supercanuk

In fact, nobody can be consistent and objective. Although at least the responsible among us state upfront our biases.

It is the exact same thing: The term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote an adult who is sexually attracted to adolescents or youths below the local age of consent,[2] as well as those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse or child pornography related offences. I guess for one reason or another the mass media changes the use of the term for women (i.e. sexual abuse) and for men (pedophile) ... not sure why though... never really thought about it before.

Diddo. He may seem to speak his mind but make no mistake, he is handled within an inch of his life. He's a classical conservative, a small government type of person, but you know who said that before his first election? George W. Bush. And look what we have? Ron Paul may say a lot of things (many of them scary as hell) but if he were to get elected most of what he said on the campaign trail will go out the window. There is an army (literally) of lobbyists who will bang down his house of cards of promises faster than a fat kid on a cup-cake. The outside forces which exert HUGE pressure on candidates and presidents alike will effect him as well, don't mistake him for someone who can rise above the structure of the system itself, in reality nobody really can.

Immensely different cultures in some respects, but in other respects quite similar. It would really depend on what you are comparing. In a broad general way we have similarities, both products of the British empire, both have dark histories of empire building and genocide. But then you could say that Canada is quite different because of the French influence. But if any of you are familiar with American politics, the French influenced the fight for Independence as well. Again, too many broad generalizations create stupid results lol.

Mine is Black Dog by Led Zepplin

The solution is the same as the cause. Small changes done at the individual level produce effects either positive or negative on the larger scale. Corporations are a significant part of it, but billions of cars on the road, and human population expansion dwarf the corporate effect. Don't get me wrong, industrialization is a HUGE factor, but what comes out of industrialization, the way we live, is not sustainable at all. In fact, developing nations are developing like we did two hundred years ago and can we really be the hypocrites and say they can't? We have to come up with new and sustainable technology fast that won't make matters worse. Nuclear, by the way, is not the answer. I know Colin's going to harp on me about this but just the creation of a nuclear reactor is insanely dirty and produces billion of tons of CO2. Then we have NOWHERE to put the depleted uranium. Also, just the harvesting of uranium is filthy and causes huge ecological problems. So basically we're fucked if we don't come up with something fast (and there are ideas, but governments don't want to put a lot of money into that right now). Basically ecosystems world-wide are collapsing at an alarming rate because of this and the population size. We have to fight a two pronged battle, one that (without causing genocide) reduces the human population for the long term (i.e. education, birth control, etc) and preserve what little ecosystems are still alive so that we can stay alive. Basically it's not just the earth warming up that's fucking is, its the effects of the earth warming up and our filthy unsustainable lifestyle. Time to ride bikes people!

Tim, here id say that you are assuming there is a solution. Kids will do a lot of illicit and illegal things, and making it illegal hasn't detered them, but mitigating harm by regulation and legalizing smokes for kids won't do very much either. Kids are going to get legal and illegal cig's and either way they're going to die of lung cancer if they keep it up. This is a situation where I just don't think there is an "obvious solution" because it wont be a solved issue. That is of course, if the idea is to reduce the harm to health. I think we shouldn't have any laws on drugs to begin with, i think that we should legalize all drugs and regulate them. So i am in favor of an aspect of what you are saying, but in terms of kids, it's just not going to make a big difference. They are going to smoke and do drugs whether we let them legally to do so or not.

