Scott Mayers

"Pride" means "to be proud" Being 'proud' is a subjective act because it is the positive emotional expression about something personally meaningful OF yourself. If you're a "proud" mother, for instance, you cannot say as a male that you are a "proud mother" even though you may support one's happy zeal of being a woman who may have children. Not all those who have the property of being X claims being 'proud'. You may, for instance be a mother but NOT proud of being one. So those supporting, say, "White Pride", are necessarily white to be proud of what that means to them but does not include all white people. In the same way, one can be 'gay' and either HAVE "Gay Pride" or not without meaning they are against themselves as a person for not joining in on the parade. To me, "Gay Pride" is equivalent to "White Pride", as just two examples, with respect to the form of what and how 'pride' is used in both. That is, I understand that both are using the meaning of "pride" of the same particular definition but use different adjectives to describe this emotional expression of themselves. The problem is that those who might SUPPORT being 'gay' is NOT identical to meaning they ARE gay or that if they are gay that they REQUIRE supporting the idea of expressing ones 'pride' about it. Similarly, one who SUPPORTS those being 'white' is NOT identical to meaning they ARE white or that if they are that they REQUIRE supporting the idea of expressing one's 'pride' about it. The problem I am expressing is THAT politics should NOT allow governments to permit nor deny expression nor support one but not the other without proving their hypocrisy to favor one SUBJECTIVE belief over another's about relative ARBITRARY factors. The 'arbitrary' nature of one's select preferences DO not require one be born genetically AS having some default preference and also do not require meaning that one who IS 'born' in some way REQUIRE supporting or being 'proud' of who you are genetically. Therefore, 'pride' itself is NOT a factor shareable objectively about X, in the expression, "X Pride". But our LAWS in a 'Multicultural' OR 'Monocultural' system intrinsically favor OR disfavor some X, necessarily. Thus governments that support ANY 'pride' is itself SUBJECTIVELY discriminating in some way. And this means they default to discriminate AGAINST some subset of the very society they are in power to rule over by those laws. So, being a rational person I lack 'pride' in any system of government that utilizes 'pride' as a foundational principle. We need to remove such systems of power that believe this way constitutionally or risk perpetual problems relating to discriminating that confuses people's REAL issues as ARTIFICIAL constructs.

I agree I come off relatively odd in my STYLE of writing and admit that it has its weaknesses with respect to you and others. But to use this itself as an example of your own confusion, HOW I WRITE is 'art'. "Art" is culture. To you and maybe others I appear to write as Picasso painted, not to feign any 'value' by present association to his worth today but perhaps to how it may have been understood when others first judged his work as awkward and mixed to some preferring "succinctness", a STYLE based upon a belief that any 'artist' (as 'writer') should get with the program (conform) to the standard of MINIMALIZING one's means to present their form with maximum affect. Point here is that I already KNOW that I'm not the socially acceptable communicator that requires improvement. But this comes first by EXPRESSING myself as I am first to the BEST of my capacity I know. Here my "expression" is 'art' and thus 'culture'. So the FACT that I even get judged by your own interpretation as though HOW I WRITE is more significant to your interpretation or what matters REASONABLY, actually demonstrates my point of that admittedly confusing long sentence you quote: Culture to you IS 'reason'. I prefer the CONTENT of the message, even if not initially understood, as what matters here and this is what I'm frustrated about. We do not have hope to understand each other in this world when there are people who demand we all become conforming to some standard of 'ettiquette', itself something about culture only. We are "doomed" when those invested in understanding the depth of the ocean can alone be understood only when they can express themselves to the masses who are drawn to the beaches in a WAY that remains both shallow AND entertaining. I don't disagree with the beach nor the shallow waters,....they help to define the ocean. I too like these places myself in the right context. But when the majority (demos) think significant matters of politics should be discussed when everyone is at the beach, dresses (or undresses) appropriately, requires being appealing to look at, and competes to see who can hold their liqueur better, I nor anyone is hopeful to be able to BOTH express the depths of the problem to people and get through when the FACTS require expressing oneself in the VERY WAYS that are at FAULT for causing the misunderstanding. Why should I require APPEARING genetically beautiful first in order to qualify as authoritative proof THAT you cannot BE beautiful genetically by trying to APPEAR as such? It's a lose-lose scenario when these beautiful people ARE the ones in POWER regardless of popularity and define the standards of wisdom as BEING genetically beautiful itself? Edit addition: Why should I require APPEARING (inherently) beautiful first in order to qualify as being an authoritative proof THAT you cannot be beautiful (inherently) by trying to APPEAR as such? [This is more general to include both genetics and ones environment. "Inheritance" is genetic while "inheritage" is the environmental part here included in my meaning. Our 'doom' is the cultural belief that "culture", as meaning the combination of genetic and environmental inheritance, has to take precedence in political rule.]

