segnosaur

there was a time not long ago you could be thrown in jail for saying anything annoying to the establishment would you prefer going back to those times? I find it very ironic that you would bring that up as an example, considering I'm arguing for just the opposite. In fact, it is people like you who are quite willing to prosecute people for saying things that are not approved of. I want the opposite... I want all speech (including the distasteful stuff) to be protected (except of course the exception of yelling movie in a crowded firehouse.). history supports my position Uhhh... no it doesn't. There is no guarantee that suppressing it will cause it to disappear either. Many countries in Europe have had "hate speech" laws in place for years/decades. Yet there are still regularly incidences of such speech occurring (e.g. Le Pen, Aake Greene, etc.) . If quashing the right to free speech was supposed to stop such incidences from happening, it has certainly failed.

Oh please whine about the free market and then vote for a prohibitionist government, the hypocricy is delicious. First of all, the issue is you. YOU made the claim to be a Libertarian. Then YOU made a statement that illustrated a lack of Libertarian principles. Whether I or anyone else has made hypocritical statements is not the issue. What YOU stand for (or what you claim to stand for) is. If you want to argue for reform of drug policy, fine. (I'd probably even agree on many points). If you want to express concern over the influence of the religious right then fine, do so. But don't call your one-issue (or 2 issue) calls for "freedom" as being "Libertarian". Libertarianism involves both social AND economic freedoms. Calling for one set of freedoms and ignoring the others does not make you "Libertarian" (at least in the modern political sense). Secondly, I've never been hypocritical. I've always labeled myself a "moderate libertarian", and when I've given any sort of support to the conservative party, I've always been clear about why I might have supported them and the things that I am not happy with. I am not claiming to have a particular belief system of political beliefs, then turning around and making all sorts of statements contradicting those political beliefs.

as my mother used to say "If you don't like it, then don't watch it"... The same principle should also be applied to things like (for example) the Mohammmed cartoons that were subject of cases brought before the Human rights commissions. The fact that hate speech is bad is not the issue... the question is how to get rid of it. Some of us believe the idea of "suppressing" hate speech is naive, since it will only encourage such speech to go underground. The best solution is to allow all speech to flourish, and to counteract hate speech with actual facts, holding it up to the ridicule that it so richly deserves. The fact that you seem to think "hate speech" is a valid excuse for suppression of human rights is symptomatic of the issue... people all across the political spectrum have no problem suppressing things they disagree with, always with some justification.

I'm sure those on the religious right will be happy to know that they can use the argument "But seeing nudity in movies is hurting me and must end!" I doubt many people will feel that our list of freedoms includes the right "not to be offended". And many of the cases that the Human Rights Commissions look at are just that... the right "not to be offended". (The only time Freedom of Speech should be curtailed is when it causes an immediate and direct danger.)

Do you even recognize the discrepancy of those 2 statements? Here's a little hint... being a 'libertarian' does not just mean that you want to smoke dope. It also means that you support economic freedom, including the right to engage in commerce with individuals from other countries (i.e. free trade). Your 'suggestion' to impose such trade barriers is completely anti-libertarian.

Not quite true (at least in Canada). Remember, many NDP members have been members of the Human Rights Commissions (and if I remember, the NDP supports their existence). Yet the commissions are often seen as having a negative effect on human rights (most notably the right of free speech.) Granted, the extreme religious right may also want to limit speech (nudity, etc.) in ways I don't agree with either. But claiming that the "left" is somehow the only ones that believe in freedom is incorrect. Most people in the political spectrum want to limit freedoms; its just a case of what freedoms.

