Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Scott Mayers

Members
  • Content Count

    925
  • 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

54 Excellent

About Scott Mayers

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,263 profile views
  1. Ha ha! I'm partially with you on this but think that this is also true of humanity as a whole!! A good proof of this is how the Middle East itself demonstrates. The cradle of "civilization" falls in light of evolution and time merely by the differences inherent in wealth that the mere land supplies. Once our fixed resources are gone, we are sure to fall to war regardless of any apparent 'wisdom' we seem to have. Don't let it eat you though. I'm not trying to insight defeat. We just need to first recognize the facts.
  2. I'm concerned most about the 'independence' of the moderators (censors) who don't require being employed directly by government but indirectly through third-party interests of a political nature we are not able to determine. The CBC's site censors like this. I think that with regards to government, that NO censorship should be permitted in online activity.. If they want to alter people's opinions, they should compete logically with those they disagree with and not distinctly apart from those they disagree with. IF they want a right to censor, then they have the power to manipulate WHAT we see and know, how we think, etc. For government sites, they should NEVER be censored in the least becasue the mere manipulation of HOW they permit some posts over others can falsely present some people's actual position to make them look what they want them to appear as, contrary to their efforts. As for terrorist activities, those who want to affect change should challenge them by participation. THE largest reason FOR people acting out is mere neglect by things such as 'ghosting', for example. People need open platforms to speak freely. Then they need to be LISTENED to in order to first understand what might be the reasons behind their thnking. When laws are made to censor, they lead to it being a means of the policing to BECOME more than just enforcers but politicians and adjudicators. In fact, I think censorship actually is a type of weapon that gets used TO CREATE some terrorists (or even less extreme but troubling behavior).
  3. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ntnl-strtg-cntrng-rdclztn-vlnc/index-en.aspx This was slipped in pretty fast and while it claims to be defending "anti-terrorism" views, it can and WILL be used to spy on and redirect anyone's Google searches ....regardless of 'terrorist' claims. That is, everyone here who has alternative views of whomever is empowered to censor here and is at risk of losing our freedoms. I think, for instance, that I'm being redirected for looking up the "Honeybadgers and Karen Straughan". This particular example could be something else. But the fact that this law is in place raises this concern. Those Youtubers argue against the modern 'feminism' views that go against those like Trudeau. Does anyone else here notice any odd unfounded search redirections? note: this includes anyone searching merely to learn ABOUT some issue that is controversial to the secret censors. This is a threat to our freedoms online and trends towards what even those creating these laws would hold against a country like China for their own similar behavior. This is hypocritical and dangerous for anyone even without any extreme views in the least.
  4. The image where he's whereing a Turbin, he's dressed up as Aladin and likely has 'blue-face' if the photo was color. Would that still be a racist sample?
  5. The tax alone is NOT what reduces fossil fuel abuses. The taxes should just map to the cost of implementing the changes related to the laws used to reduce the abuses. @ the OP's topic, I thought about this before and opted to see if you could infer what "SNC" even means through media coverage at that time. I found that our media here in Canada presumes the viewers are all loyal watchers from the start who know what this scandal is from the start. The viewer on such coverage needs to be treated as though they are potentially new viewers at all times. [note to Admin: I find that I CANNOT highlight anything in a post I'm editing that begins with a quote without starting anew. For instance, I wanted to replace the "@ the OP's topic" ahead of the quote from Rue. It is impossible to place a cursor before any initial quote. You also cannot highlight correctly to cut and repaste the beginning part at the end.]
  6. Whether Justin Trudeau nods to his own guilt of being 'racist' or not for 'brown-face', I find the presumption that such an act is symbolic of anything full of shit. If "brown-face' is racist merely for one attemting to look like someone else OF another kind, then the same stupidity of assumption should apply to anyone dressing up as ANYTHING OTHER THAN THEMSELVES! This would mean that one who cross-dresses to another gender is racist. Down with all those 'furies' too: how horrifying must it be for some real bear to see a human dare to dress up as Teddy Bear! ? And what about all those Trekies attempting to dress up as some alien race. The stupidity of this thinking can at best point out Trudeau as being hypocritical. Other than that, a belief in "cultural appropriation" is itself proof to me that those offended are arrogantly BEING racist or sexist because they'd have to presume that an external phenotypical GENETIC related factor is NECESSARILY tied to one's internal artistic thoughts and capacities.
