segnosaur

Just wondering... what exactly are you considering to be the "developed world"? I took a look at the reference you provided, and while the U.S. certainly wasn't the highest ranked in terms of homicides, about the only "developed" countries ahead of it in the list that I noticed were former soviet bloc countries and a few south american countries (like Brazil); however, many might not consider those countries to be 'developed'.

oh... really? your link didn't provide any suggestion of the kind... perhaps you could help update/counter the following quote from Gary Goodyear, Conservative Minister of State for Science and Technology... I cannot update or provide any background to the quote you provided from Goodyear. Why? Because I have no idea what exactly is going through is mind, and unless I get a good hacksaw I probably never will. (You seem to be convinced that he's a creationist, but none of the quotes/information give any indication of his thoughts on common descent.) I should also remind you that I never claimed that I was a fan/supporter of Goodyear; remember, I've already criticized him in this thread over his background as a chiropractor. (Although I've noticed that not one person who has been condemning the conservatives has addressed the fact that such 'woo' exists in other parties.) Given the fact that all parties have members who have displayed questionable scientific beliefs, I can really only judge a party on the actions it has taken and the policies in its platform. Yes, the conservatives have limited media access to scientists, but I have not yet seen any indication that they are preventing them from publishing their results. (So the whole "war on science" arguments go out the window.) They have indeed cut research grants, which is not something I support but is understandable given attempts to reduce the deficit. (And, according to a reference provided earlier by another poster, while they cut scientific grants, they still increased funding on infrastructure used by the scientific community.)

Ummm... who said there had to be a "conspiracy"? When you get to the position of "chief of police", there is a certain amount of political baggage that comes with the position. People in that position might be interested in protecting their own position/reputation (and that includes supporting an ineffective gun registry). Already pointed out that Unions may just be giving the most voice/attention to people most involved with union activities. Officers who (for whatever reason) dislike union activism will probably have less weight given to their opinions.

I accept that, I've never said otherwise. Ummm... wait a second, you never accepted the risk from guns... instead, you've proposed eliminating home storage as a way to try to reduce the risk of mass shootings. That's not "accepting the risk"... its proposing a major shift in gun laws. If voters are so stupid as to always fall for unrealistic promises where do they get the smarts to accept hard realities? What makes you think voters ever do "accept hard realities"? I may be highly cynical, but I don't often have a lot of faith in the ability of people to think rationally/logically. They still get to go target shooting and hunting. Your generosity in allowing people to go "target shooting and hunting" is noted. You are such a magnanimous individual to grant people such freedoms. (sarcasm intended) While you may think its acceptable to grant those freedoms only, that doesn't necessarily make it so. Individuals who may want to collect guns (as a hobby) will think otherwise. (Not to mention the fact that any hunters will probably find the idea of having to go to a central armory very inconvenient, depending on when/where they hunt.) So, what if I said "You can't store your cars at home.... but you can store your private car at a central government lot... You can still go for Sunday drives though." Would you find that acceptable? Actually, there is no double standard. You cannot land planes on public roadways because you are not the owner of that road. (Similarly, I have no problem banning the use of firearms on city streets, because such areas are held in common.) However, you do have the right to store airplanes on your own property, and to use your own property for takeoffs and landings, assuming you are not in a major air traffic corridor. (During a recent air show I talked to a couple of pilots who had farm land where they stored their planes.)

I hardly think this photoshopped image is a matter that merits its own thread. It does though speak volumes about the poster who thought it was a worthy topic. It also suggests how disconnected he might be from mainstream thought when he suggests it is funny "no matter your party preference".

