Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Scott Mayers

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Scott Mayers last won the day on June 18 2018

Scott Mayers had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

About Scott Mayers

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,553 profile views
  1. Okay what? Answer the challenge. You are only proving that you are trying to deceive by how you respond. I need to establish where you stand on what it is like to be 'honest' and 'fair'. What would you do in this example situation based upon your political philosophy?
  2. While the motive of someone does not always refer to the argument's validity, it IS relevant when determining whether what you SPECIFICALLY claim is a 'fact' that you expect others to disprove as though what you say SHOULD be trusted by default.
  3. You need to establish that your logical position is not one that believes in pragmatic tactics to profit from in principle before you expect to be trusted by default. For your "example", this is not established as true simply for YOU saying it. But you are also still not recognizing that you lack credibility on principle of your extrreme advocacy of the alternative. TEST of 'principle':
  4. You are presenting yourself in the STYLE of 'hardcopy' ragmag rhetoric. You know, the kind of rhetoric that might assert how Katy Perry might have an illegitimate child of President Obama's. [I just made this up as a point of your rhetoric.] For a more real example, the declaration that Hillary Clinton had conspired to set up a child pornography network by right-wing propaganda. I know,....you might be dumb enough to believe in this, right? But not all of us are this naive. So when presenting some accusation of some crime, AND one that treats a whole political class as being corrupt when it defends "democratic" principles, you require proving why your strict bias isn't motivating your odd claims. If the Democratic party as a whole is fraudulent, we ARE in trouble as a whole, simply for the fact that the alternative Republican view intrinsically believes in utilizing ragmag rhetoric that appeals to the least skeptical mind. I already know that much of today's problems are due to the nature of the left to absorb those right-wingers who are NOT normally IN power. Today's trends have many extremists collectivising among the left but are NOT believers in the concept of 'democratic' independence. As such, there will always be a tendency for people in ALL parties to be deceptive to some degree. But it is the 'right' wing perspective to believe in CONSERVING their power by encouraging masses to favor faith in the stupidist claims in principle.
  5. You need to first present why you are more credible. But when you assert something STRICTLY by one side (versus a particular issue unbiased to one's politics). The fact that you are siding strictly with the side that BELIEVES intrinsically in lying as a trivial occupational hazzard of breathing, then you are suspect to anything you say. Why should we have default faith in someone who believes in stealing as an occupation to tell us who else is or is not a 'thief', for instance? You'd have to accept the expected burden to prove why we should trust you on PRINCIPLE alone. Otherwise, your credibility is dubious.
  6. According to this logic, all truth is propaganda. So please, provide evidence that somehow now 'the truth' is meaningless if someone can run up claiming that it is propaganda. How does this follow? If you are a "propagandist", how does this imply that what you have to say requires proving is false? The very nature of the anti-Democratic views you hold means you favor non-democratic means to invoke what is or is not 'true'. "Republics" are also potential dictatorships because the concept means that some people are more 'wiser' to lead over the masses who are assumed less intellectually able to run such a system. Before attempting to dislodge some positon of the Demcratic party as some whole, you need to establish how a 'democratic' position is less valid than a 'dictatorial' one that represents the purist form of 'republic' ("republic" means 'for the public', but not necessarily BY the public's support because it transfers this duty to a select subset of people presumed above the rest.) Before establishing who IS lying, you need to provide a justification for how your own 'side' is impervious to lying when the very philosophy of yours REQUIRES selling and packaging ideas with a belief that it is alright to lie. For instance, the right-wing ideology believes in the Darwinian competition in economics. It believes that it is alright for one to FALSELY present an issue in order to PROFIT from it. If you can express HOW your philosophy is dependent on 'truth' over the democratic population's capacity to reason, then we might be able to get to the deeper issues of any particular cases you assert is fraudulent of the people as a whole.
  7. Oh, I'm sorry, did I spell that wrong? Hmmm......! Thanks for correcting me. Okay, I see that Google is translating this as "Are you Nancy?" So no. But do you Russians know that Canada isn't an extension of the U.S.? This site is Canadian and is not the same country. Thus, you are likely a foreigner attempting to rattle up an issue you THOUGHT we were a part of.
  8. I say that you are a propagandist seeking to present a false case in favor of the arrogant right-wing BELIEF in doing anything it takes to reach your goal. While the left tends to be overly PC, the right PRETENDS to be promoting 'news' that their own philosophy intrinsically believes SHOULD be manipulated, contrary to the claims. If you believe in free competition in ideas regardless of HOW you behave, then YOU believe IN manipulation as a justified behavior. So either present how you are NOT intending to falsely present a case, or provide distinct proof of something that the right-wing actually is against in principle that the Democrats are violating.
