Scott Mayers

Perhaps. But not all of us are yet cell phone owners contrary to the expected standard demanded of us all here. [This should be another topic...the U.S. has already gone through the recognition of how a large part of the population (the poor) lack the capacity to own a cell phone, and is yet is so essential. They even made it a law that all people require absolute access rights meaning if you can't afford a phone, the gov't must at least supply one for the sake of 911 emergency calls.]

Did anyone happen to hear of North Korea's test nuke today? It's blast measured stronger than Hiroshima! It's funny how this topic hasn't been raised here by anyone. ???

Tonight's broadcast cable listings air the exact show: "Stand Up for Cancer" on ABC, CBS, NBC, CTV, Global. This is the second time I've noticed our Canadian cable companies ALL co-opt broadcasting for one particular event in concert: "Stand Up for Cancer" is being aired on ALL Network channels including taking over American channels for this one event. Now, while I don't have anything against anyone standing up for some cause, the nature of our cable companies to be permitted to steal airtime in this way demonstrates proof that those behind control of our media are in sync and hints that they are also of the same owners (by shareholdings).

That's what really pisses me off with regards our government. We use those American services to the extreme. Also, all our Canadian government sites are actually privately owned and maintained, with likely American or other international interests. Also, where moderation occurs, they have protected private moderators which basically throws out all our rights to actual 'free speech'.

And thus why what Altai said is correct that her country should have a right to block access to those companies. [P.S. We are doing a lot of 'blocking' now, contrary to what some are aware of!! So much for accusing other countries doing this as 'evil']

The terms ARE the EULA. EULA means "End User Licence Agreement" which includes any legal 'agreements' to online activity. That is, it is Terms of Service as well. I didn't say there was a EULA for the public. I am saying we SHOULD have an automatic protection against 'agreements' since they are ubiquitous, necessary, and often written intentionally to remove ANY and EVERY fair responsibility of those 'services'. As a clear example is the ubiquitous clauses that relieve them of all responsibilities and a right to alter the agreement at any time, etc, are just forms of false 'agreements' since these are NON-negotiable terms. My point is still about the fact that they represent 'public' invitations like a mall. We should still have minimum standards of rights that we do not at present if we are even to PERMIT these services a privilege to register an online public site.

ANY country staged to constitutionally favor some particular religion(s), culture(s), ethnicity(ies), or people, are discriminatory and unworthy to be defended TO outsiders in argument because they by default limit at least some 'outsider' in their minds based on inherent factors that people cannot help being either born into or 'inherit' by virtue of some 'culture'. Israel to the world is deemed to be supposedly 'democratic' akin to places like Canada and the U.S.. It is obvious that other countries that impose Muslim rule are no different in principle. But for those, like Afghanistan, we have no delusion that they are actually something they claim they are. this is NOT the same for Israel and why many are troubled with them. They pretend to be a 'free' and 'fair' country when they are not; Places like Arabia do NOT feign this. It is for this reason mainly that makes them hypocritical and worthy to be questioned. If Israel is NOT being 'fair' we have no right to care to fight on their behalf whether other 'terrorists' in kind may or may not affect them in the Middle East.

I think that laws have to address rights of private industries that serve the public to require certain respects if privileged to BE on the internet AND invite the public. Forums and other public meeting places are no different than malls in this respect. We have laws that require a mall, even though 'private' to only be privileged conditionally when they invite the public to any degree. An example here in Canada, is our smoking laws that even ban a right of any private club that admits of a group of members to allow smoking. I'm not for this absolute degree to some such groups but this could and should be applied to the Internet. At present, places like Facebook have such absurd rights over the public as is. We should have a EULA for the public, for instance, that preserves the right of individuals to our OWN agreements by default. For instance, no EULA should demand any imbalanced right that favors the public entity over the individual. An example is how a site can arbitrary erase a person's content yet can also USE that information against the favor of the individual to their discretion. To be 'fair', if a site has such a right in 'Public' forums, they should also NOT be permitted to grant any government or corporate access to any requested information NOR allow even to use any information for their own or other third parties. In contrast, if they are permitted to use such information for themselves or others, the site should require keeping all content for the right of those individuals who speak or post to keep 'ownership' of their content too.

