jefferiah

Very original Rue. Isn't this tactic getting old? By this logic you could say that if a girl says no she secretly means yes. Or that you perhaps secretly long to be a PLO member. See where you are going, SIR!

Calling sin sin is not a punishment. You have made a huge leap Cybercoma. He is not punishing anyone is he? When someone loves someone they have concern for them. If someone believes that drinking poison is bad for those they love they will voice their concern. Likewise if someone believes that homosexuality is a deviance and is unhealthy they will voice their concern. But it is important to not take pride in this position as if you are saving them, necessarily. Because we cannot even save ourselves. Nonetheless calling a sin a sin should be no problem to anyone here, even if you do not believe that it is a sin.

I think you missed the last part of my last post. I am sure these cases would be an exception. Remember that Canadian criminal in Texas a few years back. Stuff like that. They are not going to bother with it.

First off it doesn't matter what Canada believes. If you commit a crime on American soil for instance, they dont care what Canada thinks. Criminals who commit crimes in America don't get special treatment if they are Canucks. I am against the death penalty myself, but I cannot tell Americans how to deal with people who commit crimes down there. Now as for this other case of yours, I am sure that would be an exception. The point is they won't be going to bat for people they can't extradite anyway---as they have tried to before and failed.

Great, now explain this to other nations who have foreigners commiting crimes within those nations, and tell them that they have no right to punish them under their own law. If a man commits a brutal act in the US and they want the death penalty that is their business. When he committed a crime on their soil he subjected himself to their laws.

No but expelling someone who refuses to get his feet out of a public sink would. Put up a big sign--- No Feet in The Sinks!! It is not the University's fault that Islam says they need to wash their feet. It is not their responsibility to provide for them. As for prayer in school I have no problem with that. If you want to pray or read the Koran or the Bible or whatnot. That's fine. But schools should not be spending money for this nonsense.

No, they should not use the sinks. And they can pray at school if they want. They will be fine without dipping their feet in sinks.

So, you are of the opinion that unless we all install footbaths in our homes we are liable for any accidents Muslims may have in our washrooms regarding using sinks as footbaths. I think you just gave us enough reason to go back to referring to your logic as "pathetic left-wing bs".

No, they are right. It's on you to prove your own claim.

They don't have to use the sinks. End of story. The safety hazard is not created by the sinks themselves but by people misusing them.

Lol. Guyser!!!! Yes the school is at fault because people were misusing the sinks. By that logic muslims could sue me if they bathed their feet before prayer in my house and had an accident.

The Dalai Lama has said that homosexuality is unnatural. Tolerance and condoning are too different things Rue. In your world can you conceive of the possibility of someone believing that something is immoral without hating the person who does it? Although I do not agree with Kengs on all points here, Rue. Especially on Israel. I support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, but I do not think it is anti-semitic to have another viewpoint. In fact there are Jewish people who do not support Zionism. So while people who are anti-zionist can be anti-semitic, it is not always the case. A is not always B, Rue. You use the fact that Kengs referred to Jews as "they" (without referring to any specific Jews) as evidence of his anti-semitism, but to me that is over-analyzing. It is quite common to do that. In fact you refer to the Dutch as "they".

But you are analyzing the barbarism committed by men who were Christians rather than the religion itself. Nowhere does the New Testament promote barbarism against Jews. In fact it was written by Jews, and Paul himself said that the Jews are still the chosen and that gentile Christians were being grafted into onto to the family tree of Israel. We all know that there were horrible acts committed in the name of Christianity, but they had to have been independent of its scripture. Scott rightly points out that the Koran gives praise to conquest and mentions Christians and Jews as the enemies of Islam.

There is a death penalty in Leviticus for a lot of things. Jesus did not stone allow the stoning of the adulteress, yet the law never passed away---the law says it is a sin to commit adultery. Law refers to the moral.

lolol

I wouldn't call the Crusades a clear cut case either. Before the Crusades began Muslim forces were imperializing for centuries.

The funny thing, AM, is that I was never implying that there was no such thing as discrimination in the work force. Re-read my posts and you will see that I never denied the existence of discrimination, I simply said that no one can say it accounts for the greater part of the inequalities we see. So it is not as if this is some great admission on my part. My argument has been that no one knows how much of the "uneveness" in statistics is a direct result of discrimination. Which is why I made my special care analogy. It was not a complaint against men not being there. And it was also why I kept asking you questions as to whether things would magically even out in a society where no one held any discriminatory views. You admitted that they would not. So you know that there must be other factors besides discrimination to account for an unevenness. Even when there are gross "inequalities" in statistics it does not necessarily suggest anything. Now these policies will directly create cases where sexual discrimination in hiring will be MANDATORY!!!! The law does not state that women have to sit at the back of the bus (ie, that women employees must work in the mail room). The law allows for women to work in the mail room and as CEOs. So-called equal opportunity policies actually do create sexual restrictions. So even though discrimination exists, it is quite possible (I think probable) that such laws will acount for more sexual discrimination in hiring than previously existed. This house is about 30 years old. I am willing to bet you that of all the people who went in and out over the years, not one of them has been a black person. Is discrimination the only possible answer to this statistic?

