Since Women Were "Liberated"

[Scott Mayers]

Getting back to the subject-matter at hand, I will still maintain that the most important institution to center your society is the family [and particularly the nuclear family]. Obviously nobody should be compelled to do anything [other than obey the laws of the land], but if you wish to "rig the system," why not tilt the board so it favors that outcome which will facilitate the greatest opportunity for the greatest number of people?

What changed [in the U.S., anyway] in the 70's/80's was policy that supported the family previously [low cost of living, high quality public education, sound money that encouraged savings, etc.] was gutted as the greediest generation of all-time [baby boomers] traded their idealism for any material thing that would publicly acknowledge just how shallow they were [are].

This generation destroyed the family, Education, sound[er] money, and the political system by allowing those who didn't get the notice that Leftist policies only lead to 10 trillion tears, to take power. Still to this day, these nincompoops are still at it with all their hair-brain schemes like "de-fund the police," everybody is a racist, and all the rest of their nonsense that has exposed these folks for the complete morons they truly are.

This is what happens when you take you eye off the ball. The family is now on life-support as the inmates continue to run the asylum.

It is time to re-think what is important...

"Family" is not universal and so this only says, "let's be ONLY concerned for our own kind." Also, not all of us have 'family' to SAVE. Does this not imply that the least family size is one person and that to favor the whole requires respecting the collection of all individuals regardless of Tribal connection. I am not going to fight for YOUR family when yours is already secure while mine as an individual is not.

The insanity is that for your family to be satisfied can only be realized when more people are forced to struggle en masse. That is why you witness those on the Left actually taking your cue: seek to conserve their much larger 'families' under the banner of whole races or cultures that is only isolating more of us who have NO 'family' affiliations to begin with. And it is to the exclusive interests of ALL tribilist beliefs both Left and Right that is causing the breaking up of the rest of the worlds' isolated individuals to grow beyond ONE member families.

And thank you too for reading and hearing my side points as well. [I really, really need to stop for today. So I'll quit now....or....

...wait, maybe ...


..but....damn, I gotta go! Later.]

[simplicity]

The insanity is that for your family to be satisfied can only be realized when more people are forced to struggle en masse. That is why you witness those on the Left actually taking your cue: seek to conserve their much larger 'families' under the banner of whole races or cultures that is only isolating more of us who have NO 'family' affiliations to begin with. And it is to the exclusive interests of ALL tribilist beliefs both Left and Right that is causing the breaking up of the rest of the worlds' isolated individuals to grow beyond ONE member families.

A traditional family [mother, father, children] is a very different animal than what identity politics like to call "families." As if all Hispanics or Asians or any other group, for that matter, has much of anything in common? The only thing many of these woke folks seem to have in common is their self-inflicted misery. And it has always amazed me that the Left has been able to get away with grouping people like this...a decidedly "racist" thing to do.

Historically, society's were built on the family and protecting it. Without the family as it's keystone, society's fail. After all, are you going to base your society on how much fun a bunch of adult-children can have? Look at Western culture and where it has gone over the past sixty years. It's pretty pathetic. What happens when people get tired of unlimited sex and violence?

[Immanuel Can]

If someone borrows the views of another in some part, does the borrowing person's own view not OWN the interpretation?

Crenshaw, Bell, et al. call themselves Marxists proudly. I accept their testimony that that is where they got their ideas, because knowing those ideas, it's obvious to me they're telling the truth about that.

But then, they also go beyond Marx, to even worse ideas, of course.

I would likely agree to a lot of it given the fuller title emphasizes the concern: Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity – And Why This Harms Everybody (2020). I'll have a look at it...

Excellent. Thank you. It will deal with all your remaining questions.

You assume YOU are the author

No, I assume only that you will keep your word. I hope that's not too much of an assumption.

FALSE:

No, it's true. "Innocent until proven guilty" remains the axiom of all our courts, so far. Everybody, Right, Left and Centrist, male, female and confused, young and old, of all backgrounds and cultures gets exactly the same rule.

If that was the case, you would have nothing to complain about. The reality is that this IS being reversed in laws...especially here in Canada but is also being pressed for in the U.S..

Well, in the case of "believe all women," you're correct -- they are pushing against the "innocent until prove guilty" standard. But they haven't won yet.

Trudeau

...has also made a career of pretending to support women; but he fires any that confront him. He has a reputation as a "fake Feminist," which you will already know, no doubt.

Trivial. You are also quoting the "Left" as though you now trust them simply for saying something you agree with.

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that they have no reason to agree with me, since they have different views...and yet, they do agree with me on this.

When two such opposed rivals end up agreeing, you have to ask why. And the most common answer is that they have both fixed on a truth that neither can deny.

So stop asserting this is coming from the Left.

I don't have to. It is.

That's it? NO proof?

Proof of what? You didn't ask for any. You just declared that the Left isn't saying all the things the Left is saying.

The Israeli Constitution,

Has nothing to do with us.

Fuck you for accusing Bill Clinton of crimes you hypocrit without actual proof!

Me? Not me. Twelve women.

If twelve accusers is "no proof" you'd be right. But we already know he used his position to exploit interns...that has, in fact, been proved.

My point is that the "believe all women" standard would catch a bunch of Democrats first. Clinton would surely be one.

ONLY where actual rape is concerned does it matter.

Well, I'll let the women here explain to you why that's not so. But in point of fact, Clinton is not just accused of "impropriety" or "abuse of power" but actual violent rape. He's accused, in fact, of being a serial predator.

By whom

I gave you a list.

