Bonam
-
Posts
11,473 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bonam
-
-
Freemasonry (agnostics) are responsible for the human rights we know today. I will look up a link when I have more time.
Drea, while I agree with most of the rest of your post, I thought I'd point out that Freemasons are in fact not agnostic. A requirement of becoming a Freemason is belief in a Supreme Being, though it appears they make no specification as to which Supreme Being you have to believe in.
-
A simple web search on the subject shows that the modern concept of human rights was founded in religion.
CLRV, come on, the SIMPLE english wiki as a source? At least use the real wiki article on the subject, rather than the one aimed at 5 year olds. Note that the real article makes almost no reference to religion.
-
Affirmative action policies are BS.
-
I believe that JB Globe was referring to mikedavid00 in his post, not to Rue.
-
I would imagine this is one of those forgotten laws that no one actually enforces anymore.
Living in Canada, where this type of discrimination is almost unheard of, I can see how you would imagine that. France, however, seems to be different story. Read Rue's post above.
-
Exactly. Should people who have several kids be penalized because they use the healthcare system more?
Well it costs more to provide insurance for more individuals. However many organizations and governments take it upon themselves to financially reward people for having children, especially in the face of an aging population.
What about people with disabilities. Should they pay more?What if one race is more prone to certain diseases than others; should they be singled out too?
If a particular individual has a higher risk of expensive medical procedures, then, on average, more money will be spent providing medical care for them. It doesn't matter whether this increased risk originates as a result of obesity, disability, race, or any other factor. Why is it unfair to ask an individual that is going to require more expensive medical care to contribute some portion of that extra cost?
Higher insurance for 16 year olds (and females pay the same premium as boys) isn't discriminatory because all 16 year olds pay on the same scale. By the same token, life insurance for an older person is more expensive than a young person.How is charging different age groups different rates not discriminatory, but charging different weight groups different rates is? Saying charging 16 year olds more isn't discriminatory because all 16 year olds pay the same is like saying charging 500 pound people more isn't discriminatory because all 500 pound people pay the same. And yes, life insurance for an older person is more expensive, because that's only realistic. An older person has a higher risk of collecting that life insurance, and so the operating cost is more. The exact same is true of an obese person, an alchoholic, a smoker, etc. They should all contribute at least a portion of the increased healthcare costs that they incur.
Singling out smokers and overweight people on the other hand, is discriminatory. If they can do their job, then that's all that should matter.Singling out 16 year olds for car insurance is discriminatory. If they can drive (have passed their test), then that's all that should matter. Singling out old people for higher life insurance rates is discriminatory. If they can breath and their heart is beating, and they aren't diagnosed with a terminal illness, then their alive and healthy, and that's all that should matter. Exact same argument. You either buy it or you don't, you can't just arbitrarily apply it to cases you personally support and ignore it in cases you personally disapprove of.
As a side note, some people are thin because they have an unhealthy life style, too. Not eating enough isn't healthy and either is being bulimic. I would say a person suffering from bulimia, while they may be at an 'appropriate' weight, would be more prone to health problems than someone who is overweight.If these conditions also result in higher healthcare costs, then they too can be charged extra.
Anyway, I don't see why a healthy person that maybe might visit the doctor for 15 minutes once in a year as their entire medical expenditure should have to pay the same health costs as someone that is morbidly obese, chain smokes 5 packs a day, and costs the company 100k+/year. Now, I can see the argument when it comes to disabilities and disorders, which are involuntary, and the person has no choice, but is trying to be productive, how society and their fellow employees should help them out and pay for their extra costs.
But smoking is voluntary, and while some may disagree, obesity is most often voluntary as well. Why do I have to pay more health insurance because some other guy at my workplace smokes, or goes for 3 double quarter pounders at McDonalds every day? It's their lifestyle, their choice, their health, and it should be their money that pays for it, not mine.
