Achilleez

Eamonn,

I think that my position as an atheist is just about exactly as Hunt described it. Scouting has been a positive influence for my son and I hope he stays with it. While I have no objection to him being a Scout or a Christian, I just desparately hope it will never turn him into a bigot like FOG appeared to be with his last post.

However, I won't lie and say that I like the BSA's membership guidelines either. I think they take away alot of opportunities from kids who could benefit greatly from Scouting. I am not suggesting that we throw away all the values that make Scouting great, but it bothers me that there can't be a better way.(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

Could you please explain to me how giving free health care to poor people is facist.

And who exactly was under the impressiong (aside from FOG) that Canada was ever socialist to begin with? We are still right of centre, unless you don't count the fact that we have a market economy and we are democratic. (actually we are supposed to be a monarch, with the queen running our country, but British control of Canada ended right after WWI.)

Our health care system is becoming less and less socialized all the time. Infact, if Steven Harper wins the upcoming election, there is a very good chance he will privatize it all-together, allowing American corporations to run them according to standards set by the Canadian government. Alberta is even beginning to experiment with privatized charter schools. On the other side of the coin, the New Democratic Party is gaining support from elsewhere in the country, so who's to say how we rank on the political spectrum anymore?

If you hate our socialist ways so much, why have we been your largest international trade partner for 130 years? Your economy doesn't seem to hate us so much.

FOG,

"Oh, I should learn the revisionist history taught by a socialist nation?"

First, I don't know where you come off calling Canada socialist all the time, but I assure you it is as innacurate as me calling you a facist.

Secondly, you seem to be the only person here who is a revisionist, because you remember history different than the textbooks say, but I suppose that's to be expected from someone taught in a 'facist' nation.

**************

Oh, come back, proud Canadians

To before you had TV,

No hockey night in Canada,

There was no CBC (Oh, my God!).

In 1812, Madison was mad,

He was the president, you know

He thought hed tell the British where they ought to go

He thought hed invade Canada,

He thought that he was tough

Instead we went to Washington....

And burned down all his stuff!

****************

RobK,

I agree with you for the most part. My point in bringing the whole thing up was that the world sees the sweatshops and the pollution and they place the blame on the big rich Western countries, and alot of that blame comes from within those countries.

FOG,

I never said anything about the US government being involved in those sweatshops. The point is that the American companies that own those places are often chastised by liberal fools.

Secondly, if you were to read my original post with more care you would see that I never criticized the USA for getting involved where they are needed.

"Combine with that their tendency to intervene in foreign countries where they are not wanted, regardless of however badly they might be needed."

As you can see, you have so horribly twisted and mangled my words that its hard to have civil conversation. Oh, and please go back to history class to learn how the War of 1812 REALLY started.(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

"The British were supplying the Indians in the Northwest Territories with guns and whiskey and inciting them to attack and butcher the poor helpless farmers up and down the frontier who were only trying to scratch a living out of a couple acres of dirt.

We sent a couple of patrols to the North, Why would we even want to annex someplace like Quebec to the north, when Las Vegas was waiting for us out West?"

European settlers selling alchohol and guns to aboriginals was not something native to Canada. It was done in the USA as well as the most of the rest of Western Hemisphere.

A couple of patrols? It was called the War of 1812 because it was a WAR, American troops against British troops. For the record, the USA did want to acquire Quebec and Ontario much more than the West, because the areas around the Great Lakes were much more furtile, productive land.

Yikes, TP - that hurt.

FOG,

Do you honestly place all of the blame of under-paid childworkers of international sweatshops soley on the local governments of that area? Is it OK that corporations from USA, Canada, and Europe set these factories up and run them the way they do because its not happening in their own countries and thus they can't be held responsible for anything that goes on there? America is not the only country guilty of things, but your faults are magnified by the envious population in question.

I never read anything in the Kyoto agreement that allowed developing nations to continue polluting. It was written as a global commitment to reduce fossil fuel and polluting substances usage. It might require that certain nations, such as Canada, USA, and Australia which all have higher ecological footprints reduce by more than other countries, but I hardly see that as a reason to refute signing on to it.

OGE,

From what I recall of British North American history, The American Revolution was to drive the British loyalists and then army out of the Thirteen Colonies so they could be free. British armies maintained Upper and Lower Canada however, which were both then still British colonies. The newly confident America then extended the USA into the West but it wasn't until 1812 that they tried to invade Canada, and the British held them back. Interestingly enough, Canada's formation as a country was a result of the USA's own creation and ambition as a nation. With the North winning the war and looking north once more, the Canadian provinces agreed to Confederation in 1867 to better strenghten our defences in the event of another American invasion.

