ChessTalk Message Board

ChessTalk Message Board
[ ChessTalk Message Board ]

Congrats to the Chinese Community.....

Posted by John J. Henry on August 8, 2008, 18:36:00

on their Country in putting on a truly spectacular Opening Ceremony for the Olympics. The Community in Canada and Toronto is very well represented in Chess lessons,Camps,competitions and we always welcome them.Over the next 16 days the World be viewing the Olympics,your beautiful people and Country and wish you great success.You have so much to be proud of...

Yes

Posted by Zeljko on August 8, 2008, 18:50:00, in reply to "Congrats to the Chinese Community....."
Hamilton Ontario

Yes and their 'other country' is going to be putting on the 2010 Winter Olympics. Go Canada go.

PS the references to Go above do not refer to the board game Go in any way shape or form. This is chesstalk after all

except for...

Posted by Joey K on August 9, 2008, 9:34:34, in reply to "Congrats to the Chinese Community....."

...the Tibetan flag incident.

J.K

Re: Congrats to the Chinese Community.....

Posted by Kerry Liles on August 9, 2008, 9:58:38, in reply to "Congrats to the Chinese Community....."
Mississauga Ontario

"let the pretending begin" is a quote I heard the other day. I though it was quite apropos.

Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content)

Posted by Zeljko on August 9, 2008, 17:14:11, in reply to "Re: Congrats to the Chinese Community....."
Hamilton Ontario

You know there are people that wouldn't view Canada's human rights record all that well either.

There is the interment of Japanese Canadians (including David Suzuki & his family )(which wasn't done by the US in Hawaii even) the recent apology for the Native residential school abuses, the forced expulsion of Inuit from their choosen lands. There's our treatment only 40 or less years ago of homosexuals including declaring them dangerous offenders & locking them up for life, the 1980's raids on the bathhouses in Toronto and in the same era our very poor record on women's rights, which are by no means wonderful today either. Also more recently the Somalia affair, our treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, sending people to other countries where we know they are going to be tortured, failing to protect Canadian youth interened at Guantanamo etc etc etc Our lack of effective care for the mentally ill living on our streets, the huge number of children living below the povery line as well as the disabled.

Let's not pretend ourselves.

How bad does our human rights record have to get before we admit that we have problems and not just China.

Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Ken on August 9, 2008, 19:39:15, in reply to "Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content) "

OMG, we have a far left wing liberal here who will always think Canada does not do enough for its peoples. Let's not compare today's China with things that happened 40 years or more ago in Canada. Do you not believe that we have a decent/excellent record right now? If not, would you think there is a better place you would like to live? I am curious where it is. How anyone can compare China today to Canada is beyond me. No place is perfect, but we certainly approach that in regards to human rights.

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Zeljko on August 9, 2008, 19:55:40, in reply to "Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "
Hamilton Ontario

Today? Are there no mentally ill that are homeless on our streets, are there no children going to school hungry, are there no disabled people living on a substinenance income?

Why don't you live on one our Native reserves for a while & then get back to me? Or watch CPAC 8pm EST tomorrow.

The RCMP spied on the feminist movement & Rita McNeil in the 1970's, who are they or CSIS spying on today? Don't claim not to live in a police state if you don't know who the police are spying on. There is no excuse for spying on feminists. Maybe the bigwigs at the RCMP were worried that if their wives got involved supper wouldn't be waiting for them on the table when they got home like it was supposed to be? Let's also not forget why CSIS was created in the first place, it was the dirty tricks campaigns of the RCMP that resulted in a civilian agency being created.

If it makes you feel better to point the finger at China & say Canada is almost perfect, go ahead.

Are we almost perfect because we don't torture or kill others ourselves (except for Somalia?)but we hand them over to other countries to do our dirty work for us? If you survive we'll give you lots of money, does that make us almost perfect?

It's convenient to ignore what Canada has done in the not too distant past.

Ironically we also had a 'head tax' specifically for Chinese workers which also meant it took them years to be able to bring their families here, if at all.

Today you can be a guest worker in Canada, without any rights to settle here, we'll take your menial labour but you are not welcome. Guess how many rights these workers have, guess how willing they are to complain about it & be sent back to their country of origin early?

Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Ken on August 9, 2008, 20:15:22, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "

This is one of those topics that can go back and forth forever if one allows it. It is now obvious you hate living in Canada. Have you thought of a better place to live? Where is Nirvana? As Bill O'Reilly would say, "You can have the last word."

Your attitude about Canada reminds me of so many who think that the CFC has to be all things to all chess players. It doesn't matter that THERE IS NO CASH, so many think that they must continue to support all things chess in Canada. (Just to add some chess content!)

Don't bother to ask about who is responsible for that. The system was broken many years ago. Presidents who are chosen for a 1-year term based on popularity. Presidents who DO NOTHING for years on end, not even respond to players' offers to help.

I just thought I'd stir the pot a little. This should get the juices flowing!

I am really looking forward to our new President's report and action plan.

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (now has some chess content)

Posted by Zeljko on August 10, 2008, 1:08:34, in reply to "Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "
Hamilton Ontario

What makes you assume that I hate living in Canada? Or is that a knee jerk reaction for you to anyone that criticizes Canada's record? I assumed as a Canadian citizen that I'm allowed to criticize my own country? Or are you saying as a patriotic Canadian I need to be blind to our countries failings, believe that its almost perfect & only criticize other countries?

However, if I'm a Toronto Maple Leafs fan I am allowed to criticize them?

I enjoy living in Canada but when my neighbours & fellow Canadians are homeless or going to school hungry or living in a shack on a reserve etc etc I find that I would enjoy it much more if we improved our record in these areas, before we go put our blinders on & criticise everyone else.

When I study Canadian history & find that there have been abuses by the RCMP I am concerned about what kind of police state we really have, not what kind we tell ourselves we have.

Its my Canada, its my right to criticize, its my right to speak up for those that need better human rights in this country.

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (now has some chess content)

Posted by Jim Foster on August 10, 2008, 5:01:24, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (now has some chess content) "

Of course you can find abuses by any police force anywhere in the world. Is every state a police state?

One way that I know we don't live in a police state is that we all have the "...right to criticize, [the] right to speak up ...". Is there anything you are afraid to say because the RCMP might come knocking on your door?

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Zeljko on August 10, 2008, 8:45:27, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (now has some chess content) "
Hamilton Ontario

Sure, I'm afraid to say I'm a feminist supporter because the RCMP spied on those. You could have asked a feminist in the 1970's or 1980's if they were afraid of the RCMP spying on them & they would have likely thought nothing of the kind. However, now we find out the RCMP did spy on them. The question still remains why they did so & how we can justify that as not being a violation of human rights. You can't say you really have free speech when your police force does something like that. Feminists were fighting for womens rights, nothing that threatened legitimate state security.

The point is also we don't know who they are spying on today that we'll find out about 30 years from now. There could be perfectly innocent & reasoned movements like the feminists that are being spied on today.

Every state is a police state to one extent or another. Check out the history of the RCMP & JE Edgar Hoover's FBI. The FBI spied on Bobby Fischer, do you really think that was justified?

Here's an article

Posted by Zeljko on August 10, 2008, 9:20:27, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "
Hamilton Ontario

http://www.thestar.com/article/472240

and note they also spied on unions & students.

The police are always more conservative than the rest of society,they want to maintain the status quo on social issues & usually the status quo as it was 20 years ago.

Its one thing to enforce the law, its another to have the police try to enforce what they think the law should be.

I have a friend whose father was stopped by the police in the 1970's for nothing & told by the officer not to be in that neighbourhood in Toronto, just because he was African American. This was with his family in the car.

Such Nonsense

Posted by Just Wondering on August 10, 2008, 14:37:51, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

I spent much of the cold war years playing international correspondence chess with opponents in east block nations, including Russia. Also, administering the correspondence club here in Canada.

I traded postage stamps and sent things to people in those countries from time to time.

If the RCMP didn't have a file on me during those years I would wonder what in the world they were doing.

It's not persecution nor is it unreasonable.

Re: Such Nonsense

Posted by Zeljko on August 11, 2008, 0:05:58, in reply to "Such Nonsense"
Hamilton Ontario

Yes I'm sure that since it was you, you we're sending coded messages disguised as correspondence chess.

So by you're reasoning everyone corresponding with relatives or friends or aquaintances in the Eastern block should also have been monitored by the RCMP.

That's the 'I have nothing to hide so its okay with me if the police spy on me' theory, which tends to fall apart when the person actually finds out they were under police scrutiny.

I'm surprised you consider yourself as an innocent Canadian just trying to play a chess game as a reasonable use of tax payers money.

Or maybe the RCMP were sending you their own analysis of your games & that's why you didn't mind?

The Garden of Eden....

Posted by Just Wondering on August 11, 2008, 13:34:05, in reply to "Re: Such Nonsense"
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

Where is it better or perfect as you would describe a country?

Re: The Garden of Eden....

Posted by Peter Stockhausen on August 11, 2008, 15:40:00, in reply to "The Garden of Eden...."
Former CFC Prez Vancouver BC

Here are a few that are on a more or less level playing field with Canada, no Eden or perfection here either, but not bad at all, when compared with what is going on in the rest of the world TODAY. In no particular order:

Switzerland
Great Britain
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
Luxembourg
Latvia
Belgium
Australia
New Zealand
Austria
Italy
France
Hungary
Spain
Estonia
Ireland
Portugal
Iceland !! (Here, before becoming a citizen you must prove competency in the Icelandic Language and take on an Icelandic name. Fischer notwithstanding.)
Netherlands
USA
Slovenia
Germany
Poland
Costa Rica
Finland
Greece
Check Republic
Slovakia
Lithuania

Cheers
Peter

Re: The Garden of Eden....

Posted by Zeljko on August 11, 2008, 15:52:24, in reply to "Re: The Garden of Eden...."
Hamilton Ontario

Sure we can all beat up on China & all these other countries can claim to be above all that. I think I'm starting to see why some people like to do so, its like saying "Yeah, I cheat on my taxes & steal from work but I'm not a boozer like my neighbour. Man is he ever a lousy."

Oh & the Check republic, they must play alot of chess there huh? Or maybe you mean the Czech Republic.

Just a couple of points on your everybody but China list, the USA backs dictators in South & Central America that outright murdered people, the CIA was very active in this & still are.

Italy beat the Albanian refugees literally back onto their sinking boats, the ones who came from Albania after Albania almost collapsed due to the pyramid scheme.

New Zealand & Austalia were built, the same as Canada is by mass deaths amongst the Native population, in fact much like the Beothuk tribe in Newfoundland, the Tasmanians were exterminated & no longer exist but no it didn't happen today so we are all good on that.

