Marocc

I was referring to the example you gave. You say the individual X was given a place to stay and a small income, but it is not clear what kind of support X received in practice. Are you implying X was definitely offered the chance to educate themselves, to aim for a particular profession and to receive medical care despite them not having much money?

No, that's capitalism.

At this point Christians are actually way more against Trump than during the last election.

Not much if the wealthy are generous. Wouldn't that be a security problem? That's poor planning. They should be at seperate places. Small source of income? Is that, a job? people who have nothing and whose mental well-being may be poor, should receive support in building themselves a life. They should be able to receive treatment for illnesses, pursue education and to choose a career they want and are able to pursue.

It can be both at the same time. You won't deny it nor will you admit it. So I take it, you are ashamed to admit that you put more responsibility on others than you do on yourself.

They say this could become a seasonal flu. Maybe we will find out.

Are you talking about the death rate, infection fatality rate, or the case fatality rate? "In epidemiology, a case fatality rate (CFR) — sometimes called case fatality risk — is the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of people diagnosed with the disease for a certain period of time. A CFR is conventionally expressed as a percentage and represents a measure of disease severity.[1] CFRs are most often used for diseases with discrete, limited time courses, such as outbreaks of acute infections. A CFR can only be considered final when all the cases have been resolved (either died or recovered). The preliminary CFR, for example, during the course of an outbreak with a high daily increase and long resolution time would be substantially lower than the final CFR. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate The term infection fatality rate (IFR) also applies to infectious disease outbreaks, and is closely related to the CFR, but attempts to additionally account for all asymptomatic and undiagnosed infections.[7] The IFR differs from the CFR in that it aims to estimate the fatality rate in all those with infection: the detected disease (cases) and those with an undetected disease (asymptomatic and not tested group).[8] (Individuals who are infected, but always remain asymptomatic, are said to have "inapparent" — or silent, or subclinical, or occult — infections.) The IFR will always be lower than the CFR as long as all deaths are accurately attributed to either the infected or the non-infected class."

What protocols? We don't know that yet. It looks like it may well kill more than the flu. Though, let's remeber it isn't here to replace the regular flu — we will have both. Covid-19 might also have come to stay.

Which one exactly? You. Sure did say: Maybe you meant you can offer to help people become successful in meditation and self discipline? It had. Nothing to do with career and educational opportunities or money? You also said: I find it hard to believe that even someone as hypocritical as you would after this say that you don't have the aforementioned responsibilities. Yet, you forgot to add them to your list of responsibilities. How do you teach that to them? Do you tell them perhaps that it's okay to be racist and it's okay to discriminate and it's okay to backbite and slander if it pleases you, just as long as you recognize that the Canadian law is there to make sure everyone has the same (vague) opportunities? Which it is unable to do..

Is the same age group which mostly goes to church.

You're still concerned about that? Who wants trump for president? It's killing children too. One healthy 13-year-old in UK died when his heart and lungs failed three days after testing positive.

It is a value. Your question demonstrates the issue with western societies in general. Because society being value-free has become the main value for them, they cannot — and do not truly desire to — create equality in their societies.

To strive for equality for all people. Do you ensure that? This isn't just about opportunities. So they have the responsibility to make the right choices. Then you must place that same responsibility on yourself, right? Is it then that you are of the opinion, the Canadians have nothing else to offer in support of equality for all people except money?

A way of measuring? What is it?

Was that too much? The main line of the conversation still leans onto the definitions of the words equality and equity. She implied she is not willing to take responsibility. You insist none belongs to her. If only we had some way of measuring who's right without using the Quran.