Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Scott Mayers

Members
  • Content Count

    828
  • 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

48 Excellent

About Scott Mayers

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,687 profile views
  1. Scott Mayers

    Are Cultural Laws against Free Speech?...

    If we take the classical liberal concept of "We should have the freedom to do what we want as long as that freedom doesn't impose upon the freedom of others to act in the same way," the acts of speech that cause harm to others is included. An example of today's "movements" are like those who presently use the media to accuse some public figure of some act of sexual violation, implied especially with the most direct means to harm one's reputation in ways that no amount of anything short of admitting guilt and repentance is expected. I used to favor feminist concerns, for instance, where the average of society seemed to prove that women were 'systematically' abused by men who were often understood to be directly abusive because of those men who treated them as something less than they were as humans. But this was about particular behaviors of only specific kinds of men represented by their tendency to abuse anyone, including other men, by this action. It doesn't mean that my 'feminism' of this type was about the whole class of men nor women as today's redefined extension to hold the whole class of women as victims and men as predators. What was understood as 'systematic' to me was about the means of others looking the other way while their own friends and family would actively abuse. Continuing with this example (not the only present 'cultural' beliefs about whole genetic subclasses of humans), when we enable laws that permit cultural adjustments DIRECTLY through laws, if those who believe some subclass of victimhood requires treating the defined class genetically, as is being done, it holds not merely the voluntary behavior of people accountable to particular acts of abuse, but assigns some whole GENETICALLY defined class accountable regardless of the particular members of those defined classes. But this is precisely what created the kinds of thinking of the past PARTICULAR abusers: they assumed something true about the behavior of any arbitrary member of the GENERAL class they themselves were treating as 'laws of nature'. Obviously, if the intent is to stop abuses realized and shared by all or most universally, you have to focus on the particular classes of those who hold strong culturally particular beliefs about GENETIC causation 'systematically'. So, to me, when I hear of some collection of people supporting the class WOMEN against MEN distinctly rather than some recognition of distinction of the CULTURE OF PARTICULAR beliefs of those who hold stereotypes about the whole classes of men and women, I have to ask whether these fighters are not merely trying to stop the actual cultural causes of the harms of their nemesis or are trying to avenge the whole class in mere opposition of the prior stereotypes by ALTERING those who are the abusers versus the victims. This makes these kinds of 'feminists' EQUAL in respect to the very POWER they want in kind of the abuser, but doesn't STOP THE ABUSE!! ** To keep laws that favor creating laws that directly manipulate culture when culture itself is non-genetically relevant is to prove that those supporting such power in lawmaking have some of their own agenda to maintain power THROUGH laws that give them DISTINCT POWER based upon some belief about their own GENETICS and of all others. They only hold 'diversity' as a virtue in the same way one might prefer the value of a zoo: Lots of variety of different animals held in distinct cages where they and their own unique genetic classes are the ones empowered to play the role of the human visiting these zoos. They 'love' the animals but believe they are nevertheless distinct creatures who are most threatening if they were to mingle freely among them. THIS is what our "Multiculuralism" is about. They want the power of being the zookeepers of people believing in the distinctions of peoples ENVIRONMENTAL options to behave as though they are specie-distinct and inevitable. We might be entertained by watching bear families play safely but know that we cannot allow them to mingle because bears are intrinsically incompatible with humans. When you get multiple groups of similar thinkers, they act as though they respect their differences because they share seeing each of their own groups as like distinct animals. They thus believe in sharing power in a grand zoo where they have walls that prevent the violation of each from interfering with each other. But they also share the view that no one should be allowed to freely mix independently outside of cages. They believe these are necessary to preserve the purity of their own or they risk the POWER they hold on the culture as a whole they believe is significantly due to their own genetic roots. **Compare this kind of reasoning regarding guns: to stop the abuses of those using guns, some suggest that instead of tackling the problem, guns, empower all people EQUALLY to abuse. The belief is that if the 'victims' of gun abuse is EMPOWERED by being able to own guns, they can overcome the risk of the enemy who holds guns by 'cancelling' their power out. But now imagine if those very lovers of guns who abuse ARE the ones EMPOWERED in law to disarm those they believe are GENETICALLY classed abusers!!
  2. Scott Mayers

    Are Cultural Laws against Free Speech?...