Religion (as in any ethnic or cultural consideration) should simply be removed as a component of any state or constitution. For the whole of the Middle East, I think the 'solution' would be to treat the whole as non-'owned' by any named 'people' or religion. For 'local' ownership, to prevent more collective discrimination, allow individuals to own a LIMITED parcel that is only 'owned' as a temporal factor that requires certain responsibilities. The whole Middle East could be a haven for tourism if it wasn't for the religiously zealous of any group and to the unlimited restrictions of 'ownership' power to which those groups most interested in segregation are bound to be of the extremes. As it is now, all I can see is that the whole region is doomed for any good potential as they continue destroying the historical monuments and archaeology that the rest of the world would have had value for it if everyone was in peace there. We need a comet....a really big one!

If the land belongs to no nation, where does "Israel" come in? I've already noticed you accuse anyone of their own view that differs from absolute favor of yours as a demon Jew-hater. But your presumptions are only sounding as projecting your own hate by reflection. Stop calling people haters and just deal with the substance of the argument. Otherwise you appear to be trying to amplify something worse than you claim you don't want....the hate. What do you think of the link to Egypt? Should the Egyptians be the 'true' people there before? How about the African decedents before them where we all come from? OR, are you arguing some religious right to that land?

The Zionists who bought the land, even if "official" (which is troublesome considering what or who 'owns' is questionable), they did so IN ANOTHER LAND, just as though some Arabian Immigrant might come to Canada or the U.S. to buy land. Does this automatically mean that the very 'ownership' one has BECOMES sovereignty restricted to those 'owners'? If some majority of Arabian ancestral people bought land here, are they not subject to the laws that PERMIT "OWNERSHIP" granted by the laws create in that sovereignty? OR....does the 'ownership' one has MAKE THEM THERE OWN COUNTRY? This is the issue at question. The Zionists who 'bought' made negotiations of 'ownership' by ABSENTEE claims, AND the settling Zionists declared that land their own SOVEREIGN domain exceptional to the very people they are supposedly legitimate purchasers to. As such, either the owners as Zionists are subject to the people who live there and 'OWN' the country, or the sovereignty of the Palestinians there were disrespected as though they were and are 'floaters' upon the land as though Aliens from another world. Either way, that land is more home to the Palestinians. And with respect to the 'legitimacy' of purchases, besides, to only the absent claims of 'ownership' have these Zionists 'purchased' anything. I could technically sell you the Eiffel Tower but would it hold up in 'legitimacy' for the Parisians? [i see Altai pointed this out above too before my post here.]

What's even more interesting is that "Judaism" itself originally derived as an offshoot of the Egyptian rule of the 18th and 19th Dynasties from Ahmosis to Ramesis [Ra-moses (Sun Leader)]. Akhenaten (Akin to the Aten, or "shape/circle/oval boundary defining the sun), was the strict leader in between who demanded no other tribal beliefs. Prior to this period, the Northern African/Middle East/ Turkey were very Metropolitan and accepting of various cultures. The latest period extended to Assyria in the north and it was they who held these last periods before its final 'fall'. The remnant 'divide' between Egyptian dynasty to the rest of the Middle East had their last Temple in Jerusalem and where Judaism redesigned its roots. All people in this whole region are of mixed variety from everywhere and the Middle East is merely the crossroads where trade was done. Its 'ownership', just as with the rest of the world, is ALL OF OURS! But Palestinian/Arabs were most recently the long-held inhabitants there and so deserve respectful right to call that 'home' with more precedent than the Israelis, who both took over the territory AND excluded the original residents there. For this reason, I find the Israelis at fault given its most relatively recent takeover. If we are to assume no one 'just' for their right other than force, than there is just as much validity to those who use ANY tactic they equally feel is justified as force. To STOP terrorism requires to treat the Palestinians as 'owners' as equal to the young generation of Israelis (since the kids of parents who are at fault are NOT theirs to bear). Otherwise, the only other solution is to ABANDON 'ownership' rights to anyone. Let it be the WORLD who 'owns' it collectively since we all have significant 'right' to it in historical significance.

