Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 12:18:55 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: How your taxes are spent...  (Read 7452 times)
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 01:35:41 PM
 #21

All this is true.

So is this: Corporations exploit the earth in other nations by going there, bribing the officials with money and prostitutes in order to gain access to local resources, and then proceed to do untold damage to the ecosystem all to make a buck manufacturing palm oil.

You don't own the entire ecosystem of the planet.


LOL  No, I don't.  I'm just stuck living here because leaving is an impossibility at this point, so I do care a little bit about the condition of the earth that we ALL must inhabit, likely for the remainder of our lives.

Riddle me this: why should a small group be able to profit at the expense of every other human being?

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
1481458735
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481458735

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481458735
Reply with quote  #2

1481458735
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 04:22:14 PM
 #22

Riddle me this: why should a small group be able to profit at the expense of every other human being?

The sad truth of it is he places his skewed principles above bigger issues due to the fact that he hasn't yet become aware of the significance or depth of those issues. His ignorance is his excuse for refuting that such cascading effects exist within the biosphere that we live in. To him, it's more important that an entity be allowed to follow a human contrived principle than to actually do the math. Furthermore, he doesn't acknowledge that within his system, due to human nature, everything will be destroyed.

He is probably not aware of the scary statistic that one half of all the Earth's post-ice age forests have been destroyed in the last 8,000 years, and that most of that damage has occurred since 1970. Even if he is given time to digest that statistic, his simplistic ideology does not encourage him to dig deeper and try and truly understand the total ramifications of that. Better to remain blind than to be curious. Deforestation depletes atmospheric cycling, decreases biodiversity (which he doesn't understand the significance of), heats ground water, destroys soil sustainability, displaces local economies, creates pollution from burning and excavation, increases edge effects (something he's never thought of), and disrupts local food chains for the surviving sections.

He has never bothered learning about the true debt that is incurred by consuming the limited resources of this planet. In fact, he is likely to construe the above usage of the term resource to mean only the depletion of some resource, such as oil. He is both unable and unwilling to concede that consumption of a resource also destroys other resources in the process of extracting it. He is too obtuse, and generally dense to apply a deeper analysis to the processes, because by doing so, he might realize that the principles he so earnestly stands behind and defends with the same one liner responses over and over in these forums are not adequate or finely nuanced enough.

He does not care to understand fully the dynamics of the system we all live in. His cancerous solution, predicated upon his simplistic ideology, does not require him to study beyond the boundaries of his own limited ideals, because in the short term, all that matters is the ability to efficiently increase his bottom line. Just like a cancer kills the host in pursuit of its own growth, his system will kill the host in pursuit of its own growth. He cries that his system magically self corrects, without acknowledging that cancer self corrects too, because when the host is dead, the cancer is dead as well.

The very existence of his stubbornness and ignorance are a perfect demonstration that his system, although it would contain beneficial entities within it, also would have stubborn and ignorant individuals who cannot place the importance of a deeper understanding of processes that exist outside of the libertarian principles over greed.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
GideonGono
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 398


Long Live The FED


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 05:46:26 PM
 #23

Riddle me this: why should a small group be able to profit at the expense of every other human being?

The sad truth of it is he places his skewed principles above bigger issues due to the fact that he hasn't yet become aware of the significance or depth of those issues. His ignorance is his excuse for refuting that such cascading effects exist within the biosphere that we live in. To him, it's more important that an entity be allowed to follow a human contrived principle than to actually do the math. Furthermore, he doesn't acknowledge that within his system, due to human nature, everything will be destroyed.

He is probably not aware of the scary statistic that one half of all the Earth's post-ice age forests have been destroyed in the last 8,000 years, and that most of that damage has occurred since 1970. Even if he is given time to digest that statistic, his simplistic ideology does not encourage him to dig deeper and try and truly understand the total ramifications of that. Better to remain blind than to be curious. Deforestation depletes atmospheric cycling, decreases biodiversity (which he doesn't understand the significance of), heats ground water, destroys soil sustainability, displaces local economies, creates pollution from burning and excavation, increases edge effects (something he's never thought of), and disrupts local food chains for the surviving sections.

