Jump to content

Dave_ON

Member
  • Posts

    880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dave_ON

  1. You speak as though science and the medical community speaks with one voice and all are in agreement. That is not true. As I said there is much evidence to stipulate that the H1N1 is no different or more deadly on a global or even national scale than the regular flu. To say otherwise is to become little more than a fear mongerer. Than by all means feel free to elucidate me. Please show me how all the coverage of bird flu heretofore has been justified. Please provide links supporting the widespread infections that were expected by this time last year. Why hasn't it spread as they thought it "might"? It was only a danger that it "might" mutate to a more easily transmittable strain. It didn't and it hasn't, that's not to say it can't but the fact that it hasn't shows that in fact the previous coverage was "hype". Oh yes I'm terribly disappointed it wasn't allowed to spread, also I hope for a resurgence in small pox, the black plague and hey why not toss in cholera for good measure? Please don't accuse me of wishing death and disease on others, that's poor form and an absolute falsehood on your part. SARS again was over blown, was it a serious issue? Yes it was, appropriate measures were taken and the situation was contained. Does this mean the media did not blow it way out of proportion? In fact they did. I don't see how inciting mass panic is at all beneficial to anyone or how it serves to curtail any type of medical threat.
  2. Agreed vacination is the best means of disease prevention where available, however it isn't 100%. It only takes one viral strain to survive long enough to adapt and then mutate. As you are likely aware our immune systems are very specific. Immunity to one strain of H1N1 does not equal immunity to a mutated version. Viruses have also adapted to infect other species, we've seen many instance of this, most recently bird flu. Precisely, as stated earlier our own immunity is highly specific but it also produces far more anti-bodies then are required to fight off the current infection. This overkill is what we call immunity. The specific nature of our immunity is why we can get "the flu" many times in our life. We're not fighting off the same flu as before, we're fighting an entirely different strain or a mutated one. You're right, dealing with infections in this manner has caused many drug resistant viruses. Immunization is definitely preferable and more effective. It is not that I do not believe in immunization, for many diseases it is a necessity, however, for many viral infections, it isn't. If a disease is not an automatic death sentence, I don't see the point. If it presents no real threat to 99% of the population I don't see why we should take action. Agreed we can try as it is human nature to feel like we're doing "something".
  3. Indeed and as a result we are seeing stronger diseases, more virulent drug resistant illnesses. Penicillin isn't nearly as effective as it was in years past. We are deluding ourselves to think we are above the balance of nature. What's the other side of living longer? Higher populations, more densely populated regions, which are a breeding ground for disease; this also causes the issue of high demands on resources which creates a host of other problems. As I said for all our science and medicine we haven't been able to eradicate the simple flu or cold and why? Because nature always wins, everything has a control on it, including humans. As we adapt, whether physiologically or technologically so too will the diseases and viral strains adapt. There is much we don't understand and sometimes we make things worse by our meddling then we fix. A long lifespan does not mean anything, sciences has shown viruses to be the most adaptive and resilient then anything else on the planet. If you believe that someday science will solve all our ills that's great for you, I however do not share your optimism. We will never be able to control all factors and it's a fool’s errand to try. As I said, there has been zero evidence to show that the swine flu is any more deadly than other flu strains. The only difference is this particular flu has gotten a lot more media attention.
  4. Or perhaps the flu vaccination will cause the swine flu to mutate and produce and even more severe strain. We can't compare the flu virus to the likes of small pox or polio; these diseases aren't nearly as adaptive as is the flu virus. If the flu were so easily defeated it would have been eradicated years ago. We are seeing instances of drug resistant strains of any number of diseases; this has been a result of over use of drugs and vaccines to treat various illnesses. That's not to say these aren't important, but please get off your high horse for one moment and think about the other side of the equation. This is indeed largely hype, the likes of which also surrounded bird flu, SARS etc. Statistics heretofore have shown that this particular strain is no more virulent or deadly than other flu's. If you choose to get a shot good for you, if that helps you sleep at night wonderful. We will never be able to completely eradicate all disease, as we adapt so to do viruses and other bacteria. Nature is a harsh mistress, and despite our own self importance we’re no different or more special than any other animal on the planet.
  5. I think the more pertinent question is how will this be paid for? Are we going to raise taxes or cut other services? Those are our only two options. Which is it going to be and how deep will the cuts/gouging need to be to pay for it? It's all well and good to just accept this as a necessary evil. I for one want to know up front how much it's going to cost me and that is not an unreasonable expectation in the least.