You are proving to be against the First Amendment now too given the separation of Church and State.

I'm not: I'm actually against blending church and state. The State has no right at all to abridge religious practice, I say. But surely you know there is no such "amendment" in Canada.

In fact why do you not recognize that even Trudeau's beliefs are inline with this. [I don't think you know that the "Liberal Party of Canada" is a label but that they are actually Center-Right conservatives who embrace religion.]

Now I'm starting to think you don't know what a conservative is. It has nothing to do with either wealth or religion. Sorry.

HOW is it possible in principle for a LEFTist media to exist without it denying advertising or sponsors?

Because, like all Leftist ideologues, they're hypocrites. They want the money, and don't really care about people. They just care about being seen to care.

If you were correct, how do you possibly think that a 'conservative' Rightwing government would be MORE 'liberal'?

I'm not sure they would. But they couldn't be less "liberal" than Communism is.

A "Rightwing" ideal favors the belief in Kings and Queens who rule SUPREME

No, that's called "monarchy." It also has nothing to do with political conservatism.

FREEDOM to be who you are so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others of the same freedom![/quote
That's called "Libertarianism." The Communists hate it.

Media OWNED at all is "Rightwinged"

Not in Canada, for sure. It's heavily funded by Trudeau, using public money, not his own.

(1)The Liberal Party is Right-of-center, not LEFT.

Nope. Nobody but you, perhaps, thinks that.

I also agree with you that all of this accusations without appropriate charge and trials should exist.

I think maybe you left a "not" out of this sentence, correct?

Correct. Also, "this" should be "these" of course.

Oh. Possibly so, although "this" also could work, if it refers to "accusations" as a collective. Thanks for clearing that up.
Then I agree.

I'm definitely FOR the right of ANYONE LEGAL AGED to have sex with whomever they choose and their right to sell their body as a "sex worker".

I think you'll find that just opens the door to all kinds of exploitation of vulnerable persons. "Free choice," in the case of sex workers, is a complicated matter. Very few, left to their own devices, would choose that. It's a violent, degraded and risky lifestyle.

...most wealth today is not made by inheritance anyway...

False.

True. https://www.businessinsider.com/persona ... -to-wealth

Given any three 'equally' privileged people, for one to be 'wealthy' to the others NECESSARILY implies that they gained it over the other two.

That's incorrect, actually. It mistakenly thinks of "wealth" a fixed amount of goods; and if that were true, any getting of more would take away from others. But that's not how it works: actually, people often create new wealth, and it costs others nothing.

Take the computer on which you're typing. Whom did you steal it from? Or did you voluntarily buy it, because somebody had invented a product (the computer) that you wanted to buy?

And NO, I disagree with a right to pass on inheritance by some single personal decision because it grants them the unique power to foster biased favor to their own KIND that assures the very foundation that leads to racism and sexism.

If your dad gives you money, you want to call him a "racist or a "sexist"?

We wouldn't HAVE the issues we do now if actual fairness of MERIT applied.

That's exactly when we'd have them. Because merit doesn't mean everybody gets the same; it means you get however much your "merit" is worth.

Wealth generation is also EXPONONENTIAL such that the MORE wealth you begin with, the EASIER it is to MULTIPLY your returns. This cannot mathematically be possible if it is normal that people actually 'earned' wealth without some DECEPTION in taking more than you give somewhere.

No, actually, that's also not true. If a man has $100 and invests it, and in a few weeks, it turns out to be worth $150, whose money has he stolen?

NO, our Western countries are mostly CONSERVATIVE

No, actually: they're not. Both Canada and the US have very strongly Left-leaning governments right now.

Again I don't think you've actually got Left and Right figured out.

If you are born to a poor Native Reserve here, for instance, why do you have to be the one who has to 'accept' the unlikelihood of getting ahead by keeping the status quo just because life is unfair.

I'm afraid that has little to do with the government, and nothing to do with the Right. It has to do with band councils and the reservation system, which is a horror show of graft, mismanagement, alcoholism, drugs, abuse and misery. But I think we would have to start with eliminating the reservations if we want to save aboriginal women and children from what's happening to them now.

However the aboriginals themselves are dead against that...most of them, anyway.

We CANNOT continue to live in this overpopulated world

It's actually nowhere near "overpopulated," and we can stabilize the population very easily.

Educated women tend to have children at a rate slightly less than 2. That means that if we educate the world's women, we stabilize the population and start to shrink it. Problem solved.

And isn't that the best way to solve the problem? We just have to treat undereducated women better.

[Scott Mayers]

The insanity is that for your family to be satisfied can only be realized when more people are forced to struggle en masse. That is why you witness those on the Left actually taking your cue: seek to conserve their much larger 'families' under the banner of whole races or cultures that is only isolating more of us who have NO 'family' affiliations to begin with. And it is to the exclusive interests of ALL tribilist beliefs both Left and Right that is causing the breaking up of the rest of the worlds' isolated individuals to grow beyond ONE member families.

A traditional family [mother, father, children] is a very different animal than what identity politics like to call "families." As if all Hispanics or Asians or any other group, for that matter, has much of anything in common? The only thing many of these woke folks seem to have in common is their self-inflicted misery. And it has always amazed me that the Left has been able to get away with grouping people like this...a decidedly "racist" thing to do.

