carepov

Religious people can and do determine truth using scientific methodology. The vast majority of religious people do not even know the "official dogmatic positions" of their faith, let alone beleive in them. The vast majority of people (religious or not) are ignorant about most things like science and the workings of the physical world around them. IMO, all else being equal, a religious person is about as likely to be a critical thinker as a non-religious person.

OK, if you are right... In the entire evolution of mankind, or even the last 8,000 years of civilization, which societies were non-religious? And why have they not dominated their primitive religious foes and taken over the world?

Here are some points that support my claim that religion has been a net benefit to human progress: From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/#EpiSciRel "...theistic belief supports modern science by licensing or endorsing the whole project of empirical investigation..." "The early pioneers and heroes of modern Western science—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, and so on—were all serious Christians" "One of the chief features of the divine image in human beings, then, is the ability to form beliefs and to acquire knowledge. As Thomas Aquinas puts it, “Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God” (ST Ia q. 93 a. 4)." God has therefore created both us and the world, and arranged for the former to know the latter. Thinking of science at the most basic level as the project of acquiring knowledge of ourselves and our world, it is clear, from this perspective, that the doctrine of imago dei underwrites this project. Indeed, the pursuit of science is a clear example of the development and enhancement of the image of God in human beings, both individually and collectively." For these and other reasons, religion was a driving force in the advancement of science and public education through various institutions (monasteries, universities, public schools). Also, religion has also a driving force in the advancement of art and architecture, there is no shortage of evidence spread throughout the world. Many religious practices are akin to meditation - good for the mind - good for human progress. The poster formally known as Prince claimed that religion is immoral. Sometimes drugs and alcohol have a temporary effect on critical thinking and sometimes permanent. Sometimes religion has a permanent negative effect, a temporary effect, none at all, or as I've argued even a positive effect. Religion can be taught to children with "inflicting" them. People that claim that "Religion is bad" (immoral) remind me of those that say "chemicals are bad", or "drugs are bad" or "corporations are bad", or "radiation is bad". Yes, some aspects and applications of religion/chemicals/drugs/corporations/radiation are bad but none of these things are "bad".

Via the Duck Dynasty thead I discovered "The Cult of Dusty" (thanks WWWTT). He some great rants, including this one about GMO's and Monsanto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulq0NW1sTcI

While there are some examples of this being true, overall I disagree that religion slows technological progress. For many people, religious beliefs and practices allow them to recharge, help set their values and priorities and they are better able to focus on their current life. This can help inspire and spark creativity in the arts and sciences and therefore enable faster technological progress. If religion never existed, human society as we know it would not exist either. Throughout the development of humanity and civilization, you cannot extract and separate religion. It is intertwined with philosophy, art, science, technology, compassion and charity and also war, greed and oppression. Again, I do not think that religion necessarily hinders critical thinking and reason. All a religious person needs to do is to separate the physical world from the meta-physical world. This person's view of reality (physical world) is guided by science just like yours is. Their understanding of the meta-physical world is guided by their religion. Easy. Along the same lines, if you think that religion is immoral because it "lies about the reality we live in and makes people think less critically", then in your view, are recreational drugs including alcohol also immoral?

I was refering to submarine sandwiches, brown, white or rye bread is enough choices for our troops. Of course, Canada needs a new fleet of nuclear submarines, WWIII is just around the corner. While we're at it, we should stock up on some nuclear warheads and ICBMs too.

Well as Derek pointed out many things have been done by the CPC government has taken some actions. It is wrong that soldiers had to die before actions were taken, and there are still a lot of changes needed. This is true in the military; it is also true throughout Canada and the rest of the world across many societal problems. How many people have to die before we improve road safety, rail safety, child poverty, health care, the environment? Thank you. I advocate for dismantling/reducing a limited amount of capabilities (perhaps submarines would be a good example). I think that this will support the military because instead of trying to too many things half-assed we can do things better (more effectively and safer). The capabilities that get dismantled in the Canadian Forces should be selected based first on Canada's needs of course but also in consultation with NATO allies. I favour a planned and controlled reduction in operating costs, as per Leslie's recommendations. This will help strengthen our military. The alternative is that one day the government in power will cut the defence budget and the military have no choice but to "slash funding" which I am against.

You said a measurement of military is: "The ability and ease of ones own military to achieve the required objectives of the elected Government." Do you agree that the Korean war was not at all easy? OK thanks, I'll chew on it. I definately not deliberately wasting your time. I am also far less knowledgeable than you about all aspects of the Canadian Forces. I do not consider myself ignorant. What often happens is that you completely misunderstand me. IMO advanced naval warfare capabilities and 5th generation fighters will not be as useful as other investemnts that Canada could make in the Forces or other departments. You seemed to interpret this as me saying, "Canada has never used their airforce or navy". No, and also for the millionth time I am not against replacing some old ships and planes so that we at least maintain the same capabilities that we had when your pictures were taken. You seem to think that we should invest in all sorts of capabilities so that we are "prepared for anything". IMO, that is unrealistic, we should be prepared for the most likely scenarious not Russian and Chinese invasions.

