carepov

Who's this "we" that you refer to? I am most likely a liberal voter. An NDP/Liberal merger would instantly change me into a CPC voter. I suspect that there are enough Canadians like me to secure a CPC majority if the NDP/Liberals merge. You are wasting your breath with this merger talk. The lesson of the 2008 Parliamentary Dispute was this: It won't work.

Argus asked "what are the benefits of multiculturalism?" a good question with good answers in response. My question is: in Canada, what are the problems with multiculturalism (with or without cultural relativism)? A list of specific and quantifiable problems with supporting evidence would be a great help for me to understand your and Argus' position.

I come across people with similar irrational "the sky is falling" ideas all the time. Here is another example: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23433-will-man-destroy-himself/

These are good points, in general, diversity is a strength. Multiculturalism and our current immigration policies have worked for Canada. The supporting evidence is that the standard of living and life satisfaction of Canadians has been steadily increasing and has out-paced most OECD countries. Canada is consistently rated as the one of the best countries to live in. It is possible that Canada would be an even better country with different policies, but given our progress relative to others, I would think that it is up to those that argue against multiculturalism to describe its disadvantages and provide evidence to support their claims.

I was not referring to anyone in particular. I was thinking of a conversation that I had with my brother about the issue. He just graduated from high school and he "learned" that humanity is doomed to extinction due to climate change. If you want names then James Lovelock, Nicholas Stern and Al Gore come to mind.

Point 1: Like me, Mighty AC is a fan of reason and dislikes superstition as a basis for making decisions. "Alarmists" such as those people that think that global warming will result in the collapse of civilization are, IMO, as irrational as "deniers". Both camps often call for actions that, if followed, would worsen the plight of humanity. Point 2: It is hypocritical to support and use the "scientific consensus" about climate change while rejecting "scientific consensus" on nuclear energy and GMOs. My position in a nutshell: -Cut emisions by conserving energy and switching to nuclear. -Eliminate poverty to allow people to protect their environment and adapt to climate change. If Holland can do it why can't Bangladesh?

I am glad to see that you are acknowledging that the question of weighing the pros and cons of mitigation and adaptation has moved into the realm of economics. Never have I advocated "doing nothing" and Smil has plenty of recommended actions: "ET: What do you think the U.S., Canada, and the rest of the world should be doing about carbon dioxide emissions? VS: Not panicking, but surely trying to reduce the overall level of emissions. Even if we had no carbon dioxide out of combustion we still have enormous amounts of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, none of them good for people or ecosystems. And a high level of GHG emissions per dollar of GDP is simply a sign of an inefficient, wasteful economy. Opportunities are enormous: in the U.S. and Canada we could retain our quality of life (unless you thinks that four ATVs per family, two snowmobiles, and two Hummers are a must for living well) by consuming easily one-third less than we do now." http://www.robertbryce.com/articles/351-an-interview-with-vaclav-smil Thanks for the info on Nordhaus, so far I see no contradictions between him and Smil. Nicholas Stern - what do you think about his predictions?

I am not yet qualified to enlighten, but my take is that the effects are realtively easy to manage: " He concludes surprisingly that the market impacts of a moderate warming will be “a trivial sum in all affluent countries” (which prorates to about $180 a year per capita), citing in support work by Yale economist William D. Nordhaus." http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-worst-is-yet-to-be I got his name as one of the most recommended authors listed by Bill Gates and then saw his recent Scientific American article - he is seeing the light of day. I am reading "Should We Eat Meat?" - fascinating stuff.

Good questions. I ask the same of those against GMOs and nuclear energy. I also ask the same questions to "alarmists" that are predicting the collapse of civilization due to climate change. I am with Vaclav Smil: "Because of the complex and poorly understood feedback mechanisms involved, he concludes that “even our most complex models are only elaborate speculations.” And although he does expect continued warming, he thinks that the overall effects will be manageable, with little damage done to crop production and a relatively small rise in sea level. Smil also cautions that excessive concern about climate distracts attention from other pressing environmental threats, including those generated by invasive species, water shortages, and the excessive use of nitrogen-based fertilizers." http://issues.org/25-1/br_lewis-12/ Are you familiar with his work? If so what do you think?

