Scott Mayers

The recent call of gatherings were considered 'vigils'. If they had some other vigil of the past, it MAY be appropriate. This thread is NOT about nor against the Boushie FAMILY from their personal vigils. Note the root of the word, "vigil" is where "vigilante" comes from. When one is angry emotionally about some issue, this has to be distinct and separate from the political factors. When the WHOLE of society joins into the emotional anger, it is sincere where it is about any arbitrary person we all are a part of. The recent Boushie uprising was not an appeal for justice for anyone arbitrarily but to Aboriginals SPECIFICALLY.

I'm comparing HOW the vigil of the Florida shooting is by contrast to the Boushie family vigil. What I am trying to convey about our Canadian means to perceiving issues that I disapprove of in contrast to the United States [not universally true] is to how WE TREAT issues as PRIMARILY CULTURALLY based whereas the Americans TREAT issues as PRIMARILY LOGICALLY based. I agree to the vigil of the Florida children because it doesn't treat the class "children" as victims that is culturally defined. Even though Trump speaks with ignorance of the guns for political difference, the issue of guns involved is also a logical difference, not a cultural one. In contrast, Boushie's death was considered worthy of vigil primarily because it was interpreted that the significant crime that caused his death is classified as "Aboriginal" victims, NOT universally applicable to all people. This doesn't mean the Americans don't do this either. But the LAW, when we expect them to be attentive based on their constitution, has to be IMPARTIAL to one's race, sex, or religion. [and why I hold contempt for the American judge's sentencing of that gymnastic teacher] We need to redress our constitution in my opinion to remove any cultural, religious, or traditional concepts. We need a form of the American's First Amendment (with better clarity!) to remove government's power to make culture our primary classification when perceiving logical issues.

Clearly you are just afraid I might convince you of something with reason?? Its irrelevant whether I am or am not "Christian". You hold some belief about material that I ACTUALLY invest in reading, unlike most people claiming to BE "Christian" hypocritically.

Ancient Greek and its philosophy uses distinct different words for 'beliefs' that the English do not. That is, the separate entries in the English dictionary homonyms for "Belief" use distinctly different words in Greek to avoid the confusion caused by misinterpretation. They were the initial experts on rhetoric and noticed that many tried to use homonyms inconsistently to con people by altering the meanings in context to make the listener fill in the blanks in the similar way to the quotes you just stated earlier. This goes for other words as well. "I believe you." may mean that I trust that what you say is valid OR that it is literally true. When it comes to religion, if I FAVOR a particular interpretation, I'll PICK the meaning I assume it is without noticing that I am inconsistent elsewhere. So one might quote something as though it speaks for itself when the meaning has multiple interpretations logically. Religious rhetoric depends a lot on the same technique that lyrics or poetry do to appeal to larger audiences. You gave good examples of HOW many will quote incomplete sentences that lack meaning without the context. It BEGS the listener to interpret it as they will.

No, by "magical" I mean that when you assert some 'faith' that the book is "inspired" you are actually treating it AS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE IN ERROR with the ignorance that it is a book published by humans! You have a right to dismiss me but are being insincere to dismiss me for BEING without religious belief. How does my LACK of belief disqualify me from intellectual reflection on this matter? You also miss that even John here mentioned to me elsewhere that he was 'atheist'!! So unless I've mistaken him (I had before), you too are less relevant to this discussion for being the 'believer' to a secular discussion!

Interesting conflicts arise when homonyms of the same word are used. The original Greek likely had some more specific clarity. What is the prior sentence to "But if I do,...." What was said before this that he is contrasting? This is an incomplete contextual sentence otherwise. Again, "For God so loved..." also lacks context because it is implying a BECAUSE to something said before. What was that? And finally, what is the "This" in "This is a faithful saying..." What is a faithful saying? I notice many speak this way in religions and leave it up to the listener to FILL IN THE BLANKS. Like,.... While I was sleeping, which explains everything, right?

