Hugo

I'm curious about this myself. Archaelogical evidence shows that the water level was by no means constant even before humankind arrived on the scene. For instance, the Mediterranean Sea was once dry land, the Sphinx of Egypt shows signs that it was weathered by water and not by wind and sand, and Aleutia was once a land bridge - that's how American aborigines got there from Asia. Bearing in mind how little we still know about these phenomena and our inability to know exact dates (even within a few centuries), or even the causes of them, isn't it a little rash to be declaring that the fault of changing coastlines is man-made, and that we must take action?

Some key points here: 1) Mix bleach with ammonia and you can create chlorine or phosgene gas, both of which are potentially fatal chemical warfare agents, used in WWI and other conflicts for military purposes. What "infrastructure" did Saddam lack - household cleaning products? 2) Saddam had WMD at some stage, since he used them against Iranians and Kurds. I'm sure he did not deplete his entire stockpile, men like him plan ahead and it would be sensible to make more. Where are they now? They have to be somewhere. If he hid them, sold them, gave them away, they are somewhere, and he had them at some point. 3) Saddam had numerous embargoes against his country, which were impoverishing it. If he'd had them lifted, he could have had greatly increased trade, sold his oil for guns and tanks (which is what he really wants), and greatly improved those parts of his country he cares about, not to mention his finances. All he had to do was prove that he had no WMD. But he did not, for 12 years. Why?

The same can be said of Stalin.

Yes, but now gay-rights groups have the same rights (on paper) that religious groups do. The legal actions are already being drawn up, I assure you. There are pro-gay legal firms who make a living finding suitable cases to advance the gay cause. Please, if you can think of just one incident where a religious group has won a court action against a gay-rights group, let me know. It seems to me that any legal battle between the two is a foregone conclusion. Just witness what gay activists have been allowed to get away with in the last decade or so, against what things that organised religion has been stamped upon for.

This bill is nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. What this bill basically does is muzzle anybody with any kind of anti-homosexual position, and that includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, doctors, psychiatrists, counselors, STD clinic workers, concerned parents, and so forth. Remember all those studies I cited on the incidences of disease in the gay community? Those will all be illegal documents in Canada because of their anti-gay message. This may actually be detrimental to the gay community, because now that they are unable to learn the truth about their own incidences of disease and low life expectancy, they are less likely to take precautions to protect themselves. So, ironically, this legislation may end up killing gays. Yes, but they now share those exact same privileges with the gay-rights groups, and in legal actions, the gay-rights groups always win against religious groups. Gay activists have been allowed to burn crosses on the steps of churches and break up religious ceremonies and parades. For religious people to do those things to homosexuals, however, would be uncountenanceable. Yes, or publish them. If C-250 goes through the senate, the Bible will have to be purged of anti-gay sentiment, or it will become banned literature in Canada, much as Canadian authorities have tried to shut down Ernst Zundel's website. The same laws apply to both the Bible and the Zundelsite. Similarly, any priest or minister reading those banned parts of the Bible, or for that matter a Rabbi from the Torah or an Imam from the Quran, to his congregation will be guilty of inciting hate crimes and can be imprisoned for up to 5 years.

I doubt it. Too many people share Pellaken's views: they don't believe it and they won't take the time to inform themselves. You never appreciate what you have until it's taken away, and C-250 basically takes away freedom of speech and religion at least regarding the topic of homosexuality. The Big Three monotheistic religions won't be allowed to read or even publish their scripture, countless medical journals will have to be burnt, and "ex-gay" support groups will have to disband and destroy their literature. That's right, throwing priests in jail, breaking up legitimate meetings and clubs, and book-burnings. Let's see... who else can you think of who liked to do those kinds of things?

We can see you've really considered this issue. Go and actually read the bill, please.

Bill C-250 has been passed, it is now pending approval by the Senate after which it will become law. Once that is done, parts of the Bible will become officially 'hate speech.' To read those parts aloud in public (e.g. a Church congregation) or to publish them (e.g. by printing a Bible) would be considered a hate crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Therefore, yes, you could legally have a priest imprisoned for reading parts of the Bible, just as it was in Stalin's Russia.

