kengs333

That's right, because they believe that their God is only there God and everyone else isn't chosen. So there's really no point in a Jew telling someone like you what they think of your behaviour because according to their belief, well, it just doesn't change the way things are. Of course, in the end, it doesn't matter; the prophesized Messiah has already come, and God's love and grace has been granted to all the peoples of the world who will sincerely recognize him and accept Jesus as their personal saviour. Which is why Christianity is a world-wide religion, while those who don't recognize Jesus continue to adhere to an exclusive, race-based notion of identity and religion. Funny how Christianity always gets knocked for being archaic, though. I find it interesting that you would consider Judaism the way to go if we had "one world religion" because that's what it essentially was intended to become with the coming of Jesus--yet all you do is mock and ridicule and deny. Moreover, your criticisms of Christianity always seem to be based on Old Testament writings, which the Jews still consider sacred. Very curious, indeed.

Yeah, I would, actually, because being accused of such a thing is insulting because you'd be suggesting that I consider myself to one of these false prophets that he warned about; moreover, given the trend of all of you few posts here, there's no reason to consider it in any way complimentary. You remind me of a couple of people we all knew quite well here just a short while ago. Your older sister? Why did you start in the first place?

I think the way it works is that a person is supposed to get an education and then go where that education can best be utilized, earn money and send it back to family if need be. There's no reason why leaving the reserve should result in a loss of connect with where someone comes from, a loss of culture.

From what I've seen the family and the friends that she stayed with before she died are saying that this had nothing to do with religion, although I guess that's what one should expect them to say. Whatever the case, I saw the family's nice big house on TV the other day, so if the guy was concerned about his daughter becoming too westernized, he wasn't exactly setting that great of an example.

She only gets it in certain positions.

I never said that people who considered themselves Christians didn't fight for the Nazis--if you were of age you had to join the military if you were fit do so. Those who didn't went to the camps, many died. Many did fight, but unless you can show me how German soldiers attributed what they were doing as being justified by their Christian belief, then you have no argument. I think you really need to read up on German social history; Germans, especially in larger cities, were quite secular and open to alternative ideologies.

Do you honestly believe you've deftly veiled your attack by making it in the form of a "you remind me of someone" anecdote?

Get a brain. Does that sound like a good idea to you too?

It's funny how whenever a person has an opinion that doesn't suit a left-wing agenda, that this opinion manifests because of some supposed "fear". So the fact that women are increasingly violent and that immorality is on the rise really isn't the product of extensive reading, observation, and contemplation--it's just a knee-jerk reaction based on (unfounded) "fear". Moreover, I'm not sure how simply holding an opinion on a subject somehow leads you to consider that I think of myself as an "expert" on any topic. I base my opinions on the findings of experts, but I read about a wide variety of topics and tend not to focus on any specific one to the point where I consider myself an expert. Your personal attacks, constant sarcastic and mocking comments I think are starting to get a tad excessive and obessive. For your own sake, please learn how to moderate and control you behaviour better.

Five posts devoted to "refuting" my opinions? Should I be flattered or concerned? The fact of the matter is that the point of a message board is to discuss and express opinions, not publish well-researched and cited dissertations. Try keeping things in perspective and find better things to do with your time, which apparently you have way to much of.

I believe in both cases the killer is still at large. I suppose theoretically one could assume that the killers were males, and of course nobody would have issue with that, but one could go a step further and suggest that the killer was a member of an ethnic minority. It's difficult to say who a killer was if someone gets sprayed in a drive by, or is found stabbed in a hotel stairwell, but it's not always what people would like to assume. Moreover, violence is a matter of socialization; Christian society is responsible for making women virtuous and non-violent, and now that that is being undone, there is a noticeable increase in overt violent behaviour perpetrated by girls/women. (Anyone who studied human aggression will tell you that aggression among women is something that receives less attention and manifests in much more subtle ways). Women are less likely to murder, but it is by no means rare. Have there not been a few cases this year in Toronto where a woman killed his child(ren), and what about those two homeless women who killed that guy in middle of the street because he wouldn't give them change or something.

