Figleaf

I love this. Conservatives see 'liberal bias' every time they deal with information and knowledge, but they never seem to grasp the implications. Measured in what, metric 'liberons' or imperial 'conservabells/sq.ft.'? ROTFLMAO! The potential for ludicrous slogans is endless: Conservapedia -- alternative to the facts Conservapedia -- the source even you don't really believe Even their real one is funny... Conservapedia -- "the Trustworthy Encyclopedia” That's just rich! I predict utter irrelevance for the conservapedia.

The scurrilous falsity of your premise makes it impossible to respond to your poll.

That's very true. Or thrown-up on them. A very very large proportion of religious adherents are often ignorant of the specific content of the religion they purport to believe. Many Christians, for example, don't know the litany of horror and perversion that comprises much of the Old Testament, and they have no notion whatsoever of the rampant inanities embodied in the letters of St.Paul or the Acts of the Apostles. Many Hindus I have spoken with can name only a fraction of the gods officially in the Hindu pantheon and have no sense of the contents of Hindu cosmology. And don't even get me started on Buddhists!

Of course the government should pay for abortions! Good grief ... anyone who can't afford an abortion certainly can't afford to raise a child. Abortions should be promoted. Cripes, you should have to post a bond to be allowed to bear one of the little buggers.

Actually, it was worse. And you don't consider suggesting that I personally die in a terror attack offensive? I have already said I don't think what you sent me was as bad as you suggested. You sent me the material privately, so I assume you wanted to keep it private for some reason. I don't think there's much point in discussing it without looking at it, so I'm going to leave it at that.

Hey Rue, that leaves you and me ... what about it? ! I gotta warn you though... I'm no Paris Hilton. More like Airport Hilton.

Holding the base means never winning a majority. I think Harper sees that as a dead end; line up with the NDP for proportional representation and perpetual minorities.

That's the history of the Liberal party in a nutshell. Excellent point.

Now there is comment rich with irony, considering: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8744

Interesting points, Slavik. The three categories of moral panic formation do appear to cover the range. I strikes me though that each individual example or moral panic is likely to comprise elements of any or all of the three, like strands of a braid.

I think by definition, faith based belief system is somewhat redundant. I'm sure if we wiggle and wriggle a bit, someone could come up with a Non-Faith based belief system...... Anyway.......I think someone is having difficulty understanding the definition of rational, irrational or maybe, ahem....non rational..... bigotry is irrational that way ... Classic Dancer... dodge the issue and repeat the slur.

If you simply want to expound abusive lies, why bother with the pretense of interaction? Why not just have a mad little blog of your own somewhere and crap-through-your-mouth to your heart's content? Honestly, did you think your reply had any kind of merit? I explained in a sensible fashion why my comments were valid and neither insulting or bigoted. I addressed the criteria that distinguished religions and philosophies for the purposes of this analysis. Did you respond to either point? No. Did you supply additional fact or perspectives? No. Did you recite your previous view unaltered and couple it with an abusive ad hominem? Yep. Y'know what, M.Dancer? That was pathetic. You're not 'A' list anymore. "Welcome to my Ignore list."

Yes...I would concur with jbg's perspective, having been a member at the time and continuing through to shutdown of the defunct CBC forum site. The "filtering" bias was obvious. Several factors contributed to the sites demise, including a labor dispute (strike). I think the strike was either before or after. I don't recall a strike around March-April 2004. By the way, I sent "Figleaf" a cross-section of posts deemed not toxic enough for "filtering". I couldn't post them do to the language. Actually, the text you sent me didn't have any foul language in it. You made it clear that you had redacted the material. For the record, IMO the level of 'abuse' was less than you had built it up to be.

Really? Why? Who says? An atheist? Worshippers do not require material proof for spiritual beliefs. That's the thing though. On the one hand believers will say "I don't need proof I have faith", but then they get all bent out of shape if you say to them 'Well, okay, but that means your beliefs are not rational.' They want to have their cake and eat it too. People who would say that are , to be frank, ignorant and most likely rude disrespectful bigots. Spare me your angsty emo and juvie insults please. Try to deal with logic for a moment. A faith-based belief is non-rational by definition. There's nothing ignorant or disrespectful or bigotted about THE FACTS. 'Rationality' has a meaning, and 'Belief-based-on-faith' has a meaning, and they are mutually contradictory. This makes me think of the frequent abuse of meaning that religions attempt. We see two frequent examples: 1-Faith and reason: these are contradictory in meaning. Anyone who pretends otherwise is using a private definition of one or the other. 2-Secular and religious: these too are mutually exclusive by definition. The purpose of the word secular is to distinguish that which is not religious. Religious apologists who pretend otherwise are arguing the impossible. The content of their beliefs is not well known to me, but I am unaware of any of them using the concept of 'faith' or 'just is' or 'the book says' as an answer to analytical challenges of their views. In fact, though, I certainly might call non-religious beliefs irrational if it seems applicable. I certainly challenge the supposed objective materialism of Marxist ideology.

Rape just ain't funny.

"Noooo! You're an idiot! The point is they don't NEED proof!" Don't forget that they're passing on the virtues of irrationality to their children and threatening them with all sorts of misery and torment if they don't comply. Hey, don't be so critical. All that misery and torment is part of the plan of the All-Loving God.

Quick advisory for you, jbg. This is a Canadian politics discussion forum, and Steve is the Prime Minister of Canada. Meanwhile, absolutely the Conservatives have hit the wall. In terms of ideas, certainly, but also in terms of public acceptance for their sleazy politics, and their preoccupation with politics over good government.

You mean like Stephen-Harper-scary or more like Dick-Cheney-scary"? Neither the Liberals nor the Democrats are really left-wing.

Really? Why? Who says? An atheist? Worshippers do not require material proof for spiritual beliefs. That's the thing though. On the one hand believers will say "I don't need proof I have faith", but then they get all bent out of shape if you say to them 'Well, okay, but that means your beliefs are not rational.' They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Well heck, pardon me while I deflate my head ... Thank you!

That was almost two years ago. It was a Human Rights tribunal, not a court. While they decided that the Hall owners had been insensitive, they also decided that they had the right not to rent to someone whose use would violate their religious beliefs. It really was a victory for the Hall owners.

Interesting you choose the word 'creed'. Interesting because it's obviously part and parcel of the rightwing talking-point that argues secular views are somehow religious. (Which itself is an oxymoron the likes of which it usually takes a religious mindset to accomodate.) Now I'm not interested in debating that point, which is too ludicrous to be bothered acknowledging argumentatively, but I wonder what the strategy is there. How does it help their(/your) position?

What doesn't seem to register is that by noting Ron Paul has a following of 1% of republicans, it is a fair shake. Geez, you really hate the guy! Why's that?

The word rapture doesn't appear, but the concept of an end of time/judgement day, and the joining of the righteous with God is unquestionably present in Revelation.

What, for instance has Mark Steyn ever done to qualify as a worst Canadian, and Amiel for that matter, other than that she's married to Black. Surely you've read their writings, haven't you?