lictor616

Saying that any debate is a foregone conclusion (before even knowing what the other person might say) and automatically assuming that because someone is of a different belief or "standpoint" that that person is automatically wrong, silly and unworthy of your time... and then acting as though they would be blessing and "dignifying" the person whom they are rejecting argument with... is indeed a little presumptuous isn't it? either way why say it if your aim is to ignore me? why not be silent altogether? right?

I wonder if Khdar is the type of person who (as you say monkeyboy) "feels canadian"... lolsies!

ahahahaha ... argus is a meany pooh! what are you 12?

from nowhere? Richard Dawkins is a scholar of international repute.. and he debunks the whole of your assertions in this very concise and easy to understand interview... Xenophobia is supposed to mean "fear of people from other nations".... I am an avid traveler, and myself come from a foreign country... I was also an exchange student in Venezuela for one year... now please stop focusing on individuals... and to the arguments. and btw, you do generalize (for instance you referred to white inmates in canadian prisons as majority pedophiles once)... you also agree that every minority is a victim of racism, and that every minority is denied job opportunitiies in canada. either way Generalizations are not always false, and do provide us with insight with real world application. If you're mugged in the US... chances are its not at the hands of a norwegian girl... see?

how arrogant and presumptuous on your part. I received precisely the same answer from a Christian evangelical on the question on the existence of dinosaurs... he simply said that talking to such ogres as myself capable of believing that dinosaurs existed and were not merely "inventions of the devil" to "keep up distant from god" are not worth debating... anyways, enjoy your obtuseness and lack of intellectual curiosity in debating with people with different views as you... stay in your cave, its way to bright outside.

did you have a refutation or any specific counter argument?... if not...then please retain sufficient decency to be quiet. although I should say that Monkeyman would do well to ignore me... and I hope he does

monkey (what a fortunate name) has about the same arguments as this waste of skin Islamic "scholar"... featured in this interview with Richard Dawkins.

you're country "in you heart" what does that even mean? What does in your heart signifie... and you say you feel candian when you can't even define specifically what being canadian is! A huge majority of ethnic minorities? Did you see the demographics for Ontario? Most neighborhood in the GTA for instance are RACIALLY SEGREGATED... you have one part this is majority Pakistani and Hindu (called BrownTown), there's the asian district, then there's little Jamaica (with suburbs higher then 90% black)... Montreal, same deal .. Montreal Nord (aka montreal NOIR) is heavily haitian, China town well.. lets is um awefully chinese, St Leonard is Greek/Italian, Westmount WASP/Jewish, Plateau, French and Quebecois... south shore? Greenfield park is indian/pakistani, Longueuil is almost divided in racial districts... I mean... were do you see these immigrants that "feel canada" by speaking non canadian languages, dressing in non canadian ways, eating non western foods, and by all accounts are at odds with most if not all of our mores and ways of looking at the world? My guess is that you don't know what you're talking about.

huh? a black person will have more difficulty to get a job EVEN if candidacy is for blacks only? Am I getting you right? You're saying that even if a policy of outright institutional racism is adopted... where whites are BARRED from applying for certain jobs or privileges for NO OTHER REASON OTHER THEN THEIR RACE... and you're still saying that minorities are disadvantaged? What would it take then? extermination of white people outright? Taxing whites an extra 40% of their income to give to non-whites because of bias (real or imagined)? tell me when does this stop? when do minorities stop being the victims?

"make" a crime eh? figured as much.

well said.

Tempus Edax Rerum "le temps détruit tout"

here's another instance of flagrant anti-white bias now in from the US: Robert Reich: Obama's economic adviser says in this video that: "I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. ...I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. … Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals." how's that for equality? three cheers for Diversity people!

"white pedophiles"...? uh oh I smell an anti white irreconcilable! When are you going to refer to white people as "pink cave beasts" as Black Pantherites so enjoy doing? oh I can't wait.

substitute businesses for "Workplace" M."willfully"Obtuse. and how funny is that... a 75% non-white racial quota for a fire department... and this is all backed up by the charter! And you still maintain that its actually non-whites who are discriminated against!?!?! Can you imagine if a police department say in Dryden ontario, came out with a statement that "since Dryden is 98% white, we will change our recruitment policy to recruit at least 75% white males" ... how would you or any other liberal react to that? My guess is that there would be riots and law suits. but in our country, whites are EXPECTED to be scoffed at and considered second class citizens... so who cares... you don't even see the brazen double standard... and still refuse to acknowledge (despite what EVEN THE CHARTER SAYS) the obvious, PALPABLE anti-white bias that permeates Canadian society.

