kimmy

The wages of manual laborers should relate to the price of the finished product? So, like, an assembly line worker who puts together the dashboard in a Chevrolet Cobalt should make a lot less money than an assembly line worker who puts together the dashboard in a Chevrolet Corvette? If framers decide they aren't making enough money working on houses in one development, they should be able to hop in their vans and get a huge raise by working on houses in more exclusive neighborhoods? -k

If mobs form for a purpose, and it happens again and again... is it really "isolated"? "By these same Christians"? No, Shakey. Not the same Christians. The Christians in India, the Catholics in East Timor, these are not the same Christians who've performed whichever acts of persecution you might care to cite (btw, do you have any current examples to cite that wouldn't likewise fall under your description of "isolated incidents"?) They're small and vulnerable communities surrounded by majorities whose tolerance is questionable (to say the least.) Arguing that they're the same Christians who burned witches in Europe or hung blacks in Mississippi or ran residential schools in Canada is as ludicrous as arguing that our hypothetical Scarborough Muslims whose mosques were burned down are the same Muslims who behead adultresses or bulldoze homosexuals in other parts of the world. Certainly. -kimmy

You strike me as being the sort of person that space aliens Kang and Kodos (if they exist) would be extremely interested in probing. Of course they're just fictional, but you should be extremely careful just in case they're real. (Like, sleep on your back.) Aw, that's sweet I'll call my broker immediately. -k

Indeed. During the Rwandan ethnic cleansing, a Roman Catholic priest named Athanase Seromba was convicted of ordering his own church be bulldozed to kill the 2000 Tutsi who had sought refuge inside, and further, having militiamen with guns and machetes go in to dispatch any survivors.Perhaps Father Seromba was persecuting himself. -k

It's not an attempt at mockery. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an intellectual exercise that challenges people to address questions about religion, belief, and matters of faith. Followers of religions-- any religion-- should be able to articulate what separates their faith from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bokonism, or the Church of the Subgenius. I'm sure that some followers of any given faith could provide good reasons why their religion is different, but I suspect that for many religious people the answers they would give are along the lines of "it says so in this book" or "our religion has been around for many years" or "millions of people believe in it." These are statements which could be made by Scientologists or Mormons just as easily as by Catholics or Shiites. If someone wished to incorporate a church of FSM, and receive the tax status available to "real" religions, what should the response be? "Sorry, but no. You're not a real religion." The .. uh, pastor replies: "Oh yeah? Why not?" And what do you tell him then? Request pasta miracles? Demand proof of Pastafarian beliefs? How does our society decide what qualifies as a religion? Is it a pointless hypothetical exercise? Well, maybe it's a hypothetical question with regard to the Pastafarians, but it's not a hypothetical when you have to address the same questions with regard to the Scientologists and with other cults that spring up from time to time. -k

Right now I kind of miss OnlyTheTruth, Polynewbie, Jenna, and the Freemen. They were mental too, but at least they were entertaining. Actually, the Freemen weren't entertaining, come to think of it. -kimmitaru {Dark Zone Lieutenant of Earth Occupation Forces.}

A rather weak essay, in my opinion. If there is no empirical means of discerning "true" from "false", then isn't it subjective? By definition? If there is no empirical means of discerning "true" from "false", Father de Souza's attempt to equate belief to science fails rather badly, as empirical means of validating a hypothesis is the one fundamental characteristic of the scientific method. -k

I think that a secure seed vault is an excellent idea, and I applaud Bill Gates and his foundation for supporting this. Although his business practices may be ruthless, I do think he is a true humanist. I think that a secure seed vault could conceivably save our collective hides after people like Monsanto put us on the short-track to extinction. I can't even guess what Monsanto gets out of supporting this vault, however. I'm not generally one who gets all worked up about "big evil scary corporations", but Monsanto genuinely worries me. -k

