segnosaur

So, what you're saying is that you can't prove that I'm wrong, but you're going to ignore everything anyways in favor of your own personal dogma. (I find it very ironic that in an earlier post, I was told to 'educate myself'... now you're saying that you "haven't studied much in this area".) Your 'logic' is faulty.... - You claim that there was only a 'slight chance' of success. Yet the original article pointed out that the chance of success was something like 85%. That's not a 'slight chance'... that's actually pretty good. - Perhaps the family really did believe that 'alternative' treatments might work. But the family were not experts in the field. False dichotomy. Those were not the 2 options. The 2 options were: pain for a short period of time followed by years of no pain, or death. This is not an equivalent example. At 50 years old, a patient will have the ability to make informed decisions. A child does not. (Not to mention who actually 'forced' him to take the treatments.) I wasn't making that claim. If I remember, the original article made the suggestion that the son had a big part in the decision. But overall, its irrelevant whether the father was making the decision, or simply allowing the son to make his own choice. In both cases decisions were being made which negatively affected the health of the child. Getting treatment with something that does not work is refusing treatment. I'm still waiting for actual proof that your 'alternatives' can provide an equivalent success rate to chemo. I know I won't get that, because you've admitted you don't really know much about science or medicine, but that's not going to stop me from pointing that out. A statement which is too broad or general to be of any use. Yes, people don't like pain. But they will be willing to put up with a certain amount of pain or discomfort NOW if it means they may survive longer in the future. A child in pain may not be able to grasp that concept. The father, while he may want to end the child's discomfort, is misguided when it comes to the ability of 'alternatives' to provide a cure. If you're saying you would prefer death to pain... does that mean that if you ever get a headache you will commit suicide? What if you stub your toe, will you want to kill yourself? After all, if pain is to be so strongly avoided, you wouldn't want to live with either situation, would you?

