Mad_Michael

Yeah - and we are still coping with all the damage Harris caused. Could take many years more work. Harris without a doubt was the worst Premier in Ontario history - certainly the least educated one who decided policy on the basis of his 'gut' or ideology. What a freakin' mess he left here. Btw, every single healthcare spending cut Harris introduced in his first term (massive spending cuts) was reversed in his 2nd term. Where's the logic in that? That is the action of one who had to backtrack due to ill-conceived plan to cut in the first place. How about those union labour relations? Harris thought that public confrontation was good public policy. Can you say property taxes? Can you say downloading? Can you say off-loading? We are still trying to sort out this mess ten years later in Toronto. Harris forced the amalgamation of Toronto (to save money) and every study suggested it would be a nightmare and increase costs. Harris said the studies were all wrong and he knew it would be more efficient and reduce costs. It turned out to be a nightmare and increased costs. Harris was wrong on almost every issue. Oh yeah, did you read the Ipperwash report? Harris is specifically identified as one of the belligerent causes of the killing of Dudley George.

No provincial liberal government has ever served more than one term in office. I see no reason to believe that Dalton the Dweeb is likely to change that. All signs point to John Tory becoming the next premier of Ontario.

A far more interesting question is why are Conservatives stuck at less than their support level of last election. Logic dictates that after a more than a year of implementing their agenda, controlling the legislative pipeline, out of control (Liberal?) spending, and expensive off-campaign negative political ads directed towards a struggling opposition leader, that the party would be basking around 45%, or majority territory. Instead Tories best efforts yield support below their showing in 2006. What's wrong? Harper is dull, boring and generally disliked, though not hated. Conservative policies are not very popular. Spending is increasing, negative political attack ads often backfire on those who pay for them (shows they are crude and nasty brutes) and the Conservatives are perceived to be standing on the wrong side of the one issue the electorate thinks is most important - the environment. No surprise the Conservatives stand in the polls where they are. Like I said, Harper ought to thank his lucky stars that the Liberals are in disarray and have a dud for a leader that allows his mediocre minority government to stand.

Which is a categorically poor showing for the Liberal Party. The Conservatives may be used to such numbers, but this is historically low level of support for the Liberal Party. That's why the heat is on Dion. As a leader, he's a failure - such weak polling numbers illustrate this.

I think Harper benefits from the same thing that kept Chretien in power so long - the other party is in disarray and has a poor leader. If the Liberals had a decent leader, then I'm thinking you could shave more than a few points off the Conservatives. Harper should just count himself lucky right now and make the best of it. The Liberal party is quite unlikely to stay non-functional for very long. They have a long history of picking electoral winners. Dion may be a dud, but the next leader likely won't be.

That poll result pretty much defines Dion a major failure as a leader of the largest federal party. Any position save that of number one is a political failure. Given that Canada governs federally under alternating two party system, being 3rd most popular is tanemount to being named the "most disliked leader".

Drugs are evaluated on that basis. A drug is only considered effective if negative side effects are less severe than the positive effect. As I said above, no scientist ever makes that determination. They only measure the effects and side effects, according to the rules of science. The determination you point here is made by business executives of a corporation deciding whether to proceed to production/sales of the product (balanced against the risk/cost of lawsuits). Corporate confidentiality agreements are then used to make sure the scientists are not allowed to discuss the product (particularly any reservations they may have about the 'claims' being made about the effectiveness of the product). You already agreed that it would be logical (from their reference point) for someone to believe in a deity if they believed they would benefit from that belief. That is all I am claiming. And as I've already pointed out, that logic is circular. It may be logical for someone to believe that prayers to God are effective when they already believe that God exists. Such self-referenced logic is circular. It is logical only in respect of that one person's own self-justifications. That is to say, if they believe that God exists, then it is logical that they believe in actions attributed to God. This logic says nothing substantive about anything and cannot be used to justify or support any argument - other than that people tend to create self-serving arguments as a method of self-justification (and this is logical too!). But there is no basic logic to the process at all. It is a matter of faith alone. On the basis of faith, one may presume various things follow logically. But that doesn't make the original leap of faith logical or rational and cannot be used to logically or rationally justify the leap of faith. Please see my note regarding Descartes in post # 372 of this thread. You are trying to walk down that road.

