Scott Mayers

I'm not reading the 440 + posts here to catch up. I'm glad Obama turned this down. Although it is claimed that this is simply about environment with utmost significance, there is also both economic and political concerns here with regards to other factors. (1) The American Democrats have to be cautious of enabling the ease to Canadian's impulse towards more conservative politics that favor expedient benefits for monopolizing wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people as we act with more force to trade in raw non-renewable resources. The Americans would no doubt actually favor our oil but it comes at the expense of both our own economy in Canada in the future as well as to foster an even cheapening price for American industries who would only end up exploiting American labor with more demand for cheaper and cheaper unsustainable labor. (2) The Democrats are as much more concerned about affairs in other countries as they are to their own in contrast to the Republican ideal to simply do what it takes to always favor their own over other's interests. It was this latter attitude to which has fostered such hatred among the world against the U.S. for so long. To start paying attention to fairness in International stages, Obama is demonstrating the compassion towards others as much to appropriately represent how their own founding ideals concerned their own people. Thus the better concern for environmental factors as well. For us, now, we need to begin using our own resources to foster our own manufacturing and other industries rather than lose them to the benefit of others. It may appear 'good' while we already have resources. But these will eventually be gone and then what do we have to support ourselves then?

The problem with this OP is that any of the stats that relate to aggregate measures based on genetics is precisely why the problems occur in the first place. That is, it is the very ignorant classification to use genetic markers to pinpoint concerns in ones' economic conditions that is the problem. Poverty or other related social generic problems in any society will always have some ethnic or cultural plurality within that logical class who are over represented. Men are over-represented in prisons. Does this mean that there is something intrinsic about men to be more morally culpable? NO. More likely, the same population of culpability is equally dispersed by both sexes. I don't see those who favor advancing laws to balance out other genetic ethnic factors through things like quotas willing to reason that we should put more women in jail simply to appropriately balance this kind of discrimination in practice. Nor would I suggest this. But if we found means to demonstrate culpability by women who favor INDIRECT means to behave criminally, we'd likely fill in those missing stats on women prisoner populations. As for those of us white men who argue for individual injustices that demonstrate samples of how such claims of "white privilege" are not true for us, this is intended to show how the very classification of basing struggle via race, ethnicity, or other genetic factors are not appropriate. The actual benefactors of most attending to the "white privilege" argument are just as much the very actual privileged whites who have real advantages in their own ethnic class based on their own family's actual participation in what gave them their worth from the past. As such, it is convenient to appeal to ethnicity as the 'cause' to both keep their own power and to distribute the debt upon those whites who are simply not benefiting. In other words, these very wealthy whites 'sacrifice' the poor or suffering whites while encouraging even more divisive strengthening of ethnic/genetic groupings. They both save themselves AND appeal to the other ethnic groups who want empowerment at the expense of at least some outsiders. I feel this as a poor white male as I both get discriminated against the very "white privileged" AND to the all other races or ethnicities. By my 'peer' members in the same impoverishment or suffering through the same conditions, I get discriminated on the an unspoken bias of an assumption that I'm withholding some hidden bank account with millions. And by 'whites', I am discriminated by being exploited where I am more desperate economically as I am assumed that if I already don't have at least an average comfort, it must be because I am naturally unworthy or not trying hard enough. I've been told by some friends that I have to look at the 'big picture'. Yet this 'big picture' is about sacrificing me for the debts of the actual ones who should be liable to the causes of any potential discrimination. It's no surprise to me that there are often more individual "white" disgruntled men who react with more unusual violence because of this. It is the biggest scam of things like our "Multicultural " policy intended to preserve this politically. I hear things like, "We are ALL Treaty People", and think, wait a second, I don't even believe in setting up a system of Reserves we use to preserve animals and treat them as distinct beings; why would I honor maintaining any agreements that only Conserve this blatantly racist policy? Should we not be trying to integrate rather than segregate? Wasn't that the lesson of the American Civil War against slavery? Fuck, are people really this stupid?! If I appear angry here, some will no doubt point at this as "proof" of the very racism in return. Yet I assure you, I don't favor any group based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc, INCLUDING the "white" population I just happened to be genetically related to ancestrally. The true danger lies in those who actually appear to be supporting the cause of "diversity" as they hide that this is not about any LOVE for all others, but rather a strict loyalty and LOVE of their own group....what we call, pride.