Racism and Sexism, or in general, any derogatory forms of discrimination based on genetic stereotypes associated to one's genetic roots that LINK to some presumed ancestral environmental behaviors, are due to ALL those who hold them 'positively' about their own and their 'friends' associatively similar OR 'negatively' towards others or 'enemies' most associatively unsimilar to them. Often the apparent 'innocent' complainers that get heard all around are almost all certainly racists and sexists because they get heard the loudest for their nature to clearly define (discriminate) people of racial or sexual universals that FIT to those most popular stereotypes. Most of them all claim to be merely speaking of strong percentages versus the 'some' that often get unquantified in their wording all too conveniently. Real problems of life that EVERYONE relate to deals with necessities of life and relative successes they have due to both the capacity (opportunity) AND to actuality (outcome) or their circumstances. The power of the extremes and the middle who have vested interest in both simultaneously ALWAYS steal the political power AND do so at the expense of the vast majority of individuals of this Earth who are fucked by these arrogant fold. The racism and sexism problems are only AFTER-effects of the real conditions, not 'cultural' ones, because we live in a world that believes in some form of INHERENT protections for relatively limited resources. EXTREME 1: the ultimate suffers impoverished of powers to survive and who get exploited These people demand 'democratic' appeal of compassion in order to get what they need and not get exploited. But they get ignored UNLESS they either DO something more extreme or have someone voluntary notice in more powerful positions with appropriate compassion and knowledge of the conditions. They are often ignored even with the best of intents of others. Yet these are NOT the people we witness actually succeeding to claim these with acceptance. Rather these are the ones who actually appear to society 'outside' of these sufferers as the extreme terrorists because they tend to have to behave this way, like a starving pet dog of a large family trying to go from person to person in the family not feeding them but gets interpreted as initially being unnecessarily annoying to increasingly troubled by the time they start to bark loud or bite members of the family. This is because all the others think the complaining sufferers (actual ones that is) are in fact being fed by at least someone else even if it is not them directly. They only see their own circumstances and so presume that their own peace is distributed fairly. If this is challenged though, they want to look away and hope that others get concerned. While this is very well known, often the MORE empowered people based in GROUPS use this excuse inappropriately, especially when they charge some part of the whole as uniquely based upon some 'culture' of X affecting them uniquely with purpose but their associating 'group' is itself created out of their own stereotypes. This DOES occur in this actual class, the sufferers, but only the subset of them who DO associate with a distinctive defining identity AND who believe that their own identity across others in the same impoverishment class are similarly linked. An accident of their own 'demographic' relative majority within the class of sufferers gets used as both a means to strengthen their power to outsiders who tend to actually think these people ARE the representing factors of that class. So if this subset of the impoverished, say, are females with non-white colored skin who are single moms going to a common church group together, they may draw in other females and 'colored' single churchgoing mothers together who share a common strength by that association. Who other than the ones IN NUMBERS based upon some emotionally powerful group exist to get noticed as representing the reality of the poverty and suffering within that subclass? [The particular group here is only an arbitrary example that may be true somewhere, but only used as an example here.] This is the beginning on one end of the spectrum of the cause of racism and sexism. On the impoverished side of society people are naturally divided into INDIVIDUALS the greater the suffering is. This is because 'abuses' by reality, whether by natural cause or real hate, succeed from the better empowered peoples successfully divide the less empowered people into independent isolated members, the least of which is one individual. But this forces the ones who can and do have the power to associate better among the impoverished classes to override the concerns of the actual individual's say within the impoverished classes. AND, further more, the ones that USE emotionally driven reasons of associations, such as culture, ethnicity, religion, sexual stereotypers of themselves, etc, take the lead of getting noticed above all others. If we use the above example, say, the community of those impoverished may only have the group above as its largest plurality but may be only truly representative of 10% of them. But even should they make up 50% by coincidence of the tendency of evolution to favor mothers giving births to offspring who will tend to have women there who grow up impoverished more, etc, the actual reality of the problem is still POVERTY, not race, sex, or culture. Yet given outsiders ALSO have group associations based on emotional definitions with priority, this group of non-white mothers going to that church get the notice and is thus a function of outsiders being informed about the whole of that group when they TOO believe these culturally defined groups ARE the cause. That is, the outsiders see the extremes of the sufferers defined by those most locally MORE empowered within the impoverished groups by some mean. On top of that, should they be seen to get angry and turn to more desperate measures, even if this subgroup's behavior is non-representative, the outsiders will treat these as true. Add to this the counter internal enemies of these non-white mothers church-going group. Should they receive tension in their community, they will also assign some subclass of them most 'anti-' THEM, say the fathers of these single mothers who lack religion and won't provide for them...something many church-going types MAY think IS a 'should' naturally. The outsiders believing them will look at the most empowered organ and trust them! Thus, it is the actual members of the suffering classes who ARE most discriminatory and racist that tend to get noticed as representing the evident truth of what they say is the problems within. We then see them from outside as also defining either a cultural subclass discriminated with prejudice by outsiders or extremist terrorists or occultists by others, still a 'culturally' defining interpretation of their class. EXTREME 2: the ultimately favored and loved and wealthy. (Unearned favor to an extreme by both genetics AND environmental inheritance, including gaining wealth from poverty based solely upon the genetic factors!) This real class may or may not happen to have some majority of distinct cultural identity. But if this is the case, it will certainly appear suspicious given they are actually the ones EMPOWERED to alter things. This too though is still often only defended most by those WITH cultural beliefs based upon their conditions. The extremes within this class are those who inherit wealth, often have some relative beauty and are loved by some most inherent capacities, such as having a beautiful voice, etc. This subset here is often without any actual EARNED power by definition. As such, the default, BY NATURE, is to be most efficient: stay 'dumb' to reality. This is only reality IF you don't question things because doing so leads to often dire consequences! Even those potentially declaring mere luck (a welcomed reflection) risk BECOMING overwhelmingly guilt-ridden and try to compensate for it in potential difficulty. Being too reflective of your intellect here risks suicide (think Marilyn Monroe) or feigning stupidity by becoming cruel with no compassion. What this class of extreme often DOES do is to use the power of fortune to sell the idea that Nature itself has favored them uniquely, particularly some 'God'. If not, they deem some power of internal wisdom to have succeeded from some relative place of challenging state of childhood where they had bootstrapped themselves into power regardless of nature. Either way, the 'culturally' associated parts of this class who DO happen to be fortunate through common ancestral heritage along with whatever traditions or religions they have, FAVOR their own as 'superior' as well as try to stupify society into thinking they have validity. Those on the bottom are just not trying hard enough, etc. The worst case is again to the extremes who, in relative 'safety', can and do speak out in power of their numbers within that wealthy and most beautiful class. But here culture is again the excuse by these people. Those most stupid of the class though become the apparent representatives there when the actual intellectuals merely hide safely within other unassociated cults or cultures but know better to LET them represent the 'wealth and beauty' extremes. It takes the target off them. EXTREME 3: those who have discrete partial links to both the impoverished and the wealth to some extent. This class is neither suffering nor succeeding but represent an extreme of the middle because their is still no blur of distinction to their perception and reality. You could, say, be accidentally inheriting fortune by coincidental favor but are still utterly dependent upon that in a form of impoverishment. This might be one who is of Royalty but may lack good looks or skill, who might get ignored and so has some of the native abuses of the poor but don't get appreciated by them....without certain adjustments.... Example of the extremes within this real extreme that lead to cultural identity problems?: Osama bin Laden, is one possibly. But so may be someone who opts to adjust to provide sacrificial duty, like to become a nun, say. These too are 'cultural' preferentially because they have the problems associated with both extremes. As such, they both justify being favored of God and yet wise to some association to a cult of association, which does NOT require coming from the same class here. Bin Laden, for instance, lead by appealing to those who suffer the most. Summary: The racial and sexual charges being accused against others from above or below are REACTIVE means to real underlying issues but get trusted as THE defining factors by some, ....not necessarily a majority, but ALWAYS get the power to steal social alertness to the reality. "White Power" groups are often made up of leaders who may intentionally BE racist but could have its own majority of supporters as non-racist reactionaries by accidental association. They get ignored for their problems because all that gets noticed is the ADVOCACY of a group defining itself as based upon not merely a genetic accident but to some cultural association they think IS directly linked. This is why I would not support this but understand that some (often indeterminate) are innocent sufferers merely siding with the groups that least harm them. Feminism today, not necessarily the original 'equal rights advocates' who also suffer, is predominantly run by the extremes who literally DO believe that women and men have distinct cultural behaviors linked essentially to their genetic factors. Your doomed if you are a male who doesn't 'agree' with them as part of the enemy and when in this climate 'cultural' interpretations is deemed more real than reality itself by a present rise in popularity overall. Men who disagree may be actual suffers and those men who do, are often some actual fortunate benefactor of some woman FOR agreeing,...its own kind of deceptive hypocrisy: if you agree you're a sinner, then sacrifice yourself for all of us. You are a fraud if you attempt to demand the suffering masses that include all males to be your sacrificial lamb (==scapegoat). I'm guessing most here won't even read this. For those who do But the tech concern I raised elsewhere is a contributing factor today given we are isolating by mere accident of technology through the Internet and those Smart phones. This just adds fuel to the fire and why I believe that the Cultural War(rier)s will take the next era into potential doom if we can't intellectually invest into the details as I have here. If you complain I am too deep on this, then this is why: "Tweeting" soundbites (or 'soundboarding') is the kind of accidental factor adding force to what I say here because it is TOO easy to invest in anything quick when five people right now are all trying to determine what the color of toilette paper you are using at the moment you are texting them. Take a snapshot and uploaded it to Facebook. The End...

