en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/690846 Comments by FPSS_Dave http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/scientists-%e2%80%9ccreate%e2%80%9d-human-eggs-and-sperm/#IDComment41243141 And why should this technology stop at 'simply helping childless couples have kids'? If there are other good things that can be accomplished, why stop there? You are not insinuating that perhaps other things that might be done might not meet with your approval, and therefore this type of science should not be pursued are you? That the first sentence makes foolish the title of the article (a sperm cell is a far cry from an actual sperm) is a point the author should consider, but we will inevitably get there. Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:28:50 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/scientists-%e2%80%9ccreate%e2%80%9d-human-eggs-and-sperm/#IDComment41243141 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/27/the-commons-bring-it-on/#IDComment41032728 You are quite correct of course. It begs the question though, and I assume this is what you infer: why do we not get genuine answers? I fully appreciate there are deep rooted fundamental philosophical difference in the politics of man. But ultimately, is it not the ideal of the majority to determine what is best for the majority, with the utopian notion that perhaps we can find an ideal situation for all mankind? Is the vehicle towards this utopia to be found in the childish antics we see in question period? Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:11:40 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/27/the-commons-bring-it-on/#IDComment41032728 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/27/a-bloody-good-pr-move/#IDComment40915634 Rats Dot!! Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:10:09 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/27/a-bloody-good-pr-move/#IDComment40915634 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/27/a-bloody-good-pr-move/#IDComment40915586 Pffft. Canadian for Jay. Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:09:32 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/27/a-bloody-good-pr-move/#IDComment40915586 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/27/the-commons-bring-it-on/#IDComment40915396 Yes... perhaps then there should be a 'two-tier' method of keeping the stats. I'm sure it wouldn't be as easy as this but call a dumb question, well, a dumb question, and give it 1 point. Relevant questions get 2 points. Conversely give a dumb response 1 point, (or as in the Prime Ministers answer no points at all.... shouldn't get any points for not answering the question). Give a well thought out response 2 points. I don't see any point(s) in today's Question Period. What, exactly, is the purpose of all this anyways? To see who can come up with the whitier repartee? Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:07:00 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/27/the-commons-bring-it-on/#IDComment40915396 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/libya-shuts-its-doors-to-canadians/#IDComment40797793 What's the word.. what's the word... what do you call a commenter who purposely says something so totally ridiculous just to inflame the readership... Oh yes I seem to recall it's 'Poe', though I cannot find any citation. If you are not a Poe Mr. ezzo, I would imagine then that you are in Libya enjoying the fruits of such a wonderfully progressive government at this very moment? Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:13:34 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/libya-shuts-its-doors-to-canadians/#IDComment40797793 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/ottawa-parole-is-a-privilege-not-a-right/#IDComment40793782 Strange. That's twice in one day(!!) that I've seen something I whole heartedly agree with coming from a government source. Earlier today I read how we didn't need to have legislation for the sake of legislation. Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:28:38 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/ottawa-parole-is-a-privilege-not-a-right/#IDComment40793782 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/the-commons-unsophisticated-debate-will-not-be-tolerated-in-this-place/#IDComment40792336 I am with you there kcm. I believe the whole article is somewhat tongue in cheek in regards to the irony of it all? How it's ok for our elected officials to act like complete children, but when the children show up to throw it back at them, they flinch aghast at the audacity. Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:14:05 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/the-commons-unsophisticated-debate-will-not-be-tolerated-in-this-place/#IDComment40792336 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/23/polygamy-is-still-illegal-right/#IDComment40515905 I'd be interested to see the twisted interpretation of the Charter of Rights that suggests polygamy is illegal or wrong. I agree with the comments above. It's no ones darn business what consenting adults choose to do between themselves. Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:09:19 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/23/polygamy-is-still-illegal-right/#IDComment40515905 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/23/gen-rick-hillier-on-his-biggest-strategic-error-the-talibans-comeback-and-whether-canada-should-stay-in-afghanistan-past-2011/#IDComment40514646 And please don't "evolve" Mr. Hillier. You are a principled and intelligent man, and I would vote for you any day. The conspiracy theorists like our good man Gary notwithstanding, I believe most Canadians would wish to help anyone who suffers at the hands of anything like the Taliban, and would not be so self centered and selfish as to blame the Americans. Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:54:42 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/23/gen-rick-hillier-on-his-biggest-strategic-error-the-talibans-comeback-and-whether-canada-should-stay-in-afghanistan-past-2011/#IDComment40514646 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-pope-invites-disaffected-anglicans-to-join-the-catholic-church/#IDComment39904721 Run-on sentences seem to be a problem with me. My apologies. As for history. It's there for anyone to see. Please explain the inquisition. The 'church' only recently apologized for the Galileo debacle. Darwin and evolution is still attacked by the superstitious. I addressed your third above. Get used to it. Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:50:01 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-pope-invites-disaffected-anglicans-to-join-the-catholic-church/#IDComment39904721 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-pope-invites-disaffected-anglicans-to-join-the-catholic-church/#IDComment39839377 Because quite simply after centuries of being crucified in all manner of horrible ways for even being skeptical of someones, or some groups superstitious beliefs, now we have human rights that are protected by laws, and freedom of speech is one of the more important ones. It allows people to ask questions. If you wish to believe in something supernatural or superstitious, that's your business. But someone will ask you why. And if you wish to believe in a religion that has persecuted hundreds of thousands of people just because .... (the inquisition comes to mind), stood in the way of every baby step that humanity has taken to understand itself ... (Let's see, Galileo, Darwin, science in general), is always whining about how their ideological enemies are so darn intolerant whilst they attack gays and lesbians and anyone who questions their irrational beliefs ... if you wish to believe in such a thing and state it in a public forum, it's now more likely than at any time in history someone will want to hold you accountable, and will challenge your beliefs. Get used to it. Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:37:10 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-pope-invites-disaffected-anglicans-to-join-the-catholic-church/#IDComment39839377 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-pope-invites-disaffected-anglicans-to-join-the-catholic-church/#IDComment39827892 Nicely said Carl Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:49:17 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-pope-invites-disaffected-anglicans-to-join-the-catholic-church/#IDComment39827892 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/15/thinking-about-the-old-ignatieff/#IDComment39487990 What ARE Human Rights? I would suggest that it was stated most accurately in the American Declaration of Independence, where it was written, you have the right to the PURSUIT of happiness. More to the point, one does not have a RIGHT to happiness, for that implies it must be provided to you, and therefore someone somewhere is obligated by this right to your happiness. A RIGHT does not obligate another individual to you. A RIGHT does not enslave one portion of society to another. This would appear to fly in the face of the lofty goals written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where apparently you have the right to an education, a right to a standard of living, a right to be treated with dignity. Well, no. Certainly anyone with any compassion and empathy might agree with this to some degree, but if you make it someones right to have these things, you enslave others to provide it. Quite simply, you have the right to EARN these things. We seem to have lost any requirement for self responsibility. We seem to have lost any backbone. We rely on Human Rights Commissions to water down what human rights actually are so that these new-age rights do exactly the opposite of what we want them to do. They stifle and discourage freedom. Regards Dave Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:47:36 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/15/thinking-about-the-old-ignatieff/#IDComment39487990