Scott Mayers

Infidel Dog and Taxme, Everytime I make a good logical argument about something that is shared across all political interests, why do you guys come along and poison the issue by your own propaganda sounding posts? You may be sincere (I can't tell for sure). But if you keep up the stupid references to generic conspiracies that is just as likely to have been created by the same enemy, you prevent others from taking even the logical efforts to defeat the same problems that I'm trying to help with. If you want to appeal to people broadly and NOT merely of your own political persuasion, you need to avoid references to tainted sources. While such conspiracies COULD be possible, when you express it the way you do, you FEED INTO the stereotypes you may be intending to defeat. So try arguing from your own capacity to reason rather than express the emotions. The emotional appeals are precisely what the mobs are using and have more practical power to win. They are now utilizing the Machivellian tactic that normally is used by default on the right in the free world. [Example: advertising is legal-lying that evolved FROM free market societies, not those Communist-conspiring people. As such, the only hope we all have is to avoid those who support legitimized manimpulative tactics, regardless of whether 'they' are using it too.] Logic beats emotive-only appeals. You CAN use emotive power on top of logic. But the logic has to be there first. Try to argue with logic and only use the referents to appeal by what others say if it supports the logic. Placing the emotions up front as a justification to act IS a significant tactic that hides a lack of logical appeal.

That's NOT the way it is being presented nor what Betty would likely be implying. It is not good to have just ANY policing ideology. Today's movement against the police would simply reassign select people as being beyond reproach or exempt based upon intentionally flawed justification. The movement is intended to treat the present abuses within the IDEA of policing itself to be criminal should they use even normal means to act upon suspicion of anyone UNLESS they are not of the protected races. As such, it will force a counter-bias against those left UNPROTECTED. It is an attempt to foster laws that just invert which races should be discriminated against, not to STOP the police from BEING racist or discriminatory otherwise. Thus my input above expands upon this concern and attempts to demonstrate how this movement is being utilized to divide and conquer in a volitile way. We need to notice the details that hide how this is being done. I know that I cannot now trust the police NOR the mob because the competing forces behind the scenes, even if APPEARING to be on opposite political sides, are fostering too many hypocritical behaviors IN SYNC with shared abusive thinkers. As such, we ARE experiencing a potential breakdown of society that IS reducible to, "every man....er....'person' ....for themselves!"

Another factor to this issue that relates: Note that the Toronto's BLACK chief of police has stepped down ....without requiring to explain why? Now imagine the possibility of him possibly being known to support the same behaviors that the mob is accusing the police of being 'systemically racist'. This would not look good for the anti-police proponents wanting to PROVE that ALL police are systemically discriminatory against race, right? Solution: Get him to step down to hide any NEGATIVE evidence that might add force to the [against the] movement's cause! This may not be the case. But we also have this arrogant belief that one has a right to withhold secrets, even if their power to do so could be MORE abusive by the means to which one can transfer accountability to the ones they've hired to pull the trigger.

No. I agree with what you've said here. My point was to show HOW the problem is escalating. I was supporting the police as NOT acting with intentional systemic ideologies from the top. YET, the act of our own RCMP here to create a SYSTEMIC rule of incrimination with unlateral power CANCELS proves the mob 'correct'. This is like how you stand up FOR some neighbor who calls 'rape' against some ex by calling the police only to notice that she's still not cancelled her invitation for him to her birthday party, then makes complaints against the same neighbors who acts concerned as though they are unfairly discriminating against him!!?? It just makes those who actually LISTEN confused in light of the hypocrisy. Solution? Look away when you hear screams or 'rape'! Get it? I'm not for defunding the police. But if the same police demonstrates that they DO use such funding to support the same actions if no one is looking, then I'm 'supporting' the mob 'involuntarily' (the choice of this word is intentional here!)

