Renegade

So why the complaints then, afterall were you not the one who suggested that we should submit to the will of the people?

Not sure. We may be here because our ancestors conquered and pillaged. The extiinct people may have stuck to their principles. Which is "better" is a matter of perspective.

The question wasn't asked from a moral perspective and it was not answered from one. It was answered from a practical basis. A woman (in most cases) has more power than an uninvited intruder because she has the power of the police behind her. When she doesn't have the state's power behind her, she is pretty much powerless. If you want to phrase it morally, answer the question of why we have the moral right to exclude anyone from Canada?

I doubt it avoids wars to meet justice criteria. There have been many conqured races which have had criteria for justice. It didn't stop a war nor their conquest.

Somewhat, but it should be the overridding consideration. For example we award points to "Family Class" immigrants. How does it benefit Canada to take on a senior citizen simply because they are related to someone already in Canada. Also, the current system is not very adaptable to changing skill requirements. It also doesn't take into account that in order to fill a skill need, it takes more than an immigrant having a skill. For example, the immigrant must have to locate in the area where the need exist, also the skill may need to be licensed. That is why you have skilled immigrants driving cabs.

Ultmately the owner needs to meet just one criteria: He must have the power to force strangers from infringing on his territory without permission. Natives did not meet that criteria and so lost their ability to prevent strangers from infringing on their territory.

None of the choices in this poll are specfic enough. IMV, immigrants should not be flitered based upon their competance but rather based upon the needs and best interest of Canada. The needs of Canada constantly changing and so the criteria should change to reflect that. Some implications of this are: 1. Canada doesn't need more senior citizens and as such it should discrimminate on the basis of age. 2. Canada needs more of some professions and none of others. People should be admitted on the basis of them meeting a need for skills. 3. Canada doesn't need additional drain on social services. Immigrants who are likely to drain social services (such as healthcare) should be excluded. 4. Immigrants should be assessed on the basis of thier ability to integrate into the population. For example, potential immigrants who don't have the language skills should be excluded. 5. If Canada needs entreprenuers, immigrants may be discrimminated on the basis of their wealth and willingness to invest in businesses. Immigrants select Canada based upon the percieved benfit to themselves, doesn't it makes sense that Canada do the same?

Benoit, you really need a dictionary to understand the meaning of words as you clearly don't. I beg of you to please gain some understanding of the words you use before posting.

Not enough grow without interaction to sustain all life.

Benoit, you don't have to do any vountary labour - you are free to voluntarily starve.

Your "innocence" still leaves ample room for ignorance. You belive findings without looking beyond the surface. Even when I have referenced the findings, you have made excuses for the results based upon nothing but speculation. Labour is an indirect necessity. Sustance is a metabolic necessity to live, without labour no resources are available to provide for sustance. In any case none of your response deals as to why you characterize labour as deceit. I conclude you have your own definition of labour and frankly don't speak the same language we do.

You are not the University of Toronto. Even if you are a product of U of T you have not demonstrated your knowledge. What you have demonstrated is the ability to quote philosophers. There is nothing decietful about it. Try it and you may find that you will relish the fruits of your labour instead of the entitlement you feel.

You have the wrong saying. You are ignorant until proven knowledgable. So far you have not been proven. Of course, and you have used neither word in your response, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Self-apointed arbiter of the truth are you? Why, because you or one of your philosophers say so?

More babble. You do. I don't.

Except that they all have different philosophies. Picking and choosing philosophers quotes doesn't mean any one of them is right. I see no point to responding to philosophers who are not here to defend their thoughts. If you want to express your thoughts and defend them, do so, other we are simply playing a game of dualing phislosphers. Hunger wherever it occurs, local or foreign may be sad, but doesn't imply that others are responsible for its cause.

Have you no original thought that you need to refer to philosophers? If one feels a duty to send welfare payments abroad, I see no need to address one's hunger.

Did you make this up? It is nothing of the sort. Clearly you have your own language as you have a different definition of work, morality and I'm sure other words. I need to find nothing. To prove me wrong YOU need to show it is not possible to live on the welfare allowance. What evidences? You have yet to provide any. Huh? Clearly freedom is yet another word you have redefined on your own. I have to wonder Benoit, is English your primary language? I have posed simple questions which you cannot, or will not answer or perhaps don't understand.

So, lets eliminate the Welfare system and go gack to "Christian charity".

so? what is your point? Again, what is your point reletave to the statement I made. You have already stated why you *think* they do so, but without any evidence. Without evidence it is just speculation tainted by prejudices. Regardless of why they do so, the point is that the do make a choce. As I've said I don't have a problem with them making a choice, and they are entitled to the consequences of that choice. With imposition of subjective norms we take away from each other's freedom. Despite you seeming to agree that morality shouldn't be imposed, you seem to defend it. So which your position? Do you believe morality should be imposed or are people free to follow their own moral code?

Apparently not as we have survived and thrived. If we have created conditions where we thrive, that is the new natural state. I don't think I ever contended that there was NO hunger in Toronto. What I contend is that the basic welfare payment is sufficent to meet nutritional needs, and to do that all anyone would need to show is that there is at least one person on welfare who was not malnourished. Sure they can, since you seem to read a lot more into the study than is reported. For example you extrroplate that people may be going hungry while providing internet service to their kids to secure a better future for their kids. This is pure speculation as you don't know if they have kids, and you don't know if what they are doing is surfing porn on the internet. Your prejudices lead you to make excuses to defend resuts which support your prejudices. The question is not whether people follow a line between good and bad. The question is that line is purely subjective and why should one persons interpretation of the line be imposed upon another?

So what? Life IS SKEWED to those who are lucky or skilled or capable. Isn't that the way nature intended? That would only be true if the statement covered all cases. I submit that in this case the survey doesn't claim it is conclusively defines the case for hunger in Toronto. You credit this study because it does fit your prejudices concerning the poor. It really depends on where you draw the line doesn't it. Conquest has been for wealth and power. Wealth and power have been intermingled with religion for much of history. You don't address why since you agree that morality should not be imposed, why you raise morality at all?

reserve? I assume you mean reverse? Yes agreed. If you agree that this is true, why do you bring your subjective morality as an issue? It depends on what you are trying to prove. In this case people claiming they are have gone hungry doesn't prove that they are inadequately funded for nutrition. Belief of what? I have no idea what you are taking about? It is likely that religion and morality have been bigger drivers of conflict and violence even if priests and monks arent the ones bearing arms.

People who earn more, have more choices in diet. People who earn less or rely on handouts have less choice despite what they want. Proving something is false is not necessary. It is simply enough to have not been proved true. What action do you refer to? I don't seek to stall any action which I believe correct, in fact I encourage it, furthermore I am completely prepared to block any actions which I disagree with. Neither Chistians nor anyone else should impose their morals on anyone else.

Of course. So what we know is that, is that when asked people say they want more. Am I? Without verification there is more opportunity for falsification. As am I. That's exactly what missionaries did as the colonized. (ie impose their set of morals upon a population) BTW, What do non-Christians do?