...If you ONLY knew how hard my engagement to argue against this extremism on the Left, you'd think that my harshness against anyone here defending the Right would is 'flirting'! I am actually more functionally successful in altering their views by actually presenting arguments directly to the people proposing these views. I directly email, talk, or meet up (where I can) with people who have influence in leading these views. I don't necessarily make or keep 'friends' by being the one to affect the minds of those I debate with in direct opposition to their strongly held views but am more concerned about being able to understand where they are first coming from and then to use their own reasoning to reflexively entice INTERNALIZING of the logic, ....where it exists. People also do not change overnight though and so even where they (we) internalize the errors, the change has to come from them (us) voluntarily. Most people avoid conflict and so instead of going to the people who we think need to change, we instead tend to favor going to those we already agree with and 'conspire' to complain about how foolish they are. Worse, the same people oddly think that those with different views than theirs would and should come to them on their turf in order to repair their 'guests' irrationality.

I noticed this from participating in my own 'skeptic' or 'science' groups whom I was surprised did not engage like I did. The CFI group, for instance, stands for "Center for Inquiry" (Skeptical Inquiry magazine forums), and I even voiced that such a label is like the Spanish Inquisition inviting people to come to them to announce that they are athiests in diffidence of the Church and would like to be 'learned' to be better thinkers.?? Richard Dawkins in one of his latter books also oddly thought that it might be prudent to self label 'ourselves' (rational skeptics) as "Brights"!!?? And the same thinking comes from their opponent's views of skeptics. The fact is that if people don't at least TRY to even involve themselves with those of unusual beliefs from your own, how can you affectively have any impact? The 'echo chambers' due to today's technology and the Internet require us be willing to go to them if they won't come to you. \

"Family" is just a comfortable group that EVERYONE defaults to stick to where it exists. I don't get the argument that 'family' needs MORE attention when it more often comes from those who already have the value of it and who just judge others as though they were CHOSING to run away from it. The reason for those seeking larger genetic associations is more likely because they lack the REALISTIC fortune of supportive immediate families and this often relates to ones' economic state of poverty, not some arbitrary preference AGAINST family values. And so those SEEKING rhetoric regarding 'family' from the people who suffer more, it is understandably interpreted as ones 'race' (or 'sex').

Historically, society's were built on the family and protecting it. Without the family as it's keystone, society's fail. After all, are you going to base your society on how much fun a bunch of adult-children can have? Look at Western culture and where it has gone over the past sixty years. It's pretty pathetic. What happens when people get tired of unlimited sex and violence?

The FACT of evolutionary biology in ALL species is that a MINORITY of them are PREFERRED based upon their genetics while the rest are expected to find second-hand glory in supporting them without complaint. In other words, those who interpret the value of family HAVE at least something genetic of interest by others and so are NOT simply DOING something that merits their virtue of HAVING good families.

Here's an excellent example: Dating sites generally ask what you 'prefer' of your sexual opponent. But there is always an EXTREMELY dominant complaing specifically by women that they 'PREFER' to date ONLY tall men, as though this were something that a male could simply ALTER to improve their selection. It got so bad for all the major sites that the no longer link men who are shorter than women in their algorithms. Most males before this period of date-site evolution did not require asserting their height. Given the FACT that the only initial means of even getting a sufficiently 'happy or successful' family requires BEING 'genetically' non-inferior or preferred by women's bias for height, a 'cultural' preference based upon a 'genetic' coincidence, most do NOT have success in having families if they do not have the mapped genetic biases being favored. Then, in second essential place for 'preference' is that women demand the male to be SELF-dependent (like having their own car and a secure job).

In other words, the "family" values that you are interpreting is about something that only a privileged minority get to realize because the pre-requisite of the formula that goes into even being acceptable in successful relationships is still INHERITANCE (genetic, for the biological attraction, and environmental, for the means of security of one another and the children they could have). This is an unrealistic goal and the only reason why the West has more of the variation of sexual 'preferences' that seem as though we are tending towards 'anti-family' traditional sentiments is because (1), we CAN due to better options available in relatively 'wealthier' countries BUT (2) the 'family' value supporters 'prefer' a world that makes such options ILLEGAL and SINFUL. So the trend 'against' the family is justified if only because we ALL want at least SOME happiness and ALL do not like to be 'enslavened' to serve those who have these 'family values'.

I suggest trying to seek to change (2), like legalizing prostitution and, as we are now, discouraging things like homosexuality or other forms of non-traditional means of socializing to at least remove the biases that people like INCELS are conflicted about, as one extreme example group in concern. The assumption that one doesn't NEED sex to live a satisfying life universally comes from those who are hypocritically MOST satisfied sexually OR who have comfort in things like technology and the Internet to provide them with alteratives. The reason for the extremes of harms that come from these subsets of our sexualized generations are not from those who are demanding non-traditional lifestyles but by those instilling mental sickness of those who also INTERALIZE the same taboos but have NO CHOICE to HAVE 'traditional' relationships. As such, those like INCELS, are often genetically 'ugly' to some extreme by their preferred sex, are interpreted as BEING the opposite such that society plays the "Ugly Duckling" myth (well, I don't like you, but there is someone out there for you, ...you just need to really lower your expected standards.....blah, blah, blah).

To me, I am not shocked by the extremes and although we are tending to swing to unusual 'weirdness' by traditional standards, IF we accept these as more 'normal', then those, like those 'ugly ducklings' will FIND interests they are presently being conflicted to explosive degrees. Things like rape and murders, and those who turn to child predation are most related to the fact that they are DENIED the equivalence of power to have normal 'family' relationships by default. This did not differ in the past but was just more hidden better.

