bradco

Wrong. Blix said that cooperation was not immediate and unconditional. Two things which Iraq had to be in order to be in complience with their last and final opportunity as per the wording of 1441. Maybe it could have and maybe Saddam would have done what he did so many times before and stall, inhibit and offer conditions. In any case, he was in violation of his last and final opportunity. So having lost your legal arguments, you now move into a moral one I take it? I dont believe the legal argument to be lost. Throughout this thread I have argued that there are legal arguements on both sides because 1441 was such a political compromise. If there was an international court like there was domestically the legal case against intervention would probably win....especially when you have ambassdors on record as stating that resolution 1441 does not rpovide for automaticity. Your legal argument is based on the unwillingness and lack of ability to prosecute which has nothing to do with the actual "legaility" of the actions.

Electing a surpeme court defeats the purpose of the court. It is supposed to be a non-politicized body as much as possible. They shouldnt be selected by the government though....maybe selected by another means...I dont have any good ideas but maybe by some sort of body that represents judges in this country (Im assuming there must be one). It is supposed to protect minorities from democracy (democracies arent immune from doing bad things). That being said there is always the notwithstanding clause so I dont see why people get all worked up about the courts. If the government wants to pass a bill the courts cant stop them.

We would need a heck of lot more than 9 judges then I guess.

Haven't you heard Myata, it had nothing to do with WMD. Benevolent George only wanted to help the poor Iraqis by freeing them from brutal oppression.

That is just too logical, it won't fly with the emotional science of the chicken little end of the world types. By the way though, regarding the forum rules, Bradco and yourself should really cut out all those quotes and only post relevant peices. It makes it difficult to read when it's just quote after quote and uses up bandwidth (which costs moooola). Thanks. Im not good with computers lol how do I pick just a select few quotes?

Calgary has never been a team built upon star players, it's always been the 20 man deep team. Being said, Phaneuf is a superstar defensemen now, if the rookie situation was a little more open (Crosby and Ovechkin in the same year) Phaneuf would have won rookie of the year. I present you the next Scott Stevens. I can tell you with the new Phaneuf/Regher pairing, most top line players on opposing teams are a little upset. Not going to get many chances with those two together, and there is going to be a lot of physical punishment from a defense pair that weighs over 450 combined pounds yet can skate as fast as anyone on the ice. Really drops off... how about it's like a minor league team after Pronger and Niedermeyer. We saw last year though that Niedermeyer still has it in him to carry an entire defense himself. He's likely the only defenseman I'd take over Phaneuf. The difference is that every starting defenseman in Calgary would likely be a first line defenseman on most other teams. Phaneuf, Regher, Hamrlik and Zyuzin. That's quite a formidable force. Ference and Warrener, maybe not, but they both have their places on a team. It's not an underrated defense in Vancouver, they are very thin, very weak, and just tiny for an NHL defense group. Two of their starters are over 6'2" yet under 200 lbs. Weak. You can't play competitive hockey with defensemen smaller than most top line centres. Calgary just destroyed Vancouver in preseason because of this, their size just overwelmed them. If anything Vancouver will have going for it is speed through the neutral zone which will cause trouble with the Calgary's and Minnesotas if they can generate enough offence from it. Absolutely. Through a decent centre between Tanguay and Iggy though and it's the best line in the league by far. I think Lombardi has the speed, size and playmaking skill to do it, but they won't give him a chance. So we need to make a trade. We'll give you Langkow and Hamrlik for Henrik. Morrison is one of the most underrated players in the league. Way more skilled than anyone gives him credit for. I don't think those combinations are much better than Calgary's 3rd and 4th. I have high hopes especially for Frisen, Yelle, Kobasew... maybe with a more offense focused centre... call up Taratukin. Well if the preseason has any say in the matter, it may be close. I'm trying to pick up at least one canucks game from the company tickets. I've already managed to get the Washington tickets . -still say at least a couple years until you can consider Phaneuf bonfide superstar, admitting that he is awesome. Lets agree to disagree -I like your opinion on Morrison seeing that most Canucks fans are quick to roast the guy. His defensive awareness makes him an asset even when he isnt producing. -small defensemen size isnt going to hamper you that bad as long as you movethe puck quickly. Id take speed over size anyday in the "new" nhl. Ohlund and Mitchell are big guys that can play tough. If Ohlie was a little faster I think he would be a premier defensmen. Bieksa is a big boy he can handle himself. Bourdon is gonna be a tough defensemen in a few years. -I like the speed of our third line and I think it may prove to be one of the best third lines in the league. Lets wait and see -As far as preseason games....dont really consider them at all. Neither teams dressing their full team, chemistry isnt worked out, line juggling etc. Lets wait for a regular season game until we judge. As far as our defense against Detroit and Columbus I thought they smothered them pretty good. A lot of dumb hooking penalties where it wasnt so much a hook but the stick against the guys body....just got to remember to keep the stick on the ice. -Thornton/Cheechoo are the most dominant and itll take a heck of a centre to match those two guys. -I wouldnt give Henrick for Tanguay and Hamrlik let alone Langkow. You really have to watch him and his brother on a nightly basis to have respect for their crazy sixth sense about what the other is doing/wants to do. Wicked combo that should never be broken up. They will both get 80 points min this year....probably around 90.

