Mad_Michael

This was not addressed to me and I've been mostly ignoring this thread, but the answer is 'yes' - one can logically and rationally assert that belief in God is irrational (using a variation on Ockham's Razor). I have already elaborated this argument in detail in some other thread here. The reverse does not appear to logically hold. Please note that asserting that a belief in God is logically irrational in no way shape or form proves or disproves the existence of God. Humans have a long history of acting irrationally.

Andrew, given the name of the poster attached to the comment, I can assure you that you will not see anything approaching 'empirical' evidence on anything he says. He's just a young'un on a mission.

What the murder statistics don't tell you is that 2/3 of all gun murders in Toronto over the last half-dozen years have involved a Jamacian immigrant with gang-connections as either the shooter or the victim (usually both). The issue here is not about a 'lack of fathers' - that is a moralistic argument favoured by those with ideological axes to grind. If you want to face the issue, face the issue according to the core facts and the core facts indicate that we have an immigration propblem and a gang problem here. Bleating on about a lack of fathers makes your comments as relevant to this topic as Pat Robertson.

Ah, so we're hanging our hats on higher per capita happenings, eh? No. Just countering one of the Kapitan's colourful arguments about his tax dollars. I was pointing out that homosexuals (on average) pay more taxes per capita than heterosexuals. This is a function of homosexuals having (on average) higher incomes than heterosexuals. Please cite (FRC doesn't count!) There is no reputatable source for this assertion. It is bogus. (probably originates from the infamous fact-challenged partisans at the Family Research Council). And what does this have to do with anything? And since you like to play games, how about the hugely disproportionate rate of Type II diabetes amongst heterosexual white males? Or the hugely disproportionate rate of sickle cell anemia amongst black people? I don't know where you are going with this, but I figured it might be fun to play along. I don't know - you tell me since you are the one running with this argument... Colourful if not anything else. Not worthy of a reply!

Well, you are mad indeed. Firstly, I was pointing out that the gay proportion is insignificant (less than 5%). I wasn't looking at it as 50+% vs. 50-%, but rather 95+% vs. 5-%. And what, praytell, is the 'moral' difference between 95% vs 5% and 50.1% vs 49.9%? Methinks you require some numeric quibbling (aka 'dancing on the head of a pin') to rescue yourself from your own argument. Go for it. I'm sure your attempt will be entertaining! Besides which, geniuses are mighty rare - are they allowed to be married? How about Jehovah's Witnesses? They must be less than 5% - are they allowed to have legal rights and get married? I could list a hundred 'minorities' or 'behaviours' (if you prefer) that fall in this category. Indeed, homosexuals contribute a higher per capita tax remittance than heterosexuals do. And your point is... Right. Like Christians for example. And rich people. And politicians. And members of the Republican party. Does it annoy you when your arguments are proven to be foolish? According to your reasoning, everyone save women are a minority group. If race and sex is combined, a 50% majority is impossible to achieve on anything since white women are less than 50% of the population and they are the largest 'group'. Btw, your example requires an action on the part of non-Muslims - thus your analogy is spurious to the issue under discussion here. Homosexual legal rights require NOTHING from you, save perhaps a limitation upon your cherished liberty to bash them to a pulp. Your acceptance and celebration is not requested, nor is it desired. For marriage to be legal, it has to have a civil registration, whether the event is held in a courthouse or a church. My point was whether man and woman marry in a church, mosk, courthouse, their home, etc. makes no difference in terms of whom the gov't is catering to, however when they marry gay people, they are approving such behavior that so many taxpayers disagree with. Huh? You are saying that when heterosexuals marry, it is none of anyone's business because they are heteros. But when gay people marry, this is essentially equal to the government giving their 'blessing' upon the union? That argument is so absurd as to be unworthy of reply or retort. Right. All government actions must be approved by Kapitän Rotbart. I can see how you approach government and matters of public policy. I suppose as long as 'carnal desires' are not involved, the government may do without your expressed permission to operate? I must hand it to you Kapitän Rotbart, your argument style is colourful, if not anything else. Indeed, I can't see much reason to bother to reply, other than to offer my attempt at 'colourful' commentary to go along with the ride! Pass the popcorn, what's next? Not at all. If Falon Gong is a concern to you, you can complain about it. I have participated in complaining to the gov't about same-sex marriage, I'm simply sharing my point of view on this thread, being the purpose of a forum. Yes, you've stated your argument above - in all matters of regulating 'carnal desires', the government ought to be required to have your permission in order that your own subjective caprice be legislated into law. Indeed, your point has been quite clear and consistent throughout this discussion. And of course, to no one's surprise, you have offered nothing more than your own subjective caprice as the principal (and principle) justification for your proposed public policy. That and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee. And your actions here in this forum are not at all consistent with one who is "simply sharing my point of view on this thread". Others have done that here - you are not one of them. Your actions here in this forum are entirely consistent with one who seeks to announce their own public policy view and to attack and argue with anyone who may not agree with your desire to issolate and deny common legal rights from a signficant number of our fellow law abiding citizens. You seek to deny legal rights to my fellow law abiding citizens. I object to that on principle. Yes, it is true that the principle of freedom of speech protects your hatemongering (I have not encouraged any such thing with respect to Falon Gong). As a liberal, I accept that and am willing to defend your right to hate - and even your right to talk about who you want to hate and why. However, it is when you try to enshrine your hatemongering into law that I rationally object. And I don't see anything wrong with either a Falon Gong parade or a gay parade. None of my business if other people want to get together to enjoy themselves - or to make a political statement. However, you haven't explained to me precisely how their parade past my own house on Sunday morning caused me to be "forced to accept, condone and celebrate" their lifestyle? (whether it is a Falon Gong parade or a gay parade, it is irrelevant to my question since one was last week and the other is likely to follow the same path in a week or two hence). How does their existence cause me to be 'forced' into anything other than perhaps becoming aware of them? I'm really curious about the psychological, ethical or philosophic 'explanation' of this alleged phenomena.