    I'm not conservative and still stand strong against culture and religion in lawmaking. Many people on all the political spectra get abused because of this. The individuals in all parties can't compete over the power of those affiliated with religions and cultural purists.
  3. Scott Mayers

    Target of virus/hack attackj

    This is likely China targeting Canada for the arrest of Huawei's President FOR the U.S. extradition request. If they can read this, they should recognize that this would only defeat Canada's neutrality for that company letting the American's influence take precedence. Mind you, this could then be intentional to discredit the Chinese? And, if the Chinese OR Americans are involved, their use of Korean may be to purposely confuse who is responsible. .... ??? Any other similar political suggestion possibilities? Is there a way to trace them back ....or their proxies?
  4. Scott Mayers

    Looking for a Job Vs Making the Job.

    Some argue that if you don't have a job, you require making it your job to look for a job. But then, if this is true, can we legislate you pay yourself at least a minimum wage for this or risk going to jail if you can't?
  5. Scott Mayers

    Statistics, comparisons, contradictions

    Since we digressed, I started up a new thread to respond to this called, "Are Cultural Laws against Free Speech?..." [Sorry for the title. I should have named it, "Are Cultural Laws for or against Free Speech", to not bias my own position by the title. I realized that too late.]
  6. I've opened this thread to continue with a discussion that Zeitgeist and myself begun in "Statistics, comparisons, contradictions". Anyone else interested may join in if they'd like. ... [Zeitgeist]"I think you're creating a false dichotomy that religion is separate from culture." No. "Religion" is a subclass of "Culture" because it is an artificial and arbitrary construct. I propose separating Culture from political lawmaking which includes any particular religious, recreational, or entertainment concepts. And my point is that our "Multicultural (TM)" government is hiding their special interest in the preservation of particular religious beliefs by broadening their intended interest in making laws respecting religion under the guise of 'culture'. And moreover, they add the "Multi-" to make it appear universal when it is not universally inclusive. [Zeitgeist]"You can't separate atheism or humanism from culture either." Yes you can. It is NOT an artificial and arbitrary construct except by those who are interpreting that the default of our Nature at birth as knowing some particular God and its particular story as though it were genetic. The fact that I may call myself "atheist" is only by the imposed artificial force by past governments to "theism". ALL people have 'culture' as defined as those particular artificial and arbitrary things each of us find entertaining, recreational, and inspiring personally. One without religion or human interest also can have 'culture'....such as a dog or cat. [Zeitgeist]"Canada was formed by two major cultural groups. The country is redolent with the traditions of both nations. To pretend that Canada would be the same country if it was settled by Indonesian islanders or atheist Maoist Chinese revolutionaries is wrong." Canada was accidentally formed by the trivially populated and non-united settlers along the St Lawrence seaway external to the 13 colonies that stood up against its British Imperialist rulers. We were not a 'country' but a "Dominion of Britain" at that time. The population rose by those Loyalist to a King and its decreed religion [Anglican] along with the Loyalist of pre-Revolutionary world of France, who initiated and supported the concepts of American Republican-style governments. Their main ideal was to isolate separate cultural biases based upon the various religious and non-religious people alike from government top-down imposition of beliefs. You also missed that the territory of Canada was also pre-inhabited of many other cultures aboriginal to the land in the same respect of their own religions where they had them. And yes, our world would still be similar with exception to culturally defined aspects had civilization and technology were the same as it is now. Culture doesn't define civilization....civilization merely coincides with culture regardless. That's why the aboriginals would have equally had 'culture' prior to settled lifestyles. Their cultures did not PREVENT them from advancing. They were just not old enough be reach that similar maturity of large-scale organization and settlement. Culture doesn't go away just because a country doesn't dictate it. Communist-idealism that crushes one's capacity to EXPRESS themselves is also not comparable to the concept of the FREE-EXPRESSION restriction of governments that make laws regarding particular religious laws. Laws equally come from children playing pretend. Do you credit the act of pretending to be what grants legitimacy to some rules that may evolve from them that become more inclusive of other kids? Culture is just an extension of playing games as children. Or....for another example, while there is certain justifiable common links to many independent civilizations to have invented the symbols "1" and "0" for one and zero, the symbols are still arbitrary constructs because we could choose any symbols for these concepts. But the meaning of their symbol's origins, though may be useful, are NOT relevant to the reason mathematics today is valuable. We also don't require each person to define their own symbols for the concepts of one and zero to be functional as a cooperative society....and in fact this would be MORE counter-cooperative. Imagine if each kid from grade 1 to 12 were allowed to pick their own symbols independently and require the teachers and all other kids to know each others' distinct symbols. Can you not see that the symbols, like culture, are arbitrary and artificially constructed and only MEAN something collectively when they are shared in general terms but expressed freely in one's own specific use of those general terms? That is, we agree to use this alphabet to communicate IN GENERAL, but we (or some of us at least) don't think we require everyone to communicate precisely with a limited SPECIFIC style of expression. Culturalism, multi- or mono- are means of limiting freedom of expression because it dictates etiquette and style, particular concepts of preferences, versus the general concepts of grammar rules we use of some arbitrary but universally chosen language. I'm not against culture but just the opposite. I just know that with our system that commands a right to constitute culture as its means of governing with priority over logic, it is no different than expecting our emotions to dictate how we should add numbers together. A 'government' is only a management system that the people collectively utilize to organize itself in the essentials. Culture is a personal concept that belongs to the individual.
  7. Scott Mayers

    Statistics, comparisons, contradictions

    I already agree with this too though. The problems associated with the Aboriginals is isolation and poverty. This is only a "First Nations" issue though precisely because we enable a right FOR the Catholic Church's protection via Multiculturalism as an entrenched law. If any specific church is favoured in law, this means we are a theocratic government by law. The only reason Multiculturalism is instituted at all is to preserve consistency with the biases our constitution has for desiring to favour the PARTICULAR powers of that church and the French language in legal isolation. The concept of "Multiculturalism" as defined through the constitution is a smoke screen that PERMANENTLY CONSERVES a right of the traditional religious to utilize different laws for different people in order to have their cake and eat it too. They get the benefits SPECIFICALLY but drop the losses GENERALLY to the population as a whole. The Reserve system itself treats the Aboriginals as animals in light of the beliefs of those original Canadian governments. While I agree that the Natives should have been assimilated, the error of the way this assimilation was done was by attempting to alter their culture to the Christian arrogant belief that their ideals uniquely related to modern civilization. This is not the case because the religion is coincidental. Any civilization if repeated FROM any different religious background will also think their particular religion is what makes the civilization 'civil'. The truth is that civilization evolves IN SPITE of whatever artistic beliefs people hold. So no, ...we do not OWE anything to the nature of our country's religious roots but to a secular idea that goes against the religious mindset. The crimes against the Natives were about the religious assimilation but is being purposely being treated as though it was about civil assimilation. They are separate factors but are being blurred to hide the actual causation of the abuses. The powers of the government to grant particular churches, let alone ANY churches in general to be responsible for assimilation IS the problem. If we had laws that denied the government to make laws about religion, you'd have to hold accountable any of those churches that the government permitted to assimilate them by using religion as a means to do this. Civilization is NOT a 'culture' but an inevitable evolution of any animal that organizes itself intellectually to create a 'government' at all. The con is to treat this 'government' as though it is owed specifically to some supernatural being and to those who believe in it. This is dangerous because when it is empowered to those ruling, it enables them to excuse ANY potential behavior as something INSPIRED by their invisible being's commands and not something negotiated by the secular population.
  8. Scott Mayers

    Statistics, comparisons, contradictions

    I'm FOR culture and share much of your own stance. But I think that all cultures belong to each of us, though, not 'owned' by specific people proprietorially. I often interpret most of the original scriptures as secular literature collective of the past's science, politics, and history that have devolved to become religiously interpreted after its origins are lost. This is valuable to understand and connect our history universally. So I'm not rejecting culture but don't find it appropriate for any government to be allowed to use religion or culture within laws. Take the Catholic Separate School system, for instance, that 'vouchers' taxpayers to opt out of the regular secular school system. Or with respect to crimes of the church for the abuses supposedly imposed upon all Natives, these are due specifically to the the Christian churches but are now protected from prosecution and passed on to the population as though 'we' all own those crimes. Government itself IS our shared communal religion. It doesn't require formal traditional religions nor cultures of the past imposed upon our world now to function. Religion and culture laws only KEEP the world in perpetual smoke screens that hide the real problems that prevent them from being repaired.
  9. Scott Mayers

    Statistics, comparisons, contradictions

    [Thank you for your response. I like your style of writing and believe you are intellectually fair and likely meaningful non-biased.] I'm being very specific about what I mean when I use the word, "law" and "lawmaking" and "particular culture", etc. That is, I'm against the government being permitted powers to make laws for or against any PARTICULAR religion, culture, personal preferences regarding gender, etc. These concepts collectively are summarized as "art". They are ARBITRARY behaviors that belong to individuals, and when LAWS are made for or against SPECIFIC forms of ART, this power by governments are against FREEDOM OF SPEECH for some subset of the population that government is representing. The bias of power favors GROUPS of which those most powerful in money or popularity can rule OUT those individuals who desire different forms of ART. Therefore, our "Multicultural" label is itself misleading because it does NOT favor ALL individual 'cultures' (their ART) and biases select cultures those IN POWER simply don't like. The rhetoric and misuse of things like statistics among a whole set of other manipulative behaviors are also enhanced and escalated when governments have power to affect specific cultures and who, as people themselves, have the non-democratic power to IMPOSE their own religious/cultural beliefs directly through those laws. Note how the "Multi-" in "Multiculturalism" demonstrates a kind of statistic abuse: it purposely blurs the meaning of the quantity of cultures it supports. It is not true that ALL cultures are supported and yet not lying in that the quantity that they do support is at least more than one. It's fuzzy and places the greater burden on individuals who lack conforming to those specific favored cultures set in law to defend their own expressions against those laws. You can be deemed "racist", or "sexist" or a "hater" by the LAWS created regarding culture because those in power making them get to dictate the VIRTUE as well as VICE of those who speak against them.
  10. Scott Mayers