  7. I'm not against the Royalty as such today, either, even though I'm against the principle. I think the Royalty now also is against the concept but in a Deistic way too. We owe this to the U.S. though. Britain just hasn't formally dropped this out of the same problem: pride. But technically, if the Queen lost her mind and thought to become demanding, our system is defined to accept this officially. We still treat this 'secularly' okay when we idolize the Disney-like treatment of Princes and Princesses. I share the 'simulation' idea. But I'm logically nihilistic (meaning I recognize nature has no favored value to be something rather than nothing, NOT that we should act without assigning values morally). I'm working on a physics theory that can be derivable from logic with nothing as its initial 'input'. I'm guessing that you hold favor only to the traditional sense, like how I might still have fond memories and value to Christmas with Santa taking center stage? [Did you know that YHWH is "yeh oveh" which when translated more direct in the Greek at the time is "Je Ovah" which means "I egg" or "the egg", and both, in general, mean "the source", without original religious meaning. It was nihilistic: Given the source comes from absolutely nothing by the time of that scripture, it was considered something "unable to speak of" directly because it was relatively contradictory. This devolved today to mean "that which you are not allowed to speak of"....a taboo or curse, by many!]
  8. A "republic" is any system that has a representative government that elects an intelligence class (an educated 'college') to further be responsible to elect the formal government. "For the people" but indirectly "by the people". The idea was expanded to oppose Greek "democracy" for its rule by the masses where the masses themselves are composed more of relatively incompetent thinkers for being more gullible to popular irrational appeals rather than logical ones. [and why the general 'democratic' versus 'republican' divide there now] Plato's Republic defined this through Socrates as a means to elect a 'philosopher king', someone who was duty bound to lead based upon wisdom but NOT personal will. They are unwillfully elected by others due to their intellect. Thus, even the old Soviet Union and China were/are 'republics'. We are like that in that the old Feudal system meant to do this too. As such, we are also 'republican' in an older interpretation during the Middle Ages. But the British then intrinsically believed that the wisdom of the leaders were inherent genetically to the Royalty. So ours is a form of 'For the people' but questionable to whether the actual 'kings' are/were intellectually elected through or by the people. The people ruled are 'commonors' and is actually quite insulting for presuming genetics predefines intellect absolutely. You are correct about the 'Diest' thing. But 'atheism' was still then unacceptable to almost all religions then as now. Our country though is 'catholic'. The Anglicans are the first wave of protestors (and thus "Protestant") but still believers of the authoritarian system of the Romans. "Catholic" means "cat- (w)hole" or of all people universally. It has the same structure but the Anglican replaces the Pope with the King (Queen when without) AND still with authoritarian levels of Bishops, etc. That is what I meant. I'm using the more philosophical expression. The W.A.S.P. Protestants protested ANY catholic (universal) authority and permitted more lenient interpretation of the Bible, especially in the vernacular of local language translations other than Latin or the King's official Bible, for England. The U.S. adopted this. Notice that the Anglicans don't officially exist there because of this. Instead, they became the "Episcopal Church" to evade official loyalty towards Britain then. To American Protestants, Anglican is just a form of catholic church.
  9. I have mixed links to here and the U.S. too. My preference is to the U.S. in principle to its foundations. I think Canada is falsely interpreted as being more accepting when it is not. The U.S. just gets more notice for speaking out and being the first ones to not be afraid to make mistakes for trying to be challenging as much. But now I think we may require being more Global rather than Nationalistic as may are thinking today. When, precisely in Rome, btw? (pointing out that they changed in different times due to challenging what 'Rome' was defined as in earlier periods.)
