Black Dog

So what? If two, three or 12 consenting adults decide they want to get married, why should we care? As for the old "they should make them exactly the same as marriages, but just call them civil unions", do you think that would stick or that people would make the distinction? "You are invited to the civil unioingg of...." "We just got civil unioned!" Nah.

Adoption may an option for some. Not others. Carrying a child for nine months is no mere "inconvienience", despite what those who are unequipped to do so might say. In many cases, enduring pregnancy and giving up a child for adoption can be just as traumatic as an abortion.

God offers nothing but the arbitrary fates of redemption or damnation. I prefer to think that, given just this one shot, we must do our utmost to overcome the baser parts of our nature and strive to better ourselves and the world around us.

So it's not the higher power itself, but simply the belief in one that made the difference. (Er..of course there's little actual evidence beyond the anecdotal variety to indicate that prayer actually has a positive effect on health.) Why not belief in oneself? In humanity? The ideals of secualr humanism mpre than adequately explain why we don't need religion to find fulfilment.

Only if you're trying to turn your preferred choice into the only choice available.

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say political posturing. Or at least macho chest pounding.

Police chief denies tainting Zhang trial What an idiot. If this guy is guilty and gets off because of this cop's blustering, the chief should be sent packing. Actually, he should be canned regardless.

I never professed to buy into the rationale, only stated the reasoning behind it. As for the Americans' flag fetishization, as an occassional visitor, I find that even more obnoxious and self-serving than any wee maple leaf on a backpack. Subjective experiences are a poor way to deduce popular feeling. I've had some very good experiences with Americans and soem not so good ones. It doesn't mean either is indicative of Americans in general. Finally, I think a certain level of antipathy towards America by Canadians is to be expected. I certainly resent the notion so popular among certain circles, that we have an obligation to support the U.S. on everything simply by virtue of oour economic and geogrpahic proximity.

I think Canadian nationalism has taken a sharp turn towards the boorish in recent years, (no doubt due to the pervasive influence of beer marketing: heck, I've even seen quite a few young suburban low-rollers about sporting "I Am Candian" tattoos, for crying out loud). The Canada Days of my youth were unsullied by the kind of flag waving and jingoism I see today (the Edmonton "riot" of two years ago is one example). I don't like it one bit. And if you think it's arrogant for Candians to stick maple leaves on their backpacks and such when travelling abroad, I'd recommend spending a bit of time in the States, where the Stars and Stripes is so ubiquitous, you think that they keep it to remind themselves of where they live. Of course, the Candian flag on the backpack developed not out of a sense of patriotism, but due to the fact that folks overseas (particularily in Europe) don't like Americans, but love Canadians. Finally, the merger is by no means a done deal, as the Molson family itself is divided on the subject. And even if it was: who cares? One crappy brewery joins up with another one to make more crappy beer. Big deal.

Fer the record, Molson and Coors haven't merged. They're still just talking about it. And I don't think anyone believes drinking terrible beer like Canadian is key to the national identity. If anything, the jingoistic "Joe Canada" mentality is more at home among the chest-beating and flag waving down south. I like to think of Candian nationalism as being more...polite.

It doesn't say that at all. Am I to assume then that you know more about international law and the workings of the ICJ than the people running it do? Because one would expect that such a glaring violation of the court's own statutes would be seized upon by Israel. Yet on that matter, they've ben silent. U.N. votes 150-6 against West Bank barrier

Let's see: the insurgency is still actively blowing stuff up left right and centre (Iraq insurgency larger than thought)...the U.S has handed over power to the U.S. apointed government more than a year earier than it was supposed to....central authority is at best, tenous....the U.S is suffering casualties on a daily basis... If that's your idea of a decisive victory, I'd hate to see what your idea of defeat is. In the future, just type "LA LA LA, I'M NOT LISTENING". It'll save you time. So why did they go back to the old one? I seriously doubt your claim that any one of the left "idolizes" Saddam. Get your history straight. Your talking about the Bay of Pigs invasion, which was two year sbefore the missile crisis, in which a U.S. proxy-force of Cuban exiles were resoundingly defeated by what was then an extremely popular and populist revoltionary movement. No comparison. First: you didn't answer the question, but attacked my source. Second: nowhere did I indicate that you or KK support the abuse of prisoners. I simply wanted to know what the beheading of Nick Berg had to do with the new revelations about the abuse at Abu Ghraib, since you posted the link to the Berg story without explanation. There is evidence: Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture I'd suggest you re-read this entire thread, as I have no desire to rehash points I already made.

