Tawasakm

Blast I was replying when I noticed Blackdog already had... Since I've opened up this window I should try and contribute something in addition to his comments. You think the state has no effective authority over marriage? How do you explain the existence of legal and economic benefits enshrined in law which are applicable to everyone? Wherever and however the custom of marriage originiated it is now within the jurisdiction of the state whether you approve of that fact or not. So the state determines the definition of marriage and is able to alter it. The State didn't will cabbage into existence but they can still tax it and regulate it. Your argument, it seems to me, is predicated on the conclusion that no government can own the 'idea' of marriage. And it is true that everyone can have different ideas about marriage - ideas which they may express and formalise between each other in their own ways if the State dissolved marriage. Regardless of individual ideals of marriage, however, it is the state that determines the definition of marriage and regulates it.

Actually Canada beat Australia in Mathematics.

It seems pretty obvious to me that in this thread Socrates is having a conversation with himself (in the form of Polisto) in order to boost his image of 'authenticity'. Look particularly at the last two posts on page one. Polisto and Socrates post within minutes of one another and have the same local time etc. Does anyone think that Polisto is not really Socrates or am I just especially paranoid lately?

Smart I may be but legally savvy I am not. Basing my opinion on that particular thread there were a couple of points of KK's that, it appeared to me, you failed to successfully refute. That said you should not mistake my opinion concerning the war in Iraq. It was, in my view, a dangerous unilateral action based on a lie that has failed to achieve its intially stated objectives - disarmamnet of Iraqi WMD's and reduction of terroritst threats. I would have liked to have seen some kind of intervention that could have removed Suddam and the sanctions but not from Bush. He has no credibility for me after defying geneva conventions and lying in such blantantly obvious ways. "You're either with us or against us" set the trend and it hasn't gotten any better. So please don't mistake my opinion about Bush and his conduct. It seemed to me, though, that KK had made his case well enough that the illegality of the war could not be, at the least, conclusively proven. That said when I have time I need to research some of the concepts involved in the argument so that I can gain an understanding of them myself and reach my true opinion on the matter.

I realise there is alot of rubbish being marketed and produced by the music industry but there are still great artists out there. It's not ALL rubbish.

Choke Posted on Dec 6 2004, 09:04 PM That was tried in Australia. Its now referred to as 'the stolen generation'. Children were taken from their parents and placed in institutions where they were taught christian religion, forbidden to see their parent, forbidden to speak any language but english, forbidden any form of their old culture. It did not end well. It solved nothing. This take seems to me to be based on a 'static' assessment of the situation and of what causes racism. I have heard exactly the same sentiments expressed here in Australia. The truth is that racism, and the current conditions of Australian Aboriginals, are the result of a two hundred year process. Are things really so different there?

Hawk and Choke are you advocating cultural assimilation here? It has been tried before and it doesn't actually solve anything. If anything it exacerbates the problems.

Seems likely. From this point on I will be taking your advise.

Heres something that my school (and others) used to try when I was a kid. They'd set aside a week when school would start earlier and ask children to bring in their breakfast with them (making sure it was what we'd normally eat). Then the teachers would look at the actual diet of the children and talk about nutrition. My Mum actually refused to do it - she wasn't going to send me to school hungry 'just to satisfy the curiosity of the teachers'. I'm grateful to her for doing it. I always ate a nutritious breakfast and damned if I wanted to go to school hungry. I was always fueled up and ready by the time I got there. Peronally I think teachers need to be very careful not to pass judgements. There are many reasons for children to be overweight. It is also the case that many such children are sensitive about it and drawing further attention to it could make it worse. If a teacher is going to interfere then I think they should do it very discreetly ie arrange an update of medical records (where they may learn there is a medical reason and let it drop before making a fuss the child will know about) or a meeting with parents about diet but on the pretext of something else. I would hate for an authority figure to a child to signal to that child 'you are fat. That is wrong. It is a problem I need to talk with your parents about so we can fix it'. Especially if it turns out to be a medical problem and the child will always be overweight - and consequently always think there is something wrong with him/herself.

