segnosaur

A grand, sweeping sentiment that is neither reflective nor supportive of reality. Ummm... just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that financial or legal help is given to individuals who are defending themselves in front of a human rights commission? I am aware at no such provisions. On doing some searching, I did find this statement: "The government funds the plaintiff but the defendant is on his own...". (From: http://web.archive.org/web/20080701191358/http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=597251&p=2 ). Now, this is from an opinion piece, but it is from a major media source. Of course, I'm sure that if defendants get legal assistance, you'll be willing and eager to provide it. (After all, all you need to do is find one case of a defendant being given free legal representation by the government at a commission hearing to prove your point.) The piece from the National post also states: Occasionally, the plaintiff has been given access to the commissions' investigation files and given the power to direct investigators. Truth is not a defence. Defendants are not always permitted to face their accusers. Normal standards for assuring the validity of evidence do not apply. Hearsay is admitted....

Ummm... no, its not beside the point at all. Double blind and peer review are key elements of science. Without them, knowledge does not progress. Current methodology in science (generating testable hypothesis, rigorous experiments, peer review, etc.) has only been around for a century or 2. And once again, I notice you ignored the question. I know why... because you can't without showing how intellectually bankrupt you are. But I will try once again.... If you think you can't trust science, should we teach things like the flat earth as a viable geographic model, or should we teach holocaust denial as a viable history if you think you can't trust "science" or "peer review" or any of the other basic foundations of knowledge development. Come on.... lets see you answer the question without dancing away from it. Boy, not only are your arguments retarded, but incredibly lazy as well. Did you actually, you know, read the reference you provided? I suggest you do. It says right there under research methods: eugenicists were lax in defining the criteria for many of the "traits" they studied... published works of eugenicists were short on data and long on anecdotal information You see that part in bold? What it shows is what I pointed out earlier (and which you should have understood if you weren't so lazy)... the study of "eugenics" was not done with anything which resembled proper scientific rigor. They were not doing double blind studies (you know, the things I keep pointing out which are rather key to medical research). Not really.... after all, as I pointed out, your own reference shows how the "science" behind eugenics was not handled properly. This is not the same as medical research, that uses double blind peer reviewed studies. Mess up what? The fact that you continually try to drag politics into things, when I have repeatedly pointed out that none of my arguments have involved politics in any way, shape or form. Only someone who is a brain damaged idiot or someone who is trying to be a troll would repeatedly make that mistake. Now you have to admit that none of these studies were laboratory controlled studies. They were basically compilations of statistics in a double blind study. Ummm... what the heck are you babbling about? What exactly do you think a "laboratory controlled study" is? What do you expect that a double blind study is? Do you think they keep children locked in cages in some warehouse, injecting them with vaccines and viruses? Of course, something tells me that even if I did provide a "laboratory controlled study" you would claim "Oh that's not evidence of its effectiveness because it only happened in the lab, not with real people." By the way, I still notice you haven't answered the question.... if the vaccine is ineffective, why do people who receive the vaccine get sick less often than those who get the placebo? Still waiting for that answer. So? Your exact statement (and the one I completely debunked) was "It did not show that a vaccine reduced the number of people who got the flu.". (Post #35.) Well, I showed that vaccines do indeed reduce the number of people who get the flu. Rather than admit that you are indeed wrong, you move the goalposts. Pssst... in case you haven't noticed, I'm not Tommy Douglas. Unless you think I'm somehow the zombified corpse of the former premier. Of course, you still seem to be missing the point... None of the peer reviewed studies that I've referenced based any of their "research" on the government. People should get vaccinated because when they give vaccines to people, they tend not to get sick as much. Got it? How many more times does that concept have to be explained to you? The only people raising "eugenics" are people who don't really understand science (like you).

And this relates how? I agree... it is kind of a bizarre thing to bring up.Is "the fool" supposed to be the CBC? Or are people pointing out the flaws in the report supposed to be "the fool"?