So, he adhered to 1441? Not according to Blix in his March report. Therefore, the member states decided to use invasion and regime change to effect the resolutions demands. Instead, he says Iraq did not cooperate immediately and unconditionally. A thing they had to do to ensure they adhered to 1441 (which BTW was Iraq's final opportuinty) Actually, there was never a tabling of that resolution. If there were, they would have gotten the majority of eight but, required nine to make it defacto. Still killed a hundred thousand less than Saddam did on average but just to explain to you two, I understand where you are comming from but, this is a legal argument that you have brought forward. And, it was legal as per the wording of resolution 1441 and, the report Blix gave which he details the infractions. However minor you consider those infractions to be, the tolerance level was zero. "So, he adhered to 1441? Not according to Blix in his March report. Therefore, the member states decided to use invasion and regime change to effect the resolutions demands." -I wouldnt say he adhered to it. Im just saying that the need for an invasion was not imminent, and especially an invasion that was so drastic. "And, it was legal as per the wording of resolution 1441 and" -If you interpret it without good faith as to the actual intentions of the majority of SC members. -Paragraph 12 of the SC followed by the decision to remain seized of the matter and taking into account the verbal contract entered by members that it does not allow for any automaticity creates a good legal case against the invasion. No judicial system and no motives to put forth a legal case means there is no conviction. No conviction is not necessarily the same as saying an act was legal, especially in international law. The fact that the US/UK coalition is getting no support in Iraq can be seen as a conviction of sorts....a state practise conviction of their illegal invasion.

I was at the game last night, and Calgary looked half a step behind much of the time. They won't win it all playing their normal plug it up and slow it down style. The failings of that were exposed in their surrender to Anaheim last year. They need to change their style. Or better yet, don't change a thing...... Go Oilers, what a treat to watch high speed, entertaining hockey again. The Oilers don't have the size or defence to be a reasonable force in the Northwest division. How can such a little team play against Colorado, Calgary or Minnesota?? They played a solid game last night, but I think that's all they've got. Calgary looked horrendous compared to their pre-season play, like I said, a blip on the radar. My biggest concern is having a competent centre between Tanguay and Iginla, Langkow isn't one. I say throw Lombardi in there for a game and watch the goals pile up (that kid is so freakin' fast). Calgary will finish first in the division and maybe first in the conference. There is no team with as diverse skill, we have two amazing producers offensively, the best defence in the league by far and the top goalie. How can you lose? I wouldnt say the best defense in the league by far. Probably the deepest but not really in a league of their own like you claim. They lack a true star in defense as well (Phaneuf will be in a few more years) I love the Pronger/Niedermeyer combo in Anaheim.....I know it really drops off after that but those guys chew up so many minutes anyways. As long as they are both healthy that should be a tough team to play against especially with their offensive talent. O and ya....Canucks win again 2-0! Im liking this lineup....4 solid lines that can all play well both ways. Underrated defense in my opinion and an allstar goalie. Ohlund/Salo/Mitchell is solid. Bieksa is shockingly improved, Krajicek has good potential. Hopefully see Bourdon for the first time tommorow night but Fitzpatrick has been solid. sedin/sedin/naslund is a potent first line any way you slice it. Theyre going to match up just fine with Tanguay/Iginla unless those two get a decent centre. Pyatt/Morrison/Bulis looking good. Bulis and Morrison are both fast and are showing good chemistry so far. Pyatt is the weak link there.....needs to learn to use his massive frame. Cooke/Kesler/Burrows: these guys have been nuts. Incredible speed and intense forcheck. You wont outwork this line. If kesler can get his hands to catch up with his feet this line could add some solid scoring. Cooke has more offensive credit than people give him credit for.....its hard for him to stay healthy though. Green/Santala/Linden: solid defensive line....Santala is the face off specialist we didnt have last year and really missed. Linden has looked good and has created some scoring chances and netted one. Green is a very solid depth player. Never got a real shot last year and every time he did play he was awesome. Cant wait to see my team match up against edmonton and calgary .

