SirRiff

thats a rather pathetic strech...his western deputy before he becomes PM said one thing and this means Martin is an alien? this is why the liberals dominate, people dont want hysteria in the PMO sirriff

i get to decide what is proportion to bigoted backwards fear inducing idiots who claim vast gay conspiracies. if he wants to be treated nicely he can go to the sourthern US states or somewhere else where its more tolerated. this is canada. the vast majority of canadians want a tolerant and open soceity accepting of all cultures. so its every proportionate to call a moron and moron, because we take equality seriously. how exactly would you know what gays and liberals do? i am neither gay nor a Liberal member and i dont really care what people who call themselves conservatives do. i care about the elected mp who makes up scare stories in order to incite fear and hate of canadians citizens who just happen to be gay. when you start spreading lies about gays, when you start claiming they should be considered criminals for no reason, when you are a part of the canadians government, then for all the above reasons you are subject to any reaction canadians deem if. if you want to bash gays names in your house, or with your friends, or with like minded people, that is your right. our country chooses however not to let that individual right infringe on the quality of our nation by allowing hatefull individuals to spread fear and hate reducing the qualify of lives of all canadians. this same sort of hate and fear seem only to stem from people who claim to be "Traditional" or "religous", whatever that means these days. you dont see the Canadian Civil Liberties Association saying that it should be illegal to be religous. believe whatever you want. but as their own philosohpy says, "The Freedom of no one is safe unless the freedom of everyone is safe". gay bashing is really just a way to get attention and further your own goals these days. some people can shift blame onto gays and feel empowered. and some people use it to get elected and make $$ i guess. sirriff

its a damn form of MEDIATION!! if one white christian guy hits the car of another white christian guys on a country road, the can choose to settle the problem privately. one guy can say the bible says to feed as gift, so he can offer to feed the other guy a home cooked meal. so they both eat and the damages are settled. thus it was mediated privately. if they choose to formalize the process they can do so under religous justificaiton or moral justification or rural country jsutification. the important this is the courts will allow private parties to mediate disputes so long as they do not contradict canadian law. in truth there is much litigation that does not belong in the courts already which hurts the quality of justice we see. there is tons of stuff that doesnt even need to be litigated. so once again, this is just a form of private mediation which is allowed in canada. nothing will be allowed that contradicts the Charter or the canadian justice system. white guys can just as well choose to mediate a car accident if they wan to as well. and a large group of people may choose to more formalize this mediation process for their own benefit. lets review; the canadian justice systems still reigns supreme... private mediation is allowed and may actually benefit canada. anybody realize that we already have 2 forms of law in canada? the british common law system and the french civil code in quebec. we are reasonable intelligent people, we can deal with it while maintaining charter protection. sirriff

CNN reported today that experts searching for WMDs are more and more being reassigned to gather intel on the resistance. also the general in iraq said they have not found any alqueda links in iraq since the beginnig of the war. obviously it was all a lie. sirriff

several news organizations are reporting it was bushs chief of staff andrew card who suggested it, that bush had to be convinced to do it, and that his main concern was about being forced to turn back. its obviously a pathetic PR stunt. just like the aircraft carrier photo op that died a horrible death. i just think its distastfull for anybody to profit of this, but especially the man who ordered the war. a real man would take the criticism but pass on teh glory. that is what leadership is. sirriff

ok Alliance Fanatic, i make some pretty bad typos and spelling mistakes, but that is the most garbled start to a post i have ever seen. and i think you may be getting fresh too.... why do you always have to compare this kind of things to someone else? its a sure sign of having no real conviction if you cant claim you are right or wrong or whatever without having to bring others into your problem. if someone says they believe the only true "marriage" in the traditional religous sense is between a man and a women, thats one thing. if you have to complain and point at others and how the big bad liberals and Will and Grace made you do it, it just becomes pathetic. spencer is a moron. anybody who wants to make being gay illegal in a free nation is an idiot. anybody who blames the advance of an open and tolerant society for hetero men and hetero women failing to stay married is dumb. anybody who claims they speak against gays becuase of 'health issues" is fooling themselves and not very convincing either. and anybody who thinks that marriage is anything other then a man made social custom that sprung from primative human society is smoking pot. if you just dont think its right, thats fine. lets just not try to invent rational reasonable reasons. sirriff

it wont. canada is a modern democracy which has intrinsic protections against rolling back into the middle ages. read the charter or rights and freedoms to see what canada stands for. sirriff

