Figleaf

Do you live for the personal vendetta? I doubt it is; different writing styles. But why not stick to the merits and stay out of the mud? What fucking mud?

A so the stroke out means a question? You were either lying or or speaking in ignorance. The question was which.

I think this means taxpayer money. I'm not sure how one defines House of Commons employee but does it mean one who gets money from the House of Commons budget? There is clearly a lot you don't know. Any reason you posted the same article twice? Do you bother to read? You're so easy to get along with Bluthie! A real charmer. Moments ago you were braying that for certain this guy was not getting taxpayer money, and you never provided ANY kind of proof. Now we have a tory official who appears to confirm that the guy was paid with public money and you pretend there is no proof. Sheer genius. Are you Ricki Bobbi by any chance?

Please don't call me ignorant or a liar you a**hole or misinformed party hack. Insult reported to moderator. (BTW, you SAID I was lying just a couple of posts before I QUESTIONED whether you were lying. Hypocrisy certainly becomes you.) I think you're being profoundly mistaken again.

First, what do you even mean by 'responsibilty towards our actions'? And why does it depend on where we come from? If you mean what are good ethics, then where we came from seems not quite the point. Whoa nelly. That's quite a package. How about we just stick to 'no creator'. Out of self-interest. In a good person that self-interest includes not having to see him or herself as a person who harms others. Now there is one of the biggest problems of talking with religious people. Y'all have this tendency to jump from one thing to another without connecting the dots. How would a creator necessarily ensure no-one escaped from their evil actions? To answer this question you will go off into a whole architecture of theology that describes the creator you imagine and his infrastructure of enforcement and punishment. Once examined, this infrastructure will prove absurd and probably morally insupportable. In any event, whether 'God' is socially useful or not is not really any help in deciding whether It really exists or what It wants. It is NO guarantee at all! Believers throughout history have had crime and violence in their communities. Evolution is just one of the lines of thought that served to undermine archaic superstitious religious beliefs; most of them had to do with proving the claims of religion were at odds with facts or logic or both. Generally speaking, this process did not involve anyone proposing that it's AOK for the strong to harm the weak. WRT evolution in particular, it describes survival of the fittest, but it doesn't make any moral case for it. So, you don't believe in the Bible?

Nah. It was the best you could do on short notice.

What then, about things which are clearly contrary to survival which some consider moral -- Holy War, self-mutilation, martyrdom, marriage restrictions, etc. Shouldn't your theory lead everyone to be able to tell correctly what is moral or not based on an innate instinct for survival?

Kind of like when it became obvious that Harper knew the Gurmant Grewal tapes were doctored, but he still accused the Liberals of wrongdoing? Or when he accused the Liberals of supporting pedophilia? Or when he kept pushing false ads about Ralph Goodale even after he was cleared? Or when he screwed investors out of multiple millions by lying about income trusts? Or even way back when he enticed Pinocchio Mackay into turning liar on the no-party merger promise.

from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm Did you report him to Greg? I will.... That is all you can do to answer my questions… Oh, that is good… Your questions have been answered on this Forum dozens of times and in literature thousands of times. Meanwhile, you tend to be pretty non-responsive yourself. Quite irrespective of whether we 'came from animals', what do you want to know about our responsibilities for our actions? Define 'fittest', define 'right', and define 'justice'. Then it might be possible to answer that question. And what exactly is the context for that here? Or they say God told them to do it.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...b7bec47&k=86182 So, Mr. Bluth was either ignorant or lying profoundly mistaken about this.

James Murray is not a House of Commons employee. There are no tax dollars involved in paying his wages. How do you know?

from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm Did you report him to Greg? I will....

The one statement does not flow logically from the other. You are making tedious (and frequently misplaced, condescending and accusatory) points that have already been tendered and refuted dozens of times on this forum. Why don't you read some of the past threads and try to take the argument somewhere new?

Comparing Harper to Nixon strikes a chord because you don't like Harper. For many of the same reasons I didn't like Nixon. I can, and have, come up with numerous valid criticisms. (For example, reprocessing tax money for the child benefit is stupid. ) The reason I agreed with the Nixon comparison is that it fits. What lies?

This certainly strikes a chord. With all his centralizing, micro-controlling, and conniving it's a close fit.