The Korean war did not work out too well did it? In fact, when in your opinion has the Canadian military best met the objectives of the governement? There will be no added bennefit to capabilities that we will not use.

The CPC is reconsidering (doubting) the selection of F35s. They are reconsidering (doubting) the number of ships we will purchase. We were talking about your claim that today's troops are not supported. In my books, when soldiers are safer (fewer are getting killed or hurt), getting paid more, and have more benefits for themselves and their families - these actions mean that troops are better supported. Are injured veterans treated better now of after the Korean war? Again, what specific countries do you think support their troops more than Canada? If these measurements do not matter, then what measurements do you suggest? There is very little chance that overpriced ships would increase the safety of any troops in future missions, when compared to more reasonably priced new ships. Same with planes.

No. I just doubt the selection of replacements, and the number of replacements. Assuming that you survived, would you rather be a Korean war vet or an Afghan vet? How do you measure "support of military". I propose a few measurements: -Troop safety -Pay -Bennefits and family support All are up.

I'm sorry that my nerdy (weak) attempt a humor failed. We were talking about he Canadian public's support for the Military - I'm calling it like it is and I agree with you. The public doesn't care nor do they understand - this we both agree on. As for me, care is my middle name and I am trying to better understand the Military. I think (almost) everyone deserves respect and I would they to empathize with any veteran (or anyone else) I meet. You wrong about "my mentality". I am doubting the need for F-35s and over-priced ships. IMO, wasting money on these procurement and on fatty wasteful beureaucracy (as per Leslie) takes money away from where it is really needed - like Chinooks and MRAPs, etc... I am no Liberal partisan - I voter for Harper in 2006 and strongly disliked Chretien. I was embarrassed to have him represent us on the world stage. I am very upset that the Liberals (and military leaders) sent troops to war ill-equipped and am glad that the CPC took corrective action. You are right - actions speak louder than words. That Is why I counter your (and Army Guy's) claim that Canadians do not "support our troops". When did we ever "support our troops"? What countries "support their troops"? Is it not true that being a member of our armed forces is safer now than it ever was historically? Aren't troops getting paid more than ever before? Haven't support services for troops and their families been continually expanding? What do these actions mean? Well it's not Peter MacKay, that for sure. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all the procurement blunders of the last 20-odd years were a result of Liberal politics/incompetence trumping sound military advice. Military leaders have never given bad advice to political leaders and the CPC always go along with this sound military advice. Is that right? Are you also saying that there is unanimous agreement within the RCAF and the RCN for the current procurement plan?

Sure, but if we say that support is a foot long then there is over 750,000 cubic inches of it. Far less than hockey players and celebrities, but more than most proffessions. If it was purchased within the budget, yes. You would be right if there was no waste in the system. As long as there is waste you can cut costs and improve results. Also there is not just one type of "modern fighter, or modern ship" - that will be for another thread...

1. Where on the poilitical spectrum do you think the mayors of Calgary and Edmonton would be? 2. The Liberals are not "Left wing" 3. You are right about provincial polling in Albera - (and BC), they can't always be trusted.

First of all, when you say that "most Canadians don't care about/understand the military" I 100% agree with you. Just like most Canadians don't care about/understand, poverty, the environment, foreign aid, trade, immigration, democratic reform, government budgets, etc.. etc.. However, most "informed and enlightened" Canadians such as the two of you, (and hopefully myself), do care about our military. A good indication of this concern is the fact that so much attention was paid to the four recent deaths. Also, think about how every single military death during the war in Afghanistan was immediately reported and how governments were put on the spot for poorly equipping our soldiers. Compare this to "the good ole days", when on the one hand perhaps we “cheered on” our troops more, but on the other hand, we kept sending out hundreds and thousands of Canadian soldiers out to die. Also, if you are concerned that Canadian civilians do not care about/understand the military, the tone and message in many of your posts are counter-productive. Just because someone disagrees with you or the military leadership on issues and geopolitical threats does not mean that they do not "support the troops" or are in some way "against the military".

