eXploiTeD

I am not a doctor, and I am not an expert in medical theory, opinion or practice. With that disclaimer in mind, I try to get as few vaccinations as possible. So I will not receive this one. This is not due to any religious or moral objection, but rather to the fact that I think it is better, in the end, for the body to do the work on it's own, without relying on vaccinations. That may not apply on an individual basis, but I think it applies on a collective one: the more we mess with the fundamentals of our body, and the more dependent we are on vaccinations for survival, the more damage we do to future generations. The world may get through this epidemic on vaccinations, but the result will be us taking one step closer to a super-virus.

How many posts I have is irrelevant. You are trolling, plain and simple. You won't stay on point, you constantly accuse me of being someone else (or pretending to be someone else?), and always talk as if you were God's representative on earth. Truth is, you are being really fucking annoying. If you can't or won't stay on topic, don't bother responding to my posts. Did you read my last post or not? The general trend is that the less religious people are, the more successful, economically and socially. This holds true regardless of the excesses of Communism. Communism has also exerted power over people's lives for less then a hundred years... religion, thousands... so it is definitely the exception. Not only that, but it makes sense when viewed through the "pendulum" of human behaviour... religion is extremist and brutal, and what it took to defeat it was an extreme and brutal secular system. Now that both have been largely dismissed as legitimate means of governance, the world has mostly adopted the free market system, and is slowly democratizing.

I'm not the one resorting to personal comments and trolling, keng. You ever heard "hate the sin, not the sinner?" Maybe you should approach people who disagree with you like that "bud." Central American civilizations operated under a fanatical religious mindset, sometimes monotheistic, sometimes not. The Soviet Union is an exception, I don't deny that. It also makes sense when looking at history on a macro level... what comes up, must come down, and when religion was replaced by the State and Big Business as people's means of uniting with one another... well... they responded with actions like the Holocaust, or the Red Revolution... But again, it's an exception.

Being a pacifist makes you less moral, not more.

Not only did you fail to refute any of my points, the only thing you did say is irrelevant to anything we are talking about. Although I appreciate a history lesson as much as anyone... sorry... there isn't anything to debate there.

I am not Jenny. Christians don't commit fewer crimes. They just elect people to commit them for them. That is the power of the majority (just look at the Middle East to see a Muslim equivalent). I do want to stay away from focusing on any religion in particular, however. All monotheistic religions are irrational/delusional, and encourage mindsets that are hateful towards humanity and justice in general.

Devout Christians commit other crimes because they live in different social situations. And since Christians and Christian morality is the majority around here, their crimes are usually shielded by the law. For instance, I believe it is a crime to arrest somebody for the possession of illegal drugs. I think it constitutes false imprisonment, kidnapping and usually assault. Devout Christians tend to support these things because they would rather see people's civil liberties walked all over then see them have a choice about how to live. They might also molest children. Or indirectly support the spread of AIDs because they can't stand people talking about sex in school, even though sex is one of the most important processes of humanity and doing it responsibly requires education and discussion, not ignorance and fear. Religion is willful ignorance.

Typical. Religion is one of the most dangerous delusions on the planet. The more religious a society, the worse off they are. That has held true for two thousand years.

It's definitely a weird thing to do, but you're free to do it... Irrelevant. We aren't talking about police officers, we're talking about border guards. Again, irrelevant... Irrelevant. I said there needs to be a department with the sole purpose of protecting the border, separate from both Customs and the local police force. You responded with something totally unrelated. Point? Gangs can easily be decimated if Canada gets the political will to legalize drugs. Doing so will also free up our legal system to start trying and successfully prosecuting violent offenders. Unfortunately, I suspect you are also the type who would object to drug legalization... I might be wrong, but you do seem to hold some fairly authoritarian values. The statement is true. Municipal taxes are skyrocketing due to provincial downloading of responsibilities. Since protecting the border is in the interest of all Canadians - and not just in the interest of those who live there - it follows that the national (federal) government should fund it. In other words, instead of making municipal taxpayers pay for it, you make national taxpayers pay for it, thus "sharing the load." Understand? You don't really seem to be opposed to anything I've said substantially, instead just seem concentrated on making an argument? But we're not talking about cops. We are talking about border guards, who are not cops, not trained like cops, not held to the same standards as cops and, well, not cops! Why you keep on employing red herrings and other fallacies is beyond me. Why can't we discuss the actual issue - border guards - instead of going on 10,000 irrelevant tangents because you feel like it? And customs should be separating those who perform administrative tasks from those who will carry guns and gather intelligence and detain suspects/threats. Doing so creates efficiencies and allows for specialization of labour. This is basic economy of labour here. There should be some officers with guns, and those officers should be trained and held to the same level as peace officers. This requires a separate bureaucracy with it's own mission.

Who the hell are you talking about? I haven't posted here in months. And what the fuck is rabble?

