lictor616

ahahahaahah!

The notion that a nation only develops if it has immigrants that speak a different language and have a different culture is simply lunacy on stilts. I don't plan on pointing out the obvious inadequacies of such a delusion. Having immigrants from different cultures is not the only way to "access information"... it isn't even the best way of unlocking knowledge. Kudos for your fertile imagination for dreaming up this hogwash though...

nearly every single post of yours is an ad hominem or at least has an ad hominem component to it. You attack posters personally, and use Godwin's law on a nearly constant basis...

to begin with comparing murder and assault is apples and oranges. Secondly a person on trial for murder is not on trial for the REASONS of the murder... but for THE MURDER ITSELF AND ALONE and The degree to which it was planned (how deliberate it was)... so killing someone by negligence (manslaughter) for instance doesn't yield in the same sentence... but again this has no relationship to assessing the REASONS why the murder was committed. There are no good and bad reasons to murder (with the notable exception of self-defense), you don't get extra time because you were consumed with hatred of the person's hairdo and voice while committing the murder... murder is murder. prosecuting the reason why a murder is committed is again: THOUGHT CRIME. real justice punishes ACTS not the THOUGHT.

WHAT!?!?!?! First degree murder doesn't have anything to do with the type of motivation... it has to do with the degree of planning and execution. "Malice aforethought" is not a MOTIVE. And to apply that to simple assault is even crazier. Also it beggars the question: if race why not OTHER reasons? why not make it a "hatecrime" to assault someone because of his clothes, or because he looked at you funny, or because he was ugly? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "Hatecrime" is ABSOLUTELY a thought crime.

my only question is why you yourself charter.rights er um, I mean tango haven't been quarantined as well... I can list innumerable and repeated forum trasgressions on your parts.

are you kidding?!!?! the whole "brown town" that everyone else refers to comptentuously?

and one that is constantly praising "diversity" isn't so keen on diversity of opinion.. . I do not embrace uniformity of thought- I do however think that group cohesiveness is a good attribute for a country and that it comes naturally in any homogeneous society.

you welcome a dangerous and anti-human dogma/ideology to see white canadians concerned about Western Civilization and the growing attack on freedom "squirm a bit"?

No you fail to see my point (self evident as it may be). The concept of "hate crime" is ludicrous to begin with. It punishes the THOUGHT that went into a crime, which is simply not the way our justice system works... I understand that our justice system DOES recognize such a thing as a "hate crime" but it runs contrary to our entire conception of coercion. The state is justified in coercing an individual ONLY to prevent harm to OTHERS and not to condemn an individual for holding objectionable beliefs, values, or preferences... hence the state cannot punish someone for holding unfavorable opinions about certain races... You punish the ACT... assault is already a crime... there is no better or worse justification for assault, the way it works (or rather SHOULD WORK) is that punching someone in the face because of his style of clothes, because he winked at my girlfriend or because he's black ... these are all equally criminal... you don't punish the REASON WHY someone commits assault; you PUNISH THE ACT: the assault itself. Or else it amounts to a thought crime (that is what a hate crime amounts to: a thought crime)... which is simply madness and lunacy on stilts, punishing someone's thoughts is the grossest insult to freedom, the gravest attack on liberty... a person's thoughts cannot and SHOULD NEVER be subject for criminal punishment. If there is one true fundamental human right, it is the right to free thought. Now liberals who defend this nauseating concept of "hate crime" are simply insane. Its not MY PERSONAL opinion, this is a fact. punishing a person for his thoughts (no matter how ugly and abrasive) is an attempt at denial of reason and decency; it is the insane fanaticism of a mind diseased with hatred of freedom. It is the faith of a nation bent on a tyranny more terrible then any imagined, it is the death-wish of a people who are unfit to be called human. This nameless abomination of "hatecrime" is unnacceptable to any decent freethinking human (whatever the race).

so is your "reply" such as it is.

Funny how you seem to welcome the Islamization of Europe... Do you think it's a good thing that europe is "browning"? Do sharia courts, veiled women, muslim domestic terrorism, the curtailment of freedom of expression to appease muslim sadists, the pollution of our cultural spring ... are all these phenomena good?

precisely wulf42. It is the height of absurdity to claim that using racism will somehow end racism... Its also absurd to claim that dispossessing group A because of its race will somehow avoid breeding resentment within group A. This seems perfectly rational and reasonable... its astonishing that so many here fail to see it.

again, this is simply slanderous nonsense to defer attention away from the topic at hand... you know it... I know it, so please...

and you seem very close to making the apology of bestiality.... as long as we're just slinging outrageous and nonsensical ad hominems to defer attention away from a topic....

