Scott Mayers

...and thus the source of new alternative 'conservatives' disguised as 'liberals'? The purpose for the "Liberal" party's choice of favoring external groups is actually one of their Right-wing ideas: to save their beloved power of being able to make religious laws. When the catholic church is faultering as it is, the traditional Candian 'Anglicah loyalists' and '(Old) French-Roman Catholics' are dimishing as people become more doubtful of religion in general. To decrease the rise of the evil athiests (like me) and foster more stupid religious people who believe that what they see on media is real when its fake and fake when its real, it seems ideal to foster any 'culture' variation that at least keeps those consitutionally 'saved' to at least be able to stay afloat a little longer. Obviously the actual effect unrealized by them is that they are propping up MORE counter hate by the more anti-athiestically motivated lovers of gods which turn religion against religion. An atheist may be an enemy by most religious standards, but each religion will be more shocked when their own 'god' competes with some alternative 'god'. "My holy ghost is bigger than yours!" will be the means of measuring whether one god is 'true' and ALL the others "false". The default irrationality of the anti-abortionists is their hypocrisy on other issues that they seem to share in common but that proves they are false flags for such blatant inconsistencies. Gun ownership should be encouraged to free the independently minded nature of EACH of us yet we need stricter laws to prevent independent people to CHOOSE whether to keep unwanted children? Why have more children just so that your independent gun-totting extremists children can grow up to have some targets to shoot at rather than their own?

Tourism. Isn't that what the capitalist would do? Maybe they can use the discarded fetus' for the next generation of "Impossible" burgers for fastfood joints seeking alternative cheap meat? Saves on killing off innocent cows, so appeals to the animal lovers; it also enables the U.S. extremist to gloat about how their own laws are now closer to the Taliban's kind of 'democracy' that puts women back in their 'place' but still close enough to Canada that they can 'vacation' still secretly have their abortions disguised as a 'camping trip', , and make Canada all the more 'Right" for riling up our own terrorists here who is just looking for some excuse to get their wish to see and participate in ending the worldi n their own time so that they can be 'saved' eternally as 'spiritual' fetuses in heaven perpetually ignorant of their abuse of their caretaker's gift of ....free choice. ....among other things. So you should be happy now, betty, no?

I'm split on what to do and so default to presume that I don't know enough to defend Ukraine. We seemed complicitly ignorant of Russian interest to the same degree we did with Syria's destruction of Aleppo by the same. I also see common land bound issues that drove Hussain to attack Kuwait. There always is a tendency of those with the capacity to act as a pathway to the rest of the world to abuse those dependent upon such isolation. Ukraine also had to have had one of the strongest budget interests in the prior Communist era infrastructure spending. That is, the Russians may feel cheated as taking on the debt that empowered Ukraine's independence. When going from a communist no-one-owns system to one that owns, then separate, the 'home' state of the prior country, Russia here, would rightfully suspect concerns. The original communist state prior to relatively recent (1992) changes had to have had some form of DISTRIBUTION scheme that likely biased favor to certain individuals for a primary 'right' to declare personal 'ownership' without equal favor to the majority. So I am not shocked if both Ukraine AND Russia are both leaving us in the dark on who is pulling the strings. Putin happened to induce from Trump's presidency that he should be bold, decisive, and intentionally deceptive, given this is what predominantly gets more success lately. So, I'd prefer we keep safely distant but there in sentiment to those who suffer but with caution not to act prior to full disclosure of all pertinent information.

Yeah, like how the pro-gun argument that says criminals will find guns anyways, therefore guns should nevertheless be legal? Yes, I agree with your particular counter IF those argue that the normal behavior of it justies KEEPING it that way. That 'conservative' thinking is the issue. What the charitable intention regarding those who might be arguing that way could be that abortions, since they will occur anyway regardless of illegality, will foster both an underground branch of criminals that will harm those women for exploiting unhealthy abortions. Compare this to the gun argument that might go something like, criminals will still use alternate weapons that are more destructive and painful than a gun if guns were banned. That is, a criminal without a gun might use a dull kitchen bread knife and make what is a bad situation worse by the totality of pain and suffering that occurs. While you CAN argue this fair IF you expect the same people to become criminals under the present laws, the anti-abortion laws would be CREATING 'criminals' out of the same numbers with the assumption that abortion itself would be curbed. Note again the comparable argument of the same poltical view by the same poltical opposition to the gun lobby: guns don't kill people, people who use guns kill people.....becomes....abortion doesn't kill babies, people who opt to use abortion kills babies. Although not a completely fair argument regardless, if you support anti-abortion rights, you SHOULD non-hypocritically support anti-gun rights. Maybe a trade-off of 'rights' could be negotiated? ??

