Scott Mayers

"Equal Opportunity" is questionable because those who already HAVE 'opportunity' tend to believe this is true by default of others because it is true of them without careful thought. The 'dumb blonde' stereotype held relatively true when this was the dominant stereotype of beauty by the majority precisely because of the following reality: that those who can always get what they want for wanting it, lack the need to 'think' why they don't get it when they do. That is, you don't respect difficulty about things you default to get without having to try. This is logical but points to the fact that your belief about 'opportunity' may be more about your present LACK of difficulty of having opportunity presented before you. Thus could you possibly be misinterpreting THAT others actually have this because you were personally 'spoiled' of having the free option by your own experience alone? ("spoiled" is used neutral by me here, not as an insult.)

My background is strong in 'formal logic'. I'm actually working on a theory that deals with logic and science. "Atheism" is the actual prior state of all minds BEFORE theistic beliefs get forced upon children. The word is unfortunately a negative reclaim against those going against the natural default by imposing theistic beliefs. It is like the word, "Anti-American" which would not exist if what is "American" did not exist. But if one is "Anti-American" it would not mean that being American is the prior natural and necessary state of people beforehand. "Theism" is also "Deism" by different spellings of the same origin: 'beliefs regarding what occurs upon death'. That 'dei' was from both the word die and from the meaning of two, because of those interpreting a second life after death. So a "theist" is at least one who believes that a second nature exists (outside of our own). It would not be harmful to consider other than that specific peoples of all times have acted to DICTATE what this 'second nature' is and do so by force upon others with the risk of violence against those who dare to deny these people's arrogant power when in authority. That you should declare some 'science' about this means that you believe there is some means NOW (in this life) that we can prove not only what exists outside of life here and now but that you can rule out ALL OTHER people's claims about their own theistic claims. I will check your other thread but do not believe that I can even waste my time if you won't even read past a short sentence. So only if YOU are willing to take on this challenge with the depth involved with me, how do I even have a chance to prove nor disprove anything with you? I'm not going to respect you by expending energy to understand you if you won't respect me in the same way. So let me know if this is even something you are willing to try. I'm very prepared!

P.S. to paxrom, I used the general laws of physics as a model because we are at least required to follow these laws. I'm guessing you may not be familiar with these but thought they might help because they ARE something we ALL share regardless of distinct differences of opinion.

You likely are the 'lazy' one if you expect others to be more submissive in some power relationship over them when or where you hire them. People who are poor here need MORE of a gamble than they are provided....including the possibility of more leniency when or where they get hired. What you miss is that for even the average middle-class families, they receive a prior "kit" of support that is NOT even remotely a possibility for many: (1) As kids, your wealthier children get an allowance they can FREELY use to buy things they 'want' versus what they 'need'. Poor kids not only lack this, but ANY earnings are often taken by the family. If their parents are themselves 'troubled', add the fact that most of these kids would not be able to KEEP what they earn. (2) As kids, your children get to both have that allowance AND be permitted to work without requiring to use the earned money to pay rent or other necessities. This factor alone is not even ALLOWED where government services help the poor. That is, if a teen who is poor and tries to work at some McJob entry-level job, they are more often than not, required to pass that money on to necessities. Any earnings are never 'profitable' if they get government assistance because these get subtracted OR be removed from assistance even if they so much work for one hour. (volunteering labor is also illegal for these people and a justification to cancel their aid). This lack of being able to experience 'free' power to spend, including making stupid spending decisions, are not allowed. So the poor, as kids, do not even get this essential experience in handling money NOR being privileged to see the value of earning money given it is ALL taken from them. (3) Essential entry-level needs (especially for males), is to require a CAR, something sufficient to prevent. Your own arrogant 'conservatives' history in politics to cleverly use manipulative tactics to defeat the minimum wage REALITY towards those poor initially even getting an entry level job, ....most of which are reserved for your own wealthy spoiled brat children as stepping-stone jobs. The poor at home get eliminated from these type of jobs to favor your own wealthy kids because the employers would rather hire kids who don't NEED the money but WANT it for extras their parents permit them to spend freely. (4) People who immigrate often are the more 'fortunate' of the impoverished of their countries of origins in either: Numbers of Supportive family members, or being able to have the fortune of the money needed to GET HERE. This means the people who even risk spending illegal costs associated with getting here, regardless of any abuses by the transporters or indemnity 'owners', the relative larger amount of the poor of those countries are NOT the ones who can even get here. This is because the poor are more isolated as individuals without being associated to some gang or strong family numbers. (5) People get their first significant jobs by WHO their parents are. If they are middle-class, the middle-class working jobs are preferentially passed on to them with priority. For the wealthier, the children get easy recognition by their class level with priority. How they dress to how they behave....all of this is NOT due to some innate internal superiority over others who are poor but due to HOW they are treated growing up. [The better one IS, is due to HOW they were treated, not to their own superior willpower. ... an inferior mindset by the stupid wealthy who inappropriately interpret their success as ONLY due to themselves and not the fortunate environment that the very environment has provide them; To those who are treated badly by the environment, their self-reflected worth is due to that environment, not to some 'weak' will.] There are others. But these should give you a suggestive start. The people who come here are simply the more better off ones who represent an even minor minority of those poor where they come from. The quantity of those coming here represent trivial quantities of the poor where they come from. All people everywhere are 'equal' in potential by the averages but only those who have the set of essentials provided by that "kit" even allows them to get past the initial doors needed to sustain worthwhile employment. You are spoiled as a 'conservative' for your own arrogance of not even willing to notice this.....understanding, given you ARE the 'spoiled' who are 'lazy thinkers'. So don't blame this on some 'liberal' mindset. The 'liberal' mindset comes from those enslaved who demand the freedom to which "liberal", as a term, derives.

