Jump to content

Scott Mayers

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Scott Mayers

  1. Read my response to Army Guy as it is based upon your argument that he's supporting. As to my argument about the value of the unborn versus a fully grown person is about the degree to which one has conscious experience. I'm not 'for' killing babies; I am arguing that the act of respecting a mother's unborn versus the mother is itself naive, ...like how we tend to favor puppies or kittens but as soon as they appear 'mature' and grown up, they are dismissed as irrelevant. It is an EMOTIONAL response you are having with respect to abortion because you BELIEVE the conceived being is an 'innocent' sufferer who lacks the power to protect some VALUE of LIFE that they COULD hold. You assume the 'virtue' of the contested determination of some 'soul' that might suffer should be granted predecedence when I interpret your emotions as disrespecting the POST-baby that the mother represents as a non-aborted mature adult. I get and agree to the disappointment of those who might use abortion as a mechanism for chosing NOT to use contraceptives. But most conservatives are also anti-contraceptive (like Catholic conservatives) which demonstrates that the anti-abortion lobby is about some religious belief that you are imposing upon other's freedoms. I hold to the "liberal" ideal: "to have as much freedom so long as it doesn't affect the freedom of others." While the question of whether an unborn child is a soul that exists in equal value to others alive, the mothers ARE actually AGREED with certainty among both of us that these mothers ARE alive. If you want to challenge this argument without religion, you'd require accepting and using science to determine whether an unborn child is both alive and somehow worth MORE than the mother's life.
  2. Is this one of those ideas based in science, if you can not remember your birth, proves that a new born is not human or worthy of life...You claim a new born does not fell pain or pleasure, i call bullshit, in fact I'm not even sure how you can make a such a claim, and because we don't remember our birth is not a valid reason....I also don't remember a few nights out on the town but that does not mean none of it happened.. In fact others have begged to differ... Have you asked a doctor why they slap a babies bottom once delivered, and why they cry.. , why do they cry when you accidental hurt them. if they don't feel pain or hunger, or anything as you suggest.. of course the baby knows it has to clear it's lungs for some reason... natural extinct maybe, i guess it would be to much of a jump if it also felt pain, or could feel pleasure ...I guess you have never seen a baby smile or being content, perhaps it is my imagination.. or perhaps it makes you sleep better knowing that these babies are nothing more than skin, bone and water that feel nothing when they are extinguished. Given my argument to Betty on her religiosity AND that you now gave support for her, here is the argument: (1) You (and Betty) [or the general Conservative] believe that you SHOULD have a right to IMPOSE your choice onto other people's freedom to have an abortion. (2) Yet you believe that the non-Conservative SHOULD NOT have a right to IMPOSE upon others to wear masks AND/OR take the vaccine. (Conclusion): Conservatives SHOULD have a special biased privilege to 'free choice'. An extended logical argument here is about the DEGREE to which expected impositions SHOULD be taken into account. So compare the degree of: (1) ...one IMPOSING masks that are used to protect OTHERS' potential of getting a virus that KILLS. (2) ...one IMPOSING a vaccine that is used to protect ONESELF and OTHERS from permitting evolution of a virus' ability to learn how to defeat the vaccine. OR (3) ...one IMPOSING upon OTHERS their right to remove a part of one's OWN BODY that, should a law require they KEEP the child regardless of the harm of the parent's inevitability to be both burdened against their choice to have to pay for the cost of raising the child regardless of her maturity and to the imposition upon the unborn child to have to be FORCED into a life with an inherent DEBT they must overcome in order to succeed. [Adopting parents often interpret adoptees as charity cases who are seen as 'pets' relative to their own biological children.] [Conclusion]: The degree of freedom imposed upon the non-Conservative uniquely BY Conservatives is absurdly extreme. It is thus HYPOCRITICAL to demand 'free choice' for oneself on even the remotest TRIVIALITY while expecting OTHERS' to be denied their 'free choice' on the most SIGNIFICANT violation of one's right to their own body. (Supporting additional argument via religious freedom😞 The argument that you are responding to above can be considered my own 'religion' should you disagree. If you have a right to declare supremacy of nature's favor towards yourself without provability [as 'religious freedom' implies], I don't think you stand any grounds to argue against those of us who might argue that a being that is yet to be born is conscious of the same degree of suffering of those whom we all AGREE is "alive" and can "suffer". That is, we both can agree that a life of one who IS born should not be killed and thus 'AGREE'; But we disagree about whether a being unborn is equivalent to being a 'person'. I don't IMPOSE upon those who choose NOT to abort to abort. YOU choose to impose upon others, whose welfare you could care less about regardless, to OBEY YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEF IN AN "ESSENCE" or "SOUL" that enters us upon conception. This last argument, like the one I challenged Betty, is ONLY an extended argument about 'freedom' that you may also agree: the 'freedom of religion', ....also a personal free choice. Which of our competing choices is superior with regards to competing beliefs where one contradicts the other? AS to the Hitler addition in your own odd comparison, National Socialism is a RIGHT-WING extreme where Communism is a LEFT-WING extreme. With respect to my above arguments, the Conservative is more fittings with Hitler's ideals, given you expect YOUR right to 'freedom' to be respected ABSOLUTELY for some particular INDIVIDUAL over all others. [No one is saying you cannot take your mask off or refuse the vaccine in YOUR 'own' private spaces....only in places we are required to SHARE equally, for instance.] Communism's form of abusives comes about due to the nature of reducing 'freedom' to the LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR of ALL citizens at the expense of the rouge individual view, regardless of value. Even that extreme can be anti-abortion. So note that most fiscal support to the LEFT comes from SEGREGATE Multi-Conservatives and so are not necessarily "liberal" (and what the underlying cause of those 'leaders' who steal the power as a Conservative dictator under the label of 'communism' derives from.) [Thank you for taking the vaccine, btw.]
