ScottSA

Given the number of people who seem to need the words "racism" and "bigot" holstered within easy reach in order to debate folks with opinions they don't like, perhaps it would be helpful if Greg clarified what he actually meant. His first sentence says: "I want to clarify the rules on insults. Lately a few forum members have resorted to calling other forum members "racists" and or "bigots" in response to certain opinions." That's easy enough to understand, and it explicitely pinpoints the insult as a noun, when used against another. From reading the directive in this sentence, one assumes that it'll carry on to prohibit simple name calling, giving anyone who cares about being called the dreaded word a fair amount of protection from being directly assaulted by it. However, the second sentence is not as clear: "Use of either of these terms in relation to another forum member will be considered an insult and a warning will be issued." I'm not sure what that means. Is it simply a restatement of the prohibition in the prior sentence, with the first step of discipline outlined? Or does it go further and prohibit one from claiming that an expressed sentiment is "racist" or "bigotted?" I really don't care, since I'm not likely to be banned - for this crime at least. Just thought I'd help out in formulating the thoughts of folks who haven't really figured out how to articulate their issues.

Tell you what: you take all the Iraqi murders out of that 2 month list of Islamic murders in the name of Islam, and then, just to make sure, take another couple hundred out of that 2 month list, and then use the remaining ones on that 2 month list to stack up against all the murders committed by Rapture cultists in the name of God, since the movement began. Let's see how those numbers stack up. I'm almost embarrassed for the people trying to make moral equivalencies here.

That's a false dichotomy, actually. If you want to compare Islamic terrorism to Rapture terrorism, go for it and see how the numbers stack up. Because that's an appropriate comparison. However, you'll also note, in the first half of that very sentence that I specifically rejected that appeal, because it's so nonsensical when used by Muslims that it can't be used here either as a defence. All I need do is that Rapture cultists do not hold any position of strength even in Christendom, never mind across the globe, nor do they call for their adherents to kill people in the name of God. Mainstream Islam does, all the time, from positions of power, sometimes from the very top.

Psssst: Just a hint to help you avoid embarrassment in the future: digging up an article in support of your position hardly constitutes "proof" of something. In fact, it often actually hurts your position. Like this one, which sets "Rapture Culture" apart from Christianity, in the very words you quoted. Now I won't play the game of the Islamic apologists and try to say that rapture has nothing to do with Christianity a la "Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam," but I will point out that this "rapture culture" is certainly not representative of mainstream Christianity, as also evidenced by your own article, nor does it advocate the proactive killing of unbelievers. In fact, your asides are full of completely unsubstantiated assertions, like the book is passed, "on average" to three other people. What nonsense. How could anyone credibly claim to be able to track enough of these books through a reading cycle to know what the "average" is? That's the basis, I assume, for your claim that "multi-millions" belong to this sect. Let me suggest to you that whatever the numbers of believers in this nonsense are, they pale in comparison to the mainstream Islamic mullahs thundering invective down on Jews and infidels, and howling for their heads. And I daresay if you compiled a list of murders by Rapture cultists in the name of God, it wouldn't come very close to the hundreds of weekly murders by Islam.

The good thing about conservative politicians like Harper is that they are not afraid to stand up for things. Sure, as politicians in a democracy they have to bend a little on issues, sometimes even on big issues like the scam orchestrated by Suzuki and Gore, but on issues of right and wrong, they're a whole lot less transigent than liberals. I remember when Israel finally said enough is enough and shaved Hezbollah's tail in Lebanon...amoral Liberal pragmatism never crawled out from under its rock so obviously as when the CBC, used to years of cynical vote pandering by the Liberals, pronounced it a "mistake" for Harper to support Israel, because there were more Arabs in Canada.

I'm not sure what a Canadian sub - even a superduper keen sub - is going to do if it detects another nation's sub. Torpedo it? Drop bricks on its head? What's the point of monitoring chokepoints? In order to send a diplomatic protest over an intrusion that the other country doesn't even recognize as such?

One side in this housing thing is doing the usual leftist tapdance, and the other is saying it's not right for an ethnic group to live together in an enclave. Of course it's ok. In fact it's natural. Why wouldn't they? The problem is not that people choose to live together, the problem is that they are here in the first place in numbers that support that ability.

That's "Mr Hey You" to you.

Actually, the ten year residency requirement is perfectly legitimate. We seem to have quite a canadian diaspora, what with 20-40 thousand "Canadians" in Lebanon alone, and lord only knows how many abroad in places like India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, yet all these at best nominal Canadians get to excercize a vote. It's quite ridiculous.

He defended himself well. Right into the presidency.

That truly is a paranoid post. A guy sends a card to someone who happens to be Jewish and you're all "Run! Here comes a pogrom!"

Really.

Well, the fact that you make those statements doesn't throw any weight behind their veracity, now does it? I can ask you rhetorical questions like 'Does it turn you on when Mullahs eat babies?' or 'have you stopped beating your mother yet?' but my premise is false in at least one of those questions, so the question itself is meaningless, isn't it?

Thanks for that relevant tidbit. I keep hearing that the moon is not made of green cheese, yet everyone wants to get there!

I am offended by being called "ScottSA." It doesn't matter that I have used the name for a good many years; what matters is that I choose now to be offended by its use. Henceforth I would like to be called "The Great White Hunter," and anyone who fails to do so is offending me something awful. Shortening it to "Whitey" is acceptable during periods when Mars is in the orb of Venus, and only when it is used by fellow whites, similar to the commonplace use of the "N" word by Blacks, and the traumatically horrifyedness of its use by anyone else. Indians, for example, use "Whitey" as part of their systemic denigration and racism program. Btw, "paleface" is right out.

What an odd thread. The same people who want to abolish "bigotry" are outdoing themselves to flagellate their own heritage. Is this what passes for "open-mindedness" these days? Yeeesh.

It's unfortunate but not particularly surprising that you don't get it, but no, I'm not going to try to explain it again at an entirely different level of comprehension...oh wait a sec, I have to train my pet snail to 'sit'...because I spend too much time doing that already.

Dunno, but it would have been nice if the Muslim world had reciprocated with a cure for the Black Plague. I wonder if that was a deliberate "genocide" too?

There are no links, and Mustafa won't be back. It's just the usual nonsensical left-fodder coming from the cavemen via "moderate Muslims" either in North America or the ME. This is their version of psyops.

That explains those crowds of wandering homeless I see being prodded along by nAZi PigS!!!1!!!!! whenever I'm out at night. I always wondered why the nAzi pIGs!11!!!1 were doing, and why they wouldn't let the poor souls sleep. No wonder they're homeless...they're too tired to get jobs. Shame.

I don't think that's the point. Would you like to have the point explained to you, again?

What about Yak oil? I think if Israel had ruthlessly crushed the Palestinians without provocation killed and exiled all it's rulers and chased them into the sea off Beirut, and then occupied Palestine with a steel grip, disallowing any form of political sovereihnty, the situations would be marginally similar, except that Tibet was actually a sovereign nation...

What's this thread about again? Oh, right. Beer and hockey.

Protestant nuns?

You were one of the ones upset about not being allowed to call people bigots too, right?