Rue

For someone why plays the unfair victim of wrath you dish it out again insulting nd showing your ignorance and disrespect of Y's opinion. You falsely misrepresented what he said and why he said it. The law already deports non Canadian citizens who deport a crime. Your reference to the law needing to be more selective means what....go on Argus...just once tell everyone your criteria for selection.

I stand by my words. You now playing the victim and trying to deny what you said is to be expected and sad.

You now try back track and claim I have misrepresented you and that you never contended Muslims should be banned unless its a last resort. The wording you now useisctgat we should screen potential immigrants, or failing that simply no longer take immigrants from those regions. Given the totality of your responses and comments about Muslim to date the above attempt to restate your position is a little late and I will like you say....let other people decide from the totality of your words in responses, what your positions are. You also again engage in a device to avoid culpability and responsibility for your subjective remarks by claiming you only repeat the opinions of others, i.e., and I quote: `Merely cited opinions which said so...`Your subjective remarks I have challenged were never sourced or cited as you are well aware. Next, on the one hand you state: `` Never said any such thing. Go ahead. Cite my actual words instead of your twisted interpretation`.. but earlier you stated, `No one needs you summarizing every goddam word I've written and opinion I've given. ` I summarize what you said and am specific about what you said precisely because you deny what you say or claim you said things you never did to try back track on what you originally said. Everything you have stated that I challenged I have given clear and proper reference to. As well for someone who complains I have misrepresented him you have now stated and I quote: ``your previously expressed outrage when I said that the Muslim world has a deep strain of anti-semitism ``You merely expressed your outrage I had dared to write it. `` My words are there for all to read. Never have I debated you or challenged you on the fact that many or all Muslims may hate Jews. What I have challenged and you now ignore is there for all to read. You now engage in name calling. Well do so. It means nothing but I sure as hell will call our your words when they are hateful or exploit or mistate anti-semitism as I have.

To summarize you have in your responses presumed OP to lecture me and Jews and others that: 1- we must assume the worst in all of a people if many or some of that people engage in evil; 2-engage in process 1 to assume all Muslims have negative attributes undesireable in Canadian society and so we should ban Muslims from Canada; 3-that we Jews and our leaders who disagree with you as to 1 and 2 are afraid to be called Islamaphobic and are dupes of Islamic extremists. You have also evidenced in your responses to me: 4-you have no basis of extrapolation for any assumptions you have made to assume the negative generalizations you have made and you continue to be unable to understand your conclusion that we should hate all Muslims because many of them hate us is not based on denying many hate us (that was never challenged) but that it makes no logical sense because it simply generates the same hatred back in response, i.e., negative generalizations to rationalize discrimination against an entire category of people. Further and ironically you claim your Muslim adversaries hate in disprorportionate amounts, but you do the exact same thing by assuming an entire Muslim population is undesireable. In addition, you started off claiming Muslims should be banned for being more likely to be terrorists and then when provided counter arguments to show you had no statistics for that justify such assumptions you deflected and switched the focus to having us believe your true concern about Muslims and why they shoudl be banned is because they hate Jews so you now present numbers showing Muslims hate Jews when that was never the issue of this thread or contested. Interestingly you have never come on this forum once and started a thread saying lets said ban anti-semites from coming to Canada It is only when challenged about your negative generalizations about Muslims, you then raise dit, and then only in relation to Muslims, no other peoples. So Argus. You would have us believe what...that you are so concerned about Jews in Canada this justifies your negative stereotypes of Muslims but no other anti semites? I call that out and challenge you for using anti-semitism as a shield, a pretense an object of exploitation to justify your own hatred of Muslims. You don`t speak for any Jew about anti-semitism and your presumption you can dictate to me or any Jew why we are hated let alone why we must hate Muslims or anyone is the kind of presumptuous and patronizing tone that gives birth to hatred and negative generalizations and so policies that led to residential schools or the holocaust and so many other acts of legislated discrimination. Further your previous denial of anti-semitism and its role in enabling Nazism and then trying to back track saying oh you didn`t deny it, just caled it secondary shows your ignore of Jewish history and anti-semitism you presume to lecture about. Secondary..you called it secondary...bull shit, you only called it secondary after being called out and when you did that you showed you continue to trivialize anti semitism and what it is capable of doing and how the thought process is no different from the one you are engaging in now. Most ironic is you quote Pew Polls to justify hatred. Long before the Pew Polls kept track of anti semitism in geographic locations the ADL has been doing that. You presume to tell me and Jews we do not know what the ADL is or the statistics it keeps and what they mean? You claim to tell me or any Jew how we must use those statistics ... The ADL was created in 2011 by a lawyer to combat thought processes that led to the discrimination and hateful attacks against Jews. Its mission was to expose this behaviour these thought processes as negative generalizations made to define Jews as less worthy, human, equal, than non Jews. That mission of the ADL was never limited to just understanding how it impacts on Jews BUT all peoples targeted with hatred. The ADL has been a strong ally assisting Christian, Muslim and all kinds of religious and social groups defend ourselves against hatred. Because it does, because the B`Nai B`Rith does as well, because Jewish leaders reach out to Christians and Muslims and others to combat hatred, this makes us dupes of Islamic extremists...why because you say so...you would prefer we build walls and define entire peoples as undesireable. In your world, you try place yourself in an anti-septic bubble where everyone believes like you do and that makes you more educated than I. In conclusion, your words simply repeat your bigotry against Muslims Argus and Jews and anyone else who disagrees with your beliefs. You want to come on and piss on Muslims, that is your right. Its my right and the right of others to challenge your negative generalizations as being illogical and unhelpful in understanding what criteria would be needed to properly enunciate immigration policies. Yes we know you are quick to be able to say what is not Canadian but never once have you come on here and say what it IS to be Canadian. Your silence in that regard I would contend shows you can`t create concepts or beliefs you only know how to tear down or piss on beliefs.