Of course, it doesn't really matter if the expert knows the topic better... the scientists still can publish their information without hindrance. And should a topic be of interest to the general population, a good science writer will be able to find people to interpret the scientific work. YES. Here is one example of many: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/01/canada-cuts-res.html Well, you're right... they did cut funding in recent budgets. In their defense, they are trying to reduce the size of the federal deficit. (Its not the way I would have arranged things... I think that Research is more valuable than, for example, subsidizing the car companies. But at least there's some justification, and I'd wait for a year or 2 to see of those spending cuts continue.) Of course, the reference in the opening posts mentioned nothing about funding. Ummmm.... first of all, while the Minister didn't verify a belief in evolution at that time, later reports show: we found out after the article was published, Goodyear does indeed believe in evolution http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=30921bb6-ce10-43f7-9d6e-516844e9f230 To be honest, I'm more concerned that his background is as a chiropractor (a completely unscientific field of study). But before I condemn the conservatives for appointing a chiropractor to their cabinet, I have to consider that the Liberals recently appointed a chiropractor to the position of Health Critic (Dhalla), and the NDP voted against C-51. So to me, all parties have troubles when it comes to science issues.

I certainly support the expansion of our Nuclear Power generation capabilities. And while that alone would not be enough to consider supporting Ignatieff, I certainly applaud him for his stance, and if/when I decide who to vote for in future elections it would be a mark in his favor.

When has something like this happened, that mainstream scientific opinion was totally neglected by the press in favour of a fringe view? I never claimed that the press was ignoring the mainstream scientific opinion. Heck, I wasn't even claiming that the mainstream scientific opinion was getting less attention in the press. But all you need is for one questionable article to be written based on one interview with a non-mainstream scientist for the real anti-science types to latch on to. Have the conservatives cut funding into scientific research? Have they prevented the publishing of discoveries in academic forums? Have they attempted to micromanage research budgets? Those are the types of things that are truly worth condemning, but I haven't yet seen any evidence that they have done so. But the point is that the more mainstream scientific information did get out and was heard and accepted by the majority. Yes the mainstream scientific opinion does get heard, but not everyone listens to that. There are plenty of Jenny McCarthy types who will fixate on the one incorrect scientist and ignore the majority. You're right, they do... but I'd rather not have those 'quacks' represent themselves as somehow associated with the government. Of course, I do want to point out that all this is hypothetical.... The fact is, the article referred to in the opening post (and heck, most of the posts in this thread) have been incredibly one sided, and I have not seen anything from the conservative side indicating why such controls were put in place. I suggested one situation where a certain amount of spin control might be warranted, although whomever came up with the policy of restricting media access might have other rationals. I just think its foolish to condemn the policy when we've only ever heard one side of the story. Yes they are... but any decent mainstream science writer will either: A: be well versed in the topic so that they can understand the original research and put it in a form that the general public can understand, or: B: have access to other sources (outside of government employees) who can provide a reasonable analysis. In fact, that's exactly what happened in the case described in the original reference... A Canadian scientist had done some research, but the writers were able to use people from outside Canada to provide relevant quotes. End result: Whomever was interested in the topic was still able to write informatively on the topic, and "the public" still got their information. (It is unfortunate that the Canadian who actually did the research didn't get the acknowledgment that comes from mainstream press exposure, but "scientist ego" was not among the reasons anyone here has complained about the policy.

How about we just accept that as a society that values a certain amount of freedom, there is a risk of such incidents happening. Just as with backyard swimming pools and private automobile use, there will always be tragic deaths. At best we can tinker with the rules to reduce the risk, but we will probably always have incidents like the Montreal shootings. Ummm... perhaps because it would be detrimental to a politicians career to just say "We can't do anything"? Politicians are in the business of getting elected. If they came out and said "We'll never stop all tragic shooting deaths" they will likely loose to the politician who makes the claim (probably falsely) that he "Has a plan to make us safe". Ummm... I find it ironic that you would ask why we don't "Accept the deaths/injury that guns cause". Did you not at one point call for the storage of firearms only at central armories? (Yeah, while technically allowing "private ownership", it pretty much curtails the usefulness/enjoyment most would get from such ownership.) So if you want to ask "why don't we accept the risk from firearms", why don't you just ask yourself? After all, you're pretty much a textbook case... you have no problem accepting swimming/car deaths (well, apart from suggesting impractical beliefs) yet you want to curtail the benefit people get guns.

