Most of all business, big and small*, goes Republican. If I may generalize on one issue: Republicans speak for people who are in business, who employ people.. Democrats speak for people who are the recipients of their income-redistribution, vote-buying schemes.
*Not my small business, though. I vote Libertarian. The Republicans are still far too influenced by Christian zealots to have any patience for gay people like me.
How greedy is it to sit and contemplate whether you are going to have steak or lobster tonite, or whether your kids are going to a private boarding school in connecticut or massachusetts, when there are other people down the street who can barely afford to eat ramen and have no hope of going to college based on their socio-economic background?
You assume that people who can barely afford to eat are in that place due to no fault of their own. Do you really think that all poor people are victims? Do you really think that none of them are suffering the consequences of their poor decision making?
Fuck you if you're rich and don't want to pay taxes.
Thank you for being up front about it. You are not motivated by compassion, reason, or any noble virtue. You are motivated by class envy. You just hate rich people because they have stuff and you don't. But instead of figuring out how to become one of them, you would rather have the government take their money and give it to you.
At least you have money to pay taxes with.
It is my money that I worked for and I earned.
Taxing the wealthy is *not* about punishing them for being wealthy. It is about redistribution of wealth, which is a good thing.
I disagree. The government officials that favor welfare do not want people who are on welfare to get off welfare. They want welfare recipients to stay welfare recipients forever. Why? Becuase those recipients feel like the government is "taking care of them" and will keep voting for those who will continue the income-redistribution scheme. Let me put it bluntly: welfare is NOT about "helping people". It's about buying votes. Social Security is the same thing. All politicians know that old people vote in well-organized droves. It's for this reason that the "small government" Republicans and Democrats are tripping over each other to provide the better prescription drug benefit income-redistribution scheme. You can call the Republicans misguided, but you can't call them stupid. They know where the votes are.
Wealthy people do not move the economy, middle class and poor people in massive numbers do.
The middle class and poor people are looking for jobs. Who employs them?
If wealthy people pay no or little tax, they continue to get wealthy.
As if there were something wrong with this.
When wealthy people amass a fortune and do not have anything to do with it, it's called hoarding (see also "middle ages"). It stagnates the economy and stalls progress.
I think you would hate the wealthy if they didn't hoard. What if all the wealthy people started spending like crazy? You would hate them because they get to buy all that stuff that you don't get to buy. The point is, they have stuff and you don't, and you hate them for that. Class envy, pure and simple.
How is coveting other people's money greedy?
I don't believe in greed. I think it's a sign of immorality that you want money that other people worked for and earned.
I don't think that's what the poor do, sir. I think the poor covet the chance to eat, not your plasma screen TV.
Contrary to Leftist faith, "the poor" in this country are not starving. They may not get lobster and foie gras, but they are not starving.
I think sitting at the top of your world watching pay per view on your plasma screen TV while eating steak in your leather lazyboy chair is greedy.
Thanks for pointing out that the notion of "greed" is purely subjective. Would it be "greedy" to eat chicken on the leather lazyboy while watching the plasma screen TV? What if we downsize the TV to a 27 inch TV -- is that still "greedy"? What if we turn the leather lazyboy into a folding chair? Is that still "greedy"?
And who determines what my share is? Politicians! Politicians who have promised my money to someone else. This is the way they get elected: they take money from people whose votes they don't need and give it to people whose votes they do need.
Greedy is lobbying for a tax cut on your multi-million dollar income and trust fund dividends at the expense of hard-working people who struggle to make ends meet.
1. You assume that someone making a multi-million dollar income either does not deserve it. People who hate the way the market rewards some people generally lay this as an absolute, but they start waffling once the specifics start getting drawn out. Do you think that Mike Tyson gets paid too much money for fighting in televised boxing matches? Well, the entire event which will generate hundreds of millions of dollars depends on one person: Mike Tyson. So, how much should his cut be, considering that the entire event and all of the millions of dollars tied up within are 100% contingent upon his existence and cooperation? 2. Tax cuts happen at the expense of those on the receiving end of the vote-buying, income-redistribution scheme. If it is immoral for those recipients to rob the wealthy, why is it moral for them to use the government to do the same thing? 3. You assume that the poor "work hard" and the rich do not. I'd like to understand your standard for what constitutes "hard" work. 4. You assume that people struggle to make ends meet due to no fault of their own. Suppose John Doe makes really poor choices in his life. Who should suffer the consequences of those choices: John Doe, or someone else (who has more money (and whose votes the politician doesn't need))?
Greed is a cornerstone of the Leftist faith. It is a completely subjective notion.
Notice how people who eat a lot of fried food get fat? That's right. Fat makes you fat. Shocking, I know, but it's true.
It would be nice if you were to actually do a study on people who ate 1. a lot of fried, non-breaded foods, verses 2. a lot of fried, breaded foods rather than relying on peoples' "noticing" things.
any fat in your poo gives you nasty diarrhea, which I'm assuming isn't an attractive solution.
Neither I nor any of my family or friends (dozens) who have been on Atkins have had this problem.
I guarantee you, if I eat 1 pound of carbs, and you eat 1 pound of fat, you will put on twice the weight as you consume (more than) twice the calories.
Likewise, nutritionists guaranteed that a low-fat diet with lots of carbs (including bread and pasta with no differentiation between "good" and "bad" carbs) would make one lose weight. This turned out to be false.
A nearly all-fat diet is bad because, while you're satisfied (fat digests slowly), you also consume massive amounts of calories.
