Figleaf

If you add more seats within an area where you will win all or most of them, you thereby increase the number of seats you are likely to win. The Cons don't win in the BC lower mainland!?! I beg to differ. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ca...ion_2006_v2.png I disagree. To address the question of whether the tories manoeuver is gerrymander-like you need to look at whether the results of the change are explicable in terms of the stated rationale, and whether there is a benefit being derived by the party driving the change. Because it's the mathematical corollary of our collective decision to give Canadians in the smallest provinces proportionally more influence. You're describing an outcome, not providing the requested explanation. Ah, I see -- you haven't noted the technical aspect of the poll that results in all Ontario voters voting Mu in the non-Ontario section, and the non-Ontario voters vote Mu in the Ontario section. As for unscientific, I don't think you can conclude that (although it would certainly have a large margin of error). As for it being a push poll, yes, all polls are push polls. Strip out the Mu's and you see that a substantial majority of people both in and outside of Ontario object to this tory gerrymander, like.

Somehow the Tories have made themselves the victims here. They aren't. They've tried, but they aren't succeeding. All this whinging about not saying the tories piss on people is quite a thing. What's next on their hit list of taboo tory terms?

Amd the Iran - Iraq war is just trivial event I assume. Of course, we must exonerate them, since only Americans crimes are valid. You should read the thread before commenting. I was comparing Bush's body count with Osama bin Laden's. Nothing to do with the Iran/Iraq war.

Well put. And 100% bang-on correct.

I had hoped you could come up with something better than a transparent strawman argument. The intentions this thread addresses is the stated intentions (to redress population/representation imbalance) and real intentions of the government. The historical intentions of others are not otherwise relevant. You ask the wrong question. There are two: -Why should Canadians living in Ontario have proportionally less influence than Canadians living in other regions. -Why should people accept the gerrymandering (-like, as you like) quality of this maneouvre that obviously favors the electoral prospects of the tories? Your 'reasons' are ludicrous.

I am also sure the system provides for all these eventualities. It sounds like you are assuming rather than speaking from knowledge. How are you sure? Yes, I would, that's why I want to know. Actually, if your glib assumptions turned out to be true it might change my mind. Would you say the same in the converse situation?

Has a much broader meaning than you claim. I find it ironic that you have no problem accepting that marriage can apply to same sex couples but you refuse to accept a broader definition of religion. Call me a traditionalist, but I have a problem with trying to use words as if they mean their very opposite. Why on earth should we accept your definition of religion when it's effect is to thwart the ability to communicate sensibly? A while ago I asked you a question, twice. If we were to accept your all-encompassingly broad definition for 'religion', what should we call it when we refer to what the rest of us mean by religion? Simply reciting the same assertion that has already been shown to be wrong and false is not only pointless, it's also somewhat insulting.You have shown no such thing. All you have done is claim it is false.Not me alone. Various others have shown this to you to, but you choose to ignore it. Revisit posts #70, #97-99 (wherein you acknowledge that atheism may base it's 'moral framework' on the greater good while religions base it on God(s)), #112, 120, 130 (implied), 135, 154, 176, 184, 187, and 196, for a start.Also, there are questions you did not answer at posts 84, 106, 118, 120, 126, 163, 176... All religious beliefs condone all of these under 'mystically special' conditions. On the other hand, atheism has no means or basis that allows it to posit mystical conditions at all. So, there's one fundamental difference. It seems there that you are arguing that there is no difference between religions because they have all found the same set of necessities in encountering human nature. In that regard, your position seems inordinately reductionist. You are ignoring many known, describable differences in various theologies and in the particulars of life styles they prescribe. It is unclear why similarities that, for the most part are enforced by the environment, should be given emphasis over the differences. So much for your comparison of religions. As for atheism, it differs more fundamentally from religiously based moralities, as discussed above.

Do you accuse everyone who questions your biblical citations of 'mocking God'? It seems to me that someone who knowingly misrepresents the Word of God by saying that a passage from the Bible says something it does not say is the one who really mocks God. It seems to me that someone who purports to know the mind of God and puts his own common sense on a par with it is the one who really mocks God.

Everyone has metaphysical beliefs. Believing that there is nothing more that the physical world is a metaphysical belief. No, it's not.* Again with the meaningless words! Secular humanism may be a belief system, but it's not a religion. And neither is atheism. That's what 'secular' and 'atheism' mean. Not being religion is the very point and essence of the words. Your statement there make even less sense than to say "All the world's elephants, including the mice and birds ..." or maybe more like "Everyone alive today, including the dead...". Simply reciting the same assertion that has already been shown to be wrong and false is not only pointless, it's also somewhat insulting. They are opposite at one level because they do describe different types of belief systems. However they still share traits that are common to all belief systems. Well, FINALLY some remotely sensible qualification has entered your rhetorical toolkit. That MAY be possible, depending on what traits you are refering to.

What a despicable thing to say.

Thank you -- There's the answer to Geoffrey's quibble. Well, that certainly sounds like a confirmation that unmarried soldiers lives are worth less. But maybe you can clear up a related question -- what about soldiers who are unmarried but have children? What about soldiers with no children but with estranged spouses? And what if the facts are that the child is contributing to the parents' upkeep? It's hardly unheard of.

That is disgusting -dobbin should be ashamed of himself, these types of comments are simply indicative of a general lowering of tone on these boards, and its hard not to respond in kind. Where's the moderator when you need one. What do you imagine is so wrong with jdobbin's comment? If Steve and his gang are treating military families poorly, why not call it like it is? OH, RIGHT! I forgot the 'don't-criticise-the-tories' rule. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo sooooooooooooooooorry.

It has already been thoroughly established (on this thread if I'm not mistaken) that Buddhism does in fact have deities. Yes. The imagery is simply a way of conveying a message regarding the nature of the universe. That may be what YOU THINK is going on, but people professing a religion do ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT. That's what it's all about. Absolutely not. Christianity's message includes the assertion that Jesus Christ, a part of God, became a human, came to Earth and was crucified thereby expiating worldly sins. Judaism' message denies each and every element of the forgoing. You will note, I hope, that they are therefore quite categorically NOT 'the same'.

An electron is the opposite of the proton. What sort of sloppy thinking nonsense is that. An electron is a subatomic particle and a proton is a subatomic particle and they have opposite electrical charges. They are not otherwise opposites except in respect of the electrical charge. Theism and atheism are opposites by definition. Atheism is constructed as the opposite of theism, in terms of what the whole of theism means. There is a perfectly good answer to this question, and many posters will realize it immediately, but I think it's time you answered some of the questions I've put to you instead.

As anyone following this thread knows by now, it is necessary to be clear and precise about definition when discussing these subjects with you. So, what do you mean by 'faith' in that sentence? Personally, yes, I have some faith in the ability of my fellow humans to discover and convey correct representations of reality when that is what they have set out to do. Particularly when they are able and willng to explain their findings lucidly and respond thoroughly to questions. What I don't have is (capital F) Faith of the kind that bids me not be skeptical if I have doubts and not question when the explanations are not coherent. Not if they don't have metaphysical beliefs. No, they don't.*

How about someone bombs your mom ... would you like that? Warmongering SOBs should stuff that callous keyboard-bravado and try a sample of reality for a change.

No choice in the poll worked for me. I would prefer: 1-Urgently improving deportation enforcement. After hearings and final decisions are made, people who have been ordered out can still float around in the country for a long time before the authorities get them out. What's the delay for? No reason, the bureaucrats just don't do it. 2-Rethink and enhance the criteria for economic immigrants. It should include an assessment of their ability to hit-the-ground running both in employment and in terms of social integration. 3-Speed up the processing of economic immigrants. It can take OVER TWO YEARS to get accepted and processed, no matter how desireable your qualifications are. This is ridiculous and thwarts our getting the best immigrants, who can and do just apply to quicker jurisdictions. 4-End all sponsorship except of family-class members. 5-Reduce the scope of family-class immigration. 6-Carry out suitability interviews and personality testing. Anyone who doesn't accept basic Canadian norms should not be admitted. 7-Make it a condition of landing to settle in smaller/remote communities (and assess the applicants on their job prospects in THOSE communities.) 8-Make it mandatory to acquire some level of English or French. For those who need it, compell them to attend government-provided classes. That would be good for a start.

I think Bush's body-count is higher.

Why is Steve's government so contemptuous of unmarried soldiers? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National Excerpts:

Well said! It's about time Bluth's despicable behaviour was curbed.

Were Adam and Eve even married? (You know, assuming, just for fun, that they existed.)

Relevant for what? Irrelevant to who??? That sentence is meaningless. The phrase 'atheist religion' is a contradiction. That could be -- except that atheism is the opposite of theism and has virtually nothing in common with it. Why do you do that? Using words with different meanings interchangeably means you are not communicating. You are wasting our time. 'Language' and 'religion' are not the same thing.

Well, one thing I can tell you... marriage is not even mentioned in the passage you quoted above. That's something I've always gotten a real chuckle from ... God-lovers quoting non sequitur passages from the Bible. They do it all the time. It's like they can't read what the thing actuallly says. Not in this country. Here our laws are made by Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Have you got any source that supports that allegation? (Even within your religious game-rules.) Oh, do please tell us what's in the mind of God! (If you want to be outrageously presumptuous.) Common sense? I thought you said the Bible said that. Are you elevating mere human 'common sense' to a status equivalent with the HOLY WORD OF GOD??? Sexism. I see no mention of marriage in that passage.

Saying the worship of a supernatural deity is an irrelevant detail of Islam, Judaism, or Christianity has got to be one of the most stunningly ridiculous statements I've ever read on a forum, and I've read a few stunners! That's silly too. The details of construction is instrumental to the likelihood of the intent being properly or effectively delivered. And please explain what distinction you are relying on between the intent and the 'rational' [sic]?

Carpet bomb Gaza? What a vicious genocidal idea! Why aren't we hearing rightwingers and Israel supporters speaking out against this kind of terrorist thinking? After all, they constantly demand to hear moderate Muslims condemning Palestinian actions. (Or is it possible they harbor a double standard? Shurely not!)