Don't tell the Belgium separatists that everything is great there, they don't want to separate because everything is rosy, they want to separate because they are being repressed, much like the Francophones in Quebec.

Re: La Belle Province

Posted by JPR on August 11, 2008, 17:59:57, in reply to "Re: The Garden of Eden...."

Zeljko :
"(...) they want to separate because they are being repressed, much like the Francophones in Quebec."

JPR :
I don't know if the majority here still feels repressed. I think the "s�paratistes" or "ind�pendantistes" (or whatever) want Qu�bec to become a country because it's a normal thing for a nation. (Even Harper recognized we are a nation.)

Jean-Pierre Rh�aume

Link: A nation, according to Wikipedia

Re: La Belle Province

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 0:00:33, in reply to "Re: La Belle Province"
Hamilton Ontario

Did the Anglophones (the Family Compact) not dominate Quebec for many decades? Or have I read the history of Quebec all wrong. For example, was Pierre Trudeau's father not a gas station owner because non-consumer business was effectively bared to Francophones? Areas such as banking & high finance. Was the battle over French language rights not a result of the dominance of English in Quebec, before the PQ passed their bills re French language rights, which also lead to official bilingualism act?

Re: La Belle Province

Posted by Garland on August 12, 2008, 1:41:54, in reply to "Re: La Belle Province"
Almonte ON R A Club Member

Perhaps I'm missing something.

Yes, in every society you can find past and current injustices. Either you will find minorities that were/are repressed by the majority, or over-reactions by the general population to specific events and so on.

However, the mark of a progressive society is to recognize these injustices and correct them. In the case of Canada you yourself have identified the following events:

- The Government formally apologizing to Japanese interred during WWII without direct cause.
- The Government making reparations to native peoples who were abused at some schools.
- Changes to laws in Canada to protect the rights of Francophones.
- Public disclosure of police surveilence of social activist groups in the sixties and seventies.
- The granting of equal rights to women.
- The granting of rights to gays and lesbians.

As others have said, Canada's society is not perfect. We still have to work out how to further restore the well being of native groups who have suffered under their current relationship with the rest of Canada. I personally think that the laws passed in the name of security immediately after 9/11 were a huge step backwards. In all likelyhood our behavior towards muslims at the moment needs to improve. And yes, we all hope for a time where there will be no homeless, no drug addicts, no women or children coerced into prostution, and no crime.

Some would say the pendulum has swung too far. Views that abortion is wrong because it means the destruction of a life is actively supressed on several college campuses. People and churches are repudiated for refusing to marry a homosexual couple because they feel that this is against the teachings of their religion. The idea that acts are wrong from a moral standpoint is being replaced by the idea that what one does in private is one's own business as long as it does not harm others, without clearly defining what harm is. And thanks to the way the system currently works, we seem to be totally unresponsible for our own actions to ourselves while simultaneously being completely responsible for any harm, real or potential, that occurs or could occur to others interacting with us.

But the point is that we live in a society where one can point out its flaws and work to correct them without serious and immediate fear of reprisal by the authorities. It is evident that this is not case in several other countries, including China to some degree. I do not see it hypocritical to make this public on the world stage, in order to change it in other nations.

We have learned from our history, and we want other nations to also learn from it. That is why we say what we say. Pointing out our previous failings when we have learnt from them only strengthens our case, not weaken it.

Re: La Belle Province

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 9:28:06, in reply to "Re: La Belle Province"
Hamilton Ontario

All excellent points which I think I was hoping for when I started my comments.

I'm proud of Canada but there are serious things that were done that we need to fix.

Its better to work to improve Canada then just to hypocritically denounce other countries.

The Chinese government has problems but let's not demonize them more than is actually true & lets for example not deny the Chinese people the right to host the Olympics based on the actions of their government.

On with the Games. Go Canada go.

Re: La Belle Province

Posted by JPR on August 12, 2008, 10:55:48, in reply to "Re: La Belle Province"

Zeljko (the emphasis is mine, JPR) :
Did the Anglophones (the Family Compact) not dominate Quebec for many decades? Or have I read the history of Quebec all wrong. For example, was Pierre Trudeau's father not a gas station owner because non-consumer business was effectively bared to Francophones? Areas such as banking & high finance. Was the battle over French language rights not a result of the dominance of English in Quebec, before the PQ passed their bills re French language rights, which also lead to official bilingualism act?

JPR (from my previous post, putting now emphasis on "still") :
"I don't know if the majority here still feels repressed. I think the "s�paratistes" or "ind�pendantistes" (or whatever) want Qu�bec to become a country because it's a normal thing for a nation. (Even Harper recognized we are a nation.)"

So yes, you're right : we felt repressed (past tense). The cases you bring are things of the past... as the emphasised words show (all in past tense).

I don't know if the majority here still feels repressed.
That means I'm not so sure this is actual anymore. Maybe it is, but maybe not.

True, we must take lessons from the past but also, we must turn our mind to the present and the futur.

To say it still another way :

It is my belief that more than 50 % of French speaking Qu�b�cois ("pure laine", or "de souche") would like Qu�bec to be a country, not a province. But, as I see or feel it, they DO NOT want to retaliate for the bad things done to Qu�b�cois in the past ; rather, they think it would be the best thing to do now, and for many reasons (economy & culture, for example).

But not beeing a specialist on this subject, I could not elaborate cleverly. As for me, all this is a matter of feeling, not knowledge. Besides, this is CHESStalk

Speaking of feelings, some are shown below

Jean-Pierre Rh�aume

Re: La Belle Province

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 16:01:35, in reply to "Re: La Belle Province"
Hamilton Ontario

Excellent, glad all is well in Quebec, you did put us through some close calls in the past referendums but all is forgiven it seems. Good luck with your aspirations re your culture & economic goals.

If I could I would move to Montreal immediately & still may one day.

Re: La Belle Province

Posted by JPR on August 12, 2008, 17:06:22, in reply to "Re: La Belle Province"

Many things of the past are... no, not forgiven, but not well known by the new generation. They only heard about it, they did not live it.

As for the last referendum, many feel we have been stolen. I do.

But a nation does not want to be a country just because so many bad things happened in the past. Without forgetting or forgiving the past, a nation has a drive for "ind�pendance" or "lib�ration" with the future in mind.

Let's build our future for the next generations.

This has nothing to do with forgiveness or bad memory.

Jean-Pierre Rh�aume

Re: The Garden of Eden....

Posted by Peter Stockhausen on August 11, 2008, 20:06:16, in reply to "Re: The Garden of Eden...."
Former CFC Prez Vancouver BC

China? I do not recall mentioning China. Merely listed a number of countries that are similar to Canada in providing freedom, democracy, education, health care, general safety, freedom of choice, free speech, freedom of (and from) religion etc. etc.
As I stated up front, none of these countries are PERFECT, but they do rather well when compared with others, TODAY.
Rarely does it make sense to judge opinions or actions taken in the past against opinions and actions of today. We CHANGE over time.
It is not clear to me what your point is. But if you are looking for perfection, this is the wrong planet.

Cheers
Peter

PS I am thrilled that you spotted a spelling mistake. I like to use them occasionally to flush out the likes of you. (Originally I had it �Cheque Republic�, but judged that a bit too obvious.)

Canada ranks well in your group

Posted by Duncan Smith on August 11, 2008, 22:08:11, in reply to "Re: The Garden of Eden...."
Willowdale ON

In terms of education system, human rights, charity ( in terms of helping others in need ), health care we rank quite nicely in most studies.
In fact, Canada is often held up as a good model for others.

I would say the US under George W. Bush is a more appropriate target for claims of hypocracy and underperformance in some areas. However, it seems the populace finally understands this and wants to change the direction of the country.
The US will surely go the way of all great dynasties unless it changes now. Everyday people need to understand how government policy affects their life. For example, when they invaded Iraq it basically cost every citizen a refrigerator worth of dollars.

I'm sure China has a lot of nice people but in general their government is failing the people.
People are testing the system regularily; unfortunately if you push the government too far your history and just a footnote in changing your country.

Of course, most reasonable people know this. I'm not sure why people move to Canada of they hate the system so much. A lot of us are huge fans of their country.

Re: The Garden of Eden....

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 0:05:12, in reply to "Re: The Garden of Eden...."
Hamilton Ontario

Flush out the likes of me? I found it rather funny actually. Misspell away my good man.

I'm not looking for perfection & if I was Canada is the last place I would look. Free to be poor, free to wait forever for an operation, free to try fruitlessly to find a family doctor, free if you are of a certain religion to be put on a no fly list and always free to be spied on by the police.

Re: The Garden of Eden....

Posted by Just Wondering on August 12, 2008, 2:12:37, in reply to "Re: The Garden of Eden...."
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

All that and it doesn't bother you to live in a nation whose land was obtained by cheating or killing the natives to get it.

I don't share your experience of waiting "forever for an operation" or any treatment. Possibly the reason you're having the problem is because there isn't much physically wrong with you.

I once asked for the head of cardiac surgery at a large hospital and to my surprise got him. I told him to sew me up neatly and he did.

My various medical treatments have always been timely.

You're using bullshit to scare people and I hope they don't listen to you.

Re: The Garden of Eden....

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 9:24:18, in reply to "Re: The Garden of Eden...."
Hamilton Ontario

Firstly, I'm not awaiting an operation.

Secondly, all the media reports I've read indicate that there is a health care problem in Canada with wait times, people are going south of the border if they can & there's a push to open semi-private or private clinics to deal with those times for those that can pay. We are moving to a two-tier system in some ways.

Nobody needs to listen to me, they can just open the paper or read government reports such as the Romanov inquiry.

Are you telling me all the media outlets in Canada have it totally wrong based on your one operation? Are you teling me the governments own studies are wrong?

Glad your operation & experience went well, would hate to lose you.

Your root of experience

Posted by Just Wondering on August 12, 2008, 10:30:45, in reply to "Re: The Garden of Eden...."
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

Oh, you read a newspaper. You expect the truth for a dollar. Did it ever enter your mind that the ones who are crying the loudest are the ones who want to open those clinics for profit?

The health system simply isn't as bad as they make it out to be. They don't tell you about the Americans who come NORTH for treatment. They might not have health insurance or may not be able to afford the prices in the U.S. It's cheaper in Canada so many take up our beds.

Some people aren't happy unless they can find something to complain about. Still, you shouldn't post B.S. about health care. Some of the procedures and nasty and dangerous and people are scared before they undergo them. Your uninformed comments aren't helpful.

Re: Your root of experience

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 15:47:17, in reply to "Your root of experience"
Hamilton Ontario

I didn't say the treatment was poor, just that you have to wait to get it & many are without a family doctor & can't find one (& think all over Ontario not just Toroto or south western Ontario). Now I also understand why, its the Americans coming here & paying directly & jamming up our facilities.