He has never bothered learning about the true debt that is incurred by consuming the limited resources of this planet. In fact, he is likely to construe the above usage of the term resource to mean only the depletion of some resource, such as oil. He is both unable and unwilling to concede that consumption of a resource also destroys other resources in the process of extracting it. He is too obtuse, and generally dense to apply a deeper analysis to the processes, because by doing so, he might realize that the principles he so earnestly stands behind and defends with the same one liner responses over and over in these forums are not adequate or finely nuanced enough.

He does not care to understand fully the dynamics of the system we all live in. His cancerous solution, predicated upon his simplistic ideology, does not require him to study beyond the boundaries of his own limited ideals, because in the short term, all that matters is the ability to efficiently increase his bottom line. Just like a cancer kills the host in pursuit of its own growth, his system will kill the host in pursuit of its own growth. He cries that his system magically self corrects, without acknowledging that cancer self corrects too, because when the host is dead, the cancer is dead as well.

The very existence of his stubbornness and ignorance are a perfect demonstration that his system, although it would contain beneficial entities within it, also would have stubborn and ignorant individuals who cannot place the importance of a deeper understanding of processes that exist outside of the libertarian principles over greed.

Actually the sad truth is that the govt that you have so much faith in has absolutely failed on every point you make.

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 06:16:52 PM
 #24

The sad truth of it is he places his skewed principles above bigger issues due to the fact that he hasn't yet become aware of the significance or depth of those issues.

That's entirely false. I'm not even questioning the impact of the issues you mention. I'm willing to grant those as being true and more. Let's assume that if we respect private property rights and let people do whatever they want with their own land while not polluting the lands of others that the entire planet will be inhabitable within 50 years. I still say we should respect private property rights. If we all decide to take our land and all voluntarily make it an inhabitable wasteland then obviously, we all wanted that and it's just a form of suicide. The only thing that matters is, are you polluting my land? No? Then have at it.

You want to pretend that if I really thought I was in danger that I would abandon my principles and agree to violate property rights of others, but I won't.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 06:38:22 PM
 #25

^Which means you're fully in support of destroying the right to life of all those who did not wish to pollute and destroy, but were nevertheless destroyed by your own greed.  More hypocricy.



Riddle me this: why should a small group be able to profit at the expense of every other human being?

The sad truth of it is he places his skewed principles above bigger issues due to the fact that he hasn't yet become aware of the significance or depth of those issues. His ignorance is his excuse for refuting that such cascading effects exist within the biosphere that we live in. To him, it's more important that an entity be allowed to follow a human contrived principle than to actually do the math. Furthermore, he doesn't acknowledge that within his system, due to human nature, everything will be destroyed.

He is probably not aware of the scary statistic that one half of all the Earth's post-ice age forests have been destroyed in the last 8,000 years, and that most of that damage has occurred since 1970. Even if he is given time to digest that statistic, his simplistic ideology does not encourage him to dig deeper and try and truly understand the total ramifications of that. Better to remain blind than to be curious. Deforestation depletes atmospheric cycling, decreases biodiversity (which he doesn't understand the significance of), heats ground water, destroys soil sustainability, displaces local economies, creates pollution from burning and excavation, increases edge effects (something he's never thought of), and disrupts local food chains for the surviving sections.

He has never bothered learning about the true debt that is incurred by consuming the limited resources of this planet. In fact, he is likely to construe the above usage of the term resource to mean only the depletion of some resource, such as oil. He is both unable and unwilling to concede that consumption of a resource also destroys other resources in the process of extracting it. He is too obtuse, and generally dense to apply a deeper analysis to the processes, because by doing so, he might realize that the principles he so earnestly stands behind and defends with the same one liner responses over and over in these forums are not adequate or finely nuanced enough.

