Scott Mayers

If they don't want to set a precedence, they WILL. Our Constitution was purposely written specifically to conserve the religious (/cultural) interests of the specific 'heritage' of the Catholic and Anglican churches and to those most especially with bilingual interests. We do NOT have an equal to the American's First Amendment.

I challenge your own superior skills at reasoning to figure it out. I took numbers from the sources as demonstrated AND with your own FAITH of what another had spoken of without yourself knowing enough about the statistics. If you sincerely want anyone's intellectual feedback, you can't threaten them when you're proven at fault for some argument . I'd have further attempted to calculate this too with your own different data and now you are left to present the mathematical argument yourself. Since you have fault with the source of my own statistics (using 12 churches), then challenge THAT source in argument, not present alternative ones. It reduces to a he-said-she-said if you can't explain why that source you distrust is wrong and why your own is better. My math above was correct GIVEN the sources I quoted. And there is no other way to prove anything more for either of us if we can't KNOW the accuracy of which source is more trustworthy or not.

Our system of separation is a strictly biased religious one. The Catholic school system actually DOES have unusually better funding that enables it unusual advantages over the public system. This separation is actually one of the major factors that proves our system of "Multiculturalism" is a theocratic one, not one that is intended to promote variety. It must be abandoned but the Federal government can overturn this by the Constitution should Ford do anything regardless. So while I'd agree this system should be removed, Ford would not succeed. Assuring this is the Trudeau government to which Pierre Elliot set this constitution in play precisely to CONSERVE the catholic religious powers through inheritance of Canada in law.

Imagine you are one of two kids of your parents and that you now are grown up and have ten kids of your own. When arguing one day with your parents about how abusive they were against you while treating your sibling oppositely, your parents agree but then assert that you have an increase of 100% that abuse and so are worse than they were. Given you were the only one of two abused by your parents, you can be sure that 50% of your parents kids were abused. But their apparent argument falls flat when you agree with them that you are at fault too by increasing the total number of children abused: from 1 person to 2 is 100%. But 2 of your children abused is only 20%, an actual decrease in overall percentage. So, while both of you are wrong for being abusive, AND you agree to the same numbers, your parents are at fault if they think that the fact you are more relatively abusive when you actually improved on your parent's performance.

No, I used the percentages and so did not need to use the actual numbers of all people. When you use stats relating to percentages on both sides, there is no need to specify the actual number. If you need a better explanation I can go step by step through it. But it is all above. Just take your time to read it carefully. NOTE: one rhetorical trick by politicians is to use the literal numbers when they are largely contrasting to a small number when the large number is of fewer overall percentages and the small number is of a larger percentage. EXAMPLE: If you want to make crime rates seem greater than they are, you can point to the literal quantity increase of crimes ignoring that the population of that stat has increased much greater. So the increased apparent number may actually have a decreased percentage of the new total numbers.

Altai, I understand and agree that statistics get abused. But as you see above, your own actual numbers when compared appropriately prove that the opposite of your point is true and by a far more problematic number. I used your exact numbers above to prove this. What you miss by the rhetoric is that 0.2% was rounded up to 1% by innuendo. Your stat mentioned that 99% of Muslims exist in Turkey but it doesn't say how many OF the remaining 1% are actually Christian. In the U.S., the actual statistic IS 1% and so that IS still correct. When you round off 0.2% of Christians in the same way, 0% is the only possible way to compare, not 1%. 0.2 is closer to 0% than to 1%.

