segnosaur

This has already been explained in this thread. While vaccines are very effective, nobody claims they are perfect. There are some individuals who (through no fault of their own) get vaccinated but for some reason their body does not build up an immunity to the disease. Or, given the fact that a vaccination takes time to become effective, there is a short time period after getting immunized that you are still vulnerable to a disease. (I could also point out that there are individuals who cannot get vaccinated for real reasons... too young for some vaccines, compromised immune systems, allergies to some products in the vaccine, etc.) That's why we rely on a certain extent on "herd immunity"... get everyone vaccinated, so that there is a lower probability of the virus transmitted between people who do not have immunity. Let me give you an example... the Smallpox vaccine was "only" 95% effective. (Meaning 5% of those vaccinated could still get the disease). Yet governments around the world decided to engage in wide-spread vaccination programs. As a result, the disease was wiped out... eliminated... people no longer get sick and die from it. Why did that happen if the vaccine didn't work 5% of the time? Because if you eliminate the chance of disease in ONE person (one of the 95% where vaccines worked) then you eliminate the chance that person will cause it to be transmitted to anyone else (including one of the 5% where the vaccine didn't work.) That happens enough times, and a disease can be eliminated.

First of all, keep in mind that many of the animals in captivity were NOT captured in the wild. They were bred in captivity. And secondly, I suspect that most zoos (At least the big recognized ones) probably go to great lengths to ensure any animals on display were obtained by people competent in their field. And even if there were problems with animals captured improperly.... go after those doing things wrong! Lets take a look at some average life spans... zeebra: In the wild: 25 years, in captivity 40 years Chimpanzee: in the wild: 40 years. In captivity 60 years Orangutan: 40 years in the wild, 50 in captivity Polar Bear: 18 years in the wild, 40 in captivity Although I'm sure your average zoo owner is not running the place just for the benefit of the animals, those that are kept at the zoo usually live longer and healthier lives than their wild counterparts, with less stress and less pain. Once again, I urge you to stop anthropromorphizing animals. They have different thought processes than humans. While you complain about their "lack of freedom", the fact is that animals don't always have the need to "run free".

You're right... they should not be captured and put on display... they should be hunted down and exterminated. Every last one of them... From: http://www.cracked.com/article_16762_the-6-biggest-assholes-in-animal-kingdom_p2.html ...they're the only other animal that will kill for fun. Back in the late nineties, marine biologists began to find lots of porpoise carcasses that had seemingly been punched in the gut until they died. ... There are only two explanations left: either "Because dolphins think killing is freaking hilarious" or because "Dolphins kill porpoises as training for when they have to kill baby dolphins.

While those may have been wonderful experiences, not everyone will have the resources available to have similar experiences. (Not only that, it should be noted that your experience may also be disruptive to the environment. You may have been careful in your encounters, but there is no guarantee every encounter will be done without stress to the environment.) That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But to me, a photograph (or documentary) is flat, 2 dimensional, and doesn't really provide any sense of scale for what these animals are really like. Heck, with the advancement of computer graphics, your average teenager is just as likely to have an emotional connection to the planet from Avatar as they are to animals on our own planet, if the only exposure to them is what is seen on TV or in pictures.

Yeah I think there might have been a little bit more to it... http://www.cracked.com/article_20119_6-elaborate-science-experiments-done-just-hell-it_p2.html