Morgan; yes you are right he was elected legite and stuff, but come on now, he says that there is a gay conspiracy that started in the 60s recruting boys in lockerrooms???? that is half a brain cell from teh arabs claiming the israelis did 9/11 because all the jews left teh WTC first. i doubt he talked this stupidly while he was campaigning, because i doubt people is sask would be that dumb who rants about make believe conspiracies and stuff. wanted to preserve traditional marraige is one thing, you can make an argument simply on tradition and the male female parent system. being anti-gay, claiming conspiracies of gay people, claiming they are defective or whatever else people say on the matter is in fact hate speech. its hate because you are not just trying to maintain a tradition, its because you attack the very nature and equality of gays to do it. i believe the supreme court of canada often cites dehumanizing people with speech that can lead to a hostility or a crime being commmited as hate speech. the obvious question is why do all these supposed defenders of marraige attack gays for everything and rarely argu for maintaining marriage because of tradition? its obvious its far easier to attack gays and turn them into boogy men then just speak for the boring tradition of marraige. its the whole "us" vs "them" mentality that all the race groups use as well. i dont think its criminal hate speech or whatever, certainly he should be allowed not to like gays. but its definately political and social hate speech, and all reasonable canadians regardless of what they think about gay marriage should make sure they drown him out with words of equality and tolerance. well you cannot distract this moron with another moron. i am sure there are stupid people on both sides, but we were focused on spencer for the moment. also i doubt no matter how stupid lthe other comments, they dont reach to the stupidy of this guy right now. spencer went way over the line and into the land of make believe fairy tales. you gotta look at teh parties too. one is far more accepting of gay marriage then the other. thus one has more crediability on the issue. i would be far more likely to believe 1 stupid statement by a liberal is just a stupid statement (like we all do sometimes) over a CA. why? because liberals have some credability on the issue. still there can obviously be liberals who need to be fired as well, i dont really care who we have to fire to get right of this backwards thinking. uh he said that gays were involved in a conspiracy to "seduce" "young boys" in "playgrounds". i would say its bigoted to smear gays with this image of lurking after young boys. when little girl gets kidnapped and chopped up in little bits, its usually a heterosexual man who does it. this idea that sexual criminals need to be gay is propaganda. hell most women are raped by men they know and many child molesters have familes of their own. its definately bigoted to invent this crazy talk against gays. he also said he would support a bill to make it illegal for who consenting tax paying canadian citizens to engage in private activities in thier own bedroom. which i dont even have to explain the stupidy of. being gay is not a deadly sex behavior. you can have sex with a man or women all your life without being killed by it. the only way sex is deadly for any gender or identity is if you do it with a diseased partner. being gay has nothing to do with it. just like driving is not a deadly behavior. you can drive all your life if you are lucky and driving will not cause your death. if you drink and drive your are far more likely to die however. thus driving is not deadly. the negligence of others can kill you, or your own negligence by driving drunk can kill you. but obviously if everyone took care of themselves driving would be completely safe. the fact that people arent absolutely safe has nothing to do with driving, but with the nature of people to make unsafe and irrational decisions sometimes. that much should be obvious. you are confusing the activism to get equality with irresponsible behavior of some individuals. is it the gun lobbies fault if a gun owner kills his family? no, some people will always act stupid, it does not lessen the morality for fighting for equality. its a smokescreen argument with no basis. as for that bug chasers thing, the article you cited is so vauge and non scientific it has no bearing as to what the entire gay subpopulation does. it has no staticstics or raw numbers and doesnt describe its methods. so while there are most likely some gays that are so addicted to sex they actually want to get AIDS, there are many many men who rape women, kill thier wives, share dirty needles drugs, and molest girls. that is the reality of humans. i doubt the sick hetero men reflect on the true nature of hetero men as more then teh sick homo men reflect on the nature of all homo men. there are plenty of sickos on each side, but they are exceptions and obviously do not reflect the median group behavior. once again, sex of any kind is not dangerous if you do it right. both heteros and homos choose to do it dangerously. that is an individual choice in both cases. in canada there are 2000+ deaths EVERY YEAR on the highways. but obviously the activities of drunks and speeders do not mean that any driver is dangerous. there are plenty of people engaging in plenty of risky behaviors. you cannot judge the entire behavior to be immoral because of individual actions. else driving, owning weapons, and drinking alcohol would all be illegal. i think HUGO and i discussed the relative life spans of gays vs straights on another thread. once again, if you want to start going after gays for risky sex, you will need to go after young men for getting girls pregnant, young men for driving drunk, and men for rape and child molesting. obviously all men dont do these things just a small group of individuals who show bad judgement. you cannot punish all men for these few. i do recall slaves and natives in teh picture somewhere. adn it wasnt guys like spencer, it was the men who fought all the limitiations of their societies to free the slaves, liberate women, and bring equality to all citizens. NOT the backwards men like spencer, truely great men of the last 200 years. just because gays can get aids from risky behavior doesn mean you treat them different from a hetero white man who rapes a little girl. each is treated as an individual not part of a sexual group. if you treat all gays like some gays then you would have to treat all men like some men, adn we all know that some men commit a massive number of sexual crimes in society. 1 in 5 women will be sexually abused in their lives and it isnt gay men doing it. by your own logic all hetero men should be punished as a class for the actions of some. doesnt make sense. its just another cover to bash gays. there is no reasonable and logical argument that can be made against gays rights that cannot similiarly be made against numberous other groups but arent. this along with outdated religous teachings (most of which is ignored because its laughably untrue and was obviously made up by the primative society at the time) clearly show all this anti gay rhetoric is without basis. there are equally powerfull arguments that could be made against several other behaviors but arent. thus proving that its only for the philosophical unease with gays and not for any concrete safety or practical society value. sirriff