You are beating up a strawman. Atkins is low-carb, not all-fat.
Bottom line is the Atkins diet is dangerous, containing way too much saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories from fat, and too much protein can be bad on the kidneys.
Dozens of my family and friends (myself included) have used the Atkins diet, lost weight, and suffered no ill effects, despite the dire warnings about "bad for the kidneys".
Eat a balanced diet low in simple carbs, substituting complex carbs instead, and you'll do well.
And so the story changes. Before, it was "eat a diet high in carbs, and low in fats and oils." Now, it is, "eat a diet high in complex carbs, low in simple carbs, and low in fats and oils." Sorry, but the nutritionists lost their credibility the first time around. I have to see evidence if you want me to adopt your point-of-view. Merely spouting off scary warnings about gaining weight, kidney damange, and diarrhea isn't going to cut it, particularly after I've seen so many find such wonderful success with the Atkins diet.
Furthermore, you have quite the nerve to call the previous poster "100% wrong". You have already admitted that you were at least wrong about the "simple carbs" verses the "complex carbs" thing (not that I belive your story, but you can't deny that you're backpedaling if you believed that the carb-heavy "food pyramid" was, at one time, valid).
Ohh, so you just babbled incoherently and not relating to anything in this thread.
I maintain that you were in bad form to make negative generalizations about Americans, and you have done nothing to defend or excuse your unacceptable behavior.
The fact that you are a self-proclaimed master of put-down doesn't change that.
I never claimed to be a master of the put-down. I only stated that you weren't very good at it, and that's pretty sad considering that putting others down comprises the majority of what I've seen you write thus far.
And I didn't have to dispute anything you wrote, it was undefendable from the start.
I'm asking you to either disown or defend your assholish words. I suppose you don't have to dispute anything. I suppose you don't even have to respond to me, but something tells me that you will.
It's a good thing I didn't accuse you of of doing so.
Maybe you should learn to read?
Maybe you should learn the art of the put-down, as yours aren't very good. But I would rather you learn the art of polite discourse. It would make you more friends and lead you to a happier life.
I notice the fact that you disputed nothing I wrote (disputing your own inference does not count), particularly that your behavior was in poor form.
Sorry, I don't believe you. You talk like a kid, you argue like a kid, when seeing my slashdot id you commented, "Wow, you must be old!" or something like that. Grown-ups don't talk like that.
and i pay 40% of my income to the government - probably a little more taxes than you'll ever pay.
Dick-sizing contests like this are also the realm of the immature and inexperienced.
i don't feel like arguing with someone who can't think about things from the right perspective. you obviously are not happy about anything because you need someone or something to blame your problems on.
That was an easy way for you to dismiss me, wasn't it? Now you don't have to answer all those tough questions!
someone as educated as yourself should understand that we give up certain freedoms for protection
Not only do I understand that, but I also understand that neither the motivation nor the result of giving up freedom is protection. The government has promised that it would protect the populace from the "sourge of drugs" and has murdered and maimed innocent people in botched no-knock raids, stolen property from innocent people (in spite of the 4th amendment) through confiscations, ruined people's chances at careers through punitive measures for petty drug infractions, and filled our prisons to overflowing in practically every state through mandantory minimum sentencing laws. And guess what? None of this has worked at all! People have been buying, selling, producting, posessing, and using drugs constantly for decades! So, I'm wondering, what makes you think that a government than can't keep drugs out of prisons is going to good job at keeping terrorists out of our country?
i'd like to hear what you think about an anarchy after you've spent a few years living under one.
If you go back a few posts you'll see where I listed the legitimate functions of government. How can I believe in anarchy if I believe that there are legitimate functions of government?
Odd, I didn't see you complain about the french being called arrogant.
As if that excused your immature and wrong-headed behavior. Calling the French arrogant is as wrong as calling the Americans arrogant or any group any kind of adjective. Gross generalizations like the one you committed build walls rather than bridges.
1. You sarcastically called me a "genius" (#6480922) 2. You lied about your age (#6480922) 3. You called me "buddy" in an antagonistic manner (#6478801) 4. You ignored points and dodged questions (practially all of your responses) 5. You made ridiculous demands as condition for victory, as if this were about "winning" (#6475226) 6. You started a sentence with "look", as if I were a person who was merely being difficult or obtuse (#6473391) 7. You wrote that you hated people like me (#6468308) 8. You stated that I was not smart enough why you would hate people like me (#6468308) 9. You called me a "freaking idiot" (#6468308)
but all i've done is probably call you an idiot, which is true if you're against all government.
Why should I put any value in what you consider to be an idiot? You have demonstrated your difficulty with using capitalization and punctuation in every single one of your posts.
which is exactly why you should be happy about the current government in the USA! (or you should move to GB if you're worried about the death penalty). Spend a few years in any country in africa, any country in south america, and then tell me what you think about the United States. Or even better - get a time machine, go back to the 1930's and 1940's and spend 5 years in the Soviet Union - then tell me what you think of the US.
I'd much rather try and get people interested in freedom and minimizing the power of government. The way things are going here, I might as well move to Europe in a few years. At least then I would have pretty castles (instead of strip malls) to look at while the government taxes the living shit out of me.
I'm guessing you don't know much about paying taxes.
You may not think you have any musical ability or inclination, but you're probably selling yourself short. And if you must, then don't sell the rest of the world short with you.
