Michael Hardner

Argus, That's delusional. If you look at a group of people on the other side of the world and associate them with people who have nothing to do with their actions, but share their skin colour - how is that better ? An Indian community centre in Hamilton Ontario was vandalized after 9/11. I guess that was rational because the attackers mistakenly thought they were of the same 'group' as the terrorists ?

Argus, Excuse me ? Didn't I just eschew self-righteousness by imploring people to debate racists on the merits of their arguments ? I'm not shocked by racism. I'd like to debate why racist theories are incorrect, and there's nothing self-righteous about that.

Argus, This is precisely the circular argument we've seen time and time again. So is it the holy books, or the culture ? If it's the culture, then bringing Muslims to Canada is a good thing, right ? So why do they not lose their culture, as every other culture who comes to the 'west' does ? Ah... time to switch back to "it's the holy books". I don't know if the people I'm debating with are smarter than me or not. Why are you changing the subject ?

I don't think anybody needs to 'cry' racist racist. Nor do I think we need to ban Scott for plainly stating his racist views. ( BTW, I realize that Islam is a religion of many cultures, but I don't feel like typing Xenophobe. Scott also values his race, and a handful of other European offshoots so I'll just use that term until someone suggests a better one. ) Just say racist. Then discuss. Those of you on the left who are ready to pass out over the existence of a ScottSA, please keep in mind that there are a great many people out there who are intelligent and hold such opinions. If you can't debate them, then you should probably go away and rethink your principles before coming back to debate. Those of you who are racists need to decide if you have a 'reason' for your views or if you just 'feel' that way. If you do have a reason, be prepared to discuss. If you're open minded, then you will change your mind when your reasons are defeated. Those of you who, like Scott, just 'like to keep Canada Christian...' because you just feel that way, then accept that your views are unreasonable, and can't be defended. The rest of you, figure it out.

Higgly, Are you advocating military action ?

Scott, We were talking about attributing the causes of violence within a culture to that culture's holy books. If we suspect that this relationship is valid, and we're being rational, and not emotional, then we should see more violence in a culture with more violence in their holy books, no ? That's a distortion. One could argue the same thing about adherents of other holy books, who refrain from committing violent acts that are required of them. And why do you want to keep it that way ? Simply because you like Christians and Judeos ? Then we're agreed. North American culture draws upon a succession of cultures drawing all the way back to the Sumerians. You haven't explained it very well, you have only said that you want to keep society Christian Judeo, but not why. Would you allow a Muslim who repudiated their religion to stay in Canada, under your non-Christian-Judeo deportment plan ?

S, The new testament preaches peace, but there's plenty of war in the old testament. Argus has correctly determined that 'culture' is factor. This means that Muslims under the influence of Canadian culture are not the same as those who grow up in, say, Pakistan. If the argument is: "Islam is fundamentally different from other religions, in that its adherents are prone to violence and unredeemable.", as yours seems to be, then a handful of westernized Muslims prove you wrong. Given that you have proposed deporting all Muslims, including those born here, it seems that you believe that none of them are any good at all. So, to recap: Reason tells us that we can disprove the statement "All X are Y" by finding an "X" that is not "Y"> Again, you're cherry picking certain statistics to "prove" the west is superior to another culture. Islamists do this, albeit more convincingly, when they point to the amount of decadence and pornography in western culture compared to theirs. As for the accusation that its inventions were products of other civilizations, please tell me what culture - aside from maybe Sumarians - arrived without any influence ? Christianity grew out of Judaism, and our number system is Arabic. I have also read eloquent writings of Abraham Lincoln that assert that African Americans are a lesser race. Intelligent public figures had no qualms about expressing racist ideas back then. These days, one has to come to anonymous web board to find an intelligent and well-spoken person who's willing to express racist views.

Argus, Why don't you just fly the white flag and admit you're a bigot ? Islam spans many cultures. So what is it you're against ? Foreign religions or cultures ? Get it straight. There's no trick to being honestly exasperated by a succession of nonsensical arguments, which is where I'm at with all of you. I'm giving you a chance to hang yourself... I mean explain yourself... After all, you [non-]bigots are the ones with rational theories to explain why you hate people who look different, so you're the ones who have the obligation to explain it. Let's recap, then: It's the [slightly more]violent holy books, played out by a religion in a background of inferior cultures. That's the rational explanation, as I understand it. My version is this: You're going to take a subset of a group of people that you don't like, and hold them up as typical examples of that group without any rational basis for doing so. You're going to use irrational fear and emotionality to warn everyone that they're not like us. You're going to draw up complicated arguments that draw on events that happened at the far reaches of history, and make it seem like they're about to happen again. But the real reason is: you don't like foreigners, and you never did. If 9/11 was done by the Japanese, you'd be advancing a similar set of arguments against them today.

Argus, Ok, so your argument is that the Muslim Holy book is more violent than the other holy books and that's why they're more violent. I've never heard that before. It kind of makes me wonder if Rap music causes more violence than Heavy Metal music. Or maybe it's just violent people. Also, I don't need to examine WHY people are overly emotional and territorial. I know that some people like Scott become hysterical over things that confuse them, and that's enough. I don't need to know why Scott didn't turn out to be a hippy. Maybe a hippy kicked sand in his face at some point, how could I know ? There's nothing dumb about how he feels, it's just ... emotionality pure and simple.

