Jump to content

Scott Mayers

Members
  • Posts

    1,095
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Scott Mayers

  1. No, if we do not own our own sites, we do not 'own' our material. It might be the case that I could start a blog or website that is on another server, but I know of none of them that literally has no legal clause that asserts their right over the content to have a priority right to remove it. [Didn't someone's own website recently get removed this way in the news? I'll have to look that up.] You also falsely claim that I'm interested in taking away 'rights' of owners of sites. What I do assert is that IF a site is public, the material that people post should have absolute rights of ownership of their material. AND, I have just a case in point that I'm struggling with personally that is frustrating: I often write my own ideas, theories, and conjectures online of which my significant ones have vanished into thin air. One that I spoke about here (in a summary) is my "Theory on Temples and Sacrifice". This is not my original argument and lacks the depth of the logic I put into it. Here is it only the 'conjecture' but the original sufficed as proof using an indepth argument to how and why this is necessarily true. I also happened to have spoken on a physics theory (only roughly laid out) on various forums presuming I can trust those forums. These too have disappeared and where I did have ones that still exist I am discovering that the titles are either changed to falsely reflect my view and/or where I had contentious arguments with some, some of the material has remained but do not reflect me in a good light! I don't care what you presume, but I'm discovering that I cannot trust any forums anymore to speak of any unique and valued content of my own and this is tantamount to severe CENSORSHIP, not to mention SABATOGE and possibly THEFT of intellectual content! It is no wonder to me that the politics of online activity is intentionally being reduced to garbage: it is being framed to favor ONLY the image that those with fortune and power are wanting the rest to see. I don't know what I'm going to do now that I cannot trust where I speak and everyone else should be just as skeptical. I also do not know what can be done. The most I can do is NEGATE the views of others and even this may be useless if it too can be manipulated. Anyways, I have to get back to figuring out what happened to my material elsewhere. I backed it all up but even now most sites, including this one, makes it hard to save our content. [This site's printout has issues with its printout by cutting off the lefthand side of our discussions, for instance.]
  2. You miss the point: all sites are only 'owned' officially if one cannot afford their own server and the cost of public access. It is also expected of public forums (online or in places like malls) in particular to maintain respect of guests or they should not be permitted licencing, such as the securing of sites that helps legitimize them. This is trivial. I was arguing against the extreme beliefs implicit in many 'owners' that their domain is ABSOLUTE. That is, you still cannot kill someone in your home, for instance. And, if what is said in your home is material evidence as spoken by a guest, while you may be able to kick me out, you cannot have superior authority of trust about what was actually said of them. Furthermore, if one doesn't 'own' the home they are guests in, you still do not have absolute power to kick someone out who lives there, if you want to get legal. Also, the law in a fair society happens to respect 'rentals' as temporal 'ownership', which should hint to you my meaning. "Ownership" is an illusion created by the society and is only as meaningful as the society defines its limitations. There is no such thing as absolute ownership of property because there are no actual gods that can secure such power. People do. The same goes for public forums, which I include anything 'public' that people have open access to in law. The 'home' analogy was only an extension regarding the point about the often interpreted meaning of 'ownership' by many to be a 'right' to something absolute over its domain when I'm arguing that it is an illusive concept created by the people. I am not sure what you were getting at beyond this. I believe that that any medium "owned" by specific people itself is able to have the indirect power over those the medium surrounds. For instance, if your house is on a block surrounded by privately "owned" roads, this in effect 'owns' the people of the house it surrounds regardless of the actual formal means that gives ownership such an illusion. As such, I am not for private rights to media but for ALL people equally. Note that the places like Iraq were abused by the world this way given they are virtually land locked. This was their actual reason for attempting to take over Kuwait with reason, contrary to the assumption that they were merely acting to steal property. Kuwait was founded intentionally to profit off of the oil that passes through their borders, a demonstration of how ill our Western ideals of a 'right' to own media represents. But here we have media privileged to special humans to 'own' and this if anybody has a concern why media itself is questionable, they have to also non-hypocritically address what 'ownership' privileges they too are permitted exclusive power over, including how much any one person can own. Note that almost all problems politically are rooted in this kind of dicrepancy. For instance, when Jews settled (resettled) in Palestine, they perceived a form of 'absolute ownership' to any property they claimed, whether by relative 'legitimacy' of trade or not. They interpreted what they 'own' defines their "nation". Imagine if an owner here were to declare themselves just such absolulte 'right'; it would enable them to interpret their private claims as non-Canadian sovereignty and thus their 'own Nation'. [I am digressing, I realize but I'm entertaining these points as it relates to many political contentious issues.] I'll close this post as your response but if I missed a question reask me. I think I've made my point and so will stop. In summary, I think freedom of speech requires actual limits to the degree of power over media 'ownership' allowed to private citizens. As for public power that Trudeau represents, his is a kind of belief in 'ownership' of authority by special interests based upon historical conservation of the founders' passed on inheritance. So I'm also against his ideas of imposing culture as though the power of his representation grants him unique means to displace others' rights or privileges unequally. This was the post of yours that I initally responded to: So we agree there is a confusion about 'rights' and 'options' ('privilege' is my term). But I argued that we have a 'right' to media or other public spaces that regardless of ulterior 'rights' of the owner, they too have to recognize that ownership is merely a "privilege" and that allowing access most exclusively for public access should require similar respect for all the above reasons. Ownership is not an absolute but is defined by the very public that needs respect or they too should be further limited any 'right' granted by the public that encapulates the private property.
