Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Scott Mayers

Members
  • Content Count

    899
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Scott Mayers last won the day on June 18 2018

Scott Mayers had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

About Scott Mayers

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,078 profile views
  1. Altai is not interested in rational discussion that competes against his/her worldview. (S)he should stick to Twitter but possibly gets flagged for being a potential recruiter. It appears that (s)he MAY be multiple writers too.
  2. What is 'handout'? I am asking this without bias to the obvious more right-wing conservative response. This question is rational for everyone because it asks "what level of input do you have a right to take in or hold onto" and by what common standards is a right? If you think of any input, one often thinks of a 'handout' as something negative, a limit of acceptable excess permitted to those receiving something for 'free' where we interpret this as negative. Is it 'fair' to demand a limit to which freedom is excessive and by what standards?
  3. My purpose is to reduce the problem to a thought experiment. This can help everyone here to see possibly that no one is wrong, we are all wrong, or that something is a better option should no option be favorable. I thus used twins, not to necessarily mean they have to be loving towards each other, but to imagine everyone beginning on equal grounds. I think the problem may be reduced to this kind of model to try to show each person's perspective neutrally. Much of reality is careless about humans. As such, the dilemmas that arise may have no ideal solution. If so, the question arises if we should opt to split the share of the world to EACH individual or to permit selfish interests to allow certain cruelties to occur regardless of faults, etc. For example, continuing with this example, imagine that each half of this world of two families beginning with everything equal. Then, like real life, imagine, ignoring the 'parents', that each person/child requires at least 1/3 of the household energy in order to survive in some period. (or 1/6 for both houses together) For my children, then, they each have a 50% share of the energy of my household in some period. Since 1/3 (= 33.3%) is minimally needed to survive for any child in this world, my children are certain to survive since each has (50-33.3 = 17.6% excess energy), while my brother's kids cannot meet ALL the children's needs in the same period because their share EACH is 25%. Since 33.3% energy is needed per kid, all of my brother's kids would die if they had to attempt to live on what they have without fighting each other or asking for my help. One option is to have my brother (twin 2) let his kids fight it among themselves. One WILL at least die in this struggle because there is not enough energy to go around. I COULD offer to take one of my brother's kids in. But what if my brother was being irresponsible and opted not to use a condom at some point (well maybe two times relative to me) and thus only accidentally had 4 kids. Perhaps he had a religious belief too that you should not abort a child regardless of how it would affect others. Would my potential allowance of admitting at least one of my brother's children be appropriate? If I don't, do I 'hate' my brother's child(ren) that I turn away?
  4. I'm already in agreement with this. I'm trying to find common grounds of the confusion. Assume that I live in a house next door to my twin who has the same size house but has 4 kids where I might have 2. Assuming also that we begun 'equal' in income but my brother OPTED to have 4 kids which made their family suffer for having to split their energies to the two extra kids, is it incompassionate of me to turn any of my brother's kids away if they came to my door to LIVE permanently? If one of my kids complains should I let their cousin move in, is my kid being 'hateful'?
  5. Does anyone here not agree that there appears to be an odd discrepancy between supporting the Immigrant with the same force as the Aboriginal? Is it rational to hold compassion for one but not the other? Can you be compassionate to both? Since this is about 'hate crimes', if one is considered to 'hate' the Immigrant, should they not be demonstrating compassion for the Aboriginal and vice versa?
