Kitch

He... she? is saying that economists use the fundamental assumption that the economy is independent of... the Earth as they analyze the economy. That resources are not finite, that human actions do not affect nature which in turn affect humans and their actions. The problem is that this dissociation assumption leads to the assumption that markets can grow indefinitely. Which simply cannot be true.

Fair enough. I too have heard the word agnostic used to mean someone who doesn't think there's a god... but just in case... Well, I want to defend Dawkins on this. He's a Popperian scientist in that he believes in the scientific method. Karl Popper said that hypotheses are scientific if, and only if, they are, at least in principle, refutable. The hypothesis that a god exists is not refutable, so Dawkins is careful to claim any 'proof'. In reality, according to Popper (and I agree), you can't prove anything to be true. Science is about conjectures and refutations (hence the name of his book). So I'm also suspicious of this Stenger guy if he claims that he can 'prove' that god doesn't exist... although, maybe I'm just not at a level at which I can comprehend a piece of evidence that would refute the existence of a god. You've articulated my impressions about Maher before I could understand them myself! Thanks! Do you think that this view (his) is one that is helpful to the progress of... society? I think it's a step in the right direction, but I feel like war should be more or less viewed under one lens, if that makes sense.

There are people, including myself, trying to have conversations about specific ideas and people keep infecting every thread with this crying match about who's the worse political party... Are these forums always like that or will it become more interesting after the election?

I don't think that this is TOTALLY fair... he does interview some people set in some messed up ways (in my opinion) but he does talk to some people who are critical of religion in a reasonable way. He speaks with a few priests, including one from the Vatican (I could be mistaken about whether he still works there or not). It's not quite a Michael Moore (of old) documentary in which he puts a slant on things that is opposite but equally one-sided to the mainstream media (which is useful, I think... and I think that's the goal of guys like Moore. To propagandize just like the media but from a different perspective).

Very good point. But does a person need to be an economist to understand those concepts? I would assume one could take a first year economics course and be informed enough... perhaps with a little bit of real world experience! (JUST A QUESTION/OPINION for the conservatives that will be all over me with illogical statements and attacks on my naivety!!).

By the way, what the hell do my qualifications have to do with anything? Anything that YOU said in that sentence in particular?

Challenge me all you want, but I must admit, you said a LOT but only really made valid (but inaccurate) comments about the use of ONE of my two analogies. Mind you, I actually did say that this was my opinion about the definitions of two words... I never claimed anything to be the "truth". Nor did I pretend that my teacher analogy holds true absolutely. I KNOW what I said was a generalization. I REALLY don't mean to be insulting, but maybe you're so used to discussing these types of things in the quasi-debate fashion on Canadian politics which allow for illogical statements and logical fallacy. No offense intended... just read a little more carefully please. Who are you to ridicule me for asking a sincere question, that was as unbiased as can be, after giving me a lesson on the origins of the word 'liberal'? And your analysis of education in Canada is ridiculous. Are you a teacher? Involved with schools? Perhaps you have kids that are in schools? Well, none of that matters because what you said doesn't actually have anything to do with what I said about CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT! (Which is a nice way of saying dealing with and preventing misbehaviour). Teachers are members of a union and can't not be... which isn't true... only if they want to work in a publicly funded school, and there's a reason for it and it has to do with parents. The ministry dictates the curriculum... which is only partly true. I forget what else you said, but do either of these points have ANYTHING to do with how teachers manage their classroom? I AM one of the teachers who dislikes the limited freedom I have in terms of what I teach... which is not all THAT limited. Teachers in public schools need unions to back them when parents bring ridiculous lawsuits against them, and it does happen. There are other reasons, but that's a big one. Does that mean that we feel so restricted that we turn around and police our students? Why would that make sense? And how about you pick a course and pick up a curriculum document from the ministry... if you want I can send you a pdf of any one you want. I don't like them, but they don't restrict me as much as you seem to think they do. My analogy defined two types of teachers (fully knowing that there's a spectrum and some that don't even fit on it!!!); those who believe that students OUGHT to behave all the time, and REACT when they don't, and those who KNOW that students will sometimes misbehave and so do what they can to prevent it/minimize distractions. They're not perfect descriptions of conservatives and liberals, but they're close and I DO go further with MY definitions, if you care to read my first post again. What do you think of my home owner analogy? Is that unfair? By the way, don't rely on the media or hearsay about schools and how they work. You won't get an accurate picture. In fact, don't even take MY word! Compile many teacher opinions if you want an accurate idea. It just makes sense.

