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

59 Excellent

About Scott Mayers

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,388 profile views
  1. Funny. While we are 'secular' in the rough, our own constitution is setting the same kind of problematic stage for a future in which we here will experience the same issues in the Middle East. We are actually the ones setting their governments up to fail by creating theocratic Constitutions like our own. The only reason we have yet to see it here is due to time alone. [So my dig is to fix our own Constitution. See my thread on challenging the Constition via the Preamble as a stepping stone to assure our government is secular and not manipulateable by religious intolerances. See Preamble to Charter of Rights (and Constitution)...] On this issue, please look at my above last post (this thread). Watch the linked video to get a background of what is occurring fairly.
  2. A friend of mine from Iraq has kept up with the news in Iraq that the world was ignoring. Protests have been going on by students to get the President to be removed. The Iranians have been present in Iraq due to the lack of supports of the West. The protestors didn't want the involvement of Iran but they were the only ones getting involved. The Iraqis wanted the U.S. (and the West, in general) to help by OVERLOOKING the changes the protestors were demanding, NOT sending troops to simply fight for Iran. The only thing that got attention (not by these protestors against the Iraqi govenment) was the attack on the U.S. Embassy. So the Iraqis are only still being screwed given they want to shape their own country on their own terms democratically (and secularly so) but cannot where the problems escalate into another war unwelcomed there. The Iranians were there ONLY due to a vaccuum created in them being unable to fight ISIS alone. The above video is only its second appeal to the English world. I saw the first and commented that I was confuse about their set up. If it is for an English audience I wanted to alert them to fix HOW the program was staged or risk some assuming the site as a potential recruitment. This guy is a comedian in the style of our own late night talkshow entertainers who present news issues in comedy. So maybe this might help some get some background on what was missed while too many other issues were at stake around the world. As to the reason the U.S. (and the West in general) were not noticing, this was due to the reasonable fear that Trump may intend to utilize war measures to save his upcoming election in light of the recent impeachment. I tried to console my friend in his own concern why Iraq news was being overlooked. The recent events with Trump's announcement to counterthreaten Iran is why. There seems to be a problem being able to ask for help by anyone when it always has to require an American dying to get it. And this only TEACHES the terrorists this is what works. So pay attention to the Iraqis guys. They are the ones going to suffer more here and only attract more terrorists.
  3. As for another related example in which presents the bias by some thinking athiesm is a religion presumed 'protected' equally under the law, some athiests had recently challenged a court decision to permit them setting up a formal 'Athiest Church'. I'm personally not wanting this as I believe in the harder battle to rid the religious law making permitted in the Constitution altogether. But I learned that they were turned down. This demonstrates how SPECIAL privilege is granted to the God-cult. [Edit: I happen to recognize the court's decision correct as our constitution biases the power of the specific privileged religions within it. This is proof of its bias against the athiest.]
  4. You're trolling now. I heard your opinion of me as a 'liar' in unspecied universality and now expect that you have nothing further to add here, right? (Don't answer that. It's not a question.) Bye now.
  5. You moved up to "current pack of lies" now? Given my freedom to speak on this one major issue as pivotal to favoring SPECIFIC religious concepts and their protections, it is understandable that many of YOU in such favored positions are NOT going to like any potential success I have for speaking against it. Thus, you are appearing to seek flaw with me as a person because you can't compete on the rational discussion. LOGICAL PARADOX QUESTION: If I called you a 'liar' whether you were or not, would you be able to prove that you are NOT?
