Topic: What do you believe is moral? - page 6. (Read 17785 times)

does beauty exist?

...or the thing you hold to be "self-evidently false" isn't, or your derivation ruleset is crap, or you don't know how to science, or your test apparatus is borked, etc., etc.
Or the law of universal noncontradiction is not a law at all, but a lousy assumption In which case, (A & ~A).  Toss logic into the nearest dumpster

Who did you vote for then? And would they really abolish taxes? I doubt it. Infrastructure would crumble. And abstaining from the vote is saying that you would rather let other people decide for you, in which case you deserve whichever leader you get.


Well, taxation is morally ambiguous as well, as we can see as by the presence of two sides. Being forced to pay is immoral in my opinion, but I feel as though there is no way that you haven't taken advantage of at least one utility paid for by taxes.


Where I live, the electricity and water companies are both state-owned. The water where I live is too toxic to drink so it has to be treated by a state-owned plant. I may be paying "bills", but they're still payments to the government whether they're called taxes or bills. Maybe I just live in a better place to pay/not pay taxes, but it's very hard to not take advantage of public utilities. And yes, I would never support you being taxed so long as you never set foot on a public road (where do you live where all the roads are "private" yet you can use them freely?). Also, private schools are much more expensive than public, so would you really pay boatloads of money just to spite the people trying to tax you?


I guess I could have several smaller bills, but then they would each be more expensive. If every road was privately owned, I would have to pay a toll every time I passed a house as opposed to paying one sum and getting to use any road in the United States as much as I want.  If water was privately owned by an independent company, they could charge through the roof. There's no way that the water purification plant near me is cheap. I fail to see how the bills would be smaller, since they would be paying for the same thing but with less people paying.

Maybe it's just my location, but paying taxes is much cheaper than paying each individual private company. I respect that you don't want to pay taxes, but I find it hard to believe that you would opt out of all of the public utilities. If you aren't getting use from them, then you are making a poor decision because it's not hard to get your money's worth in tax dollars.

People love to judge others on worthless things. That's the irrational side of us.

Yep - it's angels dancing on the head of a pin stuff. For some reason people like arguing irrationally like this.

"If false then true" is the way this logic works. Start with a false axiom and derive truisms from it.
Real science works in the opposite direction.
"I use my premise to prove something that is self evidently false, so my premise must be false" is how real science functions.

If you elected someone to "steal" from you you're voluntarily willing to give up the money. That's not theft. Just like asking someone to "rape" you and willingly going along with it isn't actually rape. Both actions are consensual. If, on the other hand I elected someone else, and told them to steal from you to use the money for my own personal use, THEN it's theft.


Complaining about something is morally ambiguous. It's just speech. There's no right or wrong. As for benefiting from things paid for by stolen money, it's morally right, because you did actually pay for those things, whether you wanted to or not. Being forced to pay for those things against your will is morally questionable.


Deal! I invest enough in my IRA to retire without social security, I don't have kids, so don't need schools, and can use private ones if I do need them, I'm fine with sticking to private roads and roll roads, and my water and electricity are provided by companies, not government. In turn, are you ok with not taxing me? That's all a lot of us have been asking for: we won't use your services, you won't tax our income and property.


Who pays for your electricity? Internet? Phone service? Do you get them for "free" after paying taxes? If not, why can't all the other things you use be provided by a private entity? The only difference will be that instead of having a single large tax bill going to one organization, you'll have a couple of smaller bills going to many organizations, paying only for services you need and use (plus whatever you want to donate to charity or needy causes)

Well, that survey surely has no bias...  

Here's a good question: Is it morally right for me to steal from you, if you elected me as your chosen thief, and if the money that I steal from you goes towards public work projects and utilities that you and I both use?

Is it morally right for you to complain about being stolen taxed when you benefit from the taxes that other people pay?

If you don't want to pay taxes, then don't use anything that those taxes pay for. No social security, no roads, no school, no water and electricity. Do people realize that these utilities aren't free? How are they supposed to be paid for without taxes? Should roads skip someone's house because the occupant doesn't want to pay taxes? Should kids not go to school because their parents don't want to pay taxes? That's moronic.

tldr

Moral doesn't exist.

Moral is just a cultural construction. It's pointless arguing about it.

Sorry to disappoint. Argue with Rassah for a year and get back to me.

That was unpleasant -> I had a harder time valuing your contribution.

I simply assumed that regulations and coercion are pretty much the same thing. Or rather regulation is coercion, but coercion doesn't necessarily have to come from regulations. Then you suddenly said that you bringing up such issues had nothing to do with coercion, which made me wonder if you were simply stating facts about nature, since such a claim suggested that my belief that you claiming "people screw things up and thus need coercion to behave" may have been wrong.


I'm sorry, perhaps you misunderstood. I was wondering what those topics have to do with coercion in the context of our discussion. I know they themselves are just nature, but I was wondering why you would bring them up if it wasn't in the context of "protecting said topics through coercion."