The ones who wish to find out. Which is of course a useless answer. Not unsurprising coming from you. So, I will try to reword it to remove any ability you have to dodge the question: Given the fact that you have criticized both the government and vaccine manufacturers, what groups or organizations do you feel should fund influenza vaccine studies, so that you yourself accept their results as valid. And no, I'm not looking for "the ones who wish to find out". Give me examples of companies/organizations. However, by pointing to one study that gave information on funding and saying you want 'more honesty', you are falsely suggesting that other studies to not make similar claims. Which is of course a lie. I have pointed out multiple times in this thread about examples where hard evidence has trumped "the consensus". Yet you once again repeat the same cr*p. Is it any wonder that skeptics appear 'elietist'? Why exactly do you expect to be treated with courtesy when you repeat claims like that? Only in the rarest of cases is there any intention to deceive. They are unfortunately, and depending upon the interests involved, especially political, not as rare as they should be. Actually, the only case I am familiar with regarding false information deliberately published, is an anti-vaccine study published by Wakefield. Ironic, isn't it? Same thing that happened when Raymond Dart ended up providing evidence for his ideas about the evolution of man... The evidence gets published, and the majority altered their opinions. Well given the fact that the majority of people in north America - Don't believe in evolution - Don't know that an electron is smaller than an atom - Can't find Iraq on a map my concern for their lack of scientific knowledge is well founded. Nope, the problem is, the affect of believing in non-scientific nonsense is much more dangerous to humankind than the mis-steps that valid science has made. We must all be allowed to form and hold our own opinions for what ever reasons we have. If you choose not hold opinions and allow the field of science form yours for you then you are entitled to do so. And I never claimed science was 'flawless'. What I pointed out is that it is infinitely better than the non-scientific giberish of the scam artists you listen do. Yes, we rely on experts and most of us will assume things. If we care to do our own research we can. Most of us will not bother unless it is important to us. And of course we, unfortunately, have some self-appointed policemen telling us what we should assume and even policing science and telling it what findings should come out of it's studies because of their assumptions. Luckily, you are there to tell them what it all means. I would consider the New England Journal of Medicine a credible source but when facts are flawed so are studies. Ah, the mythical "flawed fact". Indicating more that you have no idea how medical studies work. And the fact that he's stating opinions on subjects that he has no background in, and that deal with stuff he sells on his own web site doesn't bother you at all? Yes you do. Of course, instead of the 'theories' of Jones you believe in the 'theories' of Mercola et al. When it comes to issues of public health and drug safety/effectiveness, then yes, I consider anecdotes of no value. I am not a fan of the flu vaccine. I mentioned it because it agrees with my point of view. Why are we arguing if I didn't feel there was some validity to the offer? I keep bringing it up because it illustrates your inability to think logically. You held up his offer as 'valid'. In just a couple of minutes I discovered a flaw that showed his offer was not genuine. Yet you were unable to detect that flaw. Why is that? Its a little like taking math advice from someone who says 2+2=5. If you're not smart enough to detect such a basic flaw, then there is something wrong. Ummm... do you even know what a 'double blind' study is? From the looks of things you don't. In a double blind study, you inject one group of people with the vaccine, and one people with a placebo. The thing is, nobody is told at the time which group they are in... not the doctor, not the patient. So there is no way for the doc to assume "the vaccine must work so the patient can't be sick". That's the whole point of "double blind". Well, there you go. Another do-gooder proves their worth. A rather typical response from you.... Mother Teresa's faults are well documented for those that want to look for them. And when you're presented with them, your reaction is to use a snarky comment. (Rather ironic isn't it, considering that now that I'm in the minority going against consensus?) Which is, of course, the most accurate statement you've mad. For all your complaints about 'elitism', and how mean I am, the fact is, you yourself are admiting you have no interest in facts.