I asked this too and why I came to the "Nationalistic" thing I speak of in a broader interpretation I have elsewhere on this site. The reason that this occurs is because the conservative cultural interests relating to one's belief in requiring laws to favor (or disfavor) their ethnicity exist in ALL political parties who utilize whichever side represents them best, not the actual philosophy of the party per se. These represent THEE major backing forces in all political persuasions simply because they believe strongly in their in-group cohesion versus outsiders (Various Individuals dissociated as a 'group' making them less powerful). Technically, this makes them more favorable to a Nationalism of the right but to their own particular preferred culture, ethnicity, etc. But where they are NOT in the general majority is some area, they utilize a negotiated agreement among relatively similar 'minorities' (actually large plural majorities in contrast to variable individuals) who just lack the power at present to impose their ideals at large. So those on the left often get their largest financial support from those groups regardless of their actual 'liberal' ideals intrinsic in that philosophy. It is like if you had one large gang who embraces the right-wing parties BECAUSE they happen to BE in the relative majority but to all those other similar gangs who also value the same 'kind' of views borrow the politics of the left for the sake of the power it grants them by creating a collective group of weaker gangs who simply agree NOT to harm each other for their similar interests to find a means to compete better. They risk losing their culture to the majority if they don't find some means to at least preserve (conserve) in LAW some right of cultural/ethnic identity unique to their own in-groups. As such, you get those sets of Nationalists within the left-wing parties who 'ride' on the philosophy of those who argue for liberal ideals by extending the intent of the individual ideals this, as it means for liberalism, to the GROUP as a minimal standard. That is, they treat their in-groups AS an individual similar to how a corporation, as a 'person' in law, utilizes this to benefit themselves where 'rights' to persons are concerned. P.S. This is why some have adopted, "libertarianism" instead. [see Penn from "Penn and Teller's" take on this, for instance.] But in that group, there is also a division of right/left identity making it a bit confusing since they can't focus on their particular philosophy but act only as a reflective group of dissatisfied people who are just fed up with the cultural factors that exist in the other parties.

Yes, I was trying to use the point about the children of the parents who CHOSE to wear badges as though in honor of who they are regardless of the general symbolizing it represented to others in the Jewish community considering that the society at large (Germany) treated it derogatorily. In other words, this relates to those who might think that women appearing to 'opt' to wear hijab's to many is a symbol openly asserting support for what outsiders interpret as derogatory towards women, like those children of parents who require them to follow their parent's "religion". Unintentionally, it is like Cartman's naivety and then the further naivety that occurred BY the staff trying to repair his costume. Your damned if you say something or damned if you try to repair it.

