Lost in Manitoba

Working together, in a highly stressful, potentially dangerous environment, you cannot have friction between co-workers. Obvious right? (The effectiveness of a seceratary is compromised if she refused to speak to men.) I don't think it comes down to morallity per se but more of a Utilitarian kind of rule based structure, what is the best way to get these people to work together to be the most productive? In all jobs they have some sort of sensitivity training, either formal or informal. Someone working around the elderly probably shouldn't swear a lot; racist humour shouldn't be acceptable at the workplace, and so on. Its not that your being brain washed, more like being educated on how to do your job best.

We had sensitivity training in the USN as well. We all took anger management and alcohol awareness courses too. What's the big deal? The sensitivity training deals with sexual harassment and racial intollerance as well.

But in my analogy, you are looking only at the taunting little brother. What about the bullish older one? Is that not a sign of low self esteem and an inferiority complex? I believe they say of bullies that they are unsure of their place in the social group and as a result they strike out in fear. Is it healthy to try to impose your will on someone else, either by threats or by actual force? Who's got the psychological scar?

Not the only conclusion... With the social acceptance, of sorts, of gays, they rightly have little to fear in the form of retribution -either physical beating or open hatred. This gives them a sense of security and with this they may act outrageous to taunt those who don't like gays. To put it in another way: a little brother may fear his older sibling and be bullied by him. While mom is in the room, however, the older brother cannot threaten or beat on him, so out of spite the little brother may do all that he possibly can to get under his brother's skin.

When I was in the navy, I asked the chaplain about this very question. 'Where does your loyalty lie?' He said something to the affect that he would obey the orders given him, any orders, by his CO, even if it was against his beliefs, but he would expect to account for it when he stood before God.

Unwilling to change, or revise old traditions... The Roman Catholic church was the traditional and true church of the faith. Then those deviants came along with their filthy ideas and started the bastard protestant traditions.

Maybe the problem is promiscuity. Does Homesexuallity necassarily imply promiscuity? A promiscuous heterosexual probably risks all the STD's that a homosexual one does. What about risk-taking heterosexuals, as in ones not practicing safe-sex? What about those women who engage in anal sex? They would suffer the same problems as homosexuals who have anal sex, I would guess. Wouldn't simple sex-ed lower the stats for the diseases and other health problems? Why do you figure homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide? Is it that they are self-loathers or mentally disturbed? If they are, then would it be because of congenital defects or would it be outside societal pressures? I would think that intolerance and out-right hate would definitely lead to a negative self-image and low self-esteem, and ultimately depression which is often a precursor of suicide. Religous conservatives condemn sex-ed in schools and condom machines in public bathrooms. Religious conservatives decry homosexuallity as ammoral, against natural law, and in doing so cause intolerance and even hate towards homosexualls. I don't think it takes a great leap to connect religious conservatives with the rise of STD's and the high suicide rates amongst homosexualls. As for the 12step program Neil, why not go back to therapy pairing homosexuall images with electric shocks. All in the name of curing them of course.

A muslim cleric in Iraq says that the US are evil infidels and must be thown out. Public leaders, devout in their faith, wage an anti-american campaign. Can you defend this as being right? If not, how can you defend any other religious official trying to influence any other public official?

Just to confirm what you said Neal; Homosexuallaity is just as bad and as destructive as Alcoholism? And you figure that you can cure, or at least control, Homosexual urges by a religion oriented 12-step program? Just want to make sure I'm reading this right.

Neddy, you summed it up. I've always thought that common-law marriage was less than the real thing. Want the benifits, the recognition, but can't be bothered to go to the courthouse and sign a piece of paper. I've always felt that a marriage done ala Clerk,JP, Judge, or Captain was best, and had value to civic responsibillity and pride (believing religion and state are unmixable). The realm of religious marriage should be left to the practioners of that religion. In the end, the religious marriage must be approved and certified by the state anyway.

Wether you are for or against same sex marriage, I was wondering how people feel about religious officials, such as the pope or that bishop in Alberta, publicly trying to influence the decision of our elected officials. I would say the Bishop is a citizen and has a vote, but the Pope threatening eternal damnation somehow irritates me. We criticize other nations and try to exert pressure, mostly for trade reasons or human rights abuses, and it is acceptable for them to criticize us fo the same. Is critisism of our public laws open to religious pressure, and should they be? Would you vote for a MP that chooses his stance on issues, by the dictates of a religious leader?