If people like it they'll listen to it. Your opinion is irrelevant.
We would all appreciate food without McDonalds, we would have commerce without Walmart, and we will have amazing music without the RIAA.
As if we needed you here to tell us what we all would appreciate and could do without.
ok, my opinion is this: not everything the government does is for individual gain. i think they do, actually try to serve the public, because if they serve the public they get a better image and they're likely to get reappointed/elected/whatever.
Lots of government people believe that they actually can do some good by "serving" in the government. This assumes that the only way to enact good is to force people to obey your will with the deadly power of government. Remember, government is the only entity that retains the legal right to use deadly force to acheive its goals. So even at the most noble, doing good by means of the government is bad.
you did mention how bill clinton did something to abuse his power, so i'll give you a break since you're not only anti-the-current-government (even if you were just using that as an example to show how the current government can still be abusing power).
I am against ALL government. Whatever government does, it does poorly. Its only legitimate functions are legislating against actions which deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property, and also defending the borders.
My sister, who lives in the UK, recently talked to another who attended an English university to study political science. My sister asked her what kinds of governments they studied. The former student replied, "Oh, all the major ones. Socialism, communism, fascism." My sister asked if they studied democracy, and the reply was, "No, we really didn't study that." It highlights to me what political science is: using the government to control and rule by force. Having the government butt out and let the people do as they best see fit is, apparently, unthinkable to the intellegigencia in politics, who think they are smarter than everyone else and thus retain the right to impose their will on everyone through force.
I'll add here that more people have been killed by their own governments than any other cause (disease, famine, etc.) in the world.
and i've had enough of this debate... i've been on drugs for a few days (surgery) so i can't think straight and i have a hard time remembering what we're arguing about.. so yeah...
You have been inexcusably rude to me throughout the conversation. Should I blame that on the drugs as well, or will I get an apology from you?
Of course HIV != AIDS. They're completely different things. You cannot give AIDS to someone else, you can only transmit HIV, which is the virus (which is what the V in HIV stands for). AIDS, which is a syndrome (ditto for the S),
Do you think that merely preaching the dogma again is going to convince me of its truth?
The interesting thing is that there are some people who do not suffer from AIDS, even though they are HIV carriers.
They could be false-positives, right? Just how accurate is the HIV test? Remember, neither test can detect the presence of HIV, they detect antibodies which scientists somehow magically know mean the presense of HIV. HIV has never been isolated, and the drugs that "treat" AIDS are always lethal.
AIDS is punishment for not believing the earth is flat.
This kind of childish ad hominem is very typical of those who are really upset with my blasphemy (namely, HIV != AIDS). I notice your failure to address any of my points.
local law enforcement is part of the executive branch, so the word "and" is misued here, genius.
And yet, somehow, local pricipalities make laws independantly of Washington's whim. It's seems that the "part of" you use needs more explanation.
i'm 38 years old and live with my wife and 3 children.
After you graduate from high school, you'll realize that you actually don't know everything in there is to know about life. Your opinions are highly biased by your inexperience, but I don't think you're going to know that until you, well, have more experience.:)
the reason we have laws is for people to obey them.
The reasons behind laws are much more complicated than that. If obedience is the only reason behind legislation, then any law (such as a law against breathing) is justified.
it's the government's JOB to get people to obey the laws.
Actually, it's the job of the executive branch and local law enforcement. What is this supposed to show?
today there aren't many major differences between illegal and immoral
This is opinion, not fact. There are lots of immoral laws on the books.
I asked once, you dodged it. Let me ask again: How old are you, and with whom do you live?
Altough to mention most geeks are not very talented in the arts of PASSIVE resistence like your citate from ghandí.
I disagree! The most passive (and perhaps most effective) form of resistance against Microsoft is simply to not use their software, and that seems to be very popular among geeks nowadays.
And you think MS got to where they are today by losing fights?
This time, Microsoft's enemy is not playing by Microsoft's rules. Why do you think Microsoft is portrying Linux as "communist" and "intellectual-property destroying"? It's the equivalent of a child screaming "Not fair!" to his parents. I know that's what so many of Microsoft's competitors have been saying about Microsoft for so many years. I wonder what it feels like for Microsoft to be on the other side of that complain-a-thon.
(I know I'm raising necessarily-flawed analogies left and right -- I'm just making conversation, not necessarily trying to be convincing.)
it's definitely POSSIBLE that ONE OR TWO dishonest people in the government could benefit from this, but it will NEVER happen.
If you'll admit to one or two, then why not three or four? The people in the government are fallible humans, not infallible angels.
the average FBI job is fulltime, buddy.
This is a meaningless statement. Does it imply that the non-average FBI job could not be fulltime? Does it imply that FBI agents are too busy to abuse their power?
you said that the ENTIRE government used this as an excuse
I argued no such thing. The word "entire" is a word that you inserted.
now how could everyone in the government benefit from this? answer: they can't. it's a reason, not an excuse.
People in the government have been arguing for increased surveillance of the citizenry for decades. Decades before 9/11. I have no doubt that there are many government officials (Poindexter, for instance) who are outright pleased that the events of 9/11 have paved the way for their grand surveillance schemes.
as long as it's the FBI doing the enroaching, yes. if someone's doing something illegal - they deserve to get caught.