Actually, no it hasn't. The only people who deny evolution (at least in western society) are religious fundamentalists who seem to lack a basic understanding about science. (They use false claims like the "second law of thermodynamics is violated" without actually understanding what exactly the laws of thermodynamics are.) The vast majority of scientists (>99%) accept evolution. This includes those involved in both the biological sciences, and those involved in areas such as astronomy (where the age of the universe is very relevant). Keep in mind that the scientific definition of the word 'theory' is different than the definition of 'theory' that the average person might use In Science, a 'theory' is not just some random guess about what might or might not be true... its an explanation that's been repeatedly tested and has held up over time. The big bang theory explains our current observations (such as background microwave radiation, red shift, and hydrogen/helium ratios). Not that science does not make mistakes. However, when mistakes ARE made, science picks itself up, incorporates the corrections into its body of knowledge, and continues on. Actually, technically humans didn't "come from apes or monkeys". Instead, we both descended from a common ancestor. (Of course, someone could argue that technically we still are 'apes', since we're classified as being 'great apes'.) And we do have plenty of evidence that this has happened... transitional fossils (e.g. various species of australopithecus for humans), genetic similarities corresponding to fossil and anatomical appearances, etc. As for why apes still exist... ask yourself... my ancestors came from Europe. Yet Europeans still exist. Why is that? A more scientific way to view things... new species are created (or diverge from others) when part of the population becomes isolated. The lack of interbreeding allows genetic drift in both sub-populations (and if one of the sub-populations is small, or is subject to environmental pressures the change will be faster.) Eventually, the result of this genetic drift is that the 2 populations are no longer able to interbreed. Well, first there's the fact that there is much more variation in species than we would have had there actually been a flood which wiped out all but a few animals. Secondly, there are all the technical problems with the story of Noah's ark, such as: - How would fish survive? Many saltwater fish cannot survive in fresh. Many freshwater fish cannot survive in salt water. If there were a global flood you would have had fresh and salt water mixing... if the result was (overall) fresh, then the salt water fish would have died. - How would cats survive? Cats require taurine (a chemical they cannot synthesize, but is found in the meat they eat). Had cats been forced to exist only on the ark (with no mice to eat), they would have died. - Who on Noah's ark had AIDS? Who had herpes? Who had Rabies? Who had Ebola? Who had small pox? Many of these diseases require a living host to survive. And many of them kill or incapacitate quickly. Someone on the Ark must have been VERRRY sick indeed. Then instead of walking an hour to go to church, skip the church and walk 2 hours... you'll get more exercise. Or walk an hour, come home, and talk to your family. The fact that you're going to a service at ANY time means that you are missing out on whatever other enjoyable activities you COULD have been doing. You do realize that all these accounts are technically written by people? Yes, I'm sure God did have a major influence on it all, but still... So, your argument is that the bible isn't perfect because its not really the word of god. First of all, its a cop-out. You asked for contradictions. I gave them to you. If you were going to dismiss any contradictions you should have said at the outset "I know there are problems with the bible but I'm willing to accept those flaws". Secondly, if you really think the bible was written by people, why are you trusting any of it? After all, how do you know if Jesus actually existed? How do you know it wasn't all made up by someone on a drug trip? After all, you're willing to dismiss some of it because of flaws. Just how much are you willing to dismiss? Why dismiss some parts and not others? The point is that there was either one or 2 angels there. The accounts aren't consistent. Being able to count to 2 isn't that hard. My 5 year old nephew can do that. So why can't the gospels come to an agreement over something so simple? One or 2 angels. Of course, there's also the other problems with the accounts... in some cases one person came back to check on the tomb, in others more than 1 person; in some cases Jesus ascended from one location, in other accounts he ascended from a different location. Yes, it was old testament. But there's no qualifications on that. It doesn't say "remember, until you get around to writing a new testament". So, by that quote, the laws of the Old testament should be followed? More junk. Are you not already interpreting it for your own purposes? You've been interpreting it every time you quote. But I'm not the one claiming the bible is some sort of "holy book". I'm not claiming that there's some god who's existence is revealed by the writings. You (and many other christians) are the ones making that claim. So you're the one that is responsible for justifying your opinions about the book. All I have to do is show that the book is flawed, that it cannot be accepted in its current form. Except many of the problems in the book go far beyond what can be explained by translation errors. I go where the evidence leads. If you could really demonstrate that you could predict the future (under controlled circumstances) then I would accept that as evidence of the supernatural and possibly of god. But you haven't demonstrated such abilities. In fact, nobody has. And criticizing me for not wanting to accept non existent evidence isn't really fair now, is it. Again, this brings us back to Pascal's wager, and the problems associated with it. (Namely, you're assuming that your belief and system of worship will somehow give you a better chance at helping your long term soul... something that may not be the case, if your current understanding of god is flawed.) Hey, I'd love to find out that there is actually a soul and the prospect of everlasting life. But, I'm a skeptic. I believe in following the evidence. I see no evidence for a soul or for a god. Many of the things we observe today can be explained by science, and the trend has been to find more and more stuff that can be explained by science. Wanting to believe in a soul just because you want some sort of immortality is, in my opinion, a form of self-deception. In fact, it makes me appreciate what we have here and now a little more, since its likely all we'll have. So, make the most of it. I'm going to be turned into soylent green. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green If you don't know the details, and you never studied it, then why are you repeating it? You specifically criticized science for killing people who didn't accept their theories. Shouldn't you have proof of that? Otherwise, aren't you bearing false witness? (Seems there may be some sort of restricition against that. Of course it was in the old testament, so you no longer have to worry about that.) Belief implies that you accept something to be true, without evidence. I am an athiest, with a slight leaning towards agnosticism. I accept evolution and the big bang theory as the best explaination of how we came to be at this point in our existence. I believe that Occam's razor is a very useful principle in understanding the world. If there is a god, there is no evidence. A god might still exist, but it would have created the universe and left us to evolve with no interference.

