Tawasakm

I guess this means the answer to the question is that we consider an individuals rights to be inviolable (although still taking into account collateral damage). What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan then? I'm not at all convinced that its realistic to expect victory against determined opponents under these conditions. We are killing people for nothing if we can't achieve our objectives and if we lose. I am not saying it is wrong to make the decision that we don't want to violate the principle of individual rights and protections in our undertakings. I am saying that a decision like that may well be completely inconsistent with the reality of armed conflict and occupation. Should this determination be a deal breaker when deciding whether or not we go to war? The world is not ideal and war is not what we may want it to be.

bjre I am not questioning your right to your own opinions and your right to express them. I am wondering at the claim you live in Canada. Your 'angle' seems far more consistent with somebody living within the Peoples Republic. I was thinking that you may have been claiming Canadian residency in an attempt to give yourself more legitimacy.

That may be true from our end - it may not be from our opponents end Its different in terms of the direct threat to ourselves. Its different in terms of technology available - in armaments, communications etc. It may not be different in the regards that the enemy needs to be killed to be defeated. We may see it as different because our goals are altruistic but that may only be us. Thats a fair point. But it gets to the crux of what I am asking. The existence of our nations may not be at stake but the achievement of our goals may be at stake. You speak of building a society that respects human rights. Thats the kind of thing I have been referring to as a collective goal. If we deem that to be the moral victory and the moral outcome then how far do we go to achieve it? At some point your enemy may blend into the population. Or I suppose it may be more relevant to point out Germany and Japan. The nazi's and the imperial japanese army had horrible humans rights abuses which were state sanctioned. I realise the allies had bloody hands as well but I don't think it was in the same degree (no holocaust and no mass mistreatment of POWs). The allied powers crushed these nations and occupied them. We now see these nations as examples of modern democracies which protect and advocate human rights. If I contrast this with wars like Afghanistan then we seem to be bogged down fighting weaker opposition while we ourselves are stronger. I am certainly not advocating we simply go in and slaughter everyone but I am questioning our expectations that the conflict itself can be so rosey. Why do we think we can do drastically effect a long term outcome by 'nice' conflict? Does history teach us it is better to win before using the carrot? And yes I do realise that Germany and Japan both had democratic structures in place previously but I would still consider the point and the question valid. Do you rebuild after the conflict is definitively over or do you try to rebuild during the conflict? If we go in to a country with a set of expecations that can conflict with each other (I am contending that in war sometimes the rights of an individual will be in direct opposition to the goals of the war) are we creating a situation where we are considerably less likely to succeed? If we fail to achieve our collective goals because we are concerned with the rights of individuals then we have started a war for nothing. The blood of our dead and their dead achieved nothing if we don't get 'the job done'. If we consider our objectives to be moral and humanitarium to the society as a whole long term should the emphasis then be on those objectives more? What if our enemy does not care about individual rights? I know we want to be distinct from them but what is the real price of doing so?

Every kid growing up thinks about marriage. Even the boys - although they may be considerably less sophistacted in whatever they are thinking. Hell I was 'married' five times in one week in year 3 (to 3 different girls). Shocking divorce rate I know. The point is that the ideal or goal of marriage is instilled in us in a young age. We are socialised to desire marriage as a stable and fulfilling institution (it almost seems like its part of the cycle of life). Some people go on to reject that socialisation and choose against marriage. Most do not. Some of those kids who are socialsed about marriage become homosexual. Those who do not reject the ideal of marriage are denied it. In this respect I see it as marginalising gay folks. They grew up the same as the rest of us with all the same influences, watching the same shows, hearing the same message and seeing the same world. I don't think their thought processes will be so fundamentally different that this cornerstone of adult relationships will be something they don't want. When they are rejected they are told that they are different and other. That what they learned to want growing up is now denied them because of what they turned out to be. Thats just my opinion on it. I don't see the point in marginalising these people over the use of a word. I just don't see anybody losing out.