First off calling me a liar or angry and getting personal simply shows me you are angry and still unable to substantiate your previous subjective generalizations so deflect from this failure with name calling. In this latest response to me you now make unsubstantiated sweeping absolute generalizations that Jews are afraid to be Islamaphobic and our leaders have fallen for Islamic extremist propaganda. Oh do please provide the names of these Jews, the names of the Jewish leaders you speak of and the statements they made or other evidence you obtained from them illustrating your conclusions. What I do know Argus is you continue to utter absolutes with no qualifications or substantiation if any kind. It comes in each and every sentence you respond with.

Wes I deleted my response. I just saw yours. I agree obviously with you on not using public funding in a way that discriminates..To think you call me cranky. Lol. Crotchety is the word. Hey I annoy myself. I send you plenty of likes and Argus in spite of some disagreements. Its all good. Its just debate. I mostly agree with you and Argus anyways. On Trump I deferred to criticism from you. Its all good. Dia and I debate..its all good...

Sexual violence is a phenomena in all countries. It is true in Sharia law nations, their lack of distinction between state and religion enables sexual violence to be institutionalized as law. However we know there are as many if not more people in India and China where sexual violence also occurs. For that matter what is our excuse in the Western world where we claim to know better and have laws illegalizing it? If you want to have a salient discussion on violence against women, yes it is crucial to understand the role of religion in promulgating it and this how it arises this way in Sharia law states but to isolate it as only a Muslim phenomena for me makes a mockery of the issue. The issue arises because of we men and how we choose to behave and Muslim beliefs are not the only reason we are violent against women and for that matter not all Muslims interpret their Koran to condone rape or violence against women. I criticize Islam exactly the way I do Orthodox Christianity or Judaism when it comes to treatment of women for the same reasons. Wie beaters use all three religions to justify their behaviour. That is the point. Next Islamists take the Muslim religion and use it to promulgate extremist, totalitarian, fasist, hateful, terrorist, anti-semitic, anti-woman, etc. views. Islamists are a people who take Islam and mold it for those kinds of beliefs and so in a salient discussion I differentiate them from other Muslims who may not share their views. As for discussions on the Koran I see very few if any on this thread. Instead it focuses on current Islamist extremists and how they behave not the actual words of the Koran itself and how they might be interpreted. The fact is few people have read the Koran. The fact is most people do not understand the Koran is not in chronological order and that the later entries of what Muhammed supposedly said changed earlier entries but do not follow in a chronological order so many of the passages read were clarified or no longer apply but remain in the Koran. The Koran like the Bible is second hand writing. Muhammed supposedly said things in his sleep and it was written down on leaves by his wife and then re-written. No one has a clue what Muhammed actually said. Given Muhammed smoked hash hish and usually was talking in his sleep stoned when his wife wrote down his words, they probably were subject to distortion and then when re-written subject to more distortion. So the Koran like the Bible is nothing but passages written by ghost writers who may or may not have taken original stories and then edited and re-wrote them. Some people now read these second hand passages literally. Others see them as parables or illustrations of a lesson being taught and subject to many meanings not just one literal meaning. In Judaism the Talmud is a code of argument to be used to interpet the Bible because each passage of the Old Testament is not supposed to have one meaning and be constantly debated to come up with new meanings depending on the context in which these words and the rules they offer are applied. The context of how the rule is to be applied, not the rule itself, is what gives it, its meaning. Many Christians or Muslims do not engage in this fluid constant challenge as to the meaning of passages depending on how they are applied. They simply see a one size fits all meaning of the rule. Others do not and use processes similar to the Talmud to constantly debate new meanings. Some Jews also get caught up using the Talmud to advance rigid inflexible meanings. The meaning of any word ultimately is something humans come up with on an individual level then pass on to others who can choose to agree and follow them or come up with their own. Religious discussions ultimately come down to how people come up with and hold the interpretations they do and why. You can constantly seek new meanings or applications of a rule, or use them as a one rule fits all formula. I believe in the former not the latter. I do not think any meaning can fit all circumstances or applications and must be constantly challenged and up-dated to have meaning and not become obsolete. I do not read any words of any human claiming they are an absolute one size fits all "truth" to be anything but their subjective human opinion. I do not believe I or you or anyone speaks for "God", "Jesus", "Muhammed". We might think we do, but we do not. No one appointed us divine prophets. We are just humans with subjective opinions, some based on objective tested and validated criteria, some simply based on feelings or impulses. This thread ocus on current Islamist extremist behaviour and the evil it does. I get that but it does not discuss the possible meanings of the Koran or the many different approaches to the Koran that do exist. I think the reason no one has a discussion about Koranic passages and their possible interpretations is obvious. Most people have never and will never read the Koran and do not think they have to, to understand it or believe how other Muslims use it...and thus the generalizations which often portray all Muslims as having one way of thinking and no different from the Islamists. Ironically most Islamists are not even religious let alone understand the Koran they claim to be inspired by. Been there done that. Al Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihadist, PFLP, oh I have had the pleasure of hearing their words. They are rigid, programmed cult followers. They do not think on their own. They are fueled by basic messages of hate that appeal to their primal pack mentality behaviour and need to follow the alpha male into a pack battle against another pack of apes. Chattering apes is all they are. Sometimes however we simply form our own pack with out own alpha male to chatter back to them. Extremists tend to incite other extremists to fight with and against them. The whole point of containing extremists is to prevent their behaviour from spreading and in allowing a lack of reason and logic to govern. To do that our containing agents need to be more than reverse extremist terrorists-they need to of course physically contain the extremists which may require deadly force, but our agents can not allow themselves to get suckered into becoming the very thing they seek to contain. A millitary or para military agent must guard against extremist and brutal tendencies lest it become terrorist itself. Therein lies the debate,. People who support extremism say the people who try contain their views are the same so it makes their extremism o.k. Some who are against extremism, believe as long as extremism is used to counter extremism its o.k., it has a reasonable purpose. The fact is extremism is illogical. The fact is replying to extremism with extremism may simply add fuel to the fire not put it out. This is why those of us debating extremism must challenge our concepts not to take on the very characteristics and traits of the extremism we detest. That lead to the challenge of how to discuss the Koran with Muslims so as to nurture beliefs and values compatible with humane values we all have. I have had some circular and very difficult debates with some Imams on Koranic passages...partially because there is no centralized or universal application or interpretation of Koranic passages and Mullahs and Imams have different interpretations...some very rigid and orthodox and hateful, others very enlightened and peaceful and inclusive. Then again that happens when we Jews or when Christians discuss our religious teachings.

