kimmy

Absolutely, that's exactly what I'm saying. Clearly the only two options are unconditional support for unchecked authoritarianism or Somalia-like anarchy, and I choose the latter. Obviously any talk of meaningful reform to how police act, or police accountability, is just too far-fetched to take seriously. what the-- oh for-- We must accept the police as they are, or do without their services at all? Where did that false dichotomy come from? That's ridiculous. That's "you're either with us, or your with the terrorists." That's "If you don't support the war, you're disrespecting our troops!" That's pure dog-crap. Like you two gentlemen, I agree that the police provide an essential service. Unlike you two, apparently, I don't accept that their methods and actions are beyond questioning. Maybe someday somebody like Recep Ergogan will become Prime Minister and then the police may have the authority to silence their critics, and wouldn't that be wonderful. Until then, they'll have to deal with annoyances like the Braidwood Inquiry and citizens recording their antics. -k

-k

I did. -k

Do the police enforce the laws when the crimes are committed by their own co-workers? How many "bad apples" were involved in the death of Robert Dziekanski, Argus? Just one? Tazer-enthusiast Kwesi Millington? What about the officers who were with him, and lied under oath to protect him? What about the RCMP communications officer who willfully issued a continuing series of misleading statements to the public about the incident? What about the RCMP investigators who whitewashed the whole thing? The RCMP people who tried to suppress the video? The RCMP people who got caught withholding damning email from the Braidwood inquiry? Thinking back on that debacle, the obvious message is that it's not just one bad apple, it's a culture of bad apples. In my part of the world we had this incident ...watch the video and see how many "bad apples" you can count. Just one, right? A guy who delivered a soccer-kick right to the face of a fully-compliant suspect. Well, how about the female officer? She watched the whole thing... she must have said something about that in her report, right? Nope. This only came to public attention because a local reporter videotaped it. How about the RCMP communications people, who issued a series of defamatory statements about the victim? How about the officer's supervisors? After this incident blew up in public and the RCMP had no choice but to act, it was revealed that this particular officer had several other excessive force complaints against him, none of which had been investigated, and the commander conceded that the only reason this one was any different was that he got caught red-handed. Again, while RCMP supporters would claim it's just one bad apple, the truth is This "one bad apple" stuff doesn't fly anymore. It's a brotherhood of bad apples who'll go to any length to protect each other. They've forfeited the right to the benefit of the doubt. They simply can't be trusted. -k

But then again... -k {cyber-demons!}

Mike Pence is a typical gay-hating, abortion-fighting Bible-thumping Tea Partying kinda guy, which you'd think would make him popular with that kind of voter... but not so much. Because outside Indiana, Pence is primarily known as the guy who knuckled under to the Pro Gay Homosexual Radical Godless Agenda when Baby Jesus needed him most. -k

I'd think Christie would be a superb choice to head the Department of Transportation... his experience running the George Washington Bridge makes him extremely qualified. -k

If I understand this (and I'm not sure that I do...) Pokemon was a card/strategy game. Players would have a deck of Pokemon cards and do "duels". Each card has a different Pokemon ("Pocket monster"?) character, and each character has different strengths and weaknesses. You win by playing cards from your deck that nullify your opponent's cards. There was also a Pokemon animated TV show, which dramatized these Pokemon duels... the TV show characters would duel each other but instead of using Pokemon playing cards, they would summon actual Pokemon monsters to battle. This new Pokemon Go game, as I understand it, combines the original Pokemon card game with the "augmented reality" possibilities of cell phones. Your Pokemon Go game will send you to locations to duel against another Pokemon Go player... kind of like the Pokemon animated TV show, except without actual monsters being summoned. -k

I'm going 87% chance Islamist, 9% far-right extremist, 4% other/unaffiliated. -k

USA! USA! I'm recusing myself for the time being, but I if I was half the moderator I was 5 weeks ago I'd take a flamethrower to this shit. -k

Charging time and range are non-issues for commuter usage. What other issues do you see that you think makes ICE vehicles better for daily commuter use? I keep getting the idea that many conservatives-- yourself, Shady, Mitt Romney... -- are emotionally invested in the idea that fossil fuel vehicles will never be supplanted. -k

Thanks. -k

... Exactly so, BC Sapper. It was a deliberate decision. -k

Hi guys, I would just like to mention that I suck. As you've probably noticed I have been around very little of late as I have been dealing with some personal things. As a result I haven't had much time or inclination to contribute to the forum, and have been completely useless as a forum facilitator. I'm not sure when I'll be ready to be an active contributor and facilitator again, but for right now I won't be very active around here. Sorry for not being around to help out. -k

Attacking France on Bastille Day is comparable to attacking America on Independence Day. The symbolism of the date shouldn't be overlooked. -k

Just a reminder, this thread has gone from the initial claim that Ontario's health curriculum is a conspiracy by pedophiles intended to groom children to have sex, to arguing the semantics of "no means no" vs "enthusiastic consent". The goalposts have moved so far that they're not even on the same field anymore. -k

Thanks, that's very well said. -k

Well, basically, yes. That's how this style of predator works. The more typical situation is college parties, raves, music festivals, and so on, where people may have had alcohol and/or drugs voluntarily, and been taken advantage of. Again, like Stanford rapist Brock Turner. -k

"Enthusiastic consent" includes "no means no" as well as situations where the victim is incapacitated or unable to think clearly or too frightened to say no. Like that Stanford kid who found a girl passed out and raped her, because she was too drunk to say "no". She didn't say "no", but she didn't give consent either. Situations like roofies and rohypnol. Bill Cosby's and Roman Polanski's victims couldn't say "no" because they were too incapacitated with Quaaludes to know what was going on. But they couldn't give "enthusiastic consent". -k

If you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, you'd understand that "no means no" is exactly the point of teaching people about "enthusiastic consent". -k

Even if the "molester" is also 13 years old? Fairly sure that "statutory rape" only applies when one party is legally an adult. You seem to be under the assumption that these 13 year olds will be having sex with grown men. The vastly more likely situation is that they'll be interacting with other teenagers. -k

As I wrote earlier: Teaching young people that they can say no is part of it, but teaching young people that they aren't allowed to continue if the other person says no is equally important. -k

...this probably seemed funnier when you posted it than it did a few hours later. -k

So your complaint has changed from "they're teaching 6 year olds to consent to sex" to "they should make this easier to read so that religious fanatics can understand it"? -k

I'd point out that first off your text regarding Ben Levin doesn't actually contradict the article I posted. Second, and more importantly, ?Impact just posted the actual curriculum. Like, the actual document, not what your sources or the HuffPo says is in it. After reading the actual curriculum, I can confirm that 6 year olds are not being taught about sexual activity or sexual consent. In other words, *your* source has it wrong. Will you stop using your unreliable source now? The more important thing about informing young people about "enthusiastic consent" is to teach them that if somebody DOESN'T give you enthusiastic consent, it's NOT okay to have sex with them. Perhaps you grew up in some ideal world where nobody needed to know anything about sex until they turned 18. However, in the real world, teenagers as young as 13 are experimenting with sexual touching, and giving them the information they need, including that both parties need to consent, is important. -k