[denfromoakvillemilton]

I have no way of knowing how Chow truly feels about anything. All I can do is look at her actions. It seems unreasonable to me that someone would quit a plum position as a federal opposition critic and dedicate one year of their life to campaign for a job they don't really want. I'm also not sure how exactly you measure something like "campaigning hard enough". Her campaign has made mistakes, as evidenced by her slide in the polls. I think that Globe and Mail article did a good job of laying out the mistakes. I've never denied this.

Anyway, I'm not sure how any of this responds to my original comments about leadership. There are a lot of good leaders who fail to catch on in an election campaign. I will be voting for Olivia Chow because I think she's the best person for the job, not because I think she's going to win.

It ties in back to leadership because when the person at the forefront of the campaign shows a lack of interest, so does the staff. Or they go off the reservation, like Warren Kinsella. "Campaigning hard enough" means showing up and doing the little things. Tory, for his faults a(and they have been clearly outlined the past two pages) goes to all those small, minor community events. Chow has been to all the debates of course, but they're debates. She also has done a poor, poor job of getting the message out. SmartTrack is not perfect, but the average citizen does not know this. It may seem unreasonable that she quit Ottawa, until you realize she was never going to be NDP leader, not was she going to be part of a federal government. Mayor of Toronto, while she mostly likely didn't want to return to the city full time, was an easy win with two other candidates, an also ran and a mess.

 

[eyesonthestreet]

"Campaigning hard enough" means showing up and doing the little things. Tory, for his faults a(and they have been clearly outlined the past two pages) goes to all those small, minor community events. Chow has been to all the debates of course, but they're debates. .

I wouldn't be able to verifiably back it up, but I would argue Chow has been the the same number, likely more of these events. She also seems to actually get 'into' the events a bit more. I see pictures of Tory at said events, but basically just walking around, whereas Chow you see dress up, get engaged (Bike, kickbox etc)

 

[Civdis]

I'm sure the mods are going to clamp down on this topic very soon, but I can't let this go. OF COURSE creationism is anti-science. There is no empirical basis for positing a divine creator behind life on earth. You cannot deduce any hypotheses about the existence of a divine creator, and can therefore not test it. All scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. Any scientifically legitimate alternatives to the theory of evolution must come about through empirical tests.

Just because many "great scientists" believed in a divine creator doesn't mean that creationism is scientific. Newton believed in alchemy and ghosts. That doesn't make those things scientific.

Also, anyone who says "evolution's just a theory" as a way of questioning its legitimacy needs to repeat basic high school science.

You're probably right about the mods clamping down on this thread and I hate derailed topics as much as the next guy, but I too need to respond. As a professional engineer with a Masters degree, I know a thing or two about science. Personally, I think all the laws of physics and order in the universe points to a creator. This is not necessarily at odds with evolution because that may very well be the process our creator used.

With regard to Newton (Number 1 in my personal scientist hall of fame) my point would be that one can pursue and create great science while being a creationist. Again, the two are not at odds.

I always find it so arrogant to believe that every scientific theory taught in our schools is beyond reproach. If there is one thing that I have learned in my career, it is that we definitely don't have all the answers, and most scientific theories are greatly modified or disproven over time. There are many wholes in theory of evolution that have yet to be filled.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

There are many wholes in theory of evolution that have yet to be filled.

It's existence however, is not one of them.

Which is what makes what Tory said so troubling, because he insinuated that it is only a 'theory'. Using the laymen definition of theory or the equivalent of the scientific definition of hypothesis.

 

[nfitz]

You're probably right about the mods clamping down on this thread and I hate derailed topics as much as the next guy, but I too need to respond. As a professional engineer with a Masters degree, I know a thing or two about science. Personally, I think all the laws of physics and order in the universe points to a creator. This is not necessarily at odds with evolution because that may very well be the process our creator used.

Sure. But that's not really where creationists are at ...

That's more the thin end of the wedge they use ... and then suddenly the more radical of them start inventing a meme that evolution is still only a theory.

It's pretty clear much of what has been happening here the last 4 billion years or so - long past the theory stage. Why that happened is a completely different debate. It's not so much that Tory pushed for religion to be taught in schools. It's that he then, unprovoked, raised evolution. Even the frigging pope supports evolution (at least the previous two) ... it's the soul that seems to be more their issue than anything else.

I can't for a moment imagine linking religious teaching to a discussion of evolution. And I'm uncomfortable voting for someone who does. I have no problem supporting a leader who is deeply religious, despite me being not so.

 

[nohostages]

I'm walking into this one way late and a dollar short however...
J Tory contributing to R Ford's 2010 campaign...Who else would he contribute to? Smitherman? No given the animosity shown by Furious George in the Legislation to the opposition 2003/07. Joey Pants? No. The annointed Miller replacement. Rossi or Thomson. No. They were bit players. It left only R Ford a bombastic minority of one with a tendency to abrasiveness and the unique ability to say the wrong thing at the right time and R Ford was the right's concensus candidate...Four years after parsing R Ford's fourteen year career to the nth degree innumerable warts have been unconvered. Were they there prior? Yes. Did it make any difference to 47% of those who voted. No.

