[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

The trick here is to make the people coming from India, Central and South America, the Middle Eastern countries, and Asia into Americans or French or British.

That ain't working though.

Originally Posted by Monique

So the skin complexion is different than before it is not a big deal. How did they do it with the Italian, the Irish, the Polish... when they came and live in the United States?

The people you mention there have similar cultures to the US to start with - all Christian based.

Originally Posted by Monique

You want to change the laws of Islam toward women; you have to change the women and give them the belief they are the equal of men.

Very naive.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I love it how recent speculation on the Western world somehow becoming "Sharia-lead" in 50 short years leads to a vast outcry - especially from those on the Right side of the political spectrum, although it includes all sides I think - and large-font cries about what our countries will become after we die...

islamic Republic of Great Britain... ...2040 at the latest.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

...whereas on the other hand, decades of scientific concerns about the environmental degradation of the planet, pictures of downed rainforests and toxic waste and melted glaciers and mass extinctions and sea bottoms swept clean of life, warnings about the death of previous civilizations after they had caused similar environmental problems, and calls for what our planet will look like after we die...cause accusations of fearmongering, self-righteous denials of human involvement, and outrageous claims of inevitability from what seems to be most of the same people above.

You veggie yet Greg? You work from home yet Greg?

[Monique]

I do not know what the world is going to be in a century or so; it is up to speculation. But, there was always some amount of violence, whatever the centuries; it is part of the fabric of men, and it will be up to the women to change the future more than men.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

I do not know what the world is going to be in a century or so; it is up to speculation. But, there was always some amount of violence, whatever the centuries; it is part of the fabric of men, and it will be up to the women to change the future more than men.

Because women don't have fights with each other simply over the fact that they both turned up to the same place in the same dress, do they?

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Because women don't have fights with each other simply over the fact that they both turned up to the same place in the same dress, do they?

But the Muslim women are at the same place we were at the beginning of the last century when men used to say that we provocked them. And even now it is always our fault not the men.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You veggie yet Greg? You work from home yet Greg?

"No" to both questions, of course. Both are irrelevent to the topic on hand, and the comparison I introduced.

Thanks for only enforcing my point in a single post, however.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

"No" to both questions, of course.

The quick answer:
STFU about your environmental crap then.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Both are irrelevent to the topic on hand, and the comparison I introduced.

The long answer:
No, they're not irrelevant. You're suggesting that folks are concerned about population decline but not environmental problems. I merely illustrated that while you constantly harp on about the environment, you yourself haven't actually done anything about it.

You mention the extermination of rain forests, for example... ...what is that caused by? Yep, that's right - your meat habit.

You mention the seas bottoms being scraped clean of life, for another example. Is that me causing that problem or is it those of you who still eat seafood causing that?

So, it would appear that your post is completely incorrect. I appear to be practically concerned both about western civilisation and man's footprint on the planet. While you appear to be concerned only in theory.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Monique

I do not know what the world is going to be in a century or so; it is up to speculation. But, there was always some amount of violence, whatever the centuries; it is part of the fabric of men, and it will be up to the women to change the future more than men.

Just when I start to get a little respect for you, you have to go and show just how loathsome you really are.

So men are the source of all violence, are they? So women can do no wrong; is that it? For all your talk of fighting sexism, you exhibit a hell of a lot of the stuff.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Monique

But the Muslim women are at the same place we were at the beginning of the last century when men used to say that we provocked them. And even now it is always our fault not the men.

At least the majority of the population understands that it's possible to rape a woman. When they understand that it's possible to rape a man, then we'll start talking about double standards.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Just when I start to get a little respect for you, you have to go and show just how loathsome you really are.

So men are the source of all violence, are they? So women can do no wrong; is that it? For all your talk of fighting sexism, you exhibit a hell of a lot of the stuff.

Do you deny that men have been doing the pillaging, the wars, the raping, the killings for centuries.

Now sometime women do kill but it is not a debate on if men are more violent than women. The fact is the West has as much blood on its hands than the East, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Oceania, South and Central America.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Monique

Do you deny that men have been doing the pillaging, the wars, the raping, the killings for centuries.

Of course men have been fighting the wars for centuries: women haven't been allowed to do that. Had things been more equitable in that regard, however, I do not believe that things would necessarily have played out as they did.

As for rapes, we will probably never know the true extent of how many women have raped men. What we do know is that when women rape men, it's even more likely to go unreported than when men rape women, and that latter statistic is already depressing. It's the least-reported of all gender combinations, and in some jurisdictions, including many European nations, the legal definition of rape doesn't even account for the possibility.

