Topic: What do you believe is moral? - page 19. (Read 17785 times)
Nice survey, I have some people I'll be sending that link to.
Logical fallacies? orly?
You're saying that governments and paved road exist in correlation, not causation, right? Brilliant. Enlighten us sniveling plebes with your smartiferous learningz: How exactly is causation established?
You're saying that governments and paved road exist in correlation, not causation, right? Brilliant. Enlighten us sniveling plebes with your smartiferous learningz: How exactly is causation established?
Well you make reasonable arguments that are not logical fallacies. So here is an example of a bad argument that he made:
Quote
But hey, if you think my argument is illogical, look at history and see for yourself. Again, not the american history, which is way too short. Without governments, there are no paved roads. Easy as that.
It's as bad as this one:
Every time flick the switch, a light bulb goes on. I've flicked the switch 10000 times, and each time i did -- the light bulb went on. Cheeks moistened by tears of joy & snot, i exclaim: Eureka! The switch *causes* the light to go on!
Wrong. Happened to be nothing but correlation.
How can i haz causation if correlation is never enough?
Edit: blahblahblah already pointed this out here (scroll to "inductive reasoning"): https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-do-you-believe-is-moral-244258
didn't see that.
by clearly describing the causal mechanism.
TL;DR: Don't like NSA? Fight that, not taxes. Bitcoin? They'll tax that just like any other money.
I'm sorry, but I can't stand it when people are unable or unwilling to keep their arguments in a concise, easily read paragraph format, and instead opt to nitpick at every little thing said in the hopes of making several small points to add to a whole (and if that whole is your TL;DR, it's very weak; I don't know if it is 'cos I'm not reading anything else you've said.) If you'd like to try again in the format you see me using, I'll be happy to respond. Until then, I'll reply to your TL;DR:
There's no point in fighting that which I'm forced to pay for. It is better to vote with one's wallet than with one's promise that their representatives will listen (and they don't, might I add, for they have their own interests in mind.) If your point is that taxation is inevitable, then you're right: as long as people believe that it is inevitable, then it will be so. But to say it as if it is a very law of nature that cannot and should not be tempered with is to assume absolute knowledge. It sounds more like you're making a blind recommendation, based on feeling and, ultimately, what makes you most comfortable, with no consideration for any other human being. If that's what you're doing, then I hope you'll see this as my way of saying, no, but thanks for the offer; I find it more effective to remove the enemy by the root than pretend that everything's dandy once any nation's grievances are taken care of, as it still leaves the fact that you're forced to pay into something that, IF you truly wanted it, you would be happy to pay for it.
You're a lazy, rude bitch. Point taken.
Edit: Amazingly stupid, too. Too frickin' lazy to read a few lines, but spends two long & tedious paragraphs guessing.
TL;DR: Don't like NSA? Fight that, not taxes. Bitcoin? They'll tax that just like any other money.
I'm sorry, but I can't stand it when people are unable or unwilling to keep their arguments in a concise, easily read paragraph format, and instead opt to nitpick at every little thing said in the hopes of making several small points to add to a whole (and if that whole is your TL;DR, it's very weak; I don't know if it is 'cos I'm not reading anything else you've said.) If you'd like to try again in the format you see me using, I'll be happy to respond. Until then, I'll reply to your TL;DR:
There's no point in fighting that which I'm forced to pay for. It is better to vote with one's wallet than with one's promise that their representatives will listen (and they don't, might I add, for they have their own interests in mind.) If your point is that taxation is inevitable, then you're right: as long as people believe that it is inevitable, then it will be so. But to say it as if it is a very law of nature that cannot and should not be tempered with is to assume absolute knowledge. It sounds more like you're making a blind recommendation, based on feeling and, ultimately, what makes you most comfortable, with no consideration for any other human being. If that's what you're doing, then I hope you'll see this as my way of saying, no, but thanks for the offer; I find it more effective to remove the enemy by the root than pretend that everything's dandy once any nation's grievances are taken care of, as it still leaves the fact that you're forced to pay into something that, IF you truly wanted it, you would be happy to pay for it.
