Timothy17

Mea culpa. Though I'm not so sure about the unforgiveable part.

My argument is not a pure "what-if" hypothesis. My hypothesis rests on the well known phenomenon of history repeating itself, and the hope that, from witnessing trial and error, we would not make the same mistakes. One justification for eugenics was based on a philosophical treatise coupled with scientific theory; namely, Nietzshe's idea of the "uber-mensch" combined with Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Perversion as that combination was, it was still enough justification for some to undermine an entire race's right to life, and categorically deprive other persons of it too. Now, again, this new phenomenom of imagining a woman is not pregnant when she becomes pregnant; that, in fact, she is somehow only "a little pregnant" with something that may not be "human" permits another mass genocide of sorts; namely, abortion. Frankly, abortion does not have a moral leg to stand on, and so novelties like trying to determine when a human fetus becomes truly a human being must be employed in order to create the appearance of an argument. This screams of post-rationalization: something wrong was done and now we must race to produce some argument to make it okay, or at least create an exception to the rule. So, no, I won't enter into a debate about whether or not a human fetus is a human being, anymore than you would entertain a debate about whether or not a slave is truly a person or a Jew truly a human being. That people have in times past entertained such ideas resulted in unimaginable suffering on one hand, and mass slaughter on the other, and that is reason enough to oppose it.

No, I undermined your logic by demonstrating that a human life is not subject to human opinion, and I provided historical reference for when the life of humans was subjected to human fallacy; namely, in justifications for the practice of slavery and in genocide justified by racist arguments. Alright, but if I provided scientific data combined with a philosophical treatise that powerfully argued arbitrary qualifiers for what should define a human being, would your notion that "we all agree" be undermined? Are mentally unstable or challenged or incapacitated people truly "fully-fledged" human beings? Does it matter if they are "fully-fledged"? Should not the fact they are human be enough? But if I argued that the above people were not "fully-fledged human beings", and backed up my opinions with evidence, would their status as "fully-fledged human beings" be undermined? Indeed it would, because I would have provided evidence to support an opinion that the popular notion of what is a "fully-fledged human being" is somehow erroneous. And, that being done, would the question that all human beings have rights be jeopardized? Yes it would, exactly because we subjected the qualifications for human life, and the right there-to, to human opinion, which is ever prone to fallacy and error, as we have seen with the justifications for slavery and genocide, for example. I am arguing that "opinion" is irrelevant to a human's right to life. It is not a matter of opinion but a matter of right and wrong, no different than rape or theft is not a matter of opinion. I would hope that, regardless of even the finest sophistry people would resist any rationalizations for rape or theft becoming morally acceptable, and especially from becoming objective rights. We know that undoubtedly there is powerful temptation to rape or steal; nonetheless, we resist it. Abortion, likewise, should be resisted, not only because it robs a human of life, but also because it endangers all of us when we subject the right to life to arbitrary human opinions or qualifications.

Fully-fleged human being? I am curious, what determines that? I know, for instance, that in times past what the law presumes to be a fully-fleged human being can be pretty perverted; take, for instance, slavery or the status of women or fascist notions in regards to race superiority, etc. In fact, the justification for such discrimination was often supported by the intelligencia who liked to spin and pervert science or theories (e.g., Darwinism) to justify their deplorable practices. Now, if tomorrow a study were to be released that said a human is a human at the moment of conception, would every single abortion then be murder? What if psychologists determine that we are not "fully-fledged" human beings until the age of, oh, three? Is the fact the child is breathing, crying, smiling evidence enough? Or does it require a "fully-fleged" ability to reason in order to qualify as a member of the human race? No, a human fetus is a human being exactly because the human fetus is living and destined to become a human being. The very fact that an intervention is required to prevent the fetus from becoming a "fully-fledged" human being proves what it is.

The rational reason is called respecting other people's cultures. Hilary doesn't: not ours or her own. Outdated? I'm sorry, I didn't know justice had an expiration date. "Reproductive freedom"? That's a fancy spin. Ladies deserve reproductive freedom; okay, next Masculinists might argue that men have "Natural-needs" rights; that is, because nature makes them want to have sex with women, they should be allowed to with whomever they want whenever they want, regardless of the other person's rights. We'll call this "reproductive freedom" or simply, "Natural needs acquisitions." Now, most Canadians might call that rape, but they just need to leave "their outdated socially conservative mentality" behind, right? You know what, "theft" is another one of "their outdated socially conservative" notions. Perhaps theft is also a "Needs-acquisition" which is perfectly natural. After all, people have needs and other people have stuff only because they are greedy, right? Maybe they should be made to learn to share. Of course, this means the other party has no consideratoin under the law, but afterall, people have the "freedom" to "choose" to steal, so that must mean it is also a "right." Such logic is beloved by the Vikings.

At the same rate, though, I would argue that it is possible for systematic immorality to become addictive and even seem necessary when it is not. Justice is more important to building societies than profits. It's for this reason that drug dealing is against the law: sure, it could be "civilized" by regulation but the consequences would be the same for society. You'd be allowing people to profit from an addiction that has no personal or public benefits, while guising the activity as beneficial due to the employment, tax revenues or other secondary consequences the activity generated. So, while I agree that "killing" a firm in most cases would be way over the top, it doesn't mean that some activity needs to be stopped exactly because it is fundamentally bad for society. Companies shouldn't be cut any slack when it comes to basic principles of justice, otherwise bad behaviour is perpetuated and will only culiminate, and finally cease, in disaster.