He could have worn a sign on his head that stated his rank and I wouldn't have remembered because I could care less. He is most certainly not a whack job... he actually holds a lot of views that you conservatives would jerk off to. I had MANY a discussion with him about the differences between left and right. He offered this information... that I apologize that I didn't take clear notes on last winter... as something for me to think about as it's something that doesn't sit entirely well with him. He knows what he did there was good for the people of Afghanistan (whether I agree with that or not), but this was something that he disliked. You know, I wasn't throwing this out there to be refuted by people who are so sensitive about Harper. In fact, I even said I don't know which government sent our troops there. It doesn't really matter to me. The fact is that they're there and I don't know if I like that or not. I was throwing it out there as something the guy who started the thread could consider... fully knowing that I couldn't provide him with any citation. Take it for what it's worth! Mr. Alta actually DID say something that might be helpful... he said that it was Paul Martin who sent the troops there... bla bla bla. Well, that wouldn't refute my story but it shows that my reasons for suggesting to not vote for Harper aren't valid! But WOW. Even the guy who said that can't pick that out as an important point to make initially. I don't give a damn if a couple of right wing clowns want to try to downplay my story by saying that I made it up. I'd LOVE for you both to try and have an intelligent conversation in one of the other threads... difference between a liberal and conservative... maybe? But, Mr. Alta simply can't.

Ridiculous. Not refuted = still possible

Ya, you sound wise. I will follow you. Good advice by the way. 'Older people are smarter, so you young people don't need to bother thinking about what you're doing, just vote as we do because we know better. And if you DO think about it, unless you reach the same conclusions as us, you're stupid'. Lead the way bud.

Bud, are you pissed because I won't sympathize with you because you got a bad grade on a paper? Boo hoo. I'm not sure of my buddy's rank... all I know is that he's not a young man and told me many stories of his 'adventures'. How does wikipedia refute anything? That's a 2nd or 3rd hand account on your part. You do know what a wiki is right? Either way, the absence of information does not refute any claims, especially not in this case. How COULD one refute my 1st claim? It's irrefutable I believe. It's not mutually exclusive... nor is ANY motivating factor. You COULD refute the fact that NATO or the UN pays countries for having troops in certain conflicts, but you haven't done that. The reason that you haven't done that, I PRESUME (see, I don't pretend to know things that I can't REALLY know), is that you're too busy being mad at me because you can't say anything intelligent in the other thread and I called you on it... and your grammar. Made it up... don't let your feelings get in the way of your judgement. It doesn't lead to sound logic.

Dude, you have nothing insightful to say. Weak attempts at ad hominem attacks do little to further discussions and only serve to make you look dumber than you might actually be.

I wrote about the social/political perspectives, not the parties. I don't give a rats ass about the stupid, childish quasi-debate about the parties.

Are you really trying to discuss the quality of your paper? As if I know your professor, as if you know what was going on in their head when they graded it (assuming he/she didn't flat out tell you that you were being discriminated against for a belief), as if I read your paper. Man, give your head a shake. I don't give a damn about your paper. I made my statement because you replied to a well thought out, well balanced attempt at defining a couple of words by whining about a paper you wrote. You got a bad grade on a paper so liberals are bad? So that refutes my analogy? Wow

The fact that I mistook some of the aspects of what I was told... rather forgot or didn't care about those details at the time... does NOT disprove my source. It's not an accusation... and I'm guessing your buddies' rankings aren't all that high. Nice try though dude.

The problem with that is economists are trained using fundamental assumptions that are ridiculous. Unless he is a truly insightful man, an economist is the last person I'd want to be in charge of all that tax money. Have a read about some of the beef with the text book that many universities use by Greg Mankiw. Apparently, resources are not finite, happiness increases proportionally with income, people are ALWAYS rational and will always make decisions that result in the lowest cost and greatest gain. Now, I'm a science guy. My understanding of economics is... basic, and my exposure to this guy's book is second hand (through things I've read trashing it). So feel free to slam me if I've said something you dislike. Also, because I'm a science guy, I DO have an understanding of the way the natural world works that is most definitely not separated from our social (economic) systems... so I know I'm not way off.