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else? I've never been banned from this forum. And I don't particularly think speaking my opinion is "trolling." Maybe if I was calling you names or something?

A simple logical fallacy: I never suggested that Natives have the "right" to break the law. But they do - like all human beings - enjoy the right to self-determination. Since no court in the world recognizes contracts formed under duress or coercion, it follows that any or all treaties made between the Natives and the Government of Canada are unenforceable by law. They may be followed from time to time, when it suits the political agenda of the rightful inhabitants of this country, but there is no legal basis for expecting Natives to obey the rules laid down by a government never consented too. This is especially true given the Government of Canada's historical disregard for it's treaty obligations. The problems ailing Natives will continue until they can integrate into communities they truly feel apart of. Simple as that. Sociologists have learned that deviant behavior is directly linked with the level of identification with the dominant culture. No amount of "tough love" and patchwork fixes are going to get to the root of our problems with one another... we need to take a completely different approach, one based on allowing Natives the opportunity to define, for the first time, their place in society - instead of society defining it for them. And in Canada, things don't work. I think this indicates a change in direction is needed. There is no doubting the sincerity of those working to resolve these issues. What I doubt is the soundness of their policies. You said it yourself: look at how much effort has been put into trying to rectify these problems. Look at how much money. That alone justifies the decision to abandon our current methods of handling this issue. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis - can you really argue that the effort we've put into it has produced a result you can agree with? Because that's clearly not the case... My friend, you are hacking at branches. Instead of combating these attitudes, perhaps we need to ask ourselves why? Why do they need education? Are you suggesting that they are stupid? That they, unlike us, are unable to comprehend what's right for them? That because they don't walk lockstep with your opinion on what's best for them... that they are perhaps less then you? It's this sort of attitude that is most damaging to Native-Canadian relations. Erm, up until about forty years ago, that was exactly what Native (re)education was. We have to give them a reason to trust us, not just assume that they will feel the same as we do. Another logical fallacy. You are painting all Natives with one brush, i.e. mass generalization. Further, you are misrepresenting the issue... Natives haven't been disenfranchised, they've been raped and then made to negotiate for the things needed to defend themselves.

Not our problem. I would suspect that a settlement of this type would entail revoking all previous treaties.

Absolutely. They get what they want (sovereignty), and we get what we want (the ability to defend our property and laws). A Native person living in Canada has every reason in the world to break the law, ranging from past atrocities to the generally abysmal treatment of Natives by the present day Federal Government. Giving them their own land and government would end a brutal system of co-dependence and allow them to develop the best chance for themselves, as they see it...

Not all border guards need to be armed. Plain and simple. If your job is to inspect cars and stamp a piece of paper, that's your job; if your job is to provide security and "protect the borders" from mostly imaginary threats, that's another thing altogether. If it's not treated that way now, it should be. Having an armed presence at every border crossing is a good idea, but there is no need to be excessive about it. Further, guns have very little to do with maintaining border security (both theoretically and statistically), and so shouldn't be a priority when there are other, far more pressing security issues we need to deal with, such as: installing radiation detectors at every crossing, ensuring emergency response crews are adequately funded and trained, getting Border Guards better equipment, increasing efficiencies enough to double the amount of cars and trucks being inspected, etc. If anything, there needs to be an agency created who's sole and specific purpose is to protect the border from violent threats. Border Guards are tasked with alot of responsibilities... most of which have conflicting goals and mandates. They need to be fast and efficient, because we trade so much with the United States... but at the same time, they need to be thorough and focused on the new threats facing Canada today (such as terrorists moving weapons into the United States... or Ottawa). I imagine federal funding could pay for it. This would free up the local police forces, and decrease the load on municipal taxpayers. At the same time, it would create a division of labour that would most definitely increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the borders... Customs does one thing... Security does theres.

Nobody asks for bloodshed, least of all the Natives. But they got it anyways, did they not? I can understand the motivations behind your insistence that federal money ought to equal legal obedience, but I still disagree. Let's say I walk into your house, take it over and force you to live in the basement. I then offer to give you some of your food back to you. Are you therefore obligated to listen to what I say just because you accept the food? I personally don't think so. Point?

Natives ought to disobey the law whenever they can. In fact, if I were them, I'd have resorted to excessive violence long ago.

I can only assume you're joking. Saudi Arabia is one of the most brutal regimes on earth: As for Bahrain, it has been successful precisely because military force was kept to a minimum: Qatar has much the same story. The British resolved a dispute between Bahrain and Qatar by negotiating with the two countries and recognizing their status as independent peoples. They used diplomacy and made incentives for peace. Now, it's the 11th richest country in the world (per capita), and definitely one of the most advanced Muslim societies ever. The UAE is another diplomatic success story. It just goes to show a simple truth: America, and the West, are at their greatest when they lead by example. The United States is blessed with the ability to be a truly isolationist nation, free from Old World squabbles... and this, I think, is North America's greatest blessing of all. Americans need to learn how to react to the world with something other than fear. If the United States decided to spend $600 billion per year buying food for starving Africans and Middle Eastern people, just how different do you think our relationship would be?