Harper's bailout is still conservative by other countries' standards. Greece is getting over 100 billion dollars, slashing public sector services and all of this for a country with 1/3rd our population. Frankly, Harper would be wise to keep investing in Canada while maintaing social conservativism. We need energy independance, we need to start building our military equipment here at home. We can and should expand infrastructure like public transit and high-speed rail. All of this is nation-building 101 and produces good careers for the highly educated and good jobs for the average worker. It has secondary benefits for the private sector too, whether it's new technology or improved efficiency allowing local companies to compete better. The 90's liberals need to take a big chunk out of the NDP and Greens while courting the fiscally conservative. That would gain them the government but it wouldn't gain Canada much, in my opinion.

Frankly, I agree with his "edict". Canadians did not vote the Coalition into power. They voted exactly as they voted and that was reflected in the composition of parliament. Now you can charge that the minority government was feasible under the Westminster system, and therefore legitimate; however, it's right there that Canadians disagreed. They had no intention of voting the minority parties into governing power. The "agreements" made by the minority parties ultimately produced a new party -a most unpopular one- with a new platform, that had no mandate because no one voted for it. That is contrary to Canada's sense of democracy. It might be lawful but it's not what we wanted. The "it's the system like it or not" kind of argument makes Bush getting elected in 2001 by the Supreme Court, even though he had fewer overall votes, look perfectly legitimate and democratic. Canadians may have a Westminster system; however, that does not mean we tacitly support all the possibilities that system permits. Canadians did not like the Coalition. They did not like what it represented: three party leaders agreeing amongst themselves to replace the present government with a brand new one. Our Westminster system was never so humiliated and discredited then when the Coalition fiasco began. People were angry with their governmental system; so it's no surprise they rejected a notion that simply because the system permits what it was then doing, it was therefore acceptable. Now, had the minority parties campaigned with a coalition government platform and agenda, then Harper's arguments would have been nonsense. It wouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they would form the government. As it was, it surprised everyone, so Harper's arguments gained traction. That was his gain at the other parties' expense.

Thankfully they didn't form the government, then. Harper was right in this argument: the opposition wasn't fit to govern as a Coalition. It may have been a gamble on his part, but it was the right one.

I have to agree here. A clever/benevolent government can and should have a policy of supporting industry and business in general, but having laws and policies in place that punish them (especially their wallets) when they screw up or commit crime, especially if the PR is bad. People shouldn't be afraid of their government plundering them if they start a business or are industrious (e.g., excessive taxation and red-tape that discourages activity); however, they should be afraid to behave immorally or irresponsibly in the conduct of their business. I agree that it would be a wise policy to try to be as energy independant as possible. That's just protecting our sovereignty. I do not agree that we should risk increased poverty in order to satisfy the ideals of environmentalism. Killing oil for the sake of killing oil is like going in to Iraq without an exit strategy. You have to have a working alternative to oil before you can demand oil be discarded, otherwise the economic consequences and the wide-spread unemployment it would cause would be on your head. No one loves oil for the sake of loving oil. If reasonable, realistic alternatives to it can be made available then people, by an large, would be open to its use and implementation. Problem is we don't have that alteranative yet or -if we do- then its case has not been adequately stated.

Oh no! Mr. Harper cast a spell on Canadians? Damn those popcorn loving, hockey-watching Canadians who are so easily bewitched by the leader of their country! Hyperbole. Harper seized and used the shock and surprise of a sudden and unexpected government in Ottawa. His strategy was the devil you know versus the devil you don't, and most Canadians were more comfortable with the one they knew, which is more of an insult to the Coalition, considering Mr. Harper's popular image, than it was to the Conservatives. I strictly recall Mr. Martin's vicious campaign to demonize Harper and the Conservatives. Every single political party has its pamphleteers and party headquarters. That only one (the Conservatives) engages in "reprehensible" activity is silly. All political parties engage in "reprehensible" activity, and thankfully the Canadian electorate usually punishes that activity when and if they don't agree with it. They didn't agree with the Martin Liberals' characterization of Harper just as they didn't agree with Kim Cambpell's characterization of Jean Chretien.

I don't recall a single soul saying Coalition Governments can't happen or be done. This line of argument seems to require an elitist mentality. It assumes Canadians are by an large dumb and ignorant and as a consequence the mob over-reacted and killed a legitimate, lawful Coalition. Problem is opinion polls have no effect on Parliament's operations, and therefore the Coalition could have formed the Gov. What killed the coalition was the opinion polls when they realized their idea would not be supported by the electorate and they would have inherited a government that was despised. What was succesfully argued in the past is that a Coalition Government should not happen or be done, and I agreed, largely because I do not like the NDP or its leader. I wasn't comfortable with him having so much power. That's what killed the Coalition for me. Now, if we were to have another election, and the Libs, Bloc and NDP told the electorate that forming a minority gov would be part of their agenda, and outlined what they would work together on, then they would have a legitimate mandate from the electorate to form a Gov. It wouldn't scare or startle anyone or be perceived as a surprise power grab, and all the "anti-democratic" rhetoric from the Conservatives would fall on deaf ears.