  6. I already proved that you were lying, and your last resort is an ad hominem attack. Nice try liar. Where is this supposed 'proved'? The ad hominem is yours unless you provide your explanation of this charge. 1) Reservations are there so that people who want to preserve their ways have enough land set aside to do so. It takes a vast area for humans to survive without farming. 2) Indigenous people don't have to stay there at all if they don't want to. They are all free to leave at any time. 3) It's a conflict because you act like reservations are a bad idea but you're also offended by rights that indigenous people have as a result of living on reservations. If they didn't want the reservations they'd get rid of them. Idiot. 4) go find some land somewhere that is only occupied by "indigenous" people of that area. There's no such place. I clearly understand what the reserves were for. They and any perpetuity of the Natives as a distinct people(s) are racist for those initial THEFTS of the European lands are all theirs otherwise. That is, IF you accept that the Europeans stole the land (a 'theft' in todays terms), any 'reserving' of something set aside for them as a whole class of species apart from all other humans is only distinguishable by their racial identity. Your confusion of the issue has to be about something you interpret differently in your own head. But lets look at your list points. For your (1), yes, they are set aside to preserve 'ways' but not for 'farming' as anything essential because the governments were offering free prime quality lands for farming to new coming Europeans. If the gesture was done due to seeing the Natives as equal human beings, why were they lumped together distinctly from the beginning rather than offered the formal 'ownerships' given away to strangers yet to come? The reason for the problems back then were due to a difference in STAGE OF SETTLEMENT EVOLUTION ('civilization' is the act of 'settling' rather than 'wandering' via hunting and gathering stages). This hunting and gathering stage (not a 'culture') was something we all go through. So any MODERN version of 'tribalism' that links people to something GENETIC rather than by VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION is "Nationalism" (from the old world meaning as in Germany's meaning in the World War era), or "Facism" if referencing the act of gaining strength by collecting together as Nations (ie First Nations) withing or apart from others to gain strength in their unitity. For (2), the 'choice' was non-existent as in the distinct offering of free lands to new comers from Natives as mentioned AND the fact that they lacked a fair means to communicate in a shared language. Given they were isolated AND initially without even the capability to integrate, this 'choice' was like one assuming of the victims of the most abusive people who successfully isolate them as completely their OWN faults. It is also like stating that one can freely own a Rolls Royce simply for wanting it regardless of your relative poverty. While the potential to buy exists to anyone equally affording it, this doesn't mean that one's willpower suffices to achieving it. It is furthermore extreme in example when you consider that not even their collective power sufficed as a whole to afford such choices. That tells you how EACH individual within those tribes confined to reserves lack the power to simply leave. Isolation is also about separating one's capacity to communicate with others. Thus the 'cultural' imposition today to grant a genetically related Aboriginal to embrace a separate language that was already dying out by normal evolution as they integrate acts as supporting proof of how such laws about culture/religion are abusively racist TODAY. Now to your (3) regarding your own belief that Natives CHOOSING a virtue of Reservations. You said, "If they didn't want the reservations they'd get rid of them. Idiot." But I just presented the point about isolation as a mechanism of abuse. Maybe you may think of this before you re-respond if you choose. The nature of isolation due to the Reserve creations lock them into their condition. And when you have children within this abusive context, the children are further abused by being unable to COMPETE with modern society equally as other non-Aboriginals. YET, we now have a Constitution and supporting governments (and parties) who think it appropriate to encourage isolation by dividing them from all others under the incentives to foster distinct status and puritanical cultural thinking. And finally, your (4) which is confusing for not knowing what you considered 'occupied'. If considering ALL of Canada, all lands are 'occupied'. But "Reservations" are formally theirs. Any extended problems due to things like encroachments upon those lands by altering their landscape for minerals, forest, or other prime industries and business exploits are not relevant. If I were you, I'd step back from presuming something about me as being irrationally biased on this. I only gave the recent example of a problematic case that happens to have involved the Aboriginal communities collectively battling a FREE SPEECH issue. I can point to many other simillar issues of today but was pointing out an immediate news story here in Saskatchewan as an EXAMPLE of the resulting bias that begins with our country lacking complete protection of all people that BEGINS with that preamble's existance.
  7. Why do you keep presuming that taking out religious/cultural based laws are equivalent to destroying ones personal choice to be religious outside of government concerns. My effort HERE is a sample DOING SOMETHING. All I can do is to state and argue my opinions. And for this thread, I argue that we need to remove the preamble because it preconditions the rest of it for actual biased laws within it. You act as though I'm asking to replace the preamble with something like, "In that we recognize the supremacy of the Athiest (above all others):" I want it removed or replaced to not speak of favoring some cultural bias. I'll try to think of a different example remote from this particular preamble that might be easier to follow. I know that if you are religious, you cannot relate to not being religious in some minimal way without being devoid of morality. This is not true though and may be what you need to grasp first. (?)
