User Profile: Kunoichi


Member Since: April 26, 2012


  • February 25, 2014 at 11:15pm

    Looks more like a Groucho Marx mustache to me.


  • January 29, 2014 at 7:07pm

    You’re assuming it was being delivered to people who are able bodied or not stuck somewhere without access to food and water, or do not have medical conditions that require them to eat an regular intervals or take their medication with food, or that they’re not very young or very old, etc. While people might be able to go a night without eating, a night without water is not only something to avoid but, for some people, potentially deadly.

    Even if there were none of those problems present, are you really willing to deny people food and water if it can be brought to them? What if you were the one stranded without access to either? Perhaps with your children, if you have any? Or an elderly parent?

  • January 29, 2014 at 6:59pm

    It’s not just the snow. It’s the ice under it. Where I live, we’ve had an unusually mild winter, bouncing back and forth between bitter cold and lots of snow followed by several degrees above freezing, with melt everywhere. It doesn’t matter how experienced or careful you are. If you’ve hit a patch of ice under some fresh snow and start sliding, there’s nothing you can do but hope you can control your steering enough not to cause injury.

  • January 29, 2014 at 6:55pm

    recipefile, I’m from the Great White North, and I am totally sympathetic over the conditions you have. Few things are more dangerous that even a small amount of snow on top of sheer ice.

    Stay safe!

  • January 29, 2014 at 6:53pm

    Being a Canadian, it would be easy enough to laugh this off, but the truth is, if you’re not prepared for or used to even a little snow and ice, it can be a major problem. Just a little bit of snow on top of ice is seriously dangerous. We’ve got fleets of plows and sanders in the city I live in now, yet every year, on the first snowfall, it’s like this. Everyone has to learn how to winter drive again.

    Plus, almost everything about our housing and infrastructure is built around temperature extremes; we get as hot in the summer as we do cold in the winter. It’s hard to be prepared when you live somewhere with minimal insulation in your buildings, no block heaters in your cars, or the wrong sort of tires for safe driving.

  • January 26, 2014 at 5:09pm

    “We know that tectonic and atmospheric events, on the global scale that you are eluding to, take thousands of years to take place. ”

    False. The earth has repeatedly gone through periods of relative calm and cateclysmic change. Some things did take a long time, but others happened quickly (for example, we’re finding whale fossils on mountains, showing that they had to have risen quickly in a massive geological event).

  • January 26, 2014 at 5:06pm

    The earth has exactly the same amount of water now as it ever did. No flood would change that. The earth has also seen significant geological changes. There is nothing strange about the notion that we have enough water to cover the earth.

    The Biblical account describes both rain and the earth splitting, releasing water from underground reservoirs. It describes mountenous upheavals. It also described a pre-flood climate that was warm, with a heavily saturated atmosphere with no rainfall. Rain requires particals in the atmosphere to form droplets around. A series of volcanoes would have provided the aerosold necessary for rainfall, while earthquakes released the underground reservoirs. After everything settled, the earth would have been completely transformed. The water from the flood didn’t “disappear”. It just went to where we can find it now (and then some, as we are still finding underground reservoirs today).

    Responses (2) +
  • January 26, 2014 at 4:35pm

    That’s not at all true. The only way to claim so would be to misrepresent not only the Biblical stories, but the ones they supposedly borrowed from.

    As for the flood, you may wish to read this and

    Responses (3) +
  • January 26, 2014 at 4:31pm

    “A recently deciphered 4,000-year-old tablet from ancient Mesopotamia purportedly contains the specifications for an ark to endure a great flood — and it predates the Biblical story of Noah.”

    Er… if the tablet is 4000 years old, then it’s right in line with the Biblical flood, which is estimated to have occured somewhere between 2500 and 2300 BC (arrived by calculating backwards from various recorded events within the Bible and Torah). Therefore the flood recorded in the Torah and the Old Testement happened more than 4200 years ago.

    Which means that this tablet actually confirms the Noahic flood.

    As for the shape of Noah’s Ark, there isn’t a lot of information to go on, but the image of a giant ship with a little house in the middle is based on artistic preference. It’s more likely the Ark was shaped somewhat oval, like a football, designed to withstand being rolled by waves and righting itself again (Canada’s old destroyers were designed to do so, though it meant losing the guns mounted on desk; it worked, too).

  • January 23, 2014 at 5:06pm

    This whole thing is playing out wrong right from the start.

    Nye isn’t an evolutionist. He’s a neo-Darwinist. If one is going to argue for evolution, one has to be clear as to which definition of evolution is being used and which theory of evolution they are arguing in favour of.

    Ham isn’t a creationist. He’s a Young Earth Creationist. If one is going to argue for creationism, one has to be clear as to which definition of creationism is being used, and which theory of creationism they are arguing in favour of.

    I don’t see this as going well for Nye. First, he’s not an evolutionary scientist in any way – at least he admits he’s not going to argue his view as a scientist at all. The problem is that Nye has become increasingly erratic, tempermental, foul mouthed, with a tendancy to resort to the equivalent of “Oh, yeah? Well f@#$! You!” style of debate, resort to ad hom attacks and have tantrums when people dare hold opinions he doesn’t approve of. He’s also not particularly articulate. Ham, whatever your opinion on his position, is going to come across a lot better.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 15, 2014 at 11:57pm

    “with an attitude of “brown people bad, American people good.””

    So, apparently, a person can’t be brown and American at the same time.

    Tell me again, which side is racist?

  • December 8, 2013 at 9:07pm

    The baker isn’t saying they can’t have one. The baker just doesn’t want to be the person baking it. They are free to go somewhere else.

  • December 8, 2013 at 9:02pm

    It’s become obvious that gay nuptuals are a high risk occasion for business people. They are far too trigger happy when it comes to law suits. I would refuse service for that reason alone. It seems to me that gay couples are deliberately seeking out businesses that will turn them down, just for the opportunity to sue them (it would be far easier and less stressful to deal with another company – it’s not like there aren’t a lot of other bakeries out there).

    Businesses have the right to refuse service (such as to customers who are rude, abuse staff, do not meet dress code for the establishment, etc). This should be no different.

    Responses (1) +
  • December 7, 2013 at 11:46pm

    Last year, some folks I know started spreading a story around on facebook (and probably everywhere else they could) about how the SA supposedly turned away a homeless guy and his boyfriend because they were gay, telling everyone not to donate to those horrible homophobes (when I pointed out that the SA doesn’t ask people there sexual orientation when they come for help, so this couple had to have been really obvious in some way to be turned out – assuming it happened at all, I didn’t get a response). My older daughter was so disgusted, she signed up as a kettle volunteer. I was allowed to keep her company, since I had to drive her anyhow. It was great, and we’re signed up again this year, and just got home from a wonderful evening at the kettle. So many generous, cheerful and friendly people!

    We see so many ways the SA helps out. Partly because we live just blocks from a local HQ, which includes a drug rehabilitation residence. A local temple donates space for another charity I take part in; Blankets 4 Canada, where donated squares are assembled int blankets of various sizes and passed on to those in need. They help so many thousands, every year, just in our area. A truly worthy organization!

  • December 5, 2013 at 5:31pm

    As has already been mentioned, these anti-spitting laws were brought about to fight TB (people were encouraged to spit into their hankerchiefs) – and it worked, to the point that now, hardly anyone knows why the laws are there.

    TB is on the rise, and it’s anti-biotic resistant. Other diseases can also be spread through the spray of people spitting on the ground. So not only is it disgusting and uncouth, it is a health hazard.

    Responses (1) +
  • December 5, 2013 at 12:41am

    Unfortunate that yet another company is being forced to change over misinformed fears of “chemicals.” Who needs scientific data when all you need to do is say “chemical” or “artificial” and people freak out.

  • November 20, 2013 at 1:05am

    Bah! I grew up in Manitoba. In my day (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth) few schools had a cafeteria of any kind, never mind lunch programs. Kids either brought lunches from home or, if they lived close enough, walked home for lunch, and they ate whatever their parents had the ability to feed them. I still remember what a big deal it was when our high school opened a cafeteria (it had been closed for about a decade due to lack of students). The most popular weekly special was Pizza Pop Fridays. For those of you ouside Canada, Pizza Pops are like mini-calzones, or giant pierogi filled with pizza toppings. Deliscious, but would never cut it in today’s “health concious” mindset.

    This sort of thing would not be happening everywhere in Canada (remember, we’re a huge country), but I’m not surprised to hear of this happening in Manitoba.

    Glad to have home schooled my kids, in whatever province we’ve lived in over the years!!

  • June 15, 2013 at 3:44am

    “So this bullet is equally effective against Christians, given that Christ never specifically overruled God on this point.”

    First, Christ couldn’t “overrule” God, because He *was* God.
    Second, “15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”[e] 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”[f] (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. ”

    Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant, which means some of the restrictions and ceremonial requirements were no longer necessary. He specified which ones, as the above example shows.

  • June 1, 2013 at 6:52pm

    Years ago I worked as a screen printer for a company owned by two Christian partners that I became friends with. One of them told me how, when they first started the company, one of the things they were adamant about was printing anything that promoted alcohol consumption (ah, those days of innocence) – not because they had anything against people who drank alcohol, but because they could not promote harmful behavior. Shortly after they began their company, still struggling for business, they had someone come in with a lucrative portential order. The design promoted binge drinking. They needed the money, but they turned it down, citing their Christian faith. The customer thought they were nuts, but simply went to another company.

    Shortly after, they got another customer with a huge order. It got their name out and lead to dozens of leads and repeat customers.

    Their refusal to print t-shirts promoting alcohol consumption is no different than this bakery refusing to bake a cake. Good on them for sticking to their principles.

  • May 11, 2013 at 3:44pm

    Major eyeroll when I saw “Tar Sands, Canada” as if it the name of a place. Too funny! Canada doesn’t have any tar sands. Tar is a very specific substance. The proper term is bituminous sands, as the area is saturated with bitumen. Extraction can rightfully be considered the world’s largest oil spill clean up. People who have lived in the area all their lives now talk about being able to canoe in rivers and no longer seeing rainbow slicks covering the surfaces.

    Only those areas where the bituminous sands are within 75 meters of the surface can be surface mined, and that constitutes as little as 2% of the total area saturated with bitumen. The other areas are mined in situ, which involves clearing a small amount of forest for the facility and is not particularly visible from satellites – you have to know where to find them. In fact, if you don’t know where the oilsands are or what to search for, you would be hard pressed to find them using Google maps, even with surface mining. That region is massively forested.

    Responses (1) +