bleeding heart

What was it about their reporting on this that makes the CBC "cultural relativist propaganda"? I was only illustrating that avowed atheists can and do hold irrational beliefs. Deeply held, cherished beliefs, not clearly guided by reason. And that some of them--notably Hitchens--displayed, in my view, a fanaticism and a newfound nationalistic fervor that seems to me very much akin to religious belief. OK, look at it this way: the world is chock-full of the religious faithful, and most of us atheists are, thanks to close associations, perfectly aware that religious people can be, and are, rational people. I'm not offering an opinion; I'm informing you of an objective fact. No, you are making a claim based on a bizarre premise that human motivation and emotion are simple, black and white (well, at least as long as the subject is religious). Because history, culture, associations and psychology are a tapestry that precipitate behavior. It makes zero difference if a person himself claims religion as the sole motivating factor. Hell, the religions themselves are a complex product of history, culture, wisdom, psychosis, morality, and so on. Yes, I understand the difference as it exists within your faulty premise. That is, I understand exacty what you are saying. But I reject it outright. As I said, very clearly, I think it is ALL "motivated by multiple sources." And you've finished with an odd response; because of course it's not that you have to agree with me, but you're replying as if I hadn't already addressed precisely the point you're making. It's as if I didn't say anything on the subject, as you ask me if I "really don't understand" a matter I explicitly addressed and refuted. Did you not read my post to which you responded????

Of course, that was completely clear. I agree with you: rude is rude.

the only problem with Little mosque is that it was pretty vapid comedy. But it was in the tradition of light comedies which are the mainstay of that television genre. The number of tv comedies that have "discuss[ed} the true nature" of ANYthing, or actively sought to engage in real issues, died in the '70s after ALL in the Family, or when Maude chose to have an abortion. (I'm speaking in context of mainstream, prime time family sitcoms here...exceptions can be made for the Simpsons, Seinfeld, and a few of their offshoots.) As to the CBC being "cultural relativist propaganda"...I think you'll have to more specific. It is an utterly usual, Establishment organ. So was support for the Iraq War (in which your mentioned Hitchens, among others, displayed their own variety of religious faith: faith in the benign motives of the State, with only the entire history of Nation-states to potentially disabuse them of the madness of Commissar-ship). But, like most religious people, the war advocates tended to remain rational in most other spheres, or at least the argument could be made. Don't you personally know, maybe even love, a religious person or two in your own life? Do you not feel that they are at least mostly rational? But my argument, explicitly, was that there are no "pure" motives, religious or otherwise. Palestinian suicide bombers are "motivated by religion," but also (uncontroversially, or so I thought) by cultural factors, historical matters, political arguments, and doubtless some psychological matters that are tied up in all of these. Right. A complex confluence of factors and motives, like everybody else.

How so? Do you mean that your personal anecdote is true...and so therefore Cybercoma's (not to mention my own) must be false? Because it's NB, I've been around French people (up to and including a former marriage) my entire life. It's just the way things are here. My French is extremely poor. And I've never witnessed this "issue." And I'm certainly not implying it doesn't happen. Of course it does...as does the reverse. But it's not about the iniquity of the French.

Well said. The original list is missing at least four or five categories...just that would enable it to fall into the "general" or "for the sake of discussion" realm. The list itself implies some of the fanaticism that has made this debate so difficult.

I didn't say, nor imply, that you "changed your list." Speaking of inserting one's prejudices into what others write. It is not "fair." It is ideologically driven. And that's exactly why you've taken up this particular debate...because you had thought conservatives more inclined to skepticism on the matter...when in fact any difference is quite negligible. As for "push polls"....if a question was put to me that was prefaced this way: "As you may have heard, it is thought that aliens have visited Earth," I would not stand there slack-jawed, say "Really? 'It is thought' so? OK, then let's assume the validity of the premise." That is, the statement is uncontroversially true...but that doesn't mean I would buy into the premise behind it....unless I already agreed with it. Now, perhaps you think I'm incredibly smart and insightful compared to most people,, but I have some reason to doubt this. You, however, believe that American conservatives are just that malleable, that prone to agreeing with any premise put to them...which hardly constitutes any sort of "sceptic" mindset. So the far more likely scenario is that they ALREADY felt inclined this way, and answered the poll question accordingly. Because the question about whether the government should intervene to limit industry emissions was put exactly in that manner: So that sort of crushes your "push poll" thesis. Well, no, by definition you have not engaged honestly in this discussion.

