Scott Mayers

I AM BEING CENSORED AS I WRITE AND SO HAVE TO LEAVE. I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT WELCOME HERE BY WHOMEVER IS RUNNING THIS SITE. Fascism is real! Wow.

I'm being absolutely censored and so am unable to answer!! Every word was taken out. It would be interesting to learn HOW this was done immediately upon clicking 'submit reply' Then I was redirected to a thread I did not even look at! If this gets posted, print it before this gets removed for later interests.

I agree to the fact that a 'two-state' solution would not work and for many of the same reasons. However, you probably presume a 'one-state' that is FOR Israel, which still will not work without having absolute powers to genetically annihilate ALL Palestinians. So are you for this 'solution'? I have a proposed different solution: either a 'zero-state' solution for both OR a 'one-state' solution that creates a NEW country that is actually democratically sincere for all people? That is, would you be for a state that removes both religious extremist constitutions that treat people individually as humans without regards to their religious affiliation AND that SEPARATES the power of their government from making laws that are used to favor or disfavor SPECIFIC religious beliefs of those said individuals?

"Natural Selection" is a TYPE of rationale for "evolution" that contrasted with different arguments that exist for the same. Some, like your favored Creationists, used the older interpretation referencing how animals 'evolve' (genetically) by how they CHOOSE to change their genetic progeny by how they behave in life. Stepping forward into the field of genetics that was founded upon 'Natural Selection', we know that you cannot presume that your offspring's' genes record your environmental history. For instance, the initial old guess of 'evolution' was that one DOES pass on their 'culture' through their genes, something that our own non-Creationist governments tend to believe in practice when they support 'culture' as some intrinsic right to one who is born of some genetic class, like how many think it more appropriate to respect an adopted child's 'natural' family's heritage over the family they grew up with. For example, the older version of 'evolution' interpreted that a giraffe's baby's grew longer necks simply because their parent's attempts to stretch their necks to taller trees. This implies that the genes would have to RECORD particular events one lives in order to decide what their children will be. So, before going into other arguments, can you try to give a proof of how say, two people of black colored skin (ie, Black or African genetics) can MAKE their children have white skin color? THAT would be 'scientific' proof that your Creationist idea of 'evolution' could work. What the 'Selection' part means and is easily provable by your own perspective, is that if you are Black and wanted 'white' skin for your child, you'd have to SELECT someone who HAS white skin TO MATE WITH in order to increase the likelihood of having white children. Just stick to this simple argument for now. Do you agree or disagree and why?

You ignore that the Palestinian's whole population in both the West Bank and Gaza are in giant concentration camps of Israel. That is, their whole population is held 'hostage' and why Hamas has opted to choose kidnapping some of Israel's own innocent hostages as a counter-defensive strategy. I asked this to the Jewish members of the Liberal Party to imagine if a subset of Germany's Jewish population within one of their concentration camps during WWII were to decide to kidnap their Nazi guard's innocent children as a means to try to free the whole of the population among them, would they think that those rogue members who organized it among the Jewish were to be thought of as acting irrationally 'terroristic'? I think it was convincing enough to perhaps make some change their minds in quitting the party over disagreements about Israel's role in all this. Does this help change your own perspective?

Finally I see an appropriate party-party "Hamas-Netanyahu" reference rather than the "Israel-Hamas" label, a country-party type reference that our Western media sells the war as. I look close at how the media shows its bias by how they label things, like how the term, "Isis" (over "Isil" or "Daish") was preferred as an indirect means to inoculate the audience to the link of the Egyptian 'god' to terrorism. Some of us in the skeptic community have referenced Isis to the Jewish messiah and to the Christian Jesus, in particular. As to the comment here, I think that both extremes will always exist regardless. The one-state nor two-state solution will work because of this fact. I think that the only realistic solution is to 're-state' a single territory that is democratic to ALL people and that requires a distinct separation of ANY religion [to its governors]. Both extremes are 'fascist' by definition and why they will NOT agree to a two-state solution. [Definition? "Fascism" is the belief that a constituted state should serve one genetic class of people with a specific religious criteria that links their people as 'indigenous' to the land by the auspices of so 'Superior' being. That is, each extreme believes that they are rightfully proprietary owners of the land by Nature (as their 'God' represents) and based upon that genetic link of ancestral heritage. ] I'm not sure if you or others might agree but it is worth discussing as a point on this topic.