If that is to happen and have an effect then I think that, realistically, it needs to come from within the US not outside of it.

Adults in general, and parents especially, naturally have strong protective instincts toward children. On an issue such as child porn its very hard to ask people not to react strongly (and protectively) toward the child. Personally I am dead against child pornography. Yes it does disgust me. I don't think you should necessarily dismiss that disgust. I think it is based on the adults instinct to protect a child. You raise some very valid points though. There should be a difference between someone looking at a picture of a seventeen year old naked (or a twenty year old that looks seventeen) and someone viewing a child engaged in sexual acts. It is common sense that the latter should receive the full weight of the law and the former should be warned to 'step more carefully in future'. Thats how I see it anyway. I also believe you are dead on in arguing that actual acts against children should be receiving the focus and greater punishment. There are those that are receiving benefit from the predators (by looking at their movies or pics) but they are nothing to the ones that are the predators. It is the predators that are creating the greatest harm - that are the ones actually exploiting the children and forcing them to commit acts. No child should be put throught that. It is the people performing these crimes who should receive harsh minimum sentences (if someone committed such an act against a child of mine I don't know if I could stop myself from killing them). It is where we should put our primary focus. On another note, which may or may not interest anyone, the age of consent laws are quite different in the state of Western Australia. Basically the age of consent is eighteen. Anyone who is eighteen can have sex with anyone else who is over the age of eighteen. However a sixteen year old girl can have sex with a boy who is eighteen. A seventeen year old girl can have sex with an eighteen or nineteen year old boyl. The rationale being that girls mature faster at that age. It is illegal to have same gender sex at all before eighteen. At least thats how the laws were a few years ago. I understand they were altered slightly during the last few years. I should research that. Thankyou for starting this topic Argus. You have raised some very interesting points and presented them well. PS The thread title definitely turns me off too.

May I ask you, Edgar, which nation you hail from? Dietary regime? Not entirely with you here. If you are asking for an estimate of how many died during his regime then your estimates are extememly low. I'll wait to see what you mean. Not sure what you mean here either. Using a H-Bomb could be contrued as doing the Devil's work for him. Giving him the finger is an act of defiance. Its probably just that I'm dimwitted but could I please ask you to rewrite all your questions and set out your ideas again since I'm having some difficulty following them?

Or you could change the number of votes that democratic nations get to 2 or 3, leaving dictatorships with 1. That way they are still included in the process and your oncerns about them are addressed. Almost anything thats set up will seem unacceptable to some part of the worlds population I believe. Argus: Such an attitude blinds you, I believe, and makes you a prisoner of preconceptions. I honestly believe that there is something to be learned from everyone and every culture that is positive. There are also the bad things in different cultures that we can all learn from as mistakes. I view it much like a jig-saw puzzle. Everyone holds a piece and unless we learn from each other and accept each other we will never gain all the pieces. Sadly it seems this has always been out of reach for the world. It always seems to be the negative aspects that we dwell on - and act on. I wish we could all look at one anothers cultures and think just as strongly 'what is here that I can learn from to make myself and mine a little better.' Perhaps Islamic people could learn that women are equal. Perhaps us western cultures could look at Aboriginal Australians and learn from their perspective of the Earth as a vibrant, living, interconnected entity where even the rocks are a part of that life and all must be respected and protected. It seems to me that the United Nations, which is still really in its infancy I think, could be the beginning of a forum that may allow that more positive exchange of ideas.

Just as a matter of interest am I the kettle or the pot? Don't misunderstand me Argus. I wasn't making an argument on how Canada should or should not deal with the USA. I am making the point that such a debate should not have such an apparently large impact on whether or not Canadians feel respect for themselves. Even if the US does not respect Canada that is not sufficient reason, at all, for Canadians to lose respect for themselves. The title of the thread was: Why the US doesn't respect us. But then who does? I'll tell you who should and that is Canadians. I don't think you should ever give someone else so much power to define your respect for yourself and that, to my mind, extends to nations aswell.