  3. Your language is very vague. 1. Some guest is 'found out to be a criminal 2. Their posts can not/should not be held "liable" 3. Because the site could be changing their posts ? And the last sentence doesn't follow. Look: posts as 'evidence' can be traced through service providers as well as other means, and it doesn't really have anything to do with 'free' speech on the web. Vague? I expend a lot of depth in my posts. I'm not sure how you read into language but I think I'm clear even if it may be formal. For your 1. I give the example of a legal potential case whereby the law may require using information of someone's online posts in forums as evidence. I am asserting that IF a site opts to censor for ANY reason, they are automatically responsible for content should a user appear to say something potentially criminal. This is an example case. The same can be said about whether one wants to reference content they themselves author. But the example of the potential criminal speaking out, such as one who might write a "manifesto" prior to some act of terrorism, this nullifies the content's ownership is the site has the power to alter content. And so.... 2. This raises reasonable doubt as to the liability of the guests content to an accused. This is a logical argument regarding the legalities. Should the actual law favor or disfavor supposed content is moot. Our laws CAN be intolerant democratically. And if... 3. The site's abilility to censor content is equivalent in meaning they CAN be the one's creating the actual posts through editing. That last sentense again is asserting an opinion regarding the concept of "ownership" as perceived in the minds of the people, not the law. The law can be intolerant and unfair. Bu why should people expect to abide by laws that themselves represent a lack of equal respect of its citizens uniformly? As such, I am asserting that the very concept of 'ownership' is arrogantly presumptuous and not a divinely pre-ordained 'right' that should permit one to have ABSOLUTE power over those invited as 'guests', ...especially for business entities that rely on the guest for their own benefit. And given the people's governments ARE what defines meaning into what is "ownership", you cannot impose a self-serving right over people as though you are a god. And no, posts do NOT have universal tracing of content, especially of 'secured' sites [https:]. They can potentially trace THAT someone was there but not the content in question. As such, the content is as reasonably questionable to guests content if the site permits the power to alter the content. I'll break this up into simple responses.
  4. Well, interesting but given how they manipulate the presentation of information I doubt they could be freed from responsibility of what goes on their site. And I doubt they wouldn't want the ability to censor posts themselves either. I am saying that if a site is able to moderate by censoring or editing, then should some guest be found out to be a criminal or terrorist, the accused persons posts can not (or should not) be held liable because it is reasonably possible that the site themselves could be misrepresenting the accused. Why would the nature of one's privilege to own a public forum justify them to be granted superior faith for any possible evidence of abuse by their guests? If the content is only noted, as Facebook did with Trump initially (and what CBC appears to have adopted by the OP's example), this DOES maintain the site's credibility should content by guests be held against them. I know that if I was a lawyer for such an accused, I'd use the right of private owners' ability to alter content as reasonable doubt about anything claimed to have been said by the defendent. If you use acronyms or text with me, please spell it out. I don't know what "FOI" stands for. But in context I understand. So.... The CBC did NOT initially own the site when I initially complained directly to its president a few years ago. In fact, when I did present a distinct argument to them in email, they did NOT own the site and even had the private site they were renting do the moderation themselves. They were also unaccountable for being able to keep those censors hidden anonymously. I also argued, again directly to CBC, when they deleted all guest content regarding Indigeneous issues, that by doing so, the public no longer has proof of the asserted abuses. As such, I urged them to not censor and gave them even particular incidents where I had commented on some stories that the censors would arbitrarily pass on some of my posts while not others on the same topic. The selecting out of some of my material made it appear that the consensus was against my position because what got passed were in favor of some political contrasting view. This represents a form of misrepresentation by HOW the content is presented (even though what passed was itself not edited.) My submissions were not the least abusive but it was clear that I was being presented in a way that misrepreseted what I meant and I could not 'correct' any possible misrepresetation. IF the CBC now owns its site, my contributing arguments likely helped. I find adding notices of misinformation or abuses as was done with Trump's misinformation notices on Facebook prior to being banned was fine. CBC appears to be doing that above and it may not thus be abusive because they leave the liability of the words the guests say and so CAN be held accountable. That depends. IF the entity is a business that depends upon guests (and this includes the separate stores being leased), then they should not be allowed to violate the people they have specific LICENCE by the society that gives them such privilege. "Ownership" is an illusion and never absolute, contrary to the minds of one who has such potential absolute power. It is GRANTED as their 'own' by the society. Otherwise I can simply declare ownership of my own