Now sometime women do kill but it is not a debate on if men are more violent than women.

I disagree. Certainly men have been allowed to be more violent than women throughout recorded history. But if that constraint were to be removed, the jury is still very much out: regrettably (or perhaps not), recorded history doesn't contain enough data to be sure on that one either way. I suspect, however, that when the answer finally comes, it will be very surprising indeed.

Among many animals, the female of the species can be considerably more dangerous than the male, especially if the circumstances are right. In more than a handful of species, the female actually does the majority of the hunting. Few species have anything akin to what we call war, but in most of those that do, fighting is again left to the females. There are serious some schools of thought among human military strategists that even with the tendency toward lower physical strength taken into account, women would tend make better soldiers than men if given the opportunity. Almost every culture has legends of woman warriors, and they invariably fight even more fiercely than men; on the occasions when they are defeated by men, it takes one of even greater legendary status to do so.

You act as though women are, as a group, incapable of violence. I don't doubt that many human cultures have attempted over the centuries to try and make this happen. But I believe that these efforts have failed.

The fact is the West has as much blood on its hands than the East, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Oceania, South and Central America.

I'm not sure how this follows from the gender argument, but yeah; the West has as much blood on its hands as any of the regions you name. I've never tried to argue otherwise. But what does this have to do with issues of gender?

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I love it how recent speculation on the Western world somehow becoming "Sharia-lead" in 50 short years leads to a vast outcry - especially from those on the Right side of the political spectrum, although it includes all sides I think - and large-font cries about what our countries will become after we die...

...whereas on the other hand, decades of scientific concerns about the environmental degradation of the planet, pictures of downed rainforests and toxic waste and melted glaciers and mass extinctions and sea bottoms swept clean of life, warnings about the death of previous civilizations after they had caused similar environmental problems, and calls for what our planet will look like after we die...cause accusations of fearmongering, self-righteous denials of human involvement, and outrageous claims of inevitability from what seems to be most of the same people above.


Weird, huh? Almost makes me want to be smart enough to be able to analyze it further.

greg

Will someone please tell me what kinds of people regularly fail to recognize that multiple, problems, solutions, reasons and etc. can and do exist simultaneously in the real world?

[abe]

Originally Posted by Monique

But the Muslim women are at the same place we were at the beginning of the last century when men used to say that we provocked them. And even now it is always our fault not the men.

It is only because Western non-Muslim men were not bound and committed to a religious code which permitted the ideal of male dominance and female subservience.

There are indeed many, many kind, charitable, tender, decent and gentle Muslim husbands.

But, the Koran allows that if a husband is NOT so enlightened he is well within his rights to treat his woman in the negative fashion such as has been oft reported.

Western social customs are adaptable and reflect the thinking of the day.

The Koran is NOT subject to change.

That's the difference.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The quick answer:
STFU about your environmental crap then.

*snicker*

Again...thank you, poster boy. You keep managing to avoid my point by trying to attack me via my argument. "Quick, attack his views before people realize his post makes me look silly!" Welcome to middle-school debate tactics. So tiresome.

Originally Posted by Doofy

The long answer:
No, they're not irrelevant. You're suggesting that folks are concerned about population decline but not environmental problems. I merely illustrated that while you constantly harp on about the environment, you yourself haven't actually done anything about it.

We've been through this. Your memory seems pretty short for such a "quick study." I do what any informed, concerned person can and should do, and I'm convinced that my small part will one day help make a huge difference when more people inevitably follow suit.

Of course, your reactionary debate tactics mean that you claim anyone concerned with the environment should be a hippy and live in the forest somewhere; this way you can immediately "discredit" almost anyone in the Western world. Again: a boring, trivial and sadly predictable argument designed to bring the focus away from the topic at hand. Hence, the following arguments which are so easily dismissed:

Originally Posted by Doofy

You mention the extermination of rain forests, for example... ...what is that caused by? Yep, that's right - your meat habit.

You mention the seas bottoms being scraped clean of life, for another example. Is that me causing that problem or is it those of you who still eat seafood causing that?

By your own argument, in order to be "environmentally friendly" people have to be vegetarians, then. We've covered this before, ad naseum, and this was also dismissed before. Many of our current methods of environmental destruction stem from our economic systems; the ultimate focus on the "bottom line" means the cheapest, and therefore usually most harmful, methods of natural resource harvest are always taken unless the issue is forced otherwise. We have clear demonstrations that it is entirely possible to sustainably harvest natural resources, both on land and in the sea. Conversely to your argument, you conveniently do not mention the large environmental footprint agriculture has (eg. water, oil and the problems with nutrient runoff), nor the increasing problems with unsustainability in many areas of the world due to overharvesting.

