theloniusfleabag

Dear Argus, If there is no moral ground to stop the cloning, how can you say that there would be moral compunction to 'kill fewer' than sheep? After all, they aren't 'human babies', so any 'moral' limitations would strictly be your own.I think that the real problem is that if any cloning takes place, it nullifies what rights may have been given to any 'originals'. What of test tube babies? What of your 18 yr old clone? They would still be a person standing before you, how can you say "You weren't created in the same fashion as me, so now I get to eat you (or kill you for sport, or for an action picture to make it more 'lifelike')". It all comes down to the dispensing of rights, I suppose. Shall we agree on what 'rights' we are going to give clones? Or should they have none, as they are a creation, like a sandcastle? Won't pedophiles be pleased! They can create a harem of children, and kill them afterword, if they like.

Dear moderateamericain, 'Glass' them??? You actually can't commit violence against a culture, (unless it's bacterial) as it is not a physical entity. Similar to a 'war on terror(ism)'.

Dear August1991, No specific religion should dictate parameters, but they should be consulted regarding 'hate crimes'.http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/zundel.asp...d=2&item=zundel Where should the line be drawn between free speech and 'hate literature'? There should be a line, but it should not be up to any one specific group to define it.http://www.priestsrapeboys.com/ http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/ Should these above sites be 'illegal'? Censorship is a slippery slope indeed.

Dear August1991, from the above Matthew Parris quote, Government too, could be said to confuse fealty with respect. However, lack of respect, or even anarchy, are not automatically desirable simply because of their polar opposition to authority.

Dear August1991, I would expect that they would feel the same as Chinese or some 'Christian' gays. In my "World Human Rights Guide", (which is a bit dated) one of the questions was, "Is there freedom to: practice homosexuality between consenting adults?" Saudi Arabia has a 'No', Illegal but tolerated if practiced discreetly. The legal maximum sentence is beheading, ". China had 'No', "Not mentioned in the legal code as the practice is not admitted to exist within The People's Republic. Charges would come under 'offensive behaviour'." Admittedly, nowhere near as much as you. Homosexuality still hasn't been fully accepted in the 'western world', it would be a bit formidable fighting for Islam to accept it. But, it all comes down to this... Again, I would like to see all religion challenged to an international debate.

Dear Argus, Basically, yes. I have 3 choices. Do nothing. Change people to my way of thinking. Kill all those that disagree. Then, these get tempered with..am I a capitalist? (In which case, I would look for a way to personally profit form whatever circumstances are present, taking a mooral or religious stance clouds the issues and likely lessens profit) or am I devout? (In which case, loyalty to my religion would dictate my actions, up to and including militancy, whatever side I was on) As to the second one, I am here. I am. I have attempted to spread the truth (often my opinion is offered as a substitute when we don't have access to all the facts, I'll admit. However, I love logic.) but it is up to the individual to believe. That leaves choice # 3. Reducing their numbers to either less than yours or zero. Barring that, negotiating zones of isolationist and protectionist groups, be they a continent or an enclave.

Dear Argus, I agree with you, but I believe that all faith is based on ignorance (as an explanation for those things of which we are, or were, all ignorant), so I advocate a 'round table' worldwide debate on the merits of, and truth of, all religion.

Dear Argus, I don't think you understand Islam. It is not 'religious thought' (well, you and I think it is), the Koran is held to be 'the literal word of God'. To a believer, how can God possibly be questioned? You would have to declare that God had it wrong. And then you would be an infidel. The reason Rushdie was villified is that he suggested Muhammed wrote the Koran. Muslims believe God wrote it, and they believe that this is the closest mankind has come to God. I suggest you read some of the Koran, I downloaded and printed off most of it from the USC website, but it had three translations for each verse, so it was incredibly lengthy. Used a whole toner cartridge. However, it is held that only the sanskrit (or whatever language) is the 'literal words of God', so something gets lost in the translation. Why do people feel such a deep need to be told by God what to do? (If you do read some of the Koran, you will see how it works. All of 'God's instructions' for living are there...no need to think.)

I can't imagine a satirical parody of the Holocaust being pooh-poohed...the offender would be forced to apologize, and withdraw the offending materiel. Guaranteed. (as long as they were cartoonist in a 'western culture', mind you).

Dear geoffrey, Don't waste your time feeding the troll. Besides, while you make some good points, they won't be responded to. As an aside, there was a lengthy debate on rights and ownership under some thread called 'freedom vs. tyrrany' (sic).

Dear August1991, I disagree. My reponse was short, but not meant to be that shallow. Besides, I can't stand 'westernized ethnic food'. I discuss politics, religion and history often with Sikh and Chinese friends. Some of them are much older than me, and some are very pragmatic. I ask a lot of questions, as a general rule, and if the questions are sincere, you make friends easily. One Sikh repairman that was at my house literally beamed when I spoke a few words (including thank you) in Punjabi, and praised the fact that Canada was such a 'multicultural' society. One would become 'schizo' if he/she tried to embrace every aspect of every culture. The one thing that I found in common about them all, though, was that they were all welcoming, warm-hearted and eager to share knowledge. Only once you get to know a culture can you then begin to pick out the assholes.

Dear August1991, I recall the outrage when "Jesus Christ, Superstar" hit the screens. Some parents were livid. I also recall the Muslim outrage over "The Satanic Verses", and heard an interview on CBC with a Muslim leader over why the death penalty for Salman Rushdie was invoked. The response was, "In Islam there is nothing more important than Allah (God). Even the murder of a fellow human being cannot compare to insulting God (and, in this case, 'His prophet Muhammed'), to Muslims". Is this line of thinking right? I don't believe so, but over a billion people do. How to we tell them to take god less seriously?

Dear August1991, I do not think that avoiding portraits of Mohammed (out of respect) hurts western values. However, I agree that free speech should be supreme. The being said, the Muslims also have every right to boycott products, if they wish. The power of the consumer is becomming the second-most influential force on the planet anyway. If anyone recalls, there were merchandise-burning orgies of intolerance, and boycotts, when John Lennon said that 'the Beatles were bigger than Jesus', albeit in an allegorical way. No protests, though, should be allowed to take the form of violence.

Dear Argus, Yes, the inspiring spelling and grammar were a treat. This is one of the few facts in here to dispute. Further, it is true, I won't dispute it. Here, Houston, we have a problem. The implication is that there is that the author fears that this change won't happen. So he appears to be trying to incite it. Economic and socio-political actions of mostly 'the haves' created third world nations, and therefore the situation he seems to fear. Actually, I did address some points, especially his contempt for, and narrow understanding of, multiculturalism. I agree with you. In my opinion, it has exactly as much merit as the article itself. They are both based on sophistry, yet you seem eager to grasp one and not the other.I must retire, for now, but there is a great deal of that article, and of what you have said, that I would like to refute. My apologies that I did not respond to this sooner, I lost track of this thread in 'the great floods' recently.

If you have only heard about it, then how can you say... It is poisonous, and they would die eventually, as their own kidneys would become compromised. Nasa has developed microfilters for food packs that can be rehydrated with urine. However, it is for emergencies only, it is fatal over time. Try to do a little research next time, troll.

In my opinion, Harper has to tread lightly, avoiding contoversial things that would require him to 'whore himself' to the Bloc and NDP. The Accountability Act is a good one, no one would dare oppose it (unless it is too far out there), but he can't stop there. If accountability is the only thing he set up, the Liberals could swiing back and say "See, elect us again and we can't be corrupt". The health care issue, if addressed properly, is another one that the other parties would have difficulty opposing, especially if it is seen to be working. Moderate tax cuts, which may stimulate the economy, would also play well. If he plays this card right, those that oppose a mild income tax cut would look like the bad guys in the eyes of the electorate. He has only promised to cut the GST by 1% immediately, who knows if it would pass. This might be the stickiest issue.

Dear Greg, Congratulations. (There is a wonderful song about fatherhood you should give a listen to, in about 6 months. It's called 'Baby Poo', by The Arrogant Worms.)

Dear fellowtraveller, Indeed, Tobin did get some press out west for that. Besides, Alberta has the largest 'Newfie ex-pat' population, in Fort McNewfoundland.I was under the impression that the turbot was also central to the 'fishy imbroglio'.

Dear Melanie, I contend that childcare is a parental responsibility. If it is not, then the gov't might as well take over 'ownership' too. The Ads could read "We're not just going to nationalize childcare, we're going to nationalize your child!".

Dear shoop, I can't see Dryden going anywhere soon. I am old enough to remember seeing him play in the NHL, so when I heard him speak on television a couple of years ago, I thought "What a humourless lump." He seemed very 'conservative', and he actually reminded me of Conrad Black, but without the personality. I was mildly relieved that Manley did not succeed Chretien as leader, because I thought that if Canada had two PMs in a row with facial deformities, the rest of the world might think were were a nation of circus freaks. (j/k, Manley) Ignatieff, Tobin or Rae have the only credibility that the Liberals are presently in dire need of having.

Dear Argus, We are somewhat off-topic here, but... Well, what I am saying is that the removal of someone like Saddam can be a good thing for the people under a dictator. However, this was not the reason the US went in, and, like the invasion of Panama, was a 'flagrant violation of international law'. Sadly, with this last sentence, you are correct. I agree with you that relations with countries that have dismal human rights records, such as China, should be reassessed and linked to trade.Regarding 'regimes' that the US supports, there are several. For example, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and also support for anti-western muslim extremists' such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2701547.stm The US decided to fund the Northern Alliance to help overthrow the Taliban, somehow forgetting that people like Hekmatyar (dubbed 'Mr. Blowback'), and Bin Laden, are far more loyal to their causes than to their bankers. Countries such as Liberia, Angola, etc. have suffered unheard of atrocities for years at the hands of US-backed regimes. Most of it doesn't make the news, mind you. When Bosnia was 'all the rage', few people were told that the heaviest fighting and largest casualty rates in the world were in Huambo, Angola, at the very same time. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, for example, have brutal governments, and their peoples would both do well without their 'regimes', which enjoy tremendous support from the US.

Another interesting bit about WTC 7... http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html It seems Silverstien took out heavy insurance a few months before the attack, and profited immensely. Some 500 million on WTC 7 alone, and 7.2 billion overall(he was allegedly paid double the insurance value, because they were two seperate 'incidents'), though he was not the owner.

Dear GostHacked, Here are a couple of links regarding the collapse of the twin towers... http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y There are, of course others, but anything with the word 'rense' in it, I automatically disregard. However, I did see something a while ago regarding 'building 7' of the WTC complex, and that it's collapse was actually suspicious. http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html However, no doubt in my mind that 19 terrorists flew jumbos into buildings that were 'symbolic of America's power' (according to Usama) and got the possibly unexpected bonus of collapse.

Dear Argus, Coincidentally, it does indeed. I agree, and certainly our record of interventions isn't stellar. The genocide in Rwanda, for example. However, to be fair, we were one of the few countries that even tried. Support in Iraq, and other areas, should not be given to the US, for they are actions designed to solely benefit the US. In fact, if Canada does bolster it's military to intervene against despotic and totalitarian regimes, we may find ourselves fighting against US supported and armed forces.

Dear Argus, You are painfully right.