Scott Mayers

I didn't know what to title it. Should have placed subject links. But it expresses my own disgust at who I believe is responsible for the very 'racism' ( and 'sexism') that is caused from our Constitution's forceful cultural puritanical laws [Multiculturalism] disguised as communal-love when it implicitly presents and fosters more hatred only.

I was responding to Omni's statement. The 'court' includes the jury, btw.

I don't. The court only opts for this when they see the public actually APPEARS as siding for this....even when it isn't. The media here protects the POSITION of the Aboriginals by hiding any intellectual digression against it unless they can find some absurd Ku Klux Klanner type of response. This is what falsely treats these issues as polarized on racial issues. It's purely political.

Yes. And it will be forced to by the witch hunt until the guy gets destroyed regardless of whether the courts felt the case was fair or not. So much for justice here. How is this productive? How does it serve justice when the case is being treated as a political issue and not a personal one?

ONLY for the reason I mentioned though. It is similar in the U.S. too. The common law on that is shared. But this is irrelevant to the question I pose on this issue. Do you guys at least all agree that the WAY the responding family to TREAT this issue as a racial one is the problem here? Do you not think that the rallying cry of aboriginals here is a problem? [I just got an email invitation by "Idle no more"] Here is the email:

It depends on how much you personally have to lose. Often those who think as you do NOT HAVE more to risk and don't care one way or the other about property losses. But you can't internalize what YOU interpret as insignificant threats based on property in these cases. Do you think it also inappropriate for you to strike back if you believed you were being raped? This is what I mean by 'degree'. The farmer's fear or real threat has to be taken into consideration. But there ARE those who would shoot you for simply walking across their lawn. That would be inappropriate.

I remember learning in a high-school Law class years ago about the fact that one cannot use MORE force than the trespasser has. The case discussed was about a grandmother who shot an intruder breaking into her house. It was her grandson who lost his keys and didn't want to wake her. She was charged because she used more force than necessary and the case was WHY such concern in law came about at all, NOT because of a right to protect oneself of another violating your private space. I happen to disagree with simply shooting someone for trespass (like cutting across ones' lawn). But I understand that IF one feels threatened even as this grandmother was in the case I mentioned, that she still SHOULD take the risk. The 'law' is about determining what cannot be proven in a he-said-she-said kind of condition. I believe that the kid in the trial here in question was actually violating the farmer with justified fear for him to react, even if he was over-reacting.

Nope. But the argument of those regarding a right to shoot those trespassing on land is only about degrees of one's personal space. The argument I'm having is about how the single 'family' grievance is being turned into an interpretation of insult of a whole segregated class of humans claiming some INHERENT respect that Trudeau's family's Constitutional makeup created. The natives in question were insulting Trudeau as well and yet he doesn't seem to internalize how it is his own pretentious 'apology' for the situation that is unnerving given he's just deflecting with rhetorical ignorance.

Mixed response to your reply to Accountability now. Sorry. But you insulted him/her as being American. I don't get the hostility against a country that was founded on enlightenment principles versus our Canadian "loyalists" to dictators and authoritarians. (Our original Canadians, that is.) People are stupid here in Canada. I'm as much bothered by those on the right utilizing the actual "logical' fallacies involved to plant themselves as somehow more righteous.

Ohhh....'OUR' Prime Minister!?? Please. I'm not for any of our system's 'leaders' today. I supported NDP locally but now can't even support them for the stupidity of people today. What was your concern of what I said PARTICULARLY. (I don't READ into your innuendo, only notice it as some inside insult of some sort.)

??

Is being against Trudeau's stances here automatically make one a supporter of Harper? I find Trudeau actually the 'best' alternative we have simply because there is NO actual intellectual integrity ON the left that I support! Try arguing with the content here, not one's association.

Trudeau OWNS the very cause of the comments against him by the Aboriginal Sovereigns getting angry and riling up all Natives everywhere. He is naive and dangerously ignorant.

It's frustrating! I didn't see it yet and will be looking for it. I actually can't tell if this Justine is actually just naive or cleverly deceptive!! What the hell? This is getting ridiculous.