Thank you for this. I absolutely agree to this and have argued THAT this is one factor that proves our government's setup of Multiculturalism is a front: Example, here in Canada as opposed to the U.S., our government places a demand through CRTC that all programs have a priority access to the blind. But besides the difficulty of their closed captioning as it is, WHY has there never been any intent to have French and English subtitle options for all programming? This is odd considering the U.S. voluntarily grants larger pluralities these options. Language segregation is the most powerful means to lock those of your own IN and block all others outside from affecting their own. It is weird that people think that whispering in front of others acts as a form of abuse: But that speaking your own language (when you CAN speak the same language of others around you), is not abusive? Language segregation is a means of abusers and cults to ISOLATE their members in ways that both prevent the insiders to understand the outsiders but as a means to alter HOW they interpret outsider's languages. The fact that we have "Bilingualism" is itself another proof of intentional bias just for the reasons you noted. It actually does not matter WHICH language is used for an 'official' language, but if it is more than one, it is absolutely intentional manipulative move by those in power to design 'official' multiple languages without proving their sincerity of their logic by being completely inclusive of all languages. The rationale for one language is to be sure that we can communicate in common. Quebec's unique distinction being preserved is about those within it who belong to strong religious convictions demanding isolation. But the non-French who argue for this are just being conned by the fuzziness of how the bilingualism is being sold as proof of their desire for inclusion through multiple cultures. It's dangerous. Thank you again. [I also like that you don't necessarily agree with me to all I might say. Why does it have to be all for or all against for some?]

I think that I'm going to have to require all guests in my place to remove their cell phones or any other smart communicating technology and secure them in a Faraday box (closed metal-grounded container....like your microwave.) Does anyone not notice how arrogant others are to have these in social situations when ALL people have to accept giving up any right to potential privacy infringements? The etiquette today completely begs that all people give in to removing our rights by even ONE person in a crowd to be uniquely permitted these. And with the added anonymity guaranteed TO those using tech, it completely ISOLATES those who do not conform. I don't think I could literally demand that others lock their tech away simply because it would just make them opt out of having anything to do with me as though I'm being the one unusually behaving. Does anybody here agree? Do you think that the very tech is contributing to the further isolation and segregation being favored today?

Yes, and this is the historical sign of downfall when even many in the U.S. are wanting this in one form or another if only to get their own cultures entrenched (protected). The U.S. First Amendment was to assure that the people have the capacity to free speech but have a government NOT able to favor any culture (ie, "religion" in the original terms). When governments like ours in Canada support a pretence of "multicultural" love, it is a false front intended to lock in specific cultures and religions along with those genetic links of those relating to coincidental ancestral behaviors. If we do not alter our Constitution to REMOVE absolutely any privilege of governments to make laws based on cultural/religious powers, we can never even have hope for a peaceful society.

