Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
  • Announcements

    • Greg

      New Members Please Read   10/07/2016

      New forum members should review the Forum Rules and GuidelinesĀ before contributing to the discussion forums.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dialamah last won the day on September 22 2017

dialamah had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

367 Excellent

1 Follower

About dialamah

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

13,431 profile views
  1. Whites need not apply

    Ah, a change of story! At the time you merely said that if a resume didn't have a Canadian name, you wouldn't call them. No mention at the time of extenuating circumstances or it being a one-off, merely repition of yout intention to ensure you hired people who fit your culture and you screened via names on the resume. On topic: again, the assumption here seems to be that "only" a white person can meet standards based on merit. If a non-white person is hired, its only because a more qualified white person was passed over. Its a stupid argument, really.
  2. Whites need not apply

    I am not sure why the OP would object to this, since he has posted that he will not even consider hiring anyone with an immigrant, non-European name and claims to be doing so in order to find people who fit into his workplace "culture". If the OP defends his right to do so, then it seems hypocritical to then suggest that Dalhousie does not also have the right to select only candidates who will fit into their workplace "culture" of diversity. Or is the right to refuse candidates based on "culture" only available to exclude "racially visible minorities"?
  3. The Great Deception

    If people can use scripture to support what they believe, even if it directly contradicts someone else's scripture-based belief, then the Bible does not prove anything, it merely provides validation for people's preferences. I consider this a feature of the Bible, not a bug. This feature has allowed (most) Christians to advance beyond medieval beliefs and practices.
  4. The Great Deception

    Yes. You are trying to demonstrate that your belief is the "correct" interpretation of the Bible. I am saying your intepretation is merely your opinion and is no more or less valid than the OP's.
  5. The Great Deception

    Religious people pick and choose those scriptures that suit their beliefs. JWs choose scripture that supports their no-blood belief. Some Churches choose scripture that allows them.to prevent women from leading, impose dress codes on their flock, impose celibacy or to keep secret confessions of child abuse. Others choose scripture that allows them to discriminate against people who look different or to kill non-believers. And some choose scripture that emphasizes love and acceptance for all. Like I said, there is something for everyone in Scripture, along with scripture to prove that everyone else's favored scripture isn't what God meant, really.
  6. The Great Deception

    I suppose it boils down to being able to pick and choose what one wants to believe and prove it has God's approval. The Bible has options for everyone.
  7. Given that Fox news has now reported that the powder was harmless, I am convinced the whole thing was a false flag operation by Republicans/Conservatives to divert attention from Trump/Pence's agenda of turning the US into a banana republic.
  8. What Can One Do During Home Invasion?

    So are you suggesting that when I report a dead guy on my property, I can just say "He was here to steal something, so I shot him", the police should just nod and say "OK", even if someone else says "That's not what happened"?
  9. The Great Deception

    I thought the only relevant part of the Bible today was the New Testament, so why the cites from the OT? If the OT can be used to prove Christian beliefs about Jesus/God/HS, then why not about gays, women and non-believers?
  10. What Can One Do During Home Invasion?

    The vehicle Boushie was in had a flat tire. They tried unsuccessfully to steal a vehicle from a neighboring farm. The arrived on Stanley's farm and one of them headed toward an atm. Stanley's son, Sheldon, chased him off the ATV and smashed the windshield of the vehicle Boushie was in as they were trying to back out of the yard. They crashed into Mrs. Stanley's car. Stanley ran to the house and got his shotgun, came out and shot warning shots into the air. Two men left the vehicle and ran away. Sheldon, Stanley's son, said the bullet that killed Boushie was shot as his father walked towards the vehicle. Stanley says he was at the vehicle when it discharged accidentally. The defence claims the gun "hung", which means the bullet didn't leave the barrel till some time after the trigger was pulled. The prosecution said that the gun worked perfectly and even if it did hang, it would be under a second and not the length of time it took to walk down the driveway. The defense attempted to use reddit to prove their theory; the prosecution used actual experts. The jury was all white and it took them 15 hours to acquit. Link. My conclusion is that in the heat of the moment, Stanley didn't care if he shot one of them or not. The "gun misfire" was what he came up with afterward. One wonders about the son contradicting his father's story. While the defense claimed that the intruders escalated the situation, it seems they were intent on leaving, not escalating. If Stanley really thought his wife was trapped, then his actions make more sense. I think he is gulty of manslaughter at the very least.
  11. What Can One Do During Home Invasion?

    I would consider property trespass as a front or back yard, a parking garage, a front driveway or a farmer"s field. A home invasion, to me, is a situation where someone breaks into a home when people are there and violently takes control of those people. For that reason, the farm situation and a home invasion are very different.
  12. What Can One Do During Home Invasion?

    A couple of times, I've confronted sketchy people on our property. The young lady I escorted off turned at the edge of the property and threw a rock at me; the guy I advised to leave made threatening gestures toward me. What if, in either of those situations, they had had had guns? Or even if the girl had a knife to throw? Or if I felt that I needed a gun to back myself up? Would death have ensued for trespass? So one has to understand one's own behavior and how far they'd go in some situations. My tendency is to confront rather than back down, but I suspect that's not the safest behavior; perhaps that is why police usually advise against it. Given the evidence of my past behavior, I am pretty sure that in a situation where myself or my family was at risk, I would protect them and myself if I had the means. But I think this also means I am more at risk and potentially more dangerous even when my life is not directly at risk. I don't think there's necessarily a point of "me or him"; it's action and reaction till someone makes that lethal move.
  13. What Can One Do During Home Invasion?

    The story in this link seems a little different than the story in the other link, so if this more accurate than the shooter was under significantly more stress. But he still maintains that the gun went off accidentally. If someone was actively threatening my life or my kids life, and I had the means, I think I could/would kill them. But it would really have to be a me or them situation. The problem with "stand your ground" laws is that people really do try to use that to cover up deliberate murder. The problem with having guns as your protection and to "scare" people is that you can easily kill someone accidentally, whether its a property thief you wanted to scare off, or someone asking for direction at your front door, or a family member sneaking in late. Even the farmer in this story claims he wasn't intending to kill this kid, only make him do something using a show of force. He was acquitted, I see.
  14. What Can One Do During Home Invasion?

    According to the article, this was not.even close to a home invasion, the house was even approached, let alone broken into. The homeowner was not being threatened; he was so unthreatened, he was leaning into the dead guy's vehicle to turn it off when his gun accidentally discharged - that is his story. The commenters choose to ignore all that in favor of arguing for killing someone who is trespassing, period. Not stealing anything, not threatening anyone, just there, past a property line. They justify this with "but maybe he was gonna steal something." Maybe he was gonna ask for directions too, but "shoot first and ask queations later" as one commentator said. The commentators aren't debating real "kill or be killed" situations; they're deciding that they are willing to kill people who come onto their property without permission.