The U.S. has a population of 1% Muslims [Islam in the United States] where Turkey has 0.2% of Christian churches [Turkey's Declining Christian Population], all denominations. There are 2106 total Mosques in the U.S. [List of Mosques in the U.S.]; there are 14 Churches of Christianity in all of Turkey! [Christianity in Turkey] If we presume each church and mosque hold equivalent quantities of people and that these Holy places represent all of these communities, then 63Mosques/2106totalMosques = 0.0299 = 2.99% of Muslims in U.S. Mosques discriminated against,...rounded up to 3%. Now multiply this by ALL of the percentages of Muslims in the U.S. and you have: 3% x 1% = 0.03/100 x 1/100 = 0.03/10000 = 0.0003/100 or 0.0003% of Muslims discriminated in the U.S. relative to the total of all Americans. 1Church/14totalChurches = 0.07 = 7% of Churches in Turkey. Now multiply this by ALL of the percentages of Christians in Turkey and you have: 7% x 0.2% = 7/100 x 0.2/100 = 1.4/10000 =0.014/100 or 0.014% of Christians discriminated in Turkey relative to the total of all Turkish. Comparing: 0.0003: 0.014 = 3:140 That is, for every 140 Christians targeted by non-Christians in Turkey, only 3 Muslims are targeted by non-Muslims in the U.S.

This is absolutely true! In fact, what the Americans learned (without overtly announcing), is that the initial idea of "Manifest Destiny" actually penalizes the country because they would have to take on the social responsibilities of its citizens. Instead, given the power of International trade and capitalism, it is more reasonable to OWN the resources, economy and access control of these but evade the literal responsibility of those places socially or politically. In fact, it is better for them to have countries that are more easy to manipulate by having less democratically minded systems as well as owning their economy.

...that you lack a right to privacy and protection in law of any rights to communicate freely and safely? I've been arguing against SaskTel here about this factor based on an experience a few years ago when my line was cut by some unknown cause. I used only a land line at the time and when this occurred on a weekend, I had initial difficulty trying to get them to repair this because they claimed that the problem is the landlord's and my landlord asserted the opposite. So I discovered that the reasoning of SaskTel was that since the lines are connected through a box and lines INSIDE the building, the legal responsibility is granted to the owner, not the tenants using services. The landlord argued that the service is not the responsibility of the owner of the building and so cannot (or chooses not) to do anything. (The caretaker could intend this but we have no means of knowing.) This raises an interesting idea: Why should any renter ever be liable to pay any outstanding bills (or any bill at all) when they can also justify the actual bill as legally due to the landlord, not the tenant? This gap.....between the outside wall of the building to the particular apartment, is itself out of both the power of the tenant AND the company providing this service. So the tenant has a technical right to hold both liable but this is unable to be done legally. The implications of this are: The landlord can legally TAP your line, CUT your line, and even USE your services by any discretion they choose because this gap between the companies connection for ANY services (like even power), and can be tampered without either the tenant having any right to impose nor the government being able to have sincere power to discover this. This power extends to the right of the landlord to pass this right of access on to others, like the policing departments of any level, for instance. This means that any renter can have all their rights violated AND, if you are poor, for REQUIRING to rent, this is also a proof of discrimination specifically against the poor. Let me hear from others to see what they might know of other provinces by renters or land-owners alike. I think this NEEDS to be addressed. Thank you...

I am saying White Pride IS racist. But I extend that to ANY "Pride" when it is promoted. All LBGTQ people are NOT linked to a belief in 'pride' either. This is only a requirement when the society is discriminating in a way that is based on some other 'pride' being promoted of things like "whiteness". If you are asserting why NOT have "White Pride" given the acceptance of other forms of "Pride", I agree in principle to the logic but disagree if you are actually supporting ANY "pride", including being "white". You have to respect that "Pride" is a strong belief IN one's own however defined, with exclusion to outsiders. SO, if you hold ANY such beliefs, then this IS the rationale justified by any one of them to DISCRIMINATE of others because these beliefs by any means are discriminatory. If you are 'white' but only envious of the present "pride" groups, you can't complain because while the PARTICULAR 'pride' groups may NOT discriminate against all groups, they are rationally discriminate against at least some group NOT of their own. So you can't complain about "unfairness" when you embrace a concept, "Pride", because by its meaning, it requires "unfairness". This is why I don't support ANY of these groups. They are just forms of religion to me.

