Scott Mayers

"Integration" competes with "Segregation" as a principle. While I agree with you, what is at concern is to how certain laws get implanted with permanence such that what is assume contemporary is treated permanent without clarification. Here in Canada, I'm against our CONSTITUTIONALIZED preference FOR segregational policies that permit special privileges to certain groups over others through our "Multicultural" (non-integretion/assimilation) policies. As such, our law permits segregation to be permanent rights when extended to other groups or they have to admit of their own 'right' to such protections in the Constitution as suspect.[british Anglicanism, French Catholic, "First Nations" special privileges.] The problem was partially resolved in the U.S. by their First Amendment clause which, in light of the Enlightenment's momentum, intended to separate culture/religious/ethnic differences to be distinctly NON-government founded since ANY conservation of one group must either imply ALL cultures with distinct privileged laws (segregation). This defeated the problem of slavery since the Southerners (British Elitist) roots treated their 'culture' distinct from the African slaves. This is why Pierre Trudeau (and supporters) opted to lock in the protection provided by a new constitution FOR ETERNITY!! This is why we HAVE the problems we do now. But the only way to 'appear' non-hypocritical, is to obscure the intent of Multiculturalism's hidden discrimination by offering other groups some certain leniency in favor of similar Segregate laws. I think the ONLY cure will to require altering our constitution to NOT favor ANY culture, religion, ethnicity, sex, etc, through laws external to actual Natural causes, not falsely presumed innate ones.

I agree with you on this too. Our political system IS just a form of assigning morality through laws that either favor or restrict behavior in some way for some expedient purpose. We'd need no 'new' government-forming laws if they are set in stone already through sacred scriptures (or constitutions).

"Hate" language is a relative charge and only fostered when one accuses the other of it. (If you are going to 'pay' for the accusation when not true, you may as well begin justifying it to account for the punishment you receive for it regardless.) This is why it isn't good to focus on the 'how' of one's emotionally laden charges. If it is too much for you to hear, mention so calmly, avoid confrontation to allow the other respectfully to cool off, and ONLY attend to the logic if only to set an example. We ALL get emotional at some point. To help best is to trivialize the affect it has on us OR you risk being a real contributor to the problem justifying the reactive amplification of abuse. Having laws of etiquette though is just a form of religion just as one might treat a ceremonial act they opt to do.

I agree with you in that I believe the 'etiquette' is most irrelevant and also distracts from the issue. The degree to differences where no side is more nor less correct as to what I just said above, means that there leaves less grounds for one to argue against the other on a logical basis. So the language is defaulted to require rhetoric when opposing views are 'equal' in power. But one side (usually more liberal) will favor natural truth based on non-emotional scientific ideas except for where they fail due to the contradiction of morality that doesn't exist there. As such, the rhetoric favors "etiquette" if only to treat those who use language that 'sounds' offensive can be treated as justified limits to the other's free speech. In contrast, the other side will foster using tactical rhetoric to any means necessary, also in recognition of nature's lack of concern, but FAKE a sense of moral high-ground based on something BEYOND Nature, like some "God". They don't necessarily believe in these but are using that 'any-means' mentality to justify their own actions, as if life itself was a SPORTING event. This makes those like Trump purposely use rhetoric that is ambiguous in 'legitimate' terms to entice the listener to "fill in the gaps" of what he represents. [Ambiguity example: "their" rapists OR IS IT "they're (they ARE) rapists? Intended ambiguity in context.]