This is not necessarily the case. The original foundation of those systems were of people, both men and women, who believed in distinct roles that were necessary and functional at times. Today, while some want more power, it is only due to changes elsewhere that comparatively APPEARS to make their systems obsolete. That is, IF those societies that DO separate the powers of the sexes get improved economic equity to ALL (men or women), they lose the needs they conserved of the old ways. They are not merely being stupidly sexist but require a foundation that enables the capacity of opportunities to exist there for ALL first! They don't have that. They are often better off living in those awkwardly defined sexist conditions until their society as a whole can actually offer real opportunities for those men first. Then they'd not NEED to expect men to be the bread winners. Today's women want to be 'bread winners' in principle but neither be required to be the providers also. Assuming this can be realistically done (or even should be) is arrogantly dismissive of the conditions others actually live in.

While I agree, I'm guessing your treating this as a cause of the masses while ignoring the 'property' loving corporations that own things like Google or utilize them to thwart democracy through learning about people through those clicks. "Income" is just a form of property. OR, better yet, ALL wealth is represented as power over either property (mass) or to the power of debt as promised by money called income (energy). Mass is energy of a different form AS property is to income. They are 'debt' or 'credit' that make up a form of human-energy of different forms.

I haven't read all of this thread but have to respond: I understand you feel 'pulled' but this is actually a 'push'. It is hard to notice the difference when they mean the same thing by those treating the 'White Pride' side as the sole representative of the reactions that get noticed. In fact, I feel both a push and a pull. THIS is the con. Those who are independent individuals of any set of extremes being most prevalent in the media get pushed by the side stereotyping one class of peoples as some perpetrator that while the VERY same KIND of people of the extreme are pulling to take credit as the defenders of the lost. This is NOT the reality and don't get suckered into it in mind. BUT, when it comes to actions, like voting, given these times of extremes, we are all forced to polarize or risk being those volunteering to walk into slaughter knowingly. I'm sick of this stupidity everywhere. I don't believe the independent minded majority everywhere are actually aware either. The way the portrayal of media doing this is very intentional and unfortunate for us. The media of any political spectrum will think they are not at fault either. They too are made up of independent minds within that cannot notice which is the truth or not when their upper management have the power to favor special sides for their own reasons. I believe though that all parties are generally 'conservative': they favor one or more culturally identified special groups. They are also both 'liberal' but differ on which culture should have the power more. It just happens to be that the 'democratic' sides favor the masses because their collective SET of conservatives groups at least favor more people over all. In contrast, the 'republican' sides favor authority to those who have inherent ownership by virtue of no limits to wealth. Most of us are stuck in the middle and are forced to choose OR we lose by default of simply NOT joining in on any group. If you are forced to, pick the side that least harms you regardless OR think up some other way to overthrow all these cults stealing the voices in all political parties today. [Note that I purposely used the American "Democrat" versus "Republic" in small letters. These better describe the essence of the right to left spectrum. "Republic" minded are 'conservative' of wealthy people to BE government because they represent what they believe is more intellectually proof of authority: power to succeed. This original name comes from Plato's Republic in that Socrates argued against the KIND of democracy being used then. He wrote to suggest 'representative' democracy that only allows the demos to vote IN the most intellectual from those classes. Thought this has certain merit given we ALL use this form of 'republicanism' today, the right-wing belief is to have power selectively in the hands of a SPECIAL elite based upon wealth. The classes strongest in these happen to ADD favor to one's select culture inherited as well and why we see them as most outspoken. They believe their success is DUE to their 'cult' and genetic link to their religions within. In contrast, "Democrats" are insincere democrats when they favor (by the numbers) the plural strengths of those who happen to be in strong subsets of similar types of conservatives. That is, they are not 'democrat' meaning EACH person is rightfully government, but that the ONLY minority ARE the cults. Our "Liberals", "NDP", and "Conservative" general classes fit into the American dichotomy more clearly for the masses. Notice how the "Liberals" here are never clear on a platform. This is because they represent just a different select SET of groups that are both larger (democratically) AND believe they are more 'superior' in their select groups AND have wealth (representative authoritarian: republicanism). The NDP represents the SET of groups that are both POOR but democratically of those who segregate into cults.]