The "liberating" of women is also for men too. This class just is actually more acceptable than the others and so seem to represent ONLY women OR they'd lose their supports too. Black Lives Matter is also meant to be "All Lives Matter", for instance, but that happens to represent a more respectable alternative to the default tradition that favors white people (even by non-whites)! "Me too" was an improved rhetorical label but is also still challenged as being in the same category. Who gets more attention though in media? Those who derive the biased label that 'shocks' the attention of the traditionalists by default!

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

NO, our Western countries are mostly CONSERVATIVE

No, actually: they're not. Both Canada and the US have very strongly Left-leaning governments right now.

The US currently has policy proposals for universal healthcare and publicly funded infrastructure. In the rest of the western world, that's called normal.

Again I don't think you've actually got Left and Right figured out.

From the political crackerjack who says this:

Now, concerning National Socialism, it is Leftist.

[simplicity]

...If you ONLY knew how hard my engagement to argue against this extremism on the Left, you'd think that my harshness against anyone here defending the Right would is 'flirting'!

I consider myself apolitical. It would seem that most people would see the need to change when change is called for and conserve when that is the better option. Te key lies in a thorough debate. When the conversation is cut-off [as it has by the left], everybody looses. Political extremism is the most virulent poison for any society. Extremists are not only driven by an emotional ignorance, they are horribly destructive [to self and other].

The fact is that if people don't at least TRY to even involve themselves with those of unusual beliefs from your own, how can you affectively have any impact? The 'echo chambers' due to today's technology and the Internet require us be willing to go to them if they won't come to you.

A great teacher is one whose words make the meager attempt to compliment their actions. Think about the great minds of history and how little their words have been heard correctly.

"Family" is just a comfortable group that EVERYONE defaults to stick to where it exists. I don't get the argument that 'family' needs MORE attention when it more often comes from those who already have the value of it and who just judge others as though they were CHOSING to run away from it. The reason for those seeking larger genetic associations is more likely because they lack the REALISTIC fortune of supportive immediate families and this often relates to ones' economic state of poverty, not some arbitrary preference AGAINST family values. And so those SEEKING rhetoric regarding 'family' from the people who suffer more, it is understandably interpreted as ones 'race' (or 'sex').

The family is the best thing our species has going for it. Even dys-functional families [and all are to a certain degree] are better than none at all. Look at what happened to the Black community when LBJ's "Great Society" made it feasible for black women to have children out of wedlock. Before the sixties, the Black family [against great odds] was the glue that held those folks together. Look at what those folks were able to accomplish!

The best thing any society can do is provide lots of support for parents who are trying to do a good job, be they white, black, yellow, red, purple or green. This is one thing we do know! Let the rest be up to the individual. Don't be critical of those who are doing it correct and succeeding. Their behaviors should be modeled by the rest. Thinking you can lead a successful life by doing unsuccessful things is one of the most bizarre out-croppings of woke ideology.

The FACT of evolutionary biology in ALL species is that a MINORITY of them are PREFERRED based upon their genetics while the rest are expected to find second-hand glory in supporting them without complaint. In other words, those who interpret the value of family HAVE at least something genetic of interest by others and so are NOT simply DOING something that merits their virtue of HAVING good families.

That's the way it goes. You play the hand you are dealt. The good news is that in many society's, you can still achieve quite a bit if you work harder. The best way to give the greatest number of people the greatest opportunity are strong families. This has been known forever...

In other words, the "family" values that you are interpreting is about something that only a privileged minority get to realize because the pre-requisite of the formula that goes into even being acceptable in successful relationships is still INHERITANCE (genetic, for the biological attraction, and environmental, for the means of security of one another and the children they could have). This is an unrealistic goal and the only reason why the West has more of the variation of sexual 'preferences' that seem as though we are tending towards 'anti-family' traditional sentiments is because (1), we CAN due to better options available in relatively 'wealthier' countries BUT (2) the 'family' value supporters 'prefer' a world that makes such options ILLEGAL and SINFUL. So the trend 'against' the family is justified if only because we ALL want at least SOME happiness and ALL do not like to be 'enslavened' to serve those who have these 'family values'.

Scott, you make your own happiness in this world. You don't seem like a person who would dwell on all the things that can present a problem. People who are successful do what they have to do regardless of all of these challenges. Make your own life. Nobody cares if you don't want a family but standing in the way of having strong families is an enormous mistake. Personally, I am a philosophical anarchist but that doesn't mean that I don't support the most functional government possible.

To me, I am not shocked by the extremes and although we are tending to swing to unusual 'weirdness' by traditional standards, IF we accept these as more 'normal', then those, like those 'ugly ducklings' will FIND interests they are presently being conflicted to explosive degrees. Things like rape and murders, and those who turn to child predation are most related to the fact that they are DENIED the equivalence of power to have normal 'family' relationships by default. This did not differ in the past but was just more hidden better.

These are all very complex issues. Human beings are strange animals.

The "liberating" of women is also for men too.

I've never met anybody against the idea that society should be structured to support maximum opportunity for the maximum amount of people. As I stated originally, most all the professional women [with younger families] I have known over the years have been miserable people. The pressure to do it all has taken a great toll on their husbands, their children, and especially themselves. There is nothing liberating in being a single mom in her forties dropping the kids off at day care in her leased Lexus while sporting the latest handbag and a modicum of jewelry salvaged from her failed family relationship.

This experiment has been a massive failure.

[Sculptor]

Happiness aside [as this is a matter of maintaining personal balance], let's take a look at where we stand as a society some 100 years after women have been on the liberation warpath.

The most childish and basic schoolboy fallacy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

[Scott Mayers]

If someone borrows the views of another in some part, does the borrowing person's own view not OWN the interpretation?

