Things you dislike about your country.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
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.
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.
Really? Please site examples.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
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.
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.
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.

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.
My credibility? Every time you go off on a rant you damage yours and give credit to my position.
Whatever.
I take this response as an admission you twisted my words and spouted nonsense.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
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.
It's like a pacifists natural selection.
Are you sure you understand what a Randian world would be like?
-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
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
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
perhaps it is best to stop beating this dead horse.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
It's like a pacifists natural selection.
Are you sure you understand what a Randian world would be like?
-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
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 183
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality
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
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)
_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.
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?
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
's. I'd rather not give myself brain damage though.
[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