I might add that the "hindsight" argument is full of crap. The flaw is in the plan not the execution. Yes, the execution was botched, but the original plan is still toxic. One just can't unilaterally invade foreign countries for sport. That's the point. No amount of 'thorough' execution is going to change that. One cannot impose democracy from outside by military fiat. Anyone who thinks you can do it, well, I have some property in Florida they might be interested in...

Yes. It is the nature of US primaries. The primary process is heavily biased by partisan extremists. To win the Republican primary, one must cater to the hard-right & religious-right faction of the Republican party. The Republican party hard-core partisans still think GW Bush walks on water and the invasion of Iraq was a mission from God. Thus, all Republican candidates for President must pander to this crowd. To win the Democratic primary, one must cater to the hard-left, union activists and peacenik factions of the Democratic party. These hard-core partisans were opposed to the Iraq war from day one. Thus, all Democratic candidates for President must pander to this crowd. Really rather predictable actually. Needless to say, this process seriously harms both party's ability to get a candidate that can actually appeal to the majority in a general election.

The original Athenians managed to have a true democracy by denying the majority of the residents the vote. True, women and slaves didn't have the vote in Athens. Unfortunately for your critique, this line proves that you really just don't know that much about actual democracy in ancient Athens. There is no way in hell one could fit all the Athenian voting citizens in the forum. That is laughably absurd. A large open field outside the city was necessary if you wanted to actually address a goodly portion of the electorate in one place. According to actual historical records of ancient Athens, most voters got their news about scheduled votes, meetings and speeches via 'word of mouth'. And the oligarchs fought tooth and nail to limit the franchise to property owners. The Athenians tried many times to widen the franchise.

How can you believe this fiscal position? Ontario has been running a deficit for over a decade now - with only a small tax increase and many spending increases added on top of the massive deficit that Harris left the province with. I've seen NOTHING that indicates an improvement in the fiscal position of Ontario since. A $3 billion plus fiscal deficit the year he was sworn in - isn't going to disappear without a major tax increase or a reduction in spending. I've only seen one small tax increase and run-of-the-mill spending increases since then. Looking over the recent track record, we have nothing but lies from Premiers about the fiscal postion of Ontario (save Bob Rae, the only honest one apparently). Peterson lied about the Province's fiscal position - claimed the budget was balanced trying to get re-elected, but in reality, it was a deficit. Rae actually admitted the deficit that he inherited and passed on to the next guy. Harris lied about the Province's fiscal position - claimed the budget was balanced when it was deficit (and giving tax cuts on top of this). Dalton has lied about so much that any assertion that the Province is not in a deficit position I'd take with a big grain of salt. $50 says that when the a government gets sworn in after the election, we will find that Ontario is not only running a deficit, but has been doing so consistently for four years under Dalton.