you are the one saying only women's opinions count while pretending others are advocating for men ruling over women yet you are advocating for women ruling over men hypocritical lefties abound, who knew? there are plenty of women who don't support Roe v Wade contrary to your portrayal of the pro life position being men making decisions for women Edited 1 hour ago by Yzermandius19 Bullshit. If you interpreted me as supporting the 'woke' extremes, you don't know me. Most here are intentionally defining these issues as due to something only coinciding with the Left wing ideology when it is only a coincidence of the 'conservativist' ideals being countered by "conservative" alternates among the Left, something that is inevitable of groups regardless. Since any 'majority' defines the power of some class, the tendency of a voice for individuals anywhere but on the 'conservative right' get to be heard because where the Right is predominantly run by a majority of white males (a fact, not a trivial opinion), then those on the Left who thinks the same way but LACK being in power of the same majority on the Right, will take notice among the Left over any individual there. Thus, the collective of all non-White conservatism will rule on the Left even though they are personally 'conservative'. Thus, the conservatives are fighting against ALTERNATIVE conservatives when they paint the "liberal' side as being at fault. They are only reflecting how cults, like possibly your own,. get to be HEARD predomiinantly as speaking for whole sexes where they are inappropriately stereotyping. And your own stereotpying is demonstrating this. I am telling you clearly that I DO NOT FAVOR any sex getting privilege to defining anything about themselves OR their complementary sex as though they are univeral representatives, especially through any government actions that define 'cultural' phenomena as co-equal to 'genetics'.

P.S. Note that regardless of the four different ways you replace the X or Y to either "(all) men" or "(all) women", the logical problem is not the particular constants you replace these variables with but with the fact that anyone believing that one particlar sex should rule over ANY sex as a whole, whether their own sex or others, automatically implies controlling BOTH by ONE sex ONLY. So you cannot have anyone speaking for a whole sex as though the members are universal participants in some grand conspiracy somehow passed on through our genes.

Although I share your intentional sentiment, the problem is that the component of dominance on 'our' side has those who have the presumption that "women think it is their god given right to rule women."! That is, the powerful countercomponent for the general 'left' is arrogantly wanting to trade one extreme for another as though men and women are exclusive domains ...exclusive victims....exclusive perpetrators. The logical problem at issue in GENERAL is "X thinks it is their god given right to rule women." or...as an extension, that "X thinks is it their god given right to rule Y", where X or Y can be either (all) "Men" or (all) "Women. The lack of direct quantifying hides that the particular mention of men or women are about only SPECIFIC subsets of people REGARDLESS of sex! We don't need to trade Patriarchy with Matriarchy; both are extremes dominating the political spectra.

The property that politically appealled to the Democrats in the South was based upon arguing for segregate cultures (like our 'mosaic') where many believed genetics were default to pass on one's 'culture'. The original Republicans supported the intellectual ideal of "philosopher king" but turned it into an 'inherent' property. [So the 'sucessful' by standards of wealth is proof of the selective 'intellect' today on the Right. While the Democrats no longer interpret the NEGATIVE stereotypes as being permitted, they still hold hypocritically onto self-asserted POSITIVE stereotypes of such cultures. Biased wealth is the standard 'wisdom' for republican inheritance; Biased culture is the standard 'wisdom' for Democrats. Both are flawed to similar extent and support some form of dangerous biases that seem to change over time even where the underlying roots stay the same.

For those of you on the Right paying attention who question my point about why racism comes from the Right by default, this guy is expressing WHY this kind of thinking is dangerous. This represents those who love terrorism as a MEANS to any ENDS. This is why even though the Left has serious issues, where such thinking exists there too, they LACK the dominant power when more diversity OF them at least exists. [Think of those of you who believe in the deterent of every country having nuclear weapons: if the argument to support guns is diminished if more than ONE cult has power to these weapons, the same is true of supporting the Left when they have MORE THAN ONE cult there....None alone can get their absolute power realized.]

