Rue

In regards to 1 I am a Habs fan. That would cause me problems. In regards to 2, BC, Saskatchewan, Alberta Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, PEI as well as Quebec are unilingual. In regards to 3, I don' think English is threatened in Canada, North America or across the world. If I were you I would take a laxative though. In regards to 4, I do not condone some of the politics in Quebec and the appeasement by the federal government of Quebec on some policies but my criticism would apply to all political parties equally. .You like to define whites as endangered but you then exclude from whites all kinds of whites that don't fit your narrow definition of white so I do not take what you say seriously. I also think you interchange the word Anglo for the narrow sub category of whites you really defend. You can call yourself an Anglo, but I only think you speak for neo Nazis and not any other kind of Anglos.. The fears you have of "whites", (you and your neo Nazis pals) being assimilated, ignores one thing. Its the kind of assimilation happening to other peoples equally. Yah in your crude terms if the natural progression of assimilation continues, we all eventually will me a caramel mix of all features. If you were to take every physical characteristic you associate with race and put it in a computer, which Walt Disnbey studios did to come up with Pocahontas for its movie, in fact looked like Jennifer Lopez. I have zero problem with that look. Zero.

1. Anglo is a not so veiled term for white English Quebecers. It refers to British ancestry Quebecers. French Quebecers don't really care if they stay or leave, what they do want is that they speak French. 2.English and French are the official languages of Ontario, Its a bilingual province along with Manitoba and New Brunswick. Quebec is not. Clearly August does not understand why Quebec is unilingual and what that means. 3. I have no idea what makes a language sophisticated. English and French are simply languages. The word sophisticated is a subjective term and so without being defined further is meaningless. The French in Quebec has many dialects. There is CBC French used on television, there are many dialects. Quebec French can depend on the city, town, region. Its not slang per se anymore than English is. You misunderstand accent or use of certain words. The use of certain words or accents makes the language different then French in Sudbury, Timmins, St. Hyacinthe in Manitoba, the French used by Acadiens or Metis. Doesn't make it slang. It may in fact make the language as its spoken in small towns colloquial or anqituated. It is true regional dialects of French contain language that people in France turn their nose up at. Parizeau the phony head of the Parti Quebecois used a fake Parisenne accent like some snots in English Canada do trying to make their tone of language sound Royal. French in Quebec has lots of regional words but they are not necessarily slang. In fact there is probably less slang in French than English because French vocabulary is easier to abbreviate making slang not as necessary but its there. But to say all Quebec French is slang is like saying the same of Canadian or Australian English. As for language tension you are right its always there. Tourists who do not speak French outside Montreal find themselves faced with hostility when they don't speak French. You won' find that tension in Hull or Montreal but you will find it outside those cities. However Quebecois can be friendly. Its ridiculous to say they all hate English. They appreciate English people speaking French. Whenever I speak French back in Quebec they speak English to me and I laugh saying hey I spent years learning French let me use it and they say no we speak better English stop. Some if it is tension, a lot of it is just showing politeness. Quebecois see their language as endangered-sometimes its simply a fear of assimilation. 4. I lived in Quebec and was born there. I left because although I was bilingual and brought up that way the Parti Quebecois had open anti semites and racists such as Parizeau. Rene Levesque was a genuine person. He was a WW2 journalist who was there when the concentration camps were liberated. He was by no means a bigot. He was a man of the people and very very personable. Very modest. Everyone liked him including us Anglos who disagreed with him. He was a gentleman. He was a federalist Liberal. He was the Energy Minister in Quebec for the provincial Liberals under Jean Lesage. He felt the federal government ripped of Quebec over an energy deal with Newfoundland. Joey Smallwood of Newfoundland felt the same in reverse. This caused Levesque to go separatist. His party had moderates, progressive liberals, conservatives, socialists, it was a hodge podge. You have to understand that before the Parti Quebecois the Union Nationale ran Quebec like a banana republic and this party under Marcel Duplessis used the Catholic Church to control the masses. Duplessis identified with Mussolini during WW2. The sentiment for Quebec independence was a direct result of Americans coming in and running the Quebec asbestos mines their largest industry and making every one feel inferior. There was and still remains as well an unresolved conflict with losing the war to the British. It may as well have happened yesterday. What makes August's comments incredibily stupid if not ignorant and no doubt you will not grasp is Quebec has always had two solitudes as written by so many Quebec writers such as Faulkner and Richler and even Pierre Vallieres when he wrote "White niggers of America". The Anglos of Quebec were predominantly WASP and wealthy and then there were an elite French society. Anglos were WASP with some Catholic in there, French were Catholic. Irish came to Quebec to escape the famine. Their children to be exact were the ones who came. They were orphans and the French Catholic Church arranged their adoptions to French Quebec families who let them keep their Irish family names. Thus for the example the name "Johnson" which using your terminology sounds English but can be very French Canadian. Irish being Catholic were looked down by the Anglo Wasps and French Catholics did not indentify with them unless they spoke French which some did and many later on did not. Minorities such as Irish, Jamaicans/West Indians Chinese Jews, Italians, served as a buffer between the Anglo Wasps and French Catholics. We physically lived in the middle and it was we minorities that made the province multi cultural. We were a melting pot. Both sides discriminated against us forcing us to become independent and never dependent on either. Being a minority meant bigoted comments by the WASPS and French Catholics equally. This notion Montreal was a wonderful tolerant city is a crock of crap. It was always political. In fact it was the Montreal Canadiens hockey club that kept all Quebecers united, nothing else. Hockey took on mythical levels of unity. It literally meant the same thing to us all and when you walked in the forum, it was not just a place of hockey it was a passion play where we all agreed and for that 3 hours shared a dream. In Montreal you wore that Habs uniform whether you were Anglo, Irish, French, you were a God. That was our true religion that kept us from a civil war and the Richard riots shows you just how serious hockey was in terms of what it meant to the identity of Quebec. When the Quebecois came in they engaged in systemic discrimination using the protection of language as a cover for institutionalizing discrimination against anyone other than a French Quebecer called a purelaines. That meant you had to be descended from someone white from France. It meant if you spoke French but you were an Arab, a Haitiens, an African, a Vietnamese, a Jew anyone from a French speaking country that came to Quebec you were NOT excepted and you still are not. There is a kind of open racism in Quebec that is permitted as its couched as support of protecting Quebec culture. If the NDP leader thinks he can walk into Quebec and get votes from the existing NDP voters I myself think he is in for a rude surprise. I think Trudeau is counting heavily on a Quebecois vote and minority vote in that province and usually those two votes are polarized. Anglophones in Quebec preferred the Liberals federally but next time around I would not be surprised if many more vote Conservative. All that said, Montrealers like me die Montrealers. Its always in our heart. I love Montreal, I have zero problem with Quebecois wanting to speak French-I do think however some Quebecois are bigots like you Taxme and hide it. In your case you call it protecting endangered white people they call it protecting endangered Quebecois. You both suck as far as I am concerned. You both hate people for the very same reasons. That said, I happen to think there are a lot of good Quebecois who have contributed to Canada and been at the forefront of progressive laws. I respected Rene Levesque because he never once like Parizeau or some others in his party engaged in bigotry and took on his partry's bigots, Parizeau was an anti semite racist pig. Daniel Johnson Jr was a good Premier. The guy now in Quebec is trying his hardest in a province that is known for corruption and stubborn unions. I want Quebec staying in Canada but its taken more than its given in federal payments, that is a fact. Quebecois the ones who do all the talking about separating are two faced. They have no problems collecting federal benefits. None. That said French Quebecers fought in WW2 although many were known for resisting the draft like Pierre Trudeau. The VanDoos (22d regiment) have a proud history and still do. I have no problems with Quebecois asking me to speak French. No one forced it on me. I wanted to speak French. Its just common courtesy. Most Quebecois I know spoke English. All we minorities left in the late 70's because the economy collapsed and there were no jobs for us and discriminating against non Francophone names was acceptable in those days. However I have as many Quebecois friends who had to leave to for the same reason Ironically French Quebecers have always done well when they leave Quebec. Its the separatist ones remaining behind that didn't do as well. Quebec universities were always excellent, i.e., Laval, McGill, Universite de Montreal, Universite de Sherbrooke, Concordia, (originally Loyola and Sir George Williams), then Universite de Quebec. Universite de Montreal had a leading medical school with world wide fame in Neurology.

As you are aware he ignores anything asked that he can't answer with some superficial name calling, then and simply repeats his false assumptions again . His technique of using close ended questions that make false assumptions that conclude the answers also speaks for itself The thread was in fact an attempt to canvass opinions that reflect his own. Offering him an explanation other than the one he wants to hear is pointless. If someone tells me they know the truth I simply say, yah so do I, so they should do their fly up.

