It drives me crazy when people engage in an honest discussion with me and, quite a while later on, we figure out that we are using the same words but intending different meanings for them!
It is impossible to have a meaningful exchange of ideas if we cannot define common labels to apply to those ideas.
This seems pretty basic and clear, but unless we are disciplined enough to define all terms prior to any debate or discussion, chances are we will fall into this trap.
And yes, of course, there are ‘weasels’ out there who intentionally twist words during the discussion in order to score cheap points.
And yes, of course, there are specific ‘weasel words’ some people use to intentionally obfuscate points and fudge discussions for whatever reasons they have.
But that is not what I am talking about.
I mean honest people, meaning to have honest discussions with each other, but not getting through to each other because the labels we use do not apply to the same ideas or principles – or apply to them in a different kind of a sense.
For example, the concept of what constitutes ‘murder’ is not universally understood the way we, in The West, define it: the unnecessary killing of another human being during peacetime.
For example, the Yanomamo people of South America considered ‘murder’ to be the killing of any living being which was ‘of their village’. So, the killing of a chicken or a dog that lived in one’s village was ‘murder’, but killing a human being who was not a member of their village was ‘killing’, but certainly not ‘murder’.
Now, the Yanomamo are matrilinear but patriarchal and so young boys go to live with their mother’s brother’s family – usually in a different village than into which they were born. When such a child first arrives into the village, they are in great danger: if the rest of the community does not accept them as ‘members of the village’ – for whatever reason – they will be killed (only click this link if you are willing to see this most vile and despicable practice!)
Brutal, but true…
Similarly, in ancient Rome, it was not ‘murder’ for a father to kill his children or cause them to be raised as slaves in unrelated families…
I suspect this Roman tradition is either the reflection of or the source of many cultural traditions where the father has absolute power over his family and it is not considered ‘murder’ for a parent to kill their offspring.
This is certainly the case under Sharia – Islamic law – which specifically states that a parent who kills their offspring is not guilty of murder.
This is important when we want to discuss the horrible, despicable practice of ‘honour killings’… it is not so much that all ‘honour killings’ are Islamic, but rather that the Islamic ‘honour killings’ are part of this tradition which is definitely seen as far back as Ancient Rome.
In most ‘traditions’, this is a cultural phenomenon only. It is something that can be altered through laws and education and, eventually, cultural change. And, while this practice had been widespread at one time, it has been greatly reduced through these means among Sikh, Hindu and Christians groups that once practiced it openly.
In Islam, because it has been codified into Sharia and because most Muslims recognize Sharia as superior to man-made laws, it is much more challenging to combat this practice.
It is a bit tricky, but, please, let me explain…
As many of us have been shouting as loudly and clearly as possible, it is Muslims themselves who are the greatest victims of Sharia.
Because, under Sharia, anyone who is an observant Muslim is obligated to kill anyone they see as ‘apostates’: those who have turned away from ‘true Islam’. So, if a child is seen as having left the true path of Islam, it is both obligatory to kill them as ‘apostates’ and it is not punishable, if it is a parent killing their offspring.
But, it goes further than that…
Under Sharia, it is not considered ‘murder’ to kill a non-Muslim – any time and under any circumstances. ‘Murder’ is only the ‘unlawful’ (under Sharia) killing of a Muslim: and it is lawful to kill a Muslim if he or she murders a Muslim, OR commits adultery, OR turns away from ‘true Islam’.
Just like Christianity, Islam demands that their religionists must ‘love’ god more than they love any family member, it is not difficult to see how what we, in The West, term ‘honour killings’ are believed (rightly or wrongly) to be not just permitted, but downright obligatory under Sharia.
Of course, there are some Islamic scholars (especially of the Shia schools) who believe that it is they, not the family, who should administer the ‘honour killing’. But this is more of a dispute over power, not substance…
Please, keep the above in mind as you watch the following video, which supplies the relevant quotes from Sharia to support the above statements:
This story is very important and needs to be told.
As someone who had escaped from a totalitarian system – not as horrific as North Korea’s, but a totalitarian system nonetheless, I have some appreciation of the difficulties involved, both in the mechanics of the escape and in the rehabilitation afterwards.