Reiligion to 'republic' is an oxymoron. The concept was borrowed from Plato where, if you actually read, specifically supported an ideal that placed ONLY intellectuals as the 'college' referred to in those systems. The ideal, "Philosopher King" was thought to be non-biased to any religious ideals and who do not SEEK the power they were supposedly duty bound to serve. Since the wealth alone get the power to DICTATE who they think are relevantly 'intellectual', AND religion is nevertheless MORE powerful of a tool, there is a tendency for this 'college' of intellectuals to be mere PROPS which undermines their intended power of what is 'republic'. Thus, your religious arrogance is the flaw. The ideal of "republic" has proven to be overruled to prefer STUPIDITY over intelligence.

While I share the frustration, you keep overlooking that I assert a 'liberal' (and 'libertarian') position. And my point here is that the actual CAUSE of ANY 'racist' accusations is specifically due to SPECIFIC conservative beliefs. But because most of those racists are NON-WHITE, .....and.... SPECIFICALLY religious, we (whites) are in a 'minoirity'. As such, those who hate whites the most but ARE still conservative, have stolen the concepts of 'democratic' ideals that might exist by default on the LEFT. The concept of the LEFT to be 'open' permits the arrogant religious extremes to recognize that they have a better chance at operating AS "liberal'. But their idea of 'liberal' for those conservatives driving today's left is like a COLLECTIVE CONSERVATIST's agreement to defeat the non-religious individualism. I am so fucking fed up with the stupidity here. The fact is that given you are continuing to interpret the logical flaw about political ideologies as though the intrinsic idealogy of the 'left' IS the cause when it is the 'conservative' traditional mindset that IS the initiating cause. That is, the concept of 'family' normally defined by the Right IS the cause of racism because it favors ignoring anyone else''s concern but one's own CLOSE GENETIC affiliation. Race is just an extension of those 'family' suppporters' extended genetics that is MOST predominant to those who are more strictly religious. So, those like me, who have no religion nor belief in strict self-serving interests, are forced out of the picture on the left leaving it concentrated of the remaining racist cults running the agenda. Meanwhile, the actual extremes on the Right are also gaining ground precisely because it is also encouraging those on the Right to enhance their own cults among them who DO support racist ideologies by default. The ONLY way to defeat it is to first address the right of 'non-human' representation being permitted in governments: that 'superior' being that specific politicitians can always ESCAPE their accountability to the PEOPLE who elect them. ....the right of religious people to get to act as though they were elected not by the people of this world but magical Gods that they serve with priority! And I doubt this will occur. The rich, regardless of which side they are on, find the utility of religion (or 'culture') too effective. The fucking religious who believe in strict controls of their 'family', who want the power to impose upon their children a continuation of their "culture" by means of encouraging them to marry into their own kind and pass on those beliefs and selective favorable inheritance, ARE the underlying cause of this. You want to stop this? Stop the power of religious stupidity that is corrupting ALL government party ideals. Today's ban of abortion in the U.S. demonstrates why the Right-wing extremes there default to being 'supremacists' when THEY have absolute power! The LESSOR of the evils still means that I have to support the "Left" IF I were forced to because if you are in a crowd of haters everywhere regardless, it is safer to be on the side that dieempowers SPECIFIC DOMIINATION of any one of these racist extremes. Even while most hate me still on the Left, they have less effectiveness to harm me where I can claim my own 'culture' rights. That is, you can still utilize the reasoning among those extremes on the Left against them with relatively ease in contrast to the Right who DEPENDS upon WHICH specific dominant cult is in present power.

It's not news to me. I don't like to be misunderstood and so require more words to express what DOES get misinterpreted when others beleive that shorter symbols suffice. Note that the more popular art is, the less specific its content is because people prefer to read summarily abstract expressions from their own perspective, not the artist's. Thus, being ABLE to reduce one's words to poetry is certainly more appealing but lacks specific meaning. In politics, we need more precision about the author's meanings. The default attraction to favor sound bites due to one's lack of attention span is what has gotten us into trouble: people paying attention only to what entertains their own views. I separate the 'art' of communication in politics from the 'logic' and prioritize the logic even if apparently 'longwinded' because I also believe that the artistic expression of serious issues are only 'poetry'. They can enhance a view already understood or shared and add emotional impact; But, they cannot express the logic underlying the emotional reactions about the issues.