That's simply not true. http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html Yes they have an agenda. To get the truth out. The truth of scientific facts. As opposed to those who fear monger with their chicken little man made global warming which is based on junk science, misleading information and outright lies. When it comes to a technical science area Ill trust a scientist group over a political policy group (especially one with an agenda, that isnt about truth, and everything about the economy and profits). As far as misleading information I took a direct example from the site you gave. The site tries to mislead people into thinking an increase in CO2 doesnt matter because water vapour is the most abundant in the atmosphere. An increase in CO2, against constant water vapour, is still an overall increase in gas. What does water vapour being more abundant have to do with anything? The policy group does not do the science they display the research of others that do. On the other hand those that run around claiming the sky is falling are those who have a vested interest in keeping the reasearch grants coming. Water vapour is the major green house gas. Not Co2. There is no correlation between Co2 and temperature losses and gains. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i...mblings-of.html The policy group chooses scientists that will get them the results they want. Im not going to argue that not all scientists agree with global warming. But your unwillingness to accept bias in the group you cite is ridiculous. "Those that run around claiming that the ski is falling" will get research grants from universities, museums etc no matter what they are saying...theres always money for research grants. "Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas" Yes it is, but the total greenhouse effect is the result of the total gases in the atmosphere...which is the most abundant is not relevant. It doesnt matter which gas is added to the atmosphere there is still more gas in it and the result is a higher greenhouse effect. Ill make an easier example for you. There is a parking lot with 100 spots....95 spots are flled with honda civics the other 5 with ford mustangs. The parking lot is full. Now I could jam cars in there and not put them in stalls and create a mess. Does it matter if I jam in a mustang or a civic? No it just matters that I jam in a car. "There is no correlation between Co2 and temperature losses and gains." Now find me one scientist who doesnt believe that there is a greenhouse effect. Dont forget that it is an effect that is very necessary for our survival...we'd all be in parkas if it wasnt for it. It is a naturally occuring effect. The intensity of the effect, however, can be changed. When you take CO2 from the earth and throw it into the atmosphere you change the intensity of the greenhouse effect. Scientists will argue over how large the effect will be, how much gas is necessary for how large an effect, but there is an effect.

