Michael Hardner

Also, from MikeD's example, anybody who uses roads, listens to CBC or speaks to a customs agency is a freeloader. It's really not worth entertaining these examples of his as though they were serious issues to discuss.

River, Possibly, but so it is that special interests will gladly provide false evidence for a fee. Does an open mind mean we do nothing at all ? If not, when are we supposed to act ? When there is unanimous support for an idea ? Isn't that just more 'herd mentality' ? Your model for action seems to say that science shouldn't be used as a basis for making important decisions with huge ramifications. But you think that CO2 should be cut in case it is the cause ? I think that's what you're saying. It seems like you're against the general oafishness of the masses, as manifested in this issue. I understand the feeling. I don't know what pumping CO2 into the ground means, but educate me on that too...

Honestly, I never thought of it. I always thought of violence as attacking someone.

I surrender, my knowledge of what constitutes a fight is incorrect. Thanks for bringing the brains... as opposed to bringing the pain....

Leafless, Thanks for the news report. Now, what are YOUR feelings on this question: 'don't you think we should bring Pakistani Christians to Canada ?' Keep in mind that Pakistani Christians are the same as Pakistani Muslims, with the exception of religion. So you want them let into Canada right ?

Fine, then you want to discuss 'what constitutes violence'. I don't think holding somebody down who is attacking somebody constitutes violence, but that's just me. Not a very interesting topic, though.

WD, How could that be ? Restraint isn't violence. Anyway, your question is more about 'what constitutes pacifism' rather than 'does pacifism constitute a moral choice'.

I've encountered people like them (you) on forums only.

Scott, But 'liberty' is a state that, while maintained with the threat of force, is essentially peaceful. 'Liberty or death' is a warning to external forces that any attempt to impinge on our peace will be met with force. That tells me that the founding fathers valued peace as a 'good' thing. Pacifism, as Ghandi described it, is a different matter. There are examples where strong values have topped corrupt regimes without violence. The idea came from the US constitution - the proverbial life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the goal.

WD The question doesn't make sense in light of my post. Even with your ignoring of my post, your question doesn't make sense. A pacifist can intervene, can talk people out of violence, or can restrain people from committing violence.

MikeDavid, And again - you don't have a reasonable thought behind your opinion, only a dislike for people who are different. You post false evidence, and refuse to back up quotes. The only thing that anyone should discuss with you is your shoddy methods of analysis and debate. Here is how topics are discussed here: 1 ) Make a clear point 2 ) Back it up with evidence 3 ) When others have points that counter yours, deal with them. Explain why they're wrong, or modify your position to accommodate any criticism that may be valid.

What I see on this thread and others, with respect, is people disbelieving other people and attributing selfish attitudes to them that aren't provable.

My answer would be - it depends on the reasons for your choice. If you have made this choice because it's better for you, then it's not the most moral choice. If you have made it because you feel that it is more moral, then by definition it's the most moral choice. Moral is a bad word to use here, by the way. I think you want to use the word 'ethical'.

MD, So are you fighting fire with fire then ? Do you think it's okay to say whatever you can get away with to counter these groups ? It's an objective question.

MD, I couldn't find this either: I'm not saying you made it up, but... well... did you ? I'd also like to point out that the hospital administrator doesn't need to mention 'rumours' that he or his staff might have heard or invented to vilify a community that is angry with the quality of service they have experienced. Perhaps if the rest of Canada was a little more outspoken about the quality of service, our system wouldn't be in such shoddy shape. Canadians don't even know where to get healthcare service performance statistics, such as wait times.

Riverwind, Thank you for the excellent post. What you and your opponents are both talking about is flaws in the scientific process. I accept that everything you have said here may be true. How would you reform our information system to make some kind of public consensus (not scientific consensus) possible ?

MikeDavid - So purchased healthcare is a third world practice ? And the US ? As usual, your original post contains insinuations and outright falsehoods. If you don't care to provide evidence, or even to post correct information then don't expect reasonable people to engage you in intelligent debate. You will only receive taunts.