J Tory supporting creationism? Bullcarckles...What he advocating was 'faith based school funding'. His message was misconstrued all he offered was the same playing field that now exists with the Catholic Board which works within the Ontario curriculum however includes additional religious teaching over and above...Oh and the last poll I seen on Creation belief is 28% worldwide and at least 42% in the USA so whether there is credence to the belief or not, it is widely held...It was the those who hold the Creation belief that were J Tory's biggest denigrators to his funding policy for fear the boogieman of Islam would turn children radical....

All this. Im no fan of Tory..But it has always been my inner feeling that his one smart idea was faith based school. I am agnostic but if Catholics can have faith school, so should any faith in my books. How would that look? I'm not sure. One idea floated at the time was a sort of coupon redeemable for an after school religious instruction directed at various faiths. The duplication between the separate and public school boards is unjustified for the benefit of just one faith constitutionally entrenched or not.

ETA: about creationism my mama is from Oklahoma. Almost all tables pray at the restaurant before they eat.It freaks me out.

 

[Watts]

I have to say I'm torn. Either he's bigoted ... or he's just completely ignorant about politics. As much as I'd like to believe the latter - his career choices suggest otherwise. So here it is. Is John Tory some kind of idiot savant - a Chauncey Gardiner ... or is he prone to gaffs uncovering his bigotry and racist support.

Either way ... I'm not very impressed.

Ah, and this is where it get's interesting. You might be the only one who things that Rob Ford isn't a racist. Though you are also the only one here recently who has pointed out some of Adolf Hitler's good points.

Good grief, he physically attacked a taxi-drive and called him a Paki while shouting at him. Then he physically attacked a black guy and called him a nigger during the fight.

I can't believe anyone could possibly at that point say he isn't a racist!

Then he is a racist. And so is anyone who tried to defend that calling someone a nigger while you are beating them isn't racist.

So basically we have you - someone who defends racism and someone who seeks to discuss Adolf Hitler's good points - trying to tell us that John Tory isn't bigoted.

Are there any non-racists out there who can vouch for Mr. Tory, or is this the best that the right-wing can dig up?

Complete and total fail. All your doing is confirming my opinions that only a racist would support a racist.

Wow, so your a creationist as well.

Evolution was a theory 150 years ago. It's been a very long time since it was considered just a theory. This is the language of creationist.

So here we've got the picture of where John Tory's support is.

People who think you can call someone a nigger without being a racist, discuss Adolf Hitler's good points, and use the language of creationists.

And your telling us we should support John Tory?!? Fail.

Why are you such a bully? You think you can spout whatever nonsense you want and not face any ramifications? Things aren't what you say they are just because you believe them.

I don't defend racism. And it is incredibly offensive for you to say that. You need to shut up already. Guess what, nftiz. Everyone at some point has uttered a racist comment or has stereotyped someone that belongs to another race. It's called human nature. Is it right? No. It is possible that Rob Ford is a racist, however, keep in mind who we're talking about. Everything he says is based on emotion -- not rational thought -- basically like everything you say. Rob Ford probably said whatever he said in the heat of the moment; he probably let his emotions get the best of him; as he always does. Maybe I am wrong? No one truly knows what is in his heart except him, so it's not fair for us to judge. It's impossible to prove if he is a racist, and at this point, who cares? He'll never be mayor again. "Then he physically attacked a black guy and called him a nigger during the fight." Sometimes people say things they don't really mean when they're upset. Have you never said, "I hate you" to a loved one because they hurt you? Though you were really just caught up in the moment? As I pointed out earlier -- could a racist stand being around anyone but their own the way Rob did in council all these years? Wouldn't a true racist be unable to be in the company of those of different skin tone without verbally or physically attacking them? How Rob keep it together around Michael Thompson, Kristyn Wong-Tam, etc? Why didn't he call the former the N word at some point? I think Rob Ford is more belligerent than racist. He never thinks about the words he chooses, or how he comes across to others.

"Wow, so your a creationist as well."

It's you're. You want to make fun of me, yet you don't know the difference between possessive (your), and contraction (you are).

Where did I say I'm a creationist? You just solidified my point right there by assuming to know my views on this subject without providing any proof. Do you not understand what objective thinking is? To question one's own set of beliefs and biases. My stating that evolution is a theory could mean anything. I could believe that aliens created the universe (I don't). Why is the only alternative to believe in what the bible says? Again, more proof of your black and white conclusions for everything. You just keep making yourself look more and more foolish (cue, now you will bring up my Hitler remarks from earlier). You're so predictable. The irony is that you think creationists are stupid, yet the theory of evolution was first used by, guess what?...A creationist, A Christian. Charles Darwin. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

"And your telling us we should support John Tory?!? Fail." I'm not telling anyone which candidate they should support. Your assumptions = "fail."

 

[Watts]

I'm speaking of the popular idea of creationists denying evolution on the basis that they "think" it is in conflict with their religious beliefs.




I don't know about that. People usually trot out Einstein as an example, but he was definitely not a theist.

