Charles Anthony

Define them in your question and I will take them for granted.

If what you say is correct, my answer is YES, I still hold that view. In fact, if passengers were warned, my view is actually re-inforced.

Excellent example. It makes not sense to generalize by promoting The Law or anything derived from "society" or some other abstraction. extracted from The Feminizing of Western Civilization thread. I enjoy this topic and I am putting this here: I absolutely agree we do have the right to defend ourselves, when attacked directly, if possible that is.I absolutely disagree with vigilante justice. We should phone 911, rather than try to solve the problem alone.I do not interpret the above as a promotion of vigilante justice. They are promoting self-defense. They are not the same. Is self-defense immoral? Wrong. Nowadays, people defend themselves all of the time. Police and armies can not defend everybody. Again, it is not justice. It is self-defense. What benefit does an individual have to abstain from self-defense? A guarantee? Ridiculous. A society where everyone has the RIGHT to own a gun is not a guarantee that everyone WILL carry a gun. Everyone is not going to have a gun delivered to them. Mu. Individuals should have the right to acquire all of the rocket-propelled grenades and tactical nuclear weapons they can afford. Big deal! Fearing individuals will get their hands on maximum firepower is nonsense and is as valid as fearing an international banking world takeover. The cost and logistics of buying or manufacturing or maintaining both rocket-propelled grenades and tactical nuclear weapons are exorbitant. It is no wonder that Statesmen are the only ones who deal in such markets. Who would sell weapons-grade plutonium or uranium to an individual?? Me? You? I would expect that the suppliers in such markets are highly selective. Moderate American, what gives you the right to be police, judge, jury and executioner.-- the right to self-defense. Members of a moral society do not balk at the right to self-defense. The association between self-defense and justice is the same as the association between walking on the ground and crushing micro-organisms underfoot. That is not the logic.

Not only is that highly debatable but it is unwise to assume that everybody who submits to our democracy agrees. Is that how you discern between a dictatorship and a democracy???? The trouble with this query is that it seems to personify the State and presupposes that the State has an objective. Does the State have an objective? Agreed.

P.E.I. is pretty and peaceful despite the inconsistent weather. [Quebec City, on the other hand, is always beautiful even on the most painfully cold February day.] How many Canadians have vacationed South but have never seen P.E.I.? My first visit to P.E.I. was pleasant but weird. [i often hear people say that entering Quebec is like entering a foreign country. Those people have not seen much of Canada.] That morning the weather was nice and I drove the entire perimeter of their island -- a very lovely countryside. I saw the Sand Elephant before its trunk got washed away a few years ago and sat in the Giant's Chair. That evening, in Charlottetown, a couple asked ME for directions to a particular pub known for its seafood chowder. I assumed they were tourists too and enthusiastically asked them their origins. They were embarrassed. They confessed they were from the Western part of the island and did not "come into 'Town very often" if at all. They were older than me. People in P.E.I. can not expect things just to happen by government decree. CBC.caThe sale of soda in cans and in plastic bottles is outlawed in P.E.I. to protect a local bottling company -- such an old-fashioned and backwards way of supporting a local economy. Incidentally, the second time I visited P.E.I. was the first and only time that somebody explained to me how to question and discern the quality of lobster served at a restaurant. The restaurant must have a live tank on display and you should see the chef pick it up after your order. Some places freeze and re-cook. The restaurant should also be able to tell you when the animal was caught. In P.E.I., there are two harvests each year. The longer the animal spent in the open sea, the better the meat. You want a lobster from the most recent harvest. Some places keep lobster in tanks for a long time. In Central Canada, you have very little choice. What do people eat in the West? However, some places in the Atlantic provinces will ship live lobster in bags of water through overnight delivery.

Everybody should make an effort to stop re-quoting entire posts! NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts, Please take the time to remove the bulk of the post your quoting Using the [ Quote ] Feature:, Avoid using more too many quotes! Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply" The forum Administrator wants us to reduce the amount of extra quoting and this thread is filled with tons of white-space turning it into a nauseating scroller-coaster ride.

I will tell you guys what is inappropriate: re-quoting entire posts! NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts, Please take the time to remove the bulk of the post your quoting Using the [ Quote ] Feature:, Avoid using more too many quotes! Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply" The forum Administrator wants us to reduce the amount of extra quoting and this thread is rapidly turning into a scroller-coaster ride.

Quebec separatists consider Quebec to be their "nation" thus, they are nationalists. Quebec federalists consider Canada to be their "nation" thus, they are also nationalists. Can we make Quebec politics even more confusing?

