Tawasakm

I realise I am only a junior member so perhaps I should not be commenting on forum structure. But I will anyway I agree with August1991 that bilateral relations between two nations is an internation topic (it IS between two nations after all). I also agree that Moral and Religious topics should either be on their own OR in The Rest of the World Section. By their very nature such issues are international ones. In fact most (I'm guessing not all) religions have their roots outside of Canada. They are also issues that impact on people of many nations. Theres my two cents worth. On another note I have observed that this is an excellent discussion board. The debates are insightful and informative and mostly calm and rational. I would like to commend all involved for creating such a wonderful forum for discussion. I gather that Greg is the main architect - so kudos (I really hope I spelled that right) to you Greg.

Just to revisit a couple of points that were raised here. As I understand it the view was raised that only information which is proven to be false should be censored. Information that is potentially harmful/distressing but true should not be censored. I have several thoughts on this subject. The first is regarding a requirement for truth. This is a dicey area as far as opinions are concerned but the proposition still works with suitable advisories. By this I mean that advisories appear stating that what is to follow (or as the case may be what has preceded) is the opinion of an individual and my not be correct (or something like that - I haven't really thought it through enough). My second thought is regarding information which may be harmful or distressing to view. Now I agree, to some extent, that this information should still be free of censorship. Again I feel that advisories are required. Before displaying a beheading a network should run a written and spoken warning of the nature of what it to follow and allow people a suitable interval of time to change the channel if they wish. I think there should also be time restraints on when such things could be broadcast. There are times of the day when there are likely to be children watching and they may not possess the capacity to determine whether or not they should be watching certain things and the likely impact on them. Which leads me to a third related point. The idea that harmful but true material should be free of censorship only works if those who may not be capable of making informed decisions on viewing are protected (as far as is practicable - I'm not talking a Big Brother state here). There is also by extension the issue of censoring material that exploits that same group - such as child pornography. I guess what I am saying here is that censorship, in some form, needs to exist for children to a greater extent then it does for adults. So I suppose I may be thinking of a two tiered censorship system geared to provide more protection for children. Any thoughts?

I am rather tired but I will attempt to make sense here. People may or may not know that I disappeared for a while. There was a topic I was taking part in at the time which I would like to continue. I think that this is best done in a new thread. There was a thread on what is wrong with the family which became something of a religious debate. The aspect of this debate which interests me is the practical aspect of what, if anything, should replace it (religion)? How do we then answer the eternal questions that often seize us with such force? Such as the question of death. What happens after we die? From a purely secular point of view how can we provide comfort to the bereaved or to those who approach death? I have twice been injured to a point that medical experts thought I would die. I was concious for the second one and knew what was happening. Believe me there are things which become overwhelming important to you at such times. It changed my life in many ways. The point is that religion, regardless of many questions of validity, performs many functions that are arguably necessary in society. I have heard the suggestion that these functions are bandaid solutions. To extend that metaphor I could argue that bandaids are better for a scratch then nothing if that is the only alternative. So what are the alternatives? Not just in theoretical terms but in applied practicality - and applied to those more dramatic and hard to answer situations that we all know crop up in life. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? If your view is that religion should NOT be scrapped then please join in and tell me why. Also, I guess, why it cannot be meaningfully replaced by something that is secular. I realise that a common answer would be that it is up to the indivudual and secularism or religion should bith be a choice within a society but I would like to look at this from the point of view that the abolition of religion has been proposed. I believe that this would enable debate to centre around more functional and practical realities and steer a little away from the more common theoretical and ancient historical debates that always seem the core. I look forward to replies.

I apologise Caesar. I did not mean to imply that opposing specific US actions regarding Israel would mean that an individual did not support Israels right to exist. I was attempting to answer, in part, the question of why the US supports Israel. In the second place I was suggesting that the question needs to be refined to provide better debate. I think the question needs to be broken up into several parts with each part being addressed separately.

