Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#452 Nov 17 2011 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,860 posts
The only way to remove intergovernmental debt is via tax increases or program spending cuts. The only difference between the two debt types is that you are paying interest on the non-intergovernmental debt via intragovermental loans or public treasury bond offerings. They both count as debt to the public, and the "zeroing out process" is Gbaji speak for cuts to programs because he is politically motivated to not speak about these processes like an adult and purposefully obfuscate our options in a structural manner.

I'd say he is maliciously lying, but honestly, he's not really smart enough to do that, rather it's much more likely that he's acting as a courier for someone else's agenda.

Edited, Nov 17th 2011 11:14am by Timelordwho
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#453 Nov 17 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,066 posts
I'm not surprised at Gbaji. Not any more, anyway.

I believe the technical term is bloviating. If you insist long and loud enough and with enough confidence, someone out there will eventually believe you.

Edited, Nov 17th 2011 1:46pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#454 Nov 17 2011 at 12:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
Quote:
10:44 a.m.: Protesters have broken up into smaller groups, where they are getting legal advice and hatching their strategy for the rest of the day. If they are barred from entering a bank, they plan to wait outside until the doors open. They will then enter the bank and wait to be arrested.


Not sure what to make of that, other than it'll be an interesting day around these parts. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#455 Nov 17 2011 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
catwho wrote:
I believe the technical term is bloviating. If you insist long and loud enough and with enough confidence, someone out there will eventually believe you.

Relevant Link
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#456varusword75, Posted: Nov 17 2011 at 12:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) cat,
#457 Nov 17 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
varusword75 wrote:
cat,

Quote:
I believe the technical term is bloviating. If you insist long and loud enough and with enough confidence, someone out there will eventually believe you.


Yeah we know. That's how Obama got elected in the first place.



Thats how all politicians get elected its called recycling rhetoric. You say things enough time people believe it. This is what every politician does, the ones who win just happen to be the best at it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#458 Nov 17 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Technogeek wrote:
I almost feel sorry for Gbaji. Apparently his whole world revolves around the profit motive. There's no room in his life for a social conscious. You live in a small and petty place there Gbaji.


That's a hell of a leap to make based on someone simply pointing out the difference between public debt and intergovernmental debt. Nice job jumping to the ad hominum though!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#459 Nov 17 2011 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
That's how Obama got elected in the first place.
That's why you're pissed at him, huh? You do the same thing and all you've accomplished is living in a single wide trailer lying about your athleticism. Or are you going to tell us again just how amazing you were against a team that was 9-18 for that year?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#460 Nov 17 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
I almost feel sorry for Gbaji. Apparently his whole world revolves around the profit motive. There's no room in his life for a social conscious. You live in a small and petty place there Gbaji.


That's a hell of a leap to make based on someone simply pointing out the difference between public debt and intergovernmental debt. Nice job jumping to the ad hominum though!


It's not ad hominum if it's at the core of the discussion at hand and true. You ultimately value a free market way more than you do universal well being. Is that not true? I mean, you DO think that things like health care, food, housing and utilities are privileges, rather than rights--no?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#461 Nov 17 2011 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
I almost feel sorry for Gbaji. Apparently his whole world revolves around the profit motive. There's no room in his life for a social conscious. You live in a small and petty place there Gbaji.


That's a hell of a leap to make based on someone simply pointing out the difference between public debt and intergovernmental debt. Nice job jumping to the ad hominum though!


Actually, it comes from years of reading your amazing drivel.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#462 Nov 17 2011 at 5:31 PM Rating: Default
2 posts
Gbaji lost me at Jboots
#463 Nov 17 2011 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
The only way to remove intergovernmental debt is via tax increases or program spending cuts.


No. This is simply, completely, and utterly false.

Quote:
The only difference between the two debt types is that you are paying interest on the non-intergovernmental debt via intragovermental loans or public treasury bond offerings.


What the hell are you talking about!? There's a lot more difference between the two than just interest rates on the debt itself. Their relative impact on bond rates for one. The degree to which one affects current economic outcomes and future, while the other affects only future. And that pesky fact that an arbitrary amount of one of those may never need to be repaid at all.

Quote:
They both count as debt to the public, and the "zeroing out process" is Gbaji speak for cuts to programs because he is politically motivated to not speak about these processes like an adult and purposefully obfuscate our options in a structural manner.



Sigh. There's no cuts involved. If Congress budgets $200M to a program for each year, and it only spends $150M each year, then each year it has an extra $50M. It will *never* spend that money, unless they invent a time machine. It didn't need that money. Congress over budgeted. It's an accounting issue. You can eliminate that "debt" instantly just by writing a bill that erases it and there's no cut to the program. You're "cutting" money you didn't need in the first place. No one is affected.