The nominations by him regardless would have been accepted which makes his 'nomination' indifferent to an 'appointment'. I also understand that no one can get a position without nomination. Your threats only prompt some to work harder to oppose. Trump's initial election was itself only due to doubt of his likelihood of succeeding. I know this because I was warning people that his apparent circus show should be takien more serious when others were strongly dismissing his likelihood of his success. While I too am concerned about those on the Left to be absurdly 'woke', it is still relatively safe to vote for them considering the diverse views of similar extremes that exist there. On the Right, this behavior is both default to their ethics and DOMINANT to those who are more in sync with their own form of 'wokeness' that just lacks the label for BEING the traditional power who concentrated their passing of the torch to ONLY their own kind. The Left's 'wokeness' is a reactionary reflection of them using what is normally Right-wing methods (as some of the Left-wing methods have equally been applied by contemporary Rightwingers as well. The dominating power on both sides are those with wealth AND to those most concentrating the passing of inheritance to their own kind. The Left has multiple such cults who simply lack the dominance independently. As such, the conservatives of alternative cults to the traditional fundamentalist are taking the reigns on the Left with only the agreement among them to NOT harm each other while they attack a shared common 'enemy'. They support 'heritage', which is simply an extenstion of regular economic inheritance normally favored by the Right. The tactics used by the Right have always been to exploit others using rhetoric, deception, and misdirection where the Left prior to the information age lacked the Internet as a source of exposing the secrets of manipulation used by different political interests of all party ideals. As such, the 'woke' factors are being used BY similar thinkers hoping to exploit the power of reflecting the tactics used against them from the beginning of time. The left wing parties for all its flaws prevents the extreme views from STAYING consistent. So much of the extreme wokeness is temporal as everyone normally unnoticed for their issues are being heard for the first time in history. Much of this is also due to technology such as the Internet as well as 'Smart' devices which permit 'feedback' noise that make people deluded into thinking they are more popular than they actially are. If we think of the world as being one big ghetto run by gangs. The 'Right' would be supported by the traditional mobs while the 'Left' are run by independently weak gangs who recognize that they can collect their interests to assure that they can compete with the bigger gang. But even though the majority of people everwhere are less affliated with particular gangs, they are cleverly being turned against each other and isolated by those commanding distinct alignments to these gangs. The 'democratic' side (and the name of Leftwing parties representative counter to 'republican' authoritarianism) refers to the people being treated EQUAL in power; the Right believes in power to the INHERENT wealth classes as though they are Royalty deserving of EXCEPTIONAL voting power than the one-person-to-one-vote ideal of democracy. They are deluded into interpreting their successes as completely self-earned without recognizing that the most advantageous power for being more wealthy (or selectively more 'beautiful' in artificial standards) is the greater capacity to FAIL more oftern WITHOUT equal consideration of those less fortunate. For the poorer and more concentrated racially segregated classes, failure may only be permissible once and make them liable to greater penalties in contrast to those with better standards. As such, those who were forcefully segregated FROM beneficial wealth are aligning with their own 'kind' in the same way the wealthy normally do by passing economic inheritance onto only their own relatives (nepotism). Thus the wokeism itself happening by the Left is the modelling of the "inheritance" rights normally held by conservatives by monetizing culture as equal TO a form of inheritance that where respected enables those who normally lose for failing once to better succeed. So you are the limp biscuit here deluded in your interpretation of what is happening today. I can and do fight against those on 'my' side on the same concerns. It is changing in the same way a new letter is added to the LBGTQ+ list of all that are simply 'non-heterosexual' in shared meaning. They keep growing because of another screaming 'me too' which WILL eventually become moot once an H is applied to the end of that list. ["H' is for the complementary heterosexual who will eventually also be the last member making the distinctions no longer concerning.]