  9. Actually, the theme of Communism doesn't approve of this behavior. This behavior is due to a 'religious' mindset of those who think of eating unusual foods as having miracle cures, etc. Thus, it is NOT due to their system but due to this one area that is fuzzy when it is hard to prove whether this behavior is or is not itself 'religious'. It IS religious beyond those who might want to challenge eating odd foods out of a kind of 'dare'. [They might be using these markets as novelty places for tourism, for instance.] China reacted still relatively fast in comparison to how we would if the bug initiated here. And because viruses don't discriminate (they aren't even 'alive'), this behavior occurs anywhere. Another related factor deals with CROWDS due to uncontrolled population growth. This gives actual justice to why the Communists in China had to demand limit laws for childbirth. Note that the power of giving birth too is most contentious BY the religious communities who demand their 'rights' to have no restrictions by governments on birth. Also, only the religious tend to be the ones demanding that even ANY conception of a potential human life should be conserved (pro-life defenders). So Communism here is NOT at fault. The reason their systems become more 'authoritarian' is only RELATIVE to the same 'authoritarianism' they inversely see of us in the West. The type of 'authoritarianism' that occurs there (Communism) is due to the over-beaurocratic processes, not 'dictatorship'. Their 'chairman' (leader) is just their representing HEAD and while it gets abused, it is no different than what occurs here via a 'right' of unlimited powers of wealth in private hands. Our 'dictators' are more often from the isolated private monopolies that occur. No system extreme is good and why even China has been moving towards market-style 'democracy' and the Western market-style democracy tends towards the people-style 'democracy'. In general though, their system is NOT why viruses get passed on. Viruses are themselves relatively accidental products of living things. In this way, our computer viruses are identically related and prove that our own 'intellectual' species still creates them. To me, overpopulation is itself the problem, and where we have unrestricted 'compassion' for entry of the immigrant from all over this world, this too will inevitably go through a phase where we are exposed to the diseases all over. This stage occurred with the Natives in the Americas were exposed to the Old World populations that CAME from relatively more populated cultures that have already gone through this phase. At an 'objective' level, if the world is expected to continue to become ONE, we require immunizing through exposure of the variety of bugs that are from all different places. China is one of those places that has a larger population concentration which makes it more rational to have first exposure. The East Indians are the next in line for such population concentration. But eventually, all of us will face this without having some other place to go beyond Earth.
  10. I don't plan on reacting as others are by making-a-run on the stores. Yet, I am concerned that if I wait patiently while others aren't, I might be losing out for NOT reacting! I'm going to be pissed if I go to the store to buy some simple necessity only to discover it is either not available or available but super-inflated in price. What is the best thing to do? I know that the government and media will be intentionally attempting to downplay concern for practical reasons. But it is also hypocritical to keep a 24/7 vigilance constantly in our face telling us: "BREAKING NEWS!...BREAKING NEWS!....BREAKING NEWS!", with the reports asserting, "But there is nothing to panick about." using medical/health authorities with absurd and almost psycho-hypnotically calm voices. It reminds me of this old classic:
  11. I think religion begun as secular non-mythical stories from various different sources that devolved INTO myth. For the flood myths, at first I couldn't figure out why this was a common story accross different beliefs and relatively isolated peoples. So these myths gave me a puzzle to figure out how it could have evolved from the secular. This is what I think it comes from: While evolutionary theory, archaeology, and geology were relatively more recent, these actually had to have roots in ancient times by at least some very observant intellectuals. One such factor is to those who would have noticed the layers in Earth that we later defined geological eras. The common record one can notice across the Earth from early on is how one could see creatures in hardened rock (fossils). To the ancients this would have been a shock. They would notice up high in mountains that there were fossilized fish far from the sea. The gradual evolution in the record would show how things got titanic in size, the dinosoaurs, then a layer where a sudden loss appeared. This occurs also long before the dinosaurs too where a gap of no living things exist and then sudden burst of new creatures came about. These were the likely source that derived the flood myths with original wonder. In the ancient times they also would not have been able to preserve much of this and why we also do not have a record of these. The old fossils, just like the rediscovery of Egyptian mummies, were mostly destroyed for not being able to preserve them. And these discoveries were likely known long before pyramid building. The appearance of creatures that we can see some partial links to our own would have led many of them to recognize that these creatures were all living things' ancestors. So the discovery of fossils likely was the justification to make sense of how this could have come about. Note too that many in the past may have been wise to the link but told stories in ways that could be remembered, such as funny stories, caricatures of intermixed human-thropic stories that anyone as simple as a child could remember and pass on. They were the 'cartoons' and 'fiction' understood by many in their origins that eventually others in later generations thought were literal religious ideas and not just entertaining means to help pass on old knowledge before the advent of good record keeping. This is my conjecture on this and it at least rationalizes how the myth evolved so widely in many religions.
