Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Scott Mayers

Members
  • Content count

    793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Scott Mayers last won the day on June 18

Scott Mayers had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

About Scott Mayers

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,369 profile views
  1. Scott Mayers

    Canada should renounce democracy

    This is absolutely true! In fact, what the Americans learned (without overtly announcing), is that the initial idea of "Manifest Destiny" actually penalizes the country because they would have to take on the social responsibilities of its citizens. Instead, given the power of International trade and capitalism, it is more reasonable to OWN the resources, economy and access control of these but evade the literal responsibility of those places socially or politically. In fact, it is better for them to have countries that are more easy to manipulate by having less democratically minded systems as well as owning their economy.
  2. ...that you lack a right to privacy and protection in law of any rights to communicate freely and safely? I've been arguing against SaskTel here about this factor based on an experience a few years ago when my line was cut by some unknown cause. I used only a land line at the time and when this occurred on a weekend, I had initial difficulty trying to get them to repair this because they claimed that the problem is the landlord's and my landlord asserted the opposite. So I discovered that the reasoning of SaskTel was that since the lines are connected through a box and lines INSIDE the building, the legal responsibility is granted to the owner, not the tenants using services. The landlord argued that the service is not the responsibility of the owner of the building and so cannot (or chooses not) to do anything. (The caretaker could intend this but we have no means of knowing.) This raises an interesting idea: Why should any renter ever be liable to pay any outstanding bills (or any bill at all) when they can also justify the actual bill as legally due to the landlord, not the tenant? This gap.....between the outside wall of the building to the particular apartment, is itself out of both the power of the tenant AND the company providing this service. So the tenant has a technical right to hold both liable but this is unable to be done legally. The implications of this are: The landlord can legally TAP your line, CUT your line, and even USE your services by any discretion they choose because this gap between the companies connection for ANY services (like even power), and can be tampered without either the tenant having any right to impose nor the government being able to have sincere power to discover this. This power extends to the right of the landlord to pass this right of access on to others, like the policing departments of any level, for instance. This means that any renter can have all their rights violated AND, if you are poor, for REQUIRING to rent, this is also a proof of discrimination specifically against the poor. Let me hear from others to see what they might know of other provinces by renters or land-owners alike. I think this NEEDS to be addressed. Thank you...
  3. Scott Mayers

    We all are racists

    I am saying White Pride IS racist. But I extend that to ANY "Pride" when it is promoted. All LBGTQ people are NOT linked to a belief in 'pride' either. This is only a requirement when the society is discriminating in a way that is based on some other 'pride' being promoted of things like "whiteness". If you are asserting why NOT have "White Pride" given the acceptance of other forms of "Pride", I agree in principle to the logic but disagree if you are actually supporting ANY "pride", including being "white". You have to respect that "Pride" is a strong belief IN one's own however defined, with exclusion to outsiders. SO, if you hold ANY such beliefs, then this IS the rationale justified by any one of them to DISCRIMINATE of others because these beliefs by any means are discriminatory. If you are 'white' but only envious of the present "pride" groups, you can't complain because while the PARTICULAR 'pride' groups may NOT discriminate against all groups, they are rationally discriminate against at least some group NOT of their own. So you can't complain about "unfairness" when you embrace a concept, "Pride", because by its meaning, it requires "unfairness". This is why I don't support ANY of these groups. They are just forms of religion to me.
  4. Scott Mayers

    Canada should renounce democracy

    "Freedom" for America is NOT "freedom" for those outside of America. You only need to 'defend' because you 'offend' outsiders when you treat the world as ONLY what is American. If you treated the rest of the world's members in the same way as you interpret yourself, you have better affect to improve circumstances at home. Note that America supported Canada's expense in military during the cold war ONLY to preserve American interests, not Canadian. The incidental nature of that to help Canadians is due to the TRADE-OFF you make to protect yourself. And note that your own particular view is only about a segregationist relative to the rest of the world. If you accept doing this, you have to expect that the rest of the world will demand you NOT have any fortunes outside of the borders of the U.S.. That is, you can't expect to exploit the rest of the world for you benefit but dump the losses on the other countries. Recent example: Setting up your "Target" stores up here in Canada by founding a 'Canadian' office, send up ONLY the inventory you want to dump but basing the impression of this 'legitimate' business as though identical in quality, then go bankrupt in OUR tax payers debt. This was used to 'save' your own country's company, "Target", by dumping its losses on us. This KIND of behavior is what you do and encourage (particularly by your political favor). And yet you act as though WE can't see the con? I have a heart for the United States. But only if and where the constitution there is extended in kind to all others reflectively. You can't expect to 'sell' the dream ONLY for your own and then complain that others demand doing whatever they can to GET THERE when your own arrogance is to forcefully use Military might to KEEP the outsiders failing in order for you to exploit its benefits. If you WANT to sincerely help others respect you, you have to TREAT them as you expect to be treated. And this IS why others are behaving this way. This logic is true of all other countries as well. But the only way we can get in sync is by breaking down borders, ...by HELPING other countries as though they were your own, not simply locking out those you also contribute to enhancing their own problems elsewhere to make yourself by contrast wealthier and more powerful.
  5. Scott Mayers

