betsy

For the sake of discussion, here are the two versions of the oath. Original, translated from Greek. “ I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath. To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot." *************************** Hippocratic Oath—Modern Version I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

Let's see: Chinese, Arabs, East Indians, Somalians, Jamaicans, etc..... Boy, get ready for a major headache. Well, if Chinese get to do it, everybody can! And if everybody can....votes will really be splintered. We might be asking, do we have enough to win a seat?

You're right, money isn't everything....you seem to have found a good balance. I think as long as we're happy and comfy with what we do. Good for you.

I live quite comfortably, thank you very much. And I probably type a lot faster than you. Minimum pay for a feature film script in Canada is $47,000. If it is based upon my treatment, another $21,000. If it is based on someone else's treatment, $31,000. If I do a re-write on my own material, $24,000. If I do a polish on my own material, $7,000. If I do a third draft, $12,000. And that is just the minimums. Minimums for the U.S. are a lot higher. There is no rule that you can't earn higher. And the beauty of it (or sad part if you like) is that the writer often gets paid even if the whole project gets shelved. I do other work as well and that pays roughly $60 a hour. I'm certainly not a lawyer who earns $500 an hour or anything like that. At any rate, I don't think anyone is going to pay me the minimum for writing here. I would suggest Jdobbin that you do a cost/ benefit analysis. It appears to me if that is the case, you're wasting a lot of time and money piddling around on this site. Mind you, girls do just gotta have fun.

The truth is I suppose, that we should be grateful that the Liberals are such good liars. What if they actually did carry out some of the programs they dreamt up, universal daycare, gun control, Kyoto....we'd really be in trouble. Good thing they never really meant to do anything. The one big program, Medicare, that they claim as their own, was a Social Credit program to begin with...and it's broke and getting broker. I guess they're motto is, "if it is broke, keep it!"

I'd say the Cons, if not as good, are learning fast in the lying department. Baird's "we believe in Kyoto" ... And did you believe Baird when he said "we believe in Kyoto?" No. That's what I mean. The Cons aren't good at lying! And yet, after 13 years and numerous lies from the Liberals.....you still buy their story. Just listen to yourselves right now. You provide me with proof actually. Why are you still biting? Why? Because the Libs are masters of con! No. What you said was just an example of what I mean that the Cons are poor copy-catters! You only confrimed what I said. You really need to be careful. Whose side are you on anyway? MINE?

Or the Liberals don't do it because they aren't as corrupt as their Tory counterparts. Oh yeah Liberals do it alright! And since you mentioned the word corrupt, the Liberals even try to "corrupt" the meaning of the word corrupt!

Your epistemology here seems rather muddled. There is such a thing as rational faith. It just doesn't apply to God or religion though. But every human being uses it every day. Believing that the sun shall rise tomorrow, is clear-cut case of 'rational faith'. My epistemology seems rather muddled? How much is that doggy innuenndo? Wait for it. The time might come that you'll actually need to use "epistemology" in a sentence. We say many things in everyday conversation that get their basic meaning across even when they're somewhat imprecise and open to interpretation. I'd characterize "rational faith" as one such thing, although I do confess that I'd never use such an expression myself, and I don't know anyone, personally, who would use it either. I suppose other 'clear-cut' cases are having faith that my friend will be late because she's always been late before, or because I hear the train and know she'll be held up, or that she said she was going to wait for the sun to rise. The topic here is the nature of belief in religion. Unless you're a Sun worshipper or imagine I am, why are you bringing this up? Religious faith is a belief in God based on the authority of His Word - speaking as a Christian. Rational belief is belief in 'whatever' based on reason. That's not to say you can't have a rational belief in God, it only means you don't need a rational basis for faith. Let's not drift off into netherland. FacistLibertarian framed his thread, I think, to limit drifting - let's try to answer his question - "How can you believe in religion?"

Yeah you got it right! The Liberals are much better liars than the Tories. And Tories are so much worse at copy-catting. They have their own ideas. So, do you get paid by the post or is it part of your salary? Unfortunately, no. I won't mind getting paid though. Don't know where to send the invoice.

