Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Scott Mayers

Members
  • Content Count

    1,005
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Scott Mayers

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. "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'?
  4. 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
  5. I understood that the new rule allows not only the simultaneous broadcasts to be replaced by local advertising but that the Canadian owners of the channels running these shows in any time slot is now permitted to replace their commercials regardless of simultaneous airing. This seems to make sense why the cable companies here in Canada are buying up restricted access to our variable services over outsiders. For instance, the bait and switch of the Science Channel to become "CTV Science" means that they can now advertise to us by means of profitting uniquely upon advertisers. We used to have these specialty channels non-commercial ....and why we pay distinctly for them. So these should not even have a right to provide commercials in which they profit (1) by the charges to businesses for airing commercials, (2) for the fees to the cable company for the access to the channel, and (3) to the fact that those buying up the exclusive access to external services indirectly BY these cable companies in which they are also the sole owners makes them get paid twice: once for the channel we deliberately pay a fee for AND to the owners of the very cable companies who now also happen to own these channels. When I said that we are becoming as closed as South Korea, I meant that the powers of ownership to media access is successfully empowered with strict censorship controls by all communication interests here in Canada in a way that forces us to both view the ideals sold to us (such as through commercials) AND to the power of the culture laws that place Canadian programming as a requirement by some minimal percentage. It acts as a censorship that I as a consumer am both forced to pay for AND be expected to accept unilaterally (non-negotiable in practice) if I merely want any access right to the world at large. We are also required to permit absolute electronic censorship power by these media companies by their exculsive right to proprietary modums, ....even if we buy them directly. Unlike the Sim card system set up for cell phones, our devices have to be in complete control by the communication owners. This makes them also able to profit by their power to know what we watch, when we watch, and how we can manage our own ownership of media through these avenues. I can say a lot more but this should suffice for this topic. Our means to reach the outside world is being successfully narrowed to favor weathy owners of media in an unaccountable way that permits them to redirect our voluntary interests back into Canada as though we NEED such authoritarian controls. The CRTC being defined to only serve the cultural content issues closes the gap of censorship that satisfies only the wealthy with respect to the commercials and to their interests in the businesses of making the art that we are forced to watch or go without. If you disagree, explain how you think we actually have more freedom of access in light of these changes. The media includes the Internet too. And the access routes that are presently run through these very same companies are also becoming tighter and why the essential requirement of paid proxies and/or virtual tunnelling (Virtual Private Network encryptian routes) are required more and more. Do you think that it is okay for some unique privileged class of people to OWN the air we breathe? Imagine a future in which we may literally be trolled for by media owners to pay to breathe such literal air. That is how I am interpreting our present condition as it advances with respect to media. We are being deluded to think there is variety when the very owners of these 'corporations' can hide their very private interests and stock holdings with exceptional means because they can also own the competition without proof of them conspiring in principle ...even where we see the hints of this occurring ubiquitously by them getting in sync with no competitive differences.
  6. This is an interesting problem in its own right. Do you realize that satelites are intentionally being 'censored' out as a right to people? If you don't own your own property to even hope to set up a satelite dish, this option is censored out. I live in Saskatoon where no apartments permit satellite dishes anymore. And it is more interesting how this gets implemented by indirect laws that hide HOW this censorship is being controlled by the private powers regardless of the existence of the CRTC. I think we NEED a communications regulator but that body is actually a 'culture' regulator. But they are being controlled successfully BY the private owners of media, NOT the public at large. The regulations needed should be to prevent monopoly of ownership OF our media. It is cleverly manipulated though to define only the rights of specific classes of people communicating while entrenching these specific people to have the power TO communicate with affect. While the present CRTC favors specific people defined by 'minority' cultures, the private owners of the media are also in bed with this idea in principle but simply DIFFER on WHICH cultures they want to permit us access to. We need limits on how anyone can own the very air we breathe as independent media between speakers and listeners or any of the media owners get power to manipulate the message between speakers and listeners. The competing interests of the CRTC and the private communication networks is only about content (culture) but both the CRTC and the media, whether publicly owned or private, only pretend they are caring for our rights of free media. CRTC is controlled BY the private interests regardless. But without ANY body of regulation, we'd lose even the power to limit the monopolies that ARE succeeding by default. I think that the CRTC is just a fraudulent organ meant to appear democratic but is just a playground for the wealthy competing 'owners' of media. What we need is to CHANGE how it is defined and operated.
  7. Shallow Hal turned into a desireable physical male by most women's standards in some important way. The actual problem likely relates to what you don't get. [In all the different meanings! ha ha!] .... Okay, the "don't get" is about his reality of not getting what he wants, not to insult you as being unable to get the logic of this as I will point out. And that is... ...getting if anyone of any sex is unable to get the chance to be with those they particularly like by instinct of attraction alone when the attractive person being sought out is almost always both the one uninterested in you as person AND the one giving the advice about the loser not respecting them internally. You can't advice someone as not trying harder to think deeper about someone internally when your certain lack of genetically physical interest in them disgusts you and makes you the wiser to speak. The 'shallow' reality is that the physical attraction for neally all relationships is a paramount pre-condition before any further inquiry about them matters. For some who have lots of variety, they often become the ones who actually pick these 'losers' given it is a nice change of the normal. These are those relationships one selects out of pity and then complains why their conquest takes what happened seriously. If they win once in a hundred tries, the perception of those they admire are enhanced by the success of such a lottery. 'Wanting' something is not a choice, even if having that something CAN be. So, that movie, as nearly all attempting to relay some morality about sexual attraction, often falsely makes the lesson to the loser to be about mistaking the sincerity of someone internally regardless as a morale, where the actor playing this is superficially or abnormally pretty, handsome, funny or cute.