This is a question I often see pop up in one form or another. In our modern western democracies we have a balance between individual and collective rights - or perhaps it would be better to say that we pursue both. Since this is fundamental to our way of life I think we often unthinkingly extend it into the arena of armed conflict. I can see people asking why this should be an issue. Of course it is right to protect the rights of individuals (captured combatants and civilians for example). But is it realistic? Does it inhibit the ability to follow the objectives of our side in those conflicts? If it does then is it more moral to protect the individual or to pursue the objective? Take Afghanistan as an example. What are the collective goals? Protecting democratic processes in the country, protecting womens rights, pursuing and dismantling al Quaedas capabilities etc. What happens when (and if) the collective goals become mutually exclusive with the individual goals? If it becomes too difficult to protect individual lives then is it more moral to alter or abandon those goals or to pursue them regardless? If the collective goals are abandoned you may see democracy collapse, women become enslaved and a resurgence in al Quaeda. If you continue to pursue these goals knowing that you can't protect the individuals then innocent people will die. I wonder at times if we truely realise that we may not be able to have it all. I suppose the question is if we can't have both then should we be there in the first place? Our stable and peaceful lives where our individual rights are protected did not come without conflict. Can they ever?

I am curious. What makes everyone believe that bjre actually lives in Canada? Who is to say that he does not live in China and regards that claim as a clever tool which will assist him in seeding his particular brand of propaganda.

These arguments always seem to get bogged down. Perhaps we should change the terminology/semantics. I can state that I am INTOLERANT (not racist) toward any ideology whose core values explicitly contradict and abrogate human rights as outlined by the UN and the democratic western civilisations. I am intolerant toward all entities which espouse (or omit to act against) any barbaric doctrine which represses the rights of women, homosexuals, minority groups and freedom of information. Any entity - that includes individuals, congregations, corporations, organisations and governments. Some of the above mentioned repression continues to occur in the west but it is recognised and there are continued concerted efforts to correct the balance. There are places in the world where such efforts are non existent - either through genuine belief, fear of reprisal or other. There are people that move from these nations into ours. So long as they continue to hold these beliefs (or omit to act against others who hold them) then there is an increase in the pressures which maintain respression within our societies. I am intolerant toward this counterproductive trend which could delay or inhibit the freedoms we have struggled toward. I realise that it could be argued that my views against these 'minority' groups are discriminatory since they are based on my interpretation of their belief system and how it conflicts with core western values (meaning freedom of rights). I do not believe it is discriminatory. The whole purpose of freedom of rights is to protect AGAINST these kind of belief systems! We moved away from them and toward a system that which would protect all. Its contradictory to suppose that this system should protect an ideology which fights against its fundamental goals. Yes we should not be racist and discriminatory. We should embrace the rights and freedoms in our democracy. We should also be clear eyed. We need to remember why it was necessary to enshrine these rights and what we have been progressively moving away from. We should not embrace factors that seek to undermine these rights. We should not assume that any who seek to replace these core values with their own - which are so often genuinely discriminatory and repressive - should be protected in that pursuit. This does not mean I advocate persecution against these groups. I do mean that wherever they contradict freedom and equality of gender or other groups than they should be condemned and they should be prosecuted (to whatever extent is possible) for that attack on our rights. When people do act to protect these freedoms I find it a paradoxical proposition to name them 'racist'.

It would seem to me that we can be a little too quick to judge at times. I am NOT a fan of George W Bush but can clearly see that in this instance he was giving his opinion on the course of action that would have saved more lives. He may be right or he may be wrong in his assessment but there are plenty (some included within the linked article) who agree and have valid reasons for doing so - such as taking out the rail lines leading in and perhaps trying to hit the actual death chambers. Hard for me to know if that was really viable with the technology and resources they had available but I can't discredit Bush for holding such a view on the matter. The article also stated that his eyes welled with tears on two occasions - it is good to see such a human and compassionate response from him. If we disagree with EVERYTHING he does then would that make us blind in effect?