I would be fascinated to know more about webchats in general. Unless I am being lazy and should have looked this up under help... What happens during a webchat? What is discussed and how etc etc?

It is my understanding that a stong point on the agenda of neo-conservatives is the absolute right of Israel to exist. I understand that the neo-conservatives were formed shortly after world war 2 and their stance on pre-emptive warfare and Israel are based on the events of that time (certainly justifiable perspectives at the time in my view). Given that neo-conservative advisors have the ear of the president I believe that this will in part answer the question for you of why the USA supports and protects Israel. I suppose the question might better be adressed by breaking it up. Why does the USA support Israels right to exist? And then in the second place you could ask why the USA supports specific actions/ideologies/policies etc of the Israeli government. I think the question needs to broken up into different components for you to be able to arrive at a more meaningful answer. Generalised meta-questions can lead to overgeneralised or even meaningless and irrelevant answers I think.

August1991 I can only say that I like your proposed amendments to the layout. It makes more sense to me. Of course my effusive affirmation of your suggestions are somewhat belated to be really supportive...

If I may draw your attention back to this thread topic BlackDog I am still very much interested in an answer.

Interestingly enough you don't need to be a criminal to enter Australia. Do you need to be a slave to enter the US? Alot of the convicts sent to Australia were deported for stealing food. Regardless of the reason that convicts ended up here I assure you that the Australian national character is not "criminal" nor is it defined, or derived from, criminal values, behaviuours or traits. My year 12 history teacher told me that convicts were sent to the United States. He went on to say that part of the reason that colonisation of Australia was desirable was that convicts could no longer be sent to the US (which was by then independent). Why aren't there convict jokes about America?

Australia does not have a socialist government.

I can only suppose that the Churches can be judged in terms of their validity. Does their doctrine (theory) match the practical reality? (Bearing in mind that the world may be considered a very different place now then when that doctrine was put into writing) Does their behaviour hold consistently with a clearly understood and unpheld system of rules and ethics etc? Do their stated goals and actions coincide? Do their results match their goals? If there are deviations between these things then how great must that deviation be to invalidate a church/religion? I don't know. As to the answers the best I can offer is my view that it is all a mixed bag. I couldn't even begin to sort them all out. My own personal view is that there is no clear overall evidence to strongly support the validity of religion on these grounds. But perhaps not so much deviance as to invalidate religion. It ends up looking a bit of a mine-field to me.

I know a little about psychology. Because of this I would like to make some comments on IQ. First of all it shoulded be noted that IQ tests are not used to measure a broad concept of intelligence and to predict performance in a broad range of activities. The IQ test was designed to "accurately measure differences in future academic performance." (Psychology: The Adaptive Mind by James Nairne). Psychological tests are judged according to their validity (how well they measure what they are supposed to measure). The IQ test does an accurate job of measuring what it is supposed to. However intelligence is a much broader concept then an IQ test is capable of capturing. A good defintion of intelligence is "an internal capacity or ability that accounts for individual differences in mental test performance and allows us to adapt to ever-changing environments" (same book as before). In fact the concept of intelligence is contested and debated within the psychological community. Some view it as a single capacity some as a range of capacities. Some see all these capacities as being linked (to one degree or another) by a common factor while others do not. Before I let myself get side tracked I should try and actually make my point here. A psychologist would not use an IQ test as an indicator of job performance, or sporting ability (some models include athletic ability as a kind of intelligence) and so on and so forth. There are other contributing factors that determine success in those areas. An academically brilliant individual may, in fact, have difficulties performing practical tasks. Moreover most IQ tests (sensibly) are deviation IQ tests. By definition, " an intelligence score that is derived from determining where your performance sits in an age-based distribution of test scores." (You guessed it - same book again.) I don't actually know their ages but unless they fall into the same age distribution comparing the scores can be misleading. In a deviation test your score is scaled according to all the other scores - with 100 being the average. Basically if I have an IQ of 120 (which it isn't) and someone ten years older then me has an IQ of 130 it's quite possible that I actually scored higher then him in the test. But our results were scaled according to a different group of scores. So please don't read too much into IQ scores which, if I read this right, are only being extrapolated in the first place. Incidentally an IQ of 130 or above is considered gifted. About 68% of people should fall between 85 and 115.

Hello there, I've just logged in for the first time in some months. It would take to long to explain why so I'll leave it as a mystery. Seems you would like a quick answer as to why Howard won the election here. The concensus is that he won based on economic policy. The last Labour government ran the economy into the ground and the current Liberal government has gained a considerable amount of mileage out of it. Even though that was some considerable time ago. Now my take is that Howard and the Coalition (comprised of Liberal and National parties) won because they pushed peoples fear buttons. They run negative campaigns. People thought the economy would go to hell (despite the fact that all the leading economists did not think it would matter which party was in) if Howard did not win. He was seen as a strong leader and defintely appeals to the conservative. He has never been held in any way accountable for committing troops based on misinformation (not that I making opinion one way or the other on wether or not he should be). But I think his dishonesty precedes such events. He won the prior election by whipping up hysteria over the "invasion of illegal immigrants" entering Australia via dodgy boats from Indonesia. Just before the election there was a sensation known now as the "children overboard scandal". Photos were released of refugees throwing their children overboard when a Naval boat intercepted them. The government used these photos to paint a further picture of the evil that was occuring etc. Turns out the boat had been on fire and the parents were trying to save their children. Didn't come out until after the election strangely enough. Who took the blame? Not the Prime Minister. Misinformation used for political gain always seems to be the sole responsibility of those further down the chain of command. But since this isn't a thread that really seems to be of great interest to this forum I should stop rabbiting on. If you are interested try researching the ship known as the "Tampa". (Which is about a different ship but very interesting and related to the governments rather extreme reaction to refugess entering Australia illegally) One interesting side note however. I was watching a program called Late Line the other night when they were interviewing a former speech writer of George W. Bush. He [the speech writer] claimed that the Australian election had some impact on the American election. It was perceived there that the Australian vote was an indication that Australians were declaring that they would stand up to terrorists just as the Spanish election had indicated the reverse. Not at all how the election was perceived here.

I just read this short article Korean Disarmament Talks There are scheduled to be six party talks between the US, China, Russia, Japan and North and South Korea. These are to be followed by diplomatic efforts from Australia (which has diplomatic relations with North Korea - unlike the US). Does anybody have any insights into these latest efforts?

OK KK I'm with you now. You are saying, I believe, that negative stereotypes must be broken down. They are limiting and if we subscribe to them they will make us lose so to speak. I agree with you. But I think there can still be forces beyond an individuals control and responsibility that can limit and even destroy. Which is why I believe in both individual and community responsibilities and responses. Apart from developing individuals I think there is alot of value in devloping community.

Bushmustgo, I never meant to imply that Michael Moore had a monopoly on duplicity. I have exactly the same problem with other influential people using duplicitous techniques to push their agenda. I don't subscribe to the argument, however, that since this happens with the right it should consequently be acceptable from the left aswell. I don't think it is acceptable from either side. Not to me personally. I like reasoned criticisms. Lets organise to get Black Dog and KrustKidd on an international debate broadcast live... OK now I'm straying off topic.

I wasn't posting an oponion over the legalities of the war. Nor was I making a judgement in regards to government policy. Nor was I implying that people were criticising the soldiers. I am against the war in Iraq. It's a sideline to the real battle that I think the US should be fighting. I was making the point that foreign criticism could be easily misconstrued (as criticism of soldiers and nation etc) and that can hamper and/or polarise debate. Please don't put words in my mouth. On a sideline I have read alot of what KrustyKidd has written regarding the legalities of the war in Iraq so I think I'll clarify my above statement: I object to the war in Iraq on moral grounds (pre-emptive warfare etc) and from a tactical viewpoint (resources should be aligned differently - toward Osama for a start) but not from a legal viewpoint. His arguments were pretty good.