I could walk. Which still causes wear and tear on your shoes, causing them to wear out faster. First of all, what 'scientists' actually threatened to kill anyone? (That sounds more like the act of the religious rather than science.) Secondly, what 'scientists' believed prior to (lets say) the 1600s is pretty much irrelevant. We've only been using the scientific method for a century or 2... much of what science did before that was mixed in with religion and superstition that you can't really consider the knowledge of (lets say) a 10th century 'scientist' to be accurate. But that's not what I was comparing it to... I was comparing it to the cost of sleeping in, or just spending the time talking with your family, neither of which has any cost, and both of which can be very rewarding. The fact that you're getting up early to go listen to someone talk about god means that you miss out on those other possibilities. Its been shown to be wrong much more than its been shown to be right. Genesis? The flood? Both contradict our knowledge of the origin of the universe and evolution. Exodus? No proof (outside the bible) of the Jews being significant slave labour in Egypt. I suggest you peruse the 'Skeptics annotated bible'... lots of contradictions are posted there. (Admittedly, they do tend to 'overreach' in order to state some of their contradictions, but its still gives a good idea of some of the problems with the bible.) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ For example, how does Judas die? In Mathew 27, he hung himself. In Acts 1, he tripped and fell. And here's an exercise... go through the 4 gospels of the bible, and try to come up with a consistent (and coherent) account of the resurrection. In some of the stories, when people go to the tomb its empty; in others there is an angle or 2 there. Sometimes one person goes to the tomb first, sometimes its a group. You'd think that, given the importance of the resurrection story that they could at least get it right. http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php Then there's the stuff which is just plain wrong... like Leviticus 11, which says that bats are birds (which we now know are mammals). Seems to me that if the bible were actually a creation of god, he'd know the biology of the creatures he created. Well, this is how the system works... in the vast majority of cases, children inherit the religion of their parents. End of story. And had you lived in 9th century scandinavia, there were probably people who had the same sort of 'miracles' and the same sort of spiritual feelings. We're humans... we've got both a curiosity, and an inbred instinct to find patterns in our life. Your spiritual feelings are likely a result of those factors. You're right, we don't. We also don't have proof that big-foot doesn't exist, that there isn't a flying spagetti monster, and that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my sock drawer. What we can do is give proof that the bible is flawed (which I've done). We can also give proof that many of the myths surrounding Jesus are incorrect. If you want to continue believing in a god based on all that, then by all means go ahead... but in order to make your beliefs fit the evidence, you'll have to assume that 'god' basically has no interaction at all with us down here on earth (kind of the position of the deist). Actually, Christmas was celebrated in many pagan cultures long before Christ was born... it was a mid-winter festival involving the solstice. The early Christian church likely adopted the holiday season as a way to convince the pagans to convert. I call it a lens flair. Wrong, as it says in the New Testament, He allows all of His food to be eaten, including all forms of meat. Some branches of Christianity are confused by what the Bible says. But the rules changed; before, it was a sign of faith (and for their protection) that they weren't supposed to eat meat. In the New Testament, that changed. It was NEW. Not OLD. Of course, it also says in Malachi 4 "Remember ye the law of Moses". It also says in Psalm 19 "every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Or in Luke 16: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Of course, I'm sure that you'll use the excuse "Oh, you're not interpreting it correctly". But the problem is, when you start trying to interpret a "Holy book" then you can no longer say that its the inerrant word of god; after all, you are putting your own spin on things, and involving whatever attitudes and morality you have. (If there were some masterful god, couldn't he write a book that had no such flaws?)

Yes, I do recognize that many modern treatments are based on natural compounds. (Asprin is based on chemicals taken from the willow tree, penecillan from moulds, etc.) And I'm sure we'll be getting many other cures from other plant sources. The problem is, many of these 'natural' cures either 1) don't actually work against the disease they are supposed to, or 2) don't have the potency required. (Even if a pharmaceutical drug has a natural origin, it will still have undergone proper tests and processing to ensure consistency, and to ensure it actually works against the disease.) If I had an infection, I'll take some pharmaceutical-grade penicillian. I won't take some natural 'extract of bread-mould', even if both chemicals had the same origin. And if I ever get cancer, I'll take the chemotherapy (where all the materials have been tested for their effects to ensure they work, even if some of the chemicals had a biological origin.)

Actually, I'm quite well educated... with an M.Sc., and with an undergrad education that included courses in a wide range of fields (much wider than was actually required for my degree. More importantly, I've also been involved in the James Randi Educational Foundation, a group that promotes skepticism. Ummm... do you even know what the term "peer review" means? How about "double blind study"? I had asked specifically for peer reviewed material as evidence. You have not provided that. (Seems in that regard I'm more educated than you, since I actually seem to understand what peer review is.) Having something published in a book is not convincing evidence. If it were, then we'd be sure that aliens had visited earth, that bigfoot was alive, and that people have psychic ability. A writer can make pretty much any claim in a book, and I'm sure that they can find some publisher somewhere who will print their works. In science, we need peer review... journals where articles are reviewed for flaws by experts familiar with the subject area.... in this case, journals like the New England Journal of Medicine, or the Lancet. (Granted, peer review is not perfect; for example, flaws are sometimes found after publication.) But, it is the best method that real scientists have for advancing knowledge. (And the term 'peer review' means true experts. A bunch of idiots may be peers, but even if they check over each others work doesn't really help.) We also need double blind studies... anecdotes are worthless. After all, the body DOES have a habit of healing itself from many diseases (even with no intervention). There is also a very wide range of survival or cure rates for any disease (even without treatment). If someone takes some bonus supplement and survives, its quite possible that they would have survived anyways because of the body healing itself. Of course, they could have also died because their treatment was worthless. But if they take it and survive, they may mistakenly praise the treatment even though it played no part in their recovery. The McMaster doctors were right... if she interfered the daughter should have been taken away. In fact, I rather suspect Sick Kids hospital would have taken similar action had she interfered with the treatment there. As for "encouraging" her to use herbal medicines... Given the fact that the kid was actually getting the proper treatment, getting a bogus herbal placebo would have helped put the person's mind at ease, even if it actually did nothing to actually help the daughter. You see, this is why double blind studies are your friend. This woman (with absolutely no medical training, from what you've described) has made some sort of claim about the effects of chemotherapy, based on exactly ONE case (her daugther's).... a daughter who survived AFTER chemo (even if the mother doesn't recognize the benefits of it.) As the saying goes: The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. If you truly believe that anecdotes provide proof, then you must believe in: - The miracle of the healing power of the water in Lourdes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_water) - That a person can survive with no food, only by breathing air (breatharians) - That evangalists like Peter Popoff can actually cure the sick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff) After all, all of these have anecdotes associated with them. I'm still waiting to see evidence of this, in the form of a proper double blind study, published in a proper peer reviewed journal.

