segnosaur

Here are all the 'problems' with your arguments... - You are incorrectly assuming that such government-run daycare facilities are set up to benefit low income people. Yet if you look at the Quebec experience, what has been found is that a huge number of subsidized spaces are taken up by financially successful couples who could probably afford their own day care - You are also assuming that anyone in 'low income' jobs would be able to actually make use of such government daycare. However, many low income jobs involve working hours outside the traditional 9-5 schedule. (Food service work, janatorial jobs, etc. often involve working evening shifts). Anyone working such a job would likely not be able to use government-run day care (yet they would be forced to subsidize the daycare of others, many of whom earn more, because even low-income people pay taxes) - People against government-run day care (note: I'm not just saying conservatives; I'm more libertarian and have the same opinion) are not against helping people with their child care... we just want the money to go to the parents themselves (so they can make their own decisions) through tax cuts, rather than being filtered through a large (and often extremely inefficient) organization like the government.

Ummm... I think you missed the most important part of the article, where it stated: The Canadian Labour Congress has given the federal government and most of the provinces a poor grade . Given the rather obvious socialistic bias that a group like the Canadian Labour Congress has, I'd be rather skeptical of any of their results. (Unfortunately, the article doesn't contain any sort of link to a more detailed analysis, such as how exactly they weighted the given subsidy vs. number of daycare spaces, whether they counted private or family-provided care, etc.) Actually, the attitude seems to be no government-money for daycare. Some people have this strange concept that people should have both the right and responsibility to make their own choices regard child care, and that having a government-subsidized system does not necessarily provide the best solution. After all, the subsidy money comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is from the pockets of the taxpayer. Why not simply cut taxes and let people use their tax savings to find their own daycare solutions?

Not too much of a 'secret'... its been discussed in Congress, and debates on the security agreement have apparently been broadcast on C-SPAN. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=996 http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/inde...cts_id=205824-1

At the risk of derailing the thread... The Taliban did offer to turn bin Laden over, but NOT to the U.S.... they demanded he be turned over to a 'neutral' 3rd country. Given the fact that al Qaeda's attacks were directed at the U.S., and that most of the victims on 9/11 were U.S. citizens, and that the attack occurred on U.S. soil, I certainly don't think its out of line for the U.S. to expect bin Laden to be subject to the legal processes of the country that was most affected by the crimes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/1...stan.terrorism5

Actually, the code of military justice actually does allow (in fact it even requires) a soldier to disregard orders, if the orders themselves are illegal. (See: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw...eyingorders.htm ) Here's the problem though... the soldier who fled to Canada was not disregarding a specific order. He was not asked to fire on (knowingly) innocent people, he was not asked to torture prisoners, he was not asked to kick a puppy dog. Those are all orders that he would be correct in refusing. However, refusing deployment because he disagrees with with his country's role in the conflict is outside his mandate. Give me a specific illegal action that he was asked to do, then maybe you'd have a point. The vast majority of soldiers in Iraq have likely never killed an innocent person (even by accident, much less deliberately), have never tortured anyone, or have engaged in anything considered 'illegal'.

Deleted double post

Now wait a second... On one hand, some people are suggesting that this person was right to desert his posting in Iraq because of the illegality of war, etc. Now, you're claiming that some people are just uninformed. You see, here's the problem... you can't have it both ways. Either this guy is intelligent enough to interpret international law and politics in order to determine that the war and invasion is immoral/illegal/something to avoid, in which case he would have been intelligent enough to know about the possibility that they may be called to serve in a war they may disagree with. or This person truly was naive (or a moron) and had no idea that the military might actually require him to fight... in which case, why does he think he's qualified to judge the merits of the Iraq war? (Keep in mind Remiel that I never claimed that you yourself had such conflicting views, only that various supporters of this particular deserter have made these claims over time.)