Everyone? What about those who are holocaust deniers/neonazis or who wish to spread racism? What about those who are scam artists? What about those who are slandering people? What about trolls? Do you think those people deserve "common courtesy"? Granted, Pliny is not on the same level as a holocaust denier, but he has: - Repeatedly made false claims, even after those claims had been dealt with (showing a general unwillingness to actually 'debate') - Repeatedly ignored requests/questions when they would damage his argument again, showing a general unwillingness to debate. - Repeatedly made claims that maligned the abilities of people that I respect (and in some cases know personally) - Recommended a course of action that can cause the death of individuals That's not exactly the type of person I can respect. In the past, I have engaged in debates with people who had beliefs that were not 'skeptics'. In some cases, the people showed a genuine willingness to debate: They didn't continually rehash things that had been dealt with, and they actually answered questions when posed of them. I had a lot more respect for those people than I do for pliny. Perhaps you do. But given the fact that Pliny has openly stated that he's quite happy to wallow in his ignorance suggests that not even honey can catch that particular fly. The fact is, in this thread, I have offered clear, non-insulting explanations for science. I've offered analogies to try to make things easier to understand, and posed questions that should have made it easier for people to understand the failure of the non-scientific approach. None of that worked. Instead, all I get is a rehash of previously debunked statements. So we agree, one must always be open to the possibility that they concluded incorrectly and prepared to revise their conclusions based on new information. There is, however, a difference between a legitimate challenge to existing scientific ideas/thoughts, and they type of nonsense that Pliny seems to believe in. Not sure what you're attempting to infer by this statement. Some people such as Pliny believe that because science doesn't "know everything/is elitist/etc" that we must be accepting of ideas coming from outside science. The idea of a flat earth is one such idea. If you decide you have to accept the non-scientific views of the anti-vaxers, then you should be prepared to accept the non-scientific views of the flat earthers. On the other hand, if someone accepts the anti-vax side, they must either give an actual logical justification for the double standard, or you must admit hypocrisy. Irrelevant. I'm not talking about the flat earth theory in an historical context. I'm talking about flat earth believers in our modern times. Ummm... small pox and polio were not "almost always fatal". In fact, according to Wikipedia, 99% of all polio sufferers show no real long term effects from the disease. And even though Smallpox is more dangerous, mortality is around 30%. Well, what if doing so actually saves lives? Is a few less people in the morgue worth the hassle of individuals who might panic unnecessarily? Oh, and by the way, I never claimed I supported the way the H1N1 influenza was handled. I am dealing only with the clinical effects of the vaccine and influenza itself. Yes, they probably are. But so what? Do you think the hundreds of lives saved by vaccination are not important, just because they wasn't going to be thousands of deaths? The important issue is not how virulent influenza is compared to other diseases. The issues are: - Can the same benefit (saving lives/preventing influenza illness) be accomplished in other ways? The answer is, unfortunately not. Even hand washing (something that seems to be championed) has minimal effect when preventing influenza infections - Can the money/resources used save more lives if used in other ways? No, because overall, the influenza vaccine saves money, by reducing the need to treat seriously ill flu sufferers, and reducing the amount of time people are absent from work. I see... So, just what do you think those medical resources used to handle influenza should be used for?

You cannot even begin to compare the areas. There are no areas in Canada with the kind of urban decay that exists in the US. We also tend not to have as many large cities as they have in the U.S. So a (for example) 5 block area of 'decay' in a large U.S. city may only be 1 or 2 blocks in a smaller Canadian city. But then, it still affects the same proportion of population. Of course, all of this seems quite irrelevant to me... you were trying to come up with reasons that re-enforce your preconceived stereotypes, rather than look at what the data actually is and use that as your starting point for analysis. Your right, I didn't. You had made several postings within a short period of time at the same time I was writing one, and I accidentally overlooked that. (I'll comment more on that in a bit.) Wait a second... first of all, remember that at one point you were claiming not that the crime rates were similar, but that the U.S. had a higher rate. Now are you at least convinced that that might not be the case? Secondly, How exactly does this affect your "urban decay+poverty=higher crime" arguments? If your idea is true (and that the U.S. should have more crime because of those factors), yet its crime rate is virtually identical to Canada's, then wouldn't something have to make up the difference (i.e. drive the U.S. crime rate down after those factors have driven it up)? Not that I necessarily think that decay+poverty is a significant factor; just saying that if you were correct, then we need to find some reason the U.S. crime rate isn't higher than it is. Interesting. A couple of things I'd like to point out... - Even though the margin of error may not be 'too bad', it appears the closeness of the American and Canadian numbers makes the difference in the crime rates between the countries statistically insignificant - The data does seem to be broken down a bit differently than the data from the U.N. survey (and sadly, the U.N. survey didn't seem to have any margin of errors given) - Some possible reasons for the discrepancies between the UN and this survey (not saying any of these are valid, but I believe the reasons make sense): * The U.N. survey was done several years before, so its measuring a different time frame * Its possible that the surveys classify crimes differently/ask questions in a different manner So, while this survey doesn't exactly reinforce the U.N. survey, neither does it necessarily support the idea that U.S. crime is worse than Canadian (since it appears the crime rates are withing a margin of error with each other.)