People who don't want to pay taxes should stop using everything that was funded with taxpayer money. Don't travel on public roads, create your own roads. Don't call the police when you are robbed, pay some private investigator or hoodlum to get what was robbed back. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire, pay someone to put it down. Don't use the internet, set up your own mesh net, etc.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
Ok. promise not to tax me if I do not use those services?
People who don't want to pay taxes should stop using everything that was funded with taxpayer money. Don't travel on public roads, create your own roads. Don't call the police when you are robbed, pay some private investigator or hoodlum to get what was robbed back. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire, pay someone to put it down. Don't use the internet, set up your own mesh net, etc.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
Nobody is saying they don't want to pay for those services. Those who oppose taxes are saying they don't want to be forced to pay for those things--and by "those things", I'm not referring to hospitals and roads and schools and security which everyone likes to have,
Being forced to pay for stuff you've listed above is ok by you? Not sure if i'm following.
Quote
I'm referring to those other things, like the NSA and paying for wars they never asked for and adding onto a nationwide debt that will eventually turn into more owed per family than what one average family makes in their lifetimes.
It's the price we pay for success. Government agencies, like every other living thing, want to grow -- be fruitful & multiply. From mold to mankind, propagation & survival is the measure of success. And, sure, things like NSA are cancer. The problem with what you're using for chemo: You'll kill the patient before the cancer. Protesting against taxes because some of the money is badly spent? Why not go right for the root, and protest money itself, it's *always* the thing that pays for warz & spyingz?
inb4 "but money's used for good stuff too": Yeah, so are taxes. Don't toss the baby with the bathwater.
Quote
At which point the argument takes a turn into, "Well how would we pay for public services without a public pool of money (taxation)?" To which the answer would be, "Through the privatization of these services on an open market." And then we'd get into how policemen and firefighters can be paid for privately, which is a hard concept to grasp when you're used to paying for it compulsively but anything worth learning takes time.
In other words, you don't have an answer so you bluff with "It all rly magnetz & coilz, it taeks tiem & laerningz & UR 2 stoopit."
TL;DR: Don't like NSA? Fight that, not taxes. Bitcoin? They'll tax that just like any other money.
People who don't want to pay taxes should stop using everything that was funded with taxpayer money. Don't travel on public roads, create your own roads. Don't call the police when you are robbed, pay some private investigator or hoodlum to get what was robbed back. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire, pay someone to put it down. Don't use the internet, set up your own mesh net, etc.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
Nobody is saying they don't want to pay for those services. Those who oppose taxes are saying they don't want to be forced to pay for those things--and by "those things", I'm not referring to hospitals and roads and schools and security which everyone likes to have, I'm referring to those other things, like the NSA and paying for wars they never asked for and adding onto a nationwide debt that will eventually turn into more owed per family than what one average family makes in their lifetimes.
At which point the argument takes a turn into, "Well how would we pay for public services without a public pool of money (taxation)?" To which the answer would be, "Through the privatization of these services on an open market." And then we'd get into how policemen and firefighters can be paid for privately, which is a hard concept to grasp when you're used to paying for it compulsively but anything worth learning takes time.
People who don't want to pay taxes should stop using everything that was funded with taxpayer money. Don't travel on public roads, create your own roads. Don't call the police when you are robbed, pay some private investigator or hoodlum to get what was robbed back. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire, pay someone to put it down. Don't use the internet, set up your own mesh net, etc.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
Why does it have to be everything or nothing? What if we decide to pay for road access and fire departments, but refuse to pay for oil and farm subsidies, military, and for NSA/CIA to spy on us? (Sadly, we can't pay private investigators or hoodlums to protect ourselves, since it's illegal for them to interfere with any crimes, and they are forced to get the police involved, anyway.)
