Total posts: 2,874
-->
@Best.Korea
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
I don't see how this negates any of the examples I've given. Since children are not considered "ready for love" in the bible, and rape is condemned, the "women children" here could not be married under biblical law until they came of age. I'm not sure what your alternative is to integrating children into society after a war—leaving them to die, presumably?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Please, dont be shy, show us those quotes.
I did. "Leaving the father and mother" implies adulthood.
Premarital sex is punished by making those people marry.
But also condemned. Obviously, the other verses I showed rule out child marriage. Just because one verse doesn't specify age doesn't mean pedophilia is never condemned in the bible.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Show us where the Bible says that.
Show us where the Bible says that children cannot consent to sex.
I already showed verses saying that children are not "old enough for love." Under biblical conditions, love is required for marriage, and marriage is required for sex. Furthermore, the bible doesn't say that people cannot consent under duress, but it's pretty obviously implied when the bible condemns rape, that threatening people to have sex is wrong. Rape is an umbrella term; it's understood that people reading the bible will know what rape is. The bible doesn't specifically condemn shooting a child with a gun, but since murder is condemned, it's obviously included.
Bible defines woman as female. It doesnt set the age
12 year olds are referred to as girls, not women. And the implication is obvious. If women included children prima facie, then it would say "young women" and the term "children" would not be necessary.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The deciding factor here is whether you're willing to accept obvious implications from the biblical text or if you'll only accept things that are written down explicitly.
Sex with children is rape, since children cannot consent. In ancient Israel, rape was punishable by death. Since rape is already condemned in the bible, singling out molestation (a form of rape) would be beating a dead horse. Unconscious people, or people under duress, cannot consent either. The Bible doesn't single out every single category of people that cannot consent, but it condemns rape universally as wrong. There are verses that strongly imply children cannot consent until sometime after puberty, though a particular age is never specified. Marriage is always specified in the bible as between a man and a woman, never between children. Jesus' quote clearly associates marriage with adulthood.
Premarital sex is condemned as well, so restrictions on marriage are restrictions on sex.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
@Best.Korea
Since Best.Korea never said "faithful Christians must murder gay people," I vote against mod action.
Created:
Recession: A period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"Sorry, but I dont believe in evolution. I believe in creation."
"Yes, God hates homosexuals."
These seem like they belong in two separate threads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If someone asked you how to pronounce Solipsism
I would repeat the way they pronounced it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This seems more like a holiday thing than a pride thing (though it could be both). Here's a list of over 100 food-related holidays:
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I'm hard-pressed to think of a case where this wouldn't negate the Constitution entirely. Any part of the constitution that exists today was necessarily written in the past and in a different context, which gives the dynamic originalist a justification for removing any section they don't like, so long as they have more up-to-date information than authors of the document did (they almost certainly do). I'm not sure what the point of amending the Constitution would even be to a dynamic originalist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
if all you have experienced is a dream you would never suspect a thing
That's where I disagree. If the concept of solipsism was brought up to someone in a dream, and they considered that the outside world was inconsistent and illogical, then it makes a lot of sense. Not everyone will come to that conclusion, but the mode of deduction is valid. I'm not referring to dreams being inconsistent with reality, but to the dream world being internally inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
Birthright Citizenship does not apply to illegals
Well, this is just definitionally true. If someone is a citizen, they're not an illegal immigrant.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I think you just have a type.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump seems to think so. I wonder how IWRA feels about him.
Interestingly, Abraham Lincoln was widely considered to be ugly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I grant that would be true most of the time, when you're not thinking too hard. But if I think about what I did yesterday, and the day before that, etc. it would be easy to notice inconsistencies. Even if someone lived permanently in a dream state, they would be able to figure it out with good enough skills of deduction.
It's a bit like saying that many people are bad at math. It's true, but it doesn't mean that we can't rely on mathematical proofs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
My standard is reality having consistent rules - that's a rather unlikely coincidence if reality is fake, given all the alternate possibilities. That doesn't require me to distinguish waking from sleeping.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
This is an argument for capitalism + welfare, not for communism. If people are that selfish, they won't work without incentives.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
The world (America) already has a flag.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
That's usually because in dreams you never bother to consider whether you are dreaming. I actually had a weird dream once where everyone was trying to convince me I wasn't dreaming, but I figured out some inconsistencies and woke up. If you thought hard enough while inside a dream, I think you could figure out that the "reality" generated by your brain was fake. When I apply that same level of reasoning to reality, I don't see the same kinds of inconsistencies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheApprentice
what are you going to do to be successful
Develop calculus. It shouldn't require much to explain beyond what's taught in high school courses.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
International Water Resources Association?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
That’s ignorance on your part.
I was agreeing with you.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
They try to stay vague at first about what it is they're advocating for. But I stopped giving this article the benefit of the doubt when they advocated for 9-year-old sex workers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
@TheApprentice
That's not quite what I'm saying. If reality is fake (generated by our brains), I would expect the "reality" we observe to be inconsistent, have a lack of physical rules, and be similar to how dreams are in general. Dreams don't usually make sense. The chances of a fake reality being 100% consistent with the concept of an external world seem very low.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
“Ballot Harvesting” is a bullshit term made up for idiots like you.
All language is made up.
So it’s illegal, but Trump says he is going to do it too
Ballot harvesting is legal in most states. I believe that's what Trump is complaining about, but it's fair to play by the rules as they currently exist.
Created:
Posted in:
Solipsism generally holds that only the self can be known to exist. But just because something is possible does not mean it is likely. If solipsism is false, it makes sense that the universe seems to have consistent laws and that past experiences are consistent with future experiences. Dreams, in contrast, barely make any sense and rarely remain consistent. So if humans were brains in a vat, I think the probability of our experiences being consistent with an outward reality would be very low.
I have the same doubts about the zombie theory. If your brain is generating consciousness, it seems unlikely that it would be the only brain to do so. It also seems unlikely that a non-conscious brain would lie and say that it was conscious, or be somehow programmed to act outwardly like a conscious mind. Even if this is a non-physicalist correlating effect, whatever external cause is putting minds into brains probably wouldn't stop with one individual.
You might be on the Truman Show, or the victim of some elaborate government conspiracy, but neither of those things is very likely. I'm not sure how solipsism is more significant than any other theory that is technically possible but very unlikely.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
they could just borrow money their whole life and wait for their estate to pay it back when they die
In that case, they'd be borrowing against assets they already have—accounting for the interest and taxes, they'd be borrowing significantly less than the value of their assets. This is not a net gain for them, because they'd be able to buy more by just liquidating their assets instead of borrowing.
If they did do such a thing, then the taxes are still being paid from their assets. That's money they wouldn't be able to spend during their lifetime.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
these aren't huge things i'm asking for.
You may achieve some amount of the effect you want, but it will be indirectly. If you support progressive taxation, then you should support taxing an increased percentage of income realized by the rich. That would ensure that you actually tax more privileged members of society (i.e. people who can afford more things.) A proposal can achieve some desired effects but still be poorly designed. It's this measure of inefficiency that I am addressing, not the principle of progressive taxation.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
can borrow money their whole life and never pay a penny in taxes
They have to pay it back eventually or go bankrupt. For that, they need income, on which they will pay taxes.
why do you not support that?
By the rich, I assume you mean people who can afford to buy more things. Buying things requires income, hence, income should be taxed. Someone who borrows money and loses it is not rich, yet they would be taxed on money they never made, under your proposal.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
can go his whole life without paying taxes
Because he's already made as much income as he needs. When he made that income initially, he paid taxes on it.
loop holes
Under current laws, the rich pay taxes on all income before they can use it. Capital gains aren't useful to the rich until they translate to income.
they might they might not
Taxing income avoids this risk. Capital gains that are lost shouldn't be taxed.
they can go their whole life without paying anything
The rich make income, which they pay taxes on. Anything they don't pay taxes on, they won't be able to spend.
why you care so much about rich people who dont pay much in taxes
I'm not singling them out. I don't think anyone should pay taxes on unrealized gains.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
a two percent wealth tax is meager
What you're taxing isn't actually wealth, it's potential wealth. The person could lose all of that money tomorrow but also pay taxes.
a loop hole to not pay taxes
It's not a loop hole. If they ever want to use the money, they will have to liquidate it, which requires paying taxes.