I only discovered this topic now and so what I may say may already been hashed out by others. First off, this video is clearly an anti-liberal political viewpoint as it makes the woman speaking appear drastically off in how she would likely respond realistically. (I find the conservative speaker usually more candid in this respect [think Donald Trump]) I AM for the position of this video even being most liberal politically. Yet I think it deserves a proper inspection of how we as a society classify things that often tend more towards ethnicity or race as the distinguishing factor to attend to when solving the actual problems. In this video, the conservative thinker there presented how that particular type of liberal clearly acted contradictory to how she interpreted what is 'fair' or not to the different expedient concerns of groups. It appears that where a cultural/ethnic group in a minority is losing in some measure based on plurality of being a larger representative of some bad concept, like poverty, they deserve to be granted affirmative laws that grant them a leg up, yet where their benefits are innately represented in another area (sports, for instance), she would ignore the relevance by contrast. Treating societal problems based upon ethnicity or culture, however, IS the very causes that initiated these differences in the first place. I relate the American Affirmative action to our Multicultural ones here with one major exception: that at least the American system's use of Multiculturalism through its "Affirmative Action" is a localized or temporary one in contrast to our constituted ones in laws here in Canada. That is, I see that the American ideal of Affirmative Action is NOT intended to be a permanent fixture in law through time and it suggests that they too (or most of them) are not strictly not cognizant of the problems that the conservative male in this video is apparently suggesting. It is likely more about the expediency in practice to which many may believe is an inevitable short-term means to create the desired equality. And in this respect, for the charity I am granting to liberalism, it MAY be necessary to do this yet am still preferentially hesitant. I certainly disagree with our own Canadian constitutionalizing of Affirmative Action for select pluralities through what we call, "Multiculturalism" (as opposed to a simple "Intercultrualism" idea) because I believe it will always lead to strengthening Nationalism as a function based upon ethnicity and always will lead to worse outcomes in another future time. This is my fear for Canada as we are embracing this whole heartedly by most of ALL parties here. So, for others, do you agree that the real problem lies with how we classify a social problem inappropriately by attending to one's ethnic or cultural heritage as some representative of some sub-majority rather than to deal with the classes that are defined by the very problem we are intending to tackle? Example: If ethnic Group X is the majority of Impoverished People, is it appropriate to create laws that address the concerns of Group X or should we better address the issue of ALL people who are of the class, Impoverished People to be fairer?

I am atheist but recognize that there is value in scriptures with respect to interpreting the past as they did in a secular light. I believe that much of past scriptures actually did treat reality as secularly interpreted but as time passes, people lose the actual understanding of this. In the example you give here, I tend to disagree. I think flood stories were derived upon interpretations of fossils and other observations that have been lost where literally recorded. It would have been a mystery to them to see fish fossils in places relatively far from their contemporary bodies of water. Also, they would have had sufficient evidence of the dinosaur fossils that would not have been preserved to us today. In fact, they likely had a lot more of this back then that we do today. This would have suggested that such giant beasts must have met some unknown end as they do not exist. Therefore, they both interpreted the world as arising from water first, had some stage of life that appears to have disappeared and thus needed a flood story to explain this. So flood stories would be a normal intellectual evolution in many areas of Earth independently. The Middle East was a point of commerce and trade among various continents and peoples. Thus the data from various regions would have been more common and influenced how they likely derived scripture that intended to explain things that collectively explained their wisdom of the day. AND, it would have been a relatively secular one when initially written/recorded, not the dumb unintellectual religious fanatic we interpret them to be from our perspective looking back on them historically.

[i hate the software of this site. I keep forgetting that you have to sign in before posting and lose what I expended on writing. They should fix this to at least save one's work to allow them to sign in or remove the post button unless you ARE signed in.] I see the advantages and disadvantages of varying systems. But not all are equal. In our Canadian system, our constituent MPs who get elected favor only those who favor their party. In contrast, the American 'representative' is free to deal with their constituents independently and makes them way more democratic. Also, the Americans can create a petition to a create a bill and it can act to allow the public a true means to participate in politics that 'skip' the party differences as such bills act on particular issues. Here in Canada, a petition has no force as it requires only the politicians to decide whether they care to bother with it. Thus our system is party-dependent and acts more strict. Another major contention I have with our system is how we classify issues based on 'culture' inappropriately to issues that relate to individuals without respect to culture. For instance, we classify poverty as a function of culture; the Americans classify poverty as poverty. The distinction is about the difference between the significance to whom we consider is the true minority. In the States, the individual is the ultimate minority, even while other groups are also recognized. Here we think that only groups are the significant minority and base them arbitrarily on heritage. It makes our system disrespectful of individuals and change. On 'change', this means we think that one's historical roots should be conserved. And to me, this makes our system ironically more conservative than the Americans. Even with a conservative government in the States, progress is still more probable as they are more easy to adapt to changes through time given their present environment.

Logic: (1) Some who are mentally ill are some of those that have access to guns (2) Some who have access to guns are some of those who use guns to kill (illegally) (Con) Some who are mentally ill MAY BE some of those who use guns to kill (illegally) This suggests no logical link between the mentally ill and to those who use guns to kill. Note that the "MAY BE" is required as this doesn't logically assure any overlap or if there is one doesn't eliminate those outside of it or to other possibilities. So jbg, you can't argue any connection between the mentally ill to gun violence with any certainty. However, notice that if you take out the 'guns' as a possible factor for all people, this makes even the possibility of gun violence to occur with the mentally ill. While you seem to recognize this in part but suggest we are beyond a tipping point to be able to do anything about it, you also imply that ALL severely mentally ill people are a danger by implication, and so this is the focus for which we should at attend to as a distinct discussion apart from guns. NOT all gun violence is a product of the mentally ill, unless you define them as such by default.

Hey, ...you read my mind! Can you patent mind-reading?

The Assimilation ideal (or American Melting Pot) is the concept of allowing anyone to CHOOSE to integrate or associate with whomever you personally identify with NO influence by government (via the First Amendment). Here we mandate protections for groups based on race, ethnicity, language, etc that are NOT universal to all groups (where the smallest such 'group' is one person) and acts to both favor some groups and discriminate against others (often by what they leave out). For example, Aboriginals in Canada are given tax exemption for things like tobacco. Much of this is based on the presumption of it being an inherent property of BEING a genetic Native. Laws are also often created to 'favor' a group for the statistical relationship to their plurality in an economic range. For instance, as a 'group' the Aboriginal population is the largest majority of poor people. So although certain laws that favor them as a group are feigned as being about this factor, it discriminates against those non-Aboriginals who may also have identical circumstances but get left out as 'sacrifices' for the class these outsider's presumed natural identity belongs to who may be presumably 'favored'. An impoverished white European male, for instance, is sacrificed by the other European whites who are in benefit as if the nature of the impoverished male is 'earned' based on his genetic association in common with the fortunate whites. They also get doubly discriminated by others even in the minority population they economically associate with as they too interpret the white male as certainly more likely to succeed by default. There are also many other indirect means of abuse that occur within our "multicultural" system. The term itself too is deceptive. To Americans, this exact same system is called, Segregation. "Multicultural" appears to mean just what its root part-terms mean and so acts with clear deception. Also, our Canadians often falsely feign that the American system of "the Melting Pot" means a forced assimilation to annihilate the minority and make everyone into one ideal kind of person. While some certainly do think this, the principle is either voluntary OR, where they have made laws in force, are based on equal integration of peoples based on their 'group' based upon economic differences, NOT race or religion. For instance, busing a random set of individuals in one economic community to another for schooling was intended to apply mixing ones' economic influences, NOT race. Some of a poorer school district is sent (bused) to a richer school and visa versa. Can you see that while America may have a lot of problems (they still have a hard time implementing busing by those resisting it, for instance) their overt separation of church and state includes religious-like ideologies that are things that include culture. They also remove Royalty because they clearly recognize this is only a form of dictatorship entrenched in law to privileged god-like peoples in systems like ours. Can you see the distinction? Our system inappropriately addresses rational classified needs based on individual's real environmental conditions as due to cultural differences and so uses laws base on their genetically inherent conditions. The American system classifies real environmental conditions based on environment and tries to diminish genetic distinctions.

