Tnt says:
================
So what do you think anyone should do about Syria?
======================

Anyone? Well for starters, let's see if there's anything that needs
doing.

Before anything is done, ask "For what problem is this a solution?" And
even if you think you've got an answer to that question, stop and ask
another: "Why is this a problem?" Finally, before you take the next
step: "What evidence do we have that this is a problem?"

Finally, be sure the right people are asking these questions. I'd say
these questions belong in a global forum.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tnt says:
================
So what do you think anyone should do about Syria?
======================

Anyone? Well for starters, let's see if there's anything that needs
doing.

Before anything is done, ask "For what problem is this a solution?"
And
even if you think you've got an answer to that question, stop and ask
another: "Why is this a problem?" Finally, before you take the next
step: "What evidence do we have that this is a problem?"

Finally, be sure the right people are asking these questions. I'd say
these questions belong in a global forum.

frtzw906

This is a start of at a global forum, and before anything happened, and
before all the prognosticators started up their prognostification
machines, I wanted to start asking questions. See if I could get some
commitment to principles at least. The "anything and anyone part" is
still open for sure. The "For what problem is this a solution?"
question is one of the possible "anythings." What are the answers that
you have to your own questions? Since you in Canada and Europe do not
have your eyes blinded by the light of your own super power brightness
and importance like us in USA. Do you see the bombing in Lebanon as a
problem, a symptom of a problem, anything to do with Syria? Maybe just
a gas line blew up, and we should all go home? Who are the right people
to be asking and answering these questions? Certainly not us on this
forum, but then who? We can ask, but our answers may be a bit short and
uninformed! TnT

On 18-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

What I said was,

[...]

Most of what you say in this post is perfectly reasonable.
It represents what many mainstream religions practice
(See previous post by me to Weiser about the RC support
of science vs faith).

Science is about the physical universe; faith, about the
spiritual world. They are independent in that one cannot
prove anything about the spiritual world with experiments
in the physical world. Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists
of many persuasions can't deal with this.

Mike

On 17-Feb-2005, Lynn Tegrity wrote:

The Kyoto treaty is
an example of the world trying to stop our technological growth and our
strong economy.

The Kyoto Accord is an example of people trying to get other people
to take some responsibility for their actions.

Mike

On 17-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Is there any conceivable reason that you would
change your mind about God, Christianity, etc. In other words is your
mind closed, or open to the possibility that there is a God, and what
is your basis for coming to this conclusion. In particular, I would
like to know your personal scientific experience in coming to your
conclusions.

You misinterpret my statements. I agree with your statements
to the effect that the physical world and the spiritual world
are separate. We can neither prove nor disprove the existance of
God - hence I am an agnostic. Note that agnosticism is not the
same thing as atheism.

As far as Christianity goes - I was raised a Christian but cannot
justify what I see going on around me in the name of Christ (or God).
I also cannot see why any one religion (or creation myth) should
be any more believable than any other. My opposition to religion
does not affect my personal beliefs. If there was a religion that
was reasonable and honest, I might find it possible to follow their
teachings.

Mike

Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is
"the truth."

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.


Read Dawkins "the blind Watch Maker"

Anyway anyone who has read "The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy" will
know that the white mice run the world as a great big organic experiment
--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

Michael Daly wrote:
On 18-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

What I said was,

[...]

Most of what you say in this post is perfectly reasonable.
It represents what many mainstream religions practice
(See previous post by me to Weiser about the RC support
of science vs faith).

Science is about the physical universe; faith, about the
spiritual world. They are independent in that one cannot
prove anything about the spiritual world with experiments
in the physical world. Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists
of many persuasions can't deal with this.

Mike

Fortunately, I am not of the "many persuasions", unfortunately for them
as some of them have found found out. If you think I have been a pain
in your rear, try being them when I have them in my signts! Hehehe! Now
that can be fun! TnT

Michael Daly wrote:
On 17-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Is there any conceivable reason that you would
change your mind about God, Christianity, etc. In other words is
your
mind closed, or open to the possibility that there is a God, and
what
is your basis for coming to this conclusion. In particular, I would
like to know your personal scientific experience in coming to your
conclusions.