Just out of curiosity, did you ever ask your cop friend whether he trusts the registry with his life? The assumption by supporters of the registry seem to believe it "warns police of danger", but dose your police friend still go in to any domestic dispute situation (heck, any situation) with the assumption that there could be violence (even gun violence) even if the registry says "all clear"? And if your cop friend still prepares for potential gun violence (even if the registry says "all clear"), then just what is the great value in it?

You are, of course, making the rather questionable assumption that the desires of "the union" always reflect the opinions of the membership. That is not always the case. (Unions best reflect the opinions of those most active within the organization. Its quite possible that a significant number of union members oppose the registry, but do not care to be involved in the union, due to either time constraints, or personal beliefs.) Because at this point, you're not actually listening to actual police officers. So far, you're only listening to: - The chiefs of police, who may have political reasons for supporting the registry regardless of its effectiveness - The unions, who may only be expressing the opinions of a subset of members (ignoring those who do not get involved in union activities)

Ummm.... the issues brought up in that particular news item have been dealt with many times before. Why exactly do you keep rehashing things that have been dealt with, without bringing anything really new to the table? Do you think that just by repeating information that opponents of the registry will magically be convinced otherwise? If you want to be convincing, why don't you actually try bringing in actual convincing evidence? Like, for example, some actual random survey of rank and file police officers? As has been pointed out before: - The fact that either unions or "Chiefs of police" support the registry does not mean that the rank and file do - The results of a "straw poll" have been posted in this thread that suggest that most front-line officers are actually opposed to the registry - A number of reasons why the chiefs might support an ineffective registry have already been posted in this thread. It has already been pointed out that: - A police officer must treat all situations as potentially deadly. Relying on a registry that is incomplete will at best be useless (since officers should expect at least the possibility of unregistered firearms). At worse, it will actually put them at greater danger, if the registry gives them a false sense of security - Even if there is an advantage, pretty much the same benefit would be provided by giving access to a database of acquisition certificates (without the need to register individual firearms). As has been pointed out, the number of time the registry has been accessed is likely an inflated statistic, since the registry is checked for routine matters, even if there is no reason to expect firearms are involved.

No, it's a completely retarded assessment. Well, you see, here's the problem... time after time, you talk about firearms in terms of 'rage' and 'mass murder', suggesting those are things that must be dealt with. Yet when I bring up unnecessary deaths due to things like drunk driving/road rage/accidental drownings, you either A: ignore the issue, or B: propose lame solutions that are either impractical, implausible, or won't work. Perhaps if you want to be seen as caring about all those other deaths, you'll suggest real solutions rather than magical technological solutions. And once again... there's a lot we can do to prevent other deaths right now (from cars and swimming pools), without waiting for some magical technological solution. Its feasible now to outlaw the construction of outdoor pools, and/or to require all automobiles to be stored in "government parking lots". Ummm... I know you're not calling for the prohibition of guns. (I even tried to make it a point to use the word "possession" rather than "ownership"). However, you are calling them to be stored in 'government armories', something which would decrease the enjoyment and usefulness of firearms. (And when I pointed out that fact, your only response was "too bad, so sad".) Yet when I suggest that if you are truly interested in cutting down unnecessary deaths the same rules be applied to cars and swimming pools, your response is to suggest infeasible technical solutions. Ummmm... not sure what you're referring to here. I don't recall talking about "stiffer sentences preventing mass homicide". I do remember talking about increased penalties for improperly storing guns and/or using them in crimes, but that involves more than just "mass homicide". The issue here is preventing mass murder with guns not booze. The issue is not about saving every single life that faces risk every single day in our world. It's a specific issue we're talking about - reducing the risk that guns pose. The fact that you seem to have such a narrow focus does not mean that others share that same focus. Excuse me I said prevent risk not eliminate it. Well, excuse me, but technically I said you were "attempting to eliminate the risk". Frankly, I think your complaint (about 'eliminate' vs 'prevent') is rather idiotic. Its splitting hairs, attempting to deflect the poor logic in your arguments by trying to shift focus on the fact that your arguments lack merit. Ummm... the term 'possession' has more than 1 meaning. While it can mean "ownership", it can also mean (according to the dictionary) "to have and hold as property (as distinct from ownership)". In fact, at no point have I claimed that you were against private ownership of firearms, and have pointed out in the past that we were dealing with private storage of firearms (see for example post #158).

