easy it is to be violent and the negative consequences of becoming violent; or 2-someone who has no concerns when he is violent because he doesn't step on ants or earthworms. As for your comment about not going "all Bhuddist" whatever the phack that means you may wish to consider Bhudda stated: "Seeing the similarity to oneself, one should not use violence or have it used." You may also wish to consider the fact that Ted Kennedy was not a Buddhist but did say: "Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits." Edward Kennedy

Riiiiight. Which is why there's a boycott and divest movement towards China and Syria and Saudi Arabia and Iran and ... whoops, no there isn't. Which is why every second post in the international section is about them... whoops, it's not. Which is why every university in the West regularly holds demonstrations in solidarity with their victims. Whoops, that doesn't happen either. Despite them being almost infinitely worse and more murderous and evil than Israel. Because it's not about human rights. It's about Jews.

True. However, some people feel differently. Especially awarding him money without having to do so.

Unfortunately, this is the same predicament many Iranian women of her stature have faced under this brutal regime. Iranian women are fighting the apparatus of this regime on a daily basis by not covering their hair and wearing hijab. It is an ongoing battle and the women in Iran and their movements is one of the forces that the regime is very afraid of...

https://womenintheworld.com/2019/03/11/iranian-lawyer-who-defended-womens-right-to-remove-hijab-gets-38-years-148-lashes/?fbclid=IwAR0eKA2TU4Hhscsfk0w1VB-uHMdbfEOFvTlklyaxWVNsTgToFOlmDkGBAaY

I am afraid I fall into the small category that believes church and state need to be COMPLETELY separated. When it comes to private money, one should be free to do whatever suits them, but as soon as the taxpayer is footing the bill, NOTHING to do with religion should have any bearing whatsoever on eligibility, spending, access, etc.

The new no world order will be even more rewarding with the Deferred Purgatory Agreement the Pope just secured us. Fuck everyone before they fuck me is my motto from now on. But I'll start with conservatives they'll understand it's nothing personal. Clobbering a lefty would be too much like bludgeoning a baby harp seal or a puppy or something.

Bullshit. What most right thinking people hate in Israel China or Syria is the same, their governments not their people...institutions...things in other words, not human beings. They may have no particular use for officials or groups in these countries that support or worse execute the awful things their governments and institutions order done but be sure it is at base the institution they despise the most. Most of all though I can't stand it when the difference between a government and the people it governs are ignored by conflation, sloppy thinking, disenguity and indifference. Anyone who does this really only gives a damn about their own agenda.

me too, then i can kill my neighbor for his lands and women in the coming barbarism towards feudalism. the perishing of the weak and assault on the life expectancy of the strong will be a small price to pay for the glorious display of unbridled narcissism.

Ok, well it’s all very subjective. Regardless, I couldn’t care less of the plight of two multi millionaires, one born into royalty and one marrying into it. They’ll be fine.

No. It's entirely normal in Western countries for the state, city or some company to give/place some apartment building(s) for specific people. It's done plenty. Look it up.

No it is not normal, not for government funded housing which should be open to every one.

I find it funny that the more I learn, the more "I don't know" is often the most intelligent answer to hard questions. And ghosts are scary, hahaha

"Faith" is what we have both where we know something with certainty or trust due to some practical certainty. I try to redefine it in context as "gambling in the truth of something" when speaking with the religious person's use of it against the atheist. Then "belief" can be used more generically. Daniel Denett wrote a good book that expressed how religious thinkers actually have 'faith in faith'. [Breaking the Spell] I personally hold that you CAN argue against a belief system (which implies their "God" or gods in context). But this requires an investment in time and effort that can be unending when you consider this would have to be done for each and every particular belief. So you could say that I have 'faith' that there is no god but that I know that there is no particular one any reasonable person could point to rationally. I am also anti-theist to a large degree where such beliefs are imposed upon a society Constitutionally, (like ours does here in Canada). [Preamble to the Charter and our perpetuity to favor the Catholic School system foundationally, for examples.]

And anti-theist is also a 'belief' in your definition but a faith-based one, ie. I have faith that no gods exist, regardless of the evidence either way ?

At the risk of being pedantic, we must differentiate between Atheist and Anti-theist The former denotes a lack of sufficient evidence to prove the god claim, the latter an affirmation that no gods exist, a small but important distinction. Agnostic refers almost exclusively to knowledge, while atheism speaks to belief

Now Betsy you and I can still run. I need someone to be my Minister of Lavalin Affairs. I am saving Immigration for Argus and the US Ambassador position for Yzer. Army Guy gets defence and Dougie is Governor General of course. Cougar is Environment Minister. I am putting Taxme in the Multiculturalism Minsitry. The moderators on this forum I make Senators and Michael Harder clearly is my Minister of Culture which leaves Foreign Affairs for Godess and Spank at Fisheries. Apologies for anyone I left out. Scriblett is going to Moscow as Russian Ambassador by the way. Dog is Ambassador to Iran. No need for subtle messages there.Oh I forgot Dalai can be UN Ambassador, Wescan is Finance and Queb is Interprovincial Affairs.. Regards, Rex Murphy.

What you described to me borders on white supremacy/fascism. Not my Canada.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act affirms the policy of the Government of Canada to ensure that every Canadian receives equal treatment by the government which respects and celebrates diversity.[how?] The Act also:[9] recognizes Canada's multicultural heritage and that this heritage must be protected recognizes Aboriginal rights recognizes English and French remain the only official languages but that other languages may be used recognizes equality rights regardless of race, religion, etc. recognizes minorities' rights to enjoy their cultures. Section 3 (1) of the Act states:[10] I guess that's why so many languages are our official languages today.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3848065/case-of-diphtheria-confirmed-at-edmonton-elementary-school/ Diptheria in Edmonton. These diseases are all making a comeback thanks to anti-vaxxers. I think we have all forgotten how terrible these diseases were and how many people they killed. My friend posted this article on her facebook page because she has a child in kindergarten at the school and a newborn at home who is too young to be vaccinated for diptheria yet.

If you refuse to vaccinate yourself or your loved ones, do the world a favor and isolate yourself.

Immunization is one of the great triumphs of public health. The benefits massively outweigh the risks.

False. To the extent that religious people keep their crazy beliefs out of public policy then I have no problem with people believing whatever stupid belief system they want. I have no desire to convert people to accepting one less god than they currently do. But I will fight like hell with the religious zealots who will not allow gays to marry, or do not want women to have a choice, or won't allow people to eat shellfish because some stupid book tells them this is morally righteous.

This is a false equivalency. Atheism only requires the non-belief in a god/gods. There is no prescribed dogma, no messiah, no systems of belief to not believe in any god/gods. If you happen to think the probability of a God/gods is unlikely then you are, effectively, an atheist. That's it. The advantage of our politics being free of religion is that not only does this allow people to practice their religion privately, at least to the extent that it does not conflict with secular law, but it allows public policy to be based on evidence and rationale rather than the dominant demographic's religious beliefs which, at times in the past and in many modern day theocracies, can lead to oppressive policies - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc being examples of various degrees of oppression.

Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power. Atheism: Not that.

Let's see, western countries are taking in tens of thousands of immigrants every year, both legal and illegal, but people want blame anti-vaxxers even though nobody can actually cite any real people that are anti-vaccines, even the articles linked to don't actually mention any real people that are associated with that. It's probably 0.01% of the population.

There is no such thing as no religion, a religion is a system of beliefs, even athiesm is therefore by definition a religion.