I'm more strict against Multiculturalism because it is intentionally discriminatory in the most extreme way of our modern societies. But I'm not sure what you are saying in context above as you appear to be pointing fingers at some here you are not indicating with clarity. Multiculturalism is a quicker acting process but it is distinctly different from Assimilation and only works in the initial stages for some groups only. But as it sets in place successfully, it creates very real discrimination as these groups embrace their nationalism through time. This is already pre-established by those who put this concept in place, though, as they have purposely designed our constitution to conserve the traditional original people as a real priority. For instance, even the culture involving Royalty and our imperial houses are just such reasons. I am totally disgusted by our whole system with respect to crap like formal rituals that are indistinct from religion, intended to bias against all others who are non-Christian favoring, non-authority respecting, individuals. There is NO real distinction between our system and the American Confederates of the old Southern States. The only real difference is that our system was well evolved by our British Commonwealth roots and associations that cleverly knows better how to 'appear' friendly while stabbing you in the back.

I mean our Constitution that preserves the distinction of the Aboriginal population, the laws that preserve the French language and Catholic Church advantages throughout Canada, not just for Quebec, and other Multicultural ideas there. Even religion is protected by law here without respect to all people equally. I see Canada as an accidental nation built upon the historical foundation of English loyalists and French Catholics that stood against the ideals of the age of Enlightenment that produced the U.S. I don't agree with those people and the way they "reserved" the Native population like they are wild animals. And so I disagree with the whole concept of our continued ideas to preserve these groups distinctly. The English and French of those who benefit from this history aim to preserve multiculturalism because it both favors them AND keeps other groups, like the Natives, from their own ability to naturally integrate. I'm still confused at the issue of things like Residential school abuses as this project was specifically designed by the religious establishment of those English and French. We don't seem to 'blame' or penalize the very ones responsible for this and instead transfer the 'fault' to the people at large. It is also feigned as a fault of the idea of assimilation or integration in an attempt to hide the very responsibility of the religious organs that are the true cause of the abuses. I see the whole idea of "multiculturalism" as a means to create a smoke-screen of the ones who inherited the wealth of this nation at the expense of other groups they actually despise but feign a love for such diversity. As such, our Constitution and Multiculturalism is only a clever devise to preserve particular beneficial groups by enhancing an appearance of acceptance of certain other groups. The purpose of multiculturalism is to forcefully segregate the population by law to enshrine conservative principles to prevent the progress of individuals who would eventually integrate and rule. It is also intended to distribute the costs of liability of those particular established groups who initially were the ones at fault against other groups to the tax of society at large and to simultaneously retain their gains.