Why doesn't anyone accuse Bitcoin miners of "stealing" new blocks of coins? Sure, there's competitive 'work' involved, but that's just a dead weight that the users don't care about. But maybe they should care that the miners are "stealing" value from everyone else's coins with an inflation tax??
Miners are being paid for providing services essential to keeping Bitcoin alive. If Bitcoin code included something that forced you to randomly pay some node for no reason, or to randomly pay some insurance agent or construction company, I doubt people would have adopted it.
People who don't want to pay taxes should stop using everything that was funded with taxpayer money. Don't travel on public roads, create your own roads. Don't call the police when you are robbed, pay some private investigator or hoodlum to get what was robbed back. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire, pay someone to put it down. Don't use the internet, set up your own mesh net, etc.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
...Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
The main problem with taxation in my opinion is that it completely swaps the natural order of things,
What, if not "the natural order of things," brought taxation into being? Unnatural anti-humanity from not the antiverse?
Quote
it disables the tendency of earth to harmonize, especially in todays society where there are many completely unnecessary programs to support the squalled and the mean on the behalf of the successful and the healthy.
All drugs should be legal, and if you have a problem with drug addiction then you can hire a guard to follow you around and babysit you, same thing for junk food, prostitution, gambling and so on, if you want a nanny state pay for your own.
All drugs should be legal, and if you have a problem with drug addiction then you can hire a guard to follow you around and babysit you, same thing for junk food, prostitution, gambling and so on, if you want a nanny state pay for your own.
If today's reality is what you are calling "a nanny state," it follows that no one needs to do anything to continue living in one. If you want change, it's *you* who has to pay for your own. Hookers & blow are neither here nor there.
The point is that I do not attempt to impose restrictions upon my fellow citizens and tell grown human being what to put in their body and what not to put in their body, they do. According to you then anything that humans ever did was natural,
Of course. By definition. Not all of it was good, or life affirming, but everything was brought about, and thus became, the natural order of things. That doesn't imply that resisting those things is unnatural -- that's natural too. It's the dialectical process by which reality is shaped.
Quote
call me cold blooded but I don't want a cure for HIV or cancer to be found, I don't want drugs to be made illegal because some people struggle with addiction, people ARE going to take drugs, people ARE going to gamble and they WILL eat big macs regardless of the consequences or what the scale in their bathroom says and I think it is our responsibility as human beings to spare the future unborn generations of debt that was made using our piggish system.
Again, "cold-blooded" is neither here nor there, ethics are nothing but poetry to the technical drawings of politics. Talking about our "responsibility to the unborn," unfortunately, puts you right in the middle of that flaky poesy domain. If you feel we have responsibilities to the unborn, but none to those who are born already, your stance becomes pretty difficult to defend
People who don't want to pay taxes should stop using everything that was funded with taxpayer money. Don't travel on public roads, create your own roads. Don't call the police when you are robbed, pay some private investigator or hoodlum to get what was robbed back. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire, pay someone to put it down. Don't use the internet, set up your own mesh net, etc.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
...Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
The main problem with taxation in my opinion is that it completely swaps the natural order of things,
What, if not "the natural order of things," brought taxation into being? Unnatural anti-humanity from not the antiverse?
Quote
it disables the tendency of earth to harmonize, especially in todays society where there are many completely unnecessary programs to support the squalled and the mean on the behalf of the successful and the healthy.
All drugs should be legal, and if you have a problem with drug addiction then you can hire a guard to follow you around and babysit you, same thing for junk food, prostitution, gambling and so on, if you want a nanny state pay for your own.
All drugs should be legal, and if you have a problem with drug addiction then you can hire a guard to follow you around and babysit you, same thing for junk food, prostitution, gambling and so on, if you want a nanny state pay for your own.
If today's reality is what you are calling "a nanny state," it follows that no one needs to do anything to continue living in one. If you want change, it's *you* who has to pay for your own. Hookers & blow are neither here nor there.
