Page 18 of 27 [ 431 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 ... 27  Next

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jun 2012, 3:55 pm

Raptor wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Marshall wrote:

I wasn't talking about you in specific. In general accusing people of envy is a type of trolling regardless of whatever real ideological disagreements there are. I'm sticking to that. If you want to twist that into me calling you a "troll" merely for disagreeing with me then go right ahead. It only damages your own credibility. :roll:


:lol:
My credibility? Every time you go off on a rant you damage yours and give credit to my position.


It actually is trolling to make provoking comments in an attempt to piss of the other side, go ahead look up the definition of trolling. If it wasn't how you meant it then do tell us what you mean? But keep in mind there is no proof envy is what makes people unhappy with the system so it looks a lot like an accusation with no basis to stand on.

Your current position has no credit...no one said you are a troll for merely disagreeing, it was only suggested indicating envy is why people don't oppose taxes was trollish.


A bout 1/3 of the threads started, let alone the replies, could easily be interpreted as provoking (trolling). I see the left making more of these provocative threads and replies than anyone else.


And so that means you should make such remarks? and no one should call you out on it?


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Jun 2012, 4:12 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Marshall wrote:

I wasn't talking about you in specific. In general accusing people of envy is a type of trolling regardless of whatever real ideological disagreements there are. I'm sticking to that. If you want to twist that into me calling you a "troll" merely for disagreeing with me then go right ahead. It only damages your own credibility. :roll:


:lol:
My credibility? Every time you go off on a rant you damage yours and give credit to my position.


It actually is trolling to make provoking comments in an attempt to piss of the other side, go ahead look up the definition of trolling. If it wasn't how you meant it then do tell us what you mean? But keep in mind there is no proof envy is what makes people unhappy with the system so it looks a lot like an accusation with no basis to stand on.

Your current position has no credit...no one said you are a troll for merely disagreeing, it was only suggested indicating envy is why people don't oppose taxes was trollish.


A bout 1/3 of the threads started, let alone the replies, could easily be interpreted as provoking (trolling). I see the left making more of these provocative threads and replies than anyone else.


And so that means you should make such remarks? and no one should call you out on it?


Believe it or not there really is such a thing as envy and it does drive some people to attack those that have what they don't.
Forget trying to make me feel guilty because you can't and I'll just post more.
:P



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Jun 2012, 4:18 pm

Raptor wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Marshall wrote:

I wasn't talking about you in specific. In general accusing people of envy is a type of trolling regardless of whatever real ideological disagreements there are. I'm sticking to that. If you want to twist that into me calling you a "troll" merely for disagreeing with me then go right ahead. It only damages your own credibility. :roll:


:lol:
My credibility? Every time you go off on a rant you damage yours and give credit to my position.


It actually is trolling to make provoking comments in an attempt to piss of the other side, go ahead look up the definition of trolling. If it wasn't how you meant it then do tell us what you mean? But keep in mind there is no proof envy is what makes people unhappy with the system so it looks a lot like an accusation with no basis to stand on.

Your current position has no credit...no one said you are a troll for merely disagreeing, it was only suggested indicating envy is why people don't oppose taxes was trollish.


A bout 1/3 of the threads started, let alone the replies, could easily be interpreted as provoking (trolling). I see the left making more of these provocative threads and replies than anyone else.


And so that means you should make such remarks? and no one should call you out on it?


Believe it or not there really is such a thing as envy and it does drive some people to attack those that have what they don't.
Forget trying to make me feel guilty because you can't and I'll just post more.
:P


Really? Please site examples.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jun 2012, 4:23 pm

Raptor wrote:

Believe it or not there really is such a thing as envy and it does drive some people to attack those that have what they don't.
Forget trying to make me feel guilty because you can't and I'll just post more.
:P


Of course there is envy and envy drives some people to attack others....but to claim the reason people are ok with having taxes and a social safety network comes down to jealousy is quite inaccurate and I'd agree with marshalls assesment that it was trollish. And why would I want to make some kid feel guilty? If you honestly think envy is the reason people people are ok with taxation fine, but as someone with that perspective I don't think its envy at all. I don't want 2 big houses, 5 cars a private jet or to be waited on by maids and butlers and such like. I just think its best to have a system that supports its citizens, including the ones in poverty that need help having their needs met I am confused as to where the envy comes in.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 Jun 2012, 4:28 pm

Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
marshall wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Marshall wrote:
Quote:
TO ALL PROPONENTS OF RIGHT-WING LIBERTARIANISM AND MARKET FUNDAMENTALISTS. YOU ARE NOT "RATIONAL". YOU ARE NOT "OBJECTIVE". YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT FROM MARXISTS. YOU ARE SIMPLY PONTIFICATING OVER A BUNCH OF RIGID ABSOLUTIST MORALISTIC BS THAT DOES NOT FUNCTION IN THE REAL WORLD. NOT ONLY THAT, THE MORALISTIC BS OF MARKET FUNDAMENTALISTS IS THAT OF AN OBNOXIOUS THREE YEAR OLD SCREECHING OVER "HIS" TOYS IN THE SANDBOX. MINE!! ! MINE!! ! MINE!! !


Sounds like the rantings of thems that aint have.

Do you realize that this is a discussion forum and a discussion forum only and we are not deciding the fate of nations here?
Sometimes I really wonder............


I seriously doubt that Marshall is motivated by any so called class envy conservatives are fond of accusing those without of feeling. That charge of class warfare is leveled by the right when they don't want to address social inequities and greed by the haves.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I'm talking about how idiotic the broken record "taxation is theft" is. It's not an argument.

I'd also say it's not envy people feel, but fear. Fear that our country is going to go into decline due to the irrational and/or outright deceitful actions of the far-right. Things like claiming they are for balancing budgets while simultaneously pledging to cut taxes for the wealthy which will end up lowering revenue. It borders on absurdity.


Oh, I know that you were talking about the "taxation is theft" mantra, but Raptor's comment of, "Sounds like the rantings of thems that aint have," was an accusation that you were envious of those who have.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


People who are too dense to engage in real discussion must resort to personal accusations. Calling people who are legitimately fearful for their future "envious" is just a form of trolling.


I disagree so I must therefore be a "troll".
Doesn't matter that we on the right are concerned about the country falling financially on its ass you just want to spend more on social programs.
:wall:


I wasn't talking about you in specific. In general accusing people of envy is a type of trolling regardless of whatever real ideological disagreements there are. I'm sticking to that. If you want to twist that into me calling you a "troll" merely for disagreeing with me then go right ahead. It only damages your own credibility. :roll:


:lol:
My credibility? Every time you go off on a rant you damage yours and give credit to my position.


Whatever. :roll:

I take this response as an admission you twisted my words and spouted nonsense.



SpiritBlooms
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,024

06 Jun 2012, 5:14 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Raptor wrote:

Believe it or not there really is such a thing as envy and it does drive some people to attack those that have what they don't.
Forget trying to make me feel guilty because you can't and I'll just post more.
:P


Of course there is envy and envy drives some people to attack others....but to claim the reason people are ok with having taxes and a social safety network comes down to jealousy is quite inaccurate and I'd agree with marshalls assesment that it was trollish. And why would I want to make some kid feel guilty? If you honestly think envy is the reason people people are ok with taxation fine, but as someone with that perspective I don't think its envy at all. I don't want 2 big houses, 5 cars a private jet or to be waited on by maids and butlers and such like. I just think its best to have a system that supports its citizens, including the ones in poverty that need help having their needs met I am confused as to where the envy comes in.

I agree and besides the envy theory doesn't fly, when there are millionaires who say they and other millionaires should be paying more taxes. There are more than the envy theorist might imagine. Just one example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html



Last edited by SpiritBlooms on 06 Jun 2012, 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 Jun 2012, 5:14 pm

JWC wrote:
marshall wrote:
JWC wrote:
marshall wrote:
People who are too dense to engage in real discussion must resort to personal accusations.


marshall wrote:
TO ALL PROPONENTS OF RIGHT-WING LIBERTARIANISM AND MARKET FUNDAMENTALISTS. YOU ARE NOT "RATIONAL". YOU ARE NOT "OBJECTIVE". YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT FROM MARXISTS. YOU ARE SIMPLY PONTIFICATING OVER A BUNCH OF RIGID ABSOLUTIST MORALISTIC BS THAT DOES NOT FUNCTION IN THE REAL WORLD. NOT ONLY THAT, THE MORALISTIC BS OF MARKET FUNDAMENTALISTS IS THAT OF AN OBNOXIOUS THREE YEAR OLD SCREECHING OVER "HIS" TOYS IN THE SANDBOX. MINE!! ! MINE!! ! MINE!! !


Irony...alive and well on WrongPlanet.net!


