jefferiah

Since it wasnt in the form of a question you can be forgiven. So you would not be able to tell the police whether the robber was caucasian, black, asian? Or if the description were given to you as a police officer you would not understand?

You'll fit right in with Canadians. This Chinese person I used to work with said that the Canadian gov't is a lot like the Chinese gov't; everything happens behind closed doors. I agree with you Mike, in that this view of the Israel-Palestine situation is incorrect. But I also think alot of people don't know all the reasons why. And I am not the best source to come to for that explanation. Maybe you could explain to Xul why we favor Israel. Given the explanation, he may be understand, and fit in with you, Mikey. JBG and Rue would also be good candidates.

Obviously M.Dancer is correct. A caucasian homeland would have to define what caucasian means for immigration purposes (if only to allow the homeless caucasians in). Ah yes, you are right there M Dancer. I am sorry about that, I keep forgetting the homeland aspect of this argument and seem to focus more on the idea of preservation---i.e. Kimmy's desire to produce blonde Kimmyettes. This I see no problem with, if it is something that she feels is important. But how do you define who is a member of the caucasian homeland. Did Scott suggest creating a caucasian homeland similar to the Jewish homeland of Israel, or did he just say that if whites became scarce and racism increased they would have no place to flee to. Perhaps he was not suggesting a homeland but arguing for increased birth rates. This thread has gone on so long I cant even remember what I think anymore. Also M Dancer I remember reading somewhere that many Finnish people, though pale skinned, have faces which show a lot of Asian characteristics. There are North African black peoples who have the curly hair but a facial structuring bordering on Caucasian. Bagpipers in Andalusia. Jews in Uganda. Anyways

That is ridiculous though M Dancer. I will quote my example of a house with ten people. One of them is a black guy. I say "Whats that guys name?" You say," Who do you mean?" I reply with the most obvious way to describe him. "The black guy" Do you then say..."sorry i do not know what a black man is. Could you be more specific and provide a legal definition?" Do you think this makes you a sensitive enlightened person? It makes you a person who pretends he is blind. You would know who I was talking about. You would be able to pick out a white girl for Scott. And if you can do these things. Then whether or not the difference is a matter of scientific relativity, you still can't claim ignorance and say you don't know what people mean when they say caucasian, black, asian. And if you know these things, then your argument is dishonest and hypocritical. But aside from all this, it doesn't matter either way. If Scott wants to marry a white girl, he doesnt need to provide you of a legal definition of what that is. It shouldn't matter to you. He will judge what he considers white.

Thereby, it blows the race arguement out of the water, by your own admission. You wrote because" by that logic not only can we no longer distinguish between caucasians as being caucasian, black as being black" in fact, we are so very nearly genetically indistinguishable from apes, that they can be transfused with our blood, in all likelihood. bye bye bogus race arguement. no, you misunderstood what i said. I am saying that your argument is useless because it would also mean that we could not distinguish between humans and chimps. I never said I agreed with it. I am saying if you want to play it that way, then you have to realize that your logic-not mine-would also mean that there is no diffetrence between a human and a chimp. And since I dont think you would agree with that, then your argument is useless.

Well Greg and co have a job to do here BC Chick. I did not see what Figleaf posted, but from what I read I can see why they banned her....temporarily. I mean you can always say a warning could have been given, but why make a fuss over it. Figleaf is back.It was not a harsh punishment. I dont know about ignoring emails about bad posters, I dont usually make it my practice to complain about people to the mods. As for KO2 they banned him and there is no reason why the mods should answer to us about it. You know I was kicked from a chatroom not too long ago, cuz I said to some girls who were bashing Paris Hilton and saying she should rot in prison, that they must be jealous to be that malicious . Once I was kicked from a chat for being from an American right wing chat for being from NB----with the message (shut your half french pie hole). The mods here are excellent. Figleaf is allowed back in. She now knows they dont accept whatever she did. There is no need to make a big fuss over it.

