Mad_Michael

I love rebuttals like this. Nothing underscores an abject rout more vividly. No, just contempt. There is a difference.

According to the Muslim tradition, God spoke to Mohammad about 1350 years ago.

Given that there is evidence that sibling marriage and polygamous marriage have been permitted for thousands of years in various places around the globe, and it is only relatively recently that we have banned such practices, how does this evidence support the fundamental tenet of this thread discussion: that God created marriage? If God created marriage, why have humans banned sibling marriage and polygamous marriages? Did God change his/her mind? I don't and never have argued against homosexual marriage by appealing to religion. From the OP... That's the topic of this thread discussion. Please feel free to point out where I have referenced "homosexual marriage" here in this thread. My argument is entirely with the context of your reference to sibling marrige and polygamy and how that provides counter-evidence of the 'God invented Marriage' argument. MA in Political Philosophy, Combined Honours BA in Political Theory and Philosophy, both from top 5 ranked universities here in Canada. Dean's Honours List and Canada Scholar too. Suffice it to say, you can be sure I've read/studied Marx extensively (amongst most other major political theorists). Indeed, I've studied enough Marx to know that internet discussion forums are filled with those who haven't.

Let's see here, in matters of science, should our children be taught by priests, imams, rabbis, etc or perhaps by scientists currently studying the subject matter. Evidently, religion seems to have more of an impact than scientists. Most Americans believe their church rather than doctors and scientists. According to the link/study cited, only a 'plurality' of Americans don't accept evolution - not a majority - and the difference in result appears to fall within a magin of error. It would appear to be more accurate to describe the two views as 'evenly split'.

The "God as watchmaker" analogy is officially accepted Roman Catholic doctrine. This form of 'creationism' is compatible with evolutionary theory.

As the number of vacancies increases it's only going to get worse. How long can he avoid it? He can ignore it forever and nothing will change. The Senate is irrelevant and no one seriously cares (except those trying to line up at the pork-trough). ...praise for anything she says or does makes you suspect in my book. Do you know who she really is? Who ever said I praised her in any form at all? You cited her in a favourable way as an influential or authorative opinion. I mock you for that. Read up about her history. The Senate has had many low points in Canadian history - the swearing in of Ann Cools is one of the lowest.

Harper may not be the brightest bulb, but he's not a fool. The Senate is a nasty hot potato that is electorally ugly for Harper. Ignoring it is the least damaging policy. The issue is probably only of interest in the Maritimes and Alberta/BC. And Harper's own party has a strong interest in electing Senators, not appointing them. If Harper 'appoints' Senators, that will piss off his own party supporters. Yet in Ontario/Quebec, even mentioning the Senate will put people to sleep. If you mention the Senate there, they just want to put the thing of out of its own misery and get rid of it. So, Harper has nothing to gain by appointing any new Senators and is likely to take serious flack if he does so. Ergo, he's taking the safe route and doing nothing. Them's fighting words! To anyone from Ontario/Quebec, the appointment of that particular person to the Senate is categorical proof that chamber serves no good purpose and never will. Indeed, praise for anything she says or does makes you suspect in my book. Do you know who she really is?

If the Liberal party was even a shadow of its tradtional strength, Dion would not even see that one election. Any party that goes into an election with a leader they know is going to lose doesn't deserve to win. As I've stated many times, when it comes to Dion, the only question is, will the Liberals replace him before the next election or after he loses it? I vote dump him now before he causes serious damage. Anyone willing to take my bet that Bob Rae will be the next leader of the Liberal Party?

Probably. And they said it the night of the election and they are saying it now. A majority of Canadians don't want Harper to be PM. Our electoral system doesn't quite work that way though. 38-40% is usually sufficient to have majority control and Harper hasn't yet even managed that much support.

You realise that public funding of the Catholic Separate School system only began in the early 1980's right? It was a parting gift from Bill Davis in his last year as Premier of Ontario. And the original existence of a separate Catholic School board is guarenteed by the 1867 BNA act. Perhaps because in Canada there is no law requiring a separation of Church and State? So what? That at least is a worthy pursuit - far superior to anything Dalton has been up to over the last four years. Yeah. He's not Dalton. That is something notably attractive. I sure wish more of our politicans would promise to serve for a short time then leave. That would be such a refreshing change from the present system.