The point is that I do not attempt to impose restrictions upon my fellow citizens and tell grown human being what to put in their body and what not to put in their body, they do. According to you then anything that humans ever did was natural, call me cold blooded but I don't want a cure for HIV or cancer to be found, I don't want drugs to be made illegal because some people struggle with addiction, people ARE going to take drugs, people ARE going to gamble and they WILL eat big macs regardless of the consequences or what the scale in their bathroom says and I think it is our responsibility as human beings to spare the future unborn generations of debt that was made using our piggish system.
People who don't want to pay taxes should stop using everything that was funded with taxpayer money. Don't travel on public roads, create your own roads. Don't call the police when you are robbed, pay some private investigator or hoodlum to get what was robbed back. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire, pay someone to put it down. Don't use the internet, set up your own mesh net, etc.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
...Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
The main problem with taxation in my opinion is that it completely swaps the natural order of things,
What, if not "the natural order of things," brought taxation into being? Unnatural anti-humanity from not the antiverse?
Quote
it disables the tendency of earth to harmonize, especially in todays society where there are many completely unnecessary programs to support the squalled and the mean on the behalf of the successful and the healthy.
All drugs should be legal, and if you have a problem with drug addiction then you can hire a guard to follow you around and babysit you, same thing for junk food, prostitution, gambling and so on, if you want a nanny state pay for your own.
All drugs should be legal, and if you have a problem with drug addiction then you can hire a guard to follow you around and babysit you, same thing for junk food, prostitution, gambling and so on, if you want a nanny state pay for your own.
If today's reality is what you are calling "a nanny state," it follows that no one needs to do anything to continue living in one. If you want change, it's *you* who has to pay for your own. Hookers & blow are neither here nor there.
People who don't want to pay taxes should stop using everything that was funded with taxpayer money. Don't travel on public roads, create your own roads. Don't call the police when you are robbed, pay some private investigator or hoodlum to get what was robbed back. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire, pay someone to put it down. Don't use the internet, set up your own mesh net, etc.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
Yeah, after a lifetime of paying taxes if you want to stop you need to also stop using the roads that were built on your blood and sweat.
The main problem with taxation in my opinion is that it completely swaps the natural order of things, it disables the tendency of earth to harmonize, especially in todays society where there are many completely unnecessary programs to support the squalled and the mean on the behalf of the successful and the healthy.
All drugs should be legal, and if you have a problem with drug addiction then you can hire a guard to follow you around and babysit you, same thing for junk food, prostitution, gambling and so on, if you want a nanny state pay for your own.
Watch the first 10 minutes: http://www.solarmovie.so/link/play/1286514/
People who don't want to pay taxes should stop using everything that was funded with taxpayer money. Don't travel on public roads, create your own roads. Don't call the police when you are robbed, pay some private investigator or hoodlum to get what was robbed back. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire, pay someone to put it down. Don't use the internet, set up your own mesh net, etc.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
Otherwise you'd be very hypocritical you want to keep all of your money but don't mind using things which other people payed for yet you refuse to pay for.
I think the fire departments we have today are great, firemen are usually good guys & are in it because they like what they do, i've never seen one act cowardly or nasty (though they do love smashing stuff -- who doesn't?). I'm sure private FDs would be fine.
I have no complaints about the government fire departments.
The complaint I have is about the stealing done to pay for them.
What stealing?
Why do you bother if you know what the answer will be?
I think the fire departments we have today are great, firemen are usually good guys & are in it because they like what they do, i've never seen one act cowardly or nasty (though they do love smashing stuff -- who doesn't?). I'm sure private FDs would be fine.
I have no complaints about the government fire departments.
The complaint I have is about the stealing done to pay for them.
What stealing?
Why do you bother if you know what the answer will be?
I think the fire departments we have today are great, firemen are usually good guys & are in it because they like what they do, i've never seen one act cowardly or nasty (though they do love smashing stuff -- who doesn't?). I'm sure private FDs would be fine.
I have no complaints about the government fire departments.
The complaint I have is about the stealing done to pay for them.