I know I wasn't the one you had directed this post towards, but I'd like to take a stab at responding... For me, the amount of 'respect' I give to those who hold religious beliefs is inversely proportional to the amount their belief contradicts 'facts'. If someone was, for example, a deist and recognized that the 'god' they believed in did not leave direct evidence of their creation, I'd have some respect for them. On the other hand, Biblical literalists/Creationists deserve no such respect, because their beliefs directly contradict the evidence we see around us. Nobody claimed science did have all the answers. But it has a methodology to discover what those answers are (when talking about the physical universe), even if they aren't currently known. Compare that to, for example, religion where they claim to have answers even when they don't. Which do you think is the more dangerous way to deal with the world? Yes, I'm rude. The difference is, I actually have, you know, evidence behind me. People like Pliny tend to lack the basic critical thinking skills to properly analyze the world around them. Uhhh... no. The term 'skeptic' (as used by the skeptic movement) does not mean that you "automatically call into question all assertions". It means you follow the evidence. It means you examine the source of data and apply basic logic. So it means that a study conducted by dozens of researchers involving hundreds of subjects, with the results judged/examined by referees with knowledge in the field and no attachment to the authors can and should be given more consideration than the writings by a single individual with no credentials hawking cheesy products on their web site. Ummmm... technically, science doesn't "prove" things... what it does instead is it gathers evidence, and when the preponderance of evidence points in one direction (e.g. study after study showing vaccines are virtually safe and effective), then logically it makes sense to assume we're looking in the right direction. When it comes to vaccines (including the influenza vaccine) there is a mountain of evidence suggesting we'd be better off getting vaccinated, and nothing of consequence indicating we shouldn't. That's not a 'belief' (belief implying that you accept something without evidence). That's a logical conclusion based on the principle of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean that there haven't been mistakes in the past, or that some currently established ideas won't be overturned in the future. But when such corrections are made, they get made through proper scientific investigations, not because some scam artist selling cheesy health products manages to convince those with bad judgment of his ideas. I see... I asked Pliny this question before, but he avoided it (probably because it is one that illustrates the problems with his claims)... Do you think we should give any value to the idea that the earth is flat? After all, all evidence that we have now points to a round earth, but if your argument is that we should accept that "facts may arise that overturn our theories" then shouldn't we be teaching the 'flat earth' theory in geology class just in case evidence arises later to support it? Well, some of the things Pliny seems to post seem to suggest he doesn't believe they work at all. Once again, as I have stated many times before in this thread.... The fact that the risk was 'overblown' does not necessarily mean that vaccinations are not a 'good thing'. So, it only saves thousands of lives instead of 10s of thousands of lives. Do you think the thousands of lives were somehow not worth saving? Well, I have posted studies (oooo.... science) where they actually looked at the cost of vaccinating groups of people, and compared it to the time lost from work due to illness. The result was that money ended up getting saved by the vaccination. Plus you have the cost of hospitalization for those who become seriously ill. (And just wondering, how exactly do you put a dollar value on the suffering from those with even a 'minor' case of the flu? Or on the lives that are lost?) We have statistics from previous years. They show that people who get vaccinated end up with fewer illnesses over the course of the flu season than those who do not. I am unaware of any studies showing how the H1N1 vaccine affected illnesses (unsurprising considering how recent it all was); however A: There were studies showing it caused the required antibody reactions, and B: The method of vaccine manufacture was identical to those of previous years that showed they did reduce illness. Based on that, the most likely conclusion is that the vaccine did work. Not exactly. While the existence of foolish people who don't get vaccinated does impact herd immunity, those who do get the shot are almost universally protected (at least against the strain the vaccine contains.) They can't get the flu once protected, so they won't pass it on to others, or miss work being home sick, or waste health care resources being in the hospital on a respirator. It is not as ideal as having everyone vaccinated, but its better than nothing. First of all, while it is true that there were fewer deaths in the southern hemisphere from pandemic H1N1 than in seasonal flu in other years, it was hitting younger healthier people more than the elderly. I hate to put a value on human life, but most people would probably consider it sadder when a child dies than when a senior (who has lived a rich full life) does. Secondly, even though they had a 'mild' flu season there, there were reasons to believe that the experience in the southern hemosphere wouldn't be repeated in North America. The virus was first identified in the spring of 2009 and appeared to start in Mexico. Australia's flu season started soon after that, and given the limited time frame and relative isolation of Australia the virus might not have had time to become 'entrenched'. Compare that to North America, where we had several extra months for the virus to spread at low levels before the official start of flu season, and we had more interaction with Mexican citizens. Due to those factors, its not totally unreasonable to expect we might have more problems with the flu here up north than they did down south.

