The Terrible Sweal

It's got at least equal validity to what it replies to, I should think.

A couple thousand, eh? How many were convicted of something?

Is this view tenable though? Does the state in Canada act that way? I'm not so sure. Where is the possessive/dispositive element that would characterize slave-holding?

Blah blah blah blah. A pie in the face is a test of a politician's character. Frankly, with the abuse that elected 'leaders' dish up for the citizenry, I just can't feel that a good pie in the face is such a terrible thing. Sorry, I guess that makes me a communist. They were such jokesters!

I'm aware of that, but Guevara's face tends to appear on more tee-shirts than Castro's. And the fact remains that Guevara, too, was a cold-blooded murderer and a good friend and fellow revolutionary of Castro. Guevara a cold-blooded murderer? Who did he murder, in your opinion?

Most of your comments don't seem to amount to an actual reply to mine, but regarding those that do ... Marx and Engels would certainly qualify IMO as extreme left. But there are many contemporary examples of leaders left of Trudeau: Castro, the leaders of China, the Soviet Bloc countries, many European social democrats, etc. No it indicates ignorace and disrespect, much like a teenager that listens to Rap music that promotes violence against police officers............trying to define themselves as being "bad" and/or the rebel. I find it both ludicrous and offensive for you to characterized Canada as juvenile for conscienciously held opinions. Where do you get off? Anyway, Mr. Beichman's claim is that Canada is waging a cold war, so how does 'disrespect' matter? Please try to stick with the issue at hand. You don't think the other world leaders that were able to give their respects to the Americans were not also concerend with that? I should hope that our Prime Minister could walk and chew gum at the same time So far as I know Canada was the only country to accept US planes during the crisis (but I could be wrong). The point is that while Mr. Beichman complains about nonsense Canada was busy doing something truly good to help America (a point which, in his prejudice, he fails to acknowledge most ungraciuosly). Did he punish Parrish? You make no sense here. Why should he do such a thing? What do you imagine not punishing Parrish proves? Where is the connection between Beichman's absurd claim that Martin hates America???? He's using Al-Jazeera as a contrast In that we allow Al-Jazeera, but why not Fox and the Italian Channal??? Did you read my comments? I said RAI was not allowed because it's programming is already carried on a domestic chanel. I don't know the Fox details, but I suspect the CRTC decided Canadians were already sufficently served with US news sources. And again: such decisions take Beichman NOWHERE on his thesis that Canada is waging a 'cold war' against the US. Your attempts do divert from this utter fallacy are clever, but not ultimately effective. Do you live in a glass house? What do you mean? I don't spout egregious propaganda full of such utter nonsense and lies, so your question is bizarre.

Whoa whoa whoa!!! You start by criticizing Castro's rule in Cuba, but then veer wildly into a complaint about Che Guevara. They were two different people you know.

!! What on Earth makes you say that? Taking God out of the state sphere is entirely necessary for two reasons: First, there is no agreement among the citizenry as to what God may wish. Second, to most effectively acheive its ends, the state should employ rational means. Reliance on 'God' for making choices is not rational.

They are not exact synonyms. Despotism is rule by a single individual who holds all 'legitimate' authority. Despotism may or may not be totalitarian, but usually is. Totalitarianism refers to any type of regime which maintains that the state has total authority, over-riding all individual or citizen interests (if necessary). A totalitarian state need not be a despotism. For example, an oligarchy (e.g. the Communist Party of China) can be totalitarian. Using a (perforce abbreviated) dictionary definition masks the subtle meanings available from proper usage of these terms.

Which murderous prisoners at Abu Ghraib are you talking about??? I haven't heard of any convictions being obtained, so it sounds to me like you're slandering these people. Would you rather be pied or slandered? And if they had confined themselves to pie-ing them rather than committing sexual abuse against them, I'm sure they wouldn't be in the hot water they are now. I'm intrigued by a mind that can make a moral equation between a pie in the face and having dogs sicced on you. You're quite amazing, IMR, really.

Excess talk is because the station doesn't want to pay royalties on too much music. Or, sometimes because it doesn't have enough music available within it's market-defined parameters. Since theyve got the DJ anyway, he might as well yap out some filler to same them some money or trouble. Quality? Who cares? Make it hard enough to find and the public will eventually forget about it.

Give me permission to slam a pie in your face as hard as I can when you're not looking. I dare you! Now you're funny. I agree in this case he ought not to have hit Ralph with such force, but that doesn't change the fact that pie-ing a politician is usually harmless ... and hilarious. Did you see Stephane Dion? And Chretien! What a hoot!

