carepov

Yes, with great power comes great responsibility. The USA deserves a great deal of credit and blame for the state of today's world. I agree that some action was called for in Afghanistan after 9/11 - but I think that doing nothing would have been preferable to what actually took place in the War on Terror. Anyways, it is too early to judge - if we can ever judge. For example, what will the consequences be of the massive US debt? How many terrorist acts were prevented or caused by US actions?

Signals and AW, you are right, there have been some encouraging signs, and more progress can be found by comparing data from 1990-2000 to 2001-2013: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/AFG.html However: 1. Are the gains sustainable? I hope so, but it is too early to tell. 2. At what cost? This is not a MasterCard commercial where reducing maternal mortality or increasing education to Afghan women is "priceless". How many more lives could have been improved if the resources spent on the war in Afghanistan were spent elsewhere? I noticed that neither of you responded to dre's question: "if the costs of the War were doubled/tripled would you still consider it a success?" If we look only at the War in Afghanistan, I am with dre, the costs of the war (both in blood and money) far outweigh the benefits. However, the War on Terror needs to be evaluated as a whole. Perhaps the mistake in Afghanistan was actually Iraq? If the US did not invade Iraq in 2003 then perhaps the War in Afghanistan would have been a success? If this were the case, perhaps, the West would not have been so impotent towards Syria now?

So I guess all those researchers that are looking for a cure to cancer are just faking it. The same way that CFS workers are pretending to help children and are actually secretly undermining the system so that there are more suffering children therefore more customers and job security for themselves.

I am also sceptical of the study and especially of the numbers that you raised: http://www.youthandreligion.org/sites/youthandreligion.org/files/imported/publications/docs/RiskReport1.pdf But without evidence to the contrary I believe the author of the Big Question article when he says: "But there is now a large body of research which has found a strong correlation between various measures of religiosity and everything from increased completion of homework, health care utilization, donations to charity, and volunteer work, to reduced criminal behavior, suspensions from school, and smoking." I remember reading that religious people (I think it was specifically people that pray) on average live longer and happier lives. And before anyone else says it: yes correlation does not prove causation.

The average Canadian has benefitted greatly from the Canada-US free trade deal. Even the Liberals recognize this and support free trade because it helps middle-class Canadians. There was similar fear-mongering in the 1988 election and AFAIK, none of the claims by those against free trade came through, and in fact Canada became a stronger country. Why should I be concerned today when: 1. this deal is far less significant than the Canada-US free trade deal 2. trade liberalization has greatly benefitted the average Canadian?

OK thanks. How about living in a cave with a painting on the wall, is that natural? Is using fire to cook natural? Basically, at what point in time did human activity stop being natural?

Well you have your opinion and I have mine, here's a link that supports mine: "But there is now a large body of research which has found a strong correlation between various measures of religiosity and everything from increased completion of homework, health care utilization, donations to charity, and volunteer work, to reduced criminal behavior, suspensions from school, and smoking. To take just one example, the 2002 National Study of Youth and Religion looked at the self-reported behavior of 2,478 twelfth-grade students and found the following Weekly Religious Attendance / No Religious Affiliation Sold Drugs in Past 12 Months 6.7 / 18.4 Used Hard Drugs in Past 12 Months 19.8 / 37.1 Been in Trouble with Police in Past 12 Months 6.4 / 13.7 Never Skipped School in Past Year 47.8 / 31.0 Never Volunteered in Community 13.1 / 37.8" https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/which-beliefs-contribute-virtuous-behavior

Maybe I am overthinking this but... What about a straw hut? A sod house? An igloo? A tent? Are these natural?

Spell what out? I am in favour of sustainable human development. I am against people that put short-term human development ahead of protecting the environment but am equally against ideologies that regard human development as some kind of disease that is plaguing the earth. I am genuinely confused on the term "natural" so I think that I will try to avoid using it until I learn more. I similarly avoid using the term "organic" when it comes to describing food, the definition is a arbitrary legal one, not scientific.

Are humans part of nature?

I'm not so sure. Isn't human ingenuity and the use of tools natural? Where do you draw the line? Was pre-historic man's use of the wheel and fire natural? Is the use of an axe natural compared to the use of a chainsaw? Why? Is the fact that current North American and European forestry is sustainable with stable or growing forest coverage make this industry more natural in Europe and NA compared to South America?

I disagree. I repeat - there is no defence of the inexcusable wrongs committed by religious organizations - but: -Boy scouts and sport associations harbour pedophiles. -Secular wars and mass violations of human rights have led to far more deaths and suffering than religious ones. IMO, on average, religious people live with more accountability in this world compared to the average secular person. When weighing the benefits of religion don't forget to consider the many great religious people, leaders and organizations (especially inter-faith organizations).

OK, I was wrong, thank you both for pointing this out. To me, it does still seem contradictory that humans and their actions are often regarded as "unnatural" - but alas it is what it is.

The common definition is conflicting and often arbitrary. In your example, the person is "a blonde that was born with black hair". Would you call that person an unnatural blonde? Is giving birth via caesarean section unnatural child birth? Is a hydroelectric dam less natural than a beaver dam? A human and a bear each take a dump in the forest, is one turd less natural than the other?

I agree 100%. However my argument is that the presence of religion increases charity and other virtuous acts and diminishes evil acts. I also generally dislike BS, but religion isn't all BS. I suggest that you try a different perspective on religious teachings and texts, as a friend explained to me, try to look at them all figuratively as most rational religious people do. Remember, all teachings and texts are open to various interpretations. Also, regarding BS. There is nothing wrong with some BS. There is nothing wrong with believing in Santa or the tooth fairy. There is nothing wrong with believing that your loved one is in a better place if it helps you move on with life. There is nothing wrong with being spiritually inspired to help people or do other work. There are great benefits to prayer. Speaking of BS, there is no better description for this paragraph of yours. Some of today's best doctors, researchers and other scientist are religious. Don't be so sure about these benefits. What will take the place of religion? Think about the societies that tried to make this happen. *** Obviously we both want a better world - more rational and more just. Your strong belief is that religion is a major cause for suffering and injustice. I do not disagree that some religious people are retarded (extremist, fundamentalist, literalist, etc...). My argument is that the average religious person is rational and humanist and wants to see a better world as much as, (if not more than), the average secular person. I politely suggest that you stop insulting and alienating this segment of the population - the expression of your views on religion are counter-productive.

If humans are natural and part of nature, then human behaviours and their consequences are also natural.

I disagree, IMO nature includes humans.

Mighty AC, IMO your views on religion are seriously flawed. Yes, a great deal of damage has been done in the name of religion and please don't interpret my defence of religions as being apologetic, but… There is and has been a great deal of good done in the name of religion. I see it like a package deal from the cable company; you will have some crappy channels spewing hate and some great channels spreading peace. The key is to confront the hate without cancelling the good channels: -religious hospitals, schools and charities -progressive social movements by religious leaders such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu -helping people that are grieving and suffering -welcoming people that have no sense of belonging and without their religion would be isolated and lonely -great art and science inspired by religion (for example: Michelangelo, Newton) Yes, religions can be divisive and have led to wars and suffering, however religion is also a uniting force that has certainly prevented much violence. I would argue that a lack of religion leads to more violence and suffering compared to that caused by religion. For every priest there is a Boy Scout leader or hockey coach, for every George W. Bush there is a Putin, for every Ayatollah, or Bin Laden there is a Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Religion is woven into the fabric of humanity and it is a big part of many people's lives, including a great deal of very generous, tolerant, intelligent, and rational people. It is good to criticize all institutions and organized religion - however not in the insulting, divisive, and inaccurate way that you are.

No, I think that the differences that you point out are mythical or at best minor. First of all, average Canadians and Americans share an incredible apathy and ignorance of government and politics. For the great majority of all North Americans government and politics is not even on the cultural radar. There is a crazy anti-government sub culture in the USA that does not seem to be present in Canada. I would argue that the numbers are too small to call this a significant difference. So, excluding the gold, gun, ammo, and canned food hoarding wacko's: Fact or myth, per capita, are governments in Canada really bigger and more trusted than those in the USA? -Is there a difference in the percentage of people employed by the public sector? -US military spending is 4-5 times that of Canada's. -How about all government spending? I could be wrong but it looks higher in the US -How about infrastructure - the USA seems to trust their government with a lot more projects. -How about the US corporate bailouts? -Canadians and Americans seem to have equal expectations of their governments helping out with natural disasters. -How about farm and other industry subsidies? Seem to be higher in the US, although Canada has Supply Management. -How about American governments exerting more control over people's personal lives (sex, drinking, etc..) -My favourite Tea Party placard: "Get your government hands off my social security."

I will try to balance out the list: In many ways, Canadians are more arrogant than Americans, because we often boast about how much better we are than the Americans. (I partially agree with our Senior Mocker - but would not go as far as saying that Canadian identity is defined by comparisons to the USA). A common boast by Canadians is that we are less arrogant than Americans - to me this IS arrogance and hypocrisy at its finest! *** If viewed from outside our continent, English Canadians and Americans are seen as having the same culture. Our day-to-day lives are really not that different. From the inside, the cultural differences between different regions of a country are greater than the differences between Canada and USA. For example, those living on the Pacific coast, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, Atlantic Coast. Also, our countries share many common sub-cultures: Rednecks, Metrosexuals, ethnic communities, Soccer moms, gamers, "progressives", etc... IMO, the most significant cultural difference is the presence of a French-speaking culture in Canada.

Thanks. $1.3 to purchase a boat seems expensive. I wonder why building in Canada costs more compared to Germany? Also, my perception is that these projects are almost always way over-budget, do you agree?

Thank you for the update. Does anyone have answers to the following: a) how much was spend so far on the procurement process (selection of the design, etc..)? b.) what are the projected final costs of these ships? The last info I got (2010) was that 2 ships would cost a total $2.6 billion. Is it just me being a cheapass-taxpayer or does this seem like a lot of money?

You asked: I answered: (I don't know why you are asking me the same question again.) Then you replied: Suggesting that Li is worse than any type of drunk driver. I see know that you agree with me (I think) that some drunk drivers deserve harsher punishments than Li. (of course I still think that Li deseves no punishment but I am still at a complete loss as to why people want to lock-up Li for the rest of his life and even deny him escorted outings while drunk drivers get away with slaps on the wrist.)

I probably wouldn't want you near my family either, what's your point?

I didn't say it was worse, I wondered what the victim's mon would think? Well, I'm not sure that I understand you. You think Li is worse than a repeat-offender-drunk-driver that kills 50 school children?