Somebody above mentioned indoctrination. Of course, whatever you believe in comes from what you're taught. What else would it be. Where else would you get your beliefs? Your beliefs, whatever they are (and this is not only confined to religion), obviously comes from your training. The more astute minds amongst us develop their beliefs on their own as they become more aware. Children may have been taught they were delivered by a stork. Later on, the quicker child sees the flaw in that belief and adjust according to his abilities. However, if he really likes the stork-story, he might wilfully blind himself to the truth. He might have faith in that bird. Faith and rationality are opposing concepts. It's like arguing an apple is better than an orange. What is the basis for that conclusion? Belief in God doesn't require rationality. It requires faith. It's only when one decides as a human thought process to justify his faith that he might resort to rational discussion based on such things as biblical evidence. He only needs that to explain it to non-believers, if he feels so inclined. I don't.

It's pretty clear my assessment of your argument is bang on: You can't simply claim "oh the government considered them a threat" without analysing why they did so. I don't know how you can argue this and then claim that it wasn't based on racism. See, the government of day was operating on the assumption that they would remain loyal to Japan. This assumption was based soley on the fact that they were of Japanese descent. That many were in fact Canadian born, or long time Canadian residents was overriden by the simple fact of their race. There's no way around it. This is deja-vu all over again. Because more men are in power than women, you conclude that it is because of gender discrimination. Because the enemy are of Japanese decent, you conclude that our concern about their loyalty is racial discrimination. Twice wrong. Do you imagine that there would be a population of Ukrainians or Lithuanians or Africans that would concern our government about their loyalty to Japan? Of course they're Japanese, what do you think they'd be? It doesn't make it racist. It's just obvious. The internment wasn't based solely on the fact they were of Japanese descent. It was based on the concern that they would obey their god and emperor and perform treacherous acts from within our borders. Who else would you be concerned about? Frenchmen? Africans? Every reference to a race isn't racism - at least not in your modern sense of the word "racism". We can't go over the whole thing again, Black Dog. You're determined to see what you want to see. So let's just leave it there. But while I'm here, did I ever tell you the story of the circling dog...

I don't why I'd do that. It's pretty clear. You retroactively support the internment of Canadian citizens based on their racial background and implicitly support similar measures be taken against Canadian citizens based on their religious background. Neither position is teneble, so I'm not sure why you're even bothering to argue. But then, I never am. Yeah-yeah, Blackdog. That's true. You never are sure.

Yeah you got it right! The Liberals are much better liars than the Tories. And Tories are so much worse at copy-catting. They have their own ideas.

WTF? One minute you're defending the internment of Japanese-Canadians/Americans, the next you're blathering about "the enemy". It's like arguing with a chihuahua. Stay focused For the record, if someone is "shooting at us and threatening us and killing our soldiers" that would qualify them as enemys. But you're talking about interning an entire group, none of whom have committed those acts, based soley on the fact that they share racial/religious backgrounds with "the enemy." Go back and read. I'm not going to repeat what I've already explained a couple of times.

Okay...okay....maybe they should've coralled a few native Indians, the odd Hungarian, and a few Albertans to boot. After all, when two blacks rob a bank, we're expected to question whites and Chinese as well, so we are not being unfair. So, from the point of view of 21st Century liberals in Canada, I guess you're right. But from the point of view of mid-20th century relatively rational people in the midst of a serious and devastating war, things look a little different. edited: Well see there, Peter....check out MDancer's post. Ukrainians and Italians were interned. The Japanese were interned in Canada because they were considered by the Canadian government a threat to our security. The reason they were considered a threat was that the Emperor had told all Japanese that they were responsible to Japan no matter where they were. That's why. Whether you agree with what they did or not is another issue. But that's why it was the Japanese that were rounded up.

You better read back all the arguments from the very beginning....for I've already stated my opinion on this matter. Well do you mean the Scottish and Irish, or the Scotch and Irish Whiskey? I definitely would not want to get rid of either of the last two. But damn right, you'd be! The United Empire doesn't get a bye. Your country starts a war, you may be seen as a potential threat in your home country. If your governor was Robbie Burns, your home country's government might well be justified in believing you consider him divine given the adoration Burns gets in Scotland. You want to be ridiculous. So can I be. It's the percieved threat that the internment is meant to deter. Why is that hard to understand. As I've said before, you don't have to agree with what they did, you just have to acknowledge that they had the responsibility to take action, if they felt it appropriate to protect its citizenry.