Actually I took the time to provide further info. The issue only pertains to Amidyah Muslims not all Muslims and as you can see from what I shown, its not just particular to them but other religious and ethnic or social groups. I think you should understand some of us disagree with you on your political views or maybe some or many of the Muslim precepts you uphold, but do not confuse disagreements with you as meaning all Muslims should be defined in general negative terms and that when we talk of any people we need to give some consideration to the generalizations we make. The question is do you or I engage in the same exercise Wes does in other posts. Probably. We all do it on discussion forums when expressing views or opinions. I challenge you and myself as much as I do Wes. Generalizations can blow up in one's face.

ws.ca/news/2187517/toronto-city-councillor-says-muslim-only-subsidized-housing-is-acceptable/ This article mentions a Christian-only building but it's not subsidized housing. There's a huge wait list for subsidized housing in Toronto but you have to be muslim to live in this 14-storey building. I am updating and editing my response as others already stated the concerns with segregated housing. I also tried to find more up to date information. What it appears is if you go to all the web-sites from the City of Toronto on eligibility for housing there is NOT criteria for being entitled to housing based on religion. What does exist is the following if you go to the web-site: https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/employment-social-support/housing-support/rent-geared-to-income-subsidy/mandate-housing-providers/ ..something called Mandate Housing Providers. When you look at it you will see that there appears to be Amidyah Muslims on that group but many non Muslim groups as well meaning the segregation going on with Amidyah Muslims is not going on with other Muslims and is not specific to just Muslims or Amidyah Muslims. So once again if we are to have a salient and reasonable discussion about this issue then let us be clear-its not specific to Muslims and it raises an issue as to whether not just Muslims, but artists, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Macedonians, Germans, Chinese, French and Christians, who its also provided for should be allowed special requirements be accommodated that might cause their housing to be segregated. The issue raised as it is makes it appear only Muslims receive this treatment. It is yet another example of why I challenge Wes or Argus. They throw out stories of Muslims without proper reference and context and the only conclusion I can draw from it given its repetitive nature at this point its its deliberate and designed to incite emotionally negative responses to Muslims and I for one took the bait until I took the time to read further.

I am not sure what Walmart security policies have to do with Muslims needing to be banned in Canada from entry but I can say this...what a lovely drift, Lol. I was referring to the snow fall.

The same as your comments about the media on this thread it responded to-nothing at all.

Your need to pose as being more educated than me only serves to show your insecurity and inability to challenge opinions other than your own with civility. Your spin on the residential schools speaks for itself as does your other response to me denying the role of anti-semitism in helping the Nazis gain power and go on to inspire and implement what they did. Your attempt to deny you speak in absolutes is fun. Please show where you have qualified your negative generalizations. You made a false sweeping statement that all Muslim countries make it legal for husbands to rape wives. When shown a list of Muslim countries you then did not qualify your statement as being incorrect, you chose instead to denyTurkey is a Muslim state. Please do advise Erdogan of that. I also noted you ignored your other absolute false statement that these listed countries make it legal as well to beat wives and now your latest false absolute statement that homosexuality is a capital offence in these countries. You again provide no substantiation of your legal opinions you simply continue to make false absolute statements and contend such statements not substantiated and shown to be false are qualified. Do explain how unsubstantiated claims are qualified without substantiation. As for your point yes I get it.. as I am sure others have...you feel the need to keep throwing out unsubstantiated negative accusations about all Muslims to defend banning their entry to Canada..even to the point you now try revise and deny that the purpose of residential schools and the advent of Nazism were not predicated on negative generalizations about religion and culture. Got it and thanks. Your reminder you do not like Muslims is most helpful when discussing government policies.