There's not one credible reason to think Pickton's crimes had anything to do with religion. The suggestion that it might is sheer unfounded speculation on your part, completely unsupported by anything other than the fact that he has a European last name. It's as unfair and inflamatory as, for instance, suggesting that Gamil Gharbi , aka Marc Lepine, massacred 14 female students in Montreal because his father was a Muslim. On the other hand, religion is an unavoidable element of the story of the father who choked his daughter to death for not wearing hijab. The father's religion is a central element to the story. You can't cover the news item credibly without recognizing that fact. (is this really that difficult for people to grasp?) Such items are continually in the news, when it's relevant to the story. The church's role in residential schools or priest sex abuse scandals has been front and center in these news stories. You'd be foolish to claim it "never makes the news". (of course, if you're referring to crime in general in this country and speculating that most of it is committed by Christians, then you're being foolish again.) I think it's a commonly held truism in internet circles that people who brag about their IQ test scores are generally people who shouldn't be bragging. -k

Are you so uninformed as to actually believe this is a trivial issue? Did you fail to notice that his page only lists incidents from the past 3 or 4 days? What, in your mind, constitutes "persecution"? What qualifies as "systemic"? Why is "systemic" an important distinction at all? Mobs of Hindus gathered to attack Christian churches, repeatedly. Is that not persecution in your mind? If bands of Christians gathered in Scarborough to burn down some mosques, would that be persecution in your mind? Would you be posting "Oh yes, its such an issue. " if that happened? When Muslim militias in Nigeria go on machete-swinging rampages against Christian communities in support of their demands for Sharia law, is that persecution? Is it less significant because it's not "systematic"? When Muslim militias were committing atrocities and genocide against they Catholics of East Timor, was that persecution? When the occupying Indonesian armed forces allowed these atrocities to occur under their very noses, did that make it sufficiently systematic for you to consider it serious? People who have been reading here for a while know how I feel about organized religions of all stripes. However, it really rankles me to see the hypocrisy here. It reminds me of back in 2005 when Florida was decimated by hurricanes, and people were writing "God must be sending them a message about the election HO HO HO" Hilarious. Yet I do not recall any such comedy, from either those comedians, or from Christians, when Muslim Indonesia was struck by the devastating tsunami just a few months later. I think that some people should spend a moment to think about what kind of human beings they really are. -k

Topaz is one of those lefties who doesn't trust anything he reads on right-wing extremist websites and message boards... unless he agrees with it. -k

Some claim that the Muslim rioting in France or the Netherlands is a protest against racism. But apparently others wish to equate it to soccer thugs. Ok, so is Muslim rioting in France and the Netherlands a political message from an oppressed community? Or is it random and pointless violence by a tiny number of hooligans? Because it can't be both things. It can't be one when it's convenient, and the other when it's not. -k

Why are you trying to derail this thread with fantasy-inspired nonsense about SPP? -k

Guy Bertrand: a real prick. M. Bertrand lashes out against Montreal Canadiens captain Saku Koivu for not being very fluent in French. He goes on to lash out against Concordia University and Dawson College for having English-language education, and at a new teaching hospital at McGill that he believes caters to Anglos. 40% of immigrants choose English! Montreal is now only 53% French! Personally, I really hope Monsieur Bertrand and his ilk get their way. I sincerely do. I hope they're given free reign to ramp up language persecution as much as they want. I hope they given the power to drive the remaining Anglos out of Montreal for good. I hope they're allowed to make life so intolerable for Anglos in Quebec that none would even consider going there. I hope that Quebec businesses find themselves unable to find any professionals willing to relocate to Quebec, and find themselves forced to move their operations elsewhere. I hope Quebec finds itself left with nobody except the the Pur Laine and the immigrants that are so desperate they don't care where they wind up as long as it's not back home. I hope the language totalitarians get exactly the kind of society they want to build. That would please my sense of justice. I hope all their wishes come true. -k