Ah yes, so now that your arguments have demolished, you've decided to nitpick on your wording. Actually, I do understand the difference between killed and murdered... in general, a killing is not considered 'murder' if there are certain extenuating circumstances (such as self defense.) Don't think killing 'innocent' people would be considered self defense now, would it? Legally, its also considered murder even if the death is accidental, if it occurs during the commission of another crime. (And you were the one claiming the occupation was 'illegal'). Ok, so lets say you do somehow manage to differentiate a 'killing' in Iraq done by soldiers, and a 'murder'. That doesn't really help your case at all, since every conflict that has ever happened has resulted in innocent people dying. How can he contemplate being involved in any military action if the 'killing' of innocent people must be avoided at all cost? Why is an innocent life in (lets say) Kosovo, or Grenada, or Korea, or Panama, or Somalia, or Afghanistan considered less valuable than an innocent life in Iraq?

I never said she didn't say it either... True, you didn't... my post was more directed at American Woman, who made the claim " I never said Americans were "murdering" innocent Iraqis.". Just that you responded to her first. (I do love pointing it out when people make such blatant contradictions.)

First of all, lawyers are not the ones who make the final decision about what constitutes legality/illegality. Its decided by whatever courts and/or legal mechanisms exist in the particular jurisdiction. Wouldn't matter if every lawyer in Canada said "Person x is guilty"... he's only declared guilty when the courts rule it so. Secondly, just because a war is pre-emptive does not make it illegal or immoral. For example, NATO operations in Kosovo were not done as a response to actual threats on the U.S. and its allies, but in order to protect the civilian populations. (In the same way, the western world should have gotten involved in Rwanda to prevent the massacres there.) Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, any suggestion that the solder "didn't believe" the U.S. would wage a preemptive war shows a complete lack of knowledge of world history. In the past 30 years, the U.S. has engaged in large scale military operations in Granada, Panama, and Eastern Europe (not to mention smaller scale operations in places like Libya, Sudan, and Afghanistan). None of those operations were supported by the U.N., and indeed some of them received significant international condemnation. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of world history over the past 3 decades would be well aware that the U.S. government is willing to engage in military operations even when its territories are not being threatened. Your questions have now been answered, although I doubt you'll be truly satisfied now that your arguments have been destroyed.

Never said you did. Actually, American Woman actually did say that, in her post from June 4, at 11:58 AM: Canada is in effect sending these soldiers out to kill innocent Iraqis.

HA! Then you are admitting that those three buildings were designed to withstand (not fall, not burn to the ground) a hit by large aircraft! OR you admit that they were they specifically designed to fall (tickety boo into their own footprints right)? This is a little off topic, but since the thread was basically created by someone spamming on behave of the Canadian action party, I don't feel too guilty about mentioning this... The WTC was designed to handle a collision with a 707 that was low on fuel and flying slow (as in the case of it searching for the airport in a fog). It was not designed to handle a collision with larger planes (like the 767) which were flying at higher speeds, with a full load of fuel.

Ok, the first mistake you made in your post is that you are cherry-picking your examples. Yes, its quite possible that wages in the automotive sector may go down (although, as another poster has already suggested, troubles in the automotive sector may be due to issues outside of free trade.) However, there are other sectors of the economy where wages may actually go up with free trade. (I'm thinking of the high-tech sector, where some companies have moved tech support jobs to Canada.) In fact, if you look at the statistics, our average hourly wage is increasing (rising 4% in the past year), and that includes wage increases in the manufacturing sector. (If NAFTA were actually destroying our jobs, I doubt you'd see such an increase.) http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/labr69a.htm The second mistake you made is assuming that our standard of living depends only on absolute wages. However, it does not. It also depends on the cost of goods and services that you may purchase. Even if wages stay flat (or even decrease) our standard of living will not decrease (and may actually increase) if prices also decrease. This is what happens when you can import items cheaper than you can produce them here.