I didn't realise that Dalton had ANYTHING that could be called an accomplishment. Did he do anything except raise taxes and/or break promises? How about that Sharia Law crap? The OHIP tax that doesn't go to OHIP? I'm very hard pressed to name even a single 'accomplishment' of Dalton's 4 years that isn't negative.

Yeah, well, Mike Harris as Premier of Ontario back in the 1990's managed to figure out a way to close hospitals that actually cost more than running them. But hey, that's Mike Harris for ya! He decides - you pay the price! And of course, the only hospitals that were closed were in opposition held ridings... how typical. Anyway, $1.25 billion for a new hospital doesn't sound like too much if you factor in the cost of the real estate, construction and all that fancy equipment they put inside. Its the $2.5 billion final price tag that annoys me. Oh yeah - if any hosptial is being bulldozed, don't listen to the propaganda - the real reason is that hospital was a breeding ground for 'super-bugs' resistent to all forms of treatment. In many cases, the most dangerous place you can ever go to expose yourself to life-threatening illnesses is your local hospital.

This is apparently 'press-propaganda'. The original Athenians managed to have a true democracy without the assistance of our all important mass media. In many ways, the arrival of the media pretty much guarentees the subversion of any real democracy. Democracy is not in the interest of our mass media. And what is properly 'democratic' about our 'elite-representation' system that we use? Is everyone getting a vote to choose our favourite elite-representative sufficient to call the system 'democracy'? In other words, we don't have a democracy, but everyone thinks we do. Obviously, the mass media in Canada is serving the interests of our elite-representatives very effectively. And calling our "mass media corporations" a 'free press' is rather Orwellian.

Really? I just re-read the 1st page of this thread. No one says that "John Tory has a great resume". Did you just make that up as a rhetorical point in order to launch your bash-John Tory post? Quick hint: If the first sentence of your post can be easly proven to be pure bullcrap - what is the probability that every word in your post is equally bullcrap? I trust this one comes from the same authoritive 'source' you used in your first sentence? Are you familiar with actual Toronto Police statistics? More cops in your neighborhood equals more crime. Toronto cops have a bad history of 'cutting deals' with drug dealers and defending turf for them. Want to fight against drug dealing on the streets of Toronto - start at Police HQ and look for the cops that are promoted and decorated - they are most likely to be the 'bad apples'. Remember, the RCMP had to be brought in to investigate drug-dealing cops in Toronto - because the Toronto Police Force was preventing any kind of investigation for years.

Christians apparently deserve fanatics like this. One tends to reap as one has sown. And look how the poster is treated...

Equal rights for gays imply greater rights for gays. If the gov't adapts everything serving heterosexuals, 98-99% of the population, in order to serve gay fags aswell, consisting of 1-2% of the population, that means much more than 1-2% of tax money will be spent on this adaptation and its maintenance. Gays should have to conform to the same society heterosexuals do. It may sound pretty to hope that gays be treated equally, but equality is not possible because a larger proportion of gov't funds than the proportion of gays in the locale/country's population would be wasted on catering to them. Right, since women constitute a technical majority over males, all policies that favour or concern males ought to be banished. Likewise, any law that defends a minority against the sanctimonious morality of the majority ought to be eliminated immediately. Apparently only women can make laws since they are the only technical majority out there - and even then, 'white women' can't command a pure majority needed by your absolute majority system of government. Oh yeah - rich people can't be more than a few percentage of the population. And Christians aren't much of a majority (less than 50% attend Church each week) so we ought to ban them too. If you aren't over 50% of the population, you are dirt. Males, Christians, minorities, rich people - all ought to treated like the second class citizens they are since they can't make the 50% plus 1 position. And how is this different than 'same sex marriage' done in a civil ceremony (where over 95% of all legal same sex marriages have occured in Canada)? Please elaborate. But same-sex marrige is granted by government legislation, making it legal. So what's your point? You want to take this right away from homosexuals? You want to take this right away from heterosexuals? The religous folks? Immigrants? So, regardless of whether it is a 'right' or not, it is a legal fact. So please give us a reason why the law ought to be changed to reflect your subjective caprice? Your sanctimonious moral posturing isn't pretty - or interesting - or relevant to the topic. Indeed, it seems to me that the whole purpose of this discussion is to give you the opportunity to make your sanctimonious moral postures. Apparently, such posturing is popular and fun (since it is so common). This is irrelevant. If someone is of Chinese background, they cannot change this. No changing of religion, plastic surgery, behavior, being raised by caucasoids, etc. could change this. Being Chinese does not affect one's behavior either. If they want to celebrate their culture on the streets, povided they do not break any local laws and are not provokative, there's really no issue here. Bemused giggles. Did you have a straight face when you typed that? Lets see if I understand you. Gay people make a public parade. This is "shoving it in your face" and a demand that we "accept, condone and celebrate" their lifestyle because they aren't Chinese or something. However, when the Falon Gong people make a public parade, this is just a nice parade and no danger to the public because I am not Chinese - or something. Indeed, that seems to be your point. I didn't say it was Chinese parade. It was a Falon Gong parade. Many of those taking part appeared to be Chinese, but many were caucasion. Does that change your analysis? Yes, I can go on the internet and make hatemongering posts against the Falon Gong. No matter what anyone says, I can just ignore their rational and intelligent arguments and just repeat my hatemongering over and over again! I'm sure you are quite familiar with the concept!

