Scott Mayers

Yeah, I agree that it is unlikely. And this is precisely what Karl Marx meant about political cycles in history. As time goes on, we are going to be divided more and more on a Constitution that dictates selective favors to specific people without a hope unless another revolution can overthrow it by force.

? who knows? I'm against our constitutional protections of the separate Catholic school system, but the confusion of the challengers is to why they even think that the Catholic school system wasn't defaulted to this bias.??? I raised this with a skeptic group who also don't notice that the problem lies with the constitution and has to be addressed there.

...be preferentially treated by forcing non-Catholics to either pay out of their own pocket or leave to a public school?.... Here's the recent issue on this for here in Saskatchewan: https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/watch-live-court-continues-to-hear-saskatchewan-appeal-of-school-funding or, for the CBC crowd preferences: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/govt-sask-catholic-schools-make-case-appeal-hearing-1.5051334

Well that was part of the debate in the show. The SVU staff were split on this. They always deal with sexual abuses, often of more women than men, and they knew this particular cop personally, knowing his attitude was somewhat like this. There seems to be a 'trick' with the plot too. The ones most strongly willing to lie on the stand defaulted to a sort of bias FOR women as a class. But this proves they are counter-discriminating against men because should they proceed. The lie was about his character and whether he was seen to ever be abusive with the truth being in the negative. This suggests they then believe a particular bias for any women in the relationship to be completely 'innocent' in all cases. That is, if this were reversed as a case, there would be no controversy. If a man killed his wife for being verbally or indirectly abusive in any way, and the man admitted that she never physically harmed her, the case would be quick to resolve in court regardless. So the show was presenting the present bias to have distinct 'trust' laws exclusively between the sexes where these don't have anything intrinsically distinct regarding their physical sex. Both can BE 'criminal' in mind and action but they only look at the statistic norms of which sex does more of what crime than the other to base their specific-sex laws in bias to the kind of crime the majority of that sex do. In reality though, the culture defines the qualities they accept ....such that men are larger and more physical, women are smaller and more vulnerable. But there can be a variety of role-differences if the partners on average chose those of variability without the stereotypical roles. The ones who choose the partners that fit to the stereotype that creates the imbalance should be cognizant that they contributed to the statistical imbalance of men being more abuse on average. So the women are as EQUAL at fault as well as the men for all kinds of crimes. And while this variation and acceptance is occurring now, why is the extremism occurring to favor women by default over men in law?

I think that this show, among its older relatives is one that attempts to cover real stories and issues through entertainment ....BUT is most worthy of discussion here in a political forum. [I think it could be its own subforum given its subjects are always relative to today's issues. ...or maybe a subsection on "Law & Order" or "Justice" or "Legal Issues" ??] Anyways, I just caught up on my DVR for the latest SVU titled, "Part 33" (S20.E14 Air date Feb 7, 2019). In this episode, a cop's wife had killed her husband and attempted to defend herself as a victim of 'abuse' but admits of no physical nor sexual abuse in the least. The SVU unit though had become contentious within its ranks because some wanted to lie on the belief that this woman was justified in her action merely based on this cop's general known verbal abusive character. [the unit knew the cop and his wife] Some strongly disagreed given the form of indirect abuse is not valid as abuse in the eyes of justice. I thought this episode pointed out something interesting about how many think that trusting women's accusations should be defaulted to, especially today in both Canada and the U.S. regardless of her apparent situation or of the male who is being accused. I wondered if anyone here has seen the episode (or suggest you watch it) and tell me which side of the different position you hold. The specific controversy is not merely about trust but about INDIRECT ABUSE. It is hard to catch this form even if it can actually be more devious in nature. So the question I'm asking in relation to this episode is this: Should anyone be granted serious consideration of innocence for acting counter-abusive of one who is indirectly abusive? ...like strong verbal abuse ...or like enticing others to harm another intentionally, etc?

I never heard of this one. I'm part of the skeptic community that is often critical of biblical faults and if this one were there it would be one of those statements which would garner a lot of noise there. A quick Google check on this also lacks much other than to someone (a British celebrity or relative?) stating that in the 1990s.

Yes, and your wife and I agreed to meet up with you at your funeral to announce our engagement!

Okay. I understand. But I'm saying that it is a logically rational justification for China to conspire here whether in good or bad faith as with any other such interest. It should matter to you if even for your own self to some degree. If we all continue giving up (as I have an equal struggle at times too) how can the system be improved in a way that CAN appeal to you as a 'buy'? I'm trying to show how and why I believe our system is or will fail that on its surface appears by many to be the opposite. The Chinese are rightfully justified in complaint against us for the recent activities because we are being hypocritical to our OWN defense of action that either requires addressing our Constitution or acting in good faith to our own claims of having some moral high ground.