Oh, so it's the workers' fault that they build gas guzzlers? Is it also the worker's fault that management is so slow to act and change what is produced? Nah! Can't BE! Management is never wrong -- it's the workers fault -- they should have FORCED management to change production to smaller vehicles. Darn those workers only wanting to build big SUV's! Ummm... I suggest you go back and read M.Dancer's original post... in it, he explicitely points out that bad management and poor planning are part of the problem. He even lists them before he mentions the problems with unionization. The other problem with your response is that you are assuming some sort of false dichotomy... that it is either management or labor at fault. Ever think that perhaps both have lead to current problems? While management may make mistakes, labor problems also contribute the the problems. I could also point out that, at least until recently, the profit margins on SUVs was signficantly higher than on smaller sedans. Is it a bad business decision to build vehicles that give higher per-unit profits?

Shouldn't that be Paul Hellyer? (Not that it really matters...) Don't forget the current Canada Action Party has actually expressed belief in various 9/11 conspiracy theories. http://canadianactionparty.ca/911.htm

This was actually the second time the child had been through chemo. At this point, the doctors are suggesting that if he continues chemo, he'd have an 85% chance of survival. Without chemo, he'd be dead. The child (only 11 years old if I remember correctly, and possibly mentally handicapped), has decided to try to treat his cancer using "natural" remedies, such as oregeno and green tea. The article suggested it was the child who made the decision (and the parents supported him), but its also possible that the parents influenced his decision.. So, there are 2 basic issues at play here.... - Does taking such "natural" cures actually help? It should be pointed out that not one person who believes in natural cures has managed to give one single scientific study, from a peer reviewed journal, that shows green tea and oregeno is useful in combating cancer. While that doesn't necessarily mean that such treatments are ineffective, anyone with at least a little logical reasoning ability will view such 'cures' as hogwash. - Does a child of that age have the mental capacity to make such a decision. At that age, they may not understand the concept of 'death' (never having been exposed to it), may not comprehend what the short and long term effects are.

Not exactly accurate... What contributes most to global warming is how many kids you have. You could be the most eco-minded person on the world, eating only veggies, walking everywhere, and using compact flourecent bulbs, but you will STILL end up causing at least some CO2 emissions. And if you have children, they will also contribute to CO2 emissions. After a couple of generations, the amount of CO2 released by a vegitarian and all of its descendants will swamp the emissions of an SUV-driving carnivourous lumberjack who strangles bunnies as a hobby, but chooses not to have any children.

First of all, 'snake handlers' aren't necessarily looking to get bit... simply handling the snakes is typically enough. Secondly, snake handlers have also died from the practice... A judge ruled Friday that grandparents will share the custody of five children whose parents both died handling snakes during church services. (from http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/12/snake.bite.family/index.html) A woman who was bitten by a snake at a church that neighbors say practices serpent handling died of her wounds hours later (from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-1...e_x.htm?csp=34) And these were experienced snake handlers, people who supposedly "know how to handle snakes'... Yup... I'm convinced how safe and beneficial snake handling is.... I suppose it would be asking too much for you to actually provide any proof (real proof, from a reputable journal) that such alternative treatment (such as snake venom) is actually useful in the treatment of cancer, when the snake bite is administered naturally (i.e. where its actually a snake bite, rather than treatments where certain components are extracted from the venom). Ummm... this is NOT the same as a breatharian. In your story, they reintroduced food... obviously the researchers realized that food was necessary, because they eventually began to reintroduce the food. Breatharians believe that no food is ever required, and in some cases food is somehow toxic to the body. As such, a breatharian parent would not only take away all food, but they would never reintroduce ANY food. So would you be OK with that? After all, it IS the parents that are making the decision. The parents may honestly believe that food is not needed and it is best to go without forever in order to cure their child. That's still an incredibly retarded argument. That's a bit like saying if you took all the Millionaires in Canada, those in the bottom 50% of all millionaires are somehow poor. Doesn't work that way. Being in the lower half of a group where selection criteria is especially stringent STILL makes a person more qualified than your average non-doctor.