You again respond to an accusation you claim I made I did not make and again provide fragmented subjective opinions as to your perceptions this time of the media. Thank you but I have not debated them nor do I care to. By the way it's nice to know your thoughts are divine and not influenced by any media especially Fox t.v.

Your first comment is an attempt again to be insulting showing your insecurity. Then you respond by making the ridiculous unsubstantiated accusation that Jews assisted the decision making process of placing aboriginals in Christian reform schools. Provide the proof for such an absurd accusation. More to the point even if it was true you contend what exactly...that Christian's can not question their past behaviour and neither can Jews? You clearly knee jerk respond at this point trying to deflect from the point made to you that you have no way to defend. Negative generalizations put aboriginals in these schools using a cognitive process no different then the ones you now use against Muslims. Your attempt to suggest Jews are no better than Christians not only does not address the issue but shows how insecure you are and so how absurd your responses have become. No one and not me suggested Christians were or are worse than Jews.

Are you capable or willing to ask yourself the same question? You ridiculed my words when I opined that I have worried about the evil within myself and the evil in all of us. Everyone of us with evil also has the ability to be good or a peacemaker not just a terrorist. You describe yourself as a man of reason with no fear of being violent.May I suggest such personal references are pointless and not germaine to the subject matter of the thread. Your need to point out Eye is wrong and therefore you are right can be easily rectified-stop looking in the mirror.

First off I have a life and so do aboriginals who now you think you can talk about and criticize as you do. You again do what Argus does. You state subjective anecdotes as the basis for your conclusions about another people. That is not logical. Its just you expressing your attitude about aboriginals. Thank you but what happened to your family or how you were brought up would be germaine to your values it does not explain the values of aboriginals, simply your basis of stereotyping their values negatively. If I want to understand their values I speak to them directly as a starting point. Then I look to objective criteria from science to also help explain natural phenomena they discuss with animals or the environment or read old laws and study history and see many perspectives as to what motivated people to make the decisions they did in Canada in the past and now present.

In regards to 1, you provide an absolute rejection of the role anti-semitism played in Hitler's rise to power and unification of his people without any basis. You again state an unsbstantiated subjective opinion or assumption without any basis pronouncing it as an absolute fact. Your ignorance speaks for itself and I will not in response attempt to debate well documented history but limit myself to a few references to show yet again you make comments that are patently untrue or inaccurate: https://www.ecronicon.com/ecpp/pdf/ECPP-08-00467.pdf In regards to the second comment you introduce "attitudes" as a component from which to justify prohibiting all Muslims from coming to Canada and you claim the using of such "attitudes" or Pew Polls of attitudes embracing logic. So now you would have us believe basing conclusions on "emotions" is logical. So of course, based on that, because the majority of Germans who would have been polled during Hitler's peak of power loved him, what he did was acceptable. Now all we have to do, when defining morality and what is right, is to base it on the popular attitudes of the day according to you, for that is logical. Mob rule is logical. An attitude by definition is in fact a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone else reflected in one's behavuour. So according to you as long as that settled way of thinking is expressed by a majority, it automatically is logical. That makes no sense because for something to be logical it must be shown to have been based on reasoning, i.e., a principle or axiom based on a validated cause and effect. Something being widely held does not make it valid. Group hysteria for example is a classic form of a wide spread belief that is not based on logic or reality. This is precisely the phenomena Hitler and Goebbels used to whip his followers into a frenzy at gatherings. It is precisely the behaviour that led to followers whipped up by Priests during Easter to rush out and burn down Jewish villages because the majority were told Jews killed Jesus. This is what enabled Germans and so many other Europeans to gas and kill Jews, because they believed Jews were not human. It didn't make it logical simply because it was a wide spread view. I have to even explain that to Argus? Then Argus claims I do not engage in logical and evidence in my thinking because I ask him to provide a basis of validity for the comments, generalizations, suppositions, assumptions, negative stereotypes he makes and the conclusions he draws from them? Because I ask him for an objective basis for his conclusions this is illogical? Then wait, I read the comment "the experience of Jews in Europe is unimportant". There you have it. The fact that the exercise of negative generalizations led to anti-semitism which led to over 2,500 years of killing Jews and leading to extermination of 6 million of them, not to mention triggering a World War and using the same exercise the extermination of Jehova's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, gays, socialists, other principled Christians fighting Nazism because of their Christian beliefs or saving Jews, that all means nothing. Righteous gentiles mean nothing. Holocaust survivors mean nothing. Wars mean nothing. Why we so easily create massive scales of hatred that kill people whether they be Ukrainian, Irish, Armenian, Abriginal, Yazidi, Kurd, Bahaii, Zoroastrean, specific types of Christians or just Christians in general, Wiccans, visible minorities for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, oh hell it means nothing. As long as people have a widely held view we should negatively hate an entire people. its fine. Why question it? What could be possibly wrong with that? Yah I know, you don't operate that way. That is clear.