This is a strawman. No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything. For example, many corporations seek to reduce their corporate tax burden. Does that mean they seek for you to accept, condone and celebrate corporate their profits and tax loopholes? No, homosexuals seek only that you refrain from interfering with their private behaviour. They seek that you refrain from applying legal double-standards to your dealings with them. They seek to limit your legal power to harrass them. Just like the private corporations seeking to limit your legal power to tax them. These are perfectly rational behaviours. Most homosexuals couldn't care less about what you condone or celebrate. Indeed, perhaps they might hate you as much as you hate them. So be it. No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything? Are you kidding me? TV, Movies, News, Commercials, Music, Public Policy, what children are shown and taught in school... Right, good one! I think homosexuals greatly care what we as a society condone and celebrate which is why there are so many legal challenges to those that oppose their views. No. The legal challenges are against attempts to legally discriminate against them. Imagine the nerve of some people objecting to being treated as second class citizens? Don't they know their proper place? Please define "here" since you see this thing "here" - yet it is no where except in your own post. Looks like you are 'projecting' (accusing others of being guilty of that which you are engaged in). Indeed, above I argued that you have every right to dislike homosexuals all you like (just like I don't like Mormans or Jehovah Witnessess). You don't have the right to legally discriminate against them, or to create laws to harrass them. In other words, it is YOU who is attributing hate to your opponents who disagree with you. That's nice. Would you like a medal? And what does this 'personal testimonial' have to do with the topic under discussion? Oh yes, let he who is without sin cast the first stone... (despite your lovely claims, I suspect that you are not without sin). The only ones seeking to change society are those reactionaries trying to 1) ban legal same sex marriage in Canada or 2) create a constitutional ammendment in the USA to ban same sex marriage. Those are the people making it their business to change society to reflect their own hatemongering views. They seek to institutionalise their hatreds as law. That is a major change in society since our society is not built on the principle of enshrining hatred in law. Indeed, most of the history of post-WW2 is all about removing such obnoxious and exclusionary hatemongering laws from the books, one by one. That is the nature of our society. Trying to insert NEW hatemongering exclusionary laws onto the books now doesn't preserve anything - it creates NEW hatemongering. If homosexuals aren't 'born that way', that means that they, ipso facto, are rising above their animal instincts. Indeed, according to your argument, it is the hetersexuals that are obsessed with (and wallowing in their) animalistic 'instincts' here. If you want to make hatemongering arguments, you need to learn how to make rational and consistent ones! Once again someone has written a point-by-point response without addressing the main point which about the liberal arguement of gays being born with these desires (may even have 'gay' genes!), therefore homosexuality is just a normal/natural life-style which should be embraced by society, which is exactly what I was disputing. I address the arguments that seem most worthy of rebuttal. You ignore the rebuttals and just continue on as if nothing happened. Curious dynamic that. Anyway, I didn't bother to address the point about 'nature vs nurture' since it is irrelevant to the discussion. I can argue that homosexuals deserve equality and legal rights regardless whether you believe that homosexuality has a genetic or an environmental 'cause'. Indeed, nothing seems less relevant than this argument. So, take your. I don't care which version you choose. I'll defeat any argument you choose to raise. But one argument I'm not getting into, is the relative merits of whether or not homosexuality is genetic or environmental or a combination of both. The amount of junk science used to support these positions make the debate interesting only for the hard-core partisans on the issue. Me? I'm interested in the law, not biology. And as a matter of law, there is no valid reason to deny homosexuals equal legal rights. You apparently have a 'projection' problem. I haven't said a word about "instincts" being good, bad or neutral. That is your language, your terms, your words, your argument. It is all just drivel to me. You are the one who wants to have this discussion entirely within your own terms - to you, it is all about the morality of behaviour. That is an issue for your shrink or your priest. For me, the issue is all about the law - and it is ONLY in those terms that I will address the issue. I don't care what you think is moral or immoral. That is irrelevant to me. First and foremost, no one really cares what you think about the "homosexual lifestyle". Indeed, I have a rather low opinion of the "religious lifestyle". Perhaps we ought to ban all such lifestyles? Oh yeah, your point is all about hatemongering. We are talking about equal legal rights for homosexuals. Those who are denied equality before the law are denied human dignity - and are made into second class citizens that may be discriminated against or violated with legal immunity. Ergo, the ultimate goal of your policy is to foster hatemongering against a specific group in society. If you can't handle the hatemongering label, maybe you shouldn't be proposing hatemongering policies? Please feel free to cite any example from my posts of this "crying intolerance" or whatever. You apparently have a serious 'projection' issue. Anyway, it will give you something to post about since we all know you will ignore the critical arguments that I've thrown at you. But feel free to surprise us by coming up with a decent cogent argument that is based on actual facts, not just projections from your moralistic imagination.