  6. But I think your own self reflection on this is itself contributing to WHY, though. I agree to your opinion minus the belief of the unique presumption of anti-Christian (which YOU mean of the more fundamentalist and/or evangelical Protestant varieties) and to being anti-straight. If you want to help, you have to step away from your own personal opinion regarding religion and think more 'globally' or you are just as culpable AS those on the left doing this because they TOO are doing it for a 'religious' set of reasonings that I think is at the root of the problems. Only a religious mindset considers censorship justifiable and all define those against theirs as 'hate' (or 'terrorists') relative to their own cults. I don't believe that if you were in power that you'd NOT do these things but with more stronger biases as is proved time and again where the 'conservative' uses religious IMPOSITION to define laws. I also KNOW that our Conservatives here are the first to SPY on its constituents, use deceptive tactics assuming the 'ends-justify-the-means' where their own strict religious beliefs are claimed to be strict AND you'd define anyone that is NOT particular and in line with the "Christian" view as Blasphemous and worthy of the worst. I'm FOR open sex choices and religious freedoms as long as they are NOT of government by and for the people AND they only speak on these issues where actual violations against people in particular instances occur. So I agree with your point in the first paragraph.
  7. I'm saying KEEP your own religious beliefs about INTRINSIC factors about us regarding culture or religion OUT of politics because they are comparative to expecting science as an institute to favor 'alternative' religious-science views to play a essential role there. Legislating beliefs that are based ONLY upon some subset of people's beliefs regardless of concern to prove nor disprove is abusive where used in politics anywhere.
  8. WHICH religion? People's initial adaption of any morality comes from the individual as a child and is ONLY 'selfish' at that point. To repeat, though, I am NOT against people believing in anything. Religion derives as a reflection upon an afterlife and only takes on other characteristics of 'kindness' where it exists based upon some expectation about that afterlife. Thus it is ART and has no place in politics. [note that I'm FOR supporting museums and preserving historical things. But ONLY where we don't extend this to literal SPECIFIC people. ART is ALL OF OURS. No one person nor group OWNS any culture such that they require laws that make their cult PROPRIETARY. This goes against my FREE power to CHOOSE what beliefs or lifestyles I chose.
  9. And there's your stereotype being imposed upon me. I am not your 'we'. I had no choice to be born here and do not have a right to claim some part of England if I had genetic roots from there. The point is about what 'cultural' attributes are considered 'good' or 'bad'. If you DEMAND OTHERS to see you the way you want, do it on your own time and space, ...not in conservative laws that dictate THAT we 'own' some homage to artificial irrelevant behaviors to ALL people individually.
  10. Yes. I have a problem with it when it is IN GOVERNMENT laws. The 'hate' laws are forms of religious ethics as they don't have any grounding to speak on behalf of each individual NOR the whole. The word is an 'emotional' one. Our system here is WAY MORE RELIGIOUS then the U.S. It is anti-free-speech and along with many of the other laws being put in place to 'protect' us, these laws prejudice classes of people for the sake of some other class and makes it offensive to those NOT in those protected classes. Who has a right to define behaviors of speech as worthy of being considered immoral? Obviously the one speaking is begged to SHUT UP for having specific thoughts expressed by these laws. And while many involved in supporting these may not claim any religious association, they ARE being so because these kinds of laws are "blaspheme" laws based upon mere etiquette,. If it is okay to have religion in politics, then it is indifferent to WHICH religion it is because there will always be some who are certain to be abused at the expense of those IN those religions.
  11. So if the 'first' person claims all of some territory and demands all others to pay a duty where they have no other FREE lands to choose from, that first person OWNS the land and the people (as slaves)? My point is about ownership and inheritances. No one has a 'right' to some claim regarding properties where these are defaulted essential to ALL people. Also those who expect it fair to BENEFIT from inheritance, has to accept the DEBTS too. That is, if it is alright to take the BEST qualities of one's ancestor's as stereotypes, they should require the NEGATIVE stereotypes. P.S. I don't know what it is with asserting "Rule of Law" as though it is something unique. In translation is means Rule of Rule or Law of Law, nothing more than saying that laws are what governments create. If merely being 'ruled by some law' is meaningful, then it doesn't matter who is in power to make the laws. That statement "Rule of Law" is thus without meaning.
