Moonlight Graham

Flipping this around, if you support NATO attacking Afghanistan in response to 9/11, do you understand why Muslim terrorists acted in response to perceived grievances vs the West?

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Having a natural desire to take out a pistol and shoot the idiot who just cut you off on the highway is wrong and immoral. Having the natural desire to sexually assault the hot woman next to you in the elevator is immoral and wrong. The natural desire to kiss your girlfriend is not wrong or immoral. Again, you take everything out of context and generalize things into your own pre-made stereotypes. Welcome back!

It's understandable, but not necessarily morally correct. If US/NATO attacked out of revenge, that is completely wrong and immoral, although a natural knee-jerk reaction as I've just expressed. A legit reason for attacking the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere following 9/11 is to a) maintain the security of the US & allies from further/similar attacks. Yes al-Qaeda and those culpable were asking for it/had it coming or whatever. Also doesn't make it morally correct.

There's lots of reasons why women are single in their 30's, same as there are many reasons for men being single. Some are divorced, some maybe had a long relationship in their 20's and recently got out of it, maybe they're too busy with their careers, maybe they're not a "1 partner for life" type of person, maybe they don't like the concept of marriage, maybe they're unattractive/ugly/annoying and can't find a mate, maybe they're too picky, maybe they have attachment/commitment issues, maybe they're complete a-holes to the extreme, maybe they're sexually attracted to children/animals/inanimate objects, maybe they're too shy to meet people, maybe they aren't allowed to get married to the gender of their choice by law in the area they live in, maybe they travel and move around frequently etc. etc.

This is true, and it's why women can be full of it sometimes. How can a woman be angry or offended when they dress sexy in order to attract cute guys but instead also attract ugly/creepy guys? No it's not fun, but unattractive/creepy/gross men have every right to look at a woman who wears obvious cleavage and short-shorts in order to look attractive. Want it to stop? Wear something less provocative instead of playing the sexual harassment card.

Exactly, that's what I do too. Nothing wrong with a quick glance and then looking away. Everyone does it. Argus still brings up interesting philosophical points that should be discussed. This isn't some trivial matter brought up by some perv. We are sexual beings, the instances in this dilemma (looking at the opposite sex sexually) are confronted almost everyday by everyone. We should question what the appropriate acceptable behavior should be rather than blindly accepting the norms society has brought us up to believe. Maybe Argus is the Martin Luther King Jr. of men looking at breasts?

Join the military? Actually in either drone strike or 9/11 I would probably have these initial reactions of rage, but eventually cooler heads would prevail & I'd remember that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

If a foreign country ever blew up my innocent family with missiles or other means I would seriously consider joining some kind of military or terror group to seek retribution. It would make virtually anyone furious beyond belief. Amazing there haven't been more terror attacks from all across the world vs western countries over the last 50 years or so.

I also have natural instincts to fondle the breasts and pinch the butts of many women I pass everyday, but it's just not appropriate behavior in most environments, especially in a professional setting, so I refrain (not to mentioned it being disrespectful). My desire to fondle the boobs of attractive females I don't know is perfectly natural and healthy, and the desire to do so is NOT perverted. I don't think anyone is a pervert, we all have sexual desires and all sexual desires/thoughts are instinctual and not a choice, only our actions can be controlled. In a professional setting, using hilarious profanity like I do at home isn't appropriate professional behaviour, nor is wearing my Metallica t-shirts, nor is fondling the breasts of a coworker, and nor is looking at a coworker's boobs to the point that someone notices. Out on the street, I think it's fine to stare at good looking people of the opposite sex. It isn't touching, everyone should be able to look at whatever they want as long as they aren't invading privacy or stalking etc. I sympathize with you Argus and see your point, I wish all women went topless to work LOL, but in a professional setting certain things are usually inappropriate for a reason.

Well, you're assuming he's legit guilty of the charges against him. Being held at gitmo as a child throughout US military-led trials isn't exactly the definition of due process, so a guilty plea (via plea bargain) by him means butt-all in terms of his legit guilt IMO. Also remember that he was forced to move to Afghanistan and forced to become a child soldier by his parents. I'm not sure he's any kind of hero but I also don't know if he's a monster like many think he is. His parents are the real villians, especially his father.