The legal factors that the government can do only relate to the costs associated with expecting jurors who are poor to pay external costs during trial. But this would NOT be about whether one is Native but to whether one could afford those costs. I don't like how the politicians here are playing to the gallery to appeal to the natives as though they are sincere. If they are sincere to their cry, they'd have to literally make more discriminate laws that inappropriately ADD more segregate laws based on the culture-genetic belief that Natives are somehow being discriminated uniquely for BEING Native rather than BEING impoverished. The Natives are as equally capable of reasoning when you respect them as intellectual beings. But our politicians and the supporters of 'change' relating to this case treats the Natives as though they are impossible to reason and so they must PRETEND to be agreeing with them. So, if the politicians are literally sincere, they'd have to honor making laws that specifically discriminate against one's genetics in law OR require being honest to stand up against the irrationality. They are not doing either and so prove they are being deceptive one way or the other. And it is likely because each of the politicians involved actually WANT to enhance segregate laws at least for SOME such cultures they personally desire over others. We SHOULD then demand change! Let's demand laws that allow politicians to be hypocritical illegal and have stiffer penalties for them. Like, for instance, how one can support immigration of new people from elsewhere to add onto the burden against the Native population when they also think that the Natives abuses were DUE to naturalized Canadians who CAME from immigrants in the past?

Jesus did not write. It appears that John is saying that the Trinity taken literally is itself irrational and so I'm not sure how you thought my argument supported your view? Can you try to back up your quotes with your direct interpretation? The words don't speak for themselves above. How do you think those quotes even suggest God and Jesus are one and the same, for instance? As to 'contradictions', the contradictions occur when people INTERPRET meanings with multiple meanings as being LITERAL and STRICT to one meaning where the same meaning being forced to apply in another place is in conflict with the other. You can avoid the contradiction by broadening the interpretation to NOT have a unique or specific meaning. It is only to those who demand ONE specific meaning is intended when the writer was NOT necessarily meaning what you impose upon it. Often the 'liberal' religious interpretations are more fair precisely BECAUSE they don't impose that the BOOK that the Bible represents is itself some kind of MAGICAL creation imbued with direct and literal POWERS. So you CAN have 'contradiction' if you interpret the Bible as only a book with multiple authors (human ones) because the separate writers involved can mean different things in different parts of the book. The Bible is a COLLECTION of books, NOT one book by ONE author! So you are wrong to assume you cannot 'trust' matters in the book. You just cannot treat the Bible as some magical object. Treating it this way seems to also diminish any need to read it.....you can just declare having it in your possession is sufficient enough to grant you supernatural powers. This is kind of LAZY thinking. AND it would be insincere to the intellectual content of those writers trying to convey a message that might be of some use.

I think this actually helps show that Jesus was more likely intended to represent a normal man, not a God. Giving this charity in a secular way, he's protesting Nature for penalizing him for trying to be the good guy by telling everyone they are as equally 'good' people in Nature's eyes. Meanwhile, the crowds remaining silent to his execution suggests a betrayal of the very opposite respect he was giving them by risking himself by speaking the obvious: that the Emperor is naked! That is, the very crowds he was defending looked away when the Emperor avenged his naivety to dare to insult the superiors.

I don't want to read into something you think I should be able to when I may be missing your own meaning. What or which point were you referring to? Which response and to whom were you responding? (Sorry if this means repeating what you already said earlier.)

The 'saving' of Jesus was actually a reference to INCLUDING non-Jews as the original exclusive religion OF a 'chosen people'. In a sense, this too was what the Jesus seemed to mean by attempting to disrupt those in the Temple.....Jews AND the Romans who seemed to represent 'holier than though' authoritarians as hypocrites of convenience to exploiting others. The 'saving' was to the SAVING of ALL people as equals to a 'kingdom' on Earth, ...as it is in Heaven. As such, the 'sacrifice' was also to the MAN (all men/women) brave enough to speak up in RISK of being ridiculed and even killed for challenging those who DICTATE their supremacy over others here on Earth. It also was to tell others that should they die, they TOO would have as equal FAVOR in God's eyes. What is the NEED to revert to a 'dictatorial' stance to REQUIRE the masses of people to 'deify' some man (make the man Jesus == God) when the purpose was to REMOVE the very authoritarianism that said ONLY those who BELIEVE that some people are SUPERIOR in God's eyes will be worthy OF God's favor?

