bleeding heart

More likely, to be fair, I think you were only pointing to another truism: that all political rhetoric is not equal.

I'm frankly surprised you don't consider it an obvious truism. Absolutely, with that I can agree.

You're playing a semantics game. Of course there'll be exceptions (to any scenario) but we're talking an all-things-being-equal hypothetical here. 20% is harder to pay for people of lower income than of higher income. The exceptions are only when the lower-income person has handled his money very well, and the higher income person is a moron. That's it. It isn't only that you're flatly mistaken; you're being preposterous. They are rewared for it. The income is its own reward. Or perhaps you think there should be a "rich tax," taken from the rest of us and given as a bonus to the rich, to reward them for their success. (I shouldn't give you any ideas, I know.) Now you're making an entirely different argument, for....reasons unstated. In our hypothetical scenario (based on a poster's real-life experience) both the low-income and the high-income earner pay the same tax rate. And you, incredibly, think it's a greater burden for the fellow with ten times the income.

Sure, but I was arguing a different point. The idea that the protesters (and so by implication not everyone else) "thinks" that they "own the English language." No doubt it was a throwaway remark, but he justified it after I responded to it, so...there it is. "Political rhetoric"? As opposed to what? The responses we're reading to the protesters...they aren't "political rhetoric"? Just a judicious and sober assessment of objective reality?

I picked a bit at random, only because quoting whole posts, especially long ones, is a no-no. I agree completely. An excellent post.

Prerequisite technologies do not blossom into being at the "right" time. It takes money and effort to discoiver the requisite technologies. ??

Please. People "change definitions" of words to suit them (or, less sinisiter, by accident) all the time. Every time you get in an argument with somebody, it is happening to a degree. Every time a politician or a marketing campaign offers deceptions, distortions, or even arguable premises and definitions, it's occurring. Hell, you just stated that the protesters "think" they "own the English language," which is itself rhetorically altering meanings (at least probably) to suit your own ends. I understand people are mad at the protesters, hence their overblown outrage and sanctimony which is one of the more fascinating side-effects of the situation (if entirely predictable, and pointed to some degree or another on all dissent, peaceful or otherwise, with exactly zero exceptions). But the critiques are starting to reek of desperation.

First of all, human beings are "natural factors," and your formulation that sets us magically apart, as determined by the Bible, ultimately, is itself massive hubris. Second, it's no more hubristic then my wild theories about human beings flying in the air in incredibly heavy machines, landing robots on Mars, and keeping oruselves alive through medical technology and ever-expanding biological knowledge. Arrogant of me, i know, but I honestly think these are objectively real things.

Yes, and the moon landing isn';t the greatest analogy...but I was addressing the analogy already present. As it stands, I completely agree that it was not possible in 1900. but you said it had to be 1969. that's far too precise. If, for political or financial reasons, it had occurred in 1972...your argument then must be (according to the way you set it out earlier, and so declaratively) that it could not have occurred until 1972. Even though, in an alternate reality (ie the one we're currently inhabiting) it occurred three years earlier. Now, there's a slight caricature of a Taoist sensibility, in which we can claim that things are as they must be, by definition that they are as they are...but I disagree with that, and I don't think it's where you're going with this.

That doesn't clarify it for me. If I misunderstood your remark...well, I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of it being my own fault, but in this case I actually think it was yours, and am asking only for clarificaiton. That is: how does the use of the term "direct democracy," used contentiously or not (hell, used correctly or not), denote or even imply that the students believe they "own the language"? What does this mean?

Nicely said.

But you haven't offered any evidence of your larger claim: that hindsight affords us a perspective that there is such a thing as temporal inevitablity. The moon landing could not have happned prior to 1969, for example. This is actually something akin to fate that you're proposing here.

It's potentially lethal to give the first shot of a hepatitus vaccine, and then to forego the second. It can make them sick. The risk itself makes it very wrong, regardless of the consequences. (You keep saying unethical: it's illegal, too, presumably virtually everywhere.) Why he couldn't use a placebo is beyond me. It still stinks--he'd still deserve to be in trouble--but what the hell???? Yes, i have no doubt he was given money, which of course makes him a slimy litle mercenary. And of course, the US is culpable, too. Obviously. Well in this particular case, it would appear that a certain criminal organization--the United States of America--broguht it upon themselves. Targeting children and so on. No, clearly Pakistani is not trustworthy, and plainly the US is not trustworthy. Further, there is no such thing as a "war on terror," which is preposterous at its inception. (The US, like most of its major allies, including Canada, are themselves full--fledged supporters of terrorism...so how can they be prosecuting a "war" against it?) Consider the contradictory aspects of this; it doesn't even make sense.

It's a much overused and overwrought word, but in essence it derives from the philosophy of American political scientist and philosophical theorist Leo Strauss (he said he wasn't quite a "philosopher," so I take him at his word). Strauss was a Platonic scholar, but was deeply interested in the machinations of contemporary political power. He believed, among other things, that the "wise" leaders must engage in lies; the Straussians, you see, are essentially nihilists...but they don't believe the public can handle the harsh glare of the abyss. Not like themselves, who are tough and wise. So we should all be religious, patrioitc, work hard, raise our children, and cheer on the numerous wars that they are lying to us about. That's not my analysis, by the way. That's Strauss, father of the neocons. I'd find another label, if I were you.....

Yes, but we're talking about our definitions of Canadians, here, on MLW. It's a nebulous issue, conflicting and weird...and legal matters are the only clear answer. I'm not saying they're the only answer; I'm saying it's the only one that is (almost!!!) universally agreed upon.

OK, but the percentage matters more. $6 000 from $30 000 is more profound than $60 000 from $300 000. The former gets hurt more, so that's the direction in which rational sympathy would move.

That's it.

What in the world are you talking about? You disagree with their self-assessment of "direct democracy"...so that means the...well, what you mean is the French--are assuming "ownership" of the language? Seriously?

No, the problems started--by definition--because of the invasion in the first palce.

Yes, it was; a fake vaccination campaign among people who are already suspicious of Western vaccination programs (and plainly they have real reason to be suspicious); and further, since the vaccine was genuine, but only of a single dose, it actually increases the risk of the children getting sick. Here in Canada and the US, we call that homicidal negligence...if not attempted murder. But since it was in an attempt to find a terrorist, intentionally harming children is super awesome. (so much for "collateral damage"...we're talking here about intent. We might stop playing at being Innocent Good Guys someday--but probably not anytime soon. I don't know. Not to my knowledge, but maybe part of it. It's not relevant to my point, however.

Well, no, because what he also did was to pretend a vaccination program, in which he gave children the first shot...but not the crucial followup shots. Entirely illegal in Pakistan...as it is here. That's your "hero."

Get with the program. We're not talking about the ruling Party, we're talking about the potential ruling Party. Much more important to know the personal financial details.

Pedantic, really.

No question, but you'll never get anyone to agree on anything besides the legal classification. Which is why it's the only substantive (uncontroversially substantive) quality yet named.

Hmmmmm...... Nope. Incompetence. Not PM material. Case closed.