Michael Hardner

Excellent point, Auguste. Technology continues to make the globe into a smaller place. Some other technologies have been overlooked in some of these discussions: Large container ships. Birth control. Television. Radio.

Thanks for the link, Auguste. Yes, I do think there's a solid basis for a human rights complaint here, and not because it's a sprawling illogical mish mash of anecdotes masking as arguments. Here are some excerpts: This is hate mongering pure and simple, and a continuation of a traditional of racial propaganda literature that started with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The linked column doesn't describe what the excerpt said. It's impossible to comment on this in a meaningful way without knowing that.

fcgv, You should turn to the church on these issues, and not your Canada. Canada is a nation of immigrants, and always has been. I have never heard a commercial that says 'Happy Ramadan', and I doubt that you have either. These are things that you make up in your own mind. Your problems are not what they think you are. Your argument and the anti-immigrant arguments that are made on this board boil down to "I don't like immigrants". There's nothing reasonable behind it, just a reluctance to see Canada change. I can understand why you feel that way, but we're not going to be turning back the clock anytime soon, so you should just get used to it.

Yes. There are people on this board who hold some of the same views as MD, who do a much better job of articulating their opinions. Argus, for example post #19 in this thread: AW - yes, I believe it does, here's an article: Canada's high levels of immigration And here are some stats from Statistics Canada: Stats Canada Website

Can you give us a link ? I'm wondering how administrators could have approved risky investments like that. It seems highly unusual to say the least.

In other words feel free to insult Jews whose families have been here since the 19th century. There's nothing Canadian about wishing somebody 'Merry Christmas' versus 'Happy Holidays'. The poster feels that because his family has been here since 1900, he has the right to tell everyone what constitutes being Canadian and what doesn't. I would say that being Canadian means rejecting easy and false pleas to our emotional side. And my family has been here since the 17th century, so I win.

Argus, thank you for your honesty.

They can't agree to disagree.

Riverwind, I appreciate your opinion on this. I think that GW, as an issue, is a symptom of our inability to agree on things. It's getting hotter ! Thanks again,

Also, from MikeD's example, anybody who uses roads, listens to CBC or speaks to a customs agency is a freeloader. It's really not worth entertaining these examples of his as though they were serious issues to discuss.

River, Possibly, but so it is that special interests will gladly provide false evidence for a fee. Does an open mind mean we do nothing at all ? If not, when are we supposed to act ? When there is unanimous support for an idea ? Isn't that just more 'herd mentality' ? Your model for action seems to say that science shouldn't be used as a basis for making important decisions with huge ramifications. But you think that CO2 should be cut in case it is the cause ? I think that's what you're saying. It seems like you're against the general oafishness of the masses, as manifested in this issue. I understand the feeling. I don't know what pumping CO2 into the ground means, but educate me on that too...

Honestly, I never thought of it. I always thought of violence as attacking someone.

I surrender, my knowledge of what constitutes a fight is incorrect. Thanks for bringing the brains... as opposed to bringing the pain....

Leafless, Thanks for the news report. Now, what are YOUR feelings on this question: 'don't you think we should bring Pakistani Christians to Canada ?' Keep in mind that Pakistani Christians are the same as Pakistani Muslims, with the exception of religion. So you want them let into Canada right ?

Fine, then you want to discuss 'what constitutes violence'. I don't think holding somebody down who is attacking somebody constitutes violence, but that's just me. Not a very interesting topic, though.

WD, How could that be ? Restraint isn't violence. Anyway, your question is more about 'what constitutes pacifism' rather than 'does pacifism constitute a moral choice'.

I've encountered people like them (you) on forums only.

Scott, But 'liberty' is a state that, while maintained with the threat of force, is essentially peaceful. 'Liberty or death' is a warning to external forces that any attempt to impinge on our peace will be met with force. That tells me that the founding fathers valued peace as a 'good' thing. Pacifism, as Ghandi described it, is a different matter. There are examples where strong values have topped corrupt regimes without violence. The idea came from the US constitution - the proverbial life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the goal.

WD The question doesn't make sense in light of my post. Even with your ignoring of my post, your question doesn't make sense. A pacifist can intervene, can talk people out of violence, or can restrain people from committing violence.

MikeDavid, And again - you don't have a reasonable thought behind your opinion, only a dislike for people who are different. You post false evidence, and refuse to back up quotes. The only thing that anyone should discuss with you is your shoddy methods of analysis and debate. Here is how topics are discussed here: 1 ) Make a clear point 2 ) Back it up with evidence 3 ) When others have points that counter yours, deal with them. Explain why they're wrong, or modify your position to accommodate any criticism that may be valid.

What I see on this thread and others, with respect, is people disbelieving other people and attributing selfish attitudes to them that aren't provable.

My answer would be - it depends on the reasons for your choice. If you have made this choice because it's better for you, then it's not the most moral choice. If you have made it because you feel that it is more moral, then by definition it's the most moral choice. Moral is a bad word to use here, by the way. I think you want to use the word 'ethical'.

MD, So are you fighting fire with fire then ? Do you think it's okay to say whatever you can get away with to counter these groups ? It's an objective question.