Population growth is driven by evolution without compassion in an accelerating way. We are bound to the same laws of physics that first assure that energy is conserved though. Any population increase locally draws energy from other parts of the world and makes us appear more successful. This then, though, makes those in the low-energy places try to steal that energy back by making more babies that can only work if it the overall population of people in the world remains stable and in place where they are born. But when they discover their environment cannot keep their babies alive, they are deluded to go to where more energy concentration exists. The law of thermodynamics regarding 'entropy' (tendency to disorder) increases until all its parts are distributed. So increased population on the whole MUST reduce each member's share of the wealth. Yet only some people are getting even wealthier! ?? The immigrant appears to work harder ONLY because they are strengthened with better power coming into a new improved place compared to those born here in the same economic conditions. Employers are more easily able to exploit the new comer but the new-comer has the advantage over those 'native' to the land because of their recent history of suffering from where they came from. If we expect those here to have the same mentality, it would require us to abuse those here to the same degree of those elsewhere. And so this creates an incentive to both harm our own poor while favoring those who come from those 'evil' places. And so it DOES penalize those poor here! We have better compassion for those strangers of places that have an overall normal balance of poverty than to those born at home. So we ignore AND abuse those here MORE because those empowered to employ them falsely interpret their own place of beneficial wealth as distributed to those poor people here also. And you just proved it when you say, " Often times legal immigrant work harder and are more productive then people who are born here with all the advantages it carries. " This only tells me that you interpret our own as 'spoiled' and it gets reflected upon by HOW employers treat our own poor when or if they even hire them. So why would the poor here WANT to work for the employer here who would dismiss them as though they were their own ungrateful children who are assumed to be well fed but ungrateful when they are NOT!?

Politics needs to be more international if it is to stop all the associated problems of migrations everywhere. I'm not sure what can be done or if anything can be done anymore. I don't believe we'd actually be able to unify the world without realistic solutions to limits on wealth and inheritance rights everywhere first. So, for now, while it may be unpleasing to some, immigration needs to be curbed regardless of any emotional concern. I wouldn't want to be anyone desperate enough to migrate and feel for them but we cannot let our emotions from here dictate that we open our doors. Let's first deal with the opposite internal problems: those suffering here exclusively. We can't help others if we can't be healthy ourselves. But this also means we'd have to cap unlimited growth to specific people, provide minimal capital rights of ownership by all here, and NOT exploit the outside economies either for our own benefits individually or as a whole.

