Marocc

That wasn't under discussion. You don't have to make it sound so personal. Moving from one country to another isn't easy and most people don't do it in the west — or else you'd see a much bigger mass of Americans emigrating. I think that's against what Canada states about itself. Just look at their newest plan for the middle East. It's a big plan if Canada is all about, "Don't expect us to..." Well, when the Americans went to Iran they weren't appreciated much, as far as I've read. Are you sure that's not because what you have from your culture isn't as good for them as what they have themselves? I'm not saying it isn't, but have you thought of what value your culture would have in their eyes? That should be the same for everyone. One can't reasonably demand immigrants to be more economically productive than one's own people. It's also unnecessary to keep shouting about it to every direction — it can amount to abuse. Particularly those who work hard to earn their living might suffer of being constantly harassed by accusations of them "not being economically productive".

That has nothing to do with this. What is that even?

They're probably not holding services.

That's your opinion. Some people starve in their countries. Part of the blame for that is on you.

Why not? Everyone who immigrates has a reason. I'm sure you know plenty of the possible reasons. I hardly need to enumerate them. The culture. E.g. alcohol, nudity, sex, manners and dealing with the opposite sex. Schooling may be okay. Environment is safe, health care works, the basic needs are met. there's still problems. There are other children who have not been taught to respect their elders, speak politely, dress modestly, to not insult others, to be honest, to be just toward other people, etc. What are you implying?

You say that because you don't like their culture? It is t exactly about liking or disliking a culture, imo. It's about its effects.

I didn't say it's unreasonable. I said it's vain and rude. A good idea so the culture doesn't ruin them.

I was referring to this:

I don't differentiate. It is none of my business. It is vain to provoke people simply to disapprove of their reactions. In fact, it is rude.

You mean you don't find them staring and leering? Not enough sexual assaults yet? Not enough involuntary pornograpic pictures?

Islam is not something that started from the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). Isa [Jesus] (alaihi salam) was Muslim, Musa (alaihi salam) was Muslim and Abraham (alaihi salam) was Muslim. The Old Testament today commands women to either cover their head or shave their hair. The New Testament prescribes covering the head to church at least.

Maybe, but there's different levels to it. I created an impression with one strong word so I didn't have to describe further. That would be silly. Most people who dress like it are just trying to look like one. They don't actually want to be one. Well, yes, I would deem it inappropriate if I had to be a client to someone wearing a skirt that doesn't cover her knees. I'm not referring to someone selling news papers, but to someone working in a bank for example. When I say I deem it inappropriate, I don't mean that it is an "issue" for me. It is not. It is simply something that is likely to cross my mind. If "should" refers vaguely to my preferences, yes. If it refers to "they should be made to wear more clothes", no. The sun can cause harm and many people burn their skins carelessly, apparently unaware of how dangerous it can be. In the summer, I do often wish this or that individual had more clothes on because it hurts me just to look at their skin and how they're still standing in the sun.

As compared to making sure you're getting correct information and not expecting many sources = must be true if they all agree. I didn't say you do. I think I've brought it up before: one can hate ideologies as well, among other things. I think I've brought it up before, but I don't wear a burqa. If this question refers to all women and 'head to toe' refers to a burqa, then I don't think so. As for the religious obligation for women, it only applies to believers. However, I do believe, dressing as a slut to a job at an office on a daily basis, does something awful to the society as a whole if it has thousands of individuals doing the same.

It all depends on context, but yep, basically both — however, skinny jeans don't cover anything.

I absolutely agree — which is why I am requesting all women to please put some clothes on.

If "enjoying the freedoms and benefits of Western culture while honouring her cultural heritage" looks the way I imagine it looks like to so many islamophobes, racists and other intolerant and narrow-minded individuals, then I would probably be a bit uncomfortable. I dislike it when some women make hijab a piece of cloth, wrapped negligently around one's head, indifferent to whether it actually covers the hair, chest, neck or the ears and indifferent to what other body parts should be covered.

I didn't think so. I never brought it up here. If one wanted to be naive, one could think that if the information one gets comes from many different directions and from different people with different motives, one would be led to the truth. Even that can hardly be your excuse. You've been hating for too long.

Which exists mainly in your head and you glue it with your imagination to the individual you happen to be seeing.

The topic is capitalism, not income inequality, though, but if you have something to say of that, go ahead.

No Those who did it, did it for profit.

"Dutch intensive care doctor Jan Bakker is working in New York through the coronavirus crisis. He is exasperated by the American healthcare system and the inequality it highlights. "What this crisis has made clear is that the US healthcare system is pretty much the worst system we know in the developed world. It is best if you have money and want to get every possible treatment until your last breath. But if you're broke, you're screwed," Bakker said in an interview with Het Parool." https://nltimes.nl/2020/04/28/dutch-icu-doc-exasperated-new-york-youre-broke-youre-screwed

Based on what? People don't ride motorcycles with 'minimum inconvenience to everyone else'. They also don't parade the streets nearly naked with 'minimum inconvenience to everyone else'. And they don't play music on street corners with 'minimum inconvenience to everyone else'.

Instead of it focusing on the nation which among other nations is destroying the globe while pattering something about climate change being a hoax? Actually, the focus, as far as I'm concerned, is capitalism. If you would like to choose another capitalist country, that significantly influences some part of the world, from the world map to use as an example while discussing this topic, please yourself.

Are you talking about that time those 20,000-30,000 people were hanged in Iran? The word 'popular' is not what I would use. FYI, whenever something is about to remove what you think is a 'horrible, evil dictator, unsightly to the western democracies', the western democracies rush to rescue the dictator and his position in order to keep things the way they were; most profitable for the western democracies.

Then there's the ads too. Canada is advertising itself as a place to live in. Don't ask me who profits from it the most.