Seriously, you guys act like you've never in your life heard of this. Which, frankly, I find to be an amazing display of arrogant ignorance.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#464 Nov 17 2011 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It's not ad hominum if it's at the core of the discussion at hand and true.


It is when it's an attack on my character and in this case has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. What the hell does profit motive have to do with an assessment of the relative importance of public versus intergovernmental debt? All I'm doing here is correcting someone's misuse of the debt values in question. But instead of looking at the facts, you're ascribing motive to me and attacking me for that assumed motive.

Why not simply look at whether what I'm saying is correct?



Quote:
You ultimately value a free market way more than you do universal well being. Is that not true?


Nope. I don't believe that those things are contradictory. You do. I disagree with your preferred methodology for improving universal well being. But that's a whole different issue, isn't it?

I believe that the free market is the best route for improving the human condition. And historical patterns would seem to bear that out.

Quote:
I mean, you DO think that things like health care, food, housing and utilities are privileges, rather than rights--no?


False dilemma (again). Most of the things in this world are neither rights *nor* privileges. Your world apparently has no room for anyone actually earning anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#465 Nov 17 2011 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
thats crazy hundreds of thousands of people did this for thousands of years. Hell a lot still do it in your own country. Millions of people do this several times a year, all over the world, because people do have a natural right to food shelter and clothing. You either have a very narrow thought process, are highly selective, or have never studied human history ever. Since the dawn of man humans have always supported their community, and they still do to day. It is human nature, and a natural right for being human.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#466 Nov 17 2011 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
Quote:
I believe that the free market is the best route for improving the human condition. And historical patterns would seem to bear that out.


Smiley: dubious

Quote:
Quote:

It's not ad hominum if it's at the core of the discussion at hand and true.

It is when it's an attack on my character and in this case has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. What the hell does profit motive have to do with an assessment of the relative importance of public versus intergovernmental debt? All I'm doing here is correcting someone's misuse of the debt values in question. But instead of looking at the facts, you're ascribing motive to me and attacking me for that assumed motive.

Why not simply look at whether what I'm saying is correct?


Because that discussion is only one small part of a much bigger construct in which the motive for debt and options to eliminate it are being discussed. And acting like distinctions you are drawing are meaningful isn't fooling anyone into forgetting what we are actually talking about.

Edited, Nov 17th 2011 8:03pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#467 Nov 17 2011 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Idiggory don't you get it? If you don't work hard enough you deserve to die from disease, homelessness or starvation! Without those things as a motivator, society will collapse, because money is the only thing that motivates anyone to do anything! GAWD, don't you know anything?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#468 Nov 17 2011 at 7:33 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,829 posts
Wanting everything is the only way to go. Anything less is not worth even trying.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#469 Nov 17 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
... people do have a natural right to food shelter and clothing.


They have a right to obtain those things (ie: to not have their ability to obtain them hindered). There is no right to have them handed to you at someone else's expense.

Quote:
You either have a very narrow thought process, are highly selective, or have never studied human history ever.


That's a pretty meaningless statement, isn't it? I mean, you could level that charge at anyone who says anything you happen to disagree with. That's a pretty weak argument.

Quote:
Since the dawn of man humans have always supported their community, and they still do to day.


Sure. And they generally expected the other members of that community to participate in such things and repay them in some way, either via joint protection, production of goods, help when they need it, etc. If you'd actually studied human history, you'd know that for most of human history those who failed to contribute to communities were often ostracized, shunned, banned, killed, thrown in the front lines of the fighting with nothing but a sharp stick, and other methods too numerous to list here as a means of encouraging everyone to chip in. But you're attempting to apply the principles of rights to something that it doesn't really apply to at all.

Quote:
It is human nature, and a natural right for being human.


I'm sorry, but that's idiotic. Who's going to produce all that food and all that shelter if everyone has a right to receive it? What if everyone decides to just sit on their butts expecting that their right to those things will be fulfilled? You can't have a right to something that someone has to spend effort to make. How can you not see this? The word "right" has been so misused that today you sling it around without a clue as to why it has value and meaning.

The rights you speak of have no value. Because if we actually enforced those rights, no one would have any rights at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#470 Nov 17 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Idiggory don't you get it? If you don't work hard enough you deserve to die from disease, homelessness or starvation! Without those things as a motivator, society will collapse, because money is the only thing that motivates anyone to do anything! GAWD, don't you know anything?


Sigh. No. But disease, homelessness and starvation are the natural results if no one works to avoid them. This is true whether there's money involved or not, and has been true for the entire length of human history. The idea that part of society must work so the rest of society can sit around and claim those things as a "right" is completely absurd.


