Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

CANADIEN

Members
  • Content Count

    4,614
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About CANADIEN

  • Rank
    Full Member
  1. Those who think Obama won, and those who think he got destroyed have one thing in common... missing a good debate.

  2. Do you actually UNDERSTAND what those sources mean by stretching. If you think it means the same type of stretching as in the biblical texts, think again. It is also coming from people who KNOW, though faith, that the Universe was created by God. Me being one. Talking to yourself?
  3. CANADIEN

    Tolerance In Public Schools

    A 5-year old should be told only the three things they need to know: - where babies come from - the name of their body parts - that they are right to say so if they don't want adults to touch them.
  4. No. I want you to provide a scientific theory, if you have one. Which you don't. But thanks again for knowing what I want better than I.
  5. CANADIEN

    Tolerance In Public Schools

    Quite frankly, a 5 or 6 year old is unlikely to question his/her sexuality because of these posters. They're unlikely to understand what sexuality or sexual orientation is. You put these posters in a kindergarden, you are waisting your time. Messages about not being mean to little Charlie because he has two moms or little Kayla because she's Black, they're more likely to grasp that.
  6. Indeed, you don't want restrictions on free speech. Only on who can exercise it. Thanks for the clarification.
  7. Not only that, but the similarity is actually one word, which doesn't even mean the same thing in both cases.
  8. Don't you see, g. bambino? Meanings of texts, possible interpretations of them, whether or not they actually describes what betsy say they describe - all of it is irrelevant. The biblical texts mean exactly what betsy says they mean, because... God can introduce in one translation of the Bible texts that mean what betsy says they mean.
  9. That's the best you can do? We've already established He can do it - and that He did didn't. Stating the evident - He can do it, is not proof that He did it, no more that one can conclude the Earth is a cube from the fact He could have made it a cube (which you agree He could have, since He can do everything He wants, right).Has it ever crossed your mind that God could have put those passages in the Bible to tell, using imageries familiar to the first users of the Bible, that he created the Universe? After all, God can do anything He wants, including this. The difference between you and I is that I realize, unlike you, that it is not enough to simply claim "God can do what I say He is doing". In this case, one should also look at what the verbs used are both in the biblical texts and the scientific texts, and what they mean in each text. I have checked the Bible texts, and what scientists mean by stretching of the Universe. If it meant the same thing, I'd say that yes the Bible describs the Universe the way science describes it. Have you even bothered checking what what scientists mean by stretching of the Universe? Let me make sure I get it right here, while I am laughing. Those passages include, in one translation, a word that also appears in some scientific texts about the expending nature of the Universe. Therefore, those passages describe the Universe. Never mind that the verbs are not the same, no need to bother with understanding what scientists mean when they use that word. The word is the same, so the Bible passages and the texts written by science say the same thing. Never mind that they don't, they do. I said THEORY, that is, as definied by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". The designer "theory" (the quotation marks are used on purpose here) does NOT meet this criteria. If it does, feel free to point to articles, peer-reviewed articles that is, that detail how the scientific method is used, and what the scientific observations are. I suggest you start doing it yourself. Except for one fact - God and His Creation are NOT a myth - this is a very accurate description of what YOU are doing. Oh the wonderful logic. I agree with somone on ONE thing - namely, that evolution is a FACT - therefore by definition I agree with everything that person says. Of course, must be it. after all, a Christian CANNOT, by definition, not agree with you 100%.
  10. CANADIEN

    Principals Support No Zeros

    They get many chances but, oh well, if they don't take advantage of them, no consequence. Great way to learn.
  11. CANADIEN

    Principals Support No Zeros

    There are no repercussion. In other word, the lesson learned is: "don't do what you are asked to do - not to worry, there will be no reprecussion". Greeeeeeat lesson to teach. will be valuable once in post-secondary education when the professor doesn't care about your behaviour - no aassignment = F. Will be valuable too when NOT flipping burgers at Burger King - sure will result in a long and prosperous career. As for what I know about public education... I know that it fails unless students acquire a set of skills and knowledge that will be useful to them through life. Skills and knowledge that are not acquired when a student can get away with doing nothing. If you do not know that, then - on this as on other topics, you know nothing.
  12. CANADIEN

    Principals Support No Zeros

    Based on a reading of your postings on, well, about any subject, I wouldn't comment on why knows nothing if I were you. If it is a behavorial issue, how will it be resolved, considering there is no negative repercussion for not doing the assignments?
  13. CANADIEN

    Principals Support No Zeros

    By ignoring delibarately missed assignments - which is what the no zero policy amounts you, the message given to the student that there is no negative consequence for his/her behaviour. The behaviour problem is unlikely to change - the opposite, actually.
  14. We are not talking about having only citizens voting, or restrictions in regards to prisoners, or age-based limitations. And you know it well. The same as you know, or should know, that the right to vote is the most important for of expression in a democracy. So this is part of the core issue, no matter how you want to ignore it. You want freedom of expression - as I do and we all should do? Then there must be as little limitation as possible to the right to vote. You want freedom of expression - as I do and we all should do? Then this includes freedom for anyone to pewacefully argue that some books, or films, or other particular forms of expression should be prohibited - however wrong that position is. You want freedom of expression - as I do and we all should do? Then it applies to all. If a certain opinion is not illegal in our country, then it is not a valid reason for barring someone from entering here. Unless one's stated commitment to freedom of expression includes all that, then their "defence" of freedom of expression is a hollow shell. Now, I fully expect you to come with the "you don't think there should be a set of criteria in screening newcomers that take values into accounts". If you believe that's what I mean, then you need to learn English. What I mean is clear enough - if it is not illegal, it is not enough of a reason to bar someone. Period, end of story, clear enough.
  15. Seriously interesting, coming from someone who seems to have no problem limiting who can exercise the most fundamental form of expression in a democracy - the right to vote.
×