Mad_Michael

There might have been some political sense in his little swim with Mercer?? Not on that angle. That is absurd and sexist (and I'm being polite). I thought Rae's stunt with Mercer (it was Mercer's idea) was brilliant and primarily designed to show that Rae was a 'regular easy-going kind of guy' not some stuffy over-managed suit type politican with attitude and an ego problem. The 'stunt' was during Rae's campaign for Liberal leadership, a full year before announcing the run for Toronto Centre.

You and anyone who owns a bar. The volume of business drop off is substantial. If you don't have a patio, your business is in trouble.

As a general rule, I'm inclined to agree. There appears to be a 'fundamentalist' or 'fanatical' component to atheism these days that has not been present previously. The traditional position of atheists towards religion is to generally dismiss it and/or ignore it (as none of my business). Anecdotal evidence drawn from numerous forum discussions suggests that for many atheists, this is no longer the case. One might speculate that this may be in reaction to the rise of the politically ambitious US religious rightwing during the 1980's. As for the environmental movement, I wouldn't put them in the same category of 'fundamentalist' or 'fanatical' type theists or atheists. They do appear to share the same passion of their cause which is the prime similarity, but the behaviour appears to be entirely different in terms of motivation and application.

That's because it is non-news. Our beloved mass media needs lots of it to survive. Otherwise, they may be forced to actually cover real news and they really do their best to avoid that since it is so uncomfortable for all the right sorts of people. So they cover this kind of non-story instead. Equally profitable without any of the unpleasantness.

You tell me. You're the one who changed your tactics. I've changed nothing. And from my neutral perspective, there's really not much difference at all. Indeed, your continued attempt here at condescention is duly noted. I doubt if you can 'out-condescend' me. The Roman Catholic Church does not claim that their religion is a "logical argument built on top" of anything. The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are held as articles of faith. No pretense of logic is claimed or asserted.

Huh??? The Canadian National Debt is over $600 billion. Who told you we weren't in debt? The fact is, Canada's national debt may be the lowest in the western world (per capita), and thankfully we're running a surplus and not adding more debt at the moment, but $600 billion is still a big chunk of debt and it is still there. Near as I can figure it, right now a significant portion of our taxes go to pay for old age-pension cheques mailed out during the 1970's. Your grandchildren will have the honour of paying for the 1980's.

Our troops aren't trying to "win a war," they have a job to do and that's to maintain security in Afghanistan, so it can rebuild after the United States forced the Taliban out for harbouring a criminal terrorist organization. Right. The Taliban has been forced out? So who is it that is killing Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan? Methinks you aren't seeing this issue very clearly because there are a heck of a lot of Taliban in Afghanistan killing Canadian soldiers. There are no schools or hospitals being built. The troops are too busy fighting Taliban for that. The 'need' for troops in Afghanistan will likely never end, given the parameters of the present engagement.

In this they are much like their fervent opponents - the militant or fundamentalist atheists who consider it their life mission to attack religion and denigrate religious people.

That Bill Graham is retiring from politics and that Bob Rae would be running for the Liberal nomination in Graham's riding (Toronto Centre) is rather old news. Interesting that there is going to be a bye-election though. Btw, this particular seat is pretty much one of the most guarenteed Liberal safe-seats in the country (and one of the most interesting - it includes not only one of the richest and most prestigious neighbourhoods in Toronto, but also the largest government housing project in the country - and smack in the middle is the 'gay village'). Indeed, Bob Rae is likely to be the first 'straight' to hold the seat, federally or provincially, in quite a long time.

That is one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen someone say. Indeed, such a comment tells us far more about Argus than it does about Bill Graham, gay people or Parliamentary pages.

In such a case, if such a word exists, they would then be correct. It is indeed precisely what I have already said. An article of faith stands entirely and completely OUTSIDE of logic and human knowledge/science. It cannot be held to be illogical or contradictory to human science as there is no rational basis for the comparison.

You mean it was more efficient and easier to lock them up to prevent Canadian redneck idiots from trying to cause them harm? I respectfully submit that it is much better to use our police powers to arrest and prosecute such animals rather than lock up all potential victims - for their own safety. Indeed, should we not lock up all women in Canada - 'for their own protection' - from potential rapists? That is absurd.

This "support our troops" mantra is ugly propaganda, but not unexpected. Too many right-thinking citizens don't support the government's warmongering. So the government sets out to redefine public support in order to justify their policy. No surprise that. Bottom line is, the pro-war types will ALWAYS take your yellow ribbon of 'support for the troops' as evidence of political support for the war. That is the purpose of the game - trying to create the fiction of political support. I'm all for supporting the troops. But if one really cares about the troops, one really shouldn't be sending them to die in a war that has become strategically and tactically unwinnable.

Categorically, yes. To lock up a whole class of law-abiding Canadian citizens just because the country from which they immigrated from (in some cases, many generations previously) has become an enemy of Canada is a travesty of justice and an insult against everything to which Canada stands for.

Why do we continue to let car drivers still do it? Automotive exhaust puts second hand smoke to shame for both quantity and severity.

Who says this Iranian family was not thankful for the opportunity to live in America? Nothing in what you describe of thier actions suggests or supports this conclusion. That they object to the recitation of the pledge, I can understand. Anyone who comes from a totalitarian country rightfully would be suspicious of such common totalitarian tactic (forcing people to recite loyalty pledges). In other words, does an immigrant family have to buy guns in America to prove they accept American culture? Do they have to watch American Idol? Do they have to like hot dogs? Just because many Americans just don't see anything wrong with the 'loyalty pledge', doesn't mean that the rest of the planet shares this view. Too many totalitarian despots have insisted upon such 'loyalty pledges' so often in the past that the practice is quite rightly viewed with extreme suspicion now.

Seems to me you're saying that those who disbelieved the world was round because there was no proof that it wasn't flat were more "logical" in their thinking than Columbus was. That being the case, "logical" didn't equal "right." This is nonsense (both the original point about 'disbelief' and the 'flat world' argument). One can assert that belief in the existence of God is irrational (it is a complex argument), but one cannot make the argument that belief in God is illogical. There is no logical basis for that claim.

So it doesn't need to, and it doesn't logically prove the existence of the Roman Catholic god. Explain how this fails to make the Roman Catholic religion illogical, if it's central premise cannot be verified. To be "illogical" one must contradict "logic". The assertion of the Roman Catholic Church that God exists is an article of faith. As such, no claim of logic is made. And since one cannot contradict something that isn't there, this claim of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be deemed "illogical". To put the point as clearly as possible - an article of faith stands entirely outside the realm of logic or human knowledge.

The key problem with carbon taxes is that it gives the government a revenue stream they will be loath to do without once they get their grubby hands on the loot. This creates the 'unintended' effect of creating a government vested interest in having more pollution (and never reducing it). On this basis, I must conclude that unless a carbon tax is revenue neutral to the government, it is bad idea.

To Whom It May Concern, (addressed to no one specifically) It would appear to me that some/many/all posters here may find my style of posting and/or debate to be either entirely opaque, convoluted or obnoxious (amongst other possible adjectives). Suffice it to say that I am always ready and willing to explain the process of logic and/or philosophic argument that stands behind my statements. For brevity's sake, I usually omit this when posting 'on the fly' So, in order to facilitate a more interesting and intelligent discourse, I would request that anyone who finds an objection or lacks clarity of understanding of any logical statement or logical critique that I may make, or if I use any jargon laiden term (like epistemology) or any famous name philosopher, to please just request clarification and/or explanation of the statement. I'm usually quite happy to provide it. If someone just dismisses me, my argument, statement or critique before bothering to ask about it, I usually just dismiss their reply in the same spirit. Seen it, been there, done that. When people are dismissive or condescending towards me, I tend to throw it right back at them. Indeed, some say I'm rather accomplished in the art of condescention. It is a bit of a game, but it does serves some minor purpose. My apologies to all for this thread digression.

I provided a topic for potential discussion, which does not seem to be against the norm on a discussion forum. Add something pertinent to the content of the article and perhaps I'll have more to add. In every one of the forums that I'm a member of, cut'n'paste of articles without substantive comment by the poster is a bannable offense. That's silly. And so are you.

I provided a topic for potential discussion, which does not seem to be against the norm on a discussion forum. Add something pertinent to the content of the article and perhaps I'll have more to add. In every one of the forums that I'm a member of, cut'n'paste of articles without substantive comment by the poster is a bannable offense.

I stand corrected. Who's Doing What is the origin of the 'challenge' and claim of logicial supremacy. I apologise for confusing you with that poster The record of this thread does not appear support your interpretation of it given here. You posted... So this is where you say that Roman Catholic Religion is not logical and that I agreed with you? Forgive me if I fail to see it as such. That definition will do just fine by me. Okie dokie! Have fun! P.S. Your 'rebuttal' is still rejected. Roman Catholicism stands on faith alone. It has no need for logically establishing anything at all - unlike your demand/assertion to the contrary. Your blathering on about ad hominem attacks serves apparently only as an attempt to distract one from this fact.

Why should I bother? You've already announced your victory (much like Bush's 'Mission Accomplished'). You've shown your colours and announced your quality. Indeed, I'm only likely to get all condescending at you now since I actually do understand epistemology and stuff like that - and you clearly don't. No, I haven't asked you to prove a damn thing (besides which, that would be logically absurd). To refresh your memory, you made a challenge that no religion can withstand your supreme powers of logic. I offered (amongst other examples) that of the Roman Catholic Church as a classic example of a religion that is impervious to your logical argument. You have offered nothing more than a trite absurdity as an example of your fearsome logic. Indeed, the fact that you were using a your own assertion as your conclusion I'm sure escaped your notice.

It is a matter of faith. Go ahead. The onus is on you to show that this faith can't withstand your logic. I think I just did. Wow. Just wow. And I thought the bible-thumpin' theists were the worst at playing silly games and calling it logic. Apparently, I stand corrected.