I was listening to "Knocking on Heavens Door" and although the Wikipedia on this mentions it was about some Sheriff dying, I thought it related to the Holocaust and to Germany's requirement that they had to wear 'badges' or indicators that identified Jews with clarity. So to the dying in this song, I thought it was about what someone might think as they realize they are being gased to death. Okay, so I'm likely wrong. But as I am free to interpret it as such based on how Germany required Jews to be 'forced' to wear a symbol of identity in Germany then, I think this might be worth comparing with regards to those who optionally CHOOSE to wear something that identifies them or to be forced. So my question is this: Imagine if some Jew in Germany at the time opted to wear an identifying "badge", like a burka tends to do. In the same crowd and circumstances of the day, would that person be acceptable to other Jews for doing so or would this be considered relatively stupid to do so? Extending this to the concern of others, like children of those opting to wear their identifier, would it be justified for other Jews to question those parents for their 'freedom' to choose to wear what they want considering it would inevitably harm their children as they are required to conform with their parents philosophy on this? Similar to the above posters mentioning about how it would [be] doubly abusive to the children to discourage them from wearing such identifiers as they would be confused at who has their best interest, should we say nothing in such an atmosphere of concern? The issue here seems to be about whether society should be concerned of those who stand out relative to others when one wears things that openly identify themselves in light of how their 'badges' represent conflicting 'positive' versus 'negative' ideas to different groups of people. It reminds me too of Cartman's choice to be Hitler for Halloween in "South Park". The staff suggested he wear something less troublesome and generic, like a sheet over his head with two holes cut into them to be a ghost. But then he looked like a Ku Klux Klansman!!

That's okay. I'm not taking you as being strict here. It just reminded me of a relative who when I too mentioned something about "Christians", she was confused because I happened to be discussing meeting with a Jehovah Witness when she defaulted to assuming they weren't "Christians". (??) I had to step back to explain that being non-religious, I interpret one who asserts themselves as "Christian" is ANYONE who follows some aspect of belief, similar to what you seem to be saying. Yet, she too asserted they were NOT "Christians" to which I felt forced to find some other word that she favored, like "heathens" (!!). As you can see, she too interpreted them as falsely using the name "Christian" to define themselves when they too were using it appropriately by meaning. To those same Jehovah Witnesses, they were relatively 'liberal' and would accept her being of an alternate form of Christianity as though she were in the same company. But my relative by contrast assumed they were working technically under the banner of the name "Christianity" but were miscreant truants who just couldn't get fired in the same way. That's why I assumed you might be thinking the same way. There is no correct definition of what is "Muslim" other than that it is AT LEAST one who follows some aspect of Islam through Mohammed as their founder. But to those most strictly fundamentalist (and sometimes evangelical), they believe in an equal but opposing view of other strands of Islam using the same label but assuming everyone else actually knows their own 'authoritative' view as 'true' but are being relatively truant and thus BAD employees. The more liberal versions may be more accepting of ALL "Muslims" but are no more authoritative over them then they think of you when they interpret themselves as the 'true' version. You each mistaken the other as relative 'employees' as though you share the same religion where the other is just being the trivial disobedient representative of the whole of Islamic faith. And this is where I think you may be in error. You seem kind enough and relatively what many here might prefer to be a fair citizen among various other religions. But your version of Islam is no more 'correct' than those who appear most troubling to outsiders just as those who interpret the extremes of Christianity as disconcerting and worthy of question in a Muslim world where many think that they should discourage Christianity if only because of those extremes that exist, however less popular than the whole.

Okay. Can men wear or not wear what they want by your own standards too? I think this is what many people (male AND females) who take issue with this find confusing: To take one of my personal musician favorites, Katy Perry: I Kissed a Girl But, while she finds it alright for her to digress from expected norms because, well, ... she's just being her innocent girl-self, she also appears to be certain that men who act in kind are certain to be 'gay' because she can't believe that a male-self would, nor should, act with a similar standard: Ur So Gay (Note that I'm using this as an example and don't commit Katy Perry [Kate Hudson] of actually speaking of some guy in this video, but by context, it is generally assumed so.) Edit: Okay, update,... I knew the song but didn't notice that the "Ur So Gay" video WAS about some past boyfriend who "wore more makeup than she" and why she felt justified in leaving him. It proves how she appears to find justice in BEING most 'free' to be herself without assumed bias should SHE kiss a girl but that HE sins merely for something with even less validity: that he wears more makeup than she AND even vocally assures her that he is NOT gay. Its a double standard of how she represents an icon of concern to defeat bias against women but finds it still alright to oppose men WITH clear bias. I think it would have been most interesting had the "I kissed a girl" video be sung by her ex in drag to mock his own transgression in being 'free' to appear effeminate but actually still (shockingly!) prefer women still!