Poor peasants? wealthiest in the world at the time but... whatever..

Looking and thinking alike: means having a common origin, a common culture and way of looking at the world and a common future. What I mean is very similar to what John Jay said in the Federalist Papers of the US..... John Jay gave thanks that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . . ."

Yeah... between Neuschwanstein Castle, the excellently run cities of Europe, the sheer beauty and incomparable glamor of Bern, Brussels, Milan etc, the art, the museums... and a good old north american home depot "cranada" porcelain toilet... you pick the crapper anyday right Dancer? riiight. no wonder you like diversity so much...

"Ridiculous, asinine"... whatever... please show me HOW it is so... don't simply assert it without qualifications or explanations. As far as think and look alike... no. We wouldn't be as "diverse" in the LOG ROLLING sense (i.e. we wouldn't have large swaths of our population who want Sharia courts, legalized FGM, or kirpan daggers in schoolyards, the legalization of polygamy etc). Does that mean that without people from africa and the middle east we're all "automatons" who are all to the tenth decimal the same? no! Japan is "undiverse", yet it doesn't mean that it is a "shut-in" and monotone place to be... in fact there are endless ways to be Japanese. You're trying to make it sound like we'd be cyborgs or something- if it weren't for our racial diversity. I,m not saying Europe is a flawless entity either, merely that in comparative standards, the Western World allows for the best scope for freedom and progress (upward ascent), the values of the west should be the values we strive for.

No, my point is that Canada is a better, more viable and stable country if it is homogeneous and non-diverse. The more Canada departs from a European people, the less it will resemble Europe... and the less agreeable it will be to live in. Adding people from the third world... makes us more like... well: the third world. And I don't see this a desirable outcome. As far as this being "ridiculous": could you explain what you mean by that?

for instance, I couldn't even dream of being candid and frank (as I am here) about my views on multiculturalism and other politically correct "no-no's". I know that I could risk being fired or banned from my university if I were for example to talk about why I think "diversity"-of the kind we are forced to celebrate in Canada- is a weakness not a strength... The number of things of which it is not Politically Correct to talk about seems to increase by the month... and we have come to the point where having an unorthodox opinion about ANY aspect of our society can actually have serious consequences for a person. Not only can you be fined, sued, charged with all sorts of ridiculous "hate speech" penalties, but the PC "leftist" rabble itself is so intolerant and hateful of differing opinions that you risk physical injury... Add to that the supremely sensitive and aggressive militant "minority groups", who are simply out to advance their own interest regardless of right or wrong and at what cost to others, and you have a recipe for repression the likes of which would make the soviet union blush.

Unfortunately, in our crumbling culture, we do NOT have complete freedom in Canada (or the US). There is increasing government regimentation of the public (by that I mean the increasing dictating of the terms of our relationships with others), already our freedom of association and freedom of speech have been undermined and weakened by hate crazed do-gooding liberals, who believe in freedom of expression ONLY for liberals or social democrats but not for anybody else. They are the ones responsible for "hate speech" legislation and other obvious anti freedom schemes. Leftists are always pro big government, and pro meddling in people's lives- which NECESSARILY means a loss of freedom for all.

yes yes... "colored folk" what a cheeky misrepresentation. My ancestors come from historically disputed territory between France and Germany (Alsace), but I do trace back my ancestry to Germany... My point is that there use to be only two designations of Canadians, French Canadian, and Canadian- there was no room for hyphenated Canadians (save perhaps french canadians). It wasn't that we didn't want non French or English people on the land, it was just that we wanted people to be CANADIAN, as assimilated in that sense as possible. We understood that Religion, culture, and language can be sources of conflict EVEN if they do not reflect biological differences. So we tried to unify a culture as much as possible in order to have group cohesion and a sense of kinship (real kinship: not the artificial one of today). What we've done today is depart from that rational and tried method of statecraft (of aiming for group homogeneity and hence cohesiveness) and replaced it with the baseless assumption that we can multiply the sources of tensions in our society (i.e. by increasing "diversity") and be stronger for it. In other words we decided to dice our future on a whim that we can make a viable society by increasing the sources of log rolling weaknesses within it. Just look at the innumerable weaknesses diversity is already causing.

Well it had a far more "coherent" culture before it made multiculturalism its national religion. Canadians knew who they were then... Either European derived offshoots of England or France. Canada was a continuation of Western Civilization, an outpost of Europe- and was European in customs, European in culture and European in human stock.

That was my whole point about this "hate crime"...