Here you are implying that illegal things are always wrong and always deserving of punishment, and that the FBI is always right to look for illegal things. I hate to break this to you, but illegal does not imply immoral. It used to be illegal in this country for black people to vote. It used to be illegal (unconstitutional, even) for people in this country to posses alcohol. It used to be illegal in this country to teach evolution in government schools. If you want to look in other countries, the situation is much, much worse! It was illegal in Nazi Germany for Jews to live outside of the ghetto (later, in concentration camps or even live at all). In Cambodia, it was illegal to be educated (and you were executed for it). (Do you know what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia?) In China, it's illegal to belong to any church that the government cannot control.
i wouldn't mind if someone i didn't know and was never gonna talk to in my entire life was watching me 24/7 because i'm not doing anything illegal.
Which is scarier, an allegedly "epidemic" disease with a handful of sufferers, or an imaginary disease for which its sufferers are compelled to pay for lethal treatments? Answer me this: does AZT prolong life? If you answer "yes" then your voice will be mighty lonely among the medical community, yet this lethal drug (which was shelved decades ago due to its toxicity) was given as the one and only "AIDS treatment" to thousands of sufferers. How do you know that those sufferers did not die of AZT poisoning?
In some African countries, some people don't believe in HIV neither, and their contamination rate is 25%.
And how does anyone know what the contamination rate is? Has 100% of the populace been tested by either of the "HIV tests"? Of course not. All of these scary HIV statistics from Africa are projections which are having their desired effect: money is pouring into African nations.
And don't tell they are dying from medecine. They don't have the money to buy it.
They are dying from starvation and other diseases. Most of all doctors will admit that malnutrition leads to immune deficiency. Poverty is rampant in African nations and almost always yields malnutrition.
lots of PEOPLE find themselves targetted by IRS audits.
Of course. Do you agree with me that Bill Clinton abused government power for personal gain in spite of our country's being a constitutional republic?
you can't do it all day, you have yet to come up with a single valid example.
Except that I did. Read on.
you especially have not explained your original argument about the current government. i'm not the one who needs to support my claim, you are.
Are you referring to my "terrorism is the excuse, not the reason" comment?
that's like telling someone to support the fact that they did NOT kill someone. NO, the other people have to support the fact that they DID kill someone.
I reject all analogies as invalid.
and to clarify since you're obviously realizing that you're wrong so you're changing the subject,
I am not changing the subject; instead, I was giving a concrete example because I didn't think you were going to be willing enough to accept why your demanding of a concrete example in the other case was flawed, nor were you going to be willing enough to realize how damaging my point was to your argument. But since you're being "that way" about it (and have yet to admit that individuals will use government power for personal gain, as shown by Bill Clinton's abuse of IRS audits), here it is:
I argued that the FBI has greater ability to abuse their wiretap abilities since the check of requiring a judge's approval had been removed. You demanded that I show you an FBI agent who had abused his wiretap privileges. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that no FBI agent would or could abuse his wiretap privileges, with or without judicial approval, and that is a point that you cannot prove. Furthermore, your reasoning as to why a constitutional republic was immune from abuse was this: "we live in a democratic republic, and groups of people make decisions, not just one". Here, through the PATRIOT act, it's no longer "groups of people" making a decision about a wiretap; Now it can be just one! I suppose that if I could find an FBI agent who had abused his wiretap privileges then it would be gravy, but guess what? All FBI investigations are kept secret! Certainly you can see how this is ripe for abuse as well.
please explain to me what the government gains by being able to monitor certain people more closely. yes, the government will be stronger and more powerful, but how does this benefit INDIVIDUALS.
There are lots and lots of reasons how this surveillance power can be abused for personal gain. Suppose I own some business in a city and I am also part of the government. Another non-government individual wants to engage in a business venture which I deem threatening to my business I use my spy powers to see everything that he is doing and use that to my business advantage. Do you believe that this is impossible? If so, I'd like to understand your reasoning why.
an excuse would benefit individuals, a REASON benefits a group of people, like the country
In other words, as long as someone can claim that any increased government encroachment on citizens' private lives "benefits the country" then it is justified?
find me an FBI agent who uses his wiretap abilities for personal use and i'll say you won the argument.
Here's another example: lots of Bill Clinton's political enemies found themselves targetted by IRS audits. I can come up with examples of how government officials can abuse their power for personal reasons all day long. You argued that a constitutional republic obviates corruption of this sort and have provided nothing to support this claim.
No. The original poster said that what Microsoft did was not immoral.
Yes, he argued that. He also argued that illegal does not imply immoral. From what you wrote, it seemed like you were arguing, "Since they did something illegal, I can't see how you think they did nothing immoral" (i.e., illegal implies immoral).
You are missing the point:
I think we're actually getting the point confused.
What MS did was both illegal and immoral by definition.
As if that which is "immoral" were always so cut-and-dry! Mind you, I agree that Microsoft did (and still does) immoral things. The problem I keep running into is that everyone else seems to have different ideas about what is immoral.;)
My objection is to people who regurgitate this newly discovered corporate amorality spiel. It's nothing more than a convenient cop-out for corporate management, which is trying to excuse it's unethical, immoral behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
most of big business goes Republican.
Most of all business, big and small*, goes Republican. If I may generalize on one issue: Republicans speak for people who are in business, who employ people.. Democrats speak for people who are the recipients of their income-redistribution, vote-buying schemes.
*Not my small business, though. I vote Libertarian. The Republicans are still far too influenced by Christian zealots to have any patience for gay people like me.
