dialamah

Clearly you do not understand me. Nor, apparently, do you understand the difference between genocide, eugenics, and a woman who has to decide whether or not to birth a child that will either die almost immediately after birth or require years of care to live a severely compromised life. Also, you did not answer my question: are you as outraged by government policies that allow people to die because their life-saving medication is too expensive as you are about women who might have an abortion rather than birth a severely damaged baby.

I'm asserting that unless you are the one prepared, financially and emotionally, to support that life, then you do not have the right to judge those upon who the responsibility falls. We're not talking about executing healthy people here so your attempt to paint me as some monster fails. As a society we regularly condemn people to death because it would cost too much to treat them; we regularly see news stories about children and adults who will die if our medical system doesn't pay 100s of thousands or even a million+ dollars for the medication that will either cure them or at least keep them alive a little longer. Are you outraged by that? Or is it just women who are forced into a "Sophie's Choice" decision who outrage you?

So you'd take on the care of a severely disabled baby, rather than see it aborted? Or do you expect other people do do that, or perhaps the taxpayer through institutionalized care? BTW, there aren't enough foster homes in Canada for all the kids that go into care and the numbers continue to decline. Foster care isn't actually a viable option.

What are these 'much better options'? If you're thinking adoption, how many people are actually willing or have the resources to adopt a child that is physically or mentally damaged? If you are thinking foster carers, how many foster carers have the ability to care for a child that is physically or mentally damaged? If you're thinking some kind of facility - how many physically or mentally damaged children should taxpayers be willing to support in institutions? Would you be willing to take on the care of a child that had no brain, only the stem brain - they'll never walk, talk, or be potty trained and will not interact with you or their world in any way? Their brain stem keeps their heart going and lungs working, but that's about it. Would you be willing to take on the care of a child that has 100s of seizures a day, will always need diapers, a wheelchair, help feeding themselves, but with a full life expectancy? Such children can be self-aware and be very loving, a full person in the mental and emotional sense, but no way of ever taking care of themselves physically - they'll likely outlive their caregivers, and then what will they do? Is it a better option to birth a damaged baby, that will live in darkness and silence and pain for a few months or years, before dying anyway? Or will have to undergo regular medical intervention in order to keep living a severely limited life for a few months or years before dying anyway? It's not an easy decision to weigh the likely outcome vs. the best case scenario - where a very damaged fetus might do better than expected after being born, and should thus be given an opportunity. How can one know for sure that they have both emotional and financial ability to care for that child for their entire life and beyond. And even if they do at the time of baby's birth, what happens if a job loss or relationship breakup occurs - as they often do under the stress of raising a very handicapped child. Who is best situated to make the decision of whether or not to birth a baby that is likely to need special care for its entire life? Should all of us, as taxpayers, be willing to support the child that the parents cannot, either during that child's life or after the parents die? And if you happen to be one of those people who've said "If you can't take care of a child, then you shouldn't have it", then you have implied that abortion is a better option than birthing a child that you can't take care of.

Yeah, I agree - if I respond to a post that is insulting or inflammatory, and there's a complaint on my post that is judged valid, then both posters (me and the other person) should be smacked. But, it seems Charles is the only moderator, so I can understand that it would be difficult to maintain consistency. Can't be easy, and I do appreciate his dedication and efforts.

Yeah, I used to think so too. And then Trump was elected, people are pushing the ideology of hatred, racism and exclusion on and offline, anti-woman policies are necoming more popular in the States and among Canadian conservatives, White Supremacist groups are growing and are becoming more active. Sure, "our" extremists aren't murdering people or shrouding and oppressing women to the extent that Islamic extremists do, but Islamic ideology ideology of hatred isn't a lot different than the ideology of hatred that currently exists among certain groups and individuals in the West. Personally, I feel that what I didn't understand about Nazi Germany and the holocaust, about Canada rejecting Jewish refugees in the second world war and interring Japanese during the same war is being explained to me via the anti-Muslim propaganda I see today. We aren't any different than Muslims in our ability to hate those who are "different" and to punish and oppress those weaker than us. I do remain hopeful that the poison of the extreme right and the GOP will not overtake Canada and that our committment to human rights continues to grow.

They were still affected, and not for the better. "Less" impacted isn't the same as 'treated with respect and honesty'. Then I guess they don't need to forced off reserve, as PC would have us do. The constant push by short-thinking and greedy capitalists to 'reduce taxes' is not to the benefit of most of the people in Canada. Just like anyone, I appreciate a few extra dollars on my pay cheque, but when I see the damage actually done by the reduction in taxes, combined with corporate bail-outs and corrupted political systems and people, I wonder how long it will take people in general to understand that promises to 'reduce taxes' isn't a cure-all - it's kinda like giving someone a 10-cent sucker so you can bumfck'em. Sure, the sucker tastes good - but damn, there's consequences! It's funny how the countries with the happiest and most prosperous people tend to come from those places which have high taxes and plenty of state-sponsored 'goodies', eh? No suckers/bum-fcking for them!

