bleeding heart

Just incidentally, there has been a lot of talk about auto insurance here in NB lately. It appears Nb-ers are being gouged, by rates that don't accurately reflect industry standards. No one's noticed till now, because our rates are among the lowest in the country. But before you think this is a contradiction, it's not: we have cheaper cars than the national average, lower accident rates, lower payouts for damages and accidents, and smaller (and fewer) lawsuits. So the companies are indeed overcharging us, relative to the rest of the country--relative to their own standards--even though our rates are cheaper than most. I bring it up only to say that that Boges reminded me: insurance companies are comprised of monumental a-holes. So no, you cannot trust them.

If you read what I just wrote, a couple of posts up, about Harper re this issue, you obviously wouldn't be saying what you're saying.

It's a silly argument, and those indulging in it know it is a silly argument.

No, not necessarily; as I said, I'd like to take a look at the link you've provided, in case there is evidence of which I haven't heard. For some reason, you don't wish to repost that link. I went to find it, and could not. This is pretty rich, coming from someone who refuses to engage in specifics. But ok, the evidence I've heard is this: "I feel God." "God speaks to me, not in normal language, but in conscience and intuition." "I prayed, and my prayers came true." "I prayed, didn't get what I wanted, but got what I needed." The "demonstrable truth" of Biblical prophecy. "With so many people who believe, the odds that God doesn't exist seems unlikely." And, of course, the (thoroughly discredited) "scientific proof" as offered via theories of Intelligent Design, including by--gasp!--some real scientists! And, well, that's the stuff I've heard--and I grew up Christian, so it's not as if I've never spent any time among the believers. And all of that ranges somewhere from piss-poor to nothing, as far as evidence goes. Now, if I'm missing some better evidence, I'm asking now for the third or fourth time if you might direct me to it?

http://buffalobeast.com/the-50-most-loathsome-americans/

That is indeed the claim made by a former high-ranking member of Canada's spy service. Given the source, the claim carries close to zero worth and zero information. (That's not to say it couldn't be true...only that the claim itself is close to worthless, especially since the denials of such activity are a given, automatic, no matter the facts.) But if that's so, then the onus is on Canada to demonstrate this...on the basic democratic principle that the onus is on authorities to justify their behavior, rather than the other way round. By this logic, and it is in fact plainly implied by what you say, industrial espionage does not exist. And anyway, what makes you think that such spying, if true, is about industrial techniques? I haven't heard anyone suggest this. It could be about potential opportunities, costs, plans...things that matter in the competitive business world. Despite what some people think, it isn't as if a food company would spy on Coca Cola to steal their recipe. That's just silly. There are other reasons.

I'm a little more ambivalent on that particular point. Yes, of course, perceived wrongdoing by the Federal Government of Canada can ultimately be laid, at least more or less, at the PM's feet. But it's not something peculiar to his character; rather, it's an (international) institutional matter. As we see, there are both liberal and conservative governments involved in this, and both liberal and conservative sycophants (in the public, but most notably in the media) who support and defend it. That's not to let Harper off the hook; only to suggest this isn't specifically one of those "Harperisms" that get his opponents riled up.

And the distinction is implies; and, in another response I made to you recently, in this thread, I made it explicit that there was a distinction. But you miss the point. The point is that we understand there are distinctions between good and bad evidence in every realm, from the legal to the scientific and beyond. And you still refuse to buttress your argument with a single example. I AM aware of the evidence people claim...and its bloody awful. I asked for your link (which you still refuse to repost) in the vain hopes that might be offering something new to what I've already heard about.

Nope, it's just not the Canadian way.

Which has been my point. The evidence for the existence of God is the sort of evidence that would be thrown out of court (or more likely be insufficient to make it there in the first place); or would be the opposite of scientific standards of evidence; or would be laughed out of the room were the inhabitants mostly rational.

Spying, energy/oil concerns...what a shocker. (No, no, it's always and only about terrorism and security! No doubt our PM will indulge in this same sort of adolescent, laughable drivel as the British and Americans have been trying to pass off as sober explanation.) The Brazilian authorities are expressing anger that the Canadian Government has so far refused to offer any explanation at all. Greenwald, who was questioned about Canada's behavior in the Senate there, says there are a lot more documents about Canada's role in recent spying scandals. http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV%20Shows/The%20National/ID/2411428440/

Because of the super scaaarrrry "domino theory." Oh, and because they were degenerate morons, of course.