-
Might wanna edit that post a bit Rue so that only the parts you are quoting are inside the
cause its a bit painful to parse through as is, just FYI. -
The issues you mention are independent of global warming, and there are reasons against them unrelated to global warming. Cutting down the forests and scraping the dragnetting the oceans was protected against before global warming was even on the radar, and will continue to be opposed even if global warming drops off the radar again.
-
While BMI may be a flawed measure, that doesn't mean that obesity doesn't exist or doesn't pose severe health risks and other disadvantages. There are other measures that are significantly more accurate. Insurance rates for a car vary greatly depending on age, gender, etc, because they have been shown to be correlated with driving accidents to some extent. Health costs are also different between obese individuals and non-obese ones, and this obviously reflects in the cost of insuring them. Why can costs for being an 18 year old male be passed on to the user in the case of car insurance, but costs for weighing 500 pounds not be passed on to the user in the case of medical insurance? Either both are valid or neither is.
-
Is it not true that close relatives marrying and reproducing simply increases a few genetic risks, rather than guaranteeing inviability? In fact, I think there are situations that are much more likely to reduce in non-viable offspring, for example two carriers of a recessive genetic disorder. Should everyone be compelled to have a genetic screening before they are allowed to marry.
Besides, while often associated, marriage does not necessarily mean having kids. People can get married and not reproduce.
-
What Israel was planning or hoping to do is largely irrelevant. It doesn't remove any responsibility from Hezbollah for its aggression. They attacked first, without provocation. They wanted to kick Israel "when it was down" and "show solidarity" with their Palestinian "brothers" who had just done a similar kidnapping. It was a blatant act of war and deserved a response in kind.
-
Well....maybe. But we do know that morality evolves, or at least our sense of justice evolves and without morality there can be no concept of justice.
Indeed, morality evolves, however, religion doesn't really seem to evolve, until its replaced by a new one. Christian morals are based on what was applicable and probably mostly made sense 2000 years ago, and in the place of its origin. Does every aspect of Christian morality still make sense today? Or the morality of any other religion that was developed thousands of years ago? Times change, and standards of conduct need to change with them to some extent, but religions remain static. From that point of view, I'd say that religions often slow down and hold back moral progress and adaptation.
-
So is this guy. Is it legal to put up a billboard with his face?
While we may disagree with Bush and his actions, neither the US government nor its military are listed as terrorist organizations by Canada. Hezbollah is. Just a small little difference there.
Primarily responsible?Yes he bears some responsibility for the war that took place last summer, but that responsibility is equally shared by Olmert.
I dunno about equally, since Hezbollah initiated the conflict through its cross border raid, which caused the deaths of several soldiers and the kidnapping of others. This was an act of war against Israel, to which Israel merely reacted. Whether its reaction was excessive, appropriate, or even insufficient, is debateable. But that's why I said Nasrallah was "primarily responsible", rather than "entirely responsible" or something along those lines.
-
I think that the fact that the global average temperature is increasing has been proven. Whether this is man-made or not, while there is significant evidence to support this, is not yet proven 100%. However, who cares whether it is man made or not? Like I've said before, the question is whether it's harmful to human civilization or not. If it is, we should intervene, whether or not we originally caused the problem.
-
Sick that this kind of sign would be put up in Canada. While free speech is very important, is there not a limit somewhere, when it comes to advertising for terrorist organizations and their leaders? This guy is primarily responsible for the death of thousands of people last summer. In my opinion, the only kind of sign his face should be on in Canada is a Wanted Dead or Alive sign.
-
This whole crusade against abortion by the Church is really idiotic. A few centuries down the road, people will look back on it the same way as we now look back on witch trials. All I can say really.
-
Obviously it's Israel's fault. If Israel didn't exist, the terrorists would not have launched the Qassam rocket at it, and those children would not have died. Israel is murdering children.
