I don't know what ego has to do with this to be honest. If you regognize that human behavior has an impact on climate change (and the science is clear that it does), don't you have a moral obligation to do something about it, regardless of your ego and intuition?
I understand how it can be perceived this way. However, did you look at Quebec history? You will find that Quebec was very religious until 50-70 years ago. Education was provided by members of catholic institutions. At that point in time, teachers were wearing their religious uniform. Quebec made the decision to re-take ownership of the education system and to get the religions out of there. In the beginning, religious people were still providing the educuation, but they were asked to stop wearing religious symbols.
The current movement is a continuity of the work that was started 50-70 years ago to get religious symbols out of public institutions, and in that sense, it's coherent.
The point is that the crucifix was removed from the most symbolic place it could be removed from. If thats not a strong, consistent signal that Quebec wants religions out of the public institutions, then what is?
Removing the rest of them? Changing the names of all the places named after Catholic Saints? Not having the municipality put up Christmas decorations every year? You know, actually taking action to do that?
They only took down the cross in the National Assembly after backlash and calls of hypocrisy. Originally Legault wanted it to stay up. That alone says to me how BS the whole thing is.
> Changing the names of all the places named after Catholic Saints? Not having the municipality put up Christmas decorations every year?
But that stuff really is "history and culture" rather than "public endorsement of religion."
People in my home country would never tolerate foreign Christians coming in and demanding that the state stop celebrating Eid or changing place names. People are entitled to their heritage, and shouldn’t have to erase it to accommodate newcomers.
Supposedly it's Quebecers themselves who want reglious symbols out of the public sphere. Not immigrants or outsiders. Crosses and Christmas trees are reglious symbols, sure there is some "history and culture" there but there is also "history and culture" in Confederate monuments and places named after them. If Quebecers are serious about removing religious symbols in the public sphere they should take steps to actually do so. It's picking and choosing what religious symbols to have around.
> Christmas trees are reglious symbols, sure there is some "history and culture" there there
We had a Christmas tree every year growing up in America as immigrants from a Muslim country. When I visit Tokyo in December, which is in a non-Christian country, there are Christmas trees in all the malls. Christmas trees are the archetypal examples of religious symbols that have turned into cultural symbols.
> there is also "history and culture" in Confederate monuments and places named after them.
To be clear (which Americans get really diverted into believing) this is not about banning Christmas or forcing people to say Happy Holidays. This is the hypocrisy of refusing to let Muslim women cover their hair if they are a public servant (and the Govt sector is large, including pre-school workers, cleaners, teachers, council office workers, librarians, road sweepers, health workers, archivists, town planners, etc) but still having profoundly religious symbols in places like schools, hospitals and other Govt buildings. Also cultural matters, e.g. an incredible refusal to acknowledge that people are fasting during Ramadan.
The use of saint names is unavoidable, a reminder of how the Church used to control everything. It would be a powerful statement of actual secularism if some schools were renamed, even some streets. But most people don't care, they just stopped going to mass and kicked the priests out of schools, job done. Secularism is now code for xenophobia.
The process to remove religions from public institutions started 50-70 years ago. It's a process, and its going to take a long time, as there is 400 years of history to deal with. Saying that the whole process is BS because there was some hesitation, or because there are still streets named after catholic Saints is just a logical fallacy.
About religon: you are correct, it's not racism, it's a different approach to multi-culturalism. The problem is, the ROC is intolerant and only consider that one valid approach to multi-culturalism exists: their own. Anything else is "racist".
I mean I can sort of follow the logic - testosterone tends to cause more aggressiveness which can often lead to competitiveness, and arguably the basis for capitalist society is putting competitiveness to work. If you decrease the average interest in competitiveness you may see an uptick in socialist leanings and, many capitalists would argue, a decline in overall productivity.
Now, there's obviously many benefits that may also be seen with a less aggressive or even less competitive population, but the basic principle doesn't seem insane here, it seems a bit of a stretch and requires some serious leaps that I'm not sure are remotely proven though...
The studies involved have a number of confounding factors, and notably the use of clinical manipulation of testosterone levels fails to find consistent effect.
The premise of this comment is absurd, and that meta-analysis is hilarious. "Testosterone level isn't closely linked to aggression, at least compared to being a man and a criminal." This is a case of common sense, and thousands of years of experience in the effects of castration on humans and animals, being more valuable than modern "science".
I thought I remember hearing one of the side effects of taking roids (steroids) is that the abuser loses self control more frequently and has tantrums and aggressive behavior and the like. Is that true?
At least according to several studies (though unsure if they're included in the above meta-analysis), the government's drug abuse pages, countless anecdotes, and the existence of the term "roid rage".
You could also spin this argument to say that testosterone aggression causes people to fail to cooperate and societies would soon fall into chaos as everyone is out for themselves. These pseudo/pop scienciness is poor logic and unprofessional.
It may be a little evil... but your comment reminded me of this online quiz that makes you try to classify pictures in two categories, prof or hobo... It turns out I'm not really good at it. https://www.proforhobo.com/
He asked : why is it important ? You answered : because it is important. His comment has value because he's questionning an ill defined 'authority'. You accused him of a commiting a logical fallacy while committing one yourself. I learned more by reading the answers to his question than by reading your comment.
I'm sorry, but the idea that a single paragraph HN comment is some kind of deep philosophical point about the nature of authority is absurd. It was a glib dismissive comment, skeptical not for any well-thought out reason, but simply because they personally didn't understand it. I don't know how precisely I'd define anti-intellectualism, but that comes pretty close.
I think that for most people in the article, their house was not under a flight path when they bought it :
>>> The multibillion-dollar program is changing the way air traffic is managed, moving it from radar to satellite navigation. Proponents say it makes the air traffic system more efficient because it allows planes to fly more direct routes to their destinations.
But the shift has angered residents, who live in neighborhoods that are below the new flight paths. Residents in Northwest Washington sued the FAA over the changes but lost in court. A suit filed by the state of Maryland is pending.
I did not detect any bashing in the video, except toward the whole Euro. On the contrary, I found he was trying very hard not to point fingers at anybody. Also, he asked many times the audience to challenge future panelists (ex. Steve Bannon) on their ideas, and he did so in a very respectful manner. English is not my first language, so I may have missed some things. Could you expand on what part you think he was bashing on Germany or being condescending ?