two probems; 1) this is NOT an unique thought in modern conservative politics in Canada, it is just renamed and repacked to link it to some "policy", but harper and other leaders obviously know these morons are on their party. i think its a minority of the party but its still prevalent as every year or two you get some conservative party moron trying to push his outdated and stupid view. 2. there is no truth underlying these bigoted views. first women would destroy society by working, then blacks cant have job equality because they are not as smart, now gays can have private consensual sex because it will destroy "morality". the people who cite morality never seem to want to actually act to make Canada better, just rant and rave about who they want to blame for the way it is. and why is there only one version of morality, that type that comes from old white men? if you have had a divorce, or havnt built build a school or orphanage, you better shut your mouth about morality untill you prove you have some yourself. gays dont hurt anybody, and there are so many other ways people recklessly hurt themselves and others -- tobacco, alcohol, and guns- gays are as good citizens as anybody else. often better. its rather pathetic to preach without some social accomplishment yourself. sirriff

what is so hard to understand? two parties agreeing to mediate thier own problems by an accepted set of rules. and has been pointed out, it doesnt bind canadian laws at all in any way. false hysteria sirriff

righturnonred, what you said above absolves all american responsability for their part in radicalizing terrorists, strengthening the future taliban extremists, and abandoning afganistan after they used it as a cold war chess board, leaving tens of millions to suffer endlessly. so yes, when you say their obviously criminal and violent actions "YEARS AGO" are "TOTALLU IRRELEVANT" what you are saying is that the statue of limitations has run out and no consideration should be made of those actions. yet many who make those arguments use very similiar actions as justification against iraq or others. thus my point is valid, you cannot dismiss one action and embrace another as a point of justification. the error in logic is using irrelevant evidence that you yourself invalidate. if you dismiss one action, a similiar action cannot be used as the basis of another argument, namely; the only difference is in time period. anything else is just perception and frame of reference. from any moral or ethical perspective, no difference. and without morality, we are just monkeys who use forks. sirriff

