Tawasakm

We can also attempt to find authoritative sources to back up statements of fact. In this respect we can self-regulate. If we all provide sources then that means that other posters can check those out - and if they find them questionable then they can bring that up (backing that with sources that they find more reliable) and so on and so forth. You seem to believe that it is a negative thing to have the validity of a source questioned. I don't agree because this process allows us to evaluate our sources more critically and more fully which must lead to a better understanding of the subject. We still may not end up agreeing but it is a more then worthwhile exercise which is valuable because it exposes our 'foundations'. Debating conclusions has limited value - it is through debating our processes of reasoning and the information we base that on in addition to our conclusion that we wring the most out of the opportunity. The name is Tawasakm. I would ask you out of courtesy to use it properly.

TTS this does not appear to be anything more then a matter of association. Kimmy associates herself more closely to Alberta then to Canada. Since she feels that it is a positive association, and derived in part from a history of hard work, it becomes a strong association of pride and love. Perhaps you could say that she has a sense of 'ownership' in Alberta because she (and her family) have worked toward it and because it's most meaningful in her day to day activities. Now if she cannot associate as strongly with the nation of Canada (because it does not relate to her day to day activities, does no reflect as accurately her sense of identity and because her work does not contribute to 'Canada' and so there is no 'ownership') then it is a simple deduction to realise she won't feel the same pride in Canada. You said this: It is a good point but it is entirely relative. If there is an antagonistic relationship between the federal government and the province (for example with the profit from resources) then perception of the two entities will polarise thereby creating two distinct and separate states (even though one still belongs to the other). Under those circumstances I'm sure you can understand that the Albertans may feel that the achievements of Albertans belong to them and not to the broader 'Canada' because while they are associated they are still separate. I think thats the first time I've ever heard you swear... Basically I think you may be having trouble understanding one another because of 'relativity'. It seems to me that you both regard the entities known as 'Canada' and 'Alberta' in fundamentally different ways. Therefore you almost seem to be speaking in different languages. Still I'm not Canadian and don't know that much about Canda (certainly not compared to all of you who live there) so I guess I should limit my involvement to this one post. Hope I don't seem to be butting in.

Hmmmm my apologies - I have definitely fallen behind on my reading here. Although I do remember reading some of that thread. From memory it is a debate on the legal staus of the war? Which isn't really addressing the issue of 'the lie' I guess I should read it instead of mindlessly speculating about it. To work.

The IQ test was originally developed in France as a means to identify chidlren that needed extra help with education. The IQ test has a proven validity - in that it is good at measuring what it is supposed to measure. If you want to identify 'special needs' children then all you need to do is administer that test systematically.

That I would consider to be a possibility. I suppose it is possible that some students would come here to shortcut their research. Even if they do, so what? What are you losing by this? What I would consider to be a certainty is that the quality of debate would be improved. We can all see how each others views are formed as we 'lay our cards on the table'. We would all benefit because we would all be exposed to a broader base of research. Also bear in mind that I am not suggesting that people MUST produce evidence when posting anything. Rather I am suggesting that any time somebody posts something as a fact then they should always be prepared to back it up or retract it as a statement. It seems to me that some think they will be 'losing out' somehow by a requirement to provide evidence. I just can't understand this. You cannot lose anything. When sharing information and research you do not lose a single thing - you GAIN through the exchange. So why is it that there are some who seem to have a 'miserly' grip on their sources - who think that they should not share their sources because they would be doing the work of others for them? It doesn't work like that. If everybody contributing here is required to provide research then we are all sharing each others work. Indeed this is how the international scientific community works - by sharing the fruits of their labour freely with the wider scientific community every researcher gains. So I would suggest that people not think of what they are 'losing' (which is impossible since sharing your knowledge does not make it disappear) they should think of what they are gaining by creating an association of people who exchange ideas, knowledge and resources. The only thing I can think of that may be lost is a freedom from accountability when posting 'facts'. I would repeat again that it is my view that it is fine for people to post opinions so long as it is made clear that it is opinion. Moreover I see no problem with posting the conclusion to a chain of reasoning so long as they include the line of reasoning and are prepared to back up anything asserted as fact in that line of reasoning. Theres my two cents. Hopefully the guidelines will be released soon. Not that I'm trying to rush you Greg.

Well isn't that astonishing? It never happened. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps there aren't that many people around who are still willing to excuse this lie. Would that indicated some fundamental shift in thought do you think?

Including the continent of Australia?