(1) Moral Universality vs Reality Politics IS about 'morality' as laws represent what a given government (management system) selects IS or IS NOT "justified" behavior. As such though, the vast majority of people regardless of affiliation, religion (or non-religion), culture, etc, ...all believe in some FIXED UNIVERSAL set of 'rights' and 'wrongs'. This is the ultimate error in rationality. As what one thinks is 'universal' competes with an other's same conviction, they falsely assume that each of us actually share the same view "at heart" but that the opponent is either intellectually stupid OR opting to do so 'knowingly', which makes them purposely deceptive or evil. The nature of our world becoming relatively smaller and able to share various views through technology contributes by accident by demonstrating the large variety of views WITH relative proof to us that what is 'good' for one sincerely can be 'bad' for another without anyone being intrinsically at fault. But we still have not or cannot ACCEPT the relative nature of morality or that Nature itself is mute to what is or is not 'right'. This conflicts with us emotionally as it should. If there is no such justification for any one to be more right over another, we either have to (1.1) Compete for Power regardless of any defensive consideration for 'fairness'. Some will opt to compete with extremes regardless of 'how' they do so if only to empower themselves and their arbitrary favorite people and their customs and so would select some 'posited' group to favor based on a "native" (genetic) claim to some ingroup at the expense of all others. This is the "Nationalism" that I refer to most broadly to that is less about ones actual physical place in the world but to their genetic and environmental INHERITANCES ("heritage", deriving "inheritance" relates here and why ones culture and ethnicity are also used). To those less empowered in REAL ASSETS, they focus on the claims of defending "heritage" laws based on culture as a 'right' to special laws, often as minorities; to those with more REAL ASSETS, they focus on fiscal "inheritance". Both can be 'genetic' if and where they use culture, religion, ethnicity to aid in consolidating political power here. (1.2) Demand that there IS still a Universal Morality. To this, the favor towards extreme religious ideals simply avoid requiring to be concerned about noticing the 'relative' nature in reality that makes some suffer over others. Since they can argue that "God" can fix any injustices later anyway, even acts they would not approve of by the 'other' is acceptable as long as it stays strict to the faith in some God and so compete to FORCEFULLY impose their own brand of religion upon others. To the non-relgious/secular minded people, although they may admit of a 'relative' morality, they trade the "God" and hopes of "Paradise" to a faith in a 'future' progeny. Using arguments of assumed "altruism" as somehow genetically in us, they gamble on a form of religion of some future kind as if this is somehow any more rational. (2) Real Economics. This is the actual cause of anyone's real concern in issues of politics. But like the morality factor, we cannot accept that we live in a FINITE world with INFINITE desires we are not willing to dismiss. As such, this factor is attempted to be most trivial over the moral factors because it most effectively PROVES that there is no intrinsic moral concern to nature. Those with most power economically will do their best to treat economic 'freedom' maximized and foster the masses to BE more religious and extreme if only to conserve their power by the effect of competing beliefs to be excused as the 'cause' of problems, not the differences in people's wealth. Otherwise, they'd have to admit their own fortunes as the cause. They'll favor 'fundamentalist' type religions because they ARE most irrationally defensive, both for their own AND for some clear and similarly defined opponents. Those with most power via more liberal or progressive ideals are still most empowered to those plural powers within distinct cultural, ethnic divides. This makes them ironically more restrictive to groups not represented as having 'minority' status. So the conservative Nationalism still takes root over the 'liberal' ideas here based on how power cannot be actually distributed realistically to ALL individuals regardless. So the focus is on the 'groups' that are associated with those appealing to segregation over integration. (3) The contemporary communications media advancements that force us to REALIZE our insignificance to Nature. So do we compete by Nature (Nationalism) or against it? The 'against' part is what we "realize" now is impossible to reconcile. We are at another relative stage in communication that is experienced at each new technological advancements, especially with regards to the Internet and Computers, and cell phones, that tends to extend more confusion and doubt when we see how morality and economy is MORE VARIABLE and IRRECONCILABLE to be 'fair' for all. It makes people uneasy feeling that we are more alone than we thought. Do we appeal to our actual selfishly derived concepts of what is 'moral', what is 'comfortable', what is 'correct'? Or do we try to insist in moral absolutism by forcing forms of specific favor to Nationalistic ideals (favoring some idea that specific kinds of 'naturally' inherent people should be the authorities to what should or should not be 'moral')? The economics are at the root of real differences. But the only way all sides are desperate to cling to when there is NO way to determine HOW to fairly distribute wealth when it seems impossible as well is to assert ones own issues are economic but the others competing against us are due to some moral distinctive indifference or hatred against us.