Somewhat better than your preposterous list, however. And no...not only is your list not a "fair representation"....I see now that you know it is not fair, but don't give a rat's behind, and are completely unwilling to honestly discuss this topic. Too bad.

Yes, I took it that way, too.

Exactly my point.

Why? What makes Breivik's motives more complex?

Further, as g-bambino pointed out elsewhere, reporters constantly--daily!--report matters using words like "a source close to the Minister said," or "an inside, anonymous source has stated....." I can't see a substantive difference.

I have now heard that question put to two different poly-sci scholars who specialize in Canadian electoral politics...and both of them say that it's basically "an oversight." Pretty amazing, I thought.

Jeez. You only said this to me once, but you offer it to bambino twice in as many posts? I've been snubbed.

The Palestinians want "Western death," and this is what drives them? You must really despise those Israeli appeaser-losers, then.

Two points: First of all, your thesis is that conservatives are extremely malleable...pig-ignorant, in fact. This entity called "the Left" is forever fooling them with their sly polls. I strongly disagree with this sentiment...and find the difference in our respective stances on this matter mildly interesting. Second--Waldo already made the point, but I think it deserves underlining: nowhere in your extremely narrow list do you allow for any rational sincerity among those with whom you disagree: they're either part of your "anti-corporate" conspiracy theory (including, don't forget, the majority of American conservatives...and I'd wager Canadian ones, too)...or else they've got some sort of apocalypse fetish (which begs the question of why they wouldn't keep their mouths shut on the matter, thereby decreasing the odds of anything being done to ameliorate their fantasy End-times). I understand this is difficult to swallow...but not every motive is either sinister or bespeaks of suicidal fantasies. I presume you don't quite get how such theorizing appears to most people. Also, you seem unable to conceive that some in the sceptic community might have motives less benign than Truth, Science, and Practicality.

It didn't actually happen. It's a satiric news article.

There are more sober sources than these. My personal favourite is Camille Paglia, taking a break from blaming rape victims and fetishizing Madonna: Well, damn, she's right! I totally forgot that polar bears can swim! Scientists should be ashamed at this egregious oversight.

Nice.

Could be. Or it could be that a majority of Americans do not necessarily buy the self-described sceptic view. Either way, it doesn't change the objective facts of the case. But it does mean that maybe the sceptics can drop their "the Left!" mantra, as cherished a boogeyman as that is.

That is not so clearly the case. Like any multiple question poll (on any subject, without exception) there are no doubt questions to be raised, potential problems that need examining, etc. I include the link below with the polling "fact sheet." but of course, this is quite beside the point I made....that the debate is being framed, more often than not, as an issue of "liberal vs. conservative." And yet, outside the realm of politicians themselves (in which the distinction is somewhat more stark), there is a broad public consensus. Even if the poll methodology is suspect, a qualified assessment would doubtless show less of a disparity between liberal-minded and conservative-minded as many people might think. And it also raises questions as to why self-described sceptics have so often phrased the (far smaller, it turns out) debate as between the "liberal hoax" and "liberal alarmists" vs the more "skeptical" conservatives among the public. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=page/stanford-university-state-level-climate-polling-data

Easy, but still a nice catch.

Even if I agreed with your sour view, I should point out that I voted for the party that isn't in power. Perhaps the NDP might have matched their better-than-average record elsewhere. You'll have to ask your Conservative brethren why they keep voting in incompetents. But maybe it's a moot point. Equalization is not quite what you think; and nothing is set in stone. If it weren't for the Maritimes, there wouldn't be a Canada in the first place; and sometime in future, fortunes could change, and the have provinces could become the have-nots.

That is better, thanks.

Ok, then, easier. Doesn't change the point one bit.

Not by your formulation, in which the "welfare payments" make it "easy" to balance budgets. Neither the current Conservative nor the previous Liberal governments have managed it. Maybe only an NDP government could pull off something so "easy" here in NB!