Tawasakm

Damn every time I see this test I feel an overwhelming compulsion to take it... Lets see where I stand this year. Economic Left/Right: -4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67 Before that I was: Economic Left/Right: -4.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82 And before that: Economic Left/Right: -3.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72 I don't seem to have changed a whole heap.

I respect kimmy's thoughts. The logical corollary is that it is of no particular import that you, personally, think GW is insane (which, incidentally is a legal concept not a psychological one). Of course that attitude gets us nowhere. Why don't we take the view the for the purposes of debate on this forum that the thoughts of contributing posters are all important. Interesting paragraph. Your theory that Bush is demented and lacks any ability to feel remorse, empathise or reflect intrigues me. I am sure you can back that up with something more substantive in the way of evidence (no psychotics this time). I would lean away from that argument because his history in office would seem to support more conventional theories - that he is operating out of self interest (all those old business connections), a misplaced ideology (which, to me, appears somewhat genuine), and a lack of perception in anticipating consequences. Thats my take anyway. No doubt in my mind that things would have been run better if Al Gore had been in office. Nevertheless I don't see anything that seems to indicate a mental disorder. I have an advantage in this in so far as I don't require scientific evidence to make that claim. To claim the he, definitely, has a mental disorder does require medical/scientific evidence. I personally believe that any head of state should undergo a psychiatric assessment as a matter of course before acceding to the position. You are, again, misunderstanding the concept of insanity. It is a legal concept and NOT a psychological one. To quote from Psychology The Adaptive Mind "insanity - A legal term usually defined as the inability to understand that certain actions are wrong, in a legal or moral sense, at the time of a crime". While the opinions of experts is sought and taken under consideration it is only a court that can find someone insane and therefore innocent by reason of insanity. Very few people are found insane because very few people can really be found to be unaware of the 'wrongness' of particular actions. In fact as a defence it is rarely attempted. You may postulate that many convicted criminals suffer from mental disorders but I think that may be a bit of a leap. Particularly if you then want to establish that so many of these individuals would also have diminished responsibility. Remember, also, that having a bad childhood and/or being unhappy, while unfortunate, is not a mental disorder. Syptoms are necessary for diagnosis... It is a difficult area to explore. Technology is only now progressing to a point where a brain can be oberved in real time while operating and responding to stimuli. Relax - there is a great deal of competent research occuring. It is hardly ludicrous. But if you disagree please pursue the issue with all vigour. I see no reason for kimmy to feel embarrased for presenting her views in a structured and rational way. The fact that she disagrees with you holds no shame at all. Incidentally, just to be sporting, I should let you know that with the symptoms you are attributing to Bush you could make out a case for him being schizophrenic. To be diagnosed with that disorder you must possess at least two symptoms (there is no one universal symptom- its a complex disorder). Delusion is a postive symptom of schizophrenia while his lack of emotion (as you call it) could be a negative symptom of schizophrenia (negative symptoms are reduction of normal behaviour - such as emotion). Of course I think you are wrong in attributing these symptoms. But why don't you try and go with this one?

RB, I may be wrong but I believe that Craig Read was banned for infringing on copyright laws. If I understand correctly what occured he was found to have posted somebody elses work and claimed it as his own. Hope that clears things up. August1991, I respect your views but I respect the structure of this forum more. You may believe that no harm may come to somebody via the internet. That may be true. But harm can come to the quality of discussion. It is this that Greg seeks to protect. In any event it is his choice and his alone.

I would like to add my emphatic view that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way this site is being moderated. Given the clear rules and the use of warnings I don't see there is any room for complaint if somebody does get banned (or related measures). The rules and the moderation are a big part of the reason for the high quality of discussion here (cumbersome sentence there wasn't it?). Now I'm going to go watch Cops...

Heres a link to a site providing a quick explanation about why email petitions and online petitions are USELESS and fall under the umbrella of junk mail. Enjoy.

August I followed the link and you were banned for this post: Which struck me as lacking your normal style. I wondered at the time if someone had hacked into your account and made the post. I hope so. As to the thread title... I think its very easy to react too strongly to the media portrayal of ideal beauty. Its too easy to become obsessed with it - both by pursuing it and rejecting it. I think the Female Eunuch, for example, may go a little too far the other way. Sure it would be great for women to accept themselves rather then chasing some ideal - but I think it goes a little too far to be calling men subhumanly ugly and to start blaming men for everything. I saw an interview with the author once and she said (something along the lines of), 'men are only briefly beautiful when they are boys'. She explained that adult men aren't and went on to list all of their shortcomings. No doubt some, or all of us men, have some of those shortcomings to some extent but not, I feel, to the extent that was being suggested. For anyone interested in chasing up transcripts the show was 'Enough Rope' hosted by Andrew Denton (its a great show). Look for an interesting interview with the American Ambassador too. Personally I don't see any problems being solved by conflict between the genders. At the core I think men need women and women need men to be complete. Acceptance is the road that needs to be travelled and that is not achieved by such conflict. Besides change must always start with the self which necessitates that responsibility be taken by the self for the self. Anyway it's my birthday today so I'm off to see how much this older body can still drink (not very intellectual but hopefully fun).