-
I agree with the right to have dual citizenship. You can absolutely be Canadian while also being something else. The one does not have to conflict with the other. In the case of countries we are at war with or have severe strain with, I can see the issue. But for countries that are our allies or that we are on otherwise good terms with, why would it be conflicting?
-
How about the REALITY of Arab Israelis unable to buy or rent apartments in Israel?
Lol I was wondering how long it'd take someone like Buffy to barge in here with some blatant anti-Israeli lies. Which propaganda site did you pick up that little factoid at? Or just make it up yourself?
Also, everyone else, please note the instant translation from a regulation in France to pointing fingers at Israel, simply because it involves Jews. Even if Israel had discriminatory housing policies, that would in no way justify or excuse anti-Jewish housing policies in France. In fact, the two are unrelated, except in the mind of a person who seeks to blame all Jews around the world for the injustices that they perceive Israel is perpetrating.
-
You don't think public schools teach about religion or perhaps you believe children should grow up ignorant of the cornerstone which our society is built on?
Not at all. Religion is an intriguing and important subject, which has played an important role on human history and continues to play an important role in the world today. Like the above poster mentioned, it should definitely be taught about, but it should never be presented as truth, and children most definitely should never be compelled to partake in religious rituals of any sort in a public school. As the above post states, the mythology of Christianity, Islam, or any other religion should be presented in school in the same way as Greek or Roman mythology.
Yikes! Call the deprogrammers!!!If by that statement you seek to imply that the two commandments you quoted are in fact beneficial rather than harmful, and thus not worthy of "deprogramming", I disagree. Why should I, or anyone else, love "the Lord thy God" with all, or even a small part of, either my heart, soul, or mind, when there is no evidence that this God even exists, and even if he does exist, is more tyrannical than benevolent.
-
Funding religious schools is bad policy
I couldn't agree more. Why should my tax money pay for the indoctrination of children in unfounded and often detrimental beliefs? If people want their kids to learn about religion, they can send them to Church (or the equivalent institution for their religion) or, if they really want to have a religious school, it should be private, payed for 100% by the users.
-
Agreed, good step. I think Canada needs way way more protected land (national parks and such) though.
-
Universities and nations all around the world compete for highly qualified candidates of this sort. There is always a shortage of personnel for positions in advanced research, which is why universities compete to attract them. Think about it people, we are talking about medical research. These are very smart people, who will have no/little trouble integrating, and who will contribute to Canada far more than the average Canadian, even if they head back to their countries after getting their degrees. Does it really matter where someone's from if they develop cures to diseases that affect everyone?
-
Good post. Unfortunately, I think the only people that are gonna read it with an open mind are those that already know the difference between valid critiscism of Israel and anti-semitism anyway.
Also, I find it kind of odd that calling someone an anti-semite, when it fits appropriately based upon the comments made, would receive a warning. I would point out that some other recent threads we've had have included multiple personal accusations of being a racist, a white-supremacist, a nazi, a KKK member, an Islamaphobe, etc. If an accusation of anti-semitism deserves a warning, then so should an accusation of racism or any others of the above.
How the British Gov't has Declared War on White English People
in The Rest of the World
Posted · Edited by Bonam
Yeah the first article kind of misrepresents the issue. Scriblett mentions "firing" white English people, when in fact it's not firing, but rather just not being hired. That's becuase some positions and scholarships specifically have membership of certain ethnic groups as a requirement. We also have such grants and scholarships in Canada, by the thousands. However, the second article is more disturbing, where an office is being moved from one town to another because the original town is too English. In that case, approximately 80 people are losing their jobs as a result of the move, which is motivated primarily by employing more ethnic minorities.
In any case, all of the above simply should not be happening. All affirmative action policies, to any degree, are completely worthless, and, in fact, create new racial tension and animosity. The 80 people who got fired might not have been racist before, and may well have been very accepting and tolerant people. But after losing their jobs so that more minorities can be employed, you can be sure they are gonna be anti-immigration with a vengeance, probably for their whole lives.