WIP

This is about the time when that old saying:"opinions are like a@#holes; everybody's got one"...comes to mind. Everybody has opinions; but our opinions should be based on the best available information, and not wish-fulfillment, as in that example. I don't think you'll make any headway getting that point across to Mr.C. any more than anyone else here has been able to get him to make an honest examination of his views and opinions. It is difficult for most people to change or abandon long-held beliefs that are considered foundational; but people who consider religious revelation to be their source of truth, are more likely to take the word of trusted religious advisers on matters of politics and social values as well, rather than form their own evidence-based opinions.....and that's why demagogues and despots always seek to cultivate a fundamentalist base of supporters.

Thanks! What I find especially frustrating with the Christian Family Values crowd, is that they are uniformly purveyors of rightwing economic theory....which, if anything has increased the culture of hedonism, consumer-driven economics would be it. They worship materialism and accumulation of wealth, and want a completely unregulated market where advertisers swamp the private broadcasters with sophisticated ad campaigns designed to generate and increase desire for whatever the marketer is trying to sell. We have spent our lives being bombarded with messages and images designed to make us more impulsive, so we are more susceptible to have desires that the marketer feels will spin off in the direction of purchasing more of his products. And then we end up with Christian Fundamentalists complaining about young people who can't control themselves, and want immediate gratification

Yes, the traditionalists seem to go back half a decade, rather than go back to the way we lived when the majority of people lived and worked on the farm....which in Canada, if I recall, was about 1900 before the non-farming population exceeded 50%. The problem with the "nuclear family" is that all of the moving around over the last 50 years has busted up extended family relationships. I live in a neighbourhood with a high immigrant population, and one thing that gets my notice is how many grandparents are out and at the local park with their grandchildren. Most of the people here have their preschoolers in daycare, while the grandparents are living in Florida or some seniors compound, and have visits with the grandkids once or twice a month.

Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, so why are U.S. and Canadian troops in Afghanistan again?

Also, there is no way to make blanket comparisons between Christianity and Islam, since whatever good or bad these religions inspire are added to existing cultural and racial division that are already present, and would exist whether or not these two religious franchises arrived. In Nigeria for example, former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria - John Campbell points out in an interview with Jay Ackroyd on Blogtalk Radio that in some regions of the country, there are no noteworthy problems among Christians and Muslims, such as in the Yoruba region, where there are no significant ethnic and economic divisions, and there is significant intermarriage between Christians and Muslims in this region. On the other hand, where there have been the worst fighting between Muslims and Christians is in regions like the northwest portion of Nigeria, where Fulani cattle herders are uniformly Muslim, while the smaller tribes surrounding them are Christian peasant farmers. So what is the root cause of the conflicts? Is it the tribal and economic divisions, or is it sectarian? My impression is that once again we are led to conclusions by outside onlookers who have neither the time nor the interest in developing a deeper understanding of issues that they feel free to offer opinions about. Campbell also points out that the campaign against witchcraft in the south during recent decades...which sounds strikingly similar to middle ages Europe...has virtually wiped out animism, or the traditional religions, since all of these traditions and practices (good and bad) can lead to burnings or some other method of execution for witchcraft. So, is Christianity still the superior religion than Islam? I think that just trying to make such a case encourages the most beligerent Christians, rather than give them a much needed dose of humility!

Can we count the "collateral damage" of civilians killed by U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Or how about the crimes committed by U.S.-installed despots? If you are able to impose your empire, don't be shocked when asymmetrical warfare comes as a response!

In case you can't figure it out, I already have a traditional family by your standards. After living together common-law for close to three years, my wife and I got married in Jan. 1988. We have two sons, and my wife has had to be stay-at-home for medical reasons for the last ten years. I don't drink alcohol, smoke, take drugs, screw around, or spend my time watching porn...although won't claim that I didn't buy porn when I was young, or watch it online when I got my first computer. The difference is that I'm not interested in trying to wipe these things in everyone else's faces, and tell them that they have to live the way I do! I know that this would be self-defeating, for reasons like one I already cited previously about conservative's consumption of porn. People have different levels of impulse awareness and control; some people have strong compulsions towards addictive behaviour (whatever their personal addictions are) and some don't! I just happen to be someone who has a lesser need for stimulation and excitement than many other people apparently. I don't wear a !@#$%^ halo about it, it's just the way I am, and I don't expect people who are more strongly addictive/compulsive to be satisfied doing the things that I like to do. Nor do I expect people with a homosexual attraction to deny their sexual orientation or enter sham marriages to hide the fact. I would prefer that they have the opportunity to live their lives in the way that they feel happy; and if that means they wish to have same-sex marriages, then they should have the opportunity to do so.