In regards to 1 your attempt to spin the purpose of the residential school system in Canada is noted. Some of us would state instead that the residential schools were in fact government sponsored Christian religious schools created to focrefully remove aboriginal children from their families, existing school systems and culture because it was felt their aboriginal values were undesireable for a Canadian to have based on the assumption that dominant Christian values were superior and the proper Canadian values to have. The fact you white-wash it should be no surprise to anyone. 2. Your second comment makes no mention of the fact that Canada only made it a crime to rape one's marital spouse 26 years ago and it still is not a crime to rape someone in North Carolina or Oklahoma and to put someone in jail for raping their wife in the following US states it must be linked to another crime, its not a stand alone crime..Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming? Do you want to discuss how few convictions there are in Canada because of how problematic it would be for a spouse to accuse their other spouse of rape and so you have no clue as to the actual rate of marital rapes in Canada or any other non Muslim country as compared to any Muslim country? In fact you have no objective basis to extrapolate anything about marital rape rate sin any country. You can't even provide a reference to where you concluded there are no marital rape laws in any Muslim country. Not that it matters but in Indonesia (most populous Muslim country) , Benin, Bhutan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Mauritius, Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Turkey, Niger, Sudan,Qatar, it is illegal to rape your wife. Since you brought it up here are countries that are not Muslim that have no laws against marital rape-are you concerned about getting immigrants and refugees from these countries as well?..the Bahammas, Botswana,Cameroon, Cambodia, China (which by itself has more people than all Muslims in all countries combined), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Congo, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, India (it has almost as many people as the entire population of world Muslims), Mynammar, North Korea, saint Lucia, Sri Lanka, Tuvalu, Uganda. Provide the reference for the 3rd sentence and claim. The 4th sentence is yet another unsubstantiated claim that is false. All the countries I listed for example under the above reference to marital rape, also have references to battery that do not exclude husbands. In regards to the fifth sentence...gays are being beaten and discriminated against in many non Muslim countries, starting with for example, Russia, Uganda and Jamaica? What is your point? In regards to your references that Christianity has allowed progress and Muslim has not are you now saying there are no progressive or moderate Muslims? In fact you again clearly demonstrate above you throw out subjective negative stereotypes to negate all Muslim people. Your accusations are not even substantiated. Then you accuse others of drivel. You just engage in bigoted rants at this point. You can't even be bothered before you spew off at the mouth to research a damn thing such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_laws_by_country In regards to actual Islamic religious laws on marital intercourse I provide people this reference: https://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewFatwa.aspx?ID=6033. Again no one on this board is arguing Islam is being practiced in a sexist manner or manner many of us would find questionable. What I am challenging is the exercise of unsubstantiated negative accusations thrown out that necessarily ask you to stereotype all Muslims as thinking in the same way and behaving the same way.

Eye..I do note .these references to wrong or right thrown at you So..with that said..I say to you...when you disagree with me and we will you have nothing to apologize for. Question and challenge every frigging word I say. As for this thread, it started off pointing out negative behaviour of specific Muslims in Canada linked to immigration and refugee policies and look how far the thread has drifted from the actual topic-that is because the original premises is not sustainable. The crowning achievement on this thread for me Eye I believe was when I was told in response to and for debating Muslims should not be negatively generalized by the behaviour of a minority of them, was the comment of a reference that suggested my argument but then mean most Germans were good people during WW2. Yes Germany was a civilized nation. It was a nation of artists, scientists, scholars. Imagine anyone thinking it would produce Nazis but it did and precisely because it did it showed "good" or "civilized" people quickly turn into indecent inhumane people capable of carrying out a holocaust precisely because they bought into a group cognitive process that made sweeping negative generalizations about a particular people to justify dehumanizing that people as a way to unify the majority and get them to follow their leader by making themselves feel good about themselves by having a targeted group they could all hate. The lesson insight that poster did not grasp from Hitler was that negative generalizations make it possible and easy to dehumanize and hate the targeted group to then make it so easy to kill, hurt or discriminate and become the very terrorist or Nazi we claim to fight. For me the pith and substance of this thread and its not a matter of being right or wrong or politically correct, is how we rationally create government policies or deal with terrorism or security issues without engaging in exercises that could turn us into the very terrorists or Nazis some refer to. This is why I find it strange being a member of a group who were mass exterminated because of negative stereotyping, someone would claim we Jews should know better and should negatively stereotype Muslims because "they" hate us. For anyone to tell me I should repeat the exercise with anyone else after what happened to my family is absurd and you need not apologize. You get that.

Actually I agree with it. I should have been clearer. You need to struggle to provide it. It can't just come without effort and overcoming evil or some other challenge. That struggle is what teaches its meaning and makes it positive. Hey about that other issue. Money changer, money lender. Interesting the difference in words. I know the Bible says changer but as you know the changers lent money and charged interest when they changed it. To me if you follow the gospels about that which I can see happening given he appears to have defended the Talmud consistently especially the concept of Teekam Olem (healing the world through positive deeds) he was challenging the concept of wealth itself and what makes one wealthy-the amount of money they accumulate or have or the good they can do for others and the world in general. That is the point. Wealth we as know it you and I is measured in how much good we do not how much money we earn. Has anything good come from charging interest and changing or lending money? We haven't used it as an exercise to share but to hoard and accumulate and charge others for what we accumulate and they need. His teachings talked of mutual exchanges not supply and demand allowing one side to dictate the terms of exchange. It gets down to this I think-is Christianity or for that matter Judaism compatible with supply and demand exchanges and market places? Another thing. I do understand that in Europe because Jews could not own land or engage in certain professions they were forced to become money lenders out of necessity but it was soul rotting. To have to do that for a living ate up the Jewish soul. It is why perhaps when we Jews did get the opportunity to do other things- we may have excelled because we know how horrible it is to have to do other things out of necessity to survive in the immediate tense and not be able pursue the meaning of life on a higher level of sharing.

