Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

-1=e^ipi

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,786

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by -1=e^ipi

  1. -1=e^ipi
    " the Canadian monarch appoints the governor general by commission issued under the royal sign-manual and Great Seal of Canada."
  2. -1=e^ipi
    So if our legal system rules slavery, that is ancestral responsibility?
  3. -1=e^ipi
    Wtf is ancestral responsibility? Continue to deny reality if you wish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada Some people support the idea of everyone being equal under the law regardless of race or ethnic background and do not agree with state institutionalized racism.
  4. -1=e^ipi
    where does everyone else fit into this? Am I included in your 'our'? The head of state can appoint someone who can veto all our laws, dismiss parliament, etc. The PM is chosen by parliament. Parliament is elected by the people. The PM is chosen indirectly by the people. What point are you trying to convey with this post?
  5. -1=e^ipi
    It's not hyperbole to point out the stances some people take where they imply that anyone who disagrees with them is racist (see the post that I was responding to). Progressive racism and political correctness is a big factor behind why so many Canadians would be okay with this girl using 'traditional aboriginal medicine' but not be okay if this girl were a white Mormon that wanted to use 'faith healing' instead. And it isn't a reasonable adult making a decision. It is an 11 year old girl who has been fed lies by her delusional parents and made the decision because she things a 2000 year old magic zombie visited her in her dreams. You know there is a video of this girl explaining her decision on youtube, right? Also, appeal to authority fallacy. No, why don't you look at the girl's competency yourself? Also, it's worth pointing out that the owner removed & disabled comments on this video after getting too many negative comments. Except mentally insane people, the mentally retarded & children. Slippery slope argument much?
  6. -1=e^ipi
    So either people agree that the girl should die or you imply that they are racists?
  7. -1=e^ipi
    You can keep repeating this lie all you want. Does not mean that it will become any truer. Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada#Federal_constitutional_role Start with the ability to appoint the Governor General of Canada. Oh another person who continues to repeat this lie. Do you want me to point out all of the places in our charter that violate this principle (as I have already done)? I do. Yeah because their certainly aren't any progressive idiots in this thread trying to use some sort of ancestral guilt technique to justify state institutionalized racism. *sarcasm* They were primarily hunter-gatherer societies. Admittedly a very small fraction in Southern Ontario practiced some agriculture. But most of the land of Canada was not viable for agricultural practices, especially given the level of technology available. Also, an agrarian society doesn't necessarily have a clear legal system either; it takes a long time for a society to develop that. My point that there was no clear legal system for people to own land still stands. And who is 'our/us' in your sentence?
  8. -1=e^ipi
    This is one of the saddest stories I have read in a while. This poor girl is going to die an avoidable death due to a combination of ignorance, political correctness and belief in superstitious nonsense. The girl believes that she was visited in her dreams by a magical zombie man from 2000 years ago, who sacrificed himself to himself in order to save humanity from the sin of a talking snake telling a rib lady to eat a magic fruit. How is that not mentally ill? Prayer doesn't work.
  9. -1=e^ipi
    That is untrue. In Canada, different people have different rights based upon their race, gender and religious affiliation. Heck our head of state is determined based upon birth right and is the leader of the Anglican Church. Why do you choose to ignore this?
  10. -1=e^ipi
    Is anyone doing that in this thread?
  11. -1=e^ipi
    United States != Canada. Keep trying. So you support abolishing the reserve system and Indian act in order to make everyone equal under the law?
  12. -1=e^ipi
    Was that so hard? Why did it take you so many posts?
  13. -1=e^ipi
    Care to actually define wtf you mean by consensus yet?
  14. -1=e^ipi
    We can measure changes in sea levels over the past few decades. But anyway, it is a bit pointless to argue over semantics. Look, I could say the following: 'There is a scientific consensus on hamburgers' This statement could mean: 'There is a scientific consensus that hamburgers are bad' 'There is a scientific consensus that hamburgers are good' 'There is a scientific consensus that hamburgers are tasty' 'There is a scientific consensus that hamburgers are made of meat' 'There is a scientific consensus that hamburgers come from mars' The original statement is poorly defined, where as the latter statements are more specific and better defined. Similarly, you constantly refer to: 'The scientific consensus on climate change.' Which is vague. Do you mean? 'The scientific consensus that climate change exists?' 'The scientific consensus that climate change is partially caused by humans?' 'The scientific consensus that recent climate change is mostly due to humans?' 'The scientific consensus that climate change is bad?' 'The scientific consensus that mitigation is the best way to approach the issue of climate change?' 'The scientific consensus that climate change is caused by magical gnomes that live in Iceland?' I don't know which 'consensus' you are referring to and you refuse to define it no matter how many times I ask. As Tim said, it is mostly likely because you wish to use a bait-and-switch tactic. This would be an example of a clearly defined consensus that I would agree with.
