The Terrible Sweal

1. What kind of pathetic, craven losers do you want us to pose as? Are we whores? 2. Skiing causes death too. Ban skiiing. 3. Used privately, so what? 4. So what? Are people obliged to maintain some particular level of 'motivation'??? Phooey. 5. Of course. So does meditation, sunlight, yoga, color, ... 6. This presupposes that there is a reason to worry about marijuana. It begs the question, and is therefor a faulty argument. 7. Only a nanny-state thinks it should protect people from their private vices. Is that the state we want?

Well, TS, points 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and obviously to an extent, 6, all refer to his handling of the Iraq situation. I stand by my conclusion that you either love him or hate him, based on Iraq. No way. 3 is more general than Iraq. 5 is about America itself, not Iraq. And several of the ones about Iraq point out that the threat assessment is not the point at issue, as you originally suggested.

Much of your comment made no sense to me. Michael Moore? Excuse for all of what??? What I could make sense of, however, I will answer... I have a perfectly adequate view of the electoral college system and Bush's electoral illegitimacy has nothing to do with it. You neglect to consider the egregious roles of Florida electoral officials and the USSC. Bush not only makes irrational decisions, he proclaims proudly that he makes irrational decisions. He claims to decide the fate of America based on religious whimsy. I don't think it is at all hyperbolic to worry about a police-state when the government is arguing that it has the right to detain citizens and deny them the protections of the Constitution at the command of the executive branch. What the bloody hell else would it take to trigger your alarm bells? Cutting taxes by flat percentages is effectively a 'regressive' tax measure. Several reputable studies indicate that Bush's tax cuts favor the rich. However, this favor goes well beyond the tax cuts as well. The destruction of social infrastructure harms those who rely on it. The rich buy their own, so they don't care, but middle class people need their government services. Bush's policies harm these services. Undermining the UN is not something to be proud of. The US founded the UN. The UN is America's vision for a peaceful law abiding world. For America to wish to undermine the UN is for America to wish to undermine the world it created.

I have a question for those of you advocating legal prohibitions on abortion. When you envision enacting whatever laws you imagine, how do you see it playing out at the end of the line, where there is a woman, defiant, determined not to have a child. Will she be strapped to a bed, fed intravenously, attended by State doctors as her body is forced into the service of someone elses needs? Are these the 'consequences' you are so keen to have 'irresponsible' women 'face'? If not, what the heck do you think you're talking about?

A very interesting point. The diminishing influence of religion is occuring because of a long running pattern of social change (let's call it 'progress'). One of the key elements of progress is to examine and discard archaic belief systems which are found to be wanting (either in terms of their 'true-ness' or their utility (noting that those two are interconnected as well)). This includes more than just religion, of course -- fairies and sea-monsters fall into this category. Seen in these term, I would agree that the rapidity of these changes are leaving a vaccuum of sorts. What seems to be missing is difficult to specify. A combination of shared norms, effective institutions, respected principles, something else? With religion withering because it no longer provides these things well, what is to provide them now? Some 'instrumental' theist will argue that we should return to having a religious society (seemingly despite any scientific invalidation) simply because society needs to avoid this vaccuum. Sort of like plugging everyone back into 'the Matrix'. (It's a position not even worth deploying argument against, obviously, so I won't bother here.) Barring one or another religion finally being somehow proven right after all, the only other option to deal with the vaccuum seems to be difficult work uncertain of success. That is to actively and deliberately conceive the principles, build the institutions, and propagate the norms we need based on clear-eyed reason. Some thinkers have begun this process. Epicureanism, Bentham-Mill utilitarianism, humanism, certain varieties of environmentalism, even.

But remember, the Salvation Army is a religious organization. They use religious faith for accomplishing the help they provide people. That's good, but it means that when people are helped by the Salvation Army, it is not surprising that they will credit God with that help. When you say you have seen only religion work this benefit, I must ask, have you worked in any secular anti-addiction services to serve as a basis for you to draw a comparison?

And why is that? To create more bureaucracy? The Ten Provinces as they stand now are wildly divergent in size and capabilities. My idea would upsize the smaller ones and shrink the larger ones. At the small end, this would improve efficiencies and bargaining clout. At the large end it would improve local responsiveness and involvement. And it would give the large urban centres the tools they need to prosper.