But since you mentioned it, yes, if no one actually produces food, or builds shelter, or makes medicines, the society will collapse. Again though, this has *nothing* to do with money. It has everything to do with the society having to produce enough of those things to provide for the whole. And the best way to ensure that this happens is to require that each member of society contribute to that whole. In the past, this might be some group of tribal elders passing judgment on someone who isn't pulling his weight. Today, we judge the value of contribution via money. You get paid for your labors based on how much others value those labors (is there a better way to do this?). You then use that payment to purchase the food, shelter, and medicine that others in the society produce as part of their labor.


Why is it fair for you to take someone else's labor without giving an equal value in return? It's funny because us free market guys are often labeled as greedy, but the real greed comes from those who want a system where such taking of others efforts is not just common, but enforced by law. Forgive me if I think that this is an absolutely moronic way to run a society *and* a terrible violation of the basic principles of liberty.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#471 Nov 17 2011 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Idiggory don't you get it? If you don't work hard enough you deserve to die from disease, homelessness or starvation! Without those things as a motivator, society will collapse, because money is the only thing that motivates anyone to do anything! GAWD, don't you know anything?


My god, it's all so CLEAR now!

And gbaji's really on a roll in the past few days. His response to this post has, once again, shows how he's even more fucking insane than I've been led to believe.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#472 Nov 17 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Weren't you the one telling me to stop with the "all or nothing BS"?

Shockingly, you can have a capitalist system with socialist programmes. They do stack up, you know.

I don't think you really understand how other systems work, at all, do you?


For arguments sake, let's say that 10% of the US population is unemployed right now. That's, 30 million people? Give or take. In your mind, is it fair that they should be homeless because they can not work, as a direct result of the free market? Do you think it is fair they should have to go without food or medical care, because they simply can not work because there are no jobs for them to work at?

I'm not talking about potential abusers or whatever else. I am asking you if you think this scenario is fair, do not (I really mean it) go off on a tangent. Be concise and direct.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#473 Nov 17 2011 at 8:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
Quote:

For arguments sake, let's say that 10% of the US population is unemployed right now. That's, 30 million people? Give or take. In your mind, is it fair that they should be homeless because they can not work, as a direct result of the free market? Do you think it is fair they should have to go without food or medical care, because they simply can not work because there are no jobs for them to work at?


Fool, this is an impossible scenario in a free market. Those guys with PhDs are just picky! They can work at McDondalds.

Sure, they'll lose their house, their car, their family, their savings, their children's futures, etc. But they can still earn their own weight and not blame a system that gave them a fair chance! It's obviously their fault they got laid off in the first place--if they had been doing all they could have, the company would have definitely seen them as an asset!
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#474 Nov 17 2011 at 8:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
Double post lolwut?

Edited, Nov 17th 2011 9:11pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#475ThiefX, Posted: Nov 17 2011 at 8:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No. No he doesn't. Just simply go back to the first page of this thread to see how he doesn't get it. That him and Catwho and the rest of the "useful idiots" don't get it.
#476 Nov 17 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
Oh good, ThiefX is here now. That always makes conversation more intelligent.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#477 Nov 17 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
I know he won't answer the question in the manner I've asked him to. Gbaji should be a politician, he uses a lot of words to not actually say anything.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#478 Nov 17 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Weren't you the one telling me to stop with the "all or nothing BS"?


Yup. So saying you must work super hard or DIE!!! would be a great example.

Quote:
Shockingly, you can have a capitalist system with socialist programmes. They do stack up, you know.


Equally shocking, you can also provide food and shelter and even medicine to people without them having a right which forces you to do so. You do get that I have not said it's wrong to help other people out at all. My issue is when people label that help a right.

Quote:
I don't think you really understand how other systems work, at all, do you?


Of course I do. But that kinda doesn't have anything to do with the idea that while it's nice to help those in need, it's a bad idea for a society to adopt a system in which those needs must be provided for by law. It leads to lazy snots running around in parks insisting that they have the right to force other people to pay for whatever they want. Free education is a right too? How far does this train get from the station before you realize it's headed over a cliff?


Quote:
For arguments sake, let's say that 10% of the US population is unemployed right now. That's, 30 million people? Give or take. In your mind, is it fair that they should be homeless because they can not work, as a direct result of the free market?


How about we lay off the assumptions about why they can't work, ok? The issue isn't with whether we can provide for those people who are in need, but with whether they have a "right" to have that help provided. I get that this is a subtle point which might just fly right over some people's heads, but I think *why* we do something is just as important as *what* we do.

Quote:
Do you think it is fair they should have to go without food or medical care, because they simply can not work because there are no jobs for them to work at?


