Vote

Which candidate would you vote for?

  • George W. Bush

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John Kerry

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael Badanarik

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
Should same-sex unions have the same benefits? That would be fair, I suppose. But now you say you want me to pay for a lifestyle choice I don't agree with? You just lost me and most of the country.

What about smokers? Shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else? Why should they be forced to pay higher premiums and stand outside in the freezing cold while the non-smokers are warm and smug in their offices? But since smokers incur greater health risks and costs, should non-smokers subsidize smokers by paying for their lifestyle choice?

What about obesity and lifestyle choices with respect to eating and exercise habits? Same thing with smoking. Should people who eat and exercise responsibly subsidize those who don't?

It's difficult to say what's fair and equitable with respect to lifestyle choices and who should pay for the additional cost of those who adopt "more costly" lifestyles. Perhaps it boils down to this: what is more important? Social equity or economic equity.

-------------------

The social vs economic theme appears again... I have heard quite a few people say they wish they could take the social policies of the democrats and merge it with the economic policies of the republicans. Want to start a third party, anyone? :)
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
Mercutio said:
In response to BooST's comments about the "dangers of [socialism]", I think you might want to take a step back and consider some of the nationalized, public endevors that do quite well:

[much snippage]
1. Our national transport system. 2. Rural Electrification. 3. Public Education. the Internet
[/ms]

And hey, when I look at private insurance, the state of our health care system, and the monumental failures of blue-chips "infrastructure" companies like Enron and Worldcom, I have to say that I think maybe MORE things should be in the hands of government, not less.

Indeed, infrastructure creation is something that needs to be in the hands of the government -- either initiated and run by or at least encouraged and sustained by a regulated monopolistic market. They don't call them natural monopolies for nothing.

We have a similar debate all the time in Canada about our health care system. Privitization is supposed to be the holy grail, right? When we look at the US HMO system, privitization sure doesn't look like the answer.

IMO, the efficiency and productivity gains afforded by a profit maximizing private firm competing in a competitive market are offset by: (1) paying investors/shareholders and execs, and (2) the lack of economies of scale and elimination of duplication that would have been generated by a single service provider.
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
e_dawg said:
Indeed, infrastructure creation is something that needs to be in the hands of the government -- either initiated and run by or at least encouraged and sustained by a regulated monopolistic market.*

* -- although I do like the sound of China's telecom deregulation plan. On paper and at first glance, it appears to be a rational, phased-deregulation approach that encourages the incumbents to invest billions in infrastructure and gives enough time to recoup their money under a regulated monopolistic market, but then slowly deregulates the market, allowing competition to provide the consumer with choice and force all service providers to be efficient and meet the needs of the marketplace.
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
Perhaps the question is phrased wrong: Rather than why should everyone be paying for a Homosexual's preferences, we should be asking why is everyone paying for the Hetrosexuals preferences?

If equality in benefits amoung the two groups is a good thing and the reason that they are seperate is simply because of one groups insistance that they not have to pay for the other's preference. Then I need to ask why we are paying for the preferential groups benefits? Why is it that there is a marriage tax benefit that applies only to hetro's; Why should it be that surivor benefits apply only to Herto's. Basicly, why is everyone paying to give hetro's secular benefits that are denied Homo's? Rather than denying those benefits to the Homo's as a preferential treatment favoring the Hetro's there ought to be a removal of those types of benefits for the Hetro's.

Perhaps Marriage should be disolved as an secular institution: Doubtful because children need support and encouragement for families to stay together is a valid social goal. Or maybe the preferences should only be given to families with children and denied to all other couples. Where are the social benefits that childless hetro couples have over childless homo couples?

to respond to the "God" reasons: Marriage is both secular and religous. No one here is talking about forcing religons to marry people that are inappropiate for their beliefs. Govt. in the US is supposed to be entirely secular: Not giving any preference to any specific religon. Thus the secular characteristics of marriage can be seperated out from the religous.

I'm sorry if this offends but I think portions of our society need to change to produce fairness between the two groups. If incorporating homosexuals into the system is not acceptable because it is not right to force people to pay for a lifestyle choice then it is not right to force the non-Hetro's to pay for the Hetro's lifestyle choice either. The system needs to be redefined to produce fairness between the two groups. It is just the right thing to do and No I am not Homosexual.

P.S. Sorry if anyone is offended about the Homo references but I felt using the homo and hetro terms and keeping them similar was worth it.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,709
Location
Left Coast
The problem with calling mariage secular is that you cannot separate the legal state from it's religious connotations.

France as worked around this, to some extent, by creating a second legal state which is lesser to marriage in some ways, but has all of the important benefits -- and has no religious significance.
 

Fushigi

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,890
Location
Illinois, USA
sechs said:
The problem with calling mariage secular is that you cannot separate the legal state from it's religious connotations.
Tell it to the judge. Or, should I say tell it to those thousands of couples who were married by judges, court clerks, mayors, etc. The requirements for a ceremony & to be legally married have nothing to do with religion.

Maybe an alternative would be for a new religion to start up. One that openly endorsed homosexuality but in most other ways followed typical modern Christianity. Or chose the best of all modern religions.
 

RWIndiana

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
335
Location
Nirvana
That's the thing with religion, it changes the way one views the world. If the people of this country vote to give benefits to hetros and not to homos, that may not be "fair" in a secular sense, but that is what the majority has chosen, and therefore I don't see how it can be called "unfair" either. The question would be whether it is constitutional or not, because unless we view everything through the prism of a single religion, we will never be able to agree on what "fair" is. Secular societies can't agree on what fair is either, and have also persecuted religious people; killing, maiming, and torturing Christians. This sort of thing still goes on today in China, for example. I'm sure many secularists believe this is fair since they think that Christians (or other religious groups) are a serious threat to an "enlightened" society. Yet other secularists believe this is not fair.
So what exactly is "fair?" Is it possible to discern this without a solid base to start from? What should our laws be based upon? Is there such a thing as an evil or criminal act which should be legislated against? After all, the idea of evil stems from religion.
 