How greedy is it to sit and contemplate whether you are going to have steak or lobster tonite, or whether your kids are going to a private boarding school in connecticut or massachusetts, when there are other people down the street who can barely afford to eat ramen and have no hope of going to college based on their socio-economic background?
You assume that people who can barely afford to eat are in that place due to no fault of their own. Do you really think that all poor people are victims? Do you really think that none of them are suffering the consequences of their poor decision making?
Fuck you if you're rich and don't want to pay taxes.
Thank you for being up front about it. You are not motivated by compassion, reason, or any noble virtue. You are motivated by class envy. You just hate rich people because they have stuff and you don't. But instead of figuring out how to become one of them, you would rather have the government take their money and give it to you.
At least you have money to pay taxes with.
It is my money that I worked for and I earned.
Taxing the wealthy is *not* about punishing them for being wealthy. It is about redistribution of wealth, which is a good thing.
I disagree. The government officials that favor welfare do not want people who are on welfare to get off welfare. They want welfare recipients to stay welfare recipients forever. Why? Becuase those recipients feel like the government is "taking care of them" and will keep voting for those who will continue the income-redistribution scheme. Let me put it bluntly: welfare is NOT about "helping people". It's about buying votes. Social Security is the same thing. All politicians know that old people vote in well-organized droves. It's for this reason that the "small government" Republicans and Democrats are tripping over each other to provide the better prescription drug benefit income-redistribution scheme. You can call the Republicans misguided, but you can't call them stupid. They know where the votes are.
Wealthy people do not move the economy, middle class and poor people in massive numbers do.
The middle class and poor people are looking for jobs. Who employs them?
If wealthy people pay no or little tax, they continue to get wealthy.
As if there were something wrong with this.
When wealthy people amass a fortune and do not have anything to do with it, it's called hoarding (see also "middle ages"). It stagnates the economy and stalls progress.
I think you would hate the wealthy if they didn't hoard. What if all the wealthy people started spending like crazy? You would hate them because they get to buy all that stuff that you don't get to buy. The point is, they have stuff and you don't, and you hate them for that. Class envy, pure and simple.
How is coveting other people's money greedy?
I don't believe in greed. I think it's a sign of immorality that you want money that other people worked for and earned.
I don't think that's what the poor do, sir. I think the poor covet the chance to eat, not your plasma screen TV.
Contrary to Leftist faith, "the poor" in this country are not starving. They may not get lobster and foie gras, but they are not starving.
I think sitting at the top of your world watching pay per view on your plasma screen TV while eating steak in your leather lazyboy chair is greedy.
Thanks for pointing out that the notion of "greed" is purely subjective. Would it be "greedy" to eat chicken on the leather lazyboy while watching the plasma screen TV? What if we downsize the TV to a 27 inch TV -- is that still "greedy"? What if we turn the leather lazyboy into a folding chair? Is that still "greedy"?
My annual income is $7,000.
It shows.
Greedy is being unwilling to pay your share,
And who determines what my share is? Politicians! Politicians who have promised my money to someone else. This is the way they get elected: they take money from people whose votes they don't need and give it to people whose votes they do need.
Greedy is lobbying for a tax cut on your multi-million dollar income and trust fund dividends at the expense of hard-working people who struggle to make ends meet.
1. You assume that someone making a multi-million dollar income either does not deserve it. People who hate the way the market rewards some people generally lay this as an absolute, but they start waffling once the specifics start getting drawn out. Do you think that Mike Tyson gets paid too much money for fighting in televised boxing matches? Well, the entire event which will generate hundreds of millions of dollars depends on one person: Mike Tyson. So, how much should his cut be, considering that the entire event and all of the millions of dollars tied up within are 100% contingent upon his existence and cooperation?
2. Tax cuts happen at the expense of those on the receiving end of the vote-buying, income-redistribution scheme. If it is immoral for those recipients to rob the wealthy, why is it moral for them to use the government to do the same thing?
3. You assume that the poor "work hard" and the rich do not. I'd like to understand your standard for what constitutes "hard" work.
4. You assume that people struggle to make ends meet due to no fault of their own. Suppose John Doe makes really poor choices in his life. Who should suffer the consequences of those choices: John Doe, or someone else (who has more money (and whose votes the politician doesn't need))?
Greed is a cornerstone of the Leftist faith. It is a completely subjective notion.
Notice how people who eat a lot of fried food get fat? That's right. Fat makes you fat. Shocking, I know, but it's true.
It would be nice if you were to actually do a study on people who ate 1. a lot of fried, non-breaded foods, verses 2. a lot of fried, breaded foods rather than relying on peoples' "noticing" things.
any fat in your poo gives you nasty diarrhea, which I'm assuming isn't an attractive solution.
Neither I nor any of my family or friends (dozens) who have been on Atkins have had this problem.
I guarantee you, if I eat 1 pound of carbs, and you eat 1 pound of fat, you will put on twice the weight as you consume (more than) twice the calories.
Likewise, nutritionists guaranteed that a low-fat diet with lots of carbs (including bread and pasta with no differentiation between "good" and "bad" carbs) would make one lose weight. This turned out to be false.
A nearly all-fat diet is bad because, while you're satisfied (fat digests slowly), you also consume massive amounts of calories.
You are beating up a strawman. Atkins is low-carb, not all-fat.
Bottom line is the Atkins diet is dangerous, containing way too much saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories from fat, and too much protein can be bad on the kidneys.
Dozens of my family and friends (myself included) have used the Atkins diet, lost weight, and suffered no ill effects, despite the dire warnings about "bad for the kidneys".