Perth, incidentally, is where I live. That quote rings a bell... Did it come from Nationmaster? Another parallel is that Western Australia at one time wished to secede from the rest of Australia and form its own nation. The Monarch said no. Since the population at that time was loyal to the crown the decision was accepted. There is still talk of it at times although I've never personally met anyone who was really serious about it. WA is rich in natural resources and because of this contributed more to the federal economy per head of population then any other state - and gets less back. This leads to some resentment. So there does appear to be some common ground between Alberta and WA. Perth (population approx 1.2 million - haven't really checked lately) is regarded as the most isolated city in the world. It also has the most hours of sunshine out of every city on Earth.

Just a quick technical note for you I Miss Trudeau. The '/' needs to be in the second quote tag - not the first one. To be clearer the comes second while the

OKwell first of all I must declare that I am... inebritated... intensively. So don't (because of myeing submissive. state) take me too seriously if you do not wish to. I wish to speak to my own feelings in this matter. I have broken up with every single girlfriend I had that I perceived as being submissive. It's not that I want women to dominate me - that leads to a whole lot of fireworks. Its that I want people to be themselves and if they can't be I won't be involved in any romantic relationsip with them. This is addressed to your 'conspiracy of men'. I do not want anybody to less then they are and I would never manipulate events toward such a goal. I think you are really reaching when you try to implicate all men bracuse it is not substantiated by my own experience or by that of the other blokes I know. We are all 'people'. I would never ask someone to be less then they are and because of this I do not respect the presmise of your argument. Hoprefully this makes sense. Possibly In should not post after a 'long night'.

While this thread was certainly not intended for my own private education I would like to thank all involved as this has enhanced my understanding of Canada. Especial thanks to kimmy. You really got into the 'heart' of things. The more I read the more unified Australia looks to me.

No, I quite clearly stated that I wasn't debating it any more. You are making a mistake here. Where did I say that my opinion was based on one book? I said I liked to quote from that book. Nor did I actually relate the level of my education. Nor will I. None of us can 'prove' who we are on this forum and what our level of education may be. Our arguments must rest on their merits. Nor am I casting 'aspersions' on people. I am presenting the facts as I see them and backed them up with authoritative sources. As I recall you presented as 'evidence' a psychotic who made up an illness for Bush. Your common sense does not leave me stunned. This opinion is coming from somebody who accepts the 'expert' analysis of an unqualified psychotic. And I made the point that research is accelerating now as technology has developed which allows us monitor a brain in real time and observe it responding to stimuli. Do you know what has been done in the way of research? Are you aware of the difficulties which are faced and how they may be overcome? As to the rest... well I just can't take you seriously. I'd LIKE to but the way you started off has just left a marked impression. Now to clarify some things Yes it's easy to say that but nobody has proven that I was wrong. Bear in mind that I don't mind being wrong nor do I mind people disagreeing with me - what gets under my skin is people disagreeing with me without producing evidence. Eureka kept alluding to evidence but never actually produced it. You disagree with me but you didn't produce any evidence. I quoted the APA's accepted definition of insanity and nobody produced anything from an authoritative body that stated otherwise. That is why I withdrew from this thread. It is hardly a worthy debate if people disagree with each other but never substantiate. It is a complete waste of everybodys time. For all these reasons I am not contributing to this thread anymore. My response to you marks my last post in this particular thread.

On another not entirely. Trial and Error said this: This is also a fairly common misconception. Psychology is a true science. It utilises the scientific method which, succinctly, is: observe, detect regularities, generate hypothesis, observe. Now, many people seem to believe that because knowledge is still fairly incomplete this somehow invalidates it from being true science. True science does not purport to know what it does not know. Science builds knowledge over time. Psychology is still in its infancy and has a way to go. There also seems to be the belief that emotions can't be measured and therefore psychology can't be a true science. Even ignoring the fact that emotions can be measured by their physiological effects it is sloppy thinking. The difficulties in measuring emotion are difficulties for science to overcome rather then being invalidating factors. Amazingly, to me, people who tell me that emotion can't be measured (therefore making impossible any scientific research) often almost immediately tell me that 'common sense' tells us more then psychology ever could. I find this to be utter nonsense since 'common sense' has nothing approaching the rigour of the scientific method and, upon testing, is often proven to be completely lacking. Well enough ranting from me. I'm very tired (took a friend to hospital and sat around for ages - nothing serious though) and I'm off to a belated sleep.

As I see it this at the core of a great many thing in this world of ours. How to conquer fear?

I came across a rather succint argument here. which is another of your deductive negative arguments. I would be most interested to garner your thoughts on it.