person with priority with the same declaration of absolute power to behave any way I feel free to. The 'license' doesn't have to be formal either where it is implicit. Most societies have abused the rights of its citizens by merely being able to have the fortune of power to keep government running in their favor. And regardless of declared rules, the laws that apply to people in public spaces generally owned by the people collectively still has to apply. And why... What are you talking about ? It has nothing to do with your right to kick someone out of your home for whatever reason you like. ...I said this quote. Just because someone has a privilege to 'own' a home privately does not grant them absolute power over the minimal 'ownership' of the country's laws made by the people's government that defines the rights of all people and who DEFINE what 'ownership' means. Remember, I am not religious and cannot think that some invisible part of Nature (like one's God) suffices to grant Special powers of absolute privilege and who interpret "ownership" as meaning their own standards of belief rather than a negotiated convention among all people. What is universal about what it means to 'OWN' is our bodies and a right to at least do what is least necessary to survive. Yet even contrary to this most agreeable idea by many, some of the same people who believe in unlimited ownership rights tend to be the same who demand other people's bodies should be 'owned' by them too. [If one is born without inheritance (including 'heritage' privilges where applicable), these people are 'enslaved' by those who own the ground beneath their feet, for instance. ] The point is that "ownership" is a privilege, not a 'right'. No one has a 'right' to rape or kill someone who 'tresspasses' upon their private homes and is what I meant by including private homes as requiring some 'public' common respect fo the laws we create. Thus, malls, regardless of being classed as 'private property', cannot permit them to bias the public they REQUIRE for their business advantages. Otherwise, society should have every 'right' to prevent the public from entering those places effectively closing down their businesses. That is, given the non-private PUBLICLY owned property, society too has 'ownership' rights that should needs to be equally respected. "Ownerships" are limited privileges defined by the society and requires the owner be responsible by some minimal social standards and duties. Otherwise the least 'right' to one's body is all that Nature guarantees. Sure. But that is an opinion regarding your beliefs about the meaning of what "ownership" means. But note that given the privilege granted to some to 'own' our media (by which I include things like access roads or the very air we breathe, not just communication), when such 'ownership' privilege is ubiquitously the ones getting to set the rules of moderation, they have the means to RULE over those without power unequally and absolutely. There is NO means of people to 'own' a piece of the Internet (and thus access to free speech) without literally having their own servers today. Even companies leasing websites are 'moderated' with unfair privilege. Thus, the society who owns the right to make laws that define "ownership" requires having the same 'right' to censor/moderate the sites where they act as virtual conspiracies among the collection of media owners. To me there is no ideal about moderation. But to me, the public has priority over those particular entities that allow in the public: if the sites want PUBLIC protection rights by the society that grants its privilge to 'own' exclusively, they need to respect the people they let in on their property. As for one's private home, this KIND of 'ownership' is NOT PUBLIC in the same way but at least has to obide to respecting certain minimal human rights that each individual has by default by nature. As to the 'answer' to what we can do? This, ...what we are doing right now! I believe that intellectual dialect among guests, members, and owners of forums can go a long way to 'moderate' ourselves without a need for censorship when logic is encouraged and we respect the facts we use as inputs to our arguments. I fear that the escalating use of those opting to use specific power tactics of the Internet troll are becoming more predominantly effective in isolating us all just as a single terrorist suffices to affectively destroy the faith in whole communities . Understanding cannot begin if we don't stand up against our own peers when they use things like lying as an acceptable means to compete in arguments. Here is what I posted to just such a person in a thread earlier today on another forum when he wouldn't stop asserting it as factual that evolutionists universally do not believe humans coevolved with all the other animals. He is apparently altering his content as I just noticed now but it is due to me clarifying HOW he is abusing the fair means to argue where this below was just my last post of clarity. He is not an idiot and can argue well where it suits him and so he is not merely having some mental issue. However, this is an example of his last post: I think most people CAN reason regardless of how unfair they may be acting. So this is an example of the 'what' we can do in practice. (also see my arguments here in the last week or so). But how can you compete with his continuous abuse? Internet Toll definition: Note that "purposely causing confusion" is indifferent to "Gaslighting" The present online misinformation campaign is permitting a social psychological form of 'gaslighting' that undermines the virtue of 'free speech' in online forums and social media.Intentionally asserting what others' authorized positions are in direct and obvious opposition to the facts is also a form of "slander". Also, "copyright" references are not permitted to be maligned by misreprenting formal works' content.
