Auggie wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 9:40pm:
Gordon wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 9:37pm:
Auggie wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 9:33pm:
Gordon wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 9:32pm:
Auggie wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 9:28pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 9:25pm:
Auggie wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 9:11pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 9:07pm:
Auggie wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 8:59pm:
Gordon wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 8:55pm:
John Smith wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 8:51pm:
Gordon wrote on Aug 1
st, 2017 at 8:49pm:
The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism.
if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome?
Simple. Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs.
Ban Saudi trained imams.
Mmm. That's treading a very fine line.
What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed.
Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them.
You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected.
Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls.
Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody.
Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda.
Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what.
When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination.
Thats BS. We should take people who are most suitable.
You can't discriminate. It's everyone or no one.
Would an American neo nazi with a swastika tattoo on his head pass the first immigration interview ?
In Australia, I think he would. Unless, there's a law stating otherwise?
If that's the case, then this is wrong.
He wouldn't.
He wouldn't pass the character test.
Currently ultra conservative Muslims do due to moral confusion.
Read this, tell me what you think.
As it turns out, to denigrate the Taliban at a scientific meeting is to court controversy (after all, “Who decides what is a successful life?”) At the conclusion of my talk, I fell into debate with another invited speaker, who seemed, at first glance, to be very well positioned to reason effectively about the implications of science for our understanding of morality. She holds a degree in genetics from Dartmouth, a masters in biology from Harvard, and a law degree, another masters, and a Ph.D. in the philosophy of biology from Duke. This scholar is now a recognized authority on the intersection between criminal law, genetics, neuroscience and philosophy. Here is a snippet of our conversation, more or less verbatim:
She: What makes you think that science will ever be able to say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong?
Me: Because I think that right and wrong are a matter of increasing or decreasing well-being—and it is obvious that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating or killing them if they refuse, is not a good strategy for maximizing human well-being.
She: But that’s only your opinion.
Me: Okay... Let’s make it even simpler. What if we found a culture that ritually blinded every third child by literally plucking out his or her eyes at birth, would you then agree that we had found a culture that was needlessly diminishing human well-being?
She: It would depend on why they were doing it.
Me (slowly returning my eyebrows from the back of my head): Let’s say they were doing it on the basis of religious superstition. In their scripture, God says, “Every third must walk in darkness.”
She: Then you could never say that they were wrong.
Such opinions are not uncommon in the Ivory Tower.
Forum
Pages: 
Burkas and their place in modern society. (Read 7745 times)