True enough. Here's a question for you... You stated that killer whales were killed during the process of trying to capture them... Do you have any proof or evidence of that happening (recently)? I had assumed you were correct, since it doesn't seem that far fetched to think of incompetent marine "researchers" doing things they don't have the qualifications to do. Just wondering if you had any numbers or actual reports to confirm that. This doesn't seem very weighty to me and I'm sure both of us would hate to see what sort of perverse bleeding heart mentality might evolve within some branch of a government licencing agency whose job it was to give any weight to this argument. Not really sure what your problem with that point was. No, I don't think there should be some "government department of whale happiness". I'm also not suggesting each and every whale would be better off in captivity. My point was that whales CAN get sick or injured in the wild. Those cause trauma. Whales living in captivity aren't subject to those stresses. Your own link also says... Captive whales were dying at a rate of more than 6 percent a year, close to three times the rate at which wild whales were dying. Yes it does. But, the operative word in that sentence is "were" (as in past tense). I've already admitted that there were problems with keeping whales in captivity in the past. But as our knowledge has improved, husbandry techniques have gotten better, and the survival rates of whales in captivity has also improved. I think its because they look more impressive and powerful, and have more of a mystique about them. Again though, that seems to be anthropromorphising animals, assigning them human characteristics that likely don't have. Take for example the zebra. Some might claim that they long for the "freedom" of galloping magestically across the plains of Africa, rather than being stuck in a zoo. What people fail to understand is that when that zebra is galloping, its likely not doing so because it enjoys the wind in its face, but because its being chased by a predator, a stress that I suspect most Zebras would rather avoid (and one that they won't have to worry about in a zoo). The same with killer whales... They are intelligent animals, and as a predator they require significant mental stimulation. But, they're "freedom" is likewise filled with risks. Earlier on you claimed that Killer Whales "celebrated" a successful hunt. But that's probably less a case of "Look what I managed to do" and more a case of "Whew, survived another close call. Glad I didn't get injured". [quote] I wouldn't be surprised if most toothed whales live in social groups that are bound as tightly. Not sure if you knew this, but technically Killer whales aren't "whales". They're actually members of the dolphin family. Again, you might be guilty of assigning human characteristics to animals incapable of human thought processes. The fish's brain is (at least in many ways) much more primitive than that of Homo Sapiens. They don't have the same emotions or ability to process memories that humans have.

Yes, there are problems with capturing whales. But a few things should be remembered: - Most killer whales in captivity were not born in the wild and captured (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_captive_orcas) - As I mentioned before, any potential trauma animals in captivity (or even trauma from being captured) should be weighed against the lack of trauma they would sustain from being in the wild (where the whales often suffer injury at the hands of sharks and other prey. Killer whales may be an apex predator but prey animals can often defend themselves.) Now, in the past it was thought that Killer Whales lived shorter lifespans in captivity than in the wild. However, the most recent research has showed that the lifespans are roughly equivalent (partly due to improved husbandry techniques). From: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-01-25/news/os-seaworld-killer-whales-survival-20140125_1_killer-whales-individual-whales-orcas ...annual survival rate for captive whales had improved to about 98 percent in the past decade, based on data through November 2013. ...newer data indicate that captive-born whales, in particular, appear to be surviving at about the same rate as wild whales.

I've been at the conference 3 times... the first one (which was held in Fort Lauderdale) and 2 others (both held in Vegas). Very enjoyable... great speakers, interesting company.

The problem is, not everyone will have the ability to see such creatures "in the wild"... A person wishing to see (for example) a killer whale will have to travel all the way to the coast, plus possibly rent a boat (not everyone can afford that). And after all that you run the risk of the whale being a "no show". Hopefully, a person will go down to the local aquarium or zoo, see the whale/dolphin/lion/godzilla there, come to the appreciation of how impressive the animals are there, and use it as an educational experience in order to get people to treat the environment better as a whole. When the only experience people have with animals is their pet cat, and the idea of "whale" is of an animal thousands of miles away, a person could become apathetic towards nature.

You seem to be anthropomorphizing wild animals. Nature is a dangerous place... animals get preyed on (and often not in the most humane way... do a google search for "lion eating baby elephant alive"). Predators get injured during the "hunt", and thus are in pain for years. Struggles for dominance can likewise cause injury. And then there's the panic... how do you think the average zebra feels when its being chased by a lion? And this assumes that the animal does not die from the weather (Drought, floods, unexpected cold, etc.) or disease, things that Zoos tend to protect animals from. Zoos are not always perfect. I'm sure there are some downright horrible ones... But, creatures in zoos tend to have longer life spans, and in many ways have a "better" life (less chance of injury, less stress.) There is a necessity to treat the animals well. And we still have a lot to learn (particularly about how to handle predators, who usually require more mental stimulation than herbivores), but to assume all animals will be "better off" in the wild is a bit short sighted.

Err... not really. They took an admittedly unpopular leader, and tried to install their own unpopular government, thus requiring an invasion/occupation when they realize not everyone wanted to live in a socialist utopia. Had the soviets stayed completely out of Afghanistan's business, its possible that the country would have evolved naturally, perhaps not into what we'd see as a western-style democracy, but one that wasn't the hell-hole that it became. The U.S. had no control over the Soviet Union when they decided to interfere with Afghanistan. The U.S. had little or no influence over Pakistan, when it was helping the Taliban in the 90s. The U.S. had no control over Omar or Bin Laden, who felt that hanging people in a soccer stadium and crashing planes into tall buildings was a reasonable course of action. And what exactly is your proof that the "US had greater influence then than now"? What makes you think that such an invasion wouldn't likewise be condemned now? Do you really think the U.S. is some omnipotent god that has some sort of magic all powerful influence on the world?

First of all I never claimed that the U.S. was blameless. Just that they weren't the sole source of Afghanistan's problems. Secondly, it should be noted that the U.S. did not fund "The Taliban" (which did not exist prior to the soviet withdrawal.) Nor did they (to the best of my knowledge) fund Al Quaeda during the occupation. They did fund other groups fighting the Soviets, but supporting one group (fighting against an occupation that was condemned by most of the west) doesn't mean that you support ALL groups.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think it was a "Mess the US created"? (Their actions to go after al Quaeda, a group with ties to the Taliban, was a reasonable step following 9/11.) While the U.S. is not completely blameless (they did for example fail to provide useful assistance following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in the 80s), they are not the only ones that had a hand in the mess that is Afghanistan.... - The Soviets had been tinkering with Afghanistan for decades, leading up to their invasion and occupation - Pakistan was one of the few countries to support the Taliban when they ran Afghanistan - Heck, the Taliban and Al Quaeda themselves (many who's members weren't even Afghan citizens) deserve blame too, since even an idiot would see that having terrorist bases running in Afghanistan was a risky proposition. (Not to mention that setting up laws where there is brutal oppression of the population doesn't do much to win friends in the world.)

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not... But assuming you're being honest, I don't think its accurate to say "separatists just wanted to extort money". Some may have viewed a yes vote as a bargaining chip to get more money or other benefits from the rest of Canada (in which case they were ignorant, or idiots, since the referendum question had a "separation regardless in a year" clause.) Some may have actually wanted separation, being ignorant of the eventual impact on the economy and society in general. (They wouldn't have necessarily wanted more from the rest of Canada, but they didn't realize how much less they'd be getting. This was an ignorant opinion too.) Some may have been smart enough to recognize the potential difficulties, but still voted yes for whatever reason. The problem is, many of those people were lying sacks of crap (i.e. those who were leading the separation charge, but making false claims about how easily separation would be.)

I agree with that. Furthermore, I believe that the federal government should state that separation requires only 50%+1. This may differ from what the clarity act demands (it requires a 'supermajority'.) However, I want to prevent anyone from voting yes "strategically" (i.e. they don't want to separate, but they want to expand Quebec's powers, so they vote yes hoping they'd fall in between the majority and supermajority range so that they'd have more of a bargaining chip.) Furthermore, I feel that a result that's between a majority and supermajority would cause significant harm, with the uncertainty caused by both sides claiming victory.

I also wonder what will happen to Churchill falls following a "yes" vote. After all, much of Hydro Quebec's profits are based on very favorable terms it got when negotiating with Newfoundland over electrical contracts. If Quebec separates, Newfoundland might have more options for renegotiating and/or establishing alternatives.