A news conference was just held now on the news of Indigenous people declaring war on us all for the "not guilty" verdict of Gerald Stanley. See http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/gerald-stanley-trial-jury-delivers-not-guilty-verdict-in-murder-of-colten-boushie and present news coverage tonight (10:45 Global news and likely on CBC network now). I've always understood our government's stance of "Mutliculturalism" (TM) to represent collective forms of National Socialists and NOT diversity of all peoples. In the need for the establishment of this country's faltering power to preserve their own Nationalistic 'catholic' origins here, Pierre Trudeau set up a Constitution that locked in his favored religion and culture but had to include token means to the very Aboriginal tribes his (not my) relatives thought of the Natives when they abused them through various policies of their own ancestors. I believe the means of 'favoring' the Aboriginals the WAY we have in this country today goes along with the similar movements to grant women and girls retribution against the problems ...that again....his own kind of family and thinkers created. Yet to do so means to TRANSFER the burden to all people and especially to those very stereotypical thinking memes against SCAPEGOATS of the whole rather than take on the burden of debt that is due against the churches and wealthy establishment of the Eastern Canadian Catholic and Anglican 'loyalists' that served to go against the democratic changes of the Enlightenment when the U.S. was being formed. My anger here is to what this conference of "Nations" (Aboriginal Nationalists) are challenging of many across the nation now against the trial that "let a guilty man free" today. [I don't hold any opinion for Gerald Stanley's guilt nor innocence, only the FACT that he's been tried by a jury of his peers as we are all expected a right here to.] The rise of Nationalism by the Natives now is something that I fear is going to harm us all in kind to all the other segregate empowered groups being fostered by Mutliculturalism. [Remember, the Nazis in Germany is precisely a motion of "Indigenous" Germans demanding SEGREGATE social rights as 'distinct' special peoples!.] History is not only repeating itself,...it is getting amplified for the sake of the selfish arrogance and ignorance of those supporting SEGREGATE laws for SPECIFIC people as though they are above and beyond reproach. I was born on this EARTH and so am equally "Aboriginal" here. I also have NOT gained any of the wealth nor benefits of anyone here, including no favor to high paying jobs that I get stereotyped as having gained from. I am a "FLOATER" when it comes to the fact that I don't own shit nor any privileged "culture" that I supposedly OWN from some ancestors of mine. This is MY land as much as any others here. And I'm getting tired of this EMPOWERMENT to National Socialism in the name of "liberalism" of a left that is actually the collective right-wingers AVENGING W.A.S.P.s that I also DO NOT SUPPORT!! Thank you Trudeau and all you who support SEGREGATIONIST, racist and sexist laws here. Thank you for the inevitable wars that YOU are actually fostering of the very people you claim to be pitying. P.S. "Person Kind" comes from the meaning "per son" (for each SON); So if you were intending to evade any sexist overtones of the word "Mankind" you think it has, Justine, think again. [This is a dig to his comment the other day correcting some girl who used this.]

This is proof that you are not being sincere, betsy. If science or scientists in general are fooling everyone, you can't then SELECT the trivial few you think qualify simply because they agree with your viewpoint. You are merely demonstrating that the Discovery Institute is NOT motivated to 'discover' anything but to intentionally create a false 'science' for hideous religious political reasons. The idea is to (1) present your narrow audience with people under the label 'scientist' to feel on equal par with real science and/or (2) to claim 'science' as a whole is controversial given some who have signed an article of faith with your common believers assure not 100% of all scientists are supporters of specific science theories (Evolutionary ones here).

Betsy likely doesn't even know WHAT Tour's arguments even are. She knows of some newer proponent of the Christian apologist movement who she simply copies and pastes without reading or even being able to follow if she did. @Betsy, when you're actually accountable for what you believe and can argue with your own capacity, I'll listen.

Find some reason to defend your faith in him. I posted this thread distinct from yours to speak on the misinterpretation of the meanings of "macro-" or "micro-" evolution, not to attempt to dispute your 'faith'. There is nothing I can say that will persuade you against your beliefs when you simply pass the buck on to someone else you expect to do your arguing. If you can't defend it that's alright. If I want to read Tour and speak against his views, I could do that without you though.

I agree with you here Argus. I learned that besides the word, "entrapment", there is a term called, "honeypot", in computer hacking that is a form of website redirection to places that you THINK is the legitimate site but is not. Governments and businesses (and others likely) use these tactics to not only entrap but to attempt to alter people's thinking. I'm not sure if it is completely avoidable. But regardless, governments doing this are more at fault given we live still in what we believe are 'democracies'. I wrote into CBC when a recent reporter went on a sting (with cameras) in Toronto to stop, "Trafficking", our new legal term to refer to "prostitution" that is purposely misleading. I can't really add more than what you guys already spoke of here. I understand that we need certain means to curb abuses but the prevalence that is claimed to exist does not. This MAY be just a phase due to the technology and we may overcome the hysteria. (I hope). But I speak up on these without hesitation even if it doesn't appeal to other's perspective of me. Images, such as porn represents, is a kind of 'thought' or 'art', even if we don't approve. While the ones who directly abuse others (regardless of who they abuse) should be attended to, many take a protective stance of women and children in the kind of way that Muhammad is considered wrong to represent. I believe that if we could have a time machine so that we can repeat exact events over again to measure, that we'd be able to likely prove that ANYONE is susceptible to being ENTRAPPED or lead into any behavior.

You are the one holding a belief of these people. Do you not KNOW yourself what they are saying? I think you need an investment in time to learn WHAT 'evolution' is prior to dismissing it. I can help but believe that you are preferring to distract rather than learn. "Evolution" [from 'eve-' (yes, that Eve) meaning after, what follows, ever; (s)olute or (allude)] is that which comes about from gradual change as opposed to sudden magical or mysterious ones. Ever-changing. You believe (or want to believe) that we were created suddenly in God's power to do so even if you cannot present evidence of this in modern times. (You cannot replicate the actual physics, chemistry, or biology to prove SUDDEN generation of living things) But you contest the theories of gradual change by those who also assert they are skeptical of 'gradual change' AND who hold your beliefs in sudden spontaneous generated beings by magical powers of God. [yes/no?]

Thank you....This definitively proves that he's NOT discussing "macro-evolution". He's asking, as Michael Behe did, whether the cell can be reducible to anything simpler than the whole. He will favor the BELIEF that there is NO possible way for any simpler stages of 'components' that make up a cell to function with the complexity needed. So he's interpreting this like one might define the first car ever made: How can the car operate as a 'car' if it lacks even one MAJOR component, like an engine? He's defending the view that at some point in the past, there is a fixed defining limit to which you can reduce the LOGIC needed to make a cell. But WAIT: even if he was possibly 'correct', how does Darwin relate to this? You are imposing something about his theory that is outside of his range. He never defended THAT anything evolved chemically from non-organic matter to become a cell by selection. This proves that there is something 'fishy' about the intent to be 'scientific' here. If when you felt you had to go to the bathroom, this would be like your mommy saying that she herself doesn't need to go, so neither do you. How does HER interpretation about your bladder's sensation grant her even any RELEVANT rationale for the truth about you? If your mother actually HAD behaved this way, would you NOT be suspicious of her in some way? Would you grant her the faith because she's had a bladder longer than you?

I've read and clearly understand Darwin's "On the origins of the Species" and am confident on evolutionary theory in general. AND I can defend this with confidence. If you felt that you had to go to the bathroom to pee would you require outside authority to determine whether you are actually needing to go?

How many straws does it take to break a camel's back? You are falsely interpreting that the question of degree from "micro-" to "macro-" as incomparable. IF the scientists defining the classes "Macro" and "Micro" are Darwinian theorists, and they assert the distinction as only about degree, you require explaining HOW you go against their own 'definition'? This is like if you named your kid "Michaelizicapitooha" and then I come along and assert that this is not possible because no one ever had nor would ever name their kid this. While I may be possibly be correct by some standard, I am not the one in 'authority' naming your child. So unless I can prove that you actually named him or her something else and are thus lying, you would not burdened to disprove anything.

If YOU AND I were both NOT scientists, and there is a difference between which views we favor of them, then let's agree here to leave the 'authorities' out of the question. We could both be biased, right?

This is too far beyond what Darwin alone suggested. You are speaking of 'evolution theory' in general NOW. What the proponents against Darwin's theory are doing is to question whether even sexual evolution is valid at great distances. However, if you read up on some of these scientists, like Michael Behe, they would point to questioning complexity of the cell to which they ask how the very first cell could come about at all from no cell without all its components in tact. This is NOT even in Darwin's domain. It's evolution of chemistry to biology which is too specifically narrow for Darwin's concern. They want to discredit the initial authority as though he claimed more than he had.