Speaking of the bigger picture.... The article linked adds this tidbit: It's not clear that this group is against ANY expansion of the parking lot.

Riverwind, I think that ultimately the world is unable to move forward on this issue because there is no single authority that everyone defers to on such matters. Global warming wasn't invented out of whole cloth, it was discovered by scientists, presumably without an agenda. After the oil companies became involved, the left smelled a conspiracy and this entire issue became wrapped in the identity politics of the latter 20th century. Some questions: Is it valid for 'interested parties' to hire scientists to push their 'point of view' ? Your points about consensus are understood, but how much skepticism is required to call GW into question ? When an issue is of global concern, is the normal language of science clear enough to communicate warnings to the masses ? Are scientists justified in lying to wake people up ? In the current media climate, would the press publicize a well researched paper that decouples the statistical levels of CO2 emissions from temperature rises ? Will Bono hold a rock concert ? Once again, we find that our systems of communications are instrumental in determining how this issue plays out.

MikeDavid, Have you changed your view of research ? I remember you referring to examples and evidence with disdain. Certainly I remember asking you to prove your assertion that most truck drivers in India held degrees, but never heard from you on that thread.

Morris, I think the time lag for magazines will help them, with regards to competing with the web. Nobody really expects today's news to show up in tomorrow's magazine. Newspapers, though, with their 8-16 hour time lag have an odd time window. Wedgewood is great, but most people don't use Wedgewood. The other point I'd like to make is that I'm addressing the suitability of new media to our political information systems, in the face of cynical and faded popularity of the banal and struggling 'old media', especially television. I don't think magazines, newspapers, or television will or should disappear any more than radio did when television appeared, or when FM radio took off. Media adapts. When television appeared, radio turned away from dramas and comedies, and played music for teenagers, and rock n roll was born. Rock n roll couldn't have happened in the forties because the audience for it didn't warrant the bandwidth. When FM appeared, radio adapted to all-talk and all-sports format (remember Toronto's radio station for guys ?) creating the Rush Limbaugh phenomenon. Web communication is less centralized, more idea and writing based, and as such is the best match to the media for which democracy was designed - the 'press' of the 18th century.

In one sense, you're absolutely correct. New media is always susceptible to misuse by upstarts. The Nazis used radio and film masterfully, and made the old guard look.... old. However, a forum is used by a lot of people equally, so it would be difficult to manufacture a mass fraud, such as anonymous acceptance by Maple Leaf Web posters, for example. Who is better at writing a story - Christy Blatchford or Leafless ? Ok. Bad example. How about Morris Dancer or Joey Slinger ? I'd rather read Morris or Scott, even though I'm liable to be disgusted, infuriated or alarmed. But with Slinger, I will only be bored. We piggy back on other media for facts. Anyway, if I read an incorrect fact in the Star, I won't know it unless I buy tomorrow's issue and look for the corrections column. If I misquote an immigration statistic, one of my opponents here will catch it within minutes. But also populated by people who haven't been writing the same copy for 30 years. There will always be some stones mixed in with the wheat. But that 5% includes some real gems. I read things on these boards that I would not find in the mainstream press, and not just because it would contravene Canada's Charter of Rights to publish them. Exactly right, except... wrong. The mainstream press isn't losing to one website, it's losing to hundreds of them. The copy may be boring, ill written, and so forth but it's interactive. There's still room for mainstream media, but the bridge to the public needs to be there.

Jerry, What you're basically saying is that religion has declined, then. What else constitutes culture, other than religion, or ... food, the arts and so forth. I can't see any difference between any of the religions, with respect to your definition of 'strong confident culture'. If you're advocating a general return to religious values, then so be it. What are you advocating ? Some kind of pan-Canadian official value system to be taught in schools and agreed upon by all ? Is that the constitution ? If not, what is it ?

Leafless et al: Since we're so interested in preserving Christianity, and the situation in Pakistan, our ally, has deteriorated, don't you think we should bring Pakistani Christians to Canada ? Fears for Christians in Pakistan