I already tried to post but found that I was not signed in and lost it. Did I say, "pure Canadian" anywhere? By "pure" or "purist" etc, I was referring to how groups discriminate against things like inter-marriages or, in general, integration, as they segregate. If you are asking about Canadians as a whole, I think we need things like a single official language or things like laws that aim to integrate in acceptance of a whole country. When people are segregated as we are as a whole, this makes it easier for other countries who ARE more consolidated in principles of integration to use this as a means to deal with groups based on their selfish interests apart from others. To clarify using a simpler example, if you have a household of a unified family, an outsider has a harder time if they want to take advantage of the individual's self-serving motives. In families where the members are divided among even each other, an outsider can penetrate the solidarity of the household by appealing to their individual members based solely on that individual's isolated concerns that default to self-interests. As such, it only makes it easier for an outsider to capitalize on the divisions. This is what makes the U.S. a more powerful nation. Even while they have internal distinctions among their people, they act as a functioning whole with better unity because they are constituted to treat each person as equal in the laws they create. Our system does the opposite when they predesignate groups, not individuals, as the ultimate constitutional goal to prioritize. Another way to explain this is how the police intellectually optimize their means of incriminating a group of suspects by segregating them in isolated rooms for interrogation. They can use their wisdom of each person's self-interests to manipulate them into turning each against the others for their unified goal of getting a conviction. This is the same with the idea of how a country like America can utilize our segregation in the same way to capitalize on our economy from under us by taking advantage of our distinct isolationism. The German example applies in cycles of many societies throughout time. It is the nationalism to which I was referring to and to how in times of economic duress this leads to divisions which CAN and often DO lead to such extreme problems. But if you think this cannot happen here, I disagree. I also believe that we are engaging in our laws to actually support the very nationalism that can lead to another Hitler with ever more ease.

Yes, I think that our historical formation was necessarily based on this and is the motivating major factor for multiculturalism.

I did mention that I DO see some contemporary advantages even with my concern. I have noticed that in countries that, for instance, impose a constitutional religion (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion) that an opposite effect seems to occur where the general population tends to be less religious AND yet think of their 'church' as a form of secular institution. But the 'real effect' (1) of creating a state with a multiculturalism mandated in law can reinvigorate division even if the opposite may be intended where especially those that favor them even where previously in some minority only gain a norm in those communities to both favor their ingroup more while disfavoring some or all of the outgroups where even none existed before. It fosters a nationalism based upon lines of one's inherent race, ethnicity, religion, and historic culture, which is hard to reverse. Although I can't speak of whether Germany prior to the World Wars literally imposed such laws, it gives a good example of how their society then divided among each other on these lines. The 'native' or 'aboriginal' population in times of great struggle there recognized that by fostering nationalism of the 'German' people was what was needed in order to unite and strengthen their pride. Of course this was what initiated the National Socialism which to me represents a high degree of concern to why great division among populations create the backdrop of extremes. Even though the party through Hitler fostered 'assimilation' when in power, their means of such was to actually force an assimilation of others to their particular group interests and 'weed' out those who don't follow suit. This cannot occur in a state that has a prior norm of 'assimilation' in the form of a "melting pot" where no one is literally forced to assimilate to one particular group but is in law a means to simply grant people the power as individuals to opt to intermarry and choose their own ideas of what is their 'culture'. In our country, while our 'aboriginal' people are at present not empowered, multiculturalism fosters a pride in them as a distinct nation within the federation that if it works, in some future time, they too may act similarly as the "German aboriginal" did from the World Wars era. In Quebec, a similar relative "aboriginal" of the French Catholics also shows how such distinction only fosters the same likelihood of groups to be more empowered to bide their time to strengthen their in-group powers until they could be powerful enough to command their own nationalism in the future. Notice that while it is from without (Canada at large) fosters Multiculturalism, the province of Quebec acts internally to try to enforce a nationalist assimilation and hints at how they too would behave if they had the power federally to command the government. None of these may appear to you as sufficiently 'real' to you yet. But even as a whole, our country's divisions thus far only makes us weak as a whole on the international level. It makes us vulnerable to the economic conditions we are finding ourselves in today because when a particular party gets majority control in our federal governments, they do whatever it takes to use our multicultural laws to do what it takes to empower their own in-groups at the expense of all others. Nationalism is a (small 'c') conservative ideal to which all parties will resort to favoring one or some preferred group over all others. And by having such laws as ours, they are legitimized to do this by default. As to (2), it IS significant. America actually benefits by our own divisiveness as it makes them easier, for instance, to capitalize on economic takeover of our resources. Notice how we are actually forced to trade with them in forms of pure resource exchanges without being able to successfully enhancing our own capacity in the manufacturing industries. Even 'free trade' doesn't protect us equally here. On a more personal note, I used to have many friends that relate with me based on our common economic reality from various cultural backgrounds. Being relatively 'poor', many of these were aboriginal or Metis. Yet since the 80's, I found more and more division among even my past friends who have embraced their cultural identity and preferred to associate distinctly with their own. I have been perceived as somehow innately 'privileged' based on my own 'whiteness' to which lacked any actual merit. And so even in my own experience, I feel the effect of how fostering this nationalism only makes me as an individual isolated as I don't actually belong (nor want to) to any traditional nationalism.