I don't think throwing a litigious piece of paper defined outside of China has any more respect of 'sovereign' official status to them. What matters is that given we are under a pretense of a system that claims to be universally accepting of culture by its constitution, our very own 'sovereign' law contradicts the right of China to be equally protected ironically under our own laws. If not, then something is amiss by our own people's standards should our own government attempt to exclude China. That is, IF China were to challenge any attempt at excluding them from taking root here in bad faith, they can expose our system as hypocritical by our very own 'illusion' of what Multiculturalism is being sold as.

That's because you are self-deluded [not a personal attack...a general one on your stance only] and believe your own powers of fortune are universally shared among the mass's power to do the same. China is acting as a powerful individual ONLY here, not in their own country. They are exploiting our stupidity. I am not blaming them, either. But I DO blame those of us here who cannot see what is actually the means that empowers them to uniquely be able to establish eventual power here. They are 'capitalizing' on our weakness by also exploiting our 'social' function here that supports Multiculturalism. We basically are permitting them, as with all other segregate groups from outside, to walk in and compete to take over Canada's economy while simultaneously dumping the debt to its non-affiliated members. They can inherit benefits uniquely but pass on debt universally!! ...because those that set up "Multiculturalism[TM]" precisely set it up for their own similar con. And why do I care? Besides being outside of any and all culturally defined groups, the principles justify racism, sexism, and any other forms of bias based upon genetic heritage but disguised as mere environmental lifestyles based upon choice. It is the very cause of today's Nationalism which threatens the actual majority who sincerely believes in selecting their own 'culture' without reference to some genetic copyright being imposed upon them for 'borrowing' without paying tax. I care because the laws made in this standard are designed to favor either the present fortunate or the select people permitted to define who is or is not more deserving of reconciliation of past grievances by the same fortunate people. If you are not of these groups, you are disadvantaged by omission. People aren't 'numbers'. Yet the 'fix' is to impose hardship upon the non-affiliated, individualistic, and isolated people who threaten the concept of past cultures as these are what maintain the powers by plurality.

The North American market, its resources, etc. By utilizing the very laws we enable to set base here, they act as a consolidated 'private' owner more powerful than any of our own self-serving individuals or groups, including large corporations and our governments that lack the same cohesion. Exploiting the concept of cultural isolationism that Multiculturalism has itself selfishly been devised to do is appropriate for any intellectually defined outside group that has numbers. They can use 'culture' as their justification for remaining distinct. Our laws basically permit one to 'own' their own relative immigrants and their progeny as they can uniquely impose segregate factors like language and religion as means to prevent their own from straying and to keep the outsiders from being allowed in. Just call their reasons for isolating, 'culture', and our laws cannot even rightfully penetrate them without exposing the actual agenda of the same by those segregationists hiding behind the smokescreen of 'diversity-lovers'.

And Judaism's origin was 'secular', not originally religious! Their source was also borrowed directly of the collective of all other cultures and most prominently Egyptian's form of "multicultural' era. Morality is not derived from Gods; Gods are derived from people who want a means to command justification for their own selfish rules, especially when they lack unique moral distinction of their own rules and behavior in light of those they want to subdue with equal justification.

Infiltrate: enter or gain access to (an organization, place, etc.) surreptitiously and gradually, especially in order to acquire secret information, power, etc.

The language itself is purposefully obscure. The word, "sovereign", itself only has most significant meaning to the religious-thinking believers in a state backed by some claimed existence of a God who grants a magical spell that places some invisible bubble upon some land and/or people. In effect, its purpose was more likely to have kings and queens collude to agree to each other's preservation in light of a world that was giving way to democracy. The idea they were likely thinking was to conserve their kingdom's ownership and gains among each other by granting a pretense of power to the "commoners" by using a lower governing body to exist that 'handles' them. Give the commoners the means to complain is often sufficient to nullify their need to feel a sense of control over their own destiny even though they are being lead. It's the same con that some of today's companies use by providing consumers the power to complain, even if the intent is not to read actually read them. [Celebrities use this tactic to a great effect too to nullify their fans.] This form of 'democracy' was incomplete and why the revolutions of the 1600's in places like France and the American colonies challenged them.