It's all irrelevant. Whether one's ancestor was British, Irish, Russian, or Chinese, whether one's ancestor was a colonist or a refugee, bears no relevance to the moral worth, responsibilities, or obligations of the current generation. People are people. They are individuals. And they (obviously) had no influence on events that happened before their lifetime and thus bear no responsibility for them. Period. Any ideology that seeks to fault people for the sins of their ancestors is inherently flawed. I add that "any ideology that seeks to favor people for the benefits of their ancestors is inherently flawed." People want to claim 'ownership' to a kind of copyright or trademark to those things that empower them but demand others simultaneously dismiss the derogatory associations as a fault of us all. It is due also to our present beliefs in capitalist societies based upon limited liability in corporate cultures: that we should rightfully inherit benefits but not debts. [For those uninformed, a "corporation" is set up to allow one to invest in and benefit from, but NOT lose anything MORE than that investment should the company become abusive or default. They just go bankrupt at worse and distribute the cost to the whole of society.]

"Progressive" opposes "conservative"; the identity political problems are "regressive" and a symptom of a rise in conservative thinking but in segregated cultures. So you mistake the problem of the left as intrinsic to the problem when it is actually due to the increasing "right" in a collectivist form. The conservatives initiated and embraced the concept of "identity" as a belief that one's genetic roots are linked to their parents environmental behavior....most specifically religion. So this problem is NOT about progress but regress, .....using modern identities as though they were inherent properties that should be conserved.

"Settler" is, to me, one who sets foundation to location rather than to the older transient life of hunting and gathering. We need to divorce the idea that settling nor the hunting/gathering life were actually 'styles' or cultures as most think today. The word I hear more often being espoused with loaded derogatory meaning upon the Caucasian European descendant is "colonisers" rather than settlers. [But this is has some justification when you consider even this site keeps demanding correction of our spelling to the British Imperialist standards. Most of us in North America don't spell the "z" sound with an "s" , for example, but is imposed colony-style to do this in the spell-checker annoyingly!]

I think the digression was related to the concept of 'pride' and so partly relates. I support the LGBTQ community but also would not go to a 'pride' gathering because the concept actually justifies even those of "White Pride" groups where they may be of the extremes. At least these should remain voluntary and governments, including bureaucrats related to their services (like the police), should resist 'volunteering' in the name of these offices as they incidentally act to bias government favor (or disfavor).

No one tends to be willing to openly refer to their moral actions as due to their SPECIFIC religious affiliation because it openly proves they have biases that cannot be changed. The staff opted to excuse Sanders because the Republican 'moral' religious supporters are intolerant to multiple religions but prefer specific ones instead. Their moral repugnance against the LEGAL representation of Sander's 'side' made the USE a "LEGAL" means to throw the book at her legitimacy because they cannot do so on moral grounds. Sanders might say she was 'illegitimately' being discriminated against for what the Republican's majority religious affiliation represents. But because her political 'side' is actively against the set of religious moral views on the left, the interpretation of her being there is like inviting a guest into your house who you know is openly intending to destroy you outside by principle. To me, both are 'religious' and would prefer having laws that COULD discriminate against the extremes AMONG THEM! The use of the PRIVATE restaurant to act is the LEGITIMATE way to them to display a counter-hate LEGALLY throwing the very thing back to those who represent wanting to LEGITIMIZE hatred against their own religious beliefs. The "Freedom of Religion" in context to that Amendment was NOT about a right of GOVERNMENT to 'freely' use laws to favor whatever religious ideals of governments elected in power at present but to avoid ANY government in the future from creating laws ABOUT religion that will tend towards an "Imperialistic" mono-religious system that biases the people. That 'freedom' isn't a law about favoring religion or it would be itself contradictory because it would BE a religious law. They expanded the clarity by putting it in the 'Freedom of Expression' law because it means that people could VOLUNTEER religious ideals (expression/art/culture) but not impose them by using laws to favor nor disfavor particular ones nor any set of them. Our own Multicultural laws here was purposely in defiance of that just as a Mono-cultural one would be. But 'multi-cultural' is still actually just 'mono-cultural' collectivists in a counter-position to the PRESENT monopoly of the ones in power. This tendency by religions is hypocritical of ANY side who is religious but expects the other to accommodate them. But they also both use LEGAL reasons to justify their own actions while accusing the other as acting with MORAL defiance. Both are 'illegitimate' because they both want some form of religious laws put in place to protect specific culturally-defined groups. So I agree with you. They are simply excusing the act of kicking out Sanders for some 'right' (legality) they excuse themselves for when they are actually acting with moral indignation but cannot say so or risk exposing their own religious counter-bias. But you can't defend Sanders as being 'legitimate' to stay when she stands for a government that believes in a 'moral' stance against the other collective religions in principle. They aren't making a stance against Sanders specifically but to who she represents as her LEGAL political persona.

