ydoaPs

Food.

I think this calls for a visual.....again:

And the sheer size of Texas might have something to do with it as well.

I won't. From 'Rethinking Life and Death' by Peter Singer:

False.

No, the reason the logic doesn't add up is because you fail at set theory. Either that, or I'm both Socrates and a cat.

That is rediculous in the face of the facts. The Left supports religious freedom. It is the Right that flips out every time Muslims want to build a church, community centre, or gated community. Not really. If they are having God in government funded schools or have government mandated religion, then yes. That, however, is not what is going on here; they have the same religious freedom as the Mennonites or the Amish to form religious gated communities so long as they also obey the local, state, and federal laws. There's a world of difference between being anti-religion and supporting rights. Note that, as we are talking about Canada, we need to take into account Canada's law. They have no equivalent to the Establishment Clause of the US Bill of Rights, they do have constitutionally guaranteed(Section 2) Freedom of Religion and, in 1955, the Canadian ruled that all religions have equal rights in Chaput v. Romain. This seems to indicate that, according to Canadian legislature, there is no reason to deny this group the right to a gated community when Mennonites and Amish have the same. So all Christians are Mormons and all mortals are Socrates?

I'm not sure whether or not that is sarcasm. There's a load of difference between repeatedly doing something that has been declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and trying to build a church, community centre, or gated community. It's not as though the Left is attempting to get the Koran used as a science textbook. The Left stands up for the reasonable things that Muslims do, because they are attempting to exercise their rights that Christians get, but they get protested. I'm not sure if you noticed this, but the Left actually cares about letting the minority groups have the same rights that the majority have-you know, the ones that are guaranteed by the Constitution that the Right loves so much yet doesn't seem to have actually read. It's not the Left that tried to remove the right of Habeas Corpus from American an American Citizen. It's not the Left that incessantly tries to violate the Establishment Clause. It's not the Left that wants to violate the 14th amendment with regard to marriage. And we don't need to imply that the law has not been followed by the Right; there are SEVERAL cases where they have attempted teaching Creationism AFTER it has been declared unconstitutional to do so. Should we rather compare them to the religious majority with a weird political splinter group having been claimed to had affiliation with several terrorist attacks within our country? Really? Like? What's so good about 'normal'? As for the OP, there is no difference between these Muslims setting up a gated community in which there are rules more strict than the local, state, and federal laws and the Amish or the Mennonites doing the same thing. They still wouldn't be able to violate the local, state, and federal laws; they would just hold themselves to what they feel is a higher standard. The government report even explicitly stated that this group is nonviolent, so what's the big deal?

QFT I think this is the first time I've ever wanted to +rep a post more than once.

Why?

What work have you done on this before now? Have you drawn a picture? How have you gone about trying to solve this problem?

Did I say the Canadian government was fearmongering? It is entirely possible that the articles(given their clear bias) are attempting to twist what the report actually said. In fact, that is probably the case as the part of the government report they quoted explicitly said the group is nonviolent. Regardless, it is also possible that there is motivation for the Canadian government to stir up fear or be influenced by existing fear. A large Muslim population may represent a change and people fear unfamiliar change. If this were the case, it is not unheard of from a government agency. That may also be a factor. Who knows?

Do you have a link to the actual report? The news article to which you linked doesn't even say that they'd hold to Shariah OVER Canadian law. It does share the same quote saying the groups wanting to form isolated communities aren't violent. It even points out multiple other religious groups who have done the same exact thing, but they're Christian so it's okay. The difference cited in the article is (with an underlying assumption that all Muslims are extremists and terrorists) that Muslims are out to destroy western culture-yes the article ACTUALLY said that. It still seems like fearmongering to me. What is the larger story? Islamaphobia? Protests any time a Mosque is to be built? Muslims not wanting to automatically be associated with blowing up buildings? How about Muslims being able to be free to worship without being put under a microscope. I still don't see any evidence that this community is a real danger to anything. Maybe that'll change after I see what's inside this report.

That article seems to be the same sort of inaccurate fearmongering that occurred with the 'Ground Zero' 'Mosque' that was neither a Mosque nor at Ground Zero. Is there any proof aside from the clearly biased article which attached the infamous -ist to words that they plan to use Shariah ABOVE Canadian law? If they plan to use Shariah law as a more restrictive set of rules for their community in which all federal, state, and local laws still apply, I fail to see how that is any different than any of the several gated communities in the US where you must agree to certain conditions to live in the community.

That doesn't quite work. Recordkeeping 2500 years ago was crap. We keep record of EVERYTHING. A simple search of the patent records would turn up acceptable technology.

I'm not sure if people want to discuss this option to help chip away the deficit. All the issues raised thusfar I think can be solved by competition and a limited government.

What is an 'Islamist'?

Like a hearing aid.

That post had nothing to do with conservation of energy. It merely stated that conservation of energy energy was part of Dembski's excuse for not proving his 'law' of conservation of information and then Cap'n give one reason why that copout is a load of bollocks-that the conservation of energy has been proven time and time again while conservation of information has not; one concept has been proven ad nausium whilst the other is false. Your post seems to indicate one of two possibilities: you are trying to distract the discussion down a rabbit hole to avoid facing the idea that your argument is mathematically unsound and misrepresents information theory OR you have trouble reading. Based on previous experience with you, neither would surprise me. So, here we have it again: Why did you REALLY ignore this post?

That was easy. I just clicked all the boxes. Vote for me, and I'll fix the deficit!

I can't help but notice that this post has been completely ignored.

Nice baseless assertion there.

He was a violent offender. The rapist was unarmed and there is no reason to believe the woman's live was in danger. So, we should do it better. With that attitude, we'd never have any progress. "well, it doesn't work THAT well....so let's just give up!" You know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, right? You know that the vast majority of our military occupations have nothing to do with 9/11, right? You know that the evidence shows that most suicide terrorism is in response to occupation, right?

So, a man comes home from work to see his wife tied up and being raped. This man shoots and kills the unarmed rapist. Should this man be killed? Indeed, let's keep all criminals locked up forever. Yes, how could I forget that our military is defensive rather than offensive? Wait a minute......

Learn to use the quote feature.