You misinterpret my statements. I agree with your statements
to the effect that the physical world and the spiritual world
are separate. We can neither prove nor disprove the existance of
God - hence I am an agnostic. Note that agnosticism is not the
same thing as atheism.

As far as Christianity goes - I was raised a Christian but cannot
justify what I see going on around me in the name of Christ (or God).
I also cannot see why any one religion (or creation myth) should
be any more believable than any other. My opposition to religion
does not affect my personal beliefs. If there was a religion that
was reasonable and honest, I might find it possible to follow their
teachings.

Mike

Thanks for your candid espression of a very personal subject, I will
look forward to further discussions. TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The theory of evolution is that all organisms evolve continuously

YOu keep tossing around this "theory of evolution" as if it is a
single definition of a single law of science. Could you please
post a reference to such a definition and also a reference that
clearly demonstrates that such definition is the only one that
is widely accepted by the scientific community.

Do you have an alternate theory?

One of the standard techniques of the anti-science crowd is to
construct a strawman version of a supposed theory and then
attack that. They often ignore or misunderstand the real
science that is understood and practiced by scientists.
(This from a study by a York University professor - I
can dig up his name and possibly the publication of the
study if you're desperately in need of satisfaction.)

I stand by my original post.

Which simply dismisses intelligent design while touting evolution without
explaining your version of evolution and without a rational analysis of my
question as to why sharks are still sharks 400 million years down the
evolutionary line.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I never suggested that I did.

On the contrary - you keep insisting that Americans are free because
of their constitution and that everyone else is a slave.

No, Americans are free because they have the right to keep and bear arms,
not because of the Constitution.

In fact,
the constitution does not guarantee freedom. it only provides for
it as long as there are enough people to defend it.

Precisely correct, which is why the Framers were careful to limit the power
of government to disarm the people, in order that the people would always
have in their possession the arms needed to overthrow a tyrant, should one
arise.

People change.

True, but rights don't.

There used to be widespread support for kings and queens and people
fought to the death to defend them. Now some defend constitutions.
American is not the first example of democracy - democracy has been
known to disappear in the past.

Indeed. Democracy is a very bad thing in its pure form, which is why it
tends to disappear. Our unique addition is the representative system and the
system of checks and balances, along with a resolve to ensure that all
citizens be sufficiently armed so as to dissuade the disappearance of our
system.


It proves that you are slaves to those who do have guns.

We are not slaves to anyone and we have a constitution that protects
us as much as yours.

As you so aptly said just above, "democracy has been known to disappear in
the past." The question is not whether you have a constitution, it's whether
you have the physical power to enforce the protection of your rights offered
by a constitution. If you don't have that power because you have allowed
your government to take away your fundamental human right to keep and bear
arms, and you have allowed the government to control, restrict and deny you
arms, then you have no power whatsoever other than that which your
government allows you to exercise. Unlike the US, your government does not
require (though it may, for a time agree to) the consent of the governed.
All it takes is one demogog or a corrupt military and you'll be living under
a military junta just like Burma or any other banana republic because you do
not have the arms required to overthrow a tyrant and retake your nation.
That is a simple fact that applies to every single nation on the planet that
denies its citizens arms...for whatever purportedly altruistic reason.

The pen is mightier than the sword and always
has been.

It's only mightier than the sword when there are sufficiency of swords
available to defend the ability of the pen to write. Absent that protection,
the pen just gets driven into your ear canal with a mallet and your body is
dumped into a mass grave along with the rest of the
"counter-revolutionaries." Just ask the Cambodians.

If you don't seize and vigorously defend and exercise your human right to
keep and bear arms, you are a slave to those who do have arms. There is no
doubt whatever about it.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser