TreeBeard

Probably. It’s similar to any reconciliation of past wrongs. The current people are the ones to pay the restitution for past wrongs.

We probably agree on this. Except we already agreed that it did happen, even if it may not be happening now. So you don’t think the government should try and fix what took place in the past? Hypothetically, if there is still a 20% unbalance (too many white men) due to past discrimination, should they not try and rectify that? Not by firing those who benefitted from the discrimination but by hiring the ones who were discriminated against for jobs that open up.

So, if I’m allowed to own 7 guns, I should be allowed to vote 7 times, correct? They’re both rights! And you speak as if voting isn’t regulated. It’s very regulated. There are regulations on gun ownership and there are regulations on voting rights.

I agree. This fact is very well established and seems obvious to most. But, your fellow conservative posters do not seem to agree. The posting was for a government job, not a business. Correct me if I’m wrong on that. Some could say that it’s the moral thing to do to correct the “mistakes” by balancing the representation in the public service. I’m not making that argument, but I think they would have as much moral high ground to make that argument as you do for your argument to do nothing.

Your claim is that there was never any employment discrimination in Canada until recently when it has been discrimination against white males?

You think it was an accident of chance that white males were favoured and there were never any systemic issues in Canada? You haven’t seen any evidence yet? I think the phenomenon of discrimination in Canadian workplaces has been well established, don’t you?

It was fair when women and visible minorities were passed over in favour of white males?

You can’t tell the differences between owning a gun and voting? We clearly have different values when it comes to voting. I think it should be easy to vote. Old people, people in hospitals, shift workers out in the boonies, etc should all have an opportunity to cast a ballot. https://www.hamiltonhealthsciences.ca/share/election/ Elections Canada gives people who are hospitalized the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. It’s very important here in Canada.

Trump’s 1st day back will probably be on a “Whitehouse tour for prisoners” program. I’ll probably watch live on CNN as President Biden shakes the hands of all the prisoners on the tour and wishes them well in getting reformed and onto the straight and narrow.

What do you accept that isn’t a belief? Your language makes no sense. Professional journals don’t use formal philosophical arguments as evidence, like your “proofs of God” does. They describe empirical evidence for the claim, how it was analyzed and people can replicate their findings. Completely different than an argument.

If you need to ask this, it tells me that you don’t think it matters. “What does it being a right have to do with anything? “ What if the person can’t? Do you lack imagination so much that you can’t think of any reasons why someone couldn’t get to a polling place?

No, that’s not what I asked. That’s also circular. What do I believe based on belief? LOL Your example also made no sense as an answer to my question. I said name something that you believe to be true, other than in God, that you believe because of an argument, and not evidence.

There is no right to own a gun in Canada. You don’t think the right to vote means anything? Then I guess you’re not really part of this conversation if you don’t care about rights. Do you think as many Canadians as possible should vote?

Your example is irrelevant if you are talking about the argument being the proof of God. Now you’re saying the bible is the evidence for God. Which is it?

Because voting is a right, and the goal should be to get as many people to vote as possible so as not to disenfranchise any eligible voter.

In other words, an argument, like the one you’re pointing to for belief, isn’t really good evidence then, is it? If you can just dismiss an argument because the conclusion is the “wrong god”, then that argument did nothing.

People who can’t make it to the polling place should still be able to vote, right?

If the argument was for Allah, you would reject it too. Unimpressive evidence.

If the Supreme Court allows this to stand, Trump is toast, more likely than not. He’ll be running for president from a jail cell.

Because an assertion “therefore God” can be dismissed out of hand. Just like “therefore Allah” is dismissed out of hand by yourself. Name something, if you can, so we can examine it.

Yes, I mentioned earlier that our standards of evidence are very different. I would argue, based on what you consider evidence, that your standards are poor. I can replace Aquinas’ conclusion “therefore God” with literally anything. “Therefore universe-creating Unicorns” Terrible evidence if you can just replace the conclusion with literally any supernatural belief. “Therefore Allah”. I believe things based on empirical evidence, not assertions. Do you believe anything, other than God, based strictly on arguments alone?

I never said you care what I think. But I care what you, and others here, think. That’s why I’m here conversing with you. Why are you here conversing if you don’t care? How am I running away? Are you claiming victory because I won’t play your game of disproving your claim? That’s genuinely funny that you believe that! Disprove my belief in unicorns, or they exist!

I didn’t say it wasn’t evidence. I said I only believe something if there is good empirical evidence. Just because you believe something for bad reasons doesn’t mean I will. As I said, the burden is not on me to prove Bigfoot isn’t true to someone who believes in Bigfoot. I’ve made myself clear. Maybe it’s a English language thing?

You did? Didn’t you say go read Aquinas for the proofs? Those aren’t evidence. I need good empirical evidence to believe something. If you don’t have any, that’s fine. We come by our beliefs differently. I don’t do faith, and you do. I gave the explanation above. They’re not empirical evidence. Your kind of evidence can be used to believe anything. It’s the same level of evidence @blackbird uses to justify their beliefs, which you reject. Come back with some good empirical evidence.

Right…. Which is totally different than disproving your belief in God. I don’t want you to disprove Loch Ness monster, I just want you to change my mind about my belief in Loch Ness monster. Tedious word games, or a lack of English? Is English your first language? I think I’ve asked that before….