Hollus

I agree. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. The onus is on the Police officer to know how much force is needed to defuse the threat. When we give goons the responsibility of using that force it can be abused just the same regardless of what tools hang from their belts.

Bad policing killed Robert Dziekanski but bad policing is not why Mr Dziekanski is dead. The simple fact is that Mr Dziekanski died from bad communication (a very sad thing to die from in the age of pocket-sized electronic translators). This man did not fly into YVR with the intentions of causing public disorder he came to visit his mother. While he may not have been the most knowlegdable world traveller, I would hope an international airport would have the customer service available to deal with an unsure foriegn speaking traveller. What would happen if a foriegn speaking traveller had a sudden medical emergency? Does YVR not have some staff to handle such situations? Where were they? How was Mr Dziekanski allowed to linger in an area smaller than an ice-rink (the most secure area of the airport, crawling with staff and survaillance) for over ten hours without being helped? YVR needs to explain why this situation was allowed to escalate to the point where police had to be called. As for the Police response, it is clear they had their minds made before they even approached the distraught man: Remove the public disturbance and clear the area for the next incomming flight. Not a bad plan. However the execution of that plan was horrible and tragic. I believe that if the Policemen, the YVR staff or anyone else had been able to communicate with Mr Dziekanski the situation would have easily been resolved. I am not against the use of tazzers. Although it is quite obvious they are abused in the line of duty, I do believe they are a useful tool for good cops. Rather than contempate the removal of the tazer from the RCMP tool belt I suggest we add to the tool belt an electronic language translator. That way the officer will at least be able to open a line of communication before he zaps the perp to death.

This is complete BS. Violence ensues in response to a variety of stimuli. You've set the parameters of this thread as strictly dealing with skin color. As soon as you start bringing violence into the discussion you out-step your parameters. Whatever are you talking about? I "outstep" my parameters? Skin color has never been and never will be the sole factor of racial violence. If you speak of racial violence you must speak of the environmental and sociological conditions from which it occurs. This most certianly includes culture, which you have barred from debate. Your musings of racial violence are completely irrational within the sope you have set for this thread.

This is complete BS. Violence ensues in response to a variety of stimuli. You've set the parameters of this thread as strictly dealing with skin color. As soon as you start bringing violence into the discussion you out-step your parameters.

I don't. Where as the "melting pot" is sometimes more of a crucible, multiculturalism attemts to promote diversity (but not separation) and to alloy cultures to one another. You should come out to Toronto for the Dragon Boat races........ I love these bumper sticker metaphorical cliches you keep tossing out. How do you propose "alloying" Sharia to common law, or Jamaican druglords to law abiding society? You might as well try to mix oil and water. And of course you need to wave the happy happy "cultural diversity" flag in the form of "dragon boat races." How about we celebrate the cultural diversity of Asian street gangs, Vietnamese grow-ops, and Sikh terrorism instead? They are at least as prevalent as "colourful street festivals"... Sharia law can be 'alloyed' with Canadian law just as Jewish and Catholic law have been through faith-based arbitration. This does not mean women will be stoned in public for adultery. Jamaican druglords, Asian street gangs, Vietnamese grow-ops have alloyed quite well with our criminal culture. Are you upset because the grow-op on your street is not run by Hells Angels? Pissed off because your business is being extorted by Asian gangs rather than Italian ones? You would like to be mugged by Native street kids instead of Jamacian street kids? Love how you distinguish crime by the ethnicity of those who commit it.

Just last night I witnessed an argument between two third generation Canadians where one of them claimed to be 'Canadian' and the other claimed to be 'German'. Knowing both of these people it was clear that the first person was full of nationalistic pride and held contempt for those who did not identify with his ethnocentrism. The second person was simply recognizing their cultural ancestry and in doing so, was subjected to berating comments for lack of patriotism and for identifying with a Country which the first person emphatically described as being inferior. (It was a little ironic how the first persons blind nationalism had him making condemnations of Germans as domineering Nazis, when he was clearly much more compatible as a Hitler youth than the person he was attacking). People put alot of wieght in words like 'Canadian', 'German', and 'Multiculturalism', but these words mean many different things to many different people. If your taking issue with someone over the their use of words without having taken the time to understand they're intended meaning your interpretation will be irrational.

What is you argument Scott? Are you saying that there is a difference between 'races' beyond physical appearance?

Jefferiah: I am not trying to control people’s choice in who to marry. I don’t care. I’m in here talking about how skin color fits into one’s fundamental values. I don’t think it does because skin color is a superficial aspect of a person. Others here think skin color is a fundamental value. I don’t know why. I’m not worried of these people trying to control me either. I just think they lack moral substance based on their impressed importance of pigmentation.

Jefferiah: Your interpretation of my response to your analogy is incorrect and your subsequent projections pure fiction. The analogy itself was quite a poor one but I responded in good faith. I wish I hadn’t.

Would you not be afraid that my Afro/Asian group might dicriminate against whatever appearance group you belong to? Do you think there is any reason my Afro/Asian group should be afraid that your appearance group whould discriminate against us? Do you think there is any reason Scott's appearance group should be afraid of discrimination from either of us? You are confusing the existence of something---these groups as you say---for what they might conceivably decide to do in the future. It is possible that some Afro/Asians might become racist and wish to attack, but that has nothing to do with the genetic makeup of Afro-Asians. You are starting to sound like the racist now. Have you been reading this thread??? This is very racist. It is not a sentiment I have been presenting, it is one I have been contesting. My post you are replying to here was designed to illustrate the racism of such thinking. Apparently you picked that up (sort of).

Jefferiah, ScottSA, Kimmy: I think I’ve been very clear on my views regarding this subject. I don’t see skin color as having any significance in the quality of a person’s character and from what I can read you have all agreed with that sentiment. Yes? No? You all agree that skin color is superficial. Yes? No? You all wonder (or surmise) why I oppose the idea of deliberate and intentional preservation of skin color. It is because I see no room for sentimentalism or superficialities when dealing with fundamental values. All of you put a great deal of importance in preserving skin color. So much so that you allow it to dictate something as fundamental as whom you choose to marry and have children with. So what is it that is so important that you must hold this superficial aspect as a fundamental value?

Ya, I think its wrong. I see the two families as part of a bigger family. So now that one of the families has lost their 'meaningless jewel', the other family will not join with them. That creates a negative meaning for the jewel.

Yes I mean people who choose their mate based on the ability to preserve their appearance. Kimmy says she believes it to be "a duty, more or less" And in response to a question of whether or not a mate must have a certian skin color, Scott says: "Yup, I'm certainly not going to contribute to submerging my Caucasian genes". Im not saying these people do not have some other standards by which they choose a mate, but it certainly seems that perpetuating their whiteness is paramount.

Would you not be afraid that my Afro/Asian group might dicriminate against whatever appearance group you belong to? Do you think there is any reason my Afro/Asian group should be afraid that your appearance group whould discriminate against us? Do you think there is any reason Scott's appearance group should be afraid of discrimination from either of us?

Ya, I think my distinquishing between marriage and procreation is inconsequintial, so please disregard that. And I agree that my original analogy was off, the rephrased one is not.