To link back to the topic, our constitution favors countries like China to utilize a means to infiltrate North America by the very contradictions lacking clarity in our laws. Are we universally favorable to all cultures....in the meaning of Multiculturalism? ...or just selectively favorable by the interpretation granted to us through the founding cultures? China, as with other nationalist-interested groups are rationally going to be most attracted to our system simply based upon the confusion.

See this is the confusion. Which laws are considered clearly defined versus open-to-interpretation? I understood Quebec's use of civil law was more like this as it codifies whereas the use of 'common law' is interpretative upon cases. Which laws is being referred to regarding this "rule of law"? I was taking the literal interpretation of the laws as written as a threat while they are today only being treated as 'loose' and open to interpretation. That a law that first says, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law"... makes what follows via our 'right' to a freedom of conscience, contradictory if 'conscience' includes one who believes morality is derived by the men who make laws. It is only 'clear' if we interpret this to mean we are only free where we don't impose upon the favored people in Constitutional protection's right to segregate laws that selectively favor their own yet grant us the mere freedom to think differently (but not act on it).

Now, please explain the logical meaning of "rule of law". This is a history, not a definition.

I speak in reference to the 'letter of the law' to which terms like "rule of law" beg with lack of clarity. We are temporarily better off simply because we still have surplus of natural resources. Just as some very wealthy Middle Eastern kingdoms, like Dubai, can act benevolent to its people, we are relatively still better off NOW. But the concern is to both the future and to those now who suffer within our present society who lack cult associations. Our Constitution, though, IS a legal writing that while not yet understood by all, has within it means to lay in preservation for select people only, not all of us. Note that I'm NOT conservative and while unusual on the left, I argue that the 'conservative' mindset is stronger today in groups associated with cultural interests in any political persuasion. Today's problems are due mostly to the very left-wing dominance of multiple cultures of distinct preferences that agree in temporal acceptance only to use the power of collective groups to overrule the same thinkers on the normal right-wing. The difference is only to how power still consolidates in groups based on arrogant cultural purity. And just because the average groups of this nature today are 'secular' appearing, they still utilize their style of rhetoric to appear less threatening than they really are. We are in a cyclic part of history where the past abused groups attempt to alter only who is the ones in power to abuse next, and to those in power fearing the loss of it in light of their abuse and so act as though they are the apologetic benevolent people trying to right the(ir) wrongs but by passing the debt to the universally whole class of today's people. We are intrinsically MORE conservative yet appear the opposite by the means of deliberate manipulation. We prefer ETIQUETTE to direct honesty and why we have someone like Trump in power in the U.S. .....people are sick and tired of the more clever and manipulative means of politicians to utilize the appearance of kindness and lovability but be adept at redirection of accountability.

Please define what I underlined of your words. To me this is circular: a 'rule' is a 'law'. HOW, taking it to mean "ruled by law", for the verbal meaning does this phrase differ from any other governing body, including company bylaws? "Queen's Peace"? ...==..."God-granted supreme being's wisdom to know what is or is not 'peace' by how you respect her authority?"

The U.S. (and France before them) embraced Republicanism in light of the means of which a Monarchy logically entices segregation by their nature of distinction: peoples in power are considered as being in favor by nature because of their genetic decrees and beliefs about how some God uniquely favored them. That's ethno-centric by FIAT for being Kings and Queens or loyalists to their supremacy.

First off, it is not a 'republic' as in 'by the people & for the people'. We are ethno-nationalists though and why we conserve special privilege within the constitution for three major ethno-centric groups: the British-found 'catholic' Anglicans (loyal to assumed supremacy of kings and queens and the belief they are rightful benefactors of god), the French loyalists of the old French non-republican Roman-catholics (loyal to Popes, and similar beliefs in right of birth favored by gods), and the overall belief that the original North American people (ab-original) are supremely tied to some genetic link to the land because they were here first. The 'cultural requirement' we have by force to accept select favoritism to the select cults by these arrogant inheritors of power. ONLY if we don't infringe against these people's right to special laws to the rest of us 'commoners' are we allowed relative freedoms. Our freedoms beyond the privileged groups these power define as 'right' versus 'wrong' only allow us to think what we want about what is right or wrong (freedom of 'conscience' )

I don't believe that the actual majority of any society favors specific cultural roots. But those who do favor cultural segregation speak very loud where those who naturally assimilate/integrate remain relatively isolated as individuals who lack the power of cohesion due to their unique differences and thus appear silent and insignificantly trivial.

