jefferiah

Also I think, whether you agree with abortion or not, the term "pro-choice" (a woman's right to choose) drags feminism into the argument, and the issue of male oppression. There are many women who are against abortion, these are not all "submissive wives in long dresses". The phrasing "a womans' right to choose" is clever, instead of saying "in support of abortion". This is quite similar to some Bush supporters saying if "you dont support BUsh, you hate America and Israel, etc". We all know this is not true right. And when you dont support abortion, it does not mean you are trying to keep women down and hamper their progress, any more than being anti-war means you are trying to destroy your own country. The reason pro-lifers do not support "a womans right to choose" has nothing to do with women at all, except for that fact that women are the ones who bear children (this was not something I decided). The real reason is we believe that any persons right to choose ends where anothers right to live begins.

If feminists are about equality of sexes, then the movement should not be called "feminism", since it refers to only one sex, one group. Imagine a group called "White Male Anglosaxons". What would your automatic opinion be of that?

I think what Jerry is pointing out is that it is a free country. The Dixie Chicks have sung about what they want to sing about, and no one is putting them in jail or oppressing them. On the contrary, they are quite successful, and I dont think the fact that someone made a threat to them means that person was put up to it by the BUsh administration or the majority of their supporters. Overall, what they have been faced with is dissent from a certain faction of the public that disagrees with the views of The dixie Chicks. They say it is impossible to express dissent against Bush, but they are facing no consequences from it, and are selling quite well it seems. It seems the real problem they have is when a certain faction of the public has dissent with them.

lol. Thats a good point, JBG. Actually I always thought that line sounded kind of funny anyway....like a Paul Simon line or something.

The best way for me to respond is to reiterate that such statements are outside my experience. I don't doubt that among some people in the US (I'd say it's much more common among Southern/conservative Americans) who would insult Canadians or Canada ("socialized medicine?! why don't you go back to Russia!" *LOL), but I have never had something like that said within earshot of me -- at least not meant as anything more than a playful jab. My sense is that the feelings of anti-[neighboring country] and the willingness to express it are assymetrical and tilting more heavily in the direction of Canada. You are right that the online world provides a platform for cowards and yahoos (on both sides of the border) to make stupid and/or rude statements. Well said Liam.

Well the Dixie Chicks have a right to their opinion and they can sing about it all they want, and anyone who disagrees can disagree too. As for the Bush supporter who told her to shut up I dont think he represents all Bush supporters or Bush himself. Politics is kind of funny you know. Take Bush for example. You definitely have people out there who belong to the "Bush can do no wrong" school. You know and they are frustrating cause when you disagree with them they say "oh yeah you hate america and you love Bin Laden". Then you got the "Bush can do no right crowd". These are the ones who think Bush prayed a hurricane would come and destroy New Orleans cuz there were so many black people there.

all in all its just another brick in the wall

During the last playoffs, when they got beat out I thought....hmmm I bet you next year they'll get the cup. I am not sure this will happen. But they are pretty damn fast. That Afinoganov is like lightning bolt at times. Growing up I hated Edmonton. Probably cuz so many people loved em back then, Lol. But I like watching their games too this year. I think they are both hard working teams. At the beginning of the 05-06 season I think most of the sports predictions said Buffalo wouldnt make it to the playoffs. They sure proved em wrong. They are a team that doesnt mess around. When the play turns around they are quick to hustle back. I am not saying they dont have skill either. But sometimes I watch teams play and I think to myself "man they could do better than this. especially at that salary" Not with Buffalo.

However online I see it much more. From both sides. I am not saying Canadians are more innocent of this than Americans. I have seen Canadians acting totally rude, condescending and disrespectful in American chat rooms, where the people are like "what the #@$#, who asked Canada anyway". I understand that this angers alot of Americans. I dont condone it, and sometimes I find it very embarrassing. But even though I dont think you or people you work with hate Canadians or boo them, I must say its simply not true that this has not happened. On a conservative chat room in the US I was booted one day----not for questioning American policy or anything . It was on IRC. Not sure if you are familiar with the format. But the OP questioned me "Hello Jefferiah are you from New Brunswick." I thought he was making conversation, so I said "Yes, you know it?" And then I was promptly kicked from the chat with the kick message "Shut your half french canadian pie hole"

You may not have heard it, Liam. I have. From Americans. Not ones I was criticizing either. I have been called Canadistani and a terrorist coddler. I believe the same sort of thing happened at a hockey game in the states where fans began to chant "Fuck Canada". This was before the incident happened in Canada. But that is not really important. I dont deny anti-American sentiment exists here, but actually I like you live among my own people. I know my next door neighbours, and the everyday people in life. I have never heard them say anything negative about America either.

