|
Yeah you can read it for yourself. Go to https://www.greenparty.ca click on 'Platform', click on 'Download Vision Green' and go to page 75. There it is: http://www.greenparty.ca/sites/greenparty.ca/files/attachments/vision_green_2011en_1.pdf the platform the loving green party ran on in the last federal election posted:Expand healthcare coverage to include qualified complementary/alternative health professionals such as naturopaths, acupuncturists, homeopaths, licensed massage therapists, chiropractors, and dietitians.
|
# ? Jun 10, 2013 00:55 |
|
|
# ? Jun 7, 2024 03:35 |
|
bunnyofdoom posted:
Truth.
|
# ? Jun 10, 2013 00:55 |
|
bunnyofdoom posted:You could have Baird for instance. Or Pollivair! Stephen Woodworth, literally the guy who introduced the private members bill trying to reopen the abortion debate, is the MP of the riding my parents live in, which I think of as home.
|
# ? Jun 10, 2013 00:58 |
|
cafel posted:You know, I always wrote it off with out much thought because it's batshit crazy. Now that people have restated the main premise again in this thread, I just noticed a hole the size of a truck in the premise (well another one anyway). Let's take the idea that water memory works as a given. What about all the things you have in vanishingly small concentrations already? I mean any given glass of water will have had concentrations of heavy metals, rare nuclide of more common elements, and trace radioactive elements. All of these range from very low to vanishingly low concentrations, wouldn't all the negative effects being heavily amplified kill you? Or does only the beneficial stuff count in an even more blatant display of intellectual bankruptcy? That water memory poo poo came way later than the dilution stuff. Homeopathy was conceived of in the 1790's; thought the dilution mechanism has been questionable for ages, the actual water memory controversy came about in the late 1980's. It was some half-assed nonsense intended to justify some wonky results in a paper which has never been reproduced to date, hence why the scientific community at large has continued to dismiss it as quackery. Back on topic, I used to live in a riding that is pretty much guaranteed Liberal (Sydney-Victoria) so I used to vote Green in the vain hope their popular vote total would be high enough to get them federal funding which could then maybe make them a viable political entity. Then I read more about them, learning about wingnut poo poo like this and the wifi nonsense, and realized I didn't want them to be a viable political entity. I find this "We'll fund your alternative medicine because FAIRNESS" poo poo just as offensive as "We'll give massive tax cuts to your destructive business model because ECONOMY."
|
# ? Jun 10, 2013 00:58 |
|
Leofish posted:But a lot of the criticism I've heard of Insite, et al. is that it isn't safe, and that it doesn't provide addiction counselling, or rehab services, or that the people who use it don't take advantage of those services, that they just shoot up in the street with dirty needles later, that the drugs they bring in aren't safe, or are laced with other things, and that the blocks surrounding it turn into crime havens because of the no-cop zone. Yes, the drugs they bring in aren't always safe, but that's why the safe injection site exists, so that a misjudged dose can be counteracted with antidotes. There's actually some interesting studies ongoing in Switzerland (IIRC) where addicts are provided with clean heroin, on the logic that at least you know what they're putting in their bodies. I don't see why someone would 'just shoot up with dirty needles later' - addicts, despite everything, aren't stupid and will use clean needles if the option exists and is readily accessible. vvv No, that's how you treat a ganglion. Albino Squirrel fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Jun 10, 2013 |
# ? Jun 10, 2013 01:00 |
|
I think you all are missing the important point of succussion, which is hitting the thing you are diluting with a bible every now and then.
|
# ? Jun 10, 2013 01:10 |
|
vyelkin posted:Yeah you can read it for yourself. Go to https://www.greenparty.ca click on 'Platform', click on 'Download Vision Green' and go to page 75. There it is: Chiropractors and acupuncturists are also mostly quacks too in my experience. My friends who visit naturopaths are routinely treated with homeopathic medicine.