  5. I gave an extensive argument for why PRIVATE websites acting like PUBLIC venues have to not censor freely. IF and only IF the site does not have to be accountable to abuses on the Internet, the site's private choice to censor material cannot be permitted protection by governments because they have the capacity to dox or malign a guest's reputation and presentation. That is, if you have the power to edit or remove content, then SHOULD, say, some evidence be asked of a site regarding terrorism or other criminal behavior, such sites as a whole cannot be trusted because they COULD be intensionally mispresenting the suspected guest. On the other hand, the above example in the OP looks like an improvement in that they have not 'moderated' (censored out) the person's free speech like they were doing before. I had complained to and about the CBC's moderation because when they declared censoring all content for certain declared abuses, the public could not verify this as true nor false. The CBC is not a private network because its function was to permit expression of people in Canada a venue to be heard fairly. The sites may be private, but since the CBC represents the people's voice, any censoring by the site itself hides ANY liability where the public cannot view the contentious material being censured and/or censored. Therefore, they should never censor the CBC sites and not permit the private site being paid for this to be allowed to do this either because it defeats the meaning of CBC as the Canadian people's forum. When I initially argued this, it was on another site who censored or edited material of a particular set of threads. I argued why MALLS, being private properties are actually granted PUBLIC acceptance for their licencing to permit people on their property. These are not private countries and so have to respect the laws and rights of the guests using their space in the country the mall exists in or it should not be permitted public access. This makes sense for what I just argued above. If a mall's security is permitted to be trusted accusations of potetial abuses, like theft, by holding some violator and being able to be 'trusted' to have local police take on the charges, without a means to assure the abuse is not merely being targetted on the guest, they HAVE to be liable to special limits of their ownership rights or have such 'rights' themselves be removed. The law defines 'ownership' and these belong to the people. Note that even one's private home does not permit ABSOLUTE censoring of guests because the public defines what 'ownership' means and it cannot mean that the home owner can have an absolute power to say, kill anyone in their domain. The CBC example above is now fairer if it stopped censorship but opted to censure by giving open public notice of the comment. I just finished a long debate on another forum in which the anonymous person I was arguing with begun to out-and-out lie: He was clearly denying obvious facts regarding the actual support of Evolutionary scientists concensus. [He asserts boldly that no scientist believes that man coevolved with all other animals. Therefore he was clearly SPAMMING because their was no way one can even use logic when the premises that are clearly presented to him are PRETENDED as not being seen. As such, he was maligning the sources that I directly linked and misrepresented the literal authors that I know by implying that I must be insane (gaslighting) for thinking the obvious facts. This would be like me stating that your sites representative name is NOT Michael Hardner in direct and obvious evidence against it. Worse, when you source out to a site that others may not look at, this type of abuse deliberately acts to insult and malign other people's actual views by technical slander. Given the person I was arguing with was also anonymous, there was no means to hold his lies accountable. This is where censure and censorship is called for by the site's moderators without violation of a person's free speech. I had been arguing on this site earlier with a similar person's intentional denials. While I think it is reasonable to permit it to some degree given some people may have real psychological issues which affects their perspective, if you can show that the person is reasonable in some arguments but then strictly denies obvious witnessed facts being presented (not merely the interpretation of it), such persons maintaining the behavior act as intentional spreaders of misinformation and is precisely what threatens the credibility of all forums or social media on the internet. The interference from foreigners also has to be noticed, regardless of which political or religious views one has. Countries like China and North Korea ARE doing what they can to create an atmosphere of complete and utter chaos and distrust when by specifying people target forums and social media this way. They also APPEAR to be on one side but are just as likely attempting to discredit the sensibility of the political or religous sides they SEEM to be reprenting. As such, we need to permit free speech but hold those accountable when speaking that they are not intentionally being deceptive in apparent PUBLIC forums, regardless of its private ownership. This affects us all and so we need to stand up even against those who appear to be doing this or we risk losing our freedoms. China and North Korea, as merely two example enemy states, ARE going to succeed by these tactics. We have to speak openly against our 'friends' when they use these tactics as well or we set an escalating precedence that will defeat our own side's SINCERE opinions and arguments.
  6. On "Critical Race Theory": Although the OP titled the thread with this term, it doesn't seem to relate. From what I gathered so far, "Critical Race Theory" is a collection of specific critical arguments that seem to be authored by those with some general belief in proposing government affirmative-like laws that are generally interpreted as BIASED under normal circumstances. These might be things like someone who believes a law should be made to reverse the role of "innocent until proven guilty" if a woman were to accuse a guy of some sexual violation. If this is the case, I am likely against this view. Some of the possible arguments (yet to specifically see at the moment) can be that we need to advocate for a victim class with special bias because they are assumed to be 'systematically' abused. It might be argued that this is done without direct intent but that under some belief that it cannot be changed without using such extreme counter-behaviors, we require using laws that are biased out of PRACTICAL considerations. I cannot be sure if there is no means to correct certain issues regarding racism with permanence but still believe that the logic I witness of many 'victims' these days are emoting in a way that falsely implies certain facts about whole races based upon irrational interpretations of the statitics involved. So I do not see how the title reflects the actual subject matter of the OP.
