Somebody prove this wrong please.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2013, 10:53 PM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(27-04-2013 10:42 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(27-04-2013 10:36 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Muffs, do you believe the state should allow gay couples to marry? If yes, would you mind explaining to me the principles upon which you base that conclusion? And lastly, would you explain why it is wrong for the state to force gay couples into cohabiting without all of the benefits it affords married heterosexual couples?

Equality is the reason why DL is wrong so don't bother.

I don't know what your past conversation with him was, so that answer means nothing to me. I assume you have a logical answer to the questions I've asked and if that's the case, I don't know what problem you would have with answering them.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 06:58 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
Fuck you muffs you disrespectful little twat. I aint answering your questions because if you even bothered to check the link I provided everything you are spouting is more or less covered.

You keep skirting the question I am asking of you of where is actually all this interest??? Could it be that it doesn't actually exist unless more debt is created???

Answer that question smartarse... or actually read the link I have provided and you will see it isnt any fucking half truth shit.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 07:33 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(28-04-2013 06:58 AM)bemore Wrote:  Fuck you muffs you disrespectful little twat. I aint answering your questions because if you even bothered to check the link I provided everything you are spouting is more or less covered.

You keep skirting the question I am asking of you of where is actually all this interest??? Could it be that it doesn't actually exist unless more debt is created???

Answer that question smartarse... or actually read the link I have provided and you will see it isnt any fucking half truth shit.

Either you're an idiot or you are going to have to explain what you by "where is the interest", because I'm pretty sure I explained this... The same location as the 50c tacked onto the bottle of coke by the shop owner.

Not every electronic cent needs a physical counter part because we reuse physical notes and coins and we don't use money all the time. ie: I use my eftpos for everything.

It's not disrespect, it's frustration with your lack of comprehension.

Quote:I don't know what your past conversation with him was, so that answer means nothing to me. I assume you have a logical answer to the questions I've asked and if that's the case, I don't know what problem you would have with answering them.

Well you're in for a treat. DL and my discussion on direct tax was a lot like bemore and me in this thread. Except DL was being possibly even more stupid. Though DL can actually comprehend things so it's not that bad. He just choices to ignore them or doesn't see why they're good/bad. Plus, more people were willing to get involved back then, now people just stay the fuck out, and I wasn't the only one trying to explain to him why he was wrong.

The general shorts of it is that DL believes government is evil because it forces, against people's will, to pay income tax which he believes to be evil. He's perfectly okay with gst and other "spend money, pay tax" taxes though...
I think this was the main issue, that he was okay with the likes of gst but was annoyed with income tax... we were arguing that at the end of the day it all goes into the same pot so it doesn't matter if you pay $100 in income tax or gst tax, it's all tax at the end of the day.
But, if I remember correctly, his argument against income tax was that that money was spent on things that we don't use. ie: If I send my children to private school. (his argument, not mine).
Our counter argument was that it is actually fairer to spread the cost evenly over the whole of society (ie: income tax). This is because we cannot accurately measure how much of something someone uses. Even if you send your children to private school, you still gain the rewards of public school because it is beneficial to you that everyone in society has an education. ie: Your doctor's parents may have been too poor to afford private education and so your doctor could be a result of the public school system and so you have received a benefit for having that system.
You see, it is then extremely difficult/impossible to tell how much of whatever the government operates for society, you use. For example. Military defense. Countries have armies to defend themselves (and invade other countries to steal oil but we wont go there for now). You can't value that defense on each person. Like, you can't say that you use 1% of the army because you use 100% of the army.. It defends you, you are defended, you use 100%... Understand? And so you need to spread that cost of that army over everyone equally. Income tax is the fairest way to do that. Hands down.
Take roads for example. You may never drive. BUT, that ambulance you need to come pick you up does. That police officer does use the road to go over there somewhere to catch that burglar.
Street lighting.. It's extremely impracticable to have coin operated street lights... not to mention dangerous..

These are some examples of things that you or I cannot place a value on how much we use and are going to use compared to other people. As such, income tax is the most efficient way and fairest way to spread these costs evenly over society.


Goods and service tax is a brilliant and extremely fair system for what it is used for, but not for state owned essentials.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 10:01 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(28-04-2013 07:33 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 06:58 AM)bemore Wrote:  Fuck you muffs you disrespectful little twat. I aint answering your questions because if you even bothered to check the link I provided everything you are spouting is more or less covered.

You keep skirting the question I am asking of you of where is actually all this interest??? Could it be that it doesn't actually exist unless more debt is created???

Answer that question smartarse... or actually read the link I have provided and you will see it isnt any fucking half truth shit.

Either you're an idiot or you are going to have to explain what you by "where is the interest", because I'm pretty sure I explained this... The same location as the 50c tacked onto the bottle of coke by the shop owner.