Explorer

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Jun 26, 2002
Messages
236
Location
Hinterlands

O'sammy weighs in...


OsamasChoice.jpg


 

RWIndiana

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
335
Location
Nirvana
lol explorer. you know, one day I'm afraid they are going to be able to make pictures like these so realistic we may all fall for it. :eek:
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,709
Location
Left Coast
Whoever Photoshop'd the Kerry sign over the Bush-Cheney sign did a pretty good job....
 

Tannin

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,448
Location
Huon Valley, Tasmania
Website
www.redhill.net.au
sechs said:
The problem with calling mariage secular is that you cannot separate the legal state from its religious connotations.

Errr ... Sechs, that is complete nonsense. It is entirely possisivle, perfectly practical, and it has been done as a matter of routine for thousands of years.
 

JSF

What is this storage?
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
54
Location
Southern CA
It was my intention to stay clear of this thread because it was making me angry, and an angry man is not a lucid man. But the extreme partisanship displayed here and its claim for truth is astounding! I hope that I can retain a level of maturity befitting the quality of journalism I have encountered here.

Firstly, Mercutio and Sechs, if you truly want to emigrate to Canada, all you have to do is arrive at the border and announce to Canadian Immigration that you seek asylum from the wild-eyed Republicans in the U.S. who are seeking your heads. It works for Muslims who enter Canada, so surely it will work for a neighbour whose culture and thinking is so similar to theirs. Once you gain admittance a hearing date will be scheduled. You then disappear into the country, ignore the hearing date and start a new life. There will be no repercussion because Canada is so close to bankruptcy that it can’t afford to pursue you. If you settle in the great empty north you are guaranteed residency since Canada desperately wants to populate these Territories.

I would hope that you will report back to Storage Forum on your experiences with Canada’s Health Care System. Your experiences will surely change America’s thinking that its own solution to health care problems lies in the Canadian system.

CougTek, you are a resident of Québec, a province whose raison d’etre lies in France. Among the U.S. electorate, your opinion is valued as that of Jacques Chirac. Like many Americans I have not knowingly purchased a French product since France refused to support us in the Iraq war. If you and like-thinkers continue your irrational verbal abuse of the U.S. electorate beware that you will likely invite a similar boycott of Québec products. Increasingly, the vitriol from Canada is moving this nation toward such a boycott. Some news commentators are calling for it. I would remind you that 77% of Canadian exports go to the U.S., but 85% of Québec’s exports arrive here. Québec’s exports in merchandise amounts to 70 billion annually. I would quite willingly give up purchase of your maple syrup, tickets to Cirque du Soleil, and purchase of your forest and marine products. As an individual I have little control over importation of aerospace products and electricity, but a boycott movement would certainly have its sympathizers among corporate office holders. And such a boycott would certainly please U.S. manufacturers.

Bush may be your great satin Mercutio, but to me he ranks with Churchill in the 30’s. You, your like-thinking Democrats and the blue nations of the world are riding the coattails of Chamberlain. You would be speaking German if Chamberlain’s attitude prevailed. As it was, Europe’s and America’s inaction to Hitler’s early ventures led to a 2nd World War whose brutality and cost far exceeded anything that an early response would have fostered. Our present cultural clash portends a similar outcome if the Bush doctrine is abandoned. I would point out that Hitler’s power base was miniscule when he achieved political power.

I don’t understand the statements of “i” and others in this Forum regarding the Patriot Act. I doubt that any of you have in any way been affected by it. We are in a state of war, even if it is not declared (for good reason since we can’t point to any political entity which encompasses our enemy). Remember that the Japanese residents and citizens of the U. S. and Canada were interred during the 2nd World War, most of whom lost their businesses and property in the process. My father, an Italian immigrant to Canada but a Canadian citizen, had to report to the RCMP every month. The Patriot Act has not gone this far, but it certainly has been effective in rooting out Islamic Cells in our country. We have not suffered a terrorist incident in three years, and God willing, we will not in the future. Wartime requires sacrifice and Americans, collectively, have been asked to do little, except to give up a little freedom. We will regain this freedom when we are successful in eliminating the Islamic threat. Our concerns now should be with the troops, with victory, and not with the Patriot Act.

I am amused by Liberal claims that the U.S. is being taken over by fundamentalist Christians. Face it, Kerry was defeated by the centrist vote. Only these voters freely move left or right as the issues of the campaign drive them. To the extent that the fundamentalist Christian vote contributed to Bush’s victory, I welcome it.

Gilbo, I reject your implied premise that only secularists are capable of moral decisions. Secularists lack a common authority to establish a basis for morality. What is moral to one secularist is immoral to another. There is only moral chaos in such a society. How can some secularist accept the murder of the unborn innocent and not shed a tear? How can some secularists support euthanasia? Tolerance for pornography, tolerance for the abandonment of natural law regarding marital union is the corrupt legacy of a secular society. America’s centrist values far exceed those of your self-centered, de-humanizing society. You may have acceptance in your corruption of Canada, but leave us alone.

In anger,
Joe
 

Tannin

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,448
Location
Huon Valley, Tasmania
Website
www.redhill.net.au
JSF said:
Gilbo, I reject your implied premise that only secularists are capable of moral decisions. Secularists lack a common authority to establish a basis for morality. What is moral to one secularist is immoral to another. There is only moral chaos in such a society.

Nonsense.

What Gilbo actually said (as I read his post) is that:

Only a person with free will can exercise moral judgement. Without free will, one cannot make choices, and without the ability to make choices for onself, one cannot act in a moral way.

Or, for that matter, in an immoral way: without free will and the ability to make moral decisions (not to mention the courage to make and stand by moral decisions), one cannot act either morally or immorally. One has becopme an amoral actor, an individual that acts without regard for right and wrong, an individual that does not know the difference between moral acts and immoral acts.

