takeanumber

Superior reply Michael Hardner. I accept most of them, except the pre-judging one. I initially gave specific people the benefit of the doubt, just to have those benefits dashed. (And in two cases, thrashed horribly.) I didn't enter some of these debates thinking, "alright, all of these posters are bigots", when in fact, I just had those suspcions repeatedly confirmed. As to the possible justifications for not showing a homosexual any respect: those arn't valid reasons. You can't justify shouting 'FAG' out your window at two guys holding hands, no more than you can justify yelling the N word at a black man walking down the street. They're unjustifiable actions, and the fact that not everybody agrees confirms the existance of bigots. The difference, I think, between people like me and a few Canadians, is when they're in the car with somebody who yells 'FAG' out the window, they laugh along with them. Or they laugh at that Jew joke. And they don't speak up to correct them. They might deep down disagree with the speech, but they don't speak up. Tacit acceptance I suppose. Anyway, if you hate homosexuals or any other immigrant group, all I gotta say is: I know you're not used to somebody telling you that your behaviour is unacceptable, but you're going to hear it from me. I'm not going to give up fighting a bigot simply because they can't change. It's the principle in not being complicit in their disgusting act that I stand for. That's all. Regards, Takeanumber.

I can't tell the difference between a Jewish person and a Christian. Does that mean Jewish people arn't identifiable? (I don't think most people can tell who's Jewish and who isn't.) Same thing applies to homosexuals. There are ways of finding out. (Some homosexuals wear rainbow colours, much the same way that some sects of Judaism demands the wearing of black and those hats.) So...I'd say they're identifiable.

KUDOS to August. You impress me. gj. If in fact the Tories don't want to put them back together, that's good. Regardless of who wins the election: Safeguards need to put in place. We know what happens when nobody is watching them. (tapes erased, powers abused, corruption, cover ups, human rights abuses (Saskatoon), homosexuals get fired (cold war).) There needs to be supervision. The supervision might be bureaucratic and reduce the effectiveness of the police, but if we're going to go the way of effectiveness and effeciency, then there shouldn't be a Charter or any civil rights at all, because they're the most wasteful things in history. But you know what? It's the Charter and those civil rights that contributes to making Canada great, and I wouldn't sacrifice them for anything: The thug down the street. 17 men in an airplane. I don't care. Sacrificing the values of a society to protect it isn't worth it. Society should sooner die than to abandon the features that makes it great.

The fact that no such reason exists implies that that they are. There is no good reason to be 'for' the promotion of extermination of a whole group of people. You can't say, "because of freedom of speech", because we place limits on all our rights for reasons. Libel is one such limit. You can't say, "because political correctness is bad", because how can you be against basic respect for homosexuals without being anti-homosexual. You can't hide behind the curtain of 'free speech' or anything else for that matter because that material, with the right glasses, is transparent. When I read some of this stuff, it is exactly what I've heard from the mouths of, well, people who were involved in doing things, and that's why I have the reaction. I've asked, repeatedly, for some proof that the people on these boards are different than the people I know in real life, and every time, I don't the differentiating statements. Which inclines me to believe the absolute worse about these people. I mean, they might not want to be associated with those people, but when they make statements like the ones I read under Bill C-250, or the immigration one, it just confirms my worst suspicion. And I'm not sorry, but those ideas need to be disputed. And nothing short of banning is going to keep me from fighting those ideas, in spite of the personal attacks. Those ideas are wrong, and worse, they're infectious if they're left unchallenged.

You're right. Wow. Ah, yes, homosexuals are identifiable. I don't know why you're questioning that. I mean...if they wern't identifiable, there'd be no way to beat them to death in alleys. What is hate speech? Hate speech is a subset of hate crime. In simpler terms, hate speech is a hate crime. Say, if somebody inserted a pamplet into my newspaper that said homosexuals are pedos and that they should be loaded up and sent off to somewhere and have experiements done and tortured...etc..., or say, it called for the firebombing of gay resource centres, or the deliberate beating of homosexuals outside gay bars, complete with a number to call for details... That's a crime, for the same reason targetting any other identifiable group is. It's a subset relationship.

Sorry, I was going to go through the rest, but I'm literally sick to my stomach. (I didn't know that many of the same people calling me the Nazi were the ones saying this kind of stuff about homosexuals.) OMFG Wow. Wow. "We're losing alot of our freedoms due to political correctness" It's just amazing. And to think I was making an effort to think the best of some people...give them the benefit of the doubt. Nope. I won't be doing that anymore.

