bleeding heart

This underlines the point I just made, so thanks.

Speculation about others' possible personal anecdotes doesn't sound altogether convincing. Or maybe there's something about the language of French that simply makes people behave abominably....an odd theory, and one that I've never experienced growing up in the only officially bilingual region in North America......

You mean like Conservative New Brunswick? Because you only mention it with NDP-led provinces, for...some reason.

Well, sure...no one is principled except for the Rob Ford supporters. You know, like those who applaud his Hang-'em-High rhetoric against....drug users! And then wonder why he isn't received more sympathetically.

Sure. And according to this study, clear majorities believe that human activity is a chief cause. I hasten to point out that, in and of itself, majority opinion does not prove a case. (As an atheist, such a belief would put me in an odd position, wouldn't it?) I'm only suggesting, as I said, that the very parameters of the debate have been somewhat misread. I think part of the sceptics' argument (and no, by no means all of it) is that human-caused climate change is by and large a lefty belief system, and that the "sensible" conservative majority has been more cautious about such views...and that conservative politicians have had their hand on the pulse of this skepticism. It would appear that this is not the case, at all. Scepticism, right or wrong, is an elite view. It matters because the parameters have been drawn...and so they have been drawn for a reason. I presume in this case it's a matter of using populism as an "authority." But this study strongly suggests that this has been a false delineation of how people think. And we can't have an honest and reasoned debate as long as people are using false parameters as part of their argument.

This is extremely close to stating that he isn't responsible for his own behavior...that all is the fault of the "hyenas" who are unfairly attacking him.

Yes, it appears we have. I don't claim he was insane, certainly not in the legal sense of the term. I'm claiming that there are multiple complex motivations for people's behavior, even when they claim a single motivation (which people tend to do generally). Not an especially radical view, I shouldn't think.

It appears that Red state politicians--Barton, Inhofe, et al--are way out of touch with the thoughts of their constituents on this matter. The idea of "climate change denial"--or even "climate change skepticism"--in the US, particularly in the "Red States," seems to be way off base, according to a Stanford University study. The political class, at least in some states, might be derisive--even calling the very idea of climate change a "hoax" in some cases. But the population seems to feel quite differently....A clear majority of conservatives, of Republican voters, even think the government should step in to actively "limit greenhouse gas emissions produced by industry." Apparently, the contentious debates in which this is seen largely as a "leftwing issue" are flatly, patently mistaken. The very parameters drawn around the discussion have been false. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/13/climate-change-red-state-opinion-america-study

Don't you mean S. Joseph Harper?

Agreed. We can see, too, the contradictions inherent to such justifications. The truth is that it is inherent in human beings to act in such ways, given certain circumstances. We can no more become murderous in a vacuum than we can suddenly sprout wings. There is a whole confluence of psychological, historical, cultural reasons that are the complex genesis of behavior. Anders Breivik did not murder all those people because of the threat of Islam and his view of leftist appeasement of it. His (no doubt genuine) fears and concerns had to act in concert with his psychology, cultural norms of which he was not obviously reflective, and other matters. As they say, 90% of what you do and believe happens in your absence.

Right...an individual case of rudeness. Not quite a large-scale social issue underlining the iniquities of the French.

Yes....and while the "they make a choice" argument has real teeth, I will believe it only if these folks start demanding that welfare or Employment Insurance cheques might fall under a similar philosophy....but I imagine the response would be close to the opposite one.

I didn't watch it, because I remember it perfectly well from seeing it years ago. I also remember Lewis remarking that he was "the wrong person" to conduct this interview. The point being that an awful lot of people who did not grow up "in freedom" would obviously dispute Hirsi Ali, and without being the subject of the rhetoric: "you spit on freedom, because you don't know..." etc.... That is, a lot of people who grew up under oppression might ask Hirsi about her position with the American Enterprise Institute....whose primary goal is the enlargement of American Empire through violently military means. (The Iraq War catastrophe was one of their pet projects, as I remember.) That is, the implied notion that those who do not come "from freedom" would side with Ali is pretty dubious. Ali's version of the world is aligned quite strongly with that of Western foreign policy hawks. In fact, Lewis's worldview is more aligned with the global norms of opinion on most matters of policy. To be fair, however, Lewis' apparent dismissal of American domestic freedoms was offside, in my view.

I agree completely. I don't think conservative or liberal ideology is at the core of the bad behavior caused internationally by self-described liberal or conservative governments. Similarly, I don't think progressive racism is caused by some ideological rot at the core of progressive ideology. I think progressive racism, when it appears, is a betrayal of stated progressive ideology. In other words, progressive racism inhabits precisely the same moral place as does liberal or conservative culpability in terror or murder or what have you. In fact, the latter two, thanks to their greater political power, has actually been far worse. You have been decrying the notion of assigning blame to "conservative or liberal ideology" for the evils they commit...while assuming that progressive racism is at the core of progressivism. In terms of this discussion, you wish to have and eat the cake, in other words. Then I misunderstood you....but it begs the question of what we have been disputing. Both myself and Michael Hardner have taken it as a given, right from the start, that such a thing as progressive racism exists. There has been no dispute over that. The dispute, or so I thought, has been over how all-encompassing it is or is not...and how much racism is part of the core of the progressive movement. (It is not part of the core, has been my argument.)

And none of this even begins to answer the claim for which I asked for evidence: That is a declarative sentence (meaning it's reasonable for us to ask if it is true); and "almost every news article" denotes a majority of news articles...and connotes an overwhelming majority of them. It's a preposterous claim....and for some reason you wish to defend it. The wiki article doesn't even touch on it...what would touch on it would be a sampling (a completely random sampling) of, oh, let's say 50 articles....and we'll see if more than, let's say 70% of them "inject pro-Liberal or anti-Conservative opinions." But I'll settle for 50%, being a generous-minded fellow.

Just so. The "liberal" (or even, we often hear, "leftist") media theme is such a cherished belief, that things like what you've posted here are ignored...or seen as slight irritants to "common sense," so best not discussed.

Then you can no demonstrate this.

I am a Canadian. And I disagree.

Yeah, I don't agree. We're probably more alike than many neighbouring countries....certainly we're more alike than those that were just mentioned.

Well, this is the same argument that liberal religionists tend to use against their conservative (or perhaps I mean "literalist") counterparts. But all we've got here is two self-described Christians who don't see their religion the same way. Why do you consider one type (ie the type you don't particularly like) as "legitimate"? Who's to say?

True. And he's just getting started. I don't think we've heard the last Trudeau-gaffe.

It seems to me it was nothing more than a rhetorically-clumsy attempt to make a dig at Harper. Hey, I disrespect Trudeau as much as the next guy, but I think this "issue" is way overblown. It was a gaffe...and a mere gaffe.

You're right, and for the same reasons you're right in your argument generally. IF Greenpeace's opposition is a genuine "crime against humanity," then I think the term can be used with incredible promiscuity for an incredible number of contentious issues. I daresay few organizations would be free of the allegation. And to clarify, I have no substantive rhetorical horse in this debate. I'm inclined to think Greenpeace mistaken, in fact, but would have to look into it to declare it (or refute it) with confidence. But it's pretty plainly not a "crime against humanity" kind of issue. That term should be reserved for the clear-cut cases of unequivocally-intentional horrors.

Oh, I couldn't agree more.

I'm not convinced by the argument, but I am aware it sounds benign (and begs the question of contradiction) when compared to the National Security Surveillance State, which so many of those troubled by tyranny seem eager to defend.