  8. No. Government money used to help the poor get jobs in entry level positions. The cost the government pays would be to any training costs, tools, and for some time period, like a year, say, in which any employer only requires paying a part of the wage. So, for instance, if it is a construction type job grant, they will help those in the program/project by providing any essential skill training for basic skills on the job that most normally get by long years of experience. They would get a tool kit, something that others in better economic conditions get from family and their connections, etc. The employer benefits for whomever they hire regardless by either paying only some to no part of the employees wages. Such projects are good ideas. But they bias their utility FOR minorities defined upon cultural-genetic lines. Does this help clarify the issue? Can you see how government programs that do this in a community with large impovershment issues create DIVISION of the races by merely favoring the race on 'cultural' accomodations rather than common economic grounds of the individual? If you are of the race that is most represented at the top, while those at the top may have gotten and remain there for actual possible racism/sexism, how are those at the bottom with the same racial/sexual association to wealth make them liable?
  9. Are you saying that you've stopped raping your children? First establish that I lied before you expect me to defend it or prove that you are no longer a rapist. What could possibly prove/disprove your level of emotional interest in responding to me unless you are trying to make us look away from your deviantly incestous behavior. [Your rhetoric won't pass me unchallenged. ] Yes, reservations are not good BECAUSE they isolate ,distinctly, specific people based upon genetic descriptions. So making them 'distinct' officially only seals the racism by attempting to encoursage Natives to EMBRACE it in kind. .HOW are you seeing something conflicting here? Indigenous people were reserved general lands to live the prior hunting and gathering lifestyle of their ancestors. The theft was taken by those who believed in PRIVATE PROPERTY. As such, to the newcomers from Europe, the Natives didn't have a concept of ownership or were thought not to be able to adapt quick enough. I actually am not a fan of unlimited ownership rights, NOR do I own such properties myself. Where I am born is then as much one in which I 'float' in the same kind of wandering lifestyle I didn't choose. To say whether they have a right as INDIVIDUALS to own is alright. But the existing Aboriginal peoples today if treated as a 'cult' biases them to THINK in one common way based merely upon their genetic roots and IS itself a racist perception of them. I am born with 'Caucasian' blood. Do I own something 'Caucasian' as a cult? NO **(though this is imposed upon me by proxy) X is born with Native blood. Does X own something that is 'Native' as a cult? YES (our present official claims I disapprove of) I am presently arguing to dismantle to preamble precisely because its presence 'officiates' what follows as true. For the protections to be EQUAL requires no special status for DISTINCTION. "Equal status" is opposite "Distinct status". I'm against defining GROUPS of genetically associated people as 'owning' some common environmental behavior. Your faith that the preamble is not to be taken literal or is trivial, is like demanding people blindly trust that the words of an official agreement they are forced to sign as non-binding in practice. That preamble assures that what follows is NOT universal to grant EQUAL rights to people but to create UNEQUAL rights based upon faulty beliefs about things like race and sex.