I noticed that no one here (that I could see yet) has discussed how our RCMP unilaterally made a top-down decision to formally treat the "INCELS" as "terrorists." The timing of this during the chaos demonstrates the tactics that get used like this actually counter-demonstrates how the police here in Canada are justifying the abusive 'culture' of intoleration within the police. Now, though I am not INCEL, my point here is that this formal decision is an act of the police CREATING law rather than merely ENFORCING it. This behavior is intentionally overlooked because the way the subject matter is more universally hated. I may open a thread on this but it is just as related to all that is going on. The INCEL groups are relatively modern due to the Internet's capacity to allow many more views of even the smallest minorities of individual differences. The apparent defining common ground of these people are those who feel isolated for being unable to participate in the normal procreational livelihood of all living things. Yet, because of those who have blown up to an extreme have done so in "terroristic" ways, they are deemed to ALL be presumed to be 'terrorists', proving how stereotyping gets utilized in clever manipulative ways in order to INNOCULATE those from daring to defend the relative innocent behaviors of the majority. The very police are being charged here for SYSTEMIC treatment against 'racialized' and/or intermixed sex-based discrimination. They are asserting that these abuse don't nullify the meaning of having police. I agree. YET, when I see how the RCMP made this POLITICAL decision to define the INCELS as universally "terrorist", knowing that this goes BEYOND the domain of their power to ENFORCE ONLY, suggests that we have to have sincere doubt about the innocence of the police system as a whole. The problem with police with the present issue of police brutal acts is about permitting the enforcer to THINK as JUDGE, JURY, and PROSECUTION within their positon as ENFORCERS subject to the authority of the people who they are supposed to serve. What do you guys think regarding this double standard? Are you willing to look at how the causal factors behind how these incidents/coincidents of particular police abuses occur? Or are you just willing to look at the particular act of rouges to be considered appropriate if you just happen to like the victims or not? Trying to hold any of your biases against the opinion of the INCEL, does empowering the police to formally SYSTEMIZE a judgement to violate the free speech of a whole subset of people who are merely unpopular for their particular beliefs justify an EXCEPTION? If the exception to systemize SOME abuses because they don't have the power to protest, then this suggests THAT people HAVE to protest, even if it means becoming violent. I don't believe a protestor's right to be violent by utilizing mob mentality. But I'm going to LOOK AWAY from this injustice against the police as a 'system' when they are PROVING they still maintain systemic abuses of power elsewhere! I've been taking this view with respect to others whom you see abused when you get bitten by the victims upon helping them. I'm tired of this bullshit irrationality.

Agreed.

Hmmm. just saw a news report on CBC about B.C. Mounties beating the shit out of another victim (?). Oh wait, ....the 'victim' appears to be white! Let's see how this plays out as proof supporting the police conspiring against their race!?? I received the similar reaction as my last post explained. The problem in the police is not about race but about their bias against any stereotype about physical behavior independent of race. My bet is that they'll focus on the Native drunk in Nunavat given it SUPPORTS the bias as racially driven and they'll bury the more overt violence we see by the Mounties in B.C.. The event in Nunavit could potentially be unracial given the police just used his door to knock down the guy. This can be just as much a fear the police officer may have had of potential contagion of Covid? [not an excuse either but less certain to be intentional as the white B.C. drunk.] [I tried to seek a link to this event but Google doesn't show it when I typed, "B.C. Mounties beat up drunk". See the present CBC or other news to see the event online.] [Found link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/violent-arrest-rcmp-kelowna-1.5595804 ]

I don't believe the initiating causes of the virus are not essentially conspiratorial given virus' pandemics occur regardless. But it could be possible that a 'conspiracy' may indirectly be encouraged, such as 9/11, that though comes from an extreme minority, may have been SOUGHT out to let happen by providing certain honeypots that attract the terrorist events. Now given that this happens to favor a justification to vote for more 'socialist' concerns in upcoming elections, I think that the left are no doubt utilizing this in a kind of similar empowerment that Bush had in 2001 to be able to create the Homeland Security, justification for relieving people's rights by excusing these atrocities for intolerant lawmaking, increase in the war machine, and in general, great supporting justification for more Conservative empowerment. That this pandemic will favor the collectives on the Left is definitely being taken advantage of with conspiratorial-like fervor. I think this pandemic may also justify the counter-Right extremes as it has the Left and we may be heading toward potential world war ?? I hope not. But some of the extremes are due to a few generations of snow-flaking sensitivities that are going too far. I get the need to slow down the infection as a good tactic but this is or will be used to justify new government systems that trend towards more censorship powers and penalties of 'offence' by special subsets of protected ethnic supremacists against the complementary classes of people most predominantly of North European decent. With the added similar movement of the Extreme Feminism that has become mainstream today, this will effectively prevent the assumed "white culture" by dividing them through sex discrimination. Given half the population of any race are women, by further condemning the male sex most particularly of those who are 'white', this will (and is) successfully preventing any subminorities of this European Caucasian stereotype to become the modern equivalent of the prior AntiSemitic forms of hate of the past. Even the Jews and Spanish are considered non-white today, thus further proving HOW the bias is affecting people who happen to have white colored skin as its only badge needed to identify our conspiratorially-defined 'culture' !? I already embraced this lifestyle of home isolation prior to this pandemic and now only hope that at least many being forced to experience this MAY be able to reflect upon this experience in some good way. But I am doubtful this will end well in the near future. I just wish for some big fucking asteroid to come along and finalize our own self-destruction. Maybe the ants can rise to replace our annihilation as the dominant species next?

