The correct hypernymization of metaphysical worldviews

Statisticians are supposed to represent facts and not impose a hyponym/suboption as the hypernym/generic spectrum of options.

## the correct hypernymization of metaphysical worldviews

Statistics Canada (Statistique Canada/StatCan) doesn't use the correct hypernym to properly describe all the communities who have opinions on metaphysics and/or worldviews.

This is a more elaborate text on the topic of "the correct hypernymization of metaphysical worldviews":

(I have more texts, but the basic ideas are here.)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Statcan acts unethically (and potentially illegally, but I wouldn't recommend we attack the legal system of the country by using it in court; the whole point is to legally evolve Canada and not to harm it; or fail by attacking the legal system before it evolves enough to better include more communities)...

Statistics Canada (Statistique Canada/StatCan) acts unethically (and [potentially illegally, but law cannot metaevolve by itself before we evolve it; thus I wouldn't recommend we attack the legal system whilst we can improve it], we shouldn't act hastily) to hypernymise/hypernymize (to use as a hypernym/superordinate term/wider term) a subcategory/subgenre (important but still hyponymic/subordinate) of metaphysical worldviews.

\_\_\_\_\_

Statistics Canada erroneously treats religion as the hypernym of all possible and existing metaphysical worldviews by using the phrasing: Religions in Canada and not Metaphysical Worldviews in Canada (opinions about metaphysics/metaphysical beliefs... but that excludes people who only have worldviews and don't care about metaphysics).

Biased hypernymy in statistics is unscientific, unethical and in evolved legal systems (rare) illegal.

\_\_\_\_\_

The hypernym/superordinate term/wider term of all metaphysical worldviews is "metaphysical worldviews".

It's a set about metaphysical first principles of everything, and worldviews because some people focus on everyday life attitude and not metaphysics. Hypernyms are supposed to be semantically wide.

Atheism isn't a supernatural doctrine/a religion but it is a metaphysical worldview. Of course ideal hypernyms don't exist. We cannot apply rigorous set-theory rules in sociological hypernyms because mutual exclusivity emerges. Some people don't care about metaphysics, others don't care about worldviews and others don't care about either of them. Selecting the correct hypernym should be the best compromise.

Belief is a very wide hypernym; a case of bad hypernymy because it includes too many different topics. Faith is very close to religion thus it's biased.

Also many atheists are egotistical. They believe they are too correct to be properly classified, thus by remaining erroneously classified under religion, or generically classified under belief (strong opinions about any topic?), or unclassified, their culture is less respected because legal systems require exact specifics.

(I have longer texts on metaphysical worldviews. You can ask.)

People cannot respect you if they don't know and understand you (semi-respect cannot work in everyday life, because it gets tested and vagueness fails to lead to respect).

Communities cannot have equal rights if they're unclassified or if they're erroneously classified, whilst others are more properly classified. You'll miss your rights because you never were in the list.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

## a precedent

In philosophy but also in Canada, atheism isn't a religion.

Thus NECESSARILY Canada must properly categorize atheism, because atheists have communities.

The law will define their legal rights, not the atheists themselves (they can work with representatives though).

But the law has to evolve to properly categorize them in order it can FAIRLY deal with them.

Average atheists aren't philosophers. Some of them might even be egotistical about weird categorizations.

The law should evolve in a fair manner; according to rational thought.

see: Atheism is not a religion, court finds in denying group charitable status

https://globalnews.ca/news/6259111/church-of-atheism-religion-charity/

(The charitable status isn't the thing I care most. It's a secondary topic. There are also cultural issues not necessarily related to atheochurches. The law must evolve though.)

## comment 1

hypernymification/hypernymation/hyperonomatisation/hyperonomatization/hypernymisation/hypernymization = to create the appropriate hypernym

see: onoma

## comment 2 (French translations)

(en) metaphysical worldview = (fr) cosmovision métaphysique

(the translations: conception métaphysique du monde,
vision métaphysique du monde, are huge,

the translation: Weltanschauung métaphysique,
is German-based/unFrench and Kantian
[biased/narrow; we shouldn't use so coloured words as hypernyms; they sound hyponymic; cosmovision is properly Francoetymized, way more compatible with the French language])

(English: worldview = French: cosmovision [single words are stronger; see Portuguese: cosmovisão], conception du monde)