-1=e^ipi

Will you apply similar demands to the issue of climate change?

Or Russia...

Yep. And also we need to sanction them for genocide. I wish Gilles Duceppe won the election... He was the only one intelligent enough to realize that the Saudis were the problem.

Not if it just causes them to invoke passages in the Quran that say it is every Muslim's duty to defend Muslim lands from Infidels to get more recruits.

So the at issue panelist's daughter was Justin Trudeau's communication person, she recently got married with Peter Mansbridge at her wedding. Peter Mansbridge's ex-wife Wendy Mesley hosts the National on Sunday. The other panelists such as Chantel and Andrew are known liberals. Cronyism?

To be honest, I could also see it being a European nationalist attack, but more likely ISIS. Of course we have a choice. Let Russia deal with it. All the west does is army terrorists because they are more interesting in overthrowing Assad. Worst case, it spills over into Saudi Arabia and then the Saudi's have to deal with it (which would be a win-win since there would be less Islamists to attack us later). I doubt that. He's not going to backtrack on his poorly thought out policies. Too busy being 'shocked' and giving us 'Sunny Ways'. Btw, according to our new minister of national defense, we don't need to fear ISIS.

Wait... why not a man's weight or age? Why do men not deserve the same protection from such hurtful questions? Sexist double standard! I dislike the use of this question. But I want to dispel some myths you keep repeating: 1. The myth that it only annoys non-white people. I hate this question because answering it for me is not trivial and I don't want to get in my whole life's story for a stranger I just met; not everyone can simply point to 1 location on the Earth and say that is where they are from. 2. The myth that it's not used on white people to get where their ancestry is from. I tended to get this a lot from immigrants, especially immigrants in STEM fields. I would get asked where I am from, respond 'Ottawa' or something because I did not want to get into a long story, and then get told 'but where are you really from?' They wanted to know if my ancestry is from Britain, France, Ukraine, Germany or wherever. Why not white students as well? Don't they deserve the same protection?

These individuals of these groups are on average disadvantaged primarily due to lower average socioeconomic status. And of course, when it comes to sex, people generally have an equal number of male ancestors as female ancestors, so there no on average sex biases that are due to socioeconomic status.

That's not men at risk. Your cognitive dissonance levels must be quite high if you don't see the clear sexist double standard.

See, Black Dog's response is exactly what I mean when I say it will not be applied equitably. Apparently, certain groups of people can't be microaggressioned against. People are individuals. No one is 'historically disadvantaged' due to stuff that happened to other people before they were born. That makes about as much sense as original sin or North Korea's policy of 3 generations of punishment for crime.

Yes, but not men at risk. Sexist double standard.

You are purposely misreading what is written to be difficult, aren't you? 'or are a woman'

Common sense that women should be prioritized over men? No, that is misandry.

I said might. Even Nobel Lauraetes are being fired for saying the wrong thing and there is a clear implication that you shouldn't take a classical liberalism position such as 'the most qualified person should get the job'. There are two main things you are overlooking here: 1. Intent. There is a tendency for some of the people pushing this agenda to project intent even if there is no intent; for example: men's rights groups are secretly evil misogynistic hate groups so we need to ban then at U of Toronto and Ryerson U. The etymology of 'microaggressions' implies aggression thus intent; micro-offenses would have made more sense. We even see it in this thread with people like Blackdog and Cybercoma trying to project some hidden intent onto me. 2. Equitable Application: I see no reason to believe there will be equitable application of these microaggression policies and a lot of reason to believe otherwise. Somehow #killallmen, constantly telling men to 'grow balls' and 'man up', dismissing male issues while drinking out of coffee mugs that read 'I bathe in male tears', telling men that they are inherently evil rapists so need to take classes to learn how not to rape, not taking male rape victims seriously, constantly telling men that they are 'privileged' for being men while women have higher life expectancy, higher self-reported happiness, lower suicide rate, lower rate of being murdered and assaulted and outperform men academically due to a combination of higher emotional support for women, constant pushes and programs to get women ahead academically which are absent for men, and educational practices which are optimized for women/girls while men/boys are put on Ritalin, etc. aren't microaggressions. And then people wonder why male suicide is so high.

Just hope you aren't on a sinking ship like the Titanic and are male.

Yes, you can still say it. But you might get fired from your job, not get a promotion, get a lower grade, etc. for advocating classical liberalism. Edit: Sorry for typo

You guys keep asking for evidence, I can give you evidence but you have to understand that the phenomena of bias and indoctrination in schools and universities is mostly slow, gradual and subtle. Someone posted this on asexuality.org today (random example): I'm kind of annoyed with my English teacher right now because she essentially uses her classroom as a soapbox. When she had us read The Awakening, she said that the girls who didn't sympathize with Edna were reading it wrong (context: Edna lives around the turn of the 20th century in New Orleans. Her husband is kind but kind of controlling, and she eventually cheats on him with 2 different men and abandons her kids). Basically she went on this huge spiel about how Edna didn't have a choice but to do what she did back then. Next, she had us watch a video about systemic racism read pieces by Ta-Nehisi Coates and Brent Staples, two well-known black authors, to supplement our Huck Finn/ Native Son reading. The pieces made several good points about race in society, which is something that ties in to what we're supposed to be learning in English class. The problem is that she took one viewpoint on the pieces/issue and preached it as gospel truth. Now, that viewpoint (that society is designed to screw over women and minorities) may or may not be correct, but that's not the point. My point is that teachers should show both sides and let students develop their own interpretations rather than spoon-feed them. Has anybody else had a problem with a politically motivated teacher? http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/129202-politics-in-the-classroom/

Lauren Southern has been trying to do a series on gender studies classes: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCla6APLHX6W3FeNLc8PYuvg/videos

'Everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out!' -Anita Sarkeesian

Well... I'll probably finish my blog post for Judith Curry soon. Maybe that might change your mind a bit. Edit: I will point out that governments often perform Cost-Benefit analyses which try to maximize the potential pareto improvement (which suggests that pareto principle is well accepted), also most people in society agree with principles like equality under the law, so there are some things that most people in society agree upon.

..................................................... I was referring to the fact that reduced trade barriers to milk would result in New Zealand exporting milk to Canada.

Speaking of proof, could you please prove that these grandchildren will exist? Why are you speaking of these grandchildren as a certainty? You mean like belief in the 2 C target, or the belief in this magical tipping point?

Everyone should be allowed to question anything. I'm not a nationalist. These sovereignty appeals will not work on me. I said comparative advantage, not 'competitive' advantage. The rest of your post is just you referring to absolute advantage. This link may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

People have tried, and progress has been made over the years. It doesn't need to be perfect. It just has to be the best possible given the evidence. Our estimate of the speed of light isn't perfect, that doesn't mean we can't use it. When did I bring up social engineering? Taxes, health care expenditure, education, military expenditure, climate change policy, etc. All those have to be based on something. Surely an empirically based social welfare function would be a better basis for policy decisions than what is currently done. Better than nothing. This isn't really a good counter argument. Repression or misleading information will reduce the positiveness of the correlation between self-reported happiness and freedom. How would that cause a positive correlation between self-reported happiness and income to suddenly appear? So, irrational preference for status quo? In that case, was it a bad idea for countries to move away from absolute monarchies to republics or constitutional monarchies because a few hundred years ago those ways of organizing society were 'unproven'?