Ah....so you're the one who got me fired!! :angry: I understand that you are asserting that like the company who could fire me for being incompetent, the company is NOT at fault for my lack of inappropriate behavior. But does this not suggest that if being Muslim has a standard authorized identity like a given company that simply doesn't or won't fire misbehaving staff, that you are assuming all who call themselves "Muslim" are working for the same entity? That is, could it not be the case that while you 'think' they are biased staff members who work for you, it might be you who mistakes them as a part of your staff when really they are just working for some other company AND possibly running it as their own rightful authority? It sounds like you are asserting still that they are NOT legitimate Muslims (as poor employees) simply because the company you believe you work for OWNS the authoritative name of the business. While you may treat those who simultaneously call themselves "Muslim" as flexible (they can come and go when or where they please) to your own particular standards, to them, they'd fire your ass in direct opposition in their own capacity as bosses should you realize that you are in their company instead. Do you follow my point or are you like this: and ?

You sound like you argue for what is a 'true' Muslim in a similar vein as one who might argue who a 'true' Christian is, correct?

"Evangelical" and "Fundamentalism" are often associated but mean two different things: "Evangelical" means the belief in proselytizing or recruiting believers actively rather than passively. It also often presumes selling to ANYONE, not some specific ingroup alone. "Fundamentalism" is the belief in some 'fundamental' faith in some strict adherence to something minimally. To most Christian 'fundamentalists' this is to the Bible as a scripture representing usually literal translation of events it depicts rather than allegory and to the assumption of it as also being inerrant of human sources or its fallibility as to its creation or culpability to fraud, etc. The opposing views of both 'evangelical' and 'fundamentalist' Christians OR Muslims are to a 'liberal' interpretation, to acceptance of progress (allowing change or evolution in it) and to opting not to forcefully 'sell' it by insisting that others MUST believe or have consequences imposed upon them in life and/or after life. I actually understand the concern against the liberal interpretation by fundamentalists and evangelicals: If these beliefs are open to conjecture and change, then should they also lose their status as actual religions since they reduce to being human conventions only if they can be selectively altered or updated to suit the needs of some progressive society? So, to question any religion, like Islam too, requires addressing religion as a whole OR to admit them as equals among all others just as we do with Christianity here.

I think "Islamist" sounds awkward as it should if one used the term, "Christianist" (or , "Massiahnist" as a description of submitter to a Savior-god, similar to "Islam", submitter to one god. ). Perhaps its more appropriate to describe one who favors Islam as a political function in political law is "Islamic Nationalism" as those to Christianity as "Christian Nationalists".

Although I agree with the facts of climate change by humans as being sufficiently 'true', the actual argument of the anti-climate change concern deals with what they opt NOT to speak of considering it sounds relatively callous: that the concern to deal with the here-and-now is what they are actually defending, not to the actual facts. If you 'care' about the progeny when you lack even justification for HOW it will matter when you are NOT there to witness this in some dire future, these people actually are thinking that one should take advantage of the present conditions to its extreme when or where possible because even a comet could come along tomorrow and completely dissolve any meaning to what sacrifices we do today for some supposed future's people. But the reason they attempt to challenge the science rather than speak the truth under consideration is for the means-to-ends factor that favors appealing to people's emotions rather than their logic. It would sound more callous to assert that you don't have concern for the future people even IF they do have certain logical foundations for THAT less popular reason. To those of a similar flock, they appeal to the religious justification of a God that will 'fix' things no matter how powerfully destructive we could be. To the rest, they simply use any tactic to dismiss the science to at least provide hopeful doubt by others as it appears 'controversial' and less certain. [That is, I believe they are actually acting intelligently even if it 'appears' dumb for the power it serves as a lawyer opting to use highly laden emotional appealing arguments for their client when evidence is strong against them that distract from the actual evidence of a case.]