Just out of curiosity, just how far are you willing to extend the idea of "Parent's rights"? What if the parents believed in snake handling? Should they be allowed to get their pre-school kids involved in that? After all, if you believe the parent's rights are absolute then they would have the right to allow their children to handle poisonous snakes to promote their spiritual growth. What about if the parents decided to become breatharians (http://skepdic.com/inedia.html)? Should they be allowed to let their children go without food because they somehow believe you can be healthier if you don't eat food? Where do you draw the line?

A treatment which will not affect the outcome in any way is no 'treatment'. The parents were using things like Oregano and Green tea. That's an italian dinner, not a medical treatment. Go read a newspaper. It is all there. First of all, those who make the claim are generally expected to provide the evidence. Hey, did you hear Stephan Dion is actually a 2 headed alien from Mars? Hey, its been proven. Its in the papers. Go look it up. And if you can't find it, its because you haven't looked hard enough. Fair enough? Secondly, when you are dealing with actual science, then a newspaper is not the best source. Nor are anecdotes. In order to determine whether any sort of 'alternative' treatment is effective, you need a peer-reviewed study, published in a reputable journal. Anything else is on the level of "I saw Elvis and Bigfoot at the local Wal-Mart".

My Christian religion has absolutely no cost. None. If I went to church and never donated a penny, that'd be fine with them. The church might suffer financially, but I could still be part of the church. Even if you didn't donate to your church, that does not mean your beliefs are without costs. You still likely pay for transportation to get to church. The fact that you have to wake up early on Sunday morning means that its costing you an extra few hours that you could be sleeping in. At the very least it indicates an impairment of reasoning, if you're willing to believe in something with absolutely no evidence. I think this is indicative of the thought process of many believers. They become convinced that theirs is the 'right' belief not because they've actually made a rational decision based on all facts, but because of the way they were raised, and the fact that they were never exposed to other belief systems. (Had you been raised in 9th century scandinavia, you would have been just as convinced in the existence of Thor as you are in your current christian god.) Is this the same Holy Bible that contains hundreds of contradictions and things that have been shown to be logically or scientifically flawed? God also doesn't want you to eat shrimp and lobster. http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/ Students have every right to pray... during recess, between classes, after school, etc. But there should be absolutely no time set aside specifically for prayer. If the kids are there to learn, then they should be learning.

What you have expressed is known by some people as "Pascal's Wager"... namely, even if the probability of god is exceptionally small, if it costs you nothing then you're better to believe (and save your immortal soul), than not believe. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager) There are, of course, a couple of major problems with that argument: - How do you know your soul will really be saved by your beliefs? Perhaps the real creator of everything is the Norse god Thor, who has a particular dislike for anyone believing in the christian god. Or even consider this: a god who endowed us with enough intelligence in order to reject is existence, and the only criteria he has for getting into heaven is enough intelligence and reasoning skill to reject any supernatural beliefs. So, your 'beliefs' could actually end up condeming you. - Religion is never without cost. This cost can range from very high, explicit costs (suicide bombers, financial donations, lives 'wasted' in service to a non-existent god), to very minor, hard to quantify costs (impairment of reasoning skills, forgoing possible pleasures for religious purposes)

From the article: The child was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, which has a cure rate exceeding 80 per cent.... So, if he does get the proper treatment, he may have many pain-free years ahead of him. (Note: There was also another poster who pointed out a 50% remission rate, also very hight, although unfortunately without references.)