It is abundantly clear to anyone studying the issue that a variety of food resources have to be utilized in an environmentally-conscious way in order to sustain humanity at our current populations. I, for one, am quite concerned about population levels, because I feel examples from nature and previous human civilizations point to a critical level and a subsequent following crash.

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, it would appear that your post is completely incorrect. I appear to be practically concerned both about western civilisation and man's footprint on the planet. While you appear to be concerned only in theory.

You aren't concerned in the slightest about "man's footprint" as defined in ecological terms. Your post is a clear demonstration of this. You're concerned about the Western world's continued dominance over its Colonies, and that's about it.

greg

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

yadda yadda yadda

Off Topic.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

We've been through this. Your memory seems pretty short for such a "quick study." I do what any informed, concerned person can and should do

So you *are* veggie and *do* work from home then?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

and I'm convinced that my small part will one day help make a huge difference when more people inevitably follow suit.

What is it that you actually do for your small part, besides telling other people what they should be doing?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Of course, your reactionary debate tactics mean that you claim anyone concerned with the environment should be a hippy and live in the forest somewhere

I'm not a hippie. Strangely enough, I don't live in a forest either.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

this way you can immediately "discredit" almost anyone in the Western world who's spouting crap but not actually doing anything about it themselves.

Fixed.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

By your own argument, in order to be "environmentally friendly" people have to be vegetarians, then.

Yep.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

We've covered this before, ad naseum, and this was also dismissed before.

No. What happened was that you dismissed it because you "all gob no trousers". You continually lecture others about the environment without actually making all the changes you can yo your own lifestyle.

It's akin to the way lefties who go on about "wealth redistribution" always mean someone else's money, not their own.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Many of our current methods of environmental destruction stem from our economic systems

Those economic systems caused by consumer demand? For example, the meat industry being caused by your need for a burger?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

We have clear demonstrations that it is entirely possible to sustainably harvest natural resources, both on land and in the sea.

We do?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Conversely to your argument, you conveniently do not mention the large environmental footprint agriculture has (eg. water, oil and the problems with nutrient runoff)

Fact: Farming crop uses sixteen time less resources (water, oil) and produces less exhaust waste than farming livestock does.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

It is abundantly clear to anyone studying the issue that a variety of food resources have to be utilized in an environmentally-conscious way in order to sustain humanity at our current populations.

Details please.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I, for one, am quite concerned about population levels, because I feel examples from nature and previous human civilizations point to a critical level and a subsequent following crash.

You aren't concerned in the slightest about "man's footprint" as defined in ecological terms. Your post is a clear demonstration of this. You're concerned about the Western world's continued dominance over its Colonies, and that's about it.

And yet somehow my ecological footprint is smaller than yours. Ain't that strange?

[abe]

Here's what I imagine the thought will be of our Canadian posters upon reading this...

"But, we're CANADIAN! I thought we were immune to attack?!"

Suckers!

Terrorism raids sweep Toronto
TIMOTHY APPLEBY
Globe and Mail Update

Police across the Greater Toronto Area launched counterterrorism raids yesterday, arresting at least eight people in a roundup expected to continue overnight and beyond.

“We anticipate more arrests, but not necessarily tonight,” an RCMP source said of the arrests, in what appeared to be the most concerted such sweep in Canada since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service aided the RCMP and officers from Toronto, Peel and Durham in detaining the suspects, described by an undercover officer involved in the operation as “terrorists, the ones who hate the West.”

The ethnicity of the group was not clear. A well- placed police source said they are Muslims, but not Arabs, and unconnected to anti-terrorism raids that occurred simultaneously in Britain yesterday.

Quoting anonymous sources, CBC said the targets of the raid are suspected of connections with al-Qaeda. A Canadian Press report said the arrests stemmed from a plot involving explosives.

While the intended target is unclear, the plan was to detonate an explosive device in Ontario, a source who asked not to be named told Canadian Press. “That's the tool of choice for anybody who wants to cause damage.”

The suspects, whom one report said numbered 10, were being held at a Durham Regional Police station in Pickering, which late last night resembled a fortress under siege.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office declined to comment last night, saying the government does not want to interfere in police operations.

The Integrated National Enforcement Team, comprising the RCMP and other police, CSIS and federal agencies such as the Canada Border Services Agency, will hold a press conference this morning to outline charges and further details.