Not every electronic cent needs a physical counter part because we reuse physical notes and coins and we don't use money all the time. ie: I use my eftpos for everything.

It's not disrespect, it's frustration with your lack of comprehension.

Quote:I don't know what your past conversation with him was, so that answer means nothing to me. I assume you have a logical answer to the questions I've asked and if that's the case, I don't know what problem you would have with answering them.

Well you're in for a treat. DL and my discussion on direct tax was a lot like bemore and me in this thread. Except DL was being possibly even more stupid. Though DL can actually comprehend things so it's not that bad. He just choices to ignore them or doesn't see why they're good/bad. Plus, more people were willing to get involved back then, now people just stay the fuck out, and I wasn't the only one trying to explain to him why he was wrong.

The general shorts of it is that DL believes government is evil because it forces, against people's will, to pay income tax which he believes to be evil. He's perfectly okay with gst and other "spend money, pay tax" taxes though...
I think this was the main issue, that he was okay with the likes of gst but was annoyed with income tax... we were arguing that at the end of the day it all goes into the same pot so it doesn't matter if you pay $100 in income tax or gst tax, it's all tax at the end of the day.
But, if I remember correctly, his argument against income tax was that that money was spent on things that we don't use. ie: If I send my children to private school. (his argument, not mine).
Our counter argument was that it is actually fairer to spread the cost evenly over the whole of society (ie: income tax). This is because we cannot accurately measure how much of something someone uses. Even if you send your children to private school, you still gain the rewards of public school because it is beneficial to you that everyone in society has an education. ie: Your doctor's parents may have been too poor to afford private education and so your doctor could be a result of the public school system and so you have received a benefit for having that system.
You see, it is then extremely difficult/impossible to tell how much of whatever the government operates for society, you use. For example. Military defense. Countries have armies to defend themselves (and invade other countries to steal oil but we wont go there for now). You can't value that defense on each person. Like, you can't say that you use 1% of the army because you use 100% of the army.. It defends you, you are defended, you use 100%... Understand? And so you need to spread that cost of that army over everyone equally. Income tax is the fairest way to do that. Hands down.
Take roads for example. You may never drive. BUT, that ambulance you need to come pick you up does. That police officer does use the road to go over there somewhere to catch that burglar.
Street lighting.. It's extremely impracticable to have coin operated street lights... not to mention dangerous..

These are some examples of things that you or I cannot place a value on how much we use and are going to use compared to other people. As such, income tax is the most efficient way and fairest way to spread these costs evenly over society.


Goods and service tax is a brilliant and extremely fair system for what it is used for, but not for state owned essentials.

Thanks for that but, I wasn't interested in the debate you and DL had. I was more interested in answers to the questions I posed to you with regard to gay marriage.

I'll restate them here for your convenience and if you don't mind addressing them, I'd appreciate it.

Do you believe the state should allow gay couples to marry? If yes, would you mind explaining to me the principles upon which you base that conclusion? And lastly, would you explain why it is wrong for the state to force gay couples into cohabiting without all of the benefits it affords married heterosexual couples?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 10:12 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
All right, but I fail to see what this has to do with income tax.

I thought my opinion on this question would be obvious, but I know how much people need to have things spelled out for them in this thread so w/e. But I don't see what this has to do with income tax..
Yes gay people should be aloud to marry. Religious places, churches etc.., should not be forced to marry gay people if they don't want too. This is based on the conclusion that the only opposition to gay marriage is religion and religion does not own marriage, it simply has certain customs based around it. The Catholics drink the red wine as a religious gesture, but the Catholics do not own the right to drink red wine. Same principle with marriage.
Lastly, I dunno, I've never thought about it. I would think that with marriage equality would come all that other crap like changing the law around cohabiting to match. I was under the assumption now that the majority of the states do not enforce cohabiting on gay couples.
Cohabiting is a sketchy bit of law anyway if you ask me.

I'm sure you have some witty point to this.
It's okay, I'll prepare my snide comments now.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 10:36 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(28-04-2013 10:12 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  All right, but I fail to see what this has to do with income tax.

I thought my opinion on this question would be obvious, but I know how much people need to have things spelled out for them in this thread so w/e. But I don't see what this has to do with income tax..
Yes gay people should be aloud to marry. Religious places, churches etc.., should not be forced to marry gay people if they don't want too. This is based on the conclusion that the only opposition to gay marriage is religion and religion does not own marriage, it simply has certain customs based around it. The Catholics drink the red wine as a religious gesture, but the Catholics do not own the right to drink red wine. Same principle with marriage.
Lastly, I dunno, I've never thought about it. I would think that with marriage equality would come all that other crap like changing the law around cohabiting to match. I was under the assumption now that the majority of the states do not enforce cohabiting on gay couples.
Cohabiting is a sketchy bit of law anyway if you ask me.

