Scott Mayers

@ Betsy The claims of these dissenters are asserting 'doubt' by the cosigning 'scientists' precisely for the authority of "science" you grant as virtuous. But if you are NOT a 'scientist' yourself, what reason do you personally have that justifies BELIEVING in these authorities over the Natural Selection? I can't determine that you even know WHAT Darwin's theory is and so need to know what you understand of the theory FIRST. What appears distinctively different between "Macro-evolution" and "Micro-evolution" that you disagree with is time. If you agree that evolution works to make a small difference, what is problematic about adding up many such small differences through time that completely alter what one is over millions of years?

I encourage James Tour's efforts in Nanotech but his concern is precisely what I mentioned above, Betsy. He's speaking about what comes prior to the first cells and if he's being sincere, this is NOT "macro-evolution". I'll have to check out the original New York Times on this. This is what the signing of the Discovery Institute is claiming: The article also states the signers have an evangelical Christian background AND only 1/4 of them are even potential 'scientists' relevant to the topic. I already mentioned above that it is impossible to teach everything in all fields for practical limitations. There is also some insincerity here by mentioning "Darwininan theory" versus "evolution". Why Darwin is being picked on requires me determining what you KNOW of what Darwins' theory states. Can you explain what you think it means? Define you understanding of 'specie' in your own understanding if you can. (we don't always share the same specific meanings)

From his Wikipedia Entry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour]

How do YOU define "species", Betsy? The page you link to this article is unfound: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

How hypocritical that Trudeau seems to be responding to precisely what I figured he should be concerned regarding himself! How he deems women and girls as UNIQUELY 'innocent' upon any accusation is hopefully going to backfire against him. He's already attempting to make himself seem IMMUNE to such accusations. He's being arrogant and sexist on this. I'm hopefully going to remember to listen to his words on this on Saturday's "The House." (CBC Radio) Maybe we can continue this after then. But for anyone interested here before then, does anyone think his actions are sincere? Is there a 'practical' reason that may be using these tactics that some think are merely 'necessary' evils?

True. Isn't that why the Amendments are precisely alterations or clarifications of Constitutional ideas? While religions will focus on the significance of protection FOR religion, it has even more inclusiveness when it speaks of non-religious persons and even alternative beliefs that are highly unconventional. The U.S. was also a significant formation from the Enlightenment. The reason France held much support for the U.S. was due to the fact that it was France's own Revolution that fostered the 'republican' rebirth (with respect to re-discovering the Greek philosophy AS WELL as the Protestants both due in great part to the freedom granted from the invention of the printing press that enabled individual expression to take a new step forward. Religion though is counter to secular governments that are more 'democratic' regardless of which forms they take. While there are more 'benevolent' forms, religion is just an extension or our 'artistic' interpretations of reality. To IMPOSE any such interpretation is what makes any laws regarding them in government more dangerous. The U.S. formation was one that 'protested' against Monarchy and its Aristocratic links that favor people based SOLELY on hereditary beliefs. Monarchy and its Aristocracy are themselves 'religious' because they treat specific people based on genetic qualities as default most "natural" to rule, using God as a means to excuse their supremacy. Given the gods are out of reach and impossible to prove, it acts as means to justify ANY form of rule where people want to deny that they are actually lacking any more reason than LUCK of ENVIRONMENTAL (in)HERITAGE.

Most people confuse our form of distinction between Church and State is like the United States. Our laws (or British evolved ones) did NOT dismiss the powers of the 'state' to religious law-making. Canada treats the Queen as our head and she is the head of the Anglican Church (British 'catholic' mixed with protestant ideals). We have laws that preserve both this AND the Catholic Churches. We have 'freedom' TO belief but our laws are enabled to make laws regarding them (favorable or not). The United States, however, opposed ANY form of laws regarding religion because they FAVOR specific groups over others. Instead, it treats religion as 'art' (which I agree to) and so while one may freely speak to their beliefs, for lawmaking, they recognized that government should only be secular. The only reason why it 'appears' that the U.S. is more religious is due to the fact that religions there feel a need to compete with more force because the laws are not allowed to be designed to favor them. Canada is a 'mecca' for the religious SEGREGATIONISTS. The hope is to take the Multicultural stance of favoring religions in law would provide a means to empower their religions by segregate laws. These are not universal and misleading because they are actually guided by constitution to the catholic version of 'liberalism'. These empower them to discriminate which forms of religion exist.

