[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I can't believe I'm even wasting time reading this post, let alone responding to it... What the hell, I can't sleep and I need a good laugh.

For someone that calls me out as being insulting, you sure certainly lace your posts with condescention. My guess is thats why you dogpiled in these threads. Everytime I've seen your posts in a political thread you always talk down to those your opponents with a smug superiority.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

You clearly do not know the definition of "discrimination", so to save you from further embarassment down the line:

dis‧crim‧i‧na‧tion [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Ooh, the all powerful dictionary argument. So the cabbies are basing their opinions on individual merits of their customers, are they? There are more forms of discrimination that just religious and racial despite what the dictionary says....

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Discrimination applies to stereotyping a group of people (such as Muslims should not be cab drivers) not on the actions of those people (such as the decision to consume alcoholic beverages).

You can not say that people who drink are being discriminated against because these are individual choices. Maybe that is why the word "judgement" is used so frequently in my posts, because it's the appropriate terminology.

So you're saying drinking is an individual choice but religion isn't? People are just born Christians or Mulsims are they? Following a particular religion is a choice as well. You may be exposed to one religion more than another but you are free to choose to follow that religion or any other one you choose. Or not at all.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Ok, for those of you keeping count: this is personal attack number 1

You are being a hypocrite, am I not supposed to point it out to spare your feelings?

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Wow, talk about spin-doctor!

Uh-oh, what's this? A personal attack? In a post where you counted all my personal attacks against you and called me out on it? There's a word for this, but I can't quite recall what it is.... I think it might start with "hypo" and end with "crite", but I am not sure.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

So, I make the correlation between one religious group (Christians) not allowing someone into their cab that goes against their relgion (murderers) and you counterargue by saying that this analagy is equal to comparing homosexuals (who can be discriminated against) and people who consume alcohol (who can not be discriminated against)... hmmmm, I see a bigger simularity between apples and oranges. Your comparision is not a comparision at all. Until you realize that people can choose to consume alcohol, but people can not choose their sexual orientation, your theory will not make sense.

There are plently of Christians in this world that do believe homosexuality is a choice. So should they be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals based on their religion? That is my point.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I was not comparing murderers to people who drink alcohol... that's a bigger leap than WMD and Iraq.

You were comparing them to the exact same extent as I was comparing homosexuals to people who drink alcohol.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Wow, that's another three personal insults, bringing us up to four! My favourite so far: neo-con! Ba ha ha! I take personal attacks as a compliment - only when someone is not confident in their argument do they concede to personal attacks, so thank-you.

I said you argued like a neo-con, I didn't say you were one. All I said you were was a hypocrite. And those other three things you bolded don't even come close to being personal attacks. But keep making things up and exaggerating to prove your point, at least its consistent with your strategy so far.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

In reality, we have this thing called "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms"... it's pretty nifty. In fact, here is some information that might benefit you about how discriminating based on sexual orientation is illegal:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/li...criminationtxt

This was one part I found interesting in the article:

Now human rights Acts and Codes explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in all jurisdictions except Alberta.

You see, discriminating against homosexuals is not legal, discriminating against personal choices (such as the decision to drink) is legal. Your analagy is bunk. I stand by my first post.

I never claimed it was illegal for them to discriminate against their passengers? Did I say they should go to jail? What I am saying is religion cannot be used as a trump card to deny people a service when they have done nothing wrong in the eyes of society. You twist my words at every opportunity you get. And, again, thanks for the condescention with the Charter.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Four more, for a total of 8 personal insults, and two mentions of the forbidden word "judge"... impressive.

You fairly easily offended it you find "you take things to the extreme" as an insult. The only insult there was drama queen, which I still stand by and subject the above quote as further proof of that. And "judge" was purposely used to relate back to your comments, but I suppose that is forbidden?

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

There has to be a distinction between Muslims judging people who drink and following their religious beliefs. Should you make someone go against their religious beliefs if it is not compromising anyone else's rights? The obvious answer for me is no, because that in itself is a neglegance of that Religion's followers' rights.

Of course you should not make people go against religious beliefs. I am a strong believer in this, and if you search my past posts you can see I agree with you on most issues (although I do have serious reservations about your arguing style). But I believe in a free society there are reasonable exceptions to every rule.

A person who never believes in exceptions and blindly follows dogma without considering the particular situation is much more dangerous to a free society that a person who believes that rules can have exceptions. In fact there is a word for this: fundamentalist.

Were both people on the left side of the political specturm. The difference is I do not blindly follow what I think left-wing ideology preaches without evaluating a situation with common sense first.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Nine.

Ten.

Yes, I compared you to a clock and then reversed your own insult back on you. When you can welcome me to the 21st century but I cannot do it back, there is a word that fits the situation. Hypocrite. Ooops, another insult....

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

If there is, they are pretty extreme and do not represent the entire Christian religion. I would not be surprised in the least if they did exist, but just like suicide bombers and the Muslim faith, a few bad apples spoil the bunch. I watched a documentary just last night on Newsworld where a right-wing man from Calgary lived with a gay man from Vancouver (and vice versa). They both were Christians and while the Neo-con's church believed that homosexuality was a sin, they were still supposed to love homosexuals and pray that they find their way; while the homosexual's church was much more liberal and weren't so extreme. So do you think that whatever organization you are talking about should represent the entire Christian faith, all denominations?

No. But shouldn't his religion be protected under the Charter? On the other side of the same coin, do you think this man you saw on tv should represent the entire Christian faith?

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Way to go a few sentences without any blatent personal attacks - just condescending remarks. Congrats!

Condescention, huh? You're clearly the Queen of that.

As for the rest of the post, I don't have time to go through it point by point at the moment as I have to leave now, but its simply more of the same re-iterated over and over that hasn't already been mentioned above, so I'll leave it here for now.