-1=e^ipi

Your understanding of the word exponential is incorrect. Cubic growth is not exponential (which you claimed in an earlier post), Also, your idea that fractional reserve banking causes exponential economic growth is completely retarded. Especially given that fractional reserve banking only increases the money supply by a finite amount, and the fact that you are mixing real GDP growth with nominal GDP growth. The USA for example has had nearly 2 centuries of approximately 2% real GDP growth per capita.

It is amoral to listen to murderers to understand why they commit murders in order to prevent future murders? What a messed up view of morality you have! I don't have training in a Mullah either. But that doesn't stop me from doing my own research. What is stopping you? But that leads to another question. If you have a weaker understanding of Islam and cannot refute my claims, why do you insist that I am wrong? Your approach seems dogmatic. Why not look at the evidence I have provided and make up your own mind? I do not mind discussing this in another thread, but do not derail this one. Again, if you want to discuss this then make a separate thread.

Yes and I'm not saying that islamists are those that wear religious gear (as was your earlier claim). Because this discussion is 'Is the Burka against Islam?'. In order to determine what is halal (permissible) or harem (forbidden) in Islam it makes sense to look at the most important holy book in Islam.

Dre, I do not agree with this at all. If you wish to make this statement please provide strong justification. The problem with most westerners when trying to understand islam (or other religions) is they have a very christian-centric view and a very cultural-relativist view. Westerners often assume that all other religions are 'like' christianity, that the quran is comparable in importance with the bible, etc. The fact is, different religions are different and they should be evaluated on a case by case basis. It is very different. The bible is a diverse collection of stories and cannot be taken as the literal word of gold. It include things from the old testament (going back hundreds of years before Jesus) and the new testament (which was compiled decades or centuries after Jesus, by people who never met Jesus or even spoke the same language as Jesus). Now the Quran on the other hand was revealed to Mohammed by Allah, memorized orally, and compiled by Mohammed's companions shortly after Mohammed was poisoned. As a result, the Quran has far less flexibility of interpretation when compared to the bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran "Muslims believe that the Quran was verbally revealed from God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril), gradually over a period of approximately 23 years, beginning on 22 December 609 CE,[8] when Muhammad was 40, and concluding in 632 CE, the year of his death.[1][9][10] Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Quran was collected by his companions using written Quranic materials and everything that had been memorized of the Quran."

What am I trying to define is part of what religion that isn't part of the religion? And what is all this evidence that suggests otherwise? You're making a pretty ridiculous claim. Uhhh, I provided relevant quotations of the Quran, explained their relevance and I have also provided a link to a moderate muslim website explaining the islamic women's dress code. But clearly, I haven't provided any support whatsoever *sarcasm*... Yeah, this is again an ad hominem fallacy. Is your brain broken or how many times do I have to point this out? Maybe you should read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Your religious scholar is not correct, but this thread is not the place to discuss it. Create your own thread if you want to discuss if religion causes violence, but do not derail this thread. I never made this claim. You must be misunderstanding me. Neither am I but it doesn't matter whether we believe in the Quran. What matters is the muslims believe that the Quran is the word of god through the prophet Mohammed, the last messenger of Allah. Therefore, it is the highest source in determining what is or isn't an acceptable women's dress code according to islam. Is this an attempt at an ad hominem fallacy? Or just a sentence that has no relevance to this discussion?

How the Canadian education continually fails us! Here math noob, maybe this link will help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function Edit: btw, I also live in Ottawa. If you are looking for a math tutor please do not hesitate to ask. Edit 2: Seriously, I need the employment, lol.