  3. Wow, I guess I'm suppose to do what now ? Tell you you've changed my mind i think you have enlightened me to the point i have rediscovered the meaning of life. Sorry, I still think your a drug induced lefty loser who for some reason feels the need to judge everyone and anything that does not fit into your leftist views. Like my choice of forum name it has somehow triggered you so much that your writing half a book of drug induced rage... I highly doubt you have any military experience or if you had served you did not last very long, maybe some officer cadet with mommy issues, and now hold some grudge because some army guy stole your girl friend, while at a university frat party... Sorry to disappoint but I've met smarter goat herders over in Afghanistan, but then again who am I to judge your nobility... I don't support any party here in Canada and yet favor a bit of each. I'm center-left and share many similarities to someone like Bill Maher. But note that my use of rhetoric is specific to the fact that you should be able to hack it given the 'rightest' (?) believes in the use of it themselves. Sorry for HOW it might affect you, but not to the underlying logic. I used your likely background based upon your label to get you to relate to the fact that the warmongering PROUD military boaster can't notice how SACRIFICE is what being a sincere military personel means to people ARBITRARILY to whichever country you serve. That you are 'proud' of something that all militia in all countries HAVE to do for others BLINDLY regardless, yet do not notice that the mere demand to wear masks and take a vaccine, especially in a temporary universal pandemic that affects the whole world, IS a 'sacrifice' that you should be able to embrace. You yourself are NOT representative of all normal soldiers who sacrifice but of a stereotype of the "right" and why the "Nazi" comment. It is NOT necessarily how I might judge you if I knew you personally but a comment about the stereotype of the AGRESSIVE FIGHTER who bullies others about 'freedoms' and burdens (like 'taxes') as though YOU were the VICTIM with respect to normal everyday requests [the mask and vaccine demands]....and BY the very government-concept of National Defence systems that you ironically would supposedly 'obey' without thought in what you supposedly have pride in. Sacrifice the vaccine shot and wear a mask (like you would a soldier for your country required to wear a uniform and risk your life) so that you don't enable the virus to EVOLVE and harm more people, even if you may not be happy about it. It is NOT a permanent expectation and you COULD possibly die. But if you were a healthy soldier, I'm sure whatever poison the vaccine might potentially risk of many would not even hurt you regardless, right? As for the 'left' part of who I am, I believe in "democracy", and what the "LEFT" is in principle. The "RIGHT" doesn't want a government by nor for the people but for a system they can "OWN". That is, its philosophy is that they are 'superior' beings by simply having luck of nice genetics or environmental power over others and who think THEY 'represent' what government should be command-style: Obey us as your 'owners' or we will use our power to harm you (cause we are gun-loving killers) you. The 'Right' is about control by fortune, not freedom of the masses. The concept of the "Right" is generally "REPUBLICAN", (originally, from Plato's position against the Democracy of Athens), which ideally places skilled and intellectual people in power. The problem is, that one who works 'for the public' (re-public) by Plato was an ideal of the PHILOSOPHER KING, some ideal person, like Socrates, who should be APPOINTED to lead out of duty BUT without a choice. In reality, representative leaders tend NOT to favor the mere intellctual philosopher king because the drive for control is EMOTIONALLY driven and always leads to a system of DICTATORS who are only 'intellectual' enought to be deceptive with the goal to serve ONLY their own 'family' (their literal genetic families, race, and whatever culture they embrace). So I find it ODD to be accused of being "left" when it implies "democratic" and "liberal" (freedom) ideals. The problem on the "Left" is also of concern but is due to the actual fact that CONSERVATIVES of alternative beliefs about their OWN familiy, races, and religions, take dominant control there. They are actual "Right" wingers who simply belong to some 'minority' conservative cult that believes in the same ideals you do but with different segregated 'superiority' beliefs. The actual 'liberals' are independent and so lack the same powers that 'democratic' groups represent. ...and why I also don't hold to any actual parties here in Canada. They are all racist, sexist, and worst of all, religious mongers who believe THEY should COMMAND power over the society AS 'governers' to assure that we are behaving "RIGHT"! [The "Left" are those 'left' without power] [Additional edit]: You are correct about me NOT staying in the military long. But I was a Brat and actually was FORCED to go even though I later appreciated it (I cannot get into this here.) What I did not like is that I was too young and did not approve of fighting for a system that I had insufficient experience to judge. I recognized that IF I were to return, it WOULD be as an officer so that I could literally be involved in the intelligence of it. Most of the people I grew up with in the military were also NOT 'militant' nor as proud as those of the stereotype I mentioned of you. Most militants like yourself are also more 'voluntary' Reservists who tend to enjoy 'camping' in the lifestyle or embrace 'survivalist' ideals. So if you were literally Regular, thank you for serving. But you shouldn't be so 'proud' if you don't recognize that it too is just a branch of the very 'government' ideals that you fear should it be all that is left of it as many Conservatives believe.
  4. You favor killing fully grown human beings that have built a 'resume' in life that establishes their worth but favor the infantile as though it has more virtue and worth? Unless YOU can prove that you remember even your birth, I'd suggest you recognize that you cannot confirm that there is anything meaningful to a new born, let alone some zygote or embryo. ALL living beings have to LEARN to feel, not simply facts like whether one plus one equals two. As such, even a newborn lacks full meaning of their emotions, including the sensations of pain or pleasure. They are reactive genetically to behave in ways that we later interpret as having meaning. For instance, a baby cries when it is born by the fact it is needed to clear the lungs. That is, the baby isn't crying because it is sad or uncomfortable untill it later reassigns HOW adults react to it in ways that mean 'cry when sad or in pain'. Pain and pleasure are also arbitrarily assigned. Evolution takes whatever SUCCEEDS to validate what later become interpretated as pain or pleasure. That is why you have diseases (like Leprosy, as one type) that lacks an assignment of 'pain' for some people. Babies do NOT suffer pain when aborted and are NOT valid beings UNTIL they develop in time among us. Why are you more compassionate for the stupid? If babies are more valuable to you than grown up living beings, then YOU are by now too old to be considered 'valid' for your opinion BY your own standards. All our meat comes from beings that we kill far beyond their zygote stage. Do you not have equal compassion for cows or sheep that get killed? Why? (Religion, right?) Don't worry, when you die, if a God exists, I think the 'choices' one makes based upon the science and logic of humans would be more respected than one who blindly spits back what they think is God's Will simply to placate its emotions as though you think it too is some naive childlike being who 'feels' more than they 'think'. You religious nuts act like some computer error that DEMANDS the programmer to appeal to serve it rather than the other way around. Imagine if when you tried to punch in some numbers in a calculator (or smart phone, say) in the grocery store when instead of providing you with the answer you want, it spits out accolades of text like, "Oh dear superior and loving Creator please give ME the answer to the problems you presented me in my life. I am so lonely have always proven my loyaly by loving you." as though the calculator was not necessary and the user'd whole purpose was to create and serve YOU! If God doesn't want us to be ABLE to act independently to solve problems, then 'choices' mean nothing. So if things like abortion is something so vile, let that supposed powerful Being JUDGE what is to be done about those who CHOSE abortion. You are NOT the baby's 'savior' and your imposition upon such others BESIDES YOUR OWN choices are not your business. Just because some things are cute or fluffy like puppies and kittens, doesn't make them more valid than what they could become. Babies are somewhat retarded internally until it develops fully and require a year or more AFTER birth to establish their biology to be permanently damanged by specific 'traumas'. That is, even a baby of a month would NOT 'feel' trauma it it were put to death in certain ways, like removing it from the womb. This is true of all animals in nature. A baby that dies in the womb does NOT feel pain nor trauma because it doesn't even know pleasure, lacks meaning of memory beyond neutral data, and EVOLVES within life to feel MORE as it grows. You worry about your 'right' to choose to wear a mask and take vaccines EVEN though you ARE 'aborting' the rights of others to their lives KNOWINGLY even if INDETERMINED to which particular people you are harmng. If you cannot even fathom following this trivial demand and still think that somehow it is MORE FREE to IMPOSE upon others whether they should or should not he burdened to live with the responsiblity of children their whole lives. The reason that the 'capitialist' favors anti-abortion (where NOT actually religious in their heads) is due to the fact that POOR people have more births by default and the MORE people who suffer, the better 'ecomony' the capitalist has for being able to EXPLOIT them. Greater demand from increased overpopulation (especially of the poor) enables the capitalist (especially without government intervention) to demand LOWER wages to such slaves. You don't give two shits about the babies that DO get 'saved from abortion'. [Note that if I had my way to advise my own Natural mother when she had me, I would have recommended abortion, not because I don't like my life, but because she opted to adopt us out to OTHER fucking CONSERVATIVES who lacked compassion for kids that were NOT ACTUALLY THEIR OWN! (This is normal for many adoptees) So you've got an answer FROM a survivor of abortion that also points out how such a baby could care less about the actual fact of being alive but whether the life we DO survive to live for the next 60 or 70 years is not one of suffering.] This was mostly off topic but my comparison to even bring it up with you was to point out how the degree of your concern to not mask or take a vaccine is about spoiled brats who normally get what they want more times than not over the vast majority of those who suffer for your particular 'freedom'. If abortion is significant to prevent even when you do not even care abouit particular people involved , why are you so arrogant to not agreeing to shared demands in which others' fully-grown lives are "aborted" indirectly by your special 'freedoms'?