I hear many warnings along the lines of Borg's... Having known Muslims, I think it's more likely that they will be brainwashed by the Canadian way of life than vice versa. Also, having wasted countless minutes arguing with Scott, I can save the rest of you some time: His argument is entirely circular. Muslims are prone to evil acts because of their religion, he says, and the root cause is their holy book. If you point to other holy books that contain similar exhortations to evil, then the argument comes that those books don't cause violence because their adherents don't commit evil acts. Basically, he doesn't like them, and that's what is behind all of his arguments. There's nothing reasoned, or thought out about it. He wants to be able to call them racial epithets whenever he likes, because he hates them, period.

Scott - nobody has to shout that you're a racist or get all 'emotional' about it. We can just state it. If you think there's something bad about being a racist, then so be it. I understand that there are racists in the world, and it doesn't upset me. If you can explain why you're not a racist, then go ahead. Otherwise, let's all move forward with the general understanding that you believe some races (religions, perhaps, or nationalities - you tell us) are inferior and not get in a kerfuffle over it. The next step will be for you to accept that racism is not based on reason, but on the emotionality that you despise...

I will reiterate that ScottSA is an intelligent and informed poster, but unlike other posters of this ilk, he will withhold logic and reason at a certain point in the argument. You will see it over and over - the thread goes cold at a certain point. For example: somebody points out that one can't base analysis of crime rates by religion on hunting-and-pecking through Google news and posting crimes committed by anyone with a Muslim name. I don't wish to point these things out, but I feel I need to - in order to explain to anyone who might engage in discussion with Scott. He's a special case, and you need to understand this about his arguments. None of this is meant as a personal comment, but as an aide to discussion.

Morris, I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't have my own board, i.e. one that I own. I have a few that I have lent my expertise to, now and again, only to get them on their feet. Thanks, mh

JB, I would say the idea of attributing 'fault' to large groups is a mistake in any case. Individuals are responsible for their actions, but I'm not responsible for the actions of other Canadians, males, Catholics or humans.

Scott, What I find with your posts is - it's not what you say, but what you don't say that tells me what you're thinking. For instance, you're all dressed up in a cap and gown on this board, and less willing to refer to brown people or use the n-word. That tells me that you're trying to come across as more scholarly, or maybe even more civilized. As to your philosophy, it's hard to find posts where you post exactly what YOU think. It's easy to find posts where you quote some lecture-or-other by an extreme right-winger lecturing in Belgium. But even those speeches tend to be criticisms of immigration policies or leftists, without saying exactly what the speaker is FOR. We know that you want to deport Muslims, and from your recent posts you seem to know about Hitler, but it's hard to fill in some of the gaps. We know that you're very smart, yet you insist on posting news stories describing individual Muslim crimes, and seem to pretend that you don't understand why that's an invalid way to draw conclusions about anything. So, I remember you having some theory about how Canadian society will finally come apart, and that had a racial aspect to it. I spoke about the fact that I worked in a corporate environment that is multi racial, and that the people there were more like each other than they were like others of the same race. Kind of like the computer workers that I work with that are black, Muslim and Jewish are more like each other than they are like people from other countries who share their background. This is the point that you seized on. Does that sound familiar ? How about this: "Tomorrow if the RCMP and all the police forces were to be instantly disbanded, all things being equal, Canada would damned soon regress centuries in its behavioural norms." What IS your theory ? How will Canadian society inevitably fall apart ?

Scott, of course I've never said anything even close to that. I'm still looking for your quote on the other thread.

MD: Not to worry, Toronto is under represented in the legislature.

Argus, What in blazes are you talking about ? Did any immigrants to America have a cultural context that included the freedom the new land had to offer ? Of course not. That's why they came and that's why they're still coming. The basis I have for making that statement is the people that I have known and met. What's your basis for thinking otherwise. By the way mikedavid is doing better, in that he's now sourcing his ideas. Next question: who are these people ?

Hey there Scott, I guess I made the mistake of not having the quote handy this time. No matter. I'll look it up. I did have the quote with regards to your attitude towards 'brown people' and 'n****' correct last time though, remember ? So until I come back empty handed, the score is still 1-0.

Scott, whatever you told me came out of some theory of yours that was well thought out - not a spur of the moment idea. Why not share it with us, then, and correct anything that I may have got wrong ?

Argus, Every culture that comes to North America eventually melts in. The Muslim woman I had drinks with after my night class last fall was no different. I suspect you think they're different because you don't know any of them like my friend...

Scott, You certainly seem very familiar with this topic. You are indeed a great student of history. Interesting. I'm reminded of a time that you predicted that black people and white people wouldn't get along, after the 'downfall' happens. I"m not sure if this fits the bill of 'revolution', but I remember you saying that people of a different race (even those that work with me, in my IT company) would effectively be enemies after some coming social catastrophe. Do you remember that ?

Scrib, Well, we should be able to have that debate here. I'm glad to see that Argus has posted some good arguments to support his case, and we should pursue those next. I understand that immigrants are expected to adapt. They do adapt, and will continue to do so. A 2nd generation immigrant is more "Canadian" than the parent. But as was posted in another thread - the devil is in the details. Many of the decisions with regards to accommodating cultures come from the courts. We can decry those decisions, but how would we change things so that this didn't happen ? We would probably have to enshrine Christianity as a heritage religion into the constitution, and give it some kind of favoured status in Canadian society.

Kengs, Every once in awhile, a pro-MMP person will take a stab at conservatives being against MMP. I don't understand why this would happen, if the new system is supposed to be good for democracy and good for everyone. Could it be that conservatives are not so well served under this proposed system ? Hmmmm...

Jenny, That's exactly the point. Minority governments introduce a whole new level of politics and deal making that take the focus away from governance. Minority governments have to make deals with opposition parties, often on a daily basis.