ScottSA

You see, every single one of these arguments applies to the woman too, yet you blithely struggle to make them fit only one sex. Surely you must be aware of the logical inconsistencies here? Tagging a platitude about how we all must take responsibility doesn't really address anything...the meat of your argument is pure inconsistency.

Yup. Case in point. The "life's not fair" argument. Let's try using that on a woman when she's "denied" an abortion. I'm sure you'll be there to tell her lifes not fair, right?

As you know, given my blog, my disdain for Dippy, and all my comments, I'm hardly an anti-Semite. But I'm a little tired of whitewashed history. What many whitewashed history books fail to remember, or more often gloss over as "insurrections" against Roman rule, are several genocides committed by Jews around the time; specifically in Cyrenaica and Egypt. So bad were these events they are what initially began this ridiculous global anti-Semitism kick we know today. In Egypt, whole swathes of territory were depopulated; similar to the Zulu genocides in the 17th century when the entire southern tip of Africa was depopulated; upwards of 250,000 people killed. In Cyrenaica and Egypt similar numbers...usually estimated at around 240,000 were killed. These numbers are horrific for the relative population estimates of the day...in 2007 terms they would translate into tens of millions. For centuries afterwards The survivors of Cyprus would kill, out of hand, shipwrecked Jews. As late as WW II Jewish soldiers refused to serve in Egypt and Cyprus as a result of the memory. What is remembered in history is the anti-Jewish backlash, that led to the extermination of Jews in most of the Greek Islands and Egypt, but what is always forgotten is the cause of it. I say this not to bash Jews, but just to get past this notion that Judaism is somehow morally innocent by virtue of historical oppression. I'm a little tired of the politically inspired whitewashing of history, no matter where it goes on. It's like the ridiculous claim that Indians all lived in sylvan harmony before big bad columbus showed up and forced them into houses and free hospitals.

That should scare the hell out of people but I'm sure some people in Canada will continue to say: build coal plants for better crop production! Scare the hell out of people? Even if you had been honest in your disclosure of this info, and you haven't by a long shot, it's the best news I've heard all week! I don't know if you've noticed, but Canada is one of those "cooler places."

Dobbin is trying to scare up an anti-Harper issue here, of course. First, the "nuclear club" is widely understood to mean those countries with weaponized nuclear energy, so he gets in that little kick right at the neginning with his misleading title. Next, he fabricates a non-issue with waste storage, when there is an explicit statement that waste won't be coming here...oddly enough, one of the anti-Harper cadre then jumps in and tries to suggest that a statement claiming no waste will come here is proof that waste will come here...just wierd. Then Dobbin tries to claim that Canadian nuclear technology, which has been one of canada's major exports for decades, is somehow going to lead immediately to proliferation of weapons. Dobbin, I have often laughed at people who accuse others of being paid acolytes of a party...or "paid bashers" as they are known in the daytrading community...but really...if anyone fits the bill of a paid liberal agitator, you do. The only thing you ever post is anti-Harper agitprop, and your attempts to round up issues where none exist is so transparent that it's laughable. Perhaps Harper plans to send uranium tainted Christmas greetings to the folks on his nefarious secret lists, eh?

This question presupposes that the woman has no choice whatsoever in the making of the baby. I'd like to see a man use that argument when brought up on charges for failure to pay child support. Why is it horrid to "force a woman to give birth," but quite alright to force a man to pay for it? Why is it enlightened to celebrate a woman's choice, but decry a man's choice as "selfish and irresponsible?" I've yet to hear a feminist respond to this rather obvious double standard with any degree of coherence. It's one of those insane feminist reasonings that defy and actually deny logic...murder is freedom and good on one hand, but freedom is mysogynistic and bad on the other.

If you've ever grown plants with added CO2, anecdotal evidence is all you'll need. The increase in grown is phenomenal. Whatever this alleged research claims, it's missing or omitting crucial information.

An exclusive Nanos Research-Sun Media poll reveals a scant 21.6% of Canadians think Dion has done a good or very good job of communicating his vision for Canada. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't someone actually have a vision before one starts communicating it?

What utter nonsense. You'd be the first one to point out the barbarism of burning homos at the stake...another preistly occupation some years earlier...if it behooved whatever silly argument you were making at the time. And I doubt you would even see the contradiction.