I can understand Taxme's frustration even if I disagree with certain parts. He is reacting (as I am) to the way today's world (and mostly repeated again and again through time) to an avenging type of reverse discrimination that began with some original just concerns. I've had this discussion a few times with my local 'skeptic' group to which even there the dominating trend is to favor this stupidity. It has divided our groups as well as many scientific groups elsewhere that makes those of us with rational questions on this be degraded as unbelievable heretics. I've even signed out of most of my groups here simply based on this. Unfortunately so have many others and it leaves behind (evolutionary style) those who make the appearance that science and skeptics everywhere take a most universal agreement to this cultural hypocrisy. This isn't merely about women either. It is the WAY those who support this trend think of men and women as though they are distinct beings of one universal mind, OR, ...to take many in the middle, ...as though society has to accept a kind of 'sacrifice' in these times of change for the sake of some 'bigger picture.' This is troubling though when the 'sacrifices' are not going to those who actually either contributed to it or actually believe their own class they 'apologize' for should belong to ALL men or prior majority class appearing to be the problem. What happens is the actual INNOCENT non-abusers belonging the prior 'abusive classes' get treated as though they OWN the problem in some part AND they personally disagree. As such, why should those who don't abuse AND yet get assigned from those people who apologize for being the past abusers become the 'scapegoats' for some 'bigger picture'? For men in this time, the apologetic males who support this women's superiority trend are the very KIND of males who had abused or agree to some link of parental ancesters of their own who have. These types of men standing along with women ARE still the same kind of arrogant pricks given they DON'T agree to equal traits of men and women because they hold views such as "Never ever should any man have a reason to hit a woman." This is usually said in contexts where a more general wording suffices: "No one should ever have a reason to hit anyone." These same men are highly likely of the very wealthier classes too: the nature of 'inheritance' of these more fortunate males makes it easier to throw* other men as a class under the bus. Why? It distributes the DEBT for those same males who "lived off of the avails" of the prior abusive males they are related to. If they had to appropriately take individual onus for the problems, they'd have to accept losing their own inheritance as a reconciliatory offer. Justin Trudeau is a prime example of this. His father is even more a part of the cause given he forcefully instituted a Constitution that is itself arrogantly biasing to favor specific cultures of Canadians in perpetuity. This "Multiculturalism (TM)" Constitution is intended to actually LOCK in special favor to the French Catholic and Anglican English establishments along with other groups associated with similar conspiratorial top-down authoritarianism. They also want powers to SEGREGATE their own from others by locking in special rights to EMPOWER their own parents to impose segregate languages and culture upon their children in a way to prevent a progressive effort BY INDIVIDUALS to alter society moving forward. The use of today's special status dates for 'minorities' is a hidden form of indirect attack to the white males most specifically. It's a clever political ploy that Hitler would have loved to have known: Take your target 'minority' group who has the most power by the numbers, but instead of appearing racist, use favoritism to all other groups of people at the exclusion of the target. It's not so nice today to overtly attack whole genetic classes by begging they have a cultural one, such as Hitler had done against the Jews. But if it is done in an indirect way that just says the actions aren't negating the others but just supporting their own, it is racist/sexist to do this when the 'positive' advocacy is associating their own ingroup as one that is both genetic and cultural simultaneously. The sex issue is concerning given the class of women are 50% average of all humans. So this trend to draw in ALL women as one collective who suffer by the "non-Women who were also abusive" class treats ALL men as 'owners' of past problems. That is, MEN 'inherit' some culture by their very genetics and so must volunteer to the debt of all men who have abused (and assumed WILL always do so) for perpetuity. I'm not surprised at all the varying 'terrorist' like peoples, because they are being FORCED (abusively) to 'sacrifice'. But this defines a "scapegoat", one who is "innocent" to be slaughtered. These scapegoats though are NOT lambs though. They actually KNOW that they are being sacrificed for a long time. They are thus not 'innocent' beings who should just lay down for the sake of some 'greater picture'.

The escalating levels is counter to your prior stance. The degree to one's intelligence is often ignored. But this should be the case given the one's using it would be intelligent enough to be better at staging a fraud with success and higher stakes that harm more people, should it not? Validity is not the same as Soundness. It was valid of Nazis to kill specific people based on their logic. It is not sound that their logic maps correctly to the real world. So the law too can validate special privileges that protect people who don't need protecting, right? And this is why we should have the power to speak against laws that are already on the books for one reason or another. A legal, "not guilty" nor "innocence" is the same as the reality of being actually not guilty or innocent by a God's-eye perspective. But you have skipped the video above that counters your claim: " Eddie Raymond Tipton, former information security director of the American Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL)" He won but WOULD be 'valid' had his privacy been assured! That's why he was fighting for it. The 'validity' was that technicality that REQUIRED the lottery winner be public.

So if you commit one fraud at time A that equals $1 and another at another time B that equals $1....etc ....to 1, 000, 000 times collectively, versus one crime of $1, 000, 000 at once, do you think it is the wiser or stupider man who opts to steal $1, 000, 000 all at once? Are the wealthier ones likely to be the smarter? How about the poor ones?

All people on welfare ARE shamed when they are exposed; Only some people who win lotto tickets receive problems for being exposed for their wealth. You argue similar to one who might compare the beautiful actress who gets harassed as equivalent harms to an ugly duckling no one likes. Both don't deserve the harassment. Both can lead each to suicide. But only one of them still benefits for the options of the plentiful options she has available to her by supporters who like her regardless.

We already established ourselves on different sides of the political spectrum. This should be no surprise. But this is relevant given your own reaction, AS PROVEN above, is precisely related to your discrimination against the poor and default favor of the wealthy. I clearly demonstrated this logically. The link of "inheritance" of one born with wealth is a form of lottery as well and why I use it to compare. You made a comparison of those on welfare, not me. I understand your own differences from elsewhere on this site, but you don't WANT to see the connection. Our politics here DO have connective tissue that binds our other views in some way. To tackle differences of opinion, there is going to be links. But when you introduced the welfare recipients as some equal comparison, I had to show why this is not COMPARABLE which required the extra explanations. Do you still hold that 'fraud' and the particular quantity being stolen are irrelevant? Example comparison of your error using a different kind of crime: Do you hold if someone killed one person versus a crowd that they should only be held liable for the whole crowd as equal to one person? That is, if a sentence is 25 years, as it is here in Canada, because the person killed all those people in one event, does that one event get treated as one crime regardless of the quantity of people involved? ...or should that one person be held accountable for EACH person they killed? Compare: one person steals $1, 000, 000 but you think it is a 1 sentence crime because it occurred all at once. To.............one person kills 1, 000, 000 people but only a 1 sentence crime occurred because it happened all at once. Compare: a person steals $1 but you think it appropriately makes them equally liable to 1 crime sentence of fraud equivalent to a person stealing $1, 000, 000 to............ another person KILLS 1 person but appropriated gets sentenced to 1 crime sentence of murder equivalent to one who kills 1 million persons! Just because they occur all at once does not mean they are equal degrees of crime.