How do you know? Are you a scryer? Many things once thought impossible are commonplace today. It's a good thing for us that the people who achieved them did not subscribe to your philosophy. You are asking me to choose between racism and reverse racism? Well, then in the words of Feminists for Life, I refuse to choose! Racism is a complex problem, and like all such problems there are multiple solutions. Some are better than others. Homelessness is a problem. We could round up all the homeless people and shoot them, and this would 'solve' the problem, but it is ethically unacceptable as a solution. If that was the only solution you could come up with, I would say, find another way! The same goes for AA. It's a solution, but it's a very poor one. If AA is the best scheme we can come up with for ending racism, clearly we need to give it more thought until we can come up with a better idea.

It does not promote diversity, it promotes racism. I, for one, would rather work towards a world where people don't care about race or ethnic origin and would judge somebody on their abilities, actions and character rather than skin colour. AA encourages judgement of a person based on skin colour. It makes skin colour a factor in a person's future and fortunes, whether it would otherwise have been or not. It pushes race to the forefront of the collective consciousness, rather than attempting to blind us to race and helping us see the human beings underneath the differing shades of skin colour. It ensures that people will continue to see Black, Hispanic, and White rather than Bill, Joe, and Ray. AA is racist. I am not a racist, I don't like racism, therefore I don't like AA.

Basically, your argument is: When the black man is at a disadvantage, he must be helped. When the white man is at a disadvantage, everything is OK. Are you a Black Panther, militant of the Nation of Islam, or something? Regardless, you still haven't answered the question. I asked you what would be wrong with AA in sports, and you told me why AA is unnecessary in sports. That's an answer to a whole other question. Either you can't or you won't debate me, so there's not much point in continuing this. If you lack the knowledge, go learn more about it, if you're unwilling to debate, why did you come to this forum in the first place?

Why is AA a bad idea in sports, in your opinion? If you refuse to answer this question a fourth time I will take it to mean that you concede the debate.

If you say anything at all in public. Basically, it takes current hate speech laws and adds "sexual orientation" to "ethnicity, race, religion" and so forth. That's all it is, an amendment. All we are waiting on is for the Senate to approve it, but assuming they do, for instance, certain parts of the Bible will now become offical hate speech and illegal. To read those passages of the Bible in public, such as in Church, will be a crime. It will be illegal to discuss the health risks of homosexuality in public. It will also be criminal to object if your child's school teaches them the equality of homosexuality, even if this is completely counter to your religious and cultural beliefs.

It's a bad link. Regardless, the point I was trying to get across is that the UN is essentially worthless if you're trying to arrive at some idea of who is worthy of world attention or condemnation and who isn't. It beats me how Iraq can get 14 resolutions against it and China none, anyway. Iraq attacked Kuwait and Iran, China attacked Tibet and Korea. Iraq tortured and murdered its citizens, ditto for China. What is so much more wonderful about China that allows it to escape world condemnation? Oh, that's right, moral relativism (China doesn't think of human rights the way we do, so therefore let them literally get away with murder) and veto powers awarded to ethically egregious members of a non-democratic institution. Imagine what could be done if the money that's flushed down New York's biggest proverbial toilet every year was put to good use.

Answer the question. Why is AA not a good idea in pro sports?

So, I take it you don't think that AA is a great idea in pro sports. Explain why that is.

Not anymore.

OK. To make this easier for you, let's apply the principle of AA to other fields, like professional sports, to get a paradigm shift and shed some light on the subject. As you've probably noticed, blacks are vastly over-represented in the pro sports of boxing, running, baseball, basketball and football. Since 12.9% of Americans are black, we must immediately start firing blacks from professional sports until we have around 12.9% black athletes. After all, as pro athletes earn so much, it's not fair to deny white competitors this opportunity, based on race! Does this sound smart to you? Or does it sound utterly stupid and unfair?

YES! What's the matter with you? Turn on your brain before your computer, in future. Oh, but he will. That's what AA will do. Don't you get it? Educating them? Pretty much all minorities admitted to college/university due to AA fail the course. They pay their tuition and get nothing. That sounds like more shaft-the-black-man to me - take his money, give him nothing. Employing them? How, by giving them jobs they aren't qualified for and will fail at, so that we can generate a stereotype that ethnic minorities are all idiots and suitable only for menial work? Colin Powell is proof that a smart black man can get ahead. With AA, you'd always be wondering how smart he really was, and whether he was just there because he was black.

