-1=e^ipi

I don't care who supports the idea. It is still ridiculous. Life isn't a binary, and trying to determine a point in time where 'life starts' doesn't make sense. Life is a gradual process.

What a ridiculous proposition. There is no point where 'life begins'.

Yes they have, indirectly. They were more interested in fighting a proxy war with Russia and overthrowing Assad than to see the bigger picture.

I disagree. I think the behaviour of both countries can be better explained by stupidity and ignorance. Thus actions like supporting Islamists in Syria. This zero-sum-game mentality is nonsense. Tell me, how do you explain the success of South Korea? Which countries did they plunder?

I'm asking you to back up your claims with evidence. How is that not clear?

What 'story-telling nonsense' am I performing and what 'fallicious subsets' am I creating? Back up your claims with evidence please.

Thank you for your honesty. At least you are being consistent here, unlike other posters.

^ Grammar fail. Of course not. Where did I make such a claim?

1. Something has to discriminate against a 'class' of people to be discriminatory now? 2. Could you define these classes of people for me? I know Trudeau tried to define the 'middle class' as 'anyone not living off of their savings'. 3. These people certainly think it is discriminatory: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/would-be-citizens-fight-oath-to-the-queen-1.1364055 It will reduce the flow of radical religious people into Canada yes. Completely thwarted? I never made such a claim, nor is that necessary to reduce future terrorism and extremism.

Reduce the flow of religious radicals to western countries in order to reduce homegrown terrorism and also to enable these countries to respond to various foreign threats without a significant democratic bloc preventing it. Not everyone from middle eastern nations is a religious extremist. Many want to escape religious extremism and be productive members of society. Furthermore, not all religious extremists are from the middle east. The other problem is that if you try to implement country restrictions then all the 'progressives' will call you a 'racist', so it would be difficult to implement politically. But if the requirement is simply to accept the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, such accusations are harder to make.

Is the requirement for new citizens to pledge allegiance to the Queen a discriminatory practice? Why or why not?

Why do you refuse to distinguish between different types of multiculturalism? Did you not notice that I was referring to 'culturally-relativist multiculturalism' rather than all forms of multiculturalism?

No part of the theory of evolution implies that humans and apes do not share a common ancestor, but belief in evolution does not imply the belief that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Look, to believe in the theory of evolution means that you believe that through the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection, species may change over time, and perhaps into new species. The theory of evolution does not on its own necessarily imply that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, that horses and zebras have a common ancestor, or that pine trees and apple trees have a common ancestor. For that you would need empirical evidence. For example, one could be a young Earth creationist and still believe in the theory of evolution. The young Earth creationist can recognize that species can change over time through these natural processes, but claim that there hasn't been sufficient time over the past 6,000 years for the majority of life on Earth to share a common ancestor. When confronted with empirical evidence to the contrary, the young Earth creationist can merely disregard the evidence. In Islam, it is very possible to believe in the theory of evolution but not believe that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. A Muslim can claim that all creatures, with the exception of humans, share a common ancestor, and that all these creatures can change over time through natural processes. But at the same time hold that Humans were directly created by Allah out of mud and therefore humans are special.

Because a belief in evolution doesn't not necessarily imply a belief that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. They are different things.

Yes, it is called the fossil record: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils Also, the ERV similarities between chimpanzees and humans is very compelling: http://www.skepticink.com/humesapprentice/2013/10/18/proving-darwin-fun-with-endogenous-retroviruses/

Even if I accept this, immigrant applicants are usually not on Canadian soil, so the point is moot. And also, see why point about the requirement to pledge allegiance to the Queen. How can agreeing that chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestry be discriminatory, but pledging allegiance to the Queen not be discriminatory? If you look at Canada's population share of muslims relative to the rest of the West, there should be over 100 foreign fighters. Here is an outdated source about Syria: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/17/as-many-as-100-canadians-could-be-fighting-in-syria-against-assad-regime-think-tank-says/

No, it's the exact same thing. In order for people to obtain citizenship, they must pledge allegiance to a flag/queen. How would making a pledge that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor be discriminatory, but a pledge to the flag/queen not be discriminatory? How is the latter violating freedom of belief but the previous is not? It's inconsistent. I get that you agree with the pledge of allegiance and disagree with any perceived threat to your belief in magic, but be honest here. You aren't disagreeing because it is 'discriminatory & violates rights'. And I'm sure many of these 'brilliant people' are certain that they have 'experienced god' and that their 'religion is true'. Somehow, these claims of 'certainty' are not very convincing.

Even if the charter does not explicitly say so, it cannot apply to non-citizens. Various estimates put the number of western foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria at around 2000-3000. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/why-are-so-many-westerners-joining-isis/

The fact that people applying for Canadian Citizenship had to pledge allegiance to the Queen recently withstood a Charter Challenge. Tell me, why would requiring people to pledge allegiance to the Queen to obtain citizenship be allowed, but requiring people to agree with the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor in order to immigrate not be allowed? You keep claiming that such a question is discriminatory and violates freedom of belief. In that case, would requiring people to pledge allegiance to a flag or monarch not also be discriminatory and violate freedom of belief? Brilliant people do not believe in fairy tales.

According to this logic, no new 'untested' policies should ever be implemented because they haven't been implemented in order to test them yet. This sounds like the European precautionary principle. How am I against 'diversity'? As expected, you are mixing up culturally-relativist multiculturalism with multiculturalism. And nice guilt by association fallacy btw.

And how do you propose to do that if you keep importing religious extremists that do not integrate and that out breed the rest of the population?

No, not really. Did you not see me reference people like Tarek Fatah, David Cameron, Merkel or Sarkozy? I guess all those foreign fighters from Calgary currently fighting in Iraq and Syria are just my imagination...

Perhaps it has something to do with the US being the 3rd most populous country on the planet and being by far the most populous developed country. The US has the equivalent population of Canada, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Austria combined. With respect to the Soviets, perhaps it had something to do with totalitarian communism. Just saying... What is your definition of 'secular' here? Because you seem to think that the united states, with its first amendment, isn't a secular country, where as you think Britain, where its head of state is the leader of the Anglican church, is. No it isn't, because the charter does not apply to non-citizens. Potential immigrants are non-citizens.

Dumb cliche. What if it is about to break? Do you wait for your car to break on the middle of the high way before repairing it, or do you take it to a mechanic regularly to get it fixed so that doesn't happen? One could make a strong argument that culturally-relativist multiculturalism has failed in France, Germany & Britain. But it hasn't failed in Canada or the US... yet. Do you really want to wait for it to 'fail' before addressing the problem?

Yes, and what causes certain groups of people to stop obeying the laws of Canada to go overseas to Iraq & Syria to start Jihad and commit genocide? Religious extremism. Why obey the laws of Canada, when your version of your religion tells you that their is no higher authority than God, and society should have laws based on the Sharia rather than 'man-made' laws?