Tawasakm

OK August1991. This is my green light to stand on the soapbox and let all and sundry know what Tawasakm thinks about eveything. Incidentally as a further point about agressive breeds. My parents own a poodle (not agressive) which I used to walk on occasion. When out walking if we ever encountered others walking agressive breeds I'd have to take steps to protect our dog. There are breeds which seem almost universally gentle and friendly. When running into these the dogs would just happily exchange pleasantries while I chat with the other dogwalkers. Its not only the welfare of people that needs to be considered but also the welfare of all those friendly, gentle dogs that are out there (and so enrich our lives). I've managed to make myself a little sad talking about this since that dog (and my parents) now live four hundred kilometres away. And you can't talk to dogs on the phone. Actually I'll stop getting off topic and just post this.

You haven't really answered the question MapleBear. All you have offered is assertions that it can be done. Thats not substantive. I'm not going to comment on whether or not he stole office. I am aware there is some evidence of vote tampering but am not drawing conclusions yet. I haven't forgotten, however, that Bush is in his second term. I can't understant what would make you believe that. In fact it makes my question even more urgent for you. He only has one term left and then there will be a new president. No amount of vote tampering will allow him a third term. You claim he has at least four years. The truth is he has at most four years. That is fact based on reality. I won't be lying awake at nights wondering - not about his 'evilness' anyway. Its proving to be a somewhat meaningless line of speculation. By now others (and, hopefully, myself) have debunked this thread topic. Unless you can come up with something that will make this question real and substantive I think I'm done with this particular debate. Debates based (at least on one side) on assertions ultimately just become circular and meaningless.

One quick point MapleBear. You said this: A similarity of names does not indicate a similarity of nature - even if the organisations you are referring to in Seattle really are corrupt.

Broadly speaking I agree with you August. I suppose the one thing that distinguishes abortion from the rest of your examples is that it is the only instance in which the individual concerned is not aware (although in cases where euthanasia is indicated mental abilities may well be diminished) of what is happening and, to one extent or another, have experienced life, made choices, loved, laughed and so on and so forth. This is exactly why I think this becomes a difficult question for people - a foetus may be seen as the ultimate victim because it is completely lacking in any power to alter its circumstances and has no experience of life. Personally I think there are circumstances in which it would be immoral not to offer abortion as an option - such as rape victims who become pregnant. Beyond that things become alot more difficult for me to answer - especially when balanced against the option of giving up babies to adoption. Which is exactly when the pragmatist in me kicks in. Because it won't be my morals and my reasoning making the decisions for others. They must make their own choices. If that choice is abortion and it is illegal we will end up with a mess of backyard abortions. Which is why I find Augusts pragmatism to be realistic. Ultimately what seems needed is (as stated by BD) good sex ed and availability of contraceptives etc. Reducing the incidence of unexpected/unplanned pregnancy will reduce the number of people who must face this hard choice.

Its a bit simplistic to say that they will simply be able to do it if they want to (which is a BIG if). Modifying it to allow foreign-born citizens to serve as president has nothing to do with it. Then my question has everything to do with the topic. Your premise is that Bush may 'reveal' his 'evil' nature if he gains more power. You seem to be postulating that he will make a 'grab for power' as it were. My question relates to how this would even be possible. If he can't alter the constitution to allow himself more then two terms of executive power then his 'evil grab for power' will come to a screaming halt. If he can't gain that power then your question, given its operating premise, is rendered completely irrelevant. BTW thankyou for replying quickly. It gave me a chance to reply myself.

OK I only have one more question for you MapleBear. I may not be able to log back in for a few days (and there again I may be able to) so feel free to take your time if you like. The question is based on the assumption that George Bush wishes to expand his power - and stay in power. Which, I gather, you consider quite likely to occur (correct me if I'm wrong). How do you foresee George Bush being able to rewrite the constitution to allow himself to stay in power beyond his second term? The implication, of course, being that if he can't alter the constitution then he is never going to be capable of becoming a dictator. As things stand now there is a definite time limit on the executive power that he possesses.