He does not care to understand fully the dynamics of the system we all live in. His cancerous solution, predicated upon his simplistic ideology, does not require him to study beyond the boundaries of his own limited ideals, because in the short term, all that matters is the ability to efficiently increase his bottom line. Just like a cancer kills the host in pursuit of its own growth, his system will kill the host in pursuit of its own growth. He cries that his system magically self corrects, without acknowledging that cancer self corrects too, because when the host is dead, the cancer is dead as well.

The very existence of his stubbornness and ignorance are a perfect demonstration that his system, although it would contain beneficial entities within it, also would have stubborn and ignorant individuals who cannot place the importance of a deeper understanding of processes that exist outside of the libertarian principles over greed.


You're preaching to the choir, bro.  Tongue

As his response indicates, he doesn't understand the primary flaw with his thinking and the entire libertarian system: no man (or piece of land) is an island unto himself.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 07:06:04 PM
 #26

Which means you're fully in support of destroying the right to life of all those who did not wish to pollute and destroy, but were nevertheless destroyed by your own greed.

Wrong. It's not alright if I pollute your land, air or water. It's alright if I pollute my land, air or water. If any of my pollution spills over into your land, air or water, you have a legitimate complaint but you don't have the right to protect things that you don't own.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 12:48:17 AM
 #27

As his response indicates, he doesn't understand the primary flaw with his thinking and the entire libertarian system: no man (or piece of land) is an island unto himself.

And look at his response that he posted before this post. He still does not understand it. I will highlight some of the points I made in my recent post which predicted his response:

His ignorance is his excuse for refuting that such cascading effects exist within the biosphere that we live in. To him, it's more important that an entity be allowed to follow a human contrived principle than to actually do the math. Furthermore, he doesn't acknowledge that within his system, due to human nature, everything will be destroyed.

What I highlighted above in my recent post claims that he will use his ignorance of the cascading effects to try and refute what is being said. Reading his recent post, it's clear that he chooses to remain ignorant, making the assumption that pollution is the only thing at stake.

Quote
He is probably not aware of the scary statistic that one half of all the Earth's post-ice age forests have been destroyed in the last 8,000 years, and that most of that damage has occurred since 1970. Even if he is given time to digest that statistic, his simplistic ideology does not encourage him to dig deeper and try and truly understand the total ramifications of that. Better to remain blind than to be curious. Deforestation depletes atmospheric cycling, decreases biodiversity (which he doesn't understand the significance of), heats ground water, destroys soil sustainability, displaces local economies, creates pollution from burning and excavation, increases edge effects (something he's never thought of), and disrupts local food chains for the surviving sections.

The highlighted sections from my recent post above are not technically pollution. Yet he only wants to claim that he might be guilty of pollution, and then, after the pollution has occurred, only wants to be liable for it if other parties can be bothered to pursue legal action. And he conveniently ignores (by choosing to be ignorant) the other damage which is occurring. 

Quote
He has never bothered learning about the true debt that is incurred by consuming the limited resources of this planet. In fact, he is likely to construe the above usage of the term resource to mean only the depletion of some resource, such as oil. He is both unable and unwilling to concede that consumption of a resource also destroys other resources in the process of extracting it. He is too obtuse, and generally dense to apply a deeper analysis to the processes, because by doing so, he might realize that the principles he so earnestly stands behind and defends with the same one liner responses over and over in these forums are not adequate or finely nuanced enough.

I have highlighted the section which I authored which I think once again predicted and in general, illustrates his world view.

Quote
He does not care to understand fully the dynamics of the system we all live in. His cancerous solution, predicated upon his simplistic ideology, does not require him to study beyond the boundaries of his own limited ideals, because in the short term, all that matters is the ability to efficiently increase his bottom line.

I have highlighted above a section of my post which illustrates, if we read what he has said, that it is clear that he thinks the consequences of his actions on his own land could only possibly result in, at worst, pollution of another's land.