Again it appears that you're making the assumption that poverty is the primary cause and influence on the crime rate. There are a couple of things I can say about that: - Even if there is some 'urban decay' in U.S. cities, The majority of their population does not live in those areas. So, some of those places may really be hell on earth to live in, but it has minimal effect on the overall crime rate (Heck, even without an area of decay, its possible the same people would still commit the crimes, but do so in the more affluent areas.) - Even though decay is more visible in the U.S. (probably due to the higher population/larger cities), Canada is not without its downtrodden areas. (They just aren't quite pronounced as in the U.S.)

You're right, at this point there isn't. But, what is more convincing, a survey applied to multiple countries with uniform rules to allow comparisons? Or some statistics that even statscan says shouldn't be used for comparison? Correction.. it flies in the face of your preconceived stereotypes. I've already given what I think are reasonable ideas why I think the values may be the way they are. (No guarantee that they're the right ideas, but I don't think they're too out of wack. Stereotype much? Earlier on you seemed to put all your faith in the idea that the main cause of crime is poverty. Perhaps you were wrong about that particular assumption. And did you ever think that every country (even European ones) also have people within their society who could be considered 'disadvantaged'? (Heck, the level of 'poverty' in one study was between 10% and 23% in Europe, whereas the poverty level in the U.S. is between 13-17%, so there's not that much difference.) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081031102640.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

I've already given one possible reason (greater handgun availability, where guns are the most common method of homocide) why the homicide rate may not necessarily track with the rate of other violent crime. There may be others. Discounting evidence just because it doesn't fit into your stereotype doesn't sound like a very useful way to analyze data. Again, you're assuming that poverty automatically leads to violent crime. Yet if that's the case, why is their property crime lower? In fact it makes more sense that poor people would steal than commit assault/rape. Actually, the numbers do make sense...As I showed earlier, the U.S. has a smaller incidence of unreported crime, which fits in with Canada having a higher incidence of real crime, but 'official' statistics showing us to supposedly be 'safer'. Yes that's quite possible. But, don't you think the same will apply in all countries? Or are you assuming that its only in Canada that these "less serious so don't report them" situations occur? But you see, here's the problem.... there is no other data. Statscan themselves came out and said "You can't use our statistics to compare violent crime in Canada and the U.S.". Yet you seem to be doing so anyways.

Why do you continue to insist on comparing the numbers between Canada and the U.S. When statscan themselves claims the numbers cannot be used for comparison purposes? Or do you think Statscan was lying when they said: Due to significant definitional differences, it is impossible to compare sexual assault in Canada to forcible rape in the United States......Despite the fact that the American definition of “other assaults” resembles the Canadian category of level one assault, it encompasses more offences, such as injury caused by culpable negligence and intimidation. Canada scores these offences separately. Thus, it is not recommended to compare this offence http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0035x/85f0035x2001000-eng.pdf Your right, surveys can't. However, Reported Crimes don't look at unreported crimes. Amazing concept, isn't it? Ummmm... Perhaps on average their population has more respect for the police/law and order? Or perhaps stiffer penalties down there discourage move violent behavior? Maybe the higher level of handgun ownership down south provides a deterrent effect (i.e. don't break in or you'll get shot). I really don't know for sure why, but it makes a heck of a lot more sense to look at the data and try to find a cause, than it is to make a false assumption (as you seem to have done) and automatically discount any evidence that goes against that assumption. And why are you assuming that high poverty automatically leads to higher violent crime rate? After all, if people are so poor/desperate in the U.S. (as compared to Canada), then you'd also expect to see higher incidences of robberies down there as well (since people might try to steal to survive). Instead, even you have stated that Canada has more property crime.