The difference is, I can actually provide evidence that I am alive. Ever hear of project Steve? Its a petition, run by the National Center for Science Education, which is signed only by people named Steve (or some variant, like Stephen, or Stephanie). The list has over 800 people who have signed the list. Only about 1% of the U.S. population is named Steve, so that works out to approximately 80,000 total scientists (most of whom work in biology or other fields where knowledge of the age of the universe is relevant). On the other hand, creationists have published their own lists of people who deny evolution. The longest list I've ever seen has about 200 names. That works out to be 1/4% of the total. (And the creation list typically contain many engineers, mathematicians, etc. who do not actually work in any field where they would be exposed to actual research dealing with evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve Actually, the best bible experts are probably atheists. After all, many former believers become atheists after they read the bible and start to recognize the flaws in it. Actually, I have talked to 'so called' experts in the past... most use the same types of excuse that you do, either "it was written by man" or "its something symbolic", yet none could ever actually point out any way that they could adequately differentiate the parts that were 'accurate' and what could be dismissed. Actually, have you ever heard of the term 'opportunity costs'? It refers not to the absolute cost of something, but the cost of what must be given up. If you buy a new car, the price tag may be $20,000, but the true measure of the cost is what you WON'T be able to do when you spend that much money on a car... perhaps vacations or home renovations that you won't be able to do, or delaying retirement. That's what I'm referring to with the 'cost' of religion... Many people wouldn't "enjoy" church if they found out there was no such thing as heaven, or a 'soul'. Contradiction. If you have 'proof', then you don't have faith. Faith implies belief with no evidence. Of course, you do realize that at one point you made the claim that there were no inconsistencies? What exactly does it say about your ability to look at things logically when one of the central tenants of your belief (the bible is perfect) is demonstrated to be false? Do you look rationally at things? No, you assume your dogma is still correct and find some way to argue around the point. Lets see... you claim that the bible is perfect; I point out the flaws in the bible. And YOUR telling ME I haven't looked at the bible enough? If you really looked at the bible, wouldn't you have known about those problems before you made your claim? Actually, its more than just a 'few inconsistencies'. There are literally hundreds of flaws in the bible. I just pointed out a few that would be less likely to be argued as "oh, that's just a misinterpretation". Who claimed the bible was 'based on fact' (well, perhaps other than you). The bible DOES mention real people and locations that actually existed in the bible. But then, so do the Harry Potter books. The authors simply incorporated stuff that was real when they were generating their myths and fantasies. That doesn't make the myths any truer. Amazing... just wonder what the poster here thought he'd get by posting on the forums to begin with. I guess his dogma was unable to handle being challenged, so he finds it necessary to run away.

PETA is perhaps the biggest group of hypocrites to ever come down the turnpike, and I rather suspect if most of its supporters knew just what the group has actually been doing they would run away in the opposite direction. Lets look at some of the things PETA stands for and has done: - They want an end to the use of animals in medical treatment. Yet many PETA members benefit from such treatments developed in the past. Remember Pamela Anderson? She's one of the big spokespeople for PETA. She also has Hepatitis C, which is often treated with Interferon, a drug developed using things like rabbits and chicken eggs during research. (And any famous person who supports both PETA and AIDS research is in serious conflict of interest.) - They complained when someone created PETA-named website dedicated to things like hunting (called People for Eating Tasty Animals), yet had no problem creating their own websites using the KFC name - Approximately 2/3rds of the animals left with PETA were euthanized. - PETA also has given money to certain radicals who have been convicted of blowing up (as in terrorism) science labs used in animal testing

No! You are simply trying to use my points for your own personal gain! You were one of the people who made claims about the successes of 'alternative' treatments. If you were providing claims, then the source of your evidence should be able to withstand scrutiny. I'm willing to listen. But for me to actually accept your claims you have to provide evidence. You have not done so, outside of irrelevant anecdotes. Actually, yes I can be proven wrong... provide just one proper, double blind study in a scientific journal that shows that certain alternative cures have a significant success rate (in curing cancer). Just one. Given the fact that there are probably millions of people who have tried such alternatives, and probably thousands of alternative health care practicitioners (not to mention the millions spent by people on such alternative cures) you figure at least one study would have shown results. You are right in that you can't prove a negative. You also can't prove that there's an invisible pink unicorn living in my sock drawer. But, what you can do is use a principle called Occam's razor... basically, the simplest answer is usually the right one. So, what's more likely... that after many decades that 'alternatives' have been around there are no reliable studies showing success because such methods have no success, or because, despite all the hype, money, and users of alternative medicines nobody has bothered publishing anything. You see, that is a big difference between your position and mine... Mine is a logical, scientific position... I can be proven wrong with just ONE proper study. You, regardless of how long you wait for someone to show actual scientific studies showing success, will always claim its 'out there', just like the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot. Getting treatment with something that doesn't work is the same as having no treatment. Actually, if they're cancer free for 5 years, they'll likely be cancer free for a lot longer. 5 years is just given as a standard marker Still, even if the chemo makes them feel horrible for a half year, feeling bad for a few months and then living the next 5 years pain and disease free is a lot better than dying in a few weeks because you somehow think you can be cured by a good italian dinner. Yes, I'm sure they would. And if its an adult, let them decide what they want to endure. But, when you're dealing with a child, they are less likely to understand the concept of time (i.e. how long they'll feel bad before they get better), nor are they able to grasp the concept of death (I doubt many kids that age have even SEEN a dead body.) The plural of anecdotes is not data. You MAY have had a bad doctor. Or you may have actually had a great doctor who was just dealing with a disease that could not be treated well, and didn't properly communicate what was happening. The internet is only a reliable source of information when people actually go to reputable web sites. Heck, if I wanted to, for the cost of a domain registration and a server I could create a web site with any bogus claim that I wanted. I could say that eating raw chicken lips cures AIDS. Wouldn't matter if its true... wouldn't matter if I even believed it myself. But just because its on the internet does not mean that its true. As for books... I've already explained about these... Book publishers are not always willing or able to validate 'scientific' claims made by the authors. You can find books claiming UFOs, Big Foot, and the Loch Ness monster exist, and publishers will have no problem printing and selling them. Or, it could be that they recognize the problem with your ears or throat as a viral infection, for which most treatments would be a problem (and in some cases counterproductive). The rest of your description of how cancer works was bunk as well. If there are 'better treatments', then please post a reference to a scientific study appearing in a proper peer reviewed journal which describes the treatment and its success rate. You know, I have to wonder if there are people in the U.S. who are making the same claims... "Canada has these wonderful cures but they're not available here". It reminds me of the people who claim there is some magical car engine that runs on gasoline, or proof of aliens in area 51... the evidence is always "out there", even though they've never actually seen it. I never claimed that they did know what other people want. But, the vast majority of doctors ARE knowledgeable in what the effects of certain treatments will be, and what the effects of not having treatment will be. If the parent really is too stupid or ignorant to make the right decision, then yes, it is right to take them away. I've asked this question before, but as of yet nobody has responded.... What if the parents were snake handlers? Perhaps they believed by handling snakes it would purify the child's soul and have him cured? Or what if they were breatharians? (People who believe you can survive on air alone, and in some cases food was 'toxic' to the body.) Would you be willing to let the child starve because the parents made a decision (based on their own knowledge and beliefs) that the best course of treatment would be to let the child go without eating for as long as possible (or until the child dies)?

