CANADIEN

Correction. I understand that it makes no sense. Let,s start with Galileo's trial, shall we? The development of the modern scientific method needed a mind set that did not view the universe as being God. Most importantly, though, it needed a mind set based on observation of facts, and how they fit with one another. Not a literal interpretation of a sacred text, trying to make facts fit their interpretation, and rejecting any discovery of facts that did not fit said interpretation. And you're proving it time after time.

And I thought your original point was that the poor in England, Canada, the U.S., etc. should just be silent. I stand corrected. Actually, I did. Issues of poverty in our societies are complex ones. Societal factors and personal choices play a role, in different ways and in different manners depending on the individual. Not two situations are alike. Sorry if that's not as simplistic as "it,s society's fault" or "it's their own fault". Treating human beings as human beings mean knowing they have the capacity to make the changes they need to make and that society has a role to play in engaging individuals to effect changes. It is not a coincidence that the methods used by the policie in New York, Boston, and Los angeles have improved things. They were uncompromising in maintaining law and order, and they engaged community leaders in finding olutions that would decrease violence. It worked. Instead, what is too often offered as a solution is either pity, that robs people of their dignity, or the "who cares" attitude, which people they have no value. Neither of them is acceptable.

Excuse me while I chuckle at the thought of a person who denies science that doesn't fit a litteralist interpretation of the Bible (namely you, and your rejection of evolution) quoting a text that claim that modern science is funded on the Bible. Considering the quote oincludes refrences to people like Copernicus (who had to keep his discoveries secret for most of his life because they clashed with the liteeralist view of the Bible that was dominant), Galileo (who was forced to recant), and Descartes (whose ideas were rejected in some corners as atheistic). That modern science would not have existed without a worldview that saw nature is distinct of the divine is an interesting proposition. It doesn't hide the fact that it was born and developed despite a mindset that rejcted any knowledge that didn't fit a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Unfortunately (for those holding that kind of viewpoint), there are still people today who persist in opposing any science that don't fit their interpretation of the Bible. At least, a good number of Christians know better.

I would be curious to know where jbg thinks the border between Israel and a Palestinian state should be.

Oh well... It is evident that people thinking of buying a house should assume personal responsibility for their decisions. That of course would include finding any way possible to screw the banks and financial insitutions. After all, we are talking about the same institutions whose management screwed mortgagees, their employees and the whole world economy. Let,s just make sure, though, that any and all local bank manager or staff in charge of mortgages understand they don't have to assume any form of responsibility for what they do. If they're trying to make a lot of money in a reckless fashion, give bad loans after bad mortgages even when they know that,s a bad idea, and end up costing their employer money (and lots and lots and lots of it), they don't have to worry, or feel responsible in any way, shape or form. They may even end up with a nice little bonus. After all, they are only following the fine example set by their CEOs.

More importantly, leaders of corporations feels that only their companies, but themselves, bear no responsibility for their decisions. If they did, the CEOs of financial corporations who precipitated the 2008 crisis through their greed and lack of moral sense would have the decency to at least forgo their juicy bonus increases when hundrerd of thousands of people end up without a job or a house as a direct or indirect result of what they did. But taking responsibility for one's action is a slogan for them, not a way to conduct one's life.

In case you didn't notice, YOU brought the issue of single parenthod. Yet you will not back what you claim up with the stats that would prove it. They still riot. And the fact that Syria and Yemen are not in Africa doesn't change that fact. The only thing more simplistic (far more simplistic, in fact) that the "it's society's fault" explanation for poverty in our society is the "they have done something wrong" line. Like any other societal issue, poverty is a complex one, and there are no simple, or easy solution. Still, the "personal responsibility" mantra is too often an thinly veiled excuse to say "screw you" to the poor. I'll be content with treating human beings like human beings. Including holding them responsible for the crimes they commit. BTW, drop that unhealty fixation on sexual organs, will you.

Care to show your stats? Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Yunisia, Lybia... Marginalization has actually little to do with abject poverty, or not having a job (and by the way, nobody is talking about starvation). It is about a sense that one doesn't count, is not listened to, has no voice. It is about not being able to get ahead even when working full time. Good question. Individual responsibility, though is an empty word when the underlying message is "you're on your own, lunless you are rich in which case we'll find ways to help you get even richer". Where is the personal responsibility of those CEO who caused the crisis of 2008 then got bonuses while throwing their employees on the street? where is the personal responsiblity of US politicians, right and left, who are bringing us to the brink again because they are more interested in scoring political points than in actually serving their constituents? Strangely enough, they are rarely, if ever, lectured about personal responsibility. People who were there to witness how a little moustached loser took the frustrations and feeling of marginalization of millions of his fellow citizens may have a hard time believing that "the welfare state" is making things worse.