|
# ? Jun 10, 2013 01:32 |
|
Diluting with a Bible? I don't think you're talking about the same fake medicine as we are. e: acupuncture is a big ol' bag of crap which has been shown to be no more effective than being poked with sharp toothpicks. It's a placebo methodology. At least chiro might give you a nice massage, until the practitioner decides he's going to snap your neck because your bad vision is being caused by a subluxation he just has to correct before you develop testicular cancer. Blade_of_tyshalle fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jun 10, 2013 |
# ? Jun 10, 2013 01:32 |
|
Albino Squirrel posted:Also - and not to derail the homeopathy derail - I find myself living in Laurie Hawn's riding. He seems like at least a reasonably decent and honest guy, albeit one who I'd disagree with on a number of points. Am off base here, THEOLOGY? I used to live in Laurie Hawn's riding. I sent him an email about something or other and now I'm on the CPC mailing list for everything. He posts a monthly/bimonthly newsletter called the Hawn Report and is very active on the internet for a guy his age. When push comes to shove between Edmonton and the Conservative Party he has thrown the city under the bus. He is a party man through-and-through. Saying that he is one of the most active MPs in the Edmonton region and puts a lot of effort into reaching out to his constituents. The MP for the current riding I am in doesn't put that kind of effort as Laurie Hawn has.
|
# ? Jun 10, 2013 04:28 |
|
vyelkin posted:Stephen Woodworth, literally the guy who introduced the private members bill trying to reopen the abortion debate, is the MP of the riding my parents live in, which I think of as home. I volunteered for Redman in 2008. She's a very nice person. gently caress Woodworth.
|
# ? Jun 10, 2013 13:29 |
|
@Colinfreeze is extensively covering Canadian metadata mining, if you're interested. edit: Michael Geist is also on the case. Here's something he wrote for G&M months ago, before the NSA story broke. edit 2: incidentally, this would explain CSEC's Taj Mahal, and the related building that seems to be a server farm. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/data-collection-program-got-green-light-from-mackay-in-2011/article12444909/#dashboard/follows/ quote:Defence Minister Peter MacKay approved a secret electronic eavesdropping program that scours global telephone records and Internet data trails – including those of Canadians – for patterns of suspicious activity. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jun 10, 2013 |
# ? Jun 10, 2013 14:24 |
|
Kafka Esq. posted:The problem with that metaphor is that means it's kind of none of our business?
|
# ? Jun 10, 2013 16:49 |
|
Ofc. Sex Robot BPD posted:What an odd definition of marriage you seem to have. If my spouse and I had an expectation of openness with our finances, then finding out my spouse had a secret massive bank account would be a Huge loving Deal, especially if their attitude was that it was 'none of my business'.
|
# ? Jun 10, 2013 17:01 |
|
Team Theology, what do you think about this, and how does supporting the Conservatives mesh with a presumptive support for science? I assume since you work on the hill, this has been shared with you at least once. http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2013/05/20/the-canadian-war-on-science-a-long-unexaggerated-devastating-chronological-indictment/ (has links to all the different stories) quote:This is a brief chronology of the current Conservative Canadian government’s long campaign to undermine evidence-based scientific, environmental and technical decision-making. It is a government that is beholden to big business, particularly big oil, and that makes every attempt to shape public policy to that end. It is a government that fundamentally doesn’t believe in science. It is a government that is more interested in keeping its corporate masters happy than in protecting the environment. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 10, 2013 |
# ? Jun 10, 2013 22:30 |
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Team Theology, what do you think about this, and how does supporting the Conservatives mesh with a presumptive support for science? I assume since you work on the hill, this has been shared with you at least once. Apologies in advance I am doing this quickly as I have to run soon. Yea I have read it all, I'm not super thrilled about it but generally cuts to research based science have been contrarily positioned against more practical scientific finding usually related to economic drivers like the oil (evil, depending on your view) sands etc. without going into it to much because it isn't a defensible position unless you believe in an economy at all costs approach (which I often embrace, so guilty) that's what the governments position has largely been. The government invests in practical and revenue generating science now primarily and two, there what's been a huge push by the government to encourage public private partnerships to create a sustainable scientific community that is not primary reliant on government funds. Again I'm not here to argue this one, this is just the gvmt position. It also has worked in some cases from what I've seen. Here is one with Merck. Another interesting read which laments the drop in private funding and Canada's inability to convert scientific findings into practical revenue generators. An interesting excerpt against what we are doing though (in that we aren't being consistent in funding)... Increased success in this arena will be directly related to our capacity to first create the nascent technology that will attract the private sector – dependent on federal support in the provision of predictable and sustainable levels of funding for discovery research - and the creation of a national policy regime that attracts and enables public-private partnerships. So again it's not perfect but the government is trying to create a scientific community that isn't wholly reliant on gvmt funding. Whether this is good or bad of course, is debatable. Again I can't stress enough that I'm not arguing anything here. Just presenting the governments side.
