ReeferMadness

Wow. You're a Poli-Sci major and you start your debate with a blatant straw man? Anyone who claims that problems would "magically vanish" under PR isn't to be taken seriously. PR simply allocates political power in better accordance with the wishes of the people. It's that simple. If the people are idiots (which they frequently are), it that will be reflected in the results. But that's democracy. Another sweeping generalization. Is this how you write your term papers? And representing the views of the people is EXACTLY what a voting system is supposed to do. So what's the problem? As a Poli-Sci major, perhaps you're familiar with MMP where you vote for both the party and a local candidate? Or STV where you actually only vote for local candidates? And, maybe because you're an American, you have no clue the overwhelming degree to which Canadian political parties control the behavior of the MP's. Studies show most people vote for the parties rather than the candidates and experience shows that MP's who are too independent tend to get marginalized or leave their parties. I don't mind that you're an American weighing in on Canadian politics. I just don't like you presenting yourself as some sort of expert if you can't demonstrate some basic knowledge.

So, making the committee reflective of the way Canadians voted is called weakness? I have another word for it. I call it democracy. Given how little of it we saw under the regressive Harper regime, I suppose it's understandable people aren't clear on the concept.

Mel Hurtig was a patriot in the truest sense. He'll be missed.

The real problem is an archaic and obsolete voting system. For positions where there is a single winner (like a president), PR isn't possible but alternative vote allows people to vote their preference and not waste their vote.

I really wish and hope that is true; but I'm not confident. There was a time when I would have laughed out loud if anyone could have suggested there are enough red necks in Toronto to elect Rob Ford. And yet.... There are a l-o-o-o-o-t of people out there who feel that they lead a pretty marginal existence and are now coming to the completely understandable (and perhaps correct) conclusion that their millennial kids or grand kids are going to have it even worse. They're looking for someone to blame and Donald Trump is providing them lots of someones. Mexicans. Muslims. China. "The establishment". Trump's claims don't even bear up to a casual review of fact checking but his followers aren't looking for facts. They're looking for someone to believe in. The recent gaffs (especially Trump going after the dead soldier's parents) have dented his appeal but this is far from over.

Go back and read the judge's ruling. She found that it wasn't credible that these people would do anything on their own. They lacked the financial resources, the focus to create and stick to a plan and the capacity even to figure out a credible plan. I'll bet their are thousands more just like them on the streets of Canada's cities and millions more around the world. Would you like to lock all of them up? Really? Then just what exactly IS your point? For years, there have been stories that the FBI has run operations to lead vulnerable people into terrorist plots so they could arrest them. It''s good for policing budgets and PR for federal security agencies to boast that they stopped some vile terrorist plot. Now, unsurprisingly, we find that those same tactics have leaked across the border under the Harper neoconservative regime. It turns out that it's easier to entrap harmless people with mental and emotional problems than it is to find and catch people who are really dangerous. What is surprising is the lack of outrage on the part of seemingly otherwise intelligent people that our national police force is wasting time, wasting money and entrapping people who aren't dangerous.

Is that what I said?

Given the fact that the provinces consist mainly of lines drawn arbitrarily on maps, they have way too much power. We were lucky to survive the unity crisis of 1995. The amount of power the provinces have make this country inherently unstable.

Only a small percentage of the oil produced goes into making plastics. And, by definition, oil used to make plastic is not fuel. So, you shouldn't assume that the end of fossil fuels necessarily means the end of plastics. Having said that, everything that is manufactured should be reflective of cradle-grave pricing; including the environmental damage to create the oil, the cost to recycle the waste and the environmental cost to dispose of what cannot be recycled. If costs were adequately reflected in the price of goods, you might find that fewer plastics or more recyclable plastics used.

How cynical that people would equate relief agencies with the weapons industry.

Without context, this list is nothing more than propaganda and systematic invasion of privacy. The context comes from the private sector salaries. Presumably, a sizable proportion (maybe most) of these people live in Toronto, where average salaries are high and so is the cost of living. What's called for is analysis of pay by level and comparison to the private sector. What this is is a public shaming of professional staff who work in the public service.

I still watch games on occasion but it's become less and less over time. I used to watch lots of sports but then again, I used to hold quite right wing views on a lot of things. As I've matured, both have diminished. I was never really a sports addict though, the way some people can't miss games. Well, let's be honest. Very few people change their minds as a result of what they read on these forums.

Yup. People make all kinds of decisions. Watch sports. Play video games. Eat too much. Drink too much. Work too much. Do hard drugs. But it seems that some things with no inherent redeeming value are regularly portrayed as positive, admirable or even heroic. Like binge-watching Olympics or pushing your body to the point where you inevitably wind up with repetitive strain injuries. Lots of jock fans become slaves to their sports watching activities. As a past time, there are worse things; providing it isn't accompanied by heavy drinking and people still get adequate exercise. As an addiction, it isn't much different from other addictions. Not much at all.

This is a great idea but it isn't going to fly. Not now, anyway. There are still too many fossil fuel addicts who aren't ready to come to terms with the new realities. They are stuck in the past and can't let go of the gold rush mentality that has gripped this country over the past 20 years. This is the new denialism. The very same people who denied climate change, denied the damage that fossil fuels wreak on the planet and will continue to deny the feasibility of cleaner power. You can't penetrate a closed mind.

