The Terrible Sweal

Gimme a break. The Tories spent every waking moment of question period basically doing nothing but taking turns shouting 'Your all a bunch of crooks!'. The nation's business my ass.

You know, actually, it's kind of funny that you would think that interview really could be for real. Not a big fan of Annie, are you, IMR?

Good point. On the other hand I would argue that those in favour of same sex marriage are unwilling to compromise, while most of us righties have no problem with civil unions. I think that is pretty fair. It might begin to approach 'fair' if opponents had any reasonable basis for insisting on the distinction. None has yet been articulated anywhere in the public discourse. As long as your strategy is to let 51% of voters think you'd like to make them into baby machines but won't for political reasons, I think you'll continue to have a problem. See you're just belittleing his beliefs. I am exercising my freedom of speech to comment on a public issue as I see it. Of his beliefs that passage says that holding them makes him appear to fall outside the realm of reason. This is demonstrably true. Does Stock believe man walked with dinosaurs based on a logical and informed analysis of the available evidence, or does he believe it because his Faith tells him that? The latter, of course, and so, he is not a man of reason. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't expect me to muzzle myself because it hurts you to hear you're wrong. What sold me what the theory that democracy is a wrongheaded form of government because it elevates man over God. I found that to be an unacceptable notion to elect into government. So, are you saying that dinosaurs are the Christian equivalent of the goddess Sarasvati? Certainly. Yes. Yep. UnHunh! Just admit it, you're making an unsupported accusation.

TTS you claimed the other day not to hate Conservatives, but your insistence on calling names and attach derogatory tags to many of your comments. This shows a lack of integrity. Bullcrap. When Grewal tries to cut a deal and is rebuffed and turns around and blames the people who rebuffed him, that is a lack of integrity. When a party releases a small portion of extensive tape recordings to impugn someone and then refuses to release the rest of the tapes, that is a lack of integrity. When someone says that an honest critic is 'calling names' when he is not, that is a lack of integrity. Here endeth the lesson. Hope you were listening.

That is just sooo far-fetched. Tamils just aren't that big a group, and they don't support the Tigers that much. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Like most ethnic communities of immigrants, they are concentrated in certain geographical areas. And they don't have to be the majority in any riding to determine the riding's representation. Example, locally, we have a riding with a one third francophone population. The representative of that riding is ALWAYS a Francophone. It doesn't matter that they only make up 1/3 the population. They will not vote for a non-francophone, so either you have three Francophones running as the three main party reps (because they all recognize politcal reality), or whoever is not a Francophone gets left behind. If you get most of 1/3 of the votes, then you only need to get a little more than 1/3 of the rest to win. And unlike Francophones (or Tamils) mainstream white anglos generally don't vote on racial or linguistic lines. As for supporting the Tigers - the fact is that in that community you support the Tamils or you shut up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You pretend to a lot of knowledge in this matter, but I doubt that it is backed up with direct information or experience.

Or Should children have the right not to be brainwashed.

No quote, just a second-hand allegation. What stinks in this situation is the media perpetuating a story based on nothing but tory sleaze.

I'm not sure that "society" has any rights, at least in the context of this discussion. Right? No. Interests? Certainly, the protection of vulnerable citizens is a societal interest. I think you're mistaken. 8 seconds with Google brought me to... I sit corrected. But I have read the full decision now and I don't think it changes the big issue. Parents have the 'right' to make decisions about raising children, up to the point the 'rights' of the children are afflicted. We still have the question of whether mal-education can cross that line.

This is an outrageously false, sick, and malicious slander. I've reported this to Greg because I don't think anyone here should ave to put up with this sort of attack. I don't know what kind of dementia drives you Hugo, it's repellent and I have no intention of corressponding with you anymore.