So because a paper is cheap, its all lies? Well the ads may be, I'll grant you that, & some of the job ads especially.

Your Education...

Posted by Just Wondering on August 12, 2008, 20:28:14, in reply to "Re: Your root of experience"
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

See, you're already learning something. Americans who have no health insurance and not enough money often come to Canada for treatment because the costs are less. So you can see how much better it is in Canada where the government issues a health card and you don't have to use a credit card.

From my observation, some of the problem in the health care system has to do with the slow pace at which some of the unionized people work.

If we had time I could give you a good education on more of the benefits of Canada over other countries.

I do regret that Canada is soft on crime and does not have the death penalty.

Nurses

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 21:14:08, in reply to "Your Education..."
Hamilton Ontario

I hope you don't mean nurses because they are unionized by ONA. I've never seen a harder working bunch of people.

Re: Nurses

Posted by Just Wondering on August 12, 2008, 21:51:04, in reply to "Nurses"
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

You mean the nurses who make YOU wait so long?

They are the reason YOU wait so long when YOU go to a hospital. The Triage nurse assessed YOU and decided most of the other people who came in needed treatment more than YOU, so YOU waited for the doctor.

Then YOU come onto a public message board and whine about how long YOU had to wait for health care.

Re: Nurses

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 22:32:18, in reply to "Re: Nurses"
Hamilton Ontario

I really can't believe that someone who received excellent care has this attitude towards nurses & other unionized hospital staff.

I've never complained about how long I have to wait at the hospital, they will see me when they see me. I went there for heat stroke once & waited for 4 hours to see a doctor, not a problem, they did have me wait by the nurses station in the emergency examination area & gave me water. When I get sick I get pretty patient, I think its because I'm so out of it anyway.

I also don't complain when I'm at the doctors office, at least I have a doctor. I once suggested someone else go ahead of me there because she was obviously in pain, which the person & his nurse appreciated.

Its not the nurses fault that the health care system is under resourced. Next you'll be blaming the paramedics when anyone has to wait for an ambulance. You need to look up way up the chain that leads to the politicians instead of blaming those attempting to cope as best they can on the front lines.

Re: Nurses

Posted by Just Wondering on August 12, 2008, 23:58:46, in reply to "Re: Nurses"
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

Oh, I see. You're not complaining about the health care system for yourself. It's for all those other people you read about in those newspapers.

Suddenly when this gets value added and I start mentioning the unionized staff, you start defending your union brothers and sisters. Everything is the government and however much money they throw at the system it's not enough. Nurses are pretty well paid so let's cut the "under resourced" nonsense.

The only reason I don't mention "bleeding heart liberals" is because there is someone who objects to it.

Re: Nurses

Posted by Zeljko on August 13, 2008, 1:46:56, in reply to "Re: Nurses"
Hamilton Ontario

No I'm not complaining for the health care system for myself at the moment (knock on wood), leave it to you to personalize everything & turn it into a personal attack.

I am concerned about our health care system, there are problems with it, the provinces are complaining about lack of funding to the federal government all the time, if you want to blame the same people that recently provided you with excellent care then so be it. That's the sort of person you are. I didn't make the wait times & family doctor & nursing shortages up.

So let me get it straight, you want the death penalty reinstated & the only people you think provide good health care are doctors.

Re: Nurses

Posted by Just Wondering on August 13, 2008, 9:46:45, in reply to "Re: Nurses"
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

I see YOU, who criticized the Canadian system and the health care system, after appearantly reading a headline in some newspaper, is now defending the system because it pays union nurses lots of money.

I've come to the conclusion you're a male whiner.

YOU're the one who claims there is not good health care service, not me. I merely pointed out that if you had to wait a long time at a hospital a Triage nurse probably decided your runny nose was not as serious a problem as others who came after you and were seen by a doctor sooner.

I'm the one who's laughing at your assertions.

Re: Nurses

Posted by ben daswani on August 13, 2008, 12:33:34, in reply to "Re: Nurses"
Delta BC

*one of many

Re: Nurses

Posted by Fred on August 14, 2008, 2:16:13, in reply to "Re: Nurses"

add me to that list, just another one of many, Zchump.

Re: The Garden of Eden....

Posted by Hugh Brodie on August 11, 2008, 22:20:22, in reply to "Re: The Garden of Eden...."
Resident Source of Information

New Zealand was not "built....by mass deaths amongst the Native populations" - in fact, the natives traded and lived quite peacefully with the European settlers. There were inter-tribal squabbles which resulted in many deaths - but not as a reault of battles with the settlers.

The Treaty of Waitangi (1840) "recognised M�ori ownership of their lands and other properties, and gave M�ori the rights of British subjects."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

Re: The Garden of Eden....

Posted by Just Wondering on August 11, 2008, 17:15:46, in reply to "Re: The Garden of Eden...."
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

You must be a humourist.

Re: The Garden of Eden....

Posted by John Goldner on August 25, 2008, 10:27:11, in reply to "Re: The Garden of Eden...."

What a ridiculous list. Incredibly stupid. What is the "Check Republic?" Is that a country where chess players all announce 'check?' It's Czech Republic. This thread alternates between paranoia and ignorance.

Chess players are notoriously ill equipped to discuss politics and/or social issues. This site is called Chesstalk. You people should stick to the subject instead of embarrassing yourselves.

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Jim Foster on August 11, 2008, 4:11:31, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "

Your post is the first thing I've read about the RCMP spying on feminist groups - I've been living in Ausralia for awhile. The obvious questions that you didn't answer in your post are why did the RCMP spy on these people and what kind of spying did they do? It makes a difference, doesn't it?

I did a little googling and can't find any mention of wiretapping, hidden cameras in bedrooms. or any such invasion of privacy. And "the focus was the lurking Red Menace" as the Canadian press (08/04 - CTV online) put it. The RCMP weren't worried about feminism, they were checking for links to Communism - a typical concern in the cold war era. Finding nothing much to worry about, the RCMP did absolutely nothing, as far as I can tell, to stop these people from carrying out their legitimate activities. Why anyone would find this story frightening thirty years later is beyond me.

In fact, to show what kind of a police state Canada was back then, that CP report tells about members of the 1970 Abortion Caravan "occupying the lawn of the prime minister's residence " as well as chaining themselves to seats in the House of Commons. What the CP report doesn't mention is the dire consequences of those actions, because there weren't any.

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Zeljko on August 11, 2008, 8:10:59, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "
Hamilton Ontario

here's the article again, which I did post above, for those not living in Canada

http://www.thestar.com/article/472240

if you want to say the police can do whatever they want to do that's fine, they could claim 'Red scare' to spy on any group they want & today it would be 'the terrorist scare'

I think you would have liked McCarthyism & people do get blacklisted, today we call it a no fly list

that still doesn't explain why the Toronto police raided the bathhouses in 1981

I personally don't believe the police get a carte blanche in our society & in our constitution to spy on anyone they want

why is it okay for Canadian police to spy on feminists while the Chinese are slammed for spying on what internet sites people are going to from inside China? I mean people from inside China could be looking at sites on how to make bombs etc or they could be looking at sites on democrary & you've already said a government has the right to spy on political opponents who support an opposite political system to their own, so Canada spys on the 'communists' & China spys on the 'democracts', its all good, right?

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Zeljko on August 11, 2008, 8:33:17, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "
Hamilton Ontario

and my point was who are they spying on today, like they did the feminists, we don't know do we?

More bullshit

Posted by ben daswani on August 11, 2008, 14:26:18, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "
Delta BC

Your arguments in this thread have been riddled with red herrings. Examples:

1. What Canadian youth is/are detained in Guantanamo? If you're referring to the oft reported on non-Canadian citizen who used to live in Canada and is being detained for attacking allied forces then, yes, I'm proud to say that my nation has done nothing to help this young man.

2. I seriously wonder from where you get your bullshit. The United States did intern Japanese Americans during WWII, in addition to Italian Americans (who Canada also interned) and German Americans. I notice how you fail to mention these two European ethnic groups who were interned. As is typical of liberals, you're trying to blur the line between race and culture/nationality. Why the bullshit? Can't your argument hold up when facts are presented?

3. Canada was one of the first nations to allow women to vote. Yes, an excellent example of Canada's "very poor record on women's rights"!

There's a very simple fact you're failing to grasp. Canada has developed into one of the best nations in the world because Canada has a great culture and noble ideals. You want to come here and bring your own ideals and change Canada. It doesn't work like that. It's a cultural fabric. You can't just change this and that. You're from a country that, quite frankly, is effing worthless. Keep your bullshit Eastern European ideas in Eastern Europe. Our culture is better than your culture. That's why you came here. So, either assimilate and start loving and being proud of your new country, or head back to whatever nomad-infested region of the sewer known as Eastern Europe from which you came.

& One more thing

Posted by Zeljko on August 11, 2008, 16:03:54, in reply to "More bullshit"
Hamilton Ontario

The Canadian educational system produced you, I rest my case. Sorry we denied you a real education.

...and this is chess talk remember?

One "more" thing?

Posted by ben daswani on August 11, 2008, 18:19:14, in reply to "& One more thing"
Delta BC

You didn't respond to any of my three points:

1. What Canadian youth is/are detained in Guantanamo? If you're referring to the oft reported on non-Canadian citizen who used to live in Canada and is being detained for attacking allied forces then, yes, I'm proud to say that my nation has done nothing to help this young man.

2. I seriously wonder from where you get your bullshit. The United States did intern Japanese Americans during WWII, in addition to Italian Americans (who Canada also interned) and German Americans. I notice how you fail to mention these two European ethnic groups who were interned. As is typical of liberals, you're trying to blur the line between race and culture/nationality. Why the bullshit? Can't your argument hold up when facts are presented?

3. Canada was one of the first nations to allow women to vote. Yes, an excellent example of Canada's "very poor record on women's rights"!

Have another go at it, child.

The Canadian "educational" (?) system did not produce me. I'm self-educated. I don't approve of many of this country's political and social structures (I disapprove of Western democracies in general) but, unlike you, I'm not dumb enough to be blind to the fact that Canada is superior to 90% of the world's nations. I wouldn't have even bothered responding to your alien nonsense if you hadn't stated utter fallacies.

Re: One "more" thing?

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 0:09:41, in reply to "One "more" thing?"
Hamilton Ontario

That's right I didn't.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 11, 2008, 22:32:03, in reply to "More bullshit"
Seattle Washington

A few salient points about this entire thread:

1) There is no right or wrong. There is only opinion.

2) Every athlete at the Olympic games is proud to be representing his or her country, which reinforces point 1.

3) One doesn't have a right to one's opinion, nor does one have any rights at all. One might be granted privileges, which may be revoked at any time.