"Freedom" for America is NOT "freedom" for those outside of America. You only need to 'defend' because you 'offend' outsiders when you treat the world as ONLY what is American. If you treated the rest of the world's members in the same way as you interpret yourself, you have better affect to improve circumstances at home. Note that America supported Canada's expense in military during the cold war ONLY to preserve American interests, not Canadian. The incidental nature of that to help Canadians is due to the TRADE-OFF you make to protect yourself. And note that your own particular view is only about a segregationist relative to the rest of the world. If you accept doing this, you have to expect that the rest of the world will demand you NOT have any fortunes outside of the borders of the U.S.. That is, you can't expect to exploit the rest of the world for you benefit but dump the losses on the other countries. Recent example: Setting up your "Target" stores up here in Canada by founding a 'Canadian' office, send up ONLY the inventory you want to dump but basing the impression of this 'legitimate' business as though identical in quality, then go bankrupt in OUR tax payers debt. This was used to 'save' your own country's company, "Target", by dumping its losses on us. This KIND of behavior is what you do and encourage (particularly by your political favor). And yet you act as though WE can't see the con? I have a heart for the United States. But only if and where the constitution there is extended in kind to all others reflectively. You can't expect to 'sell' the dream ONLY for your own and then complain that others demand doing whatever they can to GET THERE when your own arrogance is to forcefully use Military might to KEEP the outsiders failing in order for you to exploit its benefits. If you WANT to sincerely help others respect you, you have to TREAT them as you expect to be treated. And this IS why others are behaving this way. This logic is true of all other countries as well. But the only way we can get in sync is by breaking down borders, ...by HELPING other countries as though they were your own, not simply locking out those you also contribute to enhancing their own problems elsewhere to make yourself by contrast wealthier and more powerful.

I agree. But that is whey I use the word, "Inheritance", with its subtypes: "genetic" or "environmental". You'd have to read my other material to know I noticed this factor. We are forced to the potential of bad genetics but the intellectual society we form CAN and DOES help change this in many ways. But it counts on collectivist efforts for all people, not a system that should be set up to minimally attend the the wealthier concerns.

It was in context to the guy I was directly speaking to as a 'conservative' who interprets "opportunity" as a reality provided to all. It is not realistic to presume all, nor even most, people have this equality just because we can SEE others with them. That's like a winner of a large lottery at incredible odds saying that it is ridiculous that everyone cannot win: "look at me, I'm proof that anyone can succeed." I have a contention with your use of "many" without qualification. It is irrelevant considering a population of 6 Billion people may have 60 Million of them succeed (1%). <--- that number represents is 'many' but only adds force to mean that most do not succeed. I'm lost on some of your wording about "social mobility" (versus "economic mobility". 'social' mobility is something one might do when they move up the social ladder in any context, like highschool kids might do to become more popular.) "Education" is a sticky word too that I'm troubled by. You can be 'educated' if you how to tie knots. Quality education is NOT sufficient to get your foot in the door from the bottom even if it is relevant education. And knowledge without the experience via those 'opportunities' are what limits most on the bottom to get fair entry.

What an odd thing to say. IF you accept we don't require playing on an even playing field, then you have to accept we have no need to be anything more than the animals we are. No amount or rationalizing matters if you take this stance but then complain about other's right to both disagree AND rebel against those trying defaulting to better off conditions. That's my point about the condition of accepting evolution in social contexts, such as lawmaking in governments. Who is the 'entitled' here? The small number of wealthier 'owners' of this world or the vast majority. We are all 'greedy' but if the numbers of poor should shut up and eat their shit, as you are implying, then don't complain if they do ANY rebellion. Rebellion is as much evolutionary and natural. BUT we only concern ourselves with what we all share with regards to a management system we call government.

What you say follows from my own take. What particularly is 'not true'?

You mean you can't understand me but prefer to excuse your own weakness as my problem. Would you prefer that I just draw a simple picture of Mohammad for you? Would idol symbols be sufficient for you? Is this what your 'prophet' really intended after all?

Realistic "Opportunity" for all requires everyone have the same initial conditions as well. This does not occur when some are born without the fortune of inheritance in some form. This delusion is only a con made to falsely enhance a dream in others so THAT the 'opportunists' have the extra 'opportunity' to exploit those BELIEVING in the dream. You count on others being deluded in order to profit from them the most. If you think this is just evolutionary, you are correct but then have to accept those 'liberals' who should equally use such 'opportunity' to exploit the power of the numbers to overthrown you. THIS very rationale is why the left are exploiting the same power politics that was the norm of the right for generations. If you feign stupidity, they can do so too given its apparent success rate.