Interesting reply. Your subjective notion of ethics may be what is true and correct for you, but does not independently exist as some timeless truth which has bearing on all. There is literally no such thing, every single concept humans come up with is just that, human, and flawed, and I take issue with a very hard line approach to a specific or dogmatic definition of ethics in regard to society. No one set of "ethics" will fit for the entire society, everyone will take issue with some aspect of how a society is run and not everyone agrees that the "free market" is free from many points of view. So, you feel that the the complete free market would have zero government interference. I am well versed in the free market economy ideology, and it is just that, an ideology which often has destructive consequences for countries. Look at what the Chicago boys did to Chile with Pinochet overthrowing Allende? They instituted a free market economy which threw the majority of the population into mass poverty and Pinochet ruled with torture and fear. I am not blaming capitalism for this, to be clear, i am stating that when there is no government interference in the economy to ensure people are able to buy goods to eat, that this is a disgusting consequence of putting no regulations on the economy. If i understand you correctly you are advocating zero government involvement in the market. If this were to occur then there would be no health regulations, no laws that govern corporate actions such as moving capital from one country to the next, or how that corporation treats individuals vis-a-vis its policies of manufacturing, laws which protect individuals rights under a democracy. You see, if there were zero government interference in the market then the actors in the market could freely act without regard to other laws. So i think either I am misunderstanding your argument, or you need to be pretty specific about your dream free market because human beings include the OBJECTS in REALITY that you have stated. I am aware that we need to be able to trade goods, and i'm well aware of this objective reality (which actually many people in the fields of science, especially artifical intelligence fields would say doesn't actually exist) where we all need to live. But if you want me to define some ethics that have nothing to do with the society i live in, then you need to be specific about how exactly you can take out the unpredictability of human behavior in your own analysis of a world in which I am living for another because I give him money which he has not earned. Your appear to be assuming that everyone is a rational value producing machine. Nobody is really rational in any true sense of the word, nor can they be, because humans are unpredictable, and because of this there are people in our society we have to take care of. There is a morality here, not ethic, and it is also irrational because it has nothing to do with my existence but the well-being and existence of my fellow species, and to that i ascribe the utmost importance. To work is literally to live. Doing a job is not necessarily work, not if one doesn't produce value, not if you're talking about how work pertains to human survival What do you think is the role of a partner in say, a marriage, where one of them stays at home with a child? Here I feel you are a bit unclear on produce and job, because there is a job that must be done, the rearing of children, that is not producing a physical object. Yet in society, we give that value, not in terms of monetary value but value in and of itself, the well-adjustment of another human being. Can you please clarify how this pertains to the market? But human survival requires freedom from coercion in order to survive. The only application of freedom in an economic system is a free market. We cannot be free from coercion, there will be some form of governance, fascist, or otherwise, which will always coerce humans. Even in a state which reduces this to the absolute minimum, say in a state which has been able to exist without a government, there will be forms of coercion placed through personal relationships, again, a irrational human characteristic which you cannot just delete from existence. You cannot only apply this to a free market, because the free market does not exist in some place free from human agency. Human agency creates the free market and so that market is subject to all kinds of irrational human acts which have other effects on other human beings. Therefore we , as human beings, create laws to mitigate the effects of any business coercing another human being. Human survival does require a certain AMOUNT of freedom from coercion, but we cannot get rid of all of it, power relations exist everywhere. The free market, by definition, is an economic system of private ownership free from government interference Private ownership of an object is not free from government interference. In fact, private ownership only exists because we have a form of government which recognizes this for simplicity sake. So if it does not exist outside of what you and me and society recognize it to be as a privately owned object then it is just an object. So what about other forms of interference? Such as when the government bails out an entire sector of the economy like the loans crisis in the summer? Here was government interference which preserved the market and preserved it on behalf of capital. These things all have effects on humans that need to be controlled. The market was never set up free and it cannot run freely because things like corruption, externalities, environmental degradation, and a whole host of other things come along with a free market economy. "The common misconceptions people have about Capitalism stems from ignorance of the word, from the assumption that capitalism equates to nothing more than reverence for the rich and disdain for the poor. Capitalism is not synonymous "pro-corporation". When someone is a capitalist, it doesn't automatically mean they love all fortune 500 companies. I don't have admiration for people who make lots of money. I have admiration for those who earn money, whether they're billionaires or whether they earn a single dollar. I also don't hate large corporations for no other reason than they are large, unlike many of Capitalism's retractors. " I am not ignorant of what capitalism is, and I know that it is not disdain for the poor, or that "it" is pro-corporation, you cant attribute human agency to an institution which is a legal fiction. What I am critical of, is it's effects to the environment, both human and geographical, and those effects are due to the actors within the economy, not the economy itself. The economy of capitalism does however, pit one person against another, and because it does this, i feel we need to regulate its morally repugnant effects. If a family is starving, i couldn't give a shit that they can't make enough money to feed their family, what i give a shit about, is that they live in a society that cares enough about them to help them get food to eat. Seriously, if somebody has an alcoholic father and a drug addict mother and those people don't feed there kids, that is repugnant. At the same time, if that society does not care enough about those children to pool together what's extra in what they need for survival to help others survive then i don't want want to live in that society, nor do i think that it is a defensible position. If that's socialistic then that's fine with me, and its obviously where we have differences. " You have it backwards. Reality is not based on Capitalism. Capitalism is based on reality, because reality exists FIRST. A is A. And there is no such thing as "your" morality. You exist in the same reality as me. You are the same kind of animal as me. What is fundamentally good for you is fundamentally good for me." I think you have misread my statement. I never said that reality was based on Capitalism. Capitalism is a economy which exists in my reality, it's not based on my reality, because my reality is based on only what i've learned from my surroundings. Capitalism is not something which can have human agency, it's an economy, unlike other objects, such as humans, in my reality. "It would be immoral to give to the bum regardless of how he chose to make use of the money. You'd be training him to be morally lazy, giving him no incentive to get off the street. If that man chooses to die, you are not responsible because you cannot be responsible for every human being on earth. You cannot live for every human being. You cannot live for ONE human being, let alone billions." Morality is totally subjective, to YOU, giving a homeless person is immoral, and here we disagree. I cannot be responsible for every human being that is correct. But, in a country that taxes me, i can help through what i've earned, assist other humans in their times of need. It's not as straight forward as being responsible for every human being, your conflating individual responsibility with collective responsibility, or even collective decision. By virtue of my governmental representative i have agreed to sanction certain laws because I vote. If that law includes taxation for the army then i support it, the army protects me. If there is a law i don't support, i talk to my member of parliament and lobby to change the laws. If the majority disagree with me i live in that reality because i have been lucky enough to live in a country that gives me that option. This is just a subjective discussion, again, with no absolute truth or ethic, or morality because when it comes down to it i disagree that giving humans money they have not earned is not immoral. EDIT: I just thought i'd mention the obvious issue we haven't really addressed that a government, or at least our government, has full control over the economy. The economy is allowed to exist in the form it does because of the government, and therefore, it exists because the people of the country allow it to exist by not voting for parties that wish to abolish or severely curtail the economy. The economy is subordinate to the government, and in my opinion, that is the way it should be.