Because they are evangelicals, and either believe that you will go to hell if they don't save your soul, or they fear the teaching from many of these churches that evangelism is an obligation for a real Christian, and not an option. Most Evangelical Christians are not comfortable with having to play salesmen for their religions; so the majority drop those little pamphlets in doctor's offices, on buses, libraries etc. and count that as their evangelical outreach.....and of course there are some who go online to preach and probably consider that as meeting their obligation to evangelize. But, why does it bother you? Whenever I've had Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses at my door, or Pentecostals preach at me downtown, I'll engage if I have the time. Most of them are glad to have someone to talk to who is not going to ignore them, shut the door in their face or yell at them to go away; but after awhile they will get a little anxiety if they are presented with information that they haven't been pre-programmed to answer.....so, I don't usually see them a 2nd or 3rd time. Likely, their church elders are telling them to cut bait and give me up as someone who is lost to this world. What bothers me about these religions is not that they evangelize; the beef I have is that these churches have set up a dogma that considers everyone outside of their little religions to be unworthy or contemptible. If people are viewed as going to hell anyway, then their lives are viewed as unworthy of protection from oppression and genocide.

Here's why the Wisconsin Governor's claim that he needs to bust the unions to close the deficit is a total fraud: Wow: Texas Deficit Estimate Comes In Worse Than The Worst Expectations Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-budget-shortfall-2011-1#ixzz1FHOTERV5 Texas doesn't have any state public service unions, not even police and fire department...so why have they got a 27 billion dollar deficit? And, let's not forget the fact that rightwing spindoctors keep trying to plow over every day: Scott Walker cut corporate taxes for his corporate buddies by a greater amount than the State's projected deficit. Now, can all of you rightwing supporters figure it out yet?

Until I see signs of a real communist movement emerging, I'm going to keep my guns pointed at the right. Authoritarianism may arise in the left when there are enough people who have given up on the democratic system and feel that there is only one way to deal with the shadow government of corporatism that has been running our lives for the past several decades. Authoritarian followers are motivated by appeals to traditional symbols of power; and all the right has to do is wrap up nationalism with Christianity and they can reel them right in to support policies that are against their own economic interests.

Since you're such a wikipedia fan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco#Political_oppression The first decade of Franco's rule in the 1940s following the end of the Civil War in 1939 saw continued oppression and the killing of an undetermined number of political opponents. Estimation is difficult and controversial, but the number of people killed probably lies somewhere between 15,000 and 50,000 (see above, The end of the Civil War). Subsequently Franco's state became less violent, but during his rule non-government trade unions and all political opponents across the political spectrum, from communist and anarchist organizations to liberal democrats and Catalan or Basque separatists, were either suppressed or tightly controlled by all means, up to and including violent police repression. The Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) and the Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT) trade-unions were outlawed, and replaced in 1940 by the corporatist Sindicato Vertical. The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC) were banned in 1939, while the Communist Party of Spain (PCE) went underground. The Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) went into exile, and in 1959, the ETA armed group was created to wage a low-intensity war against Franco. Franco's Spanish nationalism promoted a unitary national identity by repressing Spain's cultural diversity. Bullfighting and flamenco[51] were promoted as national traditions while those traditions not considered "Spanish" were suppressed. Franco's view of Spanish tradition was somewhat artificial and arbitrary: while some regional traditions were suppressed, Flamenco, an Andalusian tradition, was considered part of a larger, national identity. All cultural activities were subject to censorship, and many were plainly forbidden (often in an erratic manner). This cultural policy relaxed with time, most notably in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Maybe that sounds right with you, but it doesn't to anyone who really appreciates freedom and democracy. After Franco died and King Juan Carlos took control of the reins of government, the generals tried to carry out a coup d'etat when they learned that he was going to turn control of the government over to the people. Franco's Falangists or National Union Party won only 8% of the popular vote once real democracy was restored to Spain in 1981. The Falangist Party's fortunes were so dismal that they dissolved in 1983. And that fact is food for thought regarding how small a population of authoritarian drone supporters needs to be to keep an oppressive, authoritarian government in power for decades! And modern-day authoritarian leaders are aware of this fact, and are busy at work cultivating a base of simple-minded supporters seeking simple-minded solutions to political and economic issues. Your assertion that Franco wasn't a fascist, is just playing with semantics, since he was fascist enough for Hitler and Mussolini to consider him one of their own, and he ruled for decades after they were overthrown through oppression and intimidation, and convincing the U.S. and England that he would be an essential ally for them after WWII to prevent a communist takeover of Western Europe.