I wouldn't bother to even pay attention to this. The 'flat-earth' religious fundamentalist/fanatic types tend to be motivated by the ridicule they are subjected to. They apparently have a huge victim complex. Ergo, don't feed it. Just ignore them. They are reactionaries on the wrong side of history fighting a desperate 'last stand' of the faithful. Pathetic, but not threatening to anyone. Leave them be. Live and let live.

Please cite just one example of such. (I ask because I know you can't. Cost-benefit analysis is a tool of economics, not the physical sciences. Any self-respecting scientist would look at you like you are from Mars if you suggested that they were engaged in some kind of cost-benefit analysis). With all due respect, you've been doing a poor job of it. I agree that theism is not (ipso facto proof of) collective insanity, but to assert that theism does have a logical component is going to give you serious trouble and an argument that you will never win. As long as theism or religion stands on faith alone, it is unassailable. As soon as logic or reason is claimed in service of theism or religion, that opens the door to critical analysis that such claims are unable to withstand. The lesson of Descartes ought to be noted here - Descartes sought to use logic and reason to prove that God exists. He thought he did so, working entirely with logical principles. Suffice it to say that Pope John Paul II (the most learned and intellectual Pope in centuries) named Descartes the spiritual father of Atheism. Descartes opened a can of worms. The arguments he constructed to 'prove' that God exists actually backfired on him and now provide the core principles for logical doubt of God's existence. Descartes was one of the most brilliant minds of the 17th century (one of the inventors of calculus). Do you presume to think that you can do better than Descartes in the service of rationalising theism?

This proves only that some people might believe in God or prayer and that to them, from their own reference point, such a view may be logical. As noted above, this logic is circular if one tries to use it for any other purpose than to say "some people believe in this". Indeed, in your example, the 'proof' is entirely one of faith. It is evidence of faith and that doesn't mean anything to anyone except the person themself who has the faith (or others who share it). Good gosh, this is trite. The process of logic is by definition, a relative process. It is always predicated upon reference points. Change the reference points and the adjudication of logic changes. Go figure. Nothing curious or unusual about this for anyone who is familiar with the principles of logic. Indeed, it is very, very common.

See OP. Btw, you failed to mention Strauss. No discussion of neoconservativism is complete without reference to Struass. I am philosophically, anti-Straussian. Ah yes... ephemeral conservativism - it is always the most popular variety - that which doesn't actually exist! How come conservatives always celebrate conservative theories but can rarely ever point to any actual functioning system of application of their wonderful theories?

Because you can foster and encourage all you wish, but sometimes, there needs to be a catalyst. Is it? When? Where? You just agreed that democracy cannot be imposed externally. Yet you have also stated that it is a core principle of neoconservativism that democracy can be imposed externally (and that is a good thing) - see the OP. Ergo, you just agreed that the core principle of the neocons is a sham.

Only if you presume that the existance of an entity outside of physical perception is a 'complex' explaination when compared to the alternatives. I would argue that the existing theories of the cosmos are incredibly complex and growing more complex over time as scientists try to fix the various inconsistencies in them. If you want to apply Ockham's Razor you should conclude that there is probably a deity of some sort because that is the simplest explaination. No. The logic of Ockham is not just complexity vs simplicity - that is the 'spirit' of the law, not the letter (as it were). Granted a supernatural deity is a 'simpler' explanation. However, the supernatural explanation doesn't fit with anything of our understanding and experience. It is entirely a unique supposition unlike any other known thing. The alternative explanation, while not entirely able to be confirmed by common awareness (seeing with my own eyes), does substantially fit with almost everything else that has been confirmed by my common awareness (and best current state of scientific theory). Thus, the supernatural explanation, although technically 'simpler' is entirely an unknown phenonmena. The alternative explanation, although technically 'more complex', is based upon known processes and proven things - and is ultimately falsifiable. On this basis, the supernatural theory is unnecessary or superfluous, and on this basis of Ockham's Razor, I reject the supernatural theory as irrational and unnecessary supposition.