Well just because I'm not Christian doesn't mean what I say lacks credible insight for those who do. You CAN justly question whether Jesus is God here too. If a 'Trinity' is interpreted by some Protestants as being irrational as well as to the Saints as you pointed out, why not take the final step in rationale and remove Jesus AS God. To some this still treats God as two simultaneous entities, a 'Diety'. Note that the Muslims thought to overthrow the Catholics for precisely the same concern. Ironically, while Mohammad originally intended to point out that God was ONLY ONE essence, even they have done just as you have by making Mohammad into a kind of prophet turned into a God figure. In time future Muslims will also likely formally treat Mohammad and God as one and the same. I also mentioned the logical concern about dismissing the POWER of the meaning of "sacrifice". If Jesus 'sacrificed' something, how can it mean anything unless he were NOT a god but a mere man. If he were just a manifestation of God (like taking a vacation on Earth WITHOUT his powers above), ANY means for which Jesus as the man who died is NOT a SACRIFICE because his return to heaven would only return his power.....thus no sincere thing he gave up. Does this not raise some question in your own mind, regardless of what others think?

Ready.

The Trinity among many other concepts about the "Catholics" [Cat- holic == "with or of the whole"] was a means to legitimize Christianity INTO the Roman Empire. The idea was a sort of 'revolution' (and 'revelation') about attempting to both REDUCE government power cohersion and to get people to be more unified. While you might disagree with its later evolution, it was actually THE major factor that spread that belief. Had it not existed, Christianity would have been more trivial and may not have become even what the Protestants evolved to. It was noticed that the general Christian of the day were 'collective' and what we might call "Communistic" WITHOUT FORCE. As such, many people of varying faiths also adopted this way and preferred it to the forces of Emperors. The "Jesus Christ" title means literally, "I am King" or "I am (equivalent) to the Ceasar". They were conflicted meanings at the time for ANYONE who attempted to either declare their right as a human to be equally permissible by nature (ie, 'God' then) to voluntarily BECOME as significant as the Emperor ....OR....to some, an alternate threat TO the Caesar by some delusional nutcase who thought they were told that some higher power predicted their own particular means to overthrow the King (Caesar). I'm guessing that most "je suis christos" were NOT actually the nutcase definitions but were treated as such by some in power. So by the time of Constantine, this emperor realized that instead of defeating the cult, it had MORE power by its voluntary followers as a religion, even if some interpreted in extreme ways. This is WHAT ended the actual Roman empire 'officially'. But in reality, it only REPLACED the Empire by turning the emperor into the "Pope". It made people less conflicted and fearful of HOW the Empire was run and made it able to spread voluntary compliance to Rome with much less force needed. In fact, it was a kind of clever Rhetorical device because of its ease. People then as now had MORE motive to change when it was thought to have some more intimate connection to Nature. That is, Nature (as God), to the Christian belief was DEMOCRATIC as it treated each and every person as EQUAL as their leaders (the political authorities). It is much harder for one to DICTATE they ARE some 'God on Earth' as many political leaders opted to than to have its leaders assert an INSPIRATIONAL LINK to God (or Nature) where the Pope is just a portal, but still a regular man. The abuses of later Popes is like the "antithesis" I mentioned above. In time, while the original concept was most advanced and unifying, its leaders tend to devolve into abuses as they pass on leadership through HEREDITARY links rather than to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. So while the Protestant movement had its appropriate means to be the next "synthesis" of a newer era, you can't completely discredit the Catholic history as all with evil intent. Note that if you to appropriately go back to pre-Catholic formation, you should also ask yourself why not allow yourself to trek further in the past to where Christianity evolved from Judaism which evolved from Egyptian (and combination of other of the Middle Eastern peoples)? I find it odd that the reformation still kept Jesus as being interpreted AS GOD too. Religion keeps evolving in these cycles as political factions do because they ARE evolution of politics. Do you think that God thought to take a vacation of being a Supreme Being for being bored? If God is above us, then why would it presume a submissive human role to appeal to them as though he felt hopelessly unable to communicate some understanding to them. If he had no RISK for being human given his death only returns him to full power, then you also belittle the 'sacrifice' as a concept because 'sacrifice' means to GIVE UP something of power you have to others. If Jesus was God, he has LESS to give up by dying than a human who would NOT be raised or returned to its Superpowers in heaven. So you have to understand that even the Protestant interpretations are equally lacking rationale IF YOU THINK THE CATHOLICS were being such. I think if you interpret Christianity without recognizing that it was a movement that was attempting to ASSERT equality of all beings to the same significance of a God, just as Jesus was saying against the kings on Earth, then the "Jesus" character is not only NOT a God but another 'cartoon' to teach others some lesson. The "Emperor's New Clothes" is the EQUAL story of Jesus in a secular way. "Jesus" was the like the child in the audience pointing out that the King was naked. THAT was the 'sacrifice'.....daring to RISK authoritarian rule of pompous and cruel leaders.