i can't believe you,re actually debating that Affirmative action.. i.e: a program that ensures that businesses select a suitable number of minorities AS QUOTAS, combined with the ACTUAL WRITTEN LAW of the Charter of Rigths And Freedoms is not concrete proof that the law does in fact enforce racial quotas... I mean assuming something short of total obtuseness what more do you need? ITS IN THE FREAKING CHARTER DANCER.. right there staring you in the face saying: "WE'RE ALL EQUAL .. .BUUUUUUT "MINORITIES ARE TO HAVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN HIRING AND FIRING and ADMISSIONS TO UNIVERSITIES" more examples? The Richmond Fire Department had to apply to a B.C. Human Rights panel to get permission for a “diversity” plan which allows 75% of new jobs in its fire department to go to visible minorities and women. The plan will last from 2007 to 2010. yeah dancer... whatever you say.. no quotas whatsoever. yup... whad di I say (reject out of hand).. "White males need not apply" Internal e-mail reveals hiring ban at Public Works Tom Blackwell National Post Saturday, November 19, 2005 "A major federal department has temporarily banned the hiring of able-bodied white men in an unusual move critics say could spark a backlash against the very disadvantaged groups it is meant to help. Managers in the Public Works department must hire only visible minorities, women, aboriginals and the disabled, except with written permission from their superiors, David Marshall, the deputy minister, ordered in an e-mail circulated yesterday." The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does allow some discrimination by government to aid groups it identifies as being disadvantaged, said Robb Macpherson, a labour lawyer with the firm McCarthy Tetrault."

wow what a duh moment... If the affirmative action anti-white law would'nt exist ... minorities wouldn't be preferred candidates for jobs... gee really? ya think? And you're the dumb one, if you're actually sitting there telling me that a PROGRAM/LAW whose sole purpose is to TAKE JOBS AND GIVE THEM TO MINORITIES INSTEAD of WHITES are somehow "not" taking jobs away from whites and therefore dispossessing them, then you're either dumb or taking us for saps. I mean the sheer absurdity to believe that taking jobs or privileges from Group A to compensate Groups B and C, in order to correct some real or imagined injustice, is somehow not detrimental to group A and somehow shouldn't breed resentment in group A is simply lunacy on stilts. Canadian law was made to treat people AS INDIVIDUALS. Real Canadians are INDIVIDUALS and expect to be treated as such, they cannot be dealt with merely as nonentities (the way people were treated in Soviet Russia). If the aim was really colour blindness especially in the work environment, then THE ONLY aspects to hire a candidate must involve determining if an individual has the training, knowledge, ability, honesty and integrity required to perform the task effectively; skin colour alone cannot guarantee this. But earnest do gooding liberals insist that it should... and they call US the racists... go figure.

here it is: THE QUÉBEC CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS (R.S.Q.C-12) Reproduction ---- snip----------- 18.1/ "No one may, in an employment application form or employment interview, require a person to give information regarding any ground mentioned in section 10 UNLESS the information is useful for the application of section 20 or the implementation of an affirmative action program in existence at the time of the application." http://www.mcgill.ca/files/equity_diversity/charter.pdf (page 4 of 20) (if you're wondering what section 10 is: 10/ "Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap. Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right." In other words, no one is allowed to be treated differently UNLESS one is a minority, in such an arrangement, affirmative action programs are in place to ensure that blacks, homosexuals etc get PREFERRENTIAL TREATMENT over "white swine" (i'm paraphrasing here a bit).. here you have it ENCODED in our Charter of "rights" and freedoms... lemme guess though... you'll reject this out of hand and tell me that some KKK website was also talking about this very subject .. which makes it null and void... right dancer?

Well and this phenomenon is compounded by the liberal education. The effect of this multicultural double standard upbringing is that children (especially non-white children) are no longer encouraged to question their own assumptions and those of their parents and society. Children of immigrants must accept uncritically whatever it is they're being offered rather than the exercise of independent judgment. The Multiculturalist programme forces obedience to authority, the authority of the ethnic group. An immigrant youth cannot be expected to be colour blind if we teach them that their identity is determined uniquely by the colour of their skin or their country of origin. How can we treat Canadians equally, when in actuality minority canadians are first class citizens with many privileges and advantages over "non-diverse" white canadians? Multiculturalism treats people as mere cyphers, or units of a minority group. Immigrant parents teach their children (as well as our media and educational system) to think of themselves as perpetual victims, and to be footsoldiers for their ethnicity (they teach their children to be proud of their non-white heritage, and to see themselves as "haitians, Pakistanis, Arab" before canadian... they teach them to be HYPHENATED canadians with no real loyalty to the country they reside in. In a July 25, 2006, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald discussed the new phenomenon of homegrown terrorists. "Study: Conflict Likely Between Canada, Its Muslim Citizens." in 2006 police arrested a group of young Muslims — "homegrown terrorists" — who were going to storm the Canadian Parliament, hold politicians hostage, and behead the prime minister. According to the Globe and Mail of June 29 2006, the wives of the four main conspirators shared "among other things, their passion for holy war, disgust at virtually every aspect of non-Muslim society and a hatred of Canada ." How can one expect immigrants to integrate as individuals if one advocates multiculturalism? But then that isn't the idea, is it?