I.E. I see them being hypocritical simply because they imply that their act was appealing to a LEGAL validity when it was only their MORAL stance against her. They are LEGALLY only able to kick her out because of the religious MORAL belief they too had but simply one that differed against the guest's unpopular one.

I was on topic. You just prefer others not to notice ALL the details. Don't you also want NOT to be hypocritical? The restaurant is not itself 'government' and so has every right to ACT religiously biased against the guest. The reasoning they acted this way is because they disliked her position IN GOVERNMENT. I see them being hypocritical simply because they imply that their act WAS 'politically' valid when it was only a religiously valid. Do you agree with the First Amendment of the U.S.?....regarding the separation of religion and politics (...church and state)?

I have to add this because while I agree with you from your perspective logically, I also do not think even your own particular belief should be imposed in some law. "Democracy" cannot be maintained valid where it is run by any majority of idiots any more than to those all happening to agree. "Republicanism" was a result of intellectual insight about this factor. But even the "Republicans" who hold a religious majority of being mostly Protestant Christians, is only arbitrary. Your position is only fair if the unwelcomed guest was strictly a Muslim extreme religion. That's why I see any government that makes laws regarding religion is itself a limit to 'freedom of speech' and democracy itself.

LESSON? Religious/cultural tolerance within government can only exist if one removes ANY power to make laws of, for, against, or about religion or culture. The U.S. already had their 1st Amendment that tried to do this but the religious people everywhere ruin it for all, whether you are a monocultural religion or the multicultural ones. [The apparent people against the mono-cultural forms but for the multi-cultural ones shoot themselves in the foot for BEING religious still.] Solution: Reassert or clearly express government as being biased if it favors culture or any religion, whether it be of one unique type or to all, because religion/culture is itself biased to a belief that nature somehow favors some people over others according to some 'natural' beauty of their artistic interpretations.

I agree with this Betsy. I may not approve of your (anyone's) particular beliefs. But it is hypocritical to stand as though you are universally accepting as unbiased to religion but then act (specifically/uniquely) religious by discriminating against the people who are.

Is this a joke? Your own expectations are arrogant and disrespectful when you can't read beyond a 'tweet'. You know...those 'long' posts you find so troublesome to invest in?