Interestingly usury and charging interest two noteable things Jesus is said to have questioned would make perfect sense. It had nothing to do with Judaism. In fact if you follow Judaism as originally intended you share what you do not need without placing conditions on the sharing. The person you share with would do the same thing causing a society of constant sharing not accumulation. That concept of course today would prevent the very basis of our materialist free enterprise system and would probably be called collectivism or socialism by many. Animistic peoples such as the aboriginals in North America and aboriginals of Australia and numerous peoples in Africa practiced it. Materialism and free enterprise are thought to be as ancient as humankind. Some anthropologists would disagree saying free enterprise occurred when alpha males lost control of their packs and dominated the method of how goods were distributed among a pack. An Alpha male would eat first, then his mates and their offspring, then everyone else in a pecking order but in that primitive set up survival of the fittest was assured with limited resources. That system was not free enterprise. Free enterprise only occurred once there were enough resources to accumulate unevenly. In societies with extreme shortages of resources free enterprise becomes impossible because no one can afford the few resources there are Its interesting because Jesus if he did indeed challenge the money lenders was defending basic precepts in the Talmud as to how to interpret charity and benevolence. At the pith and substance of his fights or disagreements was someone trying to defend the religion from going astray to the changes being implemented by Priests. The thing is in Judaism there is no one approach that is supposed to prevail. We are supposed to constantly debate and come up with new interpretations and each and every word of the Torah, Talmud, Old Testament. There was no intent to come up with a one size fits all interpretation as do many Evangelical or Orthodox Christians. I think the Bible's New Testament diverged from its actual teachings to an edited version that makes it seem Jesus was a totalitarian demanding no one question him. I think in the original context if there was a Jesus (as opposed to maybe more than one rebel Rabbiah placed in a collective metaphor called Jesus) it is most likely he would have expected debate and constant challenges to his concepts and would have welcomed them. I of course lean towards words and concepts of James and others I would argue were deleted because they did not lend themselves to one central organ demanding people obey blindly but taught of being religious or spiritual on an individual level and through individual actions to help others as creating those concepts, not just words. I don't think a lot of people would very much appreciate the implications let alone having to practice the actual beliefs of Jesus. I think they would find it in today's society unrealistic. The very notion of helping people is confusing in today's society as well because many people demanding help won't help themselves or others and a key to the concept is those of us needing help should still help ourselves first and continue to help others and not believe since we need help, we suspend the rest and simply demand help. Its why for me when I see one of the few remaining charities I think is teaching a practical application of Christianity, the Salvation Army, I note they do not require a person in need to be a Christian to be helped by them, they do not place preconditions on the person but they also expect that person to make some effort to help themselves and others if they want help and in so doing they do not rob them of their souls. If you give to someone and in so doing teach them however unintentionally they do not have to be responsible for helping themselves or others, you molest or injure or even destroy their soul. I believe Jesus taught as did so many others that even the most in need humans want to have a purpose in life (dignity, self-esteem( and our purpose in life is to create meaning from chaos and struggle of the evil and good within us to create something positive for other life forms. If by helping others we rob them of that, we molest them not help them. Giving must be done with no method that prevents the person we help from helping themselves. That is a huge lesson many do not follow who claim to be charitable. Another example of a charity who follow what I say are the Unitarian Service Committee. I could name many Jewish charities and Christian charities that do the same but space does not allow but the point is they do not require you to be Christian, or anything else, they simply help you in a way expecting nothing in return but in a way that assists, nurtures or helps the person in need help themselves NOT simply be a dependent victim. I think usury and lending money came about because of an unequal distribution of resources and was a socio-economic caused deviation away from the religion. I just can not see true Christianity approving of the wealthy large organizations that now claim to speak the name of Christ. I believe the religion was supposed to be like the Bhuddist or Daoist approach, a disciplined method of thinking and valuing that occurred through meditation not going into a large building designed to make people fear and feel small in the face of a God that is portrayed as demanding things through the Jesus liaison turning Jesus into a person who demands on behalf of this God. I am aware of the reference to what Christians call Satan in the Old Testament, but in the Old Testament that angel was placed in the role of a tester of faith on behalf of God. The idea of disobeying God still would occur ultimately in the Old Testament with each individual in the story not just the tribe they may have led. I think the personification of evil and good in human nature in Jesus and Satan as two human figures representing it assist making an abstract concept easier but I myself do not see the evil and good in any human dictated by or controlled by anyone but us ultimately and inevitably on an individual level when we make our choices. Some people believe we have no free choice and are trapped in a hell dictating our choices and we live therefore in an illusion, a trap created by Satan, and to get out, we must turn to ourselves and realize everything is a lie and so it doesn't matter what we do, we need to protect ourselves. Thus we have all these cult following twits in Hollywood celebrating what they think is an Illuminated savior, the true Jesus not the one they were told who they believe is Satan. They believe their illuminated savior is the real Jesus or symbol to get out of hell and they are in the know and smarter than we idiots. Then again some believe shapeshifting lizards control us all. Me I take one thought at a time. I watch the simplicity of free thought take shape in the here and now and watch the past, present and future, cease to have meaning. As one gets older that happens. They realize the current moment is the all or nothing of the essence of life a movement and transfer of energy constantly changing shape and dimension with each new application or synthesis of conclusion that comes from thesis and anti-thesis contradicting one another. To live is simply to share positive energy, to spread hope even if it seems hopeless-again the message of Jesus and many others and one of my favourites Anne Frank.