  10. I agree about how the United States constitution favors the individual better. But they also have devolved in part. The original foundation and Amendments were NOT religious but anti-religious. The idea was to separate the means of making laws from any particular artistic interpretation, such as one's religion or cultural association. This has changed to some degree in Post-Modern times. (The "Modern" era was the period marked by science and rationalism beginning in Newton and ending approximately by WWII,.) I also agree that we don't have many rights on a technical level. To me this is precisely because of religious imposition in Constitutions and lawmaking. Our country is technically a type of authoritarian dictatorship (friendly and relatively weakened in actual force today). We are also a type of theocracy of select forms of religious affiliation in formation. But the particular beliefs of origins are coincidental still. That is, there is no LOGICAL connection to our foundation and to something uniquely special about some culture and/or related religious insight by the originators.
  11. This is what I mean is your error. (as well with most regardless of which culture you believe in). You assume we owe some kind of allegiance to something cultural and religious, not secular. 'WE' are not all White Anglo Saxons, nor Protestant. (In fact, our nation is actually small 'c' catholic, not W.A.S.P. in its foundation. The Americans are more originated by that standard historically Canada is not.) How does anything uniquely Brittish or Protestant mean anything? That is merely coincidental and arbitrary. Do you believe that if we found some other world that evolved human-like beings that they'd be British and Protestant if they succeeded in the same kind of evolution to our present civil society?
  12. Whew!....So the RCMP can cancel their raid on you now!! I share the same kind of thinking in essence. But so do many if not all. The problem is where the upper limit is to what the whole represents. To many, the whole is their cultural Nationality, roots or their religion only. I'm for the individual as the only miniority and the universal or absolute wholes. So for just Canada, it would mean that I support each (individual) and every (the collective whole) Canadian. Of course, this extends to all Earthlings when not specifying merely our country as a whole. I think of people also without connection to their cultural identity because culture to me (as with any associated religion) is just an artistic expression of the secular individual.
  13. I'm arguing back and forth with you and Dougie here. I apologize ahead of time if I erred on something you differ upon his views. I am against any specific pride being used to justify why or why not some law or policy should be made or changed against the immigrant. For instance, if one says that they don't like the immigrant for not adopting some presumed "Christian" view, for instance, as assumed universal among us, this rationale is biased, not representative of the whole, and counter to a logical appeal to others outside of those of your own particular shared beliefs. A law made on this rationale, for instance, is equally biased as those who may come in with the same. It cancels out the force of appeal by argument here or anywhere to those not Christian (as this example instance) AND not of the particular Immigrants' personal similar religious beliefs. say, for instance, Muslim.
  14. I lack any allegiance based upon religious and cultural beliefs. I am an Earthling and don't need others dictating that I must 'float' or join some particular irrational cult in order to find ground. It wouldn't work for those who believe there is something 'genetic' about one's particular cultural associations. I could join in but would require accepting some inferiority status among those presuming it there regardless. And then you'd still look down on me for not having that quality of wanting to 'kill and die' for my own selfish beliefs. Do you think, based upon your belief in killing and dying for your selfish beliefs, that those who act in similar extremes are warranted when or where they lash out in the violences we see from the many shootings that occur by such lone individuals? I don't demand that you surrender your 'allegiance' in your head. But if you disagree with the immigrant to carry their own with them as well, and believe some anti-immigration POLICY should be implemented to deny these people, then should this not also be something the Natives here should also be adopting with equal 'pride' against you for being just such a similar immigrant? Are they cowards for NOT fighting back in the same vein? The distinction I am making is not about what you have in mind and expression but to any laws that you may believe should be imposed against an immigrant ON THE JUSTIFICATION of your own particular culltural beliefs and pride?
  15. It is acceptable for YOU to accept or dismiss whatever stereotypes you want. But it is not up to you to demand that I accept your beliefs as MINE. You'd be imposing your own if you argue that the immigrants can come but must adopt to YOUR PARTICULAR narrative of what some 'we' are here in Canada, when I disagree with your perception also born here. I don't owe allegiance to anything by your perception of who we are as though we ARE of one kind of belief by nature.
×
×
  • Create New...