making the rules different for the rich than everyone else
I think unrealized gains should not be taxed for anyone. This does not afford the rich special treatment, and it still allows for a progressive income tax system.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
why the rich should pay less in taxes than everyone else
I'm arguing that they should only pay taxes on the money that makes it into their hands. Unrealized gains are potential income, and they might lose all of it. If you want to talk about a progressive tax on income, then that's a different thing. Under your proposal, a rich person could pay taxes on money they never actually make.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
rich people should pay a higher percent of tax on their income than everyone else
You're advocating for taxing wealth, not income. Essentially taxing the same money twice. A well-designed regressive tax would tax the wealthy more, but only when they actually realize income. It's a small but significant distinction.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Rich is a very large category. A lot of billionaires in the US started software companies or invested in creating some product. Not to mention that you'd be directly punishing investment anyway by taxing unrealized gains.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
they dont have to pay capital gains taxes if they dont realize capital gains by selling
Why should someone pay taxes on income they don't make?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
In some situations, it is not hypocritical to criticize a system while participating in it. But this is not one of those situations. The fact that other people are copyrighting materials does not make it such that Chomsky must do the same. It would be easy for him to put his works in the public domain. Chomsky equates the protection of intellectual property to "kicking down the ladder" and has criticized corporations for doing so. Judging by these statements, he thinks that ideas are owned by the public and that copyrighting information is itself an immoral thing to do. I'm not saying that Chomsky's actions are inconsistent with criticism of capitalism. I'm saying that his actions are inconsistent with these specific views, which he has repeatedly espoused. Essentially, Chomsky is saying that "doing x, y, and z is immoral," while doing x, y, and z. I don't think I'm being unfair by calling him out on this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
playing by the rules as they are
There's no rule that says Chomsky has to copyright anything. He's a millionaire who can definitely afford to give his books for free. He's also compared corporations to slave owners—based on his view of society, it would be more like criticizing slavery while owning slaves, not simply wanting higher taxes. He doesn't just criticize capitalism, he criticizes participation in capitalism as well, which includes him.
a rich person who thinks taxes should go up on the rich
That does actually seem a bit illogical. If someone in the middle class thinks that taxes should go up for everyone in exchange for more public services, then they're expecting something in return. But rich people who think the rich have too much money can just give it away.
Created:
Posted in:
Noam Chomsky is radically opposed to the concept of intellectual property:
"There’s a name for [intellectual property] in economic history. Friedrich List, famous German political economist in the 19th century, who was actually borrowing from Andrew Hamilton, called it “kicking away the ladder”. First you use state power and violence to develop, then you kick away those procedures so that other people can’t do it." - Chomsky
That seems like a very clear stance. But now let's see how Mr. Chomsky feels about his intellectual property:
Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators (with the exception of any third-party material used here by permission, copyright by the respective authors).
Copyright © Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky 1988 Introduction © Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky 2002 Afterword © Edward S. Herman 2008 Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the authors of this work
Copyright © 2017 by L. Valeria-Galvao-Wasserman-Chomsky
I'll give Chomsky supporters a chance to come to his defense here, but his position seems wildly inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I used the Alice and Bob scenario to challenge the well-defined nature of "exist."
Sure, but that seems separate from the argument you are making about God.
not as powerful as He thinks He is.
And I'm arguing that that's impossible. The Christian god is defined as being absolutely certain of his power—it's impossible to be 100% certain of something that is false.
one event didn't have a cause
God is defined as existing outside of time, so his existence is not an event, chronologically speaking.
quantum mechanics
I've got issues with that assumption, but it feels largely tangential to what we're discussing.
Created:
not a true representation of value
Value is subjective. If something is exclusive, it is more valuable, simply because it is perceived as such. Even if I grant that you are right, we're getting off track from the initial point I was making, which is that a CEO's salary can be classified as a "market price."
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Do markets get distorted?
Perhaps, but I'm referring specifically to your claim that "There is no market for CEO pay." Market prices exist even in distorted markets.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That is not a market.
The board is elected by shareholders; often the CEO does not own a majority of shares. In economics, a market is simply an arena in which trade takes place. The CEO trades their labor or the services of their company for pay.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That is a meaningless statement designed by think tanks on the payroll of Big Business
It means that a significant majority of responding economists oppose raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. Hence, not meaningless.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Economist have never said that rain, too much or too little, doesn’t drive inflation.
So a lack of experts, no?
Created:
There is no market for CEO pay
It's the price that the board of the company pays to the CEO. Whatever they are willing to pay is the market price by definition. The "market" being referred to here is the labor market—any occupation is considered a part of this market.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
the federal minimum wage was NOT a factor.
Because it wasn't raised.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
We just had a serious bout of inflation and the federal minimum wage was NOT a factor. The experts do not disagree with that.
"A significant majority of responding economists oppose raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour...a majority (58%) of economists believe raising the federal minimum wage to $15 will contribute to inflation following the pandemic."
rainfall drives inflation
I'm noticing a suspicious lack of experts.
Created:
Bullshit.
A rather bold claim to make when the experts are against you.
Do high CEO salaries drive inflation? What are economists saying about that? What are your concerns about that?
Again, irrelevant to whether an increase in the minimum wage increases inflation.
Why do they oppose Biden’s plan? Do you know?
It says in the article, but the why wasn't part of the claim I was making.
Created: