Tories jump into clear lead

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono At the moment the Liberals -- in contrast with past parliaments -- hold only a small portion of Quebec's seats in the house of commons. The GS piece is a bit dated, but backs up what I said about the best days of separatism being behind us. The Bloc québécois is a great vehicle for a protest vote. Quebeckers love to bitch (in keeping with their Gallic culture) and so there's a temptation to move away from the traditional Liberal stranglehold.

I'm not sure you can debate this in a disinterested fashion.

[Nono]

Why do you say that? (And why should I strive to be "disinterested"?)

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono Why do you say that? (And why should I strive to be "disinterested"?)

Genuine debate focuses on facts, evidence, and logical deduction devoid of bias. Personal bias gets in the way of all those things.

Lots of confusion between disinterested and uninterested. I use disinterested as in the second definition provided by Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: dis·in·ter·est·ed
Pronunciation: -t&d
Function: adjective

1 a : not having the mind or feelings engaged : not interested <telling them in a disinterested voice -- Tom Wicker> <Introverted. Unsocial ... Disinterested in women -- J. A. Brussel> b : no longer interested <husband and wife become disinterested in each other -- T. I. Rubin>

2 : free from selfish motive or interest : UNBIASED <a disinterested decision> <disinterested intellectual curiosity is the lifeblood of real civilization -- G. M. Trevelyan>
synonym see INDIFFERENT
- dis·in·ter·est·ed·ly adverb

usage Disinterested and uninterested have a tangled history. Uninterested orig. meant impartial, but this sense fell into disuse during the 18th century. About the same time the original sense of disinterested also disappeared, with uninterested developing a new sense--the present meaning--to take its place. The original sense of uninterested is still out of use, but the original sense of disinterested revived in the early 20th century. The revival has since been under frequent attack as an illiteracy and a blurring or loss of a useful distinction. Actual usage shows otherwise. Sense 2 of disinterested is still its most frequent sense, especially in edited prose; it shows no sign of vanishing. A careful writer may choose sense 1a of disinterested in preference to uninterested for emphasis <teaching the letters of the alphabet to her wiggling and supremely disinterested little daughter -- C. L. Sulzberger>. Further, disinterested has developed a sense (1b), perhaps influenced by sense 1 of the prefix dis-, that contrasts with uninterested <when I grow tired or disinterested in anything, I experience a disgust -- Jack London (letter, 1914)>. Still, use of senses 1a and 1b will incur the disapproval of some who may not fully appreciate the history of this word or the subtleties of its present use.

[Nono]

Thanks. I don't confuse "dis" with "un".

I'm asking why one should be disinterested. Don't we often have interests when it comes to debatable issues? If one had to be disinterested, most people would be ahh.. uninterested.

Another thing: Am I "biased" (i.e. any more than anyone else)? Why would you think that?

[Disinterested]

Everyone's biased. Some more than others. In this argument, your tone and content indicates a bias against western provinces.

[Nono]

Quote by: Dis western provinces

Translation: Alberta

I do think that Alberta is Canada's Texas: lotsa oil and a redneck outlook. It's Canada's spoiled brat. That's an opinion.

Question for you: At what point should an opinion be characterized as "bias"?

I wonder whether the good people of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia share your fervour for Alberta having exclusive right to its resource wealth.

[Disinterested]

You are using opinion to tell me my facts are wrong when you yourself acknowledged that I was accurate in my statement that Quebec and Ontario receive the lion's share of Canada's budget outlays after your implying they didn't.

In genuine debate, opinion doesn't negate facts. Evidence to the contrary does.

That's all I'm saying.

[Nono]

What bullshit. You said this:

Quebec and Ontario take all the federal money for themselves.

Let's just consider that statement as an example of extreme, factually incorrect hyperbole LOL.

I quite reasonably replied that "Quebec and Ontario have the biggest populations and economies. Actually the flow of federal money is more in favour of the less rich provinces."

And you have the nerve to say "in genuine debate, opinion doesn't negate facts. Evidence to the contrary does".

My my.

[Disinterested]

That was obvious hyperbole since no one in their right mind would believe that the federal government of Canada would allocate zero funds to any province other than Ottawa and Quebec. Perhaps you did take my hyperbole literally however. I'll be sure to not use rhetoric which is a valid debating technique in my replies to you to avoid this confusion in the future.

Prove to me with fiscal budget outlay statistics, not your words, that "...the flow of federal money is more in favour of the less rich provinces," and I will retract my statement that Ottawa and Quebec receive the lion's share of federal budget outlays.

[Nono]

Quote by: Dis Perhaps you did take my hyperbole literally however.

Look, D, you're the guy setting such high standards for debate around here. You just don't practise what you preach.

Of course they get the lion's share. Quite rightly. They're the elephants in the jungle.

[Disinterested]

What about your point "Actually the flow of federal money is more in favour of the less rich provinces?"

Can that be backed up with factual statistics or is it also your opinion?

[SteveA]

Quote by: Disinterested It would seem to me that if the parliament ganged up on Alberta and passed legislation changing the current law that Alberta would have a right to be upset. Furthermore, the western provinces have been ignored throughout history by Ontario and Quebec so why should Alberta owe the rest of Canada anything?

I would agree with you, Disinterested.

How many people ever ask for others to share their problems? Few. Yet when something isn't a problem, but a benefit, everyone wants a cut of it. I find it interesting that when gambling at Vegas, few people want to split the loses but many people want to split the winnings.

Why not extend this same idea and say Alberta should give oil freely to other nations as well? Is there some reason to stop at simply handing resources to other Canadian provinces? If you ask extremists, they'll say no.

Quote by: Nono Canada is an inherently centrifugal confederation, with all extremities resenting the centre.

Sort of like a mini-U.S.?

I think this is the fate of any relatively large and centralized government. Likely as soon as a government stops concentrating on offering simply the benefits of being peacekeeper and instead becomes a ruler tolerant of trodding on some peoples rights (because they're a political minority) is the day these problems begin to set in. Welcome to a modern democracy!

[Nono]

Here ya go, Dis, and from Toronto's right-wing mouthpiece The Globe and Mail no less:

(Ontario) has about 40 per cent of Canada's population, and generates about 44 per cent of GDP. Yet it gets only 37.2 per cent of the transfer payments to universities, 23.5 per cent of the cash transfers to the provinces and 32.6 per cent of the transfers to persons, that is, the amount spent on individuals for unemployment insurance benefits, education scholarships and the like. The list is endless. (...) If the concept of paying a little to get a lot appeals to you, your best value for money can be found in Newfoundland, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba.

In case you wondered, those are Canada's poorest provinces. The author says that "Alberta is another province that ships out far more loot than it gets back." That's the way it should be.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Nono ... The author says that "Alberta is another province that ships out far more loot than it gets back." That's the way it should be.

Is it any wonder politics has become so contentious when attitudes like that are prevalent? It would only be a sad state of affairs if weren't such a destructive trend.

[Nono]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...2154&t=TS_Home

"The NDP has the least sticky vote. It's not that people don't like what they're saying, or don't like Jack Layton ... the idea of a Stephen Harper government, which has become less objectionable throughout the rest of the political spectrum, is just as anathema in the NDP camp as it was the last time around," said (pollster Frank) Graves. "They are highly prone to a Liberal message that `We're going to have a Conservative government.'"

I'll say. Once again, it's a matter of holding one's nose and marking the ballot.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono Here ya go, Dis, and from Toronto's right-wing mouthpiece The Globe and Mail no less: In case you wondered, those are Canada's poorest provinces. The author says that "Alberta is another province that ships out far more loot than it gets back." That's the way it should be.

I'm not shocked that a right wing paper would disagree with a socialist redistribution of wealth according to need. Seeing that Canada is a socialist kind of government, I'm not surprised that lesser provinces receive more aid then wealthier ones from the federal government.

[Nono]

Quote by: Dis Seeing that Canada is a socialist kind of government, I'm not surprised that lesser provinces receive more aid then wealthier ones from the federal government.

Yes, that's the way it should be.
A lot of Canadians would laugh out loud to hear (invariably from an American) that Canada is "socialist". Just goes to show that everything is relative.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono Yes, that's the way it should be. A lot of Canadians would laugh out loud to hear (invariably from an American) that Canada is "socialist". Just goes to show that everything is relative.

Canada is a socialist form of government. Remember when the federal government tried to nationalize the bottled water industry a few years back stating that water is a "strategic resource?"

[Nono]

Well then the US federal government is also "socialist" for any number of reasons. Let's take as one example its massive subsidies for agriculture.

I hear that George Bush may head the Socialist International when he steps down after his second term as pres.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono Well then the US federal government is also "socialist" for any number of reasons. Let's take as one example its massive subsidies for agriculture. I hear that George Bush may head the Socialist International when he steps down after his second term as pres.

Nationalizing sectors of industry however is socialist.