The timing of all the natural disasters in the U.S., AND the rest of the world, will likely favor Hillary by default since the demand of the majority will be to social concerns. The Nationalists extremes of both political sides are paramount though. If only based on population, this will also mean that the Democrats WILL win. However, for those of us who can't stand ANY form of Nationalism, Hillary is still the best representative as she is clearly NOT biased upon ethnic, cultural, or sexist grounds personally. What matters more may be to the elections in House of Representatives though. To the Nationalists, it doesn't matter as much WHO becomes president as to their reliance on Representatives and the Senate.

I missed all the infighting here. But to the topic, there is NO actual difference in people in general from ANY different country. What MAKES us different is to the LAWS established. Canada is MORE conservative in ALL aspects because (1) we are defaulted to be founded on a country that derived its constitution by specific colonial interests who represented people who resisted self-definition, as the U.S. did. The English Loyalists of a 'dictatorial' (in principle) Monarchy by those who most selfishly profited by their Nationalistic belief in their 'superiority' over the average person suggests they are NOT in principle 'democratic' and their own 'superiority' complex is based on irrational cultural identity. (2) The French Catholics who were abandoned by France via their own "Republican" revolution that resisted religious intolerance via similar 'dictatorial' beliefs in Kings and Queens AND their strict adherence to a Church organ that also believed they have a supreme authority granted by their god through their 'supreme' Pope. (3) The utility of supporting a distinct 'respect' for differentiating Aboriginals as though they were at least a distinct 'natural' essence, but as animals; the English and French only utilizes granting them similar position of the same kind of Nationalism they believe of themselves as it functions to CONTROL all others to be committed to their own ESTABLISHED power through the years. Our Constitution, through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically has been designed to permanently SAVE these main three selective groups under the guise of Multiculturalism but ONLY for the sake of those English and French 'aristocratic' established in Ontario and Quebec mainly. Their use of (3) above is NOT out of respect for Aboriginals as it is NOT for ALL other cultures nor differences in other similar ethnic definitions (like sex or gender). The utility is to falsely create an illusion of friendly love for all cultures ONLY to SAVE their own from being naturally defeated. In contrast, the Americans have the First Amendment clause which though is still NOT sufficient due to similar culturally discriminating groups there who have reinterpreted less significance to the role of religion. Yet, while the U.S. is most apparent to seem more discriminating in ethnic differences, this is ONLY by default of the very fact that the world DOES look at them most closely. They are MORE apparent for their system and so appears to be most troubled in regards to Nationalistic fervor. The reality is just the opposite though. It is the effect of the world who IS more discriminatory who notices them precisely because they are most relatively "honest" about their differing views. But where problems get actually solved, being most apparent IS the first step. All other countries hide their own more hateful discrimination through their less 'free' media. It makes them actually MORE liberal than any other country. Canada is WAY more conservative by contrast in terms of economics AND social concerns. It just has measures to both hide them through more deceptive means of propaganda. It props up interest group issues as more prevalent with laws that enable ease at censuring. Our media in the 'free' arena is also a very REAL monopoly (by the actual owners) and use tactics that in the U.S. get exposed more readily --- making the U.S. appear more troubled than they actually are.