But surely anything claimed as evidence is not automatically good evidence? Just so. So I went through the entire thread, and I failed to discover this link. Might you post it again, so I can get started?

No one said it was ok. But then....you already knew that.

If you would generously break your vow of silence on the matter, and offer up some examples of "good evidence" for the existence of God, we could move out of these generalities and tackle the specifics. So far, you've declined to do so. Why not educate us, for the sake of discussion? ?? After so often castigating me for offering "opinion stated as fact," you're going to go there?

I'm immune to the weak discharge of overly-defensive patriotism.

I didn't bring up that someone might make "an ignorant comparison to Canada, how 'nothing like this could ever, ever happen in Canada!"

Well, it doesn't appear that anyone's making such a comparison, ignorant or otherwise, so the point's moot.

No, my ilk has not been a major part of influencing the various ways in which evidence is measured: legal, scientific, and philosophical. All of which have some distinctions; and all of which recognize strong versus weak evidence. In fact, I think everybody does except for you. The infamous (and infamously bad) "Bigfoot" video that everybody's seen? That's bad evidence. Ironically, the way you've phrased this sentence is contradictory....but concludes that YOUR assertion about my opinion is "not a fact." And I agree.

I didn't know quite what this was. It's good to see she's educated in the ancient languages. I can't quite imagine it; but I can imagine a small but vigilant group on this board who would be quite eager to point out that Canada....well, whatever.

Well, I think everyone understands that there exists such a thing as bad evidence...the evidence for God, for example, is monumentally weak. As shorthand, when people ask for or talk about "evidence," they usually mean the good kind.

In case anyone has unaccountably forgotten that Ms. Bachmann is a lunatic with political power and, weirdly, adherents and defenders, she offered us this nugget; first of all, that President Obama is responsible for helping to usher in Armageddon...and second of all, that while this might anger up her right-wing blood, on the other hand it's a real Christiany-might-as-well-rejoice type of scenario. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/13/fringe-factor-michele-bachmann-on-obama-s-end-times-foreign-policy.html

I have seen it, and liked it. The difference, I think, is that (arguably) Cabin in the Woods decides to fall more into the horror genre than the comedy one...in that the resolution is not "comic" in the usual sense. (ie the victims don't "win," as is in Bloody Acres, Zombieland, shaun of the Dead, etc.) So it's maybe more nihilistic. But I don't mean that as a criticism.

It's true that there are sectors of the political Left who are so austere and unforgiving that they have forgotten certain obvious lessons. (Let's start with Lenin, and then abandon his ugliness forever.) Section 13 of the HRC here in Canada is an obvious example...though, fortunately, it appears that Section 13 is possibly on the chopping block, so we'll see what happens. And we've all seen lefties who apparently want speech they don't like...well, not just shut down, but avoided altogether. That's silly. Let Ann Coulter speak. Let her acolytes--reactionary morons, to a person, but that's their full-blooded right--have their fun. But aside from some outliers and a few college students for whom oppositional progressive activism is still a novel and exciting concept (rather than serious hard work, which needs to make concessions to decent folks who might disagree), I'm not quite seeing Argus's broad-based complaint as anything large-scale. Aside from what I've already mentioned (and the HRC's have gone after lefties as much as after anyone else, as even right-wing crower Mark Steyn has documented)...who is this "Left"? Is it the "anti-sex feminists"? But there are hotly debating and competing feminist voices, with none of the platoons taking full control...up to and including their views on pornography. And even those who hate it wholesale don't generally call for any censorship intervention. Is it the NDP? Certainly they, like every organization with more than four people, doubtless has its authoritarian strains to it. But this doesn't set them apart as "left;; it makes them mainstream. It makes them like the Liberals and the Conservatives. (If anything, Salman Rushdie quipped that they were THE single party--in Canada, the United States, and Britain--who wholeheartedly and unequivocally stood behind him in full support when the murderous fatwah was first issued.) Is it "lefty professors"? In what way are they, as a group, impugning or fighting free speech? Hell, they're too busy trying to gain PARITY with the nexus of corporate and political hawkish voices from within and without the university to be bothered restricting anyone. So the usual leftwing voices of "shut yer face" aside--a small number indeed--who exactly are we talking about here?