I don't think Bush is the worst president since Nixon because I hate him. I hate him because he's the worst president since Nixon. The reasons Bush is the worst president since Nixon are several, including his Iraq fiasco. These reasons go well beyond differences in the threat assessment of Iraq. Here are my reasons for rating Bush so badly: 1) He is in office illegitimately. 2) He appears to be under-qualified and under-educated. 3) He is proud to make decisions irrationally. 4) His administration was and remains dishonest about the reasons for the US attack on Iraq. 5) His administration is undermining the legitimacy of the US constitution from both police-state and theocratic angles. 6) He has squandered the treasury almost beyond comprehension. 7) His economic policies unfairly favour the wealthy and privileged at the expense of average people. 8) His adminstration set out to undermine the United Nations and progress in the development of international law. He promulgates a doctrine of U.S. exemptionalism. 9) His foreign policy is ham-handed, alienates potential allies, and creates problems. 10) His venture in Iraq has demonstrated U.S. military limitation it would have been better to leave un-explored. There are more, but that will suffice for now. P.S. Clinton was the best president since Eisenhower.

In the War on Drugs, I would have instead recognized the Liberty and Freedom mean that 'victimless crimes' don't exist and not imposed any sort of criminal prohibition on recreational substance use. In the 'War on Terror', I would not have assisted the cause of terrorists by politicising my response to them. I would treat them like the criminals they are, not like a moral crisis, not like a military war.

Bush is simply the worst President, possibly ever, certainly since Nixon.

I think we should realign the provinces and make more of them, at the same time recognizing the importance of urban centres as follows: -Join mainland NS and NB together as one province -Create another Nunavut type area out of Labrador and Norther Quebec -Join PEI, the island of Nfld., and Cape Breton together as a province. -Make metropolitan Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver provinces. Split the rest of Ontario into S.West, Central-East, and Northern provinces. -Split Alberta roughly into North and South portions with Calgary becoming capital of the South part. -Split Vancouver Island off as a province of its own.

Actually, I don't think it ever was banned in Canada. I certainly don't recall a test case. It seems that most schools just dropped it voluntarily over the last 25 years or so. Also, there shouldn't be anything wrong with any theist saying The Lord's Prayer as it makes no reference to Jesus himself, just God. Any Jews, Muslims, Buddhists on the board can correct me if I'm wrong. None has ever been banned from saying their own prayers on their own time at school in Canada that I know of. However prayer, regardless of denominational affiliation, as an official activity of the school or class should not be condoned.

Or they could just go to a private school. No, that's not fair. They'd be free-riding like the pacifists.

What makes you say that? Have you got examples?

Okay, so then if people don't support the public school system in Canada they too can move outside the sphere of its benefit (i.e. outside Canada). Right?

...I use 'being' as merely a word symbolizing a supernatural presence, sine something that created the universe needs intelligence it is only natural to call it a 'being' But you are only substitution one presumption for another, rather than supporting either one. What reason is there to presume that the 'supernatural' origins of the universe must be intelligent? ...it has been said that there is no 'scientific truth' that disproves God. If there is please do bring it to my attention That is not responsive to my point. I'm afraid it is you who is not reading. See you are judging something you do not know, have you ever once been at all religious?{1} If so what religion?{2} I have stated I support Christianity, and we base our beliefs and 'dogma' directly from the Bible (a piece of literature that after thousands of years remains almost entirely unchanged){3} So onto your followup on who 'interprets' it, let me ask you this... {4} 'Thou shalt not steal' tell me how hard is that to interpret? 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' whoooaaa too many opportunities for misinterpretation =o The Bible is very clear on issues of creation and moral law, the only truly controversial areas have nothing to do with whether or not God created the universe. Amazing. Nowhere in all of that did you address question directly. First, you accuse me of base ignorance while admitting you have not basis for it {1}. Then you veer off into the irrelevant question of my religiosity or lack thereof {2}. Next, instead of clarifying anything, you simply reiterate the very matter that is unclear {3}. FRom there, instead of answering the point you pose questions which do not indicate anything unless it is how deeply mired you are in assumptions which you refuse to acknowledge are examinable {4}. Finally, you reassert the very proposition that is under examination as if a child couldn't see you have answered nothing {5}. If the Bible is so clear, how come there are so many different varieties of Christians??? This is a good point, because there is no right or wrong answer to it (sadly). While I personally would love a Christian government I understand the issues this could cause and also the problems that might occur should a radical Christian come to power. However on the other hand Secularism is a religion in and of itself, it is based on the non-belief of religion. No... secularism is the response adopted by society to the problem you've just agreed with ... there is no way for society to sort between the claims of religions. That seems unworkable to me. A mix of what? Will it be no pork one day, no beef the next?

So presumably you would agree that pacifists should be exempt from that portion of taxes which pays for the military forces.