Cybercoma confronts us with some of the ugliest moments in religious history. But he think he misses out on the fact that there are very many good stories associated with people of religion as well. I cannot argue the fact that there have been many atrocities committed by those who label themselves Christians, but I do argue the assertion that religion gives justification for it. Cybercoma here is a story for you, I hope it makes you see another side of what religion can inspire. http://myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=mkolbe

nah you dont sound like a neanderthal, i quite agree. i am not about to tell couples that one should stay home, but i think the family unit is better than state-run daycare (gives me chills). but then we have to solve the problem of the fast-paced society we live in. in fact for me that would be an even better topic. how can we make life simpler? how can we reduce the speed of the treadmills we put ourselves on?

The population of unpopulated areas of Canada with our own is an interesting idea, Capricorn. But I think it would be a tough sell too. How can you convince people to have more children? There would be an interesting topic in itself. It would require a great deal of creativity because there are a multitude of reasons why people are having less children. It costs less to raise less children. It requires more time to raise more children. The expense of raising children is higher now too, because I think we have higher standards in a lot of ways. Two working parents, fast-paced world. I am not saying its a great idea or a bad idea. I am not saying its impossible. But it would be interesting to see how you could overcome the fact the people simply do not want to have children. In fact, even though I rarely start a thread, I think I will take the opportunity with this one. In what section of the forum would it belong under?

reading alot of posts you make betsy, i often think, i would vote for her

I agree as well.

It was posted on youtube as a way to show how Palestinians suffer at the hands of Jews. And I agree, pretty lame. It was posted here as an example of Israel defending itself.

Two excellent points being made here from either side: 1. Immigrants can be beneficial and productive and are necessary to keep BMWs 2. Gangs and the like.... I don't understand enough about the immigration process to even contribute, but I like reading this thread. So what is the answer? Stop the immigrants, apply stricter laws in order to screen them? Can we find a way to reap the benefits and avoid the pitfalls?

To put it in Rue's way------maybe Scott and Kimmy like wine, and not just one kind of wine, maybe they want the future to be filled with many kinds of wine.

RB, the asserttion that all white people ever did is destroy is quite a broad generalization, and if it were made about any other group you would call it racism. Why would you want to preserve Caucasian? I dont know. Maybe you don't, but I don't see any problem with talking about the possible extinction of an entire "non-existent" race and Kimmy's desire to preserve blonde people. I am not really worried about the extinction of Caucasians, but I see nothing wrong with the idea of someone making an effort to keep blonde people in existence. By the same token if black populations were falling and a few black guys said "you know i would like there to be black people in the future" I have no problem with it. It may be that it seems pointless to you, but as long as the people are not hurting anyone in their attempts to preserve then its not bad. This idea of preservation in and of itself is not evil.

And Scott is right in ignoring your chimp argument Kuzadd, because by that logic not only can we no longer distinguish between caucasians as being caucasian, black as being black, we can also no longer distinguish between humans and chimps.

As for the existence of race I think the people making the argument that it does not exist are being a little dishonest with themselves. Now in one sense it may be very true what M. Dancer is saying, and I quite agree with him, that race is relative. And he quite rightly points out as well that the people of India (though not all) are Caucasians because India was invaded by the Aryans. And we sometimes refer to people who are caucasian as being Indo-European. The lines between race can become blurry if you analyze them in the most profound way. But for all practical purposes the idea of race is not offensive and it can be very beneficial, and despite the claims of some people that they don't believe in it, they really do. Now look if a man burglarized my house in the middle of the night when I was home and I managed to get a good look at his face it would go a long way in helping the police if I described him as being caucasian, asian, black, etc. I am quite certain that all the people arguing about the relativity of race and its non-existence would have no trouble picking out what ScottSA means by a white girl. If we were in a room of ten people and one of them was black, and I said "See that guy what's his name." You might say "What guy?" And I will say "The black guy." Will you then say "Black guy? What are you talking about? There is no such thing as black guys. I am not familiar with that concept or term. Could you please be more specific?"

