Posts made by cystic crypt

you gotta’ love Churchill. If you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you have not heart, if you’re not a conservative when you’re 40, you have no brains.

MP - you make my heart happy. What a nice idea - giving the African nations what they need. This is one of the reasons i went into medicine - to work with medicines sans frontieres, and help those without the benifit of Canadian medicine. Sadly tho’, our governments (and those of the past) have been lending money to corrupt governments, the food has been going to maintain armies, and the Western world is being laughed at (when not being burned in effigy).
I think you (and Paul Martin, and Bono) are right in terms of the fact that it makes no sense to demand payment on interest on a debt generated by the a**holes running the place. It would be nice to not pee our money down the African toilet - not when there is still so much need in N.A. (see native issues, etc.).

@mini_phreek:

did you watch the womans gold medel hockey game during the olimpics?

my goodness miniphreak. that was amazing. i don’t think that the Italians can complain as loudly as the Canadians would deserve to had they actually LOST that match . . . .
my Italian friends were fit to be tied tonight. it was almost amusing watching them. in fact, some of them were downright hilarious. Poor Italians . . . .

Sure, science is not pure, but Religion is a counter-force to science that politic & money cannot match, because it does’nt only slow down science, it try to reverse it.

This is, i believe, a very subjective opinion. Certainly many religious figures (people with religious beliefs) act irrationally, but i’ve seen the same, and worse, from non-religious people as well. Religion and science are outside of each other, and should be (if they do not compliment each other). You are falling into a fallacy of generalizing by assigning all of religion a position of opposing science. Science answers questions about the physical realms, religion about the spiritual ones. They do not have to conflict (unless we humans choose to make it do so).

Creationism influence can be resume to the common people. There’s so many kind of evolutionism that it does’nt require creationism to remind it of it’s fragility. Still, evolution occur, the question is; How ? Creationists are making every move possible to point out problem of the evolutionism but not in a constructive way. There’s something very problematic with Creationism; it’s own method.

I do believe that evolution is occuring, but still not all creationists are out to simply bash the concept. Many of us consider intelligent design to be a wholistic way of tying everything together. Certainly we can not yet PROVE intelligent design, however given our experiences - both inwardly, and our awe at the scope of the creation of the universe - a rational person might understand how one might come by considering intelligent design. But again, if creationists are the only ones telling scientists “wait - you have a theory, not a law, there are alternative explanations” that does not translate into “reversing science” or even being “not constructive”. (dare i consider that it is almost scientific of us to do that?)

It’s not scientific. A creationist won’t use evidence of creation but evidence of incoherence in evolutionism. It does’nt regenerate on new evidence… Because these evidence simply does’nt exist. “new earth” creationist just look completly ridiculous, i was really shocked by the importence they seem to have in the US. The major argument religion ALWAYS has used it the argument from ignorance = “We don’t know how X work, then it’s god”

I do have a problem with new earth creation, although i have heard excellent theories supporting it. Also you might modify your last statement to “We don’t know how X works. We have a relationship with God. It is possible/likely/true that God created the universe”.

Creationism is just like geocentrism; it’s not in any way valid; it’s just an easy to understand theory, and very good for the oversized ego of the masses. Just look at statistic… the power of Creationism do not lie in his inherent value but in it’s ability to be easily understood by the poppulation.

“not in any way valid”? Because God did not leave a literal signiture on the planet that we can identify? This statement again is very subjective.

The only argument for religion is faith.

should it really be any other way? would it make any sense? why would we need both science and religion otherwise? religion is not here to tell us what science can, just as science can never tell us what religion can. dare i consider that it is possible that your viewpoint on the subject is narrower than it might otherwise be - that is, if all you believe in is that what you can see and hear - what would happen if you were born without sight?

be careful FinsterniS. Religion is not merely an inner sensation of a god-presence, however it is also a collection of histories, rituals and beliefs passed down via texts etc. Science is no more “infected” with religion then it is by politics (much less, i’d imagine), the biases of scientists seeking their own agenda’s of malice or success, industry, etc. Religion provides a jumping point for science in many respects. It asks why - science replies with how, and both may answer when and where. While it has been repeated that “religious people” have stood in the way of science, there are also many religious people furthering science (myself included). While historically creationists have tried to influence the development of science, they do have some good points (http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html). Furthermore, creationists are useful in challenging the theory of evolution as being merely a theory, forcing scientitsts to be honest about this point, to find proof for it, and to not declare it the “law of evolution” prematurely.
And really, is “infect” the best adjective you could come up with? Not “permeating” or “lacing”? And every science? And necessarily in a “bad” way? how manichaeistic - Good (science) vs. Evil (religion).
:lol:

after all, you still need to build an airfield for it, and that takes at least a turn :)

