I understand where Mr. Weir is coming from: I know all too well the feeling of intellectual superiority that comes with completing a university course. All of this new information mingling inside of your brain leads to wonderfully innovative ideas. Surely no one has thought of things this way before! Well Weirsy-boy, there's one teensy thought that did not cross your all-powerful mind: "Gee, maybe I don't fully understand the situation. Maybe I don't have all of the information." It is crucial to gather as much information as is possible on the subject you wish to comment. I regret to inform you that completion of one course does not qualify you to deliver a knock-out punch to the entire field of environmental ethics. First of all, I don't think you understand what Hume's Law is. The most generally accepted account of the law is that it is not logically sound to arrive at a conclusion of how things ought to be based on how things are. The single paragraph in David Hume's A Treatise on Human Nature that spawned the notion of the is-ought problem has been debated from all sides. Some believe the idea of 'no ought conclusions from is premises' is a misinterpretation; others believe it is right; while still others believe it is dead wrong. There is no precise view of what Hume was saying. You can't just take one side of the argument, tack it onto the diverse field of environmental ethics, and call it a day. That's not how argumentation works. And finally, yes Kyle, there are many different theories surrounding environmental ethics, but you're never going to get a "rule set in stone that states what is […] ethical." Ethics is a fluid discipline just like psychology and many others. The nature of the field is to foster debate and multiple viewpoints. There are no final answers, and there likely never will be because that is not the point. This does not mean that there is no such thing as an ethical or unethical action. <em>Dylan Schock</em>

Mr. Weir, you have given the impression that Anthropocentrism, or the belief that humans must be considered above all other aspects of reality, is the most extreme ethical belief that someone can have in terms of the environment. But I hardly think an anthropocentric person would see the value to humans in allowing toxic chemical to seep into local groundwater. While an anthropocentric might not believe in preserving a marsh, nothing about that standpoint indicates that money is valued over human life. You might be right in saying that there is no wrong philosophical category of environmental ethics. But in the real world, there certainly is such a thing as being environmentally unethical, and anyone who says differently needs to take off their blinders. I'd also like to point out the serious mistakes you've made in categorizing the Green Party of Canada. First, the Green Party IS seeing a drastic improvement in their political power. The party never broke 1% of the popular vote until 2004. But in 2008, it gained 6.8% of the popular vote. Further, if the environment wasn't a big issue, then why did Canadians demand that Elizabeth May be allowed to join the debate? If our society feels that there are more important things to worry about than the environment, then why did all of the major parties adopt green platforms in the last election? You've made a lot of unfounded assumption in your article, and I suggest that in the future, you do your research. <em>Shawna Finnegan</em>

I must say that I was shocked when I opened my Manitoban today and found an article lambasting the "Dayna Steinfelds of the world" in reference to my Comment article from more than seven weeks ago. While I recognize Stephen McCreary's journalistic right to respond to my response to his original article, "Who Hates the Arts?", I have to question the Manitoban's editorial wisdom in deciding to include these comments after so much delay. After seven weeks (or six weeks for Sarah Petz, whom McCreary also targets), I am concerned that my original article will not hold prominence in people's frames of reference and they will instead rely on McCreary's out-of-context characterizations of me. While I welcome the challenge of a response, and often enjoy reading this type of dialogue between people in the Manitoban, I do not find this a fair way to present a rebuttal article. I sincerely doubt that people were so put off by my article that they decided not to vote, or to vote Conservative. Voter apathy is a serious issue in this country and I don't believe that we can simplistically point to the "Dayna Steinfelds of the world" as the cause. Nor do I think that this is particularly relevant six weeks after the election and just three weeks after the Americans turned out in the highest numbers since 1908- a pathetic 65.7% For the record, this particular leftwing activist was not lazy. I voted and I voted Liberal, as do many others I know who care about the arts. I also went to support my local ballet company for their performance of Carmina Burina and was once again saddened that their ability to tour their talents internationally has been severely limited by Harper's cuts. In the future, I hope that the Manitoban will strive to include comment that is relevant and timely. I also continue to hope that those who contribute to the Manitoban will seek to root their articles in intellectually strong arguments, leaving the simplistic partisan insults for Fox News. <em>Dayna Steinfeld</em>

Stephen Harper has handed the opposition parties the opportunity of a lifetime with the Conservative's decision to cut public election financing. This cut is, unsurprisingly, hugely unpopular with the other parties as it will substantially hurt their bank accounts. This issue has the potential to serve as a common rallying point between the three elected opposition parties, all that is needed is a willingness from the opposition parties to work together. If the three elected opposition parties can show a willingness to work together then they need not worry about causing another unwanted election, because the Governor General does have the option of handing the reigns of Government over to a coalition of the opposition parties, as Lord Byng did in 1926. In fact, given that the mood among Canadians for yet another election and the fact that Canadian went to the polls less than two months it is difficult to see how Michaelle Jean could not hand the government to the opposition parties. If the three elected opposition parties really care about the well-being of Canadian then they will act to enter into a coalition government, because the alternative — a continuation of the Conservative's short-term thinking — is unconscionable. <em> James Beddome</em>

Patrick Gratton, in his article issued on Nov 5 " It's Time to Prioritize Our Children" states " The days of taunting those preppy, creme de la creme male elite who frequent same-sex private schools like St. Paul's are behind us. There's no need to label those whom, with the help of daddy's pay-cheque are proud owners of Jaguars as "fags." In these first two sentences lies a contradiction, I suggest taking your own advice and refrain from labeling preppy school boys as such. The author also states " The discrimination of students attending of sex-segregated educational institution is on the verge of extinction." A difficult goal to achieve if writers like Patrick Gratton continue to use the word fag without recognition of its harm in articles where it is completely out of context. The subtitle of his own article is " Lets Place Them Where They Belong" . To Patrick, I suggest the following: let's place words where they belong. This article, as it should have, caused quite the reaction from students and faculty members across campus. It is important to the extinction of discrimination to classify "so called" casual uses of such hate-filled words as unacceptable. After many letters to the editor from students expressing their experiences of discrimination upon reading the article, the Manitoban released an "apology", stating "Some students have expressed their offense at the casual use of the word. The Manitoban apologizes, recognizing that words have different meanings to everyone." If the editorial board could recognize that words have different meanings to everyone, then surely they could foresee the offense that was to come. It is an editors responsibility to correct such errors. Thus this weak attempt of an apology is nothing but insincere and the lack of a willingness to understand the weight of the matter from the Manitoban is immature and insulting. It is my understanding, that during the decision making process to allow this word in print none of the members of the Rainbow Pride Mosaic at the University of Manitoba were consulted of the issue, and I have to wonder how many of the members of the editorial board were heterosexual. I highly doubt that anyone from the queer community who has suffered from verbal or physical abuse because of their sexual orientation would vote "yes" to have this word in print, deeming it of casual use. — Vera Coppola Second year Fine Art student