Moonlight Graham

Those aren't results of the WTO. He's talking about human development achievments since World War II. The WTO was only created in 1994. I don't see how that has any bearing whatsoever on proving with data how the WTO is of overall benefit to developing countries. The Bullard article explains many dynamics of why the WTO works in the favour of developed countries and not developing countries. Developing countries have very little say in WTO policies, and to agree to them they are strong-armed by the more powerful countries. The WTO is supposed to be democratic & equal, but Bullard shows how this is false, with secret "green rooms" and whatnot. International relations (including trade) has always worked where countries generally try to act in their own self-interests. Powerful economies like the US or the EU could secure bilateral and multilateral trade agreements outside the WTO that would be very much in their favour at the expense of poorer countries (which they of course do all the time). So why the heck would rich, powerful countries like the US etc. enter into the WTO, which is supposedly "equal", if that equality meant hurting themselves economically compared to not entering the WTO. Why would powerful countries hamstring themselves like this? Is it because they're being benevolent? Ha! No, the answer is that, as the Bullard article argues, the WTO is NOT "equal", and favours these rich countries at the expense developing economies & simply reinforces & legitimizes this inequality. Your whole argument is based on your assertion that because human development is improving, that means trade liberalization has been working well. A main problem with this is that human development and economic growth are not the same and one does not necessarily mean the other. Sub-saharan Africa has been improving on the HDI with a steady improvement trend from 1980-2011. Yet, if you look at that chart of gdp-per-capita growth I linked to earlier you'll see that Sub-Saharan Africa actually experienced -1.26% GDP growth in the 1980's, and -1.01% in the 1990's, yet the HDI says human development improved during these decades. This is because there has been a trend that, as you said before, except in times of war, human development has been steadily improving in almost all developing countries, even those not embracing neoliberalism. Just because it has been improving is not proof that it wouldn't have improved more under less liberalized trade. The problem with the HDI stats you linked to before is that the HDI #'s only go back to 1980, which is when the era of neoliberalism and trade liberalization came into swing in the west and in Latin America and Africa. Where are the HDI numbers from the 1960's & 1970's before widespread liberalization, when GDP growth was twice as high as in the 1980's & still higher than the 90's (as I showed in a previous post)? Would be interesting to compare. Also, if you go to your link for HDI, select "income indicators" and then choose your region as Sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America, or "low human development countries" you'll see similar, with a decrease starting in 1980 and then a recovery around 2000. The numbers are clear: the era of widespread trade liberalization (1980's/90's) had lower GDP growth for developing countries compared to the previous decades , and by the late 1990's when the Washingston Consensus & neoliberalism was shown by economists and other academics to have clearly not worked very well overall and developing countries began reducing their open trade policies then GDP growth began to increase. Example: For Sub-Saharan Africa, GDP-per-capita growth was -0.10% over the 1970's, was -1.26% in 1980's, -1.01% in the 90's, and following the end of the Washington Consensus turned around to be +2.09% in the 2000's. In Latin America, where trade liberalization was instituted in many countries in the 80's/90's the results are similar: +3.62% GDP-per-capita growth in 1970's, -0.50% in 1980's, +1.47% in 90's, +1.80 in 2000's, and projected +2.74% from 2006-2015. You may disagree, but no economist would deny that GDP data is a FAR better measurement of the success/failure of trade/economic policies than the HDI. Much of what they say has been said by many, many scholars/economists. Nothing that I've been arguing are my own ideas, and none of it is really controversial. These are well known economic conclusions about free trade in the developing world. Even the World Bank admits their failures! The fact that you're arguing the opposite and aren't aware of these arguments frankly shows me that you haven't delved very deep into the international development & economic academic literature yet. The burden on proof should be on you IMO. I would recommend doing your own research, google or search a university library on terms like "neoliberalism", "washington consensus", "post-washington consensus", "structural adjustment programs", and see what things you find, read articles since the mid-late 1990's on what academics/economists say about the above things and see what you find. As I said, literally hundreds if not thousands of books/articles analyzing the generally negative effects of neoliberalism for developing countries. Here's a start: - Check out the books of Joseph Stiglitz (former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz#Books - Stiglitz powerpoint presentation on failures in Latin America - GOODBYE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS, HELLO WASHINGTON CONFUSION? - journal articles: Brohman, John. "Economism and Critical Silences in Development Studies: A Theoretical Critique of Neoliberalism." Third World Quarterly, XVI, 2 (June 1995), 298-318. - Jayasuriya, Kanishka and Rosser, Andrew. "Economic Orthodoxy and the East Asian Crisis." Third World Quarterly, XXII, 3 (June 2001), 381-396.

That doesn't seem like very much time to get something like that done.

Wars will always occur, but as long as a significant amount of people are dying from preventible causes like diseases, hunger, lack of proper sanitation etc. I think there's more vital ways of improving the human race than a Mars colony. But as I said, I would be more supportive of a colony if this colony was mostly or completely self-sustaining and we didn't have to spend insane amounts of money continually shipping supplies to Mars. By colonizing Mars with humans we could learn to possibly survive as a species after some catastrophe like an asteroid hitting earth, or learn how to survive a harsher climate on earth. That's why I'm saying the cost/benefits may only be in our favour if we have the tech to have the colony be self-sustaining. What are the other advantages (that would be worth the cost) of putting human rather than robots being on Mars? Other than it being freaking cool lol.

It's inevitable, unless humans destroy themselves, that we'll have colonies on Mars. However, there's still a lot of science left to do on Mars and many other moons and planets. Given the insane cost, I think it will be a long time until any kind of human colonization. We still have to send someone there first, and we don't have any kind of permanent structures on the moon yet. Compared to other research & uses of money/resources, there really isn't much of point to Mars colonization unless it can be permanently self-sustaining. Also, IMO we should get earth in better order first before spending the money on a Mars colony.

I wouldn't want to live on Mars, but i'd like to visit one day lol. Interesting aside - There's an impact crater from a large asteroid on Devon Island in Nunavut that has somewhat similar conditions to Mars (dry, cold, windy, dusty etc) where scientists with Canada and NASA have been doing experiments like growing plant-life in greenhouses for possible future Mars exploration/habitation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haughton_Mars_Project

Yes both cases I mentioned of ending life support are "killing". And I never said whether it's morally ok or not to end a life that's dependent on a machine. But to take a stance, I would say it's morally ok to pull life-support in the first case (hopeless vegetative state) but not ok with other (patient with good prospects of recovering to decent health). And I'm arguing that abortion is more similar to the latter case than the first.

I'm not dictating anything about ways people should have sex, I'm arguing for what they should/shouldn't be able to do if they get pregnant. And I never said that vaginal sex is only for procreation, I'm stating the fact that with vaginal sex between fertile people there's a chance for pregnancy. Vaginal sex is designed by evolution to be for both pleasure and procreation. Evolution has ensured the prosperity of the human race by making sex pleasurable, which makes people to want to have sex even if they don't really want to get pregnant. Natural selection made it so humans (or whatever species they evolved from) who do not experience sexual pleasure have their populations die off and those who have sex for pleasure thrive since they're having for more sex. Not according to your arguments. It's different if the person on life-support is in a long-term coma state with virtually no chance of going off life-support & leading any kind of conscious/meaningful life. Instead, what if a family member goes into a hospital & turns off life support on a person who needs it to survive at the time but doctors say there's a very good chance they'll eventually regain their normal functions & not need life support anymore? Is that killing? Of course it is.

What I said was in the context of my argument: Yes the gov is forcing you to continue your pregnancy against your will, so you're right in that sense & therefore I should retract my exact statement "the government is not...forcing you to do anything against your will". But what I meant by this is that the government isn't forcing you to action with anti-abortion laws, they're restricting you from action. They're forcing you to do something in the negative sense, rather than the positive sense. Therefore anti-abortion laws are quite different than cybercoma's car analogy.

Neither you, AW, or I are going to switch our positions so let's just agree to disagree.

I never said that you said what he said. I only said that you & cybercoma didn't understand the definition of killing in each of your arguments.

100% correct.

They probably don't want journalism grads because those programs teach thinks like "objectivity". Sounds like they're just looking for a few loudmouths who can string some sentences together.

I didn't have time to respond, only to read it. i will respond.

LOL I hope this is a joke. Possibly the worst comment I've ever read on these boards. I would literally fight to the death if this became law. All-day kindergarten is crap. It's legislated daycare first and foremost. We should be raising our own kids in the first few years old their life (by far their most formative years), not letting government do it. But hey, anything to get more income tax revenue for Uncle Dalton & more teaching jobs for 'socialist'.

How do you know this? I could be the ghost of Jimmy Hoffa for all you know.

I don't hate ON teachers or the union. Do you have a source for the info?

Teacher unions don't look out for students, only teachers. If what the unions do also happen to benefit students it's usually only by coincidental byproduct. Not going to school because of a strike does not benefit students. Wage increases may benefit students if it brings in better talent to teach, but this is only a coincidental byproduct of self-serving union demands. Teacher's shouldn't be able to strike during the school year if it leads to kids missing education.

I understand them 100% and always have, I just don't agree with them. If it's against that person's will to have a baby inside her, then she changed her mind. Other than cases of rape, pregnancy occurring through sex is a 100% willful act on the part of both partners. The mother chooses to have sex, knowing the risks. Nobody forced her to become pregnant, she chose to do an activity that knowingly risks pregnancy. It's not the unborn child's fault that it was created, it was through a willful choice of the mother/father. It's 100% their fault & 100% preventable. You say "One human being does not get use of another's body against that person's will", but the situation completely changes when the human being using the body was created in the first place by the used through a 100% willful act by the used. Is it not immoral to willfully create a human life, and then willfully kill/end/destroy (whatever word you want to use) that life? Again, when you have sex & are fertile you're willfully consenting to the risk that you'll become pregnant & consenting to the risk you'll have to submit your body to another of your creation. An abortion is reversing this consent when the odds don't roll your way. This presents a moral problem. You and AW don't understand the definition of "killing". If you purposely end the life of a living organism, you are killing it. By definition. This is not up for debate, it is scientific law & common knowledge. If I put alcohol on a wound I'm killing bacteria; I slap a fly I'm killing the fly; If I take a morning-after pill, or a doctor sucks the fetus out of the vagina, I/the doctor is killing the embryo/fetus. Mistakenly defining abortion as an act that doesn't kill is an attempt by you & AW to avoid the moral problems that arise from an act of killing a human organism. If you want to argue for abortion, at least take responsibility for what it is. Having sex & then not taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions when you get preggers, then denying abortion is even killing = a double cop-out. You want to have you cake and eat it too, and then deny it will make you fat when you eat it. I reject this argument, for the same reason I reject the car accident metaphor: because it's not analogous to pregnancy/abortion. I agree government can't intrude on your body by forcefully taking something from it. They can't harvest organs or take your blood etc. by force, and they shouldn't be able to touch you in any way against your will (unless ie: you break the law & need to be arrested). This is basically assault. But anti-abortion laws are not like this at all, & in fact are the complete opposite. These laws aren't intruding on your body in any way, the government is not touching you or forcing you to do anything against your will. They're banning drugs (like morning after pills), the same as they can ban any other drugs. They're also banning doctors from performing certain procedures, as they do for many procedures. The seed metaphor is much more analogous than the car metaphor, but still has holes. If I were to argue for abortion rights I would argue that women/people should have the right of control over their own bodies, and since an embryo/fetus is a part of a person's body, a woman should have the right to have it removed. Whether the unborn can survive or not after being removed should not interfere with these rights, but it would be morally right to ensure every effort is made to ensure that it lives if possible when removed & laws should reflect this.

Ok, so you're saying that a developed life is when the fetus is at the viable stage? A developed life is one that can exist independently from the mother's womb? I said probably etc. because I haven't thought about these issues enough, nor do I want to open those cans of worms right now since we're already debating a big issue. So, as I've expected you were doing, you're accusing me of being sexist and making my argument on those grounds as well, which is absolute 100% horsecrap and I take great offense to the very notion. I didn't decide the evolutionary process of how human reproduction works. If males became pregnant instead of females I would be making 100% exact same argument because absolutely nothing changes. I'm a feminist, I am for women's rights, and I'm also for children's rights (& rights of the unborn child). Unfortunately the rights of the 2 groups collide here, and I've chosen a side to argue. They are causing the death of the living organism. By definition is this killing. It's not hyperbole, "human life" and "killing" are accurate terms to describe a fetus/embryo and abortion. And yes I'm attempting to bring in an emotional element to this, because these terms "humanize" what we're talking about instead of just treating an embryo/fetus as an object or a sack of cells, and an abortion as just another medical procedure. You're specifically trying to dehumanize this argument. Once it's humanized, certain moral/ethical dilemmas become much clearer because we ARE dealing with living human organisms and matters of life & death. Science says embryos and fetus' can be killed: My link A newborn, infant, toddler etc. is still in the developmental stage. A 2-month year old baby is still "dependent on another being for survival", so by your definition it's still in the developmental stage, and I would agree, as would most medical doctors. Ok, so take a 2-month year old baby, which cannot exist independently. What if the mother/father and everyone else is unwilling to look after its survival? Does the baby have the right to life? Should someone be legally and/or ethically obliged to ensure its survival, or not? I'm putting more value on the rights of the one who will suffer FAR more severe consequences if their rights aren't upheld. Life/death vs severe inconvenience. Devil's advocate: "In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process." As I said, I'm undecided on the issue of abortion. The one i've been arguing is actually one of the arguments I see as valid on the "pro-life" side, so in a sense I guess I do believe it. I also see some "pro-choice" arguments as valid. Since I'm undecided, I accept the status quo & would defer to whatever choice my female partner would choose. By engaging in this debate, maybe I'll finally decide on which side I'm on.

The CPC didn't create the worldwide recession, nor did they create Keynesian economics. The Liberals would have done virtually the same thing in regards to taking on a deficit to stimulate the economy.

QFT

QFT

My apologies for not responding yet carepov, these are just responses that will take some time. I'll get to them.

It all depends on where a person thinks the moment is where human life begins. a) Probably, b. no, though I guess it depends on what type, c) Not sure yet, but to be consistent then I'm forced to say that freezing embryos is not right. How is being concerned over the rights of an unborn child "from the Dark Ages". It's not like i'm saying the husband should be deciding the reproduction Ridiculous way to twist my argument. My argument is that the unborn child should have the right to life, which should trump the woman's right to kill what she (and her male partner) created. So you're arguing that an embryo, or a fetus at 4 months, is not a human life? You are arguing that a human life only begins when it is viable aka able to live outside the womb without the mother aka about 24 weeks (or ~6 months) after conception? EXACTLY. We're simply talking about a conflict of rights, and these rights conflict and both can't be satisfied as you say. We simply disagree on which rights should be given more importance. [again, my entire argument is not necessarily what I personally believe. If I had a hypothetical girlfriend who became hypothetically pregnant, I would humbly let her decide whatever she wanted to do since it's her body and would support her 100% in either decision (abort pre-3rd trimester or keep baby)].