The first question is illogical. The comment Omni provided did not suggest nor does it infer, imply or automatically mean the same conditions had to exist. The comment was made on an erroneous presumption based on the questioner's inability to understand what Omnui said and I would suggest summarizes what the questioner has done throughout this thread-demonstrate an inability to understand basic fundamental science posed to him that repudiates his assumptions and when caught unable to respond, name calls then circles back, and repeats the same defective assumptions and inferences. In fact the second and third comments are in fact close ended questions which by their very wording preclude any answer but the one the questioner wants to hear.

Alice in Wonderland. Need I say more.

Interesting comment. Sorry just read it. I have a question for you and Michael Harder. If what you say is the case why do so many people blame advertising and the media for the negative impact they have on peoples' moral values? If as research has shown advertising can influence and manipulate our decision making choices as to what we purchase why can they not influence us to purchase things that change us socially? Could it not be that constant advertising that depicts same sex couples or interracial couples makes people more willing to accept such things and so this changes people socially in that manner? I do understand many say, advertising simply is picking up on and reflecting the values of the day its not initiating new ones...but why not both? That's the million dollar question. What do you call the music industry using Pat Boone, Elvis Presley, Justin Bieber to sell music to whites that was clearly black music remarketed to sell to whites? Cigarette smoking surely was a social change ushered in by movies and then t.v. and advertising?

I don't deny science. I and others do challenge what you claim is science and what you claim is objective proof of molten-vaporized steel and for the record among many pieces of evidence used to counter our theories was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0 Clearly what you pose as facts on this forum are not, they are subjective theories not proven by science or any existing evidence and they are defective and full of errors and inaccuracies and they were already directly responded to and repudiated not with subjective theories but science. When presented with science to prove your theories are not possible you did not respond, you in fact changed the subject. Now I responded to someone else not you. That's because I find your contributions about as useful as a blood clot. Run along and play conspiracy with someone who cares.

Interesting he's too politically appropriate to use the word white. Can you imagine if I suggested the new NDP leader got elected because of the concentrated Siekh vote he was able to get in his 32,000 phone in votes.

The only thing Trudeau centres around is his reflection of his image. I'd start a revolution just don't show up in your land rover.

What the phack is an urban Anglo vote? Does it have two humps or one.