I am 63 so am not comfortable with people young enough to be younger or similiar in age to my daughters which means under 35. Of course younger women are attractive physically but there is more than just that. Intelligence, humour, good hygiene, are important. I find Jane Fonda still hot. Bottom line I prefer dogs these days as companions other than my wife. They are like me..we bark and drool but are loyal to my wife.

What racism..you and Boges automatically call racism if something negative is said about Markle. Her mix is not the issue her being a pretentious phony is. She married a dim wit thinking it was her ticket to money and found out the life of a Royal is not what she thought and wants to live far better than what she would have in the UK. The Queen handled her perfectly. Buh bye and take the dummy with you. Harry will be divorced in a year and come crying back to Willie and Charlie. She will end up doing porno movies. She comes from the same escort agency as Melania Trump. Both are Epstein call girls. Racism my ass. She is a call girl who got called out. She is no victim just a diaper rash. Nothing some zinc oxide can not handle. Saint Meaghen, right.

Here is other info for your interest on this topic: "We believe that the mass of information gathered sheds new light on the phenomenon of Islamist violence. It makes it possible to better describe it, to better understand it, to document its severity. Thus, by way of illustration, we can establish that between 1979 and 2019, at least 33,769 Islamist terrorist attacks took place worldwide. They caused the deaths of at least 167,096 people. We can also say that Islamist terrorist attacks account for 18.8% of all attacks worldwide, but that they are responsible for 39.1% of the lives lost due to terrorism; or that, during the years studied, there has been an intensification of this violence and that the deadliest period is the most recent: from 2013 onwards, in our opinion, Islam has become the main cause (63.4%) of deaths due to terrorism in the world. We identify and quantify operating methods and targets. The vision of the phenomenon improves, the image becomes clearer. In this way, we show that the majority of the victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims (91.2%)." source: http://www.fondapol.org/en/etudes-en/islamist-terrorist-attacks-in-the-world-1979-2019/ The above info many would use as a reason to hold the views Wes does. I get that. Where I ask for further debate is on the conclusion above that says "Islam has become the main cause of deaths due to terrorism in the world". Interestingly the above author used the term "Islamist" when describing the terror attacks but then later went on to say "Islam" became the main cause of deaths, not "Islamism" or "Islamists" or "Islamic extremist views" were the main motivator of deaths due to terrorism world wide. It shows the author like most of us non Muslims interchange the word Islam with types of Islamic beliefs that are used to justify terror attacks as if they are one and the same. But are they and does it matter to distinguish the two? Here is the issue I now raise restated at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/when-a-phrase-takes-on-new-meaning-radical-islam-explained.html "Let’s start with the words. “Islam” is a 1,500-year-old religion whose 1.6 billion followers worldwide observe a spectrum of customs and traditions. “Radical” can mean something very different or against tradition, or be defined as extreme views, practices and policies. The words, absent political context, could be read as trying to distinguish fringe interpretations of Islam, including justifications for violence, from the mainstream majority view, which is peaceful. But that context — including who shouts the phrase and who studiously avoids uttering it — has ladened it with pernicious meaning in particular quarters." Then we get into the response Wes and others will give me as to the above that says: (source: https://areomagazine.com/2017/04/25/islam-vs-islamism-why-the-distinction-still-matters/ "Much has been said regarding the terms Islam and Islamism. Some argue the distinction is an artificial one, imposed by the politically correct Left. Others stress it is essential to distinguish between the religion and its violent imposition so that Muslims are not indiscriminately condemned with a broad brush. " and this is why the above article went on to say: "To rely on the simplistic assumption that people are guided exclusively by “holy” texts, on the other hand, is to ignore the multi-faceted nature of our modern problem with Islamic extremism. It’s also a bit like saying video games are what make people kill — it seeks an easy scapegoat. While not denying the role religion plays in terrorism, we must be aware that there are other factors at play that make the distinction between Islam and Islamism especially important." This is also why not just myself but the Jewish community contrary to what Wes or others may think do not necessarily fear Muslims. Consider these comments from the Anti-Defamation League, ( https://www.adl.org/education/resources/tools-and-strategies/myths-and-facts-about-muslim-people-and-islam) an organization we created to combat anti-semitism but we also use to help us combat discrimination against non Jews, including Christians and Muslims: " Within every religion, there exists a spectrum of attitudes and behavior and extremism is not unique to one particular belief system. There are people who sincerely view themselves as Muslims who have committed horrible acts in the name of Islam. These people, and their interpretation of Islam, is rightly called “extremist;” they are a minority within Islam and the vast majority of Muslims reject their violence and consider their interpretation a distortion of the Muslim faith. Extremism is not unique to Islam. ... It is important to keep in mind that Islam, like other Abrahamic religions, includes a large pool of opinions and different ways to understand the traditional holy text that was written in a different era. Terrorists use radical interpretations of Islam, which take a small number of texts that were meant to regulate warfare in the early days of Islam. Terrorists then apply these interpretations to contemporary times." This is why I and others argue the problems or fears Wes and others are referring to come from Islamism not Islam, that is to say: (source:http://www.danielpipes.org/954/distinguishing-between-islam-and-islamism) "Islamism is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology). It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards non-Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the West. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an ideology.... Islamism is, in other words, yet another twentieth-century radical utopian scheme. Like Marxism-Leninism or fascism, it offers a way to control the state, run society, and remake the human being. It is an Islamic-flavored version of totalitarianism... In this, Islamism is a huge change from traditional Islam. One illustration: Whereas traditional Islam's sacred law is a personal law, a law a Muslim must follow wherever he is, Islamism tries to apply a Western-style geographic law that depends on where one lives. Take the case of Sudan, where traditionally a Christian was perfectly entitled to drink alcohol, for he is a Christian, and Islamic law applies only to Muslims. But the current regime has banned alcohol for every Sudanese. It assumes Islamic law is territorial because that is the way a Western society is run." With the above in mind, if you take the time to distinguish the two, then I and others argue, when you go next to try implement policies dealing with people you think are dangerous to Canada, i.e., radical Islamists, you do not confuse them with other Muslims who are equally as victimized and hated by radical Islamists and more importantly understand, an actual follower of Islam not radical islamism, would not impose his beliefs on you, they are his or her personal code of behaviour and Muslims like we Christians, Jews, Hindus, have different views as to how strict or fundamental or orthodox they are when practicing Islam. There is no one centralized thought in Islam. Each Mullah or Imam has their own interpretation and people practice it in a wide variety of ways and so for people like me who have lived with Muslims more so than most Canadians and also have witnessed terrorism or lived with it unlike most Canadians, I have a different perspective that had to come up with a more complex way of understanding who might kill or not kill me and it sure as hell could not simply assume all Muslims are going to kill me otherwise I could have never walked a street ever in Israel. If we construct policies that properly identify what it is we think we fear and rationally examine those fears then I and others argue, your policy or approach to what you perceive as a threat changes dramatically if for no other reason it now switches to rational response, not subjective reflex response. This then leads me to argue instead of blanketly prohibiting anyone from being an immigrant or refugee because you think they are a Muslim or for that matter terrorist: make a point to differentiate Islamists and Islamism from Muslims in discussions of challenging using Islam to rationalize terror; form alliances with Muslims to challenge and contain Islamists or any other violent totalitarian extremists to reduce their aggressiveness towards all of us do not be afraid of all Muslims particularly those who came to Canada to flee Islamists and reject their views do not assume those of us who are not anti Muslim are pro Islamist or label is with any other simplistic stereotypes such as being politically correct or trendy leftist, in fact trendy leftists are more likely to support Islamists the refugee definition in Canada needs a re-visit for many reasons but not simply because we allow Muslims to be refugees our immigration policies contrary to popular belief try to recruit immigrants who match needs we need filled in Canada but can't find in Canadians-contrary to popular belief most immigrants can not and will not take jobs away from Canadians, they take jobs no Canadians will immigration policies have a point system looking for qualifications based on objective criteria the deficit Canada has incurred will require people to pay taxes and increasing taxes into the system to pay not only that deficit but keep our public systems functioning -our current population base can not produce sufficient numbers of people to pay those taxes so we have no choice but to bring in new workers when defining Canadian values, define what they are, not what they are NOT otherwise you have NOT defined Canadian values and the confusion as to what our values are remains as we continue to be unable to say what they are policies must be based on objective criteria not subjective feelings or assumptions police and security checks on anyone coming to Canada can not be based on someone's physical appearance but on carefully defined criteria designed to detect possible security risks, i.e., it must be based on forensic criteria not negative stereotypes of what people believe, wear or eat.

Here I think this is the best way to answer the above and it is an excerpt from: https://www.csis.org/analysis/islam-and-patterns-terrorism-and-violent-extremism "It is far too easy for analysts who are not Muslim to focus on the small part of the extremist threat that Muslim extremists pose to non-Muslims in the West and/or demonize one of the world's great religions, and to drift into some form of Islamophobia—blaming a faith for patterns of violence that are driven by a tiny fraction of the world's Muslims and by many other factors like population, failed governance, and weak economic development. It is equally easy to avoid analyzing the links between extremist violence and Islam in order to be politically correct or to avoid provoking Muslims and the governments of largely Muslim states. The end result is to ignore the reality that most extremist and terrorist violence does occur in largely Muslim states, although it overwhelmingly consists of attacks by Muslim extremists on fellow Muslims, and not some clash between civilizations. If one examines a wide range of sources, however, a number of key patterns emerge that make five things very clear: First, the overwhelming majority of extremist and violent terrorist incidents do occur in largely Muslim states. Second, most of these incidents are perpetrated by a small minority of Muslims seeking power primarily in their own areas of operation and whose primary victims are fellow Muslims. Third, almost all of the governments of the countries involved are actively fighting extremism and terrorism, and most are allies of Western states that work closely with the security, military, and counter terrorism forces of non-Muslim states to fight extremism and terrorism. Fourth, the vast majority of Muslims oppose violent extremism and terrorism, and, Fifth, religion is only one of many factors that lead to instability and violence in largely Muslim states. It is a critical ideological force in shaping the current patterns of extremism, but it does not represent the core values of Islam and many other far more material factors help lead to the rise of extremism."