Yeah.. this is ad hominem. Attacking a speaker's religious beliefs rather than the points they make. Non-muslims and muslims alike can discuss what is 'true islam'. Does too!!! See? I can play the blatant assertion game as well. Look, I already discussed this in an earlier thread about how islam causes people to do actions that can cause turmoil. But you wish to cling to your irrational cultural relativist belief. Anyway, this thread is about the Burka so please do not try to derail it. 1. There is no evidence to suggest the murderer was insane. The murder rationalized his actions quite successfully. The guy seems about as sane as Anders Breivik. 2. No one asked the murderer why he committed his actions. The murderer told other people why on his own free will. 3. I see nothing wrong with listening to why people who commit murders say they commit murders. Noone the cause of these murders helps to stop it. Again you are just making an unjustified false assertion. Where did I state this? What are you talking about? I provided evidence, reasoning and sources to justify my claim that Burkas are un-Islamic. You on the other hand only respond to the first sentence of my entire original post in an attempt to derail this thread. Why not respond to the passages I quoted from the Quran? Maybe it would help if I define muslim/islam for you. A muslim is a person who beleives in Islam. Islam is the belief in the shahada (there is no god but allah, and mohammed is the final messenger of allah). Because the Quran is a compilation of the teachings of mohammed, it must be taken as the literal word of god (this is quite different from Christianity, where the Bible was written decades after Jesus). The Quran states that it is the word of god, that it is perfectly clear, and it has a concept of abrogation where later verses abrogate previous verses so that muslims know what to do if they find two conflicting verses. Now if you understand the previous paragraph, maybe you should go back and reread the original post with this understanding of the importance of the Quran. Huh? Did I make the claim that I wish to change islam? I merely wanted to discuss if the Burka is un-islamic or not. With respect to your quote from a religious scholar, this is not the thread to discuss if religion causes violence. This is a thread to discuss the Burka. If you wish to start your own thread, please do so. But please do not derail this thread.

Islam causes turmoil. The link I gave isn't a movie. The murderer provides exactly his reasons for committing the murder. Uhh, I gave 3 interpretations of 24:31 of the Quran in the first post. Does the middle interpretation not count as the interpretation of this middle group? Sigh, now you're stuck on this concept of absolute proof to derail discussion again. I cannot prove that you exist and are not a figment of my imagination so why should I bother responding to your ridiculous requests for proof that are well beyond what is provable? The best I can do is justify strongly with sources to the Quran. Either way, your earlier comment refered to the fact that I was non-muslim to demerit my discussion of Islam. How is that not ad-hominem?

How the Canadian education fails us!

@ GhostHack - so if one where to argue: According to 49:13 of the quran, Allah created difference races and tribes so that people would be able to recognize each other. 33:59 says that women should be dressed in such a way that they are recognized. Therefore, Allah created different types of hair (straight, curly, black, brown, blonde, etc.) so that people would be able to recognize each other. Therefore covering the hair is against islam (making the Hijab against islam) as it makes it more difficult to recognize each other. How would this interpretation be wrong?

And I have suggested that both are not required by islam, and can even be called unislamic. What makes you think that the Hijab is part of 'official' islam? How do you even define 'official' islam?

1. This isn't what this thread is about so you are going a bit off topic here. We are supposed to discuss if the Burka is against Islam or not. I was only briefly explaining my motive for learning about Islam. 2. Here is a link that suggests that 70% of terrorist murders in 2011 where done by Sunni Extremists (not even counting Shia or other muslim groups): http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sunni-muslim-extremists-committed-70-terrorist-murders-2011 3. To answer your comment that religion cannot cause someone to do something violent, here is the justification of the UK person who killed Lee Rigby in broad daylight in London on why he killed Lee Rigby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruTu8MhSdR4 The terms Islamists and moderate muslims are well defined, though who is a moderate and who is an islamist is always relative. Perhaps if you read this it would help you understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism Anyway, if I were to define one difference between Islamists and moderates, it is that islamists generally want to impose Sharia Law and take more conservative interpretations of the Islamic texts, where as moderates prefer secular law and lake more literal interpretations of Islamic texts. The original post has an example of a passage in the Quran (24:31), where I give 3 different interpretations. Lastly, the idea that someone outside of Islam cannot determine what Islam teaches is nonsense and is an ad hominem fallacy. According to Islam, the Quran is a perfectly clear book that is the word of Allah through the prophet Mohammed so why wouldn't a kaffir be able to understand if the Burka is against islam or not? Jihad is a very interesting concept. Generally, Islam is all inclusive in it's ways on how to spread Islam, making it a very effective religion on spreading itself. Yes jihad can include military campaigns against kaffir, but it can also include an internal struggle about the belief in islam, or even discussing Islam on internet forums. Anyway, this thread is about the Burka. Can we please discuss the Burka? I made the claim that the Burka is unislamic and have provided my reasoning plus references to the Quran. Can anyone dispute this at all?

