Shwa

"is practically meaningless beyond that." We can test this with a statement: "The Spanish are deceitful, manipulative and untrustworthy and their inferior lives should be wiped from the face of the Earth. At the very least we will not be hiring any of them." Is this a racist statement or not? You can replace 'Spanish' with whatever group you wish to see if it fits the definition. Try Slavs, Jews, Blacks, Indians, etc.

"There is much sense in going over the evils of the church and communism" The point being that we already know how bad those two entities can get, it is a pointless discussion. The question was about Marxism, not communism. They are different things. Marxism is a theoretical framework for analysing social & economic phenomena which, at the very least, has value when used as a comparative to other similar theoretical frameworks. And that is a positive thing. "Marxism is a remix on the old Christian jew-book," I am not sure about that. Having read several old Christian jew-books and a couple by or about Marx I don't see the relationship unless we are talking about a relationship that is similar to the one between, say, Mein Kampf and Looney Tunes. By that I mean, both used stereotypical racial portrayals to try and get their point across. Actually, come to think about it, Mein Kampf is more like an "old Christian jew-book" than anything Marx ever wrote, but that is way off topic. For another thread or another time perhaps.

"Consider H1N1 as this years bird flu, or Y2K. More people will die of hype, than of the actual disease." Bravo! Nice use of numbers and statistics. Now tell me: Of the 50,000 Americans that die each year from the season flu, how many of them were healthy and lived without other vulnerabilities like compromised immune systems, underlying heart or lung conditions, etc.? How many of them were sick with something else that contributed to their demise? For that matter, how many of the 185 that died in Australia had underlying conditions that weakened them against H1N1? And how many of them were healthy? Of that small number of 185 Ozzies, how many did not die because they had their shot or they practiced decent hygiene? I wonder how many of the "only" 185 people in Oz would have done something different to preserve the life of their loved one? Do you have the cold comfort statistics for that? The problem here is that you quote numbers without qualifying them thus forcing me to quote Mark Twain: ""There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." So basically, if you are simply throwing out unqualified statistics without breaking them down into something meaningful, that isn't "science" it's bullscat. H1N1 knocks down healthy people and in some cases, takes them out. And it is preventable. That is the only information people need to know to make their decision.

"Wall Street and the Military have nothing to do with Health Care." No discussing that line of reasoning.

"I have no desire to spend my time educating you." Whoa. That's a titch arrogant don't you think? No need to get snippy now. AM asks, "What in God's name do Wall Street and the Military have to do with the topic at hand??" But previously AM stated, "What's "dangerously naive" is to think that there's enough money to help all those who need it; to believe there aren't those doing without needed care because of lack of money." The point about "Wall Street and the Military" was in reference to all the money that is there to help all those who need it; to ensure there isn't anyone doing without needed care because of lack of money. The reason I asked you to cite a source or case or two is because the original thread is about a specific case and you bringing up specific examples will help ground the discussion in specifics instead of comparing an orange with some vague and general apples. As soon as you do (if you can) cite specific examples of where the lack of money is causing those to go without care, then the "Wall Street and the Military" comments will make a little more sense. Look I know it is much easier to fight the large moral questions with little personal anecdotes and then beg off. If that is the route you choose to take, that is fine by me.

Anything that can have an effect on a 13 year healthy hockey playing kid is worth taking notice about: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...-hockey113.html My 16 year old lacrosse playing athlete kid is very. very sick this week - with some sort of flu - and it is very rare that any flu has this effect on him. And now I have it. But believe me I am keeping a closer eye on him than I am myself. If you are in a risk category, quit your whining and get the damned shot for H1N1. If not for yourself, then for everyone else around you that might catch it from you if you get it.

"What's "dangerously naive" is to think that there's enough money to help all those who need it; to believe there aren't those doing without needed care because of lack of money. " Really? Prove it. Or at least cite a source or two. Here are a couple of questions: how much needed health care could be obtained with the 700 billion dollars used to bail out Wall Street and other financial thieves? How much quality of care could be improved with one 10th of the US military budget - about 50 billion? If it comes right down to a money issue - or an issue of resources - the US has plenty to go around. Wouldn't you agree?

