|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| There was a time when people hungered to be delivered from the evils of slavery. They worked, prayed, preached and campaigned. They should have given up, after all ... |
I really dislike you attempting to associate the work of individuals who worked against real slavery with what you or visitor do. No one is the slave of the United States Government, because you can walk away from them any time you like. That's something no real slave can say of their master. |
Stupid, stupid, stupid. You seem to think that flogging the same fallacies over and over again will somehow validate them. Use your brain, if you have one. If you are an average working class American, you have no choice but to remain in the US. Telling millions of people, who are being ripped off by their corrupt criminal government to just "leave" is such a stupid suggestion, it alone (the rest of the fallacies you've posted notwithstanding) discredits you altogether.
Seriously, do you think we should all just apply for Canadian citizenship? Or Mexican? Are you actually dumb enough to believe that is possible? (the last question is not rhetorical).
| Quote: |
| Unlike you and visitor, however, I can want the Federal Reserve abolished without wanting to give up all the actual benefits of government. I call this "moderation." I can call for the abolition of bad governmental practices while continuing to welcome the good ones. |
What "benefits"?
Also, you keep talking like we're saying government should be abolished, as if we're anarchists. More stupidity. Having a servant government is a good thing, having a government forcing its will on the people is bad. It's not that hard to grasp...
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No income tax. |
That's fine, as long as government can provide the services its people demand without it. I know your concern is material wealth, but for many of us, it simply isn't so. What concerns me is what we as a society get in return for said income tax, not the tax itself. |
You get nothing. It is unconstitutional and there is no actual law, but collection is enforced by the IRS thugs, who will swat team your house to get what they want. All the tax goes to the unconstitutional private Fed as interest payments (hundreds of billions of dollars per year). Thank your government.
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No Socialist Security. |
Social security's a good thing. |
Social security is a ponzi scheme, built to fail.
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No nazi-national health care. |
National health care is a good thing. I know you're afraid of death pannels and eugenics, but come on. The Nazi Party actively killed people. When any proposed health care system includes that, you'll be justified in using the term nazi. |
Death panels who decide whether people live or die, do not "actively" kill people??
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No Federal Reserve. No selective service. Only 2 occupations were licensed. No war on drugs. |
Definitely overall some good things. Yet again, I'll remind you that one can be against bad governmental policies without being against good ones. |
Which good ones? Stop being so vague.
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Oh, yeah. The name of that country was the United States - before the socialists took over, turned back the clock, and adopted the same kind of power and control system of government used by kings and dictators for thousands of years. |
Indeed, one could almost say our situation couldn't get much worse, right? |
Indeed. In terms of government corruption that is.
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| The people of the world lost.... and you can't blame the ignorant masses, nor expect them to wake up. They were educated in government schools! |
So was I. None the less, I see the problems with the Federal Reserve, I'm against the draft, and I'm against the war on drugs. Public education is no impediment to looking at the government as it is and keeping tabs on the actions of your representatives. I can blame the ignorant masses, and I can expect them to wake up. |
Public school serve to brainwashing and indoctrination children, which they do very well. It's where most people learn their delusions (such as those you've so aptly displayed in these threads).
As for the "ignorant masses", I've really not seen many more ignorant/deluded than you appear to be. And I'm not just saying that.
| Quote: |
| By no means do I disagree that the policies you've mentioned -- excepting Social Security and the possibility of National Health Care -- are bad things. None the less, there are many things the government handles that I not only want it to, but I am reticent to trust to the private sector. |
Such as? I'd like to see the un-American try to list any that do not go against the constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
I can go for that. I'm definitely un-American. I have no patriotism what so ever; my analysis of the situation is purely unemotional, unlike yours. That's why it happens to be correct: because I can say the truth instead of getting upset about how my country men continue to vote their abusers back into power again and again.
You might claim to be a Libertarian, but you argue like a Republican. "You're a bad person!" "You're un-American!" What are you, Sarah Palin's lost son? |
That's all I needed to hear, the rest of what you've written is pretty uninteresting... |
Of course it's of no interest to you. It's not a wild appeal to emotion based on a total hatred of all things governmental, and to Hell with the rest of us.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Hey Fox, if anybody doesn't deserve to remain in the US, it's people who think like you. |
Again and again I've explained that at no point have I said anyone didn't deserve to remain in the United States, but rather that some people can achieve their stated goals by leaving the United States. Again and again visitor has tried to mischaracterize me as making some sort of "Love it or leave it," argument (which I'm not). Evidently even that disingenuous misconstrual wasn't sufficient for him, as he's now expanded it to imply I'm saying people with certain opinions don't deserve to live in America.
Why do you feel the need to intentionally mischaracterize others? |
I'm only going by what you've said. There is no mischaracterization at all. You are un-American, and think Americans deserve a tyrannical government. Thus it is my opinion that you do not deserve to be American (not that I can do anything about it, it's just an observation). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Stupid, stupid, stupid. You seem to think that flogging the same fallacies over and over again will somehow validate them. Use your brain, if you have one. If you are an average working class American, you have no choice but to remain in the US. |
Yeah, that's not true, unless by "You have no choice but to remain in the US," you mean, "If you leave the US, you'll be giving up far more than you get in return, because our quality of life here is quite nice."