Right now, even as I type this post, there is a parade going by on the street below my condo-apartment - the police closed the road and are providing an escort for the parade. There are a half-dozen marching bands, clowns and baton-twirlers - and maybe 1000 people marching along with them. They are making quite a bit noise and appear to be enjoying themselves. Their banners read "Falun Dala" (and lots of other Chinese-looking words that I don't understand). They are all dressed rather festively in bright colours (lots of pale blue and bright red), and chanting and singing. Does this mean that I'm forced to accept, condon and celebrate this Falon Gong religion? Or their abberent behaviour? Is this Falon Gong religion being shoved in my face? Who allows these people allowed to get married?

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?

This is simply not true. The rest of your post is the usual heart-tugging series of mantras attempting to elicite the proper emotion, but its all presumably offered in support of the above. Bullcrap! The rest of the post that you refer to only adds a second argument that gays are legally forced to support heterosexuality with their taxes - which negates the argument that Captain fellow suggested that heterosexuals should never have to support homosexuality with their taxes. This is a double-standard. No, you are not. You are free to ignore it, pay no attention to it or otherwise dislike it. Just like homosexuals are free to ignore the massive amount of hetersexual propaganda that is thrown at them on a daily basis. Some people ask why homosexuals have a parade to celebrate? That is one day a year. The other 354 days of the calendar are devoted to public heterosexuality. By your own argument, why do heterosexuals daily ask homosexuals to accept their pussy-licking? For the most part, homosexuals just don't care about your need to lick pussy. But you demand that homosexuals celebrate and support it with their taxes. Homosexuals only ask to have the same equal right as citizens and taxpayers. No it doesn't. I don't like or accept people who worship the Morman or Jehovah's Witness religion (or Hindus for that matter). I think they are obnoxious lifestyles. Yet they can be legally married. I don't accept or condone that behaviour. It just is. Their marriage doesn't mean that I accept, respect or condone them. Their marriages belong to them - not me. As much as I dislike them, their marriages don't affect me at all. Indeed, unless they announce their religion or go out on some public parade, I wouldn't even know they were Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses (or Hindus for that matter). All three of these examples are lifestyles that constrain or control female behaviour. I consider that obnoxious and a degredation of human rights. And they can legally marry. And I don't support, condone or celebrate anything of the sort. I reserve my right to consider this obnoxious and a blight upon society. But I also respect their right as human beings to choose their own lifestyle so long as it doesn't interfere with mine. No one asks me if I like seeing Mormans, Jehovah's Witnesses or Hindus getting married. No one asks me to celebrate this. Same goes for 'gay marriage'. No one asks you to celebrate or condone it. No one asks you to even take part or be happy about it. Indeed, you have every right to dislike it - but you have no right (save that of fascist authority) to deny that right. The state does not demand or force me to condone marriages of Mormans. The state only makes them legal. It is my right to dislike these things. What are you talking about? What constitution do you cite here? And a demand for legal equality does not require or command acceptance. Indeed, blacks in the USA have had 'legal equality' for a long time - they still are not "accepted" by a very large portion of the US population. In other words, legal equality and "public acceptance" have nothing to do with each other. Maybe they just like to have a party and have some fun? Speaking of which, what's with all those stripper bars all about (the ones with the sticky floors and the rumpled old men lining up outside - and run by the Biker Gangs)? What