i dont know why you would believe this is an absolutely unique event or that its based on any reasonable perspective. this segragating and bigoted view is often spewed by politcial hacks who claim to hold some religious principle or represent 'traditional' values. gays are just the lagging group to be accepted by civilized society. blacks and women wouldnt stand for it and it would be politically suicide. gays are just starting to get the same clout with the expansion of charter protection and the completion of the civil rights bubble enveloping all citizens of democratic nations. this is the kind of bizarre excuse made by some that is just an excuse for some political party. as if middle aged white men arent the establishment. its wrong on every level, there is no reason to peddle this kind of backwards thinking except to try to appeal politically to people who cant deal with the concept of modern democratic equality. all civilized nations move towards absolute equality given the chance. fringe groups try to get attention by blaming all sorts of subpopulations like immigrants, gays, minorites, or whoever. when all else fails blame the guy who is different. yes you might have to work beside a black man or a gay man. get over it. its 2003. RT_1984 i'm sure you find it fantastic that faced with a potential political backlash harper realized he only had one option, but i dont. its fairly obvios spencer is a nut and the CA cant afford to have public nuts talking nutty stuff if they want to make a viable alternative to liberals. so yea, the obvious and unavoidable was done. big deal. what would have been impressive is if the CA and PCs actually weeded these guys out in the first place..theres a thought....not appealing to backwards wingnuts...hmmm... and as for my merger knowledge, i am well aware of what the whole merger was proported to be and the recent legal challanges, but i am uninterested in every single detail that CA or PC supporters can fool themselves into thinking might make a difference on a national level. which middle aged white guy replaces this middle aged white guy in the CA? doesnt matter. i dont know why you think that has any effect on my posts, and i dont think i ever discuss the merger at all, so you must be confused with what i said. i'm sure you will be able to follow my posts better once you get 50 of your own under your belt. if not, just blame it on the gay guy. sirriff

just cant believe this stuff.... i am not up to date on all the merger politics, but i know this is just another reason why no national conservative threat exists to liberal dominance for the next decade. but that aint a good thing. democracy needs several competative parties in order to make the winners work for it. why would PCs want to associate with these morons anyways? i thought goverment was about taxes, and roads, adn hospitals and schools and crimes. not what two consenting law abiding adults choose to do in their private lives. anyways, if there was any doubt, apparently this is a large part of what the CA stands for these days, bigotry and hate instead of concern with the well being of canadians (who are naturaly tolerate and proud of diversity) nobody would question his right to say these things. but since only a very very small group of people actually feel this way relative to all of canada, it seems the mechanism for represtative goverments shoudl keep his party and people like him out of power. which it will. its just too bad that other CA policies like spending and military get taken from the national spotlight becaues of these clowns. sirriff

that is the stupidest thing i have seen on here in weeks. so there is a statute of limitations of supporting global terrorism? by that logic osama is innocent if he can remain free for 10 years? by that logic saddam is completely innocent because the last time he waged war was 12 years go? oh my god...doesnt your brain censor these kind of thoughts? if you just avoid attention for long enough supporting terrorism is ok? that means 9/11 would be forgiven in 10 years or so if osama can keep on the run? this is why nobody cares whatever pidly things france is supposidly doing. they just do whatever serves them, they are are not far from what the US has done for decades. if france was actually worse then the US, maybe you would have a point. but considering they are just as corrupt as the US, i think the US is the one that needs to defend its actions first considering its actions around the world. sirriff

your statement that a homosexual behavior gene is not helpfull is once again a product of misunderstanding of the true fundamentals of genetics. i put a very realistic explanation of how a so called 'gay gene' could come to be and its modern day function. when you make a value judgement of what is good or bad in biology you cannot look at it in 1 dimension like you did above. the purpose or function of a gene is far above any 1 particular phenotypic example. there are numerous reasons why the same gene that may promote observed homosexual came to be, would be retained through evolution, and would continue to exist as i wrote in an earlier post. first of all down syndrome is not a gene. down syndrome is a congenital medical condition resulting from a genetic defect, almost always a partial or complete trisomy 21 (duplication of the 21st chromosome). this has nothing to do with homosexual behavior or a potential 'gay gene'. calling something defective is subjective. something harmfull to a person may be beneficial to species (which i also expanded apon in this thread in malaria/sickle cell anemia). a mutation one may may prevent cancer and another way may cause cancer. a gay gene is not just about gayness, it may be amout many other behaviors that are just part a spectrum. in truth, most likely if there is a 'gay gene' its working right now inside you, as part of your complex human social behavior. thus you cannot seperate the outcome of a particular behavior in an individual from the purpose of that behavior in society. in summery, population genetics tell us most likely; the complex sexual interaction and identity humans have developed in our complex society is essential for our success. because our behavior must be so complicated and responsive, certain unique combinations will be produced. however you cannot remove the unique results without destroying the entire system that has evolved so perfectly. this is the complex nature of genetically hardwired human behavior. sirriff