Exactly, Ned, and I also find it interesting that these people decry the actions of America's proxies and allies in conflicts and trouble-spots during the Cold War, but have absolutely nothing to say regarding worse atrocities committed by the Soviet Union directly during the same period. They demand America apologise for war crimes their allies committed, but they are either unaware or uncaring that Japan has never, ever apologised for directly massacring 13 million Chinese POWs and civilians. Quite simply, these people see what they want to see, because they are bigoted anti-Americans. In their eyes, America can do no right, while states as egregious as the USSR, Imperialist Japan or Saddam's Iraq are so harmless as to be unworthy of their attentions.

It's an example of the injustice of AA. I'm more interested in your refusal to answer the question, it illustrates how little you've thought your position through. Easy. Right now and in history, blacks have been discriminated against. So now, we'll discriminate against whites to make up for it. Two wrongs make a right, you see? No, it's a promotion of discrimination and the antithesis of the melting pot. It emphasises rather than downplays ethnic differences and encourages people to prejudge and discriminate based on ethnic origin.

Asians, as you've said, have no problem right now. However, give black and hispanic quotas, and they will have a problem. So, as I said, AA will eliminate discrimination against one minority by discriminating against another minority. Does this seem fair? How does discrimination end discrimination anyway? The argument for AA is basically, 'Two wrongs make a right.'

First, you are showing a huge double standard. You demand that the US apologise for its war crimes, but you have never voiced the opinion that Japan apologise for and compensate for its far, far more heinous war crimes (they never did, by the way). You constantly blame the US for its conduct overseas but you have nothing to say about the far more egregious conduct of the USSR. You condemn US domestic policy, and you have no opinion about Soviet mass executions and deliberate impoverishment of its people, except as to say that they really weren't all that bad. They were. Every country has failings, the US included, and obviously it would do well to address them. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, though, the US is the worst country in the world, apart from all the rest of them. Here's my point, Riff. If you were truly interested in international justice, you would be far less interested in pushing for the US to be tried for war crimes etc. than you would be in seeking for Japan, the USSR etc to apologise for and compensate for their past crimes. To use my earlier analogy, I am much more interested in prosecuting and imprisoning serial rapists and murderers than car stereo thieves. It's lousy to have your car stereo stolen, I admit, but which is a greater danger to society - the guy who busts your quarterlight out or the guy who rapes and strangles your daughter? Secondly, why is the US obliged to do anything? If it were obliged to do something for the rest of the world (and as its wealth and power were self-created, I don't see why it should be), why does that not apply to other nations? Many nations have taken a turn at supreme world power, what do they owe the world exactly, according to you? If you believe that being rich obliges the US to better conduct, then conversely, you must believe that being poor excuses conduct. How poor does a nation need to be to be excused Stalin's murder of 50 million Soviet citizens? How poor should Imperialist Japan have been to be excused the murder of 13 million Chinese? Yes, I do. I've studied that aspect of Dutch law. Where you said that if you were vegetative, pull the plug... that is legally binding in Holland. If, in 50 years time you become vegetative, I can use that to kill you, even if you've changed your mind in the meantime. Furthermore, the new Dutch law places the burden of proof on the prosecutor, not the doctor. Basically, unless you specifically asked me not to kill you in writing and never made any request to the contrary in your entire life, I can legally kill you and get away scot-free. Sound good?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/17/hate030917 Well, there you go. For anyone with a grudge against me, you can now report my "hate" posts to the police and have me imprisoned for up to five years. Greg will have them all archived and available to anyone wishing to subpoena them. Does anyone here believe I deserve that, for what I've said on the subject?

Yes, and as I said, 0 against China, despite Tiananmen Square and Tibet. This alone should tell you the worthlessness of the UN as a body of law, and the inherent satire in appealing to this international gang of thieves as any kind of authority. My heart bleeds. I wonder how their treatment in Guantanamo Bay compares to how they treated their own prisoners and hostages?