Yes, those volcano eruptions decreased global temperature by around a degree from materials being thrown into the atmosphere....I guess they block sun rays etc (not sure of the actual figure so dont quote me on it....was signicicant though). Dont know if underwater eruption could change ocean temperatures because ocean is heated from the top so the eruptions I would think wouldnt effect the amount of energy the ocean receives. If anything I would guess it would increase ocean temperatures due to molten material entering ocean. But these are natural events that the earth can handle. "While these emissions really do not affect climate the way some want to say, it does affect the health and welfare of the people on earth, and should still be looked at in that category." I had to do a review of an interesting article last year. The article was the report of a study into the origins of human effects on global temperatures. The authour was able to show effects that the increase of agriculture had on global temperatures. Ruddiman, William E. “How did Humans First Alter Global Climate?” Scientific American 292.3 (2005): 46-53. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.6 April 2006 <http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direc t=true&db=aph&an=15993767>. you probably wont be able to access the article online through Academic Search Premier unless you have a subscription. Here is the relevant part of my short review of the article if your interested... How did humans first alter the global climate? The prevailing notion is that global warming, triggered by the release of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, is a fairly recent phenomenon. However, William Ruddiman has a new interpretation that argues this is false. His new hypothesis is that the process begun with our ancestors, whose “farming practices kicked off global warming thousands of years before we started burning coal and driving cars” . Ruddiman published his article How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate in the March 2005 edition of Scientific American where he argues this new interpretation. The evidence that Ruddiman uses was revealed in an ice core sample at Vostok Station in Antarctica. This sample proved that “concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane rose and fell in a regular pattern during virtually all of the past 400,000 years” . Ruddiman points out scientists have known that such variations exist due to the earth’s orbit around the sun. However, he also discovered something else while examining the records from Vostok. The concentration of carbon dioxide (8,000 years ago) and methane (5,000 years ago) began to rise when they instead should have still been declining. He notes that others have attributed this to “natural factors in the climate system” . However, Ruddiman believes this explanation fails on the grounds that these factors would have been similar in the preceding interglaciations . What are we supposed to make of this? William Ruddiman offers a new explanation, arguing that farming is the source of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations beginning 8,000 years ago. He argues that agricultural activity was a new factor that had not been present in previous interglaciations and that “the basic timeline of agricultural innovations is well known” . Tracing the history of agriculture he is able to show that farming developed at the same time as the downward trend in concentrations of greenhouse gases reversed. He explains how agriculture not only generates gases such as methane but through deforestation – necessary for clearing land for agriculture – it also increases the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Ruddiman argues that the effect of the warming of the atmosphere was drastic. Using climate models he illustrates that without the combined emissions of early farming and industrialization, “current temperatures would be on their way to glacial temperatures” . William Rudiman explains how this new discovery has led to a new interpretation of history: “This conclusion is startingly different from the traditional view that human civilization blossomed within a period of warmth that nature provided. As I see it, nature would have cooled the earth’s climate, but our ancestors kept it warm by discovering agriculture” It is important to note that Ruddiman recognizes that the rapid industrialization of the last two centuries has greatly increased the rate at which greenhouse gases are being pumped into the atmosphere. However, this new discovery and his new hypothesis argue that the beginning of human impact on the atmosphere begun well before this.

'Mass bombings of cities' is not exactly what happened. More like pinpoint strikes carried out within the capability of the US forces. If mass bombings then there would not be anything left of Iraq save a glass parking lot so please, stay within the realm of reality. Now, since you are in agreement that intervention was necessary (or are you?) then what exactly does 'any means necessary' mean to not do? Considering you are attempting to stop a man who uses a country as his personal sex dungeon, personal ATM, torture chamber, ego fulfiler and, as a born survivor will do anything to retain his hold on it including stalling fourteen resolutions from the highest legal body on the planet for a dozen years. All the while, allowing hundreds of thousands of his own people to die or be killed by himself or circumstances brought on by himself? umm did I say it was what happened? I merely provided an example of an international law/norm that must be followed while intervening. "since you are in agreement that intervention was necessary (or are you?) then what exactly does 'any means necessary' mean to not do?" I thought you read my first post since you quoted from it but maybe try reading it again.... "All necessary means" authorizes any force needed to achieve the goals stated in the resolution. It would be very difficult for the SC to put in writing before any intervention exactly what is proportional. Doing so could handicap the troops that intervene to up hold up the SC resolution. There is no way to know exactly what sort of military opposition they will meet, how events will unfold etc. Armed conflict is dynamic, things change quickly and there is no time to consult the SC's opinion during it. That being said international laws and norms on how armed conflict ought to be conducted still apply to the force authorized by the SC" -I was in support of intervention as a last resort and with a clear SC resolution. The need for a clear resolution is because I believe in international law and what it attempts to do. Saddam was neutralized and could not harm anyone including his own people during the lead up to the war. Doing so would have guaranteed that second resolution asap and as you just argued Saddam wouldnt do that because he "will do anything to retain his hold on it". Therefore there was no rush to intervene and especially without a clear strategy. The mission was screwed up....unless you argue that Iraq looks today like they wanted it to. People in Iraq arent any safer now than they were under Saddam and its unclear they ever will be (who knows who is going to lead that country at this rate...might be a guy worse than Saddam)

so do they check through peoples luggage? Just tell the guy you dont have booze, thats what I would do. He gets to think he is following his religious beliefs and I get my booze....win-win situation. Why do religious freedoms (Christian, Islamic and others) always get priority over individual freedoms? As a person who doesn't believe in religions I dont understand this so maybe someone can explain it to me.