4) The RCMP is spying on Lucas Davies. Anyone who can reply to a thread in which someone tried to get some comps because he forked out $15 in parking fees for a chess event that had been cancelled, but remains silent on a thread like this, is a very dangerous person indeed... and quite possibly a feminist.

5) Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Garland on August 12, 2008, 1:53:54, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Almonte ON R A Club Member

I'm not sure how much of this is said in irony, but for what it's worth...

"1) There is no right or wrong. There is only opinion." - That's completely wrong. There are absolutes of right and wrong (though not necessarily on EVERY topic).

"3) One doesn't have a right to one's opinion, nor does one have any rights at all. One might be granted privileges, which may be revoked at any time." - Again, completely wrong. There are certain rights which every human has. However they may be supressed by others at any time, unless we act to prevent them.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 13, 2008, 0:36:52, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Seattle Washington

Hi Garland,

Regarding your first point:

I was going to reply that the only absolute is absolute zero, but even that isn't true, because there is no place in the known universe where absolute zero is a fact. At absolute zero, when all motion ceases, it is unknown what happens or what constitutes reality.

Regarding your second point:

If we act to prevent those who are suppressing our rights, we are taking away their right to suppress our rights.

And on and on it goes.... but nice thoughts, Garland! You seem like a decent upstanding person and I encourage you to keep believing as you do.

It's like paper money, as long as people keep believing it has value, then it has value.

But does it really? Hey, what if the world ran out of toilet paper?

Philosophy......not for the faint of heart.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Garland on August 15, 2008, 19:13:54, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Almonte ON R A Club Member

Just because nothing can ever reach the temperature of absolute zero, does not mean that absolute zero does not exist. The same is true of other ideals and absolutes. We rarely, if ever acheive them, but that does not mean they aren't real.

A right to suppress the rights of others does not exist.

If the world ran out of toilet paper, then there would be a run on newspapers. And people would value their paper money more, not less.

I prefer being a moral realist, not an nihilist.

Cheers.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Just Wondering on August 15, 2008, 19:38:46, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

"If the world ran out of toilet paper, then there would be a run on newspapers. And people would value their paper money more, not less."

I'm going to tell you a true story. I used to be on the road a lot as was someone else who did the same work. A very good friend.

He told me he once used a gas station washroom. When he was finished there was no toilet paper. He checked his wallet and the smallest bill he had was a 10. He was looking for a one or two.

So he took off his underwear, used it and threw it in the corner.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Kevin Pacey on August 16, 2008, 20:06:17, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Chess Master Ottawa Ontario

Seemingly even more abstract than Absolute Zero is the square root of -1, i. The imaginary number i actually is quite useful in reality. Ask anyone involved in applied mathematics, such as designing bridges.

Any responsible parent would of course not hesitate to teach their children that there are right and wrong ways of doing things. Or that there are good and bad people in the world. A big part of the world's problems at present come from moral relativism, which denies absolutes or the existence of evil.

A right to suppress the rights of others actually exists... as soon as those others break the law. They then begin to lose any number of rights. Rightly so, if the law is based on correct principles of justice.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Garland on August 17, 2008, 0:05:15, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Almonte ON R A Club Member

"A right to suppress the rights of others actually exists... as soon as those others break the law. They then begin to lose any number of rights. Rightly so, if the law is based on correct principles of justice."

Excellent point. I admit that I must rethink my earlier statement.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 17, 2008, 4:34:39, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Seattle Washington

In light of current events, both of you (Kevin and Garland) may need to rethink.

Russia is trying to pry two regions away from Georgia and absorb them into itself. The people of those regions reportedly want to separate from Georgia.

But the U.S. has vested interests in keeping those regions within Georgia. This from George Bush, the supposed prince of Democracy:

"These regions are a part of Georgia and the international community has repeatedly made clear that they will remain so," said Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at his side. "There's no room for debate on this matter."

Uhhh.... George, what about the majority of people in those regions who reportedly want to separate from Georgia? No room for debate on this matter?

So much for George Bush's concept of freedom. So much for human rights. It's all politics and vested interests and on and on and on. Anyone with human rights ideals can shove them where the sun don't shine, and just thank whatever deity they believe in that they aren't a citizen in one of the world's many trouble spots. Just be aware that the trouble spots are spreading, and this may not be stoppable.

Note: where I use the word "reportedly", I admit that the true facts could be otherwise. But even if they were, one must realize that the politics would be unchanged. Neither Bush nor Medvedev are paying attention to any kind of on-the-ground reality. They are playing political games in which the peoples of Georgia are pawns and will be sacrificed as needed.

This has happened throughout human history and may continue unabated until the inevitable happens. Although, in respect to that, a major news network recently reported that since the 1940's, "space aliens" have been monitoring human activity and have even interfered with American and Russian missile launches. So the inevitable may not actually happen.

But then again, the Mayans did predict the end of the world as we know it on December 23, 2012.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Just Wondering on August 17, 2008, 10:52:11, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

There's an important oil pipeline running through Georgia, from what I understand. Georgia has also been a good ally of the U.S. They are not, as far as I know, a member of NATO. If they were, an attack against them or any other single member nation would be an attack against all of them and a response would be necessary. I look for Georgia to become a member of NATO.

Getting back to laws and individual freedom, I see most of the laws as ensuring (in theory) that some restraints are put on those who have no concept that their rights end where your rights start.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Kevin Pacey on August 17, 2008, 11:42:32, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Chess Master Ottawa Ontario

To be clear Paul, I was pointing out that there are such things as moral absolutes when it comes to the behavior of individuals, at least. No one should correctly believe it's alright to go on a wild public shooting spree within a country that's at peace, for example. Similarly, I don't see how the ruler of North Korea ought to look himself in the mirror without feeling the deepest sense of shame.

However I grant you that the number of moral absolutes that everyone should correctly agree on may be small. The lack of one universal faith opens the door for much disagreement. As I imagine you know, many nation's laws are based at least partly on the faith their founding people had at the time their laws were written.

I have no love for Bush Jr. or his lackey Ms. Rice. Furthermore I think that in general neo-conervatives ought to be barred from holding public office. As for what's going on in Georgia, neither side smells like a rose in that war. One thing I can say for sure is that innocent civilians are being hurt.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Tom O'Donnell on August 17, 2008, 12:46:47, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
IM Ottawa Chess Coach

"Furthermore I think that in general neo-conervatives ought to be barred from holding public office. "

I personally think that any person who believes in any form of God should be barred from holding any position where nuclear and other large-scale weapons are involved. I do consider the religious movement from polytheism to monotheism to be heading in the correct general direction. ;-)

Seriously, it is a good thing that our individual beliefs do not prevent entire groups of citizens from holding various positions, otherwise I suspect that no one would be immume from being barred based on someone else's belief of what is proper.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Kevin Pacey on August 17, 2008, 18:26:35, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Chess Master Ottawa Ontario

I may be misinformed, but I thought neo-conservatives were in favour of invading other countries pre-emptively or at the drop of a hat.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Tom O'Donnell on August 17, 2008, 20:02:42, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
IM Ottawa Chess Coach

As an atheist, I want my leaders to believe that nuclear weapons are a last resort, and that the stakes are as large as possible - potential eternal oblivion for the human race. I do not want them to believe that this life is but a pit stop on the way to the Hereafter and therefore they are free to do whatever they want while they are hanging around. If you are going to the Great Hereafter for eternity, who cares if you kill a bunch of non-believers, or even fellow believers, while doing it?

Frankly, as far as I can see the only differences between a cult and a religion is in the number of believers and in the perspective of the one making the observation.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Kevin Pacey on August 17, 2008, 20:47:08, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Chess Master Ottawa Ontario

Tom

You have a grossly uninformed view of the value the decent majority of people of faith place on their time here on Earth, unless you mean to be deliberately unfair.

Name me one aethiest leader of a nuclear nation who ever lived that you can hold up as a model for other leaders.

Btw, Curtis E. LeMay was an aethiest. JFK was not.

Hypocrite

Posted by Tom O'Donnell on August 17, 2008, 21:47:10, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
IM Ottawa Chess Coach

I am terribly sorry if I hurt your feelings. Seems it is okay for you to criticize an entire group of people (neo-conservatives) but when a group that you are sympathetic towards gets criticized your panties get all knotted into a bunch.

I personally don't want my leaders to believe in some sort of God-inspired Armageddon. Life isn't a do over nor a trial run.

However, despite all the problems exacerbated by religiosity world-wide I would not personally want a law passed that prohibited it, nor would I want a law that forbade religious people from holding office, only that I would not vote for them to do so, if there were an alternative (which usually there is not).

Re: Hypocrite

Posted by Kevin Pacey on August 17, 2008, 22:13:03, in reply to "Hypocrite"
Chess Master Ottawa Ontario

I have not heard anyone praising any neo-conservative lately based on his world views. Perhaps you'd care to post a link countering my perception of their philosophy. At least I stand to be corrected, unlike you. Your latest reply still strikes me as uniformed. How about answering my observation about all the troubles aethiesm has brought into the world?

Re: Hypocrite

Posted by Garland on August 17, 2008, 22:47:56, in reply to "Re: Hypocrite"
Almonte ON R A Club Member

Careful Kevin.

1) One can easily argue that the neo-conservatism governments of the 1980s (Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney) were in fact very positive infulences. One can easily argue that Neoconservative policies during that time ended the cold war.

2) For every example you can come up with of atheism bringing troubles into the world, I can name 5 done in the name of religion. As far as I can tell, the difference is mainly in the popularity of one view over the other.

It's not all black and white.

Re: Hypocrite

Posted by Kevin Pacey on August 17, 2008, 23:15:42, in reply to "Re: Hypocrite"
Chess Master Ottawa Ontario

Thank you for not name-calling or losing your cool Garland.

I did not know Mulroney, Reagan and Thatcher could be classed as neo-conservative leaders (I searched on their names and "neo-consevative" and found it to be true). Neo-conservatives didn't advocate pre-emptive war back then afaik, however. The movement seemingly is going through a dark phase in its history.

Religion has been abused throughout history, of course. Don't underestimate all the global and social consequences of the rise of aetheism, however.

Re: Hypocrite

Posted by roger patterson on August 18, 2008, 2:22:05, in reply to "Re: Hypocrite"
BCCF Prez - Victoria BC

"Neo-conservatives didn't advocate pre-emptive war back then afaik"

I guess you forgot about Grenada to give a trivial example. And there was that whole Nicaruaga - contra thing.

Notwithstanding Fox News and the existence of (many) elected neo-conservative politicians you have never heard anyone speak favourably about neo-conservative views.....

It comes as a surprise to you that Reagan and Thatcher have been labeled by some as "neo-conservative"......

