Remiel

Depends on the context. And honestly, with my borderline addiction to video games, I am skeptical as to how much I would let them play at all. I think you have to look at it through a lens of representation, however. Do children actually take to heart what is being represented in game? I think the evidence is pretty strong in favour of that not being the case. Consider that there are plenty of games out there where you can play as a character or faction that represents an evil that makes the Nazis look like fuzzy kittens in comparison. No one has a problem with those, however. So I do not see why they should have a probem with a game that allows you to play as a member of the Taliban; as long as the objectionable parts of the driving ideology in question are not being pushed by the game onto the player as " good " .

Before anyone asks themselves, " Good God! Who voted for letting them all stay? " , I will admit to having done it myself. This was my thinking: That neither of the first two options seem particularly good, but the third option, to send some of them back, is something of a red herring. Presumably, we do not really want people to making these sort of boat trips from anywhere. But they do. And I think that the main reason to go technical with who can stay and who has to go back is to act as a deterrant for others, that they may be rejected. However, I do not think this is an effective deterrent. Everyone thinks that their suffering meets the bill for being a refugee, otherwise they would probably not be risking death in order to get out of wherever they come from. So, given that I do not think turning people away is a deterrent, letting everyone is the best (of a bad lot) course of action.

Honestly, from the text of the quote it seems to me that you left out an important part of that sentence with your bolding. To me, it sounds as if he is saying that a Jesuit priest would think him an atheist because of his beliefs, but that is not necessarily how he thinks of himself.

Clearly you are not worth debating on anything if you cannot even grasp which argument it is I am challenging you on.

And how does this compare, say, to what they think of Germans of the 30s and 40s? Also, nice contradiction. Suddenly you care what foreigners think when trying to push a (mistaken) premise to help your (flawed) argument.

It does not follow from the universe being very large and humanity occupying a very (very) small place in it that religion is " bad " . If you are too lazy to suss out a more complete argument, do not expect me to do it for you so that we can debate it.

You did not make this distinction when stating what Muslims were compatible with. Or are " modern Canadians " not really " Canadian " to you?

That does not follow at all. You are missing a lot of important premises.

So? What do you think to derive from this premise?

You are mistaken in thinking that " your " way of life is the same as the " Canadian " way of life.

I do not have a " religion " .

That would be like saying that a person who believes in freedom of speech, but defends the right of another to say that absolute freedom of speech is undesirable, does not really believe in freedom of speech. An atheist who defends religion is merely a person with a belief about the divine defending the right of others to have their own opinion of it.

Even if that were desirable, and I am not of the opinion that it is, it has been proven way too often that you cannot trust someone who is dirty to not royally screw up even the simplest of tasks.

The article seems to indicate that 20 million have been affected by the flood, though I did not notice " how much " affected that number are.

I think it would be more informative to compare donation for the Pakistan floods to those of Hurricane Katrina in the US. Unlike Haiti, Pakistan is a " player " in the world, thus it may seem that they ought to be able to take care of their own problems to a greater degree, despite most of the country being dirt poor.

The lack in quality of those shows neither justifies nor excuses the lack of quality in your comments.

While possible, how do you figure? If it were so, why would anyone say the difference between the American philosophy and the Australian philosophy is one of living to work versus working to live?

Either he is a troll, lictor disguised as a troll, or 14.

The thing that makes it harder to measure how good an insurance package is, I think, is that you never really know what the company is like until you have to make a claim.

I am skeptical as well, but I think I will wait until we have more details or have seen it in action before I pass judgement. Even if it turns out to be an abject failure, however, it may worthwhile I think for the next government to try it as well, because how well it works is going to be a function of who is using it.

I can quite ably respect other languages without thinking that we should include them all everywhere. Over 100 languages are spoken in Toronto, and if everything on every bus had to be in all of them, no one would be able to understand what the signs say because the letters would have to be microscopic in order to fit everything. A sign you can only read from a foot away is a useless sign.

Just because a lot of different languages are spoken in Toronto does not necessarily mean that every language has to be given government accomodation in signage. If there were a large enough demographic for a particular language, that would be one thing, but it is probably not a good use of resources to try and include every language under the sun. That money would be better spent on hiring people who spoke those languages for more important services, such as 911.

Theoretically, absolute freedom of speech would entail exactly that right. However, a right to say anything does not make saying any particular thing right.

My main problem with the new laws is that the definition of " organized crime " they use is sure as hell not the definition most of us use when we think of " organized crime " . A group of three people may be criminals that are organized, but they sure as hell are not a real criminal organization. The rules should refer to the type of organization, not the number of people in it.

There is no such thing as " science left to itself " . There is not even such a thing as " scientists left to themselves " . A scientist is never just a scientist. They are a person, with a full range of purposes and interests and agendas, just like everyone else.