Tawasakm

The family could give details about how they made the cake. Those claims could be tested by replicating the procedure. No reason that can't be quantified. Science is always open to new information and theories and will be updated to conform with the best available evidence of the time. It is self correcting. A community of scientists ensures that relationships are explored which one individual may miss. I'm not sure I see the point of that. Volcanos don't talk to us either. Nevertheless information is gathered about them. Also, as I said before, science isn't isolated to a few highly specific investigations. There is a large and diverse body of knowledge to draw on. I think human emotion and experience is quantifiable. I agree with you, however, insofar as believing that it is not as accurate as other fields. Arguably almost everything in life is like that. Granted. They are working with different presuppositions. This does no really indicate that the religious mind has come up with something that is truely more meaningful however.

Cartman I'm not asking Greg to read every post and judge. I'm only asking for a clear guideline that we can all refer to which would set a standard. It would, in my opinion, smooth out the discussions and may well improve them. The onus, I well realise, lies on US to adhere to the guidelines.

I can't help wondering if these prisoners will have to wait for a new government to come into power before they could hope for due process and to be treated by the Geneva Conventions. There are times when it seems to me that humanity is spiralling downward. But then I realise that something as simple as the next election could intiate a change of direction.

I take exception to that. Especially considering there were polls indicating a majority were against invading Iraq - a position you seem to equate with intelligence and morality. Don't assume Howards election win was a show of approval for events in Iraq. Notwithstanding any of that the majority of Australias actions indicate that its people are as caring, concerned and compassionate as people anywhere else. Aside from that. Thankyou for you sweeping generalisation which just insulted an entire nation. Thats ever so slightly judgemental of you!

caesar I don't want you to misunderstand me here. You said: You know what? I agree with you that Bush used dodgy evidence. I have said so before. I believe we should keep a close eye on what his administration says, and does, and examine it carefully. But he is not the only person to behave in such a way. Its not surprising, given his position of power, that his particular brand of BS receives a good amount of attention. I believe it is a mistake to focus ONLY on him though. There are other problem areas. I have already made, as have others, what I consider to be strong arguments indicating quite a potential for violence arising from Islamic religious indoctrination. It seems that we aren't monitoring that. I am suggesting that we need to monitor that ALSO. It does not indicate that I am 'on Bush's side' as I think you may be construing it. Hopefully I have made my position clear to you. Thankyou kimmy for your previous post. It is obvious that you are actually reading what I am saying.

Nor am I asking other posters where they think the burden of proof lies. Nor on what they think it constitutes and when it is applicable. I am asking for the moderatoe to offer a clear guideline. I asked here so that everyone could see it. I will stick to it (even if it runs contrary to my views) and I hope everyone else will also.

Obviously I am not massively conversant with international law. So I'll just throw this out there and see what happens. I'll just ask everyone to cast their minds back to the fact that John Howard refused to sign the non-agression pact with APEAN members so that he could maintain his first strike policy. It was said earlier that: If he had singed this non-agression pact would he have abrogated his right at a strike even with UN approval? Also I don't want to lose my point here. MapleBear you correctly said: I agree given that the evidence for WMD was obviously false even before they went in. But what I'm referring to is any genuine cases which my exist which may require strikes at terrorist/militant groups in another nations sovereign territory. What I'm really interested in knowing is 1) if the UN is capable of making decisions to authorise such acts (if necessary) fast enough to be relevant and 2) if there is a grey area in which it might be considered 'right' for a nation to turn 'rogue' and act unilaterally. I am also wondering, given that I have seen many nations refuse to consider rulings of the International Court and have ignored international law (Australia is guilty on far more then one count), to what extent international law may be considered legally binding upon sovereign nations? I have one more question for everyone who stated that Australia was a rogue nation. Do you consider Australia rogue in intention or action or both?

I'm not sure thats a good example. Science is not isolated - it draws from many sources and disciplines. It is known what flour is. It has been examined. So has yeast. And all the other ingredients of a cake. It is known what happens when different ingredients are combined and how the react to temperature etc. The only way I can see your example being somewhat valid is if it is an alien cake not of this world - and none of its components exist here. Then it is a completely isolated area of research. With anything on this planet there can always be knoweldge drawn from elsewhere. I hope I managed to explain that properly. I've been working late and am bone tired. I was happy to see you back in the thread, though, so I replied straight away.