  7. There's a reason Hitler lost and people still speak Bulgarian today. Individuals chose. I missed what you are saying here. I see the 'blah blah' you added to my own quote which implies disapproval. I disapprove of Canada's bilingualism because it implies a special religious bias with clarity. If our system was not lying about its 'mulitculturalism', it shouldn't require protection laws specified for Quebec and English (with its reference to the Queen's superiority, for instance). Our system is an accidental reflection of the traitorous humans who believe that some people are more superior over others when the rest of the colonies demanded independence (the formation of the U.S.). The only way to fix this is to have ONE official language (because we cannot possibly have a system of ALL languages). Having 'official' languages are about the laws, not the people apart from government that we all share. Having even two 'official' languages assures segregation of people and acts to bias the children of those who are forced by arrogant religious parents wanting to 'cultivate' their children by using tactics of innoculation (assuring an 'us' as DISTINCT from 'them' by maligning the outsiders). The reason is because one is permitted to pick ONLY one of the two. But if the language of the same laws are interpreted distinctly due to language's tendency to force bias by cultural standards, then the benefit of power ONLY gets granted to those who have a signficant background of ALL 'official' languages of that state. And because those who have multilingual backgrounds are uniquely 'privilged' beyond the average person, they have an unfair advantage indirectly linked to their above normal economic class. I agree that if you go to another country specifically on a normal occasion, you should try to learn the language and its culture. But to expect us to require the REDUNDANCY of learning multiple languages for the sake of the etiquette of those who disapprove of outsiders actually speaks to why any Constitutional language of a country should be in one. Then, unofficially, these CAN be copied in as many languages as one desires. Because most languages lack that fecundity (the ability to express new ideas), we have to also favor the particular official languages that are permitted to grow without 'cultural' conservation. Our system is thus discriminatory against all but those listed cults who prefer segregating themselves apart from others related to those constituted 'cultures' (the Enlgish Protestants, the French Catholics, and whichever other groups they alone get to qualify as acceptable) and ESPECIALLY to those who have a mixed corresponding relationship to BOTH cults. We need to redress the consitution and remove the arrogant religious bias protecting specific cultures of authority over all others. We need a form of Americas First Amendment type law that separates Church from State with better clarity to specify that "No government or representatives should be permitted to be run by or for specific cultures, nor use their embeded religious justifications implied by 'culture', including representing themselves as such. For the people to have a right to free speech and representation requires a system that has no means to censor nor censure diverse views that those with a biased preference to some subset of the very people electing them serve." The representatives in a people's government should have a priorty to the humans who elect them; those with a religious bias have a priority to their religious authorities, whether this be by some specific cult or to some invisible friend they refer to as some 'god'. [ANYONE in power can justify ANY arbitrary rule by simply asserting that God had just authorized them to do so.] Language is only a part of the problem, but would be the FIRST thing we can do to have any hope of repairing Canada's accidental formation of segregated cults. The only reason we formulated any 'union' (Canada) is due to the weakness of the historic disposition between the formation of the U.S., and Britain and France's own wars over who gets to rule over the colonies. We need to divorce ourselves from these in our consitution without perpetuities respecting them. Then to repair the issues with the Aboriginals, we need to integrate them (without religious institutes) nor by enhancing the Nationalism that we are doing. [Germany's Nazism is a belief in respecting discrete 'aboriginal nationality']
  8. Yes, I agree. It is one extended reason I dislike the stereotyping (including those self-stereotyping) of the formal "Indigenous" as somehow more virtuous for being 'aboriginal' to the land. The non-human diversity of life everywhere is being treated as secondary in signficance to their own 'aboriginal' rights to the Earth. Thus, if one is to not be hypocritical TO this issue, they have to reflect upon the rights of all living things. But I grant credit to the intelligence of the move here by the Natives because it was in direct response to the "incorporation" of business entities as official 'persons' in law who are the ones offending their own concerns of the lands affecting them.