who buys all of saudi arabis oil? hmmm...its odd that all those dictators in saudi arabia are filthy rich....and hmm..the us has never demanded elections there...hmmm..... yeah and dont forget teh 3B to osamas crew.. sirriff

uh, i dont care about the intersex guys, i dont care about the UCLA press release, i dont care about reuters, i posted and discussed the primary research article. why dont you just read the article and digest it on its own strength or weakness instead of going to bizarre third party side shows? nobodies else opinin alters the experiment. if you think there is a flaw in the method or materials or conclusions please post your views. maybe you found something everyone else missed. your whole post goes on and on about intersex, and ucla and reuters and god knows what else. what are you talking about? how does any of that effect the article findings? i am just concerned with the experiment, free of what anybody else says supporting or dissenting. simple enough? nobody else matters as far as i see. so for the people who know how to read genetics papers, what is important is the proported link in brain development to hardwirded genetic pathways. dont you agree? the findings are still sound are they not? actually its easy to tell the difference by looking at peoples mastery of genetic concepts and technical terms. it becomes easier after several years and is different then copying and pasting. sirriff

ok, hold on a minute, you are referencing several different things which i am not sure if i follow. this site: http://www.ftmaustralia.org/ is self described as; ok, so this organization supports F- M transexuals. its based in australia. ok fine. the quote you cited is FTMA's critique of that study i posted from molecular brain research? i dont remember the scientists name but i assume thats 'UCLA geneticist Eric Vilain'. so FTMA has the original UCLA press release on thier site, then thier own added response to what they feel was Reuters bad reporting of a bad press release. did they at first accept the release then add their response or was it all supposed to be part of a package? i cant tell myself. anyways, i actually read the entire article because its very similar (although more complex obviously) to the stuff we did in the lab. ok, now here is why i have no clue why you are citing these guys. the criticism of the press release and rueters reporting is originally coming from a group called Intersex Initiative Portland. this is how they describe themselves; so are you resting your criticism of a complicated molecular biology experiment on the opinion of the intersex initiative???? who the hell are these guys? compared to UCLA and reuters?? thats insane, they just a small organization with no medical or scientific or journalistic expertise or recognition around the work, unlike reuters or UCLA. now maybe reuters or UCLA screwed up, we would have to do some serious reading and debate to explore that, but to call into question an experiment done by career researchers because some wahoos in portland say so in nonsense. if you want to question the methods of the experiment i would discuss that and that is one issue. if you want to discuss whether the results of the experiment were overstated that is another issue. if you want to discuess whether UCLA was inaccurately represented the study in its press release, or if reuters inaccurately reflected the study in its piece, that is another issue to. so the point is, the only criticism of the evidence linking genes to sexual development should go towards the study. not what some waa hoos say about this or even what UCLA says about it. the real evidence is what this study, along with the field of genetics concerned with sexual identity, have to say about it. so you seem to be concerned about a press release, which is a debate about accuracy and journalism maybe. but that has NOTHING to do with the results of this experiment which i posted and what we can learn from it. so are you concerned with how some reuters guy did a piece extrapolating UCLAs claimed implications, or are you concerned with the hard core results? i would suggest the primary research itself is the most important. because no matter how much a journlaist screws something up, if it was right in the first place, that is what is meaningfull. bad reporting does not lessen the evidency of any study. so please clarify a bit how you think any of this matters seeing as i did not post the press release, and i did not post the story, i posted the primary paper, so all the genetic experts here could discuss it. i posted the real stuff, not third person right? so i dont see the problem. sirriff

who do you think exactly are pushing for these laws? aliens intent on dominating us? if they made it illegal to say teh world anarchy, the people would react with anger. this isnt about having a giant robot in your house to censor your thoughts. some protesters in miami last week thought free speech means the right to destoy meetings you dont like. free speech means first that the medium is available to all, leave the internet like the wild west and a small group will abuse it limiting its use for all. send a women to walk down the streets of a bit city alone one night and then reconsider whether strict laws are needed whenever huge populations interact. also, humans are animals sirriff