But, you were a farmer's dog, right?

I used to think it odd that Christianity came up with the concept of the "Trinity". But with a lot of thought and investigation into logic, I discovered that given the Greek intellectual era came about because of fear regarding the implications of 'contradiction', the "trinity" was actually a disguised or evolved description of the last stages of Greek wisdom before the destruction of Alexandria. In a summary way of explaining here, the original words of any religious concepts were most likely 'secular' interpretations of reality. The words, God, Odd, Oden, Aten, and Adam, all relate to various interpretations of the concept of "solids". That is, these words actually evolved from a common root, namely, "Aten", which basically means "Thee (ultimate) thing" (think, "a tin" == "a thing"). In Egypt, "Aten" referred to the PERFECT solid of ORIGIN, the sun. It mainly meant the actual defining concept of solids: that which has borders enclosed (versus liquids and gases). As such, "Aten" refers to the PERFECT CIRCLE in nature in which it defines the SOURCE of all things. "Ra" is where "ray" comes from and referred to the ENERGY of Aten. It appears that English relates (as do many languages) unusually close to many of these original terms. For instance, the Northern (English) world had Odin (or Oden) as its major "god". Note too that "God" is "G"-"odd". Thus the Adam and Eve is derivative of their order in number, as in Odd and Even. I could speak a lot on this but will save it for a book. The point to here is that here we see the concept of some initial source, such as Aten. "Adam" comes from "Adem" which is the OBJECTIVE (or secondary form) of "Aten". This meant "that which is shaped of Earth (as a solid)". As such we see a tri-nature or "trinity" of ideas forming. It is also due to logic that ended in the Alexandrian era of the Greeks in Egypt. To logic, for any initial assumption, A, there is an opposite (die-ty = dual thing), not-A. But it was recognized that a 'third' factor to reality that may 'cause' change itself is A and not-A. This third factor is what the word "con-tra-dictory" came from. In means, "with three commanded (dictated or spoken of)". The word, "trivia", also derives from this to mean, "tri-valance" (that with three values). The "Trinity" thus likely derived from the latter stages of the Greek philosophy in which the Church, when formally accepted by the Roman Empire, opted to HIDE the nature of this as though it were a "Gnostic" inside secret. Though it seems that a contradiction is something which cannot occur, logically, it can be reasoned that it IS THE 'causation' of all change, such as time and movement. Though it is lost to us with certainty (I bet there is some interesting banned books in the basement library of the Vatican), the Trinity is a transferred secular wisdom coded in religion. This is much of the case for all 'myths'. Most people then were just as 'secular' back then as now. But they didn't have regular means to read and write by the population at large. As such, the means to remember secular realities passed on by collective past societies was by ANIMATING them (like the "Simpsons" cartoons of today). These stories originally act as both secular AND character names which become gods, prophets and heroes. But what BECAME religion was originally just ways to remember and pass on intellectual wisdom. Obviously there would be flaws and 'religion' is the inevitable result, both with good and bad factors that come along with it. The Trinity, as "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" are references to "The source" (YWYH = Ye ovah = "the egg" = uncertain source), to the 'son', or the literal "sun" in the sky, and then to the air. OR, as multiple possibilities coincide with many stories, relations to solids, liquids, and gases, etc. [Multiple interpretations are appropriately intended just as "The Simpsons" or "South Park" or other cartooned entertainment are designed to appear to APPEAL to EVERY listener by being sufficiently vague. Either way, the "Trinity" is not simply some irrational reality that we see it as from now. Much of history is destroyed or lost by our ancestors with purpose. The library at Alexandria, Egypt, for example, was destroyed by the populous who feared the rationality of the intellectuals at the time. "Trinity" rationales are what Hegel also used in the 1800s where he also thought of all political ideas BEGINNING as 'good' and FOR most people. This is called the "thesis". Then in time, the political children of the original leaders become the spoiled offspring who then think their power to rule is INHERITED and granted by God. This is the Antithesis that DENIES or NEGATES the original intention of the past government. This makes it so corrupt in time that it leads to CONFLICT: a 'contradiction' to which the ONLY resolution is to overthrow the NOW evil leaders. This is called the "Synthesis". Can you see the "trinity" logic concept having some rationality now? This cycle then just repeats. The synthesis is the revolutionary change that then becomes the next "thesis". Sorry for going on like this. But you guys might at least find it interesting to discuss and debate in context to the Catholic religion that adopted this. I hope its helpful. Scott. P.S. "Amun" also relates to Egyptian reference of the sun. It meant "that which reflects", as in LIGHT. It meant "the moon" because it reflects this. The sun's light was "Amun-ra". So the Egyptian's apparent Polytheism was NOT actually as it seems. Many interpret these today as "gods". This is NOT how it was originally interpreted by the original tribes that formed that society. Note here that another word, "Ptah", came about. It references the 'sound' of a spark from a fire. These words BECAME 'gods' and later generations LOST the original meanings. As such, when AkenAten (akin or related to Aten), King Tut's father, came along, he tried to make their then 'multicultural' society conform to a single 'god'. The population probably knew this leader (Mosis) as an idiot and while they accepted him, they had to stop him from destroying all the temples (as he was) and sent him to the desert for a generation (40 years). In that place, he created Amarna and is where the broken stone of an obelisk that had his commandments were placed upon an arc (a sled/boat), and became Judaism's "arc of the covenant"!!