  9. The problem is that when governments use "privilege" as a means to make laws regarding reparations or 'reconciliation', it intentionally targets ALL people of something only 'culturally' biased people think like in terms of statistical interpretations. For instance, those arguing 'our' privilege have the relative power to make ammending laws that attempt to fix this issue by targetting some genetic relation of themselves as EQUIVALENT owners of the problem. So, for instance, if you are white and well off (or English speaking as per the OP), you might interpret the fact that the largest plurality of people OF some race is statistically larger than yours who are classified as poor. One can point also to some statistic that might demonstrate that an unusual large proportion of such a race is also not wealthy. Such interpretation then would jump to the conclusion that the race of mention is poor due to racism. This intepretation though becomes a useful reason for those who are 'white' and who dicatate that 'privilege' is synomous with being White. It suffices to make laws (by THEM and their peers in the same economic powers) that target quotas to lift up the statistical representation of those suffering of the particular race being disriminated against . Then a law might be set up to favor some quota of them BUT intentionally transfers the debt that you agree is due to 'white privilege' onto ONLY the specific 'sacrifice' of the whites who are in the same ecomomic impoverishment as the discriminated race. The 'sacrifice' is actually a scapegoat tactic, not a 'sacrifice' because the wealthy privileged whites making the laws are using the apparent compassion favoring the discriminated race to simultaneously CONSERVE their own LIABILITY to whatever 'privilge' their own direct relatives caused by arrogantly permitting laws that discriminate against the poor whites. I too know this from my own background. I've been discriminated by other non-whites who are also poor because they buy into this 'white privilege' and assume that I must have some rich relative to help me somewhere. It makes it easier for a someone of a minority race to justify their own reason for stealing money from my pocket. The lawmakers asserting whites as a class of privilege are the ones controlling how the minority race looks at the problem too: by defining in terms of 'culture' it begs of them that I too have some 'culture' of being White and so earn the right to be stolen from, even if I'm already down. I then receive the discrimination by the 'privileged' whites who simply interpret my own flaws as specifically and uniquely my own because THEY are of the view that I MUST have had the same minimal advantages they had and are too blind to notice these as accountable for their OWN 'privilege' only. For example, we are not all 'loved' by our parents (as is assumed some default by those who do); we do not receive 'allowances'; many of us are expected to pay rent even as a teen when we try to get work while living at home; we do not all get a car given to us by some parent before the age of twenty. [I think an argument can made about who succeeds based only on whether they had a car before they were 20. And it cannot be rational to assume they 'earned' it by hard labour.]. I have not heard of "critical race theory" before the recent politics and so cannot comment yet on whether this theory is at issue here. But if it has something to declare about specifying laws that segregate people based upon race when the particular issues are non-racially relevant, like why people are rich or poor, then I will likely be against it. Does anyone have recommended sources for "critical race theory" they like? I will Google it up but it might be interesting to know too which sources people favor. Thank you.
  10. This is in response to all you said so far to this post. To me, it is arbitrary to which language will dominate with one exception: that it has sufficient fecundity and evolves to be inclusively neutral as opposed to cultural segregating languages. I am using the term "fecundity" from this same topic as discussed in linguistics. It just means that it has the ability to evolve with changes. Most languages are intentionally biased to some particular culture, including their religions and beliefs about one's genetic superiority/inferiority. English, while it has its own roots in the British colonizing as interpreted negatively, nevertheless has this property because of this. And many people from different countries who teach this is in line with this thinking. Quebec's French is intentionally anti-universal (more than and in contrast to its original country's source) as it successfully isolates kids who grow up in ONLY that language and possibly why there is a secular uprising against permitting ideals of such arrogance by the religiousity of puritanical language beliefs. Our bilingualism also biases against those who speak ONLY one of these languages with respect to federal power in government because it FAVORS precisely those like yourself who represent above average income (to be able to travel the world, for instance). When using "privilege" as a self-descriptive term, you cannot speak for others based on non-economic classifications. But I do not get the title's relationship here. Can you please explain?
  11. ...with automatic 'circumcision' capsule too? ....and it was over so quickly too!
  12. They touched down (the capsule) at exactly 10:00 am CT (9:00)Sask
  13. Anyone watching Captain Kirk's takeoff to space for the first time?
  14. [I thought about not using that word (moron) given I figured that this would be noticed by me regardless of the continuous insults being presented by you guys. But unlike you guys, the term is only a rhetorical addition to the logic, not dependent upon it.] I like a bit of everyone and so cannot disagree with your right to favor something regarding personalities. But I don't interpret others as worthy of absolute faith (nor absolute disfaith) even where they may have personalities that I may agree with most of the time (or disagree with most of the time). I also interpret commentary as 'entertaining' of their subjective minds based upon their personalities. The facts they believe in should be caveated as representing their own view in light of possibly being incorrect. The actual 'facts' though, have to be presented without emotional interpretation and why the concept of neutality is essential when reporting. I did mention that Fox declared their philosophy to be strictly for the conservative Republican bias, right? Their choice to to be exclusively and openly biased does not mean that all the others ARE also equally biased exclusively against the conservative view as they are though. The expectation of many of those favoring Fox with such overt extremes is to demand utter faith in them or risk being threatened by false and obscene perversions in the way the Mafia might prove how one needs to pay for their protection by becoming the very threat should you not choose their exclusive services. Note that there is something called the "projection principle" from social-psychology that asserts that we tend to project onto others that which is actually about ourselves. So those who jump to some oddly extreme conclusion about someone else is projecting who they are reflectively. The ones accusing all who is not like them as being biased is thus reflecting that they themselves are the ones' being most irrationally biased. For example, the paranoid drug addict might accuse others as being 'high' without apparent warrant when they are attempting to deflect that they themselves are high. This is only most prevalent where one is invested in extreme accusations that lack foundations. How, for instance, did Hillary Clinton get accused of running or being a part of some child pedaphile ring through some restaurant (Pizzagate)? Strict conservative 'news' personalities (on the internet) wanting to throw out false news in order to get others to disprove the charge PROJECTS upon themselves that they are most likely reflecting their declared certainty as possible because of what they themselves must interpret as probable about their own perversions. Here are some samples of the 'extreme' accusations that Fox intentionally fed out as 'true' and why people have to interpret such behavior as reflecting who Fox is by projection [https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-teases-more-lies-fox-news-will-report-as-true-but-then-retract-video/] : “Fauci: Babies in the womb must wear masks.” HBO “National anthem before NASCAR to be replaced by acknowledgement of privilege.” HBO “Looting to be renamed ‘justice shopping.'” HBO “Dems: In all depictions of Jesus, crown of thorns to be replaced with pussy hat.”