  5. You know that your love of army tells me that you are likely a Junior ranker who is praised most for NOT being able to think for themselves, right? You know that ALL military training for soldiers for ALL different types of government ideals is IDENTICAL and for those who LOVE it are so stupid not to notice that the actual 'sacrifice' you serve is BASED UPON YOUR LACK OF INTELLECT because it is required for to BE mindless subserviant and obediant!! [I'm both prior National Defence and a brat and never get those braggerts of 'army' who represent best the pride of a Nazi. (?)! ] You skipped the points I made about how the 'conservative' is MORE AUTHORITARIAN. Your OWN arrogant love of military, for instance, IS AUTHORITARIANISM. All soldiers in all political philosophies who LOVE their job LOVE the lifestyle of a military dictatorships in principle. So before you continue your own rant about 'freedom' of choice, perhaps you need to respect WHAT it is you are serving so blindly before you judge others. The 'liberal' concept is "give people the most individual freedoms possible WITHOUT INFRINGING UPON THE SAME FREEDOMS OF OTHERS TO THE SAME!" Note too that 'liberal' is French for 'freedom'. The 'conservative' concept refers to those who HAVE SOME FORTUNE they are afraid of losing. Thus you want whatever system that is working specifically FOR YOU (regardless of your actual belief about what is right or wrong for all others). And given the capitalist extreme is to believe one has some religious 'right' to the non-limited power of "OWNership" of the world without a people's democratic means to challenge, you represent the MOST AUTHORITARIAN threat of any ideal. You idiots are whinning about taking taking medical precautions that affects everyone when you actually have ZERO compassion for everyone (the demos) with a specific desire to RULE over others by what is entailed by 'ownership'. That is, you think nothing of demanding people born on this Earth who have no 'ownership' to PAY THE RENT you demand regardless of their 'freedom' or choice. You think it is alright that if you have the mere LUCK of being born with some daddy who inherits to you fortune PRIOR to you earning it and then WANT no interference of a society to put on any BRAKES of your own argued fear of the masses to 'OWN' this power. If ONE person can have some 'right' to dictate what they want for themselves with the included 'right' to NOT be infringed upon, so can the COLLECTIVE of such individuals we call 'democratic'. The collective majority recognizes that taking the vaccine and wearing masks IS the 'FREE CHOICE' right they have. It is impossible for ANY ideal to make ALL people have the same identical 'freedoms'. And if you think that your 'rights' should be honored without limits, then I propose the no one should OWN anything beyond their OWN independent power they can carry with them. "Ownership" of anything beyond your body is THEFT of other people's FREEDOM over such 'property'. And so, perhaps, to assure people's freedom, all people should deny paying any rent because we are all born on this earth without a choice and are SLAVES in a worse position than to whether some spoiled brats are crying foul because they are being TORTURED for having to wear a mask or take precautionary 'pill'. You don't see the poor suckers of this world who LACK even the 'right' to have these precautions as we do. What about their 'freedoms'? These measures are TEMPORARY also. And, back to you as an 'Army Guy', what 'freedom' do you enhance by having the power to take other people's lives AGAINST their wills, regardless of anyone respecting their 'free' choices and decisions? I take the vaccine regardless of the possible threat because IF some conspiratorial body exists who is powerful enough to harm me, they WILL HARM me regardless. But I have more to fear by the Conservative who would INDEPENDENTLY act as the animals we are where NO limits against YOUR 'freedoms' are demanded while I am expected to be a happy slave under the pretense of something 'virtuous' should you be my LORD! [owners alone own the 'freedom' to dictate what is 'free' and what is not'] There are WAY more freedom violations done by the conservative IN PRINCIPLE. If you believe in a governing system with no rule (beyond your own special privilege to rule over others through 'ownership') I challenge you to apply for those reality programs on survival, like, "Alone". Then you could prove whether you have 'freedom' apart from democratic conventions that require we ALL require sacrificing something. Do us all a sacrificial offering of good will by taking the vaccine and wear masks. That's the least you can do to prove you're a friend of other Earthlings equally. And if it kills you, so be it.....I mean, you Conservatives are the super religious of all political systems. Do you not believe in your God's power enough to NOT protect you? And if you die at the hands of something 'evil', you should be confident that your God would 'fix' things by compensating for your loss in Heaven.
  6. Hmmm. So you MUST favor the right of a woman to freely have an abortion under the same kind of concern? Arrogant religious nut cases are the ONLY fear we need to be concerned about with respect to government. This FEAR of vaccines you think is rational requires that you presume it more likely than not that some conspiracy exists OF VERY EVIL beings who have it in their secret plan to poison YOU. But the KIND of response to such fears actually indicates what YOU and YOUR OWN internal mind believes as you would not think twice about using AUTHORITARIANISM to force the masses to conform to your religious beliefs. Note that 'conservatism' is merely Anti-government because YOU FEAR LOSING what you or your family's are guilty of STEALING at some points in the past. The kind of religious on the 'right' are counterauthentic to your hypocritical beliefs in ACTING purely DARWINIAN with the 'freedom' to exploit others at your will that your Devil embraces yet you would IMPOSE a strengthening of religion FOR the stupid masses you REQUIRE the masses to be to be most optimal to capitalize upon. For your likely norm of conservative beliefs with weird health practices such as "homeopathy", think of the vaccine as a kind of homeopathic cure. : The cult that became homeopathy is actually based on the historical roots of what became vaccines but without the actual science behind it. Vaccines are not what creates complications in those who have reactions. Rather, it is the individual's normal RESPONSE to foreign matter that OVERDRIVES some people's immune system. The vaccine is NOT the virus but has pieces of protein that FAKE the actual virus' external body so that your system LEARNS the functioning 'keys' that enable the virus to sneak in to cells. Viruses act quick because they are NOT 'alive' but just forms of INFORMATION that borrow whatever cell's functions to create proteins that steal away the normal functioning of the cell. So given they are 'dumb' in this way, the vaccines are only a means to GET our systems to react when normally they get unnoticed before it is too late. AS to YOUR 'rights to freedom to choose the vaccine', note that your selfish 'freedom' STEALS the 'freedom' from others by the neglect of how pathogens like viruses EVOLVE and get passed on. This is not the kind of argument one might pose for why EVERYone in some school cannot eat peanut butter for the trivial minority who have a reaction. It is something that goes broad and unpredictably. If you argue for "NATURE" (or your 'God's domain) to be left untouched for being 'His will', then why should the very 'free choices' you presume is humanity's EXCEPTION to 'nature', then CHOOSE the vaccine as it is what you believe your God gave us. The collective intelligence that derived our ability to understand viruses is our collective "free will" when we choose to utilize what we learned from nature to ALTER our outcomes in conflict to NATURE. If you still maintain distrust of some conspiracy to do you harm, then look in the mirror because you are not telling us what you fear of others but what you fear of what YOU are certain YOU would do if you had the chance to infect others when or where you have the power. YOU, not the other side, believes in 'free exploitation' by the very means of which a 'good' capitalists would do ANYTHING, including doing whatever it takes to weaken your target's suspicion of your deception as you 'profit' upon what they 'lose'.
