-1=e^ipi

Multi-cultural is an adjective. Canadians is a noun. I would be concerned if people didn't differentiate between nouns and adjectives. I don't really understand what you are trying to say in your post. It appears incoherent to me.

The premise of the question is flawed and it sets up a false dichotomy. Multiculturalism isn't inherently good or bad and it doesn't necessarily unite or divide. That would depend on the form of the multiculturalism, on cultural circumstances, etc. This is from the wikipedia article on multiculturalism: "Multicultural ideologies or policies vary widely,[2] ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to a policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group they belong to.[3][4] Two main different and seemingly inconsistent strategies have developed through different government policies and strategies. The first focuses on interaction and communication between different cultures. Interactions of cultures provide opportunities for the cultural differences to communicate and interact to create multiculturalism. This approach is also often known as interculturalism. The second centers on diversity and cultural uniqueness. Cultural isolation can protect the uniqueness of the local culture of a nation or area and also contribute to global cultural diversity.[5][6] A common aspect of many policies following the second approach is that they avoid presenting any specific ethnic, religious, or cultural community values as central.[7]" It is ironic that you imply that those that disagree with your interpretation of 'multiculturalism' are bigots, while in the other thread you were upset that I dared to call some of your claims 'nonsense'.

You think that Canada is immune to what has happened in England, France or Sweden if immigration policy is not designed properly? You want some Canadian examples?

Gee, I can't think of any. It's so hard... Edit: go to 5:00.

Your original claim wasn't that all humans are 'born gentle'. Are you changing your claim? But culture, nationality and religion are part of those environmental influence that affect behaviour... Your claims here are inconsistent. So now you are claiming that genes do not affect behaviour? What next? The Earth is flat?

No. Asking people to justify their claims isn't an 'end game'. Look, if you disagree or are unconvinced of a premise that someone uses in their argument then you will not agree with the argument. Asking the claimer to justify their premise in order to determine if the premise is true or not can help resolve disagreements and get people closer to the truth. They aren't obligated. If they want to come on an online forum and just post what they believe without justification because it makes them feel like a special cupcake or whatever, then they can do that.

What is relevant is not if something is 'rude or arrogant' or not, but if something is true. If someone tells me 1+1 = 3 in the real numbers, I will tell then that is wrong and if their feelings are hurt so be it. You appear to suffer from a strong case of Truth Relativism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism#Criticisms Honest people don't try to lie or omit reality in order not to hurt people's feelings. And dissuade? lol wtf. Nope. In this thread, when I have claimed a position to be nonsense, I've justified it with evidence and reasoning. What really prevents productive discussion is having people avoid saying things that might harm people's feelings even when those things are relevant to the discussion. It's called using evidence and reasoning to justify one's position.

You are sort of setting up a false dichotomy here. It's not multiculturalism vs non-multiculturalism. There are many options and many different types of multiculturalism. Canada could completely stop immigration and would remain multicultural for example. Advocating modifications to Canada's immigration system is not going against multiculturalism because multiculturalism and immigration are not the same thing. It's mostly multiculturalism combined with cultural relativism that is problematic.

Perception of reality != reality, so let's distinguish between the two. Furthermore, just because different people have different perceptions of reality does not mean that an objective reality does not exist. And yes some individuals have selectional perception and 'see what they want to see'.

You are just repeating the same nonsense over and over again and are not answering the question. I get that there are many people that believe in mass wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries should occur due to climate change, but I'm asking you to justify the position. Oh look, name calling. As expected, the climate alarmist has run out of arguments and has resorted to insults.

Full credit for doing this seems a bit much. Women shave for a number of reasons, but probably one of the bigger ones is societal pressure. As for the origins, even though the practice has morphed into a cultural phenomenon, its origins are probably related to sexual dimorphism, sexual attraction, and human evolutionary history. Men have a longer biological clock and mature later, as a result it was and still is common for the male partner to be older than the female partner. Furthermore, if a male gets a female that is younger, she has a longer remaining time window to reproduce and is less likely to have pregnancy complications, so attraction to younger females is evolutionary favourable. In hunter gatherer societies where people have a lifespan of 30 years (most of human history), these evolutionary pressures would be very strong. Shaving one's legs gives the impression of being younger, which can increases the chances of a female to attract a male. It is actually a bit similar to the theory of blondness being primarily a sexually selected trait. http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/why-are-men-attracted-to-blonde-women/ The other thing you have to remember is that humans have been slowly losing body hair over millions of years, so it is not unreasonable to expect less body hair to have become a sexually attractive trait based on evolution. In males, body hair isn't a big deal due to sexual dimorphism since it helps distinguish males from females.