| visitorq wrote: |
| Telling millions of people... |
Millions of people aren't complaining about being slaves. Millions of people aren't saying "They just want to be left the Hell alone." Only a tiny handful of extremists are. Those people could very easily vacate if they chose to.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Seriously, do you think we should all just apply for Canadian citizenship? Or Mexican? Are you actually dumb enough to believe that is possible? (the last question is not rhetorical). |
The small minority of people who actually feel the way you could probably fairly easily all find citizenship elsewhere in the world. That's assuming they have anything worth offering to another country. Do you feel you do?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Unlike you and visitor, however, I can want the Federal Reserve abolished without wanting to give up all the actual benefits of government. I call this "moderation." I can call for the abolition of bad governmental practices while continuing to welcome the good ones. |
What "benefits"? |
I've articulated them in other threads a number of times. If you really care, research. Given we both know you just want to angrily act out your Glen Beck routine, though, I'm not going to waste my time elaborating yet again.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Also, you keep talking like we're saying government should be abolished, as if we're anarchists. |
You want to over-turn a democratically elected a government without a majority mandate. That makes you either an anarchist or a proponent of dictatorship. Which is it?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Having a servant government is a good thing, having a government forcing its will on the people is bad. It's not that hard to grasp... |
Your understanding of the reason the government has become what it is fails to be even rudimentary. Like I said, have your revolution tomorrow, everything will end up just as it is now soon enough. So long as you and people like you continue to ignorantly place the blame at the wrong feet, you'll be helpless to enact real change.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No income tax. |
That's fine, as long as government can provide the services its people demand without it. I know your concern is material wealth, but for many of us, it simply isn't so. What concerns me is what we as a society get in return for said income tax, not the tax itself. |
You get nothing. |
No, that's not true.
| visitorq wrote: |
| It is unconstitutional ... |
No, income tax isn't unconstitutional.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No Socialist Security. |
Social security's a good thing. |
Social security is a ponzi scheme, built to fail. |
Feel how you like on the matter. I want our government to care for seniors, and I'll vote that way. More people agree with me than with you, so you're not going to get your way.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No nazi-national health care. |
National health care is a good thing. I know you're afraid of death pannels and eugenics, but come on. The Nazi Party actively killed people. When any proposed health care system includes that, you'll be justified in using the term nazi. |
Death panels who decide whether people live or die, do not "actively" kill people?? |
Death panels who decide whether people live or die aren't part of any proposed plan. Why are you so eager to buy into anti-reform propaganda? Perhaps because you're a paranoid conservative conspiracy theorist?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No Federal Reserve. No selective service. Only 2 occupations were licensed. No war on drugs. |
Definitely overall some good things. Yet again, I'll remind you that one can be against bad governmental policies without being against good ones. |
Which good ones? Stop being so vague. |
Read my old posts if you want to. Like I said, visitor, I'd be wasting time listing them again, especially to an angry, irrational person such as yourself.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Oh, yeah. The name of that country was the United States - before the socialists took over, turned back the clock, and adopted the same kind of power and control system of government used by kings and dictators for thousands of years. |
Indeed, one could almost say our situation couldn't get much worse, right? |
Indeed. In terms of government corruption that is. |
Qualifying that statement now are we? And yes, it could still get much, much worse.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| The people of the world lost.... and you can't blame the ignorant masses, nor expect them to wake up. They were educated in government schools! |
So was I. None the less, I see the problems with the Federal Reserve, I'm against the draft, and I'm against the war on drugs. Public education is no impediment to looking at the government as it is and keeping tabs on the actions of your representatives. I can blame the ignorant masses, and I can expect them to wake up. |
Public school serve to brainwashing and indoctrination children ... |
Thank you for sharing another of your paranoid conservative conspiracy theories with us. They're brainwashing our children, and we're helpeless to stop them!
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| By no means do I disagree that the policies you've mentioned -- excepting Social Security and the possibility of National Health Care -- are bad things. None the less, there are many things the government handles that I not only want it to, but I am reticent to trust to the private sector. |
Such as? I'd like to see the un-American try to list any that do not go against the constitution. |
I don't know why you keep mentioning the Constitution to me. I've all ready outright said I don't care about it. Given a choice between the public good and the Constitution, I'll take the public good every time. In fact, the only reason the Constitution holds any value to me what-so-ever is that many of the rights it ennumerates happen to work towards the public good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| I'm only going by what you've said. There is no mischaracterization at all. |
If you genuinely believe that, your reading comprehension is quite poor. To be honest, given some of the totally off-the-wall responses I've seen you throw out there to various posts, I don't have a hard time believing that at all. Hell, it took several posts to even teach you what the word "conspiracy" really means.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Thus it is my opinion that you do not deserve to be American (not that I can do anything about it, it's just an observation). |
And thank goodness for that. The last thing we need is more angry lunatics with extremist agendas in power. Fortunately, I don't think even the common American would tolerate you in office, and that's saying a lot given they various people they've elected and tolerated over the years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| There was a time when people hungered to be delivered from the evils of slavery. They worked, prayed, preached and campaigned. They should have given up, after all ... |
I really dislike you attempting to associate the work of individuals who worked against real slavery with what you or visitor do. No one is the slave of the United States Government, because you can walk away from them any time you like. That's something no real slave can say of their master. |
Stupid, stupid, stupid. You seem to think that flogging the same fallacies over and over again will somehow validate them. Use your brain, if you have one. If you are an average working class American, you have no choice but to remain in the US. Telling millions of people, who are being ripped off by their corrupt criminal government to just "leave" is such a stupid suggestion, it alone (the rest of the fallacies you've posted notwithstanding) discredits you altogether.
Seriously, do you think we should all just apply for Canadian citizenship? Or Mexican? Are you actually dumb enough to believe that is possible? (the last question is not rhetorical). |
C'mon, Fox, that suggestion is a bit absurd.
Let's try to keep it real.
| Fox wrote: |
| Your understanding of the reason the government has become what it is fails to be even rudimentary. Like I said, have your revolution tomorrow, everything will end up just as it is now soon enough. |
It is easy enough to show that is not true.
The US hasn't returned to how it was before its Revolution. How come? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| There was a time when people hungered to be delivered from the evils of slavery. They worked, prayed, preached and campaigned. They should have given up, after all ... |
I really dislike you attempting to associate the work of individuals who worked against real slavery with what you or visitor do. No one is the slave of the United States Government, because you can walk away from them any time you like. That's something no real slave can say of their master. |
Stupid, stupid, stupid. You seem to think that flogging the same fallacies over and over again will somehow validate them. Use your brain, if you have one. If you are an average working class American, you have no choice but to remain in the US. Telling millions of people, who are being ripped off by their corrupt criminal government to just "leave" is such a stupid suggestion, it alone (the rest of the fallacies you've posted notwithstanding) discredits you altogether.
Seriously, do you think we should all just apply for Canadian citizenship? Or Mexican? Are you actually dumb enough to believe that is possible? (the last question is not rhetorical). |
C'mon, Fox, that suggestion is a bit absurd.