Perhaps. But smoking pot doesn't make everyone think alike. I never considered the Trudeau's as "Hippies" anyways. At least, I understood "Hippies" as a more liberal than Liberal belief since multiculturalism is more akin to the state of the American South's Confederate conservatives as it supports a segregation policy over an integrated one. The Trudeau's ideals favor multiculturalism over assimilation for the Eastern provincial problems between Ontario and Quebec as though they represent what all Canada is. It is the preference to conserve the Canadian traditions of the original establishment of our country that gives them the likely impetus to support this idea. Unfortunately, as we still see to this day, it only amplifies the distinction of Quebec but forces the rest of Canada to have to comply to those like the Trudeau's who have an unusual familiarity that embraces both those cultures with ignorance to the rest of the provinces. I'm guessing that they figured that by placating to Quebec that things would eventually enable all of the relatives of those who have family in both Quebec and Ontario to reconcile. But they are in severe error to think this will work for all of Canada by enabling laws that grant segregated protections. What it does instead is to reinforce the distinctions by the extremes. Also, by adapting it for all plural groups in position of plural popularity, it also isolates cultures that would naturally have integrated given time in a unified principle of assimilation instead. I see our future as bleak as we divide into more purely defined groups that both keep them segregated and restrict access to outsiders. This is the kind of precursor to all past civilizations that embraced this ideal that eventually leads to extreme Nationalists in the future. Germany was one such example. But by the time of Hitler, it was too late for natural assimilation to which lead to the Holocaust when they realized they could no longer unite their differences by that time. Our only hope is to alter the Constitution to appeal to the American idea that removes any preferences for religion and culture as a predefined function of society. Even the States embrace multiculturalism to some extent. But it is a balanced approach and remains a function of the non-constitutional portions of their policy making. In time, the U.S. has proven able to preserve both a non-cultural national pride AS WELL AS freedom for those who may or may not want to segregate. But our system will crumble because we are so disconnected with one another that we are socially unable to unite as a whole and consider its truest minority as the individuals that make up all of us independently. And with the U.S. forging forward, they'll be able to take great strides to overcome our economy without the hassle of our social problems in our system. There IS a reason that they gave up on Manifest Destiny! They don't need to 'own' us via our people as resources, but only the earth beneath our feet as they take advantage of our inability to collectively operate as a whole to address creating a productive and sustainable economy.

It was devised and expanded by both the Liberal and Conservative parties as they were the ones who placed this within our constitution. I'm doubting your relationship to "hippies" as I see this as a very conservative concept. Multiculturalism also only preserves specific traditional or largely pluralistic groups that have strong identity and definitely wouldn't welcome the "Hippy" movements regardless. For instance, our preservation of the duel languages (French and English) and the laws that favor public funding to both a general secular school system AND the Catholic system via our laws and taxes. I also see this being supported by the conservative parts of even those like the NDP as their base support is dependent upon the large plural conservative groups who are simply unable to compete distinctly UNTIL they hope to take over politically. I'm seeing our political ideals being robbed by the interests of groups based on culture over logical distinctions such as poverty. That is, we place an emphasis to favor things like religion, tradition, ethnicity, and overall, inherent factors rather than individual capacity to choices or logical classification. I can't "choose" to be of a culture here except in 'thought' as only the genetic or economic factors we inherit from birth are given priority. And it discriminates against the individual who is born external to these favored biases.