Typically, chance decrees that some of that amoral individual's acts will be good, others bad. But that is mere chance: by abandoning (or never developing) free will, that individual has surrendered the ability to chose, and with it, the ability to act in a moral way. In the ordinary course of events, it is typical to find that the majority of that individual's acts are neutral (neither god nor bad), that some of them happen to be good, and that others happen to be bad. It is reasonable to expect that there will be, on average, more bad acts than good acts if the indvidual concerned is unable to exercise moral judgement - the world is like that.

There are many things that lead to the inability to excercise free will and thus act in a moral way. Some examples are:
  • Sheer desperate necessity: concentration camp victims, starving people, and so on. (Note that some individuals of particularly strong will manage to retain and even enhance their ability to make moral judgements, even - or perhaps especially - under these extreme circumstances. Think of Weary Dunlop, many outstanding Holocaust survivors, and so on.)
  • Lack of ability to reason. We do not expect moral reasoning or moral behaviour from a dog, a very young child, from anyone who is under extreme mental pressure (the jury verdict "not guilty because the balance of his mind was disturbed" exists for this very reason.)
  • Deliberate surrender of the ability to reason. People sometimes abandon their claim to be human (i.e., to be able to reason in a moral way and thus be on a higher plane than mere animals) deliberately: they drink to excess, take mind-altering drugs, indulge in mindless orgies of lust or hate or any other emotion. In general, juries do not regard this as an excuse. You may get a lesser penalty for killing another driver because you were drunk, or shooting your wife because you were consumed by jealousy, but you almost never get an aquittal. Nor should you. You chose to abandon your ability to reason when you got drunk or gave in to your emotions, thus, in the court's eyes, you remain at least partially responsible for your acts.
  • Semi-deliberate blindness to obvious facts. Any reasonable person would know, for example, that German people are, like American people, above all else, people: people like us, with husbands and mothers and children that they love. Yet some people more-or-less deliberately decided to ignore that knowledge, blinded themselves to the obvious, and carried out a program of wholesale mass murder between 1941 and 1945. To begin with, it may be argued, this was simple desperation on the part of Churchill (and others): they had no other way to behave if they hoped to survive and wipe out the terrible threat of Hitler's leigons. On the whole, I agree with that argument. However, from about mid-1944 onwards, these same people (a) had the technology to win the war without indulging in any more wholesale murder of non-combatants, and (b) could in fact have won the war faster by killing fewer people. But they deliberately blinded themselves to the facts, and stand condemned by history. Similarly, many German people at around the same time were perfectly well aware of what they were doing to Poles and Jews and many others, but, in exactly the same way, blinded themselves to the obvious fact that these people were, once again, people. By making up a category and dumping an entire sector of humanity into that category ("Jews", "Krauts", "Blacks", "Homosexuals", Rag-heads", "Pharisees" and so on), this sort of weak-willed person abandons reason, and with it both his morality and his humanity. Note that this category shades into the category above.
  • Abandonment of free will. Humans have an extraordinary capacity to hand over their God-given ability to exercise free will and make conscious choices in life. Typically, they hand this ability (which is both a sacred right and a heavy responsibility) to someone in a position of authority. In the context of this discussion, the obvious example is a self-appointed prophet of one or another of the well-known gods: a southern Baptist fire-and-brimstone preacher, a bearded Suni iman, the difference is merely one of personal taste and local fashion.

There are no easy answers.

You cannot hand over your ability to reason to someone else, for with it goes your ability to make conscious moral decisions and thus act as a moral being. God gave you the ability to reason, and you must use it. You yourself. In person. This, like love, is one of the very, very few things that cannot be delegated to another person. No-one can love for you: if you wish to love others, you must love. Similarly, no-one else can make a moral decision on your behalf: if you cede that ability to a politician, a preacher, or a TV station, you are less than human.

Alas for the world, American fast-food, fast-gratfication Hollywood TV culture has conditioned people into thinking that there are easy answers, into thinking that merely by belonging to the self-appointed Greatest Nation on Earth and following the herd of mass opinion, merely by handing over their ability to think and reason and weigh up evidence to the nearest Voice of Authority waving The Good Book in one hand and an F-16 strike in the other, they can act morally without really trying, that they can ignore the obvious wrong in their leaders' acts because the victims are (a) not on TV, and (b) only Muslims.

One more time: without the ability to reason for onself, one cannot make moral judgements.
 

CityK

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
1,719
JSF said:
because Canada is so close to bankruptcy
Canada has been running Budgetary surpluses for a number of years running. In addition, an overt policy towards repayment of federal debt has had measurable effect within the last eight years - both in terms of a reduction in absolute dollar value and as a % of GDP. This reduction of gov't borrowing has not gone unnoticed - as it has had large impact on the fixed income markets. Checking the old magic 8 ball for insights into the future of Canada's economy, I believe you will find that the outstanding consensus is "outlook looks good".

I would hope that you will report back to Storage Forum on your experiences with Canada’s Health Care System. Your experiences will surely change America’s thinking that its own solution to health care problems lies in the Canadian system.
I continually hear people bashing the health care system here. I really don't quite understand it. Its not a perfect system, but it ain't bad either. In fact its pretty damn good....and I have plenty of experience with it standing on the patient side of the equation.

Increasingly, the vitriol from Canada is moving this nation toward such a boycott. Some news commentators are blah blah blah....And such a boycott would certainly please U.S. manufacturers.
never will happen, as Billions of dollars in trade flow both ways across the border. Just as you have painted a clear picture of how much the Canadian economy depends upon the US markets, I would encourage you to discover the reciprocal nature of the relationship.
 

JSF

What is this storage?
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
54
Location
Southern CA
Tannin, I agree with your post with one exception. Gilbo said:

You see many people don't understand that a religious man, is inherently incapable of making moral decisions.