Playful Pillow wrote:

August replied:

Alliance Fanatic Wrote:

Right Here is the Bill I'm Sorry August. I don't think most people even read the legislation, and you can tell by the replies in this thread that so many didn't. They just bought the Alliance line, and that was that. And worse, some know full well that the Alliance line was BS, and they continue to bash C-250 as a method for bashing homosexuals. I live in Alberta. I know the tactics.

Superior points. With respect to Hunters: I'm aware that there are wildlife areas reserved specifically for hunters (at least in the East), and I'm sure that some of these communities would absolutely love the business that they'd get from having the hunters store their guns out there. It might employ two or three more people, plus a few summer students. I think it would be a boon to some rural communities for sure. Those are just spinoffs. I mean, if you're going to hunt, why not pick up the gun while you're out there. With respect to handguns: I think the valid use of shooting with them at targets is acceptable. It's like Archery I suppose. I can respect that. Which is why I wouldn't be against allowing handguns in homes in communities that accept that. Great planks for border security. Anyway, I know that there's an authoritarian streak in my arguement when I say: "ban guns in the communities that don't want them through referenda", but I really think that this is the easiest way to resolve the Rural-Urban tension, and delete the need for expensive registries. (Criminals don't use them anyway.).

It's quite easy to ignore the arguements that I make and then to incorrectly label them as 'Nazi', yes. Especially when you don't understand the difference between a basic arguement and an arguement with similarities to Nazi-ism.

There are different degrees to the same crime. If you plan out a murder, or if you murder a police officer, it's of a higher degree than say, murdering out of rage. They're both awful offenses, but one is valued by society to be worse than the other. (The difference between 20 years in jail max and 8 years in jail max.) Adding hatred into the mix also adds a degree. Planning to kill a homosexual whom you don't know personally solely because they're a homosexual is valued by society to be worse than killing somebody you don't know purely because you feel like killing somebody is --horrible, but at a different degree. Recognizing the 'hatred' by refusing to accept them as an advanced degree is not a 'special' right, no more than police officers get 'special rights' when it comes to murdering them.

If that's how you think of yourself.

I did answer it, Stoker.

There you go

I'll try to find the clipping of what happened.

Smart reply. Another personal insult from the Argus. Thanks. You just keep on proving my point.

You should read the other thread before you refer to me as a Nazi, Stoker. As for your point about 'going after the criminals'; the problem I'm trying to address is to resolve the urban need for enhanced security against the rural need for their own form of security. I don't think anybody here is 'pro-crime', but I think the idea of pre-empting gun crime in communities that don't want guns in their neighborhoods to be quite robust. It's just one more tool for the police to use. Spot a gun? Bust a criminal.

The fact you can't reply to my 'degrees' post without a personal attack suggests that you're either: 1. Stalling. 2. Don't have a reply. Wern't expecting such a good reply so quickly were you? Thought you had me there eh? BTW: I chose not to be a nazi after a lot of peer pressure from friends. I lost quite a few good friends that year. I went on to graduate and then go to university. My friends are still unemployed, and don't even qualify for welfare. It really doesn't bother me that you're calling me a nazi because I know so much about them and their general ideology, but you should know the facts.

Ignoring my reply and attacking myself. Again. Is this your Modus Operandi?

Nice personal attack. Good one Argus.

Re-read the assumptions. (If you're a gun lover, vote 'no'. Otherwise, you'll have to store them outside the city.)

I got mine in before you could post "Nazi scum". Great job, Stoker.

Nobody. This is one arguement I used to hear when neo-Nazis would crash in on a garage party. Some groups get 'special rights' Alright, so, tell me, what's the difference between first and second degree murder? Isn't an offense 'worse' when somebody plans it out? Isn't an offense 'worse' when it's against a police officer? Eh? Isn't? It sure is. Now, let's consider something else. Isn't it worse when somebody waits outside a gay bar to beat them to death solely because they're gay? Isn't that worse than if a white man gets batted down after, say, a bar fight? Isn't it worse when somebody spraypaints a swastika on a Jews home than when, say, some kid spraypaints his 'tag' on somebody's door? It's not 'special' protection. It's recognition of degrees. When a crime is committed out of 'hate'. When a group is targetted with repeated hate speech (like with neo nazi pamplette's), isn't that worse? Shouldn't the severity of the crime fit the time?