about Janet Jackson showing her boobies at the Super Bowl? What's that all about? Or the fact that my daily newspaper prints a picture of a half-naked woman each day? Or all those advertisements that portray heterosexual eroticism as a way to sell cars/appliances/furniture/soap/clothes/perfume/widgets? Or all those naked-girlie magazines that dominate the newstands at my corner store? Or Hooter's restaurant with all those shameless girls in tight t-shirts showing off their chests... etc., etc., etc. No, I can't imagine where these homosexuals get the idea that it is okay to have a bit of fun. The nerve of them to let their depravity be commercialised for private profit. I can't imagine heterosexuals doint that! And what have feminists asked for that does not constitute "equality"? You raised the point, now back it up with a substantive argument. A pro-woman hiring preference when the historical record shows a strong anti-women hiring policy is indeed a policy designed for "equality". And women's studies programs have everything to do with equality since it is these programs that have done the research to document the anti-women hidden rules and biases that conspire to keep women back. This is all about equality - a noble liberal value. Really? Btw, your heterosexual compatriots make incest a pretty damn common phenomena. Our police blotters and court dockets are full of references to it. Father-daughter, uncle-niece and step-father-daughter are by far the overwhelmingly most dominant categories of incest found in the police records upon the topic. And since you want to make historical arguments, I will add that divorce, adultery, masturbation, fellatio, kissing in public and even holding hands in public (amongst many other common practices, including laws about what kind, style and colour of clothes you may be permitted to wear), have all been long rejected throughout history as aberrent practices, not suitable for upstanding citizens. Indeed, right up until the last two centuries, it has always been the law that all persons must bow and give deference to your social betters - those with aristocratic titles - to do otherwise, was to be beaten and jailed. Suffice it to say that the historical record is filled with all kinds of silly laws and biases that we now reject quite rationally. Unless of course you prefer to bow and scrape before your leaders... begging your humble pardon? Bemused giggles. Let's see if I follow you here (just for fun). 1) If homosexuals claim that they are an "identity", then you reject the identity as being impossible. 2) If homosexuals claim that they are engage in a "behaviour", then you reject that claim because it ignores their "identity" (a thing-in-itself). 3) See point #1. Yes, it is rather transparent isn't it?

This is a strawman. No one is asking you to accept, condone and celebrate anything. For example, many corporations seek to reduce their corporate tax burden. Does that mean they seek for you to accept, condone and celebrate corporate their profits and tax loopholes? No, homosexuals seek only that you refrain from interfering with their private behaviour. They seek that you refrain from applying legal double-standards to your dealings with them. They seek to limit your legal power to harrass them. Just like the private corporations seeking to limit your legal power to tax them. These are perfectly rational behaviours. Most homosexuals couldn't care less about what you condone or celebrate. Indeed, perhaps they might hate you as much as you hate them. So be it. I don't know. Were you born that way? Liberal minded people don't judge the private behaviours of others - provided no harm is caused. I don't have to tell you the word we use for those who do make it their business to attempt to legally control the behavior of others in the name of their own moral theology. If homosexuals aren't 'born that way', that means that they, ipso facto, are rising above their animal instincts. Indeed, according to your argument, it is the hetersexuals that are obsessed with (and wallowing in their) animalistic 'instincts' here. If you want to make hatemongering arguments, you need to learn how to make rational and consistent ones!