If it weren't for some brilliantly stupid mistakes by your generals in 1812, the USA would probably currenetly stretch from the Gulf of Mexico to the Davis Strait to Elsmere Island.

The world has a beef with America because life looks so easy there. Combine with that their tendency to intervene in foreign countries where they are not wanted, regardless of however badly they might be needed. It aggravates every single nation to know that whatever they do will be scrutinized by the all-powerful supernation in accordance with their standards of acceptability (is that a word? i don't know). That's when we see frustrated lash outs in the form of terrorism. Terrorism is the tool of the one who know's that he'll lose the fight toe-to-toe. Although there is significant reason to beleive that 911 had multiple purposes.

If you want to know what you're doing wrong, I would say that you could start by cleaning up your industrial areas and signing on to the Kioto agreement (why havn't you?). Then raise the wages in sweatshops in South East Asia. Aside from that, there's not much to be done short of giving away all your money and disbanding your army. The rule of everyone hating and fearing the most powerful won't go away, because it has been around forever. Just look at the Roman Empire dealing with the barbarian clans. (By the way the Empire eventually fell to the hands of the barbarians.)

Forgive me if I overlooked something, but where exactly did Deloe say that he was an atheist? Have we become so spiritually polarized that anyone who has something to say that doesn't coincide with popular opinion is automatically a member of an opposing religion?

Furthermore, I haven't read anything by Deloe that implies he is doing anything other than trying to defend Scout Law, which I beleive is quite important to him.

Why have we decided to group him with the atheists and BSA-haters? I for one am glad he picked up on a possible infraction of BSA morals and brought it to attention.(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

Since when was Iraq a terrorist nation? Have we all forgotten that Saddam and Osama bin Laden have been enemies for decades? Saudi Arabia could be labelled a terrorist nation because its government is activley involved in terrorist operations, but Iraq? Iraq has been in disarray and chaos ever since the UN took out a majic wand and redrew the borders of the Middle East nations. And has everyone forgotten that the evidence of weapons programs was primarily left-over factories from the 80's when the USA WAS FUNDING Iraq in its war against Iran. Colon Powell's speech to the UN where he presented a container of anthrax may have been theatrically dramatic, but what he didn't mention was that anthrax has a shelf-life of a few months, and Iraq has not been producing it for 12 years.

Don't let politics cloud facts.

Why are we all so hotly defending the American population? As far as I can tell, no one has yet actually said that all of America is to blame for these incidents, aside from perhaps ScouterPaul's accusation of the President.

Given, many people around the world are going to leap to the conclusion that America has been teaching torture techniques to its soldiers. Given, even the reasonable Arabs and Muslims are going to lose gratitude towards American troops over this. However, I believe the most important results from these events will be political. Not that people will hold the President responsible, most people are smarter than that, but it might make some people start to think that American troops in Iraq would be better off returned home. Since the recall of troops from Iraq has become a major playing card of Democrats lately, this might give them some leverage.

If you've ever studied philosophy or debating in school, then you've probably heard of the 'slippery slope' style of argument. A leads to B, which will lead to C, which will lead to D, which will lead to E. However, there are hundreds of variables and factors which may interrupt the process, making the conclusion that A will lead to E innacurate. This is what I saw in that article, a textbook example of slippery slope arguing.

Rooster7,

I apologize, for I re-read the article that was in the Kitchner-Waterloo Record and found that the word 'shot' was never acutally used. It simply said that they were 'forced' to stand naked with a bag over their head. That might mean they were threatened with a gun, or it might not.

As for your shot about assuming the worst from Americans, I have to say that you really are misguided when it comes to international relations, at least from up here. Canadians do not hate America. Some of us disagree with your policies and the things you do ('you' meaning the United States government), but as you yourself have said, we are free to disagree with whatever we like. Infact, while over 70% of Canadians consider America our closest friend, only about 30% of Americans feel the same way (according to the National on CBC)

OGE,

I'm right in Zhanada's boat. While killing pregnant women and abusing prisoners are both very wrong, they are not comparable in this instance considering that one comes from a known terrorist group while the other comes from the great Savior nation that is supposed to be 'liberating' Iraq. I think the message of 'these men do not represent the USA' will likely be lost on the average Arab citizen.

Rooster7,

I would have hoped that I would have slightly more credibility than for you to mistake that I was classifying the entire US army for the actions of a few perverted individuals. However, I do take offense to how you described the actions:

" BUT, when some American soldiers who are risking their lives (and have probably seen a few friends die at the hands of insurgents) take their frustrations out on some captured enemy combatants"

It really does sound like you are trying to defend the actions of these people. Stripping people naked and torturing them by making them stand on buckets for hours or be shot is not my idea of how people should 'take out frustration'.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/editorial/8606421.htm

Nothing has been mentioned of this yet, perhaps because of its highly controversial nature, and I decided not to post a link to the perverse pictures which are flooding the news in my parts.