Eat a balanced diet low in simple carbs, substituting complex carbs instead, and you'll do well.
And so the story changes. Before, it was "eat a diet high in carbs, and low in fats and oils." Now, it is, "eat a diet high in complex carbs, low in simple carbs, and low in fats and oils." Sorry, but the nutritionists lost their credibility the first time around. I have to see evidence if you want me to adopt your point-of-view. Merely spouting off scary warnings about gaining weight, kidney damange, and diarrhea isn't going to cut it, particularly after I've seen so many find such wonderful success with the Atkins diet.
Furthermore, you have quite the nerve to call the previous poster "100% wrong". You have already admitted that you were at least wrong about the "simple carbs" verses the "complex carbs" thing (not that I belive your story, but you can't deny that you're backpedaling if you believed that the carb-heavy "food pyramid" was, at one time, valid).
Ohh, so you just babbled incoherently and not relating to anything in this thread.
I maintain that you were in bad form to make negative generalizations about Americans, and you have done nothing to defend or excuse your unacceptable behavior.
The fact that you are a self-proclaimed master of put-down doesn't change that.
I never claimed to be a master of the put-down. I only stated that you weren't very good at it, and that's pretty sad considering that putting others down comprises the majority of what I've seen you write thus far.
And I didn't have to dispute anything you wrote, it was undefendable from the start.
I'm asking you to either disown or defend your assholish words. I suppose you don't have to dispute anything. I suppose you don't even have to respond to me, but something tells me that you will.
Yes, but you didnt complain until it hit yourself. It is called argumentation by example or making a point ;)
I think you have confused me with someone else. My previous post was my first post in this thread.
I hope you get it.
I doubt that hope for me ranks anywhere on your list of motivations in this discussion.
Tell me: do you agree with me that it is wrong-headed to make generalizations about other nationalities, including Americans?
I didn't call the Americans arrogant.
It's a good thing I didn't accuse you of of doing so.
Maybe you should learn to read?
Maybe you should learn the art of the put-down, as yours aren't very good. But I would rather you learn the art of polite discourse. It would make you more friends and lead you to a happier life.
I notice the fact that you disputed nothing I wrote (disputing your own inference does not count), particularly that your behavior was in poor form.
i did not lie about my age,
Sorry, I don't believe you. You talk like a kid, you argue like a kid, when seeing my slashdot id you commented, "Wow, you must be old!" or something like that. Grown-ups don't talk like that.
and i pay 40% of my income to the government - probably a little more taxes than you'll ever pay.
Dick-sizing contests like this are also the realm of the immature and inexperienced.
i don't feel like arguing with someone who can't think about things from the right perspective. you obviously are not happy about anything because you need someone or something to blame your problems on.
That was an easy way for you to dismiss me, wasn't it? Now you don't have to answer all those tough questions!
someone as educated as yourself should understand that we give up certain freedoms for protection
Not only do I understand that, but I also understand that neither the motivation nor the result of giving up freedom is protection. The government has promised that it would protect the populace from the "sourge of drugs" and has murdered and maimed innocent people in botched no-knock raids, stolen property from innocent people (in spite of the 4th amendment) through confiscations, ruined people's chances at careers through punitive measures for petty drug infractions, and filled our prisons to overflowing in practically every state through mandantory minimum sentencing laws. And guess what? None of this has worked at all! People have been buying, selling, producting, posessing, and using drugs constantly for decades! So, I'm wondering, what makes you think that a government than can't keep drugs out of prisons is going to good job at keeping terrorists out of our country?
i'd like to hear what you think about an anarchy after you've spent a few years living under one.
If you go back a few posts you'll see where I listed the legitimate functions of government. How can I believe in anarchy if I believe that there are legitimate functions of government?
Odd, I didn't see you complain about the french being called arrogant.
As if that excused your immature and wrong-headed behavior. Calling the French arrogant is as wrong as calling the Americans arrogant or any group any kind of adjective. Gross generalizations like the one you committed build walls rather than bridges.
i don't think i've been rude at all.
Going backwards:
1. You sarcastically called me a "genius" (#6480922)
2. You lied about your age (#6480922)
3. You called me "buddy" in an antagonistic manner (#6478801)
4. You ignored points and dodged questions (practially all of your responses)
5. You made ridiculous demands as condition for victory, as if this were about "winning" (#6475226)
6. You started a sentence with "look", as if I were a person who was merely being difficult or obtuse (#6473391)
7. You wrote that you hated people like me (#6468308)
8. You stated that I was not smart enough why you would hate people like me (#6468308)
9. You called me a "freaking idiot" (#6468308)
but all i've done is probably call you an idiot, which is true if you're against all government.
Why should I put any value in what you consider to be an idiot? You have demonstrated your difficulty with using capitalization and punctuation in every single one of your posts.
which is exactly why you should be happy about the current government in the USA! (or you should move to GB if you're worried about the death penalty). Spend a few years in any country in africa, any country in south america, and then tell me what you think about the United States. Or even better - get a time machine, go back to the 1930's and 1940's and spend 5 years in the Soviet Union - then tell me what you think of the US.
I'd much rather try and get people interested in freedom and minimizing the power of government. The way things are going here, I might as well move to Europe in a few years. At least then I would have pretty castles (instead of strip malls) to look at while the government taxes the living shit out of me.
I'm guessing you don't know much about paying taxes.
You may not think you have any musical ability or inclination, but you're probably selling yourself short. And if you must, then don't sell the rest of the world short with you.
If people like it they'll listen to it. Your opinion is irrelevant.
We would all appreciate food without McDonalds, we would have commerce without Walmart, and we will have amazing music without the RIAA.
As if we needed you here to tell us what we all would appreciate and could do without.
No, vaccination is the biggest medical fraud in human history. HIV==AIDS is only the second biggest.
I am interested in your argument. Please share!
ok, my opinion is this: not everything the government does is for individual gain. i think they do, actually try to serve the public, because if they serve the public they get a better image and they're likely to get reappointed/elected/whatever.
Lots of government people believe that they actually can do some good by "serving" in the government. This assumes that the only way to enact good is to force people to obey your will with the deadly power of government. Remember, government is the only entity that retains the legal right to use deadly force to acheive its goals. So even at the most noble, doing good by means of the government is bad.
you did mention how bill clinton did something to abuse his power, so i'll give you a break since you're not only anti-the-current-government (even if you were just using that as an example to show how the current government can still be abusing power).
I am against ALL government. Whatever government does, it does poorly. Its only legitimate functions are legislating against actions which deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property, and also defending the borders.
My sister, who lives in the UK, recently talked to another who attended an English university to study political science. My sister asked her what kinds of governments they studied. The former student replied, "Oh, all the major ones. Socialism, communism, fascism." My sister asked if they studied democracy, and the reply was, "No, we really didn't study that." It highlights to me what political science is: using the government to control and rule by force. Having the government butt out and let the people do as they best see fit is, apparently, unthinkable to the intellegigencia in politics, who think they are smarter than everyone else and thus retain the right to impose their will on everyone through force.
I'll add here that more people have been killed by their own governments than any other cause (disease, famine, etc.) in the world.
and i've had enough of this debate... i've been on drugs for a few days (surgery) so i can't think straight and i have a hard time remembering what we're arguing about.. so yeah...
You have been inexcusably rude to me throughout the conversation. Should I blame that on the drugs as well, or will I get an apology from you?
Of course HIV != AIDS. They're completely different things. You cannot give AIDS to someone else, you can only transmit HIV, which is the virus (which is what the V in HIV stands for). AIDS, which is a syndrome (ditto for the S),
Do you think that merely preaching the dogma again is going to convince me of its truth?
The interesting thing is that there are some people who do not suffer from AIDS, even though they are HIV carriers.
They could be false-positives, right? Just how accurate is the HIV test? Remember, neither test can detect the presence of HIV, they detect antibodies which scientists somehow magically know mean the presense of HIV. HIV has never been isolated, and the drugs that "treat" AIDS are always lethal.
AIDS is punishment for not believing the earth is flat.
This kind of childish ad hominem is very typical of those who are really upset with my blasphemy (namely, HIV != AIDS). I notice your failure to address any of my points.
local law enforcement is part of the executive branch, so the word "and" is misued here, genius.
:)
And yet, somehow, local pricipalities make laws independantly of Washington's whim. It's seems that the "part of" you use needs more explanation.
i'm 38 years old and live with my wife and 3 children.
After you graduate from high school, you'll realize that you actually don't know everything in there is to know about life. Your opinions are highly biased by your inexperience, but I don't think you're going to know that until you, well, have more experience.
the reason we have laws is for people to obey them.
The reasons behind laws are much more complicated than that. If obedience is the only reason behind legislation, then any law (such as a law against breathing) is justified.
it's the government's JOB to get people to obey the laws.
Actually, it's the job of the executive branch and local law enforcement. What is this supposed to show?
today there aren't many major differences between illegal and immoral
This is opinion, not fact. There are lots of immoral laws on the books.
I asked once, you dodged it. Let me ask again: How old are you, and with whom do you live?
Altough to mention most geeks are not very talented in the arts of PASSIVE resistence like your citate from ghandí.
I disagree! The most passive (and perhaps most effective) form of resistance against Microsoft is simply to not use their software, and that seems to be very popular among geeks nowadays.
And you think MS got to where they are today by losing fights?
This time, Microsoft's enemy is not playing by Microsoft's rules. Why do you think Microsoft is portrying Linux as "communist" and "intellectual-property destroying"? It's the equivalent of a child screaming "Not fair!" to his parents. I know that's what so many of Microsoft's competitors have been saying about Microsoft for so many years. I wonder what it feels like for Microsoft to be on the other side of that complain-a-thon.
(I know I'm raising necessarily-flawed analogies left and right -- I'm just making conversation, not necessarily trying to be convincing.)
it's definitely POSSIBLE that ONE OR TWO dishonest people in the government could benefit from this, but it will NEVER happen.
If you'll admit to one or two, then why not three or four? The people in the government are fallible humans, not infallible angels.
the average FBI job is fulltime, buddy.
This is a meaningless statement. Does it imply that the non-average FBI job could not be fulltime? Does it imply that FBI agents are too busy to abuse their power?
you said that the ENTIRE government used this as an excuse
I argued no such thing. The word "entire" is a word that you inserted.
now how could everyone in the government benefit from this? answer: they can't. it's a reason, not an excuse.
People in the government have been arguing for increased surveillance of the citizenry for decades. Decades before 9/11. I have no doubt that there are many government officials (Poindexter, for instance) who are outright pleased that the events of 9/11 have paved the way for their grand surveillance schemes.
as long as it's the FBI doing the enroaching, yes. if someone's doing something illegal - they deserve to get caught.