Guessing that I know that? Of course I do. That is my whole point, American Woman. Statistics can't tell you there is discrimination. There are other factors which can account for an inequality in numbers in the workforce. I can tell you that, personally, out the people I know who watch hockey most of them tend to be male. That does not mean only men can watch it. And it does not mean that there are no women who like hockey. It does not mean that hockey is a man's sport and women ought not to watch it. (In fact, I have met some girls with alot of hockey knowledge, who can beat any guy I know in trivia on the subject.) But if less women are watching hockey it may be because less women choose to. It may be that, even though less women are stereotypically feminine than in previous eras, that there are still many women who are still stereotypically feminine in some aspects of life by their own free choice. Now as for your site, if they were interested in equality in the workplace you would think they would have a mission statement more along the lines about equality of all groups in the workplace (a group which I would also probably disagree with in most instances)----but the statement suggests that their main concern is women. So it can suggest a bias, just as you said my being white and male can suggest a bias. Perhaps the bias is not a feminist one though. To me it seems that a great deal of feminist organizations (people for the advancement of women, etc) have a certain other bias, one that has nothing to do with gender and a great deal to do with a certain part of the political spectrum. A large part of the reason you will find me disagreeing with a great deal of the conclusions of feminist groups is the fact that they seem to lean toward "socialist" solutions towards any problem. Because of this, feminist groups, whether conscious of this or not, have been a great tool (whether consciously or not) in the hands of socialist advocates. You see by nature a person who disagrees with socialism finds himself disagreeing with a large number of feminist groups. And the counterattack that can be made is that those who do not support "socialism" are anti-woman, because the same people who dislike socialism, are the same people who find themselves debating feminist groups. If you don't like the feminists you must hate women. But what a great deal of us dislike about the fem. orgs is the socialism, not the fact that they are women.

But you still have not established that women are not being given the same opportunities. One of my elderly relatives has to have a special care worker come to her house everyday for so many hours. There is a certain agency which the government employs to provide this service. The agency never seems to send the same person everyday, because so far my elderly relative has had a lot of different special care workers. Not one of them has yet been male. Does this mean that they do not provide opportunities to males? I already answered you a few posts back. I said I do not know all the reason"s". And neither do you. I don't have to come up with the answer. You do. If you wish to know my opinion (which is not relevant), I am sure there are cases where some of this can be attributed to discrimination. But I do not think that discrimination accounts for fifty percent of the inequality. I am sure there are a lot of reasons.

Oh yes apparently it does. Because when I had certain opinions that laws which seek to counter discrimination should not supercede freedoms, you attributed it to the fact that I was a white male, right? You still have not proven that discrimination is the sole (let alone the predominant) reason for the difference in gender numbers, and you have not shown me a valid example of why we should allow the government freedom to make such quotas. The back of the bus example is clearly inapplicable.

So they are not just a run of the mill non-biased research group. Do you think that the pro-marijuana lobby ever publishes studies which conclude marijuana can be harmful?

This is a faulty analogy. Being forced to sit at the back of the bus is a clear cut case. Yours is not. Allowing blacks to sit at the front of the bus is not a policy which would ever create discrimination. There is no requirement that so many blacks sit up front. They simply removed the rule that they must sit in the back. There is no rule that says women cannot be on a Board of Directors. Women are allowed to be on a board of directors, just as blacks are allowed to sit at the front of the bus. The policies you promote enforce quotas which will create actual cases of sex-based hiring.

Understood. I am not making a pro-life argument, even though I am of that position. I am simply pointing out that there is an implied insult in the term "anti-choice", where with the name "Indian", which was just a designation that has been used for the past few hundred years (albeit one based on a mistake which stuck), there was never any insult intended. It is an example of a situation where there is a group being referred to by a name which is incorrect. And in this example it is considered completely ok to do so, even though there is actually an implied barb, which is not present in the term Indian. Furthermore they were called Indian for generations before the decision to be "indigenous".

The honesty of your study is not my question, though. I never once questioned your sources myself. The question is should the government have the right to tell private corporations who they can and cannot hire, appoint, etc. I am sure there are many women who are qualified to work in many fields. This does not prove that it is discrimination which creates uneven results in the workplace. And it does not prove that the government should be given control over the private property of business owners. The fact that a woman may be good at a job is a good reason to hire her, but it is not a good reason to be forced to hire her. Policies such as this create situations where the employer will be forced under rule of law to make sexual discrimination in hiring. Where you are not even sure there was so much discrimination before, you are going to be directly enforcing discrimination. If intervention is ever required by the gov, this is not a situation where it is. Not being on a Board of Directors is not an emergency situation in the welfare of women.

Typical nonsense from the "wrong". You keep making it sound as if the gun were the criminal.