Hugo

If what the West stands for is the respect for and preservation of human life and dignity, the protection of innocents, and preservation of individual freedoms, then yes, the West is the "Moral God" and I would be happy if it forced its will on inferior cultures. So would they, once they had experienced it. Afghan women certainly want a dose of Western culture. Do you know any? I do. I also know several Iraqi and Iranian dissidents. They all wish that Western ethics and a little Western culture would supercede their own. The reason for the next 9/11 will be people who don't subscribe to the above morals and believe that killing the innocent is just dandy. The blame will rest with them, and also with you, and all the others who are determined that murder go unpunished and cultures of hatred and death be encouraged.

I don't. I speak for you. 72 posts on this forum and all of them absolute garbage. Stop wasting bandwidth.

I honestly believe that's the only book you've actually read. It's the only one you'll cite. Now, please prove to me that you not only read it but actually understood it, and tell me in your own words why capitalism is unethical.

This is just the kind of nonsense KrustyKidd was talking about. People here are pretty smart, for the most part, and while far-fetched and sweeping statements without fact or evidence might make you look clever in front of the nitwit socialists in your school, you are just embarrassing yourself on this forum. Just look at this last statement. You say the US has not been a democracy in years, and then say that it is ruled by representative mob rule. Those two statements are contradictory. You also cannot have mob rule in a plutocracy. You may be right that many American politicians are rich but you fail to explain what the ramifications of that might be and how it endangers democracy. Now, stop this immaturity. Join the grown-ups and debate properly or get out.

You can only form a string when there's a connection. Oh, and by the way, to say that America removed a democratic leader and replaced him with a dictator is being a little stingy with the truth. At the height of the Cold War, when America believed (not without justification) that the Communists were out to rule the world, America removed a democratically elected Communist leader and replaced him with a dictator more receptive to their views. Thus, they opined, the cancer of Communism could be arrested, at least in one country. It was a hard choice, but so is amputating a gangrenous limb. Democracy was endangered, but democracy would have been even more endangered had the Communists won the Cold War. I hardly think that the US government was just itching for the chance to install a dictator so that some innocent Chileans could get shot, and you don't either, so don't pretend you do. Do you have any arguments that aren't fabrications and half-truths?

People are still bandying moral relativism about as though it meant something worthwhile. The basic premise is that different cultures have different values, and just because another culture is different does not make it inferior. I've heard this theory rear it's ugly head again recently, and clearly it needs euthanising. Some examples of the wonder of moral relativism: Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civilisations sacrificed tens of thousands of innocent people, yearly, to their gods. It was just a religious thing, purely cultural - to be lain on a stone slab, and have the thoracic cavity opened and the still-beating heart cut out. But for us to criticise that, just illustrates the differences between our cultures and the fact that we don't understand the religious belief behind human sacrifice. Feudal cultures believe in the right of royalty and nobility to appropriate material wealth, goods, livestock and even women from those of lesser social station. We'd call this "stealing" and look at it as the more powerful abusing their power to take from the less powerful. But that just illustrates how "stealing" is just a cultural concept anyway. Nazi German "culture" was extremely anti-Semitic. They had some odd social, philosophical and scientific ideas about why Jews needed to be oppressed and murdered for the greater good, and they certainly didn't mind acting upon them. Of course, we condemn the Holocaust, but that just illustrates that we don't understand the deep-seated Nazi prejudice against the Jew and his genuinely held convictions about the nature of the Jewish people. In many parts of Africa, female circumcision still goes on. For those who don't know what this is, it's basically when the tribal elders take a pre-teen girl, hold her down and mutilate her genitalia, which will make sex and often even urination very painful for her later in life. We would call it a terrible crime for someone to restrain an unwilling girl and mutilate her genitals, but it's just part of their culture. It's a rite of passage. Also in many parts of Africa, it's a religious belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. To this end, many HIV-positive men have been abducting and raping small children, infants and babies, often so young that the actual act of intercourse causes irreparable physical damage or death. But it's part of their culture. They are acting on a genuinely held religious conviction. Moral relativism appears to be a great outlook at face value. It preaches tolerance and understanding of all. However, that quickly turns ugly when you realise that to tolerate and seek to understand all means that you must tolerate and understand murderers, rapists, thieves and perpetrators of the darkest acts known to man. To embrace moral relativism is to say that you have no morals and no ethics, because you accept that every act or thought conceivable is fine by you as long as it forms part of somebody's culture - and as culture is so hard to define, it basically means that you have absolutely no standards and no morals. I say that it's wrong to deliberately take an innocent life (for instance). This is an absolute and I don't see how exceptions can be made. My culture believes in this. Any culture that does not, is inferior to mine. I will stand by that.