Let's try to keep it real. |
Hey, let's do that. Let's keep things very real. We can start by stopping the fiction about Americans being slaves.
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Your understanding of the reason the government has become what it is fails to be even rudimentary. Like I said, have your revolution tomorrow, everything will end up just as it is now soon enough. |
It is easy enough to show that is not true.
The US hasn't returned to how it was before its Revolution. How come? |
I think you missed the point I was trying to articulate; perhaps I didn't do so clearly enough. I'm not asserting that a given form of government will naturally revert (i.e. that a newly formed democracy will revert to monarchy), but rather that over time the level of governmental control will always increase to at least a certain level.
So, if his Libertarian revolution were to occur, it's only a matter of time -- and probably not much time at that -- before governmental controls and regulations begin to creep back in. Most people want some measure of governmental regulation, and to try to deny them it is tyranny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Stupid, stupid, stupid. You seem to think that flogging the same fallacies over and over again will somehow validate them. Use your brain, if you have one. If you are an average working class American, you have no choice but to remain in the US. |
Yeah, that's not true, unless by "You have no choice but to remain in the US," you mean, "If you leave the US, you'll be giving up far more than you get in return, because our quality of life here is quite nice." |
First, the quality of life has been declining for most Americans for decades.
Second, you're being absurd. Suggesting millions of Americans can just up and leave and get citizenship elsewhere, rather than just kicking out their own corrupt government and fixing their own country is beyond stupid.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Telling millions of people... |
Millions of people aren't complaining about being slaves. Millions of people aren't saying "They just want to be left the Hell alone." Only a tiny handful of extremists are. Those people could very easily vacate if they chose to. |
More absurdity. Admit you're making this up and have no clue how many people are complaining about government corruption and tyranny. I'd say millions is quite conservative actually. Here's an article of one poll showing that most Americans consider the government corrupt:
"Washington - With a scandal over a once-mighty lobbyist rippling through Congress, 58 per cent of Americans believe there is 'widespread corruption' in the U.S. capital"
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/northamerica/article_1074890.php/Most_Americans_view_politicians_as_corrupt_poll_finds
| Quote: |
| The small minority of people who actually feel the way you could probably fairly easily all find citizenship elsewhere in the world. That's assuming they have anything worth offering to another country. Do you feel you do? |
It's a majority. Your problem is you're so often wrong with your premises that the rest of what you right ends up being total nonsense.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Unlike you and visitor, however, I can want the Federal Reserve abolished without wanting to give up all the actual benefits of government. I call this "moderation." I can call for the abolition of bad governmental practices while continuing to welcome the good ones. |
What "benefits"? |
I've articulated them in other threads a number of times. If you really care, research. Given we both know you just want to angrily act out your Glen Beck routine, though, I'm not going to waste my time elaborating yet again. |
Translation: Fox is avoiding the question.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Also, you keep talking like we're saying government should be abolished, as if we're anarchists. |
You want to over-turn a democratically elected a government without a majority mandate. That makes you either an anarchist or a proponent of dictatorship. Which is it? |
The majority of people already consider the government corrupt, and this is increasing drastically. Obama's approval rating is tanking; people are waking up and seeing him for the sham he is. People have been protesting at town hall meetings against BOTH parties (not staged, but real).
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Having a servant government is a good thing, having a government forcing its will on the people is bad. It's not that hard to grasp... |
Your understanding of the reason the government has become what it is fails to be even rudimentary. Like I said, have your revolution tomorrow, everything will end up just as it is now soon enough. So long as you and people like you continue to ignorantly place the blame at the wrong feet, you'll be helpless to enact real change. |
Your use of 'rudimentary' couldn't be more ironic. Change is inevitable, and it will come. There is no helplessness, except, it seems, when it comes to your trying to squirm your way out of this debate. Not that it's really much of one, since you've already admitted you're un-American (which frankly lessens the value of your opinion in these matters).
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No income tax. |
That's fine, as long as government can provide the services its people demand without it. I know your concern is material wealth, but for many of us, it simply isn't so. What concerns me is what we as a society get in return for said income tax, not the tax itself. |
You get nothing. |
No, that's not true. |
Uh, yes it is. Look it up. You don't get a single penny of your income tax. Fact.
Here's a whole movie for you to watch on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klMUNJJa_jk&feature=related
Ugh. It was never properly ratified, and anyway wages are not defined as income in the Constitution. Income tax does not legally apply to your salary (despite later unjust court rulings to the contrary, without any constitutional validity). There simply is no law.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No Socialist Security. |
Social security's a good thing. |
Social security is a ponzi scheme, built to fail. |
Feel how you like on the matter. I want our government to care for seniors, and I'll vote that way. More people agree with me than with you, so you're not going to get your way. |
It doesn't matter how I feel. It is a ponzi scheme as a matter of fact. It will collapse and you'll get nothing. In that sense, it will be you who is not going to "get your way".
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No nazi-national health care. |
National health care is a good thing. I know you're afraid of death pannels and eugenics, but come on. The Nazi Party actively killed people. When any proposed health care system includes that, you'll be justified in using the term nazi. |
Death panels who decide whether people live or die, do not "actively" kill people?? |
Death panels who decide whether people live or die aren't part of any proposed plan. Why are you so eager to buy into anti-reform propaganda? Perhaps because you're a paranoid conservative conspiracy theorist? |
I never said there was yet. These things take time. There are eugenicists in high places in Obama's government, including his science czar who literally advocates such things as putting sterilants in the water to control population. Now they want to pay doctors to convince people to end their own lives. That kind of a system controlled by those kind of people will only get worse over time.