"Logic" doesn't care about whether what one puts into its input premises are 'true', only that IF 'true', the conclusion MUST follow (be 'true' also). With politics or any social concerns, rarely is there 'truth' to be determined without bias because what goes IN deals with one's personal interpretation of what is "good" versus "bad", "pleasurable" versus "painful". These are always emotionally biased but mistaken for the universality that I raised above in "Moral Universality versus Reality".

I agree. There is a distortion between the difference of when or where one is free to dress as they like to those places where one must be as neutral as possible in their occupation. It is relevant to be 'uniformed' (UNI- means to wear in one form common to all) in positions where service is universally applied. Certainly, government should do this. As to public areas, we all at least require to wear clothes, which seems at odds with the freedom to be naked should we choose. We even arrest those who opt to do so as unusual miscreants more universally. So how or why should this not apply to some degree with regards to other forms of unusual dress where there is controversy to the average expected norms of the community? It doesn't mean that it is or is not 'correct' to dress as one opts to. But to those NOT familiar to the average acceptance of the community, they require doing the adjustment voluntarily when noticed or risk the consequences, even if no one is intending dissent of others. The hijab doesn't simply represent one's style or preference alone, but advertises their particular 'private' views as a clear sign would. Would it be allowable for say, a teetotaler to frequent bars carrying big signs dictating the evils of drinking? Would it be 'appropriate' to defend that they are just there for the coca cola and so should not be considered being offensive of others in that public establishment? The extent of concern to those wearing hijabs in certain public non-governmental places is due to their very real nature of them as acting as 'signs' that insult others for their actual beliefs, not simply because it is of some accidental style one might opt to wear. As such, while perhaps unintentional, the hijab is no different than observing a gang who comes by wearing their colors. To those outside, the clear intent is for them to announce who they are and what they believe, especially when they appear as a group and not as mere individuals. They as individuals may actually have no distaste of others but their choice to BE distinctively different serves SOME cause. The lack of clarity to which their 'cause' serves is what is suspect, just as if I were to 'opt' to go to a bank wearing a nylon stocking over my head. Imagine that last example was something to which some novel cultural group joined the community where they believed in wearing such nylons over their heads as some religious or cultural meme. While not intrinsically threatening, are we to simply default to NOT using ANY means of identifying others with zero stereotyping? The hijab is hard to determine whether one is trying to hide something as this WOULD eventually be used as a trojan horse to actually do harm should we dismiss its significance by someone eventually. The same goes with how many perceive those speaking in different languages in public places. It acts as no different than the form of behavior we also find repulsive in immature high-school children who whisper to each other in the presence of someone they don't approve of. If you cannot speak the language of the local population, this is understandable. But often the 'cultural' argument is used to defend those to do so in direct defiance of their actual capacity to speak the language in common with their surroundings. And it is this kind of similar situation that people are upset about when different cultures come along with unusual behaviors.

More women are welcome. But....where are they? The same 'type' of women who go to forums are the same 'type' of men who do. What bothers me is to the fact that the 'voluntary' lack of presence of women in this relatively 'equal' state suggests that women, not men, are opting to favor some stereotyping status in actuality and less so only in words. How and why does this occur if it doesn't suggest that both men and women foster the same kind of behavior? The only reason women are less frequent in forums relates to the fact that the same 'majority' of men who supposedly OWNS the causes of discrimination are also of the same quantity of those women who FAVORS those same 'majorities' in practice. So the more likely nature of the men here are more likely your friends in similar thought than not. But that we ALL are more vocal about controversial issues, makes those of us more likely to be relative 'victims' of some injustices we are trying to combat. Those NOT concerned are not present. "We are more alike, my friend, then we are different." [from a recent Apple and their supporting communication company ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztMfBZvZF_Y (an "integration" favoring commercial versus the "segregationist" view fostering distinctive differences between people)]