But it makes men (or other people in similar kinds of problems today) FEAR even ADMITTING the remote guilt. Canadian politics is proving this. When the government 'apologizes' for ANY problem of the past, this sets the stage for the 'victim' class to actually demand retribution as a whole class WITHOUT a need for a hearing. Have you never noticed how 'apologizing' to some relatively trivial fault in some relationships don't actually encourage the other to an improved counterproductive behavior? instead, this often only encourages these people to feel validated to throw any and all accusations back with a vengeance. This psychology means that we have to try to be assured that the apology is "EQUALLY" reciprocated for their own roles in any abuses, not avenged. It's hard to avoid and can be repaired in healthy relationships. But to those that act as 'group-classes', like all men or all women, there is no actual single person that is the CLASS. As such, the vengeance is the ONLY means by which people opt for. When society as a whole is already 'abusive', the relationship between whole classes treats each member of those classes as ONE being. And any guilt or innocence gets distributed to EACH member of those classes without concern for fairness. It is the root of ALL socially ill stereotypes. The last abused class becomes the new abuser class.

Wow. Is it an all or nothing situation here? (All charges are proven true) versus (No charges are proven true) is not valid here. These opposites are "contrary". This case is actually a "contradictory" situation: (All charges are proven true) versus (Some charges are NOT proven true). Note that if I were his lawyer, I'd challenge to throw this case out on the grounds of HOW this case was tried. I disagree that the guy is 'innocent'. But the charges and sentences don't fit the crime and now DOES make him AND the rest of society rightfully FEAR mere accusations. The courts often throw out cases that have 'technical' issues because the precedence of such justice makes society LESS secure and confident when we are violated of our rights for the sake of social justice taken on by ZEALOTS of their own hatred.

Thank you. I'm familiar with the methods but can't understand how even many 'intelligent' people overlook the depth of HOW stats are to be interpreted with regards to social issues, ...especially with polls or surveys. It's worse when they quote margin-of-errors when these do not reflect 'truth' of the statistic but only measures to what degree all the respondents 'agreed'. If one shoots some target, they could be 'precise' but completely miss the target all together. Precision measures how close all the shots were together only. This can occur in social circumstances where some hysteria exists.

Yes! Bill Maher even mentioned this recently. See Bill Maher on #MeToo... Are there not 'degrees' that matter today? If 'touching' logically equals 'rape', then everyone is certainly a victim. The guy was NOT charged for any actual 'rape' and the girls only 're-evaluated' the harm AS harm when the present conditions of this climate allowed them too without accountability to their words. Today women are actually being DEMEANED when they are treated as though they are more significantly 'sensitive' to internalize harm versus men. It can't be both true that one wants equality and yet MORE power over another class. (Thus my earlier comment about Animal Farm.) The "death warrant" assertion also proved her EMOTIONAL bias in a position she is supposed to be 'impartial' to. And it also goes with the Witch trial point I mentioned above.

1. Let me take a step by step approach here. (a) If I asserted some person named, "(put any name here)", harmed me and you don't know me, while you may relate to me conditionally (pretending IF it was true), do you think my claim requires ANY doubt by default? (b) If the KIND of harm is bad IF TRUE, does my accusation mean that I am more likely to be telling you the truth? Does the degree of an accusation suffice to believe it? (c) If further I am allowed to accuse someone anonymously is it 'fair' (just) for the one being accused to be prevented from knowing who I am, what evidence I have against the person, and to be arrested and locked up UNTIL they are able to DISPROVE my accusation? Am I protected from criminal slander or libel should the person I'm accusing has no capacity to prove me wrong? (d) If I'm potentially lying, should what I have to say COUNT as ONE TRUTH conviction against the one I'm accusing even if I don't officially charge them? That is, does my accusation count as a proven truth that gets added to a stat about abuses? 2. In the case, did the accused get charged by ALL 150 (I thought it was 160?) with the defendant able to challenge each person? That is, was the defendant convicted with PROOF that ALL 160 people were in FACT telling the truth? 3. If one person is charged by ONE accuser in a court of law, does this PROVE that anyone else who is NOT a part of the trial's charge is defaulted to telling the truth? Note that the 'evidence' by all people here are NOT presentable but "testimonial"? For your assumption that I am judging the judge's sex as relevant is not justified. If the judge was male I still would be against the judge, its court integrity AND to the media presenting such faulty reasoning. You are imposing some personal EMOTIVE reason when I am against the LOGICAL reasons. While I have an 'emotive' reason to loathe illogical justifications for many reason regarding the present trends of accusations without physical proofs, I have no baggage with regards to this judge, any accusers, or even to the convicted offender himself. Extended question on this: While the defendant plead no contest and/or guilt, it appeared that the letter he wrote to the judge asserted that he was recommended to accept a guilty plea or risk worse consequences. The judge proved in her own CHALLENGE to him to opt to reverse this with an implied "I DARE you". Do you believe that IF he took the reversed offer, that he'd get a better sentence given he's already been convicted? Had he actually NOT plead guilty or no contest, would he have had a fairer trial? HOW do you KNOW that all 160 accusers were telling the truth? Is it POSSIBLE they were acting with a form of social hysteria given that people ONLY came forward AFTER single charges? Note that 'water-boarding' derived from the Witch Trials of the past. The original technique was to tie the accused to a board and challenge the accused to either admit that they were a witch OR opt to be dunked. Should she/he die from such treatment, this was interpreted to be proof of guilt by God. They would ask him/her again until either they drowned from continued dunking or accept their accusation AS CHARGED. So given the above and this example of reality of the psychology of people, would the accused have any actual defense given the climate. What KIND of 'evidence' do you think is 'valid'? Do you know the difference between 'valid' and 'soundness' of an argument?