Possibly, and I'm taking a wild guess here, you don't actually know what you mean when you say "neo-conservative". Might make it difficult to ban them from office if you can't define who they are.

Re: Hypocrite

Posted by Kevin Pacey on August 18, 2008, 12:09:46, in reply to "Re: Hypocrite"
Chess Master Ottawa Ontario

If there was a smiley for humble pie in one's face I'd use it here

Actually the Neo-Cons in particular I had in mind that have held office recently are people like Cheney and (in the past) Rumsfeld in particular. If I had my druthers, influencial neo-cons outside the US gov't who would be denied all influence if possible are guys like Frank Gaffney, who was advocating changing the map of the Middle East by force even back in the 90s.

I once watched a primer of the neo-con philosophy on TV, but regretably the details are hazy in my memory. Such as that they want the US to intervene actively in other countries (further, I'd heard on some radio show there is a blueprint for foreign adventures including the invasion of Iraq and Iran that a neo-con think tank wrote back at or before the start of the Bush Jr. administration, which has followed the blueprint to the letter so far).

Yes, now that my memory is jogged, Reagan was classed as a neo-con on that show. Yes, last night I did remember the invasion of Grenada as I lay troubled in my bed, mulling over the day's debate on the ol' chesstalk. Yes, I did fear someone would point that out...

Re: Hypocrite

Posted by ben daswani on August 18, 2008, 16:16:34, in reply to "Re: Hypocrite"
Delta BC

"I once watched a primer of the neo-con philosophy on TV, but regretably the details are hazy in my memory."

You watched a television programme and forgot about it. Wow, you must be quite the expert.

Re: Hypocrite

Posted by Tom O'Donnell on August 18, 2008, 4:09:15, in reply to "Re: Hypocrite"
IM Ottawa Chess Coach

I won't praise neo-conservatism, but I don't condemn it, either.

The world is divided into countries, regions, by language, by culture, by religion.

Each leader has to consider that their group is more important than any other group. Essentially, that their people are worth more than people outside their group. This isn't new, and it isn't something that this or that philosophy is responsible for bring to us all. Consider the response Zeljko got further up the thread when he attempted to criticize one aspect of Canada. People will defend their territory, culture, language and religion best that they can. It is something that unifies us.

A couple of years ago, I read the book "Guns, Germs and Steel", by Jared Diamond. The book is a short treatise on human history and attempts to give causes and proximate causes for why history unfolded the way it did. For example, the aboriginals of places like the Americas and Australia were displaced by more "able" societies. Why? Why didn't the Aztecs land in Europe and displace the natives there? Why didn't they have the ability to build large boats and guns, cross the ocean, and conquer Europe? Diamond attemps to answer questions like these.

One point that Diamond made, and which has stuck with me ever since (on page 273):

"With the rise of chiefdoms [TO: here he is referring to the first governments which were large enough that individual members wouldn't necessarily know every other member of their group] 7,500 years ago, people had to learn, for the first time in history, how to encounter strangers regularly without attempting to kill them."

Consider the implications of that. For a relatively short period of human existence we have actually, paradoxically, lived in relative peace! Sure, the scope of the means in which we can kill people have gotten more efficient. You can obviously kill a lot more people at once with a nuke than with a rock. However, pretty much world-wide, people don't kill strangers just because they are unfamiliar. That is a HUGE step!

Sounds like, historically speaking, pre-emptive warfare is the norm, not the exception. Sounds like 10,000 years ago if you didn't attack the other guy before he attacked you, you were probably not getting a second chance to make a first impression. Neither neo-conservatism nor atheism are responsible for that.

I personally consider religion a useful means to ensure that people have something in common, thereby discouraging them from killing each other (I am assuming that having members kill each other is bad for any civilization). In present-day society, with the rise of more complex institutions, I think religion is no longer necessary to keep members bound together. But as I wrote before, it is a useful lie and if that allows some people to find peace and happiness, then by all means live the lie. I just don't want such people deciding my fate on the planet, thanks.

On a lighter note:

Aren't you supposed to hate the sin, but love the sinner? I am not getting much love from you. ;-)

Re: Hypocrite

Posted by Kevin Pacey on August 18, 2008, 11:37:09, in reply to "Re: Hypocrite"
Chess Master Ottawa Ontario

Glad you're in a better mood Tom. On the whole I'd say that you are better read on neo-conservatism in particular than I am. I do love you
Congratulations on your recent marriage.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Garland on August 17, 2008, 20:53:53, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Almonte ON R A Club Member

"If you are going to the Great Hereafter for eternity, who cares if you kill a bunch of non-believers, or even fellow believers, while doing it?"

Uh, last time I checked, that is not the way in most religions to get yourself into the great hereafter. I do not think that being an atheist versus a theist determines how much one values human life. As far as I can tell, atheism is a religion as well.

Also your definition of a cult versus religion IS the literal definition. If you want to judge a religion/sect/cult, do it by the basis of how it treats both its members and non-members.

BTW, has anyone else noticed how appropiate this thread title is?

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Just Wondering on August 17, 2008, 22:09:33, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

I thought the idea behind the nukes was to be hereafter then next guy.

Regligion by politicians buys votes and endorsements. Hard to know which ones really believe.

I won't be voting. It only encourages them and I don't want to participate. That I'll leave to those who really think they can make a difference.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 18, 2008, 1:59:46, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Seattle Washington

Tom, as an atheist, why would eternal oblivion of the human race concern you at all? We're all nothing but a series of chemical reactions maintained until the infrastructure finally breaks down, and then we're gone. Never, ever, ever to exist again.

The human race? Pfffft!!!!

Unless.... Ah, I have it! You must be a follower of the Ray Kurzweill (?) school of "If I can just stick around long enough, technology will enable me to live forever!"

Ah, yes, the elusive Singularity! That must be your religion.

Here's another one for you: even if there is no Singularity in your lifetime and you're lying on your deathbed and everything is slowly going black, think about this: the Universe might not expand forever! It might someday, trillions of years into the future, stop expanding and start contracting! Contracting back into a super dense pinpoint of super hot plasma about the size of the period in this sentence. And then the next Big Bang occurs, in a nanosecond! And it all happens again, and some day I, Tom O'Donnell, will arise again and .... and... and I'll be reading this very same message again and won't remember that I once read it before. Although maybe I will, because people do have deja vu!

Tom (and anyone else who might care), may I make a suggestion? I can respect your beliefs because I know you weren't born an atheist. You acquired this belief system through your experiences and perceptions of the world you exist in.

My suggestion, and this is NOT a come on to join any religion OR cult: can you read the book by Sylvia Browne, called "Life On the Other Side"? I know, it SOUNDS like a religion. But I promise, it's not Dianetics nor is it the Church of the Vassel of the Weeping Sister of the Holy Communion, nor anything that will ask you to do or to believe anything at all or to change anything about your life. That's right, you can still become rich! Or you can just continue to do whatever it is you do right now. It's all good. Just read this book with an inquiring mind. It's been out several years, so should be in paperback and maybe even at a local library. I'm not making this suggestion because I get bonus points or a medal that Jesus or Buddha is going to pin on my chest. I could NOT make this suggestion and it wouldn't affect anything about my future here or anywhere else. You just have to read it to understand.

I spent my lifetime wondering about God, religion, humanity, UFOs, philosophy, science, technology, mathematics, evolution, deja vu, ancient civilations, life and death.... for me, this book explains it all. I read the Bible several times through before I was out of high school, and I'll probably never read it again.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Tom O'Donnell on August 18, 2008, 3:22:23, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
IM Ottawa Chess Coach

This is an interesting post.

I believe human beings are not more, nor less, than cockroaches. That is, humans are animals and as such are just trying to survive to the next generation. Constructs like religion, in my view, do some good: they allow people to find meaning to their lives, and prevent them from thinking about the point of existence. They also do evil: they coerce people into believing that, though their lives suck now, they will eventually get something better if only they passively wait for it and behave. The problem with that is that it convinces people to refuse to take charge of their own lives and enact change for the better - their own individual betterment - while they are here.

Even if the idea of God and the afterlife is a lie (and I think that it is), living the lie isn't necessarily bad for the person living it.

I don't believe in reincarnation, nor do I think that I will live forever. I know my time on the planet as me is finite, and I can live with the idea that after that, there is nothing. Getting back to my original point and considering the above, I have a lot more at stake than the person who thinks they are here for a while, and then are going ... somewhere ... for eternity. For them this existence is just a very temporary thing. That's why I would prefer people in charge of nukes to share my view.

Re: There's no way out of here

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 19, 2008, 0:08:31, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Seattle Washington

The beauty is, it doesn't matter what we believe. We can't escape our eternal existence even if we wanted to.

I remember when David Gilmore of Pink Floyd fame released his first solo album. One of the songs, "There's No Way Out of Here", has the lyrics: "There's no way out of here, when you come in, you're in for good".

I don't know that he was writing about either death or life, but it is an apt description for our existence.

Tom, you are the first atheist I've had the chance to talk over these kind of topics with. What you write about acting for our own individual betterment while we are here: to what extent should this be taken? Should we continue to drive SUVs which make our individual lives better while also harming the environment for future generations (just to use one example)?

Also, how can we be equated to cockroaches when we have art, music, film, theater, and they never will? Why don't our pets ever stop and watch and try to learn when we have the TV on? How does one explain our appreciation of the smell of cinnamon, our enjoyment of a sunny day, our laughter at Cosmo Kramer swimming the East River for exercise, or our grooving to a Hawkwind tribal beat? (yeah, these are some of my favorite personal examples).

Chemical reactions? Evolution? Can't be that, we only evolve what we need for survival, otherwise animals would have these too.

I'm genuinely curious how an atheist explains these things. I promise not to ridicule your answers!

Oh, I almost forgot an example everyone on this board can appreciate: a World Chess Championship match between Kasparov in his prime versus Fisher in his prime!

"Misinformed"?

Posted by ben daswani on August 18, 2008, 16:11:54, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Delta BC

I think the term for which you're looking is "retarded".

Some neo-conservatives are in favour of invading countries pre-emptively, and some aren't. Surprised? You'd also be interested to know that not all gay men wear skin-tight jean shorts and a percentage of African-Americans aren't drug dealers.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Kevin Pacey on August 17, 2008, 18:54:47, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Chess Master Ottawa Ontario

In light of what you wrote it's ironic that Einstein, like Newton and Galileo, was a scientist who believed in God. He alerted FDR to the danger of not joining the race for the bomb, which he feared the ungodly Nazi regime would get hold of first.

Then there are the aetheistic communist regimes that menaced the free world and greatly suppressed the personal freedoms of many during the Cold War and afterwards. Pope John Paul II was a key figure involved in the downfall of the USSR.