First of all... if its a "Canadian broadcast" but ratings are low (nobody is watching/listening to it), is it really part of our culture? Secondly, even if "Canadian culture" itself managed to disappear, I think the big question we should be asking is "so what"? A "culture" is not a living thing. Its a collection of interests and preferences held by members of a particular country or social group. If absolutely no Canadian watched anything Canadian produced (and instead focused on American things), there would be no deaths, no injuries. It wouldn't even cause any emotional distress (assuming that people were watching American culture of their own free will.) I watch a lot of American TV. My PVR is set to tape The Daily Show, Chuck and Criminal Minds. Yet I also listen to Great Big Sea, and own the DVDs for Gunless and all 6 seasons of Corner Gas. I watch/listen to what interests me most.

Why should it matter if they "may be in Northern Canada"? Unless the government is about to kidnap me and ship me off to Nunavut, any trips up to the arctic will be done voluntarily, and if its work related I can demand additional pay (in order to subsidize satellite TV/radio). BTW, I favour subsidizing the CBC. I reckon that we can pay for TV through advertising, or through taxes (ie. cable fees). I find advertising irritating unless it's good. Well, that's why god invented the PVR. You know, if you find too many commercials annoying you can just change the channel. Just out of curiosity though, why should I (as a non-CBC user/viewer) be forced to subsidize the viewing habits of CBC users who just want to avoid "irritating commercials"?

Fantasy. The report says that the CBC provides an economic benefit right now. Today and in the past . It doesn't rely on day dreaming or wishful thinking about what could be with those mytical tax dollars, it is justifying itself as a positive economic factor in the present. Ummmm... perhaps you failed to read the rest of my post. You know, the part that dealt specifically with the validity of the report. You see, the report claimed an economic benefit, but if those claims were built on faulty assumptions then those claims must be discarded. Two of the assumptions in particular jumped out at me: - The claim that CBC money generates more economic benefit than if it were spent on other programs "according to government spending priorities". However, given the discretionary nature of CBC funding, it is a bad assumption that it would be used as other government revenue - That money not spent by the CBC on local production would be 'lost'. However, without the CBC providing the "juggernaut" of Canadian culture, its likely other organizations would have the ability for production opportunities. (I'm sure CTV would have been quote happy to pick up Hockey Night in Canada or Kids in the Hall for example) Again, you're assuming that the report was actually accurate in its assertion that the CBC generates economic benefits. A little skepticism might make someone question whether a report funded by an organization praising that same organization might have a little bias. (After all, we'd question a report on Global Warning that was released by the Oil Companies, wouldn't we?) And if that same money were spent on, for example, road improvement it would still be circulated here in Canada (except with the added benefit that the infrastructure might provide long term secondary benefits). Or if it were returned to Canadians (in the form of tax cuts) and they spent it on (for example) a visit to a restaurant or even saved in the bank it would also be circulated here in Canada.

Of course you do know that the Liberal government under Chretien also brought in legislation to end worker strikes, don't you? http://www.encyclopediecanadienne.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011454

Ummm.... in case you didn't notice, the government is already involved in labor practices at private companies because of the existence of things like the Rand formula and other restrictions on company/employee relations. Probably because the scope and impact of an Air Canada strike was greater than that of strikes within Ontario. Stepping in with back-to-work legislation is a rather serious step and should be weighed carefully. Why are you automatically assuming that the "lack of good bargaining" was on the part of the companies?

What makes you think that the "right wing" is some monolithic organization where each member expresses the same opinion? One of the posters made a statement about "entertainment value". That does not mean that every "right winger" is likewise more interested in "entertainment value" than the economics.

Are you sure it was because of their public funding that they charged less for advertising? After all, advertising rates are influenced by the number of viewers (both predicted and measured). Given the fact that CBC is often lower in the ratings than other Canadian broadcasters would mean that they would be charging less anyways. Might have been an issue half a century ago. Now, with the advent of satellite TV and other technologies such 'remote' areas now have alternatives. And even if there was a need to provide service in remote areas, is the public funding of a complete network the best use of taxpayer resources? After all, there are private broadcasters in metropolitan areas, so there's no need for CBC "overlap" in those areas. They could (in theory) provide a scaled back CBC broadcasting only to the remote areas, or they could pay private broadcasters to extend their coverage to areas they weren't serving before.