And the real conspiracy theorist here is you: believing the government actually cares about (or even loves) you.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| No Federal Reserve. No selective service. Only 2 occupations were licensed. No war on drugs. |
Definitely overall some good things. Yet again, I'll remind you that one can be against bad governmental policies without being against good ones. |
Which good ones? Stop being so vague. |
Read my old posts if you want to. Like I said, visitor, I'd be wasting time listing them again, especially to an angry, irrational person such as yourself. |
Dodging the question yet again.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Oh, yeah. The name of that country was the United States - before the socialists took over, turned back the clock, and adopted the same kind of power and control system of government used by kings and dictators for thousands of years. |
Indeed, one could almost say our situation couldn't get much worse, right? |
Indeed. In terms of government corruption that is. |
Qualifying that statement now are we? And yes, it could still get much, much worse. |
No, not qualifying it. Reasserting it for you, so you can't spin it. Nice try though.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| The people of the world lost.... and you can't blame the ignorant masses, nor expect them to wake up. They were educated in government schools! |
So was I. None the less, I see the problems with the Federal Reserve, I'm against the draft, and I'm against the war on drugs. Public education is no impediment to looking at the government as it is and keeping tabs on the actions of your representatives. I can blame the ignorant masses, and I can expect them to wake up. |
Public school serve to brainwashing and indoctrination children ... |
Thank you for sharing another of your paranoid conservative conspiracy theories with us. They're brainwashing our children, and we're helpeless to stop them! |
I stand by what I said.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| By no means do I disagree that the policies you've mentioned -- excepting Social Security and the possibility of National Health Care -- are bad things. None the less, there are many things the government handles that I not only want it to, but I am reticent to trust to the private sector. |
Such as? I'd like to see the un-American try to list any that do not go against the constitution. |
I don't know why you keep mentioning the Constitution to me. I've all ready outright said I don't care about it. Given a choice between the public good and the Constitution, I'll take the public good every time. In fact, the only reason the Constitution holds any value to me what-so-ever is that many of the rights it ennumerates happen to work towards the public good. |
So far you've taken all the evils of bloated, corrupt, mendacious, and oppressive government, labeled them collectively "the public good", while slandering the only document that gives you any rights whatsoever. The same rights your government has steadily been taking away from all of us in recent years. The fact that you actually celebrate this is baffling. I guess you were just born to be a slave... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't like the question. It's too timid. Instead of the ambiguous word 'role' (role in what?) I would choose 'purpose'. And, the government being merely the actual people in power - as opposed to the State which is, briefly, the vehicle of that power - the question is limited in scope.
A better question would be "What is the purpose of the State?" That's a harder-boned question. Now whether or not anyone agrees with me, that's the question I'll address.
As all the classical men recognized, man is a social and political animal, insufficient to himself. (For the sake of brevity it's often translated as one or the other, social or political, but in the original Greek it denotes both, or so the translators tell me.) Man is other things as well (cognitive, religious), but the crucial fact is that he's firstly social and political, and only contingently a "trucking and bartering" animal.
The meaning of 'social' should be obvious; the meaning of 'political' is the friend/enemy distinction - to pick and choose with whom one socializes.
In light of this it seems obvious that the State does not exist just to guarantee private contracts and fend off invasions - the State doesn't exist just to defend 'negative liberty'. Since trade and profit are only contingently important, they cannot be the goal of the political community.
Here are the purposes of the State that follow from all this:
1) To achieve and safeguard the unity in peace of its subjects.
The welfare of any organized group is based on the preservation of its unity in what we call peace. Without peace life in society is no longer beneficial and its divisions make social life burdensome. (St. Thomas, On Kingship)
[He means internal peace, as should be clear. He means not only absence of outright civil war, but also of strife and faction and class warfare.]
2) To perfect the civic virtues of its subjects.
But it seems that the end of organized society is to live a life of virtue. Men gather together so that they may live well which they could not do if they lived by themselves [cf. Hobbes on state of nature] ... therefore the virtuous life is the end of human society. (ibid)
[End meaning goal or purpose. The classical civic virtues are sobriety (or moderation), courage, wisdom (or foresight) and justice.]
... the society thus united must be directed towards acting well. (ibid.)
2a) The civic virtue of justice means, for all the classical men, a vocational or craft-based social structure. Again we find that quality and utility (or virtue) is the purpose, not profit (and not social mobility):
... all the good things that men secure, whether the wealth or money or health or skill or learning, are directed to the good of the community as their end ... the swordmaker makes a sword that can be used in battle and the builder makes a house that is suitable for habitation. (ibid.)
3) As follows from unity, virtue, and vocation, the crowning purpose of the State is the self-realization of its subjects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
I don't like the question. It's too timid. Instead of the ambiguous word 'role' (role in what?) I would choose 'purpose'. And, the government being merely the actual people in power - as opposed to the State which is, briefly, the vehicle of that power - the question is limited in scope.
A better question would be "What is the purpose of the State?" That's a harder-boned question. Now whether or not anyone agrees with me, that's the question I'll address.
As all the classical men recognized, man is a social and political animal, insufficient to himself. (For the sake of brevity it's often translated as one or the other, social or political, but in the original Greek it denotes both, or so the translators tell me.) Man is other things as well (cognitive, religious), but the crucial fact is that he's firstly social and political, and only contingently a "trucking and bartering" animal.
The meaning of 'social' should be obvious; the meaning of 'political' is the friend/enemy distinction - to pick and choose with whom one socializes.
In light of this it seems obvious that the State does not exist just to guarantee private contracts and fend off invasions - the State doesn't exist just to defend 'negative liberty'. Since trade and profit are only contingently important, they cannot be the goal of the political community.
Here are the purposes of the State that follow from all this:
1) To achieve and safeguard the unity in peace of its subjects.
The welfare of any organized group is based on the preservation of its unity in what we call peace. Without peace life in society is no longer beneficial and its divisions make social life burdensome. (St. Thomas, On Kingship)
[He means internal peace, as should be clear. He means not only absence of outright civil war, but also of strife and faction and class warfare.]
2) To perfect the civic virtues of its subjects.
But it seems that the end of organized society is to live a life of virtue. Men gather together so that they may live well which they could not do if they lived by themselves [cf. Hobbes on state of nature] ... therefore the virtuous life is the end of human society. (ibid)
[End meaning goal or purpose. The classical civic virtues are sobriety (or moderation), courage, wisdom (or foresight) and justice.]