Quote
The very existence of his stubbornness and ignorance are a perfect demonstration that his system, although it would contain beneficial entities within it, also would have stubborn and ignorant individuals who cannot place the importance of a deeper understanding of processes that exist outside of the libertarian principles over greed.

And again, I have highlighted what I said earlier, and by looking at what he has said, it is clear by virtue of what is absent, he does not have a deeper understanding of the processes at work, and the consequences.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 12:52:48 AM
 #28

Reading his recent post, it's clear that he chooses to remain ignorant, making the assumption that pollution is the only thing at stake.

Yet, again, consequences are irrelevant. You are forced to keep your hands to yourself even if the planet explodes. Stop with this petty name calling. You're clearly looking for an excuse to disregard my position because you can't attack it head-on.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 12:56:52 AM
 #29

Yet, again, consequences are irrelevant. You are forced to keep your hands to yourself even if the planet explodes. Stop with this petty name calling. You're clearly looking for an excuse to disregard my position because you can't attack it head-on.

There is no petty name calling here. Willful ignorance is a terrible thing. And I think the burden falls upon you to demonstrate that consequences are irrelevant.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:04:26 AM
 #30

And I think the burden falls upon you to demonstrate that consequences are irrelevant.

I think that forcing someone to do something (other than forcing them to keep their hands to themselves) is wrong. You are free to disagree but there's nothing I can do to "prove" that some set of moral values is correct and all others are incorrect. If stealing is wrong then, even if you are starving and you need some food, when you steal, you have committed a crime and you should be forced to pay restitution.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:08:50 AM
 #31

You are forced to keep your hands to yourself even if the planet explodes.

Please justify this last statement.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:10:42 AM
 #32

You are forced to keep your hands to yourself even if the planet explodes.

Please justify this last statement.

It's not justifiable. No moral values are. Do you understand that?
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:16:26 AM
 #33

You are forced to keep your hands to yourself even if the planet explodes.

Please justify this last statement.

It's not justifiable.

I think you've summed up the fragility of your argument. Thank you.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:18:49 AM
 #34

I think you've summed up the fragility of your argument. Thank you.

Nice quote mining. The part you forgot to quote and respond to is...

Quote
No moral values are. Do you understand that?

So I guess you don't understand.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:23:31 AM
 #35

If you can't justify an assertion that you have made, then your argument has fallen flat on its face. You've made a claim, an assertion. Back it up.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:28:35 AM
 #36

If you can't justify an assertion that you have made, then your argument has fallen flat on its face. You've made a claim, an assertion. Back it up.

No moral claims can be justified. I'm sorry that you didn't know that but I suggest you go read up on ethics.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:46:37 AM
 #37

No moral claims can be justified. I'm sorry that you didn't know that but I suggest you go read up on ethics.

I think you'll find that once you step out of your little fantasy world, your moral claims will be called absurd by others. You were given an opportunity to convince others that your beliefs have merit, but by virtue of your responses, you have failed.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 02:27:56 AM
 #38

I think you'll find that once you step out of your little fantasy world, your moral claims will be called absurd by others. You were given an opportunity to convince others that your beliefs have merit, but by virtue of your responses, you have failed.

So, morality is a popularity contest?
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
 #39

If you can't justify an assertion that you have made, then your argument has fallen flat on its face. You've made a claim, an assertion. Back it up.

No moral claims can be justified. I'm sorry that you didn't know that but I suggest you go read up on ethics.


Of course moral claims can be justified.  What do you think the entire field of philosophy is all about?

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 08:03:16 PM
 #40

Of course moral claims can be justified.  What do you think the entire field of philosophy is all about?

The entire field of philosophy? Epistemology? Ontology? No. Not even the entire section of philosophy that deals with ethics attempts to justify moral claims. Some branches of ethics argue that they can't be justified and I agree with them.

Saying that "murder is wrong" is like saying "blue is a pretty color". It's not a fact. It's an opinion. There are no moral facts, only moral opinions. If you claim there are moral facts then please demonstrate it. Don't just say "philosophy herpa derp!"
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!