  7. Hey, how are you doing? I'm been less online lately given some people just "Kant" let logic interfere in their politics. While I understand your take, note that my own atheism is also logically nihilistic, and I'm relatively 'gnostic' when I argue against specific religious claims. That is, I don't even think the functioning concept of morals exist by nature and so my own interpretation of being atheist is very non-religious. Many peer atheists and agnostics DO act 'religious' when interpreting the nature of humanity and often under the label, "Humanist", though. You cannot have a belief THAT there is any moral reality that is universal without having the significant property of religions beyond speaking about life after death. I DO argue for moral higher grounds though and it is still something that ALL emotional beings require or they'd lack an incentive or drive to persist. My interpretation of morals though is about maximizing our means of coexisting or at least something that each of us selfishly feels personal comfort or value of with respect to how they are treated in life. We (all animals) learn to define emotional significance initially in a sort of arbitrary assignment of what we experience in windows of development. HOW you are initially treated during these periods assign what 'good' versus 'bad' are to us, including real physiological sensations, like pleasure and pain, ....where non-genetically evovled. Laws the people create act as 'morals' and vary depending on who is in charge in creating the laws and their enforcement. As such, the moral part that contributes to a religion in us independently is only reflected socially by how much our own ideals FIT with the laws our governing bodies artificially create and whether we also FIT in favor to those laws. Government then is the human means of 'atheistically' assigning morals. When looking at the forms of religions people have, they always hold some bias reflecting their politics and based upon how well they are doing with respect to those systems. Lately, I've found that many atheists tend to also favor religious-like beliefs based upon politics and their own fortunes or lack of it. As specific examples in our times, I find many of the supports by most (other) atheists today supporting certain extremes of beliefs, like censorship, safe spaces, strong advocacy of reversed racist or sexist idiologies, etc, very religious. Some Communist countries that are supposed to be non-religious, for instance, like North Korea, act religious by demanding their living human leaders as 'divine'. Also, one's willingness to sacrifice for some ideal future on Earth for the non-religious is at odds of still being religious because they themselves cannot be 'satisfied' when they cannot literally LIVE such Earthly paradise for themselves. So I agree in part. But I am exception. I still think that we CAN still best optimize our social comforts through governments if we remove any traces of 'religious' justification in governments. Our own system is highly 'theocratic' in that it DOES bias it to favor religious law making. The "Multiculturalism" of our system is actually an indirect secular rhetoric used to hide that we are such. All 'cultures' being protected constitutionally are always about conserving specific ways to make laws that are themselves hiding some formal religious biases.
  8. Any constitution of a country requires being monolingual regarding government or it is hideously anti-democratic. You cannot expect to have a system that favors ALL languages and so if one favors more than one but not ALL proves to FAVOR a SELECT subset of people to rule. The nature of having DISTINCT language rights biases those who do not know BOTH or all selected official languages. We have proof of how having different languages creates problems. When the metric system was adopted, the confusion of those who have the old imperialist measures created costly problems of interpretation. These errors, such as the Gimli Glider incident whereby the airplane was fueled half full causing the accident was due to MIXED language factors. This occured costly in Nasa as well. [see Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Translation Errors] Also, one of the known means of abusers to abuse successfully is to ISOLATE their targeted abusers and operate in SEGREGATION from those who might normally be able to help the victim. [See Isolation to facilitate abuse]. The main reason for those demanding segregate rights under the banner of "Multiculturalism(TM)" is to functionally operate in the same way an abuser does because it both intentionally isolates a subset of people in a way that censors them out from being seen or heard by OUTSIDERS AND intends to foster a means to keep INSIDERS from being able to freely chose to escape such entrapment. The recent proposals by Premier François Legault via the CBC article, "Quebec seeks to change Canadian Constitution, make sweeping changes to language laws with new bill" is REDRESSING the original language laws that permitted a segregated monolingualism regardless of our Constitution's formulation of Bilingualism, proves how even offering a constitution to favor them acts to simply EMPOWER the abusive nature of segregation. The extremes get automatic platform for simply offering what is in essence an excuse to foster diversity. It is NOT 'diversity' that those formulating such ideals want as this proves. The rest of Canada is FORCED to accept bilingualism even where other language dominance exists of some area that is neither English nor French. [Note that the commenting on that CBC article prevents me from signing in and given they censor it regardless, the content of comments will tend to favor the views of the DESIRE of those creating the article. So don't be surprised if you were to dare to put your input that goes against this article's view. If YOU try but CAN can comment in defiance, let me know. I cannot prove this is intentional against my own known arguments against many issues presented on the CBC but have no means to disprove this is occurring either.] Another example that can demonstrate comparison is to the Machine language of computers. Each higher order programming language translates to the machine level communication that is strict. IF we find such chips that intentionally have segregated machine languages, we have to assume that it is ONLY for some means to HIDE the means of select individuals to override the power of the computer. This DOES exist with regards to some security measures but the Operating System is what was made to act as this medium. They DO have some althernate hardware areas that act to favor special kinds of programming that would bog down the regular chip. These might for example be for graphics programming. But IF we were to have a literal separate hardware section that has the SAME power as the regular machine code, WE WOULD RIGHTFULLY SUSPECT SOME DEVIANT REASON for it. The same reasoning should point out how those demanding SEGREGATE languages on the FOUNDATIONAL language of a country. Note that Apple computers represent a kind of PRIVATE language with the intent to PROPRIATARILY control content separate from all the other OPEN computer hardware architectures. It demonstrates another kind of similar segregation in that it favors the wealthier classes who can afford Apple in contrast to other computers. While this is not necessarily abusive, it at least represents a segregation of people based on what they can afford. These are SEPARATE hardwares though. The example of computer hardware that I'm pointing out that WOULD be troubling is if a particular chip, that represents a whole system like a miniture 'country' constitution, has more than one language!