  15. Why do I require spelling out faults of other networks when the problem that I'm pointing out is that the Trump-loving fans have faith in the Fox News with an extreme exclusivity? It is irrational to blindly trust ANY news at all if you believe there exists some 'binary' black-or-white political biases that define your faith. You morons falsely believe that the rest of the secular society is equally as religious as you when it comes to taking strict sides. And this only backfires because you will get what you assume is 'true' by doing whatever it takes to assure it happens regardless of the actual truth because you rely on begging facts about your outside opponents without concern for logic nor integrity....which leads to the opponents' necessity to counteractively compete by using the same methods of hate that you espouse. How can you respond, for instance, to someone who accuses you of some set of absurd behaviors knowing that they do not care for requiring actual means of proof against you but by instead appeals to the mere emotional hatred they have of you by maligning you to their own 'friends' emotional connections to you alone? When this occurs, no amount of countering such charges using the best of skills in one's logic or reputation would ever be able to compete because the degree of accusations against you would suffice to the accuser's crowd when they believe in absolute fidelity to demonstrate loyalty of their own kind? [Like how one's young children would blindly trust their parents' to tell the 'truth' even if their parents were the worst liars and haters of others.] What you like about Fox is its 'sensationalism' that strictly defines reality in caricatured extremes. As such, it appeals to the emotionally religious minds like children who appeal to watching toy commercials that intentionally act to manipulate them when they are co-associated with the cartoons they love so much. The fact is, NO Network is absolutely trustworthy. And IF you presume the non-Fox networks are ALL in one conspiracy against YOU or your kind, then you act like the children who cannot understand why their parents who try to tell them that the commercials targeting them are dubious and manipulative: they sulk and throw tantrums should their parents NOT comply with their desires regardless. And what do you do when such chldren simply continue to behave this way? If you cannot reason with them to stop them from their tantrums, all you can do is to take the reins by being more assertive and strictly authoritative by sending them to their rooms. The responses of the non-Fox media is to either ignore the intentional deception or confront them with reflective violence. The Fox media spends most of its reporting time disrespecting the integrity of all their non-Fox competitors using VERY AGRESSIVE bullying tactics that have nothing to do with truth nor integrity. Why SHOULD all other media accept the strict political bias being accused of them simply because Fox chose to be strictly loyal to one particular bias? Even IF your views were somehow true, it would still only prove that BOTH Fox and non-Fox news is identically biased and thus NONE should be trusted! Why trust ANY media that takes ONLY one side's politial view? Two wrongs wouldn't make either side correct. The only solution should be to demand your Fox media NOT be strictly biased to the conserative Republican perspective.
  16. I've been just as censored by conservatives as to liberals throughout my life. The WAYS each does it is distinct but no one is 'innocent' in this. As to media, just be sure to watch as much variety of sources before judging AND this includes EACH concerned issue. It helps to actually know the logical philosophical background on political ideologies because no single ideal exists for all people. I take some issue with how many on the Left and Center interpret letting in immigrants without respecting those at home who suffer with priority. The reality is that when we let people in as though they are all innocent refuges of countries who are troubled, we set a precedence to permitting the source countries of immigrants to KEEP their home country in disrepair and put MORE pressure on those isolated here and in need. But the conservatives have not presented this case with their own precedence of arguing for fears of 'crime' as though this is uniquely impossible by themselves. As such, they do not use logical means to argue with priority but prioritize SENSATIONALISM and emotional appeals. It was not the case prior to the creation of Fox with its overt favoritism to ONLY the Republican side that the rest of the media outlets were considered 'liberal'. That is, all networks favor the conservative wealth to operate. The poor almost universally, for instance, would appeal to more socialist progressive ideals where such programs could enable them to survive and hopefully progress out of their conditions. But these people definitely do not own ANY media and they get trivial notice outside of government mandated networks, such as the CBC (Canada) or BBC (Britain). As such, it is RIDICULOUS that the Fox fans seem to think all other media is bunk unless they are the same types who would be gullible enough to fall for a cult where the cult leader(s) are assumed puritanical truthsayers with EXCLUSIVE VALIDITY while all outsiders are pure evil. As to the way media will caricature the men on horses as though they represent the imagery of violators against slave traders of the past, this is only reflecting some the countercultural beliefs of those who are most unusually sensitive on the on all but the extremes on the Right. All media other than government mandated ones would not dare to favor those 'liberal' views they are collectively accused of or they would risk a means to profit by the advertisers such corporations rely on for profit. But the traditional media companies had not thought to deliberately be so strictly 'conservative' in their ethics of reporting. Only until Fox came about has this absurd deliberate use of favoring the conservative ONLY news