I will try respond to your comments and questions. The fact that reasoning may be illogical (i.e., make inferences or assumptions without proof) doesn't make the thinking "correct" or "incorrect". The "correct"/"incorrect" reference you make is as to you projecting on to me that I judge you as being "incorrect" or "correct". I don't judge what you say. What I do take note of is when you make conclusions as to things that have not yet been proven or assume correlations between phenomena where no connection has been provided. Whether you think you are "correct" or "incorrect" I leave to you. Next you misquoted me as to wrongful convictions. I never stated ALL wrongful convictions have been deleted or undone. Convictions when based on objective evidence as I stated, i.e., dna, are usually foolproof unless the criteria is/was tainted, i.e., false labelling or contamination and this is why I argue its much more preferable to have as MUCH objective criteria as possible before rendering any assumptions about anything. The wrongful convictions you may be referring to happened and happen because of one of two things. In one category are Judges who apply a law incorrectly and that illegal application is subsequently challenged at higher level of courts and if truly misapplied such convictions are thrown out or amended. The other category are assumptions juries make. Juries on t.v. are depicted as making decisions based on subjective speculations presented by lawyers screaming and demonstrating in front of them. In reality the Judge has to give a lecture or direction to juries before they deliberate and in fact censors or advises them not to consider any evidence that has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt if its criminal and on the balance of probabilities in civil trials. It is possible although it is very rare today, you can put someone away criminally without sound overwhelming evidence despite t.v .shows. It's possible people mistake identities or police plant evidence but lawyers are trained to pick apart eye witness testimony for discrepancies today. In regards to planted evidence it is possible. That said, the evidence you talk of that proves erroneous is interpreted SUBJECTIVElY by juries in an incorrect way precisely because as you saw in the OJ Simpson trial they don't understand scientific "objective" evidence. So your comments that I said wrongful convictions have been eliminated is false. I did say thanks to much more improved objective criteria like dna and other forensic sciences, we are taking a lot of guess work out of evidence that once because of subjective speculation led to erroneous convictions. As a result of that I said your example of wrongful convictions in fact contradicted your contentions because it in fact shows if you read the wrongful convictions that have happened, they come about because of erroneous conclusions based on subjective speculation not understanding and analyzing objective criteria and so to answer your last question I come on this board to challenge people like you in debate to read articles other than the ones you "find" interesting. I also challenge you to go back to the article you claim "objectively" shows airplanes could not have knocked down the towers and challenge yourself by asking was the article you read in fact "objective" or "speculative" and are there other articles that have presented "objective" evidence that have stated otherwise and contradicted the one(s) you read using applied physics and other scientific formulas such as the melting point of steel and the properties of steel when heated. Next you need to actually read the tobacco cases or say the Ralph Nader class law suit against the Pinto. In those cases, the Plaintiff or lawyers doing the suing, not the Defendants had to come up with the objective evidence. In fact in the tobacco cases if you read them, the tobacco industry for years did NOT present evidence smoking was safe. It never did. You are absolutely wrong. They simply argued and it is there in the case transcripts, that there was NO evidence smoking was dangerous. The Defendants had no need to initiate evidence. They never did. Their job was limited to trying yo repudiate or poke holes in the Plaintiff's case and had the Plaintiff's case only been speculative or subjective the tobacco industry would have won. You clearly don't understand how a civil trial works. In a civil trial the Plaintiffs have to present on a balance of probabilities sufficient objective evidence to prove their point smoking was dangerous. Then and only then, after satisfying that onus of proof, it then switched to the tobacco industry to prove the evidence presented was defective. The tobacco industry never advanced evidence smoking was healthy. They tried to argue the objective measurements used by the Plaintiffs were defective, inaccurate, distorted. In fact the Defendants and Plaintiff engaged in a very slow, tedious exercise of step by step analyzing each method used to determine levels of toxicity and probability. So with due respect you just did not get it. The tobacco industry never presented or used proof smoking is healthy. They simply argued there was no proof it was unhealthy. This was similar to the class action law suit started by Ralph Nader who argued the design of the Pinto, the Maverick and other vehicles raised the rate of probability of certain accidents and not only that but the car industry knew this. In fact insiders leaked information that showed the car manufacturers knew their designs were unsafe and increased the isks of death but they calculated the wrongful death law suit amounts from such deaths would be far less than the profit made to manufacture the cars using inferior safety features. Likewise in the tobacco case, whistle blowers presented evidence showing in fact the tobacco industry became aware of a direct correlation between lung diseases and smoking but did the same calculation as the car industry and determined the amount of wrongful death law suits would be so much less than the profit made in making and selling cigarettes it was something they could live with. Dow Chemical when it manufactured silicone transplants sat on evidence saying they knew a certain amount would leak inside female bodies and kill such people but again they determined the amount of wrongful death law suits would be far less than the profit they would make. It could be that some buildings have been designed with compromised safety features we may never know about because the construction people hid what they did. I have seen in construction law suits compromised qualities of cement, steel, and other materials because bidders who needed to undercut other bidders to get the contract made unrealistic profit margins and so to try regain the profit margin compromised the materials to save money. It happens. In the case of the towers, there is no evidence to suggest there was cost cutting in the design of the buildings that made them less safe. I leave that to others. What I have stated to you is there is nothing that has been presented that proves the theories you present or think are "objective" in fact just the opposite. What I am also arguing is that you and I have NO clue as to the actual intricate maze of scientific phenomena that goes into constructing and taking down such buildings. Our knowledge yours and mind comes from reading what? Some internet articles? What I have argued is we live in a world of complex phenomena that requires expert evidence and we get to the point where we have to delegate our knowledge to expert evidence witnesses. So you and I don't have a clue. We have a series of information we are given. The internet provides us information in neat simplistic sound bites lending to the illusion we have the whole picture needed to make a conclusion. If the evidence you needed to understand was put before you, do you really think you'd find it interesting or even understand it? Conspiracy theories are interesting. Actual objective scientific data on the other hand can be boring and mundane, i.e., countless calculations, actuarial tables, data that is dry and tedious to read and very difficult to decipher unless you have specific training in quantitative analysis. I came on this forum to say I don't doubt you think conspiracy theories are interesting but I challenge you to not think because you find an article interesting or agree with it, you can stop right there and make conclusions as you have, Now you stated I contradicted myself because I told you if you truly are interested in seeking :knowledge" to stop closing your mind down to things you don't agree with. You also suggest I contradict myself because I don't accept subjective speculation and "what ifs" as proof of anything. That is illogical. I simply have suggested what you may appear to conclude as truth may not be. It sounds to me like you are "not" interested in "uniteresting" opinions, i.e., ones that don't conform to your bias that you believe some conspiracy is beyond the towers collapsing. Indeed from the sound of your responses to me it sounds like the purpose of your response to me now is in fact to say you feel you have sufficient objective evidence and why the hell am I questioning such evidence as if the only reason to be on this thread is to agree with conspiracy theories. No this is a debate board, it encourages us to challenge not just agree on opinions others state. I am here to say you need to do a lot more research then reading some internet articles you find interesting before you start throwing out conspiracy theories you can not in fact prove to get to the bottom of what you think may have happened. Also if you start off with a pre-ordained assumption as to what happened it will distort what you think you see and read and give you tunnel vision and an inability to see anything other than evidence you think proves the patterns you think exist. I have zero opinions on 9-11 other than I have yet to see one piece of objective criteria to prove the buildings were taken down by a controlled demolition let alone George Bush or the illuminati or shape shifting aliens or Lindsay Lohan or Harvey Weinstein.