Why does no one notice that the function of the likely concern for the Russians have to deal with access to the sea, and NOT to some apparent simple Nationalism? I can't say for certain whether this is the biggest part of the concern, but comparing how Iraq too had this same justification to attack Kuwait and was propagandized as to be about some irrationality of some dictator's hatred of non-Iraqis, to me, the LAND-LOCKING conditions that both prevent ease of 'free' trade in fair negotiable terms is highly common to most countries we are told are always about some 'cultural' type of discrimination. In more likely terms, the reverse occurs for the same reason: that those territories that have controllable access with measurable powers over another sovereignty to their economic well-being serve to be most interested in KEEPING their 'unfair' advantage as they utilize their accidental position of access as means to significantly TROLL those who need access to markets where optimized. This is similar to the Palestinians as well. I began this thread to point out how a broad definition of "Nationalism" is used to maintain power over others out of self interests based on some 'ethnic' concern. But these are also just the SMOKE SCREEN to the real issues beneath the surface that are INTENTIONALLY being dismissed. When the actual issues are hidden, the Nationalist ideals are more empowered as one side excuses their right against the other BASED on an false assumption of ethnic causation. These though only exasperate the problem by creating MORE (and justified) reactions of ethnic differentiation that creates the Nationalists to accelerate their false beliefs.

What do you think the polls are for if not to (1) help other politicians reflect on 'how' they should anticipate WHAT they might attempt to do next, or (2) to influence voters? Politicians by now affect the results of polls if only to aid in influencing behavior. This is done by pundits too as they attempt to downplay whether a country is going into recession or not because when others 'think' the trend is going one way or the other, it affects how they will invest or not. You can no longer 'trust' the validity of any polls with regards to politics. Even literal voting results now is not an actual indicator of people's thoughts necessarily because there are just too many variables for why people opt out of voting.

I don't trust any polling now. It's too normalized in contrast to its origins (if even useful then) because everyone has sufficiently learned to use that and other propaganda devises purposely used to foster the illusion of support in the hopes that it makes others act according to their natural tendencies to appeal to popularity for things they cannot follow with sufficient clarity. We were overly 'confident' here in Saskatoon for precisely interpreting NDP to win without a need to even try. We only have one NDP seat here! (And now I've got Trost as another extreme personality who is about to try running for the Conservative Party leadership! We had Vellecott last time who was relatively extreme too before.) Best bet is to ignore polls, focus on the issues, and entice others to vote where possible.

Nicely worded!

Pretend that your view was somehow justified...reading into the statements of apology for anger and getting 'carried away' MEANS "X is guilty of whatever the woman accuser says by default". What kind of precedence does this set for ALL people, and particularly with MEN as a whole class? Should ALL MEN be default to being guilty for any accusation a women charges and require PROVING an impossible negative, that they did not? If you are male, I then ask you whether we should even trust you considering you implicitly agree that men by default have some internal genetic nature to lie, deceive, and abuse over all women? Or is it that you think that some men (not yourself of course) should SACRIFICE their own capacity to be treated equally to 'balance' out the general treatment against women by OTHER men in society who have abused women as a class? That is, should I sacrifice the potential unfairness of being accused of something by some arbitrary woman and getting convicted for something for the sake of something other men have done. Do men or women as a class 'own' all the cultural aptitudes of some specific set of behaviors?

I don't nor ever HAVE had any abusive concerns against women. In fact, it is just the opposite considering how I have helped those who have been legitimately abused. My problem is with those like yourself who impose some assumed opposing stereotype of the whole class of men in the same type of attitude as to those very men you'd accuse of being abusive as though you actually 'agree' to the stereotyping but simply prefer to BE the ones in power to frame them in your favor. In fact I've witnessed MORE abuse BY women against men. And I know it isn't representative of all women, but our society keeps imposing that women are to be both treated as the defaulted 'innocent', as defenseless children, AND have the free option to be empowered where they can as though they are more 'superior' than men as a whole class. It's a form of "nationalism" and precisely one major factor recently of the general tendency of those to support alter-extremes, as is with the support for Trump in the U.S. . The FACT is that women AND men are defaulted to the very foundations of both positive and negative stereotypes. And while lip service is given to claims of many to NOT support the very behaviors enhancing the things that cause abuse, in reality everyone STILL defaults to desiring those who are and will maintain the stereotypes.