existed. And of course, to lock in their flock only requires feeding doubt about all other media outlets as being 'liberal' commies. The Fox philosophy of its founders literally based the idea for their network on the sensationalism of 'Hard Copy' (the most extreme rag magazine analogue on television.) The rag magazines' outsell the actual news and this suggested to the founders of Fox that this could be a sincere means to PROFIT upon the most gullible. What better example of "capitalism" it is for a company to take opportunistic advantage of a market that assures the maximum profits knowing that their followers would act like members of a cult who would NOT trust any outsider and be PERFECTLY LOYAL just as a devout cult member would. This doesn't mean that those of us who know this wouldn't find value in watching Fox. The problem is the we would generally know not to trust any one source of news because we are not 'faith-based' thinkers. The faith-based thinkers do not seem to notice the strong presence of commentators' use of rhetoric to REPORT the news rather than just using rhetoric to SUPPORT what is reported distinctly elsewhere. The news prior to those like Fox was dull reporting and commentators only existed in documentary type programs we used to call, "investigative reporting". If anyone wants to argue the logical concerns regarding immigration risks, not even the supposed 'liberal' media seem to be willing to do this these days precisely for seeing how the powerful successes of Fox has 'cultivated' their viewers to a specific party ideal. You certainly cannot argue that only Democrats existed in government when there was only the traditional media Fox labels, "liberals". That is, if the traditional media sources were strictly 'liberal' liars, how EVER did a Republican win an election without Fox?
  17. You fixed it, Greg? I can do it now. Let me know if you did nothing by email, again, thanks.
  18. So I can post here but if I make a mistake and have to delete this, I have to reset the whole page and begin again, which gets annoying if I have to delete this part.
  19. Here I am first going to post a second post with the quote above.
  20. This is a post I am testing to determine the posting problems when attempting to add more content.
  21. Good luck, Comrade! As long as there are misinformants out there attempting to gaslight the meek and gullible citizens of our Western democracies by doing whatever it takes to destroy the credibility of trustworthy facts and logic in an attempt to divide us by pushing our people's governments and corporations to censor content for such overt online deception and abuses, I too will have to keep on fighting! 😏
  22. The video had no mention of politics but used the illusion because, with respect to our scientific evolution through discoveries of the world, many things can be intepreted SENSIBLY in polarizing ways. I'm not sure how you jumped to the racist implication? However, "racists are conservative" is a true statement, ...since being racist implies favoring ONLY one's own kind with strict conservation ...but "conservatives are racists" is not true, ....because one can desire emotional conservation of those they love while not believing that others are less worthy of protection for their own causes with respect to lawmaking. That is, one who is racist will want to conserve their 'family' interests with absolute priority. That many conservatives DO happen to argue for "family" values, when it is a universal given regardless of political view, does imply that many who believe this are more likely to be racist because they think that lawmaking should not help those who are suffering that is not of their own. [And yes, that makes the particular Indigenous who fight for their own kind uniquely just as 'racist' for their conservation measures regarding culture, even if they politically align to the Left at the present. The majority of the plural cults on the left are just as deceptively using that side with a handshake to other similar believers in there by merely agreeing NOT to harm each other as they attempt to eliminate those who are not 'pure' in their mating. This is just as illusive.] Note to self (and others paying attention): Can those in Russia, China, or other similar outsiders see our youTube feeds here or do they only see the title of the links for youTube???? Did you just slip up, Comrade?
  23. You are not likely able to change any view regardless of any logic anyone can use. In fact, the term "conservative" as it is used politically means that one wants only to prevent the loss of your present fortune or condition and why no matter the logic, you will use ANY MEANS to get your way, including lying, cheating, deceiving, and using the Machivelian tactics used to simply win the war. The "progressive" concept of which the "liberal" views imply means that they desire a system that permits change because there is no actual 'true' political ideology. Rather, they believe in liberating themeselves and others in some way by basing it on "democracy", versus the authoritarian views you hold about your own 'superiority'. As for how anyone will percieve their favored side of politics, here is an analogy of what human politics is comparable to this illusion in general: Now BECAUSE of the actual any-means-to-an-end philosophy only of the most conservative extremes like you hold, you don't care to be able to look at the issues objectively and thus are doomed for maintaining consistency of abuses to which the Left today is embracing their justification for censorship as their counterabusive defence So you are not helping the conservative cause but helping to defeat it. If you argue without compassion of the oppossing views, you PROVE that you have something to FEAR and why you hide behind anonymity and can only argue best by using insults and begging. This is a dillemma that other conservatives who MAY have sincere hope for are also being penalized and what makes the majority on the left become less tolerant in kind. Are you not able to recognize this logic?
×
×
  • Create New...