gc1765

I was about to post a response, but I think BD has already summed up my opinions quite well...

Where the hell did I say that we should subsidize the oil fields??

I agree with this. Some folks use the argument that an embryo is a human life because it contains the DNA necessary to make a human being, but the problem is that DNA is just one of the many molecules needed to produce a human. Is an instruction booklet on how to build a car the same thing as a car? Or do you need to have an engine, a body, and tires as well?

We shouldn't. What's your point?

Good, so it seems that after all of this... ...it seems we finally agree. A sperm IS alive. As g_bambino pointed out, two non-living things don't come together to produce something living. I guess that's why they call it the "circle of life", from human, to sperm/egg, to embryo, to fetus, and back to human. Life does not stop and re-start again. The fact that the remaining 90% of your post is just childish insults tells me that you don't have an argument to stand on. I suspect you realized that you were wrong all along, but that you if you made enough noise, people wouldn't notice.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking too...but after reading other peoples suggestions, I think a forum combining "business and economic issues" would probably get more usage than economics alone.

Even if what you are saying is true, income taxes will be lower under the carbon tax than they would be without a carbon tax - unless emissions reach zero, which they won't. That's just fine by me, I'd be happy to see any lowering of income taxes. Part of it is to discourage consumption, but I also think (despite the dogma people may have) it will be good for the economy. Think of it this way: do we want to discourage people making money? Then why do we tax people who make money and help the economy? And since we can't get rid of taxes all together, why not tax people for doing something that we don't want, rather than something that we do want?

Let me just see if I understand your argument correctly. It seems to me that you think humans, which are alive, produce gametocytes that are also alive, and that when these divide to form the egg or sperm, life ends and these cells are dead. These now "non-living" cells come together and like magic, two non-living things make something that is living? It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't understand Biology.

Why should Canadian taxpayers subsidize oil & gas for Canadians? Why should I as a taxpayer give you money so that you can spew carcinogens in the air, which I then breathe? Also, if I own oil, why should I sell it to a Canadian cheaper than I sell it to a Chinese, Indian, or American. Maybe "racism" isn't the right term, but it's certainly discrimination based on which country you are from.

Personally, I would draw the line for what is slavery by what is consented to and what is not. I can't speak for all animals, but most pets choose to live with their owner and wouldn't leave if they could. Try an experiment: take Fido out to the woods, get in your car and drive away...see how fast he chases you. Besides, most of us (myself included) eat animals. Isn't that more wrong than owning a pet?

It would be interesting to have a forum about economic issues.

Leno + Obama + joke = 246,000 hits Leno + McCain + joke = 187,000 hits and McCain has been in the spotlight a lot longer than Obama...

Then why is the slightest "scandal" by Obama always blown out of proportion...even if it is completely untrue. Hard to make fun of him on late night tv? Perhaps. It's been a while since I've watched late night tv, so it's hard to say. But hard to criticize him in the MSM? No way. Not when you consider all of the examples I gave in my previous post.

At worst, I'd describe them as upper-middle class. Certainly not "disadvantaged" by any means. IIRC, some of those names you mentioned were quite rich before entering politics...

Which explains why so many of our Prime Ministers, and so many American Presidents are from socially disadvantaged groups...

...which will still be lower than if there was no carbon tax... I find it odd that you could complain about shifting taxation from income to pollution, but then complain if it is shifted back from to pollution to income.

It's not my fault that your argument that an embryo is alive because it can survive in a petri dish supposedly contradicts the definition that you provided... Once again, you are confusing life with human life. A dog is clearly alive, does that make a dog a human? Not everything that is alive reproduces. Would you consider a bacterium "alive" if it doesn't reproduce? How about cells that don't divide? And yes, sperm is "alive", it is produced by splitting living cells (where do you think sperm comes from?), and after fertilization, continues to divide. Life does not stop and then restart, it is continuous. A while back someone told me that when you have to resort to insulting your opponent, it is usually because you don't have an argument to stand on. I think it's fitting to mention that here...

And you are mixing up the definition of "life" with the definition of "human life". Of course an embryo is alive, just as a sperm is alive and just as a bacterium is alive. That doesn't make them human. And no, an embryo can not survive on its own. Perhaps after several months it can live outside of the mother, but you said that life begins at the moment of conception. Even then it is dependent on others for survival, so if your definition of "human life" is something that can survive on its own, you are going to lose that argument every time.

You're right, the two are barely comparable...as to how much attention these so-called scandals have gotten. The Reverend Wright thing has been constantly in the media. I can't watch CNN for half an hour without someone bringing it up. They are acting like it's the scandal of the century. On the other hand, the McCain "scandal" has come and gone. McCain has rejected the endorsement (as he should have) and that's that. No need to criticize him further when he has already spoken against those comments. Meanwhile, Obama has spoken out against the comments made by Reverend Wright, but that still doesn't satisfy many right-wingers like yourself.

Well said.

Obama? Untouchable? Are you kidding me? The media is so desperate to dig up the dirt on Obama that they have to manufacture scandals. They can't criticize Obama himself, so they criticize his pastor (who, by the way, is not running for President), they criticize him for stealing speeches from someone who gave him permission to use the speech, or for stealing speeches which are so similar that they contain THREE of the same words (the daily show has a good clip on this: clip They make fun of his name (not sure I understand how a name which you didn't even choose can make you a bad person). And as if that wasn't bad enough, now they are pretending that Obama is a Muslim (which by the way, I don't think would be a bad thing if it were true, but the people who criticize him for it are the people who would NEVER vote for a Muslim for President). Meanwhile, REAL scandals by Clinton and McCain go almost unmentioned... Obama untouchable? That's unbelievable...

Uhhh, no, an embryo can not grow and reproduce on its own. It is entirely dependent on the mother for survival. "Thanks for coming out though!" A sperm fits this definition just as well as a fetus does...

I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with an exact definition of "life" and "human", let alone decide exactly when a human life begins. What makes you so absolutely certain that life begins at conception and not a second before or a second after?

Exactly! Which is why I keep arguing that we should make masturbation illegal. How do we know that a sperm is not a human being? Better safe than sorry...

What is 2001 - 1993?