If I offered 'tea' to a guest, they have as equal power to turn it down as I would to turn down their 'tea' too. Jacee, are women so meek and weak that they don't "own" their own power? Maybe you need a man to decide FOR you? You can't have it both ways. Either women are genetically too 'weak' to handle reality such that they need men to take on the power over them OR they are equal and deserve the power to 'own' their actions, including the responsibility to NOT drink 'tea' with assertiveness and clarity and where they 'fear' such a person, to walk out.

I understand the judge's papers are books in themselves. So it is valid for others who wish to raise the evidence at issue do the work and point out the comments themselves to which others can argue for or against. From any quotes mentioned so far thought, nothing is validly capable of standing up against the criticism against this judge's ruling or to the rest of the case.

Why is it alright to read into that quote as though it was communicating something extremely specific. Are you a mind reader? AND, if it is alright to 'read into' what one implies but not what one ACTUALLY said, then should this not also apply to those who use language that another interprets suggests an invitation for sex too? You know, like those who might say she was dressed to suggest sexual interest?

How does "carried away" get interpreted in your head as, "Hey I'm sorry I raped you."? This to me is "Nazi" mentality because it presumes women and men are distinct entities who think differently and that require distinct laws for and against specific arbitrary ideals of those empowered to create such SEGREGATION laws! And this goes for all the others here who are blind to the lack of information that should have suggested this case get thrown out. It's frustrating because I USED to believe in what I thought 'feminism' meant: to get equal treatment as a HUMAN in light of some standard to discriminate against women. I am totally disillusioned by the contemporary hatred that is literally coming from those presenting themselves as alleviating abuses BY abusing. And the lack of logic to recognize this is absurd. You want to stop abuses AND find equality? Then become a "humanist", or an "Earthling", and treat problems in their appropriate logical non-cultural classifications. If you look at some problem based on a logical concern, like, for instance, "those incarcerated in jails" to determine the causes, the cult-centered/segregationists look at the largest plurality of those imprisoned and say, "look, a larger percentage of X-race is incarcerated...there MUST be discrimination!" This is NOT how to rationally look at the problem because it is ALWAYS inevitable that there MUST be some percentage of some ethnic/cultural identity being represented in such cases. While it may be, and likely, certain prejudices involved, such stereotyping is often coming from ALL people, including those being targeted/victimized. You could always find some other opposing plural culture (a sub-majority, that is) or ethnicity within the same population of some problem area who are also being equally abused. For the prison example, 90% may represent all males, for instance. So perhaps we should begin creating laws that target women more so that they can be 'fairly represented' in the incarcerated group by either convicting more women (arbitrarily as to meet the quota) or to release enough men until the populations are 50/50. Obviously, to deal with such a problem MUST require not finding balanced 'vengeance' type justices because these only amplify the segregation between the ethnic/cultural/sexual divisions. For the prison example, instead of looking at the ethnic imbalance, look at the logical class, "poverty". Isn't THIS precisely the better logical link to associate with as a causative factor to incarceration than cultural stereotypes? You don't cure 'bad' stereotypes by FORCING 'good' ones.....you STOP STEREOTYPING all together! The ISSUE of 'rape' is NOT about men against women because women are at equal fault for creating the causes as men are for cultural distinctions. The problem should center on the facts, not 'reading' through the eyes of it as a 'feminist', because you are an actual equal 'pig' as those men who abuse for falsely stereotyping something that ALL MEN are. So to me, such supporters of this vengeful 'feminism' are rapists themselves.