My girlfriend is buying that for my PS3 - for my birthday - which is several days past now but she can't find them anywhere as well.

In fact if you study biology you know that species HAVE to work together to survive. It's part of evolution, it's not simply the "survival of the fittest" - which conflates Darwin's notion that species have a set of genes that either fit with the surroundings or do not fit with the surroundings with a notion that a species who's genes do not fit should just work harder. Darwin was quite clear on that, you cannot just "work harder" if your geneset does not fit with your natural surroundings. You just die. Its not that you're going to work harder to exist, its that you will not survive long other animals have better gene sets - something they were born with - that allow them to thrive in the area. You can't really put this in a social model because as you can tell, humans are the fittest in the survival game, in fact we're so fit, that we can decide that others within our family need our assistance and we can EASILY give it to them. But those people who need help are just as fit as we are, at the basic game, everything else we have created, like society, laws, etc, which will effect people differently. Therefore you cannot say some humans are more fit then others, because we're all fit, otherwise we wouldn't have survived on the land. This is where that analogy ends because you cannot apply evolutionary principles to broad human social structures which are NOT the product of evolution, nor nature, but the product of human beings, which by definition are faulty. You are (and I can tell by what your writing) a proponent of the free market yes? Well, i am sure you are smart enough to know that the free market depends on my tax dollars to operate. So by your analogy, we should never bail our corporations, never subsidize corporations, in fact, we should never in any way alter their "natural" state of selfishness correct? If i have interpreted you wrong, please do clarify, because i could live in a world where corporations are not helped at ALL by the state. "Capitalism has never forced "self-reliance" on anybody" You make mention that in law there are rights. Well, in law, there are also responsibilities. In fact, rights come with responsibilities. Part of living in a decent society is the ability for us to define what a decent society is. If that includes democracy, rights, and social assistance, than that is what we've decided and no philosophy can prove us wrong because by virtue of our decision as a collective we are correct. I understand that i am taking a hard-line democracy perspective here, but what can i say, i love democracy. Remember that capitalism is just one aspect of our society. Capitalism is not Darwinistic, it may be social-Darwinism that underlies it's logic, but that does not mean they are actually taking ideas from Darwin. "Capitalism does does not force people to be self-reliant(living), it prevents people from leeching off of the intelle ct and effort of others." I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Capitalism, how ever you can vaguely imagine it, does not OPERATE in this way. You can say that "pure capitalism" something that cannot be achieved because of human nature, would prevent people from leeching off the intellect of others but how it operates does! You cannot seperate each new idea and give money to the person required before him to develop this new idea. It's impossible, and you cannot "own" ideas, you can only do so insofar as the law has decided you can. If we take a strictly legal definition then of course you pay royalties if your infringing on something, but in reality no one idea can be truly seperated. Only insofar as we decide they are. Take a new phone, inside there is a phone, a camera, a video camera, a clock, etc, all these seperate things in one phone. Well all the inventors contained in that one phone did not get paid for their intellect. They got paid for what the created when they did create there idea (however some people did not when it came to the phone, there was not one inventor there were several and some got paid and some did not). But at some point in society we have decided that after many years those ideas are for the collective, and the ownership of that ideas falls away. So you see, its not set in stone that "capitalism" prevents people from leeching off the ideas of others, because eventually we decide as a society, when it is okay to do so. This is a really simplistic analogy for society. In the big picture this makes absolutely no sense because society does not operate this way and the vast majority of people contribute to society and are not leeching off of some magical individual who does 90% of the work. There are (in the grad scheme of things) very few people who are homeless. You mention that i am hurting the "bum" as you call them, by giving them money. Because somehow their inability to work is attached to this broader capitalist morality. Well, what if my morality is not based in a capitalist ideology? I don't think i'm hurting him by giving him money for booze. Once he hit's rock bottom then maybe he will make something big for himself like the man who started Second Cup Coffee. He was a homeless alcoholic who hit rock bottom and made something for himself. What if you treated every bum as just a star of a capitalist waiting to be born? Maybe there would be more business? Of course im being rhetorical here because, again, society is not that simple. Some homeless people are mentally disabled, and addicted to drugs (which by the way has been deemed a medical condition so maybe we should treat it as such). I find this an interesting debate but its not as simple as your putting it.