A lot of the discussion involving politics and policy often seems to centre around a concept of balance. Exactly what is balance though? I suppose many would answer that balance is representative of two contrasting opposites. Within the political arena I guess left and right fit into this description. So balance is where something will fit in relation between these two points. What does it mean to be perfectly balanced then? To be equidistant between two contrasting and opposite points must mean that both opposites have equal validity. One could almost view it as the ability to see into and hold the truth of a paradox – that is to say two ideas which may seem mutually exclusive. This could make this viewpoint more difficult to clarify and to rally support around. What does it mean to be out of balance – in fact to be toward the extreme side of one point or the other? I guess logically that would mean that an individual gives validity to one contrasting point and not the other which could perhaps be seen as rejecting a paradox. Since there is no need to hold what may be contradictory truths as being equally valid then it would seem to me that this is a simpler and easier position to hold. It must also be an easier view point to clarify and rally support around. The range of questions I would like to throw out are: 1) Which would seem to be the best stance? Is it desirable to seek a perfect balance between concepts or is it more effective to move to one side? 2) If it is easier to explain one set of concepts (and by doing so reject the contrasting concept) then how much does this affect the conduct of political activity? Does it create a detrimental effect? 3) As a follow on to the above. Would having two sides of a balance represented separately in a democratic nation be more desirable then trying to represent both at once? After all changes of government can lead to a natural shift from one side to the other – or in other words can act as a self correcting mechanism that will move toward the centre. In having both sides represented does this mean that a society is already in balance by virtue of this? 4) If you seek a perfect balance does this lead to greater tolerance and harmony or not? Just some idle thought of mine while I can’t sleep. Be interested to hear any thoughts.

Google language tools gave me this translation: Bannen the bra Beautifully poetic. Although I do wonder at times (perish the thought) if google is getting it quite right...

As I understand such matters there is no international standard for bra sizes and so there are vast discrepancies between the various designations in different countries. Perhaps we should appoint an international committee to resolve this issue once and for all as a humanitarian task in the service of all humankind.

Nice new break up of the forums btw. The split is logical 1) Religious issues as they relate to and/or affect politics 2) Ethical issues (which are not necessarily religious) as they relate to and/or affect politics 3) Religious and ethical issues that affect Canada and/or the rest of the world which may not relate directly to politics. That is how I see the break up in any event and I applaud the move and the distinctions it enables users to draw in placing their topics. Kudos.

I would have to say that the Fillipino (or however it may be spelled) girl I dated when I was 18 takes the absolute cake in terms of unearthly beauty. The Irish girl I dated at early twenties took the cake in terms of consistently getting her way and making me like it and think it was my own idea all along... The point being all races are human races. Why would any of us really care about colour of skin or accent of voice when that is stacked against weight of thought, force of feeling and the passions of the soul?

I don't doubt for a second that the US navy (and military in general) would pwn the Iranians. This thread appears to be an argument over whether or not that is the case so I will weigh in with it from that point of view to start with. I would like to throw out a few questions though If the radio message originated from the Iranians then what was their objective and what could they possibly have hoped to achieve from this? (apart from a Darwin award - prestigious though it may be) Is this incident (even if genuinely actioned by the Iranians) worthy of escalation to war? If so then why? If not then why not? Has the media been too quick to respond and leaped to too many facts? If war were to erupt and the US were to annihilate Iranian infrastructure (seems certain to me they could) can we predict the outcomes of such an action on both the middle east and the wider world? Will a change of US government alter the public perception of such incidents and probable (or desired) responses in the future? I am curious to garner the thoughts of all of you on this subject.

Also my post count has diminished substantially which I guess is off topic...

I have been reading for a time before joining in again with these forums and I would have to say this: lets nobody dsicourage Kengs from what is perhaps his first solidly expressed point. If "the school covered up the issue and allowed the teacher to continue teaching for another ten years during which she allegedly abused at least six other female students." then that does raise a pretty serious line of questions. I, for one, would like to encourage Kengs on this one. On a side not - damn the functionality has altered

You know I actually believe Gregs intervention has improved the quality of this forum. As such I will be trying to find time to start posting here again myself. Shoop, I believe it is impossible for any moderator to makes decisions that everybody approves of. I received that same email you did. I actually read and thought, 'great he is going to making an effort to get the forums sorted.' I also realise, since he is a new father, that the dedication of his time to that task is a precious thing. He has had alot of people snipe at him over time (to some extent even me) but he always comes through. If these forums are a reflection of Gregs ethics and standards then he comes off smelling of roses. It reads that way because you keep bringing it up yourself. In my experience Greg won't ban you for questioning. On the other hand he won't necessarily want to keep talking in circles either. Since the discussion is going nowhere it may be best to agree to disagree?

I like green eggs and ham...

I'll give you my age. Why not? I'm 28. Personally I think 26-60 as a choice is a little too broad.

This thread used to be brought to the front on a regular basis. Since I have seen this test pop up in another thread it may be time to bring it to the front again. Over my time here I have already taken the test a few times: My latest results: Economic Left/Right: -1.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.79 I definitely seem to be moving toward the right - certainly in relation to where I was. Interesting...

I can't say I really want to get involved in this topic. Having said that there is one point that interests me. How much would that much gold weigh? Perhaps you can use this link to work it out. Got any theories on how that much weight was covertly relocated?

Its already boxing day here (1.22am) but merry christmas to all. I hope your day is as great as mine was.

Accepting things as they are told they are. Accepting that some things 'defy explanation' I would think would stifle the accumulation of knowledge. Questioning what is 'known' is an important ingredient for progress. In my view (and this is just my own opinion) to be a person who accepts things as they are you would need to be accepting that there is no concrete answer to the origins of life or the existence of a supreme being(s) in whatever form. Looking at it that way religious people are already precluded from 'accepting things as they are' since they have a faith based belief system in something without empirical evidence. That may be more like accepting things as you'd like them to be.

You might find this thread to be of interest.

I suspect that it is a little simplistic to be looking for a universal motivating factor to the 'race riots' in Cronulla. Some were no doubt there for a peaceful protest. Some probably did not want a peaceful protest. I'll bet there were different motivations for those in either group. There has been trouble and tension in the area for some time between Lebonese gangs and locals and other beach goers. That tension has been building over time and would explain the prescence of a portion of the protestors. I don't believe it was about the lifeguards being beaten (or at least not exclusively). I think that was a rally point - an expression of what they saw as being wrong and what needed to end. Some seemed to want a peaceful solution while others seemed to want all Lebanese gone. I see more 'agendas' being present then that however. The crowd was dotted with white supremicists. I doubt I need to explain their agenda. There is also a section of the population which is against anything Muslim or Islamic or perceived to be. Particular since 9/11 and subsequent events and all the associated rhetoric. I doubt their agenda needs explaining either. Further there would be people who would have joined in just to be a part of it or to join the crowd or for any number of such reasons. In short I don't believe the crowd was homogenous but was heterogenous. Once together though large crowds can tend to be united. 'Mob rule' has been explored extensively throughout the years. Whatever sparked this crowd off - be it alcohol, inciters or whatever, the meaning of what drew them together became lost I think. The crowd became a mob. The indiscrimate targeting was disgraceful. As an example are two bangladeshis who will be going home and never returning after they were targeted. Mob rule never works. The mob failed to target those it was gathered to protest against. The lebanese are no better. There is a history of gang violence in the area. Also there are reports of many Lebanese travelling from other cities to the trouble area. Violence so often begets more violence. So I believe if you want to analyse this problem then you need to look at it from a number of different perspectives. I very much doubt there is one cause for all in this situation.