  15. -1=e^ipi
    The ocean has risen by a few extra millimeters over the past few decades from the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to human emissions. That is a real measurable effect that has a negative effect. Admittedly it is a small effect, but your original claims were that there were no negative effects, which is ridiculous. Can you at least define what you mean by consensus on climate change?
  16. -1=e^ipi
    I never said they wouldn't. I disagree with Tim. See my above post. There are plenty of negative effects and plenty of positive effects. I just gave you 2 such negative effects. The negative effects may be small, or may be offset by positive effects, but at least acknowledge their existence.
  17. -1=e^ipi
    That is less than 1.3 million people. To put things in perspective, the population of the Earth is over 7 billion.
  18. -1=e^ipi
    Indeed, how able certain land or plant-life is able to adapt to changing climate should be considered when evaluating what course of action should be taken. Thanks for bringing up this point.
  19. -1=e^ipi
    No, some people just think that a cost benefit analysis should be done to weight the benefits and costs of performing mitigation policies, rather than blindly advocate for severe mitigation policies without sufficient evidence. But we have information, and plenty of it... Can you define this 'consensus' please? Because it appears to mean different things to different people. Oh come on, this is not true. Increases in global temperatures due to increases in CO2 concentrations have caused sea levels to rise by a few additional millimeters over the past few decades. This makes certain places along the ocean slightly more vulnerable to storm surges. That is a negative effect. Reduction in polar-equatorial global temperature gradient will reduce the speed of jetstreams, which will increase the chance of resonance phenomena as I explained in the original post. One could make a good argument that the increase in frequency of resonance phenomena is a negative effect. Hurricanes becoming more frequent or severe however is complete nonsense and the reverse is true due to the physics of heat engines and the fact that the temperature differential between the Earth's surface and the top of the troposphere will be reduced.
  20. -1=e^ipi
    Do you have proof or evidence for these implicit claims or is it another of your posts that contain unjustified nonsense?
  21. -1=e^ipi
    I just wanted to add, that the study I linked to in my last post indicates that half of the warming in Greenland and the Canadian arctic in the past few decades was not due to increases in CO2 concentrations. Since I did not account for this in my calculations, my calculations OVERSTATE the amount of change to the jetstreams that we should expect under the scenario described in my original post. The thing is that some places will gain from climate change, while other places will lose. Is it hard to believe that loss in habitability of Tuvulu which has a land area of 26 square kilometers can be offset by gains in the habitability of Canada which has a land area of 10 million square kilometers? Canada is about 38,000 times the size. Let alone the economic & humanitarian costs of performing extreme CO2 mitigation policies by not using fossil fuels as a cheap source of energy.
  22. -1=e^ipi
    Hunter-gatherer societies generally are not very advanced and do not have clear legal systems regardless of if they are European, Asian, African or whatever. That's why I said 'primarily' in the States. It certainly isn't close to representative to all native groups in Canada.
  23. -1=e^ipi
    I advocate equal rights for everyone and abolishment of reserve system, indian act, etc. But you are not reading the context. Jacee was responding to my claim that the peoples that lived in Canada before European Immigration were hunter gatherer societies and that no clear legal system was present in the lands of Canada.In previous posts we made comparisons to Imperial Japan. Jacee tries to use the Iroquois Confederacy as a counter example and I respond by pointing out that the Iroquois was primarily in the States, let along being representative of all first nations of Canada. http://www.glenallanelementary.ca/article_images/16/iroquois_20map.jpg
  24. -1=e^ipi
    Read the context.
  25. -1=e^ipi
    @ jacee, do you not understand the difference between all the first nations people and one specific group of people who lived near lake Ontario? Not to mention the Iroquois Confederacy was primarily in the States, not Canada.
×
×
  • Create New...