- Joined
- Oct 5, 2009
- Messages
- 10,621
- Reaction score
- 2,104
- Location
- In your dreams...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Remember the talk you had with a few members here? Did you disprove anything they said?
That the government taxation is theivery?
I'm not sure did they say anything congruent with political reality?
Did you counter any arguments at all? If you did not, you can not judge anything or claim victory. All you are is nothing but the loser of the debate.
Yes.
If you read the Sermon on the Mount and the tenents of his preaching being social justice He would be a progressive.
He could be no less.
What debate... can you reiterate any points made?
Someone said government taxation was thievery... and that I 'had' to prove it wasn't.
They should prove they arent crazy.
As for you henrin we could go 5 pages while you played a little game pretending you had the higher philosophical ethos while you bumble through a whole thread to he point where you stop making sense.
The talk you just got done having.
Assuming someone is crazy is not winning the debate. Why do I even continue to talk to you if this always your stance for why you don't need to debate?
The thread you are talking about I did not pretend I had a higher anything, nor did I stop making sense. You just were unable to defend yourself and never actually took the effort to do so. Making excuses for your failure is not victory, but greater failure.
You mean all the strange abstract insane stuff about the government stealing?
I debated with you over a half dozen pages in another thread. You're impossible.
Sorry, when you can communicate your philosophy effectively you might get somewhere. Until then it's a distorted signal from the other side of the solar system, I can't even make out what you mean.
Judging arguments is not countering arguments. You should be aware of this. This is really all you ever do.
You didn't defend yourself, so no, you did not debate.
Again, your failure is your own. I made everything very clear and all you had to do was tell me how I was wrong. You never did. Telling me you are going to riot if you fail has nothing to do with the point I was making and the stance you needed to defend in which you didn't. Calling me insane does not further your debate stance, nor does it prove me wrong. None of what you did in that thread is what is called debating.
The arguments aren't particularly valid ab initio and are mostly bait to lead the conversation further into whatever confirms your personal beliefs. As in the arguments are bunk. Sorry.
Defend myself from what?
Across this board we have libertarians claiming folks dont have a right to education, healthcare, and in the voter ID thread, that folks dont have an explicit right to vote.
Sorry, you can't actually prove whatever vapid philosophical stance on the nature of rights substantiates such positions.
Unless you want to try right now. Theres a reason libertarian philosophies don't make it far out of the basements of libertarians...
So you are superior to the argument because you are you. That is not an argument.
Arguments.
The problem isn't that I can't because I can and have in the past. The problem is I put out a starting point to a debate and instead of debating with me you decide to scream at me and call me names. I have no reason to further the debate at that point since I am not actually in one.
The invalidity of an argument rests on the argument itself. Not me. Know what you're talking about. o wait, you probably don't.
No one faces significant risk to face in an actual debate. I don't have to defend my person from your argument.
On the internet, no one can hear you scream. :roll:
but seriously... over that five pages in that other thread your syntax degenerated to the point I thought you may be on sleeping pills.
If Jesus Christ were alive today, would he be a liberal, conservative, or something else? Why?
That the government taxation is theivery?
I'm not sure did they say anything congruent with political reality?
The invalidity of an argument has to be shown.
I never issued any stance... I parried yours. Am I countering your arguments or defending mine in order to debate? Please decide.No, but in order to claim to be involved in a debate you have to defend your stance.
So we are back to the beginning to talk about your inabilities.
Political reality =/= logical debate. The question posed to you, which you seem to persist in avoiding an honest discussion of, is what is the difference between you holding me at gunpoint and taking my money, or the government holding me at gunpoint, taking my money, and giving it to you. This discussion is about logic and reason, not political reality. Political reality is dependent on politicians buying votes, which has nothing to do with ethics.
Oh...... theyre so obvious... I guess you mustve thought I was making fun of you.
I never issued any stance... I parried yours. Am I countering your arguments or defending mine in order to debate? Please decide.
Sorry, you broke down in that thread... I gave you a thumbs up and told you to have your trophy and left that place.
This is turning into the last time I talked to you.
In the talk we were having you very much did have a stance. Do you honestly forget what it was?
Nope. You just decided you wanted out and pretended to not understand me any more.
1) The government is not an individual the analogy is invalid
2) the government is part of a social contract that establishes law order and civilization, the analogy is invalid
3) the government drafts the laws and enforces them that you may not be robbed in the first place.
If taxation were applied to benefit each citizen equitably, your point might be valid. As it stands, taxation does not benefit everyone to the same extent. Taxation should pay common expenses of the governed (defense, education, commerce regulation, and other common benefits of government). The taxation system that we currently have takes from one for the benefit of another. That is theft, it's just that the government is taking the money from me to give to another rather than the other holding me at gunpoint.
HE would have no human political inclinations whatsoever.... Some Things Some Beings are above and beyond that.
My 2 cents.
Syntax... again.
That I had a right to education, healthcare, a vote, etc... and that anyone who attempted to deny me of these rights would either meet the force of the government and if the government failed they would undoubtedly meet the force of the people.
Oh.. yeah... and that magical faeries in the sky dont provide rights. Am I close to knowing what my own stances are? :roll:
Sorry, when the debate doesn't go the way you want you become stubborn and sour.
It was one of those.... "OOOOOOOOOOOkaaaaaay...." moments where you step back and walk away. Plenty of pages of you refusing to come down off your coud.
No, you walked away to excuse your failure.
Alright bro. I already had a post on the last page in which I issued several multiple reasons why the analogy put forth as an argument was invalid.
Terrible argument.
You can make a catholic mass seem more exciting that an MMA fight with explosions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?