That's not a contradiction, that's a question. A contradiction would indicate two incompatible premises. Nope. I've beem consistent on this point throughout. Certainly, my statement above and throughout this thread to the effect that science is open to new ideas contradicts your statement that I "believe" science to be infallible. You'll have to find another way to score cheap points. Let's see: base our ideas on how the universe came about on the scientific method, which has done more to advance humankind's knowledge than anything else...or base it on the blind, unquestioning belief in an invisible superhero in the sky with magical powers. Why does here have to be a "reason" for everything? Is it too hard on your ego to believe that we have no purpose? You've "proven" nothing (and certainly not scientifically). You've given ZERO proof, ZERO evidence for your statements. That's to be expected, as there is no evidence of the supernatural to exhibit. You can try to poke holes in science, but, at the end of the day, it is a far superior means of explaining the universe than your hokum. Professors of what? Clown college? A shoddy plea to authority if there ever was one. As I pointed out in the other thread on this subject, logic demands reason, reason demands proof. There is no proof of the supernatural, therefore, belief in the supernatural is illogical. It's blind faith, nothing more. You cannot prove a negative. So, since you propose the existence of God, the burden of proof is on you. I'll be waiting. Uh...what? That's the flimisiest assault on evolution ever. Simple. Your premise that "the universe cannot create itself" is wrong. Not everything that begins has a cause. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Evolution has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as true. Circular logic. Your argument boils down to "Everything that exists must have a beginning because everything exists must have a beginning". I don't think I will, sicne the fact that, in the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously, without a cause, torpedos your whole argument. Boom. So why is my reliance on well-substantiated explanations that incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses worse than your reliance on illogical absoutes? The atomic level doesn't exist? Holy s**t. I thought you were out to lunch before, but that proves it. Here you go again: we have, on one side, the vast and complex body of scientific knowledge that is attemopting to demonstrate the naturalistic orgigns of the univeres. On the other: a supreme being that no one can see, hear, touch or in any other way show to exist. I'm afraid that, of these two optons, your is the least credible. Again with the faulty logic. Why "must" a supernatural being exist? Even if we were, for a moment to accept that "the universe could not have created itself", why does that necessarily require a supreme being?

The Jews? Any Jew? Prior to 1948, there was no national entity known as Israel. Does that mean, then, that any Jew could simply claim ownership of any part of Jerusalem? On what grounds? First: your logic on this is completely backwards. Second: In agree the inclusion of the word all is important: the Arab nations fought to have it included in otrder to aboid the hair-splitting that resulted in the current situation whereby Israel can ride a loophole to hang on to its ill-gotten gains. Your still wrong in stating the ruling was in violation of the ICJ's mandate. It's within the ICJ's mandate to give a non-binding legal opinion when asked to do so by relevant UN organisations, as happened in this case. First: Palestinian Arab residents of the Occupied Territories don't have any legal status within the state of Israelm, so your argument only applies to the settlements. Israel has continued to expand settlements into the territories, which confirms my earlier statement that they are changing the legal status of the territories through changing the ownership. Israel and legal status of settlements. I resopond to the point sI can with the time I have, which itself is limited. Sorry, but i have other demands on my time.

Obviously, you don't know what "quagmire" means. Nobody expected anything but a quick military victory for the U.S. But getting in was never the problem: getting out is. As it stands, the U.S. can't pull out (even if they wanted to. Which they don't, but that's another story) without risking having the whole works fall apart on them. Nor can they stay without continuing to take casualties and domestic flak. They're stuck, hence: quagmire Iraqis Infuriated by New Flag That Was Designed in London Overhauling national symbols That's by no means an easy question to answer. I'll admit to harbouring no affection for Saddam and the apparatus that kept him in power. If I were optimistic I would say that Saddam's rule, like many corrupt regimes, would eventually have rotted away from the inside. Hopwever, it seems that the choices being offered present us with a false dichotomy of leaving Saddam in, or having the U.S force him out. I would expect other solutions,such as aiding domestic revolutionary movements, would have accomplished the goal without the messy and extremely problematic use of force. However, politics is amoral, even moreso where oil is concerened (one must only need to point to the U.S's past support of Saddam's regime as evidence). In light of this fact, its hard to see the U.S.'s motives as genuine. I was simply asking why you chose to respond to a post concerning the torture with a link to Berg's exectution. A question, I may add, I'm still awaiting an answer for. I never attempted to draw any equivilancy between the U.S. actions in Abu Ghirab and elsewhere and the actions of militant groups. It's apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned. Furthermore, as I pointed out several times in this thread, there's evidence linking the methods used in Abu Ghirab with the upper echelons of the U.S. government. Will we ever see why these actions were allowed to continue for so long and why early evidence of these crimes, such as the initial Taguba report, were kept under wraps for months? Can we expect justice or scapegoats?