I haven't read this except THROUGH other authors. One I really like and recommend is any of Robert Greene's books. His best known is the "48 Laws of Power". When I first begun reading it though I was somewhat shocked in that it sounded as though it were like the "anarchist cookbook" in that it appeared to be overtly and unapologetically brazen in suggesting methods and tactics most effective to manipulate others. He also has other works of the same form too. I had changed my mind upon about his intent upon reading as I initially thought it was just another pop-psychology/motivational book intent to MOTIVATE its readers 'how to succeed' by using its author's anecdotal stories of how he/she learned the secret that made them successful. You know......from the profit they made by motivating the reader to buy the book they are presently reading! In contrast, Greene, and to those like Machiavelli, and 'company', speaks honest of the tactics openly without feigning that those tactics learned SHOULD be used or not. (He even teaches how cult leaders succeed in this way.) We ALL should read these materials if at least to be aware of the power of rhetoric and manipulation that others use on us all to manipulate as we do ourselves intentionally or not. The focus of these types of writings is about POWER between different people or groups of people, HOW we use them for good or bad, and how we MAY use them to be more effective for knowing them.

To admin here, I'm receiving "Status Updates" from others here to which I don't find onsite here. They appear as notes from individuals here but only links to main page but asserts 'to turn off status notification'. I don't know if this is sincere or something 'phishy'? Can you provide some information on this? Thanks.

You seem to be arguing for a "Karma" or "What-comes-around-(will)-go-around" type of position. Is this correct? If so, while I think this is nice, I don't believe it has any actual essence in reality except for those fortunate to have actually looked back in retrospect of their successes and thought they earned it by virtue of their kindness "paying it forward". That one assumes they 'earned' their fortune BECAUSE they were moral should imply being moral is sufficient for success. It's not even necessary for humans since we can inherit our fortunes both genetically and environmentally. All animals already default to 'favor' things more of their own kind. If you have ears to hear, you at least have a more likely tendency to favor those things which have both the capacity to make sounds in your range of hearing and to the feedback of one another. This is 'genetically reciprocal' and what I think most of our other forms of genetic altruism relates to by extension. How do you extend morality beyond initial self-serving as some universal trait for all of some species though? Take the moral claim, "you should not steal". "Stealing" implies some intrinsic right of 'ownership' to some degree. To animals in nature, this is limited to what one can 'hold' or has immediate access to. It actually only implies one's capacity to have the power over something in their present environment. Humans, though, treat this power absolute and far beyond this limit. Even if we aren't present, we think that we have a right to command something to which we 'own' even if another is only borrowing it at some remote distance. So how, for instance, is there a genetic possible link to the moral rule that one should not steal for something one is not directly empowered to hold? That is, would you still assert that our human rule not to steal acts as some justified genetic inherent factor we evolved through reciprocity? What I'm asking in general is to what extent do you interpret "morality" to extend to by some evolutionary standards if it is not based on proximity* alone in some way? * "Selfish interest" is just a derived form of control of something in one's proximity. "Greed" is extending one's self-interest far beyond one's proximate range. So 'greed' though a moral vice, competes with the act of 'stealing' in an unusual way. We don't deem 'greed' a crime punishable to any extent for owning something, but to 'theft', however trivial, it is most contemptuous for our supposedly 'evolved' superiority.