It absolutely the final nail in the coffin and no mistake. What staggers me however are the number of people who will say that it doesn't matter. Even if there are other, valid, arguments which support the invasion of Iraq none of them, in any way, justify or mitigate this great lie. I'll stand back and await the inevitable disagreement from those who think that it does not matter that the President launched a war without UN backing on the premise of a lie (or lets call it bad information...).

Increasing levels of interference from the Indonesian military can't help. Indonesia clamps down The Indonesian government can never seem to think beyond its own power. It has long lists of human rights abuses committed to facilitate the continuation of their own power - East Timor and Aceh are good examples. Its these kinds of regimes that are the true terrors. More so then the US (although Bush et al in power makes me very nervous) and certainly more so then quack CIA conspiracy theories. I'm beginning to think we should keep an eye on Eureka also. He should have his snorkel suit and tyre iron confiscated and then have a security detail set to watch his moves and make sure he doesn't practice any more amateur attempts at leverage.

In my recent absence I'd forgotten about this thread and that I had promised more detail. I have since put up an essay which would explain my point of view a little better. It can be found here. Sorry for the delay

If you are unable, for whatever reason, to provide evidence when asked then it seems reasonable to me to profess that. You can say something like, 'I have been unable to find the evidence which I thought I could and so I cannot back up my claim. While I still believe what I said to be true I will alter it in form so that it will read as my opinion. When, and if, I can find the evidence I need I will readress the point and press it again.' There is nothing wrong with doing that in my view. It is wrong, in my view, to insert statements or claims into a debate which you then will not back up. It is not wrong to enter opinions, logical constructs or anecdotal evidence so long as it is CLEARLY defined as such. Thats my two cents. Also, It is my understanding that reference material need not be restricted to the web but may encompass printed material, televised sources and radio etc. If you can find a source on the web it is obviously preferable since it is then easily accessible to other posters but the web is not the be all and end all.

Give things a bit of time. Its a busy time for many. Sure is for me. As I said before I believe that the premise that Argus is using is a very solid one. In order to be a viable entity the UN should be in possession of clear and universal principles which are applied universally to all. I don't think that anybody would disagree with that. If anyone does please stand up and be counted. The real issue for discussion is whether or not the UN does hold universal princpiles that it is applying universally. With reference to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict if this is demonstrably not the case (as I believe) then the UN, in and of itself, is no longer a viable entity to serve as an intermediary in the area - nor would it then have the validity to provide guidelines in reference to the area. That to me is the critical point of debate. Is the UN viable on those grounds?

The cynic in me finds that very hard to believe.

I don't know if your last comment was directed at me, caesar, but if it was then it is inappropriate. I am not making any partisan comments toward Israel or Palestine nor am I even making a comment on anti-semitism. I am supporting a premise which Argus made - that standards in the UN must be uniform and applied universally. I find that premise to be both sound and desirable. That is ALL I am saying.

If I may I will draw attention back to this question and ask Greg if progress is being made?

You are, of course, correct in saying that uniformity is required in the actions and reactions of the United Nations. Anything to the contrary is a step in the wrong direction. I believe that Israel violates human rights. I also believe that Palestine does. The nations you listed also fall into this category. Condemnation of one on humanitarian grounds should logically require condemnation of all on those same grounds. If the UN is to be viable it must possess uniform and universal truths which are applicable to all. My first post in weeks and this is all I have time for...

I don't see the point in regulating the length of threads. So long as they are not inappropriate (massive, long flame wars etc) then why stifle discussion? If a thread goes for a long time its simply a hot topic and probably a complex issue. As Eureka says threads will only ever be as long as peoples interest. Also, as Slavik44 indicates, people self-regulate if they think a discussion has become repetitive. Is there really any need for regulation?

Just in case make sure you are wearing a glove. Personally, since I do not believe the existence of God is logically supported, I believe you will be fisting the air - but if believing that you are fisting God brings you spiritual satisfaction then go for it. You can found the Seventh Day Fisters.

I'll add some more detail to this later (sorry I don't have some books to hand that I need) but I would make the point that alot of the worlds inability to feed itself is the ongoing result of the colonial process. There are many nations who were forced into a situation, for example, of growing cash crops such as rubber which ruined the soil for anything else afterwards. Also many nations were forced to reorient their economies to serve western interests. The withdrawal of the colonial powers has not reversed the economic dependency which was created. I would argue that as beneficiaries of this process we owe it to these nations to assist in removing those factors which create dependency. I know everyone argues that it was in the past and none of these countries are doing so now (which in itself is arguable). I don't think this holds water because the current situation is not 'static' it is not determined only by current events but by ongoing processes which are rooted in colonialism. I don't agree with the view that since we are not contributing to exploitation now we owe nothing. We are beneficiaries of that past exploitation. Anyway more detail later when I have me texts to hand.