THE TERRORIST ATTACKS AMERICA IS SUFFERING HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PANAMA OR CHILE. What are you having such difficulty understanding about that?

Much that is evil has been done in the name of religion, but much has not. Since we entered the secular age, the wars, massacres and death tolls have made those of the religious ages puny by comparison. The Crusades were nothing compared to World War II. Medieval pogroms were nothing compared to the Holocaust. The campaigns of Mohammed and his descendants, who waged war in the name of Allah, were nothing to the campaigns of Hitler, a secular humanist. The problem is not religion. The Big Three monotheistic religions are all descended from the same root, and that root has the same message - peace and brotherhood to those who do not wish you harm. The problem has been those religious leaders and organisations that twist the words of their religion around in the interests in worldly power. Leaders like that have actually turned their backs upon religion. This is the problem with Islam, for instance, as Mohammed was such a leader. Religion does not kill people. People kill people. They may kill in the name of religion, but they also kill in the name of peace, for the good of humanity, and so on. That does not make it so. People kill, but they also lie, to others and to themselves.

I think it is you who is ignorant here. The terrorist attacks on America have absolutely nothing to do with Panama or Chile. This is what Ned is trying (in vain, I suspect) to pound into your skulls. America isn't suffering terrorist attack because it failed to contribute enough money to the outside world, or because it sent troops into Panama, backed South Vietnam or Chiang Kai-shek, or because it didn't send enough food when people were starving in Bangladesh. If those were the actual criteria for terrorist attack, Russia would have been suicide-bombed back to the stone age for all the meddling and backing of tyrants the Communists indulged in. All G7 countries have cut their foreign aid contributions recently, why are terrorists not attacking them?

To be honest, it's fast becoming a non-issue anyway. The numbers of gays actually marrying since it was legalised has been pathetic, and it includes Americans and Canadians from other provinces who went to Ontario to tie the knot. My point stands. Homosexuals are ridiculously promiscuous, as a rule, and have as much use for commitment and monogamy as a fish has for a bicycle. This is why they aren't rushing to marry. That being said, sure, let gays marry. Let fish ride bicycles. Apparently, neither will make a scrap of difference to the realities of life.

Just a sidenote. The Alliance has the largest membership numbers of any federal party. The Alliance has the largest amount of funding from private contributions of any federal party. Does that not tell you more than any poll?

Bearing in mind that so many people on this forum have a really serious problem with US/Coalition involvement in Iraq, what do they think should have been done to address the Iraqi problem? Please bear in mind the following: 1) Iraq failed to comply with 14 UN resolutions that all stipulated that force would be used if compliance was not forthcoming peaceably. 2) According to Global Business Network, on each average day in Saddam's Iraq between 70 and 125 innocent Iraqis were put to death. When Gulf II began, that number fell to 38 per day (and that's using the highly suspect and doubtless inflated figures from the Iraqi (mis)information Ministry). So basically, war improved Iraqi life expectancies - that's how bad they had it. 3) While no WMD have yet been found, the fact remains that for 12 years Saddam suffered great economic hardships that resulted from his failure to fully disclose and disarm - and continued to do so. What, apart from madness, is the explanation for this? 4) Weapons inspections and UN embargoes had been ongoing for 12 years, and yet Iraqi people were still being tortured and killed at the same pace, and the threat of Iraqi WMD could never be laid to rest. It's my opinion that the left has thought of nothing constructive, and is instead concerned purely with complaining about US policies. So I say, if you have a better plan I'd like to hear it.

Why? Justify yourself.

Sweeping statements and hysterical and totally unjustified viewpoints. You are some "debater", I must say.

The religion of Islam is founded on a flawed premise and the lies told by Mohammed to the Arab people. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to read up on your history and study the origins of Islam more closely.