Mostly agree. What unites us most is our geography, our economy (the Canadian Dollar, Bank of Canada, big banks and other national companies) and our national government (House of Commons, federal laws, regulations and services). History? No, our history is short, and most Canadians are ignorant of it. Culture? Hockey of course, but more that that. The CBC. English and French Canadians know of the Hip, Celine Dion, Cirque du Soleil.

World economic growth has accelerated dramatically in recent decades, (see Figures 1 and 2): http://www.newgeography.com/content/003271-the-expanding-economic-pie-grinding-poverty Look at figure 6, those countries that have liberalized trade (globalized) the most have had the greatest growth and also the fastest human development. I know, correlation does not prove causation, but IMO, this data disproves statements such as, "globalization is increasing poverty"

OK, I agree... except what about when the fetus reaches the point where it can survive outside the womb? Surely then its right to life would no longer involve the right to use someone else's body against their wishes, right?

I agree with you but can see the other side as well. However, what if the foetus reaches a point where it can survive outside the womb? Shouldn't its "life" be protected?

Cyber: "The beginning of life is irrelevant. Even the beginning of personhood is irrelevant. No person is allowed to use another's body against that person's wishes and no law can be written to require it lest it violate that person's right to bodily autonomy." Wayward: "This is completely correct. I could care less when life "begins." It is a simple case where I will never support the creation of one group of people (pregnant women) who lack the exact same rights to bodily autonomy that everyone else has." I still have trouble with this one. I see what you are saying about any laws that restrict abortion violate the rights of the pregnant woman. However, if life starts inside the womb, then are we not creating a group of people that lack the same rights to life that everyone else should have?

Agreed. Obviously the USA is a civilized society and so is China. I am sure that one day humans will look back at 2014 and ask, "how could such a civilized society support the death penalty?".

One way to distinguish barbarism and civilization is the use of violence. The more civilized the society the less it would resort to the use violence, unless it is the last resort. Another quality of civilization is the use of reason and the restraint of barbaric primitive emotions such as vengeance. On both counts, all else being equal, a society with capital punishment is clearly less civilized than one without.

It seems so obvious... and yet... Why is that?

1) Says who? 2) I disagree and so do many families of murder victims.

Here's a couple of good reasons for not executing a known killer: 1. Killing is wrong (except in self defence) and two wrongs don't make a right 2. The death penalty lessens the value of life in society I can't think of any good reasons to support the death penalty.

1. There is no perfect justice system. There were and will always be mistakes where innocent people are found guilty. When the state executes people it is a matter of time before innocent blood is on the state's hands. 2. IMO, it is often more merciful to execute a criminal than to let him live the rest of his life in prison. I see no benefits to capital punishment and many, many costs.

Much more than societal norms have changed in the last 75 years - mostly for the better. You still have a price to pay: taxes. IMO, welfare and most government benefits are not "gravy".

Both.

It sounds a lot like those people at the grocery store trying to convince me to get their credit card so I can accumulate more bonus points. The indoor playgrounds, cheap daycare, breakfast programs, etc... seem like a great service to me. Why aren't these services funded by the city/province?

Your article was OK but it did not cover my opinion at all. It is too focussed on Canada's missions and not enough on the failures of the overall war in Afghanistan and the WOT. Going back to my "building a new house" analogy, Canada may have done a great job in their (limited) role/trade however if the foundation and framing was NFG then who cares about the wiring/windows/ducts etc... Do you agree with me that there were far too few troops and resources deployed to Afghanistan from 2002 to 2008? Do you also agree that this lack of troops caused the war to drag on and costs (human + economic + political) to accumulate? Do you agree that the main reason there were not enough troops was due to the 140,000 US troops deployed in Iraq? There have been some benefits of the war, I am not ignoring them, but the achievements were not worth the costs. http://costsofwar.org/

Can you tell me more about this pressure? Is it real real or are you making assumptions?