The problem is it just doesn't scale up well.
Ya, I guess there are no examples of someone taking their small business and scaling it up into a huge multi national company.
Sure, for providing food services it may work...but a national franchise of fire departments, using their bulk buying power to get things cheaper and reduce costs on automating processes? Impossible.
And I would not consider a population of 128,000 a Norman Rockwell small town.
There are examples of people finding diamonds in their toilets, but advocating toilet bowl diamond mining is plain silly. And the town i lived in had total population of under 2,000. I'm not sure how good or bad for-profit FDs would be. I think the fire departments we have today are great, firemen are usually good guys & are in it because they like what they do, i've never seen one act cowardly or nasty (though they do love smashing stuff -- who doesn't?). I'm sure private FDs would be fine.
The problem is it just doesn't scale up well.
Ya, I guess there are no examples of someone taking their small business and scaling it up into a huge multi national company.
Sure, for providing food services it may work...but a national franchise of fire departments, using their bulk buying power to get things cheaper and reduce costs on automating processes? Impossible.
And I would not consider a population of 128,000 a Norman Rockwell small town.
I asked google: "who pays private fire departments?" These are the first results i got for an answer:
1. No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn - US news - Life | NBC ...
2. Experiment in Private Fire Protection Fails for a Westchester Village ...
3. Firefighters Let Home Burn After Owners Didn't Pay $75 Protection ...
Either Ronald McDonald or The Hamburglar pay for McDonalds, not sure. Weird question.
No one suggested that you can't have a privately owned water company -- just drill a well & be your own boss! You can even sell to your neighbors. Go nuts.
TL;DR: No one is arguing that it is metaphysically impossible to build a road without the help of the government. It is possible, though it is both historically & increasingly uncommon.
1. No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn - US news - Life | NBC ...
2. Experiment in Private Fire Protection Fails for a Westchester Village ...
3. Firefighters Let Home Burn After Owners Didn't Pay $75 Protection ...
Either Ronald McDonald or The Hamburglar pay for McDonalds, not sure. Weird question.
No one suggested that you can't have a privately owned water company -- just drill a well & be your own boss! You can even sell to your neighbors. Go nuts.
TL;DR: No one is arguing that it is metaphysically impossible to build a road without the help of the government. It is possible, though it is both historically & increasingly uncommon.
Those no pay no spray fire departments are poorly run. When I lived in a town with a private fire department I received a letter from the local fire department when I moved into my new house. Basically the cost was $20 per month for service or they had a per use fee, if the whole house was on fire the highest fee was $2,000. They stated that my insurance would likely cover that cost. And because the fire department had such a high rating, the highest in the state, I received a discount on my home owner's insurance that was more than the $20/month I would have paid. I opted out of paying figuring that the likelyhood of my house burning down in the next 100 months was pretty low, and my insurance would cover it anyway.
I recall that same town had a private garbage service. While the county next to us had a public garbage service. There was always news of the horrors of their public garbage service while I had one problem with my garbage company (I think they charged me wrong or something) so I dropped them and went with a different garbage company.
Oh, and I throw in McDonalds because I imagine that if restaurants were government run there would be people on here refusing to consider the concept of a single company having tens of thousands of restaurants all over the world. I am surprised that people would allow something as essential as the food we need for survival to be provided by private companies.
Don't misunderstand me -- I've lived in a small town & loved it. One of the two town cops was a seminary school dropout -- loved & respected by everyone in town. People actually called him on his private line when he was off-duty (the other one was a prick). Rare thing in post-Norman Rockwell times. The problem is it just doesn't scale up well. That scale problem is at the root of a whole bunch of bad stuff in the world today. What works for a family doesn't work for a village doesn't work for ... you get the point.
All i'm trying to do is point out that smaller is not always better, that individual good doesn't always fall in line with the public good, that greed & self-interest don't always result in a better world for everyone. Stress on the "always." Pretty pedestrian stuff.
Jump to: