Scott Mayers

But in opposition, what I don't think you recognize is that it is also an unfair imposition upon the rest of the environment to simply allow people an unrestricted privilege to have children. The same parents don't find it 'fair' to OWN their children's actions when they become adults who often contribute to increased social problems.

I recently had attempted to fight a $250.00 fine for "Trespassing" on the CN railway. The track in question cuts off two or more miles of an area here in Saskatoon to an industrial and business district to which pedestrians are NOT allowed to cross this track without penalty. Without going into the details of my case, I have to ask what others think about the idea of "ownership"? My initial understanding of "ownership" begins with questioning the meaning based on its etymological roots. Here, the root is "own". We don't question our 'right' to our own bodies and what we can hold directly. But to what extent is it "fair" that anyone can own a part of our environment? And what does it actually mean anyways? Ownership to me is merely a 'right' imposed by some communal environmental force. All ownership is initially derived by merely either declaring it or stealing it by force from someone else. Either way, ownership is merely an imposition by some force granted to one person or persons to be able to have special privileges that others are not permitted in kind. To most, this is a God-granted right as if the Universe must physically obey this and others are subject to being a part of. In reality, ownership is merely a privilege, not a 'right', with respect to nature and humanity. And only force itself is it's true source of its existence, often by originators who were, or still are, often totalitarian with respect to their internal mindset of what it means. I believe ownership should NOT be an absolute allowance granted to anyone specifically. It has an advantage if it is only granted as a conditional agreement to maintain some function for a limited range of self-serving needs but emphasized only to serve the rest of society. That is, I believe we need a very limited form of ownership. I also find the function of "corporate" ownership unacceptable to the degree it is given to private purposes. The topic of corporation is worth its own subject but with regards to granting a non-human entity person-hood, corporations should only be limited to public-owned entities that only serve a public concern, such as large infrastructure projects. Also, where it may be potentially proven to have some advantage to have private corporate projects, these should only be allowed for temporary purposes and permanently expire. Ownership should NOT belong to entities that lack full accountability (not limited liabilities). What do others here think? I believe this an important political topic that has been long buried and should be readdressed. Note that I don't believe in the extreme of Communism but believe that we need to limit ownership if we are to find a better functioning and more fair society. EDIT: For the question of a reference on OPs, here is one from Wikipedia to get started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership

I don't get your concern. DNA is a as Richard Dawkins' wrote in 1974's, "The Selfish Gene". It acts without conscious essence that only dictates, "copy me". When I die, whether anyone exists that came directly from me or not is irrelevant. It is the same for considering things like legacies. We "think" that somehow we live on. Yet, unless we live elsewhere to look back on how our meaning in life affects others and can appreciate it, what's the point? Our internal delusion is to still think the way you propose (I do this too) but it is still just a delusion. Our consciousness is evolved to feel this way to serve that "copy-me" incentive. But this is only to serve the mindless function of our genes.

Too weak? That's odd thinking unless you're deluded into thinking that your progeny takes on your consciousness. (Do you experience past life memories?) Evolution only favors offspring where the competition for survival is at it's highest risk. This is Evolution 101 from Darwin. If anything, it is when people/lifeforms are 'weak'er that we opt to have more offspring. Had offspring not evolved in this way, those species simply die off. It is only by accident/coincidence that sexual procreation assures the continuation of offspring. But if any species is or becomes more capable of living longer, sexual reproductions becomes a hazard and would evolve away by eliminating those species that over populate in environments that can no longer feed it. It is to a healthier world that less births are required.

Children are NOT a commodity. While humans are considered a resource, as our population keeps successfully assuring we can live longer, the function of having children only aids to overpopulating the world and places a downward pressure on things like wages; yet, inflation is always also a factor that only makes things worse as deflation is even MORE resisted even where it is warranted. [Example: When our dollar matched the U.S., prices did not fall and, in fact, new excuses to keep prices higher for Canadians were found.]

How do you quote specific people and do so more than once. I tried the 'multiquote' button but it doesn't appear to do anything. The format I'm familiar with is, <quote="Scott Mayers"> I didn't see a 'help' area on this whole subject.

4. Natural Catastrophe 5. Artificial Catastrophe too I guess. You're right Big Guy. We are just like children... when they are doing something they are doing you don't approve of, sometimes it is good to distract them to something else. It is tougher when we become used to doing certain things habitually or traditionally, etc., and so the 'distraction' to something better must be more compelling.

Treating the FN people distinctly as a separate nation and people apart from the population as if they are a different species is what I don't approve of. I am as purely a part of this land being born here as someone who had some genetic ancestor that just happened to have lived on this land at some earlier century. We are all a part of this Earth. We treat the subject, "poverty", as a property of being "First Nations"; In an opposite but implied way, we presume (& thus treat) the subject, "wealth", as a property of belonging intrinsically to European ancestry, and more concisely as is often the case, "white males". Not all poor people are FN; not all FN are poor. Not all wealthy are Old World Caucasians; Not all Old World Caucasians are wealthy. This is the bad classification scheme that is bugging me here. Serving cultures hides the actual causes and only perpetuates more discrimination, prejudice, and imbalances between people.

Sure, things can be done. But for all possibilities, none can ever do me or others like me any better or worse politically and we have no power other than to favor one unfavorable position over other as equally unfavorable positions. [i'm defining "those like me" as anyone who doesn't belong to any fixed historically inherent group, those of us who are Earthlings but don't have inherent ownership of any Earth or favored culture, religion, or ethnicity (many of us, likely most, are not PURE breed races (et al) with strict family traditions), and who assume the individual and the whole as significant qualifiers for constitutional preservation, not contingent cults.]

Michael opened this with the question of how we could or should move forward with this considering our politicians have 'accepted' the supposed accusations of residential school attendees through this report, etc. I responded that this cannot be resolved (especially to those of us who disagree with the way it has been handled) unless we redress the Constitution first and foremost. Our Constitution is NOT devised to favor individuals nor the whole, but favors particular groups for perpetuity based on an arrogant presupposition of favorable ancestral inheritances, cultures, and religions by those who belong to these groups. To me and many others, this is highly discriminatory. Until this gets addressed, the only 'resolution' will favor those groups already privileged and who favor the status quo, not the ones who disagree.

Wow, this is a good example of a "False Alternative Fallacy". Are you saying you never heard of Americas first Amendment? In particular, the first Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion. At present, our Constitution is akin to the preservation of ideals of the Confederate South who believed in preserving differences through segregationist beliefs. We need a Constitution that denies laws being made to favor religion, culture, or any historical precedence since they impose the posterity of all Canadians to abide by ancestor laws made in perpetuity. Our Multicultural system* is set up to preserve the establishment (the inherited privileged populations) of the historical Ontario and Quebec benefactors with high disrespect towards all others. The function of creating the Constitution as it is was to assure Catholic religions (Anglican/Roman), the special privileges to the separate school system based on these, and to instill a bilingual protection to assure favor for those with such bilingual relations of English and French within government. Edit: Forgot to add this word at the asterisk, *

I don't have much hope with the way our Constitution is written as it assures a policy that favors defining us as accepting a government that can and will always be able to make laws that favor particular cultures, religions, ethnicities, etc, and by indirect cause, necessarily discriminates against those outside of these favored groups. The way we classify issues is inappropriately assigned to groups based on culture, race, or ethnicity. So we are doomed unless our Constitution takes out those things that defend our historical favor for ALL groups based on these ideals.

Interesting how you associate political personalities. (??) 3. Revolution. (?)

