Black Dog

The Russians have yet to offer any proof that any of the Beslan attackers were Arabs, let alone Arab-Canadians. Consequentially, I have a hard time believing your yarn.

Bump. Zarqawi Movement Vows al-Qaida Allegiance If they were bosom buddies before, why are they just getting around to talking now? Furthermore, if this is legit (which I have my doubts about), it just demonstrates that the war on terror is bringing "ter'ists" together, increasing the danger posed by such groups.

In case y'all haven't noticed, the bloodbath has been going on for over a year now and is showing no sign of letting up. Bush has pretty much rejected any UN involvement, much as he rebuffed a plan last month for a Muslim peacekeeping force that would have helped the United Nations organize elections in Iraq.

This list is a joke. Of the top 50, only six were women. Three of those were singers. Four of the top 50 were professional hockey players, including Wayne Gretzky, who has lived in the United States for the past 15 years. Three others were comedians. Surely we could do better than that? Lousi Riel made number 11. Furthermore, he shouldn't even have been on the list, as he wasn't a Canadian. He became an American citizen in 1883.

You haven't even proven this "obsession" even exists. You gave up your defence of such thinking in the other thread altogether, which proves to me you haven't a leg to stand on. Basically, your position is so untenable that you have to resort to groundless accusations of anti-semetism to stifle the discussion. Not only is it a pathetic, tired argument, it alos serves to devalue the term anti-semetism, which should be reserved for true acts of hatred and not bandied about so loosely by people like you who's concern for the Jewish people is entirely shallow. I think this about sums up your capacity for intelligent debate. You've been owned, "boy". Well, I was't posting to support the theory that the execution of Pearl was retaliation. I thought you were simly denying teh allegations of torture at Gitmo. Carry on.

I don't think this is true, but a stereotype. For example, if the only types of lesbians you recognize are lesbians that conform to such a dynamic, then it's easy to assume "most" lesbians do. But that doesn't take into account the many who don't fit the profile and thus slip under the radar. Reproduction That's a result or a purpose. Not a cause.

If someone hasn't committed a terrorist act, what makes them a terrorist? If someone's only "crime" is going to Afghanistan to fight the invaders, that doesn't make them a terrorist: it makes them a mercenary. So liberal democracies sprang into being fully formed in the last 50 years? Huh. Huh? Bravo, sir. You've managed to combine a non sequitur with an ad hominem, with the end result being conclusive proof of your own failure as a debater. And here's why. 1) I never accussed you of being a Gestapo member or a Nazi, only that your cavalier attitude towards due process and the rule of law, coupled with your advocacy of collective punishment, are attributes shared by regressive totalitarians, the Gestapo being just one example. Thus, your views not being out of place, you'd probably fit right in. I could have easily used the NKVD, the Ba'ath party or any numbe rof others as an example, but went with one of the best known. 2) I've never (and I challenge you to prove otherwise) made any statements against Jews. Unles syou can prove otherwise, I demand an apology or I will bring this up with th emoderator. 3) This is especially ironic, given that you made numerous comments in the other thread that could easily be interpreted as slurs against persons of Arabic or Mid eastern descent. So it's pretty laughable for you to play the race card.

If they've broken no law, or committed no crime: what the hell are they being held for? No. The principles of egalitarian democracies have evolved over the centuries, starting with ancient Greece and onwards. The Magna Carta was one of the earliest documents which established the principles we're talking about. Indeed,Article 39 of that document, almost 700 years old, is remarkably relevant to this discussion: You'd make a good Gestapo member.

The big problem with your theory is that it fails to account for homosexuality among species with an ample female population. Your theory implies homosexuality is a learned behaviour: if so, it would be a temporary one in cases where females are unavailable. Furthermore, it fails to explain why we have homosexuality today in a society with an almost 50-50 male/female split. I don't really by this idea.. It seems that promiscuity would be beneficial to females at it maximizes the chances of conception. After all, what if the female picked her "Alpha Male", only to discover he was shooting blanks? I disagree. For instance, no one ever questions the "cause" of heterosexuality. Is it a choice? Genetic? Hormonal? Could it be that homosexuals are simply born with a different set of wiring? Could it be that there is no "normal"?

This took about 2 seconds on google: New Claims Of Gitmo Abuse War Crimes? The same could be said of the Blackwater mercs who were kiled in Fallujah last year. Not all the prisoners at Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan. Detainees by nationality

I think we degenerate Canadians could use a dose of FoxNews's strong moral guidance. Fox's O'Reilly hit with sex harrassment suit

Balls. My "agenda" is to overcome the artifical notions of gender that perpetuate inequality and to prevent individuals from acheiving their full potential. To the good Dr. I say: life is a material to be molded. We are shaped and molded from birth buy social factors beyond our control or often our comprehension. The ability to transcend or defeat these factors is closer to what the human spirit is about: humans are not prefabricated to a specific set of specifications, constrained and limited by their initial shaping. That's why we need to encourage individuals, especially young ones, to think beyond the boundaries society has drawn for them.

Still defies your earlier logic of "Vagina/ penis = orgasm/ reproduction". Simple: it's impossible. It doesn't happen. No. You are mistakenly equating sexual desire and attraction with a singular sexual act.

