drummindiver

Exactly. Sure sign of snowflake. Run fast.

No. How do you ascribe leaning to outrage?

Geer Wilders convicted because he asked a crowd if they wanted more or less immigration. What really bothers me about the judges ruling is their determination that a leader of a political party cannot polarise society. How does a leader lead without not doing this. A stance on any issue does this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38260377

Opinion piece? Do you understand the difference? Both snowflake and the teacher wished to remain anonymous. Her book Helpless about Caledonia shone a light on a disgraceful episode of our judicial and policing leaders.If it were not factual I'm sure she would have been charged with libel.

I've posted this story on my feed.Sorry, if I felt outraged every time the governmebt wasted our money I'd have an anger problem. Or something.

btw, thanks for your contribution to PolitiCal Correctness bs with your link.

"The left-wing versions make me angry too. There are lots of examples of both. I'll try to post" "And as I alluded to above, these stories are designed to get a Pavlovian response to people who are validated by their staunch political identities, IMO." Two times you said it. Does being disgusted by behaviour you abhor equate to anger issues? I'm disgusted that teachers are fired over snowflakes. Quo

How is saying you are against abortion traumatizing? You. You're good. I love satire.

I thought you said these injustices weren't tied to political leanings. Clearly you do align them. What would you consider an injustice worth mentioning? As to Pavlovian responses, everything you read is written to get a response of some kind. If the feeling you get when a spoilt snowflake gets a father of 3 fired over his opinion is not one of disgust there is a disconnect with the reveal world.

Yes, because clearly you reading a book (if in fact you have..most religious ppl I know havent) written by man of God's own word holds more weight than Dawkin's accomplishments. And yes, I am open to change my view when proven wriong. Thats the beautiful thing about science That's why it is stI'll called Gravity Theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Isn't less democracy a left wing thing?

Sorry.

I know a lot of people were dismisve of the online questionairre . Here is one made by the National Post in response. I was deemed Rebel. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/canadian-politics/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/democracy-mine

lol...pure satire, you win the Internet today

Richard Dawkins, one of the most famous atheists alive doesn't rule it out either, but states it is very highly unlikely. I'm with Christopher Hitchens on this one. No God.

Clearly political correctness is getting out of hand. How does the pendulum get back to the middle? http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-b-c-teacher-fired-for-having-the-wrong-opinion

But comets and asteroids. Suns exploding and such. As you say, likely.

We look at science as observation, hypothesis, theory, and then very rarely, law. Through science, which is mathematical equations at its base, we can make an educated guess as to what will happen in the natural world around us, as well as some aspects of the man made ie engineering therefore a belief in science is reasonable imo. There is no definitive evidence to prove claims of religion and therefore is not reasonable imo. Of course, many are desperate to believe to add reason to existene. Pascal came up with the "double down" wager. http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/Pascal.html

This gentleman tells it ftom a place of knowledge.Surely his opinion is not xenophobic?

Here is the website Mowich mentioned. I was classified Guardian at the end. https://www.mydemocracy.ca/

The hilaious part of this thread is that for all your indignation youve been proven wrong by me and several other people and now your feeling are hurt.

I never said there was, I never said there wasn't. I said that books being banned, which is clearly the case. I also find it ironic you cite the same link I used after dismissing it's veracity.

Is your reading comprehension really that bad that you dont understand this article?

lol Sorry, maybe I should have used a different link in the OP. The question was about banning books, not banning books because you're a particular political bent. But now its just funny watching you go apoplitic because you are proven wrong....again.

Yes. So, clearly you are for banning literature because of the use of a word.Harriet Beecher Stowe used it 108 times in her novel. Faulkner 146 times.Margaret Mitchell used it 100 times in her epic. Again, let's just ban all literature you find offensivev even though it's purpose is to highlight exactly what is offensive. btw, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/school-district-weighs-ban-of-to-kill-a-mockingbird-huck-finn-after-complaint/2016/12/03/92701c80-b8b0-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?utm_term=.817f3e9afe55