Shwa

From the link I supplied: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)" Although, I think that sometimes the fates and actions of human beings proceed in an orderly and harmonic way.

"disposing of a government of another nation" Yes. But why did we dispose of this government? I recall a whole lot of "reasons" because of Taliban morality, Al Queda bases, general terrorists, etc. But we are talking about Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia. I figure I am your typical Canadian who follows several news sources, reads topical books, etc and at this point it seems like there are no real good reasons to be there in the first place, let alone stay. But if we had to stay, lets focus on the IEDs. Now, I know that research...billions and countermeasures, etc., but surely there is enough brain matter, ideas, money and R&D impetus to solve the IED problem once and for all. We have been to the moon and back several times for gawdsakes. Unless... Unless there is no impetus to solve the problem because the death rate is acceptable in consideration of why we are there...

"Certain Peoples Enjoy Living Like Animals Over 5000 Year Period" Dan Brown's books provide data that can be verified archaeologically, but they are considered fiction. The Bible is not "oral history" because oral history is spoken or sung. The Bible is printed and read. While the Bible may have been the result of recording ancient oral stories, it has also become the subject of many revisions for a variety of political, social and cultural reasons. Like any other "history" in the world. Making a statement on selective hearsay evidence that may have been modified to address political or cultural bias will likely result in a highly innacurate statement. Your citation of biblical passages appear to me to be more of a statement of your bias than any useful cultural information. It would seem the only thing up for discussion is the nature of your bias.

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. - Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm) My son IS an astrophysicist and he can do some of the math in his head. He would concur with Einstein. In fact, in his last years of university he became attached to philosophy because, as he puts it, science does not explain everything. 'everything' is the realm of the philosopher - the first "science" and insofar as the concept of 'God' goes, philosophy hasn't figured that one out yet. The jury is still out. After thousands of years of rational enquiry. You can choose to believe, disbelieve or sit on the fence, it is up to you. But in the end, it is just a choice. I think we owe it to others to try and respect their choices. It doesn't answer any lofty questions, but it could prevent alot of conflict! A healthy debate about God is good, but using science to disprove God is like trying to use science to prove/disprove morality or using emotion to measure the size of the Universe. Or using astrophysics equations to figure out why some people lie.

"The person submitting to effective treatment does not have that option since there currently is none." Not true. Abstinence is an effective treatment for addiction, which is the gist of ibogaine - allowing the addict a period of abstinence from the addictive substance. However, ibogaine is not a substitute for abstinence over a long period which is the crux for an addict - how to remain abstinent.

Geez. I waffle on whether or not I believe we need a role in Afghanistan. I have the basic understanding of the history of the place. A basic understanding of how things are going over there. Etc. I would say my view is typical. But why are we there really? No one has come up with some definitive reason, just a lot of abstract speculation or wishful thinking. Security gap, narcotics control, poor foreign policy, to free the Afghan people, to remove the Taliban, because the Americans said and on and on. Does anyone really know the real reason we are in Afghanistan? Debate that and you will find out what will happen after 2011. Oh, does anyone know why the Americans put up such a bitter war in Vietnam? Is Islam the new Communism? A couple of things to ponder: even though it is almost impossible to source statistics - how many Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan compared to police & firefighter deaths in the line of duty over the same period? Here's the LoD stats for Canadian soldiers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan Not sure where you could find the LoD fatalities for our police and firefighters/ And it seems that most Canadian fatalities are due to IED's. It would seem to me that the military industry would have cutting edge research on detection for IED. Not only would this benefit all the soldiers in Afghanistan, but would have a pretty good civilian application as well. Anyone know how the researcg effort is going along these lines?

Here is what I originally wrote: "Uh-huh. Equating the threat or intent of violence to a large population with an individual robbery." Here is what you replied: "hey Mr Criminal code expert, what's the sentence for murder of one person?...life....for 10 people?...life..." So now, not only can you not keep up, you are getting desperate by trying to change the focus. First of all, the sentence for the degree of murder can only be determined once intent has been established. Second of all, the Criminal Code treats terrorist threats and intentions much differently from threats or intentions made during an armed robbery. Thirdly when you equate the sentencing of one murder with ten you are ignoring the weight the courts place on multiple murders, consecutive sentences and the chances for probation or early release or a dangerous offender designation. So your statement, quoted above, is a titch simple.

"our government is putting terrorists in prison for intending to kill others even though they have killed no one...robbery with a handgun is no different" Uh-huh. Equating the threat or intent of violence to a large population with an individual robbery. I can see now why you believe the Criminal Code of Canada is wrong.

Restricted weapons are defined clearly enough in the Criminal Code. The problem is - even with minimum sentences - is that gang bangers don't seem to care about consequences. I mean, some of them might, but anyone that walks up to someone else and shoots them in the face is clearly not thinking in terms of consequences. What I would also like to see is the penalty for accomplices increased. I kind of like the way it is in the US where some states will charge you with capital murder even if you are not the shooter. One of the drawbacks here is trying to determine who the shooter was and gang bangers now run in threes. Charge them all with the same crime. It might not act as a deterrent, but it will take two more scumbags off the streets at the same time. And I am OK with that.

Yes Ibogaine. Anaesthetic is a good treatment for withdrawl symptons too. You know, just knock the addict out for 2 weeks. The trouble with ibogaine is that you are treating one drug addiction with another drug. Like treating heroin addiction with pot. It will help with the withdrawl, but how effective is it in the long run? The problem with drug therapies as addiction treatments is that it does not make the addict's life any better. That is, the issues which compelled them into addiction will still remain once they are off the addictive substance. I have known many, many addicts that have gotten months, even years, of clean time and eventually went back to their drug - some of them to their death. The hardest of them all that I have seen so far is crack cocaine addiction. So ibogaine is good, but it is a small piece in the therapy that would/should last a very long time, if not a life time.