To wit, the US Marx scholar Hal Draper remarked, “there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) You could add Christ's teachings to that list as well. Once some mental cases got a hold of it, millions died. Doesn't mean that the Gospels are bad and neither are most of Marx's writings. There is as much sense of going over the evils of communism as there is in the evils of the Church. However... Marx had many positive contributions to humanity, especially in the fields of anthropology, history, economics, labour relations, etc. I believe that in many areas of study of the human endeavour you could find the positive influence of Marx's ideas even if ideas were developed in opposition to Marx's social theories.

"The problem here is that race and culture are not the same thing. When we tend to react to what we view as the negative aspects of some perceived race (ie. those Arabs are all crazy-ass suicide bombers), what we're really reacting to is a cultural phenomenon." No, not quite. M-W says: 2 a : "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics" While race and culture are separate (2a), they are joined through the concept of ethnicity and it is fairly common to include ethnicity when discussing race (2b) or racism. Thus there is a "Jewish" race or a "French" race and even an "Arab" race. Since there is an intrinsic link - ethnicity - between race and culture, referring to either could mean a reference to the other.

Mine was not an apathetic response Jerry, if that is how I felt I would have... oh why bother, who cares anyways? Just kidding. Expound on your thoughts. I don't think this sort of legislation is a violation of constitutional rights at all, but if you can point our how and where in the Consitution it is I am all ears. (or eyes in this case respecting the medium of couse)

"The greatest proponent of Socialism" J.D. Rockefeller? Nah. Plus his version of "socialism" wasn't sustainable. The greatest proponent of socialism was the guy who invented the armed forces of the modern welfare state. As much as the eagle-eyed US conservatives decry socialism, they have what they have because of the socialist nature of their army. Imagine that. Sending a socialist - heck, communist-like society of people (the US Armed Forces) to fight in the name of capitalism and freedom and stuff. You want free medical, clothing, work tools, food for your family, living quarters, and all those other nice promises of socialism? All state paid. Look no further than your local recruitment office. And try and run away once you have signed up and see what happens. But lets hear about Adam Smith...

"I myself believe that the institutionalization of racism is what perpetuates it." I tend to go with this sort of view of racism myself since it is the most harmful. Individual persons expressing their racist views are mere ignoramus bigots in my mind and do not have the power to actually do too much damage (sticks and stones, etc). Of course the damages scales up with numbers and, after all, institutions are made up of people. But it is racist policy from institutions - and the support and communication of that policy - that really perpetuates it for sure. Affirmative Action was a short term corrective policy that has sort of continued beyond its useful self-life I think - at least in the major institutions I have had access and experience with. I don't think it is "reverse" racism since there is no intention to communicate the superiority of one race over another. However... it has the effect of appearing like racial prejudice. I do feel that some governmental policies are still racially discriminative, but I am not convinced hiring practices are much anymore. And I believe that, for the most part, there is a good reflection of the general population in the general population of the employed. In some cases under-representation is difficult to manage in some occupations, but over time, as attitudes and beliefs change it will cease to be a problem. But these cases are more rural than urban. In the urban setting, I think Affirmative Action programs are useful to be used if there is a requirement, kind of like dusting them off from time to time, but ... if you have to use Affirmative Action oriented hiring practices then the organization should be looking at other policies internal to the people that make up the organization. You know, because there is still that attitude going around...

"but when the rights of the individual are eliminated in favour of the powers and authority of government then there is a very serious and detrimental issue." Yikes! We have to go back to Thomas Hobbes and his Leviathan to start that debate. Hmmmm... does anyone really ever want to go back to Hobbes? Rousseau maybe? Social contract discussion? Anyone? . . . . . Anyone? Didn't think so.

"Wasn't Social Darwinism thoroughly rejected after the Second World War?" Earlier: "...misapplying the leading theories of evolution which have been vastly reconfigured since the old fish to modern man diagram we are so familiar with. Thing of the past. There is no orderly march forward as a species and never has been." Nah, skip Durkheim and go straight to Levi-Strauss. The interesting notion is that the discussion of this person is multi-faceted that requires more than a pure biological angle and more than a sociological angle (and, as the original poster raised - the moral and religious angles as well). For instance prosthetics - biological or social? To me the use of prosthetics have elements of both...