It's a fact of life caesar. If you want more info google American Psychiatric Association (they publish it). I got the idea from a university course which teaches psychology. You haven't been reading my posts. Insanity isn't a psychological concept - it is a legal concept (for more info please read back through all my posts). Because of this it is a court that determines whether or not an individual is insane - there is never a clinical diagnosis made. Experts give their opinion on whether or not the individual concerned was aware of the right/wrong of their actions at the time of a crime. That is a somewhat grey area. There is no diagnostic procedure for insanity - the diagnostic procedures are for actual mental diseases etc. To expand on your question slightly I will add that the system does no absolutely ensure correct diagnosis (mistakes are still made) but is the best system there is. Not only is it likely - its a fact. And it does make a great deal of sense to have universal diagnostic procedures.

So, basically, your stance is that don't need to provide evidence to back yourself up. Thankyou for making that clear. Nonsense. At the very least there are many people who try to do so. Bit of a personal shot there - and not true in any event. If your position can not sustain questioning then it is not well thought out. I can only presume you haven't actually read all my posts. What I attempt to do is inpersonally apply my knowledge and reasoning skills to my posts and to those of others. I don't believe I've been acting superior. I certainly don't believe I'm superior to anybody here. In point of fact there are posters here who have earned my great respect (and all of them back up their positions I might add). But I have been caesar - I've been debating 'facts', opinions and theories.

A quick note on diagnosis before anybody asks. While treatments vary, diagnostic procedures are universal. Diagnosis is made using the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition). The DSM IV is comprised of five major axes. Axis I: Clinical Disorders and other conditions that may be a focus of clinical attention. Axis II: Personality Disorders and Mental Retardation Axis III: General Medical Conditions Axis IV Psychological and Environmental Problems Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). I suggest anybody who is still hell bent on diagnosing people with mental conditions could at least view this manual and attempt to use it along with their 'common sense'.

This personal attack is a waste of my time and not worthy of you. Fine. For one last time. What you rephrasing is not only a simple concept - it is an incorrect concept. Lets go back to what you said. Rubbish. Insanity is a very specific term that does not cover any psychological conditions. If someone is found insane it means that an individual was unaware of the right or wrong of their actions at the time they committed a crime. Yes the court needs psychological assessment in order to make that determination since they need to try and get 'into the head' of the individual. But there is never a clinical diagnosis made in regards to wether or not the person is insane. It is a court that makes the designation. Now you think that because a psychological condition may cause the legal state of insanity at the time of a crime that the concept of insanity then becomes some kind of umbrella concept that extends to cover the disorder which may have caused the behaviour. But you see that is not true. Insanity is not some meta-disorder which covers many conditions. That is completely sloppy thinking which would destroy diagnostic procedures. No if a person is found to be insane AND to have a mental disorder then those are two separate things. You are being sloppy when you think that association necessarily means they suddenly become one and the same. It is simply not true. The concept of insanity is strictly legal and does not bleed over into the field of psychology because it would be a counter-productive concept to utilise in that field. Now last of all. You have not, at any point, attempted to back up your argument with research. This is despite the fact that I have previously asked for it. You have persisted in this approach even after learning that I don't like to continue debating with people who do not. The you insult me. I absolutely will not continue this debate any further with you beyond this point. I hope in future debates you will provide research to back up your claims and refrain from insulting me.

Believe it or not I have a rule of thumb (which I instituted perhaps a month ago) which goes like this: I won't respond to anybody who repeats themselves over three posts without providing evidence in any situation where the person(s) they are disagreeing with have provided evidence. Period. I have various reasons for doing this and I intend to stick to it. So I won't be taking up this issue with Eureka any longer. (Post edited to correct spelling - probably still missed some *sigh*)

You're giving me grey hairs with this Eureka. The American Psychological Association doesn't think insanity is clinical. I repeat, from earlier, the definition taken from a glossary I linked to from their page. They accept all these definitions as correct. (Emphasis mine) I can't keep repeating the same thing over and over and I can't take you seriously, on this point, until you find me an authoritative body which disagrees.

caesar, Is that so? This is not the first time I've encountered you rhapsodising over this other forum and asserting that everybody hah to research and back up their claims. You always manage to sound positive about that fact. Why is it then that you have so often been resistant when asked to provide evidence yourself? You've argued vociferously against any claim made that you should be required to back yourself up. So where do you really stand caesar?

