Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

759 profile views

Abies's Achievements


Enthusiast (6/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges



  1. We shouldn't but inherent biases on the employers part means other measures need to be taken. Just because we didn't have a historical injury in the past doesn't mean that no issue exists today. As Mr.Incredible would say, "Math is Math." Canada admits plenty of skilled immigrants from third world countries, it is the bias of employers that think standards are higher here. Quite the contradiction. Except inherent biases on the hiring side tends to override merit. And as I just posted the definition of racism, hiring minorities to balance the make up of government isn't racism. Nobody is saying one race is better than the other in this case compared to hiring managers thinking only white men are qualified.
  2. That would be ideal but that is really not the case. We are currently in the year 2020. The make up of Canada in the 1970's has no bearing on today. You are making a very broad generalization here. Racism most certainly exists in Canada. It is to counter the bias that minorities are not qualified for these positions because they are not white men. You need to look up the definition of racism:
  3. https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/canadian-companies-still-struggling-to-overcome-hiring-bias-against-minorities/
  4. Affirmative action does not say let someone who failed math into a math degree or a position where one is required. It says that when you have two equally qualified people, preference should be given to minority or women in order to tackle discrimination against those groups. Claiming people should be hired based on merits is good and all but it does nothing to deal with the inherent bias people have against minority groups and women. Funny how when wanting to hire more women and people from minority groups people always insinuate that they aren't qualified.
  5. "Among Canadians aged 25 to 64 with postsecondary qualifications, 81.4% were graduates in fields important for building a strong social infrastructure, such as education, communications, justice, health and others. Contributing to the advancement of Canada's science and technology competitiveness, 18.6% of working-age Canadians with postsecondary qualifications graduated from science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields." https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171129/dq171129a-eng.htm
  6. What evidence is there that hiring women and minority groups has led to a decline in the quality of education in Canada?
  7. Quoting scientists is fine and the IPCC is based on the science performed by those scientists in which they are 95% certain that humans are the dominant cause. Science does not give 100% certainty. Majority of emissions in Canada is by the way we live not industry. We certainly have a choice in how much we produce. There are many means in which to deal with goods from places that do not follow good environmental practices. The climate change crowd have the backing of science. And anything relating to major policy changes which AGW requires is going to be politicized.
  8. No it's actually pretty clear that human activity is the cause of the current warming. https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm Carbon taxes are something economists have been pushing as being more effective at curbing carbon emissions. Also pointing fingers at others does not absolve one of their responsibility. You missed the point. Climate change deniers and holocaust deniers aren't interested in academic/scientific rigour. They want to espouse a certain view.
  9. The military spending issue is something Liberals and Conservatives have failed on.
  10. The problem as we can see here is that arguing with deniers makes them think their ideas are on the same level as a scientist who studies the topic. It's no different than arguing with Holocaust deniers and Armenian genocide deniers. They aren't interested in coming to a consensus academically. They simply want a platform to disseminate their lies as widely as possible to convince as many people as possible. It's political not scientific.
  11. The hockey stick graph has not been debunked since other studies have supported Mann's findings. He has lost one case due to delay. The merits of each side has not been heard or ruled upon. the others are still working it's way through the system.
  12. So far denialists have failed to produce any evidence for their claims that AGW is not real.
  13. In other words the procurement process is a mess as I said.
  14. Military procurement needs to be redone so gaining new and better equipment is done rapidly but no party really seems interested in tackling the issue.
  • Create New...