"I didn't realize that MLM caused more deaths than China." Only half a point due to the restrictions and fallibility of reporting in China. And that still does not satisfy the perception that suspect business operators intentionally contaminated the infant formula with melamine. The actual damage from that poisoning is yet to be fully realized. Then again, did someone in Maple Leaf drop the ball on the lysteria poisoning? You know, someone said 'meh' before leaving Friday night... All companies do need to be watched, which is a good point. However, there is more faith put into our companies because we have strict health inspections based on stricter standards, something that bjre objects to. So I don't think there is any double standard at all.

uh-uh-uhhhh-aaa You lose another point for not being familiar with the differences between health inspectors and agents of a police state. If you want to draw those conclusions, then your logic would determine that life itself is one big police state because life causes people death. We can't have that! I am a little disappointed with you bjre. I went to all that trouble to highlight - using bold and italicized font - the key concept and you go and bring in death. And in a very large context. But I am feeling generous today and will allow you to try again: "The difference between melamine milk/lead paint baby toys and Maple Leaf meat is that Maple Leaf didn't intentionally put lysteria in their meat." Good luck!

"What do you think the roots of racism are, how does racism become predominant in a society." Before defining the roots of racism, you have to define the word itself, which Merrian-Webster fits for me: " a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." The key concept is the idea of 'inherent superiority.' So racism is not simply the recognition of the differences of others - their skin, nose configuration, language, religion, etc., nor is it the recognition that some of those differences may be more suitable in different environments over another. It is a belief in superiority of one race over another. Predominance in a society requires the belief to have widespread acceptance and this requires some form of communication and communicative control of the belief. The better the belief can be communicated and that communication controlled, the more potential for predominance. Control of the belief in communication is key because a lack of control could allow the contrary belief to develop and be communicated - which, in the case of racism, it has. There may have been racist believers in ancient times, but by and large evidence points away from this. Coupled with the smaller social organizational units of ancient times (tribes if you will) this may have manifested in itself as a temporary bigotry or prejudice, but these traits could also be applied to the 'other' tribes of the same race. Ready Edward T Hall's 'Beyond Culture' to get a good view of this. We could likely make a good case for the racist idea growing in parallel with the rise of modern mass communication technology starting with the printing press (with which one could also make a parallel with nationalism, imperialism, colonialism, etc.) Being in control of the press it is likely that - as an offshoot or evil spawn child of nationalism/imperialism that the racist idea firm root in governmental policy whether that was economic, religious of social. After a few generations of this belief being normative it was only 'natural' that people believed it. Contrary opinion was either suppressed or ignored. Then along came "science" and eugenics and even more effective methods of mass communication (or a refinement of those that already existed) and racism became entrenched and institutionalized. However, the eventual loosening of the controls over the mass media, including official scientific communications, resulted in beliefs contrary to racism coming to fire which has had the effect of loosening the grip of the racist belief including most entrenched in policy. However this loosening effect has only been over the past few generations in North America so there are still residual effects of institutional racism because of who belongs to those institutions. Eventually the rational will exclude the belief of racial superiority once the proponents of the belief die off like old dinosaurs from a primitive age.

This is the victim-versus-volunteer argument. The problem with looking at it from a "scientific" point of view is that there are several factors that provide undue influence on the outcome of the experiment. For one, using a 60 year old defenceless woman adds undue weight to the argument because of a vulnerability factor that could influence our 'feelings' on the possible conclusion to the point where we might deny the obvious. Instead of a 60 year old "innocent" woman, how about a 23 year old thug in the same situation? How about a 23 year old thug drug addict that was actually in the store to rob it and, all of a sudden, some meth addict gives him a shot in the head. Now use "science." Secondly, there is no statistical information presented. Randomness in statistics in very hard to discern and is usually the fault of the statistical gathering method. 'Random' does happen, but usually pans out to be something else we hadn't thought of or allowed for. However we could likely all agree that most 60 year old women in a corner store do not get punched in the head. So what would be the reason for A) most 60 year old women not getting punched in the head by meth addicts and why did this one get punched? Another factor to consider is the superiority complex with regard to the present culture and the influences of that complex with regard to the question on hand. There are plenty of cultures, religions, complexes and people that believe there is a kind of interconnectedness in the world between ourselves and every other person - from the concept of karma to biosphere. Vast subtle systems that are all interconnected to one another - kind of like the Internet. In cultures and thinking systems such as this, the idea of interconnectedness - of choice in all matters - is perfectly rational and reasonable, but the present cultural bias denies the validity of this type of rationality even though "science" is succumbing to the ideas that there are vast subtle systems are indeed globally connected. It is perfectly reasonable to bow out and gracefully exit this type of argument through lack of time or patience, but being dismissive on the basis of unfounded opinion based on the threat of guilt ridden outcomes isn't really productive.