If a man is not religious he either rejects religion or is indifferent to it. Therefore he is a secularist. I think my statement stands.

In my church the only statement from the pulpit regarding the election was “Vote your conscience, but vote”. In the many years that I have attended this church I have never heard an endorsement of any particular candidate. Free Will is a mainstay of my church’s doctrine. On the other hand, my catechism as a child gave me the tools by which I make moral decisions, and these tools are common to, and possessed by all members of my church. For Gilbo to suggest that I am incapable of making a moral decision is also nonsense.


Joe
 

Tannin

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,448
Location
Huon Valley, Tasmania
Website
www.redhill.net.au
It's a funny thing Joe. I am not religious. Indeed I fall into the your "he rejects religion" category. I am not indifferent to it. While I recognise that religion has been responsibile for a great deal of good in the world, on the whole and on balance, I classify religion as one of the truly great evils that this world suffers. (And no, I am not going to enter into a debate on that particular question here, Perhaps another time. Just let it stand that this is my view.)

And yet, having said that much, I'll also add that - curiously - I find that I very often have a good deal more in common with, and a better mutual understanding with, deeply reigious people than I do with non-believers. Strange but true.

The reason, I think, is that, just as with deeply religious people, I like to get to the heart of things; I like to think things through; and I take my actions (and the actions of others) seriously. Thoughts, words, actions: all must in some way reflect one another and sit comfortably with one another. Otherwise, you are not a whole man.

Vote your conscience, but vote". I like that. Good advice for any election. It also squares with what I see as the best in Western religion: the encouragement of people to think for themselves; the vision of the religious leader as one who gives people the tools with which to manufacture heir own wisdom as best they can, as opposed to laying down wisdom from on high as by divine right.

Good schoolteaching is like that too: a good teacher doesn't teach children about subject X, he teaches them how to teach themselves about subject X.

Can one be religious and make moral decisions? Well, yes, and no.

No because, by embracing religion, one is, at least to some extent, and quite often to a very great extent, abandoning rationality and evidence in favour of superstition. (I confess to regarding as ludicrous the sometimes-advanced case for Christianity as a rational and non-superstitious view of the world that fits the available evidence. This is not to say I regard Christians as fools: far from it, but that I regard Christians who try to justify their belief on the basis of evidence and reason as fools. It is exactly the same mistake as trying to justify a scientific finding on the basis of faith. Faith is justified by faith. Science is justified by empirical evidence. Faith as a component of science and empirical evidence as a component of faith: neither one works, and both lead to horrible mistakes.)

That was the "no" of my "yes and no".

The "yes" part of my answer really depends on your defenition of religion. Where "a religion man" is one who defines right and wrong in terms of what he is told by the book or by the man in the pulpit, then I agree wholheartedly with Gilbo. Where, on the other hand, we are talking about a man who, pulpit or no pulpit, thinks his actions through, and takes responsibility for his own moral choices in his own way (i.e., does not define act A as right because the book says so, or act B as wrong because the book says it is wrong and no independant thought is required), then, yes, I would certainly regard that man as a moral actor - and here I would not agree with Gilbo.

(I rather suspect that Gilbo would not agree with himself on this point. Let's wait and see, shall we?)
 

JSF

What is this storage?
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
54
Location
Southern CA
CityK, thanks for bringing me up to date on Canada’s economic boomlet. I hope this means that Canada can do a better job in controlling its immigration.

I also have plenty of experience with Canada’s health care system because of catastrophic illness in my Canadian family. It is a system without a heart, and it is a system available in best form only to a city resident---if the resident’s medical condition allows him to wait long enough for treatment. The closure of hospitals and clinics in smaller communities across your country is a tragedy which imposes undue hardship on half your population. It also is a system that has bled your country to death because of citizen abuse. Your tax rate and system cutbacks are witness to this fact.

With regard to U.S.-Canada trade, are you suggesting that our 10.5 trillion economy could not withstand severance from your 0.76 trillion economy? Perhaps if Alberta got off its butt and developed its tar sands, Canada could achieve an economic hold on the U.S. that would put you in a driver’s seat. That would be much more palatable than bowing to Mecca.

Joe
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,365
Location
Flushing, New York
Tannin said:
The "yes" part of my answer really depends on your defenition of religion. Where "a religion man" is one who defines right and wrong in terms of what he is told by the book or by the man in the pulpit, then I agree wholheartedly with Gilbo. Where, on the other hand, we are talking about a man who, pulpit or no pulpit, thinks his actions through, and takes responsibility for his own moral choices in his own way (i.e., does not define act A as right because the book says so, or act B as wrong because the book says it is wrong and no independant thought is required), then, yes, I would certainly regard that man as a moral actor - and here I would not agree with Gilbo.
I have to say that on average I've found that most people, religious or otherwise, are too lazy to think anything other than what they're told by whatever leader they happen to hold in esteem. By extension, this means that most religious people are inherently incapable of exercising moral judgement. So are most secularists. It's the 30-second attention span culture which exists in America that is responsible for it. Blame the mass media for that. In fact, of all the institutions, including religious, I'd have to say the mass media are the most immoral. They turned the American people into a bunch of mindless zombies for no other reason than to increase their own profits. They've also encouraged all sorts of destructive (and some would say immoral) behavoir.

One thing not mentioned so far is that if by definition only a thinking person can be moral, then there are no right or wrong answers as to what is moral and what isn't. Different people will come to different conclusions. Some people may say killing another human being is wrong under all circumstances, even when your own life is being threatened. Others might find even preemptive murder moral if the person to be killed performed or was about to perform some evil deed. Indeed, I can think of circumstances where it might be perfectly moral and reasonable to kill millions of people for such reasons. The best example of that is provided by the dysfunctional societies of the Middle East. Should all those who call themselves Muslim decide one day to unite, declare war on the non-Muslim world, and obtain large numbers of weapons of mass destruction it may well be necessary to bomb them all out of existence before they do the same to us. Would it be moral to kill one billion to save 5 billion? In my mind yes if there is absolutely no other alternative. Others might say it would be more moral to simply face the end of our civilizations. However, by doing so they are making a decision to die for 5 billion people. Which is worse? Which is more moral? I can't say. I only know the decision I would make in those circumstances, and I would take my own life immediately after the act was done to atone for what I had done, clear in the knowledge in my mind that my actions saved more lives than they cost.
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
Tannin,

I applaud you -- You have defined what a secular humanist is perfectly in less than a novel sized book. I really haven't seen a better definition. I know I could not have done as well : I've tried.
 

