New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[Shwa]

At last some straight forward honesty. It took me a long time to get that out of you. Why didn't you say that at the time you decided it or were you just suspicious until now?

You're asking me or is that simply a rhetorical question? One would think that you would be able to supply your own answer, at least, by now.

[Pliny]

You're asking me or is that simply a rhetorical question? One would think that you would be able to supply your own answer, at least, by now.

As I said, it took a long time to dig that simple honest opinion out of you.

[bloodyminded]

Always?

What if someone were to mention some lefties' support for Sharia as an example of their willingness to throw women under the bus in the name of tolerance? Wait, did we already have that discussion?

-k

Yes, that idiotic caricature has been spewed by knuckledraggers many times.

[jbg]

Yes, that idiotic caricature has been spewed by knuckledraggers many times.

So you're saying that advocates of woman's rights in Muslim lands are "knuckledraggers"?

[bloodyminded]

So you're saying that advocates of woman's rights in Muslim lands are "knuckledraggers"?

I can't help you with your literacy issues.

[Saipan]

Wrong answer.

[Argus]

I can't help you with your literacy issues.

Consider the possibility the issue is your poor communications skills rather than others' poor literacy.

[bloodyminded]

Consider the possibility the issue is your poor communications skills rather than others' poor literacy.

Argus, either you haven't read my comment in light of what it was a response to...in which case you don't know what you're talking about, and are just behaving as a douchebag for fun.

And if you have read it...you (objectively) also have a literacy problem, and should work on it.

I'm afraid those are the only two choices. Go back and educate yourself on the discussion, and you will see.

[Saipan]

Looks like Argus was right about the poor communications skills.

[bloodyminded]

Looks like Argus was right about the poor communications skills.

And now yet another person who can't read. Congratulations.

[jbg]

Back to the topic.

Both of our countries, the U.S. and Canada, are welcoming people who don't want to be assimilated into our culture and can't be. We do so out of a spurious sense of "openness". Let's be clear about the proper kind of openness, and one that applies to all races and religions. There are people who want to rise to the level of their ability, regardless of gender, tribal affiliation or ancient superstition. There are people, including virtually all females, relegated to a subservient life under many foreign cultures. Free lands such as the U.S. and Canada offer such an opportunity. But not when they let immigrant enclaves apply their own backwards "law" to their people, keeping them in bondage in a free land.

We are under no moral or ethical duty to foster the creation of such enclaves. We do benefit, though, from welcoming motivated people who want a decent lives for themselves and their families denied to them in their country of origin. And those people generally want to make the U.S. and Canada a better place as well.

[Michael Hardner]

We are under no moral or ethical duty to foster the creation of such enclaves. We do benefit, though, from welcoming motivated people who want a decent lives for themselves and their families denied to them in their country of origin. And those people generally want to make the U.S. and Canada a better place as well.

Well, who would support 'enclaves' ? Your statements are well-written enough to engender broad support. But there are always thorns in the details, right ? At a certain line in the sand, you have to allow people to accept religious practices that discriminate (to use an easy one-word summation) and this is where the arguments come in.

People are willing to accept these contradictions in the established religions that are here, to an extent, but not across the board.

I will defend the rights of religions to discriminate as I said, but the rights need to be as equal as humans can imagine - for all religions.

[jbg]

I will defend the rights of religions to discriminate as I said, but the rights need to be as equal as humans can imagine - for all religions.

Where I see a problem is the intersection of such discrimination and Canadian law. For exaample if an academically motivated Muslim woman wants to excel and go to McGill she should be able to. If a Muslim woman wishes to complain about her husband keeping her barefoot, housebound and pregnant she should have recourse to Canadian courts, not only Sharia courts.

She should not have to risk violence or worse in those quests.

[Saipan]

I will defend the rights of religions to discriminate

They can discriminate inside their religion - where membership is not mandatory.

Unfortunately subscription of Darwinism is mandatory in schools.

as I said, but the rights need to be as equal as humans can imagine - for all religions.

The rights are not even equal among taxpayers. If you play the "right" sport the Municipal (and even federal) taxes will help you. If you don't too bad, pay for your own (and for others as well)

[bloodyminded]

Unfortunately subscription of Darwinism is mandatory in schools.

It really is an ideological victimization of children to force the truth upon them. Why shouldn't parents have the right to determine objective reality itself? Will someone please, please think of the children??

With the exceptions of the occasional institution steeped in ancient superstitions, schools have long taught the consensus views of hard science. Evolution is one of the great pillars of contemporary knowledge.

I'm afraid Reagan Christ was demonstrably wrong in this case.

[Michael Hardner]

Where I see a problem is the intersection of such discrimination and Canadian law. For exaample if an academically motivated Muslim woman wants to excel and go to McGill she should be able to. If a Muslim woman wishes to complain about her husband keeping her barefoot, housebound and pregnant she should have recourse to Canadian courts, not only Sharia courts.

She should not have to risk violence or worse in those quests.

Right. And neither of those things is in question here. I would rather talk about things that are actually happening.

[Saipan]

It really is an ideological victimization of children to force the truth upon them.

Whose truth is that?

As former Czech President Vaclav Havel said: "Follow the man who seeks the truth. Ran away from one who found it".

schools have long taught the consensus views of hard science. Evolution is one of the great pillars of contemporary knowledge.

Like the "consensus on "global" warm up?

Btw, what is the consensus on what happen to mammoths or sabretooth tigers?

[Michael Hardner]

Like the "consensus on "global" warm up?

1. Yes. That should absolutely be taught.

Btw, what is the consensus on what happen to mammoths or sabretooth tigers?

2. They died.

[dre]

Unfortunately subscription of Darwinism is mandatory in schools.

Yeah... Why dont we just teach children the obvious truth!

A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father made the first man, and then whipped up a hot chick using one of his ribs, and he can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because the rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake (created by the same afformentioned cosmic Jewish Zombie ) to eat forbidden fruit from a magical tree.

[bloodyminded]

Whose truth is that?

As former Czech President Vaclav Havel said: "Follow the man who seeks the truth. Ran away from one who found it".

As Havel probably knows, no one is more sanctimoniously certain than is the Creationist.

Btw, what is the consensus on what happen to mammoths or sabretooth tigers?

Michael Hardner explained this.

Your Creationism would have it that people used to ride around on these animals, along with the dinosaurs, a few thousand years ago.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Unfortunately subscription of Darwinism is mandatory in schools.

If by "Darwinism" you mean evolution yes it should be mandatory in schools. Though one should realize that evolution has made leaps and bounds since Darwin first described it, and without most of modern biology wouldn't exist.

Edited November 8, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Shwa]

2. They died.

[Saipan]

As Havel probably knows, no one is more sanctimoniously certain than is the Creationist.

So where's the difference? Except one is in power to force their belief.

Your Creationism would have it that people used to ride around on these animals, along with the dinosaurs, a few thousand years ago.

1) You assume too much. Where's the evidence it's "my creationism"

2) What did evolutionist do with those animals? Stash them in a drawer? How they disappeared? Too much logging in the rain forest? Global warm up?

[Saipan]

1. Yes. That should absolutely be taught.

So where's the global warm up? And why it's no longer called that, but only climate change? Which no one can argue with, 'cause it's always changing

2. They died.

Why?

[Guest TrueMetis]

So where's the global warm up? And why it's no longer called that, but only climate change? Which no one can argue with, 'cause it's always changing

It's actually both as the terms are often used interchangeably.

Why?

Mammoths via a combination of habitat lost (due to the end of the ice age and the climate changing) and over hunting, Sabretooths because they had specialized to much and where out competed by faster hunters.