Yeah, the first time he had to change his mind was because he based his projections on the budget brought down by Lyin' Jim Flaherty who projected a budget surplus when in fact the province was seriously in the hole. Is there any way Lyin' Jim can be prosecuted for fraud like those Enron guys? Well probably not because he just keeps doing it . I'm all for putting former Ontario Provincial Treasurers on trial for their fiscal lies. Apart from Rae's administration, every Provincial Government in Ontario in the last dozen years has publicly lied about the true fiscal position of the Province. I'd like to see every government financial statement signed off by a non-government private auditor.

If a lack of fathers is asserted to be the 'cause' of this gun violence in Toronto, how is that UK has a higher rate of births out of wedlock (40% in UK) than the USA does (37% in USA), yet the USA has a much higher violent crime and murder rate? UK source USA source According to this 'fatherless' thesis, UK ought to have a much higher violent crime rate than the USA (per capita). It doesn't. Ergo, either the 'fatherless' thesis is wrong, or the stats are. Take your pick.

If the good Kapitän Rotbart doesn't approve of something, it ought to be banned. It really is as simple as that. That's the only real argument that Kapitän Rotbart is advancing in this thread. Every other argument he's given has been either circular, illogical, absurd or trite.

I'm aware. Those represented by less than 50% of the population may be a minority, but if they're less than 5% of the population, then they're an insignificant minority. Right. Like geniuses, Jehovah's Witnesses, Blacks in Canada, blind people, millionaires, etc. You just go round and round with your argument. You are not even trying to make sense. Gibberish! You can't say that religion is behaviour because that makes your whole argument come crashing down. So you disemble. I don't think you are fooling very many people with this one. Even by your own standards, this argument is rather lame. You got this one backwards. Marriage has always been a state sanctioned, state regulated enterprise. See Hammurabi's Babylonian Law Code. Btw, Christian obsession with marriage and the Christian claim of jurisdiction over it is comparatively recent - circa 13th century AD. I beg to differ. You enjoy responding to my posts. No, I am playing you for sport. I have no delusions about the unseriousness of your arguments. There are no principles at stake here - only your subjective caprice, your demands and your temper tantrum because the government won't do what you say. Just like the absence of proof is proof of absence right? Your logic is colourful if not anything else. Don't try that one at a university - they fail people for making statements like that. Your gibberish factor appears to be rising.

With this statement you prove that you don't know much about either Marx or academia. Marx's conception of class analysis is perhaps commonly encountered in 1st year "intro" courses in a variety of social sciences and that's about it. No one pays much attention to it because it is probably the weakest aspect of Marx's critical thought. Marx's greatest influence is his philosophic argument that 'man is a productive animal' - this argument stands as Marx's most enduring legacy in academia (certainly in North America anyway - I'm not competent to speak about European academia which I have no experience or connections to). Bonus question: Can anyone tell me why people who manifestly don't know something seem to make the most emphatic statements about that same topic? Curious phenomena that and notably common in discussion forums. Can anyone tell me why bloviated twits tend to be historical illiterates? Class analysis was not only seminal, it is a profound deviation from the institutional analysis of socio-politics that preceded it. Bloviated twits may want to visit graduate work they may not have encountered to read up on that...it's not usually found in 1st or 2nd year classes. Whether or not said bloviated twits are competent to speak on European Marxism, the fact that they bring it up at all ought to indicate that they have at least a passing familiarity with the Frankfurt school, which happens to involve folks like Lucaks and Gramsci, who took the early Marx and ran with it in various theoretical directions. Oh, and spawned the so-called American school that bloviated twits seem enamoured of. Bloviated twits really ought to learn the origins of the theses they are flogging. Incidently, bloviated twits must also be aware of the distinction between the early Marx in which the rehashed dialectics of Kant and Feuerbach were applied to economics to produce his theory of alienation and...you guessed it...man as a productive species being, and the later less philosophical and more politicized later Marx? Unfortunately most of the early Marx was hardly new ground, even if it was couched in turgid Marxian blither, and while it makes for great debate among stoned undergrads, it's not clear to me why bloviated twits would afford it undue attention. Even the old clarion call of "economic determinism" had at least hand some logic behind its elevation to the status of "Marx's most enduring contribution," even though the deviations of Wallerstein and his ilk into "international Marxism" made a laughing stock out of both he and it. Just a bit of advice for bloviated twits: A bit of surface knowledge, when it lacks depth of any kind, ought not be used to mock one's betters. The mockery has a habit of coming back and biting one in the ass. Mocking one's betters? Bemused giggles. Get back to classes kid.