caesar you add nothing with these meaningless bland assertions. You make a statement as if you know what you are talking about. Wheres the evidence? This is a link! I linked to this glossary from the American Psychological Assaciations webpage. This is what we call 'backing up an assertion.' Its the process of searching for and providing 'evidence' for our claims. Incidentally it is the only definition of insanity in the glossary. Eureka and yourself are operating under a faulty understanding of the term. Theres nothing wrong with not being right up to speed with everything - but I can't understand why you won't update your knowledge when the opportunity arises. After all it is not a difficult concept and I don't think I made it all that hard to understand. You see when I corrected the use of the concept 'insanity' I wasn't actually having a go at anyone. I was correcting a simple (and very common) misunderstanding. I just don't understand the resistance to it. This isn't political correctness. It is what it is. It doesn't even prevent you from pursuing your view of Bush - but it allows you to do it with the right words and may, I hope, encourage you to do some serious research into mental illness so you can refine your idea along more concrete lines.

Eureka, Admitting again that I don't know the case in Canada I will reiterate to you that in the US and Australia psychology students are taught that insanity IS NOT a psychological concept or term but only a legal one. Any properly qualified clinical pyschologist in the US or Australia will deal with the concept only through legal processes occuring in a court. Dictionaries have been updated to reflect this. Here is a definition taken from Dictionary.com which has been properly updated to reflect this reality: So while the term continues to float around and enjoy common use the reality it is that it is no longer used within the psychological community. The definition accepted within the community is: Now somebody is found insane if through mental disease they are unable to know right from wrong. Hence the opinions of experts is sought. The determination lies with the court however. The same text provides an example of a criminal with extreme psychologicial problems who is found to be perfectly sane. Isn't there a contradiction it asks? No is the answer because insanity is ONLY a legal term/concpet not a psychological one. Trial and Error, If that is the case I'll break off.

My definition of insanity comes from Psychology The Adaptive mind which is, basically, a primer for psychology students in Australia and the US. I know not about Canada. I like to quote from it because it gives excellent basic definitions. Now according to that book (which is used to teach psychology students) insanity is not a psychological concept but a legal one. That definition is as I stated. The link you provided for your definition is one individual giving an opinion. My definition is the accepted definition within 'the industry'. Sorry but I am going to run with that. Since you claim my definition is one of many I looked it up in the dictionary. The results are here. Please note that the only definition which is not legal is no longer in scientific use Tsk tsk. Do you really believe that brains constantly change. Our level of knowledge and interpretation of events may change but our brains don't. Not past a certain age anyway. When we are born our brains are at 25% size. At age two thats 75%. This is probably not due to the addition of new neurons but rather due to an increase in complexity and the addition of glial cells. I'm not going in to this too much since I feel you will ignore it. Do you actually really have any idea, scientifically, how it is that people learn or are you using 'common sense'? This will not necessarily cause antisocial or abusive behaviour in an individual. There are plenty of adults around who grew up in such a situation and are balanced happy adults. Conversely there are people who grow up with 'normal' loving parents and will still become abusive. The causes of such behaviour are not subject to such easy analysis. Yes it appears that people from a certain background are more likely to end up in jail but the first rule of statistical analysis is that correlation does not equal causation. If you can't get past that then theres no point in debating causes with you. Additionally the scientific method demands testing of hypothesis. This is much more reliable then 'its common sense'. No its not science at all. No that was a comment directed at you telling people to get past the symptoms. Which was actually contradictory to what you are trying to achieve. I must have missed the bit where I condoned mass murder... No, hang on, thats right - I didn't condone mass murder! How interesting. So what was it I said? Well in response to you saying this I said this No matter how hard I try I can't find any reference to mass murder in there. No what I seem to be saying is that technology is now allowing us to observe a functioning brain in real time which is a relatively recent thing and a critical break through. I gave you something which actually exists and fits your purported 'symptoms'. I thought it might be fun for you to work with something real instead of making things up with your 'common sense'. If you prefer your common sense approach then, by all means, don't let me stop you. Even accepting that figure as absolutely accurate and accepting the full attribution of blame toward Bush that still does not directly attribute a lack of feeling. One can only conclude that an action, or series of actions, by George Bush has caused a reaction, or a series of reactions, which have resulted in loss of life. You are only guessing at this feelings which are, it appears, based on your own feelings. Now that is going too far. I may not have agreed with the invasion of Iraq but that doesn't mean that I think all those who disagree are lunatics. There are a variety of different perspectives and arguments which would support such an action. While I mostly disagree with them it does not mean that they are not rational. Condescending rubbish. Which leads me back to the start of your last post. My goodness what a telling blow! Well if we're all grown up here then we can behave respectfully toward all posters in a mature and adult fashion.