Tawasakm

That strikes me as being a little oversimplified caesar. I agree that most are young enough that they could be considered 'kids'. Scared? They may well be but that doesn't mean their fear is controlling them. 'Trigger happy' gives me some problems too. I don't like the civilian death count but I don't think they just shoot at everything that moves. And they do receive a substantial amount of training and are well equipped - I believe they should be considered as professional soldiers. As to your comment about the proffessionals being in the Pentagon - well I'd have to agree that alot of the policy makers, the 'movers and shakers' in the military are there. They are professional in different areas of the military I would think. That doesn't preclude the 'grunts' from being proffesional in theirs. The place where I see the lack of 'proffesionalism' is in the position of executive power. Bush has questionable integrity and alot of his justifications for actions don't tally up that well for me. Basically if the overall situation reeks of being 'unprofessional' then it is because of the executive ordering it, not the professionals carrying those orders out (taking into account that there will still be incompetent individuals amongst this body aswell).

What you are saying might be true BBM if the purpose of seatbelts is simply as a restaint to make children behave. But why do seatbelts exist? They exist because of automotive safety issues. They are designed to reduce the risk of injury/fatality. Given that that is their purpose I cannot, for the life of me, understand why they are not required by law to be placed in buses and vehicles of all descriptions. Canada is not the only country that fails to make all buses provide seatbelts. At the risk of repeating myself I just can't understand the rationale behind not intiating this as a universal safety standard. Maybe someone can explain to me why the safety issues magically cease to exist on school buses?

This has been discussed in several threads lowly_caterpillar Fahrenheit 9/11 Also this And we couldn't overlook this For what its worth I think Moore's work doesn't count as documentaries. However I think, from memory, the issue was adequately addressed in these other threads (mainly the first one) so I won't start up now. If something is lacking in these threads please bring it up here. It is an interesting question considering the influence that Moore exerts over at least some of the population.

Considering, for instance, that musical ability has been linked to mathematical ability theres no reason to believe it would not be firmly entrenched in this hypothetical world and appreciated. It simply wouldn't be a part of their belief system (concerning the reality of the world). No doubt science would be the most important subject to teach. Who says it would be the only one? So long as Shakespear is understood in such a way that he does not contribute to peoples belief systems (beyond believing it was a good read - or not as the case may be). Empirical evidence may indicate that some knowledge of, and expression, of the arts contributes to overall well being and development. I believe there are studies to that affect now but don't have them at my fingertips. Certainly art and craft is built into young childrens education as an essential part of development and learning. Helps develop co-ordination too (fine motor skills). I addressed the point of lack of emotion earlier. I don't see any reason they would behave that way. A Vulcan stereotype where logic alone is being propagated. Well humans aren't Vulcans and in the fields of psychology and psychiatry emotions, and emotinal well-being, have been extensively studied and quantified. They are attempting to discard answers which are not proven empirically remember - not to remove a central part of humanity (no mass labotamies). As to their interest or lack of interest in seeking answers to metaphysical questions I don't understand how that would affect their emotional levels? You'll need to explain that to me more clearly. I wonder if their search for metaphysical answers would begin with quantum physics... which seems likely but I wonder how else they may examine the question. Theres still room, to pick an example, for humour - which makes us human. I also don't understand why there is no place for reverie? You'll need to explain that to me more clearly aswell. I see nothing about this society which would prevent people from being instrospective, reflective, enquiring or even from daydreaming. Over-exertion in what? Applying the scientific method? Why would that make them miserable? You seem to think it will reach 'obsessive' levels. Why believe that? By SOMA do you mean the concert in San Diego? I have no problem with them - no need for apologies.

That is the premise we've been operating on. However your question raises an interesting point (by reference to Shakespeare) which I had not previously thought of. What would be the role of art in such a society? I need to give this more thought. That said my first reaction was that art could still play an integral role in life. Appreciation of artisitic thought and expression could still exist I believe. Music could still be appreciated, landscapes still admired, as could sculptures and so on and so forth. But I wonder if they would have the same appreciation of art. Would they, for instance, have any time for abstract art? They might not have time for such nebulous concepts but only appreciate that which expressed reality as they accepted it. Or they might accept art as representative of how people outside their borders feel. Or perhaps they could simply accept art as an expression of feeling (bearing in mind that they aren't logical and emotionless Vulcans). I suppose they could divide arts into two parts: that which depicts reality (which of course they define by scientific methodology) and that which depicts feeling. I had thought at first that such a society might not produce as much art. But I am now asking myself if through their journey they have a greater use for art then us - because they have more to express (over time and assuming their methodology continues to provide new answers and insights). Or, from a different perspective, their art might express that which is unkown and which they wait to discover. Hmmm well I think this post is a little scatterbrained. I think I'll go apply actual thought to this before continuing.