I posted this on another thread, when Higgy first got the brilliant notion that power and rules are somehow opposing ideas: Here's a fundamental misunderstanding that shapes the thoughts of many wannabe armchair strategists. The two categories are not mutually exclusive, and in fact one make no sense without the other. "Rules" are merely articulated thoughts. Without coercion they are meaningless, whether in a chatroom, a domestic legal system, or an international arena. What, for instance stops me calling you a silly passive aggressive little twit? Not rules, that's for sure. It's the enforcement of those rules that ensures I don't call you that. It's the "power" you so disdainfully dismiss. It's Greg. Some people may be able to function without rule enforcement, but certainly neither you nor I can do so. In domestic law there exists an entire social underbelly who flaunt the rules and spend their years in and out of jail, and then there are those who live so well within the rules that they need never worry about running afoul of the rules. But the vast majority of people live somewhere in between, in varying degrees of compliance, because of enforcement, or "power." That doesn't mean everyone in this group would run out straightaway and rob a bank the second the cops go on strike, but it means there are degrees of compliance to rules they would ignore, were it not for enforcement...from stealing paperclips and jaywalking to egregious rapine and murder. And it's exactly the same thing in the international system, except that there is no police force, so things work on the posse system. The UN can make rules until they extrude its backside, but no one is going to follow them unless it is in their self-interest, or unless the rules are enforced by someone willing to round up a posse and do the job. Fortunately peace is in the interest of a globalist system and most of the actors in it, so compliance is voluntary and more or less effective on an international level. The exemptions to this rule happen when somebody ("somebody" refering to an unitary actor country) perceives that they have more to gain outside compliance than within it. At that point it decides just how far it is willing to go outside compliance. If it's willing to go far enough, the other actors have to decide how far they are willing to go to maintain compliance to rules. The long and short of it is that your duality is a false duality.

So if Eskimos ate the members of the Franklin expedition, we are to conclude that all Eskimos are cannibals? What unreasoned reasoning.

Oh puleeze. Claiming someone persecutes you is not even close to "hatred." If that were true, all Israelis would be guilty of hate for claiming persecution in the holocaust. You sound like a hysterical Jewish housewife half the time with these hamfisted sarcasms and grand sweeping accusations. Give it a rest.

What constitutes a "real" job to you? Tapping away in a farmhouse basement, or the local reservation community hall, waiting for the next oil revenue cheque to come in?

Is that what it proves? Forgive me for saying so, but judging by other recent threads about genocide and "oral tradition," your standards of "proof are emminently laughable.

Here's a fundamental misunderstanding that shapes the thoughts of many wannabe armchair strategists. The two categories are not mutually exclusive, and in fact one make no sense without the other. "Rules" are merely articulated thoughts. Without coercion they are meaningless, whether in a chatroom, a domestic legal system, or an international arena. What, for instance stops me calling you a silly passive aggressive little twit? Not rules, that's for sure. It's the enforcement of those rules that ensures I don't call you that. It's the "power" you so disdainfully dismiss. It's Greg. Some people may be able to function without rule enforcement, but certainly neither you nor I can do so. In domestic law there exists an entire social underbelly who flaunt the rules and spend their years in and out of jail, and then there are those who live so well within the rules that they need never worry about running afoul of the rules. But the vast majority of people live somewhere in between, in varying degrees of compliance, because of enforcement, or "power." That doesn't mean everyone in this group would run out straightaway and rob a bank the second the cops go on strike, but it means there are degrees of compliance to rules they would ignore, were it not for enforcement...from stealing paperclips and jaywalking to egregious rapine and murder. And it's exactly the same thing in the international system, except that there is no police force, so things work on the posse system. The UN can make rules until they extrude its backside, but no one is going to follow them unless it is in their self-interest, or unless the rules are enforced by someone willing to round up a posse and do the job. Fortunately peace is in the interest of a globalist system and most of the actors in it, so compliance is voluntary and more or less effective on an international level. The exemptions to this rule happen when somebody ("somebody" refering to an unitary actor country) perceives that they have more to gain outside compliance than within it. At that point it decides just how far it is willing to go outside compliance. If it's willing to go far enough, the other actors have to decide how far they are willing to go to maintain compliance to rules. The long and short of it is that your duality is a false duality.

I wonder if there's a cure for passive aggressive little trolls? No names mentioned, of course. No insult intended, of course.

