You again. Pointless logic, which is par for the course for you. How many times does one have to say it? Cars have a purpose other than to take aim at someone and threaten and kill. It boggles me no end that these meme repeaters think they're being clever.
But no one CARES if a gun's primary purpose is to kill people. Don't you understand that? You can't just control other people and force them to abandon a lifestyle you disagree with because you think they are savages in need of your political enlightenment. A gun's primary purpose is to fire a lead slug down-range. Guns don't have political agendas. Sad. Sort of like an internal combustion engine's purpose is to exhaust fuel which it burns. Desperate, are we? Sort of like your primary purpose is to exhaust CO2. Whatever the case may be, at least it's now clear to you how your statement about a gun's purpose was ineffective and desperate. I wonder why you didn't realize it before you posted it though. |
|
|
|
You again. Pointless logic, which is par for the course for you. How many times does one have to say it? Cars have a purpose other than to take aim at someone and threaten and kill. It boggles me no end that these meme repeaters think they're being clever.
But no one CARES if a gun's primary purpose is to kill people. Don't you understand that? You can't just control other people and force them to abandon a lifestyle you disagree with because you think they are savages in need of your political enlightenment. A gun's primary purpose is to fire a lead slug down-range. Guns don't have political agendas. Sad. Sort of like an internal combustion engine's purpose is to exhaust fuel which it burns. Desperate, are we? |
|
|
|
You again. Pointless logic, which is par for the course for you. How many times does one have to say it? Cars have a purpose other than to take aim at someone and threaten and kill. It boggles me no end that these meme repeaters think they're being clever.
But no one CARES if a gun's primary purpose is to kill people. Don't you understand that? You can't just control other people and force them to abandon a lifestyle you disagree with because you think they are savages in need of your political enlightenment. How laughable. People do care that a gun's primary purpose is to kill people. For crying out loud. It boggles my mind that people try to base their whole support of guns on premises like this. Also, people can be forced to abandon lifestyles that are unhealthy for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Crime is more deadly when it is perpetrated with more deadly weapons.
And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime. Here's some advice: an essay, couched in fancy grammar, does not necessarily make an argument compelling except to your own choir. Within all the balderdash though, we see some truth: Crime is more deadly when it is perpetrated with more deadly weapons.
You are more likely to die by a car accident if you own and drive a car. Using your logic, we should therefore ban cars. You again. Pointless logic, which is par for the course for you. How many times does one have to say it? Cars have a purpose other than to take aim at someone and threaten and kill. It boggles me no end that these meme repeaters think they're being clever. |
|
|
|
And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.
LANGUAGE FAIL!!Not you, the language. Did you mean You advocate deadlier crime? or You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime? There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not? |
|
|
|
Crime is more deadly when it is perpetrated with more deadly weapons.
And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime. Here's some advice: an essay, couched in fancy grammar, does not necessarily make an argument compelling except to your own choir. Within all the balderdash though, we see some truth: Crime is more deadly when it is perpetrated with more deadly weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
Rassah,
You can make logically valid arguments to support anything you want as long as you start with a premise that you believe in, usually out of ignorance of a large body of work and knowledge that already exists. That's your strategy.
Example: you think replanting trees maintains an ecosystem. But it doesn't. And you have began arguments based on that false premise several times in the past year, all after I had presented to you that long post which explained these things to you. I recall having presented that post to you many months ago, and yet you conveniently ignored it and made a post about the timber industry in Chile several months ago. And I did the same thing in the past week, and you again conveniently ignored it, and again made a post about the timber industry in Chile again.
And this is how it goes with you. You regurgitate the same conclusions based on your (first uninformed position), and then later, you regurgitate the same conclusions, even though you have been subsequently informed. And then you repeat it for a third time.
This is your method of operation. And it's neither impressive, nor effective against those who know better. But it is effective for most of your audience here, who are fervent believers in these overly simplistic paradigms that are so popular here.
|
|
|
|
|
Rassah,
Regarding working: what if you can't make money online, or can't afford to pay to have your food delivered?
Regarding your argumentation: it has been discussed that you're arguing methods are some combination of stupidity and trollishness, but never effective. The reason I or others cannot convince you is because you don't wish to build upon the information that flows in the dialog. Your posts fail to acknowledge past points or information and are even oftentimes contradictory to past posts you've made.
|
|
|
|
...I try to convince myself that I am doing it for the benefit of other readers who may be misled by his *ahem* opinions, but I think I'm only convincing myself.
I doubt you can even convince yourself -- give it up & get back to ditchdiggery  Rassah claimed to hold essentially the views we do, but said he was unable to win any arguments regarding those views, so came around to embracing the views he has now. Sounds to me like he was just ineffective at arguing and prone to persuasion. Factor in the general lack of real world knowledge regarding complex subjects he brings to the table... |
|
|
|
You mean like:
"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to Disney World."
Yes! "If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to Disney World nor Florida."
Yes! "If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to a lot of places."
Yes! "If you don't pay your taxes, you can't step outside of a cell."