First of all, its not the job of the statisticians to "rely on" (or use) the data. Statisticians collect the data, and its up to the politicians to use that data to set policy. Secondly, Statistics Canada does its own Victim surveys (and does so on a regular basis). Lastly, even if the statistics on crime reports are widely used, at least part of that is due to the simplicity of collecting and analyzing the data. On the other hand, surveys are likely more expensive and complicated to deal with. So at least part of the reason why 'reported crime' is so valuable is ease of collection.

So, you believe Statscan... Do you also believe their GSS victimization survey, where Statscan themselves suggests that only approximately 1/3 of all crimes ever get reported? From: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100804/nicholson-day-100804/20100804?hub=TorontoNewHome General Social Survey conducted by Statistics Canada that asks people if they've been victims of crimes and if they reported them to police. The most recent survey, conducted in 2004, showed a slight decrease, from 37 per cent to 34 per cent, in reported crimes. Or from: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/08/20/15092856.html (Note: This is an opinion column, but the numbers presented seem to be verified by other numbers) In 2004 only an estimated 34% of all crimes were reported to police, while 64% were not. For violent crime (sexual assault, robbery, physical assault), 33% of crimes were reported, 66% were not. For household crime (break and enter, motor vehicle/parts theft, theft of household property, vandalism) 37% of crimes were reported, 61% were not. For theft of personal property, 31% of crimes were reported, 67% were not. Compare that to similar work done in the U.S. which show that the rate of unreported crime in the U.S. is actually smaller than in Canada (e.g. half of all violent crime in the U.S. goes unreported, compared to 2/3s in Canada.) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/reportingtypetab.cfm And how does the number of unreported crimes in police statistics factor into things? This doesn't necessary mean that the statscan numbers are useless... they can be used to determine trends within the country over time. But they don't give a complete picture. (Neither do victimization surveys; both have drawbacks. But, given the huge number of unreported crimes, you should be a bit more skeptical of figures based on 'reported crimes'. Oh, and once again, you seem to have missed the point... even if the statscan numbers were accurate within Canada itself, its is difficult if not possible to use these numbers to compare crimes in different countries. Even statscan admits this (as I pointed out with a reference earlier.) It seems like your whole basis of your belief "Violent Crime is worse in the U.S." is based on nothing more than stereotypes that don't jive with real data.

While it makes some sense that there might be some correlation, I've already given at least one factor (eg. availability of handguns) that might cause the U.S. values to be skewed. So, since you seem to be dismissing the U.N. statistics, I still have to ask... why? (Well, other than the fact that it conflicts with your pre-conceived stereotypes.) The only excuse you gave (self-selecting leading to over-reporting) will likely affect both countries, so that's not likely to cause Canada's rate of violent crime to appear higher than the U.S. even if its lower. So what other excuses/rationalizations do you want to make?

Strangely enough, the Canadian government doesn't necessarily agree. (At least when it comes to comparing the crime rates between countries) From: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0035x/85f0035x2001000-eng.pdf Due to significant definitional differences, it is impossible to compare sexual assault in Canada to forcible rape in the United States. ... Level one assault, the most frequently occurring violent crime in Canada, is described as applying force to another person, without the presence of a weapon and without involving severe injury. Although the FBI does not have the same category, it does collect arrest data on “other assaults (simple)”. Despite the fact that the American definition of “other assaults” resembles the Canadian category of level one assault, it encompasses more offences, such as injury caused by culpable negligence and intimidation. Canada scores these offences separately. Thus, it is not recommended to compare this offence Note: This particular document does suggest that some comparisons are possible, but with a lot of conditions and some massaging of the data. Well, many of the homicides in the U.S. are hand-gun related. While the number of guns in Canada is comparable to total gun ownership in the U.S., we have a lower portion of handguns. That might be part of the higher murder rate in the U.S. Well, I told you specifically what the survey said, multiple times... I pointed out the categories it dealt with, so some of your mistakes in understanding are confusing.