I'm trying to stop posting in this thread, caesar, but since you addressed your comment to me specifically I owe you the courtesy of an answer. When I a make a statement of fact then I am ready to back it up. When I ask for someone to back up their argument it is because it seems to me to lack credibility, evidence or logic. I am seeking to understand where the person is coming from. Yes I can research it myself but that still won't tell me what led this person to that conclusion. I am also somewhat unwilling to really get into the specifics of disagreeing with someone without really being aware of both their argument and the rationale (with sources) behind it. Thats not laziness - thats me wanting to debate their actual argument and reasoning rather then my perceived version of those. I need to push really hard for them - or so it seems to me. And, yes, I do read all of your links. Incidentally I'm not sure you read my posts. In another thread I tried to refute something you had said several times without you actually ever addressing my points of refutation - you simply reasserted your points without reference to that. As to your point regarding Stoker and August - even if they don't I will still urge you to do it for those that do. Surely you could provide a link to at least some of them. Also you don't really need to provide sources for opinions so long as they are clearly opinion. (ie Well my personal view is etc) I can, do and have set out my ideas on various topics. Even if my only contribution to a particular topic is questions, so what? If I have picked up on a particular weakness (or perceived weakness) in an argument why can't I draw attention to it? Thats a valid contribution toward the direction of a debate. I'm not interested in having you teach me or preach to me. If you think that is what I am attempting then you are misinterpreting me.

If Americans want to protest against Mr Martin then that is their democratic right. I can't see any reason for them not to. Nobody should give away their right to protest just because people in another country might protest someone from yours at another time.

I'm not trying to get you to jump through hoops. I doubt the others did either. I was trying to get this to a point of rational debate - using real evidence. I was asking you to provide EVIDENCE so there would be something concrete to discourse over. Thanks for the link to the google search page! Why don't we all support our arguments that way from now on? Here is a link to a search result for 'conspiracy kooks' Conspiracy Kooks What does that prove? Nothing! OK you want me to stop 'bothering' you? Done deal. I can't see any point in continuing.

Nonsense. I explicitly said: I was attempting to answer lowly_caterpillars question about whether or not Darwinism would be the premise for the society. I explained that the scientific method would be the basis for establishing knowledge and beliefs. I then explained that any part of Darwinism that met these standards must logically be accepted. I then pointed out that there are parts of that, at least, which aren't scientifically supported. You are being disengenious. I was talking about Social Darwinism which was grown out of Darwinism. It took the principle of 'survival of the fittest' and applied it to humanity (in a biased way). Proponents of social darwinism came up with some very questionable (easily seen as wrong these days) physical evidence to support their theory. It was accepted as science by many because of its attachment to Darwins theory of evolution. I used the the example of Australian Aboriginals to explain, in part, the implications of such a theory when accepted. I was not referring to Charles Darwin himself. I don't see where I was theorising that he was "brainstorming a scam that could be used to keep Australian Aborigines down." So I don't really understand the point or criticism you are trying to make.

I presume that the possession of exotic animals is far more regulated and restrictive then is the case for cats and dogs. Perhaps ownership of breeds such as pitbulls could be bumped up to a similar level of regulation and restriction.

Actually I'm not debating your question at this point - rather I am concerned with your approach to it. I certainly don't see my concerns as spurious. The question of whether the war was illegal or not has not been resolved in this forum. Feel free to look it up - its very interesting. This isn't about that though. Its about determinging the level of 'evil' he possesses. Anything that proves he's evil you should include. The problem, to my mind, is that while you provide evidence (or at the least the arguments supporting) Bush's misuse of power as regards response to 9/11, his mistakes in foreign and domestic policy etc you don't then provide the LINK between that and your next conclusion (be it that he is evil or involved in 9/11 etc). Without you providing that link I personally find it difficult to have a reasonable debate with you. People who pass pol sci 101 don't necessarily believe it was illegal - although I think most should realise it was at least a questionable legality and a perhaps dangerous precedent to set. Don't automatically invalidate people who see it differently - wait to see their arguments. Although you may have argued it out with many others you haven't argued it with the people here. I invite you again to revive that particular thread. I wanted you to answer a question. You said it was evil to invade a sovereign nation. Actually I think the exact point was that the war was for corporate gain (Haliburton) which was evil. Since you made that contention as part of your argument you should be prepared to back it up if someone questions its validity. He asked you to prove that was why it happened. Since the validity of that statement concerns your argument on how Bush could be considered evil it is not a new debate - it is part of the current debate. There have been plently of questions as to the validity of your questions and certain of your claims. If you believe those to be spurious then prove it by backing up your claims with detailed information from (as you want it) credible sources. Thats what the rules say - "official". I agree thats a little grey. I looked up the definition of official here. I'm sure thats good enough to go on. This is a moderated site. According to its rules you are required to back up your statements with links or reference to official sources. The Turkish thread exists to support the validity of this thread. It is part of your argument toward it. I, personally, would appreciate it if you stopped dismissively referring to people as 'armchair philosophers'. Especially when you haven't really answered their objections. The rest of your post relates to your argument regarding evil. As you correctly pointed out I have bowed out of that argument so won't respond to that specifically. I would point out, however, that the link you provided was to a discussion board. It might have been better to provide a link to the actual article under discussion. I urge you to reconsider your approach to debating.

