carepov

Surely some measurements of progress of societies are common to all reasonable people, no? Change? How do you know if you make a change for the better or a change for the worse? If progress is a road traveled, how do you know you are headed in the right direction?

How would you define "progress" for a society?

OK, I agree about the banana, but don't you think that it would be useful to have a measurement to indicate "progress".

Inequality is a useful metric to track but I do not think we should set "equality goals". I have trouble with stats like: "Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years." So what? It is likely that all seven of these people live in countries where the poverty rate has been decreasing and the standard of living has increased. I believe that there is often a trade-off, increased inequality is the "price you pay" for a reduction in poverty. That said, I agree with most of the recommendations of the report, and excessive inequality should be reduced. I think the moral imperative is to strive for a world with more equal distribution of opportunities, this should lead to a more equal distribution of wealth and resources.

You can't label everything, there are too many combinations of beliefs. Well it depends, you can call them "arrogant atheists", or "asshole atheists", or "atheists that are trying to be funny" or "atheists that are not informed about other people's beliefs" or "atheists that are not actually trying to denigrate others but are misunderstood or poorly communicating". It depends.

Yes, this does pose problems and challenges but no this does not necessarily mean "the measure will be useless". There are degrees of subjectivity, if a measurement becomes too subjective it may be useless. However, if your measurement is perfectly objective, but not measuring the goal, it may also be useless.

Quality of life and sustainability indicators are more subjective than GDP but this does not mean that they are "purely subjective". Often there is a trade-off: 1. A measurement that is objective but does not relate to the goal very well 2. A measurement that better related to the goal but is less objective

Tim, you may be right. The use of the word "atheist" in society is loaded with generalizations. Like you said, the word "liberal" is a similar word - but arguably almost any word that is used to describe a person comes with attached generalizations, for example: "chess player", "accountant", "environmentalist". It is up to the speaker/writer to use the correct words as per their definition. It is up to the listener/reader to interpret correctly - to not over-generalize (i.e stereotype, pre-judge) and instead to ask the speaker/writer follow-up questions or clarification. Q: Do you believe in God? A: No - I am an atheist Q: So you are sure there is no God? A: Yes, I believe that no god(s) exist. Q: Do you believe in God? A: No - I am an atheist Q: So you are sure there is no God? A: No I am not sure, I am an agnostic atheist. Q: Do you believe in God? A: No - I am an atheist Q: So you are sure there is no God? A: No I am not sure and I don't care. I am an apathetic agnostic atheist. Q: Do you believe in God? A: No - I am an atheist Q: So you are sure there is no God? A: No, I am sure that humanoids were seeds planted by extraterrestrial beings that periodically visit Earth to....

Yes - he nailed it with that one!

No. The feds (environment Canada) got involved just as Schindler requested: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-canada-launch-joint-oilsands-monitoring-system-1.1150338 Alberta's Rob Renner kept his head bussied in the tar sands: "The Alberta government continued to insist the contamination is from natural bitumen. "If we had never set foot in the region, those kinds of results would still be there," Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner said in response to the Schindler study." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/david-schindler-1.936809 "But the internationally respected researcher confessed he was jolted by the depth of outrage and skepticism that greeted his 2010 oilsands study, starting with then Environment minister Rob Renner, who initially dismissed it. But two politicians, former federal Environment minister Jim Prentice and former premier Ed Stelmach, stood out, Schindler recalled. “I got a phone call from Prentice’s office. He wanted to talk, so we met at the international airport in Edmonton and we talked for two hours.”" http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Renowned+researcher+Schindler+retires+from+University+Alberta/9104250/story.html It's just a start - but the CPC deserve credit for thier action.

Yes I agree. A flat tax may be a good idea but would introduce new issues... If the choice is between status quo and status quo with income splitting, which would you support? I don't see how living as common-law is "considered effectively married". And even if it was I don't see this as a problem. And even if it was a problem surely it can't be a "huge problem". I am OK with price discrimination (within reasonable limits), I am against other discrimination (again within reasonable limits). It is not discrimination to insist that the person hired is qualified for the job (Muslim imam, evolutionary biologists that understand evolution, actors) Women and gays should be allowed to be priests, this is a problem best left for the Catholic Church to sort out.

I see your point and somewhat agree, but Young has a right to express his opinions and sometimes he is right, like the criticism of GW Bush and the Iraq War. A better source of information is independent research like: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16178 led by: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Renowned+researcher+Schindler+retires+from+University+Alberta/9104250/story.html I can't say too many nice things about the CPC government but, I am glad that they listened to this guy and took action to measure, control and stop dangerous pollutants.

Yes I agree that "marriage is fine as long as it involves consenting individuals" - why would anyone disagree? The question we were debating was: should the State recognize marriages? *** Marriage should be defined as a union between two people. In Canada - no problem. Couples that want their union to be recognized by the state should have that service (and pay for it). In Canada - no problem. Common-law couples should be taxed and treated no differently than married couples. In Canada - no problem. Private business should be allowed to continue to offer discounts to seniors, students, married couples, families, low-income earners. This is not discrimination. In exceptional cases even discounts based on sex is OK (Ladies nights, free ballet lessons for boys, etc...). In Canada - no problem Discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and personal beleifs should not be tolerated. In Canada - no problem Where's the problem?

Many people claim that foreign aid does not work - Rwanda is proof that foreign aid can work. Rwanda's goal for the last 20 years has been to become self-sufficient by 2020 and it looks like they are well on their way. It appears to be a paradox but, no. 1. The greater the chance that your children will survive and live successful lives, the fewer children you need to have to pass on your genes 2. A decreasing infant mortality means that the country is developing, this means that there are other things driving down population growth: a) Fewer people are farming and more people are urbanized, therefore kids switch from being assets to liabilities b.) More people, especially women are getting educated c) etc... In today's developed societies population growth slowed after infant mortality rates and other similar indicators improved.