Tolerance does not require that we endorse such nonsense nor that we give credence to the decisionmaking abilities of a man who appears to fall outside of the realm of reason. Religious freedom does mean a 'free pass'. No, it's not. That at least is true, for better or worse. No, they are fighting to increase the influence of their religious beliefs in government, irrespective of the principles of our institutions. Personally, I'm offended by sweeping, peurile, over the top rhetoric. Ok then Sweal, don't cry when voters in the US and Alberta vote against it. And it is their business if they believe that the breakup and assault on the family is causing decaying of society. Believe whatever ... it's a free country -- just be sure we'll keep it that way. I don't get this. Please tell me, secifically what tolerance do you feel is being withheld that ought to be extended? There are reasons that voters who feel strongly about this issue line up, statistically speaking, with the party(s) that we find them in. On top of that, their presense in such parties is naturally a contributor to making such parties what they are, policy-wise.

There was a thread on that topic, but I don't recall that being anyone's position.

Here's a crazy idea, because murder is wrong and you agree with them. Nh? The premise is that one does not agree. What I am trying to get at is the absurdity of the resentment among theocrats at the simple fact voters don't want their ideas to come into effect. Ergo, candidates who advocate and endorse those ideas are not selected for office. Well, it looks like you're sensitive enough to feel bad about being thought of as an asshole. But are you sensitive enough to understand someone else who doesn't like being thought of as sinful or perverted? [Do me a favor -- think for 60 fulll seconds about how those two sentences are inter-related.]

If someone believes that and won't accept others' views, why on earth should they vote for him? Cause it's none of their busines? Anyway, they can believe whatever they want, just don't cry when voters don't want that kind of shit.

His argument would be inconsistent and logically indefensible. He doesn't care. He has a club. That is unsubstantiated libel, in a public moderated forum, and all copies of your posts are archived, even after you edit them. It is Greg's policy to maintain all such posts should subpoenas be issued for them. Watch your step. If you're going to make accusations like that you had better have some kind of evidence. Bring it on. You're the slanderous liar who accuses people falsely of supporting the holocaust. If you want to shine a light on your vicious and blatant lies, I'll be only too happy to observe the outcome.

Then you are apologising for the Holocaust, ... You know, that is a really really really annoying lie you keep spouting. I've told you before what I am saying does not involve an ethical analysis. I am saying, that in practice, the only rights that you'll ever benefit from are those that your society extends to you. Whether you ought to have more or less or different is not part of my point. You think that's an answer? I said this to you: Your memory is very selective. I said "the state is not a party". You said, "Yes, it is." and added the above paragraph apropos of nothing. I replied "No it isn't." In this context, my reply is sufficient. If all the individuals in society could impose that then we would not have a government at all... The individuals in society HAVE done that and the RESULT is government. Your endless recitation of this is truly boring. You wish! Section 239 subsection 1 of the Income Tax Act states that upon conviction for tax evasion, you will be fined between 50% and 200% of the amount sought to be evaded and imprisoned for up to two years. Canada does not impose taxes on income earned outside of Canada. Completely irrelevant to my point. What the f***? How can that be irrelevant to your point. Your point is that Canada will charge me with tax evasion if I leave Canada and the facts utterly refute that.

A man alone in the wilderness can have both rights and language. He just has no particular need for either. I don't see how he can have rights alone in the wilderness if rights only exist among men. But I suppose that depends on what my definition of 'is' is.

Yes, they do only have meaning among persons. Language only has meaning among persons. Does that mean that an individual has no capacity for language? The man alone in the wilderness has use for neither speech nor any notions of claims to 'rights'. The point at which rights become pragmatically relevant (where I say they begin to 'exist', i.e. among other sapient entities) is what interests me. You said: "In this case, the two options to defend us against the consequences of a transgression of our rights are either persuasion or the use of responsive force (or the threat to use responsive force)." That is, you agree that failing persuasion, the only defence for what you claim as yours is force. Good. Now the next point I would make is this: Cooperative action is a means of enhancing your ability to defend yourself by force. Grouping together is a rational response to hostility.

