Re: QC-proof cipher?

David A. Scott wrote:
David Eather <eather@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:447f0fe5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


Because there is a bigger and more important agender that needs to go on. People who feel safe and valuable in a community make good citizens. People who are worried about the future and know there is
no support for them if they are unlucky, make poor citizens who only
look out for themselves.


If ones to lazy to look out for there self why should others.

I'm not talking about laziness. Illness, accident, bad genetics or the results of someone else's negligence are not attributable to the laziness of the victim.

Secondly
if someone is going to treat everyone equal. Why should I work hard to
get ahead.

Because you get to take the money home and spend it (or at least most of it - you know death and taxes) and because one day, you might be the one who needs help. I am suggesting that a society has an obligation to support those who for whatever reason have not been able to support themselves - I am not suggesting that everyone should be exactly the same. An appropriate level of support might be to ensure that someone can get adequate amounts of water, food, clothing, shelter and health care so they do not have to turn to crime or become involved in acts that a majority of people might find degrading (perhaps begging or prostitution)


Sure the liberals will win. As more people get on welfare and
have the good life when doing nothing. What incentive is there to work.

Because you get to take the money home and spend it (or at least most of it - you know death and taxes) and because one day, you might be the one who needs help.


I know so called poor people who throw food away for fear if they don't
use there free food allowance to the fullest it might get cut

- then I would say there are problems with the administration of that system. You mentioned a key word too. The people receiving this help work in a state of "fear" - a government administering an aid program that cause fear in the recipients has a problem.

.. Government
should aid in research and defense but when a civilazion caters to the
lazy who get the free goodies taken from the productive ones.

I don't have US statistics but the Australian ones were (a couple of years ago) that 2% of or welfare recipients have payments canceled each year of those Centrelink (the social security provider) was found to be in error 3 out of 4 times and payments were reinstated. That is 1 in 200 people on welfare are genuine cheats. I assume US and Oz people are somewhat similar.

There is
point where it will collapse. Since they will vote for those promising
the most goodies.

No. Centrelink information shows that the two largest groups on long-term welfare are single mothers with young children (below preschool age) and middle aged males. Both groups appear to want to work and choose employment when possible.

Yes there are welfare cheats but probably not as many as you suppose. I would also point out that the legitimate welfare recipient is often demonized by right wing political parties who greatly exaggerate the existence of welfare cheats.

That is part of the reason France will fall in 20 years at most. If
we both live long enough I hope to post a "I told you so". Fair doesn't
mean equal until women can write there name in the snow as easily as the
average man.

Um, France has a long history. A proven record of survival in tough times.

Good citizens make safe, strong, productive countries that are good world citizens - that's why it's important to treat people fairly, evenly and with compassion.



Please treat all people fairly with compassion but don't take my money
to spend it on them use yours. Curious where do you stand on the BIll of
Rights.

You can't win the argument so you try to trap me on a different matter? very well.

I am an Australian citizen. I am not protected by the Bill of Rights. However, I am of the opinion that the Bill of Rights contains some of the best and most powerful words ever written by man. I also believe it is the most deliberately violated document in history.

Where do you stand on the Bill of Rights?

(as an aside I would have thought the first amendment (free speech) when viewed together with the fifth (the right not to self incriminate) would automatically imply the right to a private conversation and hence to encryption)

Should the average citizen be trusted with a gun?

Huh? Relevance.

I think so its
called the great equalizer but somehow I think you may not really want equality.

You're pretty quick to bring out the nasty brush, especially since you know noting about me.



Ah, so you advocate a form of socially and economically pressured eugenics targeted at individuals who had no control over their genetic
inheritance. Shall I march in you 1933 parade, or perhaps your utopia
is more like GATAC?


I didn't *twist* anything, what you advocate leads to a version of social and financial eugenics, and your tolerance for typos needs improving.

Actually it was GATACA and your twisting what I say a very good liberal
method of attack. And like you spelling of GATACA you haven't a clue to
what I am advocating which is no surprise. Life is not fair.
look at people with color blindness would it be fair to them to
force the rest of us to wear special glasses so we only see in
black and white.

Please show any writing I have made that suggests people should not be allowed to operate at their best.

I had a friend who went to Viet Nam he sees only in black
and white and very good nite vision. He was the kind of guy you would
want in warfare standing next to you he sees what you can't and visa
versa. We all are different and all have different abilites. That
doesn't mean that I should do what you think is necessary for fair
social justice.

True. What happens mostly is that people take a position that sounds good, but they do not think through to the consequences and weigh that. Your position seems to be (my paraphrase) "This is a prosperous and growing country/economy. Everyone has the same opportunity so they should look after themselves and there should be no handouts" - remember you said you did not want to pay for handouts (...use my money not your's...). What are the consequences?


There are thousands of genetic "defects" you can be screened for. Your "solution" to one of them does not weaken my point.


Well then we don't agree so what.
Most people don't choose illness. You have no control over what you inherit or have triggered or inflicted by there environment.

Yes life is a crap shoot and in the end we all die get use to it.
We should strive for is trying to make do with what you have.
We will never have everything we want or need. That doesn't
mean you have to destroy someones wealth just because you
see a better way to spend it.

I didn't say that.

A company should be free to sell
health insurance to those it wants. The government should enforce
the contracts companies make. But its not governments concern who
the company sells insurance to. If forced to sell to all then
the average man could never afford it. I guess you would say tax
the rich and give the insurance to all. That my friend is the
fastest way to destroy democray and would kill the future of
mankind and quickly lead to a nonproductive society.

What *will* destroy democracy is an internal population that is dis-empowered and excluded (they will work against it) and another internal population that see's that the democracy has no loyalty to them (they will work only for themselves)


I think you should check the figures on voter turnouts in the US. The long term trend is one of decline (percentage wise)? Yes? Does this suggest to you that the population is becoming more engaged in the democratic process or less? (The answer is less, but the real question is why is why are they less engaged)




If you can find me (in context) making a raciest remark post it, or apologies for your defamation.

Ok I apologize. I mistakenly took the tone of your post here:


"That's a very dangerous (and very, very ugly) path to tread. You end up saying that some people are worth more than others."


as implying I was racist. I am not and I suspect neither
of is.

Should ^ I jump up and down at this typo

But look at it this way. I have 0 racism and if you have ten times
as much you would still have 0. The fact is I don't think either one
of us is. But then again I do see statistical differences in races.
I don't think pigmy races would make as good basket ball players as
Zulu. But then I don't belive thats racist. I think if I stay in the
sun as long as a dark person I will get skin cancer first is that
racist. No I don't think so. In fact I don't like putting race on
forms. I doubt if most americans really know what subgroup there
genes come from we are very mixed. We tend to associate color with
race but thats not necessarily true.

Not anything to do with my point.



When I was 17 I asked a friend why another guy kept calling him
"Jungle Bunny" He gave me an odd look and said, "because I'm black,
you idiot". Until that day I had never even thought that anyone would
treat someone different because of the color of there skin.


I could give some cute stories to but whats the point. Neither of
us needs to prove that to each other. I again apologize for saying
your more racist than me. In fact maybe I am more god knows I am
not pefect but in my heart I truely belive I have zero. If you belive in your heart you have zero. Then obviosly I was wrong saying you most have more than me. In fact lets say its both zero.

No problem.






David A. Scott

A bottom line. It's not a trick question. You think your important don't you? Because of that, you expect to be treated a certain way, with dignity and respect, and you should be treated that way because that is your right. Yes?

I agree with you. The Bill of Rights agrees with you. The universal Deceleration of Human Rights agrees with you. So do the UN agreements on Human Rights, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child etc.

You are important beyond just what you can earn - and the same for others.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case
    ... put into a bill of rights a right granted to the federal government ... Militias are made up of citizens. ... militia could report already equipped. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case
    ... put into a bill of rights a right granted to the federal government ... Militias are made up of citizens. ... militia could report already equipped. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: UC and Federal Law Violations
    ... limits its protections to citizens or to US soil. ... Underlying this is an assumption that when the bill of rights ... The bill of rights provides protection to individuals because they are ...
    (rec.photo.darkroom)
  • Re: UC and Federal Law Violations
    ... There is nothing in the bill of rights that limits its protections to citizens or to US soil. ... The bill of rights provides protection to individuals because they are ...
    (rec.photo.darkroom)
  • Re: If Obama Supports The Second Amendment....
    ... The argument that rights of "the ... and to provide new Guards for their future Security." ... >> certain laws for the common good. ... Citizens are a subset of "the PEOPLE". ...
    (talk.politics.guns)