Government on the brink?

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Apr 12 2005, 10:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Apr 12 2005, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Does the KKK still exist?

Thanks for such a very fine example of tolerance. I get your message. I MUST submit. We MUST all assimilate! Gays and Liberals are good. Conservatives, heterosexuals and Christians are bad and can't be trusted.

You're not suggesting Stockwell Day, Bishop Fred Henry, I, and anyone who voices similar reservations about the Liberal Party and the gay community MUST be members of the KKK, are you? Heaven help anyone who challenges edicts emanating from Ottawa and the gay community!

I MUST assimilate!!!

To twist "the gay community isn't as intolerant as the KKK" to "anyone who doesn't agree with the gay community is in the KKK" is a pretty slick strategy but it's just too hamfisted Sammie.

Don't try to hit a homerun on the first pitch. Try to finesse the tone of the thread to your side instead of trying to force it. For example, when this thread started out I didn't come out and say "Stockwell Day is a moron" in my first post. I worked it into the conversation, and soon enough we weren't talking about liberal corruption but fundamentalist foolishness. You just gotta be more subtle.


EDIT!! I see I did actually say "Stockwell Day is a moron" in my first post in the thread. It would be disengenous of me to change my opinion now though so I won't. He's still a moron.[/b][/quote]
That's an interesting twist to what was written. I don't see much finessing of the tone of dialogue with comments like: "Stockwell Day is a moron" and "Calling you intolerant doesn't even scratch the surface. You make intolerant people look like Ghandi."

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie@Apr 12 2005, 11:49 PM
That's an interesting twist to what was written. I don't see much finessing of the tone of dialogue with comments like: "Stockwell Day is a moron" and "Calling you intolerant doesn't even scratch the surface. You make intolerant people look like Ghandi."

That's a fair enough point.

I guess my message (Stockwell Day is a moron) doesn't need any finesse at all.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Apr 12 2005, 11:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Apr 12 2005, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Apr 8 2005, 11:26 AM
I don't know who'll I'll vote for.# Probably the Liberals because every party screws up and "wastes" money, but they are the only party that can screw up and still balance the budget and keep the economy strong.

I'm presuming you vote for Ralph Klein provincially, correct? [/b][/quote]
Good point. The logic i've seen so far would lead one to believe that this is the case...

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Tron_fdc+Apr 11 2005, 05:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tron_fdc @ Apr 11 2005, 05:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Exactly. Can I trust that Day will fight just as hard to pass a bill that is in the interests of the country but not in the interests of his religious beliefs, as he would say.....for a bill that is in direct agreement with his faith?

Personally, I would have to say no.

That is your decision. Although looking at the 2001 Census, it seems that roughly 80% of Canadians have stated they have some sort of religious affiliation. There aren't going to be to many people left to vote for once we weed them out of the electoral process.

As a voter, when a man or woman says "I believe (for whatever reason) in X, but if the people of Canada want Y, I have no choice but to give them Y", I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I see they have betrayed my trust. I would much rather do that than give my trust to a government who has betrayed my trust for the past three terms and counting.

I see many valid arguments against the Conservatives, but the fear mongering about a Conservative Religious Jihad starting from the west and sweeping all the sinners into the Gulf of St. Lawrence is a little silly in my opinion. [/b][/quote]
Religious affiliations are fine. I have absolutley no problem whatsoever with people that follow god, Alla, William Shatner, whatever.

My problem is the trust issue. I just plain do not trust that he can objectively seperate the church from the state. [/b][/quote]
Then you cannot possibly trust Martin. As he is a practicing Roman Catholic

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 12 2005, 10:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 12 2005, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No, there is a big difference between me and Stockwell.

This isn't a matter of some evidence pointing one way, some the other...

The fact is, when human life begins isn't a question that can be answered scientifically; it's a subjective call. It's likely sometime between fertilization and birth in most people's books, but pinpointing it beyond that can't be done scientifically.

What you say is partially true. The difference is that you believe a fetus isn't human until birth while Stockwell believes a fetus is human from conception. This argument has nothing to do with science. Science is a red herring in this argument.

Unfortunately Stockwell can't believe that the religious doctrine that it begins at conception is subjective, so he just deems it to be an overwhelming scientific fact and there's no convincing him otherwise.

What Stockwell Day is saying is that it has been scientifically proven that human sperm and eggs are living organisms and ANY life created by a man and a woman through sex is therefore human life.

However, in the recent history of man, a subjective decision has been made by an influential group through the courts, that a growing organism in the womb of a woman is not human until it emerges from the womb and is able to live without assistance. This is a judgment call that cannot be substantiate through science until science is able establish what constitutes human life.

Just blindly accepting your subjective beliefs as incontravertable facts is a sign of flawed reasoning.

Now, that's a good example of a very subjective statement based on flawed reasoning! It's debatable who is blind as long as there's no scientific proof when human life begins. Stockwell Day is just as right as you are except he's a little more generous about when life begins and ends.

Everyone has a right to express his opinion on the subject and try to convince others he's right. I just don't understand the anger towards Stockwell's position.[/b]

Seriously, do I have to hold your hand through this?