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism I am opening this to discuss the differences between our Multiculturalism and the general contrast of Assimilation through the American system. I personally have contention with our Canadian system as it has evolved to constitutionalize us as necessarily "Multicultural" without most understanding what this implies. I cherish the American constitutional first Amendment that particularly attempts to separate religion from being allowed to participate as a justification for law creation in contrast to our own, derived from the British system, that grants a right of our governments to impose special laws that privilege such religious thinking. Multiculturalism differs from Assimilation in this particular distinction between the American's First Amendment and our constitution that grants special privilege to specific cultural, ethnic, or religious groups. Most prominent is the fact that in our system, our governments are allowed to create laws that encourage segregation for those who desire conserving their power based on plural and purist interests (a preference for a favor to keep one's inherent genetic or economic groups strong through a type of 'pure' breeding mentality in exclusion to one's individual choices). While I can see how our system has helped give certain groups who have traditionally been biased and especially impoverished, the hidden intent of this is to preserve specific historically privileged and established classes distinct and conserved for all time by allowing them to create laws that protect them uniquely apart from the rest of society. But recognizing that they can only do this by emphasizing other special pluralities in the same light, they prevent dissension of these large yet other plural interests by appealing to their interests too. To me, this is a kind of agreement among the extreme groups who prefer conservative ideals to prevail by appearing as a diverse group of people who are all loving and neighborly. Yet the reality is only intended to agree to capitalize on building walls and assuring that the individuals of our society who would naturally assimilate from being empowered as the majority they would naturally evolve towards. For instance, what I do like about certain present conditions from Multiculturalism is how our aboriginal populations are improving through some of these laws. However, what concerns me is that while this may help NOW, in the long run, it will only foster a future of Nationalist who will eventually demand their own capacity to rule with a strictness of conservative beliefs that favor their ingroup to the exclusion of all others. In other words, our society in the future in this system will only become more and more divisive, discriminatory, and exclusionary against all others who opt to do things like choose to marry outside of their races not preserved by the historical protections granted by our constitution. Before arguing on, I want to see how others here may interpret this and to see if they either share this concern or if they can, convince me why this is NOT the case. Thank you, Scott.

With all our losses in privacy even by our governments, I propose that we simply find some laws that prevent ones from using information in any means as tools for governments or anyone from utilizing them. I also propose we require government officials or any entities using information founded publicly to require being on an equal surveillance 24/7 to be allowed such rights. I'm guessing that we cannot defeat these violations by anyone. And so it would be wise to merely downplay its significance. Such hacking is likely political. I fear that it may only excuse governments to open up more leniency for laws that enable them to spy without accountability. And it wouldn't surprise me if even such political interests were just as likely behind this hacking for this sole reason.

Hmmm.....are you a top-ist or a bottom-ist? Sounds a bit unrelated to morality. As to politics, I think the selfish morality is way too powerful in our present society and we need a redress to the more altruistic aspects. I'm doubtful that this will happen though. A democracy is about social concerns that appeal to the majority and is thus an institute intended to act altruistically. The selfish powers though have more reason to conserve their ever present power and so will always be most attentive to means which disrespect democratic ideals.

This is why I'm concerned in this respect. When companies share arrangements because they benefit by agreeing to specific areas of competition, in a sense this can act as a form of inevitable conspiracy (not necessarily spoken) to which they agree NOT to compete which establishes their shared monopoly by doing so. We need an infrastructure independent of private interests if only to prevent these companies from 'owning' up the media and enable them to frame our politics in their favor. Private interest will always act at least to conserve their interests. And since our system of private ownership is based on the profit motive, such media will tend towards favoring politics that favor their survival. We will lose our capacity to be democratic if our communications are all required to be done through media that is allowed to be manipulated by the media owners. I believe we've reached out limit on technology that allows us freedom in our medium between people other than direct person-to-person communications.....unless, we can find a means to mind read, perhaps. Yet even the air we breathe to speak between each other may become a commodity to be sold and traded. Then we may even lose this.