I can't comment on "Discovery Math" if it is simply some patent style. I looked up examples online and it appears that many of the methods being used are NOT about 'discovery' so much as it is about mapping methods derived from pure math to ways many people can apply them in a quicker way. This doesn't teach them the underlying theories in a bottom-up way. For many of us, if we understand the theory and how it evolved functionally in a historically constructed way, we can more easily relate to math. This is the way of 'discovery' that I had learned, much of it on my own. I remember when I first learned algebra, we had formal statements which were confusing and unexplained. For instance, the preamble to most rules always began with, "For all Real numbers,...", and when we as students are not privileged until later to learn of imaginary (or Complex) numbers, this intimidates the learner as it sounds redundant when you don't know that numbers could be any different. A kid will think, "I must be too stupid to make sense of this", and so begin to shut off their minds to material built upon this misunderstanding. I found an excellent old book called "Mathematics for the Million" in which it used a history style approach from ancient times to build up the theory of math as it developed by necessity. [by Lancelot Hogben 1937] I also found another author, Harold R. Jacobs, who wrote texts in this style. These are excellent examples but I believe the actual trouble with adapting them is that it requires more intrinsic understanding of the material by the teacher's as well as to their energy and creativity. Also, I believe that the rote method is more preferable with respect to efficiency due to the extensive time required to do the other. I think that generally there are two types of learners: those who excel using memory and those who excel in understanding theory. The advantage to the former is that with memory, they are often more preferred since they appear to be quick and more useful in the general needs for our job demands. But it disadvantages those who prefer an understanding of the theory. Understanding the underlying theory tends to cement the memories long-term and even if you forget some formula, you can re-build it with the theory you learned. Traditional math favors the logical foundational approach more related to the historical way. But it requires more time and patience. This 'Discovery Math' actually appears to be more about memorizing useful algorithms to be quicker. I believe that this is just another form of 'rote' if the student doesn't know the rationale for its 'discovery' [the proofs]. But I believe both ways are needed. What could be done is to separate those who have an aptitude for memory (often more socially communicative students) from those who preference understanding prior to memorizing. Both methods should be taught to both groups but initialize their education separately and then bring them back together in later courses.

Look, if you have such evidence, why are you holding out? Can you here repeat some incident(s) for my sake (and others) here that indicates particular criminal cases and prosecutions to individuals (not simply the accuser's accusations)? ....that is, as opposed to demanding that I look elsewhere. (Note that I've downloaded and skimmed through the report and still have no indication of crimes other than accusations without qualifications.) Do you not think that people would be more encouraged to read if they had a hint to hard evidence on these cases? [That is why I compare this to a religious person demanding that I don't qualify to determine the validity of a God to have written the Bible without first reading it from beginning to end. (Ironically, I've actually read more scripture than most of these same believers -- they simply prefer to believe but want to pass the onus away from them.]

I agree that this (the lack of patience) occurs. But it also occurs with men too. But if this is a statistical truth, it only points to differences. The 'competitive' nature I referred to was about argument, not simply any act. I'm guessing that since women's physiological makeup evolutionarily requires an emphasis to emotional connection, this distinguishes why more women take emotional offence or discomfort to argument (rational discussion, not disrespectful dispute!) More women appear to interpret even slight disagreement as an affront on them than men. This rationalizes why I think this occurs but it still doesn't justify that one sex (usually males) are disproportionately at fault against women. As such, many troubles between the sexes is about BOTH sexes in equal force. But while we can only manage the sex we have, I think that change comes from ourselves, NOT by imposing laws of social changes of the 'other sex'.

You nor anyone supporting your belief has yet to take on the challenge of presenting any hard evidence. If you cannot defend your belief, I take you less serious here. And, no, demanding that others go elsewhere to read the supposed claims is not enough. Give us a teaser other than testimonials. Tell us one case and name of someone who abused, charged, and convicted. This is a simple request since I'm sure you are the wiser one who has read the whole reports and so can point out just such evidence!

