Aardvark

It is not the US government selling anything. A British company owns those ports and it is selling them to a company based in the Dubai. There is no reason to believe that this would in anyway compromise any security. Dubai Ports World is a highly reputable company. In addition the UAE is considered to be a moderate friendly pro Western government. There are serious enough problems with the rise of extremist elements within Islam. To leap to atavistic conclusions that Arabs are not trustworthy enough to do business with will only worsen those problems. To call dealing with Dubai Ports World 'absolutely outrageous and very dumb.' Sounds like an absolutely outrageous and very dumb reaction. Friendly moderate Arab Muslims are exactly the sort of people the West shouild be looking to work with.

Great cities are not made by governments, they are made by people choosing to live and work in a place. If enough people choose to make a living in New Orleans, despite the obvious drawbacks, then it will become a great city again. Otherwise it will naturally dwindle. Governments should assist with emergency relief but when it comes to building up an entire city it shouldn't even be considered as to whether government gets a say in the matter. If New Orleans is in a rational place for a city it will be rebuilt regardless of government involvement, if it isn't, then it will dwindle, equally regardless of government involvement. The only question is whether large amounts of money are going to be funneled into politically connected contracters in the interim.

I'm not sure about that. Cloning could potentially have deeper moral consequences than pornography. Cloning raises questions about identity and family structure and relationships. Those are deep areas. Even wicked old capitalists have more measures of the public good than just money, that is a bit over simplisitic.

Agreed. Agreed Agreed. Gosh, this isn't too good, we're begining to run out of things to argue about:eek: Ah ha, a point we can find room to disagree upon, excellent! Well, only partly. I don't think that capital punishment in the West is a good thing, but i think that reserving capital punishment for crimes such as child murder is self evidently more civilised (or less barbaric) than using capital punishment for crimes such as sexual promiscuity or apostasy. When a nation hangs a teenage girl for the crime of having sex before marriage it strikes me as clear evidence that that nation is less morally developed, to be frank, it is an inferior civilisation not worthy of the same respect as other civilisations. I acknowledge that this is a dangerous area, that mores and values vary but i do not accept the moral relativism that judges all cultures as automatically deserving equal respect. I do not deny that nations right to impose its own laws, but i reserve the right to consider that nation to be backward and morally and culturally inferior in contrast with other nations and cultures. Oh dear, another point of agreement. I think that there is a difference here in both degree and in principle. In terms of degree, the Nazi actions are simply incomparable to anything that has or does happen in the USA. In terms of principle, both systems work on a legal basis, but the US legal system is dedicated to a concept of Justice. It makes a conscious effort to apply judgements and punishments according to a commitment to upholding a system of justice. The Nazi legal system was not based on any concept of justice, it was based on furthering the perceived interests of the state. There is a fundemental difference in principle between a legal system based on a code of justice and a legal system based on state expedience. Not quite, my argument is that if they grow up and become civilised them that will mean they will kill fewer people. As it happens, i don't approve of capital punishment, but i can see a reasonable moral argument for it in the context of a legal system that only very carefully applies it as the ultimate sanction, not as a means of social and political control. Well' date=' when you come to nick a country it's good to make a bit of an effort to make the occasion special, i think the natives appreciate it. Different legal systems can have different justifications. Therefore one legal system could be considered morally invalid and another legal system to be morally valid. Legality itself does not automatically make an action correct. When it is unjust. To judicially kill a fairly convicted murderer is an execution. To deliberately kill an innocent person would be murder, regardless of the legal justification. Atrocity is an emotive word, but i think it would normally apply when a defenceless group is being subjected to systematic and unjust lethal attack. If the legal system is attempting to uphold a concept of justice then it is a tragedy. If the legal system is operating on notions other than justice, such as intimidation or social control, then it is murder. Personally, the answer is one. But i can see reasonable people having other viewpoints on utilitarian moral grounds, for instance weighing the number of innocent lives believed saved by the existence of capital punishment versus those killed by it. The USA does have women in combat roles now. Gender equality apparently, personally i think that is wrong, but that's another argument. Agreed. (although examples such as Hitler would stretch my commitment to my principles) It was a discourtesy to reprint the cartoons, but it should be remembered that they wouldn't have been reprinted except for the reaction of the Muslims in the first place. If they had kept their protests peaceful then they would not have been reprinted. They were only reprinted as an act of defience to death threats. Yes. You're on the ball there. in order to establish themselves a self styled Mullah needs a high profile and rabble rousing and deliberately working up an artifical crisis is one way to do it.

Encore! I nominate you for cultural ambassador of and special advisor to the Muslim world. With that approach maybe the blue corner will start making some progress.

Here's the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4687996.stm and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601571.html for some of the lovely slogans such as 'Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust' and 'Butcher those who mock Islam'. All brought to us by the marchers in London. (i particularly like the insinuation that the holocaust wasn't 'real', do you think they are friends of David Irving?, perhaps we could extradit them to Austria, or would that be too ironic?)

I prefer to think of it as... 'THE CHICKENS REVENGE FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE' I bet you never knew quite how vindictive chickens are did you?

Well, 'continous, paranoid, pyschotic outbursts of belligerent rage' seemed a little undiplomatic.