I'm seeking resolution on the broader issue of 'burden of proof' from the moderator. I'm certainly not attempting to start arguments between individuals concerning the validity of sources and whether or not people read them.

I don't actually have a fax machine at home. Nevertheless lets assume I do. The difference between my fax machine and Islamic religious services is that my fax machine has never been used as a tool for disinformation leading, possibly, to violence and segregation. There is evidence that some (I'm not claiming all) or many Islamic services do exactly that. My fax machine certainly doesn't preach against the 'infidels'.

Why? They are basing their belief system on observable, quantifiable evidence which probably means they'd know alot about statistics. Why does that mean that they can only express themselves that way? First of all I think religion, which answers metaphysical questions without recourse to quantifiable evidence, is the one that is simplifying. This society is expressly AVOIDING simplifying things. They are neither seeking to simplify or complicate but rather to discover answers which are supported empirically. Why should they be simplifying anything because of this? I can't understand your pre-supposition that a dedication to the scientific method leads to a vulcan-like disposition and attitude. Do you know many people who share the same dedication? I don't mean simply as lecturers but rather as people you know day to day? Are the bulk of them vulcan like? In my experience that is not so. In my expreince those that are more unemotional in thought and action spread across many demographics and don't appear to be centred in the scientific community.

You could include Australia in that. I am of the opinion that is either alot or most of the reason that Australia contributed to Iraq. The mutual defence treaty provides powerful protection for Australia. I think that Howard felt obligated to assist the US because of this. Apart from the fact that he appears to agree with Bush's rationale. I think Howard believes very strongly in mutual obligation - in any situation involving conflict and affecting the national security of either nation. Interesting to note, however, that there were no US military personnel in East Timor. From memory the comment at the time was something along the lines of, "We are confident the Aussies can handle it." Which, in retrospect, may well be a fair assessment.

OK lowly_caterpillar I think I understand your problem here. You don't see how art can express anything to with the metaphysic without having answers. Here are three examples. Such art could express 1) the unknown 2) the journey/search for the knowledge 3) the desire to know And so on and so forth. So you can see that artistic expression of the unknown need not contravene the rules of the hypothetical. Also TTS raised the very valid point any art would not do so, so long as it did not lay claim to factual knowledge about the unkown. In addition to this art could be simply an expression of feeling. Feelings are real and quantifiable so theres no reason to prohibit such expression.

Incidentally my last question wasn't directed soley at The Terrible Sweal. I realise it may have read that way. I'm certainly not trying to have a private discussion here. Come one come all.

OK here is the problem as I see it. And the reason for my last question to you TTS. Terrorist organistaion don't necessarily claim any particular geographical borders. So they have no sovereignty. Therefore they could attack a nation or a nations asset (which could be considered an act of war if the terrorists could claim sovereignty) and that nation is then unable to strike back at them directly without violating another nations sovereignty. If Indonesia itself bombed clubs Aussies attended that could be considered a cause for war. But if an organisation, distinct and separate from Indonesia, but acting from within its borders undertakes such an action then Australia in constrained from acting. If Indonesia is either unwilling or unable to prevent or react to such attacks then should Australia still be unable to attack the terrorists themselves. I'm not claiming Indonesia in incapable - just an example. Does International Law address these concerns? I understand your point about who makes the decision on when its OK to act. The problem being that if there is no international agency able to make quick decisions on such matters then it does become up to the nation concerned doesn't it? What do you think of the idea of setting up a department, perhaps within the UN, that could monitor and authorise or refuse permission for nations to act against terrorists on foreign soil? (Guess what my email has told me again that you have replied while I am typing this)

Good answer Terrible Sweal. Thankyou. Just one point. Would he be attacking his neighbours? Or would he be attacking organisations/terrorists/assets/whatever which are within the geographical boundaries of that nation but not of it? If the second option is the case in a specific instance does the attack still break international law?

I should elaborate on my own earlier statement. I said: I realise that I didn't actually accurately convey my opinion. I meant to say that I don't like the was he appears to be agressive. But I don't believe he is being agressive because of that qualification. So long as that qualification exists I can see it as a responsible position. Wow I must have been thinking to hard about the lint in my navel when I wrote the earlier sentence. (my email tells me you have replied while I was typing this Terrible Sweal. I will post this and then respond or go to bed as seems as appropriate at the time)

You would really call Australia a rogue state? I may not agree with Howards seeming agression but it was a qualified postion: Note that the reserves the right to act IF the host nation doesn't. Does this still qualify Australia as a rogue nation? Either way could you extend your answer a little more please and tell me to what extent you think the policy effects international relations with Australia (or any nation which adopts such a policy)? I look forward to hearing from you.

Thats interesting and thanks for your cogent explanation of your position. Perhaps you could comment here since it has to do with Irans nuclear development. I would value your contribution to that discussion.

Just make sure you time your visit so you get to see an international sporting matching. I reccomend an international one-day cricket match. Quite alot of crowd excitement (plenty of chants) but a civilised crowd (excepting to some extent Melbourne). Also I think spectating at a cricket match would give you more insight into Aussies then any other sporting match. Be ready to cry out, "Gillie Gillie Gillie" also (that needs to be fast). Also to chant "Waaaaarnie" (this is protracted - you should also bow down with arms outstretched as you do it).

It has been fascinating reading this thread. I was thinking of two parallels while reading it. One was Japan where the shoguns would fight amongst themselves for supremacy. Unless Japan was threatened in which case it became a 'closed fist' as they united together. Their nation was the most important consideration. The second actually involves Australian history. At one time the state of Westen Australia held a referendum on whether or not it should secede from the rest of Australia and form its own nation. The vote was in the affirmative. The British monarch told them 'no'. Since they were loyal British sujbects at that time they obeyed. Nowadays all of Australia is united. I don't think any state would wish to secede (or even think of it). The point I'm trying to make is that although things may seem so divisive now it can always be possible to work through it and have a united future. I hope Canada (which is famous for acceptance) can find a way to 'meet' and become one nation in fact (even if it is made of diverse parts).

Lets get a clear ruling on this once and for all. When somebody makes a statement and is asked to provide evidence on whom does the onus lie to provide that evidence? It has been suggested that the person asking for the evidence should be the one providing it or they should not challenge the statement. It has also been suggested that this means the person making the statement would then be required to do the questioners research for them. It has further been suggested that unless the person presents an opposing viewpoint then they should not be making a post that is just a question. I disagree with this. First of all I will refer to the rules: If a poster is not ready to do so then they haven't done their OWN research. The objection that they are doing the questioners research seems spurious. It is their responsibility to have source(s) ready - it is their OWN research they are completing and providing links to. Secondly if somebody can make a statement and not be required to provide evidence then they can make any absurdity they wish a statement of fact. And it would stand until the objector could provide evidence to shoot it down. This seems nonsense to me. As to making posts that are just questions. Firstly this can be a prelude to making their opinion known - but is contingent upon the first poster providing evidence for their statement first (which seems reasonable to me). If the original poster is not prepared to back up a statement why should the discussion move on until they have? In the second place I hold the view that questioning statement is in and of itself a valid contribution to the direction of a discussion. The question can be a point in itself. It is saying 'I'm not convinced that point is valid - unless you can prove it is then it should not be considered as part of your argument'. What I would appreciate is if Greg could give me a ruling on this. I realise, and respect, that this forum is moderated. I will stick to whatever answer he gives.

Ummm caesar the link you gave me... there are 2,043 messages posted there. Could you be a little more specific please? Uh I guess we are getting off topic here too. I apologise to everyone else. I'll pm anything else along these lines. Sorry for the fact you had to read these off topic posts.

Well said Choke. I agree. So I would like to express my thanks to Greg for maintaining this site. Why don't we all say a big thanks?

In Australia most fast food companies (I don't know if they all do) provide nutritional information on whats in their food. I think this is the way to go. Just putting a warning on it saying "You could get fat" isn't at good as informing exactly whats in it so that people can determine how much they can safely eat. Thats my two cents.