Interesting stat to add to this issue: I, a white person, was choked out by peace-officers once. I had a relative who stole a boom-box while I was with them. Although I didn't steal it nor even think she was going to do this before hand, I walked out with her and was followed by the store's security staff and the member who first saw us. .....Okay, they actually were 'profiling' me [and not her] at the time (I appeared as a poor 'hippie' head-banger). When their staff caught up with us, although the female relative I was with was the one who stole it, she remained silent, something that I probably should have done but was not experienced with such activities. So I, not my relative, admitted the obvious nature of the theft thinking it was futile to lie. Then one of the security guys demanded that I have handcuffed while my relative was not. I calmly asserted that I was willing to go back with them to the store and that cuffs were not even necessary. This was a 'trigger' for this wanna-be superhero peace officer to assume that I was resisting arrest and so jumped on me and chocked me out til I almost blacked out. This is then MY supporting example counter-proof that while such peace officers or police can be irrational and in the wrong, that the issue was MORE about stereotyping based on appearances related to wealth differences and NOT race! There is always some larger population among any economic classes or the extremes (wealth or poor) to be representative in numbers. This then falsely gets used to assert that police are actually racist when it is just a coinciding and INEVITABLE factor. Those who act out more extreme within the police are also just as likely to BE racist but to presume this is 'systematically' representative is severely flawed. I am shocked when I hear the stupidity of politicians to support the 'systemic racialized' conspiracy theory that this is literally true of the police as a whole. In fact, the suggestion by Jagmeet Singh yesterday that asserted too many blacks and other minoirities, like our "Indigenous" here who represent the major plurality of the poor here, are being incarcerated by too high of some expected norm, is an example of the stupidity being sold to us. That is, if the larger percentage or some plurality incarcerated is Indigenous here, how can one assert this as PROOF of bias when the reality is that the Indigenous just happen to BE the larger plurality percentage-wise of the POOR. And if you think Jagmeet's thinking is correct, then given the even MORE prevalence of "Men" as a class to be incarcerated should PROVE similarly -- and with MORE power -- that there is 'systemic' extreme bias against men! Although I would believe this bias to exist, it doesn't mean that men have some single conspiratorial alliance to be violent. It just happens to be the case that most women will foster this anomoly by preferentially selecting those males who are more agressive, dominant, and strong enough to be prone to more empowered. ....Mind you, maybe the present state of physically dominant males to females passing on these genes of violence the male has must be due to conspiratorial RAPE of all women??!! [P.S. The female relative I mentioned was actually experiencing her first arrest for actual theft because of my presense only! Had the profiler not been targeting the assumption of my own impoverishment, she would have gone unnoticed. Though we were in similar financial conditions, her appearance to be less 'desperate' and probably assumed better off, further proves my own guess at economic bias as well as the presumption of only men to be potentially violent. She wasn't cuffed nor considered needed to be oddly.]

I met a person recently whom I thought might be cool to get to know given I thought he was 'entertained' by political issues that discuss conspiracies. But he mentioned this [particular theory] and I found that I couldn't even get the possibility to challenge him on it. As soon as he seemed to understand what I meant by being a 'skeptic', he seemed to go into some defensive stance and silence. The feature of these types of "conspiracy theorists" have the same fault that most others have regardless of what political view people hold. This is because, movements like the Black Lives Matter are defined by a belief of a counter conspiracy theory of "systemic" discrimination as do all the other movements that have risen more than usual today. Our present problems that are dividing people actually related to differences in wealth by which ALL those from the top are utilizing "theories" without a care to be logical except where it appears to support their side. The groups of most powerful interests are split in a world that has become more against them as a whole by those without power. The biggest con is to reinterpret 'natural' logical causes as DUE TO very specific 'superficial' ones, such as culture and ethnicity. The winners today are those who are embracing either a direct PRO-my-cult or a PRO-anti-their-cult attitude. The right-wing politics defaults to a strong belief in cultural purity (Pro-my-cult) where the left-wing is also embracing this in terms of victimhood by asserting absurd degrees of 'advocacy' FOR some victim-class by focusing their hate against the minorities of those presumed to be systematically empowered (Pro-anti-their-cult approach). To me everyone is becoming deluded and this is intentional by all those in power of all those running all parties. For the left, the mobs there logically imply that the enemy class is something about the 'white people' as a race, especially of those who appear most extreme. In fact, if you have "white" skin, this is presumed to be a culture by the left if you are not self-loathing. This belief THAT there is a universal culture of something presumed 'white' is actually supported by ALL parties in real power. The difference is that the extremes on the right believe in positing a distinct 'white' culture where the left is negating it. In other words, today's 'whites' are being defaulted to by a conspiratorial culture. The extremes on the right come from those who are most cartoonishly irrational, such as the KKK or White Supremacists. But the actual extremes on the right permit the focus to be diverted AWAY from themselves and onto the cartooned minority of these irrationalists. The left then utilizes the same focus of these extremes (the KKK or stereotypical white supremacists) but by presenting themselves as protecting all other cults except whatever is 'white'. To me, while this conspiracy theory (of this thread) is absurd, I believe many of what people think is rational of the left are also equally irrational conspiracy theorists, such as that the POLICE are unilaterally evil white-supremacists. The "systematic" claims of conspiratory theories of THEM are backed by the anti-rational 'evidence' that "most victims of [place your cult, race, ethnicity here] exist but never get heard or seen!" [Hmmm...the evidence exists but is more pronounced by invisible evidence!! How is this wiser?] The enemy of today is the belief that governments SHOULD have a right to use their religious ethnic beliefs within government laws. This is a belief that culture genetically associated (not environental)....like that the actions of the police is intentionally pro-white and anti-color....are being promoted. This is made up of mobs of collective groups who all at least either agree with eliminating something "white" or enhancing it . In summary: conspiracy theories ARE either real or being CREATED and/or EMPOWERED to become more real by the very conspiracy theorists themselves who want to divert attention away from whatever CULT they are representing against other CULTS that dare to deny their beliefs as correct. So I'm not surprised about this and am fed up by all of you who arrogantly think you are any different than them. Such theories as this one about Bill Gates actually FAVORS him by how others will react to such absurdity. So how do we know that these 'theories' aren't being created intentionally (versus by accident or error) as diversions. While the theory may be absurdly false, the effect is to make those against this irrational conspiracy theory SUPPORTIVE of Bill Gates without him having to raise a counter-defense. So it begs who even creates these when all sides have some beneficial utility of them.

Okay what? Answer the challenge. You are only proving that you are trying to deceive by how you respond. I need to establish where you stand on what it is like to be 'honest' and 'fair'. What would you do in this example situation based upon your political philosophy?

While the motive of someone does not always refer to the argument's validity, it IS relevant when determining whether what you SPECIFICALLY claim is a 'fact' that you expect others to disprove as though what you say SHOULD be trusted by default.

You need to establish that your logical position is not one that believes in pragmatic tactics to profit from in principle before you expect to be trusted by default. For your "example", this is not established as true simply for YOU saying it. But you are also still not recognizing that you lack credibility on principle of your extrreme advocacy of the alternative. TEST of 'principle':

You are presenting yourself in the STYLE of 'hardcopy' ragmag rhetoric. You know, the kind of rhetoric that might assert how Katy Perry might have an illegitimate child of President Obama's. [I just made this up as a point of your rhetoric.] For a more real example, the declaration that Hillary Clinton had conspired to set up a child pornography network by right-wing propaganda. I know,....you might be dumb enough to believe in this, right? But not all of us are this naive. So when presenting some accusation of some crime, AND one that treats a whole political class as being corrupt when it defends "democratic" principles, you require proving why your strict bias isn't motivating your odd claims. If the Democratic party as a whole is fraudulent, we ARE in trouble as a whole, simply for the fact that the alternative Republican view intrinsically believes in utilizing ragmag rhetoric that appeals to the least skeptical mind. I already know that much of today's problems are due to the nature of the left to absorb those right-wingers who are NOT normally IN power. Today's trends have many extremists collectivising among the left but are NOT believers in the concept of 'democratic' independence. As such, there will always be a tendency for people in ALL parties to be deceptive to some degree. But it is the 'right' wing perspective to believe in CONSERVING their power by encouraging masses to favor faith in the stupidist claims in principle.