True. But I'm glad I'm not the Trump-Dick-Sucker here!

Does it make you feel more siginficantly rational for labeling me by an acronym rather than debating the issue competently?

"Removal" of the judges to me is not killing them!! It is retracting of their position as judges. And I in particular am arguing this removal based upon the nature of their nomination by a poisoned authority. That is, IF Donald Trump is proven criminal by any standards, I am suggesting the removals given his choice to select them where his capacity to 'select' in the interest of the people is proven to be suspect. The timing of the last one to his realization of losing his Presidency is severely suspect given the domination of the court by his own selection can skew how they might interpret any appeal of his for ANY future convictions. That would make him above the law IN PRINCIPLE! And THAT is what you are supporting. Call it what you will. I assert that you are supporting authoritarianism based upon your support of his Presidency regardless of the fact that his acts are indifferent to acting as a sovereign dictator, like a King. I don't support any violent acts against the judges I question. It is not their 'fault' to BE nominated and their coinciding favor to BE political would have to be a separate issue.

I already agreed that I do not evaluate the life of a zygote or preborn POTENTIAL child as signficantly worthy in contrast to the living person. I do not believe that life before birth are persons in light of the inability to define whether they have a common sensation of things like pain (or pleasure) and that terminating them is not 'murder'. I compared this to other animals in which you need to address. Isn't eating eggs literally eating aborted chicks? At what point does the life being developed within the egg turns from being one that lacks sensation to one that does? If the animals we eat are invalid relative to us, are we not invalid in our treatment against them in kind? This is not a question of whether I prefer other animals over humans but whether they are not 'naturally' equal in their 'right' to live relative to themselves. And if so, Nature itself does not care whether we eat other animals or if other animals eat us. Nature does not specify life as 'superior' nor 'inferior'. As to whether an unborn entity is or is not worthy to justly YOUR 'right' to respect, if Nature favored your view, .....if God favored your view.... then the death of a validly worthy being would be saved regardless of what we could do. So why is it YOUR right to impose limitations about others where the question still exists about whether it is signficantly valuable to Nature that is at question? If Nature apart from human intervention should be preferred, then NO form of civilization matters and should be 'aborted'. That is, if you think that our direct technological capacity to abort seems 'unnatural' to you, then why are you accepting the benefits of any technology. [This assumes you may be dubious of the act in the way one might feel if they had to choose to kill one man to save many. The positive act psychologically affects your perception to chose to kill another even if the nature of it is just.] You dehumanize the grown human person opting to abort over the mere potential life of a baby because you prioritize a belief that the potential child's life is paramount over the actual certain life of the woman as a host to it. Note too that while my own belief about life is more nihilistic, this is NOT the case for the vast majority of those believing in a right to abortion. Most do not believe, for instance, in abortion close to birth (within the last trimester). The degree of life for most is based upon structure of the lifeform (its 'stage' of development) with the added assumption of sufferring as pre-existing. My stonger position would even place question upon babies born as having a capcity to suffer (or find pleasure) but require LEARNING to feel as they develop past birth. So it is unlikely that the unborn baby would even 'care' whether it exists or not. It is ONLY a religioius belief to assume so. I DO favor at least a need to defend life post birth regardless. But the likely reason we lack memory of these times with more force than we do later is because our early memory is 'anethetized'. A baby has unnecessary networked links in the brain that would probably be as potentially halucinogenic and uncomfortable to us if we were to experience it consciously as adults. A similar factor of nature that hunters should know is that when an animal is killed, if it isn't killed quickly, its meat tastes 'wild' due to reactionary chemistry that pain amplifies where it suffers longer. This points to the anesthetizing capacity of living things to evolve mechanisms that reduce the suffering more siginficantly to the younger creatures that tend to become victims of another predator. It is unlikely then that an unborn baby 'feels' suffering under the operation of abortion. As to anything that you may otherwise BELIEVE about souls being implanted by God into the zygote, there is no real suffering that remotely compares to the nature of death we ALL eventually succumb to at some point in our lives regardless.