Reading this thread makes me hungry. It's too bad golden rice isn't available in Canada. It looks delicious. It's probably healthier than the rice that is currently on the market.

@ armyguy - it is good to hear that some people on our country are open minded enough to change their minds and see the potential, mutually-beneficial, long term economic benefits of an eventual merger of Canada & the USA. What is with this nonsense Malthusian economic model? Land isn't the only factor of production. If it were then countries like Japan, South Korea and Singapore would not be rich countries like Canada. You also have to consider population, human capital, physical capital, technology, economies of scale, etc.

And by then human civilization will have more than 1 planet. Humanity will begin to colonize mars in a few decades. Dre, your definition of exponential is wrong. Oh how the terrible Canadian education system fails us! A curve is exponential if the rate of change is proportional to the displacement. The red and blue curves are not exponential, they are linear and cubic. Only the green curve is exponential. Anyway, perhaps economic growth is actually logistic rather than exponential, but given how young human civilization is, for all intents and purposes we can consider it exponential within our lifetimes.

Recently, I have been learning a lot about Islam. Primarily because it is interesting and also because I think it is important to understand the religion that causes the majority of terrorist attacks world wide. Anyway, I have known for a long time that the Burka (and to a lesser extent the Hijab) is not a requirement of Islam for women but more an Arabian cultural phenomenon. Admittedly many women who wear the Burka claim that it is a religious symbol as it shows their devotion to Allah and also claim that it liberates them because it frees them from the sexual desires of men, but ultimately it isn't a requirement of Islam. But recently, I have stumbled on a number of passages that suggest to me that not only is the Burka not a requirement of Islam, but it is against Islam and of Allah's intentions. At this point, it is probably important to reference relevant passages from Islamic texts: The following is a good link on the moderate view of the muslim dress code for women: http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_(P1150).html Quran 7:26 tells men and women to cover their private parts and dress modestly: "O children of Adam, We have brought down to you garments to cover your private parts, as well as for adornment, yet the garment of reverence is the best. These are some of God's signs, perhaps they will remember." Quran 24:31 is interesting in that it has many different interpretations depending on who you ask (moderate or extremist) and the fact that the meanings of words such as hijab and khimar change with time. A more extreme interpretation might be: "And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed." Here of course islamists might claim that the Quran is compelling women to wear head coverings that obstruct their vision, such as the burka. However, this interpretation for women to reduce their vision isn't the most common. Here is a more common interpretation: "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed." Here, the biggest difference is the interpretation of the first clause to mean women should lower their gaze, not reduce their vision. This interpretation still involves head coverings, which is why many muslim women will wear the hijab but not the burka. However, this interpretation doesn't command women to cover their heads, but rather cover their bosoms (using head coverings if they have then, which was common in Arabia during Mohammed's time). However, more moderate muslims will point to the fact that 24:31 uses khimar instead of hijab, and in Mohammed's time, khimar meant 'covering' while hijab mean 'veil'. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts and not to show their adornments except that of it which normally shows. They shall cover their cleavage with their ‘khimar’. They shall not show their adornments except in the presence of their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, their slaves, the male attendants who have no sexual desire and the children who are yet to attain awareness of women’s nakedness. They shall not strike their feet so as to reveal details of their hidden ornaments. You shall repent to God all you believers, so that you may succeed." So moderate muslims claim that this passage only compels them to cover their bosom and not show their cleavage. Personally, I believe the moderate interpretation is the correct one. Quran 33:59 is also relevant in that it tells women to dress modestly in order to avoid being molested and/or raped. "O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. This is better so that they will be recognized and not molested. God is Forgiver, Merciful." Okay, so we have so far established that Islam compels women to dress modestly, but at the same time, the Burka and the Hijab are not requirements (or even encouraged) by Islam. But that still doesn't mean that the Burka isn't against Islam, right? Well here is where it gets interesting. Let us look at Quran 49:13: "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." Basically, the idea is that Allah created the different races and tribes so that people would be able to recognize each other, not because one race is better than other. This passage (and other similar passages) is used a lot by muslims to claim that Islam is against racism and tribalism. However, in the context of the Burka it does lead to the interesting thought: 'If Allah created people to have unique features so that we would recognize each other, why would Allah then tell women to cover up in Burkas so that they become unrecognizable?' Even Quran 33:59, which tells women to dress modestly to avoid rape still tells women to dress so that they will be recognized. After reviewing these passages, I have to conclude that the Burka is against Islam, because Allah gave people unique features so that they could be recognized. Unique features of the face is one of the most common ways that humans recognize one another and the Quran even tells women to dress so that they will be recognized. Islam only tells women to dress modestly, not wear the medieval misogynistic black tent with only two eye slits. Heck, wearing a hijab all the time significantly reduces one's ability to produce vitamin D which can lead to health problems (especially in a polar country like Canada). So am I correct in my assessment? Is the Burka against Islam? Can the west stop pretending that the Burka is a sacred religious symbol and recognize it as the misogynistic tool that it is?