Umm.... the majority of murder victims in Canada (c. 66-75%) are men, and the murder is usually the result of criminal activity. Domestic violence homicides constitute a small fraction of the total, and include some male victims and children killed by there mothers.

No they don't, actually. No one has the right to flagrantly break the law, interfere with the lives of other Canadians in order to push a political agenda. That's not how it works in Canada. Moreover, characterizing the treatment of Indians now as "abysmal" is ridiculous considering how much of a sincere effort there has been on the part of society and government to rectify past problems, and considering how much money has been dumped into programs for Indian culture, rehabilitation, economic development. Much of the problem does rest on the individual bands and how they are mismanaged, or the manner in which backward and defeatest attitudes imposed on youth by their elders. There's only one solution to many of the problems that Indians face: education. And when I read Indians complaining about education being a "white man's" tool for oppression and genocide, it's difficult to feel much sympathy. People who want to live in ignorance only have themselves to blame, and Canada should have to pay for it when a bunch of under-educated people feel that they need to be compensated for being disenfranchised.

Yes.

No, actually it's morality. Without morality, humans function on a level where base desires are the motivating factor for everything they do and have little inclination to improve or advance themselves.

Since when has this ever been a measure of anything relating to "civility" or "progress". Whoever put this foolish, backward notion into your head. The right to engage in sexually deviant behaviour is nothing but an indication of how much a society has regressed, how much it is declining in terms of morality.

Violence is something that predominantly happens against men in this society, but despite the expectation that we view women as equals, whenever women are the victims of violence there is a disproportionately greater amount of sympathy for them than there is for men. In late September this year, a 16 year-old boy was killed in a random act of violence while standing at a bus stop waiting to go to his part-time job. From what I've read, he was a good kid not involved in any of the activity usually at the root of murder in Toronto. What's his name? More recently, we have Keyon Campbell, also 16 year-old, also not involved in that type of activity; he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Well, at least we know is name, but he will no doubt soon be forgotten. But we all know Jane Creba, and many will no doubt remember her for some time to come. Would we if she happened to have been a male? A black male? Probably not. It goes both ways.

You should try posting on rabble.ca if you haven't had the chance. It's fun. all you do is make rational, common sense arguments and you'll get called every name in the book and then banned for being a troll within a couple days.

Of course they don't. They have too much to lose going that route.

Yup, here we go again...

You never fail to have something brilliant to add to a conversation.

Well, obvious someone who doesn't know can't understand, so the fault for not having something explained ultimately rests on them; in order to understand, one has to be willing to listen and learn, but all you've demonstrated is that you want to mock and ridicule. Well, that's a choice that you've made, and that's all there really is to it.

Good question. I would think that just about everyone on this planet knows of Jesus and the Gospels, but in the end I think the answer is fairly complex and I couldn't do it justice. There is always the chance that some people will not know about Jesus, and this would most likely arise when someone denied them the chance to do so, such as an authoritarian political regime; like what the Communists tried to do. The godless people who run such a regime would certainly have to account for themselves. That's the nature of the world God created, and that's just the way things are. Some things are just beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, and there is no use in trying to explain something that is unexplainable. I'm not sure how Jesus could or did go against what "god said".

Yes, I watched the ending of that, too. What struck me is how significant Darwin consider what he had observed on the Galapagos, how it influenced what he studied and wrote later--yet he spent so little time there, and really only scratched the surface of the wealth of information that the islands have to offer. And this chance event unltimately leads to social darwinism and the rise of Hitler and the decline of Christianity in the western world, and the slow evolution towards a non-Christian immoral civilization.

Well, I think in the case of Six Nations, there seniments that are being expressed is more than that of "a few militants". It's interesting, though, that the loudest of them all have turned out to be a small group of "white" nitwits who seem to be trying to inflame tensions between Six Nations and non-Natives ("white supremacists").