Your own words:
<!--QuoteBegin-Sammie
This argument has nothing to do with science. Science is a red herring in this argument.

This is a judgment call that cannot be substantiate through science until science is able establish what constitutes human life.

...as long as there's no scientific proof when human life begins[/quote]
Stockwell:

I believe that the scientific evidence is overwhelming that human life begins at the moment of conception.

Wrapping things up:
Stockwell has a personal subjective belief, but has jumped the the conclusion that because he believes it, it must be objectively true. He's just invented scientific evidence to avoid having to give consideration to any opposing viewpoints.

As for me and the Supreme Court; no one is making any claim on the subject. The Supreme Court simply struck down the old anti-abortion law because it was unconstitutional as enacted, and hasn't been asked to consider the issue again, and I haven't said one way or the other what I believe. All I've done is point out that whatever my, or anyone's opinion is it will be just that, an opinion.

Seems you've fallen into the habit of fabricating evidence as well

Finally,

Just blindly accepting your subjective beliefs as incontravertable facts is a sign of flawed reasoning.

Now, that's a good example of a very subjective statement based on flawed reasoning!

So you think that it's a flawed subjective belief to criticize someone for insisting their personal opinion is an incontravertable fact despite a complete lack of evidence backing it up?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 13 2005, 12:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 13 2005, 12:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 12 2005, 08:51 AM
I can't vote for either of them. I don't trust either of them.

If you want to paint the parties with broad strokes then I can't vote for the thieves or the gay intolerants.

Apparently you're as good at putting words in my mouth as I'm supposed to be at putting words in your mouth. It also strikes me that there is no one group that's more intolerant and vindictive than the gay community. [/b][/quote]
You'll have to explain to everyone how I was putting words in your mouth there. I had two sentences starting with "I" and a sentence where I generalized about the parties. So, nothing about you.

As for your other comments, you just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole. No one needs to put words in your mouth, you do a good enough job of embarassing yourself in these discussions.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by Hoz
Then you cannot possibly trust Martin. As he is a practicing Roman Catholic ohmy.gif

I don't trust Martin, but it has WAY more to do with track record than his religious affiiliation. And nowhere in my post did I state that I don't trust religious folk. I'm stating that I don't trust Day as an individual because I don't think he can seperate the church from the state.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Mike F@Apr 13 2005, 07:39 AM
So you think that it's a flawed subjective belief to criticize someone for insisting their personal opinion is an incontravertable fact despite a complete lack of evidence backing it up?

The point that you seem to miss is that you're view is no more defensible or less subjective than Stockwell Day's. I would go so far as to say your position is more flawed and open to criticism than his because you're trying to establish an exact time when a fetus turns into a human being (a rather foolish exercise). Stockwell Day's position seems far more reasonable and defensible because he says a human being should be recognized as a human being from conception on and for as long as it remains a living entity.

[Hakan]

As a somewhat relevant aside,

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/pope/p...ribute_1024.jpg

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 13 2005, 09:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 13 2005, 09:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The point that you seem to miss is that you're view is no more defensible or less subjective than Stockwell Day's. [/b]

I know!! My whole point is that the whole thing is subjective and completely beyond scientific proof! My view [which I still haven't stated despite your continuing claim], your view or anyone's view!

Originally posted by Sammie@Apr 13 2005, 09:01 AM
I would go so far as to say your position is more flawed and open to criticism than his because you're trying to establish an exact time when a fetus turns into a human being (a rather foolish exercise).

No I'm not! Find me one instance where I've done anything remotely resembling that.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Apr 13 2005, 09:01 AM
Stockwell Day's position seems far more reasonable and defensible because he says a human being should be recognized as a human being from conception on and for as long as it remains a living entity.[/quote]

He's saying that's not only his position, but scientific fact. It's the last three words that are at issue here, and are what seprates him from a person with both an opinion and reason.

Seriously though, I give up. If your plan has been to beat me to death with incomprehensible leaps of reasoning you've succeeded.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Apr 12 2005, 10:34 PM
EDIT: I've just been informed that Britney Spears is pregnant, so I guess none of this matters anymore anyways...

Funny you bring that up. The religious right often tout the sanctity of marriage as a prime reason to refuse same sex marriages. Seeing the abuse that hetero society puts on the institution of marriage (Britney, Green Card marriages, a 50% divorce rate), can allowing two gays to marry (who might actually uphold the ideals of marriage just as well, if not better) really defile "marriage" that much?

[peter12]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse+Apr 13 2005, 06:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (I-Hate-Hulse @ Apr 13 2005, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Apr 12 2005, 10:34 PM
EDIT: I've just been informed that Britney Spears is pregnant, so I guess none of this matters anymore anyways...

Funny you bring that up. The religious right often tout the sanctity of marriage as a prime reason to refuse same sex marriages. Seeing the abuse that hetero society puts on the institution of marriage (Britney, Green Card marriages, a 50% divorce rate), can allowing two gays to marry (who might actually uphold the ideals of marriage just as well, if not better) really defile "marriage" that much? [/b][/quote]
For the Religous Right, gay marriage is the final blow to marriage and things will truly go to hell from here.

For a Social Con, the hetero abuse of marriage is the result of radical feminism, the Sexual Revolution etc...