Criticism from Altantic Canada? Hey, that seems refreshing! Sure beats the usual whinging with their hands out to Ottawa (read Ontario and Alberta taxpayers).

If the decision was "the right one" then the UN and WMD's are irrelevant to the issue. And objecting to the abuses at Abu Ghraib is spurious. If you want to invade and occupy a foreign country with a majority Muslim population, Abu Ghraib is part of the equation. You can't have one without the other - yet you said the invasion was a good idea. Abu Ghraib is a necessary component of imperialist occupation forces. No. You could have doubled the size of the US invasion force and put it under the command of General Patton, Lee or Grant and you would still be reading about the quagmire in Iraq right now. The US invasion was swiftly executed without any substantial opposition. How can double the troops improve on this? It was the peace that didn't come is where the US screwed up. Ergo, I consider you a danger to the human race. It is only a matter of time before you are going to think it is a good plan to go invade some other foreign nation with a majority Muslim population. Your opinions are dangerous ones. There is no good reason for killing people who caused you no harm.

Japan's system may have been called a 'democracy' between 1946 and say 1980 but it wasn't. One party rule, operating according to the old feudal system? That ain't democracy. Japan is indeed tranforming itself into a real democracy. They still aren't there yet. And the Japanese began the transformation themselves, pre-WW2.

I'd have to say President Bush. Seems like an easy question.

If there are, I wouldn't trust the Courts in that jurisdiction. Polygraph tests can be manipulated quite easily.

You realise that according to the infamous 'Gun Registry' - there are more legal guns (per capita) in Canada than in the USA. Guns don't kill people. It is the idiots with the guns who do the killing.