Ok - then the disagreement may be over the intent of the words 'rational' vs. 'irrational'. Many people use the word 'irrational' to mean stupid or crazy. Stating that the existence of deity is simply outside the realm of 'rational' (i.e. falsifiable) science does not come with the pejorative connotations. If that is your intent then I can agree with your statement. Good. Irrational means strictly not-rational. Art is essentially irrational. Believing that the sun shall rise tomorrow is technically irrational (a famous argument of David Hume). Human beings have a long history of irrational behaviour. Indeed, according to evolutionary theory, I doubt if it would be possible for humans to have evolved to our present form without the successful application of many forms of irrational behaviour. And you can be sure that it is my only intent in all discussions under the label of 'philosophy' to always use technical and neutral language (where possible). Precision of terms and definitions is critical to the art and discussion of philosophy. Technically that is true - the use of the term 'logical' instead would have avoided this particular critique of falsifiable science. However, use of the term 'logical', substituted in your argument posted above (to which I have already critiqued) would just open you up to the alternative critique of a circular reference since the logical conclusion of your argument would necessarily be predicated upon belief in God in the first place. That is a logical flaw (when a premise of the argument is the same as the conclusion of the argument).

That 'hypothesis' most certainly cannot be defined as a scientific hypothesis since the hypothesis is non-falsifiable. It can never be proven wrong by definition of the terms. Ergo, it is not a scientific hypothesis since all scientific hypothesii (sp?) must be falsifiable by definition. Oh, and the mere supposition of any given hypothesis alone does not constitute a viable theory. It would not be rational to believe in some supposed hypothesis on the basis of its mere supposition - if a viable or more reasonable alternative theory is available (i.e., Ockham's Razor).

Yes! That's the terminology we've been needing. Thank you. You're welcome. I believe I picked up the term (in this context, in this line of argument) from Sir Karl Popper, arguably, the leading epistemologist of the 20th century (Conjectures and Refutations - a brilliant and seminal work in the field).

You are missing the point. I said (according to your logic) that it must be irrational to claim that the effect observed (which you call gravity) is caused by mutual attraction between matter (a.k.a gravitation). Explaining the 'prayer effect' as the intervention of a deity is no less rational that explaining the 'gravity effect' as a mysterious attraction between matter.One could also create a hypothesis that the 'prayer effect' is a biological effect trigged by a belief in a deity. In that case, it would be perfectly rational to believe in a deity even if there is other evidence that suggests a deity does not exist. The measurable effects of gravity can be proven to occur, according to scientific reasonings that can (theoretically) be falsified. Thus, it is rational to believe that gravity exists. The effects of prayer cannot be proven to have occured - the theory can never be falsified. Thus it is irrational to believe that prayer is effective. Prayer may be effective, and one may believe in it as an article of faith - but it has no basis for the claim of 'rational' since it absolutely fails the test of rationality. Please note that nothing in my argument in anyway denies the existence of God or the effacy of prayer. The point I make here is that these exist (if they exist) entirely in the realm of faith and cannot be considered rational per se.

Yes, an interesting, difficult and increasingly common dilemna. I just don't see how or why US hired mercenaries in Iraq are free of all laws (American and Iraqi). That smells bad.

Btw, Kapitän Rotbart, if it is all about behaviour, how do you know about this behaviour? Are you a peeping tom? If it is all about behaviour, you have no evidence of homosexuality at all unless you observe it. That usually requires you to break the law to do so, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't a peeping tom. That means this label of homosexuality is applied NOT upon behaviour since no one (save homosexuals themselves) ever observe actual homosexual behaviour. So what is your real point? Is it the public identification of the alleged behaviour that annoys you? Or do you have some other method of 'just knowing' who's homosexual and who is not?