In my limited experience, Germany and Japan must be really aggressive. Germany must take as much of Africa as it can (and hold it vs. operation Torch) while keeping it’s front lines intact/trading them with the Russians. Meanwhile the Japanese typically must apply a lot of pressure on to the mainland very quickly - liquidating Britain and the US holdings in S.E. asia, and putting increasing pressure on Russia. It’s unfair, but i’ve seen Japan sack a hapless Russia a few times (more than Germany). Also if the pair are aggressive enough, the IPC victory comes quickly and Russia becomes impotent fairly early. You are right tho’. A good Ally will kill S.Eur transports pretty quickly - this puts a little pressure on the caucuses bridge to Africa. Also, I’ve never seen the UK retake Africa, although the U.S. can be a B***H in this regard. The key tho’, is keep the pressure on Russia constantly on all sides. kind of general info, and pretty elementary, but i hope it helps . . . .

@TG:

I think you would be hard pressed to find a study showing Pregnancy on the rise since 1991 standard.

i think it would depend on the community you’re looking at. Internationally you may have a point given the UN’s push to adjust the rate of pregnancy in developing nations. A little closer to home (i.e. in Canada’s first nations - esp in Saskatchewan (really, that’s the name of a province :-? )) the numbers may be different, and not necessarily in a good way.

It looks quite well thought out. I like a combination of “2 and 3” - i.e Russia defends Karelia aggressively, and sends a few units east to slow up the Japanese Juggernaut. Britain (and America) need to maintain a navy (and i’ve done it), and continually reinforce Karelia while building up their normandy/torch invasion fleet. The British IC in India (often poopoo’d by many experts) i like as it can also trip Japan up with a little luck and support. The American’s, if not harassing Germany, might be able to also slow Japan up by forcing it to make some defensive purchases to secure it’s sz and holdings in Asia.
I think you are correct that Russia may fall in T4, but not if America and Britain plays smartly.

i don’t really fit here, i don’t think. I’m a fiscal conservative, but i also have the heart of a liberal. With the exception of Jean Cretien, I lean more to the Liberal camp in the Canadian political scape (just to the right of socialism, i guess).

Moses, you seem to have omitted some important elements. For example, the greedy capitalist is ultimately responsible for providing jobs for the labour. His/her initial investment, the risk that was taken (80% of all small businesses fail), the dreams involved, the blood sweat and tears that goes into a business - building and running - all (in my mind) suggests that the person who dreams big, has the talent, education and expertise, and works hard deserves in some degree to make his/her dreams come true. The poor exploited workers have a choice over whether or not to work for Joe company (true, many of them are not intelligent enough to make good choices, and many times there is an “employer’s market” - but this can change to a worker’s market very quickly, especially as education increases, more people take risks and require more workers, thus dwindling the supply) and with current labour laws they have quite a bit of latitude in deciding to screw over the people who give them money in exchange for “work” (i’ve worked in a few unions now, and i have NEVER been encouraged to work by the union bosses - quite the opposite).
Call me naive, but there are other elements to this discussion then the screwing over of the masses (come Enron, Nortel, Crossroads, and other recent examples of corporations run amuk)

in Canada more people are beginning soccer than lacing up (hockey skates). It’s a cheaper sport, and it gets you outdoors, and you don’t have to play at 2 in the morning.

Field Marshall - all gold, congrats
FinsterniS - i think you are aware of my arguments by now.
Also just because you call it a myth does not make it so. Furthermore, even if something is a myth does not mean it didn’t happen (or couldn’t possibly have happened). Religions both living and dead have many “myths” that closely parallel stories of the bible. There is much anthropologically and scientifically to support (not prove) intelligent design.

quote: If the concept of god cannot be even usefull. Then rejecting it is the only logical option.
And i am sure you will agree useless concept cannot be integrate in any domain of knowledge

For theists God is above useful. The question for us is not “is God useful to us?” (in explaining the world, say) but rather are we useful to God.
Also, there is more to life and this world than mere utility. I think it may be inappropriate to dismiss a concept (such as God) out of hand due to it’s utility. Also there is much that is of little use that still has a belonging (conceptually) in the realms of knowledge etc.
I think if we limit our imagination to those elements that may be verified by the sense and instruments, then we limit our experiences too. Naturally as a porported anti-scientific empiricist, i can spout this kind of dogma without shame. (would you believe i teach biology and organic chemistry? - my summer job).

you damn commies!!!
couldn’t we at least pretend that a type of socialism might work as well? (please don’t reply to this g)

Moses - i said that that was a weak series of arguments. Now deal with the meat of my statement (please?)

quote: i want the rational proof that the concept of god is needed in the explanaition of the creation.

If your answer is; we cannot, then the concept of god cannot be taken seriously in science, only in faith.