Uh, so ROC, or Canada, or whatever does not have any shared values? Did you rent your fingers to Hugo today? That's such a strawman, imputed leap of logic I can't believe you bothered. We are a simple people, I suppose, like hobbits. You're between the Scylla and Charibdys of two notoriously sleazy axe-grinders. There seems to be a assumption on your part that it is Quebec's lack of commonality with this monolithic 'ROC' that stands in the way of resolving problems. Given the assumption, I think we need to examine which problems you identify. Millions are being spent to uncover just how much "Liberal" corruption there was. This autumn, those millions of dollars are supposed to bear their fruit. I don't see what basis there is for criticism against people who think the way to find out about the corruption is through the mechanisms established for exactly that purpose. What is so hard to grasp about that?

I think a small majority of Canadians think it should be allowed. I also don't think laws should be driven by superstiuous moralistic concerns. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Everyone listen to sweal, throw your morals out the window and lets get this gay marriage law passed! Brilliant sweal!! And you say I have idiotic posts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. For example ...

You find that grossly offensive? I suggest you need to revise your ideas, then, because these are your ideas that you are finding so repugnant. You are a sleazy liar.

What are you on about? I am pointing out that he may honestly hold a completely different view of what constitutes ownership. He may be a theif in your eyes, but not his. 1) I'd accept that as a practical reality, but not a reason for complacency. 2) Okay, the issue being sorting transaction costs which decrease welfare from those that don't decreas welfare. 3) I disagree. Two problems with this example. Firstly, if common currency reduced transaction costs, the free market would arrive at that anyway. Prove it. Do you have hard evidence for this? No doubt.

Each time I read this, I find it more cryptic. Freaky isn't it. I have no idea what I was trying to say there.

Contd. ... Do you have to lie and make grossly offensive comments like this? It's a real piss off, you know. False. This doesn't make sense. In this case there would be no need for government, because as I have said in another thread, you don't need to form a coercive government to force people to do what they want to do anyway. Again, your whole argument hinges on your beg-the-question definitionalizing. Amuse yourself with such sophistry if you like, but your not engaging meaningfully with the observed universe. If a previously atomistic group of people suddenly coalesces to collectivle provide for a collectively chosen objective, they have created a 'government' in so doing.

If the thief spoke of this as 'force', the only thing that demonstrates is the truth behind the idea that lack of education is a factor in crime, because the thief doesn't know what the word 'force' means. No, the 'theif merely interprts the situation in radically different terms than you do. Example? You mean other than dismissing pareto optimal and whatnot? No, it reinterprets it, to say that when we observe what appears to be aggregate action, what we are really observing is the aggregate effect of many, many individual actions, and everything about economics is reducible to the actions of individual humans. ... Now, do you have a refutation? Refutation? No. I see nothing there: -particlarly startling to mainstream economics, -problematic, or -which takes your arguments forward. If this affects the creation of rights, then what you are telling me is that there are no ethics, and no morals, and human action is solely limited to what is possible - Here we are at cross-purposes again, I guess. For some reason, your way of discussing these matters makes me think you are purporting to have a descriptive point, but each time it turns out your really prosletysing a normative viewpoint. Are you causing that confusion, or is it some quirk in they way I'm reading you? I fail to see the connection between the one and the other. The metaphysical idea to which you seem to subscribe, of when a 'right exists' is quite beside the practical policy matters I tend to be concerned with, as a liberal.

What if he doesn't lie? Instead he says: yeah, you had it first, but now that I have come, as the X of HF it is mine by right - your stewardship is ended and you must yield it up to me, its rightful ownr. It's a perennial favourite of yours to blather on about transaction costs. I suppose the Austrian school has imagined transaction costs out of existence as well? Hugo, do you realize how loopy that comment is? Any generalize reduction of trans costs increases welfare. Issuance of common currency reduces transaction costs. States have issued currency. Egro, states have contributed to welfare. Hugo, have you evr read any economics OTHER than Austrian school?