I am 45 years old now – and escaped when I was 13.
As escape stories go, mine was less dreadful than most.
Yet, I still wake up in panick attacks, with what are termed ‘escapee dreams’, and what some modern MDs might term ‘post-traumatic stress’…
So, I can readily imagine and empathise with the difficulties some of these people face!
Please, spread the story – like the video says: information is power!!!
Today, I received a sad email informing me of the passing of Merlyn Kinrade, a true Canadian hero and a patriot.

A great Canadian patriot, naval veteran, peacekeeper, father, husband, friend of Israel and a tireless force for justice in Caledonia has been called home.
I am saddened to report that Merlyn Kinrade, Caledonia resident and co-founder of CANACE (Canadian Advocates for Charter Equality), died after a long battle with cancer at 2pm yesterday – Saturday, October 06, 2012.
Funeral details:
LOCATION:Bay Gardens Funeral Home947 Rymal Road East, Hamilton L8W 3M2 (just east of Upper Gage Ave.)
905.574.0509
VISITATION: Wednesday 2-4 pm, 7-9 pmSERVICE: Thursday 11 amANNOUNCEMENT: to appear in Hamilton Spectator on TuesdayAbout Merlyn Kinrade
Merlyn Kinrade lived more than 60 years of his life in Caledonia. He is a former member of the Royal Canadian Navy who served on one of the most famous ships in Canadian naval history, HMCS Haida. His service included a tour of duty in Port Said, Egypt on a United Nations peacekeeping mission during the 1956 Suez crisis.
He has been a steadfast contributor to the community through sponsorship of various sports teams and significant financial generosity that made construction of the original arena possible for the town. He also coached hockey and baseball teams, and made a special effort to include needy children from the nearby Six Nations Reserve by providing transportation to and from practices and games, purchasing skates and other equipment for them and ensuring they were well fed during their time with the team.
I have to admit that I am intrigued by some of the ideas proposed by the anarcho-capitalists.
And, I do understand how it would work – for civilized people who would agree on impartial third party conflict resolution and all that. I get it…
What I don’t understand is how it would function if the two parties in conflict did not agree on their conflict moderator – or if one of the parties never agreed to the process at all…how could conflicts be resolved then?
This really should not surprise me, but the EU bureaucracy is rising to new ‘Randian’ heights!
Here is the short version of the story: the Czech republic is good at producing electicity. In addition to hydro dams and other sources, it has invested heavily into nuclear power plants – over many decades, so that 1/3 to 1/2 of their electricity comes from nuclear power plants. The Czech energy policy has been so successful that now, green-invested Germany buys much of its electricity from the Czechs.
While some of the Czech nuclear power plants are brand-spanking new, some are older and pre-date Czech’s entry into the EU. These older plants use uranium fuel enriched in Russia.
So far, so good.
Then, Czrch became a member of EU.
Still OK.
Except that now, the EU bureaucrats came and told the Czechs they will have to shut down the power plant(s) that use Russian enriched uranium, because there is a pre-existing EU regulation that only EU enriched uranium may be used in EU nuclear power plants…
From TheReferenceFrame (note: Temelin and Duchovany are Czech nuclear power plants):
‘Temelín – with its combined Russian-American design – was opened after the fall of communism, in 2002 (although the construction began in 1981), and it was a frequent target of attacks by the Austrian Luddite activists. However, Dukovany (constructed started 1974, opened in 1985-1987) which has apparently invited almost no opposition just came under a vicious assault by the EU bureaucrats.
…
We are learning that the Europeans are not allowed to buy uranium enriched outside of the EU due to some strange paragraph agreed upon at the 1994 EU Corfu Summit (island in Greece). Holy cow. How many shocking ghosts of this magnitude does the EU have? We weren’t members of the EU at that time and the citizens who were deciding about our EU membership in a referendum were not told that “Yes” could mean that some stunning assholes could get a weapon to close our nuclear power plants because of some silly sentence okayed by some drunk and corrupt jerks at an island belonging to a country that shouldn’t have been in the EU at all. If this information were the case, I would consider the referendum to be fraudulent.’