  8. The problems arising of the B.C. Aboriginals are precisely just deserts of how I am certain the 'left' here in Canada (in control of its leadership) are actually collective right-wing thinkers when they support 'culturalism' laws. The rise of Aboriginal Nationalisim is assured and will continue to do so simply by the very supports they are granted by other European Nationalists among the left believing that we have some intrinsic inheritance of environmental behavior of one's parents that is assumed to be genetically linked to ones' DNA. And you right-wing nut cases here embrace this belief by default when you think inheritance is some 'God-given' right without set limits and regulation. The reality though is that all the politics are run by rich fucks who are separated on subtle differences of power and identity of one's tribes only. Today's fight in politics everywhere is about groups who share a belief in Nationalism but differ on whether one should use 'etiquette' by using clever manipulative devices over the people or to utilize blatant Machivellian tactics without concern to be polite in the least. Some think that the 'commons' (the literal scum of the population at large that is) should be run behind closed doors in an authoritarian Matriarchal style and the other with a fist and an authoritarian Patriarchal style. No one in power respects individuals. These extremes are winning today. And so while I definitely dislike these protestors behavior, I am the least surprised that it occurs and am sure it is the direct fault of our whole foundation set up in the Constitution for ANY 'cultural' laws. The fault lies in Quebec more specifically not willing to embrace the melting pot idea but demanding their own province as a whole to be granted special cult status of 'distinction' and to the British snob 'loyalists' who believed it more important that all people respectfully bow down and use respectful titles when addressing 'superiors' . The one single factor of divisiveness against the American idea is what started it all and is what is needed to be dealt with. But I doubt and am not confident this can occur without some sort of revolution now.
  9. Thanks. I watched this years' commercials through CBS regardless. But I am pointing out that it is not merely the commercials of this one event. As of that date, all channels now are permitted to replace commercial for Canadian content. While I might understand this for 'free' channels, all channels are paid for through our cable packages. I would also respect it on the simultaneous airing of shows on an American to Canadian. But the specialty channels are being bought up by Bell or Corus (Shaw in disguise now for channels) and CBC. To watch all except the Crave or Superchannel programs, they put in commercials. I'm likely going to drop cable altogether if they don't change. And given only the few providers we have that work in sync, there is no advantage to switching elsewhere.
  10. A neighbor of mine mentioned that she was going to watch the Superbowl but opted out because of some CRTC decision to permit broadcast channels here to replace ALL commercials for Canadian ones. This means that she would not get to see the commercials that this event is most famous for. I looked it up and found out that this legislation permits channels here to replace ALL commercials now, not simply the ones for that particular show. We already have had a rule before since at least the early 1980s that permits exchanging simultaneous American programs to replace commercials with Canadian ones. The present change in law and some undetermined court case has ruled that all programs are now able to be replaced. To me this is a form of censorship permission granted to all private media ROUTES (since cable is just a route to the actual media of the channels we pay for). Given we pay for limited access through these companies AND the cable companies are actually now also the owners of the channels by indirect purchases, this decision to permit their right is permitting them to act as a censor of our media from any programming outside of the country AND by private interests alone! Since these companies are also monopolies in action if not formal, we are letting our country become as closed in as South Korea with regards to communication media everywhere. Note these companies are also our Internet providers which this will have a profound effect on once this gets overtaken. And not that it also doesn't matter whether this is being done by governments or by private interests except that the private interests that are in monopoly are not accountable and don't have to have any loyalty to Canada. It is definitely advantageous of other country and ethnic interests to act as independent media companies to capture ownership of the very air we breathe and this make it a threat to anyone and everyone....especially if you don't belong to the membership of these interested parties. Is there anything WE the PEOPLE can do to stop this downward spiral towards perfect censorship?
  11. How can it be achieved? How can what be achieved? I was responding to the assumption that one can screen out terrorists at all. That is, I don't believe that given HOW our system is defined by 'cultural' definitions, that it even has the intellectual capacity to KNOW WHO the terrorists even are. We have people in power who think that a unique POSITIVE 'culture' is inbred in everyone's specific DNA but that we should still pretend that the NEGATIVE ones aren't. It's a contradiction to expect we could only have one but not the other as though DNA can tell the difference between 'good' and 'evil' phenotypes (external appearances/expressions reflected by ones genetics).
  12. It doesn't matter. As long as we have a system that places 'culture' ahead of everything, it assures conservation of the extremes because anyone NOT arguing in terms of cultural supremacy is itself condemned to be deemed 'haters' of some kind or other. This in turn forces the non-culturally affiliated to select which Cult-preferences of some political party's favored interests who LEAST offends you. The contradiction encourages voter apathy and/or for the most disenfrancized who suffer, they will tend towards those 'terrorist' extremes which only ENHANCE the cultural supremacists to justify strengthening more of the very kind of laws that create the problems in the first place. .
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.]
  16. 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.
  17. 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?
  18. 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.
  19. 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. (?)
  20. 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?
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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. (?)
  24. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...