CityK

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
1,719
JSF said:
I hope this means that Canada can do a better job in controlling its immigration.
Haven't seen a flood of Americans streaming across the the wheat feilds of Sask. yet. <Looks to North> No Russians either <suspects polar bears took care of them>. In seriousness, I'm not really aware of any immigration problems. Certainly nothing that rivials the problem faced along US-Mexico border....which given the perception cast by Lou Dobb's & Co., is a rather serious hole in the fence. I feel sorry for the border patrol guys -- very little support. Feel bad for the ranchers along the border too, as the constant tide of aliens has done a number on property and the environment.

It is a system without a heart, and it is a system available in best form only to a city resident---if the resident’s medical condition allows him to wait long enough for treatment.
I don't know about "without a heart" as I know that almost all the healthcare workers I've ever come up against are very caring and dedicated (except for a few specialists, but they tend to be weirdo's anyway) -- but I can understand the frustration with the "system" at times.

However, many changes are occuring. For example, the integration of systems and cooperation between hospitals now allows for a patient being examined in a clinic (say) in Barrie to be scheduled right then and there for the next (as in immediately) available bi-pass surgury spot at whatever hospital (whether it be in London, Toronto, Hamiliton) if they should require such immediate attention. Similar reform and coordination will no doubt be implemented system wide in the near future.

As for access to care in a urban v. rural setting, I think that is a given. But does this differ then the situation in the States? Surely your not telling me that someone from the likes of Springfield, Idaho has better access to treatment then your average rural Canadian? Or are you saying they can start immediate treatment once they get to a bigger centre....provided that they can afford said treatment?

It also is a system that has bled your country to death because of citizen abuse.
To what type of abuse do you refer to? Do you mean stupid people going into an ER when all they are afflicted by is a common cold or flu? - then I would agree.

Your tax rate and system cutbacks are witness to this fact.
Yep, taxes do suck here. But then, its a beautiful country! And the subways are clean too :D

With regard to U.S.-Canada trade, are you suggesting that our 10.5 trillion economy could not withstand severance from your 0.76 trillion economy?
What I'm saying is that a significant portion of your trade is done with Canada. Example (in millions of dollars):

Total 2003 US Exports (BOP, fas) $713,122.3
Total 2003 US Exports (BOP, fas) to Canada $169,923.7 ... ~23.8%

Total 2003 US Imports Exports (BOP) $1,260,673.8
Total 2003 US Imports from Canada $221,594.7 ..... ~17.6%

I don't think American companies would want to lose almost a quarter of their international customers (although it might make for some interesting earnings reports). I also wonder what sort of state the American industrial and manufacturing sectors will be in after access to cheap Canadian resources is cutoff. Or the ensuing run up in labour costs in America as workers try to leverage the strength of their new found bargining chip. Given the nature of these realities, and the cascading series of economic effects, I'm sure you can see that severing trade between our two countries would profoundly affect the GDP of each nation. Goliath, meet David....and hence the reason why I stated it will never happen. In fact, we will only proceed further on the natural course of more closer integration.

Perhaps if Alberta got off its butt and developed its tar sands, Canada could achieve an economic hold on the U.S. that would put you in a driver’s seat. That would be much more palatable than bowing to Mecca.
I would much rather see America return to the state of a great innovator and harness the great pools of capital it pocesses and invest them in developing a self sufficent form of renewable energy, as opposed to to having to rely upon anyone.
 

bahngeist

What is this storage?
Joined
Feb 2, 2002
Messages
88
Location
Anchorage, Alaska
jtr1962 said:
... Indeed, I can think of circumstances where it might be perfectly moral and reasonable to kill millions of people for such reasons. The best example of that is provided by the dysfunctional societies of the Middle East. Should all those who call themselves Muslim decide one day to unite, declare war on the non-Muslim world, and obtain large numbers of weapons of mass destruction it may well be necessary to bomb them all out of existence before they do the same to us. Would it be moral to kill one billion to save 5 billion? In my mind yes if there is absolutely no other alternative ...
That's a rather extreme form of moral relativism there don't you think!?

Just to add my bit to this whole discussion on morals: it was my understanding that morals are values/mores that are imposed on a person by their society/religion/... ; whereas ethics are values (generally positive) that one imposes on oneself. This may explain why atheists/agnostics often lead more 'moral' lives than 'believers', since they have little choice but to be self-regulating if they are to maintain/retain their integrity.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,365
Location
Flushing, New York
bahngeist said:
That's a rather extreme form of moral relativism there don't you think!?
Sure I do. I was merely trying to point out that morals can take you to the same places that lack of morals can, albeit for very different reasons. In general, morals and ethics serve as an attempt to balance an unbalanced equation. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't.