You are speculating without warrant. This is almost universal for intellectual discussion sites as well as many groups. And even if any woman actually is supposedly attacked, if she is an equal, why would or should she give up her right to argue back? Most sites won't accept outright abuses and so for the most part, any 'attack' is based on what one believes is a legitimate stance, not necessarily as a literal or emotional attack. If I was a lone invite to a group composed mostly of women, it may be intimidating to argue my views alone, but it certainly wouldn't stop me from voicing them. Women who 'fear' the competitive nature of arguments are merely supporting the stereotype of women to be weaker. I believe this is NOT because they cannot compete argumentatively but is simply a result of our cultures that both men AND women equally impose upon male/female roles.

"They are not blind people..." No, but WE are as the blind person since we are unable to assert the event by observing it or other hard evidence. You can't tell me that you simply believe in whatever story anyone tells of some event, can you? And the biggest point that I and others are arguing here is that if so many people have been abused, there should at least be one particular person at least accused of a crime. Also, these accusations are NOT something that can escape criminal prosecution upon negotiating them away through class action suites. Unless a crime has been charged and brought to court upon the individuals who did the abuse, there is NO crimes. Edit addition: Billions of people claim to have witnessed God throughout time. Are all these people telling the truth?

A "low" wage is better than a "zero" wage by the men who don't or can't get hired due to various factors. If it is a fair argument to make a comparison of women to men equality in on social area (one's economy), should we also NOT look at other areas in a similar manner? For instance, incarceration rates by gender indicates that men are extremely over represented in prisons [see http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html] So, if you want to be 'fair' let's find a way to assure that more women are convicted! It's okay to compare numbers when it is unfair for women but not for men? Are you asserting that just as many men as women wait on tables? As to "unusual benefits", there are too many to simply summarize. But they are all those cultural presumptions of how men and women are to behave socially. Men are expected to pay for dates, for instance. So women benefit by not requiring money to actually do many things. I don't see women complaining that they don't have to go dutch (pay their own way equally). Socially, women do not have to work to be accepted as worthy human beings; men are deemed severely inadequate if they don't work, don't own a vehicle, etc. A male who doesn't meet the apparent physical standards of a job won't get hired any more than the majority of women. As to male nurses, again cultural stereotypes discourage men from challenging such positions more often simply on the fact that women, more than men, would interpret such men as less valid as mates regardless of any lip service to the contrary. But women today are granted leniency and support if and where they DO desire to challenge those physical jobs. ____ On women judging other women, what it means is that women actually impose more force to feminine stereotypes upon women than men do upon women. For instance, women opt to wear makeup, dresses, and high heels with impositions upon other women to behave in kind with more power than men do upon women. Women tend to place faith in men over equally competent women: (just watch any reality program with competing men and women to see this exposed.) ____ I referred to women as having sexual controls above men to which you seemed to miss the point. Women, as opposed to men, are capable of opting for sex at any time regardless of who they are whereas men do not. That is, any women can get laid at any time without a problem of their own volition (That's why they are highly unlikely to 'rape' a man.) Yet men don't have such options. Ironically, women also expect men to also act dominant and propose to them in social games which only adds force to why men are also more likely to be convicted as predators. In other words, women are at least as equal if not more to blame for any apparent sexual deviancy in society. ___ I haven't a clue what you are thinking. My point is that the cultural preference for the vast majority of the women in this world is to have men who are physically dominant over them and that the minimum indicator of this is height. Since height isn't something a man can actually improve upon as opposed to the vast majority of women who CAN, this makes women more severely discriminatory than men are to women. As a case in point, the dating site "match.com" (and others followed suit) had so many complaints from women complaining about being set up with short men that they've now opted to never set up women with men shorter than they are! They DON'T make less than men. Every value is not a measure of the dollar amount one gets paid. I believe that women should get equal pay for equal work. But this isn't the case. We grant attention to "women and children" over men with this motto supported more by women than men which places women stereotypically with children. And just as children are taken care of, society supports women as needing beneficent care in kind to children. So unless this attitude changes, it suggests that even women diminish their own worth as adults requiring work that deserves better pay. Actually, I believe that I have an even better perspective on this than most. I see men and women as perfectly equal in moral, intellectual, and emotional ways than most. I take out all the emotional garbage to perceive it like an alien might perceive it externally. [i might actually BE alien!] Ask yourself this: why is it that while no one prevents any sex from coming to online intellectual discussion forums that the vast majority of them are men? Is it because we overtly discriminate against women by denying them access? Yet, the 'women-only' groups are directly and unapologetically discriminatory.