If your PARTICULAR religion you think should be promoted, you are demanding people believe that there is ONLY ONE religion and that IT was necessary to define the non-religious concept of a free (liberal) democracy! The problem with religion as defined neutrally is that they are beliefs that LACK univeral CAPACITY to know WHICH belief is correct. The problem with religion then also means that no ONE religious set of ideals exist. Religion IS 'culture' and what those on the Left supporting 'Multiculturalism' ARE promoting RELIGIOUS beliefs like you except they recognize that there is differences. The concept of 'government' is about society seeking to find COMMON grounds of their different beliefs. ONLY those who demand STRICT religious power to make laws (presuming they have some special unique connection to what is 'true' about nature through their 'god'), goes against any system that permits NEGOTIATION among people but prefer a COMMAND style set of FIXED NON-NEGOTIABLE BELIEFS. Thus, you might believe, for instance, that the Bible suffices as a 'government' that has its 'commandments' that need no new legislation. Such arrogant dictatorial beliefs are Non-democratic and make such 'governments' merely tools for the rich to POLICE the rest as though they are slaves who are thought to be INTRINSICALLY 'evil'. The con is that the powerful on the Right are NOT 'religious' themselves because they CREATE the very 'religions' FOR those they want to OBEY. They want BLIND BELIEVERS IN THEIR OWN "SUPERIORITY" but cannot without some particular KIND of 'religion' that irrationally defends why they themselves have a 'right' to BE so powerful regardless of their arbitrary worth. The fact that wealth gets passed on by the choices ONLY of the wealthy, for those on the Right, they do not want any 'government' that promotes doubt in their VIRTUE. The 'woke' are those who believe they recognize that the very powers on the Right are pretending that they are not responsible for how whole classes of people based upon arbitrary racial lines are not racial. The fact that the 'right' defends "FAMILY" means that they believe in 'racial' superiority, given it is default that having a system that ONLY favors the self-interest of one's OWN, implies any extension of what 'family' can mean. Race is just an extension of 'families' and so IF you begin with a majority of some particular race dominating the economic pie, whatever the genetic makeup of those families ARE, the wealthy ONLY get to dictate which race gets to STAY dominant. The Leftwing religious who ALSO value 'family' only want distribution of power that enables them to be ABLE to compete. As such, they cannot collectively agree to other economically powerless cults UNLESS they find some means to point out that the 'family' is identical to one's race or other genetic factor. These are the 'woke' that are religious but not YOUR particular religion. To me, the fault is that no one WANTS to give up their independent power to selectively FAVOR their own through inheritance choices, especially the religious extremes who believe in isolated conservation and want their own children only to marry within their own extended 'family' (race/ethnicity). They also want the same power to IMPOSE debt upon the general society as an 'inheritance'. Since the rich can choose to pass on any debt to the whole (choose NOT to pass on debt to their own), then this hypocrisy is what 'awoke' those realizing why their own empoverished societies are not able to get ahead. The delusion is that the Right wing cannot notice that their power to favor their own while negligently being able to be 'indifferent' to the rest is harmless. The Left wingers who support the 'woke' concept are asserting that IF 'inheritance' is a 'right' as the Right believe regarding economics, they so is their families beliefs ....their culture. Thus, when you pass on wealth through your own privilege, you also pass on the culture. You, arguing for some 'right' to religion is demanding the right to pass on some 'heritage' given you THINK that we had some prior virtue based upon it. You ALSO only want your culture's POSITIVE values being pointed out while passing on the NEGATIVE factors as owned by the rest of society in the same way. Thus, you prove, by supporting a belief that your 'family' has in virtue is your OWN kind (being eligible to pass on economic wealth) but that any vices belong to the rest, as though the reason for other people's failures economically are due to flaws in their inherent 'culture' (their 'heritage'. Note how 'heritage' is the root of 'inheritance', if you haven't. above. This is key because the only difference between them differs in that the dominant cults believe they 'earned' their economic virtue due to their cultural virtue BUT that one's cultural virtue is actually due to their accidental coinciding economic virtue. The non-dominant cults are 'woke' to this fact and want the SAME. The rest of us who lack 'family' cohesiveness AND economic power are being forced by you religious supremacists to take sides BASED upon the religious belief that we inherit our culture in our genes. It is 'religious' to believe that we inherit something cultural by our genes. I don't 'inherit' a likeness to play guitar, for instance because some ancestor passed it on. It is equally religious to think that it is appropriate to then pass on environmental wealth for the same reason. Your children don't deserve any form of 'good' inheritance unless they deserve 'bad' inheritance equally. When you think so, you excuse the failures of others as INTRINSIC to their literal genetic nature,....making it 'racist'.