2a) The civic virtue of justice means, for all the classical men, a vocational or craft-based social structure. Again we find that quality and utility (or virtue) is the purpose, not profit (and not social mobility):
... all the good things that men secure, whether the wealth or money or health or skill or learning, are directed to the good of the community as their end ... the swordmaker makes a sword that can be used in battle and the builder makes a house that is suitable for habitation. (ibid.)
3) As follows from unity, virtue, and vocation, the crowning purpose of the State is the self-realization of its subjects. |
(from Nietzsche's Zarathustra, (trans. W. Kaufmann), p1 s11 ON THE NEW IDOL)
"Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not where we live, my brothers: here there are states. State? What is that? Well then, open your ears to me, for now I shall speak to you about the death of peoples.
State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it tells lies too; and this lie crawls out of its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." That is a lie! It was creators who created peoples and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.
It is annihilators who set traps for the many and call them "state": they hang a sword and a hundred appetites over them.
Where there is still a people, it does not understand the state and hates it as the evil eye and the sin against customs and rights.
Indeed, a hellish artifice was invented there, a horse of death, clattering in the finery of divine honors. Indeed, a dying for many was invented there, which praises itself as life: verily, a great service to all preachers of death!
State I call it where all drink poison, the good and the wicked; state, where all lose themselves, the good and the wicked; state, where the slow suicide of all is called "life." Behold the superfluous! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the sages for themselves; "education" they call their theft - and everything turns to sickness and misfortune for them.
Behold the superfluous! They are always sick; they vomit their gall and call it a newspaper. They devour each other and cannot even digest themselves.
Behold the superfluous! They gather riches and become poorer with them. They want power and first the lever of power, much money - the impotent paupers!
Watch them clamber, these swift monkeys! They clamber over one another and thus drag one another into the mud and the depth. They all want to get to the throne: that is their madness - as if happiness sat on the throne. Often mud sits on the throne - and often also the throne on mud. Mad they all appear to me, clambering monkeys and over-ardent. Foul smells their idol, the cold monster: foul they smell to me altogether, these idolators.
My brothers, do you want to suffocate in the fumes of their snouts and appetites? Rather break the windows and leap to freedom.
Escape from the bad smell! Escape from the idolatry of the superfluous!
Escape from the bad smell! Escape from the steam of these human sacrifices!
The earth is free even now for great souls. There are still many empty seats for the lonesome and the twosome, fanned by the fragrance of silent seas.
A free life is still free for great souls. Verily, whoever possesses little is possessed that much less: praised be a little poverty!
Only where the state ends, there begins the human being who is not superfluous: there begins the song of necessity, the unique and inimitable tune.
Where the state ends - look there, my brothers! Do you not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the over-man?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
First, the quality of life has been declining for most Americans for decades.
Second, you're being absurd. Suggesting millions of Americans can just up and leave and get citizenship elsewhere, rather than just kicking out their own corrupt government and fixing their own country is beyond stupid. |
If you had read a single word I've said, you'd realized I advocate the citizens of America holding their government accountable and kicking out representatives who work against the public good (which is a reasonably high number of them).
Because you haven't been really reading my case, but instead decided I wasn't extreme enough for you and went into Glen Beck mode, you failed to realize that.
| visitorq wrote: |
| More absurdity. Admit you're making this up and have no clue how many people are complaining about government corruption and tyranny. |
Newsflash: only a tiny, tiny minority of the millions you'd like to lump in with Libertarian lunatics like yourself feel the same way you do on the issues.
Millions of people are unhappy with some basic things about how the government has been doing business. The vast majority of them have little in common with the likes of you or ontheway.
| visitorq wrote: |
| It's a majority. Your problem is you're so often wrong with your premises that the rest of what you right ends up being total nonsense. |
A majority of people want single payer health care. That automatically puts them out of your category and into mine. Most people want government to play a role in our lives. I know you desparately want to think most people are Libertarian lunatics like you, but they just aren't. People having a problem with something the government does doesn't automatically make them like you. I've admitted to more problems with this government in this thread alone than most people you'd meet ever would. None the less, as you quite rightly point out, we have very little in common, because you're an extremist that's out of touch with the population of our country.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Translation: Fox is avoiding the question. |
A much better translation: visitor isn't really interested in my opinion on the subject, or he'd have looked it up in my posting history. Instead, he just wants me to say something so he can do a Glen Beck rant about how stupid and wrong it is.
Not playing that game; I'm sorry, I might be more tolerant of your ranting than a number of people here, but there's limits to how much I'll indulge it, and unfortunately we've moved beyond the possibility of serious discussion.
| visitorq wrote: |
| The majority of people already consider the government corrupt, and this is increasing drastically. |
I agree, however, those people are not in the same category as you. Those people by and large want government to play a moderated but meaningful role in society, just like I do, just like most people here do. They're not Libertarians.
I'm not happy with what Obama's doing either. Doesn't mean government is bad or wrong, just that Obama's doing a bad job. Again, I've explained in another thread why; if you're interested, look it up.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Change is inevitable, and it will come. There is no helplessness, except, it seems, when it comes to your trying to squirm your way out of this debate. |
Yeah, it stopped being a debate when you started sounding like a commentor on Fox News and whining about how stupid and wrong everything was, how the revolution is coming, etc. For quite a while now this hasn't been a debate; it's been you ranting angrily, and me responding in a moderated and dispassionate fashion.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Not that it's really much of one, since you've already admitted you're un-American (which frankly lessens the value of your opinion in these matters). |
The sheer fact that you'd consider facts about a person to have an impact on the truth value of their statements demonstrates the point I just made above. You're like a living, breathing logical fallacy.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Uh, yes it is. Look it up. You don't get a single penny of your income tax. Fact. |
So all those people who get 100% of their Federal Income Tax refunded plus government services aren't getting anything?
