marcinmoka

The ultra lite definition: DICTATORSHIP Government by a single person or group of people who are in no way held responsible to the general population. Their discretion in using the powers and resources of the state is unrestrained by any fixed legal or constitutional rules. DEMOCRACY a form of government in which the majority hold the power, either by voting for measures directly or by voting for representatives who vote for them.

Charles, do you believe that this is how democracies operate? That the wishes of the individual control the laws of the majority? Are you serious? Did you even read this quote? I was going to say, you first, but heck, why not. Creates inefficiencies. If you want the nitty gritty, le voila Intervention Yes sir, but just enough to prevent chaos and anarchy. Who said "my morality" has anything to do with it? I definitely did not. Whereas if you would like to gauge my moral views on an issue, it would be best to present scenarios in detail, because lumping everything from healthcare, to military service, to police services, to religious freedoms, to marriage is...well....absurd. Of course, this is a principal of democracy. I'm just curious by nature, and want to know the reasons for which, and preferably articulated in a coherent, rational non cryptic manner. (Mind you, your quasi socratic method isn't too bad since it challenges me to defend my view points, but now it's your turn. Cheers)

Granted. It's all about to what extent one takes it too. And also after re-reading his post, I realized that mine touches more so upon actual migratory children, whereas his only on the second generation. But it's tricky as well. In certain cases, kids feel obliged to conform to a certain idea held by the parents, which may often be clashing with that expected by their peers in Canada. And sometimes these kids feel lost. They know they are not authentic (Chinese, Indian, Italian, etc) but they do not want to disappoint their families, who might often wish they settle with a ethnically similar person, and engage in practices they deem crucial (piety, or a certain career/study field, or even trivial things such as food). It's the conflicting expectations which are at odds, and cannot be blamed solely on the offspring.

M.Dancer. A lot can happen over 20 years, or even 15, especially in terms of technology. Myata. I take it chess is not your game?

I see you re-read my post, as I answered this in the next paragraph. "if" something like this happens, than it fails to be a democracy. Notice how in all the examples you provided, the "moral" aspect of the law eventually triumphed, usually as a result of these mechanisms coming into play. In other words, they were corrected as much as they could. As for dictatorships where mechanisms do not exist, I will not argue one must abide by all the rules, since there is NO OTHER OPTION. But what I am referring to is law in a democratic society. And these human rights are governed (i.e enforced) by a legal system. And this is my point. You will teach your son, and I will teach mine, and everyone will teach their children to abide by their own personal moral codes. And what will happen? The legal system will dissolve and society will cease to be stable, since morality is subjective. What's morally good for some, is evil for others. Like it or not, but this is the same principle upon which many criminal gangs operate. And the last thing I would want to see is their proliferation in society, seeing as it would hardly be of benefit to the rest of us.

And not to mention the ubiquitous Patriot system designed to intercept tactical BM's. And these are employed by Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Kuwait, Holland, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.

To slightly diverge topics: While he may oddly articulated this idea, I sort of see where he is going with the post even though I oppose some of his assertions(dislike of speaking with minorities....since I don't care about their ethnicity, only if theyre intelligent, honest people, AND I find many second gen-ers to be fairly well integrated) , but agree with others (occasional tendencies towards self inflicted ghettoization). More specifically, I don't think that "visible minorities" are to be singled out, but his point of ethnic minorities ghettoizing themselves is very valid. I for one, am an immigrant from Eastern Europe and for the most part, we're far from visible (except for the excessive chains, modded compact cars, and funboy beats). I know the community very well, even though I was considered an outcast since I: a) Didn't go to church (a capital sin amongst such a devout crowd, but science has replaced religion in my family for generations). Read books instead of playing soccer, went to university instead of drinking beer all day and settling for a factory job when I know I'm capable of more. c) Didn't care about the ethnicities of my friends, and gasp, had (in their eyes, far too many) non white friends. I preferred Beastie Boys to Techno ANY day. d) Not to mention I didn't swear like a trucker, didn't blame all the worlds ills on Jews, Arabs, Germans or Russians, didn't think that University was a waste of time and money, nor did I think that owning a flashy car was EVERYTHING in life. And the point of this was, I was singled out for acting like a Canadian. Say Whaaa???? And some of these fools genuinely treated it like some sort of pejorative term, yet this was beyond me. This is far from being representative of my entire ethnic community, since generally the kids who's parents were more of an intellectual nature tended to be in my position (even though my mom was of the poor, unskilled variety), but still it does represent a sizable portion. And one that shocks me. I'm proud of my birth nation at soccer games (well....the last WC's weren't ANYTHING to be proud of) and the literature, the history, the women, and especially the food, but "clinging to your heritage, discretely" is far different than "clinging to your heritage to such a point were one does not respect, or openly mocks their host society". Mind you, when kids actively invoke stereotypes (Of course I eat this since I'm xxxxxx) I kinda enjoy it, providing it was sad in a light hearted manner. Truth be told, I'm from eastern europe, of course my mom smacked me on the head when I didn't get an A.

Geoffrey got it. But yeah, it was an office devoted to Ex-Pats. It makes sense if one thinks about it, for the bulk of French ex-pats aspire to go to Canada as they see France too suffocating (high taxes, unemployment, endless bureaucracies) so much so that even Quebec seems like the promised land (en comparison bien sur!!)....albeit a very cold one, and not the sunny with Mediterranean beaches. Afterall, Montreal is the second largest concentration of French speakers in the world, second only to Paris (and ahead of Lyon and Marseille). Anyhow, it would make sense that the ex-pats in Montreal would be very much reform driven, seeing as they tasted the fruits of liberalization.

Yes, but this DEFENSIVE shield is not geared, in any way shape or form at either of those countries. That is why their acts of protest are largely symbolic. Well this explains a lot regarding your argumentation. Why a BMD when we have Jack Bauer. Thank you. Maybe the U.K. should scrap the Trident missile program, seeing as they have James Bond. And last but not least, I would like to highlight Army Guy's comment. This is essentially a modern version, (albeit more strategic since it is long range), of a simple anti-aircraft defense system. Sad, but true. We cannot escape this fact. Again, if we (NATO nations) would remain passive, it would just continue around us, independent of our actions, since there are not just 2 entities vying for power in the world. If we were to become passive, we would only grow weaker while everyone else is bulking up. In a real world example, I will assume you are a good kid, you obey the law and so forth. Just because YOU obey the law, would you dare forgo taking preventative measures in ensuring your own safety just because you hope others have the same outlook? Would you simply stop locking your doors at night? Locking your car doors?

Charles, if you could be so kind as to explain the reason behind the replies directed towards myself. I never said everyone must agree. But if this is debatable (i.e. that a functioning democracy has provisions to appeal laws through structured mechanisms), I would love to hear the other side of the story. So please, commence the debate at your convenience. I could go on a long, theoretical spiel about the distinctions from a semantic, as well as historical perspective should you like. But for the sake of brevity, it's a start. Charles, "da guvern-ment ain't out ta get ya" They are here to protect both me and you. Sure there a few bad apples here and there, but few and far in between. If your pessimism is directed towards Canada, well, I hear Bogota, and Kabul are both lovely this time of year. For the most part, we have inteligent, honest people ensuring our safety. Those are the sole objectives of the state. To "justify" said claim, I urge you to take a peek outside at the world: What organs guarantee our safety and prosperity; - military - intelligence - police / fire services - judicial system - educational system I dissaprove of too much state interference, especially when it's in the domain of commerce or more personal matters which do not threaten security in any way shape or form, but in the end, that is their sole raison d'etre seeing as we are a democracy. It's rare I agree with figleaf, but he has a point, it is the primary grand scale objective.

We hold a very opposing view of humanity I see. Just because you may want to do the "right thing", doesn't mean that every one else will. If humanities history is any indicator, than if we do the "right thing" we will only be a sucker at which point any other aspiring power will use our moment of weakness to try and better themselves. You choose Pepsi, I choose us. But what does this point have to do with Russia? Nothing. They can overcome it with ease. It's a non issue. Furthermore, if America improves their technology, than the Russians will improve counter measures. But, if America were to abandon this project, and finances permitted, the Russians would still modernize their equipment to counter other threats. Point being, they have the brain power, they can, and they will. They have plentiful resources and numerous, worrisome neighbors. Well, if they're not, than someone else would be. I personally feel safer with a US in charge than I do a China, or Pakistan, or what have you. CONVENTIONAL? Please, please explain. The Iranian or North Korean air force just flying into Europe to deliver a load of conventional bombs? Or some species of magical 5000km range Howitzers? Regardless, I think someone would not fail to notice a division of Iranian T-72's driving for 3 weeks en route to Europe. It might raise a suspicion or two.

Even than, it is (in strategic terms) a non-issue for Russia. The interception rate is: a. Paltry for conventional, rather primitive missiles which would reflect the rather "low-tech" capabilities of rogue states such as Iran or N.Kora, or god forbid, Pakistani missiles falling into the wrong hands. I don't think intercepting hypersonic, multiple re-entry units such as the Bulava or Topol-M missile(s) was ever amongst the American designers attainable goals. b. Rendered even more so irrelevant when you think that they plan on deploying 10 Interceptors, whereas Russian warheads currently stand at around the 15 000 mark (both active/in-active, tactical/strategic).

But why necessarily a dichotomy? Turkey is a very odd case in that they form a ____________ relatrionship. (not quite complimentary....but event that does not fit whole heartedly)

I have too much respect for the idea of God to make it responsible for such an absurd world - Georges Duhamel

No. Then it is not a democracy. If a democracy functions right, as ours, we have a fair justice system with built in mechanisms to prevent utter contempt of the law. If you take away this element, than it ceases being a democracy. In an authoritarian dictatorship, than one could argue a certain level of disobedience to the law. But since you are able to make such posts on the internet, I would assume you do not inhabit such conditions. Point being, in our society, you can't just decide willy nilly....I don't like that law because it's immoral. Your morality differs from everyone else, so it cannot form the basis of our decision making process, otherwise we face the dissolution of a functioning society. But if a society is not functioning.....

But the law cannot be made to measure as each and everyone of our fellow 32 million inhabitants see fit. There are people out there who deem "honour killing" a morally justifiable, if not morally necessary act. This a democracy. You have a right to try and amend it. Otherwise, respect the law, or face it's consequences.

I take it this is a joke, just someone wishing to stir debate (though I'm sure they will get a few supporters on the forum). But in case not: Note. Vancouver is not China. By closer, do you mean a not fully developed undemocratic one party system which mocks the law, is in support of genocidal action in Darfur, a nd extinguishing the cultures of Tibet and Taiwan? P.S. Stay away from the Lower East Side. It will mess with your brain.

This party actually governed with the extreme anti-Russian right in one corner, and the extreme anti-German left in the other. While some citizens view their anti-commie purging as valid, the Kaczinski's (two midget twin child actors) are the laughing stock of European politics.

I think this is a bluff, and the CFE is much more a symbolic rather than a strategic treaty. From Gazpromistan's point of view, they have nothing to loose, and a great excuse to cut into social expenditure to restrengthen their army. Odd behaviour though (such is the nature of Russian politics) since the missle defence, with a still paltry kill/interception rate, is a farce in the face of Russian nuclear capabilities. Granted China could be upset, at least a tad, but they've been quiet.

Oh so true. And this thin layer is the law.

I'm gonna also drop the positivist approach. Law is Law and Morality is morality. Do not confuse the two. If you find a law morally objectionable, than try and get it changed.....via the legal/legislative system, since we do not live in a fascist/communist state but a flourishing democracy. One may not break it simply because they choose.

Someone once said this to me. My response: "I beg to differ, for in chess, there are but two players".

I guess I forgot to elucidate on a few points. With respect to the traditional religious nature of marriage, yes, it will change. Without a doubt. Personally, I think that may be a good thing. Marriage in this sense is not important to me, at all. It's the concept with a goal of establishing a parental, mutually dependent unit (of two people) generally for the purposes of raising children. The cake, and the ceremony and all the associated hoop-la are just secondary. If a couple stays together through marriage, or a common-law bond, in my books, it's all the same, as long as they stay together and create the environment required to ensure the safety of offspring. (And while children in single parent homes have often turned out fine...at least I assume I did...two parents are still often the preferable option). While it is true that the constituents of a gay couple cannot procreate with one another, this can also be said of many heterosexual couples. Furthermore, unplanned pregnancies (sadly) happen all the time, and the mother cannot, and in some cases, should not raise a child. Let the capable, responsible infertile couples (gay or straight) thus be the means to raise the children who would otherwise be lacking this stability. Id much prefer a child to grow up with gay parents than a single crack head parent. Keep in mind, marriage has evolved big time. If you really want to hold on to traditional marriage, which period of time are we supposed to refer to? Remember, a century ago women were still a man's property, and marriage was simply a contract between the groom and brides father. I got a wife, and he got a few goats! If I were to adopt that definition of traditional marriage, I'm sure my girl's father would be quite baffled one day at work, when a man from UPS delivers 3 pigs, 2 goats and 8 chickens to his Manhattan office in exchange for his daughter. Et voila....my spiel.

I mean, I too consider myself rather proficient in history, and I was taught it in a different manner than most of my peers, I no doubt have a different view. However, I am very curious, as to what specific historical events and tendencies you refer :

It does, because it frightens me. It will create tension and people might change their habits. If someone is WILLING to murder someone else, it makes me worried about the safety of my own wife and children. I don't really see any parallels between gay marriage and murder. My guess........Dj's will be just as bad, Dresses will be just as expansive (adjusted for inflation of course), people will get just as drunk, but other than that, it won't. If 10% of people are gay today, than I think it's safe to assume that 10% of people will be gay tomorrow, or next year, or in 30 years.