AND, as to the comments against the American way, America is NOT a cult. They DO have people who believe in SEGREGATION laws too. BUT, they are VOLUNTARY and DO NOT IMPOSE laws that favor people based on select races. Of course this too has degraded in the U.S.. But this is IN SPITE of their Constitution with its First Amendment. And it proves that given the fact that racists and sexists STILL have more power in a voluntary society, when it is forced upon people from above, our type of system is worse. I rode my first horse on a Cherokee Nation in South Carolina. I remembered how welcomed we were as EQUALS to them. Here in Canada, you can't do this. The reserves are ONLY for those who have a genetic linked inheritance here. In the U.S. I can CHOOSE to become a member of the Cherokee Nation. If I was adopted by an Aboriginal family, I'd only 'own' the culture that my family opts to have as traditions without laws that conserve them. So if you got something against the U.S., it is only because you can't avoid the POWERS of those cults that have collective BELIEFS in their Genetic roots voluntarily. But they are NOT forced in laws like they are here.

"Racism" is the charge by the Boshie family and ALL those Aboriginals who collectively opted to RALLY AGAINST all Canadians and its supposed (but unclarified) "systematic abuses". It is not something I made up here. "American" justice is about treating people as individuals without reference to any fucking 'superiority' complex that Kings and Queens think they deserve. You are praising our system when it is 'authoritarian' (top-down lead). The ONLY reason Trudeau and others are supporting the Natives is to HIDE their own liability to the debt of their own abuses. But they DICTATED me and all Canadians to a "constitution" specifically designed to EVADE a sincere Charter of Rights for ALL people. That is, whatever 'freedoms' we have been granted are THROUGH the auspicies of those Canadian families who are RELATED to the original Ontario/Quebec 'loyalists' made up of mostly Catholic and Anglican lovers of Feudalistic thinking that treats its members as "commoners". We are a theocracy that hides behind a feigned "democracy". It IS 'democratic' to THOSE fortunate to have INHERENT rights guaranteed to them with PRIORITY. These select groups though do not include those like myself that has no cult beliefs in Gods or irrational Nationalist beliefs that in my genes I OWN (inherit) my parents' and all other of my ancestor's ARTISTIC behaviors: Culture, religion, etc. THIS is racist because it falsely assigns ownership of ENVIRONMENTAL behaviors (of ancestors) as a GENETICALLY linked FACT!! If you are "Scottish", this government says that you OWN the culture of wearing Kilts, for instance. While this may seem mundane to you, this 'stereotyping' requires being logically consistent across all factors both GOOD AND BAD. So if you are 'German', for instance, you require OWNING the fault of the Holocaust, as much as the Oktoberfest beer celebrations etc. If one who is "Aboriginal" genetically has some 'right to PERPETUITIES by Trudeau's own ancestors, HE and ONLY HIS agreed relatives should PAY for any of the past abuses that he readily excuses US ALL as "owning" simply for NOT having Aboriginal genes. I'm tired of this stupidity. If you agree to this for some essence of loyalty to Canadian history, it only tells me that you are one of those fortunate elites who interpret your own fortune as STEREOTYPICALLY linked to all of those who have similar genes to you. So, given this background, to the case at issue, when the Natives rally, this is NO DIFFERENT than what the Germans did for their own beliefs of "distinct Nationalities" of which the Aboriginal German (Aryan race) believed they were separately worthy of OWNERSHIP of GENETIC CULTURE. That is, they too believed that they were victimized by the non-aboriginal Germans who invaded their economies and stole their lands. The JURY did NOTHING wrong regardless of its verdict. The Boshie family ONLY accept a 'guilty' verdict. While this is understandable of one's direct familiar