  10. Can you give an example of this? Example: Employment incentives defined with priority to be given to those minorities who are racially identified as Aboriginal, then new Immigrant, women, and then at the end of the list of priorities, the white male. Poverty does not discriminate against people based upon race, sex, or ancestral cultural factors. There will always be pluralities of inbalanced genetic classes who are more or less representative in ANY ecomonic class. Yet, this IS what our system is saying. The wealthier establishment here are generally understood as 'white' and 'male' as two genetic classes. * So given the assumptioin that racism/sexism is what that common plurality's success is due to, a NEW stereotype is implied: that if you are OF that genetic class, you too OWN the qualities of those racist and/or sexist behaviors that lead to the larger plurality of some other race/sex on the impoverished side of the economy to fail. So when laws act to favor a plurality class on the bottom based upon GENETIC identities rather than one's ENVIRONMENTAL conditions in common with others, it SEGREGATES the poor and penalizes those who are left LAST on any priority list the race/sex deemed to share the discriminatory association of their rich genetic-class. If the problem IS about those who are 'white' and/or 'male, for instance, it can only be of those whites or males who BENEFIT at the top of the economic ladder, not the bottom. Yet those at the bottom ARE receiving this kind of discrimination regardless of their lack of real qualities of character. They are the ones who become the 'scapegoat' by false assumptions. This is one example of significance that is actually occurring everywhere in North America. And the only one's who fight back are forced to do it through the very racist and sexist stereotypes such laws are declared to fix. Thus, you get the extremes who EMBRACE some ethnicity of the stereotypes of those races or sexes. All those unaffiliated and don't associate with those extremes are expected to shup up least you be appearing to side with those extremes. And this begins with presuming genetic identity coincides with ones environmental identity from a Constitution favoring it under the guise of 'culture'. And since 'culture' is a bi-word to most for their own religions that also associate most with racial ones, AND our Constituion is designed to assign specific Cults as requiring attention, the preamble acts as the initiating factor that permits all of this to occur. * Note this happens to be my own genetic class and why I use this, but there are also other 'race' based classes that get biased too, like how the South Asian person here in North America too may be stereotyped as intellectually and economically advantaged.
  11. Speak for yourself. [Or do you NEED crowd support for your inadequecy to argue logically?] Look up "Nationalism". You don't seem to think this odd in a climate of most NOT people to liking it be default. (?)
  12. and I already told you that I don't 'hate' the religious person. I SEPARATE the logical function of government from its emotive and just as art is "culture", so is religion and music, and personal hobbies, etc. These are arbitrary to one's particular behaviors in life and have no universal ground of appeal. Governments are 'secular' systems but get abused when it utilizes artificial contstructs about one's environment as though they were 'genetic'. A recent example shows what is occurring due to those interpreting their own right to special treatment of the Constitution. While it deals more with the parts that recognize the 'distinct status' of First Nations Peoples, the attitude of the hyper-cultural significance of 'social justice' organs here in Canada are able to be transfered to real laws. The MMIW organization falsely associates a speaker's coincidental relationship to a prior convicted murder RELIGIOUSLY interprets the poet, George Elliot Clarke as 'evil' as they fear the FREE SPEECH would affect them. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/pamela-george-elliott-clarke-lecture-1.5411701 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-george-elliott-clarke-cancels-talk-at-university-of-regina-amid/ This begins with that preamble because the Anglican and Catholics, themselves associating the traditional wealth of Upper and Lower Canada, had to find a means to get their own unique protections in law. Because they cannot do so without recognition of the Indigenous to the same right, they too were bought upon the same right to make laws concerning religion (via 'culture' presumptions). George Elliot caved in. But if you saw the emotive appeal by the MMIW, that gives you a sample of what more will come of people SEGREGATED and empowered through embracing Nationalistic ideals.
  13. Thank you for the acknowledgement of this.
  14. I see that you are just trying to distract attention away from the issue? I already pointed out that what you DO ON YOUR OWN is your right as long as it does NOT infringe upon mine ("classic liberalism") But the Constitution is a biased religious document because it specifically defines protected behaviors for SPECIFIC religions/cultures It sets the stage for censorship laws (by those privileged peoples' power of vetting) which VIOLATE the right to one of free speech, free media, and free association.
  15. Why do religious people think non-religious people hate THAT WHICH DOESN'T EXIST? Do you 'hate' the Joker from Batman? My argument is against the preamble. Do you hate me if that clause didn't exist? Do you require God MAKING you 'good' or 'bad'? I know if I were God, I'd be pissed at you for spitting in my face when I expected you to live 'free' of FORCED thought. If some being put us here and is NOT universally available to present their case, why SHOULD anyone trust what it is THROUGH arrogant con artists demanding you have 'faith in God' through THEM, not God??? Just leave his contact number behind if you got it. OR, do you NEED that preamble as though the 'idolism' of the statement is placing your god's signature on it?
  • Create New...