Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I was hoping someone would do the list...
Let's get started...
I notice you've responded to several of my points with questions. That's a smart debating tactic. This could be interesting...
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
One might argue that the existence of God had been proven numerous times... In any case, your stance doesn't resoove the conflict that surrounds the issue... Example: prayer in school...
One might also argue the existence of God had been disproven numerous times as well, but it would also be a facetious argument. The fact remains there is no way to prove or disprove it.
But you're right, it doesn't resolve the prayer in school issue, nor did it address it. I think that's actually a school issue, not a religious one. In my ideal world all schools would be private and therefore immune from govt prayer edicts. Parents could choose the schools with the religious affiliation (or lack of) that fit their family.
In the real world there are public schools and I think the issue of prayer in the classroom should be up to either each teacher or maybe the school principal. I think it should be determined by the majority of students or parents (depending on age) if the day should begin and/or end with an openly recited prayer. I think any student that wishes to join in, in classrooms where it happens, should be allowed to do so. I think any student that does not wish to join in, should be free to refrain and sit quietly while the others are reciting the prayer. I think anybody who thinks those who refrain are somehow harmed by having to hear a prayer is mentally unfit. Any student who is 'triggered' by hearing a prayer in school is oversensitive and needs that so they can be desensitized in order to be able to function in future life. I say all this as an agnostic with no religious affiliation. In such a situation I would be a refrainer, and unharmed.
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Why do people insist upon the false argument that there never was s Palestinian state? By this logic, no new Nation could ever emerge....Israel didn't exist for some 2,000 years either.. And perhaps one should ask why they are trying to kill each other?
Regarding your first question, pretty much everything I've read about the issue states there was never a Palestinian state, but I'm not an expert on the subject so I could be wrong, but that becomes mute with your second sentence, with which I agree.
As for why, the main reason seems to be Islam. Palestians kill Israelies because their religion commands it, and Israelies kill Palestians to stop them. Then there's revenge to boot.
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Agreed.. Necessary... But to what extent and for what? Is income tax an acceptable tax? Why should their be loopholes for large corporations... And look at how they're often spent...
Taxes are one subset of the bigger question you're actually asking here, which is the purpose and scope of government. That must first be established before the funding method for it can or should be determined, as well as whether the taxation is progressive or regressive.
This may sound a bit off track, but bear with me...I'm a huge music fan and an amateur musician, so music has always been a big part of my life. One of my favorite musicians is a countryman of yours, Gordon Lightfoot. One of his songs is called "Canadian Railroad Trilogy" (you can find it on YouTube if interested). There is a line in it that goes "They sailed upon her waterways and they walked the forests tall; built the mines, the mills, and the factories for the good of us all". Do you agree with that sentiment?
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Haven't met many feminists? Generalization is rarely accurate... The feminist movement has brought about many necessary changes...
I've met my share. Some were fun, others shrill, a few insufferable. Remember, "unattractive" doesn't necessarily mean physically unattractive. I can think of several physically beautiful women whom I want nothing to do with. They wouldn't get far on their own merits.
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Why would parents have any more right to mutilate a baby boy than a baby girl?
I've never heard it described as mutilation regarding boys, but maybe you're right. I honestly don't know and don't care. I am completely disinterested in this topic.
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Haven't met many Muslims?
Why, are they all exactly the same? (just kidding)
The number of Muslims I've met is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Muslims are the only religious sect in this day and age that will riot in the streets and murder people (including other Muslims) because some newspaper they never heard of in some FOREIGN COUNTRY published a CARTOON they didn't like. Islam maintains an entire infrastructure to support and create those lunatic extremists. Yes, I am aware that they are a tiny percentage of the entire Muslim community, but they ARE sanctioned by official Islam, and a tiny percentage of a few billion is a lot of lunatic extremists.
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I don't know about that... PC has gone a long way to eliminating free speech... And Even in America there are guidelines for it...
I agree. PC is the method of choice for eliminating free speech. A worse one is laws against hate-speech, whatever that is, which the leftists are implementing in the US. Hopefully one day the supreme court will hear a case regarding those and rule them unconstitutional, as they clearly are.
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Climate is always changing... And it is important to understand all factors involved.. Whether we wish to or not, we as a species will adapt or perish...
That's true, and most would agree that the climate is warming in the nothern hemisphere, as it has been since the end of the little ice age. But the controversy is about AGW, whether the climate is changing faster now due to mankind burning fossil fuels, or not. The scaremongers say it is. The raw data shows otherwise.
Then there's the question of whether more warming would be beneficial or detrimental. The scaremongers say detrimental. Well, okay, actually they say somewhere between catastrophic and cataclysmic (because, well, scaremongers). The facts show some beneficial results, some detrimental. Certainly Canada is better off now than when it was buried under hundreds of feet of ice, right?
Finally there's the question of whether we can stop the climate from warming. The scaremongers and skeptics agree on this, with both saying we can't. They all agree the most we can do is lessen the rise in temperatures by the year 2100 by an insignificantly tiny amount. Oddly, despite it being futile and at a cost of the entire world economy, the scaremongers want to try anyway. I wonder why.
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Would you follow this rule for murder, as long as it didn't involve your friends or family?
No, but I might if it did. (joke)