You have no logical arguments, only opinions. "Taxation is coercion and coercion is wrong in all circumstances, period" is opinion, not fact. Just as "profit is exploitation and is wrong in all circumstances, period" is opinion, not fact. You have no facts, only opinions. Get it? I brought up the beliefs of hardcore Marxists to attempt to give you some idea of what your ideology appears like from an outside perspective. Marxists will tout that their "labor theory of value" and assertion that "profit is stealing" are fact rather than opinion. I do not agree with either of these two rigid dogmas (neither Market Fundamentalism nor Marxism have a basis in reality, they are opinionated dogmas, not facts). Now that I've tried to explain to you with as much calmness and patience as I can muster I predict you and your comrade ruveyn will ignore my point regardless and continue on with the "tax = theft" drivel. I know you guys are both more intelligent than that which is the reason it's so damn exasperating to keep hearing the same old thing like a broken record.


And you "resort to personal accusations" while, hypocritically proclaiming:

marshall wrote:
People who are too dense to engage in real discussion must resort to personal accusations.


You refuse to admit that your whole ideology is a bunch of your opinions rather than fact. I also don't see what I have personally accused you of. It is your ideology I characterized as infantile and egocentric, because that's just what it is. In the real world people must cooperate to survive. To deny this and insist that cooperation is completely up to the individual is simply an immature view of the world. It simply doesn't work the way you want it to. It completely misses the big picture. Society is simply too complex to fit into the neat little square hole you want to fit it into.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

06 Jun 2012, 5:19 pm

marshall wrote:
JWC wrote:
marshall wrote:
JWC wrote:
marshall wrote:
People who are too dense to engage in real discussion must resort to personal accusations.


marshall wrote:
TO ALL PROPONENTS OF RIGHT-WING LIBERTARIANISM AND MARKET FUNDAMENTALISTS. YOU ARE NOT "RATIONAL". YOU ARE NOT "OBJECTIVE". YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT FROM MARXISTS. YOU ARE SIMPLY PONTIFICATING OVER A BUNCH OF RIGID ABSOLUTIST MORALISTIC BS THAT DOES NOT FUNCTION IN THE REAL WORLD. NOT ONLY THAT, THE MORALISTIC BS OF MARKET FUNDAMENTALISTS IS THAT OF AN OBNOXIOUS THREE YEAR OLD SCREECHING OVER "HIS" TOYS IN THE SANDBOX. MINE!! ! MINE!! ! MINE!! !


Irony...alive and well on WrongPlanet.net!


You have no logical arguments, only opinions. "Taxation is coercion and coercion is wrong in all circumstances, period" is opinion, not fact. Just as "profit is exploitation and is wrong in all circumstances, period" is opinion, not fact. You have no facts, only opinions. Get it? I brought up the beliefs of hardcore Marxists to attempt to give you some idea of what your ideology appears like from an outside perspective. Marxists will tout that their "labor theory of value" and assertion that "profit is stealing" are fact rather than opinion. I do not agree with either of these two rigid dogmas (neither Market Fundamentalism nor Marxism have a basis in reality, they are opinionated dogmas, not facts). Now that I've tried to explain to you with as much calmness and patience as I can muster I predict you and your comrade ruveyn will ignore my point regardless and continue on with the "tax = theft" drivel. I know you guys are both more intelligent than that which is the reason it's so damn exasperating to keep hearing the same old thing like a broken record.


And you "resort to personal accusations" while, hypocritically proclaiming:

marshall wrote:
People who are too dense to engage in real discussion must resort to personal accusations.


You refuse to admit that your whole ideology is a bunch of your opinions rather than fact. I also don't see what I have personally accused you of. It is your ideology I characterized as infantile and egocentric, because that's just what it is. In the real world people must cooperate to survive. To deny this and insist that cooperation is completely up to the individual is simply an immature view of the world. It simply doesn't work the way you want it to. It completely misses the big picture. Society is simply too complex to fit into the neat little square hole you want to fit it into.


I don't know about all that, just thought I'd point out the hypocrisy since you obviously didn't notice it yourself.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jun 2012, 5:23 pm

JWC wrote:
marshall wrote:

You refuse to admit that your whole ideology is a bunch of your opinions rather than fact. I also don't see what I have personally accused you of. It is your ideology I characterized as infantile and egocentric, because that's just what it is. In the real world people must cooperate to survive. To deny this and insist that cooperation is completely up to the individual is simply an immature view of the world. It simply doesn't work the way you want it to. It completely misses the big picture. Society is simply too complex to fit into the neat little square hole you want to fit it into.