When was the last time the ruling party ever complemented an opposition member for anything? Lets not forget that question period is to be used to keep the government accountable, and that means critizing them. When your whining like a little child though I dont think anyone is listening. The big problem with question period and pretty much everything else in government is that for the most part things are done to score political points and not to score good policy.

Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept. When you say punishment you must mean the criminal code etc. Everything I can think of we punish for because some harm has been done to another which clearly fits into my definition. Find me an example of something we punish for that doesnt fit into what Im saying. No, I do not mean just the criminal code. Rules and structure continue down from there through about every part of our lives. Who is to say that a business cannot make rules and tell you if you don't like them or they don't meet your moral standards to find another? Instead, people sue and demand they be able to do what they want. I submit that we should disallow it. In the instance of a business, I am putting my own money at risk. I should be the sole dictator, beyond basic human rights of course, of what is allowed or disallowed there. If you don't like that get another job. If I tell you a tie is a part of the uniform and you refuse, start packing. Simple as that. If I do not treat people well I will not be able to keep them. Much like pay structures, people consider how they are treated when they choose a job. Let them find one that suits them if they don't like the rules of the one I have provided. Those who are invested should be protected first. As the generations pass each gets to be more like a spoiled brat, expecting everyone cater to them. Discipline seems to be more elusive to each new generation. We need to stop catering to people. When you keep giving in to people they come to expect it. There comes a point where doing these things in the name of progress hurts society more than it helps. IMO we have already passed that point. I dont think what your saying goes against what Im saying though. I fully agree that a business should be able to set their policies. I explained that it doesnt harm people. I see no conflict yet with using a harm principle for allowing people to have their own morals and beliefs. I have rules, you obey them. As long as you work for me, thats how it goes. If you do not, you are deemed insubbordinate and released. Like I said, if I am going to put everything I own at risk to create your job, it is only right I should get to make the rules. How I am to keep order if everyone gets to decide which rules they want to obey and which they do not? How do I justify to the others when I reprimand everyone else for not following our exemplary dress code and not our guy who has decided he thinks it is wrong? In my workplace, as long as you come to work and follow the rules, I don't care if you are black, white, blue or purple as long as you do what is asked of you in the manner you are asked to do it. If you have a problem with doing things the way I have asked then it time for you to move on. There are consequences to EVERYTHING in your life. If you are averse to wearing a tie you ought not seek work in an office environment. The office should not be required to bow to you. Dont go too hard on your employees now though or your going to wake up and realize that none are left. You may put everything you own at risk to create the jobs.....but your not creating jobs for anything but your own profit. Ill give you some business advice: happier, respected workers produce more profit.

That's simply not true. http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html Yes they have an agenda. To get the truth out. The truth of scientific facts. As opposed to those who fear monger with their chicken little man made global warming which is based on junk science, misleading information and outright lies. When it comes to a technical science area Ill trust a scientist group over a political policy group (especially one with an agenda, that isnt about truth, and everything about the economy and profits). As far as misleading information I took a direct example from the site you gave. The site tries to mislead people into thinking an increase in CO2 doesnt matter because water vapour is the most abundant in the atmosphere. An increase in CO2, against constant water vapour, is still an overall increase in gas. What does water vapour being more abundant have to do with anything?

Iraq was in vioaltion of a ceasfire and was not adhering to at least five of the terms including raparation of war damages, payment for ecological damages, repatriation of foreign nationals, improving human rights within their borders and proving they had adhered to the terms reguarding WMDs. To ensure they do this, how do you do it without actually going inside that country? Saddam had been asked nicely by the US, then asked nicely by the UN. Demanded by the UN for a dozen years and then threatened but still nothing. I think that invasion was a means necessary to acheive the cooperation for those terms he neglected to be fulfiled as would any reasonable person given the cooperation he displayed. [ Confused by your use of my quote there. Im not saying there that intervention wasnt necessary. That quote just means that there are laws and norms that must be followed while intervening. Ie: taking civilians into account before mass bombings of cities.

Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept. When you say punishment you must mean the criminal code etc. Everything I can think of we punish for because some harm has been done to another which clearly fits into my definition. Find me an example of something we punish for that doesnt fit into what Im saying. No, I do not mean just the criminal code. Rules and structure continue down from there through about every part of our lives. Who is to say that a business cannot make rules and tell you if you don't like them or they don't meet your moral standards to find another? Instead, people sue and demand they be able to do what they want. I submit that we should disallow it. In the instance of a business, I am putting my own money at risk. I should be the sole dictator, beyond basic human rights of course, of what is allowed or disallowed there. If you don't like that get another job. If I tell you a tie is a part of the uniform and you refuse, start packing. Simple as that. If I do not treat people well I will not be able to keep them. Much like pay structures, people consider how they are treated when they choose a job. Let them find one that suits them if they don't like the rules of the one I have provided. Those who are invested should be protected first. As the generations pass each gets to be more like a spoiled brat, expecting everyone cater to them. Discipline seems to be more elusive to each new generation. We need to stop catering to people. When you keep giving in to people they come to expect it. There comes a point where doing these things in the name of progress hurts society more than it helps. IMO we have already passed that point. I dont think what your saying goes against what Im saying though. I fully agree that a business should be able to set their policies. I explained that it doesnt harm people. I see no conflict yet with using a harm principle for allowing people to have their own morals and beliefs.

For the simple reason that your example is so subjective and so general, it could not be enforced. But it is interesting how you could subsititute something in that is in fact the exact same argument. Ie homosexual marriage. Thinking about it with a silly example as wearing ties takes away the religious, political, moral side of things which would plague such a debate. It is an interesting excerise in how to balance morals and beliefs without the politics that relate to reallife examples.

...or defending themselves when they are attacked Uh ... no. There's no reason to intervene to prevent it when Israel defends (rather than aggresses). History records that Israel has done each from time to time, despite what propagandists of either stripe might say. Our topic here was Israel attacking Iran to pre-empt its nuclear research, which would be an act of aggression. I'm sorry if I sound pedantic, but your comment suggested an incomprehension at the most basic level. If you have been making threats to me and you start walking towards me carrying a bat, and I take the inititive and hoof you in the nuts, I am defending myself. If the Egyptian Navy blocades your red sea port (blocade: an act of war) and the arab league begins massing armies on your border, and you decide to preempt their attack, you are defending yourself. If Israel forestalls Irans nuclear weapons programme, that is an act of self preservation. History has shown that people get confused when the facts are selective It's not pedantic you sound, it's naive Preemptive self defense is clearly illegal still under international law. But Dancer brings in an interesting point here. Israel has been threatened by Iran which is a clear violation of 2(4)of the UN charter. Therefore one could argue that any attack against nuclear facilities is not preemptive but a response. Self-Defence is allowed and has been slowly expanded through state practise and opinion juris. Such a strike would still need to meet the proportionality and necessity of the Caroline requirement. If it is limited to nuclear facilities and done at a time to avoid the least casulaties possible it would clearly be proportional. It would meet the necessity requirement to the extent we believe Iran has the intent to use the nuclear weapon not as a deterrent but against Israel in an act of aggression. I doubt it would be used for an act of aggression since this would invite total destruction from the west, specifically the US. However, the past comments made by Iranian leadership probably makes for enough of a legal basis to satisfy the necessity requirement. This case would be fairly significant for international law in being another expansion of the "inherent" right of self-defense that the UN Charter allows for. It would send the message that a violation of internationallaw (this case 2(4)) is enough to allow for self-defense. This could act as an enforcement measure of international law and norms, not necessarily a bad thing. EDIT: Unfortunatly the wording of article 51 of the Charter will make it almost legally impossible for Israel to put forth an argument (at least a legal one)... self defense is good to go "if an armed attack occurs"....I was hoping it said "if an attack occurs" because then we could argue the violation of 2(4) was an "attack". Those crafters of the UN Charter wouldnt give us the loophole though

Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept. When you say punishment you must mean the criminal code etc. Everything I can think of we punish for because some harm has been done to another which clearly fits into my definition. Find me an example of something we punish for that doesnt fit into what Im saying.

ya Calgary is clearly the favorite. If I had to pick a team to win it Id go for them. But then again look at the final four last year. Luongo to the cup baby

That's simply not true. http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html What an interesting source. Ive been stuck in university much to long since the rules of proof in academic writing and internet conversations are clearly much different. Your source is a policy group with clear and specific agendas. I can search the internet and find all kinds of left wing environmental hippie groups who will say the opposite, does that make it truth? Im not a science student but if someone sourced that in an technical science on climate change essay I bet it would be an automatic fail. heres some stuff I found on the internet, not great sources but Im not spending hours flipping through academic journals because no matter what I say it wont effect your opinion. Your minds already made up: http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exh...cc/causes03.jsp "CO2 contributes more to the recent increase in greenhouse warming than any other gas. CO2 persists in the atmosphere longer and longer as concentrations continue to rise." -this page is clearly less biased since it immediately recognizes the importance of the economy of fossil fuel burning. "They (scientists) have a high level of certainty that greenhouse gases contribute the most to warming, with increases in CO2 as the greatest contributor with about 1.4 watts/meter2" -water vapour might be in the most abundance in the atmosphere but its relatively constant.....therefore its not causing change. The fact that your website mentions it is showing that its trying to use facts that dont matter to influence peoples opinion. http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/ "The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation. Continuation of historical trends of greenhouse gas emissions will result in additional warming over the 21st century, with current projections of a global increase of 2.5ºF to 10.4ºF by 2100" http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/web...46?OpenDocument "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely because of human activities, for the most part. But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities" "Carbon dioxide is probably the single most important agent contributing to climate changes today, the report says. In addition, the other greenhouse gases combined contribute to climate changes approximately equal to that of carbon dioxide." http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...ate-change.html "There is no doubt anymore in the mainstream scientific community that the Earth is warming, and increasing evidence shows that humans have a significant part in it." -they recognize human involvement is only a part....does that mean we should do nothing? Either way it shows a little balance you dont get from your right wing think tanks. "In the IPCC's 2001 assessment of the scientific basis of climate change, the experts draw three important conclusions: * Climate change is underway. Or in the IPCC's own words: "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system." * Human activities do and will continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere. The IPCC states, "emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate." Adding that trends of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities point further upward, the scientists argue that significant emission reductions would be necessary to stabilize the climate. * Recent warming can be largely attributed to human causation. More strongly than ever, the IPCC states in its 2001 assessment, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." "As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/...in1415985.shtml "Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But as correspondent Scott Pelley first reported last spring, this imminent scientist says that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science" "What James Hansen believes is that global warming is accelerating. He points to the melting arctic and to Antarctica, where new data show massive losses of ice to the sea. " ""There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface." Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen has a theory that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message. "In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," says Hansen. Restrictions like an e-mail Hansen's institute received from NASA in 2004. "… there is a new review process … ," the e-mail read. "The White House (is) now reviewing all climate related press releases," it continued." -if theres nothing to hide than why censor? Maybe this guys just a nut? "Why the scrutiny of Hansen's work? Well, his Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the source of respected but sobering research on warming. It recently announced 2005 was the warmest year on record. Hansen started at NASA more than 30 years ago, spending nearly all that time studying the earth. How important is his work? 60 Minutes asked someone at the top, Ralph Cicerone, president of the nation’s leading institute of science, the National Academy of Sciences. "I can't think of anybody who I would say is better than Hansen. You might argue that there's two or three others as good, but nobody better," says Cicerone."

Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair

Does the Maple Laffs big win tonight work into your formula? Im just happy my canucks won woot woot

I dont see anything wrong with finding out about other people on here....gives you more of an understanding about where they are coming from. So Ill join in with you Remiel so your not all alone.....20