    The Great Immigration Debate

    I agree. But that is whey I use the word, "Inheritance", with its subtypes: "genetic" or "environmental". You'd have to read my other material to know I noticed this factor. We are forced to the potential of bad genetics but the intellectual society we form CAN and DOES help change this in many ways. But it counts on collectivist efforts for all people, not a system that should be set up to minimally attend the the wealthier concerns.
  6. Scott Mayers

    The Great Immigration Debate

    It was in context to the guy I was directly speaking to as a 'conservative' who interprets "opportunity" as a reality provided to all. It is not realistic to presume all, nor even most, people have this equality just because we can SEE others with them. That's like a winner of a large lottery at incredible odds saying that it is ridiculous that everyone cannot win: "look at me, I'm proof that anyone can succeed." I have a contention with your use of "many" without qualification. It is irrelevant considering a population of 6 Billion people may have 60 Million of them succeed (1%). <--- that number represents is 'many' but only adds force to mean that most do not succeed. I'm lost on some of your wording about "social mobility" (versus "economic mobility". 'social' mobility is something one might do when they move up the social ladder in any context, like highschool kids might do to become more popular.) "Education" is a sticky word too that I'm troubled by. You can be 'educated' if you how to tie knots. Quality education is NOT sufficient to get your foot in the door from the bottom even if it is relevant education. And knowledge without the experience via those 'opportunities' are what limits most on the bottom to get fair entry.
  7. Scott Mayers

    The Great Immigration Debate

    What an odd thing to say. IF you accept we don't require playing on an even playing field, then you have to accept we have no need to be anything more than the animals we are. No amount or rationalizing matters if you take this stance but then complain about other's right to both disagree AND rebel against those trying defaulting to better off conditions. That's my point about the condition of accepting evolution in social contexts, such as lawmaking in governments. Who is the 'entitled' here? The small number of wealthier 'owners' of this world or the vast majority. We are all 'greedy' but if the numbers of poor should shut up and eat their shit, as you are implying, then don't complain if they do ANY rebellion. Rebellion is as much evolutionary and natural. BUT we only concern ourselves with what we all share with regards to a management system we call government.
  8. Scott Mayers

    The Great Immigration Debate

    What you say follows from my own take. What particularly is 'not true'?
  9. Scott Mayers

    Secularism = Political Atheism

    You mean you can't understand me but prefer to excuse your own weakness as my problem. Would you prefer that I just draw a simple picture of Mohammad for you? Would idol symbols be sufficient for you? Is this what your 'prophet' really intended after all?
  10. Scott Mayers

    The Great Immigration Debate

    Realistic "Opportunity" for all requires everyone have the same initial conditions as well. This does not occur when some are born without the fortune of inheritance in some form. This delusion is only a con made to falsely enhance a dream in others so THAT the 'opportunists' have the extra 'opportunity' to exploit those BELIEVING in the dream. You count on others being deluded in order to profit from them the most. If you think this is just evolutionary, you are correct but then have to accept those 'liberals' who should equally use such 'opportunity' to exploit the power of the numbers to overthrown you. THIS very rationale is why the left are exploiting the same power politics that was the norm of the right for generations. If you feign stupidity, they can do so too given its apparent success rate.
  11. Scott Mayers

    The Great Immigration Debate

    Simplification: Equal Opportunity means one APPEARS to have options; Equal Outcome is the PROOF of those options being there for having them. I may 'freely' be able to SEE an expensive luxurious car on the lot of a car dealership. But the irrational optimist treats the seeing as PROOF those 'options' as validly accessible because they both had the prior lack of it, saw that option, and then were able to PROVE they could obtain it for themselves. It's a retrospective inversion of cause and effect they think is rational: IF A, then B. B. Therefore A. [error: affirming the consequent (outcome) doesn't assure the antecedent (option prior to potential outcome)]
  12. Scott Mayers

    Give to Caesar. Why? Better law and justice?