Possibly the judicary is too liberal now. In time it may swing in a too conservative direction. My concern isn't so much whether it is liberal or conservative but that law should, in effect, be made by an unaccoutable body. If a right to privacy is considered a positive thing then it should be legislated by a democratically elected body. Not 'discovered' on the whim of an unelected body. True, i'm not condemning the judicary, simply pointing out that i can't seem any particular reason to believe it is a particularly reliable branch of government to be entrusted with the belief that it will act as a defender of minorities and the weak. Being an expert on the law doesn't give the judicary the mandate to write new laws, that is a quite different thing, yet they have, de facto, abrogated that right. Certainly, it would be nice to think that they are neutral arbiters of the law, free from political pressure, but in practice courts can show bias and they are no longer simply arbitrating the law but writing new law. I trust scientists to understand science and i trust lawyers to understand law. But that doesn't extend to lawyers making law. It would be good to see an amendment passed by a democratic body rather than 'discovered' by an unelected one. Why would that be wrong? It would be illegal, but wrong? My basic point is that in a democracy laws should be made and changed by the representatives of the people while the judicary interperate and uphold those laws. Instead, it appears that the judicary has redefined its role to making law. That can not be good for democracy. When an issue such as whether abortion should be allowed comes down to an argument over the interpretation of a document that doesn't even mention the matter it can only detract from the real arguments about the morality of the matter. Such an issue should be decided, on its merits, through open discussion and democractic vote. Not lawsuits.

Perhaps they could try to win the debate by demonstrating the superiority of their beliefs through living decent moral lives, building solid communities, providing an example for others to follow. Or they could resort to wild threats and occasional outbursts of violent brutality.

I'm not quite sure why you are suddenly asking me to defend US foriegn policy since this is a debate about Muslims trying to impose their views on Denmark (when was the last time Denmark attacked anywhere?) Yes, the USA has invaded Iraq. If you think that is wrong then how does that make it right for Muslims to impose Islamic laws on Denmark? There is no logical connection there. Anyway, in Iraq the Americans are not imposing their beliefs and outlawing Islamic expression. The Iraqis have just voted in a free election for Islamic candidates, remember? The US is demostating tolerance for those with different opinions and points of view, even those which it finds offensive. If the USA was forbidding people to practice their religion or to express their opinions then yes, it would be in the wrong and should be resisted. But it isn't. The preamble for the new Iraqi constitution (written by the Iraqi assembly, not Americans) even explicitly recognises the Muslim nature of the Iraqi state. What political, world view imposition from USA there?

Almost nothing is absolutely 'necessary'. But living without any luxuries like my computer, central heating, holidays etc isn't a price i or i think most people would be prepared to pay to build some new research laboraties, esp as it would result in the destruction in the economy and as such probably retard science. I think that is unlikely. Most people would not be suitable to work in researching new technologies, it requires a certain type of person. Sticking everyone in research labs probably wouldn't actually advance science that much. I think that is a bit simplistic, money does not automatically equate to science. The problem isn't lack of money. Money is simply a means of allocating resources. The problem is that resources are finite. Therefore money enables limited resources to be used efficently, money does not inhibit the development, it facilitates it.

I wouldn't actually characterise a belief in the need for tolerance of free speech as the basis of a functioning civil society as a religious belief. However, if you force me i would state that my 'religion' is superior to theirs. It is not a case of two equal but contradictory abritary opinions. It is a matter of one group trying to impose its ideas on another by force. That is wrong and should be resisted. The Muslims are attempting to impose there beliefs on to others. They have no right to do so and are wrong. They are entitled to their beliefs, they are not entitled to impose them upon me.

My instincts tell me that food that undergoes such processes must by definition be unhealthy. Having trusted my instincts i can also use my reason and consider the hormones and steriods fed to cattle. I can also consider the saturated fat content of the burgers. On an another level i also find that i don't like the bland overprocessed taste much anyway. It reminds me of baby food. Looks to me like my irrational instincts are worth listening too. Excellent film!

Fine, no one here has condemned all Muslims everywhere. The problem is the growing strength of Muslim violent bigotry and fanaticism that is increasingly influential and powerful within Islam. Islam has a major problem and that effects everyone else as well. It needs to be openly acknowledged and confronted, it is more than just the actions of a few unrepresentative Muslims, these attitudes are gaining wide and deep currency in the Muslim world. For proof just listen to the comments of such people as the foreign minister of Syria.

Thank you for the link, it's very informative. It does however, confirm me in my opinion. A lot of the so called constitutional 'rights' are rights that are not in the constitution and have been, in effect, invented by courts. That means that courts are making laws which is not their correct function and ia an abrogation of the rights of the elected branchs of government. You're right that democracy can lead to bad outcomes but on the whole i'd prefer to rely on democractic argument than on an unaccoutable court. Other countries don't have Wade vs Roe, just look at Canada. Would it really be so bad without it? Just check any of his recent posts. A troll who just likes confusing and obfusticating for the sake of it.

Bettina pointed out the fact that extremist Muslims openly and explictly condon and carry out violent acts, justifying them with reference to their religion. There entire world view is one of confrontation and violence. What analogy can be made of that by pointing out that some 'white people' have also done bad things? At most it seems to be that you can't criticise Muslim bigotry because some people who aren't Muslims have been bigots. If that is the point it is a complete abdication of reason and moral responsibility. Or maybe it was just a cheap jibe at white people (or americans, whichever group he decides)?

No. This isn't about America. That would have made your point simply incomphensible.

The industrial process that the food goes through. Each burger contains meat from hundreds of different animals. The meat includes all the bits of the animal that are not normally considered edible. Perhaps if burgers were renamed 'mashed up a***hole and eyelid patties' they wouldn't seem so appettizing?