Of course it's "fair". That sucks, but that's nature. Is it fair that the slow guy gets eaten by the lion? Is it fair if an entire village starves because of a drought? It's not about fair. The problem is that we've lived in a western world with plenty for so many generations that we have forgotten that the natural world usually sucks. Bad things happen. The fact that we're able to prevent those bad things from happening for most people most of the time is a wonderful thing.


But let's not pretend that anyone has a right to have those things. You earn what you have in life. That's "fair". The fair result would be for the person who doesn't work to starve to death. But fortunately for most people, we don't apply rigid rules of fairness. We give people breaks. We help them out when they are in need. You have this assumption that if we don't do this because it's a right, that we wouldn't do it at all. I challenge that assumption. I believe we can and do help people, but not because they have a right to make us do it, but because it's the right thing to do.


You honestly assume that me saying that no one has a right to force me to provide them free food and shelter means I'm not willing to do it anyway? You have really failed to understand me then.

Quote:
I'm not talking about potential abusers or whatever else. I am asking you if you think this scenario is fair, do not (I really mean it) go off on a tangent. Be concise and direct.



Again, I suspect you are conflating "fair" with "a good outcome". They aren't the same thing. Fair means that the rules are applied equally for everyone. So if I must earn my food, so must everyone else. It's "unfair" to provide free food for those who are hungry, and housing for those who are homeless and medicine for those who are sick but can't afford it. But that doesn't mean that we can't be unfair to people in this way. And morally, we *should* be. But that's a choice we make. It should never be an expectation of the recipient.

Edited, Nov 17th 2011 6:25pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#479 Nov 17 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
gbaji wrote:
And the best way to ensure that this happens is to require that each member of society contribute to that whole.

Communist!!
#480 Nov 17 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
ThiefX wrote:
the rest of the "useful idiots" don't get it.
It's a shame you're not even useful as an idiot, varus2.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#481 Nov 17 2011 at 8:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And the best way to ensure that this happens is to require that each member of society contribute to that whole.

Communist!!


Every society finds a way to apply that principle Joph. Communism inevitably requires an authoritarian government which assigns people work to do and provides for their needs in return. A liberalist system allows people to control their own destinies, whether good or bad. This does mean that people operate without a safety net. The plus side though is that people tend to work harder when they know that they'll get to enjoy the fruits of their labors instead of it being consumed into some kind of collective set of resources. The result is that more people actually produce sufficient goods and services to provide not just for their own livelihood, but much more. This means that private citizens, instead of an authoritarian government may choose to help out those who aren't able to succeed for one reason or another and have the means to do so.

Now, we may choose to use government programs to do this, or rely on private charitable giving (or, more often a combination of both). But it's wrong to claim that anyone has a right to receive that assistance. The very concept of what a right is just doesn't apply to that at all.

Edited, Nov 17th 2011 6:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#482 Nov 17 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolwut?

'Tard.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#483 Nov 17 2011 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yup. So saying you must work super hard or DIE!!! would be a great example.
That's what you said, though. That's what your argument always is. "If circumstances prevent you from earning enough to feed yourself, tough shit you can die". That sums it up, right?



gbaji wrote:
Equally shocking, you can also provide food and shelter and even medicine to people without them having a right which forces you to do so. You do get that I have not said it's wrong to help other people out at all. My issue is when people label that help a right.
Name them. Excluding charity. Smiley: grin



gbaji wrote:
Of course I do. But that kinda doesn't have anything to do with the idea that while it's nice to help those in need, it's a bad idea for a society to adopt a system in which those needs must be provided for by law. It leads to lazy snots running around in parks insisting that they have the right to force other people to pay for whatever they want. Free education is a right too? How far does this train get from the station before you realize it's headed over a cliff?
So? You can put measures in place to prevent abuses. They don't always work, but neither do any laws or preventative measures. And yes, free primary and secondary education is a right. As far as higher education, it shouldn't be free but it should be subsidised, as those with degrees will almost always pay more back in extra taxes than the subsidy will ever amount to.


gbaji wrote:
How about we lay off the assumptions about why they can't work, ok? The issue isn't with whether we can provide for those people who are in need, but with whether they have a "right" to have that help provided. I get that this is a subtle point which might just fly right over some people's heads, but I think *why* we do something is just as important as *what* we do.
No, I ask asking a specific question. The free market is directly responsible for the global economic crisis. Regulation should have been in place and it would have prevented things being this severe. You're delusional if you think otherwise.



gbaji wrote:
Of course it's "fair". That sucks, but that's nature. Is it fair that the slow guy gets eaten by the lion? Is it fair if an entire village starves because of a drought? It's not about fair. The problem is that we've lived in a western world with plenty for so many generations that we have forgotten that the natural world usually sucks. Bad things happen. The fact that we're able to prevent those bad things from happening for most people most of the time is a wonderful thing.
Mhm, and the problem is if everyone weren't concerned so much with the "I've gotta get mine" mentality that a capitalist society breeds, we could end world hunger in a matter of years. C'est la vie.


