ParanoiA

Ok, then by this reasoning a decrease in spending with an increase in taxes would be considered more spending? Of course not. They are separate acts that don't depend on each other for their own definition. If I drive west slower than the earth rotates to the east, I still drove west. That I'm displaced further east is a summary of analysis - an inferred exercise by a subject to describe the net effect of my driving and rotation of the earth - not an actual description of my behavior, nor of the earth's behavior. In other words, your mind is doing the simplification in order to analyze the net effect of behaviors. It's one thing to thevenize the tax, spending, and budget balance relationship to characterize the summarized behavior of the system. It's quite another when you allow that analysis technique to redefine the specifics of the system. Ie..suddenly now, only rich people are handed money simply because theirs is the tax rate we're looking at right now, when we do the tax math. Since we're only talking about a change in their rate, at this moment, we get to make believe it's only them getting to keep more of what they earn at the expense of the budget. That's cherry picking your villians. To be consistent with your tax cut/increase spending logic you'd have to blame all tax payers for being handed money, in every tax bracket - especially the lowest ones, which is the poor and lower middle class. If we ignored the class status.... Group A = 10% taxes. Group B = 25% taxes. Group C = 35% taxes. Without the social justice bias, and using your tax/spend logic above, we would say that Group A is being handed the most money. Group C being handed the least. Then someone proposes to lower taxes for group C, by 5%, giving them a 30% tax rate. Who, except for a politician, would then say that group C is the one being handed money by the government? No, the rate of ALL groups being "handed money" merely takes a small step toward equitable distribution. It's only when you conflate this tax rate reality that you can then engage in disingenuous logic campaigns and pretend as if a tax cut for all groups, instead of just two socially acceptable groups, is somehow "handing money" to just that third non-socially acceptable group. Did you just lump everyone in the country as a republican? Because I'm not sure how bail-out money, stimulus and government sudsidies suddenly makes my money not mine anymore? Money is private property that belongs to the people. Government confiscates this property to fund their operations. The government doesn't *have* any money of its own, only the people's money. So when they inject all of this spending, they're doing it with the people's money - money they confiscated through taxes. No pretense here, I'm not a republican, and I'm proud not to be. I was not for the bailouts, stimulus, none of it. Now our markets have learned nothing from the terrible decisions that got us here. And, of course, we're still using the bank fraud model to generate false credit. As they said on 'Lost'...this has all happened before, and will happen again.

And let's not forget the flip side of that. The greatest gold medal winner gets caught with his face in a bong, and what does he do? He apologizes and begins the public relations rehab to recover his "image" with appeals by every sports pundit that he has a duty to society to be a role model. Look at Micheal Vick. He did jail time for his crime, and then he had to agree to a high, restrictive standard of behavior before he could be admitted by the NFL in order to look for a job with a team. The rest of us aren't held to that standard. There is no outer shell we have to penetrate to then be allowed to put an application in with an employer because we went to jail for torturing dogs. You're right that we should not look up to them. But I feel your ire is misdirected at athletes. They didn't do this - we did. Google News has Miley Cyrus's bong episode 5 stories down from the top of the page today. Why? Because that's what we care about. Every business you look at with disgust, is driven by a market. That market, is your neighbors, your friends, your family, your co-workers - your society. No one sells chocolate donuts with ketchup filling because no one would buy it, no one wants it. Our athletes are idols because we made them that way. Same result as yours, but I would direct your disgust toward those who demand that market. People who respond to this demand to make a living are doing exactly what we expect out of capitalism, exactly what the system predicts.

That's an odd bit of logic. So, if the tax rate is X amount one year, then X-Y the second year, then -Y is borrowing money and handing to rich Americans with zero interest? (I won't even argue the problem with the moving target of X and how every year is just comparison with the previous. I also won't bother with the X+Y state theft implications using your same logic.) So a reduction in confiscation of private property by the state (or in this case, no change in confiscation at all since there is no "cut") is now a form of "giving" by the state back to the citizen? Seriously? That would appear to make Rush Limbaugh absolutely correct about his assessment of progressive taxation policy and the popular view of our manifest tyrannical majority currently on the rise here: that everything you keep is a gift from your fair masters. Your logic seems to imply this equation: 100% - Tax rate = money government has lost and given to you. And yes, I do understand the spending/tax rate relationship. But to call it handing money to rich people when you're *not* willing to cut spending is the logic of politicians - a propaganda trick to externalize the government's problem and make it about "rich people". Tax cuts to the rich minority, or the middle class majority are reductions in state confiscation of private property - not lost government revenue. Spending money assymetrical with said tax cuts is the fault of the politicians and legislators. Allowing them to characterize reductions in theft as "handing money to rich people" is allowing them to conflate their problem with addition and subtraction.

And your answer failed, logically, therefore I reason that a smart guy such as yourself must have avoided to answer it. You still have yet to argue successfully as to why Marat should *not* argue multiple angles simultaneously while staying consistent per exchange. You appear to want your target to stay fixed so you can attack it successfully. The problem is, your target is a person, not an argument. Arguments don't move around and change - people do. You are correct. I do not believe Swansont is engaged in reasonable, honest debate about ideas. I believe Swansont prefers to compete with members. I conceive that his insistence that posters limit themselves to a single track of thinking serves only personal competition and does *not* serve a diverse exchange of ideas and critical analysis, both of which I have associated with the nature of science. If this is incorrect, please correct me and I'll stop holding science in such high regard over talk radio.

See the last sentence of my post. However, with politicians, yeah I'd be highly suspicious of any excuses they use to weasel out of it.

How do you fight claims yet offer yourself for questioning? (maybe the answer's in your video link, but I can't view them here). Isn't Wikileaks, itself, an improper procedural for releasing classified US information? Why is it that Assange can claim procedural violations, and then keep his secrets, but the US can't? These are rules that Assange created when he denied the rights of nations to keep their secrets: any refusal to release the information is Corruption. Well fine then...Assange is corrupt. There is no good reason to keep his story to himself - there is no qualifier he can erect to justify keeping his "secret", short of corruption. By his own ostensible principles. This is partly what happens we muddy up definitions of words, like equating state forces as terrorists and so forth. It comes back at you in other directions. In this case, we have a state trying to blow the whistle on a rapist. Same rules apply. All attempts to block the whistleblowing exercise should be suspicious - likes claims of "improper procedure" for filing some documents. Give me a break...if he wanted to share the truth, he'd just go there and do it. Sweden has proven they won't tolerate a lack of evidence by the prosecution. He has no excuse. If it were anybody else, I would advise to cooperate as little as possible with their own conviction.

And do you understand the difference between insufficient evidence determined by a state justice system and insufficient evidence determined by Google News? Yeah, I quoted that one too. Priceless. He hasn't a leg to stand on now. He will continue to lose credibility as long as he holds himself above the same laws and institutions he outs others for breaking.

Just like it was "widely known" in the anals of american history that black men raped white women every chance they got alone with them. And you're right, trials were rarely invoked for the same reason "waste of time...we know he done it, hang 'em boys". Is that the kind of justice you advocate? I don't have any experience to draw on to answer that question. Why does it matter if Julian Assange gets roasted when Wikileaks is a massive team effort? And this: ...does nothing to support any claims of injustice. As Pangloss as repeated, his ostensible mission statement binds him to the principles contained in it. To be clear, this is not a functional problem (hypocrisy of the person is not a functional problem, but rather a repugnant issue among society), but it does tell us something about his character. While no man is equal to his rhetoric, he isn't even trying...

You did not answer my question. Scroll back up to #33, stop dodging the question, and answer. Or your lack of effort will again out you for coming here to compete with people, instead of arguments. Marat is very easy to follow. Just read. You appear to be calibrated to analyze a forum member, and their belief system, but public discussion boards are not about analyzing posters, but rather their arguments. One's ego often is responsible for such things. When you remove the 'person' from the 'argument', you are left with multiple arguments. Marat's posts are essentially several different arguments - all are up for discussion and debate. Pick one and argue it. Or pick several. Hey, if it helps, make up little names for each argument and pretend a non-existent member posted them. There is no functional problem with arguing multiple angles of a subject - except, if you're aim is to compete with the person making the argument.