Simplification: Equal Opportunity means one APPEARS to have options; Equal Outcome is the PROOF of those options being there for having them. I may 'freely' be able to SEE an expensive luxurious car on the lot of a car dealership. But the irrational optimist treats the seeing as PROOF those 'options' as validly accessible because they both had the prior lack of it, saw that option, and then were able to PROVE they could obtain it for themselves. It's a retrospective inversion of cause and effect they think is rational: IF A, then B. B. Therefore A. [error: affirming the consequent (outcome) doesn't assure the antecedent (option prior to potential outcome)]

I already know our Constitution worded them in a way that may appear trivial and that no essential precedence is yet able to overthrow this. I believe that it was challenged at some point but would easily be excused just as you have said. This though makes the preamble and other wording equally as loose. To say that some part of it is certainly interpreteable while others are fuzzy or about something assumed as trivial, makes the article as a whole questionable. It was made only to PLACATE the masses here, not an honest Constitution for the people and by the people. "Rule of law" is itself circular if any Law is itself Constitutionally commanding that the Law is Ruler which is saying nothing other than that any system of government anywhere uses LAWS to command people with priority over any person's particular 'conscience' wherever it is derived from. But the particular government can HAVE their 'conscience' particularly enshrined if they are the ones creating the Constitution by force. Our 'freedom of conscience' is thus a moronic statement of mind that we already have. What matters is whether we have constitutional protection of the expression of that without censor by government for or against any arbitrary opinion. We do not. [Example, "hate speech"] And whatever slight of words in our Charter of Rights that appears to support free "expression" is countered by the protections of specific superiority of those apparently 'symbolic' trivialities. They CAN be used when needed and WHY those statements are in there. Otherwise they have no reason to be there.

As an example, when I want to reach my Constituency in email, it has to go through the party and redirected to the member. Our elections are presented as though we elect the particular people but we actually only vote for that party here. But how does this relate here? Our country does not have separation of church and state. I'm not sure what you differ in opinion on here.? ...or if you do.

Favoring strongly some one group of people based upon something is also reflective of racism because it associates a belief THAT the external appearance of someone defines their thoughts stereotypically. By implication it also hides their discrimination in the following way: If you 'favor X', although it may not mean you 'disfavor some non-X' , if the intepretation of one's favor is strictly exclusive to X, then you also think of all of what is not-X as excluded of your interest. For example, if one goes to a dating site and is FORCED to state one of distinct options of what sex you favor, the site inteprets those options as exclusive. For instance, they would interpret one as being either absolutely "heterosexual" or exclusively "homosexual", with no acceptance of variation, like one who may be "bisexual". The more clear way of allowing for the alternative beliefs is to have a list of those things you do NOT prefer. But though this would be clearer, it also PROVES what one really means if they are 'strictly homosexual' when they assert that they are not willing to accept any of the opposite sex. That is, we 'know' that when one asserts they are strictly "homosexual", that they ARE implying they refuse acceptance of sexual relations with the opposite sex. So if you say that you have "White Pride", it is confusing first because being 'white' does not EXCLUDE variation of culture, religion, traditions, or opinion. That is, you are implicitly implying something about being 'white' that is in your head something exclusive and strict. So, then by implication, by stereotyping someone's skin color as something to proud about, if it is not merely some cosmetic approval of having white skin versus a tan or one coloring their skin with tats, you are an ANTI-non-White believer, that believes non-Whites have distinctly different genetic qualities that link to their behavior. Also, does one who says they are a 'homosexual male' mean they would love ANY arbitrary male over ANY arbitrary female? If they believe so, then they are Anti-heterosexual by logical standards by proving they stereotype all others outside as exclusively distinct. In reality, no one would actually favor ANY and all of the group they associate to with pride. If you favor chocolate, this does not mean you disfavor anything non-chocolate. But IF you are STRICT to exclusively favor chocolate in that you refuse to eat anything else, you prove bias AGAINST non-chocolate foods for some odd reason. I also happen to agree that this is being used on the 'left'. They just simply act as similar people discriminating, but they interpret the belief of DISTINCTION as EXCLUSIVE to each member group. They all agree to segregate in to distinct exclusive parts just as a dating site may be interpreted appropriately as interpreting that there are ONLY TWO distinct sexual preferences. That is, they prove they may be discriminating against MIXING preferences and may be ANTI-BISEXUAL, for example. We are all 'racist' IF we believe in EXCLUSIVE divisions of people's beliefs and behaviors as OWNED by their genetic racial class, like if one believes that "Rap" is strictly a "Black" person's ownership that non-Blacks should be permitted to use, or that "Country" is an only-"White" person's right to claim as linked to being 'White'. Does this make better sense?

The wording was intentional in our Constitution to blur the distinction, but 'freedom of conscience' is NOT 'freedom to express those feelings'. Note that 'conscience' is more specific a word to refer to one's moral interpretation in one's head, not in their actions. We do NOT have the same freedoms guaranteed as the U.S.'s "First Amendment"! It cannot be this while they also command special rights to the select historical groups they protect for perpetuity based on religious grounds. Our opening preamble to the Charter of Rights within the constitution TELLS us we are founded on the principles of God...and thus, a pseudo-theocratic institute by default, not one intended to separate church and state.

I believe this is ONE latter interpretation but what I mentioned above is more in sync with the ancient times. Religion, myth, or even poetry and entertainment, often 'fit' with alternative explanations that DO get used to great affect when the actual origins had some completely different meaning. (This is like the stereotype of the rock-star spitting in their fan's faces when the fan interprets their art in some self-unique way that the artist may feel insulted by the actual reasons they wrote about. [Pink Floyd speaks of this theme in "The Wall", as one example, and Roger Waters, of that band, literally did spit in a fan's face trying to get the point he was making ABOUT the very problem being misinterpreted in the album!]) The separation of church and state do relate indirectly though but secondarily, like an corollary is to a theorem.

A secular interpretation of "give unto Ceasar..." A common theme among all humanity is whether humanity is supremely divine over Nature or whether Nature doesn't care who is or is not supreme. We want to think we are special. And this makes it easy for rulers to use this belief as justification to demand their own power to impose a burden upon others by claiming they ARE 'supreme' by Nature's command rather than just some arbitrary ruler by luck of fortune to have the bigger sword to force others to comply. The Roman's biggest technological advancement to humanity was to build structures due to their discovery of making cement rather than carving out stones. It enabled them to capitalize upon this technology by building literal structures, including bricks, that paved roads and built bridges that enabled them to have power when they overtook the traditional prior means of trading routes that required only taxes paid upon those particular people making trades. However, this advancement of road and bridge building created a justification to tax people upon fixed property,....those roads and bridges build, that made trading a lot easier. "Ownership" of those structures were initially about those who freely had the option to take advantage of no claim of ownership upon those routes or rivers that people trekked upon. But when this technology acted too make it too easy for most to use rather than the old ways to hire independent 'taxies' (those who traded people or goods by independent means) across routes, taxes (as the meaning similar to our 'taxies' today) seemed to be unfair if everyone were required to pay them universally for those roads and bridges. Why, was the question by many, should one pay for a tax on a roads and bridges they were not immediately using. The Romans power lied in the fact that they built this 'infrastructure of roads and bridges to collectively enable trade FOR EVERYONE easier. But because this tech also reduced the NEED for the older ways of hiring specific peoples, the wanderers or "jews" as they were understood then as, who literally used to DO the 'taxi-ing', these taxes were both a perceived enemy to the original transporters (the Jews) AND to those who could not understand the link between the products they received and the costs of building and maintaining those novel infrastructures that no longer required the Jews to deliver. The question by many in the Middle East was confused also because in time people took advantage of the system as though it were always there and so should not seem to require being taxed as it seemed to be something 'normal' or Natural by then rather than something artificial. Why should they pay some royalty tax to a system (a government) by force if the force, represented by the leading representative of that system (the King, or Caesar), was himself no different a 'natural' being than themselves. The threat risked the transient Jew most dominantly in the very place where Jews also claimed their own authority over: the meeting place of all continents of the time, the middle eastern land-bridge. This economically threatened them as the technology of the devices of roads and bridges no longer needed the very people who originally created the origins of these trading places