The state of Isreal is thought to possess a nuclear arsenal, but I do not expect its leaders to act irrationally in spite of their personal beliefs. I would hope that's even true to some extent with the USA today, if only because their main rivals also have nuclear arsenals.

Yet as Robert McNamara pointed out, the world lucked out during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Unknown to the Americans, there were already nuclear warheads in Cuba at the time. On top of that, Curtis E. Lemay (sp?), the General who lead the firebombing campaign against Japan in WWII, was advocating invading Cuba and 'winning' the ensuing nuclear showdown with the Russians. Let me ask you, do you think he was a man of faith?

Stupid post

Posted by ben daswani on August 18, 2008, 16:25:49, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Delta BC

"In light of what you wrote it's ironic that Einstein, like Newton and Galileo, was a scientist who believed in God."

Someone posted an equally foolish comment a few months ago on this message board. I will dispose of your notion as I disposed of hers.

Da Vinci was very intelligent but believed that the Earth was flat. What now? Einstein believed in God because he was alive decades ago when belief in God was more prevalent. Nowadays, 93% of members of the US National Academy of Sciences are atheists. Why? As a trend, intelligence and theistic belief are negatively correspondent.

Re: Stupid post

Posted by Just Wondering on August 18, 2008, 18:21:20, in reply to "Stupid post"
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

With Einstein, I thought it was because he was old. When a person gets old, it's good to cover all the bases.

Why do old people read the Bible so much?

Posted by ben daswani on August 18, 2008, 18:31:16, in reply to "Re: Stupid post"
Delta BC

They're cramming for the final.

Re: Why do old people read the Bible so much?

Posted by Just Wondering on August 18, 2008, 23:10:09, in reply to "Why do old people read the Bible so much?"
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

I never looked at it that way but have to admit I've noticed a lot of people find their religion when they get older. Maybe it's partly for the social aspect.

Get it now, just in case ...

Posted by Tom O'Donnell on August 19, 2008, 7:15:52, in reply to "Why do old people read the Bible so much?"
IM Ottawa Chess Coach

I once had a discussion with a Born Again person. I asked them about this scenario:

"I, an atheist, toss myself infront of a bullet and save the Pope's life. I die in doing so. The Pope goes on to bring world-wide peace and every person on Earth become True Believers and are Saved. Indirectly, I have played a part in Saving billions of people. The person who attempted the assassination is a hired killer who has executed dozens of people over the years. A real scumbag. On his deathbed he becomes a True Believer.

Is it true that I would go to Hell and he would go to Heaven?"

His answer was "yes".

God must be one arbitrary, egomaniacal f##khead if this is so.

Tom, word on the street is that you married.

Posted by ben daswani on August 19, 2008, 12:49:41, in reply to "Get it now, just in case ..."
Delta BC

A) Is this true? B) Is her name Amy?

Re: Tom, word on the street is that you married.

Posted by Tom O'Donnell on August 20, 2008, 18:57:38, in reply to "Tom, word on the street is that you married."
IM Ottawa Chess Coach

A) Yes.
B) No. Amy who?

Re: Tom, word on the street is that you married.

Posted by ben daswani on August 22, 2008, 15:58:55, in reply to "Tom, word on the street is that you married."
Delta BC

A) Right on! Congratulations.
B) So there's me and Amy, and we're all inseparable, right? Just big time in love. And then four months down the road, the idiot gear kicks in, and I ask about the ex-boyfriend. Which, as we all know, is a really dumb move. But, you know how it is - you don't wanna know, but you just have to, right? Stupid guy bullshit. So, anyway, she starts telling me about him - how they fell in love, and how they went out for a couple of years, and how they lived together, her mother likes me better, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah - and I'm okay. But then she drops the bomb on me, and the bomb is this: it seems that a couple of times, while they were going out, he brought some people to bed with them. Menage a tois I believe it's called. Now this just blows my mind, right. I mean, I am not used to this sort of thing. I mean, I was raised Catholic for God's sakes. So, I'm totally weirded out by this, right? And I just start blasting her. Like I don't know how to deal with what I'm feeling, so I figure the best way is by calling her a slut, right? And tell her she was used. I'm out for blood. I really wanna hurt this girl. I'm like, "What the #### is your problem?", right. And she's just all calmly trying to tell me like it was that time and it was that place and she doesn't think she should apologise because she doesn't feel that she's done anything wrong. I'm like, "Oh, really?" That's when I look her straight in the eye, I tell her it's over. I walk.

It was a mistake. I wasn't disgusted with her, I was afraid. At that moment, I felt small - like I'd lacked experience, like I'd never be on her level, like I'd never be enough for her or something like that, you know what I'm saying? But, what I did not get, she didn't care. She wasn't looking for that guy anymore. She was - she was looking for me, for the Bob. But by the time I figured this all out, it was too late, man. She moved on, and all I had to show for it was some foolish pride, which then gave way to regret. She was the girl. I know that now. But, I pushed her away. So I've spent every day since then chasing Amy. So to speak.

This should be a reply to Tom, of course.

Posted by ben daswani on August 22, 2008, 16:06:19, in reply to "Tom, word on the street is that you married."
Delta BC

Minimal text.

Holy crap, I fail at replying.

Posted by ben daswani on August 22, 2008, 16:14:51, in reply to "This should be a reply to Tom, of course."
Delta BC

A little more text.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 18, 2008, 2:10:28, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Seattle Washington

Just so it's clear, my denigration of Bush and his double standards doesn't mean I can be categorized as anti-neo-conservative or pro-neo-liberal or whatever other name you can think of.

In fact, if you want to pigeon-hole me politically, the party I support will be well known to those of you who remember Monty Python's Flying Circus.

That's right: the SILLY PARTY!

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Garland on August 17, 2008, 21:15:09, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Almonte ON R A Club Member

Back up for a second. I don't subscribe to the doctrine of the Bush administration. I acknowledge that there are areas throughout the world where the rights of people are abused and supressed, and we cannot go in with a blunt instrument like war without making things worse. I also don't believe that there is a utopian society where conflict will not exist, as long as we all subscribe to exactly the same belief system. People are not perfect, far from it.

What is morally right versus morally wrong has little to do with what happens in most politics.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 16, 2008, 21:42:44, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Seattle Washington

I got a great laugh seeing these two statements in the same argument:

"Just because nothing can ever reach the temperature of absolute zero, does not mean that absolute zero does not exist."

followed by

"A right to suppress the rights of others does not exist."

So the first thing can exist even if there is no known instance of it anywhere in the universe (which by the way, I agree that it can exist and did not state otherwise), whereas the second thing absolutely cannot exist even though we see instances of it in many countries on lil' old planet Earth. As I see Kevin Pacey pointed out, such a right is even practiced in our modern democracies, all in the name of the law, which is imposed on the many by the few. Most Canadians would say this is good and proper. Most North Koreans, to use one example, would have a very different opinion.

As I wrote, on and on it goes, ad finitum, ad nauseum....

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Garland on August 17, 2008, 21:40:55, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Almonte ON R A Club Member

Ok,let's start at one premise, and go from there. "Everyone has the right to life." Ergo killing others is moraly wrong. Can we agree on that one?

Fire away with the logical arguments.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 18, 2008, 1:15:50, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Seattle Washington

Garland, I can probably agree with you on most if not all of your moral beliefs. But whether I agree with them or not isn't the point of debate here. The point of debate, as I see it, is whether there really exist (not just in my opinion or your opinion) absolute rights that every human has. If there are, then every single instance where these rights are denied or abused MUST BE PUNISHED. Failure to punish the denial of these rights means the rights do not exist, because somebody is getting away with denying them.

I think we can both agree that a law is not a law unless it is enforced. As I see it, the same goes for rights.

But we can both see that there is no international court of last resort that punishes each and every denial of these rights. Nor has there ever been nor will there ever be. Is it any wonder that we have invented religions in which there is a deity that will exact punishment on all the violators on some shadowy "Judgement Day"? The irony in the God of the Bible's Old Testament was that he/it is portrayed as a loving God who chose one people that he loved above all others and was full of WRATH against all other peoples, who obviously must have trampled the rights of the chosen people. And then the New Testament comes along and says, "Oh, God really loves ALL of us and wants to forgive us all, but before he can do that, you have to repent. Otherwise he's going to toss you into a vat of fire FOREVER." That's right, folks, FOREVER. Think about that. FOREVER!!!!! You'll be screaming in agony, but you'll know for sure and forever that God is a loving God!!

Obviously I digress... to get to your example, everyone has a right to life and it is morally wrong to kill others. So let me ask YOU then: what do we do about the American decision in World War II to drop atomic bombs on not just one, but two, major Japanese cities? Killing hundreds of thousands of non-involved people who HAD A RIGHT TO LIFE?

They could have dropped said bombs somewhere in the Pacific just to demonstrate to Japan what they were in for if they didn't surrender, and if Japan fought on, THEN drop them ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. At least you then have the argument that you killed thousands of involved enemies.

Of course, some will bring up Pearl Harbor and say Japan got what they deserved blah blah blah. Well, maybe they did in terms of losing the war and the consequences that came from that. But to say that killing hundreds of thousands on non-involved citizens is compensation for the surprise, unwarranted killing of some of your own citizens is an argument that DENIES THE RIGHT TO LIFE! I did say violations must be punished, but I didn't say and I don't say by reciprocal violations.

America has yet to be punished for this violation of rights. And it never shall be punished. Therefore, I say the rights do not exist, as much as I may want them to.

(I could have also brought up the infamous, ongoing, forever and ever debate over the death penalty... but this was ample!)

Wrong

Posted by ben daswani on August 18, 2008, 17:37:06, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Delta BC

1. Clearly, you've spent little time studying Japanese society prior to WWII. The citizens were very much at fault for their nation's actions. The brutal military conquest for world power was the result of a Japanese grassroots movement. Cinema, music, advertising - every aspect of culture - became increasingly delusionally nationalistic and particularily Sinophobic throughout the first part of the twentieth century. This was not a result of the actions of those in power. Quite the opposite was true: Japan's foreign policy was pushed for by the masses. If ever there were a nation that deserved to be nuked, it was Japan in 1945.

2. If the United States government had waited even one day before engaging in nuclear warfare, it's feasible that at least one extra American life would have been lost. Therefore, nuking Japan was the correct move. From America's perspective, one American was worth more than every Japanese. The Japanese were the enemy. I would hope that if there were another global war and I was respresenting Canada, the policy-makers would be quick to kill an infinite number of the enemy to make me safer. For Christ's sake, it's war.