This is the best i've seen of MLK's speeches, I urge everyone to listen to this man, he was so prophetic and wise, it's got to be one of the greatest speeches I have ever heard. And no, it's not, the I had a dream speech, its totally different, not the one you ever hear in the dominant culture. The words of the speech can be found here

Maybe you should consider it... lol

Bingo. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this so far but historically speaking, in our Canadian and American tradition a woman took the name of her husband because they become one person, legally, at marriage. In fact it wasn't until i believe the 1800s that a woman could even sue her husband because they were considered to be the same person legally, therefore you could not sue "yourself" legally. That changed, but it most certainly was about ownership back in the day. Now people have changed that into a romantic notion which is a far better way to look at it.

Yah i find he's easy to understand. However, that has to be qualified. I make it my business to know what he's talking about, he often refers to things that unless you knew in what context he means it can be quite confusing. If you aren't familiar with international politics then you need to read up on that before diving on into Chomsky. He doesn't spell it all out for people, he writes in an at times sarcastic style, so he infers some crucial points that the reader is expected to know the surrounding history of. That being said, i dont think this is a weakness on his part, more of a weakness on ours for not looking up the things we're confused on.

I realize this is lengthy, but it is really worth the read, im a subscriber to Zmag and when i read this I thought it was all too pertinent. I really hope you guys at least skim this, since the Iran situation seems to be heating up, with what could be horrific consequences. Cold War II Will the U.S. response to Iran

I snore.. haha oh and i also at times mumble and when i was young i would scream at bad dreams while still sleeping, my parents had to wake me up to tell me i was screaming. You'd think i would have woke myself up, but apparently this was not the case.

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences

coffee haha if that counts.

Hardest choice ever. I went with Cake.... pie will never forgive me.

