Renegade

But in many of the cases in North America, where Aisians make up 25% or less of the population, they will still take more than 90% of the top positions. Your argument may make sense if only the elite of the Aisian world emmigrated to North America. While this may be true, it is far from certain.

You seem to assume that the current system only pays via income redistribution, those who cannot work. This is far from true. The large majority are able-bodied and can work in some capacity. Our income redestribution schemes determine the level of redistribution based upon individual income, not capacity to work. Do I think we should sabotage a system which takes away an individual's incentive to work? Absolutely. I don't consider it "progress" to have a system which provide disincentives to success and hard work.

Spar, I very much disagree with your conclusion that we should not even have the discussion because there is a risk that bigots may be provided with ammunition. Bigots generally will draw conclusions with or without factual evidence to back up their conclusions. If Darwin, had not studied and then published his work on the evolution of species, because of fear that it might explode myths on how the world was created, would we be better off?

So are you saying, let's not ask the question because we fear what the answer might be? What do I hope to achieve? Nothing more than a better understanding of why things are the way they are.

I'm not about to defend Rushton or his conclusions. My point was that peoples sensitivities to any conclusion which might remotely smell like racism leads them to rush to critisism without really spending time to examine the evidence. In any case if I remember his conclusions were based upon cranium size,its relationship to IQ, and differences in cranium size among races. See Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits Criticism of Rushton's conclusions should be based upon the evidence he presented, not what he does now or which organization he heads.

I remember the whole controversy about Rushton's conclusions. The problem was that peoples' hypersensitivity to racism made them incapable of looking at his conclusions from a sientific and impartial perspective, and then judging whether he came to logical conclusions. His critics were quick to cry "racism" without really looking at Rushton's underlying evidence.

I agree with you that variations are large between members of a group are large and for most of the population outweigh differences between groups, however when there are variations between groups, those differences are most prounounced at the extremes. Said another way, if Race A is on average "smarter" than Race B, then if you look at the elite "smartest" popluation, they will be extremely overrepresented by Race A. Based upon what do you conclude that they are much less important than social factors? I agree with your generalizations about where Asian parents and Black parents place their focus, however I'm not sure it leads to the extremes in representation we have seen. In Track and Field, virtually all the world-class elite athletes are black. This is not just a USA or Canada statement, but true of predominantly "white" countries such as France, and Britain. Are you saying it is simply because around the world black parents have decided it is important and have focused their kids on it?

I'm not as certain I can come to that conclusion as easily as you. Would you acknowledge that are differences in physical attributes between races which lead to different skill levels? If you acknowledge this, which is it much of a stretch to acknowledge that there may be differences in mental attributes as well?

The Toronto Star ran a feature today in their GTA section on the best of GTA high school graduating class. Of the 11 students they featured, eight were Asian. This doesn't seem to be an unusual phenomenon either in Canada or the US. Asian students are vastly overrepresented among top students at almost all levels. Society has seemingly justified this to itself as cultural bias in Asian societies, but maybe its not. Could it be that there are differences in attributes (intelligence being one) among races which is not strictly due to environmental factors?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for arbitration to get these guys back on the job. Based upon the Decima poll, no one seems to notice or care. From this article: CBC lockout affects few: survey

We complain alot but do nothing about it. Canadians can have way too much done to them, and they will complain and grumble but then not take action.

Said another way, Albertan tax filers paid 47% more tax than Quebecers.

err, numerous times you have either made assumptions, or completely misstated what I have said. This is the first time, at least in our deliberations you have had the grace to apologize. thank-you for that. If I can offer you some advice which you are free to disregard if you so choose: 1. Your arguments and reasoning frequently devolve into personal condemnations, disparaging remarks on motivations, and personal insults. These not only detract from any points you wish to make, it frequently results in the targeted person (myself included) retaliating in kind. 2. You frequently make blatant assumptions about the poster, or completely misstate what the poster has said. When called to justify why, you rarely respond. The above is the first time I've seen that you've actually acknowledged it. Use what people have said as the basis of your argument, not what you read into it.

... once it's out of your possession, it's not... So then, if I rob you in a dark alley, once the money I take from you is out of your possession, it is no longer yours, correct?

So what? There are also many more people in extreme wealth in the USA than Canada. You claim I have a fixation with money. I care not one whit about what you or anyone else does with the money you earn. I want the right to do as I please with the money I earn, this is a right that the govenrment denies me by forcibly extorting money from me. The govenment can have all the social programs it wants to the help others as long as they don't come looking to me to fund it. Perhaps they should be taxing lefties like you at a higher rate because you're so willing to fund these programs so that they can reduce the overtaxation on me. Yes the restriction is I'd like to earn more than I do, and I'm restricted in that I'd like to keep more of what I earn. To that end I'm working hard earn more personal income, maximize my use of tax shelters, and vote out governments which unfairly penalize me. Everyone else should do likewise. And your right, I would be wealthier and happier should I succeed. I don't have a party affiliation. Parties are very adaptable to the whims and policies of its leader. I vote based upon the best fit of policies at the time when I'm asked to make the choice. Am I correct in assuming you espouse the policies of the Communist Party of Canada?

