Spiderfish

Is that not what you are trying to say?? You are comparing her theoretically weak neck with a food allergy, and stating that those with food allergies need to be careful or their consumption and take special precautions to avoid a life threatening reaction. Tell me...what precaution should this girl have taken to avoid being physically assaulted and having her artery ruptured?

Actually, I thought he had a relevant point. How is this different than someone who drives drunk and kills someone? A drunk driver knows that what they are doing is wrong, but does not get into the car intending to kill someone. Drunk drivers are almost always remorseful after the fact. Would your opinion be different if this guy hopped in his car drunk and accidentally backed over his kid pulling out of the driveway?

Do you really think that a simple slap to the face would kill anyone, regardless of abnormal physiology? It had to be a slap with sufficient force to cause a violent reaction capable of introducing a risk of death. Unfortunate...yes. Accident...no. This guy clearly lost control of his emotions and struck her violently in anger. I have no doubt he is remorseful, but he killed her and all the remorse in the world doesn't change that.

So what you're trying to say is that people who may possibly have a low tolerance for physical violence and abuse should ensure they wash the floors correctly when asked or risk the consequence of possible death. Got it.

Comparing the act of phsically assaulting someone to death with feeding a dinner guest a chicken hot dog is beyond absurd.

It wasn't. I was being sarcastic. I was responding to your speculation that it could have been the girl's weakness that caused such an unfortunate "accident". That notion is simply ridiculous.

Not with my kids!!

Yes... it's likely her fault for not being able to take a hit. Or it's the fault of unusual physiology. Come on. What the hell was he doing hitting her at all???

Much of the debate on this topic is regarding Justin Trudeau's sudden desire to open the debate and to do it in such a dictatorial and exclusive manner. Inclusive and open seems to be out the window.

A tragedy, I agree. But a horrible accident, I don't know. How hard do you have to hit a person to "accidentally" kill them? My guess is pretty hard. I'm sure he's quite remorseful after the fact, most people who kill in anger are.

This seems to be his mo...

She was fired last night. It was inevitable.

It would likely be equally smart for a politician to approach the issue of abortion the same way. Reflecting on the comment above, I would say you are giving JT far too much credit.

It would be easy to read this and react negatively, but there is little doubt that is what you are likely looking for so it would likely be best just to take it as the sad ramblings of a pathetic troll that it is. Either that or your position is that men are solely responsible for all such decisions and the act of intercourse is simply a victimization of a woman by a man, a position that causes you to despise men so much that you are incapable of respectful dialogue Either way, it's sad.

I find it a bit difficult to keep a straight face when Trudeau makes unilateral party decisions such as this all while touting a more open, inclusive and positive style of politics.

It's possible the unintended consequence may be a division within his own. I couldn't help but notice that Liberal MP Dan McTeague has been unreachable for comment the last few days.

On this one, at least. Of course his sweeping unanimity was thrust upon his party without consultation or consideration by it's members. Time will tell if his party supports his moral determination on the issue, and equally importantly, if they have the stomach to be part of a party that governs by a leader that has no interest in member contributions to such a decision or shows such disinterest in their personal moral judgement and the judgement of many of the people who they represent.

No you're not. I was making a point on policy, not opinion.

This is a question that the Liberals will in no way entertain under JT's new policy. As far as justin's concerned, it's irrelevant.

What about selective gender abortions?

It's hard to understand who Trudeau was trying to sway with this decision. Was he trying to appeal to the women vote, the feminist vote? It seems the only people who would be impressed by this decision are voters who have basically already decided to give his party their vote, so all he's really done is alienate potential supporters of his party.

I think it's refreshing, and have been looking for him to show some stance on his/Liberal policy. Good on him for getting into the game.

I agree, defining the party position clearly allows future MP's to decide for themselves if they want to be involved in a party with such a hard-line stance on the issue. It also allows voters to judge for themselves whether the party truly represents their view. The issue of abortion aside, I personally would have a problem supporting a leader who feels his moral view trumps everyone in his party and everyone they have been chosen to represent.

JT did not declare a contrary opinion, he declared that members of his party are forbidden from holding an opposing opinion to his.

It doesn't really matter to me what Ford, Klein, or Trudeau says or has said or how they choose to say it, it ultimately reflects on their character and people can judge for themselves.