All it is is lack of economic or political will to populate other parts of the country. Not to say there aren't communities there. I've never been anywhere in Canada where there wasn't at least a small community within an hours drive.

Well well. Only Christians can become freemasons.... well then, you have totally proved your point! Gay people should not be married! ( they could become freemasons though) In the end, all I can say is, gay marriage will be passed because the majority of people are much more open-minded than you and elect politicians who represent that tolerance. (BTW the tale of gays corrupting children reminds me of the Germans telling their kids that the Jews will steal them from their beds)

Would a blind driver be safe on the road? Would a deaf operator be able to do her job? This is a last resort kind of argument, Hugo, and I'm sure you are smarter than this. Two men or two women can be as loving and as committed as a man and a women can be. They can fulfill and perform all of the functions and roles that a members of a hetero-union can. They can work, love and raise their children, they can pay their taxes, and on and on and on. I can understand and do appreciate the argument of consequences and forthought. Like you said, and have said before, that our culture is super-saturated with sex and sexual images. Little girls wearing belly shirts, fake tattoos, and sweatpants with 'hot stuff' written on the ass cheeks, is entirely, intentionally, made out to be an object of sexual attraction. A 12yr old should not fill this position. Guys should not look at a elementary school girl and pop a stiffie. Who markets this stuff and who are they trying to get to buy their products? Is it the gay community? Are they the ones that are responsible for Britney, the pepsi ads, jean commercials, and every other product out there? Probably not. Theirs is a niche market that would probably be more inclined to buy butless chaps or sailor uniforms than a revealing nightie for kids. Is it really the gay community that is responsible for teenage pregnancies??? C'mon now. Your values and beliefs are more threatened by the corporate greed than by gays.

Oh, I agree Pelly. But do you think a 12yr old kid that kills someone is just as guilty as if YOU committed the same act? Or is it the same as if a Psych patient went off their meds and committed the act. I think the difference is that you knew with absolute certainty that you were doing something amoral and criminal and also knew that if you were caught you would be punished. That 12yr old deffinitely deserves to be held accountable, but he also needs to be educated on what's right and wrong and the idea of morallity and consequences, or in other words, he should be guided to the point where we are at.

That's right-on Michael. And as for your comment Craig, you're absolutely right that it's a good move economically...... for Canada. Citys, from the politicians to the business community, should move towards advertising the freedom and open-mindedness of Canada, from a tourism stand-point as well as emmigration from the US. Just imagine a massive influx of American gays flowing across the border. To stereotype them, it would be a swarm of well-dressed, nopn-violent, intelligent and well cultured couples. Or not juyst couple!! Canadian gay communities could be advertised ' Move to Canada and find Love, get married and have a family!'

When talking about youth justice, one should take into the fact that if you are unable to make rational and intelligent decisions due to alcohol, drugs, or insanity you are said to be not responsiblle for your actions; emotional immaturity should also be put in that category. I would point out, though, that just because someone is not responsible for their actions, does not mean they should not be accountable for them. ie. A drunk man getting in a fist fight may not neccasarily need to be charged with assault and go to jail, but he should have to attend alcohol couselling, do community service, and swear to mantain the peace.

When I was a kid, me and a few friends thought it would be cool to break into the local SportsPlex and go swimming at 2am. We were drunk, seemed like a good idea at the time . Anyway, we were busted. The crown wanted us tried as adults, and get 3yrs each. We were 15yr olds! We came from good families, we were all of us at the top of our class in school. It was a stupid thing to do, brought on by alcohol which is a pervasive dettriment to our society. Instead of time served the judge gave us 500hrs of community service, made us pay for the damage we caused to the SportsPlex's doors that we pryed open, and immediately after the sentencing, we were to stay 48hrs at the jail, to show us what we could expect if we screwed up again. A lot of people may think that this is too lax. What would have been better? 5 kids with potential, losing everything and being criminalized in prison? We learned our lesson; understood there's consequences to our actions. In my mind, the judge made the right decision. The other guys are currently all work in the justice system, one as a Mountie and the other three are high-risk youth probation officers. While I do wince when I hear about some sentencing being so lax, maybe it's a case where you have to understand all aspects of the case to understand why the judge ruled as he did.

