Aardvark

The majority of posters on this site are human. They do not have to worry about the consequences of animal cruelty, and yet it is generally accepted that it is right that laws exist to prevent animal cruelty. The suggestion that laws should only exist to protect the framers of those laws seems selfish and unjustifably selective.

I have a feeling he is of the same mold as lawyers.

Better than Coventry i suppose.

If you would post reasoning, evidence, logic or any kind of factually based observations then i would consider it a discussion. I look forward to any factual contradiction to my posts or to any factually based arguments you wish to raise. Still waiting.

It is those profits which encourages people to invest more money in medical research to develop more treatments. It may be distasteful, but it is the profit motive which results in the treatments which save peoples lives.

A pleasure, i always enjoy discussing China (even if it has to be with someone like Cadmus) as it is such a very special, fascinating nation which i have a great deal of respect and admiration for. The knowledge that i can find some common ground with you just adds to the pleasure, what is the world coming to? Indeed, that's a list that could extend quite a long way.

If you can find any evidence that Gladstones condemnation of the Bulgarian massacres was for immediate political expediency i would be most interested. Otherwise your opinion is not valid. Please try to back your opinions up with evidence and facts otherwise people will see your opinions as being valueless. The example of people in Eastern Europe having votes in free elections is not one of governments working for political expendiency. Please at least try and back your assertions with some logic or reasoning. The people of Eastern Europe have most certainly been liberated from oppressive dictatorship. Those unrealistic ideas of mine shared by Gladstone, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and now, to a certain extent G W Bush. My ideas may seem unrealistic to you (on the basis of no apparent reasoning, logic or evidence from your part) but they have been shared and are shared by governments around the world. I call anyone a coward who shys away from making any moral judgements. That is cultural relativism, which is an excuse for never having to make a judgement. That is cowardice and a cop out. I haven't castigated anyone for exercising their liberty in any maner. I castigate people who deny others their liberty. The fact that you feel the need to put the word liberty in inverted commas tells us a lot about yourself.

Nothing i posted makes Chang Kia Shek sound like a wonderful hero. Although i do think he was less repugnant that Mao Tse Tung. Head of China? No more so than Chiang Kai Shek. Your demands of which pieces of evidence of which periods of history i may consider are weird. I have no intention whatsoever of being bound by your demands. The fact remains that the communist record in mainland China is significantly worse in terms of human rights than that of the Nationalists in Taiwan. Ordering me to ignore Maos later years doesn't change that. Providing support to the Nationalists means that Taiwan was stolen? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. As for calling Chang Kai Shek an evil person, i'll do you the favour of ignoring such childish nonsense. I went to school with some of them. Yes, the nationalists were hard. To talk of them murdering hundreds of thousands of natives is an absurd untruth. The natives, who included a large number of Han Chinese to start with, have done a lot better than other ethnic minorities in mainland China. Better an indigenous person in Taiwan than a Tibetan. For you to claim that any past brutalities means that the USA should not now defend democratic Taiwan against aggressive attack by China is moronic. Your grasp of logic is weak. I mentioned Tibet and Inner Mongolia as examples of ethnic peoples who have suffered under the rule of the Peoples Republic of China. My not mentioning Vietnam has no relevance to that at all. You are the one who is resorting to repeated childish comments, deliberate misrepresentations, irrelevant diversions and factually incorrect statements. If you can find any factual arguments with my description of the current Chinese regime then please let us all see them. I'd be very happy to debate them. Unfortunately you don't appear capable of engaging in adult dialogue at present.

I am not holier than thou, in fact i'm not at all holy. But i can recognise the moral bankruptcy of the present Chinese regime easily enough. Your impression is false. Firstly i have a keen interest in Chinese history. Secondly the statement that the USA 'stole' Taiwan is moronic. Taiwan was the refuge of the Nationalist Chinese after they were driven off the mainland of China in 1949 at the end of the chinese civil war. Your comments on Chiang Kai Shek being a ruthless dictator seems to completely ignore the alternative dictatorship of Mao Tse Tung(Zedong). A highly selective distortion of the facts. As for despising the indigenous people of Taiwan, again the Communists record in this area is even worse. Therefore your point is irrelevant. Taiwan has not been stolen from anyone. The people there have elections, unlike the people on the mainland. It is a functioning democracy and therefore entitled to defence from external aggression. That is why the USA has an absolute right to defend Taiwan. You accuse me of closing my eyes to certain behaviours. That is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You call Chang Kai Shek a brutal dictator whilst making no mention of Mao Tse Tung. You talk of the indigenous people of Taiwan without mentioning Tibet or Inner Mongolia. The current Chinese administration is a brutal, corrupt, aggressive, totalitarian regime which fosters militaristic nationalism as a means of control. If realising and stating that makes me ruthless then in this instance i am quite pleased to be ruthless.

Actually many governments have taken exactly my position and considered that they had an obligation to understand the moral impact of their actions. For example, Gladstones government, seeing its duty as spreading enlightenment and opposing such despotism as the Bulgarian massacres by the Ottomans. Or the Reagan administration, seeing its duty as opposing communism and spreading democracy and liberty to Eastern Europe. Or Woodrow Wilson with his 21 points. All these governments had their flaws and made mistakes, but nevertheless they were motivated by considerations of liberty and human progress. These ideals always have to be advanced in practical manners, compromises must be made, injustices overlooked, but, the fact remains that the intention and action which follows from that existed and created results. You think it impractical or unachieveable? Tell that to someone in Eastern Europe casting a vote in a free election. Yes. We are all independent moral entities. We all have to make that decision. Otherwise you are simply hiding in a fog of moral relativism. The cowardly and decadent cop out which people use as an excuse to avoid facing reality.