BBM I don't think that a Toyota is at all analagous to a Pitbull. If there was a problem in automotive safety standards it is possible for the government to legislate new safety standards. If Toyota wished to have continued access to the Canadian market they would make the necessary changes to their design and implement those changes in production. That doesn't work for a pitbull. As to some people being attracted to such breeds that does not prohibit banning them for public safety. You might be attracted, for example, to a leopard because of its deadly grace. This does not mean it should be legal to possess such an animal in a populated area. The animal is inherently dangerous. So are pitbulls (although I won't argue they are AS dangerous). Logically the attraction of certain people toward dangerous animals should not be indulged to the detriment of public safety. Mind you I'm not an expert in this area. So I may also be talking nonsense.

What I am interested in, MapleBear, is just a bit of clarification if you don't mind. You just posted this: What I'm curious to know is if these are your operating beliefs: 1) George Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attack. 2) George Bush is working toward gaining dictatorial powers. When he gains these powers he will begin a campaign of conquest to establish total global dominance. You theorise that he may well be as 'evil' as Hitler. 3) George Bush will cause World War III to happen in our lifetime as a result of his conduct while President of the United States. Is that an accurate summation of your position? I'm not asking you to back up your position only seeking to understand exactly what that is. If these are not your views then I ask you to please summarise them succintly. I will stress that I'm not trying to debate these points at this time - only want to know where you are coming from.

Heres my two cents worth (opinion only). I think there are three problems. It was my understanding that certain breeds of dog are naturally agressive and more likely to attack humans/other animals. Such as Pit Bulls. If this is true it must make sense to ban these animals in populated areas. It is also true that owners can mistreat dogs which can create aggressive behaviour. Surely in these instances there must be laws in place to prohibit these people ever owning pets again. Sometimes children can unintentionally cause dogs to be agressive by behaving the wrong way. I think this means that dog owners should be required to supervise whenever children are around dogs (excepting perhaps kids around their own family dog). So I think the solution may be to ban the truely agressive breeds, make owners accountable for their treatment of pets (and be ready to ban them from ever owning pets again) and require supervision from dog owners. Education is probably also a key things. Teaching children not to stare into a dogs eyes is a nice handy tip for instance.

There is a sixteen page discussion on abortion here. Not sure that you can get much on top of that. Perhaps to avoid duplication you should pick up the debate again from that thread if you have new points to make (we are supposed to check for existing threads before beginning new ones). As a matter of interest did your class reach any kind of consensus? I'm also curious to know what process led you to that determination. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing - I'm merely curious. You are correct, August, but I think for many people its not just a question of when life begins but when sentience begins.

Well there is this chant used as sports events. One person yells out "AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE" and everyone else yells out "OI OI OI" followed by our solo yelling "AUSSIE" to which everyones thunders "OI" then the last step is repeated then step one is repeated. Apart from that Aussies don't actually wander around saying, "Oi". Australians seem to be internatinally famous for g'day (which for some reason most americans mispronounce) but even that isn't used that much. Probably the most common thing (in my experience) is the phrase, "She'll be right mate." The most common word would be, "mate". Not that its likely anyone here is all that interested but I thought I would elucidate.

Explain to me how religion, and only religion, can furnish us with satisfactory answers to metaphysical questions. Explain to me why people wouldn't be happy knowing that the answers they have are 'proven' and why they wouldn't be happy to wait for their system to produce the rest of the answers - which is to say true answers. When I use the term 'true answers' I mean answers built upon quantifiable evidence and tested theories etc. There would be, to my mind, more substance to their beliefs. There is no reason to believe that people who are dedicated to such a system would need to have an answer, any answer, just for the sake of having an answer. As to how religion is abolished remember that it is part of the theoretical that this society has decided for itself that it wants to try this more rational method. They want to rebuild their systems and beliefs around that which is quantifiable. It is possible because they are all behind it. And remember - it is just a theoretical construct designed to allow an exploration of a certain question.

