Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    43,211
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    98

Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. The example is not useful. The 1970s also had Fonzie jumping a shark, but presumably scientists didn't believe it was real. Nobody should accept the AGW at face value, but they should read enough about it to understand why experts mostly believe it is happening. No human is perfectly impartial and only the unwise think so.
  2. Hear hear. The idea that there was significant support for a new ice age is a red herring that was brought out in the early days of GW opposition, when they were first trying to say that there was no warming happening. When I see that argument trotted out, I often skip everything that comes after.
  3. There are limits to how far you can measure fairness with this tit-for-tat method of changing the group mentioned. For example, what if he had said "The Irish control the media." - would he have been charged then ? Likely not. Is it because of bias ? I think that Morris' comment is more apt. I would submit that the content of what is being said has to be looked at in a cultural context. If somebody said that natives were controlling the bubble gum industry, they'd probably be just sent for observation and not charged either.
  4. Thanks for the clarification. And as ever, my efforts are primarily directed to pushing the debate away from the arena of the inflammatory so that real debate can happen. We are not Fox News, CNN and Al Jazeera here, we're people taking part in discussions.
  5. They too are giving employment to foreigners, who will not be paying taxes in Canada. So we should seal up the border, right ?
  6. It seems to me, though, that GW was THE issue that politicized science in the late 20th century. It wasn't political when the scientists first advanced that global warming was happening, but that came soon after when the oil companies starting funding their own studies. A clean-up of science isn't going to happen. GW is a reality as you yourself seem to acknowledge. Nobody knows, or can know what can come of it anyway. Now what do you think we should do ? Waiting for human nature to correct itself is not a realistic option.
  7. Well, we haven't ratified anything significant before these treaties happened, so it's not like the East Anglia inquiry will hold it up. As for 'proof' of catastrophic AGW. It won't happen. They have models, and they can only use words like 'likely cause'. What will be the effect of GW on the earth ? No one can say. Some of the alarmists know this too, but it's impossible to initiate political change on a global scale without some panic behind it. Of course, that doesn't make it right - but if you believe that the end justifies the means then it does make it right.
  8. You've dodged the question about individual consumers again...
  9. Certainly you're not proposing that some bad behavior by English scientists means we should ignore what all scientists say ? My, that would be like saying Muslims were all bad, because a few of them are terrorists.
  10. Sorry - are people actually being prevented from getting mammograms ? I don't agree with that, if it's happening.
  11. No, it's not. We already discussed this on the thread and the medical establishment has pushed that age to 50.
  12. I tried again and seems to have worked differently. Check again.
  13. There's an idea for sure - as evidenced by the few posters here who are asking about it. But there are lots of ideas out there. Does the media jump on the possibility that a 'hate crime' has happened ? Probably, but we've yet to agree on why. We do know that such crimes are unusual and thus attract attention for that reason. And, to recap your thoughts, some believe that the media are afraid to report some 'hate crimes' for fear of being labeled.
  14. I messaged you about discussing such things online but didn't hear back - do you read your messages ?
  15. Argus, I guess you missed the collective shutting down of Lictor's posts. We found that the speculation followed reports from police to that effect. There are lots of black-on-white and white-on-black crimes that don't get national coverage, too.
  16. Shady - the point is that there are standards and best practices that have to be promoted that are NOT life-and-death issues, but good management. You can have a chest x-ray every year, if you're so inclined and you want to pay for it but it has nothing to do with managing public health.
  17. The government as in departments or ministry of health ? They have to set up guidelines for use of the system, taking into account public health as well as efficient use of resources. There's no issue here - it's just more political deep-diving by the scuba team. It's discouraging, because there are so many things wrong with government that are ignored, while these nit-picks are blown out of proportion.
  18. Ok, point taken that there's no individual crime called a 'hate crime', and that the term is mostly used to describe either a ) a class of other crimes or b ) distribution/production of hate propaganda. It's still a term that's in common use, and evokes shock - which is likely why the media likes to use it. You, like I, appear to pine for better media. How do you envision such a thing ? New thread for this ?
  19. I'm not sure why you have to imbue the banks with an evil motive. Are Canadians who shop at Wal-Mart, and purchase goods produced in China similarly cheating ? It's hard to see the difference between the two actions - those of consumers and of the banks. Both are taking advantage of liberalized trade. Actually, seeing what the other posters have said - this question seems to be already have been asked. Your position seems to be that the banks are evil. I'm onside with wanting to provide a better economic environment for Canadians and providing jobs, a tax base and so on. But encouraging Canadian businesses to reduce productivity isn't the way. I would prefer letting them profit from productivity, and directing the profits towards some other area we can develop. [Edited: You seem to have answered this from Renegade: "If you expect that you should have your own choices on where to spend your funds, why shouldn't companies have that same choice?" "Yes within Canada and sustaining Canada's economy, not India's or China's." So then - you're proposing isolationism ? As such, the title of this thread is a little misleading. It's really about discouraging outsourcing and free trade.]
  20. 1. On that we can agree. I will absolutely concur that the media leans Democrat, although I feel that organizations other than Fox try harder to be objective. Maybe that's why they have to say 'Fair and Balanced' as they're slogan. Kind of like Cheezies that say 'made with real cheese' on the package. Shouldn't I have assumed there was cheese in cheezies ? 2. Oleg brought up AC, and specifically her gender and his ambivalent feelings towards it.
  21. Hi Kimmy - do you mean that 'hate crime' as described below, is just a sub-class of 'assault' ? If so, that what of it ? The BC case was reported as progressing with the RCMP investigating it as a 'hate crime'. That factor will be considered in the sentencing, and if it's not a factor then it will likely just be considered an assault. What is the point of us dissecting the term 'hate crime' again ?
  22. Shady, it's all in how you define "left". The top tax rate under one president is a fraction of the top tax rate under another president - who is the most left ? Answer that, then consider that Eisenhower is the president with the high tax rate in our example, Clinton is the one with the low tax rate.
×
×
  • Create New...