Figleaf

Attack Iran!? On what possible justification??? Or is it now okay to throw destruction around on a mere whim?

I've already told you. My objection is that I see no basis for your contention that "acceptable level ofnjustice is one of the primary roles of society". You've said it is based upon evidence. Show me that evidence. That tells me what you object to, not the basis of it. Since the available evidence comprises the entirety of political history and about 1/8th of economic theory, some further specificity from you is required to make my response viable here. Or do you just want me to recommend some textbooks? If there is no objective definition for it, it is then subjective. I call it arbitrary, because subjective criteria are by definition arbitrary. It's not subjective. I think my usage of 'acceptable' has confused you. I don't mean 'acceptable according to a set standard'. I mean 'observed to have been acceptable'. Go back to my statement and swap in that formulation ... It should solve this difficulty. (BTW, a subjective standard isn't necessarily arbitrary.) The accumulated data of political and economic history assessed through the methods of logic and theory. A. absolute wealth generated; B. wealth generated relative to resource utilization; C. wealth actually generated compared to the potential for wealth generation. Perhaps other methods could be useful. That depends on what (and how well) he ends up doing instead of carpentry. (Of course what to do about his preferences is a different question than whether it's wasteful.) Okay ... But let's be careful about injecting 'stability' as a criterion now too. Not really. You put it in the positive there, whereas my observation is in the negative ... conflict is wasteful. How do you know what those people would do? I don't need to know. It is sufficient to assume that given greater productive potential some of that greater potential would be applied. This can be assumed based on the inherent incentives of production and consumption. True. In addition to the observable but diffuse evidence of political history it can be revealed through economic modeling. We'd probably have some real challenges formulating comprehensive and accurately predictive tests, but supposing it were possible, I'd expect that method would increase efficiency and therefore overall welfare (in the economic sense). That depends on the interpretation of obligation (as your use of quotes suggests). Some people consider justice a desirable end in itself. In that view eq.opp. is desirable if it reduces injustice (or at least perceived injustice). Some people consider increased overall wealth a desirable end. In that view eq.opp. is desirable as it improves efficiency. Of course people who hold a nihilistic or solipsistic view of society won't see these as desireable. Why do they have any such 'right'? It's equally (if not more) reasonable to ask what basis they can offer to deny paying up for equal opportunity. What benefit can they show society for their privileges? e

I Think it's funnier than 'commie'.

This has about as much credibility as Colin Powell's Iraq WMD presentation a few years back. I.e. inadequate.

;

Refresh my memory please. Who? You can't guess?

Go ahead, present the evidence you draw your conclusion from. Before I do something so tedious, perhaps you could outline what the basis of your objection is. Then it is arbitrary and subjective and what I may construe as acceptable may not be to another. It is neither arbitrary nor subjective. The rest of your sentence is correct, but not important to the issue. Clarify please -- What do you mean by 'it'? Me either, not as an absolute measure of a successful society anyway. I merely point it out to show that even in "unjust" societies internal conflict isn't inevitable. Longevity doesn't disprove conflict or inefficiency. I'd challenge you to show me any unjust society without inefficiencies from conflicts of some kind. Show me how you know what the optimal productivity of all the others is, and how you know they would have succeeded. I don't need to quantify the loss to know it must be there. It stands to reason that if you are denied an opportunity that would have made you more productive that potential productivity is lost.

I'd be surprised if Greg were to use that criterion. Oh that hurts a lot, coming from a compulsive masturbator.

That's okay. It accords with the merit principle. The higher education is the opportunity earned through the (presumed) equitably competitive elementary school.

Is your supposition on the role of society opinion or did you derive that from somewhere? It's a conclusion drawn from the available evidence. I don't mean a preset bright line. I mean it contextually. Not merely minimize conflict. Rather minimize inefficiency resulting from conflicting methods and incentives. I don't thing longevity is the measure I'd propose. ... The real example contridicts your argument. I don't see how. And the optimal productivity of all those who didn't manage to surmount those arbitrary obstacles was lost.

"You already have her." is the only thing that is audible on the tape. McGuinty's comment is quite audible too.

Gee, that would be like smearing a whole party based on something one prominent member said. Where have you heard that before?

Her first name is Olivia. Are you ignorant of that, or do you find it funny to mock Chinese names? Wasn't it a prominent Liberal guy who referred to Chow as "Chow-Chow?" Or something doggie about her name? I was refering to Argus doing so here, just now.

If that's true how come the Speaker - a Liberal - and his clerks can't hear it? Dunno. I heard it. Another breach of the rules. You're cruisin'! Oh come on. This girl hasn't accomplished anything in her life despite all the advantages, has no education, and in an age gone by (not very long ago either) she'd have been called an adulterous whore. Which changes the forum rules not at all. She told him the night before it went down. Why not? How very mature.

Uhhh, the only thing that is "clearly audible" on the tape is MacKay saying. "You have her." McGuinty's comment is readily audible too. You aren't a moderator. Not your place to enforce the rules. Sez you. The rules are clear and my browser shows me a 'Report' button, so presumably I'm invited to use it. (I didn't, however.))

It's not written down, the speaker didn't hear it, the clerks went over the audio record carefully and didn't hear it either. It is unmistakeably audible on the CPAC vidoetape.

He said it. It's clearly audible on the CPAC video. So it was dumb to say it, but MUCH dumber to deny it. Caution: That comment is against the forum rules. So what? Another breach of the rules. You're cruisin'! He dumped her. Because he couldn't stand her having opinions of her own. The whining is no worse than the name-calling itself. Her first name is Olivia. Are you ignorant of that, or do you find it funny to mock Chinese names? P.S. I'm not leftwing.

So this is strike two for Mackay in the area of public exposure of lack of integrity. So I wonder how many wrongful convictions he may have orchestrated while he was a crown prosecutor.

You assume that society has obligated to fulfill a role as arbiter of individual justice. Of course it isn't "fair" for one individual to have greater opportuity than another, but I don't see it as society's role to be the equalizer. Providing an acceptable level ofnjustice is one of the primary roles of society. If it doesn't, it invites conflict that disrupts safety and prosperity. Greater sensitivity to justice generally characterizes morr successful societies, while injustice pervades failed states. Consider the ineluctible fact of the WIIFM principle. 1. We have a question of fact betwwen us then about the cost/reward profile of equal opp. that I doubt we have the resources to resolve off-hand. 2. Your second point about concentrating resources, however is not necessarily a point of disagrrement inasmuch as you seem to be suggesting a merit test (which presumably would exclude the idiot-sons of millionaires or Parliamentarians etc.) Success is not binary. By whatever criteria, success is measured on a graduated scale. To look further to your example, Mozart is exactly NOT an example of equal opportuity. He was born to a musical family that heavily invested in his musical abilities as soon as he showed promise. Had Mozart been born today and was forced into the same generalized training as everyone else, he may not have ended with the same achievements. You misunderstand my example. I wasn't using the real Mozart, but rather a hypothetcal Mozart who might have been denied the opportunity. Your complaint with the example does not unseat the principle. I've stated it as my opinion. It is just as much an article of faith, without any particular claim on credibility to state the opposite. Without a more exhaustive analysis than were likely to undertake here, you are correct. We each have our intuitions on this, and they are contrary to eachother.

Because their prejudices make them to prefer being ridiculous than treating gays fairly.

1. My comment was not odious in my opinion. 2. I already said that it was Mrs. Cottler's move that got me thinking about this. I think her reasons were strange, but since that's how she felt, I thought she did the right thing. I didn't 'chose' her. Her choice was a matter in the current news from which I extrapolated a more general principle to discuss. Blow harder, please. I can't quite smell the stench of your halitosis yet. I would say it's a valid inference to conclude that Mrs. Cottler's action suggests she is more motivated by defending Israel than she is by Liberal party interests or general Canadian public policy issues. In your imagination, all things may be possible. I feel no such desire. Such hooey! I think you're insanely over-active in your desire to defend any and all things Israel does, but I didn't make my remarks about you, did I?

I'd like to address certain of the ideas being given here rather than particular posters. First, why should there be equality of opportunity? Broadly, because it is integral to the principle of merit. Within that concept are a couple of reasons commonly noted: individual justice and the greater good. The individual justice line says that it isn't fair for a person of greater or equal merit to be deprived in favor of someone else due to extraneous factors. The greater good line says that it is wasteful to allow unequal opportunity to result in deploying a person of lesser ability. Second, the idea that being able to achieve a good life or some level of success is enough. A moment's reflection on the above point should serve to dispel this notion. 'Almost justice' is not justice, and any waste is still waste. If Mozart hadn't had the opportunity to learn music, even if he had made a decent living as a cobbler, the world would be deprived of his compositions. Third, some suggest that opportunity is less important than personal characteristics. A. This idea is really just an idelogical article of faith, without any particular claim on credibility. B. Unless you can argue that opportunity plays absolutely no part in success, then no matter what amount the person herself accounts for, the points above still hold.

I started a thread with a reasonable comment. You jumped in sputtering personal abuse. And there's more empty, blowhard personal abuse. You coming off like quite the peckerhead, frankly. 'Subjective'? So? To you, perhaps. But I don't give a sweet phlying phoque what you think.* ...then I can learn from your example here. 1- Learn to spell. 2- See *, above. You don't see to grasp my point. If people have views that make them incompatible with being part of a group, they should recuse themselves from that group. I don't see why that's objectionable.

He was a jerk about it back then. The tories drove poor Belinda out of caucus, then Mackay dumped her, then --boohoohoo-- he acted like the injured party! Sleazy.

Hi Greg!