Or as a Conservative. Why not accept that the PCs are gone forever? The Conservatives are a broad group and have room for "Red Tories" and "Reformers" alike. When moderate conservatives accept the party as their political home it brings more balance to the party. -k

I think that Harper winning the last election restored a bit of faith in Canada's federal system among many Albertans. I doubt that central Canadians understand the symbolic importance of it. -k

To the thread starter I would point out that these threads about Alberta separating have been started by a single person who is a few ponies short of a herd. Could Alberta survive as a sovereign nation? Yes! Is there the political will in the province to do so? No. The ideas being suggested-- that the rest of Canada would ... close off highways? Create no-fly zones? Shut the pipelines? Pull their financial investments out? There are far too many people across Canada whose interests depend on continued relations with Alberta, particularly in the energy sector, to allow the federal government to create some sort of embargo against a sovereign Alberta for the sake of satisfying a few bruised egos. You can be assured that if Alberta separation were ever undertaken, agreements to maintain trade and travel would be a part of the negotiations. (and how effective would this embargo be anyway, when our friends to the south will happily purchase our major exports?) -k

Flat out false, particularly that "most settled in Alberta." If you believe that, then you're simply uninformed about the history of the Canadian prairies. Most Canadians of British Isles descent stayed in Ontario and the Maritimes. Those that continued west were a small fraction of the total who arrived in Canada. It is for this reason that Canada recruited non-British immigrants aggressively in the period between Confederation and roughly 100 years ago. This is why one finds so many people of Slavic and German and Scandinavian descent on the prairies. "most settled in Alberta"? Bollocks to that. -k

From what I gather, the issue here is not that the "Zenn" is electrically powered, just that it sucks. As much as some people would like to make this about "the Man" oppressing new technology, I'm unconvinced. Few people would drive this lemon anyway, for reasons that have already been elaborated at some length. The electric car will never be a success if all that is offered is golf-carts that only dorks and grandmothers would drive. Nobody else would be caught dead in this thing. An electric car that *everybody* would want: http://www.teslamotors.com/ That's how you get people interested in electric cars. \\ -k

A fundamentally sound statement. Politically incorrect, but scientifically, solid. Confronted with this statement, a reputable scientist would not disagree. He would point out that there are no reliable conclusions that can be drawn from the statement. He might further point out that there is little reason to think that one environment would be more likely to select for intelligence than another, and therefore little reason to think that there'd be any significant deviation in intelligence from one reason to another. The genes themselves may be substantially similar, but I think you are making a huge error in discounting the effect of 50,000 years of natural selection. As an aside, a recent episode of "Crime Scene Investigation" had an interesting comment on natural selection. Musing on mankind's fear of the unknown, Gil Grissom said something to the effect of: "If you're on the plains of Africa and you see something out of the corner of your eye, it might be grass blowing in the wind, or it might be a hyena. If you assume it's a hyena and run away, you might live. If you assume it's grass blowing in the wind, and stand still, you die. We are descendants of the ones whose instinct was to ran away." -k

Suppose we have a Christian revivalist faith healer, who "treats patients" by smacking them on the forehead and shouting "Hallelujah!" Or suppose we have a Santeria witch-doctor whose solution to every medical problem involves chanting and sacrificing a chicken. Should these two characters be allowed to choose their own medical curriculum, graduate from a university medical program, and obtain an "MD" designation? I mean, why not? Since the solution to every medical problem is either a smack on the forehead or a slaughtered chicken, these two individuals don't actually need to take any courses. (except, possibly, Chicken Carnage Technique 352 or Advanced Forehead Smacks 220.) I mean, it would be religious discrimination if we prevented them from obtaining a medical degree to practice medicine according to their religious beliefs, right? Right? Of course not. It's a huge load of crap. These individuals are free to keep on chanting, sacrificing chickens, and smacking people on the forehead, but it is moronic to suggest that they be sanctioned to do so by an academic institution and the medical regulatory board. Which is why I still can't get over Jennie's earlier suggestion. It's not just stupid, it's offensively stupid. -k {WAP! "Hallelujah!" WAP! "Hallelujah!" WAP! "Hallelujah!"}