*Screeech* And you veered off from "nonviolent" for "forced kidnapping." >.< I mean, I would have said "If you don't pay your taxes, you can't step outside of your property," which, again, many of us would agree to, but I guess our two minds work differently, yours apparently having quite a bit more of a tendency towards violence than mine.  And if you work on the other side of town? If you have no friends who can deliver food to you? It seems that perhaps you haven't thought through the consequences of of just how violent and coercive your suggestion is. |
|
|
|
...Off with its motherboard!
Off with its CPU! --Firm believer that beheading trumps disembodiment. (sorry for OT, but beheaders need to be heard!) Sidenote: new studies indicate consciousness continues to some degree up to an hour after clinical death. And that's on top of a study that indicated vision and high level brain functioning continues for possibly up to a minute after being beheaded. Regarding AI: there will come a time when this question is relevant. True AI will exist when a computer program is not programmed what to do, but is merely a system of interconnections which makes it somewhat unpredictable and uniquely creative relative to the programmers. Developing a simulated brain using STDP learning might be an example. STDP stands for spike timed dependent plasticity. |
|
|
|
Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.
And when Woodles answers "no prob, ma, i'll just take your moneyz & go by myself with Spanky"? *If you don't consider scenarios other than the one which favors your point, others (like me) will. im really confused about how this is relevant to the question of whether non violent rule enforcement mechanisms exist or not. did i fail to demonstrate an example of one such non violent enforcement mechanism? if so than explain why. You have failed to do the following: a) To define "nonviolent enforcement" (not to be a prick, but nonviolent is one word) b) To address how nonviolent enforcement will deal with the scenario i've presented you with. If you feel that scenario is not plausible, explain why.  it doesnt have to deal with the scenario you presented because i never made the claim that non violent enforcement could be used to deal with that scenario. you never asked me to demonstrate the capabilities of non violent enforcement you asked me to demonstrate that it exists. Since we only need to think of one example showing one situation where one rule might be enforced by non violent means to demonstrate that non violent rule enforcement exists lets make a more specific and more explicit example. Lets say that the kid sincerely desires to go WITH his mother to disney world but only on the condition that the mother is in voluntary attendance. (this will preclude things like kidnapping). now the mother says, if you break the rules than i will not voluntarily take you to disney world. Is this example sufficient to demonstrate that such a thing as non violent rule enforcement exists? if not why not? You mean like: "If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to Disney World." "If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to Disney World nor Florida." "If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to a lot of places." "If you don't pay your taxes, you can't step outside of a cell." |
|
|
|
...so then im very interested in this idea of a small tax on every transaction that is supposedly in lieu of state brutality. what mechanism other than state brutality do you propose to use to enforce this tax?
What mechanism, other than "brutality," exists for enforcing *any* law? depends a bit on your definition of law. some would say ostracisation and public shaming are alternative mechanisms for enforcing law. others would say that if those are the punishments than what ever we are talking about isnt a law but rather a custom. to me words should be defined in the way that is most useful for communicating the ideas they are intended to represent. if we had a system where stealing someones property meant that you became so ostracised by society that it was difficult to make ends meat, than i think in a very real sense stealing would be illegal in that society despite the fact that no brutality was involved. but then thats just my opinion! if you dont like the way that i am defining my words feel free to define them in the way that you think is more useful, just be sure to clearly communicate what you mean when you use those words so other people know! Definition of law is irrelevant here, as long as we agree that laws need to be enforceable to be meaningful. For instance, making "bad thoughts" unlawful is pointless, unless a) It is possible to read minds and b) A punishment is prescribed for breaking this law. If you disagree with any of the above, explain why, otherwise i'm assuming we're good as far as that goes. So: Unless you are suggesting a society without laws, you have to conceive of punishments to enforce your laws. I suggest that any enforcement is a form of "brutality," simple as that. (Of course we will have to define "brutality" -- feel free to offer any definition that you're willing to stick to throughout this discussion -- i'm game for anything ) Keep in mind that your definition will be equally applicable to both the statist thugs & your utopia There are conceivable non violent enforcement mechanisms for allowing societies to modify the behavior of individual humans. My point is to say that it isnt immediately clear whether behavior modification on the part of societies by way of non violent enforcement falls under the umbrella of the definition of the word law. if it does not than the answer to your question What mechanism, other than "brutality," exists for enforcing *any* law? would be none. If on the other hand behavior modification on the part of societies by way of non violent enforcement does fall under the umbrella of the definition of the word law than the answer to your question What mechanism, other than "brutality," exists for enforcing *any* law? would be social ostiricization. This is why the definition of the word law is relevant to the discussion. Ostracization is just another punishment, and just as brutal. How absurd your little philosophical fantasies are. |
|
|
|
I understand. Some people drive me crazy on here, too. I just feel better, from a certain sense of schadenfreude knowing where people like him will end up in the future. At best, it will be exactly where they are now, in countries crumbling from debt, their prospects for retirement and pensions quickly evaporating, and their society devolving into riots and destruction. At worst, in a society where government services are rapidly becoming as relevant as CDs and copyright laws in the age of file sharing, where their system of beliefs are irrelevant, or get them killed. Maybe we would be feeling sorry for their types instead.