gbaji wrote:
But let's not pretend that anyone has a right to have those things. You earn what you have in life. That's "fair". The fair result would be for the person who doesn't work to starve to death. But fortunately for most people, we don't apply rigid rules of fairness. We give people breaks. We help them out when they are in need. You have this assumption that if we don't do this because it's a right, that we wouldn't do it at all. I challenge that assumption. I believe we can and do help people, but not because they have a right to make us do it, but because it's the right thing to do.
That's where we differ. I'd probably give you a sandwich if you were starving. You'd look me in the eye while you munched down on yours, insisting that it was fair because you'd got a better lot in life than I had.


gbaji wrote:
You honestly assume that me saying that no one has a right to force me to provide them free food and shelter means I'm not willing to do it anyway? You have really failed to understand me then.
If you're going to do it any way, I don't see the problem with it being official legislation. Besides, we've been over this before, you're not being forced to do anything. Your taxes are being utilised for the benefit of your society as a whole.




gbaji wrote:
Again, I suspect you are conflating "fair" with "a good outcome". They aren't the same thing. Fair means that the rules are applied equally for everyone. So if I must earn my food, so must everyone else. It's "unfair" to provide free food for those who are hungry, and housing for those who are homeless and medicine for those who are sick but can't afford it. But that doesn't mean that we can't be unfair to people in this way. And morally, we *should* be. But that's a choice we make. It should never be an expectation of the recipient.

I define fair as the best outcome for the maximum number of people. So yes, you could say I'm conflating the two terms. That makes me a good person, though, so it's fine.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#484 Nov 17 2011 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
Every society finds a way to apply that principle


and in my capitalist society we provide food shelter clothing medical care to anyone. Every citizen in Canada has a right to free health care, they have a right to affordable housing, they have a right to procurring food. They have a right to basic life necessities. The people of this country pay for all of it via taxes or charity.

Those are all basic rights, at least in my country, and surprisingly most other capitalist nations as well. Including yours.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#485 Nov 17 2011 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And the best way to ensure that this happens is to require that each member of society contribute to that whole.

Communist!!


Every society finds a way to apply that principle Joph.

I think Flea's gonna have a problem with this.
#486 Nov 17 2011 at 9:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Nilatai wrote:
That's what you said, though. That's what your argument always is. "If circumstances prevent you from earning enough to feed yourself, tough shit you can die". That sums it up, right?


No. I said that if you cannot earn enough to feed yourself, you cannot demand that others provide food for you by claiming it as a right. That's not the same thing. Whether you die or not depends on your ability to ask people to help you and their willingness to do so. And guess what? We're usually pretty darn willing to help those in need. But, as I said before, not because they have a right to that help, but because it's the right thing to do.

Shocking concept. Too bad it's being lost somewhere along the line with a growing sense of entitlement.


Quote:
And yes, free primary and secondary education is a right.


You honestly don't know what a right is? I'll give you a hint: Those aren't rights. They're benefits. They are nice things we agree to provide for people. Sigh...

Quote:
Mhm, and the problem is if everyone weren't concerned so much with the "I've gotta get mine" mentality that a capitalist society breeds, we could end world hunger in a matter of years. C'est la vie.


Without the profit motive generated by allowing people to keep what they earn, we wouldn't be able to afford to end world hunger. Bit of a catch-22, isn't it?

Quote:
That's where we differ. I'd probably give you a sandwich if you were starving. You'd look me in the eye while you munched down on yours, insisting that it was fair because you'd got a better lot in life than I had.


Interesting that you assume that. Wrong, but interesting. You are aware that charitable giving is pretty directly proportional to how capitalistic the society is, right? So it's really more like the opposite of what you say. See, because in societies with social safety nets, you'd walk right past a hungry person because you pay your taxes and they could always get government help if they needed it. The systems you prefer foster a lack of care about our fellow human beings. Those who promote them always claim that they do so with the best intentions to help the poor and the needy, but those systems often just give us an excuse to *not* help others out. We've abrogated our responsibility to our fellow man to the government. We paid our money and are absolved of having to take further action.


You think the OWS folks care a hell of a lot about their fellow man? They're some of the least respectful and caring people I've seen. Selfish twits really. But they're what socialism breeds.


Quote:
If you're going to do it any way, I don't see the problem with it being official legislation. Besides, we've been over this before, you're not being forced to do anything. Your taxes are being utilised for the benefit of your society as a whole.