The actions of people speak more forcefully than words. (Ever hear the expression "Put your money where your mouth is?") If people would not themselves pay for a system, then they have spoken for what they want regardless of what their motivation is behind it. See my reply above. What people want is demonstrated by what they would pay for. Frankly you have no idea what "people like me" would do. I'm sure if the attitude you predict above were true, no one would buy house insurance. But they do don't they? Why, because they forsee that they would need the contingency should an unfortunate event arrive. The same is true for health care. Let me speak for "people like me" for healthcare. If the cost I was what I judged reasonable relative to my use or potential use of the service, I would willingly contribute. If it was not, I would not. If enough "people like me" make a determination that the system was not worth contributing to and it collapsed, so be it. I care not if there is no lifeboat waiting. You are free to ignore "people like me" should we come crying for a system which we didn't contribute to, as I know such a situation won't take place. So I've said that there should be no laws? Where? Your imagining words I've never said. I do believe laws enforcing rights should be enforced. What exactly does the enforcement of laws have to do with people in the US who lack healthcare? Your arguments are disintegrating into nonsense at the point. If by "wreck what all Canadians have" you mean, dismantle some of the bloated and inefficient institutions for which the government forcibly extorts money from us to pay for. I definately agree. Government has for the most part proved itself innefficient at best, and corrupt at worst. Minimizing its involvement in anything would be a big step forward. Actually, I'd prefer to save this country by throwing all the lefties out. We won't miss YOU What are you talking about? Perhaps you are having more trouble reading than I thought. I said that laws are enforced based upon the protection of rights not based upon their morality. Its beyond nonsense to draw a conclusion that that infers that taking healthcare away is crimminal. Care to elaborate on how you came to that conclusion? Didn't think so. Prove that "the poorest in our nation" have an absolute right to healthcare that is paid for by others, and I'll agree with you that it is criminal to infringe on that right. But at this point they have no such right. Blurry lines? Not at all. I am saying that NO standard of morality be used. The standard of laws and criminality which is used is based upon the protection of property and individual rights. Most nations have a charter which defines those rights. We have the Charter of Rights, the US has the Bill of Rights and the Amendments.

Ah so what your saying is that if that is what the majority choses to do you don't think their wishes should be followed. If noone chooses to support healthcare then its death is warrented. I am quite used to you resorting to name-calling when you have no argument to make. And yes, I do want the choice to help or not help if I so choose. That is freedom. What you instead advocate is dictatorship based upon your own sense of morality. You don't give a damm about what what anyone else thinks they ought to do, you want the govenment to be your own personal thugs to force people in a behaviour which you deem appropriate. being considered as a unit does not mean making all the same choices does it? Where does it say anywhere being a member of a group precludes individual choices? Maybe you are thinking of a cult. Perhaps you didn't see my previous reply: Those acts should be enforced not because they are immoral but because they infringe on others individual or property rights. Behaviours which are immoral but do not infringe on people individual rights should not be enforced by anyone but only by the moral standards of that individual.

So then you are admitting you are as biased as the papers?

Certain aspects of morality should be enforced. For example, rape, murder, assault, blacmail, etc... are all immoral acts... And you don't think that some form of enforcement of standards relating to these behaviours is appropriate ??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Those acts should be enforced not because they are immoral but because they infringe on others individual or property rights. Behavious which are immoral but do not infringe on people individual rights should not be enforced by anyone but only by the moral standards of that individual.

it is telling of your bias, mirror, that both in your thread headline and in your comments you only mention Hargrove and mention nothing of Gerald Schwartz, even though this was a partnership.

Ah but we have evolved as money as our way to measure inherent abiliites. Sure, some of the value of the skills have changed but the fact is if you have valuable skills now you are rewarded just like you were rewarded if you were a caveman and you had valuable skills then. The only difference is we are better at quantifying that reward with money. I cannot imagine what healthcare they had back then, but it is likely that both because of the power of the stronger members and because of the self interest of the tribe, they would give priority healthcare to the stronger over the weaker.

Caveman were very much an unequal society. Within the tribe, the stronger woudl have more priviliges than the weak. The women were treated a property, and one tribe murderously attacked other tribes. This is your example of an equal society?

So if people don't want to do it because, as you say, they prefer to spend their money elsewhere, isn't that a deliberate choice they should be allowed to make? I agree that left to themselves some part of the population would not contribute to social programs. I doubt it is becaue they procrastinate. I believe it is because they are making a deliberate choice. But isn't that what freedom is? The are speaking louder with their actions than with their words. Again the shareholders own the business, if it is their prioirty for the business to contribute to social programs, management will follow those priorities. If it is not their priority to do so, why shouldn't they not have the choice to vote on where to spend their funds. I was thinking more of social programs in general than health care in specific. I think with health care in specific people woudl contribute because they would recieve a benefit, namely health coverage which they would not have without a contribution. We can be a noble group if we respect eveyones free will and choice. Nobility doesn't require that we force choices upon people which they wouldn't have made on their own. It is hard for me to believe you want a govenment which dictates moral standards to you. Do you want a government which tells you you must go to church, must not "live-in-sin", must not commit adultery, or only marry people of the opposite sex, and then uses its force to punish you when you don't abide by its moral code? Perhaps you prefer a religious state like Iran. Most people would agree that ours should be a secular state where our government doesn't dictate its moral code to us but our morals are the result of our own concienience.

I'm really struggling to see what era you are talking about when there was equality. Pretty much every era from cavemen until today had classes and a class hierchy. Care to be specific on what "earlier state" you are referring to? People are not naturally equal on many different levels, so I don't see how you justify a claim that equality has preexisted prior to "civilized" society.

What I am against is not the sentiment. It is a noble sentiment to help the poor. It is charitable, generous and for many part of religious faith. What I am against is the forcible funding of these programs by the government. It is only a noble sentiment when it comes voluntarily, where each person's individual concieience dictates if and how much they should contribute. We would all agree that we don't want a government to dictate to us in areas of morality. Why should this be different?