  9. You need to recognize that the WAY you use rhetoric, you actually CAUSE those of the other views to require using the same style of rhetoric. You misuse the term, "Communism", because it only represents a system that believes in "no (or limited) PRIVATE ownership to major universal properties that all of us on Earth have no 'right' to have ABSOLUTE POWER over. The opposite of "communism" is more appropriate to be called, "Imperialism", because 'ownership' without limits basically acts as an ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ideal that places favor to PRIVILEGED people based most signficantly on an arrogant belief in themselves as Kings or Queens (ie, 'imperial') who force their WILL upon others for believing that what they 'own' is ABSOLUTE. If you sincerely believe in the Imperialistic ideal, HOW is this NOT 'private government' and how can it NOT imply that those who lack such privilege are SLAVES to you. Don't declare how you think you represent the 'majority' beyond the mere fact that we are all ANIMALS. You cannot argue some religious high ground either when the very selfish drive that favors our internal desire to have absolute power is ANTI-RELIGIOUS in essence. You cannot have it both ways. If you believe that some 'god' grants you some supreme 'right', PROVE that those 'minorities' are incorrect for their own religious interpretation of using ANY means to power. The capitialist ideal is Darwinian. If you are religious, you likely hate the facts of evolution yet are favoring an ideal that returns power to the ANIMALISTIC part of us that IS 'Darwinian'. No government power BY the people is ENHANCED when it removes means to regulate the natural greed that we all have AND it favors an ideal that makes SPECIAL people who 'own' to have the ONLY power to rule over the rest regardless. The extremes that ARE sincerely occurring by those who ARE exploiting the absurd defence of segregated 'minorities' that you complain about are SPECIFICALLY due to the FACT of those who 'own' and inevitably ABUSE the democratic powers of the people. It is as harmful for your ideal to exist as it is for the Communist because you both believe in an ideal that could exist without 'government'. Both of your extremes are anti-democratic. Some elites who have the same selfish genes as us all tend to get in power regardless due to your extremes. The ONLY way to reduce the very abuses you see is to STOP favoring the alternative ideal of favoring superior power to those who have wealth. Note that if all that land is 'owned', those who don't are SLAVES because they are FORCED to pay the RENT and COMPLY to the landowner's PRIVATE GOVERNING rules of conduct. So we lose regardless. The extremes OF your very thinking are the SAME kind of people who are EXPLOITING government power to present laws that favor cultural arrogance. "Culture" is just a deceptive term in our government to refer TO RELIGIOUS rule. So YOU are the equal to the "communist" you complain about.
  10. You are either absurdly stupid or think that this kind of explanation can con me. Let me give you something to ponder: You assume that the athiest is 'evil'. That is, given the athiest is the most evil with respect to your belief, what would the likelihood of the clever athiests to LEAD your religious institutes and WRITE your scriptures, and be the ones to PASS on (evangelize) these irrational interpretations to gullible idiots in order to CONTROL them? I mean, how COULD this not occur given we are so devious? In actuality, the 'Bible' is a collection of SELECT works that originated from COMMON SECULAR writings that expressed what the general shared wisdom referenced. It was not LITERAL. For instance, Adam and Eve is just a intentionally written when most did not read. This required telling stories, just as we tell them to CHILDREN that help aid in memory. "Adam" means "of the earth" as opposed to the sky ("heaven" is derived from 'Eve' as in '(h)even'); "Eve" means "all that follows"; The original EGYPTIAN word that Adam came from is "Aten", which means the ideal spherical solid (the perfect one is the 'sun'. "Adam" is the REFLECTED IMPERFECT Earth as a child of the sun and means MANKIND, in general, not a literal person. Then "Eve" represents "all the rest that follow", not literally a woman. And as you may think that I'm not sufficiently in the know, I assure you that I know your sources much better than you! Imagine if some future people only had "The Simpsons" or "Family Guy" episodes as the only remaining 'sources' of the past. You would be like the idiots who literally interpret the characters and events they express as real. Notice that while these are not real, they represent the EXACT kind of story telling that enabled people to remember and pass on common ideas. Every episode of these cartoons have at least SOME hint of our present society that one can find moral and philosophical interpretations from them that you can infer about who we are today. As such, the bible (a collection of SELECT books), holds hints of reality in the same way. But those original peoples DID NOT literally interpret these as 'religion'. My point, however, is that politicians use religion as a means to JUSTIFY decisions that have NO REAL basis to argue morals from. Humans are still animals and all behave with priority to 'emotions' and NOT intellect. What I think is most hypocritical though is that the 'Right' wing ideologies use anti-intelligent forms of belief and attempt to appeal to the idiots of those on the bottom because it makes people easier to manipulate when they are so idiotic that they appeal to those emotions. Those running business want to use DECEPTION in order to sell rather than TRUTH. The stupider the masses are, the easier they are able to sell using anti-intelligent means. So, to the topic about the NDP position against the Monarchy is due to the nature of it being 'religious' in nature. That is, there is NO 'superior' justification for 'owners' beyond the limits of what one can literally carry and secure as individuals. And your political persuasion favors dictatorships based on the idea where enabled, to have power more akin to 'gods',....in complete reverse of your arrogant claims of belief about only 'God' as being 'superior'. This makes the conservatives frauds and hypocrites because they cannot actually think some 'god' grants SPECIAL HUMANS God's OWN power here on Earth without proving they are your very Satan you accuse others of being. If there is some real objective 'evil', the conservative represents this because they could care less about other but their own SELFISH powers over others. The phenomen of the 'spoiled' child (akin to Adam and Eve as symbolically uneducated) is that you are living relative 'heaven' on Earth UNWILLING to prove you worthy of any 'God' because you think it necessary to aim to be rich and powerful HERE. If you were NOT hypocritical, you'd be willing to give up all you have and labor hard to help others who suffer the most. But instead, you have Earthly dreams of relative paradise (compared to the vast majority of the population) and since you have NO REAL means to justify WHY you should have what you accidentally have, you embrace even the most ridiculous declarations of NATURE favoring you most particularly. You don't favor 'good works and sacrifice' and why you need a type of 'god' belief system that make you justify your virtue in light of DOING EVIL. That is, you PRACTICE as an 'atheist' when you EMBRACE unrestricted means of GREED yet are claiming to be religious? "Ownership" is only an arbitrary system that PEOPLE create. "Though shalt not steal" is certain to be the laws created by ANY non-religious system regardless or society would NOT have evolved as it has. There is no superior 'law' that says one has a 'right' to be absurdly wealthy. And the ONLY way that one can literally 'earn' wealth beyond their means IS to STEAL it directly or indirectly from others. Inheritance is worse. In fact, in the past, where one inherited benefits, they also inherited vices; YOU greedily accept the benefits but pass on DEBT to the rest of society. Imagine is the law said that you HAVE to accept any debt of your parent's sins like they used to? Why do you not notice that Adam and Eve's 'curse' was about the curse of "knowing" as we become adults that DEATH and SUFFERING is the actually NECESSARY condition of us all, NOT about some crime against the Gods (literal original was plural). You prove that you are still the naive child given you fear "eating of the fruit" that represented wisdom that is NECESSARY EVEN OF GOD! The worse anti-intelligent factor is how you even think some book (King James version??) that is written by humans is THE significant mode of communication that God would require to speak to us? How weak is it if it cannot speak to us directly? You can attempt to quote all you memorized without actual intellectual capacity to interpret the original meanings. But private property is NOT what the Bible meant by your "Lord"; The term should tell you that your 'God' would be that 'lord' if anything. And if he charges rent for us here, why should anyone pay some human 'lord' as though THEY were God? [But, given what I mentioned about what the evil atheist WOULD do, maybe YOU are an Atheist in desguise attempting to con others that YOU are the LORD?] I'm not buying in and would like to see religion put in its place as an ARTificial construct that it is. You can be free to be stupid if you want; but then you need to step back and let us intelligent people do the actual thinking. Leave ART to be what religion should be limited to. The Monarchy (meaning ONE-PERSON-RULE or 'dictator' in modern terms) needs to be removed because it IS 'religion' that is imposed upon the people without their consent, and ONLY favors those in line with these 'royal' pretenders wishes. They are the 'nakedness' that those of us who accepted Adam and Eve's curse recognized as imature thinking.