A source in Pickering said that during the day, heavily armed tactical officers were seen near a local mosque that serves about 1,000 families in the area. But a mosque trustee said he did not know of any police raids in the vicinity. He was at the mosque for 3 p.m. prayers and nothing seemed amiss, he said. With reports from Jeff Sallot and Oliver Moore

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ory/Front/home

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally Posted by abe

And if you don't care about what happens after you die, then there's no reason to be alarmed or take action because the way things stand now that's just what will happen.

You can't stop the course of history. The nazis and the neocons lived (and live) in the illusion they can, trough war... The romans slaughtered barbarians for centuries, until the barbarian populations took over. It's just a matter of time until (just because of their numeric superiority) muslims will rule Europe, chineses/indians will rule Asia, and mixed-breed indian americans (latinos) will rule North America. Start all the wars you want, invade as many country as you can... you're never going to change the result on the long term. You can accept this single fact, or live in an illusion.

[Y3a]

I guess we don't want all our efforts distroyed by Muslim pigs and the herds of latinos who want a new slum just like the one they left? The error was letting them in at all.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So you *are* veggie and *do* work from home then?

No to both accounts. But I didn't make my original post to start a debate on environmentalism - I made it to show the hyposcrisy evident in the thread. If you want to start a thread comparing environmental footprints, go right ahead - I'll do some posting, and I'm pretty sure I can hold my own there.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Fact: Farming crop uses sixteen time less resources (water, oil) and produces less exhaust waste than farming livestock does.

Details please.

As has been discussed plenty of times here, farming has plenty of "unmeasured" negatives as well - particularly in terms of maintaining soil productivity (which often leads to a host of other environmental problems), which has become an increasingly large problem in many areas of the world. Simply put, maintaining only agriculture production on the world's soils is not only a ludicrous idea, but would probably result in wholesale difficulties in food production within a few years. You point to forests being cleared for beef production, but neglect to mention that the original impetus was often agriculture - but soils in these regions have shown a huge reduction in productivity.

I also question your assertation on the 16x figure. I can't remember who posted this, but a good article on the subject is The Oil We Eat in Harper's magazine. Give it a read, and see what you think. It's certainly true that meat production does cost more energy, but agriculture is hardly as blameless as vegetarians would like people to think.

Originally Posted by Doofy

And yet somehow my ecological footprint is smaller than yours. Ain't that strange?

It's certainly possible, but that depends on a host of factors, including where one lives, the culture, etc. That isn't the point. The point is for everyone to reduce, and I know I do that as much as I possibly can.

greg

[abe]

Originally Posted by kvm_mkdb

You can't stop the course of history. The nazis and the neocons lived (and live) in the illusion they can, trough war... The romans slaughtered barbarians for centuries, until the barbarian populations took over. It's just a matter of time until (just because of their numeric superiority) muslims will rule Europe, chineses/indians will rule Asia, and mixed-breed indian americans (latinos) will rule North America. Start all the wars you want, invade as many country as you can... you're never going to change the result on the long term. You can accept this single fact, or live in an illusion.

You silly, silly man.

I don't give a feck about anyone's color or religion or nationality.



Silly, man.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by kvm_mkdb

mixed-breed indian americans (latinos) will rule North America.

Latin America is a dump!

let's hope the US doesn't become the same thing

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Latin America is a dump!

let's hope the US doesn't become the same thing

Meh, he's probably right. Maybe we should move to Alaska; I'm fairly confident they'll keep their American cultural majority and secede when the rest of the states all go to pot.

possibly.

On a somewhat related note, I suggest instead of a fence on the southern border, we lay down some good ol' fashioned minefields.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Monique

Do you deny that men have been doing the pillaging, the wars, the raping, the killings for centuries.

Ah, so current men (who had nothing to do with the past) should suffer for our forefather's errors? Isn't this EXACTLY what women are escaping from and claim is so evil and prevents them from obtaining the basic necessities of life (oppression that results from something they have no control over)?

You do realize you're completely sexist (and just as bad as the "sexist pig" men), don't you? (Your probably don't and that's the most infuriating thing of all)

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by abe

You silly, silly man.

I don't give a feck about anyone's color or religion or nationality.

Who are you and what have you done with abe? What happened to the Great Islamicist Threat? I mean, it's right there in your sig:

People must realize that the conflict we are engaged in is not ultimately about Israel, or oil, or American power, or the occupation of Iraq. It began before those things existed, and it will continue until jihad ideology is decisively rejected by Muslims worldwide.