Re: Wrong

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 18, 2008, 23:03:12, in reply to "Wrong"
Seattle Washington

I have two responses to your first point:

1) I don't believe Truman and his cronies spent any time debating whether Japanese civilians "deserved" to be nuked. I don't think they discussed any "grassroots Japanese movement". Or Japanese cinema, music, advertising. Get real. Oh, and what about all those German citizens that were so pro-Hitler and anti-Jew? Why didn't we go the extra mile and nuke several hundred thousand of them? Who knows, maybe Truman considered it and then decided, well, they look too much like us Americans. But the Japanese, they look so different, nothing like us at all. Bombs away!

and

2) I can easily use your logic to claim that if ever there was a nation that deserved the destruction of the World Trade Center and the accompanying loss of thousands of lives by Muslim extremists, it would be the anti-Muslim USA. And by the fact that the America government has become even more anti-Muslim since then, worse yet is in store for untold thousands of uninvolved American citizens.

Your second point, and it's claim that one American life is worth more than every Japanese, is probably very close to the true logic that was used in the decision. And it is the existence of this very logic that I use to claim that there is no right to life. If war excuses the unpunished killing of even one person, there is no right to life.

Your subject says "Wrong" but I repeat my original claim:

There is no right or wrong. There is only opinion.

Re: Wrong

Posted by Larry Castle on August 19, 2008, 9:31:52, in reply to "Re: Wrong"

Paul
One reason that the US did not nuke the Germans is that the first test of a nuclear weapon did not take place untill July 1945. The war in Germany ended in May 1945.

Re: Wrong

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 20, 2008, 5:48:54, in reply to "Re: Wrong"
Seattle Washington

My question was rhetorical. They would have nuked the Japanese and not the Germans regardless of the timing. That's my opinion, and it could be wrong.

The real decision that was made was to bomb hundreds of thousands of civilians of a totally alien race of people. That really happened. And it will forever go unpunished. The single worst act against humanity ever, if one believes in the right to life.

And today, we have national leaders mentioning the first use of nuclear weapons as a possible measure somewhere in the world.

Bombings

Posted by Just Wondering on August 20, 2008, 12:26:55, in reply to "Re: Wrong"
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

I'm sure I don't know what you're babbling about. It must be the number of people who are killed with one bomb as opposed to the number that are killed by many bombs.

You know something, sonny? My uncle flew his missions on the bombers during WWII. If you don't think they killed civilians in Germany you're in denial. If you don't think the Nazis killed civilians in the nations they bombed, like England, or the Japanese killed American civilians you don't understand or maybe don't believe history.

The Americans ended the war the way they considered the most efficient. Only an American president who was an idiot would have "carried" the enemy a couple of more years and suffered hugh casualties while doing it. Had Japan gotten nuclear weapons while the Americans were fooling around with conventional warfare then the U.S.A. would have been on the receiving end.

Japan could have surrendered before the first bomb was dropped. They could have surrendered after the first bomb was dropped. They chose to surrender after the second bomb was dropped. They chose wrong.

Re: Bombings

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 20, 2008, 23:07:56, in reply to "Bombings"
Seattle Washington

I know that all sides killed civilians, and that this is nothing new throughout history. No argument there.

Where did I write that America should have carried the war for a few more years? I also did not write that they shouldn't have used the nukes.

In warfare, you use what you have, so again, no argument there. But if you were reading this thread, you would know what my point was. You can disagree with my opinion, but please don't attribute words to me that I didn't write.

Re: Wrong

Posted by ben daswani on August 19, 2008, 13:17:59, in reply to "Re: Wrong"
Delta BC

To compare to average citizen in 1945 Germany to the average citizen in 1945 Japan is outrageous. Firstly, the German people were tricked and forced into supporting the Nazi regime through revolutionary propaganda techniques and a special police force. That's far from a grassroots campaign. Secondly, Hitler had, what, 35% of the vote before burning the Reichstag and 45% after? That's hardly widespread support.

How did the average American deserve to suffer the 9/11 attacks? What has the typical American done to make life harder for Middle Easterners? Nothing. You can't say the same about the Japanese and Chinese in the 1930s. Anyway, Japan bombed the United States. They started a war. When, pre-9/11, did the United States bomb Afghanistan?

I agree that there is no right to life. One would have to be blind to assert otherwise. There are more then six billion people on this planet. Regarding personal freedom, one can not hope for more than a state of placid anarchy, not dissimilar to Canada currently.

Re: Wrong

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 20, 2008, 5:35:34, in reply to "Re: Wrong"
Seattle Washington

None of what you mention in your comparison of Japanese and German citizens in 1945 makes one of the two groups deserving of nuclear annihilation and the other not. Unless you are a racist, which if you are, you are hiding it behind the feeblest of arguments. Which is to say your arguments don't sound racist, but may be smokescreen for racism, because the differences you mention, even if true to an extreme degree, don't come within a light year of proving your carried-over point that the Japanese citizenry were deserving of a specific fate and their German counterparts can't be compared. If the specific fate weren't so horrific, you might have a semblance of a point. But it is the nature of the fate we are discussing that makes you out for... I can only think, a fool or a racist.

And I should add that those Japanese who were vaporized immediately were the lucky ones, we should all hope to die so instantaneously. It's the ones who lived on beyond the event, whether for mere hours or days, months, years, that one must consider when asking, how could Truman have done what he did? Why not drop the bombs in the ocean near enough to be seen and invoke fear, but far enough to avoid mass casualty and suffering? Surrender would still have been forthcoming. But by the logic of those who believe in a right to life, even those Japanese who died instantly were violated of their rights. And there has been no punishment to America since. Therefore no one actually has the right to life, and it is so highly ironic for Americans of all people to claim such a right.

Also, I do not say that anyone, American or otherwise, deserved dying in the World Trade Center. I was using your own logic to make that claim. It is a claim that YOU would make, except that you don't think Americans have done any wrong against Muslims. That is your opinion, but if you had the thinking you have used in this thread and we made you a Palestinian, you would celebrate the American deaths by dancing in the streets.

Re: Wrong

Posted by Kerry Liles on August 20, 2008, 12:31:27, in reply to "Re: Wrong"
Mississauga Ontario

FWIW, I am not sure the Japanese would have surrendered even if there had been a convincing demo of the nuclear bomb...

It seems to me that even after the obvious demo that was Hiroshima, they refused to believe it and that led to Nagasaki...

If you read the section in Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

it seems clear that the Japanese people as a whole may not have understood what happened to Hiroshima (after all, they didn't have YouTube) or CNN

Sadly, it took a second strike to make at least the leaders understand it was over. I have met some Japanese people who tell me there are older people who still don't understand why they capitulated!

Re: Wrong

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 20, 2008, 22:12:07, in reply to "Re: Wrong"
Seattle Washington

If a demo bomb off the shore of Japan didn't get the leaders to understand that it was over, THEN BOMB THE LEADERS.

Why mass deaths of non-involved civilians followed by decades of human suffering to get a surrender? The first rule of combat is to strike at the head, and a nuke at the head would have been an instant knockout.

Considering these decisions, any American claiming there is a right to life is a hypocrite -- keeping in mind, as always, there is no right or wrong, there is only opinion. Which if I'd wanted Wikipedia's opinion, I would have read it.

Re: Wrong

Posted by Kerry Liles on August 21, 2008, 0:12:14, in reply to "Re: Wrong"
Mississauga Ontario

Firstly, I don't think the Americans had planes with the range to reach Tokyo (which I am guessing is the 'head' of which you speak). Perhaps they *did* drop hints to the Japanese leadership that they were about to unleash a bomb with devastating effect: I can only imagine the howls of laughter...

I wasn't there, but I suspect the American command felt they had no choice and incorrectly assumed that once the Japanese saw the immense damage to Hiroshima they would instantly capitulate. Obviously that didn't happen.

I know Wikipedia can be a source of crap, but it often is a pretty decent summary.

As for Americans who claim there is a right to life, there aren't too many left who were alive at the time and who participated in the decision. They are the only ones who are accountable - not the entire population of the country.

None of my posts were intended to claim the Americans were justified in using nuclear weapons. I find U.S. foreign policy to be so self-centred and holier than though in any case... From my perspective, they should keep their stupid ideals to themselves and STFU about it all, and above all, quit meddling in the affairs of nearly every other country on the planet.

Do we agree?

Posted by ben daswani on August 22, 2008, 16:03:01, in reply to "Re: Wrong"
Delta BC

I think we do agree, except for the irony bit. For instance, let's say I think I have a right to life. I think all Canadians and those of nations which are allied with Canada have a right to life. I don't give a flying #### about others. Is this ironic? I don't see how it is.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Garland on August 18, 2008, 20:27:54, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Almonte ON R A Club Member

"I think we can both agree that a law is not a law unless it is enforced. As I see it, the same goes for rights."

Ok, here is where we begin to differ. I believe that the right to life is a moral right regardless of society's laws. Simply because some people in some places have successfully violated these rights do not make the acts morally acceptable. Might does not make right.

Let's discuss your example of the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan. You are probably right. It could have been avoided. The same goes for the bombing of Dresden. However at the time the people in those situations thought they were doing was was necessary to protect their own right to life. They thought that their actions would save lives in the long run. So it becomes a matter of judgement. If the bombs have not been dropped, how many would have died in a protracted invasion of Japan? Were they right or wrong? This is were the discussion lies. Not whether killing is wrong, but where the balance lies when you kill some persons to save others. This is the only reason I will accept to justify killing.

Regardless, I'll accept your premise that the bombings were morally wrong. Then you are right. Everyone involved from Truman to the navigator of the Enola Gay escaped punishment. How would that make the actions less wrong?

And no, I do not support the death penalty. Executing a criminal will not prevent the deaths of others.

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Kerry Liles on August 18, 2008, 21:48:38, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Mississauga Ontario

"Executing a criminal will not prevent the deaths of others."

Perhaps you presume that is true IF the criminal is permanently incarcerated. There are numerous examples of criminals who became repeat offenders... Recidivism is not being prevented in any real sense these days; execution would be a workable prevention technique...

I am not in favour of the death penalty either, but I most certainly want extreme criminals locked up forever [the classic definition of that word, not Corrections Canada's version]

Re: More bullshit

Posted by Paul Bonham on August 18, 2008, 23:25:56, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Seattle Washington

"Simply because some people in some places have successfully violated these rights do not make the acts morally acceptable."

To whom? Maybe not to you or me, but to the people in those places, it is indeed morally acceptable. Why? Because it goes unpunished. And that is my point in a nutshell.

Anyone can spew all they want about "moral rights" and "might does not make right". The nuking of Japan is one of history's starkest proofs that might does indeed make right.

Lucas Lucas Lucas.

Posted by Lucas Davies on August 12, 2008, 4:00:52, in reply to "Re: More bullshit"
Vancouver BC

Lucas is not particularly interested in foolish ramblings about human rights. It seems to Lucas that the only reason that Zeljko even started this foolishness was to START SHIT, which he clearly cannot finish. Seriously, what is this? Does anybody think that any country is perfect? What is expected to be accomplished by going "Oh, crazy stuff going down in China, BUT THERE ARE PROBLEMS ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD AS WELL"?

