Ginsy

Are you referring to the simulation theory where we're all actually just living in some kind of computer program/Matrix? It gives me nightmares. If simulation theory were true, wouldn't self-determination and free will be a hoax since everything is programmed anyways? Vox made a short but interesting video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0KHiiTtt4w

Okay. God is not accountable, right? So if he performs the most immoral act known to mankind you will not hold him accountable? You'll look past it without any question or doubt? Any suspicion? Really?

Yeah. I meant 'weird' as in I wouldn't imagine the two working together or even come up with the idea, but it does work.

I'm going to assume you're claiming that Canada is closer to socialism and America is closer to capitalism? Neither exist purely, they work in conjunction. As I understand our system, it works in a weird way that combines socialism, or maybe you can call it welfare, with capitalism. But trying to distinguish the two from each other in this way is far too extreme.

Fair. That is a very emotional and monuments moment in your life so I can see where you're coming from. I just hope that you don't apply that one negative experience with a black doctor to the way that you view other black people! (And I'm not accusing you of doing so, I don't know anything about you. I just hope it doesn't happen because I know of others who do this.)

If you aren't saying anything about race then what was the point of saying the doctor was black? Truly, I'm confused. If your comment has nothing to do with race then why did you include the doctor's race at the beginning?

Whether it's justifiable or not doesn't change the fact that those who have more money than others can simply buy more of what they need or want.

Plenty of academic literature suggests that political correctness has vastly different origins.

I'm not sure this is actually injustice. What if someone worked tirelessly and endlessly for their wage? Are they not allowed to be compensated for their labour? Then, are they not allowed to spend their earnings on whatever they like? Even if that means it's more than what they need? Regardless, they earned it. And I wouldn't dare say that everyone starts at an equal point; I acknowledge some face barriers that may inhibit their ability to access money and employment like others would, but if those who do earn a wage fairly wish to spend their earnings on more than what they need, then so be it. And, it is different from saying you have more right to something over someone else. Nobody is saying that those who are wealthy deserve more than others, of course they don't. However, the reality is that those who are wealthy have more access to certain things. We can have some control over equality of opportunity, but we simply cannot control equality of outcome. This is the reality of our situation. Now, it may not be a desirable one, and I'm sure this is not the highest point of human achievement. I do agree with you that human achievement would look something like all peoples having access to necessities, but it is unfortunately impractical. I do appreciate you thinking of solutions to this problem however. But, it is also worth noting that having a form of government where they are able to control equality of outcome is scary. Do you really want a government with this much power?

This is an odd understanding of human nature, especially given the evidence (overconsumption? depletion of resources?) that humans always take more than what they need.. Resources are scarce, yet the want for them isn't. We always want more than we need and we want it immediately.

Which God ordained? According to, what, The Bible I assume? And what if I reject the bible as truth? How they had grandchildren matters. Scientists have discovered how people are born and the conditions leading up to birth, and this can be proven through observable facts, so if someone proposes that these grandchildren (and Adam and Eve..) were born in an entirely different way than everyone else who has ever existed, people are definitely going to be skeptical. Why should they accept God's "ordainment" as truth if it is questionable? The Bible says the human race started with Adam and Eve. Ok, if we are to believe that everything written in The Bible is true, what if The Bible also insisted that fire is not hot? Would you have no problem then walking through a pit of fire since The Bible claims it is not hot and of course The Bible is a book filled with truth? Eve being created from the rib of Adam, well, makes no logical sense. Is that just the way God did it, or was that just a fun thought the author of the bible had? Who knows. I don't.

Interesting. I didn't know this. According a the NY times article: 49.9% in favour of the Democrats, while 48.4% went to the Republicans. I believe that is around 1.5-1.7 So, I suspect you are right that there may not even be a recount. But like you said, we shall see.

From what I can tell, Moore is actually insisting on a recount. But wasn't the Alabama voted computerized? (Of course, computers can make errors..) Also, the Alabama Supreme Court just ruled that the state can destroy any evidence of ballot images right after an election. I wonder what the implications of this will be?