Says it all really. I don't bother arguing with them for the most part. Just make the occasional point here and there. Arguing with guys like these is too much like arguing with my parents. Endlessly frustrating and rarely do you get any sense out of them. More power to those of you that have the patience to make the relevant points. I can only imagine how exasperated your parents must be. |
|
|
|
and we arnt having a debate. you cant debate about things that are purely subjective. we are having a discussion.
No. You're engaging in willful ignorance most of the time. As mentioned, things are complex, and if you're not willing to factor in those complexities, your analysis is then moot. |
|
|
|
Sounds like the only solution is to ban all guns in all cities, then when people bring them from nearby, ban them in states, then when they bring them from neighboring states, ban them in the whole country, then when they bring them from neighboring countries, ban them in all countries. Unless the country you are trying to ban them in doesn't like you, and realizes that they have all the guns, and you don't  Hell, even if you ban all the guns in the entire world, there's still the asshole effect, which is that it only takes one asshole (or one asshole country) to ruin it for everyone. Really? How is that working out for Japan? As I said, we don't really know. Is their crime rate low due to lack of guns, or due to their culture? Aren't there some places where guns are completely banned, where crime rates are really high? (like Washington DC) Completely banned in Washington DC? Ineffective laws enforced ineffectively, and nonuniform application of laws within local geographic areas are indeed part of the problem. Yes. Completely banned. Illegal to own a gun. Extremely effective law, where being caught with a gun lands you in jail. And there are a lot of cops on the streets to enforce that law. The nonuniform application is part of the problem. That criminals don't care about laws, since they are criminals, and have to resort to shooting cops to avoid getting caught with guns and put away for a very long time is the other problem. So we can ban all guns in US, then ask Canada and Mexico to do the same. Then ask all the countries in South America. Then everywhere else in the world. Except criminals are criminals. They won't care about those laws, and will figure out a way around them, like by printing guns at home. Then we can start regulating 3D printers and online files. And that will be as effective as stopping Pirate Bay. So yes, it is indeed a problem. One without a real solution. Last time I checked, Japan didn't ask any other countries to ban guns. |
|
|
|
Sounds like the only solution is to ban all guns in all cities, then when people bring them from nearby, ban them in states, then when they bring them from neighboring states, ban them in the whole country, then when they bring them from neighboring countries, ban them in all countries. Unless the country you are trying to ban them in doesn't like you, and realizes that they have all the guns, and you don't Hell, even if you ban all the guns in the entire world, there's still the asshole effect, which is that it only takes one asshole (or one asshole country) to ruin it for everyone. Really? How is that working out for Japan? As I said, we don't really know. Is their crime rate low due to lack of guns, or due to their culture? Aren't there some places where guns are completely banned, where crime rates are really high? (like Washington DC) Completely banned in Washington DC? Ineffective laws enforced ineffectively, and nonuniform application of laws within local geographic areas are indeed part of the problem. |
|
|
|
Clearly I do not believe tazering me an locking me into a basement against my will is permissible under any circumstances, you reduce my point to absurdity. I too believe that the current system of taxation is wildly flawed, but the alternative proposed here of 'no tax screw the state' is also flawed. The most efficient way to advance and care for society is through selfless mutual co-operation rather than sole actors how ever good their intentions. To manage this, some contribution to the welfare of others and the environment we occupy is necessary. Thus 'a form' of taxation, in a fully transparent manner, which ensures the load is fairly and proportionally shared, would seem to be a better way than a free for all society, where the greedy prosper the helpless wither and the selfless are over burdened. I have no real desire to get into a lengthy debate, on the subject, I just needed to make a point. whether taxation is moral or is immoral is the question debated here......Like the whole concept of defining morality; it is flawed becasue it is subjective. I propose their could be a middle ground, indeed the middle ground is potentially the most efficient and mutually beneficial form for society. The burden to each would be vastly lowered if it was shared fairly and proportionally. Taxation itself is not fundamentally wrong, its the methods and levels of acquiring the tax that are wrong. To find this idealistic middle ground however, we must first have 100% truly democratic and accountable governance with 0% corruption. I shall dream on I personally would've told him that I've already paid taxes, and that buys me a police force which I would then mention that I would be calling any moment to have them haul away the buffoonish clown. |
|
|
|
Also, private schools are much more expensive than public...
How do you know this? Have you compared the rates private schools charge to the portion of everyone's taxes that go to public schools? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering how you are sure. You're dead wrong here. And I mean absolutely dead wrong on every level. You're so out to lunch it's disgusting. The cost of private schools is almost certain far more than government funded schools relatively speaking for the poorer people. The bottom line is, since taxes are not even, the richer help the poorer pay for schooling. That in turn affords great opportunities for the overall prosperity of the community and nation. In your world, only the rich get educated. |
|
|
|
"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.
Can we start with the axiom of "If it hurts me, and I don't want it to hurt me, it's a bad thing?" No. You can't. Because you're trying to demonstrate that the alternative hurts you less, which you don't actually know, because you've never lived under such circumstances. What you perceive as a bad thing might be the best thing going. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