It creates a welfare trap. When people are getting minimum wage from the government for doing nothing, it removes any incentive to go get a job for minimum wage. The tax system just needs to be pared back at all levels. You cannot tax the hell out of the rich because their investment drives the economy, and they can afford to move elsewhere. All you do is drive the capital out of your economy and strangle it. Similarly, you can't tax the hell out of the poor or middle-income people because it just isn't fair. That's right. I'd leave George W Bush alone with my kids for an hour, but I wouldn't buy a used car from Bill Clinton. Yeah, and assuming all this were true, why would Gore not fight it and instead just roll over and concede the election? And why are the rest of the Democrats not crying 'foul'? If the election was rigged, he managed to fool everyone, including his worst enemies. Not bad for a moron. You can. Just don't pretend that American women have it even a fraction as bad as Afghan women. But I'm not the one moaning about those whose ass is in the line of fire. I respect them and I'm glad they are there. You, however, live in the comfort of big corporations even as you decry them. Hence my allegation that you are a hypocrite. This is typical, is it? Or is it a strawman? I hazard it's the latter. One last thing from me, too. Would you rather be living in America, Afghanistan or China?

Government should be a tool of the people. Like any tool it can be used for good or evil, wisely or foolishly. When the policies of the government lean towards endorsement of practices that harm the people, I would say that the tool is being used foolishly. The market cannot remain completely free. Just as personal freedom should be limited in regards to the causing of harm to others, so the free market must be limited similarly. Adam Smith and most other capitalist thinkers since have taught us this. To make a good product and sell it for profit is fine, to exploit children or cheat your customers is not. It's not self-contradictory for me to remain a staunch capitalist and still tell you that fairness and morality must apply to businesses. Neither is it self-contradictory for me to tell you that personal freedom must be maintained, but you may not do what you want to another human being. Condoms can break or fail. Let me ask you something. Let's say you're in a bar and you meet a girl. You want to sleep with her and she with you. She tells you she has AIDS, syphilis and gonorrhea, but that she's happy to use a condom. Would you sleep with her anyway, and if so, would you feel as comfortable doing it as with someone healthy? The only way to remain truly safe from STDs and unwanted pregnancy is abstinence. First of all, I'm not sure that sex-ed should be being taught in school at all. I think school is for academic education. Judging by the continuing drop in academic standards, it seems clear that when you put more social education into school you have to make room by getting rid of academic education. I think sex-ed is a matter for parents, supported by community leaders. But what should we tell the kids? First of all, tell them to stop selling themselves cheap. Tell them that sex is not like playing pool or watching a movie, it's not just a recreational activity. When you have sex, you give something of yourself and take something from the other person. It's an act of sharing and a very deep and emotional one, and believe it or not, like it or not, when you have sex with someone you have made a very deep and fundamental bond with them. That's why premature sex leads to so many emotional problems. Sex leads to children and that is what its purpose is. We cannot truly foil it as no contraceptive method is 100% effective. It is also tied strongly to marriage by social norm, religious belief and history, whether you agree with those ties or not. Therefore, the question should be, why would you sleep with somebody if you would not have a child with them or marry them? I wouldn't say you have to be married to have sex, but if you can't see yourself getting married to your partner or having children together, or if you can't even see yourselves together in 5 years, is it really the right thing to be having sex together? That's basically it. Tell children to value themselves and others, and not to give their bodies away like the free condoms they do it with, nor ask others to. Don't ask them to grow up too fast and take on that which they're not suited to do.

Sure. The tax system. People who work hard and get paid a lot pay much more in taxes in Canada. People who don't work and would like to collect welfare, can, indefinitely. I know 3 people, personally, who've been collecting welfare for over a decade even though they are perfectly able-bodied. There are many thousands more. First, I'm British. Second, if you believe George Bush is a moron, how is it that a moron is able to falsify an election under the very noses of the supreme court, the media and everybody else in the country? I know it's lacking, or else you wouldn't talk such drivel. Yes, and yet still people are moaning about the "plight" of American women and the desperate need for Affirmative Action and so on. Do you see what I mean? Regarding the US companies - you are moaning about these companies at the same time that you bask in the high standard of living that they provide - the height of hypocrisy. When you've grown your own food and built your own house and car, get back to me. Why don't you tell me, and at the same time, tell me how many Canadians who can afford it go south for healthcare or to private clinics (like Jean Chretien) because the Canadian healthcare system is terrible? ... Right back at you.