|
# ? Jun 10, 2013 23:38 |
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Yea I have read it all, I'm not super thrilled about it but generally cuts to research based science have been contrarily positioned against more practical scientific finding usually related to economic drivers like the oil (evil, depending on your view) sands etc. without going into it to much because it isn't a defensible position unless you believe in an economy at all costs approach (which I often embrace, so guilty) that's what the governments position has largely been.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 00:06 |
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:...without going into it to much because it isn't a defensible position unless you believe in an economy at all costs approach (which I often embrace, so guilty) ... If you know you're guilty of doing something wrong you should stop doing it.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 00:48 |
|
Throwdini posted:If you know you're guilty of doing something wrong you should stop doing it. Me personally, not at all. You have to pick a side, they all do things we do not agree with. It's about best finding the one we think can.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:00 |
|
Private industry will never do the sort of broad primary research and long-term research necessary for subsequent technological advancement. Government should be investing in the research sectors that private industry can't due to initial investment costs and longterm funding commitments, not subsidising industry research.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:00 |
|
Throwdini posted:If you know you're guilty of doing something wrong you should stop doing it. I've read a lot of Team Theology's posts and while I appreciate his point of view in the thread, a lot of his posts seem to have the caveat "Yeah what we're doing isn't so great..." or "I can't defend that position...", especially on transparency and corruption as well as science which are really the big contentious issues that people have with the Conservatives. So I'm a bit curious (and I don't mean this rudely) what is, or continues to be, appealing about the Conservatives? Apart from them being your employer in some fashion, I guess. I'm genuinely curious given that a lot of your posts are in fact in agreement with other posters about various topics that are quite critical of the government, not just their recent actions, but their modus operandi in general.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:01 |
|
Canadian Politics Megathread: Let's Pile On the Lone Conservative Someone asked him a question and he answered to the best of his ability. It's a fairly reasonable position to take and one I thought was a reason for the Conservative's approach on research for the sake of the economy. I don't necessary agree with it but I get it and it does explain the MR department a little more. The following response was basically "trap sprung. Let me tell you that YOUR government is doing otherwise " There's quite a few good posters (would name them but why start a pissing contest?) here who shine the light on certain elements but the above method I mentioned is just a great way to make sure that conservatives stay Conservatives and fence sitters (like myself!) go Conservative. Ivory tower and all that. I am poo poo, I know this. Christ Hadfield retired from being an ASTRONAUT MAN and is pursuing private endeavours outside of the government. E: posts happened when I was typing. Yay for not refreshing the page quaint bucket fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jun 11, 2013 |
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:09 |
|
Hey guys its all good. Thanks though for the defence. mik posted:I've read a lot of Team Theology's posts and while I appreciate his point of view in the thread, a lot of his posts seem to have the caveat "Yeah what we're doing isn't so great..." or "I can't defend that position...", especially on transparency and corruption as well as science which are really the big contentious issues that people have with the Conservatives. So I'm a bit curious (and I don't mean this rudely) what is, or continues to be, appealing about the Conservatives? Apart from them being your employer in some fashion, I guess. I'm genuinely curious given that a lot of your posts are in fact in agreement with other posters about various topics that are quite critical of the government, not just their recent actions, but their modus operandi in general. I say I won't defend or it isn't so great because I really don't have the will to argue with an entire forum. I like to toss in an opinion or two where its valid and I am more than happy to debate the merits of specific bills specifically in person but I usually don't have the time to engage in what I consider to be incredibly cyclical and often partisan logic, or illogic, depending on your view. As for what appeals to me about the conservatives, I suppose their unabashed support for punitive crime, less gun control, better situations for businesses and job providers and a distinct and total commitment to developing the oils sands, the state of Israel, and a somewhat hawkish posturing when dealing with certain countries that less than legit'ly handle certain rights and freedoms but while still maintaining a commitment to free market (save SM that boils the brains). Free trade deals, unilateral and multilateral non-UN driven defence posturing. Etc. Also I like private healthcare etc - but I understand its need and support it. Like schools and what have you. I'm not debating the merits of the way I feel, or why I have my views because I don't ever really care to do that online. Just a general outline of why I tend to lean Conservative over other parties. Though I see the merits of the individual policies of many. Especially in files that certain parties hold dear.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:11 |
|
quaint bucket posted:Canadian Politics Megathread: Let's Pile On the Lone Conservative I pointed this out earlier. Dude doesn't have to be the spokesman for the Conservative Party and explain why he hasn't licked the dead taint of Jack Layton before placing stamps on NDP donation letters.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:11 |
|
quaint bucket posted:Canadian Politics Megathread: Let's Pile On the Lone Conservative
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:24 |
|
THC posted:Turns out, posting terrible opinions in a debate forum is a great way to get argued with! Shocking, I know But, no-one in this echo chamber thread argues with you?
