marcinmoka

Who is the comment directed towards, and even more so, at what is this comment directed at?

Another question would be, what two neighboring nations actually do "respect" each other?

That's just scratching the surface........seriously, I heard that : - WWII, - the Cold War, - Vietnman, - Korea, - Boer War - Franco Prussian war, - The Crusades - The Viking Pluderings of Constantinople - Battle of Adrianople - Peloponnesian war ; were also ALL hoaxes perpetuated by the Military Industrial Complex and the Republicans!!!!!!!

- This seems like a rather interesting development, since Ivanov generally irked me and seems rather confrontational with the West. To hear that relations with NATO are not as bad (in light of the recent green lighting towards the Ballistic Missile Defence Shield installations in Poland and the Czech Republc) is quite a breath of fresh air, and should also signal to China that it is not as all mighty in the region as it had hoped. Could this signal a future (albeit slight) change in Russian Foreign Policy?

It upsets me when certain westerners go on diatribes stating that the US is in contempt of Canada and all other nations. Like it or not, they have acted as our protector, since our security is aligned to their own, all while granting us our own sovereignty. Sure they are persuing their own self interests, but that would be undermiming the American strategists intelligence (though certain elements have made faux-pas). It would be naive to believe that overall, their conceptualization of 'self interest' would wholly exclude the interests of other (allied) nations. The bungling of the Iraq war has done one miraculous thing in terms of US Foreign Policy, it made them realize again that they cannot go at it alone, otherwise they will face peril in light of up and coming geo political power struggles!

I agree. NO, since Islamic extremism is not a race, nor do do most muslims support extremist ideals. Has anyone ever labelled you a "racist" for such an assertion?

I would suggest more so the entire developed West. Rather then a Bottom up approach, we should focus on a top down method. In terms of our beliefs, we have just as much in common with the Brits and the French as we do the Americans. Most Europeans/ Americans/ Canadians (and Aussies) generally embrace liberal, secular, democratic values. We value progress. We are capitalistic. We all have a common religious background (in terms of the development) in our nations, over lapping history, respect for science/intellectualism, etc. From that point on, we can focus on the specifics i.e protestant individualism or catholic communitarianism, militaristic or pacifist tendancies, etc.

My dream - A secular military coup (a la Turkey) in Iran. They are young, they got potential and their current leadership is letting this go to waste. I don't know why, but I am fascinated by Iran, and the day it's peaceful, safe (and secular) I'm getting a ticket.

Perhaps you don't, but I do. This institution goes to fairly great lengths to ensure we don't die and that we can live our lives in liberty and security, and that is rather amazing when you think about it from a global perspective.

Why not biodegradable "plastic" bags? I , in some way, shape or form, always reuse my plastic bags, whereas I can't quite see myself carrying my wet sneakers to school in a brown paper bag

Actually, I'll try by citing a recent example at my school. There was a person who was amongst the top 25 finalists for the 2007 version of "Canada's Next Great Prime minister". Anyhow, during a student council meeting, she objected to singing the national anthem on the grounds that terms like "God keep our land" were offensive to her, seeing as she is an atheist. While I TOO am an atheo-agnostic but I have never once found such a term offensive, nor have I even dreamed of refusing to sing it. I realize that in both English and French Canada, Christian principles were influential in the founding of this nation, and while only briefly, provide us with a reminder of this nations history. How would the people on this site gauge this as a compromise? And while it would be wrong to force anyone to sing the anthem, I also do find it rather disrespectful to omit our history!

Good answer. I like that....to an extent. But on the flip side, if the Americans have a sense of Identity, why is it assumed we do not have one? Now a trickier question....we can compromise, but to what extent?

Granted, the word itself was coined by Trudeau, but since then has grown to encompass more wide spread connotations including religious, linguistic, cultural tolerance, etc. So I guess I should've also specified the question a bit more (though in the original sense, you got it dead on). French Canadians define themselves as unique, but are you suggesting that English Canada does not, or are we merely the missing (cultural) link between the Brits and Americans? It's no easy question to answer, but I would be curious to find out.

What does it mean to be a Canadian? I am curious to hear your responses on this debate. What is the fine line between maintaining a pluralist, multicultural society all while preserving, and promoting a national Canadian identity? We form a civil, liberal and democratic society, one which respects the individual, their beliefs, their customs, and we must strive to preserve this at all costs. But en bref, I believe that promoting a national Canadian Identity should take precedence in societal life, whereas the multicultural aspect should be more a private matter, as long as it respects the rule of law, and almost always does. While diversity is a trait to be cherished, if we go too far in accommodating special interest groups, be it Fundamentalist Christians, Fundamentalist Muslims, and an amalgam of other "colourful" religious/political sects, we risk segregating them, dividing them into politicized factions who will only view the other as an enemy, and in turn, leading to the dissolution of a peaceful, civil society. Afterall, we all constitute one single race, so why encourage artificial “cultural” boundaries between us, as they only seek to promote distrust and disunity. As Canadians, we find multiculturalism easy to accept, since we were founded upon the merger of two rather distinct, and often antagonized societies, but that (sorry, I’m a staunch federalist who loves Quebec) only makes us better. For proof, we universally seem to be the most successful national in terms of immigration; capable of transforming what many other nations accept hesitantly, into a strategic advantage on both the political, societal, intellectual and economic fronts. And as an immigrant myself, I am incredibly thankful.

Exactly. But licensing/regulating its sale and production seems to be a very viable option, as is currently done with alcohol and tobacco. I'm curious as to how this would pan out in regards to U.S bound exports, which as stated, forms the bulk of production. But since regulating designated growers would go to great legnths in reducing the criminal element currently involved in it's production, and policing resources could be better allocated to those illicitly growing and smuggling the product.

Bingo.

One thing I do wish to avoid is this constant universal slandering (which I feel develops all to often) of juxtaposing religions against one another, notably Christianity and Islam. Christianity was once at the same point where Islam is currently. A generally passive population with just a few over zealous demagogues at the top inciting and manipulating the masses to act out their traditional principles. What we, the west should do, is to support the "reformers" such as the Tarek Fatah's of the word to perpetuate this evolution all across the board. We all know his resources are pale in comparison to those he struggles against.

I would suggest that Christianity in it's present evolutive form has had a positive impact. But this cannot be said of Christianity throughout it's existence, especially when one thinks of the countless wars fought in its name. Along with Judaism, it has strongly benefited from age as it seems to have attained a certain level of "maturity", one which respects and even embraces external elements originally deemed foreign to it's doctrines. I would say the most fundamental of these external influences is the respect for academia and the sciences. While there are occasional flare ups over mundane issues such as abortion and gay rights, it is rather passive and has realized it's role in society, to be a positive influential force in fostering a sense of community, of altruism, rather then the be all and end all some other religious leaders and sects propose. But even for those other religions, time will change all, since age does reflect wisdom.

I agree. But millions were led to believe and support this, all of them duped into thinking their actions were moral. While the universal "morality" we abide by is not the easiest to point out, it's also the one which is the most prevelant in our society such as the negative associations we form in regards (in an extra-legal context) to theft or violence/murder in situations were one is not under any form of threat, as is visible in shall I say, more primitive societies.

Like I said. It is a survival tactic. The one common bond between all those who pursue issues they deem as moral (though self mutilation is beyond me) is that they all believe they are doing the right thing to ensure the survival of a certain group. What makes the "right thing" be so different in execution is our freedom of perspective, i.e Holy Way and Martyrdom, where the participants have a firm belief that their actions are calculated for the survival of their ethnicity or religion, and therefore take part in said actions to prevent other "threatening" groups from dominating them. I don't understand. Could you explain?

Sorry. Bad sentence structure. I hope this didn't cause any confusion. Should read. I wrote this very, very quickly, so I did risk missing out on a few relevant points, such as explicitly stating the economic effects of theft. Mind you, I didn't want to bore you any more than I had to, but cheers for at least pointing that out. Rest assured, had this been a graded assignment, I probably would of put in a dash more effort, mais c'est la vie.

Thanks. It stemmed from a comment a prof. made this morning, that judging by our essays, one would think that our entire class denounces morality in any shape or form. That, coupled with too much caffeine got me thinking. Most of the time, yes. But we all engage (to varying degrees) in some sort of self destructive behavior from time to time (Fast food, speeding, lethargy, etc). Some, more then others. Those who do it too much...end up being "rooted" out by the evolutionary process.

One would of hoped. I assume the difference was they thought the red square was only one possible.

Morality as an evolutionary principle Despite the constant haggling over the validity of morality in law, it seems that few have dared to attempt to define morality, or at least not in less esoteric mediums. Some suggest that there does indeed exist a universal morality, while detractors suggest that morality is strictly subjective. But why must they be presented in as dichotic relationship. Is it not possible that morality can be both universal and subjective at the same time? I believe so, however this leads to us to attempt and define morality. Some might view my definition as rather “simplistic”. Perhaps so, but why must this definition of morality be complicated in the first place? I believe morality is nothing more than an innate survival tool and accurately exemplifies the specific” wiring” of our brains, as acquired through evolution. While morality is often associated as a tool for discerning right and wrong, we must ask ourselves what is the purpose of creating this distinction. As mentioned earlier, it pushes us to do the right thing, and in all cases, the right thing is equated with survival, be it as individuals, or as groups of differing sizes and common bonds. Let us take a primary example, and study it from both a Darwinist point of view and a moral one as well. For example, the act of murdering our non-threatening caregiver(s). From a moral standpoint, this is clearly wrong, and we haven’t even the need to think about it, for it is an intuitive feeling we posses. But from a rational standpoint, it would also be a senseless act which undermines our own survival, (especially dependant on our stage of development). Perhaps the reason that we did not even require a thorough evaluation of this act in a moral sense was our brains natural disposition to reject notions that threaten our survival. It’s innate as natures little way of saying "Don't do it". Theft can also be linked to this universal sense of morality and desire to survive as a group. To ensure a cooperative societal life, there must be a sense of trust within a community. The act of theft is universally condemned since it too is a threat to our survival as it weakens the trust within a community (which has implications on group security and so forth). How would such a principle apply itself to morally contentious issues, such as abortion? Some consider abortion as tantamount to murder. Others agree on the choice of mothers on whether or not to bear and raise a child. But unlike the preceding clear-cut realizations that such “immoral” and “irrational” act threaten our survival, abortion / forced unplanned birth risk being seen as more” derivative” or indirect threats. Pro-lifers see abortion as a threat to our survival as a species in a much more linear manner, i.e. death of “human” life is death, plain and simple. Pro-choice supporters however, see unplanned and forced births as a greater threat to our collective society since they associate unplanned or even unwanted parenthood as incapable of raising children to lead a productive life in society (in support of this claim was the work of Stevin Levin, who demonstrated a notable correlation between the drop in American murder rates and the infamous Roe vs. Wade abortion decision). While they are completely opposing, both of them consider their views to be covering the moral high ground. How can that be? Simple. Both believe they are fighting for the right thing and view their opponents cause as wrong, or immoral. But in reality, they are just different paths taken in hopes of attaining the same end. * Even the most atrocious acts of genocide were acted out under the pretext of “survival”, where one ethnic or religious group saw the others existence as a threat to their own.

Why not? Why does "The creator" not always get it right, i.e deformities. After all, such anomalies are accounted for in genetics. Life is a big dice game.