  6. That's not his position in the least. As far as I can tell he's looking for a cost/benefit analysis and frankly there's nothing wrong with that. It's all well and good to say this is the problem so fix it no matter the cost, but how realistic is that? Should we just build more prisons without determining if that investment will have the desired affect? If we spend more money to deter crime, to keep our families safe and it doesn't work what's the point? There's nothing wrong with wanting transparency in government spending. This is what the CPC has promised and they have failed to deliver. I don't want vague notions on how it may or may not help. If the plan fails to deliver all it promised do you still not care what the cost is? This was the primary concern many had over the long gun registry, its effectiveness is debatable but the costs are not. Ambitious projects are all well and good on paper, but when we sit down and do the number crunching how quickly our tunes change. What if health care must be further cut to accommodate this, or education, or EI or the military? What if we have to raise the GST back to 7%? What if personal income tax brackets were adjusted back or the amounts increased? Do you honestly expect us to believe you don't care what the cost is? If you want to increase spending in one area you only have two options, either reduce spending in all other areas or increase taxes. Not all of us have your blind and unwavering faith in the policies of our current government. Some of us want facts to back up their claims.
  7. I recall someone else had started a thread about this a while back but I can't seem to find it. Either way I thought I'd start a new one. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/22/...s-spending.html Now I don't have a problem per se with the CPC funneling close to 60% of the stimulus money into their ridings which make up approximately 46% of the house. As noted in the article this is a very old ploy. I suppose what sticks in my craw about this, is it is yet one more example of the CPC promising to run things differently than the LPC did and then doing things precisely the same way. First the senate appointments, advertizing their party on the federal dime, now they are spending more in CPC ridings then in the opposition ridings. Mr. Harper has become everything he claimed he hated about federal politics. I suppose what truly shocks me is that those who support the CPC, because they’re not corrupt like the LPC continue to support the CPC in spite of the fact that the longer they are in power the less distinguishable they become from the LPC. I think the following quote sums it up rather succinctly.
  8. The problem with bjre is the message is lost because of his anti-occidental tendencies. China is beyond repute and criticism but Canada is corrupt and evil. That is the view that he projects here. His message is often obfuscated by anti-democratic propaganda. Some of his criticisms have merit but they are largely ignored because of the way he chooses to present them. You are correct though; there have been many subtle movements away from the freedoms we enjoy. The temptation to give up a little liberty for a little security is strong and easy to give into.
  9. Supporting a particular party does not make one "left" or "right". Many Canadians, such as me support the least objectionable party; it's not so much that they like that party, just that they hate it less than the rest. You're a Harper fan boy we get it, but supporting a particular party doesn't mean you support ALL of their policies. Well you do of course but that’s not the norm for most of us. There are a number of "right wing" policies that I support even though I voted "left wing" last election. People vote a particular way for a number of reasons, some for fiscal policies, some for social policies, some because they truly support a particular issue they campaigned on and some because it's the guy that's been in for 20 years and we don't particularly dislike him so why not keep him. I personally can't stomach a CPC vote not because they are hypocritical, opportunistic and intrinsically corrupt; the same can be said for the LPC and the NDP. No I don't support them because my perception is they are too steeped in religious social conservatism and that's not the direction I want to chance them taking the country in. Honestly there is little difference between the way the LPC and the CPC governs. Except that the CPC's will say they won't govern like the LPC then do so. At least the LPC never claims they'll not be true to their nature.
  10. If only we could be more like China...
  11. If we open the door to apprehending thieves we open the door to apprehending all criminals. Are you honestly qualified to do that? Are all citizens thusly qualified? Do I even know you from a hole in the ground? Are you a reliable, trustworthy, sane and stable person? Did you perhaps make all this up? If we give good, responsible and law abiding citizens the power to detain we also give that same power to those who are corrupt, opportunistic, and not particularly law abiding. Are you prepared to accept that also? I know you'd love for the world to be black and white, but reality is there are many shades of grey. Yes he is alleged until we know the facts, we don't have a legal system based on your perception which was derived from a news article you once read. Your ridiculous example fails to address the fact that most of the time it isn't that cut and dry. Do all cases have eye witnesses and such overwhelming evidence? Yes let's detain anyone we think "might" have done a crime because "we are almost certain" we saw them do it. Let's trust that all citizens are trustworthy and well intentioned.
  12. You are making the assumption that it will stop with simply "Catching" the criminals and that it would not devolve into also making the ordinary citizen judge, jury and executioner. The fact remains that ordinary citizens do not have the right, nor should they, to detain other citizens. What are the consequences of misapprehending? What recompense will the other citizens make for damaging that individuals reputation, holding them against their will for no reason? Who will apprehend these individuals? Can the one that was wrongfully held turn around and do the same to his captors? It's a can of worm I don't think we really want to open Argus. Ordinary citizens are not trained to catch criminals. There is a reason that all aspects of justice are not in the hands of ordinary citizens, it ensures due process if followed as closely as possible, and it is due process that works to protect us all from wrongful conviction. You're naive indeed if you really believe that regular citizens are at all qualified to make the legal determinations you seem so ready to empower them with. People react emotionally to a situation, that’s not hysteria that's a fact. If a person is upset enough they may end up doing something they regret. Regular citizens are not trained to asses or handle dangerous situations, nor are they trained to assess what the appropriate amount of force is that should be applied. If you think people won’t' take it too far you're deluding yourself. Is their corruption in the legal system? Well of course there is, where ever you find humans you will find corruption. There would be corruption if we allowed citizens to make arrests; there is corruption no matter the system we use. Suffice to say that our system is setup to ensure as few innocents are convicted as possible, that is the focus of our system. We could adopt a system where the focus was to convict the guilty, but in doing so we need to accept that a lot more innocents would be harmed in the process.
  13. What happened here is ordinary untrained citizens chased down an alleged criminal. Emphasis on alleged as he has not yet been tried. Your post assumes his guilt, which we cannot do at this point, that's not the way our system works. Further, the folks in this situation were lucky, if we encourage or even support this type of behavior we may not be that lucky next time. Someone could be seriously hurt by attempting to be a hero. The Police are trained to handle difficult situations, and react to danger appropriately, ordinary citizens are not. I'm sure you personally can appreciate the difference training makes in dangerous situations. You're right perhaps this case wasn't being dealt with as quickly as those folks would have liked. Were they impacted by this fact, yes of course, however the police have limited resources and they must be rationed accordingly. That doesn't justify taking the authority of police officer that they are not endowed with. There are other options, as this was a private business they have the right to with hold service from this individual, bar them from the premises if they wish. There are other options that do not involve breaking the law themselves. This is a prime example of why ordinary citizens should not have the authority to apprehend, they react, they don't think matters through and that is the danger that you fail to see. Due process protects us all, I suppose we have ask ourselves what is more objectionable, that a guilty man should go free due to insufficient grounds to convict him, and the likelihood that an innocent man would be wrongfully convicted are lessened also; or do we abandon due process in the interest of expediency and convict more guilty folks and accept the innocent casualties as collateral damage? Therein lays the danger, if we open the door to this type of behavior we'll open a whole can of worms we're not prepared to deal with. You may think the notion that this will lead to vigilantism is absurd, and perhaps it wouldn't go that far. However, human nature being what it is, you give them and inch and they take a mile. Rarely do we make grand leaps to where we end up, the road to hell is taken one step at a time and every inch is paved with good intentions.
  14. You haven't moved back to China yet because? I'm certain the rest of MLW would love for you to regale us all with stories of Utopian Chinese society, however I doubt our media corrupted and government controlled minds would be able to grasp the truths you would impart to us. It must be daunting indeed to be the only enlightened individual in the entire country, being the sole proprietor of truth must be a lonely calling indeed.
  15. What colour is the sky in your world? They would be properly prosecuted by whom? The community again? You hurt my innocent brother so now I'm going to hurt you back? When you put justice in the hands of the people you have to expect retribution, retaliatory actions, blood feuds etc., we may as well give up indoor plumbing while we're at it and return to Roman style justice. Any justice system that doesn't assume innocence until guilt is proven isn't justice at all. We can't know all the facts, and justice based on perception, circumstantial evidence and emotion is not logical in the least. You're suggesting logic would prevail in mob rule? Justice would prevail in the hands of the injured? Sufficient restraint would be used because they fear the repercussions of their actions? People don't think about the consequences in the heat of the moment, and they act rashly and anyway BUT logically. Only those who are sufficiently distanced from the situation can act and think logically about the situation. I think you need to do some research and find out why it is we came to have the justice system we have today. Why we presume innocence first, why we do not personally administer justice, why it is removed from us and entrusted in an objective third party. Is it perfect? Of course it isn't and it does need some rework, but honestly the alternative of citizen to citizen justice historically has proven to be far worse, and more about revenge then justice. I agree the sentencing should be reworked, the two for one credit done away with. But that doesn't excuse people taking the law into their own hands that is not a power they are endowed with. Whether or not they should have that power is immaterial to the fact that at present it is illegal, and as such, regardless of their intent they should be properly prosecuted. Perhaps, and one could argue that your post is nothing more than inflammatory emotional drivel, but who am I to judge?