  11. (1) The question is first about the literal FORMAL power that is at question. The very fact that you seem to expect Jagmeet (or anyone) to CONFORM to the DICTATES of a formal written document by people is itself NOT DEMOCRATIC. (2) You argue here as elsewhere that you think PRIVATE ownership of this world is some 'right' while forgetting that the meaning of 'dictatorship' in the context of how most interpret it in modern times as "sole right of someone to 'dicatate' what should or shouldn't happen on what they claim as their OWN, including other humans who reside or tresspass upon it," you are hypocritically supporting the very kind of problem that leads to abuses. Do you think it is alright for someone to have ABSOLUTE power over what one 'owns'? Here I am asking if you think there is any LIMIT to what any system permits it 'owned'? For instance, do you think that people are 'owned'? And, if given your ideal of everything being privately owned, what do you think it means for someone who is born WITHOUT inheritance? That is, if one is born without inheritance AND all the land and propertied are 'owned', HOW is it not 'true' that such a person is owned' by the people they are FORCED by accident to live on (this Earth)? I also see that you are a religious moron, as many here are. This to me is a bullshit means to DICTATE against others that they alone are 'SUPERIOR', not that some 'god' is. If you believe that some superior being assigned humans to be SUBJECTS over others, YOU are hypocritically arguing that it is alright for YOU to LIMIT the FREEDOM OF CHOICE that your god supposedly grants all people. Why would God be SELECTIVE to favor those you or your selfishly loved ones SPECIFICALLY to 'own' power over others (which 'ownership' means) while this implies LIMITING those who do not 'own' to NOT HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHOOSE? I can't support formal "communists" systems as defined historically but what you also miss is that most religions originated COMMUNISTIC, especially Christianity. The modern 'protestant' versions of Capitalist variety are merely POST HOC declarations of belief of those who HAVE power in ownership, no different than the most EXTREMES of those dictators of ANY system that ever existed. The social pschology is about how those who are empowered FOR NO EARNED reason look back and ask how they and not others succeed? Because those of you who are actually guilty of conscious, KNOWING that you didn't EARN your power, have no RATIONAL means to justify their fortune and so SEEK some 'hidden' means of PROOF of your justification: some 'religious' excuse. Using religious justification PREVENT others to prove nor disprove your claims. As such, you are a fraud. A "Constitutional Monarchy" is NOT a democracy proper; it is a FORMAL dictatorship that is merely 'friendly' in its present state. But because it is technically able to OVERTHROW the will of the people REGARDLESS of reason, it is UNABLE to assure protection against ANY abuses that might occur because THEY too are NOT 'superior' beings who are as flawed as any other human born regardless of inheritance. The sysetm evolved to 'manage' an illusion of democracy. The 'democracy' is limited to the 'commoner' class and is looked down upon by those in power. NOTE that left-wing parties are 'democratic' NOT right-winged ones. The right-wingers support SELECTIVE PEOPLE (the owners ONLY) to rule and why they don't approve of a system that is 'owned by the people' as 'communism' means. Note that while I am not religious, I used to be more compassionate of those who are. But the nature of this to be constantly used to justify people's abusive means of control in politics is RUINING our world. Even those 'Communist' countries in history that you declare specifically so 'evil' are DUE specifically to RELIGIOUS delusions in the means of a future ideal that the present people in such systems are expected to 'sacrifice' when such future 'paradises' are not logically assured.. Ideologies that use religion as a mechanism through government, especially 'capitialistic' are dangerous and always lead to corrupt systems.
  12. I now know that Shaw was definitely intending to purposely destroy the effectiveness of the prior modems: they don't offer the regular routers now! This should be a concern to people here more than it is.
  13. I do have an old one that I might be able to use. I'll have to look at it. But it might slow down access with a noticable delay.
  14. I've already complained before here regarding media issues that while others may agree, I am at a loss of determining what to do... I had a deal with one of our cable companies who appear to be intentionally forcing me to UPGRADE by.... (1)Creating router/modem for Internet to fail. I had sudden failures with the Cisco router that is the LAST box that Shaw will offer that permits direct control. The failure would continue to cut me off and the box would constantly attempt to refresh over and over. So I had to replace it. I accepted them to send me a second box although they were attempting to get me to change when I talked with them. However, the new box failed immediately with the same issue. This is NOT an issue of the lines or other devices although this is what they attempted to argue, ...as usual. They then asserted that they can give me the new box without expecting me to pay more (not that these proprietary software boxes SHOULD cost anything given they are both NECESSARY for the service and unable to be useable for anything else.) My term is almost up of a 2-year deal and so they said that we can redress this again then. (no offer to get the old box back) Thus, after two returns, I get this new box only to discover that it is SEVERELY insecure and unable for us to completely control. In fact, while you can do basic setup on it, the mechanism of normal router controls that you use to protect and direct your OWN online activity, now requires that you go ONLINE to a remote site to use those features, such as turning on or off our wireless! Further, you can only direct VPN issues online as well as for any MAC adress controls, hardware FIREWALL, and basically everything related to SELF-SECURING our computers (for those of us knowing how to). These new boxes have nothing but one indicator light on it and reduces the capacity for more than two direct line connections. This means they want to encourage ONLY WIRELESS connections. Again, this adds to REMOVING SECURITY measures even the best coders could not secure. It also adds strong multiple antennae in it and appears as one of those boxes literally of direct concern of 'spying' that we see in the likes of the recent program, "NEXT". Although the 'Alexa', 'Corona', and other features are not supposedly active in its hardware, this CAN operate as such. [We cannot open the box to determine what else might be added,....such as possible mics, for instance.] I believe this was done on purpose given my contract is coming up and they know that I'm very vocal online about complaining of these issues. These new boxes permit definite capacities to spy through our ISP and I don't see anyone raising the alarm....at least in Canada. [The U.S. citizens would prevent this very quick. They even forced their providers to NOT have absolute proprietary boxes, only a 'SIM' card type input. The card on ours is blocked.] (2)Creating Software issues with the prior 'free' computer security software so that we require removing it for normal functionality of the computer. I have been having this particular issue with "McAfee" (called "Shaw Secure") but discovered that Shaw no longer covers this if you don't have it ON your computer through them upon the new "negotiating" time of any contracts. Since mine is almost up and we require paying for it as an extended "feature" for Shaw, I will be again Forced to pay for it or go without. I have tried to complain similar issues before but our politicians on the 'left' are ignoring it (very odd since communications media used to be an issue for liberal-minded parties). I am afraid to contact my local MP given he's conservative and would likely favor permitting government spyware and opening more avenues for police, military, and corporate officials to control our media. [Many falsely think that conservatives would favor the reverse. This is NOT the case when it permits corporations and those with power now to utilize.] We've already lost here in Canada by how at every step the American's have discovered and stopped (or impeded) laws permitting government, corporate, or other private interest organs, to spy and censor our media. I know that I cannot do anything alone other than to ask for help in places like this for help, even if only to raise the flag and get others to notice. This is NOT limited to particular parties here because our