Negative advertising works because it reaches and affects a larger group of voters than self-promotional ads. Self-promotional adversiting is only effective at re-affirming people who are already behind the candidate and hopefully persuading fence-sitters. The problem is, there are many less fence-sitters than there are people who are committed to a specific party, or at least to a political platform. So, when negative advertisements are broadcast, their target is not people who are already supporting the mud-slinger, nor the fence-sitters, but rather the supporters of the opposition. So when Kerry puts down Bush in his ads, he is reaching about 50% of the voting population of America who are currently pro-Bush, while self-promotional ads would only persuade fence-sitters, many of whom don't vote anyway.

As we speak, the first ever Hydrogen-highway, complete with hydrogen gas stations, is under construction in British Columbia.

I don't deny the legality of excluding persons based on religion. I also don't deny the legality of adultery.

The NHL only accepts qualified, skilled hockey players because if they just admitted anybody, the organization would fall apart because people wouldn't pay to watch unskilled players. The NASA space program won't accept any astronaut who is not physically qualified because it would be dangerous to do so otherwise. These organizations have the right to exclude whomever they want also, but they happen to choose membership based on standards that must be met in order for the organization to function, not based on religion.

Now you tell me how excluding people from the BSA based entirely on religion is appropriate. Membership is given only to those with a religion, more specifically those who beleive in God, correct? Does this mean that giving membership to a member of the KKK who beleives fanatically in God is more appropriate than to a peaceful, tolerant atheist?

An overly dramatic representation perhaps, but I don't think that an ACLU-hearted Supreme Court Judge has the power to determine right and wrong.

"Atheists have no faith and there is no comparison worthy of note. This is simply an attempt to compare an exclusionary membership policy to historical atrocities commited against a faithful community."

So you are denying the existence of atheist mistreatment because atheists have no faith? Does that imply that you beleive atheists do not matter enough do be mistreated (such as killing insects with RAID), or that you simply don't see atheist mistreatment as religious discrimination because they have no faith? (which I might add is innaccurate, being as I am an atheist and a great deal of my beleifs come from faith in science and nature)

Either way, that IS discriminaion. Dressing it up as an "exclusionary membership policy" does not change anything.(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

While ignoring Wheeler seems like a convenient and noble way of ridding of him, it will ultimatley prove impossible. When someone goes around calling America a socialist nation, people will get angry and speak up. The posters on this forum are outside the control of any of us, and so it remains likely that we will see arguments with Wheeler for a long while to come.

"I had thought that after the events of 9/11/01, I was seeing sort of a "national understanding" develop that words like "terrorist" and "terrorist organization" were going to be reserved for people who among other things, kill or try to kill large numbers of people in order to make a political or religious statement."

Politicians always have, and likely always will use any words they desire to serve their purpose, which is almost always painting someone else as bad. I agree, terrorist seems a poor choice of words, but I doubt you will ever know the psychological reasoning of Mr. Paige's choice of words at the moment he made that statement.

OK, there is a deeply misguided and severely intrusive poster running amongst us. After following several threads in which he made long, tedious rants about a variety of things, I have made the simple conclusion that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Here is the progression of conclusions that he has made so far:

"Evolution is the foundation of Socialism."

"Socialism is the rebellion from God."

"Atheism really manifests itself in the philosophy of Nihilism. Atheists are Nihilists and therefore materialists. "

So, as promised by the title, I give you Wheeler's train of thought:

Evolution equates to socialism which equates to atheism which equates to nihilism.

Wow.

He has also made several other ridiculous claims such as the connection of communism and homosexuality, but one absurdity at a time.

I can't beleive I just wasted 20 minutes of my life reading through this whole thread and coming to the same conclusion I made when I read the title.

"Cause and effect do not go "ad infinitum". Aristotle said so. "

Well, if Aristotle said so, it must be true. Oh wait, Aristotle also said that the areas between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer were uninhabitable because they were too hot. Looks like the boat hasn't sailed on that one though. Aristotle was a man, not a god. Why have you chosen to treat his words like Divine Scripture?

I was also going to make mention of your poor grammar, but it looks as though that cow has already been milked.

You have a peculiar way of loving your enemies.

To anyone else reading these posts, does anyone else find BW's unhospitable viewpoint troubling? From what I remember, Christians were a loving, generous lot who were happy to help all. Have Christians gone nasty in the 35 years since I've been one?