No offense. I rooted for Dallas when they were against Buffalo. I cant remember why. Carbonneau was with them then I think. I am a HAbs fan. Always have been, and Carbonneau was one of my favourite players. I rooted for Buffalo against Carolina though. But I dont think its unfair that a southern team wins. But I think I understand the feeling. Anyone I have talked to online from Carolina is not even aware they had a pro team. Carolina and Nashville, are not Detroit or Montreal or NY. These are not hockey people. HOw dare they? lol

I did not call him an asshole, he calls himself an asshole. Why, ask him. I was just pointing out something I thought interesting, such as a 20 post a day average, and that he says FORMERLY called Morris Dancer, although he was never formerly Morris Dancer on this forum, and that he calls himself an asshole. I just have never seen it in any other forum. Another one I found interesting is a Man of Action, Gentleman of Leasure. Kind of contradicting. Jefferiah, in fact if you joined just this week, YOU have about a 20 post a day average also. And yes, the Sabres have been a great pleasure to the area, as opposed to the Bills. Hopefully, they can go all the way this time. I do not think it fair for a southern city to win the Stanley Cup like Dallas and Carolina. Well, I am a fast typer.

I think thats a good point Remiel. I dont think Belinda Stronach is a horrible woman or anything, but at the same time I think she didnt act from a concern over the status of women when she and the Liberals raised a stink over this issue. And to take it further, Belinda is not the only politician to have crossed the floor. Right after Harper was elected (but before he was to be sworn and given the opportunity to choose his cabinet) a BC Liberal MP crossed and went Conservative. I dont think Belinda is terrible for doing this. But I think there should be a rule put in place in our political system to keep this kind of thing in check. Stronach's defense is that she had a change of conscience. While many people find that suspect, no one can peer into Stronach's brain and see what her real motives were, so she may have been truthful. That aside, alot of the voting population does not vote for the name of the person running but for the name of the party. Many people are conservatives or liberals for life. Thats how they vote. But even if Belinda, or this other fellow who crossed to become conservative had a genuine change of conscience, it does not give them the right to change peoples votes for them.

Your opinion is based on an assumption that religous people dont ever break the morals laid out by their god. Since they undoubatly do, morals derived from god are no more stronger than those from any social contract. Morals in a social contract are still just as "real" as any morals from a god. Both are created, one by humans the other apparently by some higher being. I would argue when an individual has a say in what they personally believe to be moral and enter into a contract with other individuals to form a society where each respects and accepts the others morals they are both more likely to not break the contract than they would if the morals were dictated to them (ie by a god). There is little incentive to break the contract since your morals are respected and not dictated to you. You already get what you want and all you give up is allowing others to enjoy the same freedom of choice as you. The problem with religious folk is they see moral sets as competing in a zero-sum game. The more one set is accepted the less another is. It is this mind set that is one of the reasons that religions have and will always lead to conflict. Additionally, you have failed to realize something about god derived morals: there is not only one set on this planet. There are many religions and many gods all with different morals, and even within the same religion interpretations vary. How can you then claim that there is an absolute set of morals? I never said that people who believe in God dont break their own standards. But when you remove absolutes and have a social contract, you can no longer say that what Hitler did was wrong, because the part of the standard social contract he violated was never created by him but only by another human and he apparently didnt agree to it. So he faced the consequences of renegging on the contract, and cannot be said to have been wrong, if there are no absolutes that is. Put differently, if there is no absolute then the social contract is not really morality at all, but just a deal.

In the interests of full disclosure......I am a habs fan but will go to see the leafs if I get free tickets from a client and they include dinner. Habs fan here too!

If someone did an outstanding job as President, but got a blowjob and tried to cover it up, would you want someone like that as president? (hypothetically speaking of course, Clinton may not be ioutstanding but neither is mackay) Hmm. What do you all think? Did Belinda Stronach support the republican attempt to oust Clinton when he "did not sleep with that woman?"

The thing about movements is that although they may often be right in some respects, sometimes they take an opposite extreme. So even though I believe in equality i dont trust all those who claim to represent it. I dont know Gloria Steinem personally, but I would carefully examine all things she says. Women have had to fight the monster of oppression for a long time. But, as I think Nietzsche (another man i dont always trust, but who has hit the nail on the head about something more than once) said "take care that when fighting monsters you dont become the monster".

I dont always agree with feminists Drea. And I am very conservative in many ways. But I think men and women are equal. I think women should have whatever jobs men can have, equal pay. I dont think it matters if a woman is not married. I am not married. I am a man. So what. But the feminist movement does have some whacky people in it too. I think they have done a lot for women though, perhaps. But still I wouldnt support them. Some of them are quite extreme I think. I heard something not to long ago about women at a certain company making less yearly than the men. This statistic outraged alot of women, but upon further investigation it was found that the hourly wages were the same, but women were working less hours and less overtime. It appears the reason for this was that the women wanted to get home to be with the kids after school. Whatever. Maybe alot of these women had husbands who said you are the woman you gotta come home when they get home from school. I dont know. Maybe alot of these women chose it personally. I think its probably a mixture. But either way the company is not to blame, right. Anyways, yep there is a lot of injustice to women still. But I wouldnt agree with the whole feminist movement either. I mean if you or I dont choose to marry thats fine right. But there was prominent feminist, I cant remember the name right now, who said women will never be free until we destroy the institution of marriage. And another who suggested women should all become lesbians.