Dead wrong. Peladeau Jnr, like Parizeau, speaks good English. Both are rich and have travelled the world. They are not ignorant. Parizeau may have been worldly. Many others hardcore separatists may have been worldly, and/or were supporting separation even with the knowledge that there would be some negatives. But, that does not mean that a significant percentage of "yes" voters themselves were not voting based on a position of ignorance. Except of course those pushing hardest for separation tend to claim that "Quebec is indivisible". Wrong. Historically, Hydro-Quebec's credit rating is better than the government of Quebec. Why exactly is that relevant? Hydro Quebec may be fiscally sound, but they are not the only contributor to the government of Quebec. In 2012 Hydro Quebec's profits were $860 million. This is dwarfed by the ~$7-8 Billion equalization payments that they currently receive from Canada (payments that would stop in the event of separation). Not to mention other financial benefits Quebec gets from the rest of Canada. And if the Government of Quebec's credit rating is already lower than that of Hydro Quebec while still IN Canada (while receiving equalization payments), don't you think its reasonable to assume that it will fall even further following separation (with or without Hydro Quebec)?

Actually, I think its quite true, and quite helpful. During the last referendum, there were a lot of statements made by separatists that were quite... questionable. (Parizeau claiming that they can continue to use the Canadian dollar with no problems, claims that Quebec wouldn't be subject to partition if it decided to separate, that any Canadian public servants in Quebec would still have work, and that Quebec would not have to assume any debt were they to separate.) I seem to also remember that during the last election at least some sovereignty supporters thought they could still use Canadian passports and send MPs to Ottawa in the event of a "Yes" vote. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#Referendum_question) That is pretty much the definition of 'ignorance'.... a lack of knowledge (supported in part by lies) that many 'yes' voters had during the referendum. In my opinion, the best way to deal with the separation issue is by eliminating the ignorance. Educating the Quebec public, by letting them know exactly what they could expect from a 'yes' vote, will let them know what exactly their vote means. (And if many of these "I can vote Yes and still use my Canadian passport/our federal jobs won't disappear/etc." believers know the true effects of a "yes" vote, it might cause a few of them to rethink their positions.) The problem is, many feel that Quebecers were not properly informed in the past referendum. The "Yes" side was outright lying about some things. The "no" side was was soft-selling its side. And as a result, at least some people were voting from a position of ignorance. Not sure if that's a proper comparison. In Canada's case, Quebec depends to a certain degree on benefits obtained from the rest of Canada... transfer payments, favorable work exchanges, etc. On the other hand, in the case of Czechoslovakia, from what I know the Czech and Slovak areas were on a more equal footing. (One side had been receiving transfer payments from the other but they had been stopped before the separation). Furthermore, at the time the division was relatively friendly. (i.e. none of this "We're not taking any debt! Yes you are!" stuff that characterizes Quebec's independence movement.) It should also be pointed out that at the same time that Czechoslovakia was breaking up, it was also going through other political and financial upheavals... losing its former benefactor in the U.S.S.R., the introduction of private enterprise, etc., factors totally unrelated to its dissolution. Those factors will probably mask any hardships they might have encountered due to the division.

"Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Georges Clemenceau, President of France (early 20th century) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Georges_Clemenceau

You're right... The 1939 version of Wizard of Oz can't hold a candle to the 1925 version (you know, the one with the underage farm girl seducing the farm hands). And don't get me started on the travesty that was the Maltese Falcon. http://www.cracked.com/article_19190_6-classic-movies-you-didnt-know-were-remakes.html

You might like this: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ben_stiller_should_star_in_every_movie