If we are hearing someone report on what they experienced in some other place and time, how do you propose that this is certain other than your option to trust the person telling you? I know the moon exists because I witness it. A blind person may "induce" this as 'true' for practical considerations but they have no deductive validity based on other people's words regardless of how unanimous it can be. As for practical purposes, yes, we still rely on such less valid 'evidence' as secondary supports -- but they should be accompanied with real deductive evidence that has not been provided. And since there are nearly 40,000 supposed claims of abuse and yet not even ONE conviction, it makes this whole thing ever more suspect.

You missed the words, "in a derogatory and significant way". I'm saying we may appear democratic but this appearance is only because our HOLY SOVEREIGNTY that we are constitutionally bound to has not exercised their powers as they actually could technically. Coloring our feudal aristocratic system as 'democratic' is superficial and only coincidentally not causing us trouble until such dictators act in a way the demonstrates their power. But regardless, even our "House of Commons" is not sufficiently representative of us as they MUST follow party lines. (I cannot count on using my local politician to represent my concerns unless it fits within the favor of their party ideals.) But before we tackle the Senate, we'd have to appropriately attack the sovereignty (remove it) if we are to be fair to argue that our Senate serves no function. This is because the philosophical underpinnings of the Senate as an elder and wise function still serves a better function than one simply inheriting their position (Royalty) with even less integrity or accountability than those we place in our Senate.

I think the way you defend the Queen here is counter to actual democracy. Our system is a type of 'friendly' dictatorship in which our dictators (the Queen, her representatives, and our Senate) simply have NOT exercised their powers yet. But the moment that any such actions of these resist the population in a derogatory and significant way, we would recognize this truth for what it is. This IS the reason for the formation of the U.S.. If you have a sense of loyalty to superior beings, let that be your own personal prerogative. But I don't like being imposed to respect gods or other Imperial beings.

I agree to your assessment, cybercoma. I think we should first address ridding of the Queen (no offence to her personally) and take a more republican style form as the U.S.. Let the sovereignty remain with the people, not god-heads. As to the Senate, the Americans elect and represent land (regional) interests. The only major problem with it there is that since it does relate to land, capital ownership interests often supersedes with greater force over the popular interests. Yet it is still a better system than ours. I don't know whether we should abandon or reform the Senate. It would be nice if we could discover a better way to achieve regional interests. And I don't believe in the traditional concept of a 'wise' or 'elder' house except if it is voluntary. Our wiser people don't need a formal political place but can have effect (and affect) on their own volition external to formal government.

Why can't most people seem to recognize the difference between the types of evidence that exist? Testimonials are NOT formally pure forms of evidence. They are INDUCED not DEDUCED. Nor are we able to directly observe such evidences as they are secondary reports of observations. What is being asked of many of us here is whether there are direct proof? If such abuses actually occurred, why do we have no criminal convictions of anyone to even give such direct force to the claims? To protect the 'victims'? Not valid since if this abuse occurred since the beginning, what and whom are we protecting to those who have long past died? The ONLY reason this is being quickly 'accepted' by governments is to preserve the nature of the moronic religious institutions, traditions, cultures, and the certain losses that would occur financially and culturally to the establishment of these institutes and the people behind them! All parties here support them because all of them represent significant religious concerns.