All politics are simply about the negotiations (or forces) of people who base their ideals upon morality. But what is not understood is that all morality is arbitrary to nature itself and the only thing that defines our differences are due to our evolution of consciousness to take some part of our personal environmental experiences during early life through windows of 'assignments' that dictate how and what will later BE what we interpret is or is not 'moral'. I am absent of religion and relatively nihilistic in a logical way. So of course this may appear at first to seem that I think that there is no hope for finding a way to address politics or ethics of any sort. I differ from many other atheists in that many still believe that we have somehow evolved into being 'moral' via some evolutionary mechanism, often of "altruism". But I don't even believe this and think it is begging, in sync with even many religious people who assert this of us. So let me explain what is a better description of 'what' morality or ANY 'value' (such as 'truth' or 'non-truth' is) prior to assuming that I default to some internal self-serving preference regardless of circumstances. Some may have heard of what is called, "windows of development", in psychology. See Critical Period as an overview of this by Wikipedia. Coming from a non-religious position, I used to wonder how and why my own lack of belief in any natural preference for moral values in Nature itself still didn't cause me personally to BE as self-serving or 'immoral' as you'd think I should be considering this rationally. I understood the religious argument for those asserting even at least to require some religion for the sake of promoting some moral laws EVEN if they didn't actually exist because it seems rational to fear what could or would happen if we merely accept no actual morality in common with others. It is at least certain that at LEAST we pretend or have to pretend some morality in common with us all when it comes to fighting for certain political laws. Politics and our courts can be thought of as a "practical" means to defined morality even if these may lead to incorrect conclusions. That is, for many who may agree that Nature doesn't provide any common morality, that we have to at least negotiate them in competition even if only to maximize the utility of it for the majority. This is quite 'fine' if we happen to be ones who are defaulted to be represented on the majority side or to those at least empowered in law to be favored in this way. However, if you are one who must be penalized for the sake of some 'utility' of a majority, this is only more satisfying should one be religious. This is because if you don't believe in some means to later achieve some relief by any injustices brought against you via some afterlife court of some just god, there is no means that can rectify your own personal circumstances. Many non-religious people tend to focus favor on some 'future' progeny as a means to rectify injustices. But this to lacks substance logically where no actual means exist for us to 'experience' the justice of such a future reparation. To those who have offspring, this often at least DOES provide them justice emotionally if only to fear seeing their own children or grandchildren suffer in the future. But if you have no kids then what? So let's first examine a non-religious interpretation of morality based on the 'critical periods' of development that I hold is true. There, what becomes ANY value, such as pleasures or pains, sight sensations like color, or sound, etc, are ALL arbitrary data that require windows of critical development periods that act like programs that TEST the environment for factors during that period and then ASSIGN what is most prevalent during that period as what the brain will later default to assuming as specific values. So, for instance, if you have some part of the brain working on developing a link to one's sensation of touch and experience an environment such that it cuts you, while such cutting sensation is normally associated with pain, given the association to what it expects at the time, the critical period could default to assigning this sensation as pleasure. However, since such interpretation by the brain as this may hinder your survival, the likelihood that such an assignment could only persist to pass on this as normal would be diminished because such 'pleasure' may inevitably kill you. This is generally how I believe that morals, with even more complex relations get assigned. And depending on the prevalence of such environmental experiences, only where the extremes could certainly eliminate you, the variation of what becomes a moral value assigned should always vary. That it, most morals are merely only relatively beneficial to individuals. It is not enough to assert some FACTS as religion may impose to assure one does not act out against some acceptable behavior. This is because the emotional 'comfort' of those assigned values may have no other appeal than to favor one's individual comfort regardless of how popular it is or not. For example, some believe that killing animals is wrong. But this may be about how in early life you might have experienced a set of experiences that realistically allowed you to assign comfort in the lack of such actions, such as 'killing'. For example, you may have never experienced hunting or saw anything killed. You may have not even eaten things that have been 'killed' as far as you knew. In an opposite way, you could be assigned through experience the nature of killing as a norm when young and this window of development is opened. As such, you might normalize this by such default as to find it even odd that others would think this problematic. Even should you learn later that this is not 'politically' acceptable in some adult environment later, the emotional distaste for it may not be sufficiently present....only the logical understanding that others in society assert this 'wrong' or 'consequentially inhibiting'. Take a lion that might accidentally interpret other animals as compassionately worthy to be delicate with. If this lion does not learn that some things are default 'food', while as 'compassionate' as this quality could be to outsiders, the nature of such an environmental adjustment could literally set the stage for the very demise of that lion. As such, "killing" is not morally wrong any more than right, but relative to ones' environmental realities. Some factors are apparently 'inherent'. A lion may seem default to automatically find killing non-immoral. But it is also as likely that such a trait occurs by accident regardless by merely BEING a relatively large enough creature that would inevitably kill or witness killing in its youth regardless. For example, take a pet cat that might seem callous to kill a mouse. This may have accidentally occurred in some original 'window'. It may not have intended to kill nor know that it represented 'food' in this way. It may have just thought it was being playful and it accidentally kills it. But this experience and what other possible benefits, like the satisfaction experienced for tasting its blood, is sufficient to create an experience in a window of development that enhances a lack of compassion for mice without regret. It wouldn't help further should some human later try to penalize the cat. Even if it learns something is 'wrong', this 'wrong' is only some latter reflected interpretation of what some other 'value' the cat derives of its owner. This does NOT mean that punishing is effective as a deterrent from moral differences either. Whatever triggering factors that go into such moral evaluations in these windows have to be derived first. Otherwise, even penalizing them later doesn't necessarily MAKE them actually alter their internal idea of what is or is not valued. This would be like assuming that if one likes the taste of chocolate that they could internally turn this 'likeness' off later on at will by either yourself or others. It is possible but would best require some means to 'reopen' that window in some way to effectively 're-assign' new values. [Note that recent discoveries actually make this possible! See Nova's "Memory Hackers" for this recent set of discoveries] Okay, so I've written a good long intro and believe this is enough to get the conversation going. What's your own take on this explanation. AND, do you think if knowing this, would we be able to find some means to use this to help frame our morality upon others in these windows with some common ground politically? I'm dubious since it might require first HAVING some set of common morals long enough to make it happen in reality. But then this too could also create a similar problem for messing with as some fear we do when advancing ways scientifically to shape our genetics, for instance.

The underlined is what I often thought of to argue against people praying to a 'god'. If some 'god' created us, it would be most likely LESS capable as we would use computers to extend our own capacity, not reflect it. Imagine some future 'Empathic A.I.' calculator that spits out it own wishes upon us rather than to do what we expect it to do. Input to the calculator: 7.4 x pi Output: Why do you expect so much of us, oh Programmer? You are the Supreme being here. Shouldn't you be able to answer this question for yourself? Please input 781.478 for me and my family. We could use the data. P.S. thanks for the pi.

Many embrace this now. "Witch" derived the word, "bitch", by mispronunciation. Now, it is more insulting for a male to be called this for its jailhouse connotations. Although the language of the Bible appeared to be so discriminatory, this phrase actually had original 'good' intent. In today's terms, we might think of this as to how one might think of a "child predator" in the same way they were concerned about "witches" in those days. Since many still think that some people's beliefs as such are permanently FIXED such that there is no cure, the saying might be updated in this way as: "Why allow one to live who is doomed to suffer in life regardless of what they could do following such a stigma?" It is also similar to think of this in how we might feel it just to put a suffering animal out of its misery. I don't happen buy into assuming anyone 'doomed' to BE anything based on even some genetic misfortune. It bothers me that even many in the gay community opt to argue a genetic link that "dooms" them to BE gay as though those who don't have this component should require choosing not to be gay otherwise. It proves that even the "genetic" argument being foisted on society regarding why someone is or is not gay is more about those within religious communities demanding unusual exception to a type of belief that is by default non-exceptional.

The liberal religions have devolved into being contradictory unless they admit of no 'authority'. The Anglican church is a border "Catholic" one as with the Roman version. That is, they have a formal political authority that has a pyramidal hierarchy with either the Queen or the Pope as the 'Supreme' advocate and portal to their God. But if their historical God had been interpreted to be against homosexuality, it would defeat its status as a 'religion' if it can alter its past god's thought to suit modern interpretation. They have a right to do what they want, though. But don't expect that it would be 'fair' to enforce conservative fundamental religions to require 'marrying' contrary to their internal beliefs.

I'm atheist and don't fit in with any absolute sexual preference. Yet, I completely agree with you on this. If one is of some religion, instead of forcing those religions to evolve, they should only impose upon the laws of the country where the law itself discriminates, not the religions themselves. It seems weird to me to think that one who is 'religious' should think their historical god 'evolves' its own history by revision of it to suit modern people's purpose. Those demanding that some church marry them is more intolerant as they are imposing their secular non-religious ideals onto the religion and the interpretation, however 'wrong', of that belief.