In regards to your first question, its pointless. Until something is verified objectively there is no way to know if the comments made regarding it are true or false. Your next comments about me buying into an official storyline is a false assumption and its also illogical. You have not defined what this "official story line" is, nor have you provided the basis of how you decided its "official" let alone I buy into it. As well at no time did I state or define myself as "right" and "wrong" that is your projection. You then made reference to "thousands of examples" of wrongful convictions and claim this makes your exercise of posing unsubstantiated speculations valid. That is illogical. If anything you have proven improperly proven assumptions or theories lead to erroneous conclusions. If anything you've given an example or a warning why speculation without objective evidence is dangerous. If anything dna tests or other objective measurements, now undoe the damage speculative evidence leading to wrongful conclusions in the absence of objective evidence once rendered. You also referred to smoking. It was precisely because there was no objective evidence and people engaged in the same exercise you do, assuming things are true until someone proves them wrong, that until medicine could show objectively smoking and cancer were tied together , the false claims smoking did not cause cancer could not be repudiated. You have given yet another example of just how dangerous lack of objective evidence to disprove something being speculated can be until that objective evidence is found. You completely missed the point. The tobacco industry argued until smoking was connected to cancer they could speculate on what ever they wanted. In law we have to prove things we can't just throw something out and demand it be assumed truthful. In criminal law we mist prove beyond reasonable doubt, in civil court, on a balance of probabilities. The fact is not one conspiracy theorist can prove on a balance of probabilities let alone beyond reasonable doubt, their theories. If that was the case they would have sued by now or pressed criminal charges. In regards to your comment on government I do not understand it I have no idea what scenarios you presented, to which governments you presented them and how you determined the government never heard or considered these scenarios before you brought them to their attention. Finally information can be released to the public or remain classified depending on the nature of this information. A lot of information is not disclosed to the public not because its part of a conspiracy but because it deals with privacy information regarding an individual, and that individual's privacy is to be protected. Some information is not released to the public due to national security reasons and some of it of course is kept classified to avoid political controversy or unnecessary damage to diplomatic relations. It would be safe to assume not only I, but you, haven't a bloody clue of what actually happened at 9-11 and that is precisely why you feel it your right to speculate. For me that is an illogical assumption. For me the fact you do not have the information the government has does not mean your speculation created in the vacuum of lack of information is valid. For me its called hysteria. I often see people who do not understand things become hysterical. They react with emotions, denial, anger, conspiracy theories and find others out like them and amplify each other's feelings of impotence by forming conspiracy groups of like minded believers who then feel acknowledged and empowered by their group. To me that is just primal pack behaviour associated with homo sapiens and all apes. I don't need an alpha male ape, other apes making me feel secure and in the know. It sounds like you might. Truth to me is an illusion. Its simply the subjective opinion of whoever poses as the truthsayer. For me and many like me who don't like organized groups leading our faith beliefs, we believe truth is not an absolute, its a path of constant journey and our reality, our perception of meaning and reality constantly changes in shape and meaning as it flows like a river. We don't try hold water in our hands. We don't try claim to contain the water from moving to achieve knowledge. We believe knowledge flows and reveals itself with constant evolution in movement. You dam water, you can only do so temporarily, it always ends up back to when it came or is destined to go. We can like beavers damn water for a temporart shelter but no beaver believes they are above the rules of nature. Their dams eventually break down-they are not permanent structures. Don't kid yourself. The structure you think you understand is not solid. You are trying to build a house with sand in a flood plain.

