Aardvark

Interesting article. I think a historical analogy might be pertinent. The Spanish Empire declined at the same time as it was receiving floods of silver from its South American colonies. Nations which depend for their wealth predominately on primary resource extraction become in effect 'windfall' societies. Wealth is not created by innovation or trade. Instead it is produced in a manner which is basically a zero sum game where the procedes are divided up amongst the strongest. The strongest group forces control of the natural assets. A political system of force and client groups develops rather than one based on law and property rights. So, the Wests addicition to oil automatically results in the transfer of large funds to societies whose very basis is one of despotic cronyism. Not only that, but the West then finds itself in the position of having to prop up and support those sick societies to ensure the continous flow of that oil. For a clear example of the corrupting effect of oil look at North Africa. Tunisia has no significant oil. As a response it is forced to work hard to develop. That has resulted in a relatively clean and incorrupt political system with respect for property rights and the rule of law. Libya and Algeria, Tunisias neighbours, have significant oil reserves. This has resulted in strife as internal conflict has taken place over the control of these resources. Ironically, it can be clearly seen that the oil has been a curse to those nations whilst Tunisia is a happier more peaceful and prosperous country due to its lack of oil. The sooner the West breaks it addiction to oil the better for all the people living in despotic oil producing states as well as for the West itself.

Sorry, being a little over defensive there. Glad to help with the info.

It's all public information. I checked CNN the BBC and then confirmed the details at the Israeli ministry of Foreign affairs website. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern%20History/Historic%20Events/Results%20of%20Elections%20to%20the%2016th%20Knesset%20-%20Jan%2028- As we are looking at clear objective facts it is not possible to accuse the sources of bias.

On a point of fact your are incorrect. Israels electoral system works by proportional representantion. Each party is represented in the Knesset to the exact degree of the support recieved in the general election. It is impossible for Likud, or any other party, to be overrepresented. To state that other parties are not significantly represented is also wrong. Likud has 38 seats out of a total of 120 seats in the Knesset. Other parties have 82 seats. To state that 82 seats out of 120 means that 'there is not significant representation of the other parties' is simply wrong. To recap. Likud is not over represented and other parties are significantly represented.

What makes you think that early people didn't breed to their 'max capacity'? It is highly probable that they did breed to their 'max capacity'. With no knowledge of birth control and very high infant mortality rates not to breed to 'max capacity' would likely result in a groups extinction.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. If you check the facts rather than rely on those lovely assumptions you will find out that Israel does have a habit of 'simply kick (sic) Palestinians out of their homes'. Israel has a clear track record of taking land owned/occupied by Palestinians for its own purposes. It takes agricultural land and houses as and when it feels justified in doing so, regardless of the opinions of 'pr' concerns. So according to you WW2 is not a historic event. WW1 is not part of history. Actually, according to convention, events that took place more than 20 years ago can be considered historic. When i am refering to events such as the Balfour declaration in 1917 the word 'historic' is clearly applicable. Perhaps you should give some reason for your disagreement. As it is clearly apparent that more Israelis does in fact mean that Israel would be stronger. More Israelis mean a larger economy' date=' more taxes, more soldiers, more scientists, more brains. A nation is made up of its people. 'Peace process'. Nice words. But words aren't good enough. It's facts on the ground which determine reality. The only reason that a 'peace process' is in existence at all is because the Israelis were able to fend off repeated attacks with brute force. If it wasn't for the military strength of Israel there would be no peace process. Peace can only come through security and that means guns. 'Incredibly detached from reality'? Perhaps you should watch the news or read a newspaper or current affairs magazine at some point. Ever heard of Iran? It's got a highly active nuclear programme. Europe, the USA, Russia, the UN, they are all worried that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But you know better? So you're agreeing with me. Israel does want to find other ways to secure its existence other than purely relying on nuclear deterence. Ergo' date=' its settlements policy. Actually, if you check my posts you will find that my points have been supported by reason and fact. Your statement that Israel did not need to take any additional action to safeguard its security as it could solely rely on its nuclear deterent was a clear implication that in certain circumstances Israel would use those weapons. Your logic that therefore Israel did not need to make any other safeguards would leave Israel with nuclear war as its one and only option for defence. An insane position.

True. Big business can also like this regulations because they can act as a barrier to entry for new, smaller companies trying to set up in competition.

That wouldn't be an ice age even if it did happen. It would simply be some regional cooling. An ice age would be a global decrease in temperature. And the science behind that silly film seems overly speculative at best.

It sounds like you've been watching to many movies.

Because there is more than one breeding strategy. Some species have many offspring, each of which is individually less developed. Some species have fewer offspring, each off which is more highly developed. It is a trade off. Invest a lot in a small number of off spring, or go for quantity over quality. In the case of humans going for quality rather than quantity has been the winning strategy. Yes, we do evolve for 'reproductive purposes'. Evolution doesn't care about our 'quality of life' it only cares about propogation of DNA.

Coral Rhedd, Cadmus gave me a interesting reply to my question concerning the methodology of ending this womans life/existence. He agreed that once you have decided on the logic of killing her then the exact method is not an issue (i paraphrase, apologises to Cadmus if i have mistaken his position at all). But, he also pointed out the difference between so called 'Passive' euthanasia and 'active' euthanasia. This is part of the distinction i am trying to understand and highlight. It seems that many people are more comfortable with an act of euthanasia when it seems to be cleaner and tidier, for example, pulling out a tube. And the term 'passive' euthanasia seems to be another example of 'distancing' for the consequenses of the act. I doubt public opinion would be nearly as strong in support of ending this life if that entailed more than pulling a tube. Even if it meant smothering with a pillow or a lethal injection i think public support would drop sharply. In matters of this import i think it is necessary to be absolutely honest with ourselves. If we think it is best that someone should die, perhaps because for all intents and purposes they are not meaningfully alive in our opinions, then we have to recognise that by our actions we are actively ending that life. That their is no difference between 'passive' euthanasia, pulling a tube, or smothering with a pillow or cutting a throat. It is the same. If we can understand and accept that then we can make the decision honestly and clearly, not clouded in a fog of sentiement and euphamisms. Please note that i am not arguing against the ending of this ladies life. I am arguing for clarity in understanding the implications of the decison.

It does seem sometimes like governments are there to prevent people doing sensible things. You can pretty much guarantee that a government will always come down on the side against common sense. Lots of very good reasons to take the stupid choices. And i think the UK government is on weak legal ground here as electric cars aren't taxed on their 'fuel' and the law simply states what levels of duty apply to petrol, it never mentins cooking oil. For a society supposedly based on law it appears that government fiat is still very powerful.

Stating that my asking a question 'pisses people off' is a pretty ignorant and unintellectual rsponse. If people are pissed of by my simply asking questions then tough luck. I repeat' date=' if you are pissed off by my asking a question, then, boo hoo. The matter under discussion was the motives of Israel in expanding settlements. If you had bothered to read my post before making a knee jerk response you will have seen that i clearly stated that Israels actions could be criticised on moral grounds.

If you had bothered to read my post you will see that i specifically address how expanding settlements could increase Israels security. Just to repeat, 'Presumably more land under Israels control means more taxes, more economic activity and most importantly, more Israelis. Israel is a small country. The more land and the higher the population the stronger and deeper rooted it will be. The action of taking that land will also displace and weaken the Palestinians who are the historic enemies of Israel. Therefore it is apparent that increasing settlements is a means of securing Israels long term security.' Quite clearly that is an address of the matter of how these settlements could add to Israels security. Please read and try and understand peoples posts before commenting on them. Otherwise you are left looking stupid. Especialy when you repeat the mistake.

Bill O'Leary, official spokesman of Customs and Excise (The Taxman) stated that 'It’s a serious offence,By law, all cars on public roads must pay a tax on the fuel they use. Evasion carries a maximum seven-year jail term.' Tax officials have formed a special investigative unit to 'sniff out' drivers using cooking oil as the exhaust smells like a fish and chip shop. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,807299,00.html I love my government.

When a number of drivers in Britain converted their cars to run on olive oil they were arrested and charged with the offence of evading pertol tax. Seriously, they were convicted.

If you wish me to rephrase the question i shall do so. If ending her life by removing her tube is the correct action, would ending her life by another, less aesthically acceptable method, such as cutting her throat, be similiarly correct? That's not going to happen. Kindly limit your critisicms to what i have actually written. The reason i am asking this question is to highlight the reality of the choices available. It is to strip away comforting euphurmisms which enable people shy away from the truth of their actions. It is clear that pulling a tube is clean and easy. My question is attempting to uncover whether that is a factor in peoples postions on this matter. Are people more likely to support ending this life because it will be done in a way that seems so tidy and easy? Are people allowing their views on this matter to be distorted by sentiment. With matters of this import, i believe we have a duty to be brutally honest with ourselves about why we should take certain actions. Perhaps you would care to answer my rephrased question if it is not too 'highly loaded' for you?

Firstly, i haven't made any objections. Secondly, if you are willing to recognise the reality of the situation then perhaps you could actually answer my question rather that evading it?

Actually, it is important. For moral decisions to be based on aesthetics is seriously wrong. It seems that the decision on whether to end her life is largely based on the fact that simply removing a tube is clean and easy. If the only way to end her life was messy then it strikes me that a lot of the support for this action would immediately fade away. Taking life and death decisions on the basis of squeamishness is a matter of sentimentality, not morality.

No. I'm simply looking at the reasons that Israel is taking certain actions. Read my entire post before commenting on it. If you can be bothered to do that you will see that i quite clearly state that Israels actions can be criticsed on moral grounds. I'm perfectly aware that these settlements infuriate the Palestinians. If you had bothered to read my post you will see that i state that the result of these settlements is to weaken the Palestinians. If you response to posts without actually bothering to read or understand them it makes you look stupid. Try and remember that in future.

No. I'm not trying to shock. I'm trying to make people realise the reality of the situation. Why is cutting a throat more shocking than depriving someone of food and water? Seriously, why is that more shocking?

I'm not actually making a point about what degree of life she has. The point is that there is some degree of life that apparently must be ended. If we acccept that, then is there any moral difference at all between removing her tube and cutting her throat?