-1=e^ipi

Just because some people believe in the flying spaghetti monster, does not mean that it is real. Also, religious 'experts' generally believe in a deity. Does that mean I should also believe in a deity since experts do? Nope, Canada. I don't remember which of his studies it was exactly. It might have been this one (though I don't have time to check right now): http://www.clsrn.econ.ubc.ca/workingpapers/CLSRN%20Working%20Paper%20no.%2095%20-%20Dechief%20and%20Oreopoulos.pdf Was it a large scale study that found statistically significant results? You need to be cautious about confirmation bias. Looking for evidence to fit a predetermined hypothesis is dangerous. 'Experts' also believe in lots of nonsense. Here is a question for you Hernanday. Do you believe in 'male privilege'? Cause these experts are usually saying that male privilege also exists.

Most public washrooms in Canada are segregated based upon gender/sex. Should Canada become more like Sweden where many public washrooms are unisex? Segregated washrooms are inefficient. For example, suppose there is a male washroom and a female washroom right next to each other with 2 stalls each and you have 4 people wanting to use the washroom. If the probability of the person being male or female is 1/2, then there would only be a 3/8 chance that you would have exactly 2 males and 2 females. In the other cases, you would have at least 1 person waiting to use a stall. As a result, segregated washrooms waste people's time relative to unsegregated washrooms. Also, segregated washrooms can make it difficult for trans people, non-binary people and intersex people. It can also make it difficult for parents that are with a child of the opposite gender/sex. Not to mention that segregated washrooms result in the unnecessary duplication of costs (for example, you may need 1 baby changing area per washroom instead of 1 for both washrooms).

I guess so... I don't understand how that can result in one not being able to oppose the monarchy.

I have this song stuck in my head:

Woops, I mixed up yes with no.

My point is you are not an egalitarian. An egalitarian would have responded yes to all 3. Edit: Your not necessarily answer might be okay but needs context.

Because the terms 'liberal' and 'progressive' have been completely corrupted and the usage has become Orwellian in many cases.

Do you oppose the monarchy? Do you oppose the reserve system and the indian act? Do you oppose affirmative action?

Nah. There is always the option to default. Lots of expenditure has such a multiplier effect. The problem is that you have to pay it back. And the marginal cost of taxation is generally higher than 1.14.

No, you just don't support egalitarianism like I do. To quote Voltaire, "All mortals are equal, it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference." The monarchy is an immoral concept of birth right that is in opposition to egalitarianism. Well I guess that means that all the SJWs supporting silencing people, such as people that disagree with feminists on twitter, people that want to discuss men's issues on campus, people that want to discuss abortion on campus, etc. are all right wing.

That's nonsense. If you want to deal with, understand and defeat ISIS you need to understand the theology. Our politicians should all read a Quran. There are lots of things the Wahabbists think is 'Islam', which clearly isn't. Covering of the face is unreasonable and goes against the Quran. The Quran states that Allah created humans in different tribes and races so that they could recognize each other. Why would Allah create women to look different only to cover them up so you can't recognize them? That's insane. Edit: not only that, but only Mohamed's wives were suppose to cover their faces. So the muslims covering their faces are equating themselves with Mohamed's wives. And wanting to ban depiction of Mohamed by non-muslims is against Islam. The reason Mohamed told his followers not to depict him was in order to avoid idolatry (which happened in the case with the prophet before him, Jesus); only muslims are not supposed to depict Mohamed. Non-muslims do not believe that Mohamed is a prophet, let alone believe that Allah exists, so cannot commit idolatry by depicting Mohamed. If anyone is committing idolatry, it is the Islamists that think that Mohamed is above depiction by non-muslims.

The set of political positions cannot be reasonably projected onto a single dimension. Thus describing positions as left, right or centrist is inadequate. @ eyeball - well most of our politicians are monarchists, so that makes them right wing. And most US politicians are anti-monarchist, so that makes them left wing by your definition. I'm an anti-monarchist/republican, so that makes me left wing I guess, along with Gilles Duceppe.

Look at all these privileged males that are not primary victims of war according to Hillary Clinton:

Of course it is. But men are privileged and women are oppressed for some reason. At least that's the mainstream position of society. Being able to be drafted and forced to fight and die in a war is male privilege. 86%

To be fair, can you explain how this is necessarily racist against black people? Maybe it was targetting Jewish people. Maybe it was some random drunk idiot. But when you have massive confirmation bias like these SJWs, everything has to fit a certain narrative.

Oh, it's that idiot's website. Ok, fair point. I just saw a link to the article, looked at the title and then posted it because I was in a rush. But you should be as they are expropriating your culture or whatever. Anyway, the SJWs are being offended for you. Like for example, a person of Colombian heritage can't wear a Miriachi costume for halloween because it's apparently offensive to Colombian people according to SJWs. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/10/31/school-bans-hispanic-students-hispanic-halloween-costume/ Witch costumes are offensive to Wiccans. Vampire costumes are offensive to Transylvanians. And halloween is a merger of many different cultural events, so is itself offensive. Celebrating halloween is offensive to celtic pagans and should therefore be banned to prevent offense and microaggressions!

You mean like employment equity? Oh wait... There was a study done by Oreopoulos that found that people with Chinese sounding names had an employment advantage when it comes to resume acceptance for engineering jobs. Things are a lot more nuanced than you make them out to be. Does it ever occur to you that maybe you have the perception that you have due to confirmation bias?

This is clearly a microaggression against me and others who have suffered brain injuries. *sarcasm* I think there are other reasons, such as too lazy or too busy. In my case I was busy.

Didn't have time to read it. Is this better? http://nypost.com/2015/11/09/university-of-missouri-president-resigns-after-racism-protests/ Edit: Okay, I admit that the individual did not lose their job due to not acknowledging 'white privilege'. That is hyperbole.

I guess not believing in 'white privilege' is a microaggression that can cause you to lose your job. http://www.infowars.com/white-privilege-now-means-the-privilege-to-be-fired-for-being-white/

I would have thought that someone who considered themselves such a spirited defender of progressive values would have something to say about the evils of Nazism. But I guess you are secretly a Nazi. It is impossible for anyone to mention everything they condemn in every sentence (unless the person either condemns nothing or doesn't use sentences).

What would help is if society were more open to allowing for nuanced debate and discussion. But instead a significant share of the population, especially those in power, simply label those with dissenting opinion as racists and islamophobes.

The video covered lots of things. It is difficult to generalize. I would caution against confirmation bias though. It's easy to come to a conclusion when one is looking for evidence to support that conclusion.

Okay, I've tracked down this 2.7 C warming number that keeps getting referred to with respect to Paris. Apparently it comes from an International Energy Agency report (https://www.iea.org/media/news/WEO_INDC_Paper_Final_WEB.PDF) which used a model known as MAGICC to predict temperature changes by 2100. Of course this IEA failed to mention the equilibrium climate sensitivity used. From what I can tell from the MAGICC site (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/), the default ECS is 3.0 C, which suggests that this 2.7 C number that keeps getting thrown around is all based in an ECS of 2.7 C. Also, the IEA report does indicate what the 2.7 C is compared to. Is it 2.7 C rise relative to today's temperature or relative to pre-industrial temperature? I think it's relative to pre-industrial based on what I have read from Bjorn Lomborg, but you would think that the basis of this 2.7 C value that keeps getting thrown around would be easier to track down.