I give up trying to fix the quote mechanism. I can find no code errors here! Because when measuring statistics, 5% vs. 95% is the most widely used level of significance. A 1% or a 10% level of significance could also be used, but say you were to claim that an object bounces off the ground, and it bounces in fewer than 5% of the trials, then your statement is false. If the object bounces at least 5% of the time, we do not yet have enough evidence to not believe the statement. I knew you wouldn't disappoint me! Btw, a 95% distribution of data points is not the same as a 95% confidence level. Your attempt to conflate the two is absurd - and amusing! Get thee to a statistics class! Isn't it obvious? White males like to pretend they are an absolute majority. For many decades, the laws in fact supported this absurdity. But these 'genii' are less than 5% of the population. That is, by your argument, makes them 'insignificant'. WHy are they permitted to have legal equality if they are an insignificant minority? You are getting comical now. Do you choose to believe in God? Do you choose to belong to a given religion? If so, it is behaviour. Or are you suggesting that religion is genetic in origin? Just because I don't agree with your ideas does not mean I don't understand them. Indeed, the fact that I can critique them effectively is predicated upon my understanding them. And I know my critiques are effective since you dodge them so studiously. Christians are a behaviour. If not, it is genetic. Take your pick. Jehovah Witnesses are a behaviour - and a tiny minority. And your 'pin dancing' on the difference between a 'rarity' and an 'anomaly' is particularly amusing, self-serving and entirely predictable. This is all about word games apparently. Changing your word doesn't change your argument. Right - I forgot - the government must have Kapitän Rotbart's permission! Silly me. As you have so often demonstrated here, you are wrong again! That's nice. Do you just like the sound of your own voice? Or the sight of your own words? Because what you just stated has nothing to do with anything and isn't even remotely interesting. To you, it is all about you. And you are not interesting to me. Oh gosh, could this be true? You haven't explained how equal rights for homosexuals costs the taxpayer anything. Indeed, it can be shown that not giving homosexuals equal rights is very expensive in government litigation costs. When governments do things that are counter to the Charter of Rights, they end up spending lots of tax dollars playing legal games to defend themselves. Would you prefer this? Actually no. The whole issue in the USA is the fact that legally speaking, marriage isn't defined as such. That's why they need a constitutional ammendment to make it so. And who's definition are you giving here? Marriage long predates the arrival of Christianity (old or new testament) and it rarely ever fit the definition that the religious fanatics want to insist upon now. You just have given the definition of marriage that you prefer. In the English language, definitions merely reflect usage, they don't define. You use it that way, its your definition. But that doesn't make it so. Defining 'up' as 'down' doesn't make it so. (See thread "God invented Marriage" - they could use your help over there) Right. You define marriage as 'one man and one woman' Then your take your own definition and assert that it is categorically true. And this proves what? I may define religion as belief in the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thus, all religion is worship of the Flying Spagetti Monster. Does this make it so? Actually, I don't. I say that everyone, regardless of gender, race, age, religion or sexual orientation should have the same right to marriage, that is the marriage between man and woman. No rights denied there. Except for those whom you don't permit to marry. They have no rights apparently. Round and round we go! Following your argument can make a guy dizzy! What is a non-gay fag? Your term sounds redundant and absurd. What is "normal"? And your preference and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee. The issue is not all about you. I know that's hard for you to grasp, but perhaps you might try. No one cares what you think of the issue any more than they care what I think of the issue. The only issue is what is best for public policy. Your own personal subjectivity is irrelevant. And someone else would screen out active Christians, white males, Republcans, Conservatives and other obnoxius people that would comprimse the family they could offer the adoptive children. Why is your personal and subjective list any different than the next guy's personal and subjective list? That's the key point here in case you didn't notice. If your personal subjective opinions are to be considered important, they have equal importance to 30 million other Canadian's own personal subjective opinions. How do you choose amongst 30 million subjectivities? (answer is: you don't - personal subjectivities are considered irrelevant to good public policy). You apparently have 'control' issues. Your need to control other people is scary. By not complaining, you are giving your silent approval. This isn't a big deal, because Falon Dong probably doesn't have political intentions, therefore you're giving your silent approval to something which isn't serious matter. However, when it's with political intentions or social desensitization, it may be an issue of serious matter. If you don't react, you are giving your silent approval, which may or may not be good, depending on your own opinions. So, by ignoring the parade, I'm giving "silent approval"??? You mean I have to go out there and disrupt the parade and make an ass of myself in order to avoid giving my "silent approval"??? Is that what you are doing here? And you still haven't explained how the mere existence of a Falon Gong parade "forces me to accept, condone and celebrate" this religion the way the existence of a gay parade forces people to "accept, condone and celebrate" homosexuality. Dodge, dodge, dodge. I can't say I'm surprised.

With this statement you prove that you don't know much about either Marx or academia. Marx's conception of class analysis is perhaps commonly encountered in 1st year "intro" courses in a variety of social sciences and that's about it. No one pays much attention to it because it is probably the weakest aspect of Marx's critical thought. Marx's greatest influence is his philosophic argument that 'man is a productive animal' - this argument stands as Marx's most enduring legacy in academia (certainly in North America anyway - I'm not competent to speak about European academia which I have no experience or connections to). Bonus question: Can anyone tell me why people who manifestly don't know something seem to make the most emphatic statements about that same topic? Curious phenomena that and notably common in discussion forums.

Can anyone explain to me the logic of a carbon tax? If that means added revenues to the Government, you are just giving the Government a vested interest in maintaining high levels of carbon emissions and a disencentive to reduce carbon emissions. If any carbon tax isn't revenue neutral to the government, it will do more damage than good in the long term. The government can never be trusted to 'do the right thing' - their track record shows they never do 'the right thing' unless it is in thier material interest to do so.

If Harper has any dreams of turning his minority into a majority, he's got a mighty weird sense of how to go about doing this. Up until now, I've been fairly neutral about Harper - but with this, I now loathe the man and consider him toxic to good government.