• true, true, true, related. We Christians, scientists included (please let’s pretend that this hopelessly romantic prairie boy without the rational that God gave his dog is somewhat of a scientist) have absolutely no tangible proof that God exists etc. We have a historical document that you shoot down as being a fairy tale. The apparent reversal of entropy from the big bang to present, irreducible states of complexity within physiological systems are unexplainable by science, and written off as atheists who refer to the Catholic Churches censure of 15th century scientists. Witnessed miracles since time immemorial, real experiences (in so far that we can claim to have them) with a loving and personal saviour, a personal faith more effective than any other happenstance in a believer’s life (including torture and death) are written off as delusions, psychosis, lies, and irrational beliefs in fairy tales.
  You have done it FinsterniS. You have asked a question that we can not answer. At the same time, the questions that people of faith ask scientists are answered by the most flacid and tenuous “scientific” arguments with much inferrence, and little basis in fact as well.
  Faith (well, Christianity) needs science: To keep it honest. To provide the physical explanation that underlies the statements in the bible. To help elevate all people in almost every discipline. At the same time, science needs faith (not religion - this is too easily dismissed as a series of superstitious rituals): To keep it honest. To keep people searching out new truths. To provide a balance. To keep us aware that not everything can be mastered and measured.

by the way, glad i’m your favorite foe, you dogmatic church trasher you :smile:
by the way, i did have an interesting experience while overseas, and can see more clearly your anger at religion, your claim that “God” (i’d say more accurately “religion”) is dying, amoung other things, but we can get into this in another series of posts . . . .

i wonder what I would do if i had some spare time . . . .

quote: Want to fight prostitution, do it by fighting poverty, often times the root of the problem, not the aftereffects.

i love those upstream approaches.

Education. Especially for educators and health care professionals. I think it’s time that society accepted that kids are having sex more and more frequently, and stupidly, and rather than bury it’s head in the sand, stood up and told them that there are consequences and responsibilities that come with this “free theme park”. I think that once this happens, kids will start being more careful. (of course, as a Christian, i do support a certain “return to family values” which would stem the tide, i am realistic about the fact that kids are kids, and will experiment and try to have a good time almost any way possible). Also as a health care provider (almost) fellow health care providers need to be more vigilent to this problem. Walk-in clinic doctors especially need to be sensitive to teenagers that walk into their clinic and use every opportunity that we have with these kids to assess them not only physically, but also to get a good history of their sexual behaviour in order to prevent them from spreading the STD’s they have (provide condoms, refer to public health, etc.)and to help prevent them from acquiring std’s. Also we need more effective protection methods. The barrier is not 100% effective at protecting against std’s and pregnancies. Also we might seek effective vaccine’s (there is some research in Winnipeg and a lot of good people assessing this - fortunately infectious disease guys tend to be brilliant).
is that enough?
wow i became verbose since my trip.

Moses - you and i are on the same wavelength with this “enjoyment of playing with the varied interesting pieces” thing.
memories:
playing in the sunroom by the pool between exams when i was 16.
my friend wearing his green American army private’s helmet during the game.
the sound effects said friend would make (driving the tanks, dive-bombing stukka’s, ships moving etc.)
victory dances, shoutings, cheers, and throwing things angrily at boxes when realizing that attacking infantry only attack at a ONE
post-game analysis over beer and steak at The Keg
these are a few of my favorite things . . . .

wow, loving these legislative discussions as i have NO law or poli sci education. As with the drug one, this gets a little tricky. And COME ON Moses, you can do a lot better than “why not?” i KNOW you can!!!

pros: if legalized, it can be regulated. you may rid the world of pimps, decrease the number of minors selling their bodies, reduce the spread of STD’s, and possibly even reduce some of the societal problems associated (including drug use, prostitutes getting killed/abused by Johns, etc.). Also the gov’t, instead of the mafia, gets to bring in that prostitution (luxury?) tax as well, which it could put into getting women off the street . . . . Finally some women love sex and hey - i’d love to get paid for it :smile:

cons: by legallizing prostitution, you legitimize it. Why is that a problem? Because of the fact that most women turn to prostitution for the wrong reasons. (forgive me this one . . . ) Many women turn to prostitution because there is “no other way” (as they perceive it). Gangs they ran with when they were 13 or 16 turn them into revenue sources, the women may do this to afford drugs and other nasty habits, or they got used to a life on the street due to a dysfunctional family etc. These issues must be addressed before we can legalize prostitution IMO. Also let’s address the heart of the issue (as i see it). Prostitution degrades women. It tells people that women are there to be bought and sold, that they are mere objects with which we can do just about anything we want for the right price. I wonder how connected the history of prostitution is with the massive history of crime against women, forced submissiveness, etc. just because of the image of women that prostitution creates. Finally (and this is the puritanical Victorian Christian in me) sex is a beautiful thing that should be enjoyed between two people that love each other, and that have a committed relationship. Although the gov’t has no place legislating it, I hate seeing the degradation of sex from a higher place in the world (expression of love, creation of life) to a commodity that may be bought and sold.

I am sure i have other points i can’t think of right now, but this might fuel a little discussion, i hope.