The Terrible Sweal

I agree, this forum is excellent because of the quality of expression, the divergence of opinion, and the generally courteous tone.

The headline for this topic asked are animial rights as important as human rights. In order to usefullly consider the question, it needs to be completed: Are animal rights as important as human rights ... [to who]? And then the next question is, what 'rights'? Voting? Equality before the law? Basically, as posed, the question is meaningless.

Huhn? I don't see how. Voluntary would be voluntary. Legitimized force would fall under the force rubric.

And then there's this gem...

Individual counties can withdraw on a few months notice.

How could they 'discover' it 'first' when the sagas themselves record that they met aboriginals already here?

That statement is absolutely ridiculous given the multibillion dollar deficit left by the Harris/Eves spending machine. (To say nothing of the destruction of social wealth their regime entailed!)

It's amazing that you call your opinion 'undeducated', but nevertheless persist in it. Why not educate yourself instead? The congressional 9/11 commission concurred with virtually everyone else that there were no substantive linkages between Iraq and al Quada. Disagreeing with this is your prerogative, but why should anyone pay any attention to it when you admit it is based purely on ignorance? Why are you wasting our time?

If you knew as much as you claimed, you would understand that the distinction you are purporting to draw between a "federation" and "confederation" is specious. The BNA Act specified the operative effects that were agreed, and they are what they are, irrespective of the word-games you may play around essentially identical terms. It sounds to me like you have been paying far too much attention to the cabal of fools at the University of Calgary. P.S. your link doesn't take me to the article you quoted.

I'm sorry,but I could not grasp your point due to the faulty grammar,and punctuation in particular.Could you go back and fix that so I can get it.Thanks.

As you say, circumstances have changed. The constitutional division of powers has not. The intent discernible from the document, not the hypothetical intent ascribed through convenient whim to individual dead men who are no longer available for consultation.

That is one theory of property, suitable for a non-voluntary rubric (e.g. conquests or class systems) In a voluntary rubric, property is whatever your society won't take (or suffer to be taken from) you because society values the use that you are putting it to above the uses that a taker would put it to. The latter is more secure, more productive and more efficient.

I told anybody who read what I posted why I didn’t hang up. You can claim that I derived “pleasure” all you like. I can’t stop you. It proves you don’t make it as a mind reader. You see, here is something I don't like about discussion with you. I carefully apply and indicate a term 'net pleasure', but despite that you deliberately misconstrue it into "pleasure", is if you have no regard whatsoever for my comment. You know what? That's rude. Now, back to the point, your description of why you didn't hang up suggests clearly an implicit 'net pleasure' you derived. You didn't hang up because you are serving an ethic (as you put it). Your choose to accept the displeasure of the conversation for to avoid the greater displeasure of not living up to your what your beliefs require of you. I don't need to adopt your beliefs to see the rationale that underlies your choice. I merely need to know that they may provide incentives for you outside of the displeasure involved endogenously in the conversation.

The founders wrote a constitution which divided powers between the provinces and the federal government. Those power divisions remain what they have been since the beginning, no matter how many angels one sets to dancing on the head of a pin.

But none of these activities is productive (except in the welfare neutral GDP sense). They have 'value' only because they serve to prevent and avoid greater value loss. Plus, the insurance company doesn't gain profits, it merely covers and increased cost. Moreover, I am doubly victimized by the loss of the money AND a higher premium. And the police are not an entreprenuerial wealth-building business, they are government service. More police business costs taxpayers more money. And I can spend my $100 just a well as the thief.

If an athlete wins the 'World Championships' in his or her sport, but then when the Olympics comes he or she chokes like a novice whore, is the problem poor funding?? (I think not. He or she got to be 'world champion' with the existing funding, right?) Meanwhile, if a COC official says 'next time there will be fourty less medal available because China is going to win them all', is this: 1) an unsupportable admission of defeat from someone in that position 2) a very poor reason to throw good money after bad 3) both of the above? I choose #3. Fundamentally, what is a Gold Medal worth? Is it worth one less MRI machine? One less farm saved? One less university chair? It's time to face the fact that a gold medal is actually totally worthless, except to the person winning it.