I wonder, Black Dog, (and I ask in the spirit of enquiry) how would a secular humanist approach the question of death? If, hypothetically, I've been diagnosed with terminal cancer and given 6 months to live how would you deal with 1. My fears over what will happen to me when I die (call it existential dread perhaps) 2. The fears, pain and grief of my children (they are also hypothetical), wife, family and friends. If they can't believe in my continued eistence then what can be offered to them? 3. The need to provide comfort without the ability to provide answers. I'm genuninely interesting in an answer. This is is another question based on a function of religion which affects family and society. (I seem hell bent on making the debate practical as well as theoretical don't I?)

I'm not a Bush fan (distinctly the opposite) but I don't believe in extending this bias in an irrational manner. KK you make a very valid point. If there was nothing for him to do, as yet, then why shouldn't he sit there calmy with the schoolchildren? It seems like an entirely reasonable action to undertake. As regards Michael Moore and any project he undertakes I cannot help but view it with extreme scepticism. He has been proven to be unreliable as a source of informed criticism. I lean more to the left then the right and I'm offended that a man like this is being held up as a champion of the left by some.

Dear KrustyKidd, I'm sorry it's taken me this long to reply but my work often has unexpected extra hours. I meant that in a wartime situation US citizens would be more likely to perceive criticism of George Bush and/or government policy as a criticism of the soldiers risking their lives and, by extension, of the US itself. I don't feel that prior to 9/11 criticism of Bush/policies would have been perceived in that same way. Or put another way the question of this topic becomes necessary as a result of the war etc. I would like to think we are all reaching a point where the separate issues are easily discussed without bleeding into each other.

Do you think it would be of any interest or relevance at all to add a "Commonwealth" section to the international forum? Or is this an idea that goes nowhere? Maybe nobody wants to talk about kangaroos or kiwiws...

Black Dog Posted on Jul 28 2004, 06:13 PMBlackdog I read this link that you provide. It raised some very serious issues regarding mental health. Soldiers aren't trained to deal appropriately with the issues arising from death (killing). Coupled with this soldiers are trained to kill as automatically as possible. The article talks about how soldiers are reacting to this. I don't see anything in this article to suggest that those who seek such service may not be considered heroic. It only speaks to me about the abhorrence of war and how it affects all those associated with it. Your quote appeared, to me, overly selective. You could as easily have quoted this from the article: ... by which we might draw different conclusions.

Theres alot to what you say. Success, in my view, is in large part a self fulfilling prophecy. Taking responsibility for self, situation, present and future is surely the most important step for any person to take. However - surely the problems faced by minority groups are multilateral in cause and still need a multilateral response. Even if there is less racism existent today racism still needs to be fought by all. I don't believe the only response can be a call to return to family values (although I applaud it).

You seem to be saying that nothing concrete can be gained from the past. Is this true? What do you think is required in the process of analysis to justify a confident conclusion and resultant action? I understand the limitations but surely analysis can't be so irrelevant.

Thats a fair point. I can see I need to research this alot more. I will before I speak further on it. I didn't have my sources ready for which I apologise. However my point was that religion has a measurable affect on lives. I was attempting to broaden the debate about the validity of religion so that it might centre a little more on the issue of family rather then the issue of creation. I realise that is central any debate regarding the validity of religion but so is the here and now. Here and now religion IS real. So if it is invalid what replaces it etc... I guess I've repeated this question ad nauseum by now. I aim to be provide sources for you by Friday. In doing so I am hoping to demonstrate the very real power of religion (any religion) to make tangible differences to our world. I will also research and provide links for alternative rehab methods. Then perhaps we can debate how religion effects our lives and what, if anything, should replace it. (I'm personally of the view that the church is justifiably diminishing in influence and hope the process continues).