I was privileged to meet a guy who is/was a Captain in the Canadian military. He told me some things and told me that if I knew more things that I'd be disgusted with our government. Think about the government's reasons for our presence in Afghanistan. I can't remember if it was the conservatives or Martin's liberals that changed our role from being peace keepers to an actual combat role... if it even makes a difference! Either way, any justification about our presence there is based on helping the Afghans and for our own security. Although, the only thing that I can really recall hearing is a conspicuously similar proclamation of improved success toward our goal... an ill defined goal mind you. ANYWAY, I was told that the only reason we're there is because 1. it helps give us an international voice and 2. the UN pays us $1000/day/soldier if we keep them there. The soldiers apparently get a fraction of this while the government pockets it. I can't support this claim any further than I have... sorry! If anyone KNOWS this to be untrue, go nuts and refute my words... but the burden of disproof will lay on your shoulders! How hypocritical huh?! Well, this is definitely not 'support' for our troops, which is something very important to many conservatives. I say support troops, not war... but that's just me. I don't think it's prudent to send citizens into an American war in order to be taken seriously by other countries who would only take us seriously if we're willing to send our citizens to war. So, I suggest that you vote for a party that doesn't have such little respect for the people that they give uniforms and guns to, the worst of which being Harper's conservatives.

So if the public was opposed to media consolidation they'd have to refrain from being a member of the audience for that company. Makes sense. But how does the average audience member get information about media consolidation? The only reason that I've learned a LITTLE bit about it is because it's something that I'm interested in. The average person would have no reason to suspect that anything has changed with their favourite TV station. Thus, the narrowing of the scope of opinions broadcast on media airwaves goes unnoticed. So then our culture and ideas can be shaped... we could even have a "Wag the Dog" scenario and few people would be the wiser... and those that were would be ridiculed for holding 'fringe' opinions and believing "conspiracy theories". The WHOLE point of bringing up media consolidation was to say that a right wing agenda could be the dominant source of information in our media today, resulting in an absence of criticism (serious criticism) for such an agenda. It's possible... given what all of you have said with regard to how media corporations work. Very possible.

Being a teacher, I can't STAND to see kids growing up with a disinterest in thinking... about anything! I try to create assignments/activities that stimulate their brains in such a way to improve their critical thinking skills. However, I am only one teacher and not all students can or will be reached. I believe that it is this unwillingness/inability to THINK before acting that results in voter apathy amongst the young. I am CONVINCED that they're simply not asked to or don't need to think and thus DON'T. So, any interests that they may have go uncared for because they don't bother to figure out for themselves what those interests are OR they don't give themselves what little voice they are entitled to by voting (not that I think voting is the only or even most important voice). On the other hand, many of the elderly that I have encountered in my life display an equal disinterest in thinking and simply vote for the party that they have always voted for or their parents always voted for. I'm not sure which is worse, but either way, what a terrible state of democracy.

I did my best to describe what the difference is between a liberal and a conservative and few people challenged me, so I guess I did a decent job. I'd like to ask people to define socialism in an equally fair way. A lot of conservative people seem to imply that socialism is to them what capitalism is to the extreme lefties. What, exactly, is it, and why is it so bad? (It'd help me if you use a comparison... like a free market or mixed market or whatever is a reasonable comparison).

Do polls actually help people decide who they want to vote for, or are those who speculate about the outcome of an election hurting democracy? (hyperbole? perhaps!) Or are they simply a tool used by the media to attract viewer/reader/listeners? If so, why do we pay sooooooooooo much attention to them????

But how does the typical person differentiate between a radical and a moderate? Maher does a poor job of even trying to distinguish between them. (It does scare me to think about the radicals too... but I have to wonder, are all of their motives entirely based on religion?)

Again, poor attempt at foresight and terrible writing. MAN you piss me off.

You say ignorant things so you're getting an ignorant response here. You seem like the reason why people can't stand conservatives. You sit there way up on your high horse, so high that you're out of touch with other people yet feel that because you look down on them you know what they're thinking and what they want and need. Get over yourself bud... and get over your bad grade. You don't know what your prof was thinking and you don't know what that other guy went through. I'd bet that you received a bad grade because your writing is atrocious and because your vision of the world is flawed. Ignorance begets ignorance bud.

What are you talking about bud? Did a prof give you a bad grade and rather than taking responsibility for the work that you did you want to blame an entire ideology? Quite intelligent.