The "rabid anti-semitism" you allege among Palestininas is irrelevant to the question of their right to self-determination, as is the treatment they received from parties prior to Israel's Occupation. Furthermore, whatever geo-political machinations by Arab states you claim led to the Occupation are equally irrelevant to the question of whtether Palestinians have a right to self-determination. You said Palestinians don't have the right to the same rights as "other Isrealis", because of the resistance to the Occupation, but when I ask if they would have these rights if the resistance stopped, you admit they would not. You are belied by your own inconsistencies. You ask me to be sepcific about violations of human right in the West Bank. Fine: the Occupation iteslf is a violation of human rights, the demolition of homes is a violation of human rights, the roundups and detentions without trials are violations of human rights, military action heedless of civilian casualties is a violation of human rights, and torturing prisoners is a violation of human rights. You ask me to be specific about my phrase 'illegal proto-annexations. I beilve you are being disingenuous. I refer to the settlement of Israeli citizens intGaza and the West Bank. We have each offered a metaphor to describe Israel's Occupation: Sweal: "I'll only strangle you until you stop trying to breathe -- then you're free to go." Hugo: "I'll let you go once you stop trying to hit me." You position is faulty since it ignores the fact that they have no basis to have hold of them in the first place. Now, for second time you have alluded to some anti-semitism on my part with your reference to 'judenrien'. It is both a fallacious argument in terms of the obligations of occupying powers under international law, and an abusive aspersion to cast on me. That sort of thing is the reflex of a person of low character, who is losing an argument, and knows it. As this is the second time you have resorted to such abuses, I conclude you cannot discuss this issue with civility, and so, I will no longer discuss it with you at all. Good day.

Does the State have a special or particular obligation to help/protect/assist child citizens, as distinct from any obligations it may have toward adult citizens? If so, what are they? What is the standard to be applied? Are parents entitled to withdraw their children from the protection of the State?

Do you think that other taxpayers should be exempted from supporting public institutions which they find to be in opposition with their beliefs?

Right. All they want is to require everyone to behave according to (their version) of Christian morality. Thru legislation. And enforcement measures if necessary. What gives an embryo human status?

The prior treatment of Palestinians at the hands of others is utterly irrelevant. Don't make me laugh. They are in a war zone because they are resisting an occupation. Israel is denying them the right to self determination, not the other way around. But tell me this... If the "war" stopped, would they have the same rights as "other Israelis"? Several things differentiate those occupations from this one: -the states of Japan and Germany had been aggressors in a War; as there was no Palestinian state it cannot have been an aggressor in war. -the allied occupations of Japan and Germany were carried out at first prior to, then acquiesced to by the UN. This is not true of the Occupation in Palestine. -the allied occupations of Japan and Germany were brought to an end within a reasonable time. -the allied occupations of Japan and Germany did not involve substantial violations of other human rights, as Israel's has. -the allied occupations of Japan and Germany did not involve massive illegal proto-annexations and colonization, as Israel's has. I find it so interesting how, when someone identifies Israel's Occupation with other notorious human rights abuses, there is usually a vocal contingent there to decry the 'hatefulness' of the comparison. Let me say that I am equally offended when somebody tells me my forbears in the armed services made their sacrifices in WWII in a cause no better than the vicious game of fanaticism and death being played out over the Occupied Territories. No sir. Israel's bloody psychodrama with the Palestinians is in no way on a moral or operational par with the challenge and defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Here are my two main reasons for doubting that the is "the fact": 1) It cannot be the policy because it makes no sense. It cannot succeed, it is guaranteed to fail. It's like if I tell you I'll only strangle you until you stop trying to breathe -- then you're free to go. Can you go for a deal like that? 2) the Settlement policy is clearly not "just waiting". It is filling up the west bank with Israelis. Israel's actions in this regard are in direct oppostion to your contention. Israel has repeatedly offered to give them up in exchange for peace. The last conditions imposed on such a deal in the Oslo process were ludicrous, so much so that it cannot be considered a bona fide offer. I don't have specific information on prior offers, but I suspect they were not very much better. 1) If it was occupied illegally by Jordan, who was otherwise the rightful sovereign and/or mandated administrator? 2) Does this entity not then, according to international law have the entitlement to claim the territory back from under Israel military occupation? Is Israel willing to have an impartial arbiter rule on that? Arafat has demonstrated that he can easily silence dissent by arresting and executing dissidents. He has arrested many terrorists and then released them immediately. Arafat's success at those times depended in large part on the acqueisence of a majority of factions, rather than solely on his ability to supress them. Moreover, Arafat's state has been demolished now. [qoute] When did Israeli forces target PA security forces? What are your examples? As I said, the creation of a feasible roadmap towards a Palestinian state along with an agreement to cease all violence and terrorism. Don't make me chase you around ... what is a 'feasible roadmap'? What constitutes a proper Palestinian state? Also, what about refugees and reparations? So you posit a positive obligation on Israels neighbors to safeguard it against the consequences of its foreign policy. Interesting. But groundless. ??? I must have missed that. What were the terms of the offer again? When was it?