Ummm, no it isn't. Well, I suppose it depends on what the point of your post was. If your point was to suggest that there is more risk in blood donations from heterosexuals (because the greatest total number of anal sex acts is between heterosexuals (as nicky10013 seemed to imply in one of his posts) then yes it is misleading. (As I explained, the issue is not the total number of sex acts performed in a group, its the chance that any individual has participated in the activity.) On the other hand, if your point was just to try to correct what you perceive as someone's faulty grammar/wording then it might not be misleading. (Its still a pretty pointless thing to bring up though.) Yes and no. While you are right in that they don't "practice it most often" as a total number of all sex acts by all individuals, I also don't think its wrong to say they practice it most often based on a greater incidence per capita. (i.e. your interpretation is not wrong, but neither was the original poster.) Either way, as I said, its mostly an irrelevant point... the issue is the frequency of the activity with a group, not the total number of people engaged in the activity.

The problem with trying to get too detailed with regards to sexual activity is that, well, people's brains are imperfect. We forget things, we forget details, and we attempt to rationalize/justify. If the question is "Have you done activity X" they may think "Well, only once, but it doesn't count", or they may forget about that wild new years party where they got hammered. (And this is not suggesting its only homosexuals that do so... everyone does.) So, because people's memories are imperfect, they do the best they can... they use a sledgehammer and ban all homosexuals because trying to be more precise just wouldn't work. You're right... straight people can carry things like HIV. But statistically, they are less likely to. For example, in New York City, approximately 28% of HIV/AIDS cases occurred through male homosexual contact, yet homosexual men make up only 2.5-5% of the population. That means on average a homosexual male is roughly 5-10 times as likely to be infected. Again, I want to stress that this is an average... there are many gay men who are (for example) celibate or in committed relationships who have a zero risk of contracting HIV. But on average HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community. http://www.uwec.edu/jolhm/EH4/HIV/HIVWebsite/04CASESTUD.html Which is, of course, is irrelevant. The issue is not the "total numbers" of straight people, it is the possibility that individuals within a group will carry HIV. You keep repeating the assertion that testing can eliminate many of the safety issues. However, it should be noted that testing is not a panacea for everything. In fact, I believe in the U.S. between 1/450,000 and 1/660,000 donations have the HIV virus, but were not detected during screening. http://aids.about.com/cs/hivtesting/f/bloodsupply.htm It may be true (not sure, since you never provided a reference), but its still irrelevant. Even if most sexual acts between homosexuals do not involve anal penetration, that doesn't necessarily mean that such acts are not uncommon among men. I've previously posted some statistics showing that homosexual men are rougly twice as likely to have engaged in anal sex at some time as heterosexuals.

That is not at all true. Anal sex is most often practiced by heterosexual couples. There aren't enough gay men for them to be the ones performing the act most often. While it may be true that there are more straight individuals who engage in anal sex than gay individuals, that is only due to the fact that hetrosexuals greatly outnumber homosexuals. Its also misleading. The important thing is not the total number who have engaged in a particular activity, but the chance that a member of a group has engaged in that activity. According to Wikipedia, various (recent) studies have shown that the percentage of heterosexuals who engage in anal is somewhere around 26-40% (depending on the survey). On the other hand, it was found that 58-80% (again, depending on the survey) of homosexual males engage in anal sex.

You think it would be, but its not. First of all, there's no guarantee that any main stream media reporter will actually talk to other scientists. (After all, sensationalism sells... And having an article with a headline proclaiming "Government Scientist finds sex causes spontaneous human combustion" will sell a lot more papers than one that proclaims "Everything safe." Secondly, our recent experiences suggest that that is not necessarily the case. For example, we've had study after study, and scientist after scientist pointing out the safety of vaccines. Yet there are still idiots who listen to quacks like Wakefield and Mercola. THANK YOU. After so many posts its nice to see that someone actually has figured out what I was saying. Yes, publicly funded scientists have their media access limited. Is it bad? Maybe. Its also possible that the issue is overhyped and the result of a lot of rhetoric. Is it impeding scientific progress? No, scientists can still communicate with each other. Is it preventing dissemination of information to the public? Debatable, since the forums where such information is presented are usually of public record (peer reviewed journals and/or conferences). Yeah, individual scientists may not be able to communicate their findings directly, but the information is still getting out there.

Scenarios as you describe may happen, and people might speak out of turn once in a while, or make incorrect or misleading statements. But so what? Well, in an extreme case (e.g. in issues of health) such misleading statements can cause unnecessary fears. In the vaccination example, it could cause people to avoid getting immunized, leading to possible death. Again, that is an extreme case. I doubt it would happen very often. But the repercussions can be serious. At this point, I have no opinion about whether the policy is good or bad. I see advantages and disadvantages to it. But I do feel that many of the complaints against the policy are based more in rhetoric than anything else, and so far the discussion (as portrayed in the article) has been completely one sided.

As I recall guns were to be afforded special consideration when it comes to control because they lend themselves so well to expressing rage and garnering the attention people like Marc Lepine crave. Swimming pools just don't do that. So, what you're saying is that you don't actually care about total lives saved, only in lives saved when people "express rage". And you'd be quite happy with hundreds, if not thousands of people dying unnecessarily as long as those deaths are not from "rage". Is that an accurate assessment? I guess I subscribe to the idea that guns do warrant special consideration because of their inherent ability to convey rage in such a graphic fearful manner. Um, "Graphic Fearful Manner". So you don't care how dangerous firearms actually are, you just care how others "think" they are. Perception over reality. Style over Substance. Well, for starters cars are registered and further special consideration is given through driver licensing because of the danger they pose... And people have to get a possession and aquisition certificate before they get a gun. (Heck, there are probably more restrictions to get such a certificate than there are to get a driver's license. the only reason you are claiming that its "silly" to treat guns and cars the same way is because it illustrates the problems in your arguments. If you truly cared about "saving lives" you'd call for private cars to also be banned (or tightly controlled). But because you are more interested in style over substance, or in caving in to people's irrational fears, you want tighter gun controls but are unwilling to call for the same on private cars. Except that it won't if an individual drinks while driving. Nor will it prevent people using a car in the commission of a premeditated crime when completely sober. Not to mentioned the issue that it would probably take years to install breathalyzers on cars, while in the meantime hundreds if not thousands will die in the meantime. Another idiotic suggestion, since even if vehicles were equipped with such devices (which might take years to accomplish) they wouldn't be of any use during the commission of the initial crime. So, feel free to run over all the innocent people you want.... it won't be until after your victims are dead and mashed to a pulp that the cops will need to use their magical "radio control" systems. But then, according to you, all of those mashed up victims don't matter because they weren't killed with a device that "conveys rage in a fearful manner". I'm sure that will be a real comfort to the friends and family of the victims. I do not feel that "swimming pool acquisition certificates" are necessary. But then, that's my point... I am being consistent. I recognize that both Guns and Swimming pools (as well as cars) are "safe enough" to allow private possession. You, on the other hand, are the one that is employing a double standard... ignoring the risk in one case but attempting to eliminate the risk in another.

A horrible example. No one in the research community took any of these claims seriously. First of all, I assume you're referring to Wakefield (the guy who claimed vaccines were linked to autism, based in part on research he falsified). However, I wasn't referring specifically to him, but to a hypothetical case. (There have been relevant cases, but I didn't want to get bogged down in the details.) Secondly, your claim that "no one in the research community too these claims seriously" is actually the point I was trying to make... There may indeed be issues where the "research community" does indeed have problems with research. But you're claiming you want researchers to talk directly to the public. Its situations like that that can cause a crackpot (like Wakefield) to have bogus research portrayed as "government approved" even if others (or the majority of other scientists employed by the government) recognize it as faulty.