1. I never said that Islam is the biggest threat to Canada. 2. I took back my earlier claim that Islamism is the biggest threat to Canada in 2013. That honour goes to eco-radicalism. 3. You have used your 'error 5' 'argument technique' multiple times in this thread and not just vs my claim with respect to islamism being the biggest threat to the west. 4. I have provided evidence supporting my claim, including statistics on the number terrorist attacks since 2001, links to articles about various terrorist attacks, links to heads of state claiming that islamism is the main threat, quotes from islamic texts explaining why islamism ideology supports these attacks, etc. What do you want exactly? Should I provide a breakdown of the percentage of military expenditures that western countries spend fighting islamism compared to other activities? Should I compare the number of lives lost or the property damage in western countries done by islamism when compared to other sources? 5. Would you agree with the statement: Nazi-ism was the biggest threat to Europe during WW2? If so, how would you go about justifying it? I sense someone wants to back out because they are losing.

Lol, smartphone. I will admit that you are a very persistent troll. And you are quite good at portraying the 'progressive educator' archetype that conservatives that criticize 'progressive' learning techniques like to create. Sigh, western society and it's anti-math bias. Teach kids to do basic arithmetic. If there isn't enough time to do this then I suggest that time that is currently being used to indoctrinate them (such as having kids listen to the national anthem every day, or brainwashing them with gaia-worshiping David Suzuki videos) be instead used to teach them the basics. Being able to do simple arithmetic in your head can be very useful if you are writing a computer program for example (increases speed). Btw, computer programming should be mandatory for all high school diplomas. This is like the same argument illiterates used to use hundreds of years ago. I don't use reading in every day life, so why bother learning it? Just because you don't use arithmetic or many people in society don't use arithmetic does not mean they arithmetic isn't a useful skill. I have a math oriented career. These skills are useful. Happy? No. I wish it were true but it's not.

[Michael Hardner Mode] I claim that you have made claims, but I will not name them. Since you claim that you have not made any claims, the burden of proof now relies on you to prove that these claims do not exist. [/Michael Hardner Mode] See how silly it is when the argument technique is used against you? Why not just accept the principle of Occam's Razor? Yeah... I'm not posting assertions without evidence. Though if you wish to get a mod to close this thread for you because you are losing the discussion then that is your choice. Though I would prefer this thread remain open because other posters are still engaged in discussion.

If a person doesn't grasp a concept then why are they only getting a 60% instead of an F? Because we don't want to hurt people's feelings? And if a student is failing, then shouldn't they just retake the class, giving them an opportunity to re-learn what they did not grasp?