I think that is sentimental nonsense. Animals can decide to attack, or not, for a variety of reasons, they could be hungry and willing to chance it, in a bad mood, startled, mistake the human for something else or any of a miriad of reasons. If you're wandering off into the wilderness you should take more protection than a feeling of respect. Rather than this being off topic i think it goes to the root of the discussion. The idea that our opinions and feelings are what count. The very idea that an ecosystem could be artifical, an 'artifact' or in some way owned by humans is derived from this antropcentric, sentimental mush. It really is quite simple, a habitat would generally be better off if left alone. However humans have a habit of interfering. Therefore the next best thing is for that impact to be minimised and where possible any damage to be repaired and put right as far as possible. Where a habitat is restored the ecosystem there is still not a human construct or artifact. Humans simply do not have the knowledge or ability to achieve that even if they wanted to. Nature is more complex and much less controllable than this thread seems to be assuming. humans can't control the species balance, population numbers or interactions between those species. After any restoration the ecological dynamics will develop in ways that humans can neither control or forsee. Yes, it would be better if habitats were undamaged in the first place, but no, those habitats which are restored do not become artifacts. That idea is meaningless, of no pratical use and therefore simply arrogant sterile intellectual posturing. (and Sayonara's right about Coventry, yuck!)

Liberty is indivisable. To turn a blind eye to repression is to be morally complict in that repression. People are people wherever they live. The idea that some people are more worthy of rights than others is indefensible. For example the complete wilful ignorance of most of the world to the suffering of the Karen people, facing ethnic cleansing nearly tauntamont to genocide in Burma. Seemingly because there are no 4 star hotels for reporters to stay in, therefore no news coverage, therefore no one cares. Or Western Sahara, or Southern Sudan, or....... the list goes on. Moral pressure, setting a good example, postive assistance with aid, education, fairer trading policies. Or throwing their weight around. Sometimes force is the only way to get things done. It can be crude and bloody, but this is the real world, lets not be naive, good intentions don't mean anything without action.

I fail to see your distinction. The Chinese regime has demonstrated its moral bankruptcy both in its actions at Tiananmen square and in its highly aggressive attitude toward Taiwan. You seem to imply that the possibility of an attack on Taiwan is not something that should particularly concern outsiders? I don't think it will be a completely moot point. China is still seriously behind in terms of naval power, it has a large army, but is unable to project it overseas. Yes, China is rapidly gaining manufacturing and technological expertise, but on its own, indigenous development would require years, probably decades for the development of enough power to practically seriously threaten Taiwans security. It is the purchase of whole and partially built aircraft carriers and submarines which is threatening the balance of power. If and when China develops these weapons it will still not be a moot point. Because at that point China will have to be militarily faced down. If China is armed with weapons systems sold by the West, then that job will be much harder. But that job can not be shirked. In the event of China launching an attack on Taiwan that attack immediately drag in the USA and most likely a range of allies in the Pacific region. Stopping China will cost more lives if China is armed with Western weapons. Certainly, but that is no excuse for defeatism. China is ruled by a corrupt, totalitarian regime that deliberately propagates intense nationalistic feelings as a means of maintaining control. That policy can very easily be directed to external military aggression. Selling weapons technology to this very powerful, unstable nation is like adding petrol to a fire.

Selective righteousness is a lot better than no righteousness.

Excellent, excellent. The plot develops, soon our moment shall arrive. How the lawyers shall tremble.

I'm surprised you used that argument' date=' it is illogical and misleading. The idea that you are not allowed to have an opinion on one matter if you aren't taking some arbitary action on another matter, the kind of logic that states that because you are not perfect you aren't allowed to have any moral judgements. Going by the record of your previous posts that argument is beneath you. Well, a few tanks can be a lot more persuasive than you seem to give credit for. If a people are living under a brutal totalitarian regime then simply standing back and disavowing any interest or moral responsibility on the grounds that if the people want democracy they will be able to eventually get it is morally flaccid and decadent. Whilst seemingly a stance of neutrality, it, infact, makes one a tacit companion in guilt. People need to have the courage to be honest about repression. Not to feel the need to put the words, human rights, in inverted commas. Not to hide in the intellectual and moral surrender of cultural relativism.

I wonder about some of the links that seem to be developing between religious groups and government. Knowing how government ties to big business and unions tends to lead to cronyism and special favours i wonder how many strings have been pulled in the background, whether things are made 'easier' for certain favoured groups. Maybe it is all clean and in the open, but knowing how power structures interact, its worth careful observation.

Who's funding this programme? If its funded privately then it doesn't really matter if it's great or not, just as long as no one is getting worse treatment for not taking part. If its funded by taxpayers then how effective it is is very important. Spending taxpayers money needs to be carefully justified by results.

Thank you, although i must admit a love of old fashioned paper and canvas maps. Something about the tactile sensation, colouring and attention to detail that is much more rewarding that the maps usually found from online sources.