Actually, I see such intentional DECEPTION on these forums by those promoting 'simplistic' thinking that it calls for more depth. Given you CAN simply SKIP long posts, you are telling me to shut up when you respond to HOW I speak freely. If you are simply annoyed because you use a cell phone to communicate here making it difficult to read and respond, that is YOUR issue. I don't use a smart phone for these forums and have no problem being able to pass over other people's posts and use a full keyboard to type rather than thumbing one 'text'. Dictating that I appeal to your OWN limitations is insulting. Everything is not about YOU!

The politics of identity exist on the Left is due ONLY to the conservative religious groups there preferring to have racial/sexual division but lack the power of being the majority. The concept of demanding discrete 'culture' is a normal extreme that exists on the Right. Compare this to a large ghetto that needs some resolution to poverty. The independent individuals would be normally overrun by some particular gang locally. But when they attempt to challenge them by appealing to the majority among them, the gangs that exist could not compete against the individuals by the numbers. So they get a convention of mutliple gangs who merely agree to divide up the territory and STEAL the 'democratic' power by defining the 'minority' as being based upon those gang's particular domains. That is, the gangs cleverly figured out that if they can't have power as ONE dominant gang in 'supreme' power, they negotiate with the collection of distinct gangs to merely NOT INTERFERE in each other's own 'territory'. This means that the kind of problem of 'identity' originates from the same KIND of thinking as the 'White' Supremacist extremes who default to being on the Right precisely because the 'whites' on the Right are the default majority there. If this was a Muslim country, the Muslim extremes among them would exist on the Right while the caricatured "White" Supremacists would be just one among many on the Left. The Leftwing supremacist groups would try to paint themselves as 'democrats' but are NOT. What BOTH sides aren't saying is that they do NOT want anyone to notice the difference of politics as being 'economic'. The consevatives among the Left are still 'capitalistic'. [We get ONLY the migrants from places they are most interested in 'capitalism'. They are PRACTICING 'capitalism' when they trick the Left in serving their ends. Since independent individuals lack power if they do NOT belong to one of these pluralities and are relatively poorer than the establishment, their political representation is lost to the segregationist cults regardless of which political side they exist on. The Right here are just as 'segregationist' when they promote religion or their own 'culture' (such as those who may literally call themselves 'Supremacists' with PRIDE!) The Right's main cult class are the Christian fundamentalists (evangelicals and non-catholic protestants). This is their 'identity' cult. They actually agree to the 'mosaic' concept too but wholescale; that is, they want the whole country to be of ONE 'cult' rather than multiple ones. Both extremes couldn't give a shit about democracy and do whatever it takes to dictate the 'platforms' making a mockery of the idea of 'democracy' no longer valid.

TSOCTC (Too shallow of a comment to care) Go to Twitter if you don't expect appropriate depth on these topics. If you get annoyed for daring to read something you don't like and can't compete using counterarguments, you are not here for rational discussion. I'm not interested in short quips of opinion that platforms like Twitter is suited for.....especially if you are only acting to appeal to the shallow minded.

Your argument to an atheist might be comparable to me challenging you, "What would horses be like if unicorns didn't exist?" The present paradigm of the politics on the Left that derives 'woke' identity politics are themselve RELIGIOUS to me. You seem to not care to notice that many of the atheists tend to favor the Left still.. But this is an unfortunate choice in a world that excludes the non-religious as valid regardless of which political side you opt for. Even the atheists on the Right would tend NOT to favor the religious interpretations but have no choice. So you cannot argue that just BECAUSE naive or deceptive people ruled the polical power throughout most of human history, that religion would somehow NOT exist otherwise! If stupid people have always ruled, does it make stupidity the 'correct' type of thinking that should always rule regardless?