  12. How did you interpret ME as being absolute here about whom to trust? You, by contrast, take a DEFAULT to assume humans couldn't even POSSIBLY affect the Earth and why you argue against ANYONE who demands we pay attention to the issue at all. I am NOT a 'tree hugger', for instance, something that you WANT others to presume is implicit should anyone alert concern about our climate changes. The FACT that we are a part of this Earth AND have the power to affect it as drastically as we do over other living beings, such as being able to destroy it, suffices to prove that we have POWER to DESTROY the Earth. Now, extending this to whatever may or may not be 'true' about the environment as a whole, Earth with or without humans will certainly go on regardless of what we do or to whether we continue to exist because of whatever is true or not. When scientists are arguing for proof of our role, it comes at the FACT that it only takes one person in all 6 billiion of us to start a forest fire. So if all BUT this one person 'disagrees' with the majority, that one person's arrogant belief of FREE behavior to choose to merely light a match suffices to dismiss the concern of all truth as mattering except their own. That is, the trivial minority of those like yourself, suffices to ASSURE mutual destruction of the Earth simply for NOT even looking at any 'evidence' FOR human causes AND, to top it off, makes YOU the type of person who would prove the destruction comes to an end BY your minority selfish beliefs about what affect we have. There is NO possible way to PROVE ABSOLUTELY THAT we can destroy the Earth by our actions without literallly destroying the Earth to prove it. So this means that no amount of (deductive) proof could definitively PROVE that the Earth won't be 'saved' for us should we do anything. All we can do is to use science (our collective means of using observations to seek patterns) to determine what is more likely to be true than not. To me, all one has to prove inductively that we can affect the climate is to demonstrate ANY instance of such power. As I'm guessing you already agree to, someone, somewhere, at some time has had the power to destroy SOME part of the Earth completely, even UNINTENTIONALLY. For example, has anyone ever started a fire by accident that burned down some house? IF you say yes, then this suffices to mean that humans at least MUST have potential to affect climate in some FINITE space. And since Earth itself is 'finite', then it seems rational to assert, even without ANY further study, that humans CAN affect the climate on the whole. It would be up to you to prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE to destroy the Earth. And that is what is scary about you Climate change deniers because for you to maintain doubt about even our potential to destroy it, you could only later be proven wrong IF you permit this destruction to occur by ignorance.Only YOU would 'win' because you also happen to think that some God will step in after we all die to repair any potential damage regardless. Why is it that the extreme evangelical religious thinker comes across as the complete opposite: one who believes in evolution to act without interference while simultaneously pretending that evolution doesn't even exist itself? You're being hypocritical. If some God exists to save us, it should then be an easy thing for you to just let those supposed idiotic scientists to believe and do whatever they want. But, wink wink, ...we know that the reality has more to do with you wanting to CONSERVE some power over the environment that you likely have at present some means to BENEFIT from by ignoring climate issues. Your rhetoric is just meant to bully the rest to conform to your selfish benefits at the expense of all others.
  13. "Nature-worshipping"? You don't need to 'worship' anything about nature to rationally recognize that the Earth is relatively limited in a way that prevents wishful thinking to assure it doesn't get destroyed by its inhabitants in a fair convention. If you believe your own denial about human intervention as being POSSIBLE, are you saying that no matter what we do, we cannot destroy OUR comfort in this world collectively? Are you saying, for instance, that it isn't possible for any HUMANS to deliberately start all the forests on fire, or set off a nuclear war, or do ANY intentional, let alone unintentional behavior, because some Supreme being would step in the way and save us all regardless? Pretend you are correct. Then is it not also justified that the majority who DO agree that global human intervention as causing problems, whether correct ot nor, should be permitted to disagree and force those of you who don't to comply by FORCE? I mean, if your 'god' will intervene anyways, why should you care THAT others disagree and use their free will to impose upon your selective carelessness? Or....is your 'god' just not so powerful after all? Religious interpretation of anything written at all is NOT 'critical thinking' because it fails on the assumption that IF one such paticular book's contents is absolutely true, what is the means to assert anything written down in any other book or scripture is 'false'?
  14. Well, my complaining IS affecting the CRTC in some way. I just discovered that they raised a concern that I was complaining about for a long time: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2019/2019-420.htm?_ga=2.93397597.1923542448.1582014 I wrote the following to them in this below. (Excuse the fact that it doesn't format my paragraphs as I wrote it. I removed my personal informaton that isn't already 'public'). So it is hopeful to at least TRY! This issue is something I raised specifically on this site a long time ago but got dismissed on its relevance or significance at the time. I'm hoping my input there helps. Check that link out and try to speak your own opinion there for the channels that are asking for re-application. We have only two more days though. I'd want to look and speak at some of the others but couldn't possibly do so myself. For the full list and links to our input, see https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default-Defaut.aspx?S=O&PA=A&PT=A&PST=A&Lang=eng&_ga=2.124308169.2143624451.1581821522-2059258326.1580686513
  • Create New...