You need to first present why you are more credible. But when you assert something STRICTLY by one side (versus a particular issue unbiased to one's politics). The fact that you are siding strictly with the side that BELIEVES intrinsically in lying as a trivial occupational hazzard of breathing, then you are suspect to anything you say. Why should we have default faith in someone who believes in stealing as an occupation to tell us who else is or is not a 'thief', for instance? You'd have to accept the expected burden to prove why we should trust you on PRINCIPLE alone. Otherwise, your credibility is dubious.

According to this logic, all truth is propaganda. So please, provide evidence that somehow now 'the truth' is meaningless if someone can run up claiming that it is propaganda. How does this follow? If you are a "propagandist", how does this imply that what you have to say requires proving is false? The very nature of the anti-Democratic views you hold means you favor non-democratic means to invoke what is or is not 'true'. "Republics" are also potential dictatorships because the concept means that some people are more 'wiser' to lead over the masses who are assumed less intellectually able to run such a system. Before attempting to dislodge some positon of the Demcratic party as some whole, you need to establish how a 'democratic' position is less valid than a 'dictatorial' one that represents the purist form of 'republic' ("republic" means 'for the public', but not necessarily BY the public's support because it transfers this duty to a select subset of people presumed above the rest.) Before establishing who IS lying, you need to provide a justification for how your own 'side' is impervious to lying when the very philosophy of yours REQUIRES selling and packaging ideas with a belief that it is alright to lie. For instance, the right-wing ideology believes in the Darwinian competition in economics. It believes that it is alright for one to FALSELY present an issue in order to PROFIT from it. If you can express HOW your philosophy is dependent on 'truth' over the democratic population's capacity to reason, then we might be able to get to the deeper issues of any particular cases you assert is fraudulent of the people as a whole.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I spell that wrong? Hmmm......! Thanks for correcting me. Okay, I see that Google is translating this as "Are you Nancy?" So no. But do you Russians know that Canada isn't an extension of the U.S.? This site is Canadian and is not the same country. Thus, you are likely a foreigner attempting to rattle up an issue you THOUGHT we were a part of.

I say that you are a propagandist seeking to present a false case in favor of the arrogant right-wing BELIEF in doing anything it takes to reach your goal. While the left tends to be overly PC, the right PRETENDS to be promoting 'news' that their own philosophy intrinsically believes SHOULD be manipulated, contrary to the claims. If you believe in free competition in ideas regardless of HOW you behave, then YOU believe IN manipulation as a justified behavior. So either present how you are NOT intending to falsely present a case, or provide distinct proof of something that the right-wing actually is against in principle that the Democrats are violating.

вы русский ? ("Are you Russian?")

Actually, the theme of Communism doesn't approve of this behavior. This behavior is due to a 'religious' mindset of those who think of eating unusual foods as having miracle cures, etc. Thus, it is NOT due to their system but due to this one area that is fuzzy when it is hard to prove whether this behavior is or is not itself 'religious'. It IS religious beyond those who might want to challenge eating odd foods out of a kind of 'dare'. [They might be using these markets as novelty places for tourism, for instance.] China reacted still relatively fast in comparison to how we would if the bug initiated here. And because viruses don't discriminate (they aren't even 'alive'), this behavior occurs anywhere. Another related factor deals with CROWDS due to uncontrolled population growth. This gives actual justice to why the Communists in China had to demand limit laws for childbirth. Note that the power of giving birth too is most contentious BY the religious communities who demand their 'rights' to have no restrictions by governments on birth. Also, only the religious tend to be the ones demanding that even ANY conception of a potential human life should be conserved (pro-life defenders). So Communism here is NOT at fault. The reason their systems become more 'authoritarian' is only RELATIVE to the same 'authoritarianism' they inversely see of us in the West. The type of 'authoritarianism' that occurs there (Communism) is due to the over-beaurocratic processes, not 'dictatorship'. Their 'chairman' (leader) is just their representing HEAD and while it gets abused, it is no different than what occurs here via a 'right' of unlimited powers of wealth in private hands. Our 'dictators' are more often from the isolated private monopolies that occur. No system extreme is good and why even China has been moving towards market-style 'democracy' and the Western market-style democracy tends towards the people-style 'democracy'. In general though, their system is NOT why viruses get passed on. Viruses are themselves relatively accidental products of living things. In this way, our computer viruses are identically related and prove that our own 'intellectual' species still creates them. To me, overpopulation is itself the problem, and where we have unrestricted 'compassion' for entry of the immigrant from all over this world, this too will inevitably go through a phase where we are exposed to the diseases all over. This stage occurred with the Natives in the Americas were exposed to the Old World populations that CAME from relatively more populated cultures that have already gone through this phase. At an 'objective' level, if the world is expected to continue to become ONE, we require immunizing through exposure of the variety of bugs that are from all different places. China is one of those places that has a larger population concentration which makes it more rational to have first exposure. The East Indians are the next in line for such population concentration. But eventually, all of us will face this without having some other place to go beyond Earth.

I don't plan on reacting as others are by making-a-run on the stores. Yet, I am concerned that if I wait patiently while others aren't, I might be losing out for NOT reacting! I'm going to be pissed if I go to the store to buy some simple necessity only to discover it is either not available or available but super-inflated in price. What is the best thing to do? I know that the government and media will be intentionally attempting to downplay concern for practical reasons. But it is also hypocritical to keep a 24/7 vigilance constantly in our face telling us: "BREAKING NEWS!...BREAKING NEWS!....BREAKING NEWS!", with the reports asserting, "But there is nothing to panick about." using medical/health authorities with absurd and almost psycho-hypnotically calm voices. It reminds me of this old classic:

I think religion begun as secular non-mythical stories from various different sources that devolved INTO myth. For the flood myths, at first I couldn't figure out why this was a common story accross different beliefs and relatively isolated peoples. So these myths gave me a puzzle to figure out how it could have evolved from the secular. This is what I think it comes from: While evolutionary theory, archaeology, and geology were relatively more recent, these actually had to have roots in ancient times by at least some very observant intellectuals. One such factor is to those who would have noticed the layers in Earth that we later defined geological eras. The common record one can notice across the Earth from early on is how one could see creatures in hardened rock (fossils). To the ancients this would have been a shock. They would notice up high in mountains that there were fossilized fish far from the sea. The gradual evolution in the record would show how things got titanic in size, the dinosoaurs, then a layer where a sudden loss appeared. This occurs also long before the dinosaurs too where a gap of no living things exist and then sudden burst of new creatures came about. These were the likely source that derived the flood myths with original wonder. In the ancient times they also would not have been able to preserve much of this and why we also do not have a record of these. The old fossils, just like the rediscovery of Egyptian mummies, were mostly destroyed for not being able to preserve them. And these discoveries were likely known long before pyramid building. The appearance of creatures that we can see some partial links to our own would have led many of them to recognize that these creatures were all living things' ancestors. So the discovery of fossils likely was the justification to make sense of how this could have come about. Note too that many in the past may have been wise to the link but told stories in ways that could be remembered, such as funny stories, caricatures of intermixed human-thropic stories that anyone as simple as a child could remember and pass on. They were the 'cartoons' and 'fiction' understood by many in their origins that eventually others in later generations thought were literal religious ideas and not just entertaining means to help pass on old knowledge before the advent of good record keeping. This is my conjecture on this and it at least rationalizes how the myth evolved so widely in many religions.

How did you interpret ME as being absolute here about whom to trust? You, by contrast, take a DEFAULT to assume humans couldn't even POSSIBLY affect the Earth and why you argue against ANYONE who demands we pay attention to the issue at all. I am NOT a 'tree hugger', for instance, something that you WANT others to presume is implicit should anyone alert concern about our climate changes. The FACT that we are a part of this Earth AND have the power to affect it as drastically as we do over other living beings, such as being able to destroy it, suffices to prove that we have POWER to DESTROY the Earth. Now, extending this to whatever may or may not be 'true' about the environment as a whole, Earth with or without humans will certainly go on regardless of what we do or to whether we continue to exist because of whatever is true or not. When scientists are arguing for proof of our role, it comes at the FACT that it only takes one person in all 6 billiion of us to start a forest fire. So if all BUT this one person 'disagrees' with the majority, that one person's arrogant belief of FREE behavior to choose to merely light a match suffices to dismiss the concern of all truth as mattering except their own. That is, the trivial minority of those like yourself, suffices to ASSURE mutual destruction of the Earth simply for NOT even looking at any 'evidence' FOR human causes AND, to top it off, makes YOU the type of person who would prove the destruction comes to an end BY your minority selfish beliefs about what affect we have. There is NO possible way to PROVE ABSOLUTELY THAT we can destroy the Earth by our actions without literallly destroying the Earth to prove it. So this means that no amount of (deductive) proof could definitively PROVE that the Earth won't be 'saved' for us should we do anything. All we can do is to use science (our collective means of using observations to seek patterns) to determine what is more likely to be true than not. To me, all one has to prove inductively that we can affect the climate is to demonstrate ANY instance of such power. As I'm guessing you already agree to, someone, somewhere, at some time has had the power to destroy SOME part of the Earth completely, even UNINTENTIONALLY. For example, has anyone ever started a fire by accident that burned down some house? IF you say yes, then this suffices to mean that humans at least MUST have potential to affect climate in some FINITE space. And since Earth itself is 'finite', then it seems rational to assert, even without ANY further study, that humans CAN affect the climate on the whole. It would be up to you to prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE to destroy the Earth. And that is what is scary about you Climate change deniers because for you to maintain doubt about even our potential to destroy it, you could only later be proven wrong IF you permit this destruction to occur by ignorance.Only YOU would 'win' because you also happen to think that some God will step in after we all die to repair any potential damage regardless. Why is it that the extreme evangelical religious thinker comes across as the complete opposite: one who believes in evolution to act without interference while simultaneously pretending that evolution doesn't even exist itself? You're being hypocritical. If some God exists to save us, it should then be an easy thing for you to just let those supposed idiotic scientists to believe and do whatever they want. But, wink wink, ...we know that the reality has more to do with you wanting to CONSERVE some power over the environment that you likely have at present some means to BENEFIT from by ignoring climate issues. Your rhetoric is just meant to bully the rest to conform to your selfish benefits at the expense of all others.

"Nature-worshipping"? You don't need to 'worship' anything about nature to rationally recognize that the Earth is relatively limited in a way that prevents wishful thinking to assure it doesn't get destroyed by its inhabitants in a fair convention. If you believe your own denial about human intervention as being POSSIBLE, are you saying that no matter what we do, we cannot destroy OUR comfort in this world collectively? Are you saying, for instance, that it isn't possible for any HUMANS to deliberately start all the forests on fire, or set off a nuclear war, or do ANY intentional, let alone unintentional behavior, because some Supreme being would step in the way and save us all regardless? Pretend you are correct. Then is it not also justified that the majority who DO agree that global human intervention as causing problems, whether correct ot nor, should be permitted to disagree and force those of you who don't to comply by FORCE? I mean, if your 'god' will intervene anyways, why should you care THAT others disagree and use their free will to impose upon your selective carelessness? Or....is your 'god' just not so powerful after all? Religious interpretation of anything written at all is NOT 'critical thinking' because it fails on the assumption that IF one such paticular book's contents is absolutely true, what is the means to assert anything written down in any other book or scripture is 'false'?

Well, my complaining IS affecting the CRTC in some way. I just discovered that they raised a concern that I was complaining about for a long time: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2019/2019-420.htm?_ga=2.93397597.1923542448.1582014 I wrote the following to them in this below. (Excuse the fact that it doesn't format my paragraphs as I wrote it. I removed my personal informaton that isn't already 'public'). So it is hopeful to at least TRY! This issue is something I raised specifically on this site a long time ago but got dismissed on its relevance or significance at the time. I'm hoping my input there helps. Check that link out and try to speak your own opinion there for the channels that are asking for re-application. We have only two more days though. I'd want to look and speak at some of the others but couldn't possibly do so myself. For the full list and links to our input, see https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default-Defaut.aspx?S=O&PA=A&PT=A&PST=A&Lang=eng&_ga=2.124308169.2143624451.1581821522-2059258326.1580686513