There is a common use of these terms by some (even by some with degrees!) to what is meant by "micro-" versus "macro-" evolution. I understand that in the context of those arguing that the confusion is about interpreting that "macro-" is about the ultimate 'long-term' explanation of biological origins from CHEMISTRY all the way through to Natural Selection (Darwins' theory). "Macro-" only describes the 'long-term' evolution about Natural Selection that is only about scope. Because today evolution IS accepted and has become the foundation of GENETICS, they've separated the classes of evolutionary study based on HOW they study it. In part both views 'agree' and not all scientists would use such terms for the sake of such confusion. The religious views against evolution are often about the present acceptance of genetics but with a mysterious interpretation of what came BEFORE Natural Selection could take place. After all, Natural Selection by Darwin spoke most specifically about SEXUAL creatures which require two types, what we call "male" and "female". So the question is about interpreting whether Natural Selection specifically explains the origins long ago PRIOR to distinct sexes. How can one treat some theory as correct if it cannot COMPLETELY explain origins from some single source? "Evolution" by Darwin, though, IS a theory that is now sufficiently 'closed' upon genetics, regardless of any ignorance of evolution PRIOR to sexual origins. This is confusing by many biologists who hear this same confusion by some other 'scientists', often not in the direct field of biology. Chemists, as with most different areas of science, do not teach absolutely everything of all sciences because it is now TOO much for anyone to learn without being practical about the length of a University degree. "Natural Selection" IS essential to even ACCEPT any genetic theory. How can one NOT interpret genetics today without Natural Selection is odd. Because Darwin is the one who DID originate the specific theory of Natural Selection, it is even contradictory for any biologist to assert even a 'faith' in genetics without its foundations of ESSENTIAL theory. The chemists or non-biologists who support skepticism of Darwin is interpreted correctly as being religious because they don't (or won't) interpret the meaning of Darwin's role in Evolutionary theory as being most specifically about the "micro-" part of their interpretation. By using "macro-" to refer to Natural Selection as well, they hope to disguise their intent to be skeptical about the chemical origins when this is NOT even in the range of Natural Evolution. That Darwin followed up with his "Decent of Man" which proposed humans as being evolved without describing HOW evolution could transgress changes from a single source (like one man or woman), let alone one single-celled organism to many-celled complex ones makes the arguments appear faulty. What is purposely being ignored is that if or where biology speak of "Macro-evolution", it would have to be only about species already with sexual factors that deal with Natural Selection. But this is not clear when even many scientist literally use terms that speak of a single root of all species, including humans. So, to be clearer, separate the distinction of origins prior to Sexual reproduction as about the non-biological origins. Biologists require leaving this to chemistry WITH a background inclusion of Carbon-based expertise: "Organic Chemistry", and those that link the 'organic' forms to biology as "Biochemistry". They are related but still operate from different approaches. There ARE theories that deal with the transitions of carbon-based chemistry to bio-chemistry. While these TOO have 'evolutionary' factors involved, they go beyond what Darwin's theory could given his time and capacity. "Macro-evolution" is at best a Natural Selection based area that deals with Geologists and Archaeology as a sub-profession related to this because they have to interpret what past creatures were based on fossils rather than present genetics. But even genetics play a role today when they interpret the "junk DNA" that helps link animals together. Those that work in relating genetic 'heritages' play a role in this link when they keep databases of DNA of various origins. So these too act as more direct 'micro-' as well as 'macro-' evolutionary studies.