My intention was never as such. I have no interest in "winning" a debate. All I want, pretty much ever, is clarification. That's why I nitpick - not to put you into a corner, but to figure out and be absolutely clear about what you were talking about.


Please calm down. This whole thing I guess was from a misunderstanding from your "they have nothing to do with coercion" statement. I believed that you meant (or claimed) that you didn't bring up those nature topics with intent to discuss why regulations/coercion was necessary. You apparently claimed that those nature topics, in and of themselves, have nothing to do with regulation/coercion, but are no doubt sticking to your held belief that we all need regulation and coercion. Simple misunderstanding that got out of hand when I probed.


Thank you. On this we are not in disagreement. I believe the only part we would disagree on is how that specific coercion should be carried out, and more specifically by whom. Thanks.

You're not just a little confused. You're very confused.

Please demonstrate where I said such a formula has nothing to do with regulations.

Instead, at your manipulative and nonproductive form of debate, you asked what trophic cascades and other such topics have to do with coercion, and I firmly corrected you on the matter, telling you that such topics having nothing to do with coercion. Then, in your continued method of nitpicking and turning a discussion on its side to somehow appear that you are winning the debate, and without ever providing any substance, you then accused me of being off topic because I'm not mentioning coercion, and so I had to explain to you why such topics are relevant, at which point you compared them to juggling chainsaws, where once again, I had to point out that if you ask what 1 + 1 is, and get a response of 2, it's not your right to claim the answer was obvious and not necessary, again prolonging a debate that you lost long ago, and then we get this ridiculous continuation, where you're trying to save face by insinuating the path of the conversation has you somehow as being the insightful one.

Let me summarize everything for you so you will simply shut up.

It goes like this: if you wish to be willfully ignorant about your actions, then you should allow yourself to be coerced, and will most likely be coerced against your will, because it is necessary.

The end.

Fuck off.

I am really really sorry if I have upset you. That was not my intention. It's just that when the formula goes

   Biology and nature issues
+ people are not aware of such issues
+ people do harm without realizing it
= we must set up an authority with rules and regulations that uses coercion to force people not to do harm, regardless of whether they are realizing it or not

and then you turn around and say "That formula has nothing to do with coercion," I get a little confused and start asking questions. Like, Are you, or are you not, for coercion (or force, or whatever) carried out by some central body with a monopoly on law, power, and land ownership, which would be responsible for mitigating said issues? I thought you were, you suggested you weren't, so I just wanted to find out where you stand before we continue.


These are my sentiments as well. Just a few years ago, I was a liberal democrat, understanding that complete fascism and complete anarchy were both bad, that we need a moderate government to mitigate and referee things, and that taxes were important for things business couldn't provide, even being proud to contribute to society, and thinking that all those anti-tax types were all cooky, and essentially stealing from us taxpayers. Then I lost a few arguments. Then I found Bitcoin, and lost even more arguments  

That is hilarious.

Believe it or not there are people out there who are intellectually honest, open minded, self critical and legitimately interested in improving themselves by way of altering their position accordingly as a result of losing a debate. I know because i am one of those people, i have changed my position on an issue many times as a result of losing a debate. i would legitimately LOVE for the statists here to defeat my arguments, if they did than i could use it as an opportunity to improve myself. Unfortunately before they could do that they would have to actually make an argument, not just rattle off random facts and assume they had defeated you because their facts were accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_cascade & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_effects

vs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbMvxLRdpm0

Yep, I don't see the comparison either.

Also:

Where do you get off comparing the obvious dangers of juggling chainsaws to a complete ignorance of trophic cascades and edge effects?

You have the habit of not following the context of the dialog and then drawing conclusions that suit you based on your incomplete knowledge of the dialog, which, incidentally, is a nice metaphor for the subject at hand.

It's not my responsibility to explain the whole dialog to you.

But it definitely wasn't a no-brainer statement, given that you fucking asked me to explain it to you. If you ask what 1 + 1 is, and someone replies 2, don't come back with a stupid analysis such as you have just given. Sorry for getting riled, but you're the root cause of it.

Furthermore, within your own analysis here, it's evident that you still don't get it. Ownership of the land has nothing to do with it. Is this another example of you not understanding the material presented to you earlier? I think it is. Willful ignorance on display. Go back and read the long post that I made that is the subject of this current dialog.

And lastly: you're one of those forum individuals who just likes to go on with another by sniping small comments without actually addressing the larger issues, without actually aggregating new information and knowledge into the discussion. What you are is someone who argues from a philosophical standpoint, absent real world knowledge. That doesn't work, because of the vulnerability of your own premises, which have no foundation in the complex systems which make up the world.

Arguing with you is like a constant cycle of explaining and reexplaining to you why the whole context matters, not just the nitpick you like to make, which is often contradictory to a nitpick you made earlier.

Sorry about the excessive quoting. The person I was talking to had a tendency to swing to wildly different topics, points, and accusations, and I was forced to retain the list of conversations just so that I (and others) could follow what was actually being discussed. That was before I finally admitted that any discussions would be a complete waste of my time. Sorry if I have wasted yours as well.