"Liberty" means to "have the freedom to do anything you personally want except where it prevents the freedom of others to the same right." To the anti-vaxxers, they interpret their 'freedom' as being non-imposing on other's liberty and that their own choice NOT to vaccinate is itself being violated. To the vaccine supporters, this is interpreted as violating the health and life of those who take it as well as to those untrusting of the actual scientific effectiveness AND, moreso, to those 'dependents' that the antivaxxer has power over. Which is correct? Can both be true and false paradoxically? My issue is that to those most predominantly against vaccinations is that most have either some direct religious belief, some political bias against government oversight and regulations, or economic alternatives they want the right to maintain. The 'alternatives' would be the snake oil product sellers and other scams that try to profit upon the intentional anti-scientific views. All are commonly related to religion in general. What has to be significantly recognized are to those like one's children of these antivaxxers who ironically tend to also support anti-abortion. They feel compelled to be against what others do of their 'children' (as in abortion) unborn, yet think that others should ignore how the religious person abuses their own children for denying them vaccines. To the 'sincere' religious (not those seeking the ease to capitalize on other's for profit or control), you should interpret 'God' as granting society as a whole as well as individuals to their 'free' actions, to which DEMOCRATIC systems, being one, requires accepting some forced laws that at least are scientific and universally applicable. To permit exceptional 'right' to the religious goes against the same freedom of all others because the viruses involved EVOLVE best when they are not annihilated completely and exhaustively. The alternative is to LET people die. For the same religious people, this is fine given then see God as able to 'repair' any injustices after death. But then anything should go, including the most ruthlessly selfish individual's behaviors. Now times that by the all the individuals who would also share this view and it shouldn't matter what happens in life, even nuclear annihilation., and......especially things like abortion! It is an unfortunate paradox. The ONLY resolution is to conform to the majority view on this issue. It does not bias favor only to those not in power to suggest vaccination. Thus, if you are worried about whether the vaccine is poisonous, take a 'liberal' friend with you to the clinic so that (s)he can take the shot first from the supply you will be using afterwards. Those in power who worried about being poisoned would demand a pre-taster in the same way before they eat their food.

"Racism" is any extreme action that targets some genetically defined subspecie as though their genetics define HOW they will behave where it is NOT actually genetic but 'cultural' and 'economic'. [environment, or 'nurture'] The arguments merely accusing some genetic class as 'owning' some fault (OR virtue) IS itself 'racist' which has to include those asserting it 'conspiratorial' to speak against those presuming "White Privilege" to justify making laws that tend only to penalize those 'whites' who don't conform to accepting any penalty. All media 'feeds' POTENTIAL for racism which will inevitably mean that they will exist. But to propose laws that dictate censorship threatens a worse problem. To further assume ONLY OTHERS are suckered into believing in 'false' news is itself CONSPIRATORIAL and WILL remove our capacity to 'free speech'. I have been arguing on forums that censor as being inappropriate because ANY 'moderation' beyond SPAM risks the guest's own liability because one can argue in court that their words were tampered with ...and 'legally' so. Once censorship is encouraged and permitted, it violates the faith of its content because it COULD be moderated in ways that alter the intentional meanings of ANY of its content. This is HOW the Eastern bloc countries and dictorships anywhere effectively assure they stay in power. So 'racism', even if it remains, CAN be challenged only openly without censorship. The problem as I notice from participating directly is that most of those in open forums do not even consist of those who prefer to collude in CLOSED forums. This specifically favors the wealthier who can afford to travel and meet in those non-public forums. As such, they tend to disapprove of OPEN forums that threaten those most who do not even participate. Participation is what CAN effectively correct misinformation. I find it relatively easy. I can watch anything and determine what is or is not true for myself and don't need some CONSPIRED privileged censorhip class to only JUSTIFY the very 'conspiracy theories charged against them afterthefact.

I interpret government as our means to DEFINE morality. In nature, there is none other than the INDIVIDUAL'S interpretation. The concept of 'good' (to which "God" is a different spelling of the original meaning) only originates as a kind of early childlhood program that begins with a blank slate. This 'program' when it intially runs will DEFINE anything it receives during specific events as 'good', in the same way God, in the Judea-Christian Genesis begs God as merely defining what is 'good' by what it is. Religion only evolved FROM 'politics' (a poll among people's different opinions). So religion does not 'own' morality because it is merely begging some kind of supernatural authority along with some mythical made up history to justify the belief that SPECIFIC actions are somehow 'good' or 'evil'. Nature is 'nihilistic' and does not care what we think. Each animal also has this 'program' mentioned above because it is necessary to define what to SEEK in the environment. My problem is that governments that are permitted to use religion within it, are bringing in anti-rational, anti-scientific beliefs that lack actual universal agreement nor 'fit' to the reality of nature. ALL our political problems initally stem from governments USING 'religious' assertions to rationalize those in power to do ANYTHING! You cannot think that 'religion' is ONE belief. And if it is some possible fact that a God exists, it should be irrelevant to a system that PEOPLE create that is both BY them as it is FOR them. Thus, the reasoning for the American's First Amendement. We lack this. And in actualilty, that preamble dictating that 'we' respect this country as 'founded' upon God, it intentionally UNDOES any 'universal' statements that directly follow because it is an intentional 'condition'! It permits governments to create things like 'hate' laws. It might help to think of what its direct opposite could be: 'love' laws'. Obviously, the only such emotionally laden terms is justified ONLY through the auspices of those privileged people who think they have unique personal access to some God! So we need to keep religion OUT of the political realm altogether. It can justify ANY government's behaviors ARBITRARILY when permitted.