CORRECTION: Michael is not administrator here. I falsely assumed that in the above post.

On assuming you an admin here, I apologize. I recall seeing your name here most prevalent since I came here originally...even with links to some podcast or something? So cancel that assumption. I also said this in another thread before I read this of you. On spelling of "Chomsky" as "Chompsky", I apologize too. I'm not sure how you managed to treat this trivial factor relevant. Or did you think I had someone else in mind?

You are just proving your own ignorance, not mine. You can't demand 'support' of some view while at the same time condemning me to use OUTSIDE sources to help you,...given you (A) complain about DEPTH in anything I say that can't be summarized in a Tweet, and (B) that you then demand I argue MORE in context because you cannot seem to follow. I believe you are ignorant of logic. Logic and science go hand in hand. But science is about descriptive reality that we share. If you don't share the same observations, we cannot even argue. The claims made by the judge ARE objectively true. The Statistic she justifies her opinion on are ALSO 'evidence'. What is NOT 'evidence' is to suggest that I believe that the MEANING of the statistic you interpret speaks about the actual truth behind the claims. Just because one asserts they've been raped, for instance, doesn't PROVE they have been. You and others ARE contending this view simply because you BELIEVE blindly that what a woman says MUST be true simply because you can't imagine them to LIE on such an issue. But explain how you support the belief that it is alright for reversing the burden of proof in courts that you also demand of me to disprove. Your are no different than Betsy here with your rationality. For anyone to be held without charge is what became the Miranda rights and other related laws relating to due justice. You also reverse these rules when you think it alright to treat one's accusation by women sufficient to make the accused guilty-before-proven-innocent. That is what the claims of anyone being asked on a survey of this type irrelevant to the 'truth' of the matter. So why do you feel I require proving these anonymous people as lying? This is NOT even possible. I don't THINK one's charge is guilty of corruption anymore than the accused. All we can deal with realistically are those we CAN charge, to those who ARE fairly tried in a court of law, and to those CONVICTED. No amount of 'surveys' can prove (nor disprove) whether what one claims or confirms is or is not true. I also PROVED to you logically that you can have a survey that is completely ISOLATED from any data that also INVALIDATES any interpretation of that one even IF the statistic is 'sincere' (where we trust no one lied). The link about the women's statistic claiming abuse based on such data IS what demonstrates HOW by using a different argument I present here. If you don't like it, then be fair and argue here yourself rather than expect me to do what is impossible by your expectation. Ask yourself this: Is there ANY kind of proof that I could present, whether scientifically or through careful logical analysis, could make you change YOUR mind about what I say here? What KIND of 'evidence' do you expect of me to present to you that could make you confident that the reasoning I present to you is valid? What do you THINK I'm claiming here in your own words that you have a contention with?