Okay.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ugh. It was never properly ratified, and anyway wages are not defined as income in the Constitution. |
Yeah, totally not interested in your interpretation of the Constitution. Income tax is Constitutional, it's literally right in the Constitution. Keep ranting about how it isn't, I don't care. Just goes to show how unfounded in reality your case is.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Income tax does not legally apply to your salary (despite later unjust court rulings to the contrary, without any constitutional validity). There simply is no law. |
Yeah, keep squirming. Angry squirming is the best kind.
| visitorq wrote: |
| It doesn't matter how I feel. |
Agreed, that's why I dismissed your feelings on the matter.
| visitorq wrote: |
| It is a ponzi scheme as a matter of fact. It will collapse and you'll get nothing. |
Thanks for the pro-tip.
| visitorq wrote: |
| I never said there was yet. These things take time. |
Okay. Thanks for your totally unsubstantiated prediction too, then. It goes well with your expert advice.
| visitorq wrote: |
| And the real conspiracy theorist here is you: believing the government actually cares about (or even loves) you. |
I've always qualified such statements, saying things like, "At least a government can hypothetically have its citizens best interests at heart." I don't think the current administration does.
That said, I taught you what conspiracy meant the last time we discussed the term. Why are you misusing the word again? Even if I did believe the current administration loved me (which I don't), it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would just be a delusion.
This is part of why this stopped being a serious discussion man. You're so eager to attack me that you can't even be bothered to use words correctly.
| visitorq wrote: |
| No, not qualifying it. Reasserting it for you ... |
Right, with additional qualifications.
| visitorq wrote: |
| So far you've taken all the evils of bloated, corrupt, mendacious, and oppressive government, labeled them collectively "the public good", while slandering the only document that gives you any rights whatsoever. |
You haven't even bothered to look up the governmental services I consider part of "the public good," yet you're very happy to be certain their evil. Just more jumping to conclusions.
| visitorq wrote: |
| I guess you were just born to be a slave... |
Guess I'm a free range slave given I'm both not living in America and not paying them taxes. Wow, this total hands off system to slavery really has me down, I'm so oppressed, being able to travel the globe and do whatever I want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do you really think that Nietzsche's message applies to the great unwashed, or that Nietzsche intended that passage to be read as political philosophy? Ridiculous. Anyway, I'm citing classical philosophers, who existed long before the modern welfare state; St. Thomas's treatise is called On Kingship, not On Fascist Corporatism or On Social Democracy.
edit: you're confusion will dissipate when you realize that Nietzsche was talking about the modern state, and I'm talking about the pre-modern state.
edit: basically, you don't understand Nietzsche or my post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
First, the quality of life has been declining for most Americans for decades.
Second, you're being absurd. Suggesting millions of Americans can just up and leave and get citizenship elsewhere, rather than just kicking out their own corrupt government and fixing their own country is beyond stupid. |
If you had read a single word I've said, you'd realized I advocate the citizens of America holding their government accountable and kicking out representatives who work against the public good (which is a reasonably high number of them).
Because you haven't been really reading my case, but instead decided I wasn't extreme enough for you and went into Glen Beck mode, you failed to realize that. |
I've heard of Glen Beck, but never watched anything of him. I doubt I'm anything like him though (I'm altogether chilled out, I'm just having fun with you).
Anyway, you really can't blame me for calling you out on your BS... I haven't been misrepresenting you. It's just that your claims are mostly bunk (as I've shown)...
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| More absurdity. Admit you're making this up and have no clue how many people are complaining about government corruption and tyranny. |
Newsflash: only a tiny, tiny minority of the millions you'd like to lump in with Libertarian lunatics like yourself feel the same way you do on the issues. |
Logical fallacy: pretending you know what any of those millions of people think. Debunked. Next.
| Quote: |
| Millions of people are unhappy with some basic things about how the government has been doing business. The vast majority of them have little in common with the likes of you or ontheway. |
Logical fallacy: same as above. Debunked. Next.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| It's a majority. Your problem is you're so often wrong with your premises that the rest of what you right ends up being total nonsense. |
A majority of people want single payer health care. That automatically puts them out of your category and into mine. Most people want government to play a role in our lives. I know you desparately want to think most people are Libertarian lunatics like you, but they just aren't. People having a problem with something the government does doesn't automatically make them like you. I've admitted to more problems with this government in this thread alone than most people you'd meet ever would. None the less, as you quite rightly point out, we have very little in common, because you're an extremist that's out of touch with the population of our country. |
Logical fallacy: same as first two. Debunked. Next.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Translation: Fox is avoiding the question. |
A much better translation: visitor isn't really interested in my opinion on the subject, or he'd have looked it up in my posting history. Instead, he just wants me to say something so he can do a Glen Beck rant about how stupid and wrong it is. |
Whereas in your case you actually did avoid the question, you are merely misrepresenting my position here. Debunked. Next.
| Quote: |
Not playing that game; I'm sorry, I might be more tolerant of your ranting than a number of people here, but there's limits to how much I'll indulge it, and unfortunately we've moved beyond the possibility of serious discussion. |
Oh well, beyond saying the Constitution is irrelevant and admitting you're un-American, it's not like you've gotten any point across anyway. Next.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| The majority of people already consider the government corrupt, and this is increasing drastically. |
I agree, however, those people are not in the same category as you. Those people by and large want government to play a moderated but meaningful role in society, just like I do, just like most people here do. |
Logical fallacy: same as first 3 (you seem to like this one). Debunked. Next.
| Quote: |
| They're not Libertarians. |
Strawman. Next.
| Quote: |
| I'm not happy with what Obama's doing either. Doesn't mean government is bad or wrong, just that Obama's doing a bad job. Again, I've explained in another thread why; if you're interested, look it up. |
Big government is bad. Obama is also bad.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Change is inevitable, and it will come. There is no helplessness, except, it seems, when it comes to your trying to squirm your way out of this debate. |
Yeah, it stopped being a debate when you started sounding like a commentor on Fox News and whining about how stupid and wrong everything was, how the revolution is coming, etc. For quite a while now this hasn't been a debate; it's been you ranting angrily, and me responding in a moderated and dispassionate fashion. |
Nah. Aside from just being straight up wrong about many things, you've been disingenuous and inflexible the whole way through. And I think you know it. I'd say you're passive-aggressive at best...