Sorry, not to me. At best, you are just a last name to me. Then again, I am not in your riding. CAVEAT: Permit me to speak aneceditorially. I think Canadians in general are evolving away from taking hierarchy for granted. Part of me wants to think that immigrants are to thank for that. I do not want to believe that Liberals can count on "the ethnic vote" anymore. When somebody looks at a culture of a rich freeloading pre-politician whose father was a rich politician [Trudeau is not the only one] and so on and so on, I want to believe that more and more Canadians -- new and old -- will look to that with disdain instead of reverence. I also want to believe they will look to that as something they wanted to escape. Most people I know hate the guy who jumped the queue and got the job only because his uncle owns the company.

The Canadian responsibility in the Air India terrorist act is bizarre. It happened outside of Canadian waters on a foreign plane. The way I see it: the Air India plane company is responsible for letting terrorists on their plane. The fact that it left Canada or help Canadian passengers does not make it a Canadian responsibility.

Television broadcasters have mastered the art of video editing, mixing and montage. They feed the viewer but do not waste the viewer's time. The broadcaster provides a focussed summary or point of view.

First and foremost, it is not necessary to repeat a post in its entirety particularly when it immediately precedes your reply. Secondarily, Let us assume that you are correct: demand increased; supply has not. Your "problem" suggests that people are entitled to consume green-house gas releasing petrolium products at low prices. The happiness or annoyance of consumers is irrelevent. The point is that consumers are purchasing the gasoline which leads to the profits. No, I do not. Please explain why you say there is "a monopoly, or maybe even a cartel" in the gasoline market.

Not unless you identify what that problem is. Too bad for you. All of your gasoline-consuming friends and neighbors out-number you. ???? How is "a monopoly, or maybe even a cartel" a reason to prevent somebody from entering the market?

Just as a point of order: It is not necessary to repeat the entirety of a previous post. Check out these threads: NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts, Please take the time to remove the bulk of the post your quotingTrim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply" Using the [ Quote ] Feature:, Avoid using more too many quotes! The forum Administrator wants us to reduce the amount of redundant quoting. Go back and edit out the extra quotes.

So what? The cost still exists.

That is a joke. By and large, Canadians have little or no interest in Canada. Most Canadians will vacation outside of Canada before exploring their own country. I think you should learn French or stop complaining about French in Canada. In my bold opinion, the best way to learn is by picking up a few Belgian comic books. They have a lot of variety.

Yeah, yeah, yeah and I forgot to say ceteris paribus too...

People in small towns should pay more because of the extra cost to ship gasoline to their small towns.

Strategically, he should stay right where he is -- that is what I recommend for the government's sake. The vast majority of the population does not pay attention to the details but a cabinet shuffle looks like an admission of guilt.

I agree. Are you concerned about the child getting harmed as a result of copying a parent's "unlawful" behavior? Example: falling down intoxicated, drowning, getting beaten up, moving on to harder drugs, getting a criminal record, etc. or Are you concerned about the child learning to skirt The Law and gradually developing into an anarchist?

-- and gay too? Ruined? Burdened? Ever-lasting hardships, no doubt. How about a river in Africa?

Mooooah! Ha! Ha! Ha! You fell for my trap! Possibly. Thankfully your quote contains the relevant material. Thus, I will not have to de-activate any of my Ignore settings. I also do not care. I also have a short memory and a sense of humor. That is what keeps me going. The Opening Post clearly illustrates the premise by identifying "communist and libertarian parents" as examples and YOU do not come across as a person who falls under either of those categories. Nevertheless, we can also keep things simple by accepting that the Opening Post is polite and conforms to the forum rules. By the way, if you identify yourself as a target of the Opening Post, why not share your thoughts by addressing the discussion????? Granted. If we only look at the principle, my answer is simply no because I do not accept state authority. However, I can still address the issue if we replace the state with the next door neighbor or a passing good samaritan. Thus, my answer is still NO because I do not consider "teaching disdain for the state or law" to qualify as abuse nor a reason to intervene. The onus on justifying an intervention in such a case should be on the state because a "teaching a disdain for the state or law" is not an assault against an other person. However, if a parent were to teach the child to commit assault, that would be reason for a good samaritan to intervene. If a parent were to teach the child to commit a state crime and thus put the child in danger of state intervention, that would be reason for a good samaritan to intervene too. In my mind, both of the above would be the same as a parent putting a child in danger which is abuse.

It is more than a semantic difference: it is a price. Thus, it creates an incentive to shift away from consuming "carbon" products with a different bureaucracy.

Correct. The point is that people will have a direct incentive to reduce their consumption if there is a price compared to when it is free. That is what we want: reduced emissions.

You think? The answer is NO, the state should not intervene. The reasoning is simple: the state can not assume replacing all negligent parents. What would you have the state do?