Mike, I didn't mean "your video" as in you posted it on YouTube, but I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant Mike's video as in you posted it here. I know it is not your video because I am sure that the youtube poster had a very different motive than yours, one which I don't buy into either. All I am saying Mike is that there is not enough information about what happened in the Youtube video to clarify anything for me. And even though I support Israel defending itself---against ketushas and the like---I am not sure if this video reflects that struggle by and large. All I see is a girl pushing a girl in this case. Now it may be that the girl broke the law by crossing the lines. I am not denying that. But I wouldn't call it some kind of struggle. The Palestinian girl may have had a friend on the other side. Now even in this case I would support her being kicked out, because I fully understand that people dont have the time to distinguish between who is good and who is bad when you live in a place like Israel. But there was a soldier there who I am sure would have escorted the young lady back across. There is a definite possibility that one girl was just getting a shot in, which was not needed. Or there is also a possibility the Palestinian girl instigated something. But I dont know either way, so I am not going to cheer over every "schoolyard" squabble which occurs between and Israeli and a Palestinian. I am not taking any great offense to what you are saying or calling you a sicko like KO2 did.

Mike's video of this incident and its use by the people who posted it on YouTube as a rallying point for anti-Israel muslims and anti-Israel anything else could be a good topic on its own, along with the comments. I.E. how anti-Israel people will fish for any ridiculous thing to make the case that Israel is an oppressor. That is a good topic.

Unfortunately, judging by the nature of the comments below that video, it seems like they are succeeding. Aye thats true Bonam. But its my guess that these people are just fishing for something anyway. I dont think it is really succeeding, probably most of these people were anti-semitic Muslims they way they are foaming at the mouth. And that woman with her Jews-control-everything rant certainly did not pick up all her complex ideas after watching that video.

Then you have a problem with multiculturalism. As should everyone. No I have a problem with how people interpret the term. I have no problem with people being multicultural as long as they dont enforce it. I have no problem with someone not acting like the common Canadian---i.e. if someone from India is not Christian, prefers cricket to hockey, enjoys rice more than potatoes, etc... I am making this point because I dont think its necessary to adopt Canadian culture, and it would be unreasonable because we cant ban people sitting on Yoga mats burning incense saying ohmmmmm. But I do feel it is necessary to do this within your own personal space without obstructing others and trying to change the overall laws of society so that everyone has to think like you. I dont like how a complaint was made to a school in Tennessee concerning a child who brought his/her Bible to school to read on personal time. But does this mean that being a Buddhist child means you will necessarily make this complaint?

I have no problem with multiculturalism-----the problem is when it becomes a matter of forcing other people's culture on the majority, getting special legal treatment, or having to water down the majority culture because the crosses at Flander Field's offend someone, etc... So if I were to move to France, Mike, I wouldn't necessarily change anything about myself. I might learn to speak French better (Xul is learning English), and I would probably make the same mistakes in French Xul is now making in English. But I would not make an effort to act like the French. I would not change my views of the world for the French. None of this will cause a problem for the French unless I start telling them how to do things or interfering with their culture. A Yogi from India moves into the house next door. He likes to sit cross-legged and say ohmm. He likes to eat only vegetables and no meat. I dont really know exactly what he would do. He may be a nice person, he may be a disagreeable person. I dont know. But he is not conforming to general Canadian culture as you see it. Now there is nothing wrong with him maintaining his culture on his own in his own time as long as he is not making ridiculous demands on society that we change ours. If this Yogi were to start lashing out at western meat eaters, if he started saying Christians are stupid and God should be taken out of the anthem for "my" sake (though many Yogi's are monotheistic), then he would not only be exercising his own culture he would be trying to impose his and demote ours. But a lot of people dont bother to make this distinction. And if you were to tell the Yogi to go home if he doesn't like the way we do things people would be screaming racism at you. Anyways you get the point. When it comes to multiculturalism I understand where you come from in respect to not wanting it. And people can call you a bigot for it, but the reason is because multiculturalism has become something else---instead of allowing the Sikh to be Sikh, we must also allow him to bring a blade to school (ridiculous). It is silly that crosses had to removed from the Rememberance Day display, that is not multicuralism at all though. That is complaining about the existence of the majority culture, right. So if you go to an Asian country where there are many Buddhists....you dont have to become buddhist. You can be Christian as you like. But if you start demanding that they tear down temples and Buddha's..... Xul is not demanding anything, or condemning anything in our culture.