Crenshaw, Bell, et al. call themselves Marxists proudly. I accept their testimony that that is where they got their ideas, because knowing those ideas, it's obvious to me they're telling the truth about that.

But then, they also go beyond Marx, to even worse ideas, of course.

And my point is that nothing is 'wrong' with one borrowing ideas from others, including those you might not completely approve of wholesale, like Marx. He never experienced actual "Marxism" NOR did he act alone. Engels was his cohort in writing the "Manifesto" for example, and was the primal activist of the two given Marx preferred to keep to the philosophical works while Engels was in favor of the strong motivating rhetoric.

Note that Neitzche too was a philosopher who influenced certain interpretations that led to political extremes that he might not approve of. Fascism and National Socialism as well as even Communism, 'borrowed' some of his ideas in distinct interpretations that became extreme. However, both philosophers had real value in contribution to social sciences that all political systems 'borrowed' to some extent.

You literally hate the PERSONS [ad hominem style] and any association of them which makes you an 'extremist'. I can even find value in arguing for some fascist or national socialist ideas but due to the same kind of thinking you have, those demanding absolute disrespect of the associations are arrogantly preventing respect to the logical values that one can glean from them fairly. For instance, contrary to most people's knowlege (due to the literal taboo of associations) we fear speaking of Eugenics as something we still 'borrow' from but redefine our terms to hide that the ideas behind it have always existed and persist in some beneficial ways. "Democracy" to a more literal sense like the Athenian form in Socrates day was criticized by him by the problems of division of labor but was not against the ideal wholesale. Adam Smith's argument for capitalism might be shocking to him at how his arguments have been used to support laizzez-faire extremes of the invisible hand.

You are pitting people against one another when you insist on clear dissassociations of virtue to what is "Left" while in an arrogantly opposing way, acting in absolute DEFENSE of those who are associated to the Right regardless of those who actually DO harm there. Thus, you deny absolutely that NO WHITE SUPREMACISTS exists so as to absolutely paint your preferred side as angelic while not even respecting that IF you actually have a right to SPEAK of ALL conservative Rightwingers, you would only PROVE that the whole side IS as discriminatory as you by your own standards. And thus, you are as equivalently segregating people based upon the same arrogant biases of those you are deluded into thinking is representative of the "Left".

Excellent. Thank you. It will deal with all your remaining questions.

You assume YOU are the author

No, I assume only that you will keep your word. I hope that's not too much of an assumption.

"...keep my word"? I have no promise of appeal to you and as I just pointed out; even if I read it, MY interpretation 'borrowed' from the author would NOT necessarily be the author's. Here is something you miss,...probably because you ONLY discretely censor yourself from all other media but your own echo-chamber Fox or their friends....both Obama and Trudeau have mentioned support of the book's author and why they have both recently used the same reflected concern against "cynicism" that the actual books title referenced it was about. Had I written a book on the subject, I too would mention my disappointment of the extremes on the Left. Yet, unlike you, I'd also argue, as I do, my dissapointment of the CYNACISM you have of the Left, especially of the PRESENT governments of which 'cynacism' means. If the author wanted to emphasize some SPECIFIC bias to ONLY something for or against ONE polical party uniquely, the title's use of the term, "cynicism" would be innapropriate as its main title.

an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism (of government)

So how does this defintion 'fit' with your specifically narrowed anti-government, ant-liberal, anti-democratic preference?

Well, in the case of "believe all women," you're correct -- they are pushing against the "innocent until prove guilty" standard. But they haven't won yet.

And you continue with your blinders on! Either look up those links I gave you to the stronghold of actual Rightwingers through the McGraws who strongly influenced the trend to invert the process or shut up. This is not a 'party' bias but crosses these boundaries to have a segment of EACH party that favors this behavior. They just differ on HOW they interpret 'feminism' via the religious Fundamentalists versus all the other non-Fundamentalists of the Left or Right religious set of biased interpretations. There is also the non-religious supporters who also have distinct differences unshared by particular interpetations of what 'feminism' means.

[Splitting post here...]

[Immanuel Can]

...my point is that nothing is 'wrong' with one borrowing ideas from others,

It's fine if they're good ideas.

You literally hate the PERSONS [ad hominem style]

Nope. I never knew Marx. His ideas are bad enough. They speak for themselves.

No, I assume only that you will keep your word. I hope that's not too much of an assumption.

"...keep my word"?

Yes. You say you want to know about CRT.

If you want to, you'll do as you said you intended to do, and read the book. And if you never really did, and wanted to defend bad ideas you don't really understand, you won't.

So we'll see.

[Scott Mayers]

You are proving to be against the First Amendment now too given the separation of Church and State.

I'm not: I'm actually against blending church and state. The State has no right at all to abridge religious practice, I say. But surely you know there is no such "amendment" in Canada.

And 'surely' you know that Bill Clinton nor Donald Trump are Americans!

The separation is defining of its citizen's capacity for freedom of speech with respect to biases that governments have power against when justifying the reasons for creating specific laws FROM one's paricular non-universal religious beliefs. That is, if a law is made that is BASED significantly upon a particular religious belief or to the authority of those espousing superior providence in proxy to some God, like a Queen or King, the laws necessarily authorized as due to one's religion prevents the freedom of speech of those that dare to challenge them.

Any degree of inclusion of religious-based authority of what is 'virtuous' or 'vial' in laws assures the system is biased against some degree of 'free speech' because it makes the system an arm of a church. I already argue against Canada's version because it is constitutionalized us as a theocracy because in its preamble it dictates that to what follows in it is going to respect the condition that we are a supposed nation that recognizes the 'superiority' of a God before later spelling out the protections of particular religious bias BY a specified erligous authority in perpetuity. It specifies that SOME particular people are 'superior' in their right to also predefine what all other beliefs or freedoms shall be qualified through.

So, you cannot in principle have even ONE religion as official that guarantees freedom of speech because they get to predetermine which other religions are UNACCEPTABLE and it removes any power of the non-religious to have any power to overrule the minimally defining dictates of the mediating religions protecting the system. The American's First Amendment is thus not even interpreted properly by the underlying motivating logic: movitated to separate the powers of religion from the state absolutely.

I know that you disapprove of Trudeau based upon what he is doing yet without noticing that he is precisely politically based upon the very partiality to favor religion in our government that you do. So you only differ to WHICH particular religions should be the 'Master' hard drive with the Operating System that drives all the other drivers and applications as 'Slaves'. Either way, when ANY religion is the master check to all laws in a system, it prevents some degree of freedom of speech....including....wait for it..........your own agreed disapproval of ANY censorship. Or have you changed your mind on that? If not, you have to adapt to the logic that restricts the 'right' of governments to favor any religion or you are just in discrete favor of being the one in power to censor hypocritically.

[Edit: spelling and grammar]

In fact why do you not recognize that even Trudeau's beliefs are inline with this. [I don't think you know that the "Liberal Party of Canada" is a label but that they are actually Center-Right conservatives who embrace religion.]

Now I'm starting to think you don't know what a conservative is. It has nothing to do with either wealth or religion. Sorry.

You DO have some 'apology' to defend of your beliefs as I just spelled out. Trudea is a relative "political conservative" by definition of its significant roots: to 'save' the reign of power to a particular subset of society, like an Imperial Dictator-class (Royalty) and the Nobel 'Lords' (landowners) with absolute proprietary RIGHT to rule. This proves that the Liberal Party is to the 'right' politically at a minimum. They lean toward the 'liberal' LEFT only by the auspicies of the particular religions that 'master' the rest through the consitution. AND this is only because the history of Canada had conflicting loyalties at its inception: French Catholics (abandoned by France as they were supporting the U.S. who borrowed their idea of 'liberty') and the English Aristocratic Loyalists of British roots. This conflict is all that defines the "Liberal Party" most significantly.

"Conservative" ideals in politics specifically refers to the saving of at least some FIXED set of constitutionalized rules of conduct FOR the people legislated BY a specific overruling class. The opposite is to "Progressive" ideals that permits the rules of legislation to VARY. The nature of the Constitution(1982) BY the founders of the Liberal Party who significantly devised that constitution DEFINES our system as predominantly 'Conservative' in principle and so Trudeau's direct acceptance of this makes the "Liberal Party of Canada" also 'conservative' in principle also.

As to the term "liberal" versus "libertarian", the definitions are based upon the principle of "granting the freedoms of the conserved protected classes by the Constitution" and by the "classic liberal" defining principle FOR that class as, "their right to have as much freedom as possible without infringing on the rights of others of the same among the agreed members" NOT ALL the people. "Libertarians" include a demand to 'free' those who have ECONOMIC power, not just the traditional defined rulers a set out in the Constitution(1982) or to the prior British Dominion of Canada's Constitution (1867?) that grants the inclusion of the Royalty we inherited.

The problems with the "libertarians" deals with the added belief that the powers of ownership should be the particular ones with proprietary rights. Such ideals would be as to the United States' interpretation of a supremacy of their Senate and the policing through Sheriffs (From "Shire Reef"). We too have 'sheriffs' that operate as police for land owners, for instance. They operate in our "Rentalsmen" office here who have the power to police powers between owners and 'serfs' (renters). THIS is the kind of rule that you want PLUS the extension of including religious rule over them. That you defend, "small government" is an illusion of tranferring authority over ALL people to be ruled BY the subset of the privileged 'owner' classes and so contrary to your delusion that this favors the poor, you are limiting this only to the RELATIVE 'POOR' to which rural Whites tend to be predominant. AND THIS is why the Right of the American politics coincides with the subset of those there who ARE 'supremacists' and not to other races, like the Blacks, who lacked it, or to the Aboriginals who are considered 'territories' and not rightfully democratically included.


This summarizes all of that post regarding what the political definitions actually are and to the principles they logically stand for. So I'll close this response as my reply for now. This covers what NEEDS to be understood in light of the rest for now.

[Scott Mayers]

...my point is that nothing is 'wrong' with one borrowing ideas from others,

It's fine if they're good ideas.

You literally hate the PERSONS [ad hominem style]

Nope. I never knew Marx. His ideas are bad enough. They speak for themselves.

No, I assume only that you will keep your word. I hope that's not too much of an assumption.

"...keep my word"?

Yes. You say you want to know about CRT.

If you want to, you'll do as you said you intended to do, and read the book. And if you never really did, and wanted to defend bad ideas you don't really understand, you won't.

So we'll see.

I already KNOW about the concerns about 'critical race theory' but will likely read that source and am confident that you read into it minus your own 'cynicism' about why governments are forced to provide certain allowances for temporary affirmative actions. I spelled out above how our government's Liberals are intrinsically 'conservative' in principle and the critical race theory that actually set up to describe this FROM Canada most originally, relates. The U.S. and the rest of the World's present reflections upon this cynicism is where that book reflects upon and to YOUR TYPE OF counter offense of having laws that you think should NOT exist at all to repair imbalances. This is strictly the cynicism YOU HAVE AGAINST the cynicism that the CRT has in their justifications for affirmative actions only.