Ummm... the liberal party does have a section right on their web site to allow them to accept donations 'on line'. Not sure what could be different about that. Yeah, they could be better at advertising their need for cash, but being the "middle of the road" party, I think they're kind of at a disadvantage... while people might be willing to vote for them in order to avoid going too far to the political left or right, they may not feel strongly enough to actually give money to the cause. Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence to suggest that the Liberals weren't using a lot of opinion polls?

But even IF you can count a single interation of the economic benefits of the CBC - is is still an economic benefit. That the money it receives and spends, helps stimulate the economy. Whatever supposed economic "benefit" that we receive from CBC funding/spending must be weighed against alternative uses for that funding; e.g. if the tax dollar that would have gone to finance the CBC either went to other projects, or was returned to taxpayers to be used in other ways. Now, the article in the opening post does attempt to deal with it... it points out that tax dollars diverted from the CBC to other government projects would produce less benefit "according to the government’s current spending profile.". The problem is, CBC money wouldn't necessarily be divided the same way the rest of government expenditures are. Furthermore, there were additional claims made by the CBC which are questionable... For example, they claim that if the CBC were privatized, more money would be spent on obtaining foreign material. However, there is no guarantee that without the CBC other broadcasters won't take the opportunity to pick up Canadian shows. (The existence of shows like Corner Gas shows that there is interest in Canadian content.)

I've had my account frozen multiple times (although I bank with another institution.) Sometimes, they will cancel/suspend a bank card for people who shop at a particular store if its been found that there was a breech of security, even if the customer was not affected. Its kind of a "better safe than sorry" attitude, and its fairly understandable. Apparently gas stations are one of the worst for this... they employ people at a relatively low wage, the staff is very transient (people get hired/fired/quit regularly) and there is often no supervision (especially on night shifts). All you need is for an employee to 'skim' one credit card number, and the bank will freeze the cards of everyone who has used that gas station.

Ummm... not necessarily saying that Asbestos is safe, and not saying whether it should be banned or not... but how exactly do "workers throwing it up to separate it" in any way address the claim that its safe if "handled the right way"? I would assume that "throwing asbestos" would be something that would be considered "handling it the wrong way". Its like someone saying "gasoline is a safe fuel to use in transportation", and you try to refute him by pointing to the gas fight in Zoolander to prove that its dangerous. (i.e. you're trying to debunk an argument by bringing up an irrelevant example.)

I don't know what I win... Well, you said you bet $100 that she would run away and ignore the issues, so I guess you win that. However, its all in virtual internet "theoretical" money. (I refer you South park Season 12, Episode 4: Canada on Strike.) Why does watching that video make me think of gay fetish affictionados?

Actually, no there isn't. (At least no evidence that can be replicated). From the American Cancer Society: ...(most) studies published so far have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors. (See: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phones) Now, cell phones have been classified as a Group 2B carcinogen, but then, so has coffee and pickled vegetables. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens#Mixtures) See: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/05/31/who-verdict-on-mobile-phones-and-cancer/ A small caveat: there are limits on the ability to test the risks of cell phones. (e.g. phones have only been in wide use for a couple of decades, so its possible that there's an unknown long term risk). However, if there is any sort of risk, its likely to be small. (Most studies find the risk to be rather indistinguishable from statistical noise.) Of course, the comparison with vaccines is not exactly a fair one... Heck, we know vaccines have risks (allergic reactions being one of them); if there are other risks they certainly haven't shown up yet, and as such it will be one of these 1-in-a bajillion type risks, far below the number of people actually helped by vaccines. Ah that old bull cr*p again. Just to repeat the stuff I've stated before: - Many of the studies showing vaccine effectiveness/safety are not funded by the vaccine companies at all. - Believe it or not, influenza vaccines have not been huge moneymakers in the past. The number of companies making vaccines decreased substantially for years and years. Retarded argument. You can have more than 1 vaccine manufacturer. In that situation, companies will lobby, not because they're trying to sell an ineffective vaccine, but because they are in competition with other vaccine manufacturers (all of whom are selling effective products). And the influenza vaccine is among them. Ummm.... examples? (Although let me be a bit proactive... its possible that you may not hear of "western diseases" in other parts of the world, for the simple fact that in "developing countries" reports of diseases probably get drown out by other disasters.) I believe that's already been addressed in this thread... - The flu season was not predicted to be particularly serious - One of the most common circulating strains was last year's H1N1. No need to push people to get vaccinated when they would have been covered by the previous year's vaccination