The articles you refer to that in your opinion raises " interesting" discussions are "interesting" because YOU are interested which is a euphemism for you agreeing with the articles' speculations. Likewise the article you refer to as "good", because you agree with it so call it "good". Unfortunately the speculation in all the articles you have raised has been debunked. The problem with this thread and discussions on conspiracy theories is that with due respect, people like you read articles that subjectively speculate about what "could" have happened with ZERO objective evidence. It sounds possible to you so you find what's speculated "interesting" or "good". It does not make the articles you read either interesting or good to me or others. For me and others we need OBJECTIVE evidence not SPECULATIVE theories. One of the problems with this thread is its initiator has shown repeatedly he presents subjective speculation as objective fact and his own emotional feelings as "truth". When responded to with objective evidence that contradicted what he quoted, he then engaged in name calling as he continues with Omni showing he can not emotionally detach himself from the issues he discusses. His words also show he will in fact quote a subjective opinion or theory and claim its a fact. Now in your case you are on a forum and respectfully point out speculative theories you like which I get. They actually have been addressed on this thread and others. We tend to talk in circles as the same issues get repeated over and over in circles. You of course should try challenge yourself to consider other articles other than the ones you read. With due respect there are other articles other then "how stuff works" . "how stuff works" is designed to simplify engineering and physics concepts-it might be the answers you are not considering are not in "how stuff works" because such articles aren't designed to provide the complex formulas you would need to understand to get a full picture. Also the problem with theories is until proven with objective testing they remain unproven and thus they fuel continued discussion as people argue since they can't be proven, they can't be disproven and rely on that fallacy to keep repeating them. Consider this. We know it is human nature after a disasterous event to try make sense of it. Our minds are designed to see patterns and if need be make patterns out of chaos. Its called apophenia. We see faces in clouds. We want to make sense of what would otherwise make no sense. We create conspiracies or theories that connect the dots in what otherwise seems like a disconnected series of dots. Its what we do. Its why we created religion-to fill the void for phenomena our 5 senses and mind do not seem to otherwise comprehend. Conspiracies like religious values give us faith in what would otherwise seem like hell, chaos, insanity. The fact is and its very hard for some to grasp, not all events happen in a logical, pre-ordained series of planned thought. We want to believe their is intelligent design behind everything. Certainly when we study nature that most often is the case. Its marvelous actually to see the intricate connections between different life forms and how we all are dependent on one another and what a beautiful maze of interaction it really is. In that sense it proves what some like to refer to as "God", an order behind the order and chaos too. There is no reason to disbelieve intelligent design in nature or even in many human actions but stop and think, do you really think all humans are as planned and organized as you give these alleged conspiracy creators. Do you really think with the extent of inter-dependence required to carry off the conspiracies some believe, they could possibly remain secret or not go as planned or did not happen the way you want to see them as happening? The reality is you live in the world where the media, mostly your cell phone and internet is your path of knowledge. How many books does anyone read? Who are we kidding? Is the generation depending on the internet and cell phone for their thoughts connected to their inner selves spiritually or in any way? The average person takes a cell phone or internet, reads a few articles, picks the ones they like, and then they feel they have a base of awareness to then conclude not only what the truth is but a platform to scorn and insult others and pose themselves as prophets like Hot Enough. :I can only tell you what I know having worked inside government. Its not organized. Its chaos. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Bureaucracy is such that there are excessive layers and departments or compartments of people who have no clue what people outside their jurisdictions are doing. Government is sometimes like a comedy of errors its so poorly organized. When things do break-down and they do, civil servants run for cover erasing any trace they had anything to do with the trouble. Often that is what outsides see as conspiracy when its simply inept bureaucrats covering their asses. Rather than repeat the contents of this thread, all I will say is in conclusion, your theories have been responded to and explained if you want to find them and you may wish to consider the articles below: https://psychcentral.com/lib/patterns-the-need-for-order/ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html

Gotta agree with the last 2 posts of Bush. That said I think had Trump not shot his mouth off against the kneeling it woulkd have run its course. I think he deliberatelyl used it as a distraction to other on-going issues and it galvanized his base of supporters.He knows how to wind up his followers make no mistake. He's playing the same game in reverse. I don't consider kneeling a big deal. Turning your back on the flag, giving it a finger, refusing to come out for the anthem, maybe. Kneeling is actually a way to make a point without being too disrespectful, Its not a fist which some know doubt would have had a field day with. That said it will spread to basketball, hockey and baseball if its not resolved and people like Trump don't lead they exploit divisions. He's a demagogue.