"When thief steal from shop, they charge the shopkeeper." You are misinformed. The thief was charged and sentenced. He had his day in court. The shopkeeper broke the law. Even as ridiculous as the charges may be, we can't be giving shopkeepers the rights to beat on people because they are 'suspect.' We leave that up to the police.

The difference between melamine milk/lead paint baby toys and Maple Leaf meat is that Maple Leaf didn't intentionally put lysteria in their meat. There's the "logic." So you lose a point for that. However, if you had used tobacco products and the crap that goes into making a cigarette as your baseline you might have scored a point. Or you could have raised the issue about lead paint being used in baby toys in North America 40 or 50 years ago. That would have score you half a point. "can search you private properties any time they want with no reason, need take more tax money to build jails and hire cops, need out-law most natural products from the market so that large companies can make even more money." No, small companies can make even more money too.

Hey this video is pretty good. Kind of reminds me of that wry and dry Brit humour I have grow to love over the years. Like On the Buses. Anyone remember On the Buses? They had a few cranks that would go off now and then too. Fun times. However, I neither got any immediacy to the future of western civilization, rational freedoms nor powerful assaults by leftist elements. All this video was some Brit cranking away on YouTube. There are a million of those for every political stripe you can imagine. And some you can't. Ah well. It doesn't play very well in re-runs and, sadly, neither does On the Buses anymore.

How on earth could this hurt economic growth? Quite the opposite. Flu makers have their wares sold; nurses are paid to give out the shots; nevermind the industry and jobs surrounding the flu - the scientists, doctors, researchers, lab animal handlers, people who make that hand sanitizer stuff.. In fact, the more flu - the more employment is what I say. Then there is all the money that goes into making it a news item - reporters, newscasters, camera operators, printing press guys - they all pay their big taxes so the government can buy more flu shots. Wow. When you add it up, flu is big business! Maybe we need an Ebola scare to turn the recession right around. Actually, we could release Ebola on Wall and Bay streets and we'd all be millionaires! Who needs the lotto when you have the flu in your pocket?

Yeah I can see how this legislation could be construed as friendly to the big multinational pharmacueticals. But I think if you have any legislation that is aimed at consumer protection you are going to get that angle. I mean, stores can no longer sell baby toys with toxic lead paint, but that doesn't mean legislation is intended to favour Mattel or Fischer Price. I think this slate of legislation is aimed more towards snake oil salesmen and charlatans than legitimate naturopathic product producers. And I highly doubt that my favourite blueberry stand just outside of Bancroft is at risk despite the supersonic squels from E May and the Greens. And if Gramma slaps some stinky poultice on your face to treat zits I am highly skeptical that the HC Gestapo is going to come a-calling. Unless... of course, you rat out Gramma... :angry:

This is what you wrote: "Furthermore, as un-PC as it may be, it's difficult to argue this: QUOTE (lictor616 @ Oct 24 2009, 06:07 PM) ... and think of all that could have been done if the resources allocated to her hopeless cause would have been diverted to other sick children with real prospects at a normal life? ...but is she more deserving than those who go without? I think that's the issue being raised." As I pointed out earlier, she was born and raised in an environment in which she was "fit" (worthy) to survive. Her life in no way takes anything away from anyone else and it is dangerously naive to think that it somehow does through some fuzzy economic logic about "resources allocated" or "lack of money." They have done a few face transplants lately that have improved the "quality" of life according to the recipient patients. So the liklihood of this person obtaining similar results are quite good don't you think? The way technology is advancing in the areas of prosthetic technology alone is astounding. So...I am merely replying to what you wrote and it is not difficult to argue this at all.

"I think that's the issue being raised." Come on now, you really don't buy into that do you? Who is to determine who is worthy or not - death boards? The fact of the matter is that she is a survivor and thus "fit." That takes care of the evolutionary angle. Secondly, any attribute of condition you assign to her says more about you - and how you feel - than her. And finally, with the rate of modern medical discovery, there might be a treatment that alleviates most of her symptoms - including looks - within 5 years or so. So is the real issue that we dispose of human beings because we lack the wherewithal and resources to treat their unique or complex medical conditions? Why bother with medical research at all then? Ask Stephen Hawking.