I can't be so sure. However, I think that some sort of evidence to support the assumption that Japanese Canadians would follow the dictates of the Emporer of Japan would be proper before we incarcerate them and sieze thier property. What kind of evidence would suffice for you? How do you propose that we - being in the middle of war in the Pacific and Europe - would have the resources to waste following each and every Japanese-Canadian - just waiting for that evidence to surface? Maybe in our own harbor at Halifax. Or Vancouver. Oh Peter.... but it was ok to waste resources on your mother-in-law because she was Canadian-not German. But it was a waste of resources to suspect a Japanese Canadians daughter? Here's the goon (again) it was unfair and unjust to incarcerate those of German/Italian parentage. It was not unfair/unjust to incarcerate those of Japanese parentage. Why the difference? Considering Canada's naval committments and geography in 1942 I would suspect that there was far more danger from Canadians of German heritage on the East Coast than the danger from Japanese Canadians on the West coast. Yet only the Japanese Canadians were encamped. What was the logic of that? Peter, as I've said before, my mother in-law was a British citizen, not a Canadian. The internment of her father, who was a German citizen, happened in England, not in Canada. Do you read these post? Or do you just pick up the bits that suit you? As for the German threat on the East Coast, too bad you weren't there to warn the Canadian government. Perhaps they would've interned the Germans too. Just what is your point here, Peter? Are you against internment....or do you think it should've been expanded to include Germans, women and ugly children?

BWA-HA-HA! Oh my Lord, my tummy aches..... You really don't have a clue!

Japan was our enemy. There is a difference. What do you mean? That the government declared war on us, and not each individual citizens? It conjures up a scene of swarms of Japanese invaders knocking on doors serving us with war declaration papers. "YOU'VE BEEN SERVED, BOY!" agreed. But you have to show that locking up the Japanese was needed to protect the people, and you have failed to do this. No, I don't have to. I don't have to show anything. It's been done, 65 years ago. But the government had the responsibility and took it. That you don't agree with what they did is irrelevant - except for discussion purposes.

I can't be so sure. However, I think that some sort of evidence to support the assumption that Japanese Canadians would follow the dictates of the Emporer of Japan would be proper before we incarcerate them and sieze thier property. What kind of evidence would suffice for you? How do you propose that we - being in the middle of war in the Pacific and Europe - would have the resources to waste following each and every Japanese-Canadian - just waiting for that evidence to surface? Maybe in our own harbor at Halifax. Or Vancouver. Oh Peter....

I guess your quite so short and simple statement is the classic admission that you cannot even explain to defend your simplistic argument - such a short tunnel-vision that it is. And of course I'm right! I never had any doubt about that! But, of course, with your having had the nerve - or having lack of knowldege - to compare Iranian-style of "internment" to that of ours was proof enough that you don't make any sense at all. Actually Betsy, I wasn't comparing Iranian style internment to the type employed by Canada - I was noting that according to YOU - internment is justifiable based on 'enemy' (read race/religion) status. Hence - if you feel that Canada had a right as a soveriegn nation to lock up a whole group of people based on where their genetic lineage originated from then by default Iran or any other country would have the same right. Note - I do not think you are right, nor do I think that any group is superior to any other (unlike you - the supremicist). Canada has many skeletons in her closet Betsy - but of course you riegn Supreme!! LOL First, what do you mean "...based on 'enemy' (read race/religion)". I said what I mean. If YOU mean race and/or religion, say it. If YOU mean enemy, say it. If there is confusion in your mind as to the differences, do us all a favour and say nothing. Second, Canada has a responsibility - not just a right - to protect its citizens. The Japanese were our ENEMY. You don't have to agree with what happened or how they were treated. But you have to acknowledge that the government has the responsibility to protect its people, especially in time of war. Stop digging up the racist crap. Funny how those that pretend to be all loving and accepting, the ultimate in tolerance (except of course for those with whom they disagree), seem to be unable to see anything in terms other than bigotry. Perhaps it exposes a fairly ample dose of self-awareness that they would rather project onto others. (BTW, 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' or used as an 'eh' as in neighbour and weight...and reign...LOL) Anyway, I digress. Third, why is it difficult for you to admit that internment in Canada and 'internment' in Iran are significantly different? Ask some Jew or 'human shield' who has had the pleasure of Iraqi hospitality if they'd rather spend their next internment in Canada. But better hurry. It can be difficult to answer such life-altering questions when your head is about to leave you. If you have problems with that difference, let's see if we can conjure up a more 'Canadian' perspective - like the world view from the comfort of your couch. Just imagine that the latest reality TV scenario is "Take Your Pick of Internment Spots". Where would you, as "winner", choose to spend your time given the above considered alternative? Finally, the discussion started as a consideration of the internment of the Japanese in WWll. Fitting our current dilemma into the WWll mold is a game for fools. The circumstances are different, the enemy is different, the 'rules' are different. Hey, the world has changed! Read this. If you don't understand, you've really got problems. Intelligence problems. And how are you judging who qualifies as an enemy? Why, race and religion! What? That they are religious fanatics is the the reason they are our enemy? NO! It's because they're shooting at us and threatening us and killing our soldiers! And soon our children! THAT'S why they're our enemy. They just happen to be religious fanatics. Did we defend against the Nazis because they were religious fanatics or because they were German? No, it was because they threatened us and killed our soldiers and our allies. At least get a grip on reality if you can't get a grip on logic!! Just because you want me to be a bigot, because it would make you happy if I was, doesn't make me one. And I don't mindlessly imagine that everyone is equal. I can see the difference between a suicide bomber and a child eating pizza. I AM morally superior to the terrorists AND to those who see themselves equal to those lunatics.