  16. You're right utter nonsense. The balanced budget was a result of selling crown assets, not due to sound fiscal management. Driven on the 407 recently? That's an excellent example of Harris Conservatism. Oddly enough it turns out when the Harris Conservatives were tossed right proper; the budget wasn't as "balanced" as he had led us to believe. We're still dealing with the fall out of the shortfalls to this very day in Ontario. However, I digress and this is vastly off topic for the Federal forums. Perhaps we should move this discussion to the provincial politics forums?
  17. You don't see the problem with this idea? You think it'll stop at just apprehending the alleged suspect? You don't think this would serve to exacerbate the situation and lead to a perpetual cycle of escalating violence? Untrained, Joe blows empowered to administer vigilante justice? The average Joe lets his emotions get in the way and likely "minimal force" would amount to abuse or death of the alleged suspect. Law and justice must always remain separate from emotion. You clearly let your emotions get the better of you if you are advocating what is essentially anarchy. The fact of the matter is the folks that chased the thief down did break the law. No citizen has the right to hold another against their will that IS abduction and forcible confinement and DOES carry a harsher penalty then petty theft. It doesn't matter that their intent was "just" or "righteous" good intentions pave the road to hell. They do not have the authority to do what they did. They are too close to the situation to handle it objectively or fairly. Mob rule is not the solution and it will not lead to a utopian society of justice and good governance. The system is set up in such a way that all cases are heard fairly, and that due process if followed. Only through institutionalized consistency can we ensure that every person, regardless of their crime, is given a fair trial. I somehow doubt an angry mob, or vigilante would afford them the same right.
  18. So many problems with these two sentences so little time. Suffice it to say that if you're not a big fan of deficits you are ipso facto not a Mike Harris conservative. You are perhaps 1 of about 5 people in all of Ontario, if not Canada, that is a Harris Fan. If however you believe in cooking the books, selling off crown assets to cover up fiscal shortfalls and leaving your province in worse shape than you found it in, well then by all means carry on.
  19. Latest Ekos Poll http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/21/...p-green-bq.html When we account for the margin for error the CPC has only moved about .7%. However it is interesting to note how easily some negative press affected the CPC lead. I expect this is only the beginning. As I said earlier Mr. Harper may yet wish he had, had a fall election. If some poorly though publicity stunt impacted them this much how much the more will a tax hike affect them? edited to include bloc numbers which were accidentally omited.
  20. Actually as most of grow up we become more pragmatic with shades of cynicism. Sure it's all well and good to take a stand but if you're unwilling to bend and compromise you'll never truly get the support you require to bring your plans to fruition. This is something the CPC has learned quite well as is demonstrated by their success. You can't govern based on ideology, at least not for long. Quid pro quo is the name of the game in Canadian politics. There will always be at least 3 choices. The dichotomous utopia you hope for will never materialize; there will always be another group that feels under represented. I know it may seem as simple as socialist or not socialists in your world but that fails to address the very nature of politics in Canada. We are not like the US, we don't have a unifying national identity, we're a loosely knit confederation of regions. Two parties are simply not able to represent all the regions sufficiently, hence we have splinter parties. The Reform party was born out of western dissatisfaction with the LPC and the PC's. The Bloc was born out of a rising appetite for Quebec sovereignty. There are far more issues at play in our country then socialism. Parties will rise and fall to address these issues, our country was founded with the Conservatives and the LPC as well as the anti-confederates, there have been at least 3 parties at play throughout our history and there will be for the foreseeable future.
  21. I'm not sure what makes me more sad. The fact that you used a LotR reference to make a point or the fact that I got the reference and kind of agree...
  22. That is preciesly the probelm. Because you can never be certain of anything why risk torturing and killing the wrong person? What recompense will be made when the mistake is discovered. Would you submit to torture and death yourself if it were found that you tortured and killed someone who was wrongfully accused? In for a penny in for a pound, that would be the only way to ensure that those who are doing the deed are kept in check. I don't think anyone really wants to go there, as has been mentioned we shouldn't beomce them to stop them.
  23. One factor that hasn't hit the CPC numbers yet is the giant elephant in the room that no politician wants to touch; the subject of a tax increase. At the very least we'll see a rise in EI premiums and in all likelihood Income and Payroll taxes. That's a tough sell even in lieu of the glow of economic recovery and the surge in national pride that the Olympics will generate. The shortfall issue will need to be addressed in the next budget and it will be interesting to see how the CPC navigate those treacherous waters.
  24. Pot have you met the kettle?
  25. Agreed; this is essentially the CPC using tax payer dollars for free publicity, not only is it unethical and somewhat underhanded it's downright unconservative. Hard to say if this will reflect in by elections though, it would be amusing if this "non-issue" cost them all four seats.
×
×
  • Create New...