First, my deepest sympathies to all soldiers affected by PTSD, their comrades and families... I thought that perhaps someone would have posted the actual report elsewhere on the internet. Exactly. Just because something is mentioned in the report it does not mean that it was in the scope of the report. From what I've read, Leslie's report did not critique the Canada First Defence Strategy. He did not look at F-35 costs and did not look at the costs of the new ships. He did not consider other procurement options that could potentially save money. These issues were out of scope. The report focussed on streamlining operations so that we can have the money to pay for the Canada First Defence Strategy. Consultant, overhead and operating costs are up. Where is the money for the Canada First Defence Strategy going to come from? Regarding ships, F35 and helicopters - good idea, I will go through the threads and we can discuss further there.

Thanks, I had already found and read those two links. ""the explicit goal” to “identify areas where we could reduce overhead and improve efficiency and effectiveness [so as] to allow reinvestment from within for future operational capability despite constrained resources" http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no1/68-shadwick-eng.asp To me this means that the goal of the report was to: "reduce operating costs so that we have more money to buy stuff." And therefore Leslie was not looking at major spending on new ships and planes. Sadly, it looks like Leslie's report is gathering dust so we are faced with a "double-whammy": increased operating costs AND increased equipment costs, and I fear that we are doomed to repeating the same pattern of asking Canadian soldiers to "make do" the next time they are called upon. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/08/14/john-ivison-f-35-purchase-may-force-conservatives-to-chop-infantry-battalion-from-cash-strapped-military/ Yes, you are correct. However there is plenty of blame that can be spread to CPC and military leaders: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/11/michael-byers-and-stewart-webb-a-government-blunder-teaches-us-how-not-to-buy-helicopters/

The NDP in Quebec went from 1 seat in 2008 to 59 in 2011, while the Bloc went from 49 to 4, anything is possible in Quebec!

IMO, the most likely outcome is CPC majority with Liberals taking a few CPC and NDP seats. The main factor is the unemployemnt rate being not significantly higher than 7.5%. The Liberals cannot do any worse than 2011 and the NDP/CPC cannot do any better. With an recession, the CPC will loose many seats, especially in Ontario. The Liberals will have a chance at a majority with a "Red Wave" as Quebecers may sieze the oportunity to regain a significant voice in Ottawa. The Bloc is dead, I think.

These people were not rational therefore they were unable to make a rational choice.

The root cause of this death is not religion, it is stupidity/mental illness. From the original link: "a spokesman for the St. Petersburg Orthodox Church said“This is superstition, not religion. They should have gone to the hospital.”" In some cases yes, and in some cases religion helps people to act, think and behave creatively, intellegently, think critically and morally. This statement is ridiculous.

Thanks, I appreciate this and other opportunities to learn about our military through this discussion. It's not that I don't beleive you, but I would like a link to verify the scope (or the actual report). If indeed the mandate of the report included looking for ways to save money through procurement of major capital expenses, and no opportunities for savings were found - then I do not fully agree with the report. Please note, I never claimed to have full agreement, knowledge or understanding of the report. I brought it up as proof that there is significant waste in the military. I do not doubt that the CPC and military leaders are doing some good work. However both parties are guilty of procurement fiascos, I cannot say who is worse. Don't you think 8 years is enough time to get some new helicopters? How many retired lieutenant generals are on your CPC team? There are many things with the F-35 program that make no sense. -You said that going with the F-35 is obviously the right choice, -I asked, if it so obvious why has our government backtracked and is now re-considering, -You said "politics" -I said "huh? the F-35 program IS a political fiasco" I'm fine if we drop the subject as I have no interest to get sucked into the blackholeish threads either.

Politics... so the CPC purposefully lied about the F35 costs and then stuck their foot in their mouth by "resetting" the program shooing away MacKay so that they can score political points?

You dodged the question about why the CPC is "resetting" the program. I have read many articles about the report and agree with the recommendations of the report. Do you have a link to the report itself? Do you know what the scope was? Was it or was it not limitted to operations? Yes, untrustworthy (Liberal) leaders working with military leaders. The CPC is no better (F35 and ships) and perhaps even worse. Also the CPC has had enough time to fix mistakes from over 8 years ago... Everything has a price... Helicopters (Afghanistan). Mental health of soldiers. Better shovels (Toronto). hmm. that begs the question of how a Liberal could rise through the ranks so quickly...

I don't trust them because: -Helicopters (Liberal fiasco) -Shitty subs -Trucks (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/military-truck-purchase-cancelled-due-to-cost-concerns-1.1273570) -all the times that budgets are grossly exceeded (yes I know that this happens all the time - it still doesn't make it right) -unclear comminication (lies) about F35 spending as per Coyne I am not against stealth - I am against wasting money. If we waste money on stealth we will not have enough money that would give us a bigger "edge". So why do retired lieutenant generals Andrew Leslie and Romeo Dallaire join the Liberal party and not the CPC?