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Not that it's really much of one, since you've already admitted you're un-American (which frankly lessens the value of your opinion in these matters). |
The sheer fact that you'd consider facts about a person to have an impact on the truth value of their statements demonstrates the point I just made above. You're like a living, breathing logical fallacy. |
Um, did you not read the word "OPINION" there? Speaking of logical fallacies, another of your favorites is "false premise". Nearly every one of your arguments starts with one. Debunked. Next.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Uh, yes it is. Look it up. You don't get a single penny of your income tax. Fact. |
So all those people who get 100% of their Federal Income Tax refunded plus government services aren't getting anything?
Okay. |
People who get their taxes refunded obviously aren't getting anything except their own money back. Pretty desperate of you to even go there.
As for government services, not a single penny of your income tax goes to that. It all goes straight to interest payments on the debt. Hundreds of billions paid to the Fed each year. Fact. Next.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ugh. It was never properly ratified, and anyway wages are not defined as income in the Constitution. |
Yeah, totally not interested in your interpretation of the Constitution. Income tax is Constitutional, it's literally right in the Constitution. Keep ranting about how it isn't, I don't care. Just goes to show how unfounded in reality your case is. |
See how inflexible you are? You're literally just plain wrong. It's not by interpretation, it's a fact - one that you are now saying you are too lazy and disingenuous to verify. Seems you care more about trying maintain your credibility (impossible at this point) than learning the truth. That's too bad...
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Income tax does not legally apply to your salary (despite later unjust court rulings to the contrary, without any constitutional validity). There simply is no law. |
Yeah, keep squirming. Angry squirming is the best kind. |
I'm not squirming. I'm glad that I know the truth, that's all.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| It doesn't matter how I feel. |
Agreed, that's why I dismissed your feelings on the matter. |
Hypocrisy to boot. Funny how you were just accusing me of the same thing.
Anyway, I couldn't care less if you dismiss my opinion. But that you dismiss the truth, based on the facts I've given you, that's just too bad for you. Your loss.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| It is a ponzi scheme as a matter of fact. It will collapse and you'll get nothing. |
Thanks for the pro-tip. |
I'm no pro. But you're welcome anyway.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| I never said there was yet. These things take time. |
Okay. Thanks for your totally unsubstantiated prediction too, then. It goes well with your expert advice. |
It's very much substantiated. See how close-minded you are?
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| And the real conspiracy theorist here is you: believing the government actually cares about (or even loves) you. |
I've always qualified such statements, saying things like, "At least a government can hypothetically have its citizens best interests at heart." I don't think the current administration does. |
Anything is hypothetically possible. That you would actually try to prop up your fallacious arguments with such an irrelevant truism is beyond me.
| Quote: |
| That said, I taught you what conspiracy meant the last time we discussed the term. Why are you misusing the word again? Even if I did believe the current administration loved me (which I don't), it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would just be a delusion. |
I'd be happy to substitute the word conspiracy for delusion if it makes you feel better...
| Quote: |
This is part of why this stopped being a serious discussion man. You're so eager to attack me that you can't even be bothered to use words correctly. |
Takes two to tango. You can always just stick to the facts. Even leaving pride aside, I sincerely think I've got you beat on most points so far...
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| No, not qualifying it. Reasserting it for you ... |
Right, with additional qualifications. |
Uh, no.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| So far you've taken all the evils of bloated, corrupt, mendacious, and oppressive government, labeled them collectively "the public good", while slandering the only document that gives you any rights whatsoever. |
You haven't even bothered to look up the governmental services I consider part of "the public good," yet you're very happy to be certain their evil. Just more jumping to conclusions. |
Which services?? Seriously, could you be more specific? I'm not altogether against government services, I just think it all needs to be Constitutional. Not because I blindly follow it, but because it genuinely makes sense.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| I guess you were just born to be a slave... |
Guess I'm a free range slave given I'm both not living in America and not paying them taxes. Wow, this total hands off system to slavery really has me down, I'm so oppressed, being able to travel the globe and do whatever I want. |
Yeah well, next time you go back and find yourself jobless, living under what is fast becoming a police state, maybe you'll ponder the points I've raised more carefully. Anyway, I actually care about my country and plan on returning there relatively soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
Do you really think that Nietzsche's message applies to the great unwashed, or that Nietzsche intended that passage to be read as political philosophy? Ridiculous. Anyway, I'm citing classical philosophers, who existed long before the modern welfare state; St. Thomas's treatise is called On Kingship, not On Fascist Corporatism or On Social Democracy.
edit: you're confusion will dissipate when you realize that Nietzsche was talking about the modern state, and I'm talking about the pre-modern state.
edit: basically, you don't understand Nietzsche or my post. |
I've read just about everything Nietzsche has written multiple times, studied him both in uni and on my own for years. I think I understand him quite well thanks (but feel free to try me if you want)....
Anyway, you are free to take from it what you will... I find the whole quote very relevant to this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| I've heard of Glen Beck, but never watched anything of him. I doubt I'm anything like him though (I'm altogether chilled out, I'm just having fun with you). |
Visitor, listening to you talk is literally like listening to his show. I recommend you give watching him a try.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Anyway, you really can't blame me for calling you out on your BS... I haven't been misrepresenting you. It's just that your claims are mostly bunk (as I've shown)... |
All you've shown is that you are out of touch with reality, don't even fully grasp the contents of the Constititution you love so much (which is why you think income tax is unconstitutional), and further lack a grasp of what a number of English terms mean. In this thread, we'll add a new term to the list of terms you don't understand: logical fallacy. See below!
| visitorq wrote: |
Logical fallacy: pretending you know what any of those millions of people think. Debunked. Next.
...
Logical fallacy: same as above. Debunked. Next.
...
Logical fallacy: same as first two. Debunked. Next
...
Logical fallacy: same as first 3 (you seem to like this one). Debunked. Next. |
Asserting that millions of people believe a certain thing is not a logical fallacy. You might claim that it's a lie (it's not, as polls generally show), but it's not a logical fallacy, because it's not an argument, just an assertion about what people believe. And it's a good thing it isn't a fallacy, because you've made statements about what people believe as well, such as when you say:
| visitorq wrote: |
| The majority of people already consider the government corrupt ... |
True or false, this statement isn't a logical fallacy, because it's not an argument, just an assertion. The same goes for my such statements.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Strawman. Next. |
A straw man is constructing an argument for your opponent and then attacking that argument. I've done no such thing: pointing out that unlike you most people aren't Libertarians isn't a straw man argument, it's an assertion about the world.
So, in addition to not understanding what a conspiracy theory is (and highlighting that lack of understanding quite handily by falsely claiming that I feel the government loves me, and as a result I'm a conspiracy theorist), you don't understand what a logical fallacy is.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Whereas in your case you actually did avoid the question, you are merely misrepresenting my position here. Debunked. Next. |
No, I didn't avoid your question. You asked for information, I told you where you could find it. You seem to be under the entirely false conception that engaging in discussion means I have to jump through any hoop you throw out there. If you had a genuine interest in my feelings on this matter, you'd have looked up those posts. Because you've opted not to, you are just highlighting the truth: that you just wanted more things to angrily scream, "Unconstitutional and stupid!" at.
If you ask me for information, and I tell you where you can find it, I'm not avoiding your question. If you choose not to go get it where I told you you can find it, though, you assuredly prove you never cared about the answer in the first place. That's what I mean when I say you're disingenous. Which brings me to something else:
| visitorq wrote: |
| See how inflexible you are? You're literally just plain wrong. It's not by interpretation, it's a fact - one that you are now saying you are too lazy and disingenuous to verify. Seems you care more about trying maintain your credibility (impossible at this point) than learning the truth. That's too bad... |
Anyone accusing me of inflexibility and disingenuity is a total fool. I've demonstrated my intellectual honesty many times on this board; I think most people here realize that. Even in this thread I've put it handily on display; despite disagreeing quite thoroughly with ontheway's overall philosophy, every time he's said something I feel has merit, I've agreed with him. I can grant my opponents the points they're correct on, and that's the exact opposite of being disingenous.
You, on the other hand, have comported yourself in a completely opposite fashion: it took you a number of posts to even admit to the dictionary definition of a conspiracy, because you didn't like how the word sounded! Hell, the only reason you're even using the term disingenous is because I have a habit of using the term myself; it's essentially an, "I know you are but what am I," response.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Uh, yes it is. Look it up. You don't get a single penny of your income tax. Fact. |
So all those people who get 100% of their Federal Income Tax refunded plus government services aren't getting anything?
Okay. |
People who get their taxes refunded obviously aren't getting anything except their own money back. Pretty desperate of you to even go there. |
Except you missed the point. People who get 100% of their Federal Income Tax back not only get all their money back, they still get governmental services. To say those people aren't getting anything is silly.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Not that it's really much of one, since you've already admitted you're un-American (which frankly lessens the value of your opinion in these matters). |
The sheer fact that you'd consider facts about a person to have an impact on the truth value of their statements demonstrates the point I just made above. You're like a living, breathing logical fallacy. |
Um, did you not read the word "OPINION" there? Speaking of logical fallacies, another of your favorites is "false premise". Nearly every one of your arguments starts with one. Debunked. Next. |
Another example of you not understanding basic English terminology. Firstly another example of you misunderstanding what a logical fallacy is (I didn't make a false premises logical fallacy here), and second a misunderstanding of the term opinon. People often falsely believe that opinions don't have truth values, but they do, just like any other statement. More importantly, in a situation like this, the only thing that can lessen the value of someone's opinion is if said opinion is wrong. We're having an academic discussion after all, not some town hall meeting. Truth is what matters. So, when you say my opinion has less value because I'm "un-American", you're saying I'm wrong because I'm "un-American" (or you're just babbling in an incoherent fashion and have no real basis for your statement, in which case you're not committing a logical fallacy, you're just talking pointlessly).
| visitorq wrote: |
| Oh well, beyond saying the Constitution is irrelevant and admitting you're un-American, it's not like you've gotten any point across anyway. Next. |
Others disagree, and I have to admit I value their estimation on the matter more than yours, for obvious reasons.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Anything is hypothetically possible. |
No, anything is not hypothetically possible. A square triangle is not hypothetically possible, for instance.
| visitorq wrote: |
| I'd be happy to substitute the word conspiracy for delusion if it makes you feel better... |
It would certainly make your points more coherent. I know to the angry Glen Beck mindset, speaking coherently is a weakness rather than a strength, but perhaps you could cut us a break on this one and use words according to their actual definitions?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Yeah well, next time you go back and find yourself jobless, living under what is fast becoming a police state, maybe you'll ponder the points I've raised more carefully. Anyway, I actually care about my country and plan on returning there relatively soon. |
So we're slaves in the present because of how you suspect the future might be. Interesting tactic, and not the first time you've used it in this discussion. The greatest strength of the anti-government advocate is trying to scare people about how things will be, because it's very hard to prove unsubstantiated claims about the future wrong. I may be rational and composed enough to be able to shrug off your talk of death pannels and police states, but some people are unfortunately more receptive to scare tactics.
Visitor, I don't think our quote-nesting is very constructive at this point. I feel you're just show-casing your lack of understanding of the English language, lack of reading comprehension, and tendency to insult, and you've said exactly what you feel about my case. As such, I'd like to invite you to make a non-quote based closing statement to sum up your case, preferably in a civil fashion related to the topic of this thread. I'm generally reticent to make such suggestions, but I really don't feel this is going anywhere, and that says a lot given I was willing to persist against Julius' brick-wall-of-faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
To Fox, Gopher and others on here who love their government and think everything will be okay (because your government will always take care of you  )... |
Visitorq: I will not respond to this childish nonsense. Strawmen and misrepresented, maximalist false choices.
We face more options than those you would force upon us: your harshly negative position or our, allegedly, "loving our govt and thinking everything will be okay (because our govt will always take care of us)," etc.
Yours is a stupid, stupid position.
So if you want to understand why I feel I have more or less pigeonholed you as someone completely lacking in intellectual sophistication and consequently feel no further need to exchange with you here, or make any further contribution to this thread, this is it.
You specifically called me out to answer you. This is my answer, Visitorq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