Chemotherapy may not be the most fun thing to go through, but from the looks of things its his only possibility of survival. At 11 years old, a child may not be able to grasp the concept of "short term pain for long term gain", that his discomfort while undergoing treatment will likely diminish and probably give him much more time cancer free. I do believe parents should have the right to raise their children the way they see fit, but there ARE limits. The rights of a parent should end when their parenting techniques will lead to the death of the child. Frankly, I have no idea what's going through the head of the father. Allowing the child to forgo real cancer treatment in favor of treatment with green tea and oregano is quite irresponsible. (What's the father doing, taking him out to an Italian restaurant?) The question is: is the father irresponsible because he believes in such alternative medicine non-sense? Or is he just lazy and doesn't want to bother making the 'hard' decision for the son.

No, we're simply asking right-wingers to stand by one their most oft-stated cherished principles; keeping the government off the people's backs. But here's the problem... ALL parties (except for perhaps the Libertarian party) want to get involved with people's lives in some way. Some 'right wingers' may be against having the government poke its nose in our business with respect to drug use, but they're even more opposed to having the government poke its nose into our finances, our property rights, etc. For some people, its simply the lesser of 2 evils.

You've just condemned yourself. Paying $1000 for a $500 job isn't theft. It's capitalism - what the buyers are willing to pay. You might be upset at being overcharged, but you have a choice not to patronize the guy the next time you need your car fixed. It was never meant to be a perfect analogy, since you can never have a perfect analogy when dealing with private business (since governments have the ability to force people to pay, unlike private business where people have an option.) I was only using that as a way to illustrate how some portion of costs were reasonable, while a higher cost (taxes) would not be. (I didn't want to waste time trying to come up with excuses why a user might be forced to pay more than he should.) If you want a better analogy... A long time ago, I lived in an apartment building. One of the tenants (who was locked into a year lease) sued the landlord, because certain things in his apartment were not being properly maintained from the time he signed the lease until he started the lawsuit. The courts decided that the landlord had overcharged based on the quality of the apartment due to the lack of maintenance. However, the courts did not refund him the full $600/month that he was paying in rent... instead, they refunded him only part of his rent (based on their belief that the apartment was only worth $550/month). So, in that example, the landlord wasn't "stealing" $600/month, they were only "stealing" $50 (the difference between what the landlord charged and what he should have been charging). So, translating that into the socialist analogy... if you get a tax bill of $600 from a socialist government, not all of the $600 would have been "stolen"... if $550 goes to "useful" infrastructure (like roads, police, defense), that would leave $50 that is getting "stolen" to pay for (for example) free bongo drums for hippies, or whatever the socialist government wants to spend over and above the necessities. Complaining about the 'stolen' $50 is valid, even if the government will still need to collect some taxes. Not sure if that's quite right. From what I understand, the conservatives were primarily concerned that all parties were engaging in similar practices, but it was only their party that has been investigated by Elections Canada. And if Elections Canada really was singling the conservatives out over this issue, would such condemnation actually be justified? Do people REALLY think its convincing when you bring up the spectre of 'fascism' every time there's an issue with a right wing party? Really... the Liberals have also done damage to human rights here in Canada. (By the way, while I do see a practical pragmatic need to have certain controls during elections, I do find it ironic that ultimately it is a supression of certain rights, such as the right to free speech and the right to use my property as I see fit.)

Yes, 4 years is the average. However, as another poster pointed out, Martin called an election after 3 years and 7 months, approximately half a year earlier than average. As for the opposition labeling him an 'unelected prime minister'... if the issue was one of honor and integrity (rather than political power), Paul Martin could have ignored the label, and proclaimed "I want the people to have all the facts before the election". I certainly don't think the Conservatives are perfect; however, I don't like to see people whitewash the liberals and their record.

I think what you're doing there is illustrating a Strawman fallacy. I don't think anyone here really believes in a no-tax situation. (That would best be defined as anarchy.) However, there is a difference between wanting a government to collect taxes for basic services (e.g. military, courts, etc.) and the socialist ideal where there is even greater government spending (in some cases in areas that are already served by private interests). Saying that a socialist "steals money" doesn't necessarily mean that all taxes collected by a socialist government are stolen, only the part that goes to spending areas that are considered excessive. As an anology... lets say you agree to fix my car. You charge me $1000, even though the amount of work done is only worth $500. In that case, you have not stolen $1000, you've only 'stolen' $500... the rest of the money was a valid charge for the work done.

Your poll doesn't make much sense. You asked about what people's political 'leanings' are, but then you only give them left or right wing. While you may be right in that we don't really have a 'center' party right now, that doesn't mean that someone can't have political leanings other than left/right wing. (Of course, there's also the other question... right wing or left wing relative to what? After all, the conservative party may be considered on the 'right wing' of Canadian politics, but overall they probably sit to the political left of your average Democrat in the U.S.) Perhaps a better question that you should have asked is "are you more likely to vote conservative or liberal/NDP/Bloc". I myself 'lean' to the Libertarian side of things... I believe in smaller government, both economically (lower taxes, less spending), and socially (pro-choice, no censorship, etc.) At this point, I'm more likely to vote conservative because their policies are closer to my 'libertarian ideal'. (e.g. they've made no indication that they want to restrict abortion rights, censor free speech, etc.) However, if the conservatives do ignore fiscal conservativism and start to implement socially conservative policies, I'd find an alternate party to vote for.

In that case, you seem to be forgetting some of the details.... Prior to Paul Martin's public inquiry, there had already been a commons committee looking into the matter. Granted, the committee didn't have the same legal authority that the inquiry did, but they could still have given at least some indication about what was going on. Paul Martin basically ended the committee's investigation and had an election called (less than 4 years into the Liberal's mandate, I might add.) Had Paul Martin been truly interested in resolving this issue fairly, he would have at least delayed the election until at least some of the facts had been made known.

It would certainly be an asset in this case. After all, the whole issue is one of "Did McDonald's do enough to get around her hand washing problem". If they actually had to work at McDonald's and see just what is required for health reasons, they may understand that any ideas that they have for alternatives would not work. I rather suspect that most Judges have a better grounding in the law than your average HRC commisioner. You know, usually requiring a law degree and all. Do a google search for "appointment human rights commission". You'll find all sorts of people appointed who are former teachers, mayors, social service workers, etc. Haven't found too many that were former lawyers or with experience in the law. As for Juries... typically, they aren't used for civil trials in Canada. But when they are, the defense (in this case McDonalds) has the opportunity to reject certain potential members to try to ensure the jury is unbiased. They get no such opportunity with the Human Rights commissions. By the way, if you look at the BC Human rights Commission, you'll see a section where people have appealed their rulings. While many appeals have failed, many have also been successful, meaning the rulings by the Human right's commisions were overruled by people more familiar with the law. Not that I expect the courts to be perfect. As the McDonald's hot coffee case demonstrates, even Judges/Juries make bade decisions. Could be that a Judge might have made the same ruling. But then, a bad decision is a bad decision, whether its by a Judge or HRC. (Its just that I expect the judge to make fewer bad rulings.) Uhhhh.... no. they actually did 'present a case'. Says right in the judgement: Bradley McTeer and Sandy Basi, who are both Operations Consultants with McDonald’s and Robert Roy Webber, a Rehabilitation Consultant retained by Great-West Life Assurance Company (“GWL”) gave evidence on behalf of McDonald’s. They also submitted medical testimonial. You can see some of the evidence and testimony offered by McDonald's in various sections. I'd recommend looking at: 9, 11, 12, 19 (re: drive through), 110 (re: hand washing applied to all employees), 116 (re: hand washing and gloves), 128 (attempts by McDonald's to find other work for the plaintiff), 130 (re: the opportunity of the plaintiff to bring alternate information), 134 (regarding how modified positions were not suitable). 137-139 (re: other efforts to find positions). So, according to the Human rights tribunal: - They did try to find her a non-food based job at McDonald's, but none were available - Any of the suggestions for alternative work at the restaurant would still cause problems due to hand washing - The plaintiff did meet with McDonald's management and had opportunity to present new medical evidence Looks like they did put up a good case. They pointed to their efforts to find alternative work, and pointed to problems with any potential options. Exactly what they needed to do.