yeah why even talk about the instances of black on white hatecrime (which are NEVER called hate crimes) and focus only on the white on black "hatecrimes"... who cares about white vitcims? right? The only ones that matter are black... the point of course is that this wasn't a clear cut "hate crime" (as silly as the concept of hate crime is anyway)

does affirmative action enforce race based quotas for employers? yes or no? The answer must be "YES" That's not a silly argument... its a simple uncontroversial statement of fact. THE LAW IN CANADA enforces racial quotas in palces of business which specifically DISPLACE AND DISPOSSESS WHITES. How can you stand here talking about "those damned racist white employers" when you know full well that the state ENFORCES PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF MINORITIES? seems like you're living in your own little word of denial... sorry

precisely right.

do you think this constitutes a suitable reply? don't you even know that affirmative action works specifically on WHITE employers (coercing them to hire NON-WHITES)? What I wrote was precisely accurate to what the law stipulates.

thankfully for immigrants.... becoming canadian takes NOTHING... I'm not even sure speaking english is that indispensible... even our universities today have remedial english/french (canada/quebec) classes for undergrads... I mean really save perhaps the law... (unless certain areas of canada don't switch to immigrant coddling laws ... such as sharia law, which is likely in the foreseeable future anyways) in essence being canadian doesn't mean anything... it means being an indistinguishable replaceable human atom) it simply means the place where one happens to reside in and pay taxes at the moment (although most third worlders pay very little of them if any). As for Canadians being white? That's a notable disadvantage in this country... it means not being eligible for any form of handout or reverse discrimination "affirmative action", and it means being the beast of burden and contempt of everyone else... actually being a heterosexual white male is (christian or not). If you,re white, you can't turn on the TV without seeing others like you acting like mildly retarded dolts (peter griffin, homer simpson, king of queens etc) or your news media spitting on everything you do as a identifiable group. Actually to even THINK about saying that being canadian has a White racial connotation could probably result in a white person loosing his job, being sued, assaulted or imprisoned... or at the very least being a social outcast... so...

That's because zinc, gay rights are not concerned about EQUALITY at all... actually let me explain... When rational people speak of equality, they generally mean that people should be treated the SAME WAY... and that individuals should not have to submit to different standards. But "gay rights" is all about treating people differently. It recognises homosexuals as belonging to separate legal categories, and thus violates the concept of equality under the law. That,s why Gays are allowed to self segregate into "villages", are able to build employment committees to favor THEIR OWN KIND ABOVE others, that's why they set all these countless organizations to promote THEIR own interests (often at the expense of everyone else)... gay rights is not at all about equality: its about PRIVILEGE... Is seeing as how gays are the richest per capita minority group in Canada, its hard sometimes to see what more we should do to for their comfort. The marriage is a non-issue. Its been horribly disfigured and grotesquely misrepresented by our prostitutes in the press. Marriage has nothing to do with love in the legal sense. Legally, marriage is simply a state encouragement for couples to engender offspring based upon the bedrock statecraft principle that the state benefits from nuclear familycraft. Marriage "everywhere around the world and at all times" can only involve the two genders of humanity, male and female. The child rearing aspect is central in any anthropological definition of marriage. The word marriage itself means "blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture." The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners" According to Confucius, "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain." Now of course homosexuals, by the very laws of biological evolution CANNOT ENGENDER OFFSPRING. True, there are different types of "marriage" polyandry, polygyny and variations of this... these are the only types of marriage worthy of the name. Of course, it should be absolutely legal for homosexuals to make public declarations of love or even (as insane as it might seem) get married in a church... but as far as the legal and anthropological sense... there can be no such thing as "gay marriage"... there's no other way of looking at it... Homosexuals should of course be free to do what they want, but to get the state privileges given to couples for CHILDREARING is not warranted (since gays cannot reproduce normally). end of debate.