You are off-topic by making a false comparison and assumption that I am claiming ALL lottery winners as fraudulent!! All it takes is one scam to invalidate a right to privacy for lotteries. The poor majority who might win lotteries have no means of hiding from their family nor loved ones their sudden wealth regardless of any protections. In contrast, ones who have specific concern that they would be deemed suspect for BEING a winner when they are already rich raises suspicion. ...like, for instance, if a Bush or Cheney happened to BE the winners!! People have a right to measure whether the winners are actually FROM the majority purchasers,....the poor. If it appears that upper-middle or wealthy classes get the vast majority of wins, it suggests some fishy business going on inside the lotteries. See that video above about Tipton. For another, see

I notice that when you quote me above you deliberately left out my complete quote and skipped the question that the complete response by me was asking of you. Prove WHY privacy by welfare recipients is on par (comparable) to privacy by a winner of a lottery? You only beg that should fraud occur, it is equivalent regardless of degree. I showed that one person who defrauds/steals one dollar doesn't compare with one person who defrauds/steals a million dollars. If 'fraud' is merely an equivalently measured vice regardless of quantity of what is stolen, then you also imply that the wealthier one has an unbalanced right of virtue by default. If one person to steal one dollar is NOT different than one person stealing a million dollars, than you'd have to agree that 1, 000, 000 people stealing $1 is 1, 000, 000 times worse than one person stealing $1, 000,000 even though they are the same actual amount stolen. In both cases, $1, 000, 000 is stolen. Yet you hold bias against the 1, 000, 000 people who happen to be poor for the same energy loss as 1 individual, who happens to become wealthy for the same crime. I don't hold bias against someone for defaulting to inheritance because of any assumption of immorality intrinsic to the people inheriting. Everyone is just as equally viable to attempt to conserve what fortune they have. What IS a fault by contrast is that for ANY wealth person who inherits wealth, it comes at the cost of many more people who have an opposing debt of inheritance taxed upon them by virtue of not having 'ownership' of the very same world in which they were born to by default. As such, if one is born without 'ownership', they are indebted automatically in a world that forces them to require expending vast amounts of more energy per time (energy/time = power) for simply existing as 'floaters' in this world as though they were default aliens on vacation. Money is "energy". Nature treats energy as conserved to a fixed amount. So given all money is a form of 'debt', this acts as stored energy that represents an imposition against those presumed indebted to them. Newton's third law is that for every X, a -X must exist that is equal in force but opposite in direction. The wealthy though are, for example, an X that might have $1, 000, 000 inherited to them. This means -$1, 000, 000 is owed to BALANCE out this energy. So you have to compare the value of $1, 000, 000 total with respect to the amount of people sharing it to compare. 1 person owning $1, 000, 000 by default is stealing the balance of nature by the counter -$1, 000, 000. So to compare a wealthy person to a poor person as though EACH are by default equal in inheritance and thus equal in behaviors towards one another is faulty thinking. This is why you have to treat (1, 000, 000 people x $1) as logically equal to (1 person x $1, 000, 000) because $1, 000, 000 by people == $1, 000, 000 by people You are treating this as (1 person x $1) is logically equivalent to (1 person x 1, 000, 000) as though $1 by people == $1,000,000 by people If all people were criminals, both rich and poor, you then interpret this to mean 1, 000, 000 criminals stealing X total is worse than 1 criminal stealing the same X total. Why is the 1 person by virtue of the benefit of $1, 000, 000 stolen only 1/1,000,000 times liable to the same crime for the identical amount. That is, if each of the million people who steals one dollar gets a sentence that is 1 year in jail, should not the 1 person who steals 1,000,000 times $1 deserve a sentence of 1 year for each dollar? All that differs is that the one person stole all of these at one time. If that counts, then the 1, 000, 000 people stealing the $1 should each get 1/1, 000, 000 of a 1-year sentence. Either way, your logic of comparison only proves that YOU bias the wealthier one when you treat any single act of fraud by anyone as equal without considering the harms involved. Indirectly they are by virtue of the 'force' of rights of others to 'inherit' at their expense. What accident you imply as natural exclusive from the wealthy only applies if the wealthy are a naturally inherent being, not ones privileged to inherit by artificial laws.