did you even read the linked article. Ummm.... yes I did.... but it appears that you have not. Once again, the claim made by Toadbrother is that these rules would stop the exchange of scientific information; however, there is nothing in the article suggesting that scientists will be prevented from presenting their work in peer reviewed journals or other academic sources. Heck, they even specifically mentioned one NRC scientist (Scott Dallimore) who had their work published in the journal Nature even with the rules limiting communication with "the media". Which, of course, has nothing to do with the valid exchange of information between scientists in academic forums. Gee... what do you know... an article that uses sensationalist language. Well, part of the problem is the fact that idiots respond without actually reading what the posting says. I've been quite clear in the fact that I'm dealing with a specific claim that the rules are interfering with the exchange of scientific information. I've stated that in every post. But instead of saying "You're right, its not interfering with the exchange of scientific information" I get a bunch of people claiming "my premise is wrong". Here's a suggestion... Science can be hard. Before people here try demanding more access to "scientists", maybe you can actually illustrate at least a little basic comprehension by showing you can read and follow basic posts here.

yours is a ridiculous premise... Ummm... no its not. From the looks of it you haven't even bothered to read and/or understand my posting. Which is, of course, completely irrelevant to the issue I was dealing with. Toadbrother had made a very specific claim... that the conservative policy was somehow harming science by preventing communication within the scientific community itself. That does not appear to be the case. Scientists can still publish their work. And your average scientist is not going to be using the work of a "mainstream media science writer" as an original source; they will instead go to the original peer reviewed articles or conference proceedings. You keep harping on "climate science" as an area where scientists can and should speak... but I can think of other areas where more caution is warranted. For example, I'd hate to think of one lone anti-vax doctor to have their views seen as representing public policy when they are in the minority.

If they can publish... Ummmmm.. Yes they can. Once again, there is nothing in the original article which suggests that scientists are in any way banned from publishing their results in academic forums. Yes, such publications are always a mater of public record. Many such journals are free on line. Others can be accessed at university libraries. Plus, any researcher (or science writer) will probably already have a budget for subscriptions to relevant journals. Uhh... so? One of your previous points is that the conservative policy was going to harm science because it prevents the "free exchange of information". But your typical scientist is not going to use your average newspaper or TV broadcast as a source of information; they will go right to the original publications (which will be unaffected.) Perhaps. On the other hand, while its certainly possible that some "valuable" information might not be distributed in a timely fashion, its also possible that it might prevent marginal (and incorrect) information from being viewed as "government approved".

Please provide a definition for what you would consider to be an "assault type weapon". You don't think people might want to, you know, take their hunting weapons home with them to (for example) clean them? Or to take those weapons to a shooting range inside town in order to target-shoot? And what exactly do you think will be the working hours of that 'well guarded location'? Monday-Friday 9-5? That will go over real well with those that want to go hunting on the weekend. And as I asked another poster, why exactly do you see the need to deal only with firearms in such a manner? What about other elements of danger (such as cars or swimming pools) for which similar tactics can be taken? So, your assumption would be that people are only allowed to shoot at the one target range. Not exactly very practical for those who might want to shoot competitively, or at least practice at more than 1 range. I have no problem with increased punishment for those who use guns illegally. (Heck, I'd also be willing to have fines increased for those who don't properly store their fire arms. The difference between that and your other suggestions is that laws regarding illegal firearm selling/use/etc. target those that are doing something wrong as opposed to the majority who respect firearms and do not intend to abuse them.

Well, one possibility is that someone (possibly being paranoid) was worried that the interviewers might attempt to bring up the subject of global warming, which of course is a politically touchy subject (since one of the effects of climate change might be an increase in sea levels.) But the more likely answer is that they aren't specifically banned from talking to the media about a 13,000 year old flood. But since (from the government's point of view) they can't tell what topics will end up being politically sensitive and what ones won't be ahead of time, they put a blanket ban in place. Do you at least understand that scientists are not prevented from discussing their results with other scientists, and can publish their results in peer-reviewed journals, and that your argument that this policy violates the idea that "Science only flourishes where this free exchange of information between scientists" is bunk?