Well, well, well.
The chickens have come home to roost.
Or something like that!
It seems like the vast majority of the media is jubilant over Omar Khadr’s return to Canada – in stark contrast to the polls of actual Canadian people, the vast majority of whom opposed his repatriation. He killed an American medic, he was sentenced in America – why should Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for his jail time and rehabilitation?
And the cost of rehabilitation will be high!
Not counting the ten million he is suing Canada for, that is…
Because this 5 times war criminal is unrepentant and more militant than ever. He is a racist, misogynistic bigot who is hell-bent on using any means available to him – including violence and propaganda – to wage jihad against us, non-Muslims.
We know this because he openly says so.
No, not to the media and the useful idiots from the consular office – but he says it nonetheless.
He boasts of having killed Americans.
He says his best days were when he was manufacturing roadside bombs and planting them, to blow up our and allied military personnel.
And he is proud of having cold-bloodedly murdered a medic – not in the heat of a battle, but while the unarmed medic was attempting to render him medical assistance!
Forget the lie so often repeated in the media that he is a ‘child soldier’ – he is not. Not according to either the spirit or the letter of the law, which is very specific in its definition of the legal term ‘child soldier’. But I have ranted on that in the past…
What is important now is how we will deal with this hardened terrorist in our midst: will we pretend that he is just another petty criminal who can be rehabilitated through education, or will we recognize the clear and present danger he poses to us all?
He had, after all, committed treason by taking up arms against our and allied forces.
It’s right there, in our criminal code.
The only reasonable course of action is for him to be charged and tried under that law because if the laws are not applied equally to everyone, the very foundation of our society will be undermined.
The following is a guest post by Juggernaut, where he shares his thoughts on feminism. While I may not agree with all he says, I do think it is thought-provoking:
I think feminism is often misunderstood, and no matter what stance you take on feminism, there is a degree of controversy. Hardcore feminists will probably see me as a chauvinist or misogynist. Hardcore anti-feminists will probably see me as an emasculate wuss indoctrinated by leftist propaganda. In the end though, there are merits to feminism, but some feminists do go to unhealthy extremes in their beliefs.
There does seem to be an aura of belittlement and disrespect toward women in our culture (a.k.a. much of our movies and music). When feminists mention a human history where males have forcefully dominated and cultural barriers have prevented women from excelling in careers by giving them the expectation to be stay-at-home mothers, I listen and openly accept these criticisms. The guys who automatically write off feminists and see these concerns as silly, do seem to be in an overall state of justified ignorance. A person who doesn’t feel threatened or guilty will gladly welcome even more questioning and probing.
Men, instead of taking offense and immediately jumping to conclusions and saying something like “well, if it were a man, then ____”. Openly listen, and who knows, you two may actually be on the same page. This is in the same way that some feminists need to be more open in taking criticism.
There are gender roles in our society. And there are two kinds of traditions. Some traditions are useful. Other traditions are not so useful. My belief is to adopt the useful traditions and abandon the less useful traditions. Everyone has different needs and a different lifestyle. If women want to adopt male gender roles and men want to adopt feminine gender roles, I have no problem with that. In some cases, it’s best for a woman to work and in other cases, it is best for a woman to be a stay-at-home mom. In the end, it’s a woman’s choice (as well as a man), in what she wants to be and what she wants to do with her life. Whether the traditional gender roles of women cooking/cleaning and men doing handiwork are adopted into a family or not adopted into a family, I respect their decision. Live and let live. Everyone has their own choice, and I won’t judge them.
Keep in mind that feminism is not a church. There is not one set of tenets you have to believe in order to be a feminist. And there are different kinds of feminists. Some of them happen to be the most extreme feminists (and I’m not condemning their lifestyles at all; but I will start to ask questions when they start condemning others). Some people believe in feminism and support feminism, but it isn’t their entire life. Other people eat sleep and breathe feminism. They spend a lot of their spare time protesting and they study feminism in school. A good amount (but not most) of the latter kind are found in colleges. And some of them are very extreme. If you go to college, you may hear a lot of feminist protests and feminist professors, and therefore conclude that most or a lot of women are like that.