"Compare" comes from "com-" (meaning "with") and "-par" (same level...or equality from common grounds). I am not clear how you interpret the common grounds of one who is impoverished and getting assistance FROM society as a whole and who lack voluntary control with regards to achieving the simplest of needs ...to one who is privileged by the power of wealth through lottery or with fortune of other inheritance who does have power of voluntary power to CHOOSE their means of protection. You falsely interpret the nature of government as an institute that requires being served by and for those WITH money (=power) by default. Inheritance is a form of 'lottery' which has a beneficial power that is granted by nothing but luck or accident. If you compare the rights of exposing those with power by economy to those without, such as those requiring social assistance, you are placing on-par those with the benefits of power enhanced (by winning or luck of fortune in birth) to the poor as a class who lack benefits of power diminished. To the impoverished, the likelihood OF 'fraud' to those who 'trick' the system versus the wealthy in power to do the same is like comparing one who steals a dollar versus one who steals a million dollars. Here you falsely interpret 'fraud' as having no degree of difference in power. ...that you don't differentiate one who steals for a loaf of bread versus one who steals a million loaves of bread. To have relative comparison you would have to recognize that 1 person in poverty who steals 1 loaf of bread would have to recognize that 1 person who steals 1, 000, 000 loaves of bread REQUIRES showing that there are 1, 000, 000 PEOPLE IN POVERTY to make up for that comparison!!! In other words, even IF your claim about those everywhere stealing social services could be true, you'd require explaining how that is relevant given you'd require showing that 1, 000, 000 poor people are stealing $1.00 by welfare versus 1 wealthy person stealing $1, 000, 000. That is, ... 1,000,000 people x $1 == 1 person x $1, 000, 000 So, to your demand that I prove fraud exists everywhere to the wealthy, I only need to show a mere few cases (possibly only one) that cover the costs of all people on welfare in the same period. Without even taking this challenge, you lack noticing that you'd require proving many people stealing on welfare that maps to the same comparative dollar costs of what one fraudster could achieve in one lottery in the same period. Explain HOW you think there is an appropriate comparison prior to expecting me to require the effort to argue against it. It is YOU who made the claim that there IS a 'comparison' and so must be the one to provide proof that this is actually comparable. You can't demand that I disprove your position by begging a comparison already exists. I didn't claim any quantifying amount of abuses by lottery winners. All that would matter is if one person attempts to steal. Remember, given all the lottery ticket buyers, one fraud there defrauds ALL those millions of people who buy into the ticket. THAT IS comparable: 1, 000, 000 people buying a $1 ticket == 1 person stealing $1, 000, 000 from them! I'm guessing that you DEFINE those on welfare as default fraudsters of the beloved taxpayer? Answered above. "Fraud" by you is required to be demonstrated as comparable. You also really need to tell me if you default to interpret anyone on welfare as one who is stealing money. If you think there is only some subset of those on welfare who steal, then you'd have to recognize that if I HAD to take your challenge, you'd require putting a particular number of dollars in total stolen with the number of those on public assistance involved. If you see someone on the street begging for money, are they not "exposing themselves" by mere accident of their impoverishment. Such people lack privacy by default of 'exposure'. They are the ones who are defaulted to lacking privacy. If you had NO welfare system, their exposure would be most overt. By contrast, if there is no government, the wealthy would be able to maintain their privacy for either BEING the government or for having the power where no government existed. Pretend that you HAD no welfare system, that is. Under that possibility, you'd then have to agree that the wealthier ones would then still remain the ONLY ones capable of fraud given there is no system for the poor TO potentially steal money from, correct? This is why you cannot compare the rights of privacy of one getting social welfare to one who utilizes the same right of privacy from those in power. When you even pretend that it is relevant about the poor being protected by some privacy, to show that it doesn't matter, imagine taking away welfare AND any government that takes 'taxes' at all. Would the wealthy be denied equal power of privacy or would it be strengthened? And which class would be unprivileged to demand the same privacy? Yes. SOMEONE at least always knows the facts about the people who are either on assistance or a lottery winner. Certainly someone at least 'knows' if they are defrauding anyone too though: the one doing the fraud. What difference does it make about any isolated quantity of people's capacity to access information? IF one is committing fraud by one on social assistance though, there is always a trail of data that can determine this and be used as evidence against them should they be caught. Also, an accusation can be made against one on assistance and this can be tested by the challenger to access that information. Also, it is easy to see if one on welfare is potentially cheating: their unusual capacity to purchase ON-PAR with wealthier people. There would be no way to even investigate a lotto winner if privacy were assured by any arbitrary doubter by the same public. What kind of 'observation' could one use to interpret whether one HAS won the lottery if their privacy is assured? If, for instance, they are already rich before-hand, there would be no external means by the average person to notice external changes in unusual circumstances. Watch this for example of how our capacity to KNOW the winner serves as a means to catch fraud:

You're really callous and sick. Please proved evidence of your claim about more prevalent frauds by welfare in contrast to the wealthier. But no, taxpayers do not pay much for welfare. "Social Services" includes ANY services provided for the wealthy too, here in Canada as well as most nations. There is a big difference between one person who makes LESS than some minimum wage and to one with a relatively small lottery, such as a mere $1,000,000 winning. Here in Canada, 'welfare' to one person is in the range of $10, 000 to $20, 000 max per year. Average is closer to the smaller range. (Note that the working poor who have at least a minimum full-time job is STILL below the poverty line.) $1,000,000 would directly aid 100 people and no less than 50 at best. If you use this for one person, that would simply keep them alive for 50 to 100 years on that winning! How does even one 'fraud' from the desperate compare to one by a wealthy fraudster? As to 'fraud', if and where they might exist by the poor, they.... (a) act out of the drive to survive with real need, contrary to the wealthier person. That is, if one acts out of desperation, this same kind of behavior by one with extreme wealth makes the wealthier one sincerely "fraudulent" given they don't NEED the money. Yet they get away with such crimes more by default. Those in impoverished classes are most likely to be the ones who get caught FOR their crimes. (b) are default NON-privileged to have an "inherent minimum" of both financial security and family stability needed to even get them a foot in the door to have at least some hope for work to even be eligible to become those 'taxpayers' you cherish. Are some required to be 'slaves' by accident of birth alone because they have zero 'ownership' to a part of this world? and (c) (major fact in question of privacy) Those on public assistance are recorded and do not have 'privacy' by any such means. While they don't 'advertise' their aid, (and why would or should they?), their present conditions sufficiently do not meet the criteria of a further "outing" of their conditions. What gives you the frame of mind to think that one SHOULD equally be 'public' by being on welfare? Do you think this would AID their circumstances? Do they CHOOSE their conditions? If they lacked even social services in your ideal world, would you still hold that privacy for rich people BY THE GOVERNMENT be protected even though they as individuals CAN afford to do it on their own? See: http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm (numbers from 2001) Note the 'single person' category. That $3, 276 number represents what they get in ONE YEAR! (I gave a generous guess of today's numbers as a minimum of $10, 000!!)

"Caps?" They are for emphasis only....an accident of the habit that some media are limited to plain text. Interpret it as italics for your sensitivity. I am not yelling and this thread is something I thought of given a recent announcement I saw about an attempt by a Powerball winner trying to take their own case to court to demand privacy. I don't feel sorry for winners of lotteries. I know that if I won, I would have the actual intelligence to handle that 'problem'. While there are certainly a lot of abuses that occur due to lotto winners, that is the reality one has to recognize is a part of it. Usually, the kinds of people's normal life habits with money are carried over into their new lifestyles regardless. Sudden fortunes such as lotteries have many problems,...especially where it is an extreme change. When I demand trust of a lottery organization also permitted by our government, we the people need a reason for such FAITH. It is dubious to protect special people without a need to excuse a right to hide their identity. This sets a definite precedence that harms the whole more than the individual winners. Just because it is harder to see the harms distributed doesn't make the single cases more paramount. Privacy rights are something I believe in when such privacy do NOT affect others with a high capacity to harm. Lotteries are too easy to be abused and thus require transparency by the public if they are to be permitted by governments by and for the people. To treat this as undue paranoia is more about your own mindset, not mine. One's wealth IS also not a right but a privilege. When people become famous stars, they too have to learn how to accept this. It means they must spend the extra costs to protect themselves when they become famous. Wealthy people rightfully draw suspicion by default of the society that enables them to hold that fortune. But to say people have a right to privacy when they are wealthy and by government of the people, this is like saying that it is alright for one to be private EVEN IF THEY WERE CRIMINALS in power. How would we be able to discern which people are not?