I'm sure you have some witty point to this.
It's okay, I'll prepare my snide comments now.

I'm not seeing any principles in use there. In other words, it doesn't matter what the church does and doesn't like, unless you're arguing in its favor. Likewise, the red wine analogy doesn't address a principle... it's a truth statement. We know the church doesn't own the right to drink red wine but that doesn't say why the church shouldn't own that right.

As for cohabitation... I meant force as in, since the state doesn't allow gay marriage, gay couples are forced to cohabit without the same benefits afforded hetero couples. That's not to say anyone is forcing gay people to live together... but if they choose to cohabit, then they are forced to do so without typical marriage benefits.

In my questions, I'm only concerned with the moral principles upon which you justify allowing gay couples to marry and avail themselves of the same benefits afforded hetero couples who marry.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 12:22 PM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(28-04-2013 10:36 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 10:12 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  All right, but I fail to see what this has to do with income tax.

I thought my opinion on this question would be obvious, but I know how much people need to have things spelled out for them in this thread so w/e. But I don't see what this has to do with income tax..
Yes gay people should be aloud to marry. Religious places, churches etc.., should not be forced to marry gay people if they don't want too. This is based on the conclusion that the only opposition to gay marriage is religion and religion does not own marriage, it simply has certain customs based around it. The Catholics drink the red wine as a religious gesture, but the Catholics do not own the right to drink red wine. Same principle with marriage.
Lastly, I dunno, I've never thought about it. I would think that with marriage equality would come all that other crap like changing the law around cohabiting to match. I was under the assumption now that the majority of the states do not enforce cohabiting on gay couples.
Cohabiting is a sketchy bit of law anyway if you ask me.

I'm sure you have some witty point to this.
It's okay, I'll prepare my snide comments now.

I'm not seeing any principles in use there. In other words, it doesn't matter what the church does and doesn't like, unless you're arguing in its favor. Likewise, the red wine analogy doesn't address a principle... it's a truth statement. We know the church doesn't own the right to drink red wine but that doesn't say why the church shouldn't own that right.

As for cohabitation... I meant force as in, since the state doesn't allow gay marriage, gay couples are forced to cohabit without the same benefits afforded hetero couples. That's not to say anyone is forcing gay people to live together... but if they choose to cohabit, then they are forced to do so without typical marriage benefits.

In my questions, I'm only concerned with the moral principles upon which you justify allowing gay couples to marry and avail themselves of the same benefits afforded hetero couples who marry.

Moral principles?
How about equal rights?

Seriously, you better be getting to a point.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
28-04-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(28-04-2013 12:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 10:36 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I'm not seeing any principles in use there. In other words, it doesn't matter what the church does and doesn't like, unless you're arguing in its favor. Likewise, the red wine analogy doesn't address a principle... it's a truth statement. We know the church doesn't own the right to drink red wine but that doesn't say why the church shouldn't own that right.

As for cohabitation... I meant force as in, since the state doesn't allow gay marriage, gay couples are forced to cohabit without the same benefits afforded hetero couples. That's not to say anyone is forcing gay people to live together... but if they choose to cohabit, then they are forced to do so without typical marriage benefits.

In my questions, I'm only concerned with the moral principles upon which you justify allowing gay couples to marry and avail themselves of the same benefits afforded hetero couples who marry.

Moral principles?
How about equal rights?

Seriously, you better be getting to a point.

How about an explanation rather than platitudes and demands?

You can say equal rights all you want but that doesn't tell anyone anything about how you derive those rights, who they apply to or why you think they should be applied. Your argument is becoming circular, in that you seem to be claiming equal rights based on the fact that you should have equal rights. I get that and I agree that we should all have equal rights but you have yet to establish a valid reason for why those rights should or should not exist.

You're arguing for equal rights. There must be a moral principle behind that argument, otherwise it's merely a personal preference to which no one else should oblige themselves deference.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 12:46 PM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(28-04-2013 12:41 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 12:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Moral principles?
How about equal rights?

Seriously, you better be getting to a point.

How about an explanation rather than platitudes and demands?

You can say equal rights all you want but that doesn't tell anyone anything about how you derive those rights, who they apply to or why you think they should be applied. Your argument is becoming circular, in that you seem to be claiming equal rights based on the fact that you should have equal rights. I get that and I agree that we should all have equal rights but you have yet to establish a valid reason for why those rights should or should not exist.

You're arguing for equal rights. There must be a moral principle behind that argument, otherwise it's merely a personal preference to which no one else should oblige themselves deference.

Explanation, good idea, like what this has to do with the topics at hand?

I'm playing the "I don't want to take this thread off topic" card.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: