Shwa

Post #160 & #167 How can science reconcile these seemingly incompatible facts? Hint: use an anthropological perspective.

"If you understand science, then you know that you simply cannot apply science when dealting with the god question." GH, go back a page or two to the question and challenge that was issued. I am not trying to "simply...apply science when dealing with the god question." The lesson is that some people are so narrow-minded about either view, it clouds their judgement to any understanding whatsoever. This is called narrow mindedness or close mindedness. If you are not honest enough to go back and see what I was referring to then you are as bad as the most closed-minded findamentalist Christian or Muslin walking the earth today. And jumping into the middle of something when you are not fully appraised of the actual issue is simply bad form.

You are the one that defined the "miracle" with Lazarus as a "supernatural" claim. Therefore you are a victim to your own folly. Stuck in Plato's cave as it were. Neither a genius nor a pretender. You are projecting again. Now you are just wallowing in your own crapulance. The question stands. The methods are public. If you are not up to the "scientific" challenge, go back to the cave and maybe someday you will learn how to free your view from that self-imposed myopia.

"Like I said, you don't understand science." Tsk, tsk, tsk. And here I thought you had more potential than that. But alas your obstinacy is more related to closed-mindedness than any sort of "logic." Unless you consider conclusions based upon false assumptions and 'non-existent data' to be logic and, if you do, please tell us what colour the sky is in your world also. Firstly, you do not know who I am, but I can tell you that I make my living upon the foundations of hard science every single day. Secondly, since hard science can be wear at one's enthusiasm, I am what people would call an amateur archaeologist. As a hobby. So I believe I have a very good understanding of science and the scientific methods employed in several fields. Secondly, you mistook what I had asked to assume that it meant something more because you have this weird invested interest in in the "something more." That's your issue, not mine. It is hardly 'scientific' to assign ones personal issues to someone else. I believe those in the psychology field call this 'projecting.' Next time you want to invoke "science" or "logic" to bolster your false assumptions, try not to be so wet behind the ears about it. The universe is larger than you think.

Wow! You purport to be on the side of science, yet when a challenge is presented for you to try and reconcile two seemingly conflicting facts using a scientific method, you fold faster than a tissue paper tent in a class 5 hurricane. If real scientists were as closed minded as you, we'd still be reading and cooking our toast by candlelight. No matter, the question stands whenever you decide you have the means to tackle complex questions with science. {Hint: use anthropology as your starting point.} In the meantime thanks for playing. Pick up your free candle at the door.

Ok so now apply the science. It is very easy. Let's say the report is true and accurate. How can it be scientifically true and factually true from the Biblical report as well? Any ideas?

Hey Michael, While not a McLuhan devotee, I could be called a McLuhan 'essentialist' even though my exposure to his actual works is limited. An on-line discussion sounds intriguing.

Are you certain that is what the Bible claims?

RAD79, "I can tell you're incapable of understanding the real problems at hand. Good luck with your paper." This is a very insightful post toward the question of obstacles you are looking for. While such attitudes are becoming more uncommon, they do still exist and during the generation before the 1950's, was prevalent in government Aboriginal policy and process. Since the poster is unable to defend his/her position with civility, they simply dismiss you as 'incapable.' Many Aboriginal people have endured this unbalanced and incompetent view over generations. Happily, this attitude is all but disappearing from the political landscape on its own accord since it is so untenable. A really good book to read - to get a general background - is John Ralston-Saul's 'A Fair Country.' Ralston-Saul provides a highly competent survey of Canadian history to dismantle the weak arguments and boorish attitudes as displayed by Gabriel. The book should be in the local library.

What seers? The contemporary seers of Christ in Jerusalem? Heck, there are entrail reading seers nowadays. The interesting thing about the stories of Jesus Christ - the rest of the Bible aside - is that he had a peculiar knack for using psychological treatments with much reported success. Now, supposing he was some mere holy man, but discovered some means to correct or 'heal' afflictions that were considered serious in that day, well, yeah that would excite his followers wouldn't it?

"the pursuit of an engineered society" This is semantics though. Practically every government throughout all the ages - with maybe the exception of simple hunter-gather subsistence societies - have pursued some form of societal engineering. It is just a matter of degrees and language. Thus your posting could be applied to Imperial Rome, Elizabethan England, Communist China or Taliban Afghanistan. And even though we would not class those examples as 'modern welfare states' they did have a hand in the welfare of it's citizens through one mechanism or another. I suppose I lean to heavily on social contract theory, but you know what I mean. One really good experiment might have been the anarchists in Spain before Franco, but we all know what happened there. But can this form of localized or specialized anarchy substitute for welfare of its citizens nowadays? That would be a risky social experiment nowadays I think. Even still, if the masses are duped by government centric propaganda (as it has always been) they are still the masses. Our masses. And whether we try to help them open their eyes or help them with their rent or medical bills, it is still their welfare we are looking out for yes? "government will support what makes government appear important to it's citizens" I kind of have to disagree with this, but only on definition. The "government" is made up of its citizens and while it is true that their image must be important, I think it has more to do with the school-of-fish mentality than pure policy. There is a hierarchical effect at work in the bureaucracy (and parliament) where it is very difficult to introduce any sort of radical change. That has its advantages and its disadvantages you know?

Interesting that you pointed out how welfare is a gargantuan industry while charities are run as a business... "I agree also that the "mix" hasn't improved things much. So do you think a government monopoly on welfare is the answer? Charity seemed to work better before even if it minimally didn't swell their ranks and create a "welfare class"." The problem comes down to accountability which, I suppose, should be taken with a little grain of salt when we talk about the government or charities. We know that what worked before stopped working and required - one way or another - government intervention. There was a shift in policy after the Depression and well into the 60's. So it was a piece-meal shift over a generation or so and has been delegated to all levels of government. However, this evolution is not proven as the final product of social assistance delivery even though it has basically remain unchanged over the past generation or so. Any private outsourcing for government services regarding social assistance - outside of medicare - would require strict regulation - kind of like what the government does now with some employment services. Small scale, locally based, NFP. That would still require a bureaucracy to manage the entities. Would that be any cheaper as a cost per client overall? There might a cost benefit with regard to the costs of staffing, but there would still be the requirement for a regulatory body which might off-set any gains. And that is only discussing the delivery mechanism. I still think workfare is a reasonable concept in the right hands, but getting it in the right hands is the problem...

"Heidegger surf-boards along on the electronic wave as triumphantly as Descartes rode the mechanical wave." The above quote was taken from Marshal McLuhan's brilliant 1962 work 'The Gutenburg Galaxy.' McLuhan was a media visionary and somehow saw 'surfing the net' some 25 years ahead. In that light, a story from the Toronto Star, "High school ditches text books for digital readers" While I don't foresee digital readers becoming standard in public schools within the next 5 years, it is certainly possible within the next 10. One good way to make schooling cheaper and less stressful. On the other hand, I personally hate the present forms of digital readers, but hopefully the technology will keep improving to the point where even I will go out and buy one.' This could be a small spark for the end of the Gutenburg Universe!

Good points for sure. However if a comprehensively defined concept of welfare were tabled in a referendum, I am sure it would receive overwhelming support. Some posters are thinking of welfare only in terms of local social assistance and that only limits the discussion. I am somewhat cynical about private or NFP charity versus government welfare even though the former supplements that latter. I don't think this mix has really improved things much.

Social, political, and legal challenges in the past 30 or 40 years? Hmmmm.... since the late 60's then? Here are some off the top of my head: Social challenges - reserves, alcoholism and drug use; migrations to urban areas without settled support structures; loss of traditional knowledge, language, culture and lands; residential schools; stereotyping & racial profiling Political - Assembly of First Nations; unity of a national political 'voice; negative press regarding reserve issues; Meech Lake Accord; Charter of Rights interpretations esp section 25; band councils versus traditional political organization; Legal - land claims; interpretation of treaties and Indian Act; Delgamuukw versus the Queen; Jay Treaty and border definitions; tax exemption status; Obstacles - if you research any of the above, the roadblocks will become pretty clear, however, and briefly: colonialism, eurocentrism, nationalism. Even though these attitudes are on the wane, they still have widespread affect as the chief obstacles Legal social and political strategies - post-secondary education esp in the legal field; court challenges to land claims and traditional laws; re-learning of traditions, re-birth of community as a centre of the nation; activism and information sharing; leadership in environmental issues Really, you have asked quite a bit. If you are doing an in-depth paper I would suggest you head to the library and start on your bibliography. If this is a first year paper, the stuff above should give you a good enough start. Google the concepts and there are tons of sources on those limited topics alone. If you need something more specific let us know. Creating a thread on such a wide topical area is not very productive. I suggest that once you have some research, pick something specific and start a topic on that issue.

"Certainly not us." Curious. When you write "us" who are you referring to exactly?

"Taking money from someone who earns it, filtering it through an inefficient bureaucracy, that then distributes it back out, isn't good economics and is absurd to suggest so." So you are against taxation of any kind, including all the general benefits that are derived from taxation?

"And if a government spends taxpayer money in unpopular ways, they're removed from office." Then I can presume that since the government(s) is/are still sitting in office, that welfare is a popular way to spend taxpayer money. Is this what you are saying? Because, if so, I find it kind of neat how you marginalized your own view like this. Well done!

What a fascinating thread! You folks ought to be commended on having the wherewithal to observe civility while debating a hot issue that is only sure to grow by leaps and bounds in the next generations. As people forget rather than remember. Or are taught a different version of history than we were in the last generations. Or choose differently. For the person(s) that are "disgusted" by someone offering a contrary point of view to yours, well, remember the soldiers that fought and died to preserve the ability for people to express contrary views in our society. You know - freedom and liberty and all that jazz. The last thing anyone wants is the terror of the majority. We can argue all day about the minutiae of war, it's causes, it's effects. There will never be a consensus except on the fact that it has a profound effect on a society for a given period - usually a significant amount of time afterward. The bigger the war, the bigger and longer the effect. World War II had a much more profound effect on my mum than me for instance. The Korean War less so, but still on many. And so on til modern day. Remembrance Day is a choice because we live with certain freedoms, let's never forget that. At one time, it was a solemn celebration of the end of World War I; then it was morphed into a Remembrance of sacrifices by all our armed forces; then it became a national grieving period; then slowly moved into many meanings for many people in the modern day. If, at the very least, Remembrance Day becomes a time to debate and illustrate the horrors of war and conflict, then it will be worth it whether some anonymous professor chooses not to observe a moments silence or not. If, at the very least, Remembrance Day becomes a time when respect was paid for the people caught up in war and conflict - from the armed forces to the civilian populations, then it will be worthwhile whether some choose to stay home and watch football or go to the Mall. My hope is that one day - a day before I pass away - Remembrance Day will come to mean a day when we can be grateful that people no longer make war with one another and we can use the lessons of the past to guide us into a Peaceful future. I am not going to hold my breath. But I can indeed hope. Which makes Remembrance Day all the more worthwhile for me.

Oh songs schmongs, here is a double standard for sure: Bud Adams, owner of the Tennessee Titans NFL club was fined for making horribly obscene hand gestures to Buffalo fans after their game yesterday. Not only is this big news, but he was also fined a whopping $250k by the NFL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtLs9Vpp0Fo - see for yourself, but be warned! This is a highly obscene gesture done with both hands, thus a "double" standard. It never makes the news when non-white NFL owners use such profane gestures, but as soon as some rich old white guy does, out comes the outrage and demands for hefty fines. I find this appalling primarily since the NFL is made of up of mostly old white politically correct owners who employ many non-whites to "play" for them in "games." You can be guaranteed that the size of the fine was in direct proportion to Tennessee's involvement for the South in the Civil War. There is no way that Denise Debartolo Yorkwould ever pay that sort of fine - her of the San Francisco 49's and orginally from Ohio. You know what that means... Always happens. Non-whites flip the bird and no one bats an eye, but as soon as some old white dust bag does, double standard for sure. We should all be outraged! Then look how fast the mass sports media picks the story up! The obscenity was blasted all over TV news, YouTube, the Internet and everything. Do you ever see this when a non-white NFL owner flips the bird? No. Double standard. Yessiree, double standards till the crows come home to roost! What is this world coming too? We are all doomed. DOOMED I TELLS YA! DOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMED!!!

But... isn't your post simply another form of finger pointing? In which case you would be rude. But in a virtual way.

"YEP those unwashed poor probably contribute to your stock portfolio." OUCH! OB can take 2 big points for that big snap or... a year's supply of z-brick.

"The welfare case does not." Not true, at least in Ontario. You are allowed to exempt a certain portion of earnings and still collect. So you are allowed to have some employment income. As well, you may be in school and be doing school "work." Also, anyone knows nowadays that looking for full time work is a full time job so technically getting off the dole takes work. http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/social/ow - check it out for yourself. I think CR's comment was more about those who collect money from the government period. CR didn't say anything about working or value of that work. Now, if the person is earning 50% of their income should they only be tested for drugs, alcohol or tobacco only half the time, or do they only count half the test results or what? What if they are earning 33% of their income? Can they exempt themselves from one of the tests - say the drug tests? How does your testing work now that we know welfare recipients can have some employment income?

Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner! Congratulations to ToadBrother for this: "that was reformed in the 19th century and beyond, but how it went hand in hand with other reforms like universal emancipation." I would have also accepted: "Because what was working before was no longer working." Thus invalidating any sentimental valuation to the argument. Thank you ToadBrother, nice job! So our next question is directed to ToadBrother: So if the sentimental valuation to the argument is invalidated, what is left to determine the value of the present welfare state and should it be reformed to reflect the current Canadian demographic?

"There should be a rule against continually casting your line into the water." Agreed. But there would also need to be a rule about taking the bait over and over and expecting different results each time. The Internet has something for everyone. So he does his "research" because practically every sentiment known in the modern age has some page on some site behind some CICSO router. In fact, he is likely more a product of the Internet Age than you or I where sentiments such as a disdain for Christianity are mostly meaningless in the selected psychological role of "The Anti-Christ." He isn't the first to choose this form of role-playing and I highly doubt he will be the last. Of course, expect a vehement denial from him, but the signs are all there. Kind of like the phenomenon of the alcoholic: the last one to recognize his alcoholism is the actual alcoholic whereas everyone else knew long before that moment.