Are you trying to imply the conservatives are too "left wing" to be considered "conservative", or too "right wing" (and thus out of touch with what the old Progressive Conservative party was.) Of course, it does seem like you're assuming the PCs were the 'true conservatives'. Of course, many PC leaders (e.g. Joe Clark) would probably be just as home in the Liberal party as they were in the PCs. Possibly, but then, it may just be a case of keeping the same policies and "selling" themselves better. Its possible that many Canadians may actually prefer conservative policies, but vote Liberal/NDP/Bloc for historical or other reasons. Take for example same sex marriage. At the time the Liberals brought in the law legalizing it, the majority of Canadians either opposed any sort of legal recognition, or favored the conservative idea of 'Civil Unions'. Most Canadians actually opposed the Liberal plan. (This doesn't necessarily mean I'm against gay marriage; just pointing to what the 'average' Canadian believed at the time, and how the Conservative policy was closer to what Canadians wanted.) The only important comparison is that they are Conservative compared to the Liberals and other mainstream parties. Given the fact that they have: A: increased military spending, B: killed things like the gun registry and Liberal daycare program hints that they are more 'conservative' than the other parties. (And yes, they did greatly increase spending during the economic crisis; however, given the fact that all parties wanted greater spending, it doesn't necessarily make the Conservatives less right wing than other parties.

Once again, did you actually look at the U.N. Data? From the looks of things, I'd have to say 'no'. The U.N. survey looked only at victim crime, but it provided further divisions to look at violent vs. property crime. They had separate categories for property crime, bribery (non-violent 'victim' crime), assault and sexual assault (violent crime). In each of those categories, a higher portion of Canadians are victims. And they use the same categories for each country. By the way, the term 'victim crime' is one that I kind of made up, to differentiate robberies and assaults from things like drug possession, gambling, etc. Yes we do, and according to the U.N. we also have more assaults and sexual assaults. They actually separate those crimes out!!!!

I wasn't suggesting every study regarding the H1N1 vaccine was funded by the vaccine manufacturers. The various medical organizations, governmental organizations, unions, etc., have their own interests to protect, insure and safeguard. You're right, you didn't say every study was funded by vaccine manufacturers. But what you did do was point to one study where the funding was listed and say that you wish there was "more honesty in studies". To me, that implies you were claiming that many/most studies don't disclose who funds them, which obviously is not the case. Oh, and by the way, I notice that you still haven't answered the question... Who exactly do you think should be running/paying for those tests that show vaccines are safe and effective. Claiming "People have interests to protect" doesn't answer that question. Which is irrelevant to the question about whether vaccines work. You didn't refer to the article (yet another case where you didn't provide references), but I'm going to assume that every one of those countries ahead of Canada is probably based on modern science-based principles. I see... so its some giant evil conspiracy. Got it. And were they also involved in faking the Apollo moon landing? Whenever one of these studies is done: - The studies require the use of dozens, if not hundreds of researchers. Do you really expect me to think that in study after study, not one individual has ever come through to say "I was asked to fake data to make the vaccine look better"? - There are multiple vaccine manufacturers which are often in competition, as well as other drug manufacturers. Wouldn't at least one of them step up to actually publish real studies showing vaccines are dangerous/ineffective, in order to make themselves look better? Nope, like I said before, the problem is a combination of lack of critical thinking, combined with general scientific ignorance of individuals coming out of schools. The fact is, science is hard. Nobody can be expected to be an expert in everything. If someone says "The results of the study had a confidence interval of p=0.05 in a double blind sample over the control group", most people wouldn't understand what it means. So, in that situation were best to assume the experts know what they're talking about (since I doubt most people here have taken university courses in statistics). I never said they shouldn't be kept informed. The data should be made available to everyone (and it is). Unfortunately not enough people know how to interpret it. Yes, and it also makes it easier for people to listen to people who are scam artists (like one of the people you referenced). For every reputable source like the New England Journal of Medicine, you probably have a sham source like Mercola. For every reputable news site like the NY Times, you have a site peddling conspiracy nonsense (like Alex Jones). The failure of our educational system is not so much our inability to turn people into medical experts so they can read and understand the studies, its in the inability to teach people the difference between the Times and Alex Jones, and the NEJM and Mercola. I have given study after study, with explanations about why they're relevant. I have done my best to explain why anecdotes are of no value. At some point, I have to say I've made enough of an attempt. I mentioned it as a matter of interest. Is that praising it? As a matter of fact I didn't even make note of the website in my post. You researched it and then laughingly advertised it. Ummm... not only did you mention it, but you also made a statement about how "when someone wins the $10,000 I'll take a look". Why exactly did you make that statement? Heck, why did you even bother mentioning it if you didn't have some sort of believe in its validity? I'm not a mind reader... I can only judge you by what you post. And writing a sentence about how winning a contest will somehow be convincing evidence to you certainly sounds like you consider the particular challenge to be "praise worthy". If you want to complain about how I'm abrasive, then fine. But my ability or inability to be "nice" does not actually have any relevance to the facts. Actually, no she didn't really want to help the poor. Mother Theresa was one of the biggest scam artists around. She and her charities collected millions of dollars (more than enough to fund modern medical centers), yet her 'clinics' were nothing more than cots in an empty room. The money she collected largely disappeared into general church revenues. And when people went to her 'clinics', they often died of easily treatable conditions because she didn't actually bother, you know, having patients treated. She was, in short, a very nasty piece of work, who just happened to have a good publicist. And yes, she was quite concerned about her image.