If I'm going to do it anyway, then there's no need for the legislation, isn't there? Why the hard on for big government to do everything for you? Some of us prefer to take responsibility for our own lives, our own decisions, our own actions, and our own outcomes. And yes, that includes the right to choose for ourselves when we help people in need and what form that help takes (and yes, that's a actual right).

Quote:
I define fair as the best outcome for the maximum number of people. So yes, you could say I'm conflating the two terms. That makes me a good person, though, so it's fine.


You're kidding right? Um... That's not what fair means. I get that you want it to mean that, so that you can use a word which means something else, and which has weight attached to it to support a completely different argument, but that's kinda ridiculous isn't it? Why use the word at all if you know that's not what it means?

You do know that's not what it means, right? And it doesn't make you a good person to misuse a word. It makes you a dishonest person.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#487 Nov 17 2011 at 9:33 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Every society finds a way to apply that principle


and in my capitalist society we provide food shelter clothing medical care to anyone. Every citizen in Canada has a right to free health care, they have a right to affordable housing, they have a right to procurring food. They have a right to basic life necessities. The people of this country pay for all of it via taxes or charity.

Those are all basic rights, at least in my country, and surprisingly most other capitalist nations as well. Including yours.


You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#488 Nov 17 2011 at 9:35 PM Rating: Good
******
43,122 posts
If you're going to meme, meme right. Smiley: mad
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#489 Nov 18 2011 at 1:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Rights are a societal construct. They are not the same as what you are referring to when you use the word liberty Gbaji.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#490 Nov 18 2011 at 2:44 AM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
No. I said that if you cannot earn enough to feed yourself, you cannot demand that others provide food for you by claiming it as a right. That's not the same thing. Whether you die or not depends on your ability to ask people to help you and their willingness to do so. And guess what? We're usually pretty darn willing to help those in need. But, as I said before, not because they have a right to that help, but because it's the right thing to do.

Shocking concept. Too bad it's being lost somewhere along the line with a growing sense of entitlement.
Who is demanding. I'm saying you have a responsibility, not that the other person has the right to demand something. You have the responsibility and quite frankly you should be happy to do it. Which apparently you are. So, if you're going


gbaji wrote:
You honestly don't know what a right is? I'll give you a hint: Those aren't rights. They're benefits. They are nice things we agree to provide for people. Sigh...
You not being a surf is a benefit. There's nothing intrinsic in human nature that stops us from dominating one another like other primates do.


gbaji wrote:
Without the profit motive generated by allowing people to keep what they earn, we wouldn't be able to afford to end world hunger. Bit of a catch-22, isn't it?
Any idea on the raw amount of food which is wasted every year because it's not paid for by consumers? Here's a hint: More than enough to feed everyone in the world. So no, not a catch-22 at all.


gbaji wrote:
Interesting that you assume that. Wrong, but interesting. You are aware that charitable giving is pretty directly proportional to how capitalistic the society is, right? So it's really more like the opposite of what you say. See, because in societies with social safety nets, you'd walk right past a hungry person because you pay your taxes and they could always get government help if they needed it. The systems you prefer foster a lack of care about our fellow human beings. Those who promote them always claim that they do so with the best intentions to help the poor and the needy, but those systems often just give us an excuse to *not* help others out. We've abrogated our responsibility to our fellow man to the government. We paid our money and are absolved of having to take further action.
Interesting you assume that. Would you care to provide a citation for an economic study which shows any of this? Fact is I know for a fact I've done more to help my fellow countrymen than you will ever do in your life. And you've got a good 15 year head start on me, if I remember right.


gbaji wrote:
You think the OWS folks care a hell of a lot about their fellow man? They're some of the least respectful and caring people I've seen. Selfish twits really. But they're what socialism breeds.
Your corporate shill is showing. I had figured this thread had since derailed and moved on somewhat. As far as OWS goes, I agree with a lot of what their ideals are, yes. I don't really care what they're like on a personal level. Neither do you, really. At least, you don't care that a lot of racists are republicans, because that doesn't stop you supporting the party's ideals, right?



gbaji wrote:
If I'm going to do it anyway, then there's no need for the legislation, isn't there? Why the hard on for big government to do everything for you? Some of us prefer to take responsibility for our own lives, our own decisions, our own actions, and our own outcomes. And yes, that includes the right to choose for ourselves when we help people in need and what form that help takes (and yes, that's a actual right).
You've got every right to take responsibility for your own life, gbaji. Like I said above, it's not always possible for 100% for a population to work. There need to be safety net programmes in place to help those who can't work. As I also said above but you refused to address apparently, is the fact that other legislation can be put in place to prevent abuse of these systems. I also said they don't always work, but if you can point to any system that always works I'll be surprised.