Well, you are asking the right questions. But the particular physics are too deep to discuss here properly. The only reason I mention these at all is due to the accusation that the atheist is somehow the deluded person for believing that we could derive from nothing. To summarize the point I am making regarding this... If absolutely nothingness could NOT originate anything, then all things always exists and literally nothing is false ANYWHERE in Totality which automatically includes 'abolutely nothing' as ONE particular concept. And if one thinks that 'God' is the answer, it begs what God is (as a representation of Nature itself) if it lacks the power to create from 'nothing'. So philosophically, you are correct: we don't really 'create' from nothing. But WHAT we create, if it is novel (new), is derived from a RELATIVE state of nothingness (versus the absolute). But note that all nothings are nevertheless 'equal' in meaning and is a property of everything. [For an example, try to imaging what any specific point in space is. Each point in space is "nothing". Yet the combination of such points infinitely create everything.]

Most of the media are owned by 'segregationists' of some sort. Those most absurdly over-representative in media and television are Jewish and pro-Israeli to some degree. Outside of the U.S., they are NOT legally considered 'white' regardless of their overrepresentation of 'whites' in media. They learned from the past that the means to prevent their destruction (as from things like the Holocaust) is to capitalize on media. But given the dominant Christianity of the past also despised "usury" (the means of making money from the middle of transactions), the Jews had a background of 'media' control (I'm using 'media' now for its root meaning, "the middle"). I'm being matter-of-factly here to point out that those who link being Jewish as Semitic, are to me, just as racist too but can get away with this due to the Holocaust and why their specific constant advocacy to keep it in the minds of everyone. It MASKS their own racist ideal of being 'superior' (God OR Nature's 'chosen' ones implies being 'superior' in kind). While we need to point out these facts, it is almost blasphemy to do so and why WOKENESS is so effective to CONSERVE the cults of those pluralities who are unrepresentative as 'majorities' normally. But as you should see, by me pointing this out is what helps justify why the Left tries to tie the Right to "White Supremacists". The reason the Right doesn't point to this specifically is precisely because it would 'justify' the stereotype of the "Neo-Nazi" regardless of any logical point being made. There are pro-Israelis on the Right but given that side's philosophy is about ECONOMIC 'freedoms' versus CULTURAL 'freedoms', they would also not want to directly point out the White group thinking on the Left who have the same views. Instead, misdirection is their means of keeping people confused by promoting 'fake news' mixed with the real so that no one can tell the difference anymore. I HATE politics. (Is that a 'hate crime'?) But I CAN see what is going on by all sides. We are embracing the 'tribalism' that defines 'fascism' regardless of cultural or economic sides of the spectra.

Then you can't read correctly. I complained in that post how the Left tends to be always controlled by the 'racist' non-traditional groups based upon the very KIND of thinking that exists on the traditional groups on the Right. That is, the complaints about the Left falsely presume that those of us who like the 'liberal' ideals support Identity politics when it is only the plurality of those religious ethnic groups that THINK the same as the dominating conservatives of the Right: The Right are traditionally 'racist' by majority standards; the Left are non-traditionally 'racist' but by the collective pluralities of religious-based cults. (I use 'cult' to emphasize how arguments about conserving "culture" are based upon extreme religious segregationists....on any political side...and that terms like "Multiculturalism" (Left) are "Monoculturalists" (as the Right is normally) but are hiding the religiousity under the banner of 'culture'.) Thus the rhetoric on either side are controlled not by the actual individuals because of the power of dominating cults rule as the largest PLURALITIES dominant on each side. They are predominantly 'racist' equally but differ on their rhetoric. Also, the Left has been increasingly learning FROM the rhetoric normally exclusive to the rich Right wingers who believe in caricaturing people by stereotypes. The Left cannot advocate SPECIFIC favor due to the collective agreements among the dominating cults to define the smallest 'minority' BY those cults. They cannot 'agree' to the same conservative views because they come from diverse groups with very distinctly different ideals. So they simply agree to segregate the people into a 'mosaic' of ethnicities and why they are acting as they do. Those Left' OR 'centrist' Whites who still happen to have the larger plurality regardless opt to use the rhetoric of 'virtue signalling' because they TOO have a risk of losing their wealth in distribution ideals FROM the Left. So they act 'woke' by the standards of those like Malcolm-X rather than Martin Luther King. Malcolm-X was a 'segregationist' advocating SPECIFICALLY for his own race where MLK was a 'universalist'; Thus the "Left" is today being overrun by 'segregationists' precisely because ALL the ethnic cults are threatened and are becoming more CONSERVATIVELY protective. So the point here is that what those on the Right are complaining about the Left for being 'woke' haters of the "Whites" (and let's not forget, "Male") are nevertheless as racist as the extremes OF the "White" supremacist stereotypes they too point to. The reality is that there are some groups, like the Jewish ethnic segregationists, who like to keep the rhetoric of pointing to the Right-wingers as "White Supremacists" as do other ethnic segregationists on the Left (mostly) because its MEANING is to divert attention away from the WHITES in power among the Left, but are not generally OPEN as the same contingency of the Right. That is, the Left is defining 'white' as particularly the European caucasians and EXCLUDING the non-European whites, like the Semitic, or Arabic, for instances. Do you get it now?

I argue that 'dark energy' is just the energy of any point in space and derives from 'contradictions', manifested as direct collisions that have no other dimensions to transfer energy from. So it finds these points as 'new' points in space. The 'energy' then is the expansion of space itself. Dark matter is the phase of random points in space of the latter new points that spin creating curved paths (rather than Newtonian straight lines). It is 'dark' because light is dependent upon matter, NOT the other way around that the Big Bang interpretation assumes. This though is a part of my own theory and while others in physics may 'agree' they often have to fit it into the normal accepted theories (or they'd be burdened like I am to have to go back and undo a lot of mis-interpretations. )

I believe that IF (a condition) there IS an 'origin', then it is from absolutely nothing. But if there isn't, then the Steady State type of theories applies by default. The Big Bang theory relies on assuming the universe's appearance of being 14 Billion years old is due to a REAL singularity rather than the perception. Steady State differs in that it assumes an infinite space-time. However, note that my argument is about Totality, not merely our particular Universe. I define it as an absolte total collection of any realms real or not. Then the 'metaphysical' argument I have from abolute nothingness is as equally applicable to any God or gods, heavens, hells, et cetera. BUT, you should be aware that most original religious sources also hold that God created everything from 'nothing'. So your particular religious opinion is distinct to modern interpretation of religious scriptures and is usually more 'Right' wing religious.....intentional literalists who cannot recognize the materials as being originally from non-religious thinkers speculating on reality. The original word for YHWY, for example, meant 'source'. And the reason for the 'INEFFIBLE' nature of the word that used to refer to God creating everything from nothing today devolved to mean "unspeakable curse" to say God's name. The original meaning was about questioning how God could have derived everything from nothing. Note that "YHWY" is pronounced, "Ya way' but is more correctly "Ya ovey" [v sound turns into w] and meand, "the egg"; the Greek becomes, "Je ova" (Jehova), which helps notice how this came about from "the egg". The perfect oval (or egg) is the sun's shape as a circle and given Judaism evolved from Egyptian's sun-worship, you have to look back into the Egyptian origins to understand the original thinking. The term "Nile" hints at this given it meant what we now use as "nihil" or "null". The supposed sky god, Nut, is also where we get "nothing". I'm only giving some basic note of these as it relates to Nothingness. The confusion for others like you existed in the past as well and why the evolution of interpreting God's name as so sacred that it could not be stated. The philosophers would have tried to say to the layperson that the original 'creator' (whichever that could be) derived itself from 'absolutely nothing' but is "ineffible" (hard to speak about) given it cannot be true NOW! No time 'exists' at such an origin. So the argument is the same that later interpreters redefinition of God as a literal person-like being rather than merely "the source" or the related similar generic terms, like "lord" (owner of the Universe) being one: If absolutely nothing existed, it had nothing to OBEY, such as 'laws' nor 'logic'. At such an origin, it is then also true that it has no law preventing it from 'creating' anything; In fact, it 'creates' the laws and logic of our particular universe. To many, this became a magical supreme God rather than merely Nothing. The intellectuals who first questioned these became the authors of what became things like religious scriptures. But the interpretations passed on came from the naive minded 'simpletons' dominating the political power over historical documents.