Scotty

Gerald Caplan is a staunch member of the Left, a former organizer and candidate (failed) for the NDP, and a lifelong ivory tower academic. His dismay at conservative values and beliefs stems from that, as does his disdain for those who possess such values and beliefs. His opinion piece is nothing more than a heavily biased rant which can easily be summed up in "I don't like conservatives".

I don't believe anyone makes a generalized statements about a group without being aware there will be a number of its members who differ from this generalization. Nevertheless, you can take generalizations on categories as being 'generally' true, or perhaps commonly true. As, for example, in how certain brands and models of cars are referred to by their generalized reliability. No doubt certain models have much higher problems than the norm, but within those models I'm equally certain there will be numerous vehicles which perform flawlessly. Does this mean we can't dismiss the notion of buying Brand A or Brand B because they're always breaking down?

No. The elder Trudeau's words were said more quietly, and were more in the nature of contempt. The younger Trudeau's words were shouted out like the scream of an angry, entitled child denied something. To the likes of Trudeau Jr, whose only accomplishment is to bear his father's name, outrage was fully justified because the government denied funding to the member in question. Nothing outrages a member of the left so much as the government denying funding. As I said, very much like spoiled children denied what they believe is only their due. How dare the government refuse to fund the member in question so they can go to Durban and yell and belittle the government for a foreign audience (and of course, to make herself look noble for the voters back home). How dare they! The outrage and sense of entitlement are palpable.

And who is the arbiter of what is a racist and bigoted argument? The definitions of such terms are often stretched out of all recognition by people with agendas and ideological beliefs. And why do you feel it is necessary to not simply analyze the words, and refute them based on their clear misconceptions and illogic? why do you feel attacking the poster is a requirement?

Forgive me if I don't grasp your legalistic notions of technical differences. In responding to a poster's comments, you suggest he is a Nazi. That is not the kind of debating style I respect. Do you feel it's also okay to say "Those comments could have come from a drooling moron in an institution." or perhaps "I bet a lot of child molesters think like that". After all, you're not attacking the poster, right, just the words, right? Well, that might fly with the moderator, perhaps, depending on his mood, but it's deliberately insulting to the other poster as far as I'm concerned. Any reasonably unbiased interpretation of the rules with regard to treating other posters with respect would call that out without hesitation.

You have, of course, paraphrased things in your own inimitable way. Nevertheless, If ones life experience is of no value, then why do you place such vast import on yours? Statistically speaking the majority of Blacks in Canada are immigrants. That means they do have thick accents, they do come from third world countries, and retain much of their third world values and cultures. Why does stating that outrage you so?

I think the overall behavior of Muslims around the world backs my statement up more than amply. And you don't get to tell anyone to stfu, Mr. Trudeau. Do you cut your facial hair like a pirate, too? They're fighting for change, but they did that in Iran years ago too. They did that in Indonesia too. What kind of societies have they built in those 'democracies'? How about in Malaysia? Another 'democracy'. And who is winning these elections? Severely religious parties, every time. What will they make of those democracies? We even see this in Turkey, where as the military's power to force a secular society has eroded the religious parties have gained more and more power and set out to transform the nation into more of an Islamic republic. Their version of democracy is very little like ours. Yes, but do they see themselves as Canadians first or Muslims first? That is the real question. No, Cyber, it's what causes stupid people to call me bigot. And why should I care what stupid people think or say?

So would I. Unfortunately, we do not keep such statistics.

Why do you feel it necessary to act like a juvenile bully in almost every post? You trumpet your own presumed prowess and never let a moment pass by where you think you can put down and denigrate whoever you are discussing an issue with. Are you this mean-spirited and nasty in real life? As to your point, which, as usual you feel incapable of putting in any but a sneering, mocking tone: Are you saying the author himself, through your interpretation of that long section you posted, disagrees with his own quoted words which I posted? I mean, really? That is your position? That you can interpret a further, very complex passage to disagree with his specific statement earlier? And that somehow this "shreds" my argument?

If they did they wouldn't cover their women in sheets and treat them like third class people.

Every post you make ought to embarrass you. If you had any shame and the wit to realize what an impression you leave with readers.

Well now, you have to remember there's only one guy interpreting the rules, and he can interpret them any old way he feels like interpreting them. I find the idea you can suggest people are Nazis and that's within the rules more than a little flabbergasting. I was once suspended for words which "bring down the decorum of the discussions" because I was mocking someone and saying they were lying.

The more religious you are, with respect to Islam, the less you support common Canadian values, including democracy, equality and respect for others.

With 'libs' yes, but the diminutive 'con' is often used in a pejorative form as in conning people, con artist, etc.

We know nothing of the sort. While we must be careful in our interpretations across categories, one conclusion seems clearly justified: a significant number, perhaps even a majority, of second generation Muslims in Canada are at least highly involved in their religion and some times more. The second generation is not being lost in significant numbers to the majority secularism of the Canadian population. My link

I wouldn't say so. Professions are selected by the women involved. Who are you to tell them they should pick something else? You know, one of the things I've noticed over the past few years at work is how many bright young women long to get into the HR department. It kind of baffles me. It's a miserable place to work filled with endless meetings with very little of substantive accomplishments. But bright, university educated young women try, and in many cases, succeed in getting into HR branch. Well, the fact is advancement then becomes very limited, and as all your experience is now in HR you are kind of stuck there, finding it very difficult to move out into the various other areas of the corporation. But they don't care. Somehow, they see HR as dealing with human issues in some bizarro way. Women, by and large, will choose professions they see as being highly helpful in a variety of social ways, be it social work, teachers, doctors/nurses, psychologists, therapists, or, of course, expressive professions related to art and english and such.

Wouldn't be hard since I'm no kind of Libertarian. They've always struck me as a sort of milder version of anarchists.

You might recall I took umbrage at that, as well. And you could have reported them.

Seems to me that a princess outranks a knight. As to doctors, the latest medical school classes have a majority of women students. For that matter, females outnumber men on Canadian university campuses generally...

The rules say: Avoid using abbreviated terms such as "Cons" or "Libs" that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best and official abbreviations are acceptable.

I like how you phrase that. The opposition poses questions -- while the government 'reads' answers. I seem to recall seeing the opposition questioners often reading them. You think they're not written down in advance by someone? As for the answers not being on topic... perhaps if the questions were more on topic and less insulting and pejorative, the answers would be better. I remember an episode of MASH where Hawkeye poses as a reporter and asks a question of a General. The General says "That question had a lot of bite to it" and Hawkeye says "I bet the answer will too." Yep. That's the way it works. Let's examine a question taken completely at random. It was the first one I found on the internet. Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): next intervention Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been so unhelpful at the Cancun summit, many Canadians are wondering why they bothered to go. The part-time Minister of the Environment went to the summit and dismissed the Kyoto accord, dismissed Canada's responsibility to address its historic greenhouse gas emissions. These are “sidecar issues” he said. Once again, Canada is seen around the world as a stumbling block to global climate progress. Are the Conservatives really trying to beat the Liberal record and get more fossil awards than they did? And you're outraged that such questions aren't given a respectful answer? Give us a break, please.

What part of 'team' did you not understand? The team concept is that everyone is playing on the same side in pursuit of the same objective. Clearly this excludes the opposition.

Then why do you care if the government does something minor in an effort to discourage them?

That's because the PIN verifies the card. There is no such verification for credit cards. Although, when used on line, my card has a program now called 'verified by Visa' which makes me answer extra questions, before accepting the card's purchase.

And yet, my bank insists that when I use their card on line I have to provide extra information, as in my mother''s maiden name, for example.