magic-chicken

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?

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.

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?

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".

What? Are you suggesting that left-leaning voters have a lower level of testosterone than right-leaning voters?

> After all, lead poisoning was suggested as one of the possible reasons for the decline of the Roman empire.

What are you trying to imply here? Microplastic -> Low Testorone -> Socialist government -> Decline of civilisation?

This quote is gold, and I think this is the best answer you could have come with in the first place.

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 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.

Also, text diagrams allows the use of source control and versioning, which is nice.

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 ?