No surprisingly coming from Barbara Kay and Co., what we've got is an oversimplistic neo-conservative analysis, where the basic blame is to be put on social programs, progressive taxation, and the neglect of "family values" (code word for "If you are poor and marginalized, there is something wrong with you period, and if there is no father around scr*w you). Not to deny, of course, the fact that a lot of the rioters are nothing more than criminals or morons who believe it's their right or a fun thing to break, loot and steal. But (unless you are in the downtown area of a North American city at the end of the playoffs ), this type of riots does not just happen like that. They do not start with a few bored kids on a Saturday evening tweeting to each others "let's go break some windows". Tottenham is a good example. Here's a poor neighbourhood, marginalized, with constant frustration and anger. The spark - the police shooting someone dead, then a peaceful demonstration demanding answers, hijacked by criminals and morons. Bill Bratton, the former (and successful) police chief in Boston, New York and Los angeles, made it clear that, while restoring law and order (and going after gang leasers) is the first thing to day, it is not enough of a solution. Calming tension by engaging community leaders is part of the solution.

Creation (as in how the universe and life started) and evolution (as in how life has changed from tits creation to now) are not mutually exclusive. And IE is about the Bible - or more exactly, iIE is a pseudo-science orginating in the belief that the Bible is to be taken literally.

Her problem, not mine.

Now, that's something new... Lictor using two different names at once. :lol: But just in case we do indeed have a new person, the question still remain the same. How would it be against my interest as a white-skinned person if a majority of people in my neighbourhood, in Toronto, in Canada were non-white?

The truth one finds, though faith, in Genesis, is not that lving beings appreared in their current state virtually at the moment of creation. The story as written is an allegory, using creation stories that existed at the time Genesis was written. The real message is that the universe is God's creation. One of course is free not to believe there is a God, but should still be wary of taking the text literary.

I for one do not think that evolution does NOT prove Genesis to be untrue. But then, my faith tells me that the truth contained in Genesis is not of the scientific kind. Most Christians I know would say the same.

Acts against God's Law are sins, not crimes. And Chapter 21, verse 15 to 18 of the same Deuteronomy set rules on how a man should treat his children from two wives.

And I don't believe the government is about to do wholesale ban on immigration, in general or for specific country. I doubt you'll find a lot of people here who believe it's about to do that either. Mind you, stay around long enough and you'll start noticing some people who would the government to do exactly that, though.

Neither, but nice try. On the contrary. I understand perfectly that IE is nothing more than pseudo-science. Evolution is scientific fact. You do not and will not get it. Indeed, I do not get your non-sense. You mean like the time when most Christian actually accept the FACTS that form the basis of the teory of evoluation while maintening their faith in (kowledge of) the existence of God. Get tho 19th century, will you? That alone would constitute improvement. I do not need to hide behind it. Not believing in something or someone's existence is not a form of faith. Period. So now, I am a fondamentalist Catholic? You mean going through pages and pages of you gurgling the same non-sense? Read enough of it already, thank you very much. Well, considering it's neither, unlike ID... Careful with what you wish. Because the more postings by you, and rebuttals of them, one reads, the more stale and repetitive your non-sense becomes. News to you. 10000 more postings with the same non-sense will not make it sound better. And ID masquerading itself as science is still a fraud. For once, you write something that makes sense. Once one points out that your defence of the fraud called IE, your misunderstanding of what faith and atheism are, and your rejection of scientific knowledge (evolution) make non sense whatsoever, nothing more needs to be added.

And how old would be considered recent enough? I am asking because, thankfully,. legislation like the those banning Chinese immigrants (to take one example) are a thing from the past.

ID scientists say they'll follow where the evidence leads them. And that could mean....anywhere. See that? E V I D E N C E. All that while denying the evidence of the scientifically proved fact of evolution. Let,s not be confused here. IE propagandist may say all they want that they only want to go where evidence will lead them, the fact is that they have already decided where this will lead them, some sort of scientific proof of the existence of God.. Unfortunately for them, including you, the proof of the existence of God is not to be found through science. Anyone who put atheistic and faith in the same sentence has no understanding of what atheism is and even less understanding of what faith is. On the contrary, Muslims consider the Koran to be the Word of God, dictated word by word to Mohammed. ^ And you call that "hocus pocus"? :lol: Noone was there to witness God creating the Universe either. Knowledge that Correction. Scientists haven't found a scientific response (yet?). What scientists have a good handle on, however, is what has happened since. Too bad for you that you are unable to see the difference. You mean, like throwing logical thinking to the wind and refusing to acknowledge the evolution SCIENTIFIC theory?

Yawn

Promising faster while cutting the number of people providing the service and not providing more efficient ways of accessing the servie (like simplified procedures, easier Internet access). Sound very logical to me... not.

Doesn't change the fact that a law aimed at silence boycotters does not constitute a boycott.

Excuse me, but can you please come up with anything even more ABSURD (to use a mild world)?

Boycotting the boycotters would be to refuse to engage in business with them and encourage others to do the same. What we have in this case is the use of law to silence the boycotters. Quite a difference.

, none of which has been posted on this site, except as a way to mock you. So now, it's a future with no white people? Like no white man and white woman will procreate together, and give birth to white children? And after that, you wonder why your opinions are just good for a good mocking. Since a future with no white person is obviously not gonna happen, why don't you try demonstrating that having more non-whites than whites in my neighbourhood, in Toronto or in Canada would be a bad thing for me as a white-skinned person? Repeating the same lame slogan again and again doesn't constitute even the start of the beginning or a hint of a remote possibility of the validity of your argument.