And no, once again, "free market enterprise" does not always work. As is evident from the current global crisis. I suppose you refuse to accept that point too, eh?



gbaji wrote:
You're kidding right? Um... That's not what fair means. I get that you want it to mean that, so that you can use a word which means something else, and which has weight attached to it to support a completely different argument, but that's kinda ridiculous isn't it? Why use the word at all if you know that's not what it means?

You do know that's not what it means, right? And it doesn't make you a good person to misuse a word. It makes you a dishonest person.

Maybe your definition, but I remember one of the rules about how you debate is we're allowed to make up definitions. Besides, I like mine better. Smiley: grin
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#491 Nov 18 2011 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
I've said it before and I'll say it again, but...

Quote:
Quote:

If I'm going to do it anyway, then there's no need for the legislation, isn't there? Why the hard on for big government to do everything for you? Some of us prefer to take responsibility for our own lives, our own decisions, our own actions, and our own outcomes. And yes, that includes the right to choose for ourselves when we help people in need and what form that help takes (and yes, that's a actual right).

You've got every right to take responsibility for your own life, gbaji. Like I said above, it's not always possible for 100% for a population to work. There need to be safety net programmes in place to help those who can't work. As I also said above but you refused to address apparently, is the fact that other legislation can be put in place to prevent abuse of these systems. I also said they don't always work, but if you can point to any system that always works I'll be surprised.

And no, once again, "free market enterprise" does not always work. As is evident from the current global crisis. I suppose you refuse to accept that point too, eh?


Demanding something from your gov't and taking responsibility for your life aren't opposites. Hell, they aren't even related. As a citizen of the US, you ARE a member of the gov't. Demanding something of the gov't isn't laziness, it's being an active citizen.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#492 Nov 18 2011 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
******
43,122 posts
If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. Good night, gentlemen.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#493 Nov 18 2011 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. Good night, gentlemen.

Get outta' this thread, Mr. Scrooge.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#494 Nov 18 2011 at 2:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Rights are a societal construct. They are not the same as what you are referring to when you use the word liberty Gbaji.


It's a wordplay trap though. If we accept the use of rights as mere social construct (ie: whatever things we think people should have at a given point in time), then it should be perfectly acceptable for someone to argue that they want to infringe the "right" to free food, or housing, or medical care. But if one were to do that, you can damn well bet that the response would be shock at how someone would not care about rights (this time using the word in the liberty context).

I will go a step further and argue that this is exactly why people label sets of benefits "rights" in the first place. It's done so that anyone who disagrees can be attacked on the "you want to strip us of our rights" counter. But that argument requires that one shift from one meaning to another and is innately fallacious.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#495 Nov 18 2011 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
******
43,122 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. Good night, gentlemen.
Get outta' this thread, Mr. Scrooge.
Humbug.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#496 Nov 18 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Who is demanding. I'm saying you have a responsibility, not that the other person has the right to demand something. You have the responsibility and quite frankly you should be happy to do it. Which apparently you are.


When you call something a right, you are demanding it. Because in our society, rights are things which we're not supposed to infringe. When you defend social spending on the grounds that people have a right to food, shelter, and health care, you are demanding that others pay for it. Aren't you?

Quote:
You not being a surf is a benefit. There's nothing intrinsic in human nature that stops us from dominating one another like other primates do.


First off, it's "serf" (I'm assuming you mean "peasant" and not "waves near a shoreline"). I was like "whut?" when I read that sentence. And I think you don't understand what I'm talking about. The outcome isn't about rights or benefits. How you get there is. You are correct that if someone is dominating you and preventing you from succeeding, then that's a violation of rights and we should act to prevent that. But when you move past that and start requiring that others improve your lot in life, that act is not about protecting a right, but providing a benefit.

If someone's actions prevent you from doing something, then your rights are being infringed. It's really that simple. Taking away obstacles which prevent people from earning success themselves is a protection of rights. Giving someone some measure of success is not. It's frankly amazing to me how many people in modern western societies actually don't understand this.

Quote:
Any idea on the raw amount of food which is wasted every year because it's not paid for by consumers? Here's a hint: More than enough to feed everyone in the world. So no, not a catch-22 at all.


Yes, it is. That food wouldn't exist without a profit motive. It certainly wouldn't magically transport itself around the world to hungry people. I think you really don't understand the issue at all.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
You are aware that charitable giving is pretty directly proportional to how capitalistic the society is, right?


Interesting you assume that. Would you care to provide a citation for an economic study which shows any of this? Fact is I know for a fact I've done more to help my fellow countrymen than you will ever do in your life. And you've got a good 15 year head start on me, if I remember right.


While I suppose we could argue about the relationship between capitalism and giving, it's certainly true that the US population gives more to charity than any other nation:

here, here, and here's a longer explanation.