Thanks btw for the reply and indeed I am passionate about the truth. I think that's why even if we disagree we get along really well because we both view truth and the ability to seek it out as a virtue. That said, I disagree about a few comments: " 1) it's impossible for nobody to submit to or exercise power. even if it were possible, who then deals with a criminal?" Anarchism does not deal in many absolutes, or at least the anarchism i have studied and tend to agree most with (although lately I have been a bit of a lapsed anarchist because i realized i don't believe in "isms"). Anarchisms aim is not for nobody to submit to power, it's to minimize the use of power and coercian which is unjustified. The majority opinion to condemn a person to life imprisonment is considered legitimate because it is the decision of the whole. Obviously there is room for serious error, what if there isn't enough evidence, what about mob rule, etc, however that being said one cannot discount the legitimacy of democracy, and the current liberal democracy makes all kinds of mistakes in the criminal justice field. "what do you mean, property rights are not absolute? name one right that is not a property right. in a completely capitalist society, nobody could or would expropriate the EARTH to exploit all of humanity (as a dictator, which capitalism is fundamentally opposed to)" Capitalism is in fact not at ALL fundamentally opposed to fascism or dictorships. In fact, most of the worlds largest and most powerful corporations made millions if not billions off of dictators who allowed them to operate in their country with extremely low risks and high profits. And not every right is a property right, one has the right to life and that is not necessarily a property right. Also, capitalism has and continues to expropriate land for the benefit of itself by operating in countries where the community have absolutely no say in their condition. I think that to be legitimate capitalism must be regulated by governments which are controlled by people, not profits, sadly i don't see this as the current trend in world politik. "even in a mixed economy, how are hierarchies tyrannical? I'm sure you've had at least a few jobs in your life time. name one instance in which you were tyrannized? nobody can tyrannize you in a job you undertake voluntarily ." Hierarchy can cause all kinds of problems, often people who do all kinds of horrific things because of the structure in which a person operates. If one is not afraid of the authority above them who control their livelihood what is the liklihood they will continue to commit terrible acts? Well it's less likely that they will do bad things if they don't have a boss telling them what to do. This is a really simplified response and thats because im in a rush. I gatta go, i will continue t his later.

hehe totally understandable - when i get really tired i just don't participate in them because it does take a lot of energy and often goes nowhere. I guess it can be worth it if you completely forgo any ideas about changing anyones already dead set dogmatic position - I find that most people, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, rarely give a second look at what they assume to be true and right. That said i am just as guilty as anyone else but i like to think that i entertain opposing viewpoints.

Pretty true, especially anarcho-syndaclists, but it has wide appeal and use in Argentina and Bolivia, also in Spain during the Spanish civil war, and the kabutsnik (i know im not spelling that right) in Israel. lol there are several types of anarchism this is true, but i'd hardly call them confused libertarians, in fact they write volumes of how to construct a fair society, it's quite well thought out if you read about it (Rudolf Rocker for example). see, anarcho-capitalists are also viewed very often as fascists because they support a viewpoint of the world which says that unfettered capitalism is fine and dandy and that corporate structure which is ultimately hierarchical and is "top down" rather than "bottom up" like democracy. The reason anarchists call themselves anarchists is because they believe in a very extreme form of democracy where everyone can vote on all aspects of life, not just the superficial, and the economy is in control of the majority of voters, not out of reach like in our current system. Try asking the government to vote on the SPP, or NAFTA, in fact, Canadians voted overwhelmingly for candidates who did not support NAFTA (look at Brian Mulroney's about-face) yet what did he do? Despite winning on a platform that did not support NAFTA he brought it in! To many, the inability to control one's own economy is not democracy at all. We ought to rethink our society is structured and ask whether or not freedom includes freedom of self-determination. p.s. capitalism has TONS of flaws, so i'd really love to see the argument that capitalism is this perfect idealogy, where the planet can be raped of resources and the rich get very rich and the poor remain disadvantaged. What a great system!

Although this is a worthy debate i'm entirely too tired to make very many comments, but I will make a few. On the whole i agree with Sparq on this, it's nature, and in fact, most anarchists (I've noticed you dropped the A-bomb) actually believe that the only form of domination that is acceptable is that which you can justify. A parent "dominating" over a child for the obvious reasons of survival are something that anarchists actually support, despite the fact that it can be considered a form of oppression. It's a little insane to think that a mother would not grab her son or daughter as quickly and as even forcefully as possible to ensure they don't get hit by a car. That's just nature, it doesn't have to do with child liberation. (CLF? Child Liberation Front? lol )

Nah man, but the way I found out was because a friend of mine met this guy who brought the hooker to a party they went to. I met up with my buddy that night and he described the girl to me and it was the exact same description of the crazy bus-ticket lady, small world, especially since my friend is from Toronto and was just visiting. It was sad though because she was really expecting to get paid and she was mentally ill and the dude didn't have sex with her and didn't pay her but tried to string her along, until i guess she showed how insane she was (by talking to, and answering herself aloud) and the kid got really scared. Laughed my ass off when i found out she wouldn't leave them alone lol serves the kid right, don't fuck with prostitutes they will fuck you up haha