If you don't think marriage was developed by humans for humans then where do you think it came from? Before you tell me God created it remember to take into account that marriage exists in many cultures and religions. No you are wrong. Marriage is a man-made construct. The difference between your automobile example and marriage is that one is a physical object and the other is a developed custom and legal reality. Both are man made but you seem to think the fact that one is not a physical construct denies this reality. Humans are social beings. The need for relationships is inherent in us. For example we seek friendship, collaborative effort and, pertinent to your point, romantic fulfillment. Through the ages different cultures and individuals have found romantic fulfillment/companionship in different ways. The different customs of marriage that have evolved over time are a result of our need for romantic fulfillment. That is what is rooted in our psyche. Marriage is man made product which has resulted, over time, from this need. Of course they make a difference. Whether you like it or not an important part of the reality of marriage is defined, and regulated, by the state. Marriage 'in its totality' will mean many different things to many different people. The actions of the state in regulating marriage are the only thing creating any of the universality which you believe exists in marriage. Anything outside of that regulation is relative to the individuals concerned. I question your assumption that such an action would be unilateral. It is a democratic system. People will get their say. A body of elected representatives voting to form a concensus is not unilateral action. I am interested to see how your deductive reasoning allowed you to determine whom I worship (assuming I worship at all). You seem to be attempting to attach a label here to those who disagree with you in order to be able to dismiss them more easily. The label doesn't fit so why not just stick to refuting our points?

kimmy continues to raise the most important point. Making a unilateral decision to avoid confrontation with Islamic nations is potentially as bad as making a unilateral decision to invade an Islamic nation. It is the opposite of imposing our will on others - it is allowing others to impose their will on us. Killing, corruption and exploitation can be as ably supported by inaction as by action. It is best, in my view, to act with compassion and with all effort to understand a situation from everyones point of view (although that does not necessarily entail catering to everyones point of view). It is better to act then not act.

1) My views are the result of an intellectual process of reasoning which, while they may differ from your own conclusions, are quite valid. My reasoning has not been effected by either an excess or absence of courage. More clever deduction from you? 2) Canadians who infer that the State possesses the power to define the reality of marriage for Canadian citizens (and entitlements etc) are arriving at a conclusion which would not appear to be motivated by cowardice or 'deferrence'. We all surrender certain rights to the state in exchange for certain benefits. If this is what you term 'deference' then you must disagree with the entire foundation of government? 3) Making as a premise of an argument that those who disagree with you must necesarily be 'cowardly' and 'deferential' does not make for a particularly well reasoned argument.

Well what you say is very true caesar. It is a problem without a definitive solution. Trollers, as you say, can continue to find ways in. My concern is that the function you propose can lead to other kinds of abuses which could effect the quality of debate amongst those here we know are not trollers. If we have the option to ignore any poster and use it in the wrong way our discussions will necessarily suffer an adverse affect. So perhaps in the interest of preserving the current level of quality it is better to maintain the status quo (not completely satisfactory) state of affairs.

Actually, I'm Australian. Deductive reasoning at its finest there.

Argus (sorry its taking me so long to reply this week) You said: Actually I a more interested in what they want for themselves then in what you want for them. That seems condescending. I am not certain they are analagous. The groups you refer to moved to Canada and chose, generally speaking, to adapt to and accept the existing culture. The First People did not do that. They were already there. It is, rather, the case that the Europeans who settled Canada didn't respect the existing culture and behaved in the opposite way to that which you seem to find ideal. In addition to this I question that your assumption, that this kind of assimilation is necessary, leads anywhere. They have maintained their culture and customs against enormous odds. Given that they have undertaken such efforts and sacrifice what makes you believe they will decide to give it all away now? If they don't then where does that leave you? Forced assimilation? It will blow up in your face. So if this kind of assimilation is simply not going to occur voluntarily then perhaps you should find another solution. I don't believe that any permanent solution is viable if it is undertaken by 'us'. I believe, rather, that the most viable action that 'we' can undertake is to remove the impediments to empowerment for the First People. Because I believe that the only real solution to the plight of the First People needs to be determined by the First People (which have been created over a long period of time by the dominating culture). This is not possible for a group of people who are, largely, disempowered. I'm afraid I don't have time to read through all the rest right now. I'll get back to this later.

That may be so can you please place the incident in context for since you have done the research. How many fatalities over the last ten years are attributable to truck drivers? For contrast how many are attributable to other drivers? Then please give something to contrast those numbers with - deaths by electrocution or something. A truck crash may be spectacular and memorable but I am curious to know how it stacks up next to everything else. In terms of non-fatal accidents what are the comparisons on that? If you don't actually have those figures (I may be assuming alot here) I'm not going to ask you to dig them all up for me.