Two questions. I'm not that knowledgable on the this topic so I'd like to hear different perspectives, especially from people who know more than I do! 1. I forgot the theorists name, but in class we spoke about several different theories about population growth/decline, and one theorist proposed that population decline does not need to be a human effort because nature will take care of it. To what extent is this true? For example, he would make the claim that although the population may rise at one point in time, it will decrease in another because of natural disasters and such. I thought there might be a problem with this theory because although a natural disaster can kill a large number of people at time, do enough people actually die that it makes a statistical dent in world's entire population? (Not that they should or deserve to die!) 2. Is it fair to say that population growth and the mass spread of capitalism and consumption go hand in hand? Is rapid population growth an issue because we do not have enough livable land on earth, or is it a problem solely because we do not have enough resources to sustain the population? Then, would it be fair to say the real issue is that we consume far too much, and that's why population growth may be negative? With that logic, could we indirectly fix the issue by cutting down our mass consumption? Just some thoughts!

I take it you are not fond of multiculturalism, or rather the abundance of different kinds of people that currently live in Canada? Correct me if I'm wrong. Tell me, what was Canadian culture prior to the "massive third world invasion"? And I don't ask in an argumentative or condescending way, I ask with genuine interest because I haven't been alive long enough to experience Canada before it was the way it is today. Also, can you define "WASP culture" for me? I know that WASP refers to..basically, white people (White Anglo-Saxon's, right?). Again, I ask because I actually just don't know.

In your post you sarcastically indicated that people a part of the LGBT community are perverts, and then implied that they are not on the same spectrum as "normal people". Yet, you haven't explained why. So, why?

A baby preferring to sleep in the arms of its mother instead of someone else's has nothing to do with race. A baby is likely to choose their mother over anyone in almost any situation by virtue of them having a special connection with their mother. They would choose their mother over another person of the same race. Again, this has nothing to do with the race and more to do with the psychology behind the extremely close relationship between a baby and its mother.

To clarify, I don't wholly agree that a taxpayer should pay for this matter. But I do think the apology was deeply needed. The thing is, I'm not entirely sure Trudeau's compensation is genuinely rooted in his care for the LGBT community or his care for his public image! I think what one might say in defence of Canadian taxpayer money going towards this matter is that we all work towards the interests of our fellow nationals, including our LGBT members who were wronged by their employers, so some of our taxes are going to be used to help compensate for their loss. Now, that's just one possibility, and I'm sure someone with a more knowledgable perspective may have better reasoning than I do.

You know, you can take whatever stance you would like to on this issue, or any issue for that matter, but it definitely helps to do so in a mature and reasonable way. As someone who agrees with the government on this matter, I'd be a lot more open to hearing your side of the debate if you presented your argument in a way that is actually respectable. Jumping to ad hominem without any justifications for your point really tarnishes its credibility. Try again maybe?

Yes, I agree. Although, I thought that this was the essence of Canadian culture. At least, it has been since I was born (I am still a teenager). Canadian culture, as I understand it, is a conglomerate of several different cultures due to the numerous amount of different kind of people that live here. Now, whether that is good or not is a different debate, and this is a more of an observation, but I genuinely believed - and I do admit to the possibility of being wrong - that this was the point of Canadian culture. And yes, Canadians consume American culture at ungodly rates. At times, I really do wonder if Canadian culture is simply American culture with a few readjustments here and there.

You claim that being racist is innate, and I must say that I profoundly reject this. I think a more accurate statement would fall somewhere along the spectrum of "it is likely that all members within society hold racist or prejudice beliefs, whether consciously or unconsciously, do to the effects of media, socialization, and so on". And even then, I think some might contest this, all though I do generally believe it. When you say that racism is "innate", you really bring down your own argument. I understand the rationale for believing that everyone, in some way, is racist, or at least stereotypes others, but to say that this is "innate" and therefore something we are born with and not something we learn is an extremely dangerous statement. Because really, it's a big statement to say everyone in society is racist, but it's an even bigger statement to say that everyone in society is born racist and that's the reason we all hold racist beliefs. Racism is something that is learned overtime, and it is either learned subtly through media portrayal, family influence, peer influence, etc. or it is learned in another way that is far more blatant, such as your parents telling you something negative about a race and expecting you to adhere to that belief system. We may all be racist, but this is a result of learning, socialization, childhood experiences, but what it is not is "innate". You are not already born with a very specific conceptualization of the world and its people.