...Here is the logic and it is quite simple: The inherent nature of man is that it can not survive by instinct alone -- unlike other animals. Man survives by freewill and he does so on an individual basis. Thus, men need the faculty to learn their environment and to cultivate the creative ability to adapt to the environment before being able to survive in it. Such abilities are not enough because they need to be fueled by freewill -- people can not be forced to learn. Since, a person can only learn as an individual it is logical that an individual's freewill is defended as a natural right for its existence. Couple that the need to cooperate (one person can rarely provide for oneself alone) to manage finite resources, trampling on freewill can conceivably (with a bit of modern imagination) lead to the destruction of the human species. Okay, rather than attacking minute linquistic tics in your statement, let me restate it in terms that are, to my mind, more rigorous than you have used (no offense), and then proceed to challenge the core logical disputes I identify. First sentence reworked: It is observed that human survival depends on faculties other than instinct. Second sentence: [Ambiguous or meaningless] Third sentence: As substitute for reliance on instinct, humans learn about their environment and cultivate creative adaptibility. Fourth sentence: The faculties of learning and creativity require the capability for/exercise of free will. Fifth sentence: Since [free will]* is required for these faculties, it follows that [ambiguous or meaningless]. Sixth sentence: Add the observation that human survival depends also on ~cooperation, and it may be considered that ~hampering free will impairs human survivability. Now for the critique... First, obviously, there are two sentences which contain passages which are technically meaningless, at least without reference to an off-map system of reference which we don't have in common. The second sentence is a non sequitur. The claim than man survives by free will might be supported by your later argument, but it is mere assertion at this juncture, and used to introduce a confusing clause that man does ?what exactly? on an undefined 'individual basis'. The fifth sentence starts well enough, but then there is reference to the term 'natural rights' which has no meaning that I can fathom. It may be that the sentence simply says that since free will is required for required faculties, free will is required for survival. But I think you intend more than simply that, right? Second, the contention in the fourth sentence that learning and creativity require free will is somewhat a-vague and b-needs support. It is vague in the sense that it's not clear whether you mean they require the learner or creator to exercise free will, or simply have free will. It needs support because it's a bald assertion -- you need at the very least to define learning since in some sense animals can learn and you've ruled them outside the realm of free will already. Next, in the first half of the fifth sentence, you implicitly equate free will with individuality. Finally, in the sixth sentence you appear to implicitly assume that interference with free will would impair cooperation. Now, I'm not saying that these flaws conclusively undermine your position. They are simply the lacunae in your defense of your position.

Well, spy-boy may have a card that identifies him as a House of Commons staffer, but have you ever seen anybody who looks any more 'cop' than that guy? I wouldn't be surprised if the PMO had him seconded from the RCMP to do their dirty work. It wouldn't be the first time this decade that the Mounties got involved in making sure the tories win elections.

Charles: So it feels good, but can you make a fundamental argument that logically, rather than by reference to an underlying assumption, supports that feeling?

That makes sense. No, it only feels like it makes sense. WHY is it wrong for the many to serve the one?

How can you be oblivious to the nonsensical quality of that statement? How can it be an honour when it was unearned and could not be appreciated? Why say 'in return' when there was no consultation or agreement? But then why go thru the sadistic exercise of letting him get in trouble in the first place? Thanks for your reply… The God is not that bad… He created us in a very good shape, gave us everything we need, prepared the earth for us, gave us minds to think and invent, protect us from outer space, sent us many may prophets who suffered enough just to guide people and delivered the messages… Love, mercy, intelligence, caring, understanding…etc are from Him not created from some stones and gases under high intensity of heat!!!! It is amazing how dare we are when talking about the creator of the whole universe. This might be because we do not know Him well. Maybe this is some of the meanings of one verse in one of the creator’s holy books. He said “Only scientists are those who fear God most….” There is a big difference between braveness and ignorance. If someone never experience touching a bare electric wire and he never knew anything about electricity, he will not hesitate touching it. No-one will call that braveness. … The more you know about the creator of this universe, the more you know how mighty He is, how merciful He is… Probably when we stop playing the role of the universe masters and think of ourselves as creatures, then we will think more rationally… I can't help but notice that your reply doesn't touch on any of the actual content of my reply.

Very good point. We have one riding in Toronto that has one MPP and one MP - with a population larger than the whole of P.E.I. which has 6 MP's, 4 Senators plus an entire freakin' legislature. It's four MPs and four senators.

Is this question about implantation of RFID chips in unknowing victims?

How can you be oblivious to the nonsensical quality of that statement? How can it be an honour when it was unearned and could not be appreciated? Why say 'in return' when there was no consultation or agreement? But then why go thru the sadistic exercise of letting him get in trouble in the first place?

And how many fresh refugee claims do you think they should be allowed as long as they can obtain false documents that they can destroy enroute in order to get here? Okay, let's try to unravel this a bit. Refugees are people who fear persecution in their home country. Other countries have legal processes that those people can follow to escape and live outside their country of persecution. Using those legal processes is ... legal. That is, it is totally legal to show up at a border and say "Hi, I'm a refugee, please apply your refugee process to my case." Their process will then determine if legally you qualify for protection. Some applicants do qualify, some applicant's don't. Those who don't qualify must leave the destination country, but they have not committed a crime by having a failed application. Okay so far? Good. Next point... In many cases, the only way a person in fear of persecution can physically escape from their country is to use a false passport. That is, the only way they can access the legal refugee process of their destination is to use a false document. Alright? Now ... Whether you use a false passport enroute or not has no relevance to the question of whether you are a genuine refugee or not. A person who really fears persecution might use a false passport to get to the counrty to make their application. A person who is faking a fear of persecution might not have used a false passport. The passport is not logically relevant to the refugee qualification criteria. SO, for those reasons there is no further response needed to the false passport element of this story. As for the number of fresh refugee applications someone should be allowed, consider how this case went: The guy gets to Canada and claims he feared persecution because of political connections and harrassment. (He's coming from IRAN, so how hard is that to believe, right?) He begins to build a life in Canada. Still, eventually the board thinks he doesn't qualify. They get shipped back to Iran. Lo and behold, the harassment turns into arrest without trial, and abuse in prison. They manage to slip out of Iran again and seek to return to Canada to make a refugee claim based on the NEW, MUCH WORSE persecution. Now it seems to me that certainly, yes, someone could abuse unlimited fresh applications. But on the other hand, I can't see anything wrong with this guy making a new application now.

So, it sounds like you are indicating the return of the Cold War. Here's a fun question ... If Bush wants to invade Iran because it's supporting Shiites in Iraq, but really Iran itself is just a puppet of Russia, shouldn't Bush invade Russia?