Of course (see definition of "exterminate")....but "our freedoms" include Canadian CF-18s dropping bombs, and artillery in Afghanistan, and frigates in the Gulf, and weapons systems manufacturing in Quebec and Ontario, and JTF2 missions, and etc. etc. etc. Ditto for the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Spain,....... In the past fifty years, can you name me any Middle Eastern country that has experienced long-term freedom and security as a result of American military occupations or operations (such as special forces) in any part of the world? Certainly if we tell them we are coming to help them, you can provide one example where things have gotten substantially and irrefutably better on a national scale.

Actually he set out to exterminate everyone who was not of the pefect aryan race, not just jews. But I agree that using "the devil made him do it" takes the onus right off his shoulders. He is then not responsible as he didn't do it, the devil did. On the same token if "the devil made him do it" then it must have been "god's will". As god didn't step in to save anyone, even his so-called "chosen" people -- this is historical proof of the invisible entity's non-existence.... Your argument makes a good deal of sense, but in the end, I disagree. Christians believe in original sin and free will. Faith is what saves us, and faith requires purposeful, thoughtful action (will). Merely indulging sick and deluded fantasies has no bearing on God's will, merely on your own. In other words, an absence of faith in the face of Christian "facts" is a choice. And so while the Devil will tempt you, it is your faith that shields you... and if your faith is weak, so to will be your resistance to the Devil. Mind you, I don't buy into this crap, but I have a good understanding of Christian theology. That is the inevitable response you will receive. The point is, according to Christians, is that Hitler was given the ability to make his own choices by God. He didn't obey the precepts of the religion and had no real faith; consequently, his choices were atrocious. If this argument is accepted, it follows that Hitler's actions have no bearing on God's will, and therefore do not speak to any "historical proof of the invisible entity's non-existence..." I suspect Christians will also claim that WWII was a "test of faith."

I'm extremely skeptical of the possibilities of anyone that rich getting convicted.

"They" hate your "freedoms" because of the way "freedom" manifests itself not only in Canada or the USA, but also in the rest of the world. Our "freedoms" encroach on religious extremists at home and abroad, Christian or Muslim. Leaving out religion is exactly one of the issues facing "them", as in the choice to believe or not, and even as an "infidel". But the hegemony is far more pervasive than mere religion....civil rights, women's rights, abortion, sexual preferences, art, music, food, alcohol, drugs, female soldiers, etc., etc., etc. They hate our freedoms because our freedoms are going to slowly exterminate "them" or drag "them" kicking and screaming into the present century where mainstream Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and a host of other religions can co-exist, even with atheists in a political / economic framework. Has it occurred to you that every time the United States bombs the Middle East, it's under the guise of "freedom" and "liberation?" Hell, it's a simple matter of word association. If I were a poor peasant living in the Middle East, I'd hate our freedoms too...

Justin Benner

Of course people will be affected. They will have to make changes in their lives when the true cost of gasoline is made apparent, instead of hidden by government subsidies and a social welfare system. They'll carpool more and probably bus more. Tourism receipts will drop in the short-term. It might even cause a slight recession as the market reboots itself. In the long run, it will save us hundreds of billions of dollars. It will also encourage the development of alternative energy technology. It will do that because these technologies are more efficient and cost-effective... not because of any government "management." In fact, I am hoping that Canada will abolish all subsidies for the oil and gas industry, as well as dissolve all gas-specific taxes. The price of gas has been kept artificially low. In order for the market to be reflective of the price of gas, we need those barriers removed.

Any cost-versus-benefit analysis will tell you it is better to deliver by truck and face the pollution. That being said, there are tons of alternatives... I grow all my own vegetables, for instance... and I only go to farmer's markets for my meat... and so your point, while valid, does not apply to me. It is true that transporting produce causes pollution, but it is also true that doing so does alot more good than the thousands of people who drive themselves, and only themselves, everyday. Whereas one truck can service potentially hundreds or even thousands of people, how many people does a typical SUV service? One? Two? True... but unlike oil and gas, it isn't the producers complaining... it's the consumers... the one's who's activities are subsidized by every level by people who don't participate in what they do (i.e. me). Which leads back to my original point: I am sick and tired of people complaining about the price of gas. Personally, I hope the gas tax is raised by at least 200%... that way it will be primarily those who drive automobiles that shell out the money... As per your point about greenhouse gas emissions... I'm not too concerned about it... nor did I ever contend to be. I get more worried about smog and pollution than global warming. My way of completely dismissing your initial intellectual snobbery.