    Statistics, comparisons, contradictions

    [NOTE BEFORE READING: This post seems to digress away from Altai's thread here. I did not intend this but want to give notice to any potential reader and Alai personally. I link it back to the issue of statistical problems at the end but believe that this is all still relevant. Should the administrators feel this is potentially "hi-jacking", I ask that this at least be preserved in a distinct thread with a link for the value of this if it should be asked for removal in respect to Altai. I will save a copy just in case. Thank you.] I'm for that separation of church and state, something that most don't realize is NOT in our own Canadian Constitution. I also do not support laws that ban religion in the same way as one's right to artistic EXPRESSION. The reason for the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution's mention about freedom of speech would not warrant mentioning also that the country should make no laws regarding religion if this wasn't logically implying that religion itself is an ARTISTIC EXPRESSION. In other words, I agree that we cannot make laws that ban religion, culture, or language, etc, from the people but that regarding LAW-MAKING, specifically, we can not allow governments to force PARTICULAR kinds of interpretation of culture, religion, ....or 'art' (as a more generic term for it all)...by making laws to conserve, preserve, nor especially, constitutionalize what is intrinsically subjective interpretations about what is 'good' EXPRESSION versus the 'bad'. As such, even the U.S. today has already broken their own Constitutional amendment many times over since its incarnation. It has been (and still is) being interpreted BY RELIGIOUS people in power (by all parties) that the law only condemns making laws against religions in particular. For the left, they believe it is alright to have "hate-laws", for instance, exceptions to the freedom of expression. Also, they promote a right to make laws that act to balance out population clusters based upon cultural, religious, and even artistic, basis. For the right, they believe that if the majority HAVE a particular representation of particular religions, the ideals FROM or THROUGH their churches are justly right to make laws from. BOTH extremes (including all others in between), have the larger inclusive agreement that at least RELIGION, itself, has some just foundation to the moral foundations of their country's origins. So, for instance, while they may not overtly clarify it, there is a default anti-atheist agreement: that such thinking would lead to a scary Nihilistic outcome. Note that while the Soviet Union and China have banned the prior official religions, they remained at minimal, a form of religion based solely on the meaning of their own ideal of Communism: an ideal FUTURE WORLD where we all live in a heaven on Earth. The religious part comes from the fact that "Communism" is only the end goal. To get there though requires the present living people to agree to any set of SACRIFICES for that future's children. Where is the logic in presuming that the future's condition (rather than the present) is worthy of sacrifice unless you have some sort of religious belief that you extend your own 'consciousness' through your progeny? That is, while I might love my children today, how can you think there is something more special to consider for some future non-existing progeny that may itself never exist. An asteroid could come by and completely annihilate the world precisely as that ideal might be reached. Then what would that sacrifice mean. The only way that those country's could function through the temporary period of Republican Socialism to set the stage for that ideal future would require some form of INCENTIVE of 'hope' that nothing BUT religious, cultural, or artificial manufacturing could serve to get to that end. In other words, some form of religion in those (anarchic-type) societies need to be MANUFACTURED still. This is why even Hitler's Nazis opted to favor the formal Nihilist concepts. They only differed by the Communists in strategy.....they embraced religion AS required without pretence of it being non-essential. An example of what we CAN do is to recognize when and where religious ideals creep into politics and stop enabling lawmaking that utilizes these with clarity. An excellent example of this is our Canadian "Bilingual" laws. How can this NOT be interpreted logically as a bias to favor a superiority belief about one or both of these languages? If there is no actual bias, we'd require to either have ALL languages as 'official' or none. We cannot have none because this is our means to effectively communicate the laws we make collectively. But then we have to choose only ONE 'official' language, whether this be arbitrarily selected or forcefully assigned at some initial period. It doesn't impose upon others to demand they cannot express themselves but that they have to be the ones to TRANSLATE their expression to the official one if their appeal is to be about laws that affect us all. This is identical to the nature of selecting 'official' universals for science and math. What value would it be to allow the official status of measurements to be in distinctly SEPARATE optional languages? For instance, what universal value (over vice) would it be to allow people independently to select two distinct sets of symbols and their bases for the integers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...etc) based upon choice? Of course we DO have value to USE different symbols or bases for numbers but we still have the capacity to universally link them without confusion. We might select to have BOTH Imperial measures with Metric ones. But if we have some LAW that demands uniquely of more than one but not all, we'd require the responsibility to either make ALL people learn both (or all of the finite set of) languages to communicate or a means of EACH to have the legitimate capacity to translate themselves without requiring the faith to trust others to do this translation. [Without one's own capacity to KNOW how to directly translate can lead to problems when people of different systems communicate because we'd have to have FAITH in the MEDIUM of TRANSLATION to act.] This would be like if the Chinese opted in law (as a kind of World Individual) to refuse to use the Arabic numerals for their own traditional symbols. Their 'traditional' symbols MAY be in base 3, (or like the Babylonians, base-60!). While we can be SURE that translation is possible, by faith or by learning both languages, having the 'freedom' to EXCLUSIVELY select ONLY ONE as a law, ISOLATES those people from a 'freedom to understand' the laws made in alternate languages without faith. I went into depth on this latter example because it points out that while there CAN be means of allowing select ARTISTIC expression as an OFFICIAL concept of a select finite set of symbols, the cost increases negatively against those who only speak one or none of the official languages (any others). This logically PROVES that our Canadian Bilingualism is biased to a form of artificial favoritism FOR those who either (a) speak both (a form of elitist favor to linguistic variety of those who can afford transitions between the two or more official languages) OR (b) speak in the language that favors their culture in the language they already speak. Those laws are thus "cultural" (and 'religious' given a belief that the select languages SHOULD be preserved intrinsically). Those who speak neither have a rightful beef against the arrogance of not also allowing their OWN language to be 'official'. This leads to demanding segregate laws that preserve their own languages in select communities they hold plural power in. It also ADDS the means to ISOLATE them because those children who learn their own limited community language are biased by default to be less competitive elsewhere without the added investment in learning the other 'official' languages. AND worse, it biases OUTSIDERS from entering those communities that now have successful religious/culture law that allow them that isolation. Is this sufficient as an example? I could use more. This is not what appears as a religious but nevertheless is in an indirect and hideous way. To balance the problems against the particular ONE 'official' language that would likely impose the cultures and religions that those language origins are more relative to, you have to include prevention of allowing those cultures OF the origin of that official language from being imposed in law: EXAMPLE, A law that requires reverence to the Engand's Queen, ....a law that requires all students be required to be taught Shakespeare uniquely as a prerequisite to pass language arts, ....a law that rewards some superior reverence to English simply because it might be 'official', etc. I hope you like reading because I feel I have to add another example.... The fear that human rights would be imposed upon is already one that exists with laws that permit cultural laws. It also actually ENHANCES violation by how positive corrective laws used to 'balance' seemingly unfair real problems through affirming SPECIFIC laws FOR peoples BASED upon cultural definitions. The laws to balance out some apparent injustice between the sexes, for instance are often actually caused DUE to gender cultural ignorance of perception about what the real problem is. If more women are biased of pay using a statistic that measures CEO salaries as paying men way more, it is MORE likely due to the nature of women's culture of 'femininity' that those majority of women hold by default of themselves and the nature of the expectant 'masculine' dominance of a CEO position. But 'femininity' (treating it to mean, 'the artistic interpretation of what more women in the past held') is NOT OWNED by the nature of one being literally female. That the words relate are accidental to the culture. As such, MEN who are also 'feminine' are also likely to fit into the same class of those who don't get CEO high salaries. See how the ARTISTIC interpretation of the perspective of the problem itself is skewed? For an illustration of the absurdity of those who think that women (not merely effeminate people of any sex) are being treated anti-humane, should we not also demand laws that put an equal amount of women in the prison system to make it 'fair'? Why is no one complaining that there is an inhumane treatment of men over women to the interpretation of what qualifies as a 'crime'? The reality that the kind of crimes we treat as most vile are those that are 'masculine' is also a cultural factor. That men are more likely to do this is based upon EMBRACING specific cultures in prior social or political laws of the past through time. We tend to treat this by inappropriately making 'laws' (cultural or legal) that target men as perpetrators and women as victims when, again, the crimes are actually DUE to culture/religious assumptions of the past. The solution that many embrace as 'humane' for this problem is often: "Never ever should any man ever hit a woman!" with the implicit sexist bias that assumes that only men, rather than "masculine culture" is the cause. Here "masculine culture" does NOT mean men even though this may have been traditional. A law that appropriately (and unbiased to any 'culture' nor 'sex') is to have a law that asserts, "Never ever should anyone ever hit another person." THIS would be non-cultural, non-religious, and non-sexist, as a law. The laws made today tend to reflect bias when they address a problem that is based upon a logical factor (like that getting hit is abusive) get confused as a religious and illogical one (that only women can be abused when hit) precisely because of a prior religious one of some traditional past (that men should be selected for their physical dominance by women) and by illogical connections (like that given the majority of those hurt are women who get hit by men MEAN that all men ARE MEAN by their intrinsic nature and all women subjects of intrinsic victims of only men.) If this is too confusing to address in depth, than would it not be simpler to just keep laws that address non-cultural interpretations of the nature of abuse? To RECONVENE to this thread by Altai, much of the problems often resort to those interpretations of statistics that get get abused by inappropriate logic. I already begun threads here and elsewhere about the problems of statistics (and think even Altai may have borrowed this idea for her own here). A stat that says, using the last example above, "2/3 of all women in their lifetimes will experience some form of abuse", implies that non-women represent an exclusive privilege in opposition because of its very exclusion of a stat representing all people. It might be also true that "2/3 of all men in their lifetimes will experience some form of abuse." In that case, that missing detail implies a biased agenda to favor the class 'women' at the expense of men should this be an appeal to alter laws. It then represents a kind of 'religious' belief that is also implicit: "No women deserves abuse, uniquely" (and thus that, "Men are incapable of abuse or are irrelevant to require laws where they potentially are.")
  11. Scott Mayers

    Statistics, comparisons, contradictions

    You are arguing fine against Altai's position with nice depth of response. On this post response, though, I partly agree and disagree. The Nazis are only 'Nihilist' with respect to realities about success in power relations. With Social Darwinism, they agree that nature tends to favour no one and is "nihilistic" in this respect. But they more support the concept that IF God is dead, then people would still recreate it. For the National Socialists, they believed that success of any prosperity belonged to those who HAVE an ethnically strict and isolated support system based STRONGLY in RELIGION, ....NOT atheism. They admired the strength of those who defined themselves BY their Nationality and ironically, to the very strength of the Jews as the strongest version they believed MADE them economically most successful/prosperous. This was a big reason for their Anti-Jewish stance. They believed the Jew would never adapt due to the nature of their strong religious belief as the 'chosen ones' (a form of 'superiority' belief) and so both wanted to ADOPT to that strength and annihilate the Jew as THE major competing Nationalism in opposition to outsiders that included German-Nationalist. As such, they wanted to STRENGTHEN RELIGION for the Aboriginal Germans, and get them united by a common religious root. In light of this, I personally believe that RELIGION is the problem, and today's defence of 'culture' using legislative means by ANY religion IS a bigger problem. We need to recognize that the problems occurring in the world often result from REAL economic disparities but that the means of securing POWER for most political ideologies USE religion, culture, and ethnicity, ....all forms of strong motivating mechanisms for ACTION that appeal with more power, just as other forms of ART have more emotional impact on us as individuals. Religion, not Atheism, is the threat because it is like placing our artistic heroes in power rather than the intellect. The philosophical Nihilists recognized this. STRENGTH favors those non-intelligent and most emotive factors for the masses. Altai is just wrong to make comparisons statistically at all, because all religions are used to justify non-intelligent behaviour everywhere. It's deluding to think that because religion ALSO features good things that they ONLY serve this. To compete for which religion causes more problems is like arguing why Rap is more problematic than Country music. Both have their virtues and vices. Both relate MORE to some ethnically identified and generally segregated subpopulation. But neither causes the INITIAL underlying conditions associated with those pluaralities. They only act as a smoke screen and falsely distract us from the real problems.
  12. Scott Mayers

    Cutting The Cord -- How to leave cable companies?

    All media is getting worse. I'm concerned even about the internet services given you can't tell anything until you promise to pay in some trial before cancelling. Cable television here is going 'retro' for whatever reason. Also, we here particularly in Canada should not have cultural protections that force garbage upon us and pay a select set of Canadian actors and writers to operate without concern to compete. For those like Trudeau who vouch for forced cultural content, you likely don't watch television regardless and so your impositions are arrogant and destructive. Cable companies appear to be trying to appeal by adding "on demand" material for free. Most are older shows but they can use the quota of Canadian content that doesn't necessarily force you to watch it. But they are also trying other techniques, like speeding up some program rates a tad to push in more commercials. They've also added commercials now directly while watching and it is annoying....especially when there is significant material being blocked while they do it. By the way, does anybody think that art is arbitrary? That is, given the belief by some, what we are presented by force, some think we would embrace whatever is fed as though all art is equal in quality. ??
  13. Scott Mayers

    How dialogue proves odd bias on race...

    At least someone watches other than me. (Ha ha). I think the Big Brother program shows a lot about psychology of people that you couldn't normally get to see. That conversation they had shows how weird many people are thinking today on identity issues. They make up later but Baleigh (the girl), literally believed that JC was intentionally meaning insult or ignorance by simply using the N-word [I'm even finding it hard for me to say it given today's climate as an example because of this.] [The original word for the place black people came from was "Niger", that same area of both that name and "Nigeria" for the particular African American roots. Though many later re-interpreted the word as some derogatory label simply by the association with slavery, had they called them "African" back then instead, that word would be the A-word considered inappropriate to use to describe people of the continent of ? "Niger(ia)"? I think that others here on both sides of the interpretation of the Identity Politics issue should look at this as a good example. Both players show how division is easily made between people who actually SHARE common problems. If you're watching the show, other more interesting conflicts occur that we see but that the guests in the house cannot see. [Head of Household being cleverly conned by others that one GOOD friend is actually an ENEMY!] I proposed this before, but, again: I'd like to see an experiment of this done using real politicians. I'm guessing that Trump might have signed up for this idea given his own "The Apprentice". I wonder what it would be like to lock up all the leaders of all countries in a house like that with cameras everywhere all the time so that we could inspect how and why they think and do what they do. Trivia: What was significant about the very last episode of "The Apprentice" show on the day it aired? ...and how does it relate to the politics today?
  14. I'm watching this season's Big Brother and on July 22, there was a conversation with a short person, JC, and a black girl, Bayleigh, where Bayleigh asked JC if "midget" was the appropriate description of him. He responded by explaining how "midget" and/or "dwarf" are derogatory terms no different than... [https://www.globaltv.com/bigbrother/video/promo/jc-uses-n-word-offends-bayleigh/video.html?v=1284228675784 ] If you guys can see this, listen how it evolves and tell me what you think. That is, was anyone being racist here?
×