I oppose Proportional Representation. (I also oppose referenda, and supreme court appointment hearings.) The main objection to PR is that legislators who get in from party lists don't really represent anyone in particular except their parties. Obscene party discipline is one of the biggest problems, and adding members beholden to no-one but their parties will only make this worse. Instead of PR Canada should have a preferential ballot system AND a legislator recall process. These would solve the problems without undermining our representative Parliament system.

Takeanumber: 1. I am not a 'member' of 'the left'. (In fact, I'm a classical liberal in the J.S. Mill-Thomas Jefferson mold.) 2. IF they are developing nuclear weapons, then yes, they are in violation of the treaty. 3. You misunderstand my questions. I don't need to know why we should want them not to have nukes. That's obvious. The question (which I may have put poorly) is what valid justification is there for preventing them from building them if they are not in the treaty anymore.

Claims about what were and were not the founders intentions are open to be made from any perspective. In reality, the founders intended the document to say what they made it say. It is the document itself which embodies the founders' relevant intentions.

A possible Iranian nuclear weapons program is getting a lot of airplay these days. Some say things like "Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons." Or "Israel will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons." Currently, Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, under the terms of which they have agreed not to seek or obtain such weapons. But that treaty has a procedure available for leaving the treaty. My question is this: if Iran exercised its right to leave the treaty, do people still think there is some way it could be justly prevented from building nuclear weapons? If so, what is that way, and why should they be so prevented?

WTF?TS, it is that kind of moral reasoning that I find objectionable and apparently, you are oblivious. "If I had just given my car to the thief, he never would have had to steal it from me." Sigh. What you and others on the right seem to insist on being oblivious to is that I am not engaged in "moral reasoning" up to this point. I said 'value judgments come later', didn't I? To all you Righistas, I beg of you ... stop pretending that 'explanation' means the same thing as 'justification'. It is correct that if you gave your car to the theif, he wouldn't steal it. Simply, factually correct, the same way it is simply factually correct that if Russia had freed Chechnya the school almost certainly would not have been attacked. NOW, with these facts on the table, we can proceed to make a 'moral' assessment of whether it was 'right' to keep Chechnya through military power or 'right' to kill innocent children in a bid to obtain its freedom.

The very idea that the corrupt Bush regime could be empowered to demand the lives of America's youth is demented. I simply do not, cannot, understand how this election can even be close. Are American voters masochists?

I would think that there are a few factors in this besides 'informed decisions'.Sexual physical development begins around 14, give or take, and kids are curious by nature. They will have 'sexual activity' because they want to experiment, not because they 'are mature enough to enter a loving relationship'. If they do 'experiment', at the age of 15-17, it could be considered any of a gamut of 'sexual deviance' charges, from rape to sexual interference to you name it. There has to be an age limit, to be sure, to protect children. However, to suggest that the state make it 'illegal' for two 17 yr olds to engage in sex after prom night, well, good luck. Perhaps they could raise the age to 18, but expect it to be widely ignored. The solution lies in the home. Actually I think there are several jurisdiction who set up their 'age of consent' laws to take into account the teen years by saying that the law doesn't apply if there is less that 2 years difference in age.

Yes, I agree. While I don't think she gained any real benefit, she no doubt thought she was gaining something by spending this time on the phone with me.My point is that while most people would think it a good thing for me to listen, there was no utilitarian or pragmatic benefit to me. Given my opinion of the reality, I don't even have the benefit of thinking that she gained some benefit from it. The utilitarian ethic does not give a positive value in this instance, though most consider it a positive action. I think you derived a 'net pleasure' from not hanging up on her. If you did no perceive a net pleasure, you would have hung up. Before you protest, tell me why you didn't hang up.

On the contrary, it is a deliberate attempt to stifle conservative views, just like Moveon.org is trying to do by suing Fox. "Stifle" legally is completely different that 'stifle' illegally. You are now sliding between the two. When you have you position clear, it may be possible to see whether it is sensible or not. Let me know.