This may explain why atheists/agnostics often lead more 'moral' lives than 'believers', since they have little choice but to be self-regulating if they are to maintain/retain their integrity.
And there is a simple reason we atheists/agnostics (of which I'm a member) want to maintain our integrity, even our dignity, more than religious people. We don't necessarily believe there is an afterlife so we treat others fairly in the hope that we will be treated better in this life (the oft true what goes around comes around). A religious person may act horribly (i.e. crashing a plane into a skyscraper) with the thought that their god will reward them handsomely in the afterlife for it. I think those 19 hijackers will be very disappointed. For starters, something was lost in the translation of their supposed reward for their deed. It wasn't 72 virgins. Rather it was one 72-year old virgin. :mrgrn:
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
Tannin said:
It's a funny thing Joe. I am not religious. Indeed I fall into the your "he rejects religion" category. I am not indifferent to it. While I recognise that religion has been responsibile for a great deal of good in the world, on the whole and on balance, I classify religion as one of the truly great evils that this world suffers. (And no, I am not going to enter into a debate on that particular question here, Perhaps another time. Just let it stand that this is my view.)
Hmmm... does evil exist outside of religion? If evil does not exist apart from religion then it goes without saying that religion is responsible for all evil. Yet contrary to what one's initial reaction to such an idea might be this would in fact be to religion's credit would it not?

True morals are pragmatic in origin and are not the creation of any religion. They reflect the reality of what it is to live on planet earth. They represent that which experience has shown leads to a healthy society ensuring our survival as a species. Which is precisely why concepts such as "moral relativism" are such bull. In other words - You just can't make it up as you go along - reality doesn't work that way.
 

RWIndiana

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
335
Location
Nirvana
We don't necessarily believe there is an afterlife so we treat others fairly in the hope that we will be treated better in this life

jtr, just curious, who do you want to be treated better by? Religious people? Apparently you allow your mind to be controlled by other people in order to be treated better by them. Therefore you cannot make moral decisions because you can't think and act freely, right? If no, then what do you base your moral decisions on and what makes YOU right as opposed to every other "free-thinking" secularist who disagrees with you?
I'm also wondering why you think Muslims flying jets into skyscrapers was a horrible act when you do not realize their moral point of view. They were just trying to make the world a better place in their eyes, and therefore, their views are just as valid as yours. Hum?



Tannin: I regard Christians who try to justify their belief on the basis of evidence and reason as fools


One thing I agree with you on. I believe Christian apologetics are unnecessary, and many times may even erode true faith. It's fascinating to listen to Christian apologists, but it's not at all what my faith is based upon. When faith becomes sight, it is no more faith. You say you reject religion, yet if you really think about it, anti-religion is a religion unto itself. Secularism and humanism are also religions which require a lot of faith in order to believe that one thing is "right" and something else is "wrong." Even more faith to believe that "I'm right and you're wrong."
There is no moral basis for secularist thought, therefore I am just as right as you when I say homosexuality is wrong and you say that speaking against homosexuality is wrong. You can't possibly believe you have the moral high ground when there is no moral ground at all. Yet that is what liberal secularists do. They convince themselves that they are morally superior, when they believe in "animal rights" and "abortion rights" at the same time. That is a glaring conflict of interest. Frankly, it takes more faith than I have. In my moral inferiority, I stupidly assume that ALL life should be protected (unless it is evil), including that of the unborn human being. I would like you to explain to me how partial birth abortion, which I consider to be evil, crude and barbaric (even third world countries would cringe at the thought) is moral. It can't be done, unless you believe that the casual killing of any inconvenient human being, no matter what age and even if innocent, is just fine and dandy. Then you must believe that I have the perfect right to blow you away because you inconvenienced me by cutting me off in traffic.


Sorry if I am not as verbally cohesive as others. I hope you still understand my point.
 

Tannin

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,448
Location
Huon Valley, Tasmania
Website
www.redhill.net.au
flagreen said:
Hmmm... does evil exist outside of religion?

My word it does. Evil infests just about every walk of life, every creed, every moral system. So too does good. Hitler and Torqumada, Stalin and Osama bin Laden: I am quite certain that these spectacularly evil men (two of them religious, two of them not) had some good in them somewhere. Everyone does, just as everyone has evil in them too.

flagreen said:
True morals are pragmatic in origin and are not the creation of any religion. They reflect the reality of what it is to live on planet earth. ..... In other words - You just can't make it up as you go along - reality doesn't work that way.

Here I disagree. I believe that you have to "make it up as you go along" — in the sense that you must always examine each moral decision for yourself, in the light of as much relevant evidence as you can gather, and so far as possible, from a fresh viewpoint unsullied by convention, habit, or prior answers to this same question. (No, you don't ignore the wisdoim of the cenuries, but you try to look at that after you have examined the question from an outside standpoint.)

Here is a little trick of reasoning that I find often helps. I imagine that I am just arrived from another planet, that I have never been taught human culture, never been to church or school or watched TV, imagine that I don't have friends and family with views on the matter. Then I look at the question. Is this proposed action rational? Does it make sense? Will it achieve something worthwhile? Are there other actions that, though no-one does them, would make more sense, achieve a better result?

Of course, no-one can entirely escape their upbringing and achieve real independant thought or action. But the act of trying to take a fresh, unbiased view is very valuable just the same. Sometimes it brings real insight.

----

I read quite a lot about "moral relativism" once upon a time, much of it criticising it. In the end though, none of the arguments really added up to me, and I found the whole concept less than useful.
 

Tannin

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,448
Location
Huon Valley, Tasmania
Website
www.redhill.net.au
RWIndiana said:
They convince themselves that they are morally superior, when they believe in "animal rights" and "abortion rights" at the same time. That is a glaring conflict of interest. In my moral inferiority, I stupidly assume that ALL life should be protected (unless it is evil), including that of the unborn human being.

I agree with you. Did I just cross out my right to be considered an honest-to-God Secular Humanist, a member of the "mainstream secular religion"? My word I did. As I said earlier, one must make one's own decision on right and wrong as best one can, with the courage to stick with an unpopular belief if you are sure that you are right, and the humility to recognise that sometimes you are going to be 100% wrong.

RWIndiana said:
I would like you to explain to me how partial birth abortion, which I consider to be evil, crude and barbaric (even third world countries would cringe at the thought) is moral. It can't be done, unless you believe that the casual killing of any inconvenient human being, no matter what age and even if innocent, is just fine and dandy. Then you must believe that I have the perfect right to blow you away because you inconvenienced me by cutting me off in traffic.