AT the 'natural bridge' of the Middle Eastern desert. They were the ones who fostered the origin of any settlements made in these harsh lands which themselves required great investment to build. This sets the stage. "Jesus Christ" was actually the understood stereotypical phrasal of those people claiming that either they were themselves rightful heirs akin to the 'authority' over taxation (as the King or Caesar represented) or EQUAL in relevance to the right to their own independent POWER to tax without force of some universal authority. The literal translation of "Jesus Christ" is actually, "I am the King" OR "I am as equal to the King". This confusion of the two phases is the justification of Jesus's argument. While the charge against his claims against taxation and actions to disrupt were deemed as challenging human rule (as represented by the modern idea of government requiring collecting tax for the infrastructure), the particular "Jesus-Christ" claimant being charged used a rhetorical argument to try to clarify his position as being about equality of each person as 'natural' versus the presumed disrespect of a particular HUMAN, being the man on the coin that many begun to treat as taboo to speak against, the King on that coin. This theme is ALWAYS true of any transition between tribal life (transient unsettled) versus the settled life (civil organization and set or fixed in place). The rhetoric of Jesus was to try to dispel himself as being essentially some 'enemy' of anyone but pointing out that the head of the coin representing the person taxing is only a human construct that he agrees requires payment as a representative of the infrastructure but NOT one who should be 'worshipped' as though that head represented some actual GOD (supreme nature) that required superior respect over any other individual. This tendency to forget lead, as it still does today, many to think that the literal LEADER of authority as a human was somehow equivalent to the LEADER OF NATURE itself. The "I am King (too)"-er was hard to determine by many of that day as either a nutcase or a dangerous fanatic, something hard to determine if they appear confusing by their actions. Were they rebelling out of hate or sincere concern for others? "Give respect to (humanity) what is (human). But remember that the reality is that (Nature) is the ruler of EACH of us foremost." His rebellion of taxation represents the confusion of people to be able to determine WHY they are taxed because they cannot interpret the meaning of being taxed directly as an individual 'natural' being versus the whole as a universal 'nature', represented by the universal coin of trade. He was excusing himself among his 'jury' to explain his inappropriate behavior but in a way that others of differing views could relate. This is my take on this without a need to think of it as religious, ...ironic if one LITERALLY thinks this was a message about this "Jesus" as BEING supreme, ...which misses the point about his argument! But then the lesson should be that even religious interpretation of "Jesus" as 'supreme' and needing taxation should be questioned.!!??

If I understand you correctly, are you asking whether opening 'ports' without limitations to external natural borders is dangerous to the internal and effective functioning of a system, like a country? AND, you may be theorizing that the cause is technology, such as the nature of the world to be able to freely and easily transport information (as data, including real things) too easily? "Nation" to the old world is usually about a collective people or tribe; "Nation" to many in the United States is the collection of ANY people within a physical border. The word, "Nation", in Canada, by the Natives means the old-world defintion, that means one's tribe, without concern about WHERE they are. This old-world definition is what the "Nazis" meant. "Nation" in the U.S. refers usually to both the people of any accepted group or individual, mapped to the country or land in which those people reside. I have to ask which you mean or both if you are speaking of the logical concept of "us versus them" regardless of which meaning. Some think that people are normally linked through their culture and ethnicity such that their "nation" is secure only by keeping themselves pure as a family or tribe. This is what the original 'fascist' concept comes from: from "fasces", meaning a bundle of sticks that tribes everywhere argued to mean that a single stick alone is weak and breakable while a bundle or many weak sticks acts strong. Are you interpreting that strength of any collection of people as a 'nation' is weakened by enabling outside influences that act to isolate others? Are you favoring a need to isolate as collectives with parts (individuals) that should be in sync with each other?