But the most hardcore feminists are only a minority, and don’t represent most women at all!
I have a lot of respect for feminism, but not the extremists. That is in the same way I have respect for people in pursuit of their religion, but not the extremists.
Here is what I don’t like about the most hardcore extreme feminists:
1. They are more judgmental on women than men are. If a woman likes to live a lifestyle that is in line with what women have traditionally living, they will see those women as being brainwashed, as if they didn’t have the capacity to make a decision themselves. Basically “all women should be like ____. if you aren’t like ____, then there is something wrong with you.”
So, if a woman actually likes living within the gender roles, and actuallys want to be a stay-at-home mom, she should not be seen as brainwashed or too intellectually inferior to make her own decision. Her decision should be respected because she is intelligent enough to decide what she personally wants.
2. They are overly politically correct, take things too literally, and have no sense of humor. If they hear a joke that is mildly inappropriate, they will act uptight and decide the joke to be misogynistic. These people are much harder to have fun with, especially if you have a broader sense of humor. You can’t have casual small talk with them about having a long philosophical discussion about feminism. Everything leads to feminism and they sound like a johnny one-note. You can’t listen to the radio without them giving you a complete dissection of every lyric.
They don’t grasp the difference between words and actions. Actions matter more than words. If you say an off-color joke, it doesn’t represent who you are or what you think of women. It’s how you treat people that truly matters.
Again, these aren’t all feminists. Just maybe the minority of the most extreme feminists, who are ironically the most vocal. Most people who believe in feminism, believe in it, but they don’t commit the time to attend feminism events every week, they don’t study feminism and they don’t talk about feminism constantly.
Why is this bugging me?
Because some men are being trained to tailor themselves to the most hardcore feminists, thinking that those extreme beliefs represent ALL women.
Generally, I’d say dedicated feminists are no more than 10% of women, but 90% of women don’t subscribe to all of the things that hardcore feminists believe. That’s what angers me. A minority of women can’t speak for all women! The same way a minority of black people can’t speak for all black people. Or the same way a minority of muslims don’t speak for all muslims.
Most women do generally believe in feminism, but they are far from the hardcore extreme branch of feminism.
Most women actually don’t feel like them being a woman is restricting them in any way.
Most women actually like an inappropriate joke now and then. A lot of women will laugh hard at them. They can laugh at a “thats what she said” joke. They like being teased every once in a while. They do not mind at all having the passive role of waiting for the man to call and wanting the man to set up the date. Most women expect all of that! They don’t want a man who is boring, play-it-safe, over-apologetic or politically correct all of the time.
When it comes to sexuality, some women are more sexual than others. Some women resent the idea of pre-marital sex (and the idea of one night stands). Some women are perfectly okay with pre-marital, if it is with a guy they are attracted to. Women neither deserve to be labeled as a slut or a prude.
I say this to both men and women, don’t ever feel like you are doing something wrong by feeling attracted to someone. Don’t ever feel guilty about wanting sex, if that’s truly what you want. There is a huge difference between treating someone like a sex object (with no regard to anything else) and appreciating someone as a whole (including sex).
Most women WANT a man who is traditionally masculine, rather than boring, neutral or effeminate. They want a masculine man who is assertive and acts in a leadership role. This does not mean bossy, intrusive and manipulative. What I’m saying is that they want men to be the initiator, a protector that can provide a feeling of security.
A guy may talk to or get to know a woman who is a die-hard feminist, and therefore tone down his masculine qualities, in belief that he is belittling or insulting a woman by being traditionally masculine. But in the end, that is what most women like and are attracted to.
If you are surrounded in an isolated atmosphere of a vocal minority, it is easy to see a distorted view of what women are like. But in the end, each woman is different. There is no one formula that can be agreeable with all women. Some women are non-traditional and other women are more traditional.
In the end, accept people for who they are and let them make their own choices. And don’t get pressured into making a lifestyle choice just because someone doesn’t like what you are doing.