The problem with this is that it still perceives prostitution as something actually 'abnormal' and wrong. Some argue for legalization while others for 'decriminalizing' which has similar arguments with drugs. I know as a smoker, I felt betrayed by our government's tactics that penalizes the smoker by how it has done just what some concerned with legalizing prostitution fear: that the government than simply replaces the original abuses that came from the source of abusive 'suppliers' (the tobacco companies) by the way they can use taxes in an extortion-like way. For prostitution, the fear is that the government, if against prostitution, like smoking, may optimize their power to act as the very pimps they're replacing. Yet the 'decriminalization' of prostitutes ("normalizing" as you termed it) only decriminalizes the sex worker but still disrespects the clients by still penalizing them as 'criminals'. Such risks to clients will still encourage risk. It may discourage some otherwise 'good' clientele but attract the more deviant ones who could resort to harming the sex workers instead. I would thus still prefer full legalization as our government would still be held accountable even where they may act with remaining prejudice. In time, we could at least evolve the laws where we find anyone, including government, from the abuses that occur all from any part. I also believe that legitimate prostitution can function as an extension to psychology in some future time as both sex counselors and services. Society really could use a social function like this not simply for mere entertainment but as an aid to help minimize ALL the problems associated with sex and foster better human relations between people.

I'm also against proposing measures that penalize consumer-end people as the OP in this thread is suggesting. What should be recognized is that everyone at some time or place is 'guilty' of thought crimes. As such, only the actual availability by those exploiting it think in kind to such haters. For instance, if you smelled a chocolate factories odors, if you should naturally be favorable in thought to like it, is this a 'sin' owned by the nose smelling it? If chocolate was a tease for such people, AND we deem it 'bad', shouldn't we attend to trying to shut the factory down rather than penalize those who were enticed by its scent? The only reason such people reverse this is because they believe that creating fear into people to feel 'guilt' as deviants as a preventative does not solve the problem but only acts to foster the violent reactions that actually favor the very people willing to create the objects of desire. This is similar to how con artists interpret their targets. They too actually think that the consumer is the criminal, not themselves, and so justify their own acts as merely taking a worthy advantage of the ones who feed them. This encourages pimp mentality with regards to the sex trade who actually have zero compassion for both their prostitutes AND the johns. This is identical to those who actually believe in punishing the john and dismisses how even the prostitutes actually value their profession. Only the pimps gain more power here as the con does for their disrespect of those they con.

Machjo is probably one of them too! .... I'm guessing that most people who most aggressively seem to act with almost near hatred as a type of self-reflected guilt. In contrast, I argue FOR things like legalizing drugs and the sex industry while I have no particular interest in them personally. I'm not a teetotaller of them but would prefer that my personal choices should not be shaped or restricted in acts that don't directly affect others uninvolved. While we should still maintain measures in policies that prevent abuses, I'm tired of hearing advocates feign to be concerned for others when they'd actually cause more harm if they had their way. It is the very restrictions or moral tabooing of some of these things which entice others as it represents a novel risk especially by those who normally lack sufficient variety in their own lives. I agree to vocalizing concerns but have known people in this industry (sex trade) of which all of them I've been aware of has personally opted into this business by choice. I've still never actually seen or heard of actual slave trading of people into this industry although it seems rationally likely to occur to some degree in some places. But I doubt it is so prevalent that it demands removing the whole trade. If this was the case, we'd be better off abandoning the more overt abuses of those in a self-absorbed preference to profit through things like private corporations. At least there, we actually CAN see such abuses with more obvious destructive intents.

Why are you so against sex and drugs here? Are you some religious fundamentalist who has some preference to dictate your moral imperatives?

Exactly my point. Well said!

I agree but had a funny incident. I called up SaskTel at one point who had a service personel who informed me that this "Crown" was merely a residual name. I believe that this person was American (by accent) and lacked an understanding of what we are assume is a "Crown Corporation". Regardless, SaskTel is actually Telus underneath and is privately controlled but appears only a public corporation. We really do need to have a media infrastructure that is not owned by private concerns to even any partial degree AND have some means to prevent it from being affected in any way by our government parties in power. I see how our CBC, though supposedly independent, actually also have the capacity to be controlled by governments merely by clever hiring and financial controls. I'm guessing that the way PBS operates in the U.S. might be better as it isolates them even from government.