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:28 |
|
THC posted:Turns out, posting terrible opinions in a debate forum is a great way to get argued with! Shocking, I know But you realize the reason I am not defending them isn't because I don't feel they are indefensible but engaging in partisan debates is something I can do all day. I offer you the opinion such that you can enjoy the benefit of seeing it from the other side. That being said lets just get back to politics this isn't an AMA. We are getting off topic.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:31 |
|
I enjoy your posts and I understand the desire to avoid intractable derail arguments about Israel or Reaganomics or what have you; what I don't enjoy is the ing any time it looks like someone might want to actually Debate and Discuss the things you post
Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Jun 11, 2013 |
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:33 |
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:and a somewhat hawkish posturing when dealing with certain countries that less than legit'ly handle certain rights and freedoms but while still maintaining a commitment to free market Not really sure what these two mean edit: Team THEOLOGY posted:But you realize the reason I am not defending them isn't because I don't feel they are indefensible but engaging in partisan debates is something I can do all day. I think the problem is that a lot of people in here are genuinely interested in what you have to say and would like to debate about it - I mean I absolutely fundamentally disagree with about 80% of the positions you list and really am interested why you hold those positions - you are pretty articulate and could probably do a good job of fighting your corner. I do understand that that could probably horribly spiral out of control away from current events though, so whatever Alctel fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Jun 11, 2013 |
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:39 |
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:I pointed this out earlier. Dude doesn't have to be the spokesman for the Conservative Party and explain why he hasn't licked the dead taint of Jack Layton before placing stamps on NDP donation letters. Well he really isn't, which makes him more interesting to talk with. Since he isn't the "support everything the Conservatives do no matter what" type. In fact he only supports them on a couple of narrow issues. I personally think it's weird how he is such a staunch supporter (or even a staffer?) when all he really cares about are taxes. Edit: I mean, because he's on record as finding a lot of their policies disagreeable. I could never support anyone if they did all kinds of things I found to be repugnant, even if they were good as far as one or two things I feel strongly about. BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jun 11, 2013 |
# ? Jun 11, 2013 01:45 |
|
BattleMaster posted:Well he really isn't, which makes him more interesting to talk with. Since he isn't the "support everything the Conservatives do no matter what" type. Well there are a lot of things I support them on really. I just don't always have the time to argue out my reasoning and therefore don't bother bringing up the disagreeable position.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 02:03 |
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Well there are a lot of things I support them on really. I just don't always have the time to argue out my reasoning and therefore don't bother bringing up the disagreeable position. As for the rest of the thread - what the gently caress, I didn't ask him for his papers or something. I pressed him on the incredibly important issue of science and innovation funding, something the Conservatives made a key plank as far back as 2004. Over the past six years they've done basically nothing to improve it and everything to sabotage general discovery. If he wants to take a dodge, he can, but pressing him on it isn't gotcha journalism.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 02:09 |
|
THC posted:Turns out, posting terrible opinions in a debate forum is a great way to get argued with! Shocking, I know Oh I have no issue with the debating/arguing. I just have an issue with the demonizing of a poster ("you hold lovely opinions") because they don't agree with their ideology. My other point was that the ivory tower approach was a great way of doing the opponent's work for them. Anyway, my part is over since TT said his piece and was upfront about how he wish to devote his time with posting. I kinda like it when people aren't partisan as hell. It make things more interesting!