are you actually responding to me? i can only assume...yet what you say is so, how should i say.. ignorant...its hard to be sure... but alas tis true, this thread was dead a while ago... if you dont find any 'facts' or 'evidence' in that article you must be illiterate. not understanding something is not the same as finding nothing compelling. i am also forced to wonder what qualifies you to judge seveal PhD career researchers publishing in the respected journal Molecular Brain Research. as one of the few who actually went through the slow process of learning the complexities of genetics over years and who can recognize and discuss the most basic concepts of genetics on this thread, i can give you an informed and accredited opinion that you have yet to write anything that shows any understanding of the most basic concepts of genetics. just thought you should know. some people know so little about science its painfull to even read things like the above. its funny that you cite your years living in europe in another thread, yet someone magically consider yourself informed about genetics without reason. which is it? does experience confer insight or not? some people have jobs in genetics, some people are laywers, or nurses, or teachers, or engineers, or business owners or whatever. thats fine. but the sad part is when people cant seperate a normal opinion from an informed insight. if you study and work in genetics, you have an insight into it. if you are a lawyer you know law. if you are a nurse you know clinical medicine. if you are a civil engineer, you know design and construction. i have opinions in all of them, but not any real insight. there is plenty of research to indicate hardwired genetics will influence many human behaviors, including sexual preference. sirriff

spain has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. they only have about 40 million people anyways. THEY are gong to lead europe? i think not. so all these nations in europe with thier millions of people exist how? why havnt they collapsed yet? they have only been around for several hundred years. if they were so doomed why are they still perfectly modern countries? they have space programs, their citizens live very long, they have civilized societies. how can they exist like this if they are so fundamentally flawed? with your great european life experience, please inform as to why they still exist. why hasn the us bought them out and made parking lots. sirriff

if you leave the internet open to every single person, 10% of the morons will ruin it for the other 90%. its the same reason we need police in cities. its not infringing on your rihgts to pee in public, its the most basic way to make sure the whole damns structure isnt worn down from within. just once i would like to see the person who rails against 'control' actually indicate they realize that nothing around them would work without forcing people to act normal. sirriff

i despise those insane neo-conservatives and perle especially for thier crazy policies, but i dont think this is some great admission. obvious there is NO provision in international law for a swift response to these sorts of situations. there are many dictators and corrupt rulers who play huge roles in the world every day, saudi arabia most particularly. on the other hand, the exact purpose of the rule of law in any nation is to provide reasonable and repeatable means to deals with conflict. when you make up your own law or ignore international precedent you loose all those benefits of stability that law brings. so what perle really said was yeah we went outside the system and we destabilized the entire process. sirriff

france chooses to have a 35 yr work week. it helps parents spend time with thier children. you could argu that the demise of the family structure in the rich US is what causes much of its social problem. so choosing to spend your time on something more important is actually more productive in the big picture. sometimes it is necessary to choose equality over efficiency. it would rather not have corperations unfairly make billions every year at the expense of society through tax loopholes, corrupt politicians and enron type scandels. so what the CEOs might consider rigid may serve to protect hard working citizens. you mean internationally? well hell, i dont want to leave my country either. i like my society. the EU is apathetic to culture? uh, the only real culture left is europe. we dont want everyone to style themselves after the US now do we... are you implying that there is a right age to graduate? maybe it serves a purpose for them, to help families or whatever. who knows. one thing is certain that some european and asian nations beat the US in many different educational tests so there is no 'right' answer for everything. part of the reason the original drafters of teh canadian government wanted only a pseudo-federalist or in reality a strong centralized almost unitary state was to maintain strong national unity with a diverse regional and cultural makeup. the american civil war showed exactly what happens when a greater identity is lost. if a collection of nations desire to share a common interest and capital to work for a greater good, it is necessary to have some central organization. intelligent people can come together and fit within a larger organization without destroying their own identities. just look at the origins of the US and canada into the great nations they are today. not possible if all the colonies and dominions had been afraid of attempting somethign great. sirriff

why are you trying to argue the opinions of iraqis? has anybody ever claimed that most iraqis like living in misery and fear? i dont think so. nobody has ever cited the opinions of iraqis as the reasons for international policy. the arguments generally center on WMDs, oil, US blood lust, israel, reconstruction, pax america/PNAC, reelection, economic profits and others. sirriff