Science is completely oblivious to anything supernatural, so I suppose it's perfectly possible to believe in magic and practice science at the same time.

Science is largely based on unprovable assumptions. Let's look at this objectively. Why does the existence of God require proof? Don't you think it is arrogant to think that we mere mortals can prove the existence of an all mighty being that perhaps created the universe? It's absurd to think God, not can't, but, doesn't (end of story) exist because we can't prove it. Science has its limitations. We can't prove that murder is evil; only rational thought can tell us this. Science can explain how each of us was born, but it can prove how or why human existence came to be.

 

[nohostages]

The most arrogant thing I have read today. Why do you think creationism is anti-science? Most of the great scientists were creationists.

I really dont want to be offensive ( she prefaces some thing offensive) but these ideas are mutually exclusive.

 

[Watts]

I'm sure the mods are going to clamp down on this topic very soon, but I can't let this go. OF COURSE creationism is anti-science. There is no empirical basis for positing a divine creator behind life on earth. You cannot deduce any hypotheses about the existence of a divine creator, and can therefore not test it. All scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. Any scientifically legitimate alternatives to the theory of evolution must come about through empirical tests.

Just because many "great scientists" believed in a divine creator doesn't mean that creationism is scientific. Newton believed in alchemy and ghosts. That doesn't make those things scientific.

Also, anyone who says "evolution's just a theory" as a way of questioning its legitimacy needs to repeat basic high school science.

Since many of you on this forum are gay, consider this:

This isn't a judgement of who you are, but it is pertinent to you. How does homosexuality fit in with evolution/natural selection? The #1 relentless rule in nature is reproduction. Homosexuality isn't life affirming in that gay people can't reproduce with each other. If homosexuality is congenital, why would this gene have been passed on through thousands, millions of years of human civilization? What purpose would it serve in the continuance of our species? Would it not have died out ages ago? Let's not compare this with those with mental/physical impairments/handicaps. Those are mutations. I really don't see how one can be gay and support the theories we're talking about. Agree, disagree?

 

[Watts]

ETA: about creationism my mama is from Oklahoma. Almost all tables pray at the restaurant before they eat.It freaks me out.

What's wrong with praying? Even if you don't believe in God, isn't it still a nice gesture to pause before one eats and say thank you for the food they have, instead of just scarfing it down and not thinking/caring of how that food got to your table? We take life for granted now because most things are done for us. Imagine if we all had to personally harvest our own crops and go out into the woods to hunt for meat. We're forgotten to be thankful for the luxuries of modern life, so I think it is nice to reflect on how fortunate we are everyday.

 

[Scarberian]

Why are you such a bully? You think you can spout whatever nonsense you want and not face any ramifications? Things aren't what you say they are just because you believe them.

I don't defend racism. And it is incredibly offensive for you to say that. You need to shut up already.

Wouldn't a true racist be unable to be in the company of those of different skin tone without verbally or physically attacking them? How Rob keep it together around Michael Thompson, Kristyn Wong-Tam, etc? Why didn't he call the former the N word at some point? I think Rob Ford is more belligerent than racist.

 

[Watts]

I get the glass house reference. I don't believe what I say is fact, if that is what you're getting at; nor do I think my telling nfitz to shut up is a form of bullying (though I can see how one could interpret that). I could have said, 'you need to be more sensitive', but I don't think it would have any affect. I apologize. He is accusing others of incredibly offensive things, without hard proof, and he needs to be held to account. It's a bit farcical to point out such a frivolous detail and to say nothing of him. Is that all you can reflect on from the dialogue he and I have shared?

 

[freshcutgrass]

Personally, I think all the laws of physics and order in the universe points to a creator. This is not necessarily at odds with evolution because that may very well be the process our creator used.

You're free to have that opinion (although I disagree that there's actual evidence to support it), but all that does is make you a deist.

But it's a huge leap to teach children that the Genesis creation myth is a historic fact. And that's what Tory suggested would be just fine to do in the education system. And it's not fine.

I always find it so arrogant to believe that every scientific theory taught in our schools is beyond reproach. There are many wholes in theory of evolution that have yet to be filled.

Hold on there Newton....what are you talking about????

First of all, as someone who "knows a thing or two about science", you should be aware of the idea that science is never "beyond reproach" (unlike theism).

And what "wholes" in evolution do you think there are, that are likely to overturn the established facts that we teach children in school about it? Exactly....it's about as likely as finding new evidence to suggest the heliocentric theory is incorrect.

 

[Watts]

You're free to have that opinion (although I disagree that there's actual evidence to support it), but all that does is make you a deist.

But it's a huge leap to teach children that the Genesis creation myth is a historic fact. And that's what Tory suggested would be just fine to do in the education system. And it's not fine.





Hold on there Newton....what are you talking about????

First of all, as someone who "knows a thing or two about science", you should be aware of the idea that science is never "beyond reproach" (unlike theism).

And what "wholes" in evolution do you think there are, that are likely to overturn the established facts that we teach children in school about it? Exactly....it's about as likely as finding new evidence to suggest the heliocentric theory is incorrect.

So do you believe that science is omnipotent? Can the scientific method prove anything to be true?