I'll have to agree with you here Argus - makes good sense. However, since everyone - even scumbag gang bangers - deserve a defence, we still have to allow for the punishment to fit the crime. But deterrence is problematic right? We have mental case youngsters in ghetto projects in Toronto that will shoot someone in the face and still not care what the minimum sentences are. They do it. Get out and do it again. I know that some recent cases have resulted in heavy sentences - but for crimes committed years ago. The deterrent factor is decreased with time passed IMO and let's not forget the 2-4-1 for time served having an effect on minimum sentencing.

"that's naive, how can anyone assume shooting a gun at someone will result in wounding, that's pure fantasy the intent is death" Man 'o man, do you need a lesson in English or a logic course or something? Using a gun/handgun in the commission of a crime does not necessarily mean discharging said firearm. Get it? That means waving a handgun in someone's face while you are robbing them is using a firearm in the commission of a crime. How often does this sort of thing happen compared to when a firearm is discharged and, when it is, results in injury or death? Here is the Criminal Code of Canada link about 'Use Offences': http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III-gb:s_85 Try and keep up will ya? Sheesh...

Taxes are necessary. (If you don't believe me, don't pay any for 5 years and discover the outcome.) However, the present form of taxation - yes the sliding scale income tax, I do not like at all. I hate it. But because taxes are necesasry does not mean I must charitably contribute nor be proud of my contribution. What I disagree with is a statement such as this: "Government does this for it's own self-aggrandizement and a justification to further tax the economy." I hardly believe that looking after the welfare of its citizens is done for "self-aggrandizement" or is a "justification" to further tax the economy. And I am not sure what province you live in, but health care is not free for me. I pay the Ontario Health Premium as well as taxes. And I am OK with the concept as I am with some of that tax money being spent on the unfortunate. Have we devised a perfect system to help the unfortunate that is immune to abuse? No. But what human system is immune from abuse? And like it or not the unfortunate are members of this system. However, complain as you may about the state or the economy or the economy of the state, you have not given any compelling reason why we should eliminate welfare. Can you? Can you give a compelling, unassailable reason why welfare should be eliminated in Canada?

"The poor cost lots of money, so why not fight poverty?" Well, the rich cost a lot of money too, why not fight prosperity at the same time?

"Coalition politics could very well be where we are going." Let's hope! Because faced with the out-of-touch ideologists of the NDP or CPC, and the absolute intellectual disaster that is the Liberal party, what else are we to chose from? Unless the Rhinos came back of course...

Why do we still have troops there again? Does anyone know?

But there are several roadblocks to simply upping the sentencing. The first one is that in some situations, hand guns are legal. Secondly both intent and sentencing are pretty big factors with Criminal Code cases so simply sweeping them away is probably not in the interests of justice. We have a system built on precedent to balance against arbitrariness. Just doing a quick scan of Bill C-10 and it looks like the mandatory minimums were removed, but I am not sure if this Bill is still active or what it's status is presently. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c10&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1

Of course it doesn't include me. Anyone that knows me, knows I hate taxation, but only in it's present form (I am a flat tax advocate). However taxes are necessary. Welfare is necessary. You state above that there is no free market economy, but failed to mention there is no capitalist economy either no matter how many people pin their hopes and dreams on believing there is. And of the recent billions of government bailouts to obviously greedy financial institutions didn't prove it, nothing will.

I lived through the Bob Rae NDP experiment in Ontatio. No matter how much I respect their leader I would never ever consent with a vote for the NDP. They arent't dangerous because of some "leftist" ideology, they are dangerous because they think ideology can govern. It can't. Which is what Harper is finding out right now - for the second time!

"he intends on killing someone else" Yet I believe that most crimes committed with a gun/handgun do not end up in death. There are certain instances where there is intent to kill - like gang slayings, shootouts, etc., but for the most part - I would say - there is no intention of killing anyone. In fact, I bet some gun crimes that result in death result in manslaughter convictions. Are you saying that if someone had no intention of killing anyone, but merely brought a gun along for a 'feeling of safety' or 'protection' they should get an automatic 10-20 years?

"rather than taken from our pockets against our will." Who is this "our" that you speak for?

"no current scientific theories need 'god' to be functional" You could also say that no current scientific theories need 'morality' to be functional. But that does not prove that morality does not exist or that people should not be moral or that science does not need morality. Something along those lines. However I am hoping that at least some scientists have good morals.

But why 10 or 20 years? Why not 15 or 25 or 7.5 and 15? How does 20 years represent a 'long time' but 12-15 years does not? Is there some data that indicates 10-20 years is the average time it takes to rehabilitate perpetrators of gun crimes? That sort of thing...

My impression is that it is pretty damned good! Or did you mean to ask me what my understanding of Canadian reality is? And, if that is what you meant, are you interested in an answer that is relevant to the topic on hand or would you prefer something more intensive and explanatory? To the former I have already adequately given it on a previous page and for that latter, well, not enough time in the day nor interest at this point.

Based on what criteria? Because 'you said?' Or do you have some other metric that is coming into play that arrives at that value? For instance, are you comparing weapon crimes with some other crime that you think is similar? Let's see what Mr. Fortin has to say...