To be better acts as a verb, but whatever. I never claimed better was a verb. Because there is no counter argument to make. What you are arguing is the same as the counter arguments to Mercury being the closest planet to the sun, or to you having only 2 biological parents. Point is I invoke Occum's razor to counter all of your 'error 5' claims. ​Indeed it does. Much like it lies on the claimant that claims Mercury isn't the closest planet to the sun to prove the existence of a planet closer to the sun than Mercury, rather than on the person who claims Mercury is the closest planet to the sun to prove that no planet exists closer to the sun than Mercury. Maybe you should read all my replies... He criticizes the people that hold those views, for holding the views. He doesn't people for holding certain views because they do actions that are unrelated to those views, then proceed to blame those views. There is a difference. Also, with respect to the initial video, he doesn't name individuals, but rather talks about the group of people 'progressive racists' and criticizes them for racism. How do you not understand the difference? If you want to talk about the negative consequences of 'liberalism' and 'conservatism', it isn't sufficient to point at some liberals or conservatives and say 'look at all these bad policies they support'. You have to explain how the support for the bad policies relates to the ideologies. ​My apologies, I misread you. Sorry, my comments had a typo. I intended to say 'to suggest that all major political parties are controlled by corporations seems a bit ridiculous to me'. What? Refugees economics? What are you implying here? What does this even mean? Are you suggesting that the majority of immigrants to Canada are refugees? Are you suggesting that refugee immigration is the basis of economic arguments for immigration? Having immigration purely to increase the population isn't really the best economic arguement for immigration. Better arguments would include the fact that Canada's population is aging or the fact that Canada's economic can benefit significantly from economies of scale. Of course counter arguements to immigration could include things like the short term reduction in the physical capital stock per capita. Anyway, are you implying that I am suggesting that Canada reduce its immigration intake? I'm pretty sure I have never suggested such a thing. I have not suggested a reduction or increase in the amount of immigrants Canada changes per year. I have suggested that Canada changes it's immigrant country-of-origin composition (by making policy changes to the immigrant point system to favour some countries over others). Well family reunification and refugees play a minor role as well. Of course political parties like the NDP wish to change Canada's immigration system to make it more focused on family reunification and less on economics. http://petition.ndp.ca/reunite The only thing? I would add that Canada does monetary policy really well. I don't know about that. I'd argue that Australia performs better than Canada when it comes to immigration. Also, you have to remember that it can be difficult to compare countries on immigration policy because the amount of immigrants a country can take in depends on a variety of factors. Australia and Canada can take in large amounts of immigrants per capita because they are open/tolerant societies, have a long history of immigration, are very underpopulated and could greatly benefit from economies of scale, and are quite rich countries. But yes, Canada does immigration quite well compared to other countries; but that shouldn't detract from making the immigration policy better. The fact that other countries do immigration poorly shouldn't be as important as what immigration policy is optimal for Canada. It is also useful to look at immigration mistakes of other countries (such as UK & France) in order to avoid those problems. Though I'm tempted to argue against your claim in the same manner that Michael Hardner has been arguing against me: "Canada doesn't have the best immigration policy in the world. An industrialized country with better immigration policy exists, but I will not name it. The burden of proof is now on you to prove that Canada has a better immigration policy than this country that I claim exists but will not name. For all you know, this unnamed country is called 'Magical Fairy Land' and does not exist on any maps because magical fairy dust prevents accurate mapping."

So you are a 'progressive educator' that wants to promote 21st century learning vs 1950's learning... ... Yeah I think you are trolling.

He never attributed blame of actions to ideologies just because people who may identify under those ideologies perform certain actions. If an atheist man kills another man in a fit of rage for sleeping with his wife, that doesn't mean that the death is the fault of 'atheism'. Why do you insist on trying to do this with 'liberals' and 'conservatives'? Pat Condell is a right winger now? You claim this despite me linking to videos earlier in this threat where he says he identifies with the 'old' left and not with today's right? Still not sure what you mean by 'without qualification' but whatever. We can't use the results of the paper to justify changes to Canada's immigration policy? Again: "if a country wants to adopt an immigrant selection policy based on a point system such as that of Canada, then for the same number of years of schooling and of work experience, the number of points should vary depending on the assessed quality of those years of schooling and work experience. In particular, more points should be allocated if schooling (especially the highest diploma) and work experience have been acquired in Canada than if they have been acquired in another country. Another and possibly more efficient approach, would be to rely less on the number of years of schooling and of work experience in selecting immigrants, and more on cognitive and professional accreditation tests." You mean it doesn't make grammatical sense? Here, I'll bold the subject and underline the object for you: "Since when is providing evidence asking the other person to prove your point?" Yeah, I'm the one who is too sloppy to engage in an in-depth discussion, because clearly none of my posts in this thread indicate in-depth discussion at all! Certainly the person that will not even look at the papers is the one that is unsloppy enough to have indepth discussion! *sarcasm* That 'feeling' was part of my reasoning as to why I wanted to establish that Canada should prefer immigrants from some countries over immigrants in other countries. That 'feeling' was based on comments made by others in this thread. We cannot make value judgements about which immigrants are more valuable to Canada? Do you deny the existence of correlation between income of immigrants and their value to Canada? Or maybe we should never determine which people are 'better' than other people. In which case we cannot conclude that non-murderers are better than murderers, so we should free all murderers from jail and let them loose in society. *sarcasm* You over emphasize which verbs I use even if it's in the context of paraphrasing. You tend to do this to avoid acknowledging my points. Yeah because clearly I have never emphasize the importance of being clear with our definitions of words such as 'liberal' or 'progressive' in this thread... *sarcasm* Also, why is this debate 'sensitive'? Are people's feelings being hurt or something? I also retracted/modified that claim earlier in the thread... but that is besides the point. No, I just asked you to name threats that could be considered bigger... which you haven't done. No, I have never moved my goal posts. That was you misunderstanding me. As I have said many times before, the papers establish that Canada should favour some countries over others when it comes to immigration policy, and also introduce discussion on econometric methodology. Further more, the quotation you have of me clearly suggests that the reason to favour some immigrant groups over others isn't important for establishing that Canada should favour immigrants from some countries over others. Anyway, do you not see any problems with the following counter arguments and how it relates to your so called 'error 5'? Claim: 'Mercury is the closest planet to the sun.' Counter Argument: "No it isn't! There exists a planet between Mercury and the Sun, which I won't name, but you cannot make the claim that Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun until you prove that this planet does not exist. Furthermore, absence of evidence about the existence of such a planet does not prove it doesn't exist." Claim: 'Michael Hardener has two biological parents.' Counter Argument: "You cannot make this claim. For all we know, Michael Hardener has three biological parents: his mom, his dad and his mom's sibling (from whom Micheal got his mitochondrial DNA from). Now I won't explain how obtaining mitochondrial DNA from his mom's sibling rather than his mom works (the burden of proof is on the person making the two biological parents claim to prove that it isn't possible), but since Michael, Micheal's mom and his mom's sibling all have identical mitochondrial DNA, we cannot exclude this possibility. Do you not see how these counter arguments are ridiculous? I suggest we follow the principle of Occam's razor, because otherwise we will get nowhere and this discussion will not move forward. If we cannot name or identify any 'threats' that are greater to the west today than Islamism, then Occam's razor suggests that we should conclude that Islamism is the greatest threat to the west today. I have not seen evidence that Canada does prefer immigrants from some countries over others (ex. by giving extra points to immigrants from some countries). Do you see anything that suggests Canada favours immigrants from some countries over others in these links below? Because I sure don't. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-factors.asp http://www.workpermit.com/canada/points_calculator.htm I do see evidence that suggests that Canada treats all years of schooling the same (like they treat all bachelor's degrees the same, all master's degrees the same, etc.) despite the fact that the conclusions from the uOttawa paper suggest that Canada should not do this.

The original poster is trolling... right? Am I the only person that thinks this is a troll thread? If so, good job socialist. Many posters took the bait. But wait.. some people are agreeing that grades should be removed? And they are serious? :S

Maybe it hasn't happened to you (perhaps because you do not have views that some might consider anti-Canadian), but it has happened to me and to people I know. It has happened in political debates (I have seen NDP, Green and LPC members make this accusation). The anti-Canadian or un-Canadian claims aren't always direct, they can be indirect (such as federal debates where Paul Martin said that American values and Canadian values are different, therefore implying that American values are un-Canadian). Anyway, here are 2 examples of the use of "anti-Canadian": Example of anti-Canadian being used to describe a position against Canada's health care system: http://www.nowpublic.com/health/ontario-woman-defends-anti-canadian-style-health-care-ad Example of a progressive blogger calling Stephen Harper's comments anti-Canadian: http://gettingitright2.blogspot.ca/2006/10/stephen-harpers-comments-are-anti.html Come on.. they are both ridiculous terms thrown around without merit. The only difference is one is used by the right, the other by the left. The goal of both terms is to use patriotism to stifle debate. Oh come on, you don't actually believe this do you? Sure some individual politicians might be influenced by those evil corporations, but to suggest that all the major political parties are seems a bit ridiculous to me.