We, as in "we colonists", forced aboriginals onto these "remote communities", literally making them ask permission to leave for the day, and if caught "off res" without a pass, putting them in jail. This was officially in place until the 1940s, so its within living memory. And until the 60s, leaving the reserve to work or attend post-secondary education meant they'd lose their status and the right to return to the reserve. So what we have is a situation where we forced people off huge territories, onto small plots of land, essentially imprisoning them there, denying them the ability to leave and return at will. So, they've tried to make homes there, because what choice did they have? But now, we've forgotten all that and blame them for "not leaving" and demand that they again leave the place they've (been forced) to call home since the 1800s. Sure, we weren't making the decisions to put them on reserves and refusing to let them leave. But that doesn't give us the right to blame them for being on reserve now, and use the same kind of bullying tactics we used to put them on reserves, to make them leave now.

I'd support a tax hike if it could be guaranteed to be put toward health, education, infrastructure maintenance and other necessaries in a modern country.

You'll have to start being logical before you'll have a chance of hurting anyone's brain with it.

@scribblet... thanks for the info. At first glance and not having looked at the links yet, I'd say that there should not be special treatment for Muslims, regardless of where the marriages occurred.

I've been using Windows 10 for years at home, never any trouble. Also, they switched us at work a while ago and I have had no issues there either. But I rarely have difficulty with technology stuff, even when others do. Dunno why.

Is this really a fact? How do we 'recognize' them? I understand you may have more knowledge of this than I do per your work experience, but according to this (critical) Maclean's article, we expect them to convert the first marriage into the monogamous one (enforcement is the issue, as it always is). The article is old, but I couldn't find anything more current. What has changed since then? Plenty of non-Muslim and non-religious people in Canada live in long-term, plural-partner relationships which they consider 'marriages' , even though the law doesn't recognize them. They'll have some kind of formal marriage celebration, to recognize their commitment and intention, and skip all the legal stuff. I imagine Muslims would do the same. Also, I believe men are limited to 4 wives in Islam.

How do you think it would work for someone who has pretty bad tremors? Does the touch pen increase accuracy compared to a finger?

Weird, barbaric, ignorant philosophy you have there claiming that women prefer being dominated, controlled and raped over having rights and freedom. Is that Incel? MGTOW? Are you a refugee from here?

She'll only be able to refer to cherry-picked verses and hadiths from other anti-Muslim propagandists. Anything that contradicts an extremely negative interpretation of any Islamic teaching is fought tooth and nail by these people. They are all spreading an extremist version of Islam, just like ISIS, al-Queda and the Taliban do.

Of course, in Goddess' Islamophobic world, no Muslim has any ethics, eh? Any moment they might snap and become violent, and start beating and raping women and killing anyone who doesn't adhere to the very strictest form of Islam. Any religion offers that choice, and in poorer/third world nations around the world, women have fewer protections than they do in Western nations, including my sister - a fact of which she is well aware. Stop spreading the propagandist idea that somehow Islam is "worse" than any other religion that is permitted any kind of social or political power. And now go ahead, twist my words to pretend I said something entirely different to what I actually posted.

And their gun culture! Another shooting in California today, on a Greyhound bus! The really scary part is that you can't tell who will suddenly whip out a gun and start shooting, cause they look just like us! /s

I think the Western world in general has been "primed" to be more fearful than we used to be.

Thailand seems to have found a treatment. https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-treatment-cocktail-of-flu-hiv-drugs-2020-2

Do you think "meat substitutes" are some kind of answer to reducing industrial animal farming? Do you think people require meat every single day? Vegetables are still cheaper than meat. Eating vegetable based meals every day, and having meat two or three times a week would maintain health, better than eating plant-based meatball subs every day and certainly cheaper. If everybody in Western countries (developing countries consume less meat than Western counttres, so their participation would be less impactful) were willing to make those changes, it would go a fair way to reducing emissions and, longer term, mitigating the effects of climate change. But when it's suggested, what is the response? Mockery and complaints about "climate hysteria". A relatively small change, and so many people refuse.

Mitigation is not the same as "solving". If all the efforts made in the articles I'd cited had not been made, we'd be that much worse off now. The less we do now, the worse it will be later financially and all other ways. My argument is not that we can stop or reverse climate change, only that we should be willing to do whatever we can to mitigate its effects. Too many are not - because China/India (who are actually doing more than Canada towards mitigation) or because it's a "carbon tax" (which economists have identified as one of the least expensive/painful ways to reduce fossil fuel use) or because "I like meat; how dare climate hysterics take away my meat". And then those people also attack a 16-year-old - one of the people who will have to bear the burden of climate change - for asking us to take some responsibility and do our part now.

If this is true, I would give your opinion more weight. If you are an expert, I am willing to defer to your expertise - thought it doesn't mean I'm going to join the 'give up' brigade. If you can share information that I cannot access, please do so, thanks. If you can't, I guess that means you are making it up. In the meantime, here are a couple of sources that persuade me that mitigation is worth the effort and cost. https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/ https://www.thegef.org/topics/climate-change-mitigation

Look it up, don't expect other people to do the work for you.

I don't believe in giving up. In addition, people who know what they are talking about, which excludes you, continue to say that we can still mitigate the worst effects of climate change. You are free to pretend this can't be done, and reject suggestions that adversely affect you because "its not enough". Good point. I guess I'll just agree to disagree with you and ignore your comments from here on since you've made up your mind that you may as well give up.