Freedom of choice, eh? These are minors we are talking about. Last time I checked, minors didn't have freedom of choice and weren't considered legally responsible. At 14, you can't be trusted to smoke (or drink, or buy a gun or join the army) because it might give you cancer, but you can be trusted to choose who to have sex with, how and when to do it, even though it might give you AIDS or pregnancy a long time before you are ready? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Sex-ed in schools tell children that it is natural and good to have sex and that their desires are to be indulged. This is told to kids 14 and younger. Schools, along with Planned Parenthood (which is actually invited into many schools, despite the fact that they are a profit-making company and not an educational organisation at all), encourage children not to confide in their parents in such matters. Planned Parenthood promises abortions that can be performed on under-16s (or rather, their children) anonymously and without parental consent, and will give free condoms anyway to anyone who asks. Popular media increasingly encourages portrayal of kids as sex objects. Perhaps you've seen the pre-teen girls on the Gap Kids commercial and their provocative dancing? Why do you think Britney Spears' "Hit me baby one more time" video was so popular - because she's "talented", or because she's dressed as a schoolgirl? I don't know if you've seen pre-teen fashion these days, but it's mostly tank tops, hip-hugger pants, miniskirts (that could pass for belts), platform shoes, jogging pants with "Hot Stuff", "Bad Girl" or something similar written across the derriere - and this is for children 12 and under to wear. Even in Wal-Mart. This isn't supposed to be a rant, but I think that as a society we should stop thinking of our kids as sexual beings. I don't condone paedophilia, but we are not exactly keeping them away from temptation, are we? The government could stop this. If it can outlaw cigarette adverts, why not adverts in which children are used provocatively? If it can tell school-age kids that smoking can be bad for them, why can't it tell them that sex can be bad for them (not just STDs, but problems with emotional maturity and so on)? If parents are the anti-drug, how come they are not the anti-STD?

What - make a fool of yourself? We noticed. What blinders and earplugs are you talking about? You think that America should take more heed of those who decry democracy, freedom of speech and religion, freedom of association, and respect for human life and dignity? You think America should join those nations, like Canada, that punish success and excellence and reward laziness and stupidity? You believe that America should be open to the rest of the world because you don't know anything about the rest of the world. I might quote Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman and say, "I've been around, y'know?" I've seen a lot of the world and heard more from those who've travelled further than I. I know what goes on in other countries, and believe me, foreign travel narrows the mind wonderfully. Leftists moan and gripe about how oppressed American women are - and this is a nation where Hillary Clinton is a senator and quite possibly a Presidential candidate - and yet you're strangely silent about Afghan girls stoned to death for daring to go to school. You whine about American pollution and industry, but you've clearly never seen the rust belt of China, where pollution alone drops the life expectancy at least two decades below the rest of the world or even China. You get mad that American corporations dominate the world, despite the fact that there are only two American automobile manufacturers left in existence and those under heavy pressure from Japanese and Germans, despite the fact that Japan is the world's largest creditor and investor nation and that Japan builds around half of all the ships in the world. You decry America's social policies and backwardness compared to Holland, where perhaps 20,000 people have been euthanised against their will according to Dutch authorities, or to Sweden, where crematoria are harnessed for power generation. America's drug policies are horrible and repressive, but please, look at the average heroin addict or alcoholic and tell me what is so wonderful about applauding when human beings fall into such utter misery and indignity? Take my blinders off, you say? You first.

I didn't say "Tell them to stop having sex", I said "Stop telling them to have sex." Please tell me you mistook me on purpose, and not that you genuinely can't make that distinction.

Yes. Timothy McVeigh also criticised the government, by that standard. Perhaps if a maniac broke into your home, killed you and your children and raped your wife, he might be just criticising the way you live your life. Maybe every liquour store robbery is a criticism of capitalism. Maybe every rape is just a misogynistic expression of frustration and criticism of feminism. Don't be stupid. Criticism is well and good and America encourages it. But when you resort to violence you have crossed a line, and there's an old Russian saying: "He who comes to us with a sword shall die by the sword."

This reply is merely to state that I have no reply. I think your last post has proven my argument better than anything I could say, for you've just shouted your own complete ignorance and bigotry from the rooftops. I'm amazed you've been allowed to write such tripe on this forum, to be frank.

Nova, Since you refuse to even answer me I'm forced to assume that you know nothing about Islam. You are simply buying into the moral relativism that has become so fashionable amongst the so-called intelligentsia. I wonder what you know of the Quran, the life of Mohammed or the differing Muslim sects and debates within them? Once again, I'm forced to ask you to do some research before you post in ignorance.