What some of you are failing to grasp is that the main role - ideally the only role, not daycare, not healthcare, not interference in our day to day living - the main role of our government is security and defense. It's the primary responsibility of government to protect its citizens against its enemy. If it fails to take the action it deems appropriate to maintain the seciruty of its citizens, then it's failing in its role. The citizenry in our free society has the right - what may be considered their role - to criticise the actions of the government in this respect. But the fact that some of the citizens may not agree with the actions of the government doesn't alter the fact that it's the responsibility of the government to act or abstain from acting, if they feel that's appropriate. They've been elected to act in the name of the people. And as long as they are in power, they're required to act.

I guess your quite so short and simple statement is the classic admission that you cannot even explain to defend your simplistic argument - such a short tunnel-vision that it is. And of course I'm right! I never had any doubt about that! But, of course, with your having had the nerve - or having lack of knowldege - to compare Iranian-style of "internment" to that of ours was proof enough that you don't make any sense at all.

Well, at least you've managed to realize your divine thingy had gotten way out of hand. That's a good sign....shows your mind is capable of grasping something. Don't lose hope. Some things take time.

There is no evidence that I am not a terrorist and/or supporting terrorism. I should be arrested forthwith. That applies to you too...and BC2004 and everyone else on this board and in this country including General hillier and Stephen Harper. But we havn't been arrested because the assumption is we are not terrorists. We are at war and that assumption is an unnacceptable risk. Let’s just stick with the Japanese internment for now, shall we? In your previous post to me, you said: And I replied: For indeed, this is just your assumption! Reckless, and outrageous I dare add. How can you be so sure that, had there been no internment at all, not a single Japanese-Canadian would’ve acted upon the words of the Japanese emperor? How can you be so sure that the Japanese internment did not deter anyone, or squash any plans of carrying out the edict of the emperor? How can you be so sure that just because they had become Canadians, their ties to the old mother country, their culture, and their family back home – some of whom were possibly enlisted soldiers fighting for the Empire – were suddenly severed? That second-generation Japanese-Canadians were not taught of their past, cultures and heritage by parents who have no wish for that heritage to be forgotten? Do you have anything to back up your assumption? How should I know….anymore than you do….the reasons or politics behind governments’ and war cabinets’ decisions. I haven’t actually experienced any all-out war – and I assume you aren’t that old to have been around during that time either. My mother in-law was from England. Her father’s internment happened in England. And of course, it isn’t bigotry! To label something you’ve obviously no deep understanding about – shown by your lack of insight regarding immigrants from other countries – is quite foolish and so juvenile. Current trends we are experiencing now regarding immigrants’ status only give resounding credible support for my stance regarding cultures and heritage! Some things are not so easily cut or severed.