Well, I guess cybercoma wins... rather than addressing the issues she runs away and ignores the issues. So much for her claim of being interested in "debate". What's the matter betsy? Were you unable to find a web site to steal information from? Were all your creationist fanboy sites unequipped to deal with those issues? Oh, and by the way, those issues are far from irrelevant. It is you that is making the rather false claim that the bible is somehow "accurate" based on cherry-picked information. But if you're going to suggest its divinely inspired, you're going to have to do more than selecting one or 2 cases. After all, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now again. After all, if your claim that "some correct information implies god exists", then the fact that Harry Potter mentioned London (a city known to exist) means that magic wants and flying broom sticks exist too. Your response makes no sense. Your claim is that god exists because the bible has things that weren't observed. Yet here is a situation where the bible is flat out wrong. People may have seen that "rabbits aren't like cows", but whomever wrote the bible didn't know that rabbits don't chew cud. So, try dealing with those issues with, you know, actual logical, rational thought. Oh, we know what the "pattern" is.... - Betsy the thief spams the thread with a bunch of bogus, easily debunked claims. - Betsy the hypocrite asks people to respond to the bogus claims that she produces, but fails to respond in kind - Betsy the liar claims that she's interested in "debate", yet when challenged she runs and hides Do we have the pattern correct? Actually, most of those "facts" were already well known long before the bible was written. That's been illustrated to you multiple times. Its only through sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la! I'm not listening" that you've dealt with that fact. Oh, and in case you forgot, here's the list that you've been running away from. I know your hypocrisy won't allow you to deal with the issues, and your reliance on spamming and stealing won't let you address the issues properly, but I'll post it again just to remind people how empty your logic is. (I've added a new one too!) - who on Noah's ark had AIDS? Who had herpes? Who had Ebola? Or one of any number of diseases? - If there was a global flood, how did the fish survive? After all, most species of fish have very specific salinity requirements. A massive flood is going to make the water far less salty and probably kill most of the fresh water species - What is your scientific definition of a "kind"? - Why is micro-evolution acceptable but not macro-evolution? What is limiting micro-evolution to prevent large-scale changes? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give different paternal grandparents for jebus? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) different methods of death for Judas? - Why does jebus (the "son of god, the creator of everything) not know that the mustard seed is not the smallest? - Why does the bible not know that rabbits do not chew their own cud? - You attempted to suggest that the "finality" of creation in genesis is somehow proven by "the big bang". But how can that be, if genesis also indicates that god created the stars at that time too, yet astronomers have identified "new" stars being created at this moment.