Lol stop that. No Di on the first one, and forgive my snot tone its not meant to be when I am responding to you I sound like a snot face, what I am saying is how do we answer why crimes are done without analyzing their motive...that's the point I and others are making. The others have said the same thing. Now I tell you what. If I ever have the audacity to compare my removal of foreskin to a mutilated clitoris I deserve to have you kick me in the testes. That said I am trying to be careful here. I am well aware its not just practiced by Muslims and for that matter I do not claim its wide spread all over the Muslim world although I am aware of its practice in Northern Africa and Somalia. I did believe it or not go to a conference on such practices as part of training in the job I was in. Abusive practices are brought with people based on their culture and religion. We all know that. The issue I have is if the message we give them is an unrealistic one about adjusting such practices once they get to Canada, they will persist. Its about cultural and religious values that continue to motivate people's behaviour and actions that clash with Canadian laws. In Israel the family laws allow Muslims and Jews and Christians to opt out to their own religious courts. Because of that certain kinds of domestic violence and discrimination against women over property rights disputes arise with existing Israeli family laws for non religious citizens which is the majority of Israeli Jews in Israel. This opt out system has made it easier for certain kinds of abusive behaviour against children and women to continue to placate orthodox religious beliefs of all 3 religions. Let me give you another example. When I do a group session some men will justify their hitting or pushing their wife saying in their religion/culture that's how its done. They openly question our criminal and family laws and see no need to change to conform to them. I hear it. I listen to it. I have to challenge it and tell these men, you aint in Pakistan, youy aint in India, you aint in....whatever. To deny their is no correlation or over look the cause and effect of such values being brought over is not logical in understanding and trying to contain such behaviours. In the Somali community in Canada its still being done back in Somalia and in Canada and by untrained women. I've seen the girls when they are done with them. Many of them hemmorage so bad they are lucky to live. Others grow up mutilated with horrendous scars. Its all done in the name of their religion. I am not talking cosmetic surgery. Tell that to the ignoramus Ghost. This is not about ear piercings or removing skin. Its about deliberately mutilating genitilia to prevent women from any vaginal sensation. The fact I even have to explain that on this forum to Ghost is ridiculous. Is it the same as the Burka. Well no. Wearing a Burka does not mutilate anything but its part and parcel of a value system I don't agree with and its not just in Islam as I have said. I reject absolutely the Orthodox Jewish concept that sex should not be pleasurable and you only do it to reproduce. I have a problem with many religions that teach the body is evil and sex is evil. I also think absolutely mainstream Islam and Orthodox Judaism have values I reject out in the open about sex and women and why-because if someone did that to my daughter I would kill them. You know I am always gonna be honest with you with these topics and say it like it is which is what I am doing. I just think sometimes you are a bit soft on certain things Islam can lead to in terms of behaviour. I get you on not unfairly stereotyping I really do, but on this kind of stuff, uh I make no bones in saying some things I am not going to respect or show tolerance for. I don't claim to be a liberal. I try be respectful but hell no not on specific religious practices like female circumcision. By the way knowing what I know about cervical rates of cancer in women and the correlation to a reduction in it with circumcised males, I would do it even if I was not Jewish. Also lol, I do not believe in ear piercings and tattoos for basic personal reasons. I don't impose that on anyone. Hell people diddle with their bodies. Who cares. Lol I had a great friend who was an English teacher and he pierced his breasts and his magic wand and when I was in the shower with him and others after a work out I had everyone laughing because I was repeating to him over and over, "that's just wrong son, its just wrong wrong wrong take those damn things out before you get them caught in yer zipper. I am sorry Dialamah but turning one's ding a long into a shower curtain rod is just wrong you know? You better be friggin laughing. This topic has gone to the dogs and Besty is probably gonna wash my mouth out with soap.

You just had to come back hmmm. Foreskin is not and has never been a reproductive organ. Cutting it off does not prevent reproduction. Its not a reproductive organ. Its not genitilia. It may be attached to genitilia but removing it in no way compromises the penis or mutilates it or decreases sexual pleasure. You are well aware foreskin is skin and cutting off foreskin and mutilating clitorises are not even close in consequence or nature. Your pathetic attempt to suggest cutting foreskin off is genitilia mutilation speaks to one thing and one thing only-your pathetic attempt and obsession with trying to show me up. It was pathetic Now like I said if you can't tell the difference between cutting off your foreskin or cutting off your dick then do both. Use a chain saw.