I agree with this too. You are perfectly logical and rational on this point, and I cannot see how one would refute it. (We woul, however, almost certainly disagree substantially as to the most effective method with which to implement this belief. But that's a question for another day.

(Not proof-read: gotta run.)
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,365
Location
Flushing, New York
RWIndiana said:
jtr, just curious, who do you want to be treated better by? Religious people? Apparently you allow your mind to be controlled by other people in order to be treated better by them. Therefore you cannot make moral decisions because you can't think and act freely, right? If no, then what do you base your moral decisions on and what makes YOU right as opposed to every other "free-thinking" secularist who disagrees with you?
I base my moral decisions on what is good for the majority of people. Sometimes this makes you unpopular, sometimes not. I don't purposely go out of my way to please people, but rather hope that by acting in such a way as to benefit the majority I'll be more popular than unpopular, and hence treated better. And I don't particularly care whether I'm liked by religious or nonreligious people. I get along fine with either. The basis for what is best for the majority comes from practicality. I'm an engineer by training, so the old adage whatever works best applies. I try to bring fresh pespective unbound by dogma or tradition to my views. In my view there is no right or wrong, although I can come to some of the same conclusions as you do regarding, for example, partial birth abortion, or even abortion in general. I don't see those things as morally wrong, but rather as impractical and stupid. It's far easier and less dangerous to not get pregnant in the first place than it is to carry the baby for some portion of a term and then abort it. Basically, abortion is a bandaid for the failure of our society to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Pragmatist that I am, I would focus on preventing those pregnancies in the first place, and that might be one of my decisions which would be beneficial to society as a whole but also very unpopular. So would getting people to use automobiles less. If you want to put labels on me, I'm a pragmatist first, an idealist second. I'll always try practical solutions designed to get results as close as possible to what is ideal. I don't consider myself right all the time, either. In fact, being able to modify your views on an almost continual basis is the very cornerstone of humanist, secularist thought.

I'm also wondering why you think Muslims flying jets into skyscrapers was a horrible act when you do not realize their moral point of view. They were just trying to make the world a better place in their eyes, and therefore, their views are just as valid as yours. Hum?
If there was some eminently practical goal to be gained by flying planes into skyscrapers then I would consider doing it myself. Remember that from my point of view no action, including blowing up the entire planet, is off limits if there is a desireable overall outcome. Desireable in this context might mean desireable to the human race, or perhaps desireable to the galaxy as a whole. In any case, the 19 Muslims in question failed to make the world a better place even for other Muslims by their actions. Therefore their action was certainly not practical. They killed close to 3000 people for no purpose at all. Killing without a good reason is certainly immoral in both your views and mine. Nothing was gained and in fact a lot was lost by those deaths. The Muslim community has lost badly because of their actions. It was because of their religion that these 19 men were incapable of making a rational moral and pracical assessment of what they were about to do. If they were free to think unfettered by doctrine and promises of a reward in the afterlife they would have seen for themselves that such action could have no positive moral or practical outcomes. If their actions did do something positive for Muslims worldwide then I would say at least within their own small worldview they were consistent and moral. However, they didn't and as a result they're neither. Remember that the whole point of morals and ethics is the betterment of society as a whole. They are merely practical constructs to balance an unbalanced equation rather than absolutes. The laws of physics are the only real absolutes that exist in this universe.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
Tannin said:
flagreen said:
Hmmm... does evil exist outside of religion?

My word it does. Evil infests just about every walk of life, every creed, every moral system. So too does good. Hitler and Torqumada, Stalin and Osama bin Laden: I am quite certain that these spectacularly evil men (two of them religious, two of them not) had some good in them somewhere. Everyone does, just as everyone has evil in them too.
Surely you would agree that the mere fact that men commit acts which are judged as being evil is not evidence that evil exists as an entity apart from the actions of men. Given the absence of any such evidence is it not fair to say that belief in an evil which can "infest" is a matter of faith? A spiritual / religious belief? Just as the belief that "good" exists apart from the actions of men (absent any evidence that it does) is also a matter of faith? Are you sure that you are not an agnostic (as am I) rather than an atheist?

Tannin said:
flagreen said:
True morals are pragmatic in origin and are not the creation of any religion. They reflect the reality of what it is to live on planet earth. ..... In other words - You just can't make it up as you go along - reality doesn't work that way.

Here I disagree. I believe that you have to "make it up as you go along" — in the sense that you must always examine each moral decision for yourself, in the light of as much relevant evidence as you can gather, and so far as possible, from a fresh viewpoint unsullied by convention, habit, or prior answers to this same question. (No, you don't ignore the wisdoim of the cenuries, but you try to look at that after you have examined the question from an outside standpoint.)
Well we all have to make choices of course. But our personal choices are a separate matter from what our society as a whole has adopted as that which is moral behavior. Societies typically chose those moral values which promote it's continued existence.
 

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,554
Location
USA
Just wondering if either of you guys have made your moving plans yet? Is life in the USA with Bush at the helm still better than moving to Canada/Australia or are you just all talk?

I guess moving to another state is also another option for you. However, the best you'll be able to do is to move to Massachusetts, New York or Rhode Island where you'll still be surrounded by roughly 40% 'idiots'. Hardly a big enough improvement on your current situation to make a move worthwhile...
 

bahngeist

What is this storage?
Joined
Feb 2, 2002
Messages
88
Location
Anchorage, Alaska
jtr1962 said:
... It was because of their religion that these 19 men were incapable of making a rational moral and pracical assessment of what they were about to do. If they were free to think unfettered by doctrine and promises of a reward in the afterlife they would have seen for themselves that such action could have no positive moral or practical outcomes. ...
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of any evidence that proves that what those men did was actually driven by true Islamic convictions. Yes, they probably were thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that their beliefs played a significant rationale for their actions, but in all likelihood there were other factors (anger, frustration, needing to belong, etc.) that served an even great role in twisting their outlooks. In short, their actions were politically motivated and oriented toward the political ends of those they choose to follow -- in many respects that association effectively divorced them from any concept of morality, Muslim or whatever. Those 19 were modern day assassins, pure and simple -- they were just flying on a different 'drug'.