Only because you are reversing what I said. I said that it is logical to believe in a deity if one has evidence that the belief could produce positive benefits. This evidence could take the form of individual experiments or the experience of others. In these cases, the decision to believe comes after evaluating the evidence. Furthermore, this logic does not presume a deity exists or that the effect is caused by a deity. The only assumption is that belief in a (possibly fictional) deity can deliver positive effects. If belief in a (possibly fictional) diety can deliver positive results, this only reinforces the old adage about the 'power of positive thinking'. It logically proves nothing about this (possibly fictional) diety. Indeed, one could apply the same argument to argue that belief in the infamous Flying Spagetti Monster is logical. Now if you are willing to accept that the Flying Spagetti Monster has the same logical validity as your God, then, I say 'go for it'.

You hide it well, if people read all your posts. Dalton the Dweeb. Anti Socialist Praise for Tory Dislike for Harris Dislike for Harper Dislike for Dion Dislike for Layton Business orientation. Anti Confrontation. Belief in the rule of law. Equality, are a few common factors in your posts. Your political persausion is one that many Canadians could hold and share throughout there lifetime. I don't think it's mine though. Just like my mad is different from your MAD. madmax. 1. I've never stated any dislike of Jack Layton. Being a Toronto boy, I have grudging respect for Jack Layton since he has worked hard to improve Toronto and he is a principled proponent of gay rights. I'm not much of a fan of the NDP though (since as you correctly noted, I'm very anti-socialist). 2. My concern for "equality" is ONLY in respect of the rule of law. From a philosophic perspective, my principal value is "liberty" (hence my opposition to all forms of authoritarianism). 3. You missed my praise for Paul Martin's fiscal discipline and my dissing of Bill Davis's introduction of public funding for Catholic education. I've also praised Bob Rae too for his transformation into a 'red tory' as he has shifted to the Liberal Party. And I also praised Joe Clark as a noble (or tragic) man of principle. And yes, in conventional terms, that makes me what used to be called a "progressive conservative" - fiscal conservative and social liberal. But most of all, I consider that private corporations are as great a threat to my liberty as any government or any union - which is why I am not a supporter of any 'traditional' conservativism. And as a final note, you do appear to prove my point against Argus - he doesn't know anything about my 'political pursuasion'.

I think Tory was referring more to cracking down on the Indians that are breaking the law. I'm sure that's as hot a sell as it was when I lived in Ontario. I definitely wouldn't bet on this. The public is too well informed about the rampant anti-native racism in our police forces and mass media to permit wholesale attacks against one of the poorest sections of the population. Poor-bashing is not a good vote getter unless you are selling 'hard-right' politics - which don't sell well in Ontario.

I don't belive the quotation in reference admits of that interpretation. Rather, which particular language that the parents choose to teach is the relevant point.

Huge difference between members of an assembly and being the executive. Szarkozy has no record as political executive. Bloomberg is a mayor of NYC, so that is something, but still, mayor's positions are very limited in scope for actual ideology. Thus, neither Szarkozy or Bloomberg actually have any track record as high level political executives upon which to judge their *actual* conservativism rather than their *rhetorical* conservativsm of the campaign trail. There is often a huge difference between campaign rhetoric and actual governing in practice. Political rhetoric (be it liberal or conservative) and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee. I've referred to no yardstick at all. I'm not aware of one existing. I only refered to 'actual' conservatives (i.e. those who have actually governed) as opposed to 'ephemeral' conservatives (ie. those that have not actually governed). I just want to see some conservatives actually praise some actual conservatives for their governance. This just doesn't seem to happen much (for a variety of reasons). Conservatives tend to praise other conservatives that haven't actually governed (and thus are still capable of ideological purity and/or consistency or idealism). Than what is this "actual conservative ruler(s)" you speak of? Ones who have actually governed as opposed to those who haven't. The distinction seems like a simple one. It is always so easy to give ideological praise those who haven't actually done anything... Well pardon me dir sir, for having wasted your time. But please bless us with some of your wisdom? Actually, if it is going to be as nonsensical as your past few posts, I think we will not be any worse off for not knowing. Indeed. Condescention and insults. And you expect me to invest an hour or two of my time, drawing from my many years of education, reading and study of political philosophy, to post something about one of the most complex and controversial philosophic figures of the 20th century? Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by your request. Your insults towards me resonate louder than your polite request. Normally, I'm quite accommodating of such requests.