Remember, I was speaking about people giving money in the absence of government funded programs. My assumption is that people will give less if they believe that their taxes are already paying for food, housing, medicine, etc for those in need. So maybe it's more like an indirect relationship between social spending and private giving? At least among western nations anyway. Point being that there is a clear and massive difference between giving in the US and giving in other countries.


Why would you think otherwise? I didn't bother to provide a source for this because I honestly didn't believe anyone wasn't aware of this or would bother trying to contest it.

Quote:
Your corporate shill is showing. I had figured this thread had since derailed and moved on somewhat. As far as OWS goes, I agree with a lot of what their ideals are, yes. I don't really care what they're like on a personal level. Neither do you, really. At least, you don't care that a lot of racists are republicans, because that doesn't stop you supporting the party's ideals, right?


You're really going to try to pull that? How about we compare the condemnation of racism at Tea Party events to condemnation of violence and antisemitism at OWS events? You're tossing out an unfair stereotype that is not true about conservatives while ignoring very real and blatant violence and hate speech going on by the liberal activists. But that really doesn't surprise me.



Quote:
You've got every right to take responsibility for your own life, gbaji. Like I said above, it's not always possible for 100% for a population to work. There need to be safety net programmes in place to help those who can't work.


Which is a benefit for those people, not a right. The moment you say those people have a right to those programs, you are requiring that the rest of us pay for them instead of asking us to do so out of the goodness of our hearts. That's the distinction I really think you don't understand.

Quote:
-As I also said above but you refused to address apparently, is the fact that other legislation can be put in place to prevent abuse of these systems. I also said they don't always work, but if you can point to any system that always works I'll be surprised.


I didn't address this because it doesn't address my issue. I'm not saying we *can't* provide for those in need. I disagree with arguments saying that we should do so because those in need have a "right" to the assistance. It's the rhetoric used to argue for it that is wrong.

Quote:
And no, once again, "free market enterprise" does not always work. As is evident from the current global crisis. I suppose you refuse to accept that point too, eh?


Of course. The current global crisis did not result from a free market. While I freely admit that this is more complex than simplistic labels like "free market", it's a pretty easy argument to make that if the US government hadn't been involved in bundling subprime loans on the market at ever increasing rates in order to fulfill the very sort of social assistance goals that you praise, and had not in fact created significant leverage on banks to buy those securities on the back end, and then acted to shield the entities involved in doing this (fanny and freddie) from investigation, we would not have had a housing bubble (or at least it would not have been nearly as severe). You really could not have picked a worse example.



Quote:
Maybe your definition, but I remember one of the rules about how you debate is we're allowed to make up definitions. Besides, I like mine better. Smiley: grin


Not make up definitions, but that if there are multiple meanings for a word, you get to pick which one you're using (as long as you are consistent). But you're just making up a meaning entirely.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#497 Nov 19 2011 at 7:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:

When you call something a right, you are demanding it. Because in our society, rights are things which we're not supposed to infringe. When you defend social spending on the grounds that people have a right to food, shelter, and health care, you are demanding that others pay for it. Aren't you?
Starvation, living on the street, and dying of some disease that could have been treated vs. someone who will never have to worry about said issues getting taxed a little more. Really?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#498 Nov 19 2011 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,258 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:

When you call something a right, you are demanding it. Because in our society, rights are things which we're not supposed to infringe. When you defend social spending on the grounds that people have a right to food, shelter, and health care, you are demanding that others pay for it. Aren't you?
Starvation, living on the street, and dying of some disease that could have been treated vs. someone who will never have to worry about said issues getting taxed a little more. Really?
I don't think Gbaji sees it happening like that, though. He seems strangely idealistic in his belief that private donations will cover those.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#499 Nov 19 2011 at 8:47 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,829 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:

When you call something a right, you are demanding it. Because in our society, rights are things which we're not supposed to infringe. When you defend social spending on the grounds that people have a right to food, shelter, and health care, you are demanding that others pay for it. Aren't you?
Starvation, living on the street, and dying of some disease that could have been treated vs. someone who will never have to worry about said issues getting taxed a little more. Really?
I don't think Gbaji sees it happening like that, though. He seems strangely idealistic in his belief that private donations will cover those.

While fervently backing the capitalistic dogma of "throw everybody under the bus for a percentage point of profit gain".
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#500 Nov 19 2011 at 8:49 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
ya I <3 my socialist country.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#501 Nov 19 2011 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
ya I <3 my socialist country.
It's far from perfect. It would be better if it eventually cut the ties on a few instead of carrying them forever.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT
Bijou, stupidmonkey, valeriejocelyn48, Anonymous Guests (53)