TreeBeard

Certainly. But, land shouldn’t get to rule over people. Although, I don’t really think that’s the case in Canada, as they do try and make ridings somewhat equal based on the population. And I’m not sure why that would need to be different under a proportional system. Also, are you really represented locally when the ruling party tells your MP how to vote? Or if the representative has never lived in the community they are an MP for? it just seems like fear mongering.

So, you think geography should have more of a voice than actual people? Should 5 people in a rural area have as much say as 50 people in an urban area?

So you don’t believe climate scientists when they say humans are causing the climate to change at a rapid pace due to CO2 emissions?

I think the OP is trying to say white people (Europeans) evolved to be smarter than humans on other continents, but is scared to come out and say it. That’s what I suspect at least.

I’ve known it all along…. But, just because science carries on, makes new discoveries, and corrects mistakes is not an excuse to disbelieve a scientific consensus like climate change. That’s what confuses the climate and evolution deniers.

Africans invented the means to use fire.

That’s silly. You do know that scientists would be celebrated if they overturned a scientific consensus, don’t you? Science doesn’t stop because there’s a consensus.

All technological advancements were from a single continent? Whatever continent you’re from, it was one of the dumber ones. I think fire was invented in Africa. Without that, we’d be nowhere.

You’re right. But shouldn’t God have known? Don’t you believe that everything in the bible is true and it’s the word of God? Except the bats are birds part?

Exactly! It makes total sense for ignorant people to think that bats are birds. But I thought it was the word of God…. How did he get it wrong? If the bible is wrong about bats, why couldn’t it be wrong about other things?

Do you believe the universe is billions of years old? If you’re getting your biology education from the bible, do you believe that bats are birds, as the bible says?

What do you base your opinion on?

not surprising that you bring up an example from when modern science was in its infancy. Those who disagreed were branded heretics by the church. The way forward was with better science The only way to improve on science is with more science.

That really does sound naive.

So there’s not a consensus among scientists regarding the theory of evolution? I suppose next you’ll say “it’s only a theory”.

Of course humans have evolved differently. Some evolved to live in high mountain environments and have better lung capacity for the thin air. Some evolved pale skin to help with vitamin uptake from less sunlight in northern latitudes. Why is this even a question? Your topic title is a bizarre question…. Of course racism is a fact. We might even have evolved to embrace it (tribalism), but that doesn’t make it a virtue. Some might make evolution an excuse to carry on being a racist, but clearly racism is not some sort of irresistible force.

Isn’t using the court system to affect change the exact opposite of protests and anarchy?

So you disagree with the scientific consensus that drier conditions due to climate change contribute to an increased risk of wildfires? Why?

He certainly has more work experience outside of being a politician than PP does. So, if being a “drama teacher” is a bad thing, Conservatives must hate that PP has zero work experience. Except, they only have a problem when it’s Trudeau…

You still didn’t read it, did you? You are just regurgitating a “fact” you heard. I told you how many and where the references to the PM are in the 1867 Constitution Act. Before you come back and regurgitate the same thing, actually go look at it online.

They show examples of architectural styles.

Can you point to anyone who thinks meth is a good thing? That might be the stupidest public “warning” that I’ve ever read. Why did you post it in the Canada Federal politics section of the forum?

Better that we kill them instead?

Do you think exaggerating the supposed problem way beyond the bounds of what is real actually helps your argument?

And yet, you can’t cite any laws they’re breaking. If it’s laws against nudity, do you think straight people never violate those laws? It’s amusing that you think politicians “enforce laws”.