    I already know our Constitution worded them in a way that may appear trivial and that no essential precedence is yet able to overthrow this. I believe that it was challenged at some point but would easily be excused just as you have said. This though makes the preamble and other wording equally as loose. To say that some part of it is certainly interpreteable while others are fuzzy or about something assumed as trivial, makes the article as a whole questionable. It was made only to PLACATE the masses here, not an honest Constitution for the people and by the people. "Rule of law" is itself circular if any Law is itself Constitutionally commanding that the Law is Ruler which is saying nothing other than that any system of government anywhere uses LAWS to command people with priority over any person's particular 'conscience' wherever it is derived from. But the particular government can HAVE their 'conscience' particularly enshrined if they are the ones creating the Constitution by force. Our 'freedom of conscience' is thus a moronic statement of mind that we already have. What matters is whether we have constitutional protection of the expression of that without censor by government for or against any arbitrary opinion. We do not. [Example, "hate speech"] And whatever slight of words in our Charter of Rights that appears to support free "expression" is countered by the protections of specific superiority of those apparently 'symbolic' trivialities. They CAN be used when needed and WHY those statements are in there. Otherwise they have no reason to be there.
  13. Scott Mayers

    Give to Caesar. Why? Better law and justice?

    As an example, when I want to reach my Constituency in email, it has to go through the party and redirected to the member. Our elections are presented as though we elect the particular people but we actually only vote for that party here. But how does this relate here? Our country does not have separation of church and state. I'm not sure what you differ in opinion on here.? ...or if you do.
  14. Scott Mayers

    We all are racists

    Favoring strongly some one group of people based upon something is also reflective of racism because it associates a belief THAT the external appearance of someone defines their thoughts stereotypically. By implication it also hides their discrimination in the following way: If you 'favor X', although it may not mean you 'disfavor some non-X' , if the intepretation of one's favor is strictly exclusive to X, then you also think of all of what is not-X as excluded of your interest. For example, if one goes to a dating site and is FORCED to state one of distinct options of what sex you favor, the site inteprets those options as exclusive. For instance, they would interpret one as being either absolutely "heterosexual" or exclusively "homosexual", with no acceptance of variation, like one who may be "bisexual". The more clear way of allowing for the alternative beliefs is to have a list of those things you do NOT prefer. But though this would be clearer, it also PROVES what one really means if they are 'strictly homosexual' when they assert that they are not willing to accept any of the opposite sex. That is, we 'know' that when one asserts they are strictly "homosexual", that they ARE implying they refuse acceptance of sexual relations with the opposite sex. So if you say that you have "White Pride", it is confusing first because being 'white' does not EXCLUDE variation of culture, religion, traditions, or opinion. That is, you are implicitly implying something about being 'white' that is in your head something exclusive and strict. So, then by implication, by stereotyping someone's skin color as something to proud about, if it is not merely some cosmetic approval of having white skin versus a tan or one coloring their skin with tats, you are an ANTI-non-White believer, that believes non-Whites have distinctly different genetic qualities that link to their behavior. Also, does one who says they are a 'homosexual male' mean they would love ANY arbitrary male over ANY arbitrary female? If they believe so, then they are Anti-heterosexual by logical standards by proving they stereotype all others outside as exclusively distinct. In reality, no one would actually favor ANY and all of the group they associate to with pride. If you favor chocolate, this does not mean you disfavor anything non-chocolate. But IF you are STRICT to exclusively favor chocolate in that you refuse to eat anything else, you prove bias AGAINST non-chocolate foods for some odd reason. I also happen to agree that this is being used on the 'left'. They just simply act as similar people discriminating, but they interpret the belief of DISTINCTION as EXCLUSIVE to each member group. They all agree to segregate in to distinct exclusive parts just as a dating site may be interpreted appropriately as interpreting that there are ONLY TWO distinct sexual preferences. That is, they prove they may be discriminating against MIXING preferences and may be ANTI-BISEXUAL, for example. We are all 'racist' IF we believe in EXCLUSIVE divisions of people's beliefs and behaviors as OWNED by their genetic racial class, like if one believes that "Rap" is strictly a "Black" person's ownership that non-Blacks should be permitted to use, or that "Country" is an only-"White" person's right to claim as linked to being 'White'. Does this make better sense?
  15. Scott Mayers

    Give to Caesar. Why? Better law and justice?

    The wording was intentional in our Constitution to blur the distinction, but 'freedom of conscience' is NOT 'freedom to express those feelings'. Note that 'conscience' is more specific a word to refer to one's moral interpretation in one's head, not in their actions. We do NOT have the same freedoms guaranteed as the U.S.'s "First Amendment"! It cannot be this while they also command special rights to the select historical groups they protect for perpetuity based on religious grounds. Our opening preamble to the Charter of Rights within the constitution TELLS us we are founded on the principles of God...and thus, a pseudo-theocratic institute by default, not one intended to separate church and state.
×