People up in arms that this sort of "sinister message" has been fed to children through the Harry Potter books have overlooked the fact that IT'S NOT ACTUALLY IN THE BOOKS. Forbes considers her a billionaire, 891st richest person in the world. I presume that includes only her financial assets, and not the value of her intellectual property. If she were so inclined, I suspect she could easily pocket more billions by selling the rights to her Potter franchise to some movie studio or entertainment conglomerate. Rowling is the only author in the world right now (and maybe in history) whose book releases have created the kind of pandemonium usually reserved for blockbuster movie premieres and video game releases. She needn't worry about ever selling another book. (retailers, on the other hand, are VERY worried...) At some point, she'll probably decide to begin some new literary enterprise, and her name and reputation alone will probably ensure its success, though it seems unlikely that it could have the same scale of success that the Potter series has had. It seems unlikely that someone could capture lightning in a bottle twice. Why would she "out" Dumbledore? She was asked to expand upon one of the characters by providing information that's not in the books, and she obliged. When authors create fictional characters and fictional settings, they create far more information about the characters and settings than ever appears in their books. There are lots of details about characters that an author would consider in creating a character that would be superfluous to the story being told but still important in considering how a character acts. The fact that it was never mentioned in the books does not mean it was made up just now as a stunt or something. It just means there was no reason for that for that information in the book series. -k

Watch it! People have been shot in the face for saying less! -k

Indeed. As long as the university is equally prepared to fail him, all is well. I don't know if there should be a law, but it's certainly to nobody's benefit that class space that could be used by a serious student is being wasted by people who enter an academic program who know ahead of time that they have no intention of doing the work required to complete the program. Why should it become a political football? Students who can't or won't complete the work required to complete the program do not earn their degree. It is as simple as that. It has always been that way, in any reputable university. It only becomes a "political football" if they wish to make it one. Is it discrimination? As it happens, there are a lot of Muslim doctors. There's lots of Muslim medical students. Islam doesn't prevent someone from completing the curriculum to earn a medical degree. The medical school curriculum does not discriminate against Muslims. The medical school curriculum discriminates against neanderthals. Muslims who are not neanderthals will not be prevented from obtaining a medical degree. Neanderthals, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, should probably consider a new field of work. I would bet money, or even valuable Kimmy-points, that the people most troubled and upset by this story are *real* Muslim medical professionals. I expect that Muslim doctors who have earned their degrees by doing all of the required work will be furious to think that the actions of a couple of knuckleheads will cause patients to wonder at the credentials of any Muslim medical professional. I would expect that Muslim medical professionals will be most adamant against accommodating knuckleheads and thereby cheapening their degree and undermining their trust. Why should someone who has not completed the program be allowed to call himself an MD? Should someone who doesn't finish Math and English be allowed to call himself a high-school graduate, provided he never intends to read a book or solve any numerical problems? It's stupid on the face of it. Unacceptible, Jennifer! I object to the argument that they'll never be called upon to treat patients with problems of a sexual nature, or patients with substance abuse problems, or patients of the wrong gender. How about homosexual patients? I question whether someone who picks and chooses which patients and which maladies he wishes to treat deserves to be called a doctor anyway. I don't feel a medical professional should judge his patients and decide who deserves treatment and who does not deserve treatment. In fact I find it despicable. -k

Well obviously you haven't thought this through. See, if we don't allow teachers and other students to bully the fags and dykes and queers, then soon everybody's going to turn into fags and dykes and queers. That's just how it works. It's kind of like how if you outlawed curb-stomping Jews, pretty soon everybody would be Jewish. Allowing hate in schools is the only way to let kids grow up Straight and Christian! It's how Baby Jesus would want it. -k