Now if only we could do that on an international basis. And aren't there three cultures when including the First People?

I hope Cartman won't mind if I extend the question a bit. What do people here think of strikes as a means of protest? As to the question, Cartman, my personal view is that protest is an expression of democracy. If people were to stop protesting against those things they oppose democracy would die. I think protest has diminished somewhat in effectiveness due to stigmatisation. In Australia at least protestors are often seen as radical kooks by the 'mainstream' population. There is a perception of them as rabble rousers who attach themselves to any protest going because they are just unthinkingly anti-government. And they are unshaven, unemployed and often students with too much time on their hands. This is the way many see it. I think this is largely a media construct (or at least supported by the media) created by the way they reports such events and the footage they choose to show. Unless they can make a sensation out of police brutality. Protestors for many causes are seen as generic and ignored. Not all causes but many. So alot of protests are just ignored by many. I think this is sad and not really representative of the majority of protests. But it is perhaps to be expected in a nation which enjoys civil liberties, a good standard of living, democracy and lots of creature comforts. In nations where there is alot wrong in day to day life etc then those things that people are protesting resonate more then with those living in comparative luxury. The higher standard of living may create a kind of apathy.

Well I can understand that point of view caesar. The issue, to my mind, is one of quality control. If there is an onus on a poster to provide real evidence to support assertions in the first instance it clears away the clutter. Otherwise people may very well start "Elvis is Alive" threads or similar nonsenses. So I think the initial responsibility for providing evidence needs to belong to the original poster. I think what you say is true if you have already provided substantive evidence supporting your assertion. If you have not yet done that then I don't think it is reasonable for a debate to continue until and unless you have. This prevents spurious topics and reasoning from gaining a foothold on the forum. As it says in the rules: Which I interpret to mean you must be prepared to justify your position with evidence. Also I think this topic has possibly been duplicated. Please refer to this: In this instance it is the point about people internationally calling Bush evil and therefore making your question valid. I explained in the Turkish thread why I thought it was duplicated. Basically we all have an onus to back up our statements with official evidence. Linking to official sources is good enough. If your interpretation of that information is questioned (or the validity of the source) then that is also fair enough.

The scientific method would be their premise for establishing knowledge and beliefs about the world. If Darwinism is supported by this methodology it logically follows they would support it. However there are problems with Darwinism. Certainly if you are referring to Social Darwinism I can't see the society supporting it. This branch of Darwinism was a pseudo-science (in other words non-science in the name of science) that espoused the view that white anglo saxons were at the top of the evolutionary ladder. It is as a result of this science and such beliefs that Australia was declared 'terra nullius' (empty land) and settled by the British. In case you miss the implication it is this - Aboriginals were declared to be non-human (somewhere between monkeys and humans). I can't see a rational society swallowing such rubbish. Well it seems to me that what you are saying is that the easy answers (religion) provide immediate comfort. By contrast the hard answers (as gained by our hypothetical) do not provide that immediate comfort. But if people can learn not to need that 'comfort zone' around their ignorance then they will arrive at far more meaningful answers and, as a result of both the journey and the conclusion, will have grown more as a result. If thats what you were trying to say then I'm with you. If its not then please try again

Unless I am misreading things he didn't make any specific claims regarding cause but asked you to back up your claim. As you made the claim/assertion, MapleBear, surely the onus is on you to provide evidence to back it up when challenged. If anyone disagrees with your evidence they can challenge it. If someone makes an assertion you disagree with then you can challenge them to provide supporting evidence. If everyone operates by these rules this debate will not become circular (as I fear is inevitable) and become alot more meaningful. Hopefully more people would join in then. I'd jump back onto my soapbox aswell. Just remember that if you make the assertion then its up to you to provide supporting evidence (not more assertions and generalisations) when asked. This forum is great because that is the way it has been operating.

