-1=e^ipi

Untrue claim. Why? No it would not. Because it would only apply to people who wish to immigrate to Canada. If someone is already a Canadian Citizen it cannot apply to them. How does my suggestion violate freedom of belief? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum I think that it is desirable to keep religious extremism out. What do you think homegrown terrorism is? Do you think it just pops into existence from nowhere? Why are there so many foreign fighters from the West currently fighting for ISIS? There are already plenty of discriminatory rules against me in society, but that's besides the topic being discussed. If Saudi Arabia or Iran want to create a rule that only people that believe in the Shahada can immigrate to their counties, then so be it.

Why is it irrational for intelligence to have value? Humans are the dominant species of the planet. Do you think it is a coincidence that we happen to be the most intelligent? No, not necessarily. Evolution takes time. Evolving intelligence takes a very long time. There just hasn't been sufficient time for significant amounts of intelligence to evolve in various species. Amoebas are single celled organisms. If you want to compare the evolutionary success of various species, at least use biomass (not that i claim that biomass is a good indicator either). And what is this about the last human dying? How will you even be able to determine the 'last human' if humans gradually change into something else (such as cyborgs)?

Mennonites do not commit terrorist attacks. Though I do not approve of their incest and inbreeding. The theology of Jehovah's Witnesses is very different. They think that god will cause a global apocalypse will occur in the near future and then the resurrection will occur. They do not think that the world will be united into a global Jehovah's caliphate prior to intervention by god (quite the contrary, they predict that there will continue to be conflict until the last days), nor do the Jehovah's Witnesses have a doctrine of Jihad. Why? Because I used the noun 'human capital quality'??? Where did I advocate kicking people out? I suggested a change to immigration laws to reduce the influx of religious extremists. That is fiction. Please understand the difference between reality and fiction.

Other animals are far less intelligent than humans, therefore the value of a non-human organism has less value than a human organism. A whale has more value than a dog, a dog has more value than a rat, a rat has more value than an ant, and an ant has more value than an amoeba. Idk, I'm not a member of that humanist organization. I cannot speak for them. But not all humanists are the same.

You have a strange definition of humanism. Could you define humanism for me? Why? Could you provide proof for this claim?

Wait, so are you claiming that human's don't have a 'nature'? See, there is this thing called DNA. This DNA determines the shape and composition of proteins in the body. This intern influences how the organism functions and interacts with the environment around it. More closely related organisms tend to have more similar DNA. That is why ants act differently from birds, birds act differently from plants, and plants act differently from humans. This is debatable. It really depends on how you define to boundaries of a religion. For example, the islamist militants claim that Shia are not muslims. And it's the majority of Muslims in Saudi Arabia that think that homosexuals & apostates should be killed, it is the majority of Muslims in Malaysia that think that Christians should not be allowed to use the word 'allah', and it is the majority of Muslims in Pakistan that think that people should be jailed for 'blasphemy'. Also, I am unsure why it matters whether or not that the majority of radical muslims do not perform terrorists attacks. You only need a minority to do significant damage to society. Also, many of the others may be indirectly supporting or facilitating terrorism through zakat, through supporting a violent ideology, or through helping to establish a culture that results in terrorism. Where did anyone bring up spreading democracy in this thread. And what relevance does it have?

Did you read my original post? The homeopathists and reiki practitioners aren't going around committing global terrorist attacks, nor is their goal world domination. The same cannot be said for islamists.

Because humanist philosophy isn't derived from fiction and claims without evidence, where as religion is. People aren't equal. Everyone is different. However, people should have equal rights and that position has far more rational foundation than belief in some 2,000 year old magic man.

You are so wrong here, it is ridiculous. Notice that my wording was specifically 'humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor'. It wasn't 'accept the theory of evolution'. Many muslims will claim to accept the theory of evolution but think that humans and chimpanzees do not share a common ancestor because humans were directly created by god. The reason is simple. Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. The Quran contains the direct teachings of Allah through Mohammed. Therefore in Islam, the Quran is the direct word of god. There isn't really a way around this and there is no Muslim group that I know of that does not take the Quran to be the word of god. Islam doesn't have the same 'flexibility of interpretation' that Christianity has, where Christians can simply 'reinterpret a verse' that conflicts with observable reality. The Quran frequently mentioned that Adam and Eve existed and that they were directly created by Allah. Humans cannot both be directly created by Allah from mud and at the same share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees. It is contradictory. Though that doesn't mean a few Muslims are capable of severe cognitive dissonance to convince themselves that there is no contradiction. But those Muslims aren't a threat like the radical Muslims are.

Well I am happy that it doesn't affect you. But it does affect myself and others in very negative ways every day. I do not deny this, but 1 set of irrational thinking does not excuse another set of irrational thinking. Why couldn't you? The two verbs mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance

Probably should be fine. The reason I suggest the above question is because it is in direct contradiction with the Quran and various other religious creation fairy tales. GMOs and radiation are not. You are mixing up acceptance with tolerance.