Ok, Zeljko, here is some more fire for your foolishness! Today I was downtown waiting for the bus. My plan was to get on at the second door. Other people, being individuals, were instead waiting where the back door would open. However, along comes a young "African American" wearing "gangsta" clothes. Oh, stereotypically, he wants to get on at the back of the bus! Big surprise, Canada! So, people start "bustling" towards the front doors instead. When the bus arrived, practically no one joined the lonely soul at the back door. WHAT IS THIS, CANADA? BLATANT RACISM. THE PROBLEMS IN CHINA NO LONGER MATTER WHEN WE ARE FACED WITH THINGS LIKE THIS. GODDAMN YOU.

Re: Lucas Lucas Lucas.

Posted by ben daswani on August 12, 2008, 18:33:53, in reply to "Lucas Lucas Lucas."
Delta BC

Was I the young African American?

Re: Lucas Lucas Lucas.

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 19:59:37, in reply to "Lucas Lucas Lucas."
Hamilton Ontario

Actually your right. What was I thinking. Very astute of you. Seriously.

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Jim Foster on August 11, 2008, 16:49:47, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "

I have read that article. No mention there of harm done to the feminist movement or any of its members, unless you count Rita McNeil being "flabbergasted" thirty years later. What the RCMP did back then can hardly be compared to McCarthyism. Put simply, the RCMP merely had a look around - McCarthy ruined people.

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Zeljko on August 11, 2008, 17:00:37, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "
Hamilton Ontario

A look around that lasted at least 5 years? Good one. How would you like a look around of

You still are studiously avoiding my question of who they are spying on today that we don't know about.

Thankfully we have a constitution that's a little more restraining of police powers than you are.

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Jim Foster on August 11, 2008, 18:25:00, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "

Yes, a look around. If it lasted five years then it was a long look around, but still just a look around.

If you want to argue that the RCMP aren't perfect then nobody will take the opposite side. Naturally there are examples of the RCMP and other police forces in Canada misusing their powers (though I don't think that this feminist spying thing is one of them). But you have claimed that you are "concerned about what kind of police state we really have". And the best you can do to support this outrageous claim is some RCMP operation which is 30 years old and did no harm to anyone.

Who are they spying on today? I don't know and I don't know why you asked. And I don't know how you can be thankful that we have a constitution that restrains police power and yet worry that Canada is some "kind of police state". In a police state, a constitution either doesn't exist or is nothing to be thankful for because the authorities ignore it.

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 0:13:11, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "
Hamilton Ontario

Sorry, the RCMP doesn't tell us who they are spying on today, so I don't know but you seem comfortable with the police doing whatever they feel like, so there's no sense arguing the point with you. You're probably the last person that feminism is a concern to it seems.

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Garland on August 12, 2008, 2:18:46, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "
Almonte ON R A Club Member

I prefer the term "surveillance" myself.

Let's clarify a couple of points here.

1) I think that the RCMP is perfectly within its mandate to monitor the activities of certain activist groups if there is a belief that said groups could cause physical harm to others. Perhaps you think that this is a ridiclous statement to make about feminist groups, but 35 years ago, this was not as certain. It was perfectly conceivable that individual members in these groups could commit acts of violence, like throw rocks at the "male facists" of that era.

2) Today the RCMP is possibly surveiling hundreds of muslims in Canada. If you want a reason why, simply follow the trial of those arrested for running a terrorist training camp.

3) Where are the reports of these feminists being arrested or interned without just cause? I never heard of such events happening, mainly because they never occurred. How were these other other persons harmed by the surveilence of the RCMP, if no action comes of it?

I personally am not afraid of "big brother". Why? Because our law enforcement system is one of checks and balances, where surveilence cannot occur without the written consent of others, and only if there is reasonable evidence of crimes being commited by those to be kept under surveilence.

PS: I do believe though, that the powers granted to law enforcement agencies immediately after 9/11 for the arrest of terrorists goes too far and the act should be revoked.

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content)

Posted by Zeljko on August 12, 2008, 9:20:30, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (no chess content) "

If people are going to throw rocks then you deal with it when they throw the rocks, you don't use the fact that they could throw rocks in the future to spy on them thus curtailing their rights.

Again I reject the police doing whatever they want based on whatever flimsy but technically plausible grounds they could give. On that basis they could come & search my house anytime they like day or night because I might have some rocks here that I could throw at someone tomorrow.

The trail of the muslims in Toronto is not yet concluded, so I won't commnent on it much, I will point out that it has yielded much less than orginally promised by the police & prosecution.

You are not afraid of 'big brother' for some very good reasons, all of which reasons were violated by past surveilance & who knows how they are being violated by current surveillance.

Let's not forget that CSIS was set up after a royal commission into the RCMP dirty tricks campaigns, we have a national 'civilian' agency because the RCMP were found to be too untrustworth & law violating to continue to be given that responsibility.

I've included a link below, its wikipedia but it will give you a brief overview of the RCMP's illegal activities which every Canadian should be on guard against.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_of_Inquiry_into_Certain_Activities_of_the_RCMP

Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (now has some chess content)

Posted by Joey K. on August 10, 2008, 15:41:50, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights Record (now has some chess content) "

"What makes you assume that I hate living in Canada? Or is that a knee jerk reaction for you to anyone that criticizes Canada's record?"

Talk about knee jerk reactions, look at your last rant after my posting of "except for...the Tibetan flag incident."

Zeljko, if I knew I'd get that much of a reaction out of my post, which was simply showing both sides of the coin at the opening ceremonies, I wouldn't have wasted it on so little.

Ken, I agree with you fully and take Canada's "problems" ANYDAY over the problems of any other country.

You won't find perfection on earth, Zeljko.

Enough said,

J.K

Re: Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content)

Posted by Just Wondering on August 9, 2008, 19:55:17, in reply to "Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content) "
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

The door swings both ways. I hope it doesn't hit someone in the butt as they flee the injustices in Canada.

The U.S., which you mentioned, came in WWII late and only after they were attacked by Japan.

Bet you also deplore the prison camps in Canada where German prisoners were brought. Probably you didn't know about that. The prisoners were treated so badly many wanted to stay after the war.

Won't be much sympathy from us who were kids during WWII and our family were overseas trying to free the occupied countries. The vote seeking politicians can make all the apologies they want. To us whatever it took was OK.

Re: Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content)

Posted by Zeljko on August 9, 2008, 20:01:37, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content) "
Hamilton Ontario

Nazi prisoners of war sent to POW camps in Canada is another thing entirely.

Ironically the Japanese that were in Hawaii which as you point out was the attack that brought the US into the war, we're never interned.

It was the Canadian government in their wisdom that decided that all the Japanese Canadians on the west coast were all a threat, including women & children & so they should be interned & naturally that meant confiscating their property & not returning it after the war, a necessary measure of course, its very logical, we deem you a threat & then we take your property forever, as if your property is some kind of threat?

By the way I missed the invasion of Canada that justified all of this.

Re: Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content)

Posted by Just Wondering on August 9, 2008, 20:11:12, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content) "
Chess by Mail Scarboro ON

The reason you missed the invasion of Canada is because our government and our military made sure it didn't happen.

Re: Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content)

Posted by Kerry Liles on August 9, 2008, 20:14:04, in reply to "Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content) "
Mississauga Ontario

There is no comparison between our treatment of people (citizens and non-citizens alike) and that of China. I did not (and would not) say we are blameless in the past or now, but there is a whole hell of a gigantic difference in the two.

WE don't pretend; we actually are attempting to correct some problems; obviously we cannot correct everything immediately and sometimes[maybe always?] we don't do enough, but China is a whole different situation where they don't even acknowledge there is a "problem"...

Hell, we have the Prime Minister apologizing for events that took place before he (or you or I) was born and the recipients of the apology complain that it isn't genuine!!

Re: Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content)

Posted by Duncan Smith on August 9, 2008, 20:46:31, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content) "
Willowdale ON

I didn't realize Hamilton was such a difficult placed to live until I read his posts. Maybe the air pollution might rival China's but only on a really, really bad day ?

The solution of course just jumps out at me, send our concerned citizen to China to become a naturalized citizen. Wait, would the police state allow him in ? I heard unions are not allowed by law in China, in some cases jail time might result. How could be post his concerns about the government there ? So many questions, maybe a roving ambassador/critic of Canada might be a good fit in China. Report back in ten years we can all learn something from his efforts.

Kill two birds with one stone so to speak unless the birds get bird flu first.

Sorry Duncan

Posted by Zeljko on August 10, 2008, 1:17:52, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content) "
Hamilton Ontario

Sorry Duncan I didn't realize that if you criticize something you are automatically excluded from it, so on that basis you should have been banned from any involvement with youth chess in Canada, given that you criticize it enormously.

Its nice for you in your house to type on your nice computer that things in Hamilton are great. It doesn't matter to you that there are homeless people here, what do you care. It doesn't matter to you that there are children going to school hungry here, you just stay in your nice house & type on your nice computer.

I was born in 1966

Posted by Zeljko on August 10, 2008, 1:14:04, in reply to "Re: Canada's Human Rights record (no chess content) "
Hamilton Ontario

I was born in 1966 and the residential schools were in operation until the early 70's, so I don't know about you but this wasn't all before I was born.

Our government is great at doing studies & not doing anything about helping people, it all amounts to the same thing, the people whose rights are being trampled aren't getting the help we deserve. Its fine to say we acknowledge the problem, we are studying the problem but if you aren't doing anything about it, who cares.

Hypocracy

Posted by Zeljko on August 10, 2008, 1:27:06, in reply to "I was born in 1966"
Hamilton Ontario

Also if we as Canadians are to disregard things that happened before we were born, then why do we take pride in the following things all of which happened before many of us were born.

1. Vimy Ridge
2. Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone
3. War of 1812
4. Dr Bethune in China
5. Laura Secord
6. Pioneer settlement of Canada
7. Past Canadian Olympic medals.

You can't have it both ways, proud of events in Canadian history but distancing yourself from other unpleasant events that happened in the past.

« Back to index

[ ChessTalk Message Board ]

Your source for chess books & equipment with shops in:

Toronto (416) 486-3395

Ottawa (613) 565-3662

Montreal (514) 845-8352

TORONTO: Chess'n Math, 701 Mt Pleasant Rd., Toronto (416) 486-3395. Monday - Friday 11 a.m. - 6 p.m., Saturday from 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. and Sunday Noon - 5 p.m.

OTTAWA: 250 Bank Street (near Somerset). Monday-Friday 10:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., Saturday 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. and Sunday from noon - 5 p.m.