Love is a natural human emotion. As we experience it throughout our lives in different ways we gain an ability to quantify it. This is because we can compare how we felt in different circumstances. Because we understand love in ourselves we can observe it in others - and also talk to others about it. This further refines our ability to quantify it. 'Evil' is not an emotion and therefore not analagous to love. It is not something we 'feel' throught our lives. It is an abstract, and highly subjective, concept. Please feel free to prove otherwise. You are implying a conclusion here - that the only reason that Bush is not behaving like Hitler is that he's forced to caution. Thats pure speculation without real evidence. Speculative worst case scenario based on your existing bias toward Bush. Lets talk about his CAPABILITY to hump a fire hydrant. If theres nobody there to watch will he do it? Or they may live in a world where they don't arbitrarily change the colours to suit pre-conceived notions. Perhaps it would be more analogous to say they aren't looking at their world through tinted lenses. I think Bush has done alot of things wrong and needs to answer for them. I can't say, however, that he has demonstrated anything that could be construed as a DESIRE to behave like Hitler. You are implying that sane adults would agree with you - bar a few piffling little details which would be worked out reasonably and easily. Thats speculative fantasy. Its also insulting to the people you are debating with. I agree with BD. There are many fine arguments from the left on this forum against Bush and his policies. You are weakening those arguments because you are borrowing some of the evidence those arguments use and turning them into speculative fantasy.

Unless you expect people to be able to see into the future I suggest you change that 'following' to 'preceding'. I don't want to nit pick but if you're handing it in as an assignment you'll definitely need to change that.

redmos, I was only referring to 'mainstream' media, redmos, rather then media in its entirety. Since I'm not completely clear on your opinion can I ask if your answer still holds true if you are referring only to mainstream media?

How evil is George Bush? Well to be able to answer this 'evil' must first be clearly defined. Then I would need an accurate method to measure quantitatively. Then I would need to take many measurements so that I may compare the results and observe over all trends. Then I would know where Bush sits in relation to the general population. Or to put it another way; I'm afraid I am unable to answer this question.

It is clear to me caesar that you are not paying the courtesy of reading my posts before responding to them. It is not old (If by old you mean out of date) - its latest figures are from this month. It is not American. It is independent and operating out of London. The "We don't do body counts" quote (I THINK THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I'VE TOLD YOU) is taken from General Franks and is the reason the site exists! They want to make sure there IS one. The total may well be higher then what they postulate. That has already been discussed (explained well by BD). But there is no indication that they are doing anything less then their best to produce an accurate count. The credentials of all involved are excellent - and have been detailed elsewhere in this thread. caesar since it is so apparent to me that you are not actually reading my posts in detail before responding to them I now will withdraw the courtesy of responding to yours.

I would still like you to explain to me, caesar, how the Iraq body count site is a propagandist site. Blackdog, your link was an eye opener. The study was much better then I had previously concluded. On the face of it their results are certainly conservative. The only thing that troubles me is this: the question of what the pre-war mortality rate was. Until that is answered any of the figures released by the lancet report are questionable. While the Iraqi Body Count site is likely to be on the low scale it has the benefit of being certain of that which is counted. I was curious to know if anybody knows of any reliable studies that could come up with an accurate account of the mortality rate pre-war that isn't based on supposition type reasoning? When somebody says that the mortality rate is likley to have dropped because there was no war or fighting in that period it is a reasonable assumption but lacks the thoroughness of well collected data. To get as accurate a picture as we may we need to have a more certain grasp of the pre-war figures. Then, I believe, the data collected in the Lancet report can be used far more effectively. Well thats my two cents worth.

I've only got time to make one post so I'll make it here. lowly_caterpillar, In an earlier part of this thread these were accepted this as what would happen (courtesy of Terrible Sweal): I also said this: So anything from the bible that stands up to that kind of scrutiny would be accepted after being tested. Nothing else would be. I won't disagree. However I don't see the path to such understanding lying only within the bible and christianity. There are many paths to such understanding and I've seen nothing to indicate that a non-religious path can't lead there. The point was raised that this may break the rules of the hypothetical. Its certainly true that the people in the hypothetical would not look at it that way. Since they are basing their beliefs and ideologies only on that which can be proven using the scientific method and quantifiable observation they would not accept that premise - that people are inherently sinful. I can't say that it breaks the rules of the hypothetical though. I was asking for things that religion alone can provide that they need. If what you posit is true then that is a telling blow. However I find it hard to accept as truth when the view is the result of religious dogma which is faith based. I don't wish to insult your faith (I don't find you unreasoning - never believe that) but I just can't find it rational to place faith in that which in based on the unquantifiable - God. The entire foundation is God and since I cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell it/he/she or use any device to observe it/he/she then I think there is ultimately a flaw in any argument using its alleged work. willy I think that lowly-caterpillar is trying to learn and to reason. Why not accept him into the discussion on these grounds. I hope s/he's not insulted when I say s/he seems quite young. Applying theories and knowledge into the wider world can be a rough process. Lets be flattered that this is one of the places h/she is choosing to expand their knowledge.

