Figleaf

Of course it's full of inaccuracies! It's edited on the fly by amateur contributors. But I'm curious about the alleged 'liberal bias'. Presumably it shows whatever 'bias' is preponderant among contributors. So, if it has a "liberal" bias, doesn't that mean that the preponderance of contributors must share this supposed 'bias'? And if so, is it correct to consider it a 'bias' rather than simply the common view? And in that case, Conservapedia is really just a private intellectual ghetto that conservatives are creating for themselves.

It would be interesting to see this broken out by percentages of numbers deployed. USA has what, about 14000 in Afghanistan? That's would make approximately a 3% KIA rate. Canada's number makes us about 2% by my calculations.

Yes, M.Dancer ... considering the overweaning attitude of righteous self-regard you display on this thread, do please enlighten us all about where you did your theological degree(s) and what your thesis subject was.

Well isn't that special.

Hey, I'm not looking for a moral high ground -- I'd just so richly love to let fly in kind at a couple of special favorites here.

Interesting point. You would think that all that would be necessary is to report this issue up the chain, to the principal first and then to the school board, but honestly, the chances of getting any action or satisfaction from those methods seem remote. No organizational structure seems to work anymore.

I really do wish people would use the term 'liberal' with more precision and restraint.

Easy now. Believe me, there is no one I listen to less than dominionists. I actually am basing my opinion on what I percieve in commercials I actually see. Women don't seem to be negatively represented, unless you consider sexy negative. (I don't.) But I remember seeing some old-style ads or even shows where there was a lot of 'humor' involving women being stupid or absurdly incompetent. Now men are cast in that same role, and I don't see it as any funnier or appropriate, frankly.

It's the only real difference between a corporate slave and the executives. If you can think, you'll be rewarded for it. I'm not sure it can be taught though. Seemingly, you believe at least one of society's great myths.

Evidence?

Do you really expect people to understand those acronyms?

Poor Dancer. No arguments, and no self control. It's not every party that's graced with a beligerent, incontinent drunk -- mapleleafweb is just lucky, I suppose.

A coupla weeks back, Greg announced a zero-tolerance period ... I'm just wondering, is that still in effect? Or is it now safe to call other posters asses?

... Which of these groups of 'Christians' tended more to back their viewpoint with reference to religious doctrines? Which of these groups of 'Christians' comprised more persons holding religious authority? Which of these groups of 'Christians' comprised more persons holding individualistic religious interpretations? I think you'll find that the objections to surgery revolved around particular interpretations of religious beliefs. I think you'll find that more people who opposed surgery were employed in religious work, or were dedicatedly religious believers. I think you'll find that more people who supported surgery were inclined to think outside the religious box of their place and time. What's more, I think you'll find that the majority of scientific innovations, since the approximate birth of science in c.1500whatever, have generally been opposed by religion.

I've already expressed my opinion on this, but I'll summarize it here again. First, I agreed with the initial deployment to Afghanistan with NATO in response to the attack on our ally the United States (allegedly) by a group being sheltered and supported by the Taliban government. That obligation was completed after the Taliban were driven from power, and in my opinion Canada should have left then. I disagree with the current/ongoing deployment because: -There seem to be no criteria for success or progress in this mission; -The mission is not appropriately supported by NATO; -The government we are supporting in Afghanistan is of questionable merit; -It is no longer clear that the people we are fighting are "The Taliban" or in fact that they are anything but normal Afghans on the wrong side of Karzai; -I don't think it's Canada's obligation to spend lives and resources on Afghanistan; and -I don't think Canada's participation will make any difference in Afghanistan in the long term. Note that none of these reasons has anything to do with the various imaginative imputations war supporters have advanced on this thread to characterize war-skeptics' positions, and further note that none of the explanation offered on the DND website addresses these points. (BTW, who was responsible for the peculiar overuse of bold lettering on that webpage?)

Schools and universities both pretentiously insist that they educate students to be 'critical thinkers'. I find this curious in two respects: First, they seem to be picking a thing they show questionable success in to be their selling point. Second, why teach critical thinking? It's a capability no employer really gives two s#its about. No-one anywhere ever got a paycheck for being a critical thinker. It's one of our society's great myths.

Here's fascinating article on this subject: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/otani_reason.html Excerpts: And this too is of interest ... http://atheism.about.com/b/a/249285.htm These thinkers have really struck the nail on the head. Any discussion of religion between a religious and non-religious person seems to go the same way: Religious assertion is followed by probing rational questions. The religious assertions can't withstand the probe, so the religious proponent excuses his assertions by resort to a claim of faith. When the non-religious person points out that this means they are no longer sustaining their assertion through reason (i.e. that the assertion is not reasonable), the religious person gets all upset. It's like they want to be acknowledged as reasonable based on some sort of free-pass that exempts their version of 'reason' from having to conform to what reason means. At root it's a peurile, self-regarding attitude.

Exactly. Theists have no business complaining about secularization or the insistence on rationality in public policy until and unless they can establish amongst themselves what is correct and true about "God" and it's plans or desires. Only if and when they get their act(s) together with a comprehensive, united understanding of this basic essential should the rest of the world give any credence whatsoever to their expatiations. (Of course, how religions can ever come to any sort of agreement about what is correct is a mystery. If you can't resort to Reason as a basis for conversation, it gets pretty hard to come to build common ground. But that's their problem, not ours.)

I think there may be something to what Betsy is saying, partially anyway. Consider advertisements: they very often include a 'humorous' reference to male incompetence, or they use a male or maleness as the butt of their wit.

The sad thing it that when Mulroney cozied up with separatism, he at least was doing what came naturally to him. Steve's bedfellowing is more shocking since his political roots should be warning him against this sort of thing. Alas, all that was good and decent about the Reform Party has been poisoned or swept away among the new Conservative Opportunists of Canada. Preston Manning would be spinning in his grave (if he were dead and respectable rather than alive and co-opted).

Nice job of overlooking what that was actually all about: one of Jean Chretiens worst moments, which is saying a lot. Chretien didn't pass the Nickel Resolution almost a century ago, Parliament did. All Chretien did in this case was his job -- ensuring Parliament's wishes were recognized.

This substitute teacher should be run out of the profession. She did two stupid things, one forgivable, the other a serious problem: 1) The smaller concern: showing an R-rated movie (on any subject) in an elementary school is stupid and clearly should not be condoned. 2) The larger concern: purporting to create a 'secret' zone in her classroom is seriously suspicious, places the children in a conflict, and is beyond the proper authority of a public servant. She has no right to purport to impose secrecy over what happens in her classroom. It suggests that she knows she's crossing a line, and that she wants to hide her activities from scrutiny of parents, public, and her superiors. It's surprisingly like the tactics used by real child abusers, and should set off warning bells about her understanding of her duties and responsibilities.

... For that matter, what did God do to stop them?

Good like what, for example? Or more specifically, what good has religion done that could not have been done without religion?

The order of causation you appear to assume is backwards. Would it be better to mock people for some other reason?