Well I don't think thats entirely true. There are presidents who have trusted by a majority of Australians for instance (rightly or wrongly). Also in times of war there is an opportunity, I believe, to achieve that which may normally be beyond reach. Heads of state in times of war can immortalise themselves as heros or demons. Bush had an opporunity to gain real credibility for himself through his actions. In peace time he may not be able to provide substance to rhetoric is such a large way. After 9/11 though that opportunity existed. I also have some problems with this. I believe that if we allow hate to define our actions (or to define what is permissable) we run the risk of destroying ourselves that which we seek to defend. We become less then we were. If my semantics and grammar aren't quite as good as normal I apologise - I'm still taking some pain killers which are fragmenting my focus a little (this isn't at all related to the car problems I mentioned in another thread - in case people think I was in an accident or suchlike).

The cake was representative of what Willy saw as a flaw in science. We weren't talking about the cake so much as the concepts behind it. Think a little deeper. You wasted your time reading our dribble did you? You aren't compelled to read it. You have a problem with our posts being full of rebuttals? We aren't allowed to rebut someone elses arguments? So far as this thread is concerned lowly_caterpillar I am not responding to you anymore. You seem to have an attitude that we can't rebut, use metaphors, you judge this discussion 'futile' and 'dribble' without justification or reference to the merits of particular arguments. I will reciprocate your lack of respect by dismissing your posts from mind.

It sounds like a good idea caesar just so long as none of us start abusing the feature by just ignoring people who persistently disagree with us. I'm also curious to know if discussion ever got confused with such a function? After all some of the posts you may have been reading could have been referring to posts you're not actually seeing etc. And the same could be true for others. If everyone is ignoring different people I could see a problem. Perhaps we're just better banning trollers? Or perhaps I'm just being overly cautious of a function I've never used. Seems like something that could be trialled.

This discussion still seems to be centring around an anti vs pro USA debate. Such a debate is important for many reasons - Canada's economic, political and cultural wellbeing etc. In terms of respect, however, I still think it should not be much of an issue. Respect for Canada should be defined by how its own citizens feel about it as a whole. Not on how its citizens feel about its relationship with the USA. It is up to Canada to respect Canada - and without so much reference to other nations perceptions (certainly not ignoring them though).

On the issue of respect I'd like to reiterate my earlier point. The most important thing is whether or not Canadians respect Canada. It begins with the self. With so much debate centring around whether or not the US is right and whether or not they should be supported perhaps there is too much importance being given to them in relation to defining Candian identity - both in terms of being pro-US or anti-US. I think respect for Canada should primarily be derived from the thoughts, feelings and attitudes that its own citizens bear toward it. The level of respect accorded by other nations should be secondary. Thats my opinion.

I thought I'd take the test again after a couple of weeks (which is long enough for a dunce like me to forget the questions) and compare the results to see how similar they are. My original results: Economic Left/Right: -3.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72 My current results: Economic Left/Right: -4.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82 The libertarian/authoritarian results match very closely. I seem to have moved further away from a free market in the last week though. Although maybe my economic mood is being affected by all the money I just forked out fixing my car? The test seems pretty consistent.

Keep in mind Socrates that you can also refine your google searches. For instance you can googles Scholar Search. This may leave you with less 'chaff' to sort through. Executing a search from the above example would take you to this page: Google scholar seach for American Isolationism

I didn't actually kill this thread by proposing these changes did I? Do you all want to go back to the hypothetical as it was?

Actually I am currently whacked out on a fair amount of Panadeine Forte. An effective pain killer. Maybe I should just stop posting for a while?

Nor, unfortunately, are such tactics unique to the US. I think Howard has won the last two elections using the same methodology - using what I see as clearly fraudulent information in the election before this one.

ummm caesar I'm slightly confused here... Which post are you quoting from?