Part of your justification for posing the question of how evil Bush is was the comments of world leaders and others. I thought this was a very natural progression of that argument. Given that I thought you should have added this to the other thread. As it is now your topic is broken up. Its not anything of great concern - simply that topics are easier for people to follow and debate on if they aren't duplicated/broken up. Probably too late now anyway. I just hope you don't intend to break up your future arguments on one topic into multiple threads. Bear in mind that this is only my take on it.

I don't actually know much about Turkish affairs but I would theorise that what they (well the government at least) are really concerned about is a Kurdish separatist movement. If the Kurds in Iraq try for (or succeed) in gaining independence from Baghdad then their own Kurdish population may join the movement - destabilising their country. It would seem to me that the Turkish government must really be wanting US forces to maintain control over Iraq since any big outbreaks of chaos could allow the Kurds that opportunity. Which must really place them in an awkward position given public opinion of the US.

What do you know? The Right has quite a sense of humour after all. I appreciate a well aimed piece of humour. Thanks Stoker. On a more serious note it certainly speaks to the truth. There isn't really any evidence to support the global military ambitions of the George 'Hitler" Bush. Of course if the moon turns into a blue marshmallow and Bush invades Canada then I'll pretend that I knew all along...

I don't know about anyone else here but this is the kind of thing that makes me want to read, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf' to George Bush. The problem he has created for himself in the event of any real and legitimate threat is that he has destroyed his credibility and he would have to work twice as hard just to convince many people that he is being honest. Or to put it another way I think he may have harmed the ability of the government to respond to new legitimate threats and to disseminate information. The world will be even slower and more reluctant to aid him in a new venture - which could be a real problem if facing a real threat. Theloniusfleabag is correct, I think, in stating the the government, and Bush, needs to re-establish credibility before being able to respond to any new situations effectively (if they are capable of that at all).

Well I was thinking they are because in every other instance the individuals involved had had some chance to interact with their environment, make choices which affected their development, love, play, kiss, hug, frown, throw a tantrum and so on and so forth. All the others have had an opportunity to do at least some of these even if their choices are later taken away or restricted (conscription etc). To my mind this makes the foetus example unique amongst those examples. Its not really an important point - I just wanted to make myself a little clearer. I agree in principle with your philosophy of 'pragmatism' primarily because of the messy consequences to a more idealistic approach.

If you don't mind, Lowly_Caterpillar I'd like to draw your attention back to the question asked in my previous post in case you missed it. I'm also wondering if you have researched your earlier point regarding religion providing the earliest 'moral compass' (if I remember the gist of your argument correctly). Look forward to hearing from you. Also from any others who may have a take on unique and necessary services religions perform that cannot be replaced by any other means.

You are duplicating the topic MapleBear. Perhaps this should have been added to your Bush is Evil thread rather then in a new thread.

OK I will make one more post. I've addressed that earlier. I said: Absolutely relevant to your house of cards scenario. Your question, which centres around his potential use of power - and requires him to gain more power, is only relevant (even then marginally) if he is able to gain that power in the first place. If you can't prove that is possible and likely then all your assertions collapse under their own weight. You've said something to that effect before. Its an assertion. You are not backing it up with anything like real detail and evidence. IF. A very big IF. There is NOTHING to indicate that they will attempt such a thing. Give EVIDENCE. Me: You: It is not speculation that the constitution means he can serve a maximum of two terms. To predict otherwise is speculation. I am claiming that your arguments have been refuted using reasoned arguments. All you offer in return is assertions - without evidence. I am further claiming that will lead to a meaningless circular debate as you continue to assert yourself without evidence. Until and unless you bring real arguments to the table to support your extraordinary theories I am not going to continue to contribute. That, to my mind, is not victory - it is withdrawal because this has been and continues to be an unsupported non-issue.

I beg to differ. The quiz reveals very little. What is your favourite word? 'Zing' made it in to the top 70. Does that mean anything? If the question had been 'what are the most important things in your life?' and Dad didn't make it in then that would be meaningful. The survey was taken amongst non-english speaking people (or so the article said - I think english as a second language is a better way to describe it) - maybe they all have better words for Dad which means they don't like the english translation. I just can't see the point in reading too much into this - especially a blanket condemnation of the entire male gender.