Constitution permits this kind of behavior by default of things like 'culture' laws. In fact, the CRTC may still be under the "Cultural" banner here as it was the last time I checked. So HELP. Is there ANYTHING that we can do? I cannot complain to CRTC because they are not actually fair in being able to complain without a great deal of expense and burden when complaining. The fact that they have all hearings done in Montreal (and most likely more in French when dealing with English issues and vice verse.) All our media here shares SOME varient of spying/spyware but differ on who they prefer be privileged to do it. The left will favor 'government' more but all communications they favor go through their party before being sent through to our particular representatives. For the right, they would favor particular corporate privileges. [We already have 'legal' official conspiratorial bodies set up as pretenses for protecting us. This is their industry groups referring to 'quality' issues that the public can write into. These only alert the very companies we have complaint against as an 'industry' representative in the same way the "Rentalsman" offices represent with priority the owners pretending to be set up to serve the renter.] Help... I am at a complete loss because even 'protesting' this is not possibly effective. It only ISOLATES those who now lack the medium should you simply NOT buy in. I think there IS a real conspiracy on these issues and so relatively universal across optional alternatives. It is set up only to APPEAR as though we have choice. Our media freedoms are the first priority of any concern for the people, no matter who you are, because it controls the air we communicate with between us. We already know how the present domination of Internet media already has and does this now.
  15. There's way too much more wrong than this. A logical argument can be 'valid' but not 'sound'. Humour uses logical dillemas or intentional fallacies to trick us into not distinguishing certain differences that exist or to unspoken but presumed true premises. This argument is related to the dillema: "If God is absolutely all powerful, then can he lift a rock too heavy for him to lift?"
  16. My area is in logic, math, and science. This is NOT universally agreed on and is more of a philosophical issue of contention between differences of interpretation, just as many other related issues in these areas. Numbers represent the real collections and so while the language we use is relatively artificial, numbers are not. We live in a universe run by 'laws' which require accepting that these are real. If the tools we use, like logic and math, are pure fabrications, then you could not trust using logic nor math to prove anything. The first and most significant "science" all of us do as children is to INDUCE what patterns of reasoning are. Then we guess what this is by postulating a set of agreed to means to DEDUCE through this system of reasoning we call 'logic'. The WAY we formulate in the most universal sense, requires recognizing that there is an underlying 'logic' to reality (those 'laws'). They are abstract FORMS (or 'formulas') but nevertheless more real than anything else. In fact, if the meaning of numbers (not the arbitrary language we use to express it) is still properly real numbers.
  17. I'm guessing this thread was accidentally placed under "Moral & Ethical Issues"? Does "IME" mean, "in my experience"? I'm not a texter and can't presume meaning to one's words without your clarification. As to math with regards to science, it is just a formal means to relate patterns of logic to nature as it is. I happen to hold that you should begin a logical inspection of total reality by assuming 'nothing' while recognizing that this implies 'everything'. Science is about this particular Universe and we assume consistency postulates for anything we do in science. As such, there can be (and I am confident, is) any number of Universes that have pattern while an infinite more (continuously) without. Only the patterned ones are what math, as an extension of logic, are used to find a fitness to the realities we sense for this Universe. Many think that "science" is limited to this Universe and/or similar patterned ones. But it doesn't mean the others do not exist. The debate by many is to whether science should be limited to the observational logic and its induction or to allow philosophy and logic to play a role with regards to interpretaion and the theories proposed. So many will not like to think science should allow for such speculation. But there is, in my opinion (and something I believe can be proved) a totatlity that 'originates' without any logic from an absolute state of Nothingness. That is, IF, there is an original foundation, where Nothingness lacks even rules or laws, it has no power to obey nor disobey any laws or logic. But this also applies to breaking them. When you begin with this assumption, all universes exist, whether patterned, rational, or not. Then our particular Universe is of the class of logical universals that have pattern. There should be EXCLUSIVE barriers to universes in this way of thinking because if absolutely everything were 'true' somewhere in Totality, then this must include the "impossible". But the exclusivity of them in fact make them 'non-sensible' in the strict meaning of our ability to directly observe any. However, logically, you CAN argue why these can still exist. This will not likely be accepted in the domain of institutional science though because of practical reasons, the most significant is to the politics and religions of people that almost always attempt to utilize logic WITHOUT respect to our local universe and our limitations of our senses. (Note the term "science" comes from an origin based on sensory terms, like "sense", "scents", and "to see") Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem" actually helps express why we have certain limitations to certainty with respect to our physical limitations to 'finite' concepts. So I'm not sure what you meant by "Godel worlds". Can you explain?
  18. Ohh, what a clever piece of advice!! ?? This is about the politics that permit fraud for the wealthy with ease and with the inability to have sincere accountability to the very public that permits these Lotto Corporations. I'll be keeping your response here in mind if I should find you complaining here regarding politics. Example absurdity of response: "You think taxes are unfair?" ..."You do realize that you don't have to live here, right?"
  19. It is instinctive for any animal to protect THEIR OWN if vulnerable, not merely any vulnerable person. The rhetoric though falsely grants predator-victimhood to whole genetic classes in either racist, sexist, or age-biased terms without recognizing them as such nor the actual causes with respect to the logical independent factors of the individuals involved. My points are about the stupidity and hypocrisy of HOW the protectionist rhetoric appeals to emotional triggers that themselves hint at where the real problems lie: irrational judgements based upon stereotypes, whether positive or not. Example false positive stereotypes: ...that all or most children are 'innocent' and 'cannot 'lie'. [Magically, when we turn of some age, we instantaneously learn how to lie, cheat, steal, and abuse without degrees or differences upon maturity.] ...that all or most women are 'innocent' and likely are 'not lying' when or where they cry "abuse" by some male. [That because most women choose men who have such abusive qualities based upon physical distinctions, begs whether their choices in having male offspring at all was due universally to rape given women cannot be at fault for giving birth to the same genetic males who grow up to become their abusers!?] ...that unknown strangers from another country atttempting immigration are 'innocent' victims of their country of origins and thus need more compassion than those born here as though ALL people here have it better off than ALL people anywhere else. [That bum on our own streets or the Native who just came in from an (animal) Reserve is just a privileged spoiled brat who chose to be desolate for being too lazy to look for work?] ...that women get paid less than men [...but that what is 'paid' in fiscal benefits where men are expected to 'take care of them' universally by cultural standards far exceeds the literal cheques by employers.] [Also ignores that entry-level labor favors women (and teens) at the expense of adult males beginning with the same economic origins by the same standards.] ....etc. [Edit] ...that more men are in prison in contrast to women because men are more violent and abusive. [Is it possible that women being taught to strategically use indirect means of abuse are just of a form that are impossible to prove accountable?]
