TreeBeard

Crimes by migrants are less frequent than crimes by citizens. An increase immigration correlated to a drop in property crime. First, new immigrants do not have a significant impact on the property crime rate, but with time spent in Canada, a 10% increase in the recent-immigrant share or established-immigrant share decreases the property crime rate by 2% to 3%. Neither underreporting to police nor the dilution of the criminal pool by the addition of law-abiding immigrants can fully explain the size of the estimates. This suggests that immigration has a spillover effect, such as changing neighbourhood characteristics, which reduces crime rates in the long run. https://crdcn.ca/publication/immigration-and-crime-evidence-from-canada/

You’d think it was obvious. I’m trying to have a conversation about faith with you and the difference between beliefs based on faith.

Is that a difficult question to answer?

You don’t understand what rhetorical is. A rhetorical question is not meant for the person to answer it. It’s meant to make a point. “Would it kill you to make sense once in a while” is an example. My question wasn’t rhetorical. In actual discussions, it’s not just about “making a point”. But are you interested in an actual discussion?

Does Judaism have the same, more or less amount of evidence as Christianity?

Of course I want more evidence to believe it. Why would I believe something before there is good evidence? What is the method to determine if faith is reliable?

Why would I believe it’s in your left hand? I simply wouldn’t believe it until I have sufficient good evidence. No faith is required and faith should not be used. If I have faith that religious people are not as smart as atheists, is that a reliable way to determine the truth of that assertion?

I have faith that all religious people are delusional. Wouldn’t it be better to gather evidence to find the truth? I can believe any crazy thing on faith.

Exactly. Faith has no evidence. I can believe anything based on faith. Faith is not a reliable path to truth.

OK. So why is it called faith? You don’t need faith to believe something if you have good evidence.

So your contention is that there is zero evidence that bridges support the weight of vehicles? You think people forget about the billions of times it has been shown that bridges are safe for cars? The mere fact that we know the bridge was built by engineers, we can see the plans and do the math…. That’s not faith…. That’s relying on evidence.

Like what? I don’t believe anything by faith.

Why would they do that when they’re winning rights and compensation/reconciliation in the courts and political system?

You don’t think workers should be paid well?

So if it was you, you would just roll over to your oppressors.

Would you reconcile with your oppressors?

Then God is responsible to clean up His own mess What kind of a$$hole creates evil when they could have chosen not to?

Alberta has a premier who either believes in the chemtrail conspiracies, or panders to those who do. NORAD came out with a statement that the American military is not spraying mind control chemicals over Alberta. When your office has to come out and tell everyone you’re not as insane as you sound, you’re probably doing it wrong https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7340079 Smith said if the U.S. is hitting Alberta with chemtrails, her hands are somewhat tied as a regional leader in Canada. A spokesman for NORAD, in an email, said, "NORAD and U.S. Northern Command are not conducting any flight activities in Canada that involve the spraying of chemicals."

Neither did you.

The bible gets nothing wrong, according to @blackbird

No. Jesus is against both.

Because Jesus.

Would you side with your oppressors?

Clearly this makes you very happy. Why? What would Jesus think about ground invasions?

What is the “WEF program”? Was Harper also a “graduate”? He is featured on their website.