Wait a second.... While the reference to the case was rather informative, it was still written and hosted by the BC Human rights tribunal. Given those circumstances, do you really think you're getting an unbiased view of what really happened and/or McDonald's side of the story? (After all, you wouldn't expect the human right's tribunal to write something like "We thought McDonald's had a good point, but we don't like big companies so we're going to find for the plaintiff", even if that is what happened. Look through the document... how many times to they say "Ms. Datt (the plaintiff) thought that...". Ms. Datt claims that the restaurant is a high volume restaurant (even if she wouldn't necessarily have access to sales figures for various restaurants). Ms. Datt claimed she could work the drive through or act as hostess, even though it conflicted with the practices at McDonalds. So, tell me, what more could McDonalds have done? Let her work the drive through? Point [15] in their findings points out that people working drive through are expected to help prepare food during idle times. (They may not have to wash their hands as often, but then management would be left with a person who could only do one task at the restaurant rather than multiple.) Train her to be a manager? The manager is expected to fill in for people on breaks, which again requires and washing. Get her to be a hostess? They have the same hand washing requirements as every one else [9]. Use gloves? Remember, they were tried and didn't work well. The only way McDonald's could have acommodated her is to limit her to only one or 2 tasks, but then they end up with an employee who is less useful than one who can do all tasks, and for which the restaurant would have to schedule around (e.g. they could not put her on duty during 'quiet' times because she may end up having to prepare food.) You described it perfectly... it is a political agenda, and has nothing to do with 'justice' or 'human rights'. Therefore, this should have been handled as an issue in an election. But the issue is, are they benefiting justly from the issue. No, they lost. They may have been 100% in the right. But, they were forced to present their case to people who are likely have no experience running a restaurant, and who may have had a political agenda for ruling against them.

Ok, I think the main point in your response is "the case found...". That should actually read "The human rights tribunal found that...". The problem is McDonald's could have looked into possibilities and rejected them as impractical, and the tribunal still may have said they "didn't do enough". I know someone who manages a McDonald's. Being in management does not eliminate the need for hand washing, as managers often end up helping in the kitchen, etc. during busy times or when the restaurant is short staffed. (Note: this may or may not be the case at that restaurant, but it is the case with my friend.) Not sure why they didn't consider her wearing gloves, but one of the possible reasons is that simply wearing gloves alone may not be effective.... http://www.hospitalinfection.org/protectyourself.shtml#text1 (granted, this reference is related to hospitals, where they're even more picky about infections than at McDonald's, but it still illustrates the point.) Of course, depending on the type of gloves, you also have to contend with things like Latex allergies. Edited to add: I just took a closer look at the reference provided... looks like gloves were tried, but they did not solve the problem. Again, we may not know McDonald's side of things. As I mentioned in other posts, having one person who's limited to what they can do (cash window only) may be impractical. Or, its possible that they want their handwashing policy to be universal (after all, you may not be handling raw food at the cash window, but you're still dealing directly with customers.) I'd rather the person who hands me my change and my McShake at the drive through have clean hands, even if they didn't prepare the big mac themselves. So, as I said before, even though Ezra Lavant may have misrepresented this case, I still believe that the Human rights commission was wrong.

Uhhh... no, they weren't expecting them to handle food. And the problem with putting them on 'toilet and table scrubbing' duty? I rather expect that even in a busy McDonalds, there is probably limited work for someone who is only able to do janitorial stuff along those lines. (That work is probably done by people who split their time between working in the kitchen and doing the cleaning, at least in the cases I've heard of.) So, you'd have an employee who could only do one of the several tasks, and wouldn't have enough work to keep her busy full time.

Ok, I did a little research into this particular issue. I do agree, human rights tribunals are out to lunch, and I think they made the wrong decision here, although not exactly for the reasons stated above. The HR tribunal did not necessarily rule that she didn't have to wash her hands when handling food. What they are claiming is that McDonald's didn't make the effort to try to find alternate work for her to do at the restaurant. (i.e. if she couldn't wash her hands enough to qualify her to handle the food, she should (in theory) be allowed to work the drive-through or do some other work at the restaurant. That in itself is a bad ruling... I know people who work at McDonalds; people there are often required to be flexible (able to handle more than 1 task), so having an employee who lacks that flexibility would be a detriment. So the human rights tribunal does deserve criticism, but for reasons other than that stated by Ezra Lavant.

The last 2 jobs I've had had health care plans, and neither one of them is/was unionized. Those benefits were given to me because my employers thought it was a good incentive to get me to work there. Law of supply and demand when it comes to labor. First of all, keep in mind that much of our 'clean' technology is affordable because our stronger economy allows us to invest in anti-pollution technology. (For an extreme case, consider former soviet-bloc countries, where they had significant government control; yet many of these countries had very bad environmental records.) Of course, the 'subsidized' transit system does cost him money in taxes. Pay, benefits, holidays, etc. are also given by non-unionized companies when they want to provide incentive for valuable employees to work there, not because they don't want the unions. Of course, I could ALSO point out that while union people may get higher pay, it also causes prices to increase, so people aren't necessarily any better off. A union may get a 5% raise, but it doesn't help if prices go up by 5% to compensate for those wages. In fact, they could be worse off, as many jobs end up leaving the country. The people who really suffer are those working in small shops/restaurants (e.g. mom&pop corner stores, that may only have 1 or 2 workers), for which organizing a union is impractical. So, those workers end up having to pay the higher price for products/services from unionized companies, even though they won't get the associated wages/benefits. Of course, those student loans DO end up adding to the amount of taxes we pay. Perhaps if we reduced people's tax bill, they could better afford to pay for their own education. Many companies routinely exceed government safety regulations. They do so because safety features often make good selling points. A social security system which, in the case of the U.S., may eventually collapse. Weeee.. Of course, if people didn't have to spend so much on taxes (part of which go into Social Security), they could afford to fund their own retirement. The long-term average rate of return on stock-market investments exceeds what you'd get from Social Security. Ironically, many of those pension plans invest in stocks who's value is actually harmed by the existence of unions.