...just an example of how our "Multiculturalism" works in practice. It encourages outsiders to infiltrate other territories by laws that permit segregation under the apparent banner of 'diversity'. To me this is no surprise and it will get worse, ...and not merely with any specific group such as the Chinese. I repeat....we need to abandon laws regarding specific cultural conservation as our "Multiculturalism" permits. The Chinese government is likely more disappointed when Canada acts in ways that go against the very constitutional culturalism they rely on us for over the United States given they by default go against this concept. Canada is the world's Nationalist's haven and serves as a convenient backdoor to the U.S. economy most effectively.

If we take the classical liberal concept of "We should have the freedom to do what we want as long as that freedom doesn't impose upon the freedom of others to act in the same way," the acts of speech that cause harm to others is included. An example of today's "movements" are like those who presently use the media to accuse some public figure of some act of sexual violation, implied especially with the most direct means to harm one's reputation in ways that no amount of anything short of admitting guilt and repentance is expected. I used to favor feminist concerns, for instance, where the average of society seemed to prove that women were 'systematically' abused by men who were often understood to be directly abusive because of those men who treated them as something less than they were as humans. But this was about particular behaviors of only specific kinds of men represented by their tendency to abuse anyone, including other men, by this action. It doesn't mean that my 'feminism' of this type was about the whole class of men nor women as today's redefined extension to hold the whole class of women as victims and men as predators. What was understood as 'systematic' to me was about the means of others looking the other way while their own friends and family would actively abuse. Continuing with this example (not the only present 'cultural' beliefs about whole genetic subclasses of humans), when we enable laws that permit cultural adjustments DIRECTLY through laws, if those who believe some subclass of victimhood requires treating the defined class genetically, as is being done, it holds not merely the voluntary behavior of people accountable to particular acts of abuse, but assigns some whole GENETICALLY defined class accountable regardless of the particular members of those defined classes. But this is precisely what created the kinds of thinking of the past PARTICULAR abusers: they assumed something true about the behavior of any arbitrary member of the GENERAL class they themselves were treating as 'laws of nature'. Obviously, if the intent is to stop abuses realized and shared by all or most universally, you have to focus on the particular classes of those who hold strong culturally particular beliefs about GENETIC causation 'systematically'. So, to me, when I hear of some collection of people supporting the class WOMEN against MEN distinctly rather than some recognition of distinction of the CULTURE OF PARTICULAR beliefs of those who hold stereotypes about the whole classes of men and women, I have to ask whether these fighters are not merely trying to stop the actual cultural causes of the harms of their nemesis or are trying to avenge the whole class in mere opposition of the prior stereotypes by ALTERING those who are the abusers versus the victims. This makes these kinds of 'feminists' EQUAL in respect to the very POWER they want in kind of the abuser, but doesn't STOP THE ABUSE!! ** To keep laws that favor creating laws that directly manipulate culture when culture itself is non-genetically relevant is to prove that those supporting such power in lawmaking have some of their own agenda to maintain power THROUGH laws that give them DISTINCT POWER based upon some belief about their own GENETICS and of all others. They only hold 'diversity' as a virtue in the same way one might prefer the value of a zoo: Lots of variety of different animals held in distinct cages where they and their own unique genetic classes are the ones empowered to play the role of the human visiting these zoos. They 'love' the animals but believe they are nevertheless distinct creatures who are most threatening if they were to mingle freely among them. THIS is what our "Multiculuralism" is about. They want the power of being the zookeepers of people believing in the distinctions of peoples ENVIRONMENTAL options to behave as though they are specie-distinct and inevitable. We might be entertained by watching bear families play safely but know that we cannot allow them to mingle because bears are intrinsically incompatible with humans. When you get multiple groups of similar thinkers, they act as though they respect their differences because they share seeing each of their own groups as like distinct animals. They thus believe in sharing power in a grand zoo where they have walls that prevent the violation of each from interfering with each other. But they also share the view that no one should be allowed to freely mix independently outside of cages. They believe these are necessary to preserve the purity of their own or they risk the POWER they hold on the culture as a whole they believe is significantly due to their own genetic roots. **Compare this kind of reasoning regarding guns: to stop the abuses of those using guns, some suggest that instead of tackling the problem, guns, empower all people EQUALLY to abuse. The belief is that if the 'victims' of gun abuse is EMPOWERED by being able to own guns, they can overcome the risk of the enemy who holds guns by 'cancelling' their power out. But now imagine if those very lovers of guns who abuse ARE the ones EMPOWERED in law to disarm those they believe are GENETICALLY classed abusers!!

I'm not conservative and still stand strong against culture and religion in lawmaking. Many people on all the political spectra get abused because of this. The individuals in all parties can't compete over the power of those affiliated with religions and cultural purists.