Interesting responses all in line with each other. (??) Spanky, they DO NOT parade the winner. All that is demanded is for the public OF LOTTERY buyers see THAT a real person won, and have a right to determine the KIND of people winning. Given poorer people gamble on lotteries more often, seeing that the winners are NOT wealthy grants them the right especially to determine whether they SHOULD continue trusting these lotteries. One can assure to win a lottery if one is able to cover the cost of all odds. When the draw pot is greater than the ODDS times the TICKET COSTS, one can assure a win. The potential gamble of others winning simultaneously are relatively small but risky for normal people. By contrast, if you are very wealthy, the risks are often worth it. This represents a real problem.

How is that comparable? One on government welfare/assistance are not 'winners' to which anyone envies. But public humiliation would only ASSURE they remain poor as no one wants to hire people with a predisposed position of problems. And those who WOULD hire them would use that knowledge to exploit their desperation. By contrast, what means do we have to 'trust' that these lotteries are not simply frauds? What are the 'odds' of those in power and wealth effectively making the lottery an easy mechanism for their further exploitation of the population as a hidden form of welfare for the billionaire?

I often had this question considering that I personally wouldn't want to be popular based upon this factor. I wouldn't be able to tell if friends were friends or not. In fact, it is likely much better to discover those who would be sincere 'friends' regardless of your fortunes. I didn't know that there is also those who have won who often find such winnings a curse. Some have even been murdered. I figured that it might be wise to first change your name before claiming a ticket than back after claiming the prize. This may be possible but you'd have to NOT print your name prior to the win. (And I've learned personally how this is a bad idea!!) I heard of a recent "Power Ball" winner in the U.S. who was suing precisely for this. I thought I heard that she DID get the right but don't see that in a simple Google search. I did find that some winner in Winnipeg had successfully been allowed to do this. It requires special circumstances, of which this site tells us this may be to protect guards and undercover police officers. I'm not sure why one should expect them NOT to quit their jobs on those grounds!?? What I think though is that the lotteries MUST be completely open, moreso than they are now, to PROVE that the winners aren't RICH already or favoring some pattern of winners to some particular association that we could question if we see it. I am dubious of our own lottery system here in Canada as they operate in ways that are themselves in relative secrecy. They have had Delloite and Touche act as our 'protector' to assure no fraud. But we are not eligible here to demand fully public draws on all media. The questions about anonymity are thus one I think that the ticket purchaser must ACCEPT as part of the 'burden' of winning. Do others here agree?

THAT the odds are extreme throws people off without justice. If you have a lottery ticket with severely low odds to win, while you as one individual among many to be purchasing a winning ticket is extremely rare, note how the odds of ANYONE winning it somewhere is actually high: what 6/49 draw ever has taken, say, 1 year for SOMEONE SOMEWHERE to win? (I used a 'year' although this is itself too long on average. I just don't have the specific number of average pots being won.) In this example case, the odds of one ticket winning 6/49 is 1 in 14, 000, 000. The example generous odds of ANYONE winning the pot is 1 in 360! You can easily see that there are some draws that have a winner in two consecutive draws! That's 1 ticket to win in 1 draw somewhere......100%. The stats about 'Goldilocks' type odds for living human-like beings are rarer than the lotto 6/49 draw. BUT being that we 'win' at being humans, we KNOW there is a 100% that WE won!! So you are misunderstanding the stats. In ANY high odds of some lottery, ANYONE winning anywhere will interpret their OWN winning an act of God. This is delusional thinking.

Betsy, Your post above is attempting to make me defend something here. I used the FACT OF my unusual opinion to show that I CAN remain an 'atheist' because you inappropriately tried to use science to support religion. My opinion here is irrelevant though I can defend it elsewhere. This forum on politics doesn't seem appropriate for me to expand on my reasoning on scientific theory. What DOES matter is the point that ANY science being used to defend some religious idea is itself is futile because ANY theory, right OR wrong in science is ABLE to be used to support some aspect of any religion. What you'd need to do is show how ALL science proves any specific being UNIQUELY, something that cannot be done.

Usually, but not always, the forum of conspiracy theorizing is as much about both entertaining the possibilities if only to TEST them and even practice one's intellectual skills at the logic involved. "Big Foot" is one such theory. As to something relatively POSSIBLE without concerning oneself about whether creatures or aliens exist, the questions some of these proponents question relate to HOW or WHY one would could not even fathom the 'possibility' of conspiracy in issues like 9/11 cover-up theories. The question to question things should not be exhausted nor censured [rebuked] nor censored [removed or deplatformed], but rather encouraged without demeaning the people who suggest or argue these as conspiracies. For the 9/11 theories, it isn't a huge leap of imagination to fathom many possibilities of conspiracies to be real. What the anti-conspiracy theorists may not realize is that their own comforts in reality can make them as equally vulnerable to interpret actual realities with biased faith about their environment as one with experienced discomforts that distrust that same environment. AND, the opposite is just as true. Both may be wrong. Both may be partially correct. We need to allow others to at least present the possibilities. It certainly doesn't HARM anyone directly to accuse some general "them" by contrast to the present paradigm of those accusing many of certain assaults today that DO harm the "them" specifically. [like the sex abuse charges against named specific people by protected anonymous accusers! [This alone should be proof THAT something 'conspiratorial' is possible!!]