Lets say for the sake of argument he is stealing cuz his debit card is broke, the bank is closed, and he wants a six pack to watch the game with tonight. He has no kids. He's a bachelor. Lol.. The point is saying that the theft of ten dollars is wrong is not judgemental or self-righteous. But when the original theif says "what sort of awful man is this. i am glad i am not like him" he has not only called this other man a sinner (which may be true)----but he is asserting that this man is horrible while he is nothing like that. Now my personal view of homosexuality is that they deserve the same kind of mercy and forgiveness I get when I commit sins. You may not feel that homosexuality is a sin. And I cannot convince you of this. But my belief that it is, does not mean I think I am better. I have struggled with many things in my life. Addictions, bad thoughts, habits---and I struggle to this day and I often fail and sometimes I deliberately rebel against my own beliefs. So I know that it aint easy for anyone. I know it aint easy for homosexuals. But the belief that something is wrong does not make one judgemental. I believe that hindus believe that beef eating is wrong. Or maybe certain sects. You know the sacred cow thing. Now as a cow-eater I dont feel that hindus are being judgemental of me simply because they believe it is wrong.

Well everyone is guilty of judging sinners. But I dont believe homosexuals should endure punishment from any man. I cant stop homosexuals from having sexual relations with others of the same gender. I dont think they are worse sinners than I am. I cannot make you believe that it is a sin. But believing something is a sin does not make one judgemental. If this were so then believing in any sort of morality no matter what it is, would be self-righteous. Although alot of my views coincide with many conservative views, I dont believe in capital punishment. But I do believe in the incarceration of dangerous criminals for the protection of the general population. I dont believe a homosexual is any worse than adulterer, and I am guilty of this. When the church says adultery is wrong, it doesnt necessarily mean they are being judgemental of me. Having the standard that something is right or wrong is not bad. I used to feel Christians were very judgemental, indeed some very well are. But alot of them are very open to the suffering and temptations that sinners face in life. But they dont soften the standards on sin. They encourage each other to struggle against what they consider sins, whether it be homosexuality, or adultery, or porn addiction or whatever. Yes I certainly am guilty of being judgemental of others. I have been judgemental very many times in life. I probably will again. But I assert that there is a difference between believing something to be a sin and being judgemental. Dont judge the standard put in place by my beliefs by my inability to live up to it. Suppose there were a man who had committed theft. He steals 1 million dollars from lets say a Children's Fund. Then a week later another man steals 10 dollars from this man. The man who stole ten dollars did not steal as much. He did not steal it from children either. Now suppose the original theif says "look look, what sort of a man is this that steals ten dollars from someone. how awful? i am glad i am not like him." That would be judgemental. The thief believes he is better than another sinner right. But I ask you was it right for the second theif to steal?

Well everyone is guilty of judging sinners. But I dont believe homosexuals should endure punishment from any man. I cant stop homosexuals from having sexual relations with others of the same gender. I dont think they are worse sinners than I am. I cannot make you believe that it is a sin. But believing something is a sin does not make one judgemental. If this were so then believing in any sort of morality no matter what it is, would be self-righteous. Although alot of my views coincide with many conservative views, I dont believe in capital punishment. But I do believe in the incarceration of dangerous criminals for the protection of the general population. I dont believe a homosexual is any worse than adulterer, and I am guilty of this. When the church says adultery is wrong, it doesnt necessarily mean they are being judgemental of me. Having the standard that something is right or wrong is not bad. I used to feel Christians were very judgemental, indeed some very well are. But alot of them are very open to the suffering and temptations that sinners face in life. But they dont soften the standards on sin. They encourage each other to struggle against what they consider sins, whether it be homosexuality, or adultery, or porn addiction or whatever.

I never said anything against love and forgiveness. I said that believing homosexuality is a sin is not unloving or unforgiving Newbie. I never said homosexuals dont deserve to be forgiven. I said I believe it is a sin. You may not agree that it is a sin. But i never said homosexuals do not deserve love or forgiveness. Once again, I will repeat what I said about the woman accused of adultery who was dragged out to be stoned. She was no worse a sinner than the men who wanted to stone her, but Jesus loved her and he forgave her and saved her from that fate. But the mercy he extended to her does not mean he was saying to her "Yep I support adultery. Its A-OK by me." Can you not see the difference?

I never said anything against love and forgiveness. I said that believing homosexuality is a sin is not unloving or unforgiving Newbie. I never said homosexuals dont deserve to be forgiven. I said I believe it is a sin. You may not agree that it is a sin. But i never said homosexuals do not deserve love or forgiveness.

Yeah I believe Remiel was condemning the booing and flag burning. Maybe you misinterpreted him. This sort of thing has happened on both sides of the border though. Anyhow...

Tough luck for Saddam that his WMDs were totally imaginary. Wait! That's it. Saddam's chemical weapons were all in Bush's head -- i.e. Bush had chemicals on his brain! That explains a lot. He spouted enough about them, and dug his own grave (or hole he was found in). good point JBG. If I hold up a bank with a squirt gun hoping you thinks its real, and then the police shoot me in the wrist, I dont think I would try suing the police saying it was not a real gun after all, and it was only in their heads.