In the meantime, YOU require reading Marx before you arrogantly interpret the depths of sincere reflection that you LACK appropriate wisdom to speak on. Marx in general argued for why political systems in general cycle through historical stages and so technically justifies an argument for the center and PROGRESSIVE laws that I clarify in definition in the above post.

Communism was NOT invented by him but is one of the 'democratic' cycles of those rebelling against EMPIRES, like the original Christians whose prime protest originated as a form of ''Me Too" movement. The Emperor with no Clothes summarily describes the foundational meaning of "Jesus Christ" as a statement, not a name, meaning, ''I TOO am as equal as any King as appointed by Nature (an an implied 'good)"; and those who also misinterpreted their movement as attempting to assert that they are advocating that the 'good' of their Nature implies they should STEAL THE THROWN is itself proving just another repeat in historical misunderstandings or to the arrogance of the Kings who think that others did not EARN the "Right" to rule as they did when that too is just a reflecting why Christianity eventually disapproved of "ownership" beyond one's necessities and against any form of "usery" (profiteering)!

[Immanuel Can]

I know that you disapprove of Trudeau based upon what he is doing yet without noticing that he is precisely politically based upon the very partiality to favor religion in our government that you do.

You couldn't be more wrong...about a couple of things. One is that I have no interest in any church becoming "State," nor in any State authority abridging the practice of religion. Both are nuts. Secondly, Trudeau is at least nominally Catholic. I am not a Catholic at all.

So I call hogwash on that.

But I might add that Canada, from the start, did not separate "Church" i.e. Catholicism, from State. Quebec was, in fact, constitutionally guaranteed particular relgiious rights, and these were echoed in English places by way of concessions to that religion in things like public education. So Canada has no such constitutional precedent.

But you'd have to know the history to know that.

In fact why do you not recognize that even Trudeau's beliefs are inline with this. [I don't think you know that the "Liberal Party of Canada" is a label but that they are actually Center-Right conservatives who embrace religion.]

Now I'm starting to think you don't know what a conservative is. It has nothing to do with either wealth or religion. Sorry.

Trudea is a relative "political conservative"

No, not even close.

I was right: you don't even know what "conservative" means.

As to the term "liberal" versus "libertarian", the definitions are based upon the principle of "granting the freedoms of the conserved protected classes by the Constitution"...

Now it's also clear you don't know what "liberal" or "libertarian" mean.

So what all this shows me is you have a very simplistic, naive envy for rich people and Constitutionalists, whom you term "conservatives" and are busy hating. But you have no idea in actuality what's going on or who you're hating. You're just angry. Somebody did you dirt, and you're mad about it. That's all. It's not really any deeper than that, despite all the words.

I don't know what I can tell you, Scott. If you think Trudeau is a "conservative," then you just don't know at all what one is. Nobody's going to agree with you on that...at least, nobody who knows Trudeau at all.

[Immanuel Can]

...my point is that nothing is 'wrong' with one borrowing ideas from others,

It's fine if they're good ideas.

You literally hate the PERSONS [ad hominem style]

Nope. I never knew Marx. His ideas are bad enough. They speak for themselves.

"...keep my word"?

Yes. You say you want to know about CRT.

If you want to, you'll do as you said you intended to do, and read the book. And if you never really did, and wanted to defend bad ideas you don't really understand, you won't.

So we'll see.

This is strictly the cynicism YOU HAVE AGAINST the cynicism that the CRT has in their justifications for affirmative actions only.

So you won't read the book, because you'll find out how wrong you are. Okay.

Have fun.

YOU require reading Marx

Take me on, then.

Quote Marx, and tell me what I need to know about him that I do not already know. But bear in mind, I have a copy of The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital right here, so you can't make it up.

[Scott Mayers]

You attempt in the following quote to disown your own acceptance of the faulty facts against Bill Clintion by transferring it to unestablished non-existing victims that your favored 'media' makes up:

Me? Not me. Twelve women.

If twelve accusers is "no proof" you'd be right. But we already know he used his position to exploit interns...that has, in fact, been proved.

My point is that the "believe all women" standard would catch a bunch of Democrats first. Clinton would surely be one.

Proof of these cases?

No one is asserting that Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct where they existed; yet, you advocated for Trump (and still likely do) for simply being the leader on the Right as "incorruptable" BY MERE ASSOCIATION to your political side regardless of probable guilt to worse. If you have anything to judge about moral sexual indiscretions, why mention Bill Clinton's sex scandals but not Trump's?

There is a list of federal political sex scandals that only mentions Bill's two, ...the same number that I was aware of being one who always watches television without bias to even Fox, ...not your inflated twelve without substance. Your number likely came from the nutcase accusations not of women but of your Trump-loving pretend 'media' online mogals who toss out lies to see what sticks without proof.

Regardless, you miss that Trump denies anything charged against him legitimately even if we have direct undeniable evidence to the contrary. [See: List of Federal Political scandals in the United States for this. If you think something is incorrect, you CAN actually note it there AND CAN even add any actual evidence you seem to think exists there.]

I gave you a list.