Science is not in doubt. Science is what it is. Politics is in doubt. Ah, there with that bull cr*p again. Once again... the studies that show the safety and effectiveness of vaccines are not political in any way, shape or form. By all means. I doubt you'll find anything resembling even a rudimentary "experiment" in a peer review journal that was used to prove eugenics. Yes, there were some notable people claiming that "science supported eugenics". Some were politicians. Some were even scientists. But the idea of eugenics was probably more inspired by racism and bigotry rather than 'science'. Flat earth and holocaust denial may be taught, but not as potentially valid theories. It was pretty clear from the context that what I was asking was whether you thought they should be taught as potentially valid theories. So, to clarify... since you somehow think that "facts" can easily be overturned, do you think that flat earth and holocaust denial should be taught as possible "successful" theories (not as formerly debunked concepts, as you tried to weasel out.) If you think "science is subject to be overturned", then should our science classes be saying "the earth may very well be flat. The round earth theory may be influenced by politics and thus could be overturned!"? Should our history classes by stating "the holocaust never happened! History has become politicized!" Tell me, is your repeated misunderstanding caused by a lack of brain functionality, or are you willfully trying to mess things up? Once again, the science behind vaccines is non-political. The scientists do the research. Much of the research confirming the usefullness of vaccines is not funded by drug companies. If a politician wants to state "we should vaccinate to save lives" he can do so. A politician could also say "We have too many idiots... lets try to discourage vaccination to kill off the dumb ones". But that doesn't change the fact that the vaccines themselves have been shown to be effective. Try to understand that concept. Ummm... yes they did. The fact that you're so willfully ignorant that you don't want to actually spend any time to understand the science behind the studies. Ummm... you do realize that there are multiple strains of the flu circulating at any one time, and I doubt you'll find any scientist who will claim that any flu vaccine will stop strains that aren't included in the vaccine. Ummm... yes they did. Since you seem unwilling to actually read any of the references: From: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/9580647/reload=0;jsessionid=96AB8DA0F2EB6506E91C5DCB2317D29E.jvm1 We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial... Two hundred eighty-eight children were assigned to receive one dose of vaccine or placebo...Culture-positive influenza was significantly less common in the vaccine group (14 cases among 1070 subjects) than the placebo group (95 cases among 532 subjects). If the vaccine is ineffective, why were more people sick in the non-vaccine group (even though there were roughly have as many people) than in the vaccine group? From: http://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/1997/05000/Cost_Effectiveness_of_the_Influenza_Vaccine_in_a.6.aspx One hundred thirty-one vaccinated employees were compared with 131 age- and gender-matched non-vaccinees... Twenty-six (20%) of the vaccinated and 64 (49%) of the unvaccinated group had ILI (Influenza-like-illness) If you don't think the vaccine prevents the flu, then why were people who got vaccinated 30% less likely to get sick! From: http://www.passporthealthusa.com/files/PDF/Effectiveness-of-Vacination-Against-Influenza-on-Healthy-Working-Adults.pdf A total of 849 subjects were enrolled between October 10 and November 30, 1994... Randomization resulted in an even distribution of all base-line measures... Immunization decreased the frequency of upper respiratory illnesses by 25 percent, absenteeism from work due to upper respiratory illness by 43 percent If the vaccine wasn't effective, why was illness reduced 25% in that study? Of course, those are just 3 of the studies I referenced earlier. But all of them show similar results. So, if you don't think vaccines are effective, why is it when you give a vaccine to one group and a placebo to another group, cases of flu decrease in the vaccinated group? - Could it be that people feel better when they think they're being protected? No, because in most cases the patients don't know if they're getting the vaccine. (Notice the use of the word "double blind"?) - Could it be that the doctors are specifically looking for people who get sick in the non-vaccinated group? No, because in a double blind study the doctors themselves don't know who got the vaccine or not - Could it be due to luck/chance? Well, the same experiment has been repeated multiple times, so that's not a factor - Could it be the people who got the vaccine were naturally healthier? No, because once again, look at the use of the word "randomized" (used in several of the studies). These are large scale studies, in some cases involving hundreds of people. A 'healthy' person is just as likely to get stuck in the placebo group I'm not. You're falsely dragging politics into things, when the science itself has nothing to do with politics or authoritarianism. But, I guess since you don't really have any facts or evidence to support your point of view (other than your dangerous willful ignorance), your only "tool" is to blindly accuse those who actually understand the basic science are somehow "fascists". Again, I strongly urge you to go to school and take a few remedial science courses.

Actually religion doesn't even do that. Filling in "gaps in our understanding" with something that's false is not "filling them in at all". Its like putting a screen door on a submarine. First of all, that's not necessarily a "good thing". After all, while you may think that belief is something that "helps people go on", having such belief can also lead people to believe in "72 virgins for suicide bombing". Secondly, there's no reason to believe that religion or "spiritual belief" is the only way that those people can go on. Such people could gain such inspiration through other means. (i.e. its not necessarily spiritual belief giving people confidence; they already have the ability to go on, they are just miss-attributing it to religion.)