  20. What 'authority'? It is "interprovincial" and not bound to neither federal nor provincial oversight or controls. There is no means to assure society that the lotteries are merely frauds here in Canada. While there will be certain 'wins' that are fair, this is only rational of any minimally intelligent orgnaization used to hide the unfair ones. (I should know. I won once but had my ticket stolen from me for being too young and powerless to do anything about it...and this was by family! The lack of means to get the details of the lottery prevented me from discovering information that could have helped me. So fuck the concern for privacy on the mere announcement of who won.) And, what does the nature of one's wealth 'here' relate to whether the public should know WHO the winners are in context to lotteries? Our lotteries are tax-free and so also prevents wins to be determined in any official way that is accountable to the very public that permits them. As all societies have known from the start, the biggest fruads occur in 'lotteries'. They are used to fraudulently PROTECT those theives who make and keep wealth. The jails are filled with criminals of less dubious crimes than the wealthy who are assured to keep for being able to be caught. Why do you side with this kind of behavior?
  21. No, I am not. I opened this to question if anyone notices how this occured: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/mega-millions-1-point-5-billion-winner-stays-anonymous-why-thats-smart.html#:~:text=Luckily for this Mega Millions,lottery winners to remain anonymous.&text=If you live in a,entity to receive your winnings. But you and some others are responding to this as though it should be normal for all when I was questioning whether even one case like this exception and the States that permit it should be permitted given the risks of fraud. Here's one from here in Canada: https://globalnews.ca/news/4252331/how-can-a-30m-lottery-winner-remain-anonymous/ The question isn't about whether this should be an exception but rather IF ANY exception should be permitted as these case examples. The deciding body itself are neither provincial nor federal departments but themselves, the Interprovincial corporations that set these up in the first place. I can't argue the specifics in the U.S. but that in principle this is troubling to me. If one cannot accept a win directly, pass it off to another in some negotiated trust. But it should still be possible to determine who won.
  22. 'stardom' is a winfall as is a lottery winner. What makes you think winners are not elible to be the 'crooks'??
  23. I don't get why people trivialize 'trust' issues here. We are in an era where hacking is easily being done because of odd faith people place in shit like this. If you buy a lottery ticket, you give up your right to privacy precisely because hacks can, are, or will be used by such 'faith' being expected as a standard of behavior by those who uniquely CAPITALIZE on such weaknesses. Do not trivialize this issue. This is not overcomplicating the issue. If you GAIN a severe benefit through such permitted forms of gambling, AND 'anonymity' is assured, that is a perfect way for criminals to stage fraudulent games. There is no way for society to determine if any actual fraud is being done and makes the lotteries who would use such practices SUSPECT of using such means to steal money from people and even LAUNDER money by how such 'anonymity' provides one to account for any losses. I am surprised at the responses here but not surprised that you speak also in anonymity. I dare those of you right-wingers to expose your FAITH here by stop hiding behind anonymity. If you think it safe for us to blindly trust things like the lottery operations, why would you not be as trusting to be open and honest of who you are directly? How hypocritical. Okay. Wait. If you are so 'trusting' then lets have a lottery where you give me your money for the chance (wink wink) to win. Since you have faith in anonymous people, you should have even MORE faith in someone who is not anonymous, right? Then I'll sell you tickets and I'll do the draw in private to assure anonymity is preserved for the unfortunate winners' rights! Maybe you are dumb? Or...maybe you are criminals hoping to con others into being so gullible? [I'm being rhetorical here, not personal to whomever you might be.]
  24. When one becomes a famous star, they too 'suffer' from the loss of anonymity. But when one selects the BENEFITS gained by such an interest, you have to accept the loss and the burden of having to deal with the schemers who might attempt to use them. And they DO get the same problem and worse than a mere lottery winner. As such, when you buy a lottery ticket, the loss of anonymity is necessary and relatively smaller 'debt' the the 'profit' of winning. I doubt our lottery systems are secure. They also set up ours in Canada as "Interprovincial", a technical way of preventing either provinces nor federal level entities from directly looking into their books. AND, note that the anonymity is replaced AFTER the anounced winners and so the only contention one would have regarding such problems is about family members who would take advantage of you. While this occurs, how can one actually utlize some official anonymity to prevent one's own family and friends from discovering this. The likely reason for asking for anonymity in U.S. Powerball lottery is that someone very notable (and thus probably already very rich), won that lotto. Imagine, for instance, if it turned out to be Donald Trump himself, for instance! Knowing who can rule out suspicious wins that the public are not normally able to determine with any realistic confidence. Expecting us to have FAITH in some third party fiscally-interested organization, like an accounting firm, is liable this kind of abuse themselves. It's expecting the fox to look out for the hens. EDIT: By the way, anonymity is NOT made into a law for all people, ....just special unknowns. That was particularly the U.S. Powerball draw win a while back. Suggested example publicly asserted said something about prior undercover cops who might need special protection? [Could even be some prior mob rat who was hiding under a new identity through the system. Now THAT would be both valid YET suspect at the same time!]
  25. I posted this a long time ago and so don't remember all of what I said. But basically I question the trust of the lotteries if they should keep the winner anonymous because we cannot determine publicly whether it is fraudulent or not, whether the statistics of the winners are actually relatively poor people (who invest in such things more per their income) or due to wealthy people exploiting the way you CAN cheat using the math and having the capital to purchase them. For instance, if you are an accounting firm, say, with lots of money you might have available even for a short time, you can guarantee a win if you can use money from their clients to purchase all the odds necessary to win. I mention 'accounting firm' specifically because Canada's first major mult-million dollar wins came from and rewarded the staff of just such a firm. We have a weak means of proving the draws as well that only requires 3 people, the one doing the draw, some security personel, and, the Deloit-Touche firm representative. I've never seen any other firm allowed to do this and question why the draws are not made live, public, and with the capacity of regular people to participate in checking the draw. [bingo games that have official lottery status have to allow anyone to go up and check the balls. A mere pinprick can prevent or aid the ball to pass. (I'm not sure which) My initial posting here occurred after some particular win in the U.S. major lottery case that permitted special status in court for someone who won to stay anonymous setting an unusual precedent there. Note that lotteries here in Canada, unlike the U.S. are tax free! This makes it more concerning given it can act as a mechanism for laundering, unfair wins based upon power of those who have the money to purchase the odds involved, or some other potential fraudulent activity. [Note that since I wrote this, news had revealed that gambling casinos have used gambling to launder indeterminate millions through casinos here in Canada and attracts International interests for this.
  • Create New...