What a retarded statement. Really, it is. Even a doctor in the lower half of his class has to know a lot more about medicine than your average non-medical person. And even if there were a 'god glass', being in the lower half of the 'god class' still makes a person a god. Again, another retarded (and in this case arrogant) assumption. What makes you think that you're any better at judging a person's quality of life? After all, all you can judge is what you've experienced. And since you are unable to predict the future, you have absolutely no way to determine how you (or anyone else) will react in the future. At least the doctor will have likely been exposed to people who have experienced various diseases and treatments. Keep in mind that they may consent to the use of herbal medicines, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they think they will actually work. I have a friend who's a doctor... they were taught in class not to talk negatively about any alternative treatment. Not necessarily because those alternative treatments actually do anything to heal the body, but because they keep the patient happy and content while the doctor administers the REAL cure.

You know, I think you may actually be arguing against your own point... You're right in that most non-medical people probably don't know what chemo or Ritalin does... that's why the advice of doctors should be weighed more heavily than the advice of non-medical people who heard about some friend of a relative who had roughly the same disease (but different) and treated it in some other way... (Pointing out the lack of knowledge of non-medical people doesn't really help your "doctors are not gods/people should take control of their own treatment" arguments.) Uhh... no. that's not the way chemotherapy works. The cancer doesn't "think". It doesn't do anything to "abandon" the body. Cancer is, for the most part, uncontrolled growth of a person's own cells. (Your body naturally replaces cells which die. But in cancer, the mechanism that tells the body "we only need to replace certain cells" becomes damaged, and as a result it starts generating more cells than are needed for replacement.) Cancer chemotherapy tries to target the fastest reproducing cells, although the drugs used can't always perfectly identify the cancerous growth from the body's required cell reproduction. Chemotherapy is not meant to "bring a person closer to death". The negative side effects of the drugs are basically a side effect, due to the current inability to perfectly identify the cancerous cells from the non-cancerous. Not exactly a good analogy. Hundreds of years ago (when they were bleeding patients) we weren't really using the scientific method... our medical treatments were wrapped up in various superstitions. Its only been in the past hundred years or so that we've actually been using things like double blind studies and proper statistics to actually determine the effectiveness of certain treatments. You're right, there are no guarantees. But, medicine, in a large part comes down to numbers. Through actual real studies we know that certain treatments have a high probability of working, and other treatments have no chance of working. But given a chance, something with an 85% chance of working (resulting in a long term, pain free survival) should be tried, if the alternative is death (even if you can't be sure you'll be in the 85% that get cured or the 15% that don't get cured). Its certainly not the random "hit and miss" that you seem to make it out to be. And you're right... in the future, as medical technology advances (and we come up with better cures) we may look at chemo as horrendous. But that doesn't mean that using chemo today is wrong... it is (in many cases) the best course of cancer treatment that we have today. (If they find a way in the future that will cure 99% of cancer that the boy had in the opening post, that doesn't mean that our treatments that cure 85% of the cancer are wrong, when they're compared to the 0% cure rate of the alternatives.)

What makes you think that? After all, doctors DO have to study the side effects of various treatments. And they've likely seen multiple people in the same circumstances. I'd expect them to have a better idea of what the quality of life will be than someone who's only experience with cancer is a second had story from someone who didn't even have the same type of cancer.

Doctors may not be god, but they ARE the most likely to be knowledgeable about the risks associated with various forms of treatment. As such, if the doctor says "doing X gives a high chance of being cured, doing Y will cause you to die", there is a better chance of their statements being correct than some layperson. So, just how far does your idea of 'free choice' go? I asked this of someone else but they never answered... what if a child is convinced by their parent that handling poisonous snakes is the best option? Think a preschool kid will be able to separate what he's taught by his (deluded) parents and what the real risks are? I see... and your basing your assessment on what exactly? Are you a mind reader? How exactly can you tell that a child understands that if he stops treatment he will be dead? Have most kids that age ever even SEEN a dead body? And did you ever think that perhaps being terrified may actually be the right reaction in certain circumstances (as long as it doesn't cause someone to make unwise decisions)? If I'm told I have cancer, I WILL be scared, because I know what exactly that could mean if its not handled properly.