dialamah

Google algorithim biased against liberals. Rightwing sites promoted by Google search algorithms. I doubt Rebel has anything to worry about. They just want your money.

Did anyone notice the look on Jaime's face when she said "Don't ever betray me again." He's been looking at her doubtfully more often lately so I wonder if he won't eventually turn on her.

You just hate leftists more than you hate neo-nazis, white supremacists or Trump, so you'll blame them. During the non-stop coverage of this event, some CNN reporter mentioned that FBI records show that 80-odd terrorists acts have been carried out by right-wing groups such as neo nazis and white supremacists, while 40-something were carries out by Muslims, from 2001 until 2016. Funny how people such as yourself are so willing to hold all Muslims responsible for the violence some of their extremists engage in, but unwilling.to hold the right reponsible for any of the violence their extremists engage in.

Where did he say that? Quote the exact words where he said "(All) Muslims are just fine"; bet you can't.

Pot - Kettle.

What's the point, really? We can condemn White Supremacist terrorism and alt-left or alt-right terrorism and Muslims can condemn Islamic terorism till the cows come home, it changes nothing. Some contingent of any group seems to choose to see itself as oppressed and victims and to then decide its their god-given right and duty to stand up for themselves and show "those" people by whatever means necessary. And when someone gets hurt or dies, they gleefully point to 'those' people as being responsible, whether its a particular group, the current government or the former government. With any luck, I will be dead before this pervasive hate and blame returns us to another dark age. Or ignorance and denial results in Climate Change simply killing off most or all humans.

Well, the right seems to have spent a lot of time over the last couple of decades predicting chaos/catastrophe and the end of life as we know it but as a country we still seem to be doing pretty good, so forgive me if I don't cower in a corner just yet.

Assuming that rate holds steady for every hour of every day, which is extremely doubtful.

What a great way to censor anything the power holders want.

I agree with this. Especially the 'nuanced' part; trying to see 'both sides' of an issue or consider all factors is no longer permitted, you are forced into taking black/white positions.

People who don't want to drink, don't. People who don't want to use drugs, don't. People who do want to use substances use them whether legal or not so legalizing pot will make veey little difference.

They do tell you but you can't be bothered to listen.

So much hyperbolic nonsense.

I am not attached to Islam. I am attached to my sister and my friends who are Muslim. So when people claim that Muslims are generally awful people, I am inclined to tell them they don't know what they are talking about.

Was it an eye opener for you when the right-wing attacked Iqrah Khalid, sending her 1000s of emails threatening death, torture and rape? Is it eye-opening for you when you hear about Muslim women being physically and verbally attacked for wearing a hijab? How about when someone shoots up a mosque? Or are your eyes only opened when its Muslims carrying out some horrific action?

The conversation seems to go like this: An actual Muslim woman or Muslim 'apologist': Muslim women often choose to wear the hijab as a symbol of their faith, although it is also true that some women are coerced. Coercion is a problem not limited to hijab wearing or even Islam. Domestic abuse needs to be addressed in Muslim communities along with all other communities. Anti-Muslim response: As far as I am concerned, the hijab is a symbol of female oppression, and if a woman chooses to wear it, she is at the very least promoting female oppression. As a matter of fact she is probably a fanatic who wants to kill gays/apostates/impose Sharia law (per Argus). It doesn't really matter what Muslim women themselves say, it is clear that the hijab is a huge problem for women (and Canadian culture, per Argus again) and so I am going to object to it. And if you think letting women wear the hijab is ok, you are also supporting misogyny and female oppression.

People use the excuse that they are engaging in valid criticsm of Islam in order to say things like: Muslims are violent, backward, misogynistic people who force women to wear blankets over their heads, who want to kill infidels and gays, impose Sharia law on everyome and who engage in rape for fun. Any kind of counter to such sweeping and often incorrect statements is met with "you are defending barbaric practices and refuse to admit that Islam needs reforming". In the meantime, I have criticized Islam for its paternalistic beliefs, and Muslim majority countries for their human rights abuses. But because I don't also repeat hyperbolic statements or use insulting language this is not accepted. Its not that I am confusing, its that you can't inderstand how I can both disaprive of Islam without having to insult.or be afraid of all Muslims

True, so clearly there are parents who are teaching their kids not to be racist. That's a good thing, no?

Nowhere in my post did I put forth the idea that a burka is good for humanity or is an empowering choice for women; I did note that given it's relative rarity even in the Muslim world, it would seem to be a more extreme practice. I also expressed my belief that some men do require women to wear the burka, while some women choose to wear it. This would be an acknowledgement that there are two sides to the issue - one of choice, one of coercion. How very kind of you not to insult people to their faces, only when they are out of earshot. What I said was "When I was there, I only saw about a dozen" and "maybe there are more now, but nowhere close to being a majority". Yes, I am beginning to understand that Fort Mac is representative, in your mind at least, of every single Muslim on the planet: rude, extreme and violent. I do wonder how many Muslims you knew in Fort Mac who you didn't recognize as Muslim because they failed to dress or act the way you expected them to. Yes, indeed - perhaps you should. You are fine accepting *some* practices that hearken back to an historical time when women were second class citizens, but not those labeled "Islamic". This would be called "double standard". Would you agree with bullying women who want to wear it? And do you disagree with Sikh women who wear a scarf or turban over their head, given that their religion and culture also keeps women in a subordinate position? Or is your offense limited to Muslims? Women in hijabs are also a minority in Canada and women in burkas are a minority within a minority. We disagree on the degree of influence Muslims have or are likely to have in Canada when it comes to women's rights or the law. I believe they have about the same influence that fundamental Christians have when it comes to preventing women from having abortions or gays from marrying.

I am guessing the words "blanket over her head" refers to a burka, which covers a woman from head to foot and sometimes includes a screen for her eyes. To answer your question, the burka seems to be extreme in any part of the world, including Muslim majority countries. I couldn't even find a country that 'required' that women wear a burka and only two that required a hijab. There are even Muslim-majority countries that have forbidden the wearing of the niqab. No doubt some men require their wives to wear a burka. Just as clearly, some women choose to wear a burka. When I was in Egypt, I saw maybe a dozen women in burkas; perhaps there are more now, but they are certainly not even close to being a majority. Hijab seems to be a choice many Muslim women make, so perhaps that's a moderate Muslim. Do you object to the hijab? Other than participants, I don't know anyone who considers a burka moderate or charming. Some of us are more willing to accept it, the same way we're willing to accept nuns in their habits - dating from the Middle Ages when entering a nunnery was often not a choice, but punishment or one of the few places an unmarried girl could go. Or Mennonite women in their dresses and bonnets, a style reminiscent of the 1700 and 1800s and symbols for their cultural requirement for modesty and submission to men. All religions get passes on what most of us consider extreme. There are fundamental Jews who are indistinguishable from Muslim women in black abayas and hijabs, Christian sects that claim polygamy as part of their religion, Roman Catholics who believe in and practice exorcism, the Mormon's 'baptism of the dead', Jehovah's Witnesses refusal of blood transfusions. They all 'get a pass' despite their weirdness of their beliefs and the sometimes harm they cause. I object to the rudeness of your "blanket over their heads". Why would you think such insulting language contributes to a 'reasoned' discussion of Islam or Muslims?

And you know this because studies prove that men are more naturally suited to cabinet posts than women? Do you have a cite?

No difference in male/female brains.