"No, a sure sign someone has lost the debate is when they resort to pointing out logical fallacies in order to avoid answering."
As opposed to resorting to low abuse to avoid answering? "Pointing out logical fallacies" is more germane to debate than low abuse. Although I am surprised you've even heard of "fallacy", given your tone of conversation indicates low intelligence and an extremely poor education, given that you're practically unable to write a paragraph without an obscenity in there somewhere.
"Three points, not four. Cunt."
Bravo! Just a little test to see if you could count that far...
The Ad Hominem argument. The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. Usually a sure sign someone's lost a debate.
I know this is futile, but I'll say it anyway.... Address the argument, not the arguer, simply because they don't mollify your ego by agreeing with your opinions. Resorting to low abuse of this sort demeans you, not me.
I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why anarchy is a Good Idea. I won't hold my breath....
Why have schools? Educate your child yourself. Why have hospitals? Heal your child yourself. Why have motorways? Build your own road. Why have laws? Shoot the evildoer yourself. Why have taxes? Keep all My Money for Me. Me Me Me Me Me ME MEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! Why have civilisation? Barbarism is much better.
The United States of Anarchy. Sounds cool, doesn't it?
"Broke exactly the same law, and it should hurt you as much as anyone else."
Which a fine of 1.5% of one's annual income achieves admirably.
A fine of $100 does not hurt a millionaire "as much as" a pauper.
All legal punishments, by the way, are payments of a debt to society.
Not that any of this matters in the Plutocratic States of America, where one's chances of getting "punished" are directly proportional to the fees charged by one's attorney......
"law should work as a disincentive"....."which is completely stupid."
Which is completely stupid.
Soaking the rich is an idea that's gone out of fashion somewhat, but it has its uses. Not that that would ever happen in the plutocracy that is the USA.
Almost right.
If you're successful and I suck, and you speed, we infict the same financial damage, relatively, on you as we do on me.
But since you Yanks haven't accepted Evolution yet, you've another 60 years before you understand the Theory of Relativity, right?
The interesting thing is that the UK is probably the most "Americanised" country in Europe, bar maybe Ireland.
If you made this comparison with Norway, I'd say, despite Norway's generally inhospitable climate, both the US and UK would suffer greatly by comparison.
But, then, Norway does silly things like have one nationalised oil company, Statoil, which exploits Norway's North Sea oil in a much more measured way than the UK (which had 10 times the resources) did (the UK just farmed it out at famously bad - for the UK taxpayer - terms to US oil multinationals). The profits from this nationalised oil company have gone into a trust fund for the Norwegian people, with the result that Norway is probably the only advanced industrial country with NO national debt; instead, it has savings of almost 50% of GNP....
Scandinavians just do things smarter really. Another example: fines and speeding tickets. In most parts of the world, it might be £100 or £200, which might be a lot or a little depending on your income. In Finland, they relate it to your income...! Speeding? that'll be 1.5% of your income, please.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3477285.stm
This sort of thing would never happen in the US, which has evolved into a plutocratic government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. This was the most telling part of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", where Bush was caught on camera telling some donors that his "core vote" was the "haves and the have-mores." Never a truer word spoken.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, a sure sign someone has lost the debate is when they resort to pointing out logical fallacies in order to avoid answering."
As opposed to resorting to low abuse to avoid answering?
"Pointing out logical fallacies" is more germane to debate than low abuse.
Although I am surprised you've even heard of "fallacy", given your tone of conversation indicates low intelligence and an extremely poor education, given that you're practically unable to write a paragraph without an obscenity in there somewhere.
"Three points, not four. Cunt."
Bravo! Just a little test to see if you could count that far...
If you're poor and 1.5% of your annual income is 0.5 euros, you're unlikely to be speeding in anything but a stolen car!
Use a real example next time.
"Twat" "idiotic" "fuck" "half-wit".....
The Ad Hominem argument.
The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
Usually a sure sign someone's lost a debate.
I know this is futile, but I'll say it anyway....
Address the argument, not the arguer, simply because they don't mollify your ego by agreeing with your opinions.
Resorting to low abuse of this sort demeans you, not me.
I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why anarchy is a Good Idea. I won't hold my breath....
Why have schools?
Educate your child yourself.
Why have hospitals?
Heal your child yourself.
Why have motorways?
Build your own road.
Why have laws?
Shoot the evildoer yourself.
Why have taxes?
Keep all My Money for Me. Me Me Me Me Me ME MEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why have civilisation?
Barbarism is much better.
The United States of Anarchy. Sounds cool, doesn't it?
"Broke exactly the same law, and it should hurt you as much as anyone else."
Which a fine of 1.5% of one's annual income achieves admirably.
A fine of $100 does not hurt a millionaire "as much as" a pauper.
All legal punishments, by the way, are payments of a debt to society.
Not that any of this matters in the Plutocratic States of America, where one's chances of getting "punished" are directly proportional to the fees charged by one's attorney......
"law should work as a disincentive"....."which is completely stupid."
Which is completely stupid.
Soaking the rich is an idea that's gone out of fashion somewhat, but it has its uses.
Not that that would ever happen in the plutocracy that is the USA.
Almost right. If you're successful and I suck, and you speed, we infict the same financial damage, relatively, on you as we do on me. But since you Yanks haven't accepted Evolution yet, you've another 60 years before you understand the Theory of Relativity, right?
The interesting thing is that the UK is probably the most "Americanised" country in Europe, bar maybe Ireland. If you made this comparison with Norway, I'd say, despite Norway's generally inhospitable climate, both the US and UK would suffer greatly by comparison. But, then, Norway does silly things like have one nationalised oil company, Statoil, which exploits Norway's North Sea oil in a much more measured way than the UK (which had 10 times the resources) did (the UK just farmed it out at famously bad - for the UK taxpayer - terms to US oil multinationals). The profits from this nationalised oil company have gone into a trust fund for the Norwegian people, with the result that Norway is probably the only advanced industrial country with NO national debt; instead, it has savings of almost 50% of GNP.... Scandinavians just do things smarter really. Another example: fines and speeding tickets. In most parts of the world, it might be £100 or £200, which might be a lot or a little depending on your income. In Finland, they relate it to your income...! Speeding? that'll be 1.5% of your income, please. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3477285.stm This sort of thing would never happen in the US, which has evolved into a plutocratic government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. This was the most telling part of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", where Bush was caught on camera telling some donors that his "core vote" was the "haves and the have-mores." Never a truer word spoken.