One sided cold war? That's odd, he criticises an allegedly anti-US opinion column in a clearly anti-Canadian opinion column. That writer is an asshole. I have rarely seen such a vicious and embarassingly transparent assortment of falsity. There's barely a straight word or a coherent thought in the whole piece: 1] Trudeau was not extreme left. To say such a thing is to begin from the position of a person who has no sense of the scope and nature of political opinion in the world. 2] As evidence for a cold-war, open admiration of Castro amounts to zip. That the writer offers this comment in support of his cold-war nonsense indicates clearly that he is adopting a falacious with-us-as-our-slave-or-against-us attitude. Difference of opinion is the same as 'war' to this chap, eh? 3] The formulation 'neutral against' is comprehensible only to an idiot such as Mr. Beichman. 4] Drivel. 5] Perhaps Mr. Chretien was too busy letting potential flying-bomb land safely at our airports to satisfy Beichman's need for verbification. 6] Evidence? ANY evidence? 7] What does Mr. Beichman mean by equating (alleged) anti-semitism with (falsely alleged) anti-Americanism? 8] Mr. Beichman is perpetuating an inaccuracy here. Ms. Parish was refering to the Bush administration and it's peons, not Americans in general. Impolitic? Impolite? Yes. Evidence of a cold-war against America? Nonsense. 9] The United States attacked Canada before (admittedly a while ago), and was revealed to have operational plans on how it would invade Canada should it choose to do so in modern time. The US had a record of disrupting governments it disliked. Mr. Caplan's position is not at all outrageous. AND it STILL doesn't amount to a 'cold war' against America. Fearing invasion is not the same a planning hostility, Mr. Beichman, you asshole. 10] First, Al-Jazeera is not anti-semitic. It reports on anti-semites' activities and their motivations. Second, Al-Jazeera is available in Israel, so obviously Israel must be running a cold war against America? Beichman's rant it so threadbare he should be ashamed to have his name on it. Besides, his facts are incorrect, likely deliberately. Al-Jazeera was not approved with special dispensation. It was approved with special restrictive conditions not applied to any other approved broadcaster. As for RAI, I fail to see the connection to any anitti-American sentiment, and besides, it was not approved because it's programming is carried already by a domestic chanel. 11] This is a lie. The CRTC decision had no connection with any choices made in Bagdahd. 12] Evidence? ANY evidence? 13] Repetition is not evidence. Mr. Beichman obviously hates Canada and is willing to spout the most egregious propaganda against us.

Odd. Makes one wonder why they are demanding to photograph soldier's coffins coming back from Iraq. Pardon me? What sort of thinking allows you to equate the portrayal of victims in the throes of their deaths with the decorous return of honourable dead service-people?

There are only two times you can believe a Bush: 1) When he says nothing 2) When he says something you can verify as true in order to set you up for the next lie. Everything Bush-touched is tainted.

Oh, it's funny!

La Ilaha ha Ila Allah

Suicide is against the rules in Islam, but it is distinguished from martyrdom.

Good, because frankly, I've lost the thread of our bilateral discussion. More than that. I distinguished the 'morality' (a received understanding of right and wrong) propagated by religions from 'ethics' (a derived understanding of right and wrong) acheivable through Reason. You didn't challenge that derivation, so far as I recall. I assumed it made sense to you. Perhaps this discussion can be resolved by an examantion of that derivation. Numbers 2 and 3 posit self-sovereign individuality and the existence of preferences in individuals. From this we can infer the concept of motive/motivation/purpose. Once we have purpose, pragmatism becomes a relevant standard of assessing choices. Well, no. I think you picked up on something I was adding to another discussion on this topic, and so its application in this line is inexact. I don't understand what your 'challenge' is. What are you asking??? Is this what you want: Your action in that case seems quite justified ethically in terms of the principles I suggested right at the beginning. What's the problem here??? If you find them invalid, I invite you to discuss why. Do you find fault with the three basics? Or is the the extrapolation you challenge? Not in the least. As I see it, I have won that point. Utter raving nonsense. There is a miscommunication at work. Until this post, I had not given you an assessment of whether your choice was 'good'. By thinking that I had, you were led to think that I assessed your action as 'good' because it satisfied your goals. In fact that is not the sum total of ethics at all. There. Do you agree with me yet, or is there more work to do here? Each person makes choices he or she thinks will serve his or her preferences. Whether these choices are ethical depends in part on whether they are useful in serving these preferences and the preferences of all other people. If fairness is useful, or if fairness makes something more useful, the extrapolation is sound. I argue that fairness is useful in allowing more people to serve more preferences. (Do I need to explain that one?) When someone is tempted to kill, ethics could stop them by reminding them that: Each individual is 'sovereign' and has a preference for remaining alive. As for 'stealing' it is very context-driven as to whether it is ethical or not. Same with contracts. Give me more specifics. In the absense of an exogenous stakeholder (e.g. father, society), a woman ending a pregnancy, at least up to the point of viability, is not facing an ethical question.