I understand this. You are saying that the act of 'banning' is not denying the children from CHOOSING to do this initially. But the parents knowledge demanded of this is to ACT by doing something to prevent their children a freedom that other kids at the school HAVE a right by the support of the general population. If this club is exposed though, not only do the parents know of their own kids exposure but to all the others. The fear aroused will prevent the religious PARENTS of their own children from direct powers of influence. The same goes for the Atheist. The difference in the cases is that the Constitution may protect your right FOR religious interference by parents but denies them AGAINST non-religious parents rights over their kids, not merely by 'informing' but by FORCE!! Note that Morgan (justice minister of Saskatchewan) is Evangelical and STILL had his justice work to provide the freedom of non-Catholics to remain there and still have parents FUND only the secular system, even though their kids aren't going to one. His choice was not FOR the Atheist but FOR your own Evangelical Non-Catholics. This would SET a precedence that COULD enable the school to further force Evangelicals to be imposed to practice Catholicism, and its 'liberal' ways, including the potential support of privacy for children in their schools to ...'confessions'!! Saskatchewan is going against the Constitution by the ruling but WILL use the Notwithstanding Clause upon appeal, should this be done. The notwithstanding clause can also be used to go against YOUR Constitutional preference about these bans of parental knowledge of their childrens' choice of 'confessions' in a group about their own sexual orientation. AND if this becomes the case, it becomes the 'law' unless appealed to the Supreme Court. POINT: You can't flip between the LEGAL excuse and the MORAL one. If you want to remain consistent, stick with your moral arguments. But because you appear to be deflecting, I'm guessing you don't want to take an apologetic position FOR your own religious beliefs. Fair enough. But then you can only simply state your preference without argument because you are not being consistent. You cannot defend a rationale you believe is right about parents over their kids if you can't be consistent to support this for other religions or non-religions. If you stick to the LEGAL fact of the Constitution protecting RELIGIOUS children in general, you can't then argue the MORAL one. The moral defence is to the ones who are NOT legally qualified by the present laws.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/schools-parents-dispute-alberta-gay-straight-alliance-law-1.3980920 You are running scared of me here. I'm challenging you to answer this morally because I'm agreeing that the parents likely have a Constitutional right to prevent their kids from Compare to the parents of non-Catholics (including Atheists) who might say that they have a Constitutional right to prevent their kids from The comparison here is that you can be right about the first by the Constitution but the second one is the opposite: the Constitution permits the school system available to IMPOSE religious beliefs upon their OWN children without their consent or will! SO, given these counter-logical positions, if you SAY that you support the right of parents will absolutely, you SHOULD support the second case FOR the Atheists for your same exact reasoning.

I was absolutely correct in my explanation of what this implies. Parents are forced to FUND the religious school against the freedom of the parents. The article even mentioned that the 'minority' of that community was Catholic but were permitted to alter it regardless because our Constitution has a lower limit requirement for the Catholic numbers. They take precedence over non-Catholics. And NOTE, they can also, literally by LAW prevent ANY non-Catholic from going if they so choose. Those signing in their students are required to assert they are Catholic. Though this is rarely enforced, it CAN be done!! The actual case prevents non-Christian parents from rights of their children's education in that community secularly. This forces them to go elsewhere or home school their kids. POINT: if you don't understand this, pretend you do for the sake of argument. If what I say is 'true', then (a) would you support this law? and (b)would you not see this as hypocritical about SOME parent's freedoms to resist school policy from imposing unfavorable ideals?

Don't try to bullshit me. The school changed TO a Catholic School to which they then had the right to DENY students NOT 'Catholic' by the nature of them not requiring to divert the public tax dollars of those non-Catholic parents from going to that school. In essence, this forces those non-Catholics to either LEAVE the school or opt to support the new Catholic taxes that divert it away from the secular school system. This IS precisely meaning that IF parents don't FAKE being Catholic by officially giving to the church, they are not permitted to go. The courts said they were correct. The minority of those non-Catholic parents had to be FORCED to lie as being Catholic (and certainly 'Christian') OR be refused. And so, as it relates to your thread, you claim that the 'parents' rights to choose is paramount regardless of the situation in general. This is why you support the right of parents to know what 'trivial' associations the children opt into. If you care about ALL parents, you have to be non-hypocritical and explain why, 'morally' the parents of these non-Christians are being FORCED to comply to the religious minority rights granted to them by the Constitution.

I was about to do just that. I DID only pay a cursory attention to it at the time because I knew it was Constitutional. Here, (I believe), is a part of that story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatchewan-catholic-student-funding-1.4079718

A town in Saskatchewan had opted to alter the public system to a Catholic system because of the law that allows them to by the numbers. They then wanted to prevent those non-Catholics from going to that school as a new minority. It would require either for them to bite the bullet and abide by pretending they were Christian along with their children or have their kids go to some a school too far away (or home school by FORCE)!

But the Atheists and non-Christian parents of the concern about the CFI group I just mentioned DID argue this and were dismissed BECAUSE the Constitution protects the Catholic Separate School system uniquely. They can also exclude the non-Catholic Protestants if they choose BY LAW. If you support the parents rights absolutely, is this right protected universally to all for children wanting to associate that also coincide with parents for an Atheist group (that may also include gay-straight alliances)? Do the parents who may support the right of children to associate without their knowledge for personal concerns count?