I don't know about all that, just thought I'd point out the hypocrisy since you obviously didn't notice it yourself.


hypocrisy? do tell.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Jun 2012, 5:31 pm

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
It's just no use. There's no explaining to the closed minded no matter how simple the concept.
My dog has a better grasp.
I'm done beating this dead horse so whatever.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 Jun 2012, 5:34 pm

TM wrote:
JWC wrote:
TM wrote:
JWC wrote:
TM wrote:
The way I view it, I'd be fine with a randian world minus the initiation of force, if we're going to play the "who is strongest" or "who is smartest" game, I'll bring a gun, shoot you in the legs, take your money, and if you are worthy of having it, you'd be able to stop me.

It's like a pacifists natural selection.


Are you sure you understand what a Randian world would be like?

Quote:
The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.

-Ayn Rand


Hence why I said and I quote "minus the initiation of force" meaning minus the BS she put in to prevent the truly strong from destroying the weak minds that followed her.


So, you'd be fine with a Randian world only if it allowed for crime and oppression?


I'm fine with a world based on "survival of the fittest" only if I can play with a full box of tools. I see no reason to protect physically weak people, while making intellectually weak people victims, when you can make both groups victims and have the actually strongest people go on to succeed.


Lol. There are more dimensions to "fitness" than physical strength and intellectual strength. No matter how superior you believe your intellect and physical strength to be, it may not help you survive in your hypothetical world. It would be run by a bunch of ruthless gangs and mobs. Those who "succeed" will be those with the most "street smarts". In other words the ability to coerce and manipulate others into doing what they want through utter ruthlessness and exploitation.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jun 2012, 5:35 pm

Raptor wrote:
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
It's just no use. There's no explaining to the closed minded no matter how simple the concept.
My dog has a better grasp.
I'm done beating this dead horse so whatever.


And you speak for the the open minded? hmm :chin: perhaps it is best to stop beating this dead horse.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

06 Jun 2012, 5:41 pm

marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
JWC wrote:
TM wrote:
JWC wrote:
TM wrote:
The way I view it, I'd be fine with a randian world minus the initiation of force, if we're going to play the "who is strongest" or "who is smartest" game, I'll bring a gun, shoot you in the legs, take your money, and if you are worthy of having it, you'd be able to stop me.

It's like a pacifists natural selection.


Are you sure you understand what a Randian world would be like?

Quote:
The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.

-Ayn Rand


Hence why I said and I quote "minus the initiation of force" meaning minus the BS she put in to prevent the truly strong from destroying the weak minds that followed her.


So, you'd be fine with a Randian world only if it allowed for crime and oppression?


I'm fine with a world based on "survival of the fittest" only if I can play with a full box of tools. I see no reason to protect physically weak people, while making intellectually weak people victims, when you can make both groups victims and have the actually strongest people go on to succeed.


Lol. There are more dimensions to "fitness" than physical strength and intellectual strength. No matter how superior you believe your intellect and physical strength to be, it may not help you survive in your hypothetical world. It would be run by a bunch of ruthless gangs and mobs. Those who "succeed" will be those with the most "street smarts". In other words the ability to coerce and manipulate others into doing what they want through utter ruthlessness and exploitation.


Dude, I more or less do that for a living now. Keep in mind that it was a reply to objectivist philosophy which is in essence survival of the fittest, except you can't use physical force. Funnily enough, physical force is a strange thing in objectivism, because I could technically buy up the building on either side of a shop, open whorehouses and a heroin dispensary and thus drive the shop out of business and its perfectly fine per objectivist ethics.



Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 183
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

06 Jun 2012, 5:48 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Raptor wrote:
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
It's just no use. There's no explaining to the closed minded no matter how simple the concept.
My dog has a better grasp.
I'm done beating this dead horse so whatever.


And you speak for the the open minded? hmm :chin: perhaps it is best to stop beating this dead horse.


That is what I thought

I agree that your dog has a better grasp, (marshall's avatar is a dog) :P


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 Jun 2012, 6:02 pm

Raptor wrote:
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
It's just no use. There's no explaining to the closed minded no matter how simple the concept.
My dog has a better grasp.
I'm done beating this dead horse so whatever.


U mad? :scratch:

Can I provide any consolation by telling you the feeling is 100% mutual?

If my rants bother you so much maybe I'll just stick to posting a bunch of :wall:'s. I'd rather not give myself brain damage though.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

06 Jun 2012, 6:09 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6inwzOooXRU[/youtube]


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do