Oh, and something else I had forgotten about... Betsy likes to claim that the bible has "proof" of mountains and trenches under the sea. But do do that, she typically quotes the book of Jonah. Well, guess what? The book of Jonah was written in the fifths/fourth century B.C.E. On the other hand, Plato described Atlantis around 350 B.C.E. (which, guess what... features an island with mountains sinking below the sea), but that story was possibly inspired by the Minoan eruption in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E., an event that occurred hundreds of years before the book of Jonah was written (heck, it was even hundreds of years before the book of Jonah was actually SET.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thera_eruption So, there were precedents for ancient cultures knowing about "sunken islands" long before those references were added to the bible. Not that her claims needed any more debunking.

Those are only avatars. Great, now you owe James Cameron royalties.

There are likely biological reasons that the concept of "religion" and "god" gained a foothold. Its likely due to a combination of several factors: - We are pattern seekers... its a survival thing. If we saw a pattern that "lightning is accompanied by rain", our ancestors would figure out "Hey, when lightning comes, rain comes... don't drown in the river". However, such a system is imperfect, and its possible that we'll make "false positives". (So, we might think "I did X and something happened", even though the 2 events were coincidental and had no relationship.) Thus, we think "I prayed and something good happened" is basically just a false positive giving reinforcement Edited to add: We also have a trait where we tend to remember the "hits" and forget the "misses". So if someone makes 100 "predictions", 99 of them fail and 1 is successful, we will remember the 1 success and forget the 99 failures. Betsy is a perfect example of that... she becomes fixated on the 1 or 2 coincidences in the bible that happen to be true, and totally ignores everything about the bible that was utterly wrong. - We are inquisitive creatures. We like to know the answers to things. Sometimes though, in our attempt to know the answer, we might stumble on a false answer (i.e. god) and stick with it - "Religion" does have a communal function. Humans require a certain amount of social contact and structure, and religion has acted in that capacity in the past. I also remember reading about how humans can, on average "remember" around 100 people. (i.e. form friendships with, or other type of relationship). This tends to be about the size of the "average" church.

No fair, I cited Gish (link) just before. Ah yes you did. My apologies. (I had been away from from the thread for a while and it took me time to get caught up.) Although in my defense, although you mentioned the lies of Gish, you didn't mention the term "Gish Gallop".

Yeah I can almost picture her, shaking in frustration as she desperately tries to find sites from which she can steal text from and coming up empty, showing that her reliance on spamming and her inability to think for herself has left her incapable of a proper debate. Perhaps we should take wagers... Do you think betsy's next post will be: - A spam (and probably theft) from some site giving yet more easily-debunked creationist views that have nothing to do with the issues that have been raised - An illogical dismissal of those same issues, where she doesn't actually address the issues, but ignores them or claims that they "aren't important" - A false claim that she "needs more information" (even though the information has been given in this thread before) Yeah I know. Hey, I don't have to really reply to anyone in this thread. But, he made statements that needed to be addressed, so I addressed them. (And I have to give him credit, at least he's not "betsy the spam-bot machine".

Ummm... if science is capable of revising its beliefs, then it is not "dogma". By definition, "dogma" is "authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers." (Wikipedia). Except the vatican is not the "leader" of all of christianity. Sadly, people like betsy are still clinging to creationism long after they've been dismissed by both secular scientists, and more open minded theologans. She does not have the capacity to incorporate new evidence. Except the problem is that people like betsy are unable to make the distinction. If you want to believe in god, or the flying spaghetti monster, or the invisible pink unicorn living in your sock drawer, you can do so, as long as you understand that there is no actual evidence that these things exist, and have had absolutely no impact on the world. However, if you think there's actual proof that your invisible sky daddy has actually had an observable effect, then that particular challenge must be smacked down, and smacked down hard. Nope, we're not. We're animals. We evolved. We may not know everything that lead us to this particular point in our evolution, but we're learning, and we're learning via rational, logical thinking.