See the Macleans article I've posted in a new thread. Ummm... First of all, while I'm sure the author of that article may be quite happy with what he's written, it still is just an opinion piece, certainly nothing that should be considered definitive proof of anything. Secondly, even if I wanted to challenge the author, I don't have the ability to engage him in any sort of debate. You, on the other hand, posted a reference to his work with the idea that you supported his writings. Therefore, it is up to you to either defend his work, or admit that you cannot defend what he wrote. Lastly, even if I wanted to use that article as some sort of 'proof', it doesn't go into enough detail over many of thie issues. So, tell me, why are you assuming that the 'experts' are correct in their belief that safe injection sites reduce crime, when the police have come out and said they've increased police presence in that area? Wouldn't the higher number of officers explain the drop in crime in the area? Ummm... I've already explained that multiple times. The U.N. numbers use the same methodology to compare the crime rates in both countries. On the other hand, statistics reported by the U.S. or Canadian governments may use different methods for classifying/reporting crimes, making comparisons difficult. The article (and by extension you) have implied that "experts" believe that the crime rate is not lowered due to harsher penalties. Yet the U.S. does not have things like mandatory release (and other elements that make our criminal system seem lenient) and according to the U.N. numbers their crime rate is lower than ours.

Well, that may be, and that may not be. We can't really say. You're right, there are problems with both the U.N. reported statistics and the police-reported statistics. Once again, you're assuming that your statistics (i.e. ones that come from the police) are correct and the statistics I've provided (from the U.N. survey, that show Canada also leads in violent crime) are the incorrect ones. However, I have already given one possible reason why your statistics might be wrong (i.e. different countries will have different ways to classify and report various crimes). The only reason you gave for my statistics to be wrong (i.e. over-reporting based on self-selection) would not justify dismissing the U.N. statistics because its likely the same self-selection will happen in both countries. Ummmm... I'm not disagreeing that crime is going down. And those particular surveys don't suggest that either. Did you even look at the data? Those surveys are valid for only one period of time (the early 2000s, when they were taken). They do not make any attempt to track crime over any particular time period. (The studies are recent enough, in my opinion, to give them at least some relevance to today.)

Is that because some people worried about police more than criminals? I think its because reporting crimes is often seen as a hassle (or even an embarrassment.) A person may not want to take time out of their schedule to say "I was robbed of $20"; however, filling out a survey might be seen as a way of getting at least a tiny bit of justice (i.e. "At least I told someone!") without the hassle of filling out a police report. And a person who has been robbed will be more eager to fill out a survey about crime than someone who hasn't. However, as I stated in another post, the main value (at least to me) in this survey is the ability to compare crime in the 2 countries.

There may indeed be some truth to that. (I'm not sure of the exact form of the survey, whether crime was asked as an isolated fashion or part of a larger survey.) But, we're talking about comparing crime statistics between countries. Even if the survey resulted in an over reporting of crime, you'd expect that both the U.S. and Canada would have similar issues with the over-reporting. Unless of course you have a reasonable explanation about why one country would have a higher degree of over-reporting than another. In other words, if both Canada's and the U.S. figures are over-reported by 10%, and Canada's numbers are higher than the U.S. numbers, once the numbers are corrected Canada's should still be higher than the U.S. numbers.