I addressed this in my last post but after you posted this. I showed that if you accuse the proabortion of dehumanizing the zygote, you are counter-dehumanizing the value of the woman to chose to abort. Thus, you are evaluating one human life above another as your (1) here. You have not defined 'murder' and need to read my above two posts to note my reference of defining this term BY govenerments, not Gods. I do not devalue life, I realistically interpret our human life as equivalent in value BY NATURE to every other part of nature. This includes anything by nature and would be equally applicable to non-living chemistry and physics. If WE evaluate ourselves as MORE worthy by nature, then we should respect ALL of Nature's existence as equally worthy.

life is a right cows, pigs and other animals don't have the same rights as humans dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion first you call into question the value of human life to justify abortion then you call into question the value of the unborn child relative to other humans to justify abortion it seems most who support abortion cannot justify it to themselves without first devaluing human life to do so and you are clearly one of them "life is a right" It is only a 'right' to those who are predefined as living PERSONS themselves in law, not to the contested determination of whether an unborn potential life is a "person". Again, this decision of 'value' is still one among people to negotiate and not some 'right' that exists outside of the our artificial creation of it through the auspices of governments made up of humans. That is, there is nothing outside of our preference to call it 'right' to BE a right. The desire to assert what is 'right' independently also belongs to EACH AND EVERY lifeform. That is, to a cow, 'living is a 'right'" because it is most favorable to their OWN condition. So... "cows, pigs and other animals don't have the same rights as humans" Would these other animals agree with you? If it were natural for them to serve our 'right' to eat, is it not their 'right' not to be murdered too? "dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion" And humanizing unborn potential children as though they have some superior 'right' over their host's life is a key tactic of the anti-abortion advocates to dehumanize the woman's value as inferior by contrast.

You added this after the above. "first you agree that abortion shouldn't be justified by freedom of choice argument" No. I said that women cannot hypocritically argue for a unique right to their body without accepting other conflicting issues, such as how laws are also made to force the male who impregnated her to accept responsibility SHOULD the women uniquely decide to KEEP the child; I also added that where the child is born IN NEED, the same hypocrisy extends if society is expected to support their welfare. Your anti-abortion view also conflicts on the conservative side because your side also dislikes ANY supports for welfare in general, let alone the fact of your feigned compassion for the baby's. "then after your anti-life eugenics argument gets shot down" This is your delusion, not mine. Eugenics was considered evil for taking away the choice of some to WANT to have children AND, more definitively, to foster an "improvement" (a value) of the human genetic strain. It was abusive because it presumed a sound interpretion of what is 'improved'. [I happen to have an old Eugenics book somewhere that was based specifically on religious explanations of appropriate 'virtue'.. It COMMANDED what is or is not 'good' genetic selection of one's progeny.] So I was NOT arguing Eugenics at all. You misinterpreted the argument for humanity as being WITHOUT intrinsic value BY NATURE as though they are unvaluable. This is like how one presumes an Atheist as one who 'denies God's existence' rather than being WITHOUT a posited belief in some magical but invisible beings. I argued that we have to also be concerned for imposing poverty (a living environemental, not genetic) condition. My preference for using laws regarding the prevention of overpopulation concerns is dependent upon the environment's capacity to sustain all life (already existing) unrealistically. "Birth controls" do not imply evaluating the worth of living beings specifically and do not require eugenic interests. For instance, a law requiring limiting ones' right to get pregnant before a negotiated age (usually 18 for most Western countries), is an example. It penalizes those who choose to have sex based upon something we ALL share,...aging, ....not their particular 'virtue' in some assumed standard of 'quality' of sexual selection, such as one's beauty, their mental functionality, or race.

"murder is not a right" Neither is the dircect opposite: life is not a right independent of how we define it! ...Or do pigs, cows, and other animals we eat not require being 'murdered' for consumption? If humans killings are only what one can 'murder', how does the definition get defined? What defines 'murder' outside of government legislation mean? Is war not murder on a massive scale? How do you DEFINE murder outside of a convention of different people negotiating what it means?