Actually just an observation, Kanada Dry. I don't give much faith to the polls, in fact I doubt I've ever made a post on this site with a 'in a recent poll' comment. What I do see, however, is that an CA supporter such as AF or SirSpringer will refer to a poll that 'shows' that support for the CA is growing, Harper is popular, etc. They see what they want to see, and take it as fact, a confirmation of beliefs, you might say. Then there are people like Pell that refers to polls 'showing' that NDP are growing stronger and that the CA are getting weaker, or something to that effect. I would guess that this is what he may want to happen, so he accepts it as accurate. Nothing wrong with doing this, but I think it's more usefull to be critical of polls and other 'proofs' you encounter in politics.

Another comment.... for every poll from the LEFT wing conspiracy, their is an equal one from the RIGHT wing freedom fighters. It shows your own bias on which one you give merit.

I find polls really interesting but typically I rate them just a step above horiscopes. I always try to remember that pollsters are not scientists, researching their field to understand it. Instead they are paid money, by someone with a vested interest, to conduct a poll that will support that interest. I actually would like to see the report card on the predictions of pollsters along with the end-source of the funding for the poll, included in every poll.

All of the comments on this board are really good, even if they don't align with my bias and preconcieved notions. You all seem to be informed and educated, or very good at BS'ng. Just actually read the header, Anti Americanism and what is Canada ? I guess I just randomly selected this topic, but here's my opinion, for what its worth. I'm not anti-American, I am anti-Right Wing Politics, either in the guise of the Republican party or the PC/Alliance parties. When people spout off anti-American remarks, I truly believe its the policies and attitudes they get frustrated with, and i agree and wholeheartedly 'hate those *******s'. As for what is Canada? I think maybe we are a country trying to make it a habitable place for any culture or group that wish to live here. We as a country are very introspective, we are always worried about stepping on toes or being repressive to ones beliefs. We fear coming off as racists, as sexists, xenophobes, as greedy, as arrogant, as... well, you name it and were afraid of doing it and being disliked by anyone. It almost seems we have a national guilty conscience, and we continually try to make up for past misdeeds. And everyone knows guilt is a powerful motivator. Anyway, thats my take. Go back to the debate already in progress.

Don't let me come off as a commie, or a supporter of dictators. I am a capitalist in a capitalist society. I work to support myself. I spend my money on hockey, movies, etc. My money is my own. I don't regularly volunteer or donate. I don't have all the answers; hell, I don't really have any. Hugo, you are right of course about GNP. My thought was only this, people should look after their own affairs before meddling into the affairs of others. Look after your own family first. I do care about the people in countries like Iraq. No one should be tortured or killed by tyrants. That i should have to say this is stupid. It should be ingrained in every human being that this is not acceptable. What I do have a problem with is this, the reasons for the war. Do I think it is about oil? Not really, considering there are other sources, domestic and foriegn, that are much more friendly. I think, me singular voice joe citizen, its about power and control. Does the end justify the means? I think that the US is using the people of Iraq as a means to an end, namely control of a mideast country. And with that, I am disgusted. Never should a person be used as a means to an end. The end should be the person, namely the liberation of the person. If the US would hand over Iraq to a coalition of against-the-war peacekeeping forces, and just walked away without looking for profit or political gain, well then, I think they really would be the good guys. But as is... I wonder sometimes, did Osama and his boys wake up one day, look at a map and say 'hell, this united states may be a good place to attack' with no reason whatsoever? Or did they do it because some foriegn power came into their culture and crudely and rudely try to enforce their policies? Could this latest war cause a terrorist act in the years to come? ps. Before some idiot replies, no I don't support terrorists, no I'm not a nazi, and neither do I support the taliban.

Hey, I'm not that deep, but some of you get the point and some just rant and accuse others. The starvation stats I don't have... but have you ever driven in urbanized America and not seen the poor, the starving, or the huddled masses? If not,get of the freeway and drive around the underpasses or the ghettos. Lock your doors first, and never drive under the speed limit. Look at the sheer poverty and think 'wow. it's so great that the US of A spends more on millitary than the rest of the world combined.'

How long does it take a person to die from starvation or privation? How long before your body gives out from using crack/coke/heroin? Probably takes a while, right? Is being gassed any more painful than starving to death, any more horrifying than watching your children starve because you can't find a job to make some money to by some food to feed them or put a roof over their heads? You know what's scary? It's preventable. But the Powers That Be doesn't care about its own citizens. Strange that they care about the Iraqui people so much, i mean, they aren't even taxpayers.