So should we have a public hearing on whether man landed on the moon too? After all, there are a good many more people who believe we didn't than there are who believe *scoff* that genocide was committed on Indians. Should we have public hearings on something everytime some interest group brings up some pet fabrication and tries to flog it as truth? The second thing is your terminology. No one is "denying" a public hearing. You can go out tomorrow and round up a few conspiracy theorists and hear till you're blue in the face. It's just that no one wants to pay for such nonsense. Try to understand...500 years ago westerners were proud of their society, and their religion, and set out to make the world a better place by converting the heathen. 100 years ago that attitude had softened somewhat, yet we knew intuitively that living in western society so far outweighed the tribulations of living in semi-savage conditions in skin tents at subsistence levels, that we cast about for ways to do what we thought was right; and one of those things was to integrate Indians out of the stoneage and into the 19th and 20th centuries. Were we wrong? Probably not, since Indians apparently like 21st century amenities just fine, but now we have become relativistic, living so well off our forefather's endeavours that a significant number of us can't stand themselves, but prefer to blame in on generations gone by than on their own mental confusion. Through the lens of this pervasive self-guilt, all actions we took before, no matter how altruistic they were at the time, become a sinister crime. These people were doing the best they could at something they thought was right. The fact that a few may have had a taste for bum meat doesn't mean it was widespread, and it certainly doesn't mean it was some sort of "genocide" or other silly hysterical hyperbolic fabrication. If we had wanted to kill the Indians, we would have simply done it, like the Indians tried numerous times to do to us. What stopped us from doing it was a Judeo-Christian heritage and a post-Enlightenment view of "progress." The residential schools were an attempt to do the right thing as we saw it at the time. Indians should say thank you. In fact Indians should thank their lucky stars it was Europeans who ventured along and not the Chinese, Mongols or, for that matter, the Aztecs.

Well, since you asked, I "feel" like you're a self-inflating liar. Please keep in mind that I offer this feeling because you asked for it, and remind Higgy of that fact before his finger starts stabbing at the 'report' button. I feel that you lie a lot about numerous aspects of your life, and while that says more about you than about me, it makes me 'feel' embarrassed for you. To have to make up stuff about one's life to make it appear interesting and hoist your own feeling of self worth much be sad for you. I also "feel" you are indulging in topics you know nothing about, and it evokes scorn in me.

I take it that's distinct from an active coward who lurks in his basement and wouldn't, under any circumstances, volunteer for service himself?

You're now moving the goalposts and asking for the gallopingly impossible. To get someone to say "human created global warming is not occuring" with any credibility is as impossible as getting someone to say "human created global warming is occuring" with any credibility. Sure, the Suzukis and Gores say it all the time, but that carries about as much academic weight as Cher or Bono saying it. The whole point of the so-called "deniers" is that we don't know. All we know is that this has happened countless times before, even within historical memory, and certainly many times before humans ever walked the earth. It is quite natural to ask why, if human created CO2 is a causal agent, this could ever have happened before. Come to that, no one is even sure what is happening, since there are as many indications that the globe is not actually warming at all in some places.

No, Rue, you're quite wrong. This is straight from post-modern feminism. I've read several alleged "academic papers" on it, and anyone familiar with the genre will recognize it immediately. In fact the term "missile envy" originated with Carol Cohn in what amounts to a diatribe against "male centric" militarism and the terminology used in strategic studies at the academic level. Her extrapolations are quite silly; taking terminology and pointing to sexual imagery is one thing, but constructing around that a paradigmatic construct claiming that men made war is outright silliness. Once again you ponce into a conversation, pronounce upon it, and if the past is anything to judge by, you'll not be admitting your error. You're rather a bombastic little man, aren't you?

The answer to that is easy. The JOOOOOs did it.

No, I got all that from the theme of your posts on this and other subjects, and from the generally lacklustre intelligence level displayed by you in most things. We both know why you posted this thread, we both know more or less what you're getting at, and I at least know that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

This thread has become as insane as the 911 conspiracy thread, with more freaks crawling out of the woodwork, making up stats, stretching facts, and generally making a mockery of history. What crap.

Then perhaps they ought not to have signed up; what do you think? Was it a surprise to them that they might have to fight? I wonder if that's a problem across the job spectrum? Just imagine all the babysitters out there suddenly finding out that they have to deal with smelly icky children, or police officers who suddenly find out there's more to being a cop than eating donuts. Something should be done.