... What does this mean?

This statement is poorly worded. Do you mean: 'Increasing the linguistic capabilities of Canadians gives Canada greater ability to interact with other countries'? If so, I would agree with you. Though I would like you to elaborate more on how you think this relates to the topic being discussed because the rest of this argument appears to be implicit and I do not want to misinterpret you. This isn't an inherent trait of multiculturalism and depends on the traits of the cultures involved. Some cultures are intolerant, totalitarian and advocate hatred, while others do not. As for 'mutual respect', your sentence is grammatically incorrect but I will assume that you are saying that 'multiculturalism encourages mutual respect'. Again, I do not see how mutual respect necessarily follows from multiculturalism and I do not agree that mutual respect is necessarily a desirable trait. The first sentence relies on your last claim which I do not agree upon. As for your claims of new Canadians respecting the political and legal process, that depends on which new Canadians and for many 'new Canadians' this is not true (particularly the ones that want to impose sharia). Would you like me to provide counter examples? No one should take pride in their ancestry. Being born in a certain race or ethnicity is not an accomplishment (no one chooses their parents), so one should not take pride in it. As for all citizens having a sense of belonging, I certainly do not have a sense of belonging (for a variety of personal reasons that I will not get in to), so that disproves your claim that multiculturalism ensures that all citizens have a sense of belonging. Multiculturalism does not imply acceptance. Acceptance isn't necessarily a desirable trait. Self-confidence isn't necessarily a desirable trait. Feeling of security might be desirable, but as I said before, multiculturalism does not imply acceptance. And culture != race, so I'm unsure where the racism comes in. You claims have a lot of implicit premises that other posters and I do not necessarily agree upon. If you want to justify you position you need strongly justify all these implicit premises first in order for other posters and myself to agree.

Different people have different perceptions of reality, sure. But that doesn't mean that objective reality does not exist. You are you. If you look at the evidence available and conclude that one of my beliefs is not remotely substantiated by the evidence or that my reasoning is seriously flawed, then why wouldn't my beliefs be nonsense to you? Oh you are getting all epistemological here. If you really want to go down that road, then we can but it might not be the most productive use of time. Can't we at least start with the premise/assumption that our shared perception of observable reality is true and go from there?

This question doesn't make sense. How does one 'attach' a sunk cost to a country?

I wish you would speak coherently, not to mention what you wrote has grammatical errors. Is this a reasonable translation? "Some countries want negotiations to take past emissions & emission outsourcing practices into account." I don't get this 'counter-argument'. Something should be done just because other countries want it to be done? Perhaps we should adopt Sharia cause Saudi Arabia and many other countries want us to. Perhaps we should ban Seth Rogen movies because North Korea wants us to. What should be done is the best path based upon the evidence. What happened in the past is a SUNK COST. You cannot change the past, and trying to take that into account and penalize current generations for actions of past generations (especially when these past generations did not understand the consequences of CO2 emissions) does not make sense.

To be honest, there is sort of a beauty in the effectiveness of Islam in converting people: - Sure, you can be non-muslim, but you have to pay us the jizya tax to us and cannot build new places of worship without our permission... Btw, if you are poor and want to convert, then we will give you zakat money. - Slavery is allowed... but if any slave converts to Islam then they must be set free. - Non believers must wear white sashes to distinguish themselves from muslims, sort of like what the nazis did to the jews. - etc. I could go on. I made a thread on this topic. I agree that some people try to use religion or pioty to justify the burka, but that is a severe misinterpretation.