This isn't a criticism targeted at you JTR or anyone else contributing to this thread -- just an observation. There is no denying that those 19 hurt the American community, but they did even greater damage to the Muslim community in less obvious ways. Blaming Islam for their actions is just an all to convenient rationalization; much like the Sinn Fein has nothing really to do with Catholicism -- it's politics, and has nothing to do with morality.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
Clocker said:
Just wondering if either of you guys have made your moving plans yet? Is life in the USA with Bush at the helm still better than moving to Canada/Australia or are you just all talk?
Australia? After Howard's victory last month how is that any sort of sensible alternative to one who despises President Bush? It makes no more sense than an Australian malcontent deciding to move to America because he disagrees with Howard's politics. :eekers:
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
There is one alternative to leaving the country...

Kerry supporters seek therapy in South Florida
Boca Raton trauma specialist has treated 15 patients

Published Tuesday, November 9, 2004
by Sean Salai

More than a dozen traumatized John Kerry supporters have sought and received therapy from a licensed Florida psychologist since their candidate lost to President Bush, the Boca Raton News learned Monday.

Boca Raton trauma specialist Douglas Schooler said he has treated 15 clients and friends with “intense hypnotherapy” since the Democratic nominee conceded last Wednesday.
“I had one friend tell me he’s never been so depressed and angry in his life,” Schooler said. “I observed patients threatening to leave the country or staring listlessly into space. They were emotionally paralyzed, shocked and devastated.”

Schooler’s disclosure comes after the weekend discovery of a Kerry volunteer’s corpse at Ground Zero in New York City. Georgia resident Andrew Veal, 25, reportedly killed himself with a shotgun blast to the head due to Kerry’s loss and a girlfriend problem.

Some mental health professionals in South Florida said Monday they have already developed a new category for the Kerry-related stress reactions. Because Palm Beach County voted heavily for Kerry, the therapists said, many residents hurt themselves by so anxiously expecting the Massachusetts senator to win – especially those who maintained unrealistic recount hopes after their candidate’s concession.

“We’re calling it ‘post-election selection trauma’ and we’re working to develop a counseling program for it,” said Rob Gordon, the Boca-based executive director of the American Health Association. “It’s like post-traumatic stress syndrome, but it’s a short-term shock rather than a childhood trauma.”
Gordon, the first American Red Cross psychotherapist sent to Ground Zero after the 9/11 terror attacks, said therapists’ main concern is to prevent the recurrence of Kerry-related suicides like the one in New York City.

“There are definitely people depressed by John Kerry’s loss, and this can easily lead to suicides like the one we saw up in New York this weekend,” Gordon said. “Luckily, it can be treated if people seek help. We’re urging people to call us immediately if they feel depressed or know anyone who is seriously stressed out.”

Also in Boca, at least one counseling center and an emotional support group were preparing for an influx of Kerry supporters at their first post-election meetings today.

“We’ll let the Kerry voters talk about it and let off some steam, and by listening to other people’s stories, we’ll help them refocus and surrender to the things in their life which they can’t possibly change,” said a spokeswoman for Emotions Anonymous, a recovery group meeting tonight at Glades Presbyterian Church.

“We’re referring people with election-related stress to the Democratic National Committee,” said Karen Jacobs of the Center for Group Counseling. “We’ll do what we can for anyone who shows up for our support group programs this week, but we haven’t implemented a specific program for Kerry-related trauma.”

Schooler, practicing in Boca since 1984, said he treated his 15 patients last week with hypnosis-based rapid response trauma therapy. This week, he is charging a sliding fee to non-clients who feel they need the one-time “election therapy” session. South Floridians can contact him at 561-395-3033.
“A lot of Kerry voters don’t know what to do with their anger, because there was no recount, so they’ve kept it bottled up,” said Schooler, who also is a certified sex therapist. “I help them transform the anger into more positive emotions.”
Asked to describe symptoms of the post-election trauma, Schooler said, “They include feelings of extreme anger, despair, hopelessness, powerlessness, a failure to function behaviorally, a sense of disillusionment, of not wanting to vote anymore – that sort of thing. We’re talking about a deep, unhealthy personal suffering that can best be remedied by intensive short-term therapy.”
Source - Boca Raton News
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
Tannin, you've done it again: cranked out another gem.

Come to think of it... there's a lot of quality posts in this thread. Damn you all. I'm going to be tired at work tomorrow because I couldn't stop reading!
 

Tea

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,749
Location
27a No Fixed Address, Oz.
Website
www.redhill.net.au
It'z about time the old bugger posted something of substance. I honestly thought he was getting past it.

PS: Bet you he can't do it again.

(Tea!)

(Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm banned. You said it already: "get off the computer you ztupid ape." Well, I was juzt leavi—
 

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,554
Location
USA
And I thought Merc's attitude was a little extreme. Maybe the guy below should have just considered moving instead.

NEW YORK - A 25-year-old from Georgia who was apparently distraught over President Bush’s re-election shot and killed himself at Ground Zero.

Andrew Veal’s body was found Saturday morning inside the off-limits site, said Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. A shotgun was found nearby, but no suicide note was found, Coleman said.

Newsday, citing a police source it did not identify, reported Sunday that Veal opposed the war in Iraq and was apparently distraught after the election.

Friends said Veal worked in a computer lab at the University of Georgia and was planning to marry.

“I’m absolutely sure it’s a protest,” Mary Anne Mauney, Veal’s supervisor at the lab, told The Daily News. “I don’t know what made him commit suicide, but where he did it was symbolic.”

Police were investigating how Veal entered the former World Trade Center site, which is protected by high fences and owned by the Port Authority.
 
Top