Does anyone of you actually have any ideas on how to reverse these negative trends?

Perhaps I should make myself clearer. When I say I support the troops this is what I mean: I will not hold them accountable for government policy or actions. I will not malign them or direct my opposition toward them but rather toward the government. Whatever my perception of the morality of the governments policies I will not extend that value judgement toward the soldiers. I will not attribute blame for the situation in Iraq on them. I acknowledge that they are serving their conuntry with their lives. I will respect that. I don't mean that I support their presence or the fighting or that I believe they should be sacrosanct when engaged with the enemy. You said, Black Dog, that they are legitimate targets. I won't argue that its wrong for people to fire back. I think thats a bit clearer.

I have heard the argument that it was not bad work cosidering it was 'unskilled labour'. I can almost remember a line like that from Terry Pratchett. In any event Christian theory of creation has yet to be proven quantifiably. And is exactly the point that these debates often centre around and I was hoping to avoid. As I said in my first post: Mostly because I know that the question of creation etc has already received a fair amount of coverage on this forum. From memory this thread has a good debate on such aspects. We could take that up again there if we wished to. I'm begging on my knees for people of faith (in whatever religion) to come up with plausible reasons that this society would be lacking without religon.

Excellent link Blackdog. I'm sorry if I missed it early - it was very informative. I'm reassessing my views after reading this but the one thing that still concerns me about it is that people are stating specific numbers. The specific number really seems up in the air. I, for one, would be more comfortable if people would report the range and then give an argument for where in that range the estimate is most likely to sit in their view. Anyway I'll go give this more thought. Thanks again for the link.

OK caesar I am reading it and have already seen this: Thats in the first paragraph. In the second paragraph we see this: Already I am having problems with this. On to the meat of it: The problem, of course, is that we don't really know what methods they are using. We do know that in terms of the other reports we were discussing. Which is why the Lancet report was shown to be somewhat useless. The Iraqi body count site is transparent. And not a propagandist site. That comment shows that you have yet to actually read it. I will include a bio here of just one of the "propagandist" researchers for you. Really sound like a republican stooge to you? Even your source seems to respect them. They said, Your source figures they came up short because of lack of access and cultural/language barriers but they don't seem to doubt that they are doing their best to come up with an accurate count. Now I appreciate your source (who is an Iraqi and operating from within Iraq) may have better access but I cannot take his report more seriously until; I am aware of his research methods and can see more of the raw data and calculations, and probably not until it is confirmed by independent observers. Unfortunately there are other things I must really be doing - I will return to this another day.

I'll take a punt here and guess that nobody has blown up your house. Theres no reason for you to lose your objectivity. I can understand your empathy for those that endure loss but to lose your objectivity is to lose a part of your vision. Thats as true of Iraq, or any other nation, as it is of the US. There will be men in the militia who are sick and twisted and like killing. Broadly speaking armies do what they are ordered to do. Your problems still reside with the Government. Hows that achieve anything? Why not organise rallies, networks, lobby groups whatever to directly influence the government. The troops, I say again, are not responsible for US foreign policy so where is the logic in what you are suggesting? Thats irrelevant. I was explaining why the general public would not regard some individual murderer and a soldier to be the same. Since alot of people erroneously believe in the link between Al Quaeda (which I can never remember how to spell) and Iraq then they will believe they are doing EXACTLY that (excepting the Haliburton part - on which I won't comment). A large portion of the coalition forces will be genuinely trying to do their job - which they perceive as beneficial to the US and to Iraq - even if they are, arguably, mistaken. I don't think that can be discounted. In addition to which not all of the death and damage can be laid completely at the door of the coalition. You seem to me almost to be looking at this from one side only. I DO NOT support the foreign policy of the US government and Bush but I do support the troops that are in there and I don't agree that I've been 'been cowed into trumpeting obediently, "I support the troops!"'.