Melanie_

What about the girls? Why have you only responded to the part of the post that dealt with abuse of boys?

An old link to a previous discussion on the topic of the Duke lacrosse players... Maple Leaf Web circa 2006

Is anyone faultless in this mess? As this unfolds, I will bet that both sides were inflammatory; but as it stands, Brown and Chatwell were harrassed continuously for simply wanting to live in their own house. It doesn't help the credibility of the protesters when these actions come to light.

So you feel this couple was treated fairly by the Six Nations protesters? Come on, even those of us who recognize that there is a need to consult can't really justify the way this couple was treated.

Do you really think it is a good use of Obama's time to be checking everything that gets posted on a website? Please. Someone in the administration should be chastised for being careless, but I doubt Obama is writing these articles himself.

Maybe you should check it out before commenting. Otherwise, you are just spamming the thread.

Here's a couple of websites to get you started. Good luck! Extending Aboriginal Control Over Child Welfare Services Centre of Excellence for Children's Well Being - Child Welfare You could read through many threads here on this forum, but don't quote anyone in your paper, as it would not be considered a reliable source. Check the Maple Leaf Web main page, though, as there might be articles posted there that would be useful.

Hi Rad, and welcome to the Forum. Maybe you could give us some ideas of your own to start this thread? I'm not sure if you are trying to start dialogue, or looking for help for your term paper.

Gabriel - Who exactly are people like me? You are making a pretty big assumption if you are categorizing me by simply reading one of my posts. I have no sympathy for terrorists, and no desire to see American (or Canadian) soldiers turn into terrorists themselves. You seem to be saying that evil depends on who is doing it - this is moral relativism.

How do you feel about Iraqi soldiers killing American troops in cold blood? If you would condemn an Iraqi soldier for doing it, you must also condemn an American soldier for doing it.

When we killed the chickens on the farm, we were rewarded with a tasty meal. I don't think it disturbed my parents in the least - in fact, they felt pretty good about feeding their family. But then, they were animal slaughtering farmers, which you seem to have contempt for.

You wrote this, then half an hour later sent me a PM with a link to something you described as graphic, and possibly racist. I didn't open the link, as I would prefer to keep our conversation public. If you feel your link has bearing on this thread, or the other one we were discussing last night, please post it publicly.

Oh dear, I've made you crawl away and sulk.

I'm going to assume you mean to call me oblivious, not obvious. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. Let me refer you back to my first post in this thread... Please, express your opinions, but be prepared for dialogue. If someone thinks your opinions are racist, they have an equal right to say so, and contradict you. For example, you say that you want to be able to publicly claim third world immigration is all bad, but you don't support that with evidence - you just make inflammatory comments based on generalizations. That's not making your point, it is just looking for a fight. What you seem to object to is that, if what you say harms someone in a way that is calculable, you can be held responsible for it in a court of law. But that too applies across the board - you could take someone to court if you felt their opinions were preventing you from participating equally in society. If someone says a woman is a whore, that is their opinion. But if they discriminate against her in the hiring process, or in the workplace, or when it is time for a promotion or a raise because of this opinion, they can be prosecuted.

Your post shows nothing of the sort. In your original post, these old men aren't being violent, they are speaking their mind. If "language should never be criminalized or given any legal penalties", you are contradicting yourself. If you want people to be able to throw the n word around with no repercussions, you have to also allow others to be equally vile towards whites.

Well, in the Byrd dragging death, the three men who did it were known white supremicists, so it isn't a big stretch to speculate the crime was racially motivated. And was it the media that first raised the issue of race in the Duke lacrosse scandal, or was it the lawyer for the young woman who was violated? The wikipedia article about Patricia Stansfield has been removed (cue eerie music... could this be media bias???) As for the Channon murder, this was one of the most horrific crimes I've ever read about... but there is no indication it was committed based on race. Again, why should we speculate that race was the motive, rather than money or gender?

Is speculation productive, though? We could speculate that this crime was racially motivated, or that it was motivated by gender, or that it was motivated by financial gain... in the end, though, it is all speculation until the facts come out. Why would you want the media guessing, possibly incorrectly, about this man's motivation?

Ok, you've shown there have been incidences of people being fired for using offensive language. So your point is not that the people in your original post shouldn't be able to say what they are saying, but rather that others shouldn't be condemned for equally offensive language? I'm just trying to establish what exactly your original post was about, in terms of the ends of tolerance.

Maybe you should be more clear in your original posting, then. And, instead of rewriting an older post so that it contains considerably different ideas, create a new post so that the responses to the original are still in context. An edit is for spelling, grammar, punctuation... not for expanding on an incomplete thought.

Interestingly enough, you have yet to be banned from these forums, which means you are being given an opportunity to talk about all of these issues. No one is stopping you from doing your best to convince us of your arguments - but thus far, you haven't won any converts that I have seen. You have every opportunity to get into the frank discussion you crave here - in fact, I encourage you to post your thoughts - but when they are met with dissention you have to recognize others' rights to also have opinions divergent from yours. By the way, I have no idea how many times someone has been thrown out of employment for saying the "n word", but since you asked this rhetorical question, I'm sure you can provide the answer. I'm curious, how many incidents of this have there been?

So what you are saying, then, is that the whole thing is media bias, and there was no racial motivation on the part of the rapist/murderer in this case?

The point I'm trying to make is that there are many potential angles the media could examine, but each one would be speculative, until all the facts come out. Lictor only sees one possibility, that the crime was motivated by race; I'm just trying to show him that there are other possibilities. If the media doesn't mention race, it's probably because there isn't anything to tie racial motivation to the case. Sometimes crime is just about opportunity, not some grand scheme to bring down Whitey.

I tried to copy and paste the link into my browser, but it didn't work. Perhaps the media ignored the potential racial angle, but do you see you are also ignoring other potential angles? Could this be about misogyny rather than race? Could it be about poverty rather than race? I'm certainly not saying this crime was acceptable, I'm just saying you are seeing it through the lens you choose to apply, and ignoring other possible factors.

When I read the opening post, I was surprised that the university was open at all; here in Manitoba everything is shut down until 1:00, when businesses can open for the rest of the day. Most of us get a full day off. Remembrance is a personal thing, so if one person chooses to remember the sacrifices made by the aboriginals when the white settlers arrived, who's to say they shouldn't? I know I didn't attend a ceremony, or watch one on TV, but I did spend much of the day pondering "In Flanders Fields", repeating the poem to myself on and off throughout the day, and really thinking about what it meant to the author, and to countless Canadians since it was written. We all know it, and know the story of how John McCrae saw his young friend die, wrote the poem, then ripped it out of his notebook and threw it away. I've heard this poem every year as long as I can remember, but instead of becoming more and more stale, each year it becomes more poignant for me.

OK, so its the "ends" of tolerance - the result of having a tolerant society. You object to freedom of speech and assembly, because you disagree with what these people are saying - in your view, it would be much better to have an intolerant society, where everyone conforms to an ideology set forward by.... who? You?