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 02:11 |
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I can understand this. Why don't you go back to my post, write out a reasonable response (take your time), and we'll avoid quote mining and dog piling it. I really don't think I made a point I wanted to argue and I definitely don't have the amount of free time to dig out an argument and it would be debatable at best. I can think of a few examples, oil sands collaborating with scientists to create more efficient and economic ways to withdraw resources is one I'll run with. I'm not really debating the position though you see, I was just trying to show you what it was in the hopes that you might see it from the opposing side. Anyway back to politics. I'm off for the night. Ill be lurking a bit as I can.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 02:13 |
|
Alctel posted:I think the problem is that a lot of people in here are genuinely interested in what you have to say and would like to debate about it Most of the posters here just want a new punching bag to beat on. There is very little genuine interest and I can understand why Team Theocracy doesn't want to bite at the snide remarks. edit: Just read your post TT, sorry! Sovy Kurosei fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Jun 11, 2013 |
# ? Jun 11, 2013 02:17 |
|
Sovy Kurosei posted:Most of the posters here just want a new punching bag to beat on. There is very little genuine interest and I can understand why Team Theocracy doesn't want to bite at the snide remarks. Just imagine if he announced he was from the 905, or was in favour of tuition increases Oh you'd see the shitstorm then son edit: To actually contribute something here, let me throw this out there: OSSTF (high school public teachers union) has been not-so-quietly warning about the dangers of Tim Hudak and co. being elected and then running roughshod over union rights to the point that they are basically agreeing to back down from fighting the Liberals. I don't know if you could call it full-out support for the Liberal brand, but there is a definite "boogeyman" vibe being created around Hudak. My take is that Hudak is basically unelectable and that as a union we are trying to build political capital with a party that pretty much just screwed us. Anyone else want to weigh in on how likely it is that Hudak and the Ontario Conservatives win the next election? Tochiazuma fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jun 11, 2013 |
# ? Jun 11, 2013 02:20 |
|
I'm utterly bewildered as to why anyone in Canada would or should give a poo poo about Israel.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 02:27 |
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:I really don't think I made a point I wanted to argue and I definitely don't have the amount of free time to dig out an argument and it would be debatable at best. I can think of a few examples, oil sands collaborating with scientists to create more efficient and economic ways to withdraw resources is one I'll run with. Maybe you could quickly summarize some of the positions you'd take on the stuff we talk about constantly here - unions, the environment, accountability, foreign affairs, debt and deficits, and so on? You can take your time, we'd rather hear a calm and clear voice of conservatism than a frenzied quote war, anyway. That only applies when the voice is actually heard, though - right now you're kind of just sheepishly walking in and out of the room trying not to draw too much attention. Cultural Imperial posted:I'm utterly bewildered as to why anyone in Canada would or should give a poo poo about Israel.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 02:36 |
|
Sheepishly walking in and out of what is basically the Opposition Lobby to occasionally offer the alternative side. Yup, sounds about right - I'm not looking to be a Conservative hero. I'm not here to argue, I never have been just to provide some insight from the Blue team I don't really have any interest in being more on a forum. I mostly just enjoy listening and understanding the other side. You win bro, if I can't write out a succinct argument I won't post. I really wish I had the time to, I spend most of my days doing it and I don't really mean to repeat my days on the forums. All that said I respect were you're coming from and I'm sorry. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jun 11, 2013 |
# ? Jun 11, 2013 03:35 |
|
mik posted:I've read a lot of Team Theology's posts and while I appreciate his point of view in the thread, a lot of his posts seem to have the caveat "Yeah what we're doing isn't so great..." or "I can't defend that position...", especially on transparency and corruption as well as science which are really the big contentious issues that people have with the Conservatives. So I'm a bit curious (and I don't mean this rudely) what is, or continues to be, appealing about the Conservatives? Apart from them being your employer in some fashion, I guess. I'm genuinely curious given that a lot of your posts are in fact in agreement with other posters about various topics that are quite critical of the government, not just their recent actions, but their modus operandi in general. That sort of caveat isn't Team Theology's alone. Supporters or even people who work for the Liberals and the NDP have disagreed with their parties' policies or decisions, and yet continue to support or work for that party. Most of us (I think) don't agree entirely with any one political party, which means you either throw your hands up in the air and say "gently caress politics!" or you make the best of an imperfect political world. edit: at the same time I get why people want to argue, since the only thing we have to argue with are talking points from the news. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jun 11, 2013 |
# ? Jun 11, 2013 03:40 |
|
|
# ? Jun 7, 2024 03:35 |
|
Tochiazuma posted:My take is that Hudak is basically unelectable and that as a union we are trying to build political capital with a party that pretty much just screwed us. Anyone else want to weigh in on how likely it is that Hudak and the Ontario Conservatives win the next election? Hudak is pretty shockingly unelectable, and the longer the Ontario Cons stick with him the better from a progressive standpoint. He's now moved on from 'play along but say as many blatantly Harris-ish things as possible' to 'being obstructionist works for the GOP, it'll work for me! ' and is literally just going to In the meantime, he can't shut up about recycled GOP talking point, privatizing the LCBO, and other things a majority of Ontarians don't want.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2013 03:42 |