Your trying to turn the table on me to be obliged to prove something to you when it is you here who is making the claims. IF you trust the Big Bang theory BASED ON AUTHORITY, then should you also NOT trust the majority of the scientific community to at least doubt any SPECIFIC religious beliefs without proof? That is, you are using a method of attack that falsely grants credit by others who do NOT believe that science 'supports' a religious belief by default. How would you like it if I used some quote you said as some authority to support atheism as though YOU believed it? This is appropriating another's words in contexts that is false. If you credit Einstein, for instance, as some trustworthy source for science, he also does NOT support YOUR beliefs and so either you should take his advise or stop using him as though he's a scientist in support of your belief. [On Steady State, Einstein held firm on this and opted out of the debate to attend to another one more relevant at the time. See this article that summarizes this: New Discovery Reveals Einstein Tried To Devise A Steady State Model Of The Universe. Personally, this 'discovery' is NOT new. It is just a disappointing view by those supporting Big Bang. If you want to debate this we can use some other thread. I don't know if Michael would be concerned about this here or not given it is more on the topic of science. But it does have a lot of political significance which defines what we call the 'end' of the era known as "modernity". After the 1960's, we adopted a "post-modernist" view which IS about the abandonment of the old ways of thinking that ended with those like Einstein.] On religion, I asked you why you 'deny' my claim of being your god. Do you not see how this demonstrates that you are selectively choosing when or where you can assert disbelief. Atheism, while it IS a term that comes in an anti-religious culture of the vast majority of the world, it is the state of what a child or even a cat is without being taught anything. While science is something we teach, its enemy is those who 'deny' the practice of treating objective truth as based on one's personal FEELINGS. Religion is based solely on realities that are NOT able to be confirmed NOR denied. One can be atheist AND be agnostic (without knowledge) of what IS the reality while some can also deny it based on some rational arguments (gnostic == knowledge). I DO hold a denial and so am rightfully claiming to also be able to argue against the beliefs in SPECIFIC claims of religion. But this is not necessary. Your welcome to debate with me on these but your claims for this thread is not able to be proven with respect to a scientific support that is UNIQUE. That is why I even mentioned Steady State here. It nor Big Bang speak about whether some god exists BUT supports many religious views. So you are not correct in using a scientific theory to justify anything about your beliefs. "Science" is a word derived from "to see", which is not able to speak of what all people CANNOT agree to 'see' collectively. For your own effort, you'd have to show WHY any particular scientific belief is UNIQUE as a support to your view as well as to how specifically it eliminates alternate religious beliefs UNIQUELY.

You are the administrator here and whether I say more on this or not it won't matter to you. I fully backed my position without a NEED for further proof because it doesn't call for any. What is 'true' objectively is that many are using polls like this one to JUSTIFY as valid evidence to impose forceful decisions upon society in some way. It is a form of "witch hunt" mentality that imposes that CLAIMS made by select people are to be believed and require the accused to defend. I am NOT 'obligated' to prove THAT the statistic was TAKEN false....it doesn't need to be. I DID prove that it is LOGICALLY invalid as a KIND of valid proof, period. I happen to watch the 20/20 Friday cover on this because I wasn't a close follower of this case. I'm even MORE disgusted now when this mentality is clear. Her act to include all claimants to a case which did NOT involve these particular people outside of the limited charges only adds force of this. But my limitation to the point about statistics here is NOT limited to this case. My opening post is about misusing statistics BY AUTHORITIES to justify real decisions that impact other's lives. If you support believing blindly in any woman's accusation and oppose a reversed bias against trusting men by default, you will FAVOR using any confirmed INTERPRETATION of a statistic that is used to make laws that are unfairly distributed to all people equally. The STAT asserts that "of all females assaulted, 2/3 of them do not report it." If it is 'unreported' how do you SUPPORT this as PROOF when it is itself UNSCIENTIFIC nor proven true by ACTUAL CONVICTIONS? It is used to justify faking further statistics. If the conviction rate is lower than the shock value intended, by falsely ADDING this stat to justify a higher REALITY of assaults is absurdly false by logic alone. That judge used it to justify her UNUSUAL use of illegitimate claimants against the defendant (160 of them!!) to violently abuse her power against this defendant based on this 'witch hunt' mentality against men as a class today. How media manipulte statistics... (This points to how the UNSUBSTANTIATED proportion is ADDED to make one think there is a higher percentage of people AGAINST immigration. The 2/3 example here IS a kind of UNSUBSTANTIATED part of a whole: "Those women who ARE abused". Unmasking the hidden paradox in data... [Shows how one can using a stat that appears to 'prove' female discrimination is actually proof of male discrimination by how one manipulates data. My example in this post was that 2/3 of males to not report could ALSO be equal coinciding data which invalidates the meaning of that statistic. Males would NOT even conventionally be thought of as reporting when such abuses occur to a higher degree. Certainly we don't get the convictions against women in the same level but no one suggests the inclusion of men who don't report.] Noam Chompsky also covers many forms of manipulation by media and politics. I'll leave this here for you for now because you might not even bother with that.