Well, for one thing, there's the fact that most of the events predicted by the anti-war left have come to pass: continuing resistance, an interim government of questionable legitimacy, no WMDs... Basically, we haven't been given a lot of reasons to feel positive about this venture. The point is they didn't actually bother asking the Iraqis about what flag they wanted. Most Iraqis prefer the old standard, with its traditional Arab colours. Has it occurred to you that maybe Ithe Iraqis should be the ones making the determination as to what country they want? We already have a thread for Nick Berg. Find it. Anyway, what's your point? That because some Iraqis choose to chop of the heads of innocent people, then its okay to bugger other Iraqis and film it?

Damn: I forgot about this thread! The fact that this new vision is being imposed upon Iraqis, instead of forged by Iraqis is what's wrong with the U.S. and your vision. This doesn't make any sense. You must get beyond the generalities and look at the specific. I've said many times that democracy and democratic institutions are impossible without self-determination. What Iraqis are getting is a hand-picked group of exiles as a new government, using rules set down by a foreign occupier and enforced by foreign troops, thousands of whom will remain in country indefinitely. Quite frankly I just don't think a "democracy" create dunder such circumstances has much chance of being anything but a quasi-puppet regime. Again with the fatuousness. Iraq, as a free, democratic state, has no identity as such. It's new to the nation and its people. However, the ability to have a say in what this new state will look like is more or less being denied Iraqis as the apparatus and identity of the new state are being detrmined from the outside. (As an example, consider the recent and short-lived "new" Iraqi flag.) A false dichotomy. You cna have free elections and teh trappings of democracy, yet stil be subservient. That's the direction the new Iraq could be heading. By the way, KK, there's some more "pranks" to report: 'Secret film shows Iraq prisoners sodomised'

Allawi performed summary executions Allawi, of course was a former B'aath party assassin who fell out of favour with Saddam in the '70s.

Jerusalem has changed hands a couple of times since then (furthermore, as home to the Dome of the Rock, it is a Muslim holy site as well). No, my interpretation of 242 is: don't start a war, as you've nothing to gain. What's the sky like in your Bizzaro world? hence the openess to interpretation. Wrong yet again. The ruling is an advisory opinion, and non-binding. It was brought to the ICJ by the Gneral Assembly: Link. (This also states that your contention that 101 member states voted against the request is false: 90 voted for, 8 against, 74 abstained.) Because your statement about "giving women and landowners the vote" did not follow logically from what preceded it (Israel's attempts to legally change the status of territory in the OT, via annexation).

As I pointed out in the other thread, the question of whther the universe had a beginning point is still open to question on a scientific basis. So your conclusion is false. Of course this is completely wrong. The religious views of the origin of the universe is completely contradictary to science. There's not one iota of evidence supprting a supernatural origin of the universe. In other words: you've got it completely backwards: it is the theistic view that is predicate don blind faith in an unprovable supernatural entity; science may not be able to offer a complete picture, but it is more consistent with rationalism. But let's revisit the main point: First, it helps to have some definitions; starting with "rational", which means "consistent with or based on reason." Reason is a central tenant of secular humanist thought (which, incidentally, is closely linked to rationalism, which is stipulates that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching). This is wholly consistent with the scientific approach, which uses the best available information to reach the best explanation. Religion, on the other hand, relies wholly on faith, which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Furthermore, in instances wherein "proof" of God is offered, it is seldom direct evidence, but subjective experiences or arguments based on (as yours are) carefully selected failings of alternative explanations (failings which do not logically invalidate the explanations themselves, or act as conslusive evidence of God). When operating from these tried-and-true definitions, it's pretty obvious that religion is inherently irrational.

If you're going to get all semantic, I'd like to pint out there was no state known as "Israel" prior to 1948. The region's Arab population has just as much claim to jersuselum as the Jews. Right back atcha. Bollocks. The point of most wars of aggression are to capture territory. The point of the prohibition against retaining territory captured in war is to prevent wars of conquest: if you hav enothing to gain, you have no reason to carry out a war of conquest. Both "all " and "the" are specific enough to encompass the entirety of the territories (interestingly, the French version of the 242 contains "the"). Last week. Historic ruling on Israeli 'occupation' Non sequitur. "Suburbs" is a a misnomer that is being used to promote teh expanion of the settlements. How the Settler Suburbs Grew (NYT) This article also points out how most israelis recognioze it's the settlements that are one of the biggest obstacles to real peace and security. Bullcrap. I'm saying no one, regardless of race, creed or whatever, has the right to live on illegally occupied land. Nevermind that Israel's policies of "targetted" murder of militant leaders are themselves legally dubious. So, if an illegal killing results in civilians being placed illegally in harms way, who's to blame? Given your remarkable hubris, I'll just file this blurb in the ever-growing "Hugo's a pompous blowhard" file and move on. The citation is above, the story has been getting heaps of press. Read something other than the usual propaganda for a change. Your biggest problem, aside from the ttanic ego, is your complete inability to see anything in terms other than black and white (or white and white in your case.) I've acknowleged that all is not well withinh Palestinian society and identified reasons other than the actionms of israel that contribute to the situation. You however are incapable of making anything but absoutist statements which imply your belief in the total and complete purity of every Israeli action. Which is, of course, uterly irrational.

Following the end of the 1948 war of independence, an Armistice agreement between Israel and the Arab countries delineated the borders of each party and designated the "No Man's" land between them according to the location of their respective armies. This line demarcated the borders between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip as recognized by the international community. So: in your view, the onus is on occupied to set the terms of their own occupation? The obvious analogy here is incidences of rape where the victim is deemed to be "asking for it". As for the wall: Creeping Annexation Of course, you conviently omity the conditions of these "generous" offers, including demanda that the Palestinians accept all of Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital." and that Israel accept no moral or legal responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, among others. There's no such caveat on the term "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." When viewed in the context of the principle stated in the preamble 242 vis a vis the inadmissibility of aquisition of territory by war" it's clear that the "missing 'the'" argument is fallacious. Indeed this interpretation was recently accepted by the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, what makes the Israeli occupation illegal is that it has existed for 35 years, during which time Israel, as an occupying Power, has undertaken measures to change the legal status, demographic composition and character of the territory by confiscating land, exploiting natural resources, building more than 250 settlements, transferring more than 400,000 Israelis to the occupied territories, establishing a dual system of law and even annexing part of the territory. These actions have been carried out in direct contravention of the Fourt Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which, among other things, defines the rules of conduct and the obligations of the occupying Power. Clearly then, the active intent of the Israeli occupation has been to negate Palestinian rights, to create new facts on the ground and to illegally expand Israel's borders. You simply can't talk about the Israeli occupation and the peace process without mentioning the settlements. Treaties between Israel and its Arab neighbours aren't really relevant. As I pointed out, the International Court of Justice has referred to the West Bank and East Jerusalem as occupied territories and Israeli settlements in these areas as a violation of the Geneva conventions. Also, you yourself have admitted that it is an occupation. Caught in a lie! How embarrassing... Personally, I have never stated Israel indiscriminately targets women and children , only that thay don't particularily care if they happen to kill a few in the course of their operations. Furthermore, the study's conclusion is a false dichotomy that ignores social and cultural realities of Palestinian society, which features a diminished role for women. For example, if you look at the recent protest march which was fired on by IDF tanks and helicopters, it was completely young men.

Following the end of the 1948 war of independence, an Armistice agreement between Israel and the Arab countries delineated the borders of each party and designated the "No Man's" land between them according to the location of their respective armies. This line demarcated the borders between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip as recognized by the international community. So: in your view, the onus is on occupied to set the terms of their own occupation? The obvious analogy here is incidences of rape where the victim is deemed to be "asking for it". As for the wall: Creeping Annexation

Well, there's certainly an argument to be made that a missile sheild would, in fact, accelerate proliferation, as countries (like China and Russia) step up production of weapons to overwhelm the sheild. Furthermore, in an era wher eteh U.S. has given itself carte blanche to pre-emptivly attack any nation it sees fit, it's not unreasonable to think that a missile sheild (if it indeed works) would be a cover for a nuclear strike, allowing the U.S. to attack other nuclear powers without fear of reprisal. As of May 2004, the estimates for the program were $62.9 billion through 2009. That's up from the $47.2 billion that was projected last year. It's wholly possible (given the history of such projects) that costs could continue to climb and climb...(Also keep in mind that's $62 billion for a system that has yet to be shown to work under battlefield conditions.) What's the current U.S. defecit? Or it could maximize the threat of proliferation. Or it could convince countries to develop other means of attacking the U.S. This program is opening doors that we'd probably want left closed. Creeping facism.

see edits above.