I can think of several reasons why polygamy (or any sort of "multiple marriages") should probably not be made legal (at least not at this time)... 1) As it currently stands in practice, "Polygamy" often involves religious communities/cults where the women are pretty much "forced" into their current relationships. Yes, it does suck for actual real "consenting" adults who want to have such relationships, but until we as a society have managed to eliminate all such abusive relationships, then we should be careful in extending our approval for such unions. 2) Implementation is far more complex than with "gay marriage". Gay marriage was relatively simple to implement... its still a 'binary' marriage, regardless of whether its between a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Multiple marriages would be extremely complex.... you would have a huge number of public and private sector laws, documents, etc. to revise; everything from tax forms, tax laws (e.g. income splitting), private insurance, etc. that would have to be revised. 3) At this point, there are far too many questions about how certain aspects of multiple marriage would be implemented. For example, would all relationships be considered one-to-one, or would it be an official "group"? Could someone divorce from one person in the group but not others? What if person A and B were married, and A wanted to add a 3rd person but person B didn't? In a group marriage, who gets custody of the children in a breakup? These (and a ton of other issues) would have to be thought out. Now, some here have argued that "Its not the government's business to define marriage", but the fact is, there is an benefit to society overall for a formal definition... it simplifies issues like child custody, immigration (or do you suggest eliminating "spousal visas"?). Yes, some of this can be handled with things like legal contracts, but not everything (e.g. immigration). A formal 'government' definition of marriage just simplifies things.

At this time, I have to say... You are completely and utterly full of bull crap. Seriously. Canada's actions in Iraq have been well documented. In Gulf War 1 Canadian planes regularly flew air patrols over Iraqi territory and ran escort missions. We also engaged in attacks against ground targets and ships. If you really were "in Iraq and know about what you speak" you would actually know that. http://www.richthistle.com/aviation-articles-othermenu-133/74-cf-18-hornets-in-the-gulf-war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Friction#Air_operations

Brings all new meaning to the phrase: Winning the war... on drugs! Actually, if I remember, a few years ago some Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan from a friendly fire incident when an American plane bombed their position. While some of the blame was due to poor communications, the pilots themselves blamed stimulants they were taking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident That reminds me of an episode of Family Guy... Peter and Lois (the main characters if you're not familiar with the show) were trying to become a singing duo. They would get stoned before performing, and went out there and put on a great performance. Only problem is, when someone showed a recording of their performance, it was horrible... they only thought they were doing good work, because, well, they were stoned at the time. Well, there are a couple of things to keep in mind: - Its long term effects haven't really been studied, but it may have an effect on memory when used habitually - There are studies that show it does impair driving ability. (For example: http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/1/65) Now, I'm sure some pro-pot people will jump in and say "but alcohol is worse!" Well, that might be... but that doesn't mean pot use is SAFE, even if its safER. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm against legalization. I do think people should have the ability to mess up their lives as they so choose. Just don't go around assuming that pot is a completely harmless gift from the gods.

There seem to be 2 issues here... The first one seems to be on the general use of pot... personally, I have no problem if its use were to be legalized/decriminalized. (Of course, I also think that most pro-pot people are an embarrassment, with wildly exaggerated claims that make pot seem like it was a gift from the gods.) The second issue is one that's a bit more complex... whether employers have the ability to set rules of conduct for employees that are more restrictive than simply what's "legal". Many employers can and do have reasonable limits on what a person can do when representing the company... an employee who (for example) doesn't follow a dress code (a salesman who wears shorts and a Tshirt when meeting clients, a McDonald's employee who wears jeans, or a stripper who wears a burka) might find themselves unemployed, even if none of those clothing choices is illegal. The officer that was fired may have had a valid prescription. It may have even been the "best" medicine that was available for his condition. However, as an officer he would be representing Canada. Officers should (in general) be respected, but smoking pot while wearing the uniform is questionable conduct, since those who might have seen him using (or smelled it on his clothes after) would not know if he were smoking something prescribed, or whether he were engaging in otherwise illegal behavior. It would be as if he had been involved in a traffic stop, but had the smell of alcohol on his breath.