Speaking of moron. What I said is and I repeat you don't arbitrarily get to decide when Islamophobia started in any sense. That is your fabrication. Its a meaningless time line you made up. Next if you can't tell the difference between Islam and perceptions as to people's secondary physical characteristics it further evidences what a moron you are. Next you invent as you go along based on your subjective and limited focus on what you read on the internet. You are no historian, theologian or geneticist. What you are is some asswipe who thinks the world begins and ends with what you state.

He is well aware of your answer.

No its not that its not prosecuted enough. Its that people feel their own personal religious or cultural views take precedent over pre-existing Canadian laws. Its the same reason some men come to Canada and beat their wives and then say in their religion or cultural that is acceptable. People bring values with them that are not compatible with pre-existing Canadian ones. If we teach them their cultures are just fine, come to Canada and retain all your values and religious beliefs you bring with you, if they get that message, they are not going to feel the need to change and assimilate to certain Canadian values. Why skirt this friggin issue. Its obvious. People are not stupid. When they come to Canada if they are given the message they don't have to change, they can be whatever they want, Canada tolerates everything. then it means we will tolerate female circumcision. You think Justin Trudeau is standing at the airport or borders welcoming in the wave of people coming saying " Uh people, uh now u remember uh, no female circum uh cission uh when you are uh in Can uh duh u h. Can we stop skirting around the issue of this message we send that we are all things to anyone coming to Canada. The fact is the liberal message Trudeau presents is a lie. He's setting up people coming to Canada to fail in understanding what our values are. he's not willing to honestly discuss the limits of democracy and what we will NOT tolerate. No liberal wants to photo op himself saying anything that isn't feel good. Now how hard is it to admit certain religious or cultural practices are not compatible in a democratic progressive society? Its very hard on this board because when its done its called Islalophiobia. Is it always? Am I islamophobic because I challenge and call out Muslims whose religious practices condone it as being criminals? Am I an Islamophobe because I don't believe in multiple wives, defining women as subordinate or challenging the concept of a kafir (kuffar) in Islamic religion? Why is it when people challenge Islamic beliefs contrary to democratic values we hold as laws and basic rights in this country its Islamophobic. I am not an anti-Semite because I disagree with Ultra-Orthodox Jews that wear black bear hats or insist their wives cover their real head of hair in public. I don't think such values are conducive to a modern democratic society thank you. I don't agree with the Catholic Church's concept that women can not be Priests and Priests can not get married. It doesn't make me a Christianaphobe thank you. If someone murders someone because of a religious motive, yes I want to know.

It many cases its done on very young females and they can bleed to death or die of infections. He knows damn well what the difference is between cutting off a foreskin and mutilating a clitoris. Its bloody pathetic he even attempted to walk into that one. However I already answered it fully expecting it. These discussions always revert to some sad man needing to trivialize female circimcussion and turn it back to a discussion about their own foreskin anxiety. Godess penises make us do damn predictable. We can only point them in so many directions.

Because its vague and ambiguous and does not help explain the motive behind the acteus reus (action of the crime). Motive or mens rea in latin is the key in analyzing when and why something is called criminal. To understand why people commit crime to try prevent it, we need to understand when we can what motivated them. This is why we have criminology, abnormal psychology and the concept of iegal incapacity a defence to crime. This is why some crimes you allow a mens rea defence and others are what we call absolute liability offences (once you are shown beyond reasonable doubt to have engaged in a specific act, there is no need to show motive as well). Also there are limited liability offences where you only have a defence of due diligence Its essential to how Canadian criminal law defines crime. Not all crimes are treated the same way by the Criminal Code. Understanding the nature of the crime determines the nature of the defence and severity of the sentence. So for example a hate crime is not the same as a jay walking offence which would in fact not be a crime but a Highway Traffic Act offence which is a provincial offence and not a crime. With jay walking its an absolute liability offence. Once a police officer shows you did it, there is no defence. Your only defence is mistaken identity. With a hate crime, which is in fact a crime under the federal criminal code, motive is the key. To prove hatred, you have to show more than just words but a specific intent to engage in or incite a negative act against someone because of their perceived identity, i.e., skin colour, religion, gender gender preference.

You asked a question I already answered. You tried to engage me in passive aggressive baiting to sugest an equivalency between male and female circumcision. For that you should be treated with contempt. Again you engage in baiting to mock female circumcision as something no different that removing some skin and then pose yourself as a victim.

Thank you. He can really be an ass sometimes.

I already answered. if you really can't figure out the difference between a female circumcission and a male circumcission how about you lock yourself in a room and cut your dick off. That will answer your question.

deleted I am having problems editing.