I think that if people really love to do something, they should do it. But there is no reason that people who are incredibly talented at performing ritualized acts of no inherent value should be treated like heroes And I think it's a basic truism that you can spoil almost anything by throwing enough money at it. And there is very little good to be said about sitting on your ass watching sports as opposed to going out and being active. ... and ISIS supports widows and orphans. The same can be said about tobacco farms, coal mines, asbestos mines and nuclear weapons by teaching kids that school doesn't matter if you can throw a 100 mph baseball or skate acceptably and beat the crap out of opposing players you can find good things to say about practically anything or anyone.

I am biased - but it doesn't stop me from being right. There is a "level of creativity" involved in almost anything people do but most people can recognize that level of creativity is significantly greater when it comes to great science or art. Not sports. Jock fans can think what they want. You think getting all excited over a bunch of American players playing an American game just because they happen to wear Toronto jerseys is a sign of great intelligence? I'll leave you to that. Just because you've repeatedly claimed something doesn't mean we've established anything. There's something about the mix of alcohol and sports that results in riots. I've been injured from playing sports - that's a risk of activity. The difference is that when it comes to elite level sports, injuries happen more. And they are more debilitating. And when it comes to violent sports, I don't find anything attractive or intelligent or uplifting about 2 guys hyped up on steroids trying to injure one another while thousands of booze-fueled fans scream their support. I suppose it's still a half a step above mob behavior, but that happens after the event. I get you like to pretend the ugly side of violent sports doesn't exist.

So, I challenged you to produce an example of even the best sports that would match up with the benefits of good music, art of literature. You respond by implying I'm arrogant. I'll take that as your charming way of conceding the point. Oh, yeah. Cuz nothing unites a city like a bunch of overpaid jocks who have no real connection with the place performing actions of no inherent value while wearing jerseys with the city's name on it. Sports really appeal to the intelligent side of people. Yes, humans are naturally tribal. And selfish. And violent. And xenophobic. And lots of other unattractive things. Most intelligent people are capable of rising above their baser instincts, though. You're the one who claimed that wasting money on millionaires and billionaires was a plus for sports. I'm sure people could do dumber things with their money but they'd probably have to work at it. At least people who watch "Friends" aren't known for running out and smashing up the city in booze-fuelled mobs. You seem a little defensive that these people are wrecking their health for your entertainment. Personally, I find it disturbing how many sports fans are frankly bloodthirsty when it comes to games and seem to think that somehow normal rules don't apply when it comes to sports. tbh, they deserve much of the blame when it comes to disgusting events that result in player injury.

No. I'm making a good argument for why it's a dumb idea to focus on pushing your body to the extreme, particularly when you are focusing on one activity.

I disagree. Good music makes me thoughtful and reflective. It can improve creativity and motor skills. Good films and books can teach you about life and cause you to re-examine core beliefs. You do have to sort through all of the dross to get to the good stuff but I challenge you to find the same values in even the best sports. That's true but that's more of an indictment of pop culture than a defence of sports. And if that money weren't blown on millionaire players and billionaire owners, it might be directed somewhere where it could do good. This argument falls flat. Again, an indictment of pop culture, not a defence of sports. But even there, I might occasionally binge watch when, say, Walking Dead shows up on Netflix. But that's nothing compared to the millions of guys who spend every weekend propped up in front of the TV watching football. There's only so much Walking Dead I can take but there seems to be no limit to sports. And many of those people watching sports all day are binge drinking as well. I've never seen any good evidence that watching sports has a significant motivational link to people actually playing sports on a friendly basis. However, I have witnessed first hand how children's sports leagues are caught up in tiering kids (even at the youngest ages) and thereby discouraging the kids that don't make the top tiers. And I do ascribe this to the corrosive influence of professional sports (where millions of parents think their kids are going to make the pros, even though almost all of them are wrong). Just because they don't die young doesn't mean there aren't debilitating injuries. Name me an elite athlete that hasn't been injured (probably multiple times) by their occupation. If this were happening to loggers or firemen or teachers, there would be a scandal and inquiries. This is the whole hero worship thing again. People are convinced that watching the "top" players is more exciting. It's self-reinforcing. ETA: The one thing that distinguishes sports from other type of entertainment is the proclivity for fans to rush out of the stadium and engage in violence. From Stanley Cup riots to dart-throwing soccer hooligans. Not something you normally do after watching a movie.

The amount of money and fame that elite sports players receive, for performing acts of no inherent value, constitutes mindless hero worship and a cult of spectacle. Elite sports detract from, rather than contribute to an active, healthy society by promoting and enabling a couch potato class of spectators. Meanwhile, the elite athletes themselves regularly suffer debilitating and sometimes life-shortening injuries. World sports events (like the Olympics and the World cup) promote a nationalistic, jingoistic view of the world that masks reality. Whatever positive aspects there are in elite sports, they are deluged by the negatives. The fact that elite women athletes receive somewhat less pay for participating in these misguided ventures is worrisome in terms of its reflection of systemic societal undervaluing of the contributions of women. However, efforts to redress the women's issues are better directed towards the mainstream.

When I started reading your post, at first I thought you were talking about Trump. LOL

Do you live your life in fear of people of other skin tones and ethnicities?

Be careful what you wish for. If you think things couldn't be any worse, you'll find out they actually could be. Much worse.

That's a lovely platitude.

Ain't that the truth. Every time we get a good thing going, we vote in some right wing huckster who assures us it will last forever and it's happening because we deserve it and so we really should have low flat taxes and no sales tax. And when the good times are over, we look for someone to blame.