And the devil take the hindmost? It's not a matter of specialized, individualized teaching for each student: it could simply be a matter of zeroing in on students who's performance is lagging and trying differnt methods to get them up to par. It's a band-aid solution of dubious merit. Sure, average test scores might increase, which is great if that were the be-all and end-all goal of the education system. If we accept that both boys and girls do better in a gender-homogenous environment, shouldn't we ask why? For instance, girls will often "dumb down" in class, avoid speaking up and generally under perform so as to be seen as demure and not pushy know-it-alls. Boys will often not seek help because they don't wish to betray weakness. These are socialized behaviors. These are the thingswe should be targeting. And if the education system doesn't have the resources to ensure students can get the most out of school (not to mention the added bonus of busting some pervasive gender myths), then getting those resources should be a priority.

I completely disagree. Police brutality is systematic and widespread. Sheilded from justice: a Human Rights Watch report Stop police brutality

Ever recieved or performed oral sex? If yes to either, there goes the whole "unnatural" angle. As to safety, if you practice unsafe sex regardles sof the method, your chances of contracting and STD/I are going to be higher then if you practice safe sex. Basically, you can take steps to significantly reduce risk by practicing safe sex. The same thing I'd say to people who don't enjoy oral sex, the missionary position, BDSM, or anything else: if you don't like it, don't do it.

It *doesn't* show that. Differences within genders don't discount differences between genders. Yes it does, because it shows that gender has nothing to do with different learning abilities. It's pretty simple: boys and girls learn differently: but boys also learn differently than other boys. In fact. there's a greater variance between how boys learn in relation to other boys, than how they learn versus girls. My point is that such thinking ignores differences in individual abilities in favour of false gender constructs like "girls and boys learn differently". To illustrate: what happens to the boys who respond better to what are considered more "female-oriented" teaching techniques when there classes are segregated? We seem to have some confusion as to what "socialization" means. From a sociology standpoint, it refers to how individuals acquire the habits, beliefs, and accumulated knowledge of society. For instance, women are considered "more emotional" than men. From a biological standpoint , this is false, but due to the prevelance of the belief and the basic need of humans to conform to social norms, it is accepted and perpetuated. The idea that boys and girls learn differently is part of the social construct known as gender and has no biological basis in fact (as the affore-mentioned variances within genders shows). The question is do we want a education system that reinforces the idea that boys and girls are more different form one another than they actually are (a notion that is the basis for widespread inequality and systematic sexism), or do we want one that actually takes the abilities of individuals into account?

Many, many people-gay and straight-do enjoy it. For dudes, anal sex can stimulate the prostrate, or "the male G-spot, as it is also known. Woman can also find anal sex to be quite pleasurable. If done correctly and with the right percautions, it is clean and safe. Well, IANG, but I know not all gay men engage in anal sex. That aside, what does it matter? No one gives a crap what you do in your bedroom, why the concern with what goes on in anyone else's?

The point is that the range of variation within the sexes shows that boys and girls don't learn differently based on gender. In other words, the canard that "boys do better in some subjects than girls", while supported by evidence such a test scores, is not the result of gender differences. So, separating them is, as I've said, a stopgap measure that fails to address issues of how socialized gender behavior impacts education. In other words: just to be a jerk. Nice.

It's not my job to determine that. If there's evidence they were involved in a terrorist conspiracy, they can be charged accordingly. If they are accussed of murder or war crimes, they can be charged accordingly. However, if there's insufficient evidence to determine if any detainees can be charged with specific crimes, they should be released. Suspension of the basic rights to a fair trial and due process simply because you have a hate on for Arabs is unacceptable. Civilization and western democracies are founded on such "twaddle". Guilt by association is not one of those principles. You are excercising the same logic as those in Iraq who behead civilians and bomb fellow Iraqis: "Well, if tehy are foreign or working with the foreigners, they're guilty enough and teh world is better off without them." (besides which: "ten thousand man army"? where did you pull that out of?)

You're missing the point, which is this is an all-too common occurance. In this case, there was enough outrage by the ndividuals subordinates to warrant an investigation (though whethe rit will lead to anything substansial remains to be seen). Most of the time, however, the perpatrators of such acts walk free. How do you charge a suicide bomber? As long as suicide bombings are considered a weapon (as one Palestinian put it "our tanks and F-16s") in an assymetrical war, where Palestinian civilian casualties outstrip those of Israel by a 3 to 1 margin, you won't find much sympathy for your viewpoint among Palestinians. They're too busy burying their own dead. Now, I understand the rationale behind suicide bombing as a tactic, but I'd rather the Palestinians confined their hostilities towards military targets.

I'm sorry if my explanation was too byzantine for you, but I put it in the simplest terms possible. And how exactly are we supossed to know if someone is a terrorist, a soldier or someone in the wrong place at the wrong time when they are denied trial and due process? If there's not enough evidence to warrant charges, then there's not enough evidence to hold them. What you're advocating is arbitrary detention, based on the presumption of guilt: a concept more fit for a Stalinesque totalitarian state than a western democracy. A human being, having committed no crime and being stateless, is entitled to his liberty.

The same studies also show there are more variations within sexes than between sexes. Perhaps we should be teaching the individuals, not the gender.

Human Rights Watch says: The process is the same as with any priosner: charge them or let them go. None of this indefinite detention b.s.

No, but you gotta start somewhere. Certianly, which is why I think blaming girls for boys' poor performance is faulty. My big problem is with the framing of this issue. For instance, earlier you pointed out that girls do worse is some subjects when they demure to boys. However, no one blamesthe boys for "distracting" or intimidating the girls. In the Abbotsford case, why is the blame, as it were, being placed on the girls for being distractions and not on the boys for not paying enough attention. It See what I'm getting at? We tend to accept a certain bianary view of gender dynamics that doesn't always hold up under scrutiny. That's why I think that even if sex-based segregation actually works (in the sense of bringing grades up), it's not a real solution. So why do you?