I can back that up if you want to argue the authoritarian connection with conservatism, or its founding as a moderate path for the ruling classes of Europe to avoid being overthrown by violent revolutions, as occurred in France, and sent panic through the aristocratic circles in Europe at that time.

Yeah, I'm celebrating by looking after my own family unit and not trying to force it on gays or people who aren't cut out for married life! Two years ago, New Scientist published a report that shows that conservatives are the biggest consumers of online pornography -- Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers . Among the research findings on bandwith traffic for online porn purchasing, we find that Utah is the largest per capita consumer of porn in the USA. Now, can you get any more family values than Utah? Sure, I know they're going to hell because they're not real Christians, but there's no state in the U.S. where people don't get more preaching at them about family values! Also in the findings.... Church-goers bought less online porn on Sundays – a 1% increase in a postal code's religious attendance was associated with a 0.1% drop in subscriptions that day. However, expenditures on other days of the week brought them in line with the rest of the country, Edelman finds. Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage. To get a better handle on other associations between social attitudes and pornography consumption, Edelman melded his data with a previous study on public attitudes toward religion. States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour." "One natural hypothesis is something like repression: if you're told you can't have this, then you want it more," Edelman says. Bingo Doc! I think you hit the bullseye. So, Mr. Canada, are you trying to promote family values here? Or trying to increase the consumption of internet porn? I'm sensing that there may be subversive intentions at work.

Thanks again, for once more proving the point that conservatives are fascists at heart. Conservatives worship authority (or at least what they call rightful authority) and dissent is not tolerated. Franco was a murderous thug sent in by the Catholic Church and the land owners to suppress a democratic uprising in Spain, but that's alright with you, as long as he is pro-Catholic, nationalist, anti-communist, and anti-homosexual.....so why did you write a fanboy post about Franco, instead of Hitler and Mussolini...who sent their armies in to invade Spain and install Franco into power? They made Franco's reign possible, and they also shared these same qualities that you are swooning over!

What we are seeing from most of the right...whether they want to call themselves conservatives, libertarians or neoliberals etc. is a blatant attempt to entrench inequalities in wealth by making appeals to religion, nationalism, and racial and ethnic solidarity. That's why rightwing media is all about emotion and light on information content. They aim their appeals at fear (terrorism), greed (taxes and social programs) and suspicion (foreigners). When any of these individual issues are examined in the clear light of day....like we're seeing in the attack on public service unions in Wisconsin, we find their central claims to be void of fact....a budget crisis caused by a governor's own tax cuts for corporations, and an appeal directed at trying to make the majority of people who have lost their bargaining power with the loss of their unions, envious of the people who still have unions. Wisconsin's fight against public sector unions will be decided by whether or not the majority of people are swayed by the desire to take someone else down, rather than focus their attention on those who have bought and payed for politicians like Governor Scott Walker. Emotion is more potent than facts, so it is much more likely for the populace to be distracted by rightwing demagoguery, rather than keep united and focus on redressing the wealth gap. At some point, we have to consider that capitalism in itself is anti-democratic. Democracies give everyone regardless of race, gender or economic status, an equal vote, while pure market capitalism awards voting rights on the basis of who has the money to buy the most shares of the company. That's why unions were formed, progressive taxation was enacted, and regulations were created to prevent corporations from using money to subvert the democratic process. Some of these rightwingers are going so far as to admit that they have nothing but contempt for democracy! Left on its own, wealth becomes entrenched, especially after they tweak regulations and tax laws to provide themselves with greater benefits....Walmart serves as example of how mega-retailers get to act like sports franchises and get local governments to pay for their stores through free land, cash grants, and their own sales tax revenues! But other big box retailers like Loews and Home Depot have done the same thing. Who can't do this? You guessed it! Your average mom and pop retailer, or that self-motivated entrepreneurial Joe-The-Plumber that rightwing libertarians claim they are representing. The Rand Paul bullshit claim he makes that everyone is equal regardless of income is a total fraud, and the low income supporters of right wing economics are the fools who work against their own economic interests!

Exactly! Rightwingers are dangerously close to creating an outright fascist movement with their appeals to paranoia and persecution. They have all of the tea party-types convinced that any attempts to correct societal imbalances that have given them advantages, are persecutions.

And let's not forget that the Conservatives are nurturing their own religious right base, which they will have to reward if Harper does have a chance at majority government. There are a lot of people who aren't too enamoured with the alternatives, but dislike and distrust Harper enough to try to prevent him from getting his majority. It happened in the last election, and it will happen again; and that's why he's so hesitant to dissolve Parliament and call an election....in spite of all of the illegal TV ad campaigning he does on a continual basis.

Good point! The conservatives that bankroll these groups are part of the larger movement that targeted blacks and latinos in the 2008 election cycle by trying to scare the white suburbanites about losing control of society, and trying to make it even more difficult for them to vote and have a part in the democratic process; and of course they want to completely gut social programs that would disproportionately affect minorities. So, why do they all of a sudden care about abortion in inner city neighbourhoods? But, then I'm back to asking why the vast majority of the anti-abortion groups are led by conservative men? That's what makes it impossible to just study this issue on its face value, without considering the underlying agendas of these groups who are also promoting patriarchy and high birth rates out of the other side of their mouths.

I'm wondering if you have children, since that would give you some perspective on what is being asked of primarily young girls who get pregnant and are faced with either the abortion option, or putting everything on hold for nine months and then going through labour and childbirth. And, I have no personal perspective on how great or not so demanding this requirement is, or whether or not the statements by many young women that it's an ordeal to give it up for adoption afterwards. I don't have any daughters, but if I did, I wouldn't want society to close off all of the options for young women because of some exaggerated importance given to the interests of fetuses and embryos.

There would be nothing wrong except that betsy ties that suggestion with banning abortion....which would make it an order, not an option.

Our country and their countries are all part of the same world. We share the same atmosphere, along with the same water cycle, and thanks to globalization, all of the world's commodity markets are interconnected. And, as food prices continue to rise, along with the price of oil, the world is going to face a refugee problem beyond a scale of anything seen so far. I doubt that a relatively sparsely populated country like Canada is going to be able to keep everyone out who wants in 20 or 30 years from now. By 2050, Canada will be faced with armed climate refugees from America moving north. So much for worrying about our aging problems then!

Your assertion is wrong right from the start, since atheists only share a disbelief in common, not a set of beliefs. I mentioned previously that nihilists are ones who believe that life ultimately has no meaning...but unless you have evidence that cybercoma is a nihilist, you have no justification for making that statement. And, for the record, most atheists believe that the Universe is devoid of having a greater purpose that depends on us; we are creatures who have a high need for having a purpose, but most of us avoid trying to apply our sense of meaning to inert objects, plants and animals, the earth, and the whole universe as well. If the universe has a purpose, there is no evidence that we have anything to do with it, so we get on and go about our own lives.....and I'll end it here, since cybercoma may have a different take on finding meaning. Feminists are not all atheists! Judging by the fact that self-identified atheists are overwhelmingly male, the odds are that most feminists believe in God in some sense...though not likely the kind of religion you are partial to. And weren't you quoting previously from some feminists who claim to be pro-life? Now, here you are again condemning all feminists! It's even possible to be a pro-life atheist! I wouldn't have believed it myself until I came across one two years ago on Sam Harris's discussion forum. He made his argument based on the utilitarian principle of maximizing benefit to the greatest number of people...which in his example included maximizing all human potentials....right from fertilization. I don't know if he convinced anyone, but it just goes to show that you can't lump everything you don't like in the same category! No, that's how YOU would feel! For those of us who approach the world from a position of skepticism, we don't really find the randomness of quantum physics, or the apparent randomness in the way the Universe has evolved, to be troubling. If you feel that the Universe has to function for a higher purpose...which you do, then you find that thinking about a Universe that goes on with or without us to be upsetting. But consider that we do not all think the same, or have the same needs. I don't see the evidence for a creator at work in our Universe, but I can't prove that there is no creator to those who believe in one, nor do I really want to disprove the existence of a creator to people who consider it important. I don't subscribe to hedonism! I see a lot of what's wrong with today's society as being caused by a consumer culture that puts experiencing pleasure above everything else. I'm more on the side of the Stoics, who considered attaining control of desires to be the pathway to true happiness. Most forms of Buddhism follow a similar line of thinking. I agree! There is a prevailing fallacy that has been promulgated all across rightwing literature and websites that we (meaning the white race actually) are not producing enough babies, and will be overrun in a few generations by the darkies....check out some of Pat Buchanan's books on the subject for example. It's true that we have an aging population; but the problems in Third World countries that have forced pregnancy on women through banning abortion and birth control, have created societies with very young populations....but the problem is that, like Egypt, they cannot feed all of their people or provide jobs. The cities in these overpopulated nations are crowded and have overwhelmed water and waste treatment systems. I covered some of this on the threads about climate change....the greatest crisis facing this world today is that our current population of almost 7 billion is at least three times what the world can sustain on a permanent basis....our population is living on borrowed time already, and world population needs to be reduced now, and very rapidly to prevent what could result in extinction of the human race in one or two centuries. Now, with that in mind, how much do we need more babies? I don't want to be callous about it, hopefully we won't see a world functioning by lifeboat ethics...but the last thing we need now are ways to increase world population.

At 24 weeks gestation, you're at the point where neural connections between the thalamus and the cortex level of the brain are being made; and that makes it possible to have a conscious sense of pain....although this is so early in development that medical experts have no real idea what a pain experience for a fetus would be like. Nevertheless, causing pain and suffering is one marker for conscious awareness, and that is a strike against abortion for personal reasons like wrong sex, or minor birth defects. Unless the mother's life is in danger, or there are serious birth defects, I can't go along with Morgentaler here. Also, the sex-selection issue is one that has wider implications, since it has led to a demographic imbalance in China, where abortion has been freely available, but cultural bias still favours a male child....especially after the imposition of the One Child Policy. Your point is leaning precariously on being moot, since the vast majority of abortions are done before 12 weeks. The very few abortions that are done after that are done so because there is a high chance of the mother dying or the baby having severe defects, rather than simply wanting to abort the child based on sex or a minor defect. Yes, that was one of the big arguments against Republican Congressmen 20 years ago when they made "partial birth" abortion their hobby horse when Newt Gingrich was the House Leader. It was pointed out that as a percentage, late term abortions were very rare already, and the kind of amendment the Republicans wanted would just put pregnant women's lives in danger, if something went wrong late in the pregnancy. Still, it's worth examining all of the issues....even the unusual cases.

How is he relevant? He was an abortion supporter who performed many abortions, and then he switched sides in the 1970's...so, just because he changed his mind, why should that in itself have any influence on this issue? And what am I to make of the veracity of a claim he made, according to that anti-abortion site you used, that he said later that he lied about the number of illegal abortions being performed prior to legalization? Did he lie then, or did he lie later on when he declared himself to be pro life, and, according to the N.Y. Times article about him: In addressing anti-abortion audiences, Dr. Nathanson often drew gasps by painting himself, in his pro-abortion-rights days, in lurid colors. Sounds like he had good reasons to do a lot of embellishing as a prolifer! It mentions in the Times obituary that he narrated the anti-abortion film "Silent Scream," wherein he claimed that a three month old fetus being aborted, has its mouth open trying to make a scream.....considering his considerable medical background, he would know enough about fetal brain and nervous system development to know that would be impossible...as noted in the Times article. So, that should serve as an example of him lying as a prolifer for his cause of stopping abortions. But, back to square one, just because an abortion provider became an anti-abortionist does not mean that he had anything more compelling than his own personal reasons to change his position on the issue. This seems eerily similar to your approach on the theory of evolution, or belief in God previously. I recall you posting articles about scientists or academics like Anthony Flew, as if we're all supposed to change our minds too on the subject! I prefer to do my own thinking, rather than have someone else be declared the authority on a subject and do my thinking for me.

Your "3 months" has nothing to do with the example! As clearly stated, the thought experiment was to illustrate the imposition of expecting a woman to spend the next 9 months giving life as a result of something that she did not consent to.....and that's why it matches non-consensual sex resulting in pregnancy.