Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
  • Announcements

    • Greg

      New Members Please Read   10/07/2016

      New forum members should review the Forum Rules and GuidelinesĀ before contributing to the discussion forums.

Scott Mayers

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Scott Mayers last won the day on December 8 2017

Scott Mayers had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About Scott Mayers

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,138 profile views
  1. Is there any justice to Anonymity for Lotto Winners?

    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.
  2. Is there any justice to Anonymity for Lotto Winners?

    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?
  3. Is there any justice to Anonymity for Lotto Winners?

    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.
  4. Is there any justice to Anonymity for Lotto Winners?

    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.
  5. Is there any justice to Anonymity for Lotto Winners?

    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
  6. Is there any justice to Anonymity for Lotto Winners?

    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.
  7. Is there any justice to Anonymity for Lotto Winners?

    "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:
  8. Is there any justice to Anonymity for Lotto Winners?

    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!!)
  9. Is there any justice to Anonymity for Lotto Winners?

    "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?
  10. Is there any justice to Anonymity for Lotto Winners?

    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.
  11. Is there any justice to Anonymity for Lotto Winners?

    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?
  12. 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.
  15. Are Conspiracy Theorists 'Nuts"

    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!!]