I will explain it another way so you can understand where I am coming from. You are a fan a free speech and you don't like PC-ness. Neither do I. People calling you out because they thought you were being rude is not full blown censorship, either. You can say what you want, and people can say "Hey Mike, I dont think that's fair". You will not lose your job over this. Now you accused me of being brainwashed or of having given in. Now I will attempt to reduce this assertion to complete rubbish. Mike, I am not going to lie to you. I can be a very big coward. I have been at many times in my life, and there have often been times where I may have withheld my opinion because I was afraid. I can assure you this is not one of them. Because I honestly don't believe Xul is spending his days laughing and laughing about Canada. I am sure he has more on his mind than laughing at you, either. Therefore to defend Xul is not an act of fear for me. If he had done anything to persuade me he was trying to ruin Canada, and I defended him simply for the fact that he is Chinese...that would be cowering to the PC brainwashing, right? To agree with you in this case and cave into your accusations of being a PC puppet, would be the equivalent of defending a man for no other reason than the fact that he is from another race, because I would be hiding my own opinion for fear of your reprisal.

He did more than ignore it, he made a joke of it. And this happens in many of the other threads. Why don't you admit you have a softspot for Xul and then try to analyze your own psyche and figure out why you are holding that 'preference' or bias towards him. Maybe you'll discover that Canada's politicians and media has programmed you. It is Naive if you don't think he's laughing at us. He's already laughed at us and maybe you should read this thread again if you can't see it. If I was to move to France, I wouldn't care about the gov't and its services. I would care about fitting in with French people and that includes dressing like them, speaking like them, and taking on their ways including food and culture. I woulnd't have a screw you attitude and care less what people would think of me coming. But this is the attitude from the people who are coming here these days. They simply do not care to integrate and Xul will be joining his ethnic enclave like the best of them. And to no benefit will this be to Canada. He knows this, I know this, but the jokes on us. We desperatly need to overhaul our immigration system so people can no longer simply 'wander in' to Canada unless they are only here to work. This would greatly benefit our lives as Canadians and work shortages would be resolved. Of course, Xul doesn't want this kind of program. And the Liberal Party of Canada doesn't want this program either. So they both have somehting in common. It's this which is killing our democracy and country. The jokes on us, and Xul is laughing his way to Canada. The little girl was protecting her laws and country. She didn't give in. You've all given in and this thread proves it. Well the fact that he made a joke out of it, shows he is being pretty good about it, I think. Though I have to admit I missed the joke. Sure, you don't like people coming to Canada and not doing as the Canadians do. But how has Xul done this to your knowledge. He joined the forum a few days ago, you know nothing about him. Do I support people who wish to abuse Canada or try to change our society to suit themselves---of course not. But what has Xul tried to do. He hasn't to my knowledge made any protests about crosses being displayed at the Remembrance Day Ceremony at school. He hasn't asked for a Sharia law. Yes, Mike, there is a point to which I believe that society is sort of inadvertently brainwashed with PC-ness. That doesn't mean it is the case in every instance. This has little to do with being PC. No one is taking you before a human rights tribunal for having broken some hate law. Now I am not saying the little girl is bad or anything. I am just saying that there is nothing to indicate to me what was really going on at all. If there was a soldier there he could have escorted the offender away, I am sure he knows his job. I am not sitting here on harsh judgement over the girl or anything. I really dont know what happened. Maybe the Palestinian girl instigated something. Who knows? But either way its not some clear cut case of some kind of heroism to me, either.

Well, Scott and Mike, you are right in saying that the will of the Gov is not always the will of the people. But that does not mean that the will of Scott and Mike are the will of the people. So ignoring your will is not necessarily a display of some attitude of entitlement. Why do you keep insisting that people expect you to roll out a red carpet? The only mention of welcome was by Jazzer, who did not even mean it in such a way as to say you are s'posed to welcome him. He said "nice welcome" with sarcasm. As for other posters slandering each other, this is where it gets very interesting. I agree, when most of us are arguing over something we have a tendency to get frustrated and lash out at the person we are arguing with. "Right-wing"this, "Leftist" that. And some much harsher stuff. But it usually is directed at someone you are arguing with. Here we have a thread about an incident in the Middle East....and out of nowhere you bring Xul in. I do think that sometimes there are people who take too soft a stance on things. I spend half my time on here arguing about things like that, the very same way you do, Mike. Arguing against naivety, but do you really think it is naive if we don't believe Xul is laughing at us. What is this based on? This really does sound paranoid.