  12. I've lived in both here and the U.S. Many THINK we are more 'left-wing' socialists. The opposite is true. We are more 'conservative' because we demand conservation of the English Anglican and French Catholics (or intermixes of the two) with absolute priority. We have no law of actual 'freedom of speech' where we have hate-laws that are still way stronger than the U.S.. The concentration of wealth here is also more 'conserved'. "Communism" has never actually existed. It is an 'ideal' aim of Socialist Union countries that base voting THROUGH their direct fields. Like that workers of say a paper mill would elect their head supervisor among them, and they in turn among other people of the same level in other industries vote for a higher level and so on through 'unions'. The 'ideal' of communism is an 'anarchy' similar to right wing groups but where they hope that people would get to a point to voluntarily get along. THAT's the only real KINDS of problems with communist aimed governments. Right wing governments believe more in a right is MIGHT, at the strongest extreme, they too have an Anarchy concept: but it is based solely on FORCE of one's will over others by ANY MEANS necessary. This is 'barbaric' and non-concerning of 'democracy' in the least. So don't get on your high horse about those on the left. The "right" wing utilizes irrational bully religions because they want....DEMAND others obey their will with the idiotic claims that their 'gods' favor them by 'nature'. If you hold a right wing view, you lean towards an anarchy that favors only kings and queens, and powers ONLY GRANTED to those who 'own'. This is ant-democratic and worse than the socialist (pro-Communist) versions of similar extremes because at least the left has compassion... even if misplaced. But the problem among them is the relative selfishness that you get of 'groups' advocating in a similar extreme to the gun lobby, not something INTENDED by the meaning of 'communal' as Communist refers to. Since the 'right' is only wanting to destroy a democratic power (power of the people equally) of management that 'government represents, the major interest of any form of 'government' by them is to be as 'police servants' to the fortune of those who own. If inheritance were actually out of the question, this MIGHT be fair where everyone could begin without 'ownership' and EARN it. But this is not the case. And it is why they prefer the extreme religions with Gods that Threaten people not to accept their unfortunate lot in life with a promise of reward in an afterlife should they remain obediently subservient to those 'owners'. I agree with you on the unfair treatment of people that adds anger to people for being presumed 'well off' for being white when they aren't. The discrimination of laws that favor people based upon genetic roots (and associated 'cultures') are imposing a stereotype of not only those they specifically target as the prior benefactors and abusers, but they stereotype themselves and impose this upon others they think SHARE their struggle based on irrational qualities. A woman, for instance, doesn't require supporting a law that demands a default trust in any of their sex's accusation of men simply for being a woman. So the feminist who acts as though the 'advocate' for all women as though they all share the identical problem and view is itself vile stereotyping when it involves laws that treat the whole class, "women" as having a 'minority status.'
  13. I'm not sure which of the major groups in Mexican ancestry, the Mayans or the Aztecs, have had a 'culture' of human sacrifice. I'd like to see them demand a right to their tradition!
  14. We are all from the same Earth. How does it matter whether one is at some place 'first'? Non-humans were more 'native' to almost most lands outside of Africa. Also, mentioning Africa, how far back is it appropriate to go to claim some 'ownership'? Note that I'm not for a lot of takeovers in recent times (like Israel's taking over Palestine). Also, what about people NOT fortunate to be born with inherent ownership? Are they aliens from Mars that should accept their 'fate' of requiring to be slaves simply because of bad luck. I'm FOR our Aboriginal natives here as individuals. I'm NOT for any 'cultural' inherentance' concepts (ie. 'heritage') though. But some think it is a crime here to speak against issues that merely relate to anyone 'conserved' in our Constitution. Why are these people so much 'truer' Canadians than others. I've never known any of those places my ancestors lived nor even know of most of my natural family. Do I own their culture if I was adopted by others? And, what about mixed nationalities? This topic is more about the freedom of people to speak. No amount of 'etiquette' laws should prevent even the more vile languages. For the most part, the treatment against people to force them to shut up is MORE violent and a cause for them to BE more violent for not being taken serious for their concerns.
  15. This response is unclear to me for some reason. (Fragmented phrases lacking specific interpretation?) Can you rephrase?
×
×
  • Create New...