@Betsy, I believe that I addressed your opening post. While you might have other means to address factors within religion as a topic, you were suggesting that science was in definite support of your views .....especially to Christianity of your particular beliefs. You also attack secular atheism as a form of religion. I pointed out that even an atheist like myself CAN have a different view against others in the scientists' accepted view on the Big Bang and even 'agree' that it supports a religious view. It's not important whether I'm wrong about the theory. What IS important is that I CAN agree with you about some point and STILL find no reason to believe religion is some alternative. The Big Bang theory was actually an opposite theory of Steady State, NOT of any religious theory. It is a theory that suggests an origin from a HOT singularity where the Steady State theory held the view of a COLD eternal state with no actual singularity....only the appearance of it. Instead, it treated space as being a non-empty field that allows matter to be formed from everywhere. Both theories had (or have) its religious supporters interpreting the science supports them. So even if the Steady State theory WAS the accepted version, you'd still find some reason to assert it as supporting your view. (or at least seek for some part of it to). For instance, many who did not like the Steady State theory felt IT WAS RELIGIOUS because it seemed to suggest you can get something from nothing everywhere in the here and now. While this is not detailed enough, you can argue that that theory 'proves' that God can be everpresent as a creator. See? I'm sure others can imagine ANY possible science theory that one could ADAPT to proving some religion. It makes the religious arguments perpetually able to adapt (as they actually do) to changing certainties when they become commonly accepted.

I read both this and your post below this one. While I understand that you interpret our "Multiculuralism" by Trudeau as a sincere intent to remove biases universally, this is not the case when you read into the Constitution with a 'lawyer's' eye. I'm not a lawyer but strong on logic (formal, computational, and rhetoric). The WAY the laws were written were in light of the United States First Amendment and how, if we took this type of law, it would not only OPEN our society to ALL cultures but to include those of the Catholic and Anglican predominance in power here in Canada. While the forms of 'Catholic' beliefs are relatively 'liberal' in contrast to many religions, they are at risk of losing their power here, especially with the concerns of Quebec from the 1960's on. "Multiculturalism" is only technically 'multicultural' by the meaning that 'multi-' means "more than one". But this is intentionally meant to hide the fact that they are NOT universally accepting of all cultures WITHOUT the guidance of the Catholic/Anglican establishment of Canada. IF Trudeau hadn't pushed for the WAY the words were written in our laws, evolution would STILL move towards a 'multicultural' (not the trademarked version here and now) but with the devolution of Quebec's French and the rest of Eastern Canada's ESTABLISHED families. They OWN the problems associated with the discrimination against the Natives and why by making a constitution that adds them is a means to quiet the inevitable backlash of that most populous part of the impoverished and suffering in Canada. Multiculturalism thus acts to SEGREGATE groups BY LAW in various logic classes to isolate those who would raise doubt and hold the established groups liable to their faults. It is NOT 'universal' other than in a feigned appearance to some of the wording that most falsely interpret is equal in force to the United States forms of protections. Our system, for instance introduces the Charter of Rights with an imposed credit of US ALL to some "God" [preable]. We then get granted a right to our 'conscience' but this is already true regardless of an intolerant government. This only rhetorically asserts that we can THINK what we want about reality, and speak of it (not without consequences!)....but does NOT assure us any actual freedoms to act on those beliefs. The proof of this is in the following guarantees to the 'Aboriginals' (how are we not ALL 'aboriginal' to Earth?) and to the Anglican (Church of England) and Quebec's old-school faith in the Catholic religions. [by "Old school", I mean that France was NOT in support of Quebec given they were of the older beliefs in AUTHORITARIAN rule prior to the Revolution in France.] This KIND of 'Constitution' is like the pigs in Animal Farm responding to the question of their established power over all other animals: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” When ANY government asserts some constitution of 'freedom' but grants specific privilege of SOME over all others to control that 'freedom', it is only a rhetorical device meant to purposely gain supporters and IMMUNIZE those skeptical of it as the ones being intolerant. I assure you, our Constitution is only a legal paper that FAVORS the establishment. The recent ACCEPTANCE of believing victims with the excuse to permit these victims secrecy is only a means to prevent charges to be pressed against the families who gained their substantial power on the historical peoples. Our country was an accidental one based on "Loyal" anti-democratic feudalists who favor AUTHORITATIVE government over the 'commoners'.This is not a thread about Constitution but with regards to religion, our constitution IS a form of theocracy hidden behind a veil of democracy with the intent to preserve the dying cultures due to natural evolution. By fostering OTHER cults that are similarly segregationists and enhancing this isolation through tactics like re-founding lost languages and cultures, this further prevents the collective masses of 'individuals' from the power they need to overthrow these rulers AND hold them personally accountable. I am against this whole age of Identity politics because of this. It is a form of "social conservatism" disguised as toleration of 'diversity'. The only 'diversity' meant is to the kind the American Confederates thought of about Black people as being distinct peoples who only should embrace their fortune as 'slaves'. We are BENEVOLENT but NOT INTOLERANT. This is the arrogance of our Canadians when we impose these views around the world. And the very intolerance is coming from the ones who APPEAR as selling the opposite.