Here you are implying that illegal things are always wrong and always deserving of punishment, and that the FBI is always right to look for illegal things. I hate to break this to you, but illegal does not imply immoral. It used to be illegal in this country for black people to vote. It used to be illegal (unconstitutional, even) for people in this country to posses alcohol. It used to be illegal in this country to teach evolution in government schools. If you want to look in other countries, the situation is much, much worse! It was illegal in Nazi Germany for Jews to live outside of the ghetto (later, in concentration camps or even live at all). In Cambodia, it was illegal to be educated (and you were executed for it). (Do you know what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia?) In China, it's illegal to belong to any church that the government cannot control.
i wouldn't mind if someone i didn't know and was never gonna talk to in my entire life was watching me 24/7 because i'm not doing anything illegal.
How old are you, and with whom do you live?
actually I find HIV rebutal pretty scary.
Which is scarier, an allegedly "epidemic" disease with a handful of sufferers, or an imaginary disease for which its sufferers are compelled to pay for lethal treatments? Answer me this: does AZT prolong life? If you answer "yes" then your voice will be mighty lonely among the medical community, yet this lethal drug (which was shelved decades ago due to its toxicity) was given as the one and only "AIDS treatment" to thousands of sufferers. How do you know that those sufferers did not die of AZT poisoning?
In some African countries, some people don't believe in HIV neither, and their contamination rate is 25%.
And how does anyone know what the contamination rate is? Has 100% of the populace been tested by either of the "HIV tests"? Of course not. All of these scary HIV statistics from Africa are projections which are having their desired effect: money is pouring into African nations.
And don't tell they are dying from medecine. They don't have the money to buy it.
They are dying from starvation and other diseases. Most of all doctors will admit that malnutrition leads to immune deficiency. Poverty is rampant in African nations and almost always yields malnutrition.
1. They ignore you
2. They laugh at you
3. They fight you <----- YOU ARE HERE
4. You win
I'll respond to both of your posts here.
lots of PEOPLE find themselves targetted by IRS audits.
Of course. Do you agree with me that Bill Clinton abused government power for personal gain in spite of our country's being a constitutional republic?
you can't do it all day, you have yet to come up with a single valid example.
Except that I did. Read on.
you especially have not explained your original argument about the current government. i'm not the one who needs to support my claim, you are.
Are you referring to my "terrorism is the excuse, not the reason" comment?
that's like telling someone to support the fact that they did NOT kill someone. NO, the other people have to support the fact that they DID kill someone.
I reject all analogies as invalid.
and to clarify since you're obviously realizing that you're wrong so you're changing the subject,
I am not changing the subject; instead, I was giving a concrete example because I didn't think you were going to be willing enough to accept why your demanding of a concrete example in the other case was flawed, nor were you going to be willing enough to realize how damaging my point was to your argument. But since you're being "that way" about it (and have yet to admit that individuals will use government power for personal gain, as shown by Bill Clinton's abuse of IRS audits), here it is:
I argued that the FBI has greater ability to abuse their wiretap abilities since the check of requiring a judge's approval had been removed. You demanded that I show you an FBI agent who had
abused his wiretap privileges. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that no FBI agent would or could abuse his wiretap privileges, with or without judicial approval, and that is a point that you cannot prove. Furthermore, your reasoning as to why a constitutional republic was immune from abuse was this: "we live in a democratic republic, and groups of people make decisions, not just one". Here, through the PATRIOT act, it's no longer "groups of people" making a decision about a wiretap; Now it can be just one! I suppose that if I could find an FBI agent who had abused his wiretap privileges then it would be gravy, but guess what? All FBI investigations are kept secret! Certainly you can see how this is ripe for abuse as well.
please explain to me what the government gains by being able to monitor certain people more closely. yes, the government will be stronger and more powerful, but how does this benefit INDIVIDUALS.
There are lots and lots of reasons how this surveillance power can be abused for personal gain. Suppose I own some business in a city and I am also part of the government. Another non-government individual wants to engage in a business venture which I deem threatening to my business I use my spy powers to see everything that he is doing and use that to my business advantage. Do you believe that this is impossible? If so, I'd like to understand your reasoning why.
an excuse would benefit individuals, a REASON benefits a group of people, like the country
In other words, as long as someone can claim that any increased government encroachment on citizens' private lives "benefits the country" then it is justified?
find me an FBI agent who uses his wiretap abilities for personal use and i'll say you won the argument.
Here's another example: lots of Bill Clinton's political enemies found themselves targetted by IRS audits. I can come up with examples of how government officials can abuse their power for personal reasons all day long. You argued that a constitutional republic obviates corruption of this sort and have provided nothing to support this claim.
No. The original poster said that what Microsoft did was not immoral.
;)
Yes, he argued that. He also argued that illegal does not imply immoral. From what you wrote, it seemed like you were arguing, "Since they did something illegal, I can't see how you think they did nothing immoral" (i.e., illegal implies immoral).
You are missing the point:
I think we're actually getting the point confused.
What MS did was both illegal and immoral by definition.
As if that which is "immoral" were always so cut-and-dry! Mind you, I agree that Microsoft did (and still does) immoral things. The problem I keep running into is that everyone else seems to have different ideas about what is immoral.
My objection is to people who regurgitate this newly discovered corporate amorality spiel. It's nothing more than a convenient cop-out for corporate management, which is trying to excuse it's unethical, immoral behavior.
I agree!