relationships, IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE WHOLE ABORIGINAL RACE. And so when they rallied AS A COLLECTIVE, they also PROVE that it would have been absurdly STUPID of the defense to SELECT Aboriginal peoples on their jury. Note that IF they alter the rights of the accusers to have power of juries with privilege THIS SHOULD ALSO apply to Natives. This would be bad equally for them too (IF WE REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH ANY NEW LAWS). But they will ONLY ACCEPT laws that EMPOWER the Aboriginal uniquely and exclusively. And this means that their appeal to the government is only to have a selective socialist favor for their own "Nations" (National Socialist). I and all other people are born 'aboriginal' of this Earth. The problems that exist are ONLY due to racism and sexism by those who deem it essential to EMPOWER those groups uniquely and exclusively, NOT those pointing out the hypocrisy. I don't OWN some 'European' culture, regardless of the fact that many of them DO have an advantage. But the problems of the Aboriginals are NOT due to the dissociated individuals outside of any cult. It is ONLY due significantly to the contrast of WEALTH that only INCIDENTALLY have larger plurality of Aboriginals. The problem is POVERTY, ISOLATION, and further NATIONAL SOCIALISTIC protections that TREAT THEM AS discriminate beings (some other KIND of human?) So the classification of any problem of discrimination is due to poverty. But they or other groups who are plural and strong enough as a cult are given special significance by our government because those in power and wealth here are ALSO believers in their OWN distinct status as humans. By forcefully ISOLATING people by supplanting and even reviving dead cultures through segregation (such as a right to their own private language), they are purposely attempting to HIDE the actual cause to deny the larger part of the class of those impoverished. When those within the same economic classes are isolated this way, it is just like the Israelis using their settlements to ISOLATE the collective nature of the Palestinians to be empowered to overthrow them. With Cultural laws, this eases the capacity of the wealthy elitist to divide us by redefining such divisiveness as a virtue: diversity. "Diversity" by them means SEGREGATE CULTS. They think of different races as distinct animals that require separate cages in a zoo. It was this very reason why the arrogant 'colonialists' suggest "reserves" as we might have a "buffalo reserve". Instead of destroying these racist concepts, you and others are supporting STRENGTHENING these institutes. If such laws favor you, then OWN this yourself. But stop imposing us to segregate based on your own discriminatory racist beliefs. I may have 'white skin' but I am NOT 'white' by any culture other than my OWN choice .....not my ancestors! To me I treat people as independent beings that have a RIGHT to CHOOSE their 'culture'. If I like skateboarding, this becomes MY CULTURE. But if my grandparents played HOCKEY, I do NOT OWN this culture because it is NOT my choice of artistic lifestyle. (In fact I hate this stereotype also being imposed upon me as a Canadian)

Example of the censorship preventing Canadians from speaking against the political intentions of CBC and government with regards to Aboriginal issues. "Commenting Disabled".

WTF? No. I'm saying that in THIS case, the Aboriginals ARE being the CLEAR racist here. If the jury is being so, we have no means of asserting this one way or the other. I also think that those of you who are of ANY race or sex who believes that the Aboriginals are correct in treating this issue as a racist verdict are equally culpable of supporting this. I beg you to PROVE WHO the racists are against the Natives on this issue! You can't assert they exist OUT THERE but cannot point to them. And when you do this with nods and innuendo, you are being cowards to prevent those you accuse of such from DEFENDING such charges. DEFINE what and who is a 'racist'. Do you, for instance, think that I am one? If so, why?