I don't recall you giving me any such list. Give it to me again with the source. I just gave you the Wikipedia one that ANYONE can contribute to regardless of political bias. This is all that says there:

President (Democrat-Arkansas) — Revelations that White House intern Monica Lewinsky had oral sex with Clinton in the Oval Office led him to famously declare on TV on January 26, 1998: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” The scandal led to impeachment by the House for perjury, for lying about the affair under oath. He was acquitted in the Senate, with 55 senators voting Not Guilty, to 45 senators voting Guilty (falling 22 votes short of the two-thirds necessary to convict).[98][99] Clinton's law license was suspended by the state of Arkansas for five years.[100] In 1998, Clinton admitted to an extramarital affair with Gennifer Flowers.[101]

Here is

(Republican), the 45th President of the United States — was accused of sexual assault by 25 women during the 2016 election, and he denied the allegations.[169] (See Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.) The allegations arose after The Washington Post released a 2005 video of Trump, recorded on a hot microphone by Access Hollywood, in which he allegedly bragged about groping women.[170][171][172] Trump himself renewed the controversy a year later by alleging that the video was fake,[173] to which Access Hollywood replied: “Let us make this perfectly clear—the tape is very real. Remember, his excuse at the time was 'locker-room talk.' He said every one of those words.”[174][175] The first reports of an alleged 2006 affair between Donald Trump and adult film star Stormy Daniels were published in October 2011 by the blog The Dirty and the magazine Life & Style (see Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal).[176][177]

Cherry picking is just demonstrating HATE for preferring only those OF YOUR CLAN. Do you believe that you have a 'superior' truth here? Are you 'white'?

I'm Splitting this irrelevant appeal as an independent post due to the character assasination of a President that has no relation to his significant political views nor the party he associated with. See that Wikipedia list and note that the sex scandals are spread across political lines. But note the hypocricy to moral superiority regarding sexual FREEDOMS requires that the ones who believe they are relevant are the ones who require not breaking their OWN interpreted violations.

You argue a diverting side issue of the EMOTIONAL character of an advocating representative's private conduct as relevant to the LOGICAL integrity of an ideal where the sexual conduct itself is not defined in its party platform nor is criminal. The appeal only sells influence to your own supposedly religious biased crowds' taboos not me.

This would be like using proof that a child's culpability to lie about stealing a cookie from the cookie jar suffices appropriately to discredit his integrity to tell the truth about being molested on the witness stand! While the lie might be relevant to the integrity of the same child tattling about his sibling's crimes about stealing cookies, it doesn't relate to the seriousness of the charge as it relates to being molested. .

[...splitting post here to separate the irrelevance. Don't raise integrity issues with me that you cannot demonstrate has appropriate levels of significance to the logic at hand. A person who doesn't approve of the taste of someone's cupcake recipe doesn't prove that cupcakes in general are untasty.]

[Scott Mayers]

I know that you disapprove of Trudeau based upon what he is doing yet without noticing that he is precisely politically based upon the very partiality to favor religion in our government that you do.

You couldn't be more wrong...about a couple of things. One is that I have no interest in any church becoming "State," nor in any State authority abridging the practice of religion. Both are nuts. Secondly, Trudeau is at least nominally Catholic. I am not a Catholic at all.

So I call hogwash on that.

You are flippant. You asserted you believe in a shared right of Church in State. The 'abridgement' refer to your beliefs OUTSIDE of government, not inside it. The Amendment referenced one a right only to BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT, like the 'freedom of conscience. This doesn't need to actually be said but was put there to assure that the government would not demand that the people it serves will not be denied a right to be delusional!

The part of separation refers to the means of the governing to excuse laws being legislated as based upon ANY invisible authority.

Now I'm starting to think you don't know what a conservative is. It has nothing to do with either wealth or religion. Sorry.

Trudea is a relative "political conservative"

No, not even close.

I was right: you don't even know what "conservative" means.

Don't hold back then. So the following etymology is wrong because you say so?:

conservative (adj.)
late 14c., conservatyf, "tending to preserve or protect, preservative, having the power to keep whole or safe," from Old French conservatif, from Medieval Latin conservativus, from Latin conservatus, past participle of conservare "to keep, preserve, keep intact, guard," from assimilated form of com-, here perhaps an intensive prefix (see com-), + servare "keep watch, maintain" (from PIE root *ser- (1) "to protect").

From 1840 in the general sense "disposed to retain and maintain what is established, opposed to innovation and change," or, in a negative sense "opposed to progress."

As to the term "liberal" versus "libertarian", the definitions are based upon the principle of "granting the freedoms of the conserved protected classes by the Constitution"...

Now it's also clear you don't know what "liberal" or "libertarian" mean.

So what all this shows me is you have a very simplistic, naive envy for rich people and Constitutionalists, whom you term "conservatives" and are busy hating. But you have no idea in actuality what's going on or who you're hating. You're just angry. Somebody did you dirt, and you're mad about it. That's all. It's not really any deeper than that, despite all the words.

I don't know what I can tell you, Scott. If you think Trudeau is a "conservative," then you just don't know at all what one is. Nobody's going to agree with you on that...at least, nobody who knows Trudeau at all.

You are completely deluded. You are a classic Humpty Dumpty pretending that you are wiser than the masses simply for being able to own a castle and be able to afford to speak OVER the masses.

You are also the classic Emperor who refuses to recognize you are naked.

You are the enemy of Jesus Christ who asserted just this fact when he rode in on a Donkey as pauper might to the Temple rather than the symbolic wealth of the horse. Did he not get frustrated at the money trading representing wealth that overtook what was presumed to be place for ALL people.

You're a hypocrit who IS attempting to STEAL some religious origins as though the story was about CONSERVING the power of the wealthy, ...about encouraging some right to profit. YOU ARE HEREBY EXPOSED!