The Wii and Kinect controllers are a bit flawed, the technology just isn't quite up to its potential yet. But if the holodeck from Star Trek is the end goal for all video gaming & interactive entertainment (or something like in Total Recall maybe?), then they're both an evolutionary step towards this. We might not see holodeck technology in my lifetime but it will be amazing to see what video games are like a few decades from now.

LOL, nah I don't think so. Many might disagree with you on issues simply because you're a conservative, but at least you have a sense of humour about it all (ie: your member title, so funny LOL).

delete

When I was 8 I still thought babies were caused by men & women kissing and thought babies came out of the woman's ass. True story.

"greatest Christian warrior" is an oxymoron. There are no "great Christian warriors" since according to Jesus one must be a pacifist and condone violence even if said violence is being directed toward you. That's the main point of the New Testament. According to the words and actions of Jesus in the New Testament, any violence to other humans one inflicts themselves or supports is a sin. That would make the greatest Christian (or Christian-like) leaders of our time people like Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama. How ironic! Leaders like Stephen Harper, George W Bush, and Obama etc. are very bad Christians.

This thread fails.

This is a bad career move for Justin. He's too young and more importantly FAR too inexperienced to be anywhere qualified to be Liberal leader let alone be PM. 4 years as an MP and being a school teacher before that just isn't enough political experience. He still comes across as a goof whenever he opens his mouth, he's just out of his league at the moment, he needs another 5-10 years as an MP to reach his potential where he could possibly be a decent PM. The good thing is that there almost certainly won't be an election for another few years so being Liberal leader (if he wins) will give him some much needed experience. Being leader will be make him learn much faster. I just think he may be hurting his career longterm by jumping in the race so soon & possibly crashing & burning.

I understand the general goal of a "no zeroes" policy. I agree that a student not handing in a few assignments or missing tests can be a behavioral issue, and often there can be problems at home that can affect a student's performance. I propose this "no zero" policy instead: if an assignment/test isn't completed, the student receives a mark of 50% (essentially a failing grade, but still a lot better than a zero) OR the student receives a mark that is 10% lower than the lowest mark among the students in the class who actually completed the assignment/test, whichever mark is lower. This way the student is punished for a non-completion, but receives a grade that makes catching up with classmates not as difficult as a zero.

Interesting, out of curiosity what games were you addicted to? I always got addicted to the 'Civilization' PC games, but my marathons would only (only?) go for up to 12-hour stretches at most. Also, haven't you heard the international news stories of the occasional gamer collapsing and dying during MMO gaming marathons?

Some of the likely contenders include Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, and in Forbes' list of Top 100 Most Powerful Women they also list high on the chart women like Dilma Rousseff (President of Brazil), Michelle Obama (has major influence on husband!), Melinda Gates (Wife of Bill & Co-Chair of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), Sonia Gandhi, and Oprah. There are other contenders of course. Who's your pick, and why?

Seems like a law that's mostly a relic from the era before my grandparents were born and just hasn't been so controversial as to have it formally removed from the Criminal Code of Canada yet? That's my best assumption.

Did you attend public school?

Uhm that was the whole point of my post. Again, where's your stat evidence to refute the first post? Why do you say public schools are better? In Ontario, apparently they aren't.

Because western societies don't have gun obsessions, start wars, drop nukes, torture, and play 'Call of Duty' in their spare time. If you don't like what you claim in your quote, maybe you should support the Democrats over the GOP

Mr. Canada is winning this debate by a mile because he's the only person in this topic who has brought in some relevant statistic with a link. Socialist will go on about how the public system is better, but he has nothing but opinion to back that up, zero facts, zero hard evidence. Where's the stats? How do you argue against this evidence from the OP link?: Almost everything else in this thread has been " i think/he said/she said" anecdotal evidence. I'll add to this: I can confirm Shady's observation that I've also known people who have put their kids in the Catholic system because it has "a better environment", but that doesn't mean the Catholic educational curriculum is necessarily superior. I've heard that, at least in the city I grew up, Catholic schools can be a safer environment for kids, at least partly because there is often less of a mix of culture/religion/race amongst the students that can be divisive. ie: You won't get a Jew and a Palestinian fighting in the schoolyard at a Catholic school LOL. I'd like to see some stats on this.