This theory is not supported by the report: "Racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests exist regardless of county household income levels, and are greater in middle income and more affluent counties. In the counties with the 15 highest median household incomes (between $85K–$115K), Blacks are two to eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. In the 15 counties in the middle of the household income range (between $45K–$46K), Blacks are over three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. In the poorest 15 counties (median household incomes between $22K–$30K), Blacks are generally 1.5 to five times more likely to be arrested." p17: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf There is more on county-level findings on page 19.

Remember, it is 2014 and the genocide was 20 years ago. No one, especially not the Rwandans, are forgetting the genocide, life must go on though. You seem to be implying that overpopulation is a problem in some countries. Reducing the infant mortality rate and improving other similar health and education indicators is the proven path towards controlling population growth.

If you call this "falling real wages" I am not going to continue discussing with you.

I am in favour of recognizing homosexual marriage. You have to draw the line somewhere, and you cannot please every minority. A very tiny minority of people want a polygamous marriage and defining marriage as a union between two people is reasonable and even that is barely acceptable in todays society. If it ain't broke... Marriage discounts, senior's discounts, student discounts are not discrimination in my book. I already gave my reasons for supporting income splitting and asked you a few questions about it that you ignored. They are not married, they are considered common law. You seem to be looking very hard for problems that do not exist.

No I have already explained why, even if this is true, it is wrong and unreasonable to discriminate based on race. No I am saying: 1. The state should recognize marriage, this is what people want, this is what people pay for themselves with user fees, and the fact that the state recognizes marriage does not violate the rights of the minority of people who are opposed in any way. 2. It is OK for companies (like life insurance providers) to offer services for married/common law partners at a discount. 3. All couples should have a choice to file one joint tax return or separate individual returns Sorry for the confusion, when I say "couples" or "married" I also include common law couples. Nowhere. Odd, normally when people don't give a damn about something, they don't provoke a discussion about it...

I could be wrong, but I beleive that controlled studies have been done to show married people live longer healthier lives. (I will look it up). It makes busines sense to give discounts to married couples and it is not discriminating against singles. This is not equivalent to discriminating against a race. I've never thought about it, but probably not. Look it is still not the same. As a single person, you don't even have to buy life insurance. In fact why would you even want life insurance? And even if you did you could shop around, maybe there are companies that don't give discounts to married couples. These rights are defined by the UDHR and our Charter. Since December 10, 1948

I was in a hurry. It is not reasonable for insurance companies to charge lower premiums to white people. This is discriminatory and very different from charging lower premiums for married people for several reasons: 1. Theoretically anyone can get married or live common law if they choose to - not so with skin color. 2. Race is not binary (black or white) the way marital status is 3. Insurance companies would loose a lot of business if they implemented such a policy 4. I'm sure that there are more...

They don't. In taxation common-law is the same as married. Is income splitting of conglomorates discriminatory against single-industry businesses, small businesses, or self-employed people? Are you sure about that, after controlling for income, smoking, etc...? I also specified that "majority rules" does not apply when rights are violated therefore Sharia Law is a bad example.

The point is that whites and blacks smoke about the same amount of weed. Blacks get arrested 3 times as often. The bias is not that surprising, it's more the level of discrimination.

"Further, when someone is arrested for multiple crimes arising from a single police enforcement action, the FBI/UCR Program calls it a “multiple-offense situation.” As a general rule, a multiple-offense situation requires classifying each of the offenses committed and determining which of them are Part I offenses as opposed to non-Part I offenses.30 The Hierarchy Rule, as described in the FBI/UCR Handbook, requires that in a multiple-offense situation — when more than one Part I offense is classified — the law enforcement agency must identify the offense involved that is highest on the hierarchy list and score that offense and not the other offense(s).31 Most relevantly for present purposes, in a multiple-offense incident involving, for example, both Part I (e.g., Robbery — Other Dangerous Weapon) and non-Part I offenses (e.g., Marijuana — Possession), only the Part I offense, Robbery — Other Dangerous Weapon, must be classified and scored. The arrest for marijuana possession would not be reported in this situation. Thus, any racial disparity observed in the FBI/UCR data with respect to marijuana possession is not a product of differential arrest rates for Part I crimes, as marijuana possession offenses are not recorded with respect to these offenses. By contrast, in a multiple-offense incident involving marijuana possession and a traffic violation — neither of which constitute a Part I offense — the enforcement action is coded as both a marijuana possession arrest and a traffic violation (i.e., the Hierarchy Rule does not apply in this situation)." Page 33-34: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf

Peanuts. Besides, most are user-fee services. Yes, I am in favour of income splitting for all married/common law Canadians. Income splitting is not discriminatory against singles just like corporations/joint-ownerships are not discriminatory against self-employed companies. You are in the minority, and your rights are not being violated. That's too bad for you. No, I covered that one already: Sharia Law violates the Charter. I wouldn't call it discrimination. You ducked my question, studies show that married people live longer and are healthier. Would it not be reasonable that insurance companies charge lower premiums? Also, companies have customer acquisition costs and rewards for referrals, doesn't it make sense to pass these saving onto the customer when buying insurance for two people? Are you going to have governments ban and then enforce a ban on "seniors discounts", "student discounts", "family admission rates", "low-income admittance discounts" in private companies? I thought that you were in favour of less regulation/government involvement.