Certainly men have rights under sharia that women do not. But that isn't the same thing as superiority, at least in the minds of Muslims. In Islam, males are not superior to females and females are not superior to males, rather both females and males have specific gender-specific roles that Allah has given them. So to use the term superior is inaccurate and misleading. Perhaps using the term 'unequal' is more accurate. As for Muslims believing that they are superior to kuffar (non-believers), yes this is true and justified in the Quran, the Hadith and elsewhere.

Why wouldn't you be open to the possibility of dismissing my views as nonsense when you do not know all of my views? For all you know, I could believe in astrology, or homeopathy, or leprechauns, or 911-trutherism, or the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever. I call a belief nonsense if it is nonsense regardless of the person holding the belief. As for your belief that (all?) humans are 'gentle', where the people that beat me up, stole my wallet from me and gave me a concussion last month gentle? Was Anders Breivik gentle when he killed 77 people in 2011? Were the people that flew planes into the world trade center gentle? Was Luka Magnotta gentle when he hacked Lin Jun to pieces in 2012? Was Hitler gentle? But if you want to believe in things because it makes you feel good regardless of evidence, then there is nothing I can do.

This is nonsense. Aggressive religions that prosecute disbelievers can be successful since they incentivize people to convert. And humans being a gentle species is not rooted in reality or evolutionary history, regardless of how much you want to believe it. Humans commit war, commit crime, hunt other animals, etc. We are the first species to evolve high level intelligence and are capable of both bad and good. Under the right circumstances, can be attracted to something that promotes violence and chaos. Not sure how one can call 1400 years of islamic jihad and conquest 'passive' or 'gentle'.

Stop trying to equate the Qu'ran with the bible. It is inaccurate. Islam is very different. It isn't written in the context of parables, it isn't written from the view of 3rd parties a century later then retranslated many times. It contains the revelations from Allah to Mohammed. It is the direct word of god, recited in Arabic and written in Arabic. Can there be a slight mistranslation from Arabic to English? Yes, that is why there are many versions of the Quran in English. However, almost all of them have bilingual (in Arabic and English) and insist on the importance of the reader understanding that the Quran can only be truely understood in Arabic. Furthermore, the Quran and other Islamic Holy books will often adopt arabic words into English when no good English word exists. It is also important to understand that the Quran insists in many places that it is perfectly clear, and it has a system of abrogation to deal with 2 verses that may seem inconsistent. Other religions do not have this abrogation trait. Physical destruction of members of other religions? no (at least no major religions at this time). Physical destruction of people that convert away from a religion? yes. Obviously the former would not stand the test of time because such a religion would not be able to spread if it kills potential converts. But the latter on the other hand can be very good at spreading. Nothing here or elsewhere? So you know all evidence and nothing can change your mind? How very close minded of you.

True. But Christianity has this loophole that allows Christians to not take the bible literally since it cannot be considered the direct word of god. This loophole does not exist in Islam. The Quran is the direct word of god through the prophet Mohammed.

Somewhat true. The Burka for example is not required in Islam and is cultural. But there are some things such as death for homosexuality which are rooted in Islam.

You aren't being reasonable because you refuse to look at what Islam actually tells people to do and believe.

Not entirely true. Adultery and homosexuality are punishable by death, that is true (adulterers get stoned to death, I think homosexuality is death by beheading, or is that apostasy). Sex outside outside of marriage receives 100 lashes. In all these cases, 4 witnesses are required to convict them (though someone can be a witness to themselves 4 times, if that makes any sense). Apostasy also has the death penalty. Superiority of man over women is very inaccurate and certainly isn't close the psychology of devout Muslim women (and by this I mean non-moderate in the western sense). It is true that in trials the testimony of a women should count for half of that of a man and that menstruating women cannot pray, but that doesn't mean that males are superior to females in Islam. Rather they are different. The psychology of a devout Muslim women is that she is submitting herself to Allah's will and following his instructions on how to lead pious and Islamic life in order to avoid hellfire. Covering herself in a hijab or burka is 'empowering' and shows that she is more pious and devoted to Allah than the 'sluts' that do not cover themselves up. This concept is probably too difficult for the western cultural relativists to understand since according to them 'all religions are the same'. So if Christians or Jews do not have to take their holy books literally, Islam must be exactly the same, right?