carepov

Interesting opinions, thanks. When I think charity I relate it to generosity and you seem to equate it to fraud/trickery, hmmm....

No, not right now, it's my opinion and you can take it or leave it. In the meantime, imagine yourself in the following hypothetical situations where you are in Canada and the only thing you can know about the person/people is: are they religious or not, otherwise the person is random. You chose the definition of "religious", for example: attend a religious service at least once per month: -You must lend $1000 to a stranger and trust them to pay you back in a month -You must rent your basement suite to someone -You are walking at night in a sketchy part of town and are coming up to a group of 5 people -You are running a charity and can only call one person for a donation In these situations would you go with religious or non-religious?

Mighty AC, I like your analogy about the number between 1-100. Some people of a certain religion will take a leap of faith and believe that the number is let's say "42". There are countless reasons for believing that it is 42 - none of them are based on scientific evidence. For example, "42" has been passed down through generations of our religion. Some people of the same religion will not believe the number but say, "what the heck" let's just say its 42 and move on to more important things. I'm with them. Who cares what the number is and who cares what other think that number is and who cares why they think what they think - about his number?! You seem to be saying: "The belief that the number is 42 demonstrates that religious people have weaker minds as it shows a lack of critical thinking" My counter is: 1. Not all religious people actually believe what you assume they believe 2. And even if they do, taking a "leap of faith" on some questions (especially on questions that can never be answered) does not mean that the person will think less critically on other questions. Basically: "who cares?" 3. Overall, in Canada today, organized religion is the best system we have for meeting many people's spiritual and social needs and for teaching morals and values

Thanks for the link. I am dumbfounded on how the numbers can be so different depending on the sources: Purchase (flyaway) cost: Hornet: -3.67-billion / 24 fighters = $CAD 153,000,000 per plane in Australia -$US 55,000,000 per plane as per CBC article -$US 90,000,000 per plane as per your CDA link -$US 67,000,000 per plane as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet F35: -9 bilion/ 65 fighters = $CAD 138,000,000 per plane as per CBC's and Iverson's claims of official Canadian estimates -$US 110,000,000 per plane as per CBC's claim of official Pentagon estimates -over $100,000,000 per plane as per Ivison -$US 153,000,000 as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II If there is such discrepancies in the flyaway costs, how are we to compare the far more complex operating costs? It just hit me as I am typing, Ivison is comparing Australian Super Hornet (flyaway and operating) costs to Canadian projected F35 costs. This is not right and besides he admits: " don’t trust any of these projections". His article also should give us more confidence in the Super Hornet since it explains how Australia is so pleased with the performance of the Hornets and are planning to buy more. The CBC article does start with Boeing's numbers but then fact-checks them against reported US Nary numbers. IMO, the CBC is doing it right - comparing operating and flyaway costs of the Hornet and F35 based on Pentagon estimates. And asking Boeing and Lockheed for info: "CBC also asked Lockheed Martin to say if it had any quarrel with these numbers — and it did not. In a written response, a Lockheed spokesman declined to offer any different figures, but insisted the F-35's operating costs would be "comparable to or lower than" the "legacy platforms" — meaning, older jets — that it will replace. Those do not include the Super Hornets, which Boeing says are 25 per cent cheaper to run than Canada's "legacy" CF-18s." Again I appreciate the links but for the reasons above I will continue to trust the CBC numbers and maintain that our government is wasting billions of dollars on the F35 program. On top of that they are continually snowing us on the program: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/12/andrew-coyne-the-federal-governments-continuing-spin-on-f-35-costs-is-inexcusable/

Really? Do you have any links to support your claims? From the same artice: "As it stands, the official estimate for a fleet of 65 F-35s is that they will cost $9 billion to buy and almost $37 billion to operate over the next 42 years. So, a total of just under $46 billion. If Boeing's figures hold up, the Super Hornets would cost about half that. The math is easy, but the result is eye-popping nonetheless. It's a saving of up to $23 billion." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636

Au contraire: "According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636

I don't know. But there are other major cost savings... Then you should support the safe injection sites: "A large body of peer-reviewed research, published in leading medical journals, has documented various benefits of the program including reductions in syringe sharing and fatal overdoses, and increased uptake of addiction treatment," wrote doctors Thomas Kerr, Julio Montaner, Even Wood and Marie Zlotorzynska in the commentaryRead more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Insite+anniversary+Vancouver+supervised+injection+site+celebrates+years/8939148/story.html#ixzz2g1GGFN2m

Do you have any reason to suspect that the scientific research referenced in the original article is illegitimate? "Neuroscience has shown that a young person's cognitive development continues into this later stage and that their emotional maturity, self-image and judgement will be affected until the prefrontal cortex of the brain has fully developed. Alongside brain development, hormonal activity is also continuing well into the early twenties"

Canada already has a "quality control system" for immigrants. I don't see why we should change it into a blatantly discriminatory system. I personally know two families from Algeria and Morocco - they are excellent draft picks to Team Canada! Permanent Residents Admitted in 2010, by Top 10 Source Countries Rank Country Number Percentage 1 Philippines 36,578 13 2 India 30,252 10.8 3 China 30,197 10.8 4 United Kingdom 9,499 3.4 5 United States 9,243 3.3 6 France 6,934 2.5 7 Iran 6,815 2.4 8 United Arab Emirates 6,796 2.4 9 Morocco 5,946 2.1 10 South Korea 5,539 2 Top 10 Total 147,799 52.7 Other 132,882 47.3 Total 280,681 100 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada#Canadian_permanent_resident_population_by_country_of_birth_.282006.29

There are several problems, one of them is cost. Since the injection sites have been in place, simply add up the savings in: -Ambulance and police trips to deal with addicts -Emergency hospital visits by addicts -Treatment of HIV/aids Studies that I have read about harm reduction programs like safe-injection sites conclude that they provide a good return on investment (as well as other benefits).

Here is where I think you get it wrong because you have the wrong perspective on today's religious people in the West. What I see is that for the most part, yes religious people teach their young children about their religious beliefs about god/creation/other stories similar to Santa. Later, kids learn that Santa is not real and many religious stories are not to be taken literally - and the focus is more on values. They are explained that belief in God is a leap of faith and they can choose to get involved in the organized religion as little or as much as they want. Of course it is a disservice to overdo religious teachings (it is a disservice to overdo almost anything) but it is also a disservice to hinder people from practicing a religion.

No, the new guidance is based on physiological differences between adolescents and adults. It is a good thing that health care workers, university guidance councillors, parents and of course young adults/late adolescents themselves are aware of these differences and to apply this knowledge appropriately. I am against coddling and "helicopter parenting" but I am also against the idea that parents and children should be completely independent of one another. There is nothing wrong with depending on family members. In many cases it just makes more sense to share a home with parents or even grandparents, weather you are 18, 25, 35, or 60. In other cases it makes more sense to move out when you're 16.

Waste by definition is non-value-added, but of course some people do benefit from waste. Are you saying that it's a bad idea to reduce waste, or are you just being obtuse? Even if we can eliminate 10% of our energy consumption by reducing waste this would not be trivial. I imagine that the figure is at least 25%. I agree, "mandatory impositions of energy puritanism reduces quality of life" and voluntary measures are not enough. The answers are in between. -Do Californians have a lower quality of life because gas lawnmowers are banned? -Does planting more trees reduce quality of life? -Again, replacing coal with hydro/nuclear does not fit your claim -Some countries/regions have significantly reduced CO2 without reducing their quality of life - how did they do this?

Food is wasted for various reasons. I read that in the west it is due to people buying too much of it (retail or restaurants) and then throwing it away. In developing countries it is wasted in inefficient distribution. If done right, reducing food waste would increase quality of life. In this context, waste is the use energy for no benefit. For example: leaving the light on in an empty room Or using x amount of energy when x-y would give the same benefit: eg: driving a car with underinflated tires where traction is not an issue Of course mass transit and high speed rail should only be used where it is feasible. Yes, some things would inconvenience people, including myself - but the proper way to look at it is to consider the net cost/benefits to society. More disincentives for driving and more incentives for riding mass transit/car pooling/biking would piss of a few but others would gain (less traffic, faster commuter times, more disposable income, more exercise and better health, less stress). There is huge potential for energy conservation. A good start would be to adopt "best practices" of communities where CO2 emissions have been reduced while life satisfaction has increased. Denmark and other Northern European countries come to mind.

I disagree, I'm talking major conservation: -About 1/3 of food is wasted -How much energy is wasted in transportation, industrial, commercial and residential uses? Probably 1/3 as well -Mass transit/high speed rail -Car pooling/cycling -More fuel efficiency -Displace truck transport with rail -Stop/lower air conditioning, lighting and heating loads of large buildings when not in use. Nuclear seems politically feasible in South Korea and France. Politics can be changed. The point is that there is lots we can do to reduce CO2 without reducing quality of life. (I also forgot to mention: plant more trees.) Why aren't these things getting done? and if it is happenning why isn't it happening in more places and on a larger scale?

There are many things we can do to reduce CO2 without reducing the quality of life! How about the countless ways to conserve energy? How about switching electrical generation from coal to gas and/or using more nuclear, and where feasible, hydro, geothermal and other sources?

Thanks for not labelling me a "denier". By the way, I am the last person that would present a dichotomy between any absolutes - especially on such a complex topic. Regarding other global impacting issues that eclipse GW, I cannot help being very sceptical (even dismissive) of economic reports that "predict" the cost of unmitigated GW to be 2.8% of global GDP in 2095!?!? Really, to put this prediction into perspective, what was the cost of the Financial Crisis? I'm sorry if you've already given your opinions in earlier posts, but I would be interested in knowing what sort of policy mix outline that you would like to see.

I'm not sure, but I would probably be labelled a "denier" because I do not see global warming as one of the biggest threats facing humanity. From an earlier link: "Multiple challenges compete for the world’s resources, from economic development and ending poverty to eradicating AIDS and malaria. The climate is not the world’s only priority. Even if we were to agree that improving the well-being of future generations is worth an enormous investment, there might be better things to invest in than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Most of Bangladesh is less than 33 feet above sea level. Millions of poor farmers on its alluvial plains would welcome investments to prevent melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels. But many would also welcome investments that made them richer and better able to cope with climate change, including jobs outside of agriculture and homes somewhere dry. As Professor Nordhaus wrote in his 2008 book, “A Question of Balance”: “Investments in reducing future climate damages to corn and trees and other areas should compete with investments in better seed, improved rotation and many other high-yield investments.” If investments in CO2 abatement are not competitive, we would do better by investing elsewhere and using the proceeds to cover warming’s damage." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/business/counting-the-cost-of-fixing-the-future.html?src=recg&_r=1& Is Professor Nordhaus a "denier"?

Good post and I agree. Humans are increasing CO2 concentrations and therefore less heat escaping our atmosphere and Earth is getting hotter. It is surprising that only 99.9% of scientists agree with this claim. So what do we do about it? a) nothing, let's ignore it b.) nothing yet, let's continue to study and increase our understanding c.) conserve energy d) use more nuclear energy instead of coal e) use more natural gas instead of oil f) use more renewables g) make more ethanol out of corn h) ban the practice of making ethanol from corn i) plant more trees than we cut j) promote more rural/country living k) promote more high-density living l) ban gas-powered lawn movers n) ban all lawnmowers o) ban lawns p) ban incandescent light bulbs q) stop all new construction < 50 meters above sea level r) ban modern agriculture s) ban "organic" agriculture t) increase/decrease aquaculture u) scare the bejesus out of people to get hem to "act" v) insist that this is the biggest issue facing mankind and we should direct almost all ressources at this problem w) return to a pre-industrial society x)... What's the concensus?

Thank you for the link, it was an interesting study, and there were interesting comments too. Are the finding significant? I'm not so sure... "Participants with a spiritual understanding of life had a greater risk of major depression at 6 or 12 months than participants with neither a spiritual nor a religious life view (Table 2). Participants holding a religious understanding of life were also more at risk than secular participants, but this finding lost statistical significance after adjustment. When stratified by country, however, our finding that a spiritual life view predisposed people to major depression was significant only in the UK, where spiritual participants were nearly three times more likely to experience an episode of depression than the secular group (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.59–4.68) (Table 2)." (Page 2112) I second reason that I am sceptical that "spiritual beliefs can be tough on one's mental health" is that I can see so reasonable causal explanation. Why would a belief be correlated to (let alone cause) major depression? And finally, there are other studies that suggest that religiosity is a factor in reducing the likelihood of depression. For example: -http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:139251 -http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=173476

Well, you are certainly entitled to disagree. I certainly disagree with the way that you stereotype religious believers. Beliefs about god, hell, etc... are personal. The official religious doctrines themselves are complex and often discussed - and people cherry-pick from the doctrines and personalize their beliefs. One example of how you misunderstand religious beliefs is how you give so much credit to religious preachers for forming personal beliefs. I would argue that preachers have very little influence on people’s religious beliefs. Most followers attend service less than once a week, let’s say the average church-goer listens to a preachers for 15 minutes or so per week – really how much influence can a preacher have? http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/c-g/10650/5201028-eng.htm

In today`s western organized religions we are completely free to agree and disagree as we see fit. The perfect counter-example to yours are the many people who ARE homosexual and religious. In general people are aware that the bible was written by man and therefore imperfect.

Various polls show various percentages of people beleiving in hell. None of them asked: ``do you believe in a hell where people are tortured``. IMO, many of those that beleive in hell beleive that it is reserved for the wrost sinners (child molestors, mass murderers, etc...) Here are examples of beliefs that you attribute to religious people that, IMO are held only by a small minority: *** I also find this a facinating subject - and not just for religion. When we are members of a political party, do we support all the policies or just cherry pick those that are important to us. As a proud patriotic Canadians, are we in favour of exporting asbestos to developing counries. Are we proud of the living conditions on Northern reserves. IMO, most followers are OK with cherry-picking and hold onto the positive aspects of their traditionnal religion while ignoring (or even openly disagreeing with) those aspects where they disagree. I see nothing wrong with that.

I was very discouraged last week when polls indicated that approx. 60% of Quebeckers favored the charter. Polls are now showing an even split (43-44% for and against). Reasonable Quebeckers are stepping up: http://quebecinclusif.org/manifeste-2/english/ I hope that as people get more informed the trend continues!

Your link did not work. Here are some interesting articles about hell: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-08-01-hell-damnation_N.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm Yes, many religious people beleive in hell - but not the hell that you or Mighty AC describe (not to mention all the other beleifs that he falsely pinned on religious people).