Oh but a genius can act like a moron , just like a homo can act like a straight guy. Somewhere a clock is missing something. Come on, give the guy a break. He's trying to argue that hatemongering ought to be legal and you are confusing the issue with 'facts'. That's just not fair and balanced according to Fox.

I'll explain the difference. Homosexuality is a behavioral issue. But peace, good government, happy marriage and good kids are not 'behaviorial' issues? They are all anomolies. Perfectly reasonable and in many cases, highly desired anomalies. So what is wrong with an anomoly anyways? Just curious since your argument appears to hold that there is something wrong with anomolies (notwithstanding, peace, prosperity, good government, etc.).

The overwhelming majority of delegates to the Liberal leadership convention came from Ontario and Quebec. I'm surprised at how kind history has been to Joe Clark. I question his judgment on a few things. Why not extend the life of that minority Goverment? (Yes, I understand that Clark thought he could win a majority but he still should have waited until the Liberals picked a new leader.) He could have declared a victory in the leadership review in 1983. (Mulroney's people thought they had lost and were shocked when Clark called a leadership convention. Why was he such a biotch about the Alliance-PC merger? As for Dion. mehhh, I think it should signal the last delegated convention in Canada. I didn't say Joe Clark was a success - just that he wasn't half the idiot he was perceived to be. I agree Joe Clark made some poor calculations when he was leader - and he paid the price for those errors. But Joe's rehabilitation began with the Reform party split. That was when we witnessed Joe Clark standing firm upon some very important principles that apparently are quite popular in Canada. Everytime some wingnut Reform/Alliance party member mouthed off about gays or immigrants, that just made Joe Clark look like a decent fellow. His international work also helped to recover his reputation. I shall respect Joe Clark to my dying days for refusing the merger with the Reform/Alliance party. That was a principled stand. Joe Clark knew the new Alliance/Reform recipe would be toxic in Quebec/Ontario. Joe was right all along. I'm a former member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. That party is long gone and now I'm a member of the Liberal Party of Canada (like so many others in Ontario).

How is there any line of accountability between my ballot and my MP?Whether I vote or not will make absolutely no difference in the selection of my MP. I know that the Left likes to vaunt the democratic voting process as somehow more popular than markets but they are seriously in error. Make no mistake. This is a fundamental question. How do we as individuals arrive at a collective decision? At least you are being civil now. Is that because I haven't disagreed with you yet? I have no intention or interest in replying to your questions. You've shown your colours previously.

Like calling gravity "magic" for example...Gravity is an uncomprehensible phenomena of unknown origin yet you presume it is 'real' because you can observe its effects. It is irrational to claim that gravity must be 'real' because the effects attributed to it can be observed but then reject the idea of a deity even though the effects attributed to it can also be observed. The reason that the theory of gravity is widely held is not because "I can observe it" (I've never seen gravity - only an effect that is understood to be caused by gravity). Indeed, I cannot see atoms, yet that I don't doubt atomic theory. The reason is that these theories are scientifically supported because these theories are falsifiable and have never yet been falsified. That's how science works. In other words, yet again, you are using a strawman to construct your argument. The non-visibility of God has no relevance to the argument. The theory of God's Existence is 100% non-falsifiable. It cannot be judged or observed, proof or failure - nothing, nada. It is an article of faith alone. Just like all the 'evidence' you may offer - it will all stand alone upon your own faith for its only validity. But just for fun, feel free to supply us here with some examples of these "observable effects" of God's existence.

Gosh, you mean you didn't find sufficient native-bashing here? Our government created that crisis at Ipperwash and the media fanned the flames. They wanted confrontation to satisfy the segment of the electorate that loves native-bashing.