Thank you for taking the time to respond in such depth. 6. First, I never said the rational method begins with a 'clean slate'. If you cannot capture my comments correctly, please avoid attempting to characterize them at all. Second, 'as I use the term', reason does not begin with any assumption about the existence or non-existsnce of God. You asked what is more rational about the secularist rather than the religious approach. My response indicated that the 'secular' approach is more rational because it does not presume the certainty that religion presumes. Unfortunately your response has not addressed that point. 7. Christianity is not monolithic. Excuse the heck out of me for not intuiting what your particular flavor of it implies. The point we were discussing was your claim that your understanding of the origin of life is not irrational. Nothing you have said so far supports that, however. You believe that 'God' got the ball rolling. OK, stop trying to knock science and explain what actual valid evidence supports that idea? Unless something does, you must admit that it is at least as irrational as the scientific answers you so despise. As to whether the central story of you religion lacks explicative content, please don't waste my time with prevarications. Do you or do you not believe more or less that 'Christ died so that the sins of the world might be forgiven'? If your answer is that you do, then please tell me ... HOW did Christ's death accomplish this? 8. When you say something like 'the fundamental evidence is Jesus Christ', you: -make an utterance which has no meaningful content; and -appeal to the authority of your faith to support the authority of your faith. It is worthless as argument or for further discussion. HOW is Jesus evidence? Evidence of what? As for the Bible, the features you cite on its behalf (venerability, most studied, etc.) don't go anywhere logically. You add appeals to the authority of the mob to appeals to the authority of the Book. Once again -- appeal to authority is not a valid argument. Moreover, we know that the Bible is not the unaltered word of 'God' unless you are asserting a meaning of God's will that includes every human action. (Which leads you to different philosophical problems.) Inasmuch as the Bible was created at least in part by the work of humans, then surely it is fallible in the same way as humans. 9. See my earlier comments about appeals to authority. When you have learned the essential elements of rational debate, it may be worthwhile hearing more from you on these matters. Until then I doubt that further exchange will be particularly fruitful.

... scientific principles which must be at least somewhat in line with scientific laws. So you are limited, you can't create something from nothing, ...universe CANT have been created from nothing, it NEEDS to have been created ... that leaves one possiblity... that the universe didn't create itself, that a supernatural being created it that was OUTSIDE the laws of the universe. Okay, again accepting that the universe needs to have been created, and that by defiinition the thing that creates it must lie 'outside' of the universe (i.e. outside of nature, i.e. 'super-natural'), there is still no reason to assume 'a being' is responsible. This one takes you nowhere. I can make the same argument about a non-Divinity-based origin. Again stop generalizing and give me specifics, because last I knew the Bible is the most authentic books in history .... You are avoiding the point which is that the quality of criteria and method used to establish a scientific 'truth' is better than that used for religious 'truths'. You want specifics? Consider: How are the dogmas of your religion developed and tested? Who makes the rules and by what criteria. If it is not by reference to the Bible, it is by a human fallibility surely as deep as sciences, right? If it IS by the Bible, who INTERPRETS it? Surely a human process as fallible as science, right? If the Bible is taken as the unaltered word of God, by what authority other than its own? My friend, you are stuck. This is totally up to the individual, the FACT of the matter is that a supernatural being must exist... its up to you to decide which one is real. Personally I believe the Christian God, ... The demands of various religious groups persistently engage the action and interest of the broader society. Western societies (supposedly) adopt official government secularism to respond to this. Would you recommend another way?

They can always ask, eh? But it's irrelevant anyway. Please explain how the Palestinians should be obliged to accept less-than freedom, and condition's for their human rights? Then what the hell are they arsing about for? Leave now -- save time and lives. You say 'the fact is', like that is a fact. But here's another concept for you. There are vast financial, human and psycholical interests embedded in the Occupied territories now, and Israel is resistant to leaving them behind. Furthermore, Israel has yet to come to a recognition of the ethical imperatives of it's situation viz. the Palestinians. Palestine is not and was not a state. We were speaking prospectively -- the danger such a state would pose... I can't make heads or tails of that! -What system of laws are you refering to? -Illegally occupied by who? -'won' in what sense? -How can you win it from a state if it isn't theirs? -How does any of that permit the denial of the right of self-determination to the Palestinians? Interesting phraseology ... are you drawing a legal equation between civilian and military casualties? Anyhow, the actions of some of the Occupied people does not change the rights of the People itself. This is a red herring that Israel has waved for years. Isn't it starting to stink? How should they reign in the terrorists when their security forces are being targetted by Israeli forces? Moreover, how should they reign in the terrorists at all? How is GWB doing getting ahold of Osama? What would you regard as reasonable proposals for peace? Sez ... ? "Allow"? Oh, indeed, 'educate' me. Save time though, start with what you regard as the 'best' offer they made.