Did you ever think that the reason it is 'shoved down our throats' is that it is actually a reflection of the correct number killed? Its just like the whole Evolution vs. Creationism debate... serious scientists know that Evolution occurred; their refusal to entertain the idea of creationism is a case of them just following the evidence, which points to evolution. Similarly, those who, for some reason think that far fewer than 6 million died are discounted by serious historians. Ummm... here's a suggestion... try reading some of the works of noted skeptic Michael Shermer. I'd recommend "Why people believe Weird Things". It has a very good section on the holocaust, and points out what evidence we have that there were roughly 6 million jews (plus several million others) executed and why the claims of those suggesting significantly lower numbers should be ignored. Being a 'skeptic' does not mean that you automatically have to discount or doubt what is presented to you. It simply means that you should go where the evidence takes you. That evidence points us to the fact that somewhere around 6 million died. While that number may be a little smaller, it is not likely to be out by more than a million. Please present your 'evidence' that the number killed during the holocaust was significantly lower than 6 million.

While it is strange, it certainly doesn't suggest the Americans approve of Fidel. The American lease of the Guantanamo bay area was established in 1903, decades before Fidel came into power. And while the communist government does not approve of the American base, there is very little than can be done about it; they don't have the capability to take the base militarily, and politically they don't have the legal basis to force the removal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base Please provide a reference to back up your claim. Actually, the quote was regarding half a million children... And of course, you didn't look up the entire quote, nor the context involved: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.". Guess what? Sometimes there are no good solutions. Given a choice of either: - sanctions that could result in deaths, - military action that could also result in deaths - removal of sanctions that would allow Saddam to rearm and cause more deaths in the future Simply put, there is no good choice. There are only choices that are less bad. It should also be noted that such sanctions were voted on by many countries in the U.N., and were kept in effect due to Iraq's non-compliance with various Chapter 7 security council resolutions. (I do find it rather ironic that you would complain about a statement regarding continued sanctions, and then later on in the post complain about military action that would eventually allow those sanctions to be eliminated.) Except for the fact that the claim of 'a million civilian deaths' is based on a survey appearing in the journal The Lancet, contained significant flaws, and was carried out by someone who had a political axe to grind. The actual number is actually quite a bit lower. Consider the statement by Iraq body count (a group that certainly was no fan of Bush or the invasion): ...a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/) Oh, and I forgot to mention... keep in mind that very few of those deaths are due to direct American action. Not sure why deaths caused by al Qaeda or Iranian backed terrorists are being blamed on the Americans. Well, lets see... Saddam (an individual who was actually responsible for anywhere from 300,000 to over a million deaths, not the 'fake' deaths that you are assuming existed) has been removed from power, basic elections have occured, the Iraq economy and standard of living is improving, etc. Yes, there is a problem of sectarian violence... what you seem to not understand is Iraq has ALWAYS been a violent place. At least now there is a chance of improvement. Well, capital punishment has been declared legal by the Supreme court of the U.S. And while it is true that a disproportionate number of those executed were black, it has more to do with the nature of those committing the crimes than any sort of racism. And keep in mind that those people executed were guilty of crimes like murder. On the other hand, Castro was having people executed for such crimes as speaking against the government. Tell me, which So, tell me, if Bush had eliminated Capital punishment and forced all those on death row to serve life sentences, would you have still complained about all the black people unjustly held in prison? After all, they'd still make up a disproportionate number of those serving life sentences. Please provide a reference for this 'ripped off' Tsunami relief money. In the worst possible scenario, Mulroney was responsible for using his influence for financial gain. (It hasn't even been proven in a court of law). On the other hand, Cuba (under Castro) has had people executed, and has been widely known to supress human rights. So, which do you think is a more serious issue? http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/50/ares50-198.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinaldo_Arenas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_El%C3%ADas_Biscet