I think it would be an understatement to say that the doctrine of culturally-relativist multiculturalism has been challenged in the west in recent years. Prominent European politicians such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron has proclaimed that multiculturalism has failed in their respective countries. Look at Brussels. Look at Malmo, Sweden. Look at Newham, England. Do you honestly think that culturally-relativist multiculturalism hasn't failed in these places? But this is Canada. Culturally-relativist multiculturalism hasn't failed here. Does that mean we are immune to the failings of various European countries? Perhaps Canada is immune to these failings because of its longer history of immigration and more accepting society. Some people like Muslim Canadian Congress founder Tarek Fatah don't think so. http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/02/07/17188881.html It's obvious which 'immigrant group' is responsible for the majority of this skepticism towards culturally-relativist multiculturalism. Perhaps it is the same group committing the majority of domestic honour killings, the same group committing the majority of domestic terrorist attacks, the same group that has an ideology that homosexuals & apostates should be killed, and the same group that believes that they will one day take over the world since god has told them so. There is on the order of a thousand foreign fighters from US, Canada, Western Europe and the rest of the West currently fighting in Iraq and Syria. When that conflict ends, where do you think they will go? Some may stay in their newly founded Islamic State, but some may come back to their former Western Countries. The current Caliph, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, might have plans for the rest of the world: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/August/See-You-In-New-York-Jihadists-Plans-for-America/ Does it really make sense to have a large influx of religious radicals to come to western countries and outbreed the domestic population? Can't that cause problems in the long term? There are a number of immigration reform policies Canada could take (such as changing the immigration point formula to account for differences in human capital quality between countries). But with respect to keeping radical religious extremists out of Canada, I propose the following: In order to immigrate to Canada, an applicant must answer the following question: "Do you agree that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?" If the answer is yes, they can come to Canada. If the answer is no, they cannot. Of course some people will lie, but I doubt the majority will (and even if most are willing, they would still feel less comfortable about immigrating). Since all forms of radical Islam and most other radical religions are incompatible with the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, it would be an easy way to filter out the radical religious extremists in the immigration process.

Or maybe it has something to do with the world domination goals of islamists...

Where did I make a claim that you said anything about radical feminists?

You mean like discussion and debate? Oh the horror. The radical feminists should just be able to state their opinions without opposition. *sarcasm* Again, provide evidence.

Way to be ignorant of men's rights. Edit: yes, just call people ignorant rather than try to back up claims with evidence and reason.

Yes. It would be very difficult to implement. It would require a level of government control over the internet comparable to North Korea. If that ever did occur, I would hope that the population would rise up and overthrow the government.

Oh no! The evil men's rights activists! How dare they advocate such hateful positions such as gender equality! *sarcasm* All humans should have access to anonymity. It isn't a female-only issue.

Except this isn't what Michael Den Tandt (the writer of the article) was advocating. He wants complete abolishment of anonymity in social media and news comments. Defamation and committing crimes is one thing, abolishing anonymity is another. No, but maybe there should be. Perhaps Canada needs an online bill of rights. Which they shouldn't. The law is completely messed up. This is why freedominon.ca was shut down. Not all of them...

Look, I get it from your various posts. You just like to state your belief / position. Maybe it makes you feel good or something, I don't know. But you never actually want to evaluate that position critically or justify your belief position with evidence and reasoning. Anyway, it is your choice.

I.e. you want truth to take the back seat to 'not hurting anyone's feelings'. Abolishing anonymity just gives people more ammo to use as ad hominem fallacies rather than actually address the points being raised by someone else.

People who have the qualities that make them a good leader of a local gang don't necessarily make for good leaders in other areas. People that are gang leaders will often have qualities such as lack of morals, aggressiveness, pushing others around, willingness to resort to violence, etc. Are these qualities you want in a leader?

How many people actually read this 'article'? This idiot wants to abolish online anonymity. Seriously? Online anonymity is one of the greatest traits of the internet. It allows people to say what they think without fear of intimidation or violence. It allows persecuted groups of people to communicate with each other and share their ideas. Abolish anonymity and you create an environment of less free discussion and of people not touching 'taboo' subjects or not wanting to explain their unpopular opinion for fear of offending someone.

I don't care what Harry Truman said. Decision making in a military situation where a decision has to be made quickly or soldiers will be lost is very different from decision making in a political process where people can take years to evaluate all the evidence to make an informed decision.

And that takes more time than to walk to the ballot station and spoil your ballot? How? To indicate that you do not like any of your choices to the extent that you would rather spoil your ballot than vote for the 'least bad' option. How stupid would one have to be to spoil their ballot by accident. Just put an X in the circle of the candidate you like. It isn't hard. If many people spoil their ballot, that is an indication that a large section of the population is repulsed by their current choices. That's sort of the point. If you don't like any of the options, you want to have more options. Oh the horror of another kind of government! No, we must stick with liberal, ndp, conservative and green forever! *sarcasm*