I'm busy at the moment and really want to answer this with depth. I think this needs its own thread on the rhetoric. So I'll have to hold off until later. As to my thread here though, I am seeing many of you digressing to the PARTICULAR case rather than to the LOGIC of the problem I'm speaking of. PRETEND, for the sake of argument that the jury's decision was an 'injustice'. I don't CARE for whether the jury was or was not appropriate here. What matters is (1) That EVERY person charged with some offense for which they have a JURY, the DEFENSE has a right to be judged by "those of his peers"; By contrast, the PROSECUTION favors those potential selections who will give them a 'win' for the charge. The DEFENSE is NOT in any wrong regardless for opting selected jury members that they believe will FAVOR their case. Why would you WANT to PICK those you know will most likely find you guilty no matter what? Given the very DEMONSTRATING anger of an almost universal hatred of the defendant BY those of Aboriginal decent, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE "WISE" for the defendant to PICK "INDIGENOUS" jury members? Please grab a brain on this. The 'anger' against this defendant BY the Aboriginal community PROVES their own interpretation that the ONLY means for justice is to REQUIRE A GUILTY CONVICTION REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE OR GUILT. (2) Distracting the attention to the particular guilt or innocence purposely attempts to DIMINISH the significance of the abuses that is coming from the Aboriginal community and supporters of those politicians who REFUSE to speak against this with our media also focusing on this without integrity of 'reporting' the logical fallacies that those like myself are complaining about. I will add more on this but have to go. I already wrote more than I can for now. Scott.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-boushie-comments-1.4531007 This is just brand new too!! It asserts what the "Tories" say against Trudeau's response (Expects the audience to know this as 'code' for ALL views AGAINST this issue) and only comments on those of the various other leaders including Trudeau as 'apologetic' of the systematic abuses with no demonstration of any of those supposed 'systemic abuser' comments to back these claims up. It's purposeful 'guiding' us to think that the whole rest of the population virtually and unanimously sides with the sentiments. OHH, and note the LACK of 'public comment section' on this particular article.

That's worth its own thread! As one example, all our media only reported on the commenting FOR the Boushie familiy and by their purposeful declaration of (assumed certain) racism online, they did not show ONE comment of proof for this. Reporters shouldn't even be using the word 'racist' to describe responses as though it were fact. I also notice that Twitter doesn't show these either. I quoted a few against this and only saw one. Where were all the other comments in question? CBC also eliminated ALL commenting on protected people's stories. They already and still DO moderate with a secret protected staff INDEPENDENT of our power to determine or even have a chance to hold them accountable. I'll let you try to show me what you think are the alternative 'sides' reporting. But note that the ones our government DOES allow us to see most readily online is the more right-wing views. [To ridicule the extreme as representative of the average falsely!] This is MANDATED by our government to our ISPs, Google, Twitter, etc. We do NOT see what the Americans see online!! Our 'freedom' of media here is even WORSE than anything American media because our governments DEMAND censorship (....to 'protect' the meek who have no 'safe space' to run to)

I erred when I thought he said, "person" versus "people". But the point is still valid given his arrogant concern for 'etiquette'. Btw, Trudeau's threat here is real FOR left OR right political persuasions. His absurd concern for etiquette represents his pampered background and is WHAT most mean when they use the term, "elitist". I like Pink Floyd's take on this in The Wall's mocking of the reflective sarcasm for the elitism that the 'town(speople)' excused the teacher's own abuses: Note how the commenting by the politically correct elitist authorities on sexism and racism insinuates that the population of the undemonstrated masses of Canadians just "need some EDUCATION"! The danger of Trudeau and the vast majority of anyone supporting Multiculturalism is how it actually fosters the Fascism occurring more readily by the Natives now. Ironically, if the natives were correct (by Trudeau's own feigned stance on the abuses of the Residential Schools and the 60's Scoop), the language as 'culture' was precisely what they felt was most significantly abusive. So it appears that Trudeau is being hypocritical not to notice his own 'correcting' or 'educating us' on how we shall all appropriately speak. How dare you eat your pudding before you eat your meat!

BTW, I was thinking of showing up at the courthouse here in Saskatoon today but was already up all night and couldn't do it. The problem requires independent people (not groups with any alternative cultural stance) who is brave enough to try to go up, speak, and question these people when rallied like this. I'm not sure if I went that it would have been even possible or if I would have even been brave enough to do so. I'll try to look for another better opportunity. I'm sure there will be more.