Figleaf

The term 'silver spoon socialist' comes to mind.

You mean like when Bob Rae left the NDP because of it's anti-Israeli policies and zealots? Did he do that? Amazing how he wound up in the "anti-Israel" Liberal party then!

Whadaya think?

Given his writings, CV and use of the word "we", it is unthinkable that Ignatieff would ever be acceptable if he were a Conservative leader. Stephane Dion is a French citizen. Pierre Pettigrew spent more time in Paris than Ottawa and the GG was also a French citizen. All get free passes because they are Liberals. Sorry, but I think that's a loopy opinion. You think that if a Conservative was a French citizen she would be reviled because of that? (Well, probably by her own party.)

You mean the Liberals, don't you?

You toe vac.

My roundup: [A careful and well considered post deleted in protest because of the terrible treatment dished out to people by the admin of maple leaf web.]

'

pp

:angry: David Hume and John Locke were NOT members of the KKK and I defy anyone to prove different.

I voted yes, but I'd like to split a hair here ... in my usage I think 'morality' refers to a received set of beliefs about right and wrong based on religious beliefs, and 'ethics' refers to the method and process of deciding right from wrong outside of religious dogma. Accordingly, I would say that ethicality is separate from religion and that is what I mean by my yes-vote. Why? Personal experience. Most of my friends are skeptical about religious claims, and as far as I can tell they all behave ethically both interpersonally and socially. I presume that this behaviour is deliberate rather than merely random.

Sorry, but Auguste is correct. It's far more often to hear even Conservatives to say that Canada is a Liberal country than to hear Liberals accept that Canadians can be against things such as multiculturalism and gay marriage. Augie is full of *$&*! You can't go ten minutes listening to Conservatives without hearing that all Liberals are crooks, anyone who disagrees with Bush is insane or evil, agnostics are moral criminals, Natives are sucking the blood of the country, homosexuals are child-molesters, and the poor are lazy degenerates.

Such definitionalizing! Will you agree that there are people whose appearance lies substantially outside what is, from time to time, considered attractive by the majority of people? So instead of "propagandizing" them about a subjective goal, we should propagandize them with a lie? The concept that looks aren't everything is a lie??? No, I'm saying if someone isn't lucky enough to be beautiful (and hey, even if they are), they should discover and develop other attributes.

!!! Clearly you never associate with Conservatives, and you must not read these Mapleleafweb.com forums either.

No everyone doesn't deserve to be something that is readily quantifiable. Height, athleticism etc.... Beauty is subjective, and in our lightspeed culture....the goal posts for beauty change...see for example the glamour photography from the 50s or vintage nudes from the 1900s ...so everyone does deserve to feel beautiful...and no needs anyone to tell them different Whether you are considered 'athletic' depends on how you compare against those around you. Likewise tall. The fact that standards may change has no bearing whatsoever on whether someone qualifies for those standards as they exist at any given time. Instead of propagating the sad farce of telling ugly girls they 'deserve' to 'feel' beautiful, we should educate them about the relative importance of beauty within the whole portfolio of potentially meritorious characteristics.

Nonsense! John Stuart Mill was a classy guy and Adam Smith had them rolling in the aisles. You mean Liberals, don't you?

"Every girl deserves to feel beautiful just the way she is." This sounds like the touchy-feely self-esteem bullshit that people complain is undermining our society. Does every boy deserve to feel athletic, even if he isn't? Does every man deserve to be tall? Every woman to be a leader? Piffle.

Are you asking me to define the terms in a question that is not mine? No, I was merely answering your question as best I could. Feel free to define your meaning if you like, or not. I don't know exactly what you mean by taking science 'for granted'. If you mean unthinkingly accepting the assertions of scientists, then I agree with you. But, as I have mentioned already, if you mean deciding based on an understanding of the nature of science that you'll take the assertions of science as very probably true and therefore don't bother to duplicate the experiments yourself, then I disagree. Believing in the process of science in a probabilistic (non-absolutist) way is substantially more reasonable than faith in religion. Religion doesn't really 'explain' anything. Yes. Unfortunately, most religions of my experience actively discourage (indeed prohibit) skepticism.

[

Hi, Anyone know how to change the member description?

Sure. Why not?? Give me a reason why I should not. Whether I can give you a reason, and what reason I would give, depend very much on what you mean by 'God'. If you mean 'Jehovah as described by Pope Benny', for example, the reason I would give is that such 'God' is a contradiction and therefore impossible. On the other hand, if you mean 'God' as 'whatever mystery remains unexplained by science', then I cannot give you a reason not to believe that.

Just for clarity ... Levitt didn't recommend abortion as a way to reduce crime, he postulated that abortion was the explanation for observed reduction in crime.

[

[