I think it changes the analysis substantially to venture into the question of "measureable". By 'net pleasure' I mean to convey the fact that choices involve not just securing pleasures, but also avoiding displeasures. In your case, you stayed on the line out of an assessment that told you you would [expect to] avoid displeasure (e.g. failing to live up to your beliefs) and had some potential [expectation] for obtaining the satisfaction (pleasure) of tangibly helping the other person. Accordingly, given your expected 'net pleasure' in the situation, you made the pragmatic choice that you would stay on the line and not hang up. There was a pragmatic advantage to it, for you, as discussed above. It is the beginning. The next phase of the assessment is to ask about the gain/loss occasioned to all from your individual pragmatic choice.

You're forgetting one more thing ... the Thumpers' newfound concern for the Jews is predicated on their hopes that Israel will become the centre of a cataclysmic war. With friends like these ...

We don't choose to obtain a certain net benefit. We choose to obtain an expected net benefit. That is, we live in world of risk (uncertainty). I suspect DAC thought that there was a chance some good could come of the conversation. You are certainly right about expectation. But which and what benefits DAC expected, I don't hink matter. My point is he acted out of SOME expectation of benefit (or avoidance of cost/loss). WTF indeed. It's not jargon, it's two words used together to convey the meaning I intend. "Voluntary: done, acting, able to act, of ones own free will" "Rubric: established custom"

Interesting change of subject, but not interesting enough. Cheers.

That was just a bit of sarcasm that I know you fully picked up,but chose to attack me on the issue of ignorance instead. Is a congressional report something you always believe? That means there were republicans involved,and you don't obviously agree with them. True, I don't always believe congressional reports, but there is much more than just that to why I believe it this time: 1) the Bush regime claimed to know there were WMDs and refused to profer the evidence, turns out they had lied; 2) the Bush regime claimed to have evidence of al Queada connections, but they refused to proffer the evidence. Their lie in #1 detracts from their credibility here in #2. 3) no other credible source has tendered evidence of substantive al Quada connections. 4) politics-wise it made little sense to think that fundamentalist al Quaeda would be buddy-buddy with pinko Saddam.

I agree with him. Confederation is better than Federation. America was a confederation too. Un mot a une définition et si le mot confédération a été choisi pour déterminer le canada. il était trompeur. c'est tout ce que je dit et évidement il n'y a pas un spécialiste qui va appeler le canada une confédération, donc c'est irréfutable que le canada n'est pas une confédération. Maintenant de la a savoir pourquoi le mot confédération a été utilisé, il parle d'une façons de "tromper" la population pour que le projet soit plus accepté parce que évidement les français ne voulais pas être dirigé par les anglais et les maritimes ne voulait pas être dirigé par le québec et l'ontario. Si je l'explique mal en anglais alors fait la traduction , sinon apporte moi de la documentation parce que je suis sur que tu n'était pas la en 1867 alors tu l'a lu et je veut m'assurer du sérieux de la chose genre si tu te documente dans de la documentation reconnus pour son objectivité ou si c'est dans la rédaction d'un étudiant qui a écris cela sans trop mettre de preuve ;P . Après tout si les encyclopédie ne disent pas la vériter alors je vais pouvoir les actionner et devenir riche . The Terrible Sweal I don't claim to know something that happend in 1867, thats why i cite document who claim to know what happenned, i think its more accurate. If you or anybody here have other document that proof its not true then fine we will try to find more documentation to compare but hey im not an historian i don't know what really hapenned and if your not an historian then i doubt you know too.... Its really easy to claim that we really know what happend hundred of years ago, you just have to persuade your brain but if you want to be accurate you use document, thats what i do. I put the link for general use, but if you want the text with my citation you can find it on there site if you do a research on the canadian confederation. You can also go look in the encarta encyclopedia if you have one, they say about the same thing. In fact i was quite surprised when i read it for the first time so i watched for other source and they where all saying the same thing. Comment avez vous choisi les definitions des termes 'federation' et 'confederation'? Quoi dites vous, si je sugere que le 'confederation' c'est simplement le mot pour le process de former un 'federation'? [Mes excuses pour les fauts de grammaire, l'orthographie, et usage, et aussi pour le manque des accents, et finalement les mots anglais utilises comme francais.] The only document which is relevant to how Canada 'ought to be' run is the authoritative document, the BNA Act. We have a division of powers which is clear enough;call it federation, call it confederation, it says what it says.