My thread is NOT about the judge specifically. It is just an example of the use and abuse of her position of power (funny how women are considered powerless?) to dictate a statistic as her own belief of reality. It was a media-focused rhetorical speech meant to target the audience with affect. She admitted as such when she quoted that she wasn't intending anything she was about to say as not 'precedence'. But she was setting the 'precedence' in the mind of the listeners who elect her and others like her in power. Today's movements on identity issues are Witch Hunts. And the use of these statistics are just one tool. There are other statistical types of abuses too being used this way. My thread is about a fallacy of reasoning with statistics in the present cultural phenomena of favoring women specially as innocent bystanders to abuse.

Our government also protected the churches by (A) Agreeing to accept the claims without convictions, (B) on the claim to protect the integrity of the individuals abused. Our Constitution grants the Catholics a special power of preservation. While other religious institutes were also granted powers of these schools, what gets missed is that with the above means among others, our government managed to successfully transfer the burden of abuses wholesale to the population at large. Clever con! Its a win-win for the Catholic Church AND all other religious groups. The abuses of these schools were about religious intoleration against the aboriginals because they believed they had the WRONG religious beliefs. Yet the abuses are claimed to be merely about the concept of assimilation in a secular way. This distracts people into looking away from the actual particular faults of these institutes.

That is not true though. People ARE accepting our present law makers to make gender-based laws that discriminate BASED on this propaganda. It took me a lot here just to get you guys (with reasonable aptitudes) to agree in some of these principles. But the vast majority of society do NOT care to even think beyond their emotions and so when the kind of polling that gets used to PERSUADE, it has strong power. And I'm sure you agree that outside of the political sphere, the media's reporting of the ACCUSATIONS that is leading into a cascade of claims proves the danger because the accusation alone is pressuring anyone associated with these people to REQUIRE abandoning them without fairness. ...like one losing their job.....like one stepping down of their authority. These prove that there is FEAR of people speaking out for the mere consequences of being granted the same conviction due to association alone.

I gave an example of a 'valid' form (the one testing to see who responds to surveys as an example). I am also not asserting stats have universal invalidity. The invalidity is in using the stats within political institutions as 'valid and relevant evidence' to make laws or pass legal judgments. You are basically supporting a 'guilty UNTIL proven innocence' for men when women make charges alone as though you don't think they are capable of lying, manipulating, or abusing. By implicit neglect of men, you support a bias based upon that statistic. Since many, like the judge in the case I mentioned, treat the statistic AS convictions, this threatens ALL people in our democracy. And if this keeps going, I assure you that it is going to backfire. I gave you the example of one accusing Justin Trudeau of such a potential crime (even if potentially untrue). Should this occur, would you expect it appropriate that he step down .....especially if he knows it to be untrue? If you were accused of this, would YOU voluntarily accept a pre-sentenced conviction that you require appeal to AFTER time spent in jail?

Your churches have dedicated places of teaching your views already. Is it not enough that your KIND of 'education' is itself only DICTATES of reality that now you want to impose this kind of thinking upon children in the public domain? Christianity is NOT the only religion. And you are only frustrated that you can't con a vulnerable audience prior to their capacity to think on their own. Also, "religion" IS often taught in public schools in indirect ways. For the most part, the contextual material of 'morality' is taught. Also, social studies (of various forms) deal with these WITHOUT bias to any particular religion. "Atheist" is what one is by default prior to being TAUGHT that some religious view is or is not true. If your beliefs are NATURAL, there would be no need for any institutes to teach it because we'd already know it genetically. "Paganist"? You mean that the kids themselves are permitted to think freely about their own beliefs? Paganism means one believes in multiple gods. They don't teach this in science either. If anything, some of this is taught WITH the title of "MYTH" within Language Classes on literature or to Social Studies on history. You're welcome to challenge those teaching those things. But I am certain that you are actually wanting to impose your beliefs in science, not social studies or language arts. To that, it is essential that science ONLY deal with things that we can witness with our senses in today's world. You can't expect people to learn of supposed truths about phenomena you cannot provide evidence for.