Remiel

Well, analagies are, of course, imperfect. I was just trying to be clever.

Insurance is like a union; a great idea that is, for the most part, really screwed up right now.

I do not think that that is precisely correct. Science cares about what works. Philosophy cares about what is true.

I do not know that the simple notion that " killing is wrong " is informative enough for this case. For one, NATO was not in Afghanistan for a picnic, that is for sure. They were there to kill people. And they did. If I may be so crass as to continue with the use of your chidren as example, can you be so sure that just because they know that " killing is wrong " means that they would not still be influenced by you even if you joined a terrorist organization? Being an adult lies not only in knowing the right things, but in having the strength and maturity to be able to tell your parents to frak off if they go apepoo. That is why it is significant that many of the jurors report that they own fathers directed their lives is very substantial and significant ways.

I think it would be more accurate to say that there has been an evolution/revolution in the way issues are approached, not in the base genetic capabilities. Though, on that very issue, we now know a hell of a lot more about how people develop than we ever did before. Also, " they did it that way for thousands of years " is not a particularly good argument in this day and age, especially when we have made a habit of criticizing other cultures for doing things the same way they have done " for thousands of years " .

Uh... eyeball... When you are born, you start at 0. When you reach the age of 1, you have attained a lifespan of 1 year. Ergo, when you reach the age of 15, you have attained a lifespan of 15 years.

Even if the Liberals are trending left, that does not make the Conservatives centre. Not by a long shot.

Even from that perspective, I do not think that it can be counted as a complete waste. How this case has been handled has revealed numerous issues with the systems in Canada and the US which would likely have never come to light if he had just been killed. From a factual standpoint though, Khadr was not a relevant case of " shoot to kill " because he was found alive after the fight. Executing your enemies on the spot is highly illegal in a way killing them in a fight is not.

Everything before the following section I was familiar with already. I think I get in now. All that is meant by the " popping in and out of existence " are transformations in timescales too small to be observed? Whenever I had heard this phrase before it had made it sound as if it was not a transformation, but a spontaneous cessation or creation of base existence, to and from nothingness. Thanks for clearing that up, Bonam.

Hardly. It's really hot, .

At the risk of also being ridiculed by those with a better than " folk " understanding of quantum physics, I have always been skeptically of the idea that quantum particles pop in and out of existence. It is not the popping in and out part, but rather the " of existence " part that I find... intellectually questionable.

How in God's name do you think reducing Harper's seats by a grand total of four would count as a victory for Ignatieff?

I am not sure whether that is really a key notion of democracy, though it may be in part be because of the ambiguous nature of " gracefully " in this context. What exactly counts as " gracefully " ? However, if it is a key notion of democracy, then it must be accompanied by a second notion, that if you're side or view wins, you're supposed to win gracefully. That principle is violated (in our society) just as often, if not even more, than the first.

Technically speaking, an " order of magnitude " would be a 1000% difference.

Tough for the homosexuals or tough for the marriage commissioners?

I think the more common problem is folks who are empowered by the state to grant civil marriage licenses but then refuse to give them to homosexual couples because they " morally disapprove " .

Well, Gandhi and Martin Luther King did die; there is no disputing that.

That sounds more like how Augustine convinced the Emperor to adopt Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire than like its origin.

Sin does not have to be real for it to contain a valuable lesson. I could just has easily say, " Let he who has never wronged another cast the first stone. " But besides that, I do not think your particular preference for other modes of resolution is a particular compelling criticism of some of the more positive things in the Bible, just as, " Well I do not do things that way, " would not be a particularly compelling criticism by me of Nozick's work. Additionally, you should know well enough that, " He said all this other bad stuff so he must be wrong, " is completely fallacious. And, by the way, I am pretty sure the New Testament is Iron Age. Late Iron Age.

You do not think that, " Love the neighbour, " " Turn the other cheek, " " Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, " and similar examples are worthwhile?

If Canada has a law like that, or is getting one, then it must be opposed.

Well, then, I suppose then we can get along to the final tool in the shed: cannibalize the good stuff, and chuck the bad stuff, same as we do with everyone else.

Did Jesus say, " I will eternally torment you if you do not follow me, " or " You will be eternally tormented if you do not follow me, " ? Kind of an important distinction.

But who is " exactly a good guy " ? Hell, if every bad guy said as many good things as Jesus, the world probably would not be such a crap hole. So, I am comfortable taking his flaws in stride.

The idea that you could go to prison for 16 years for an illegal wiretap is bizarre in and of itself. Anywhere it is illegal to video tape the police is no more than a hairs breath away from some sort of police state.