You don't know if it was forcible rape with handcuffs and a secret audience on a webcam. You don't know if it was entirely consentual, made up nonsense with a video recording to exonerrate him. You don't know anything, you just have people in the information business spouting out what information they happen to have. You don't know if the whole story has been told, partially, or otherwise. You don't know if there are multiple witnesses or no witnesses. That's what courts and justice systems are for. People are obligated to cooperate with the state, threatened by the state if they are not truthful and etc. No one is obligated to run their trap to some business geek that calls themselves a news source. We determine truth in courts, by using a standard higher than professional gossip broadcasting. For that reason, only hubris and a complete lack of regard for facts, not to mention total disrespect to a crime victim, would lead someone to a conclusion that a trial isn't even necessary because the "news" said so...

The first case is rape and robbery, both. Even with a valid agreement of trade, even without shorting the agreed price, it's still rape since all of us enjoy the opportunity to discontinue employment at any given time. If my boss pays me fairly, I can still quit and he has no right to force my labor. I may have to pay some money back though, if he paid me in advance, otherwise I could be sued for violating our contract. The second case would be hard to accuse as extortion on her part, at least legally, but is definitely rape on his part if he continues against her will. Again, it's no different than if I change my mind after I got my job and then demanded more money for my labor contrary to our contract. If my boss forces me to continue my labor, that's slavery. If I force the increase in pay, then I'm in violation of our contract and he's free to dismiss my services altogether. Just because it's sex service doesn't make it fuzzy at all whatsoever.

Uh...because we don't "know" any of that. There's a reason we don't try people on MSNBC or the BBC. We try them in courts, for a reason. This is the opposing end of the same issue when some guy gets "off the hook" for something we read or heard on the news and we all say the justice system is screwed. What exactly is the point of courts and justice systems if we're going to hold the local paper or corporate information businesses in higher esteem? Let's just tear all that down and go to a gossip justice system where your guilt or innocence depends on how many news sources are for you or against you...

Precisely, and it's an admirable quality. Why? It doesn't matter if someone argues 13 angles, it only matters that they are consistent within the context of individual exchange. If Marat is arguing an angle with you, then his argument with you should be consistent. If his next paragraph is in response to someone else, then it has nothing to do with your exchange and can counter it absolutely without impact on your discussion at all whatsoever. Consistency beyond individual exchange only matters when you're competing, not discussing. If you're arguing and trying to win something, then evasive targets are frustrating. When you're discussing and critically analyzing a given subject, then multiple positions are exactly what you're looking for. As usual, these demands say more about you... Well put. Reparations require us to judge and discriminate and do exactly what was done in our history that we claimed to be ashamed of. But, of course, we're not ashamed of it. We're only ashamed of the target. We, humans that is, love to group and label a minority, and then discriminate and punish. We called them negroes in the 1800's. We called them queers in the 1900's. We call them rich in the 2000's. We're always looking for an external scapegoat for our problems. Minorites make great punching bags.

A nice start would be for us to stop pretending fractional reserve banking isn't fraud. I can't sell the same car to two different people, with a title for each, based on the gamble they won't demand using it at the same time. Instead, I'm required to tell them they only own half the car, and thus, only have a right to demand its availability half the time. On the subject of free speech and undermining society...I'm starting to get the liberal progressive thought process on unequal distribution of wealth; the unfair advantage and access to freedom enjoyed by the rich. I see the same thing with speech. I call them the 'spich' - those rich with speech. How is it fair that CNN and Fox News get to enjoy so much freedom of speech? They have access to millions of ears, and expressly deny that same access to others. They get heard by millions, day in and day out, yet the 'spoor', like me and most of us here, are denied that opportunity. The outcome here is a tilted playing field that is designed for the spich to remain spich. The spoor just get spoorer. I think we should redistribute speech, so that everyone has fair access to speech. I know what you're thinking...you have a right to speak, not to be heard. But that applies with economic disparity as well. You have a right to market, not to sell. Everyone has the same right to engage in trade, but not to be traded with. Forcing traders is as problematic as forcing listeners. Yet, we don't seem to think of disparit listening as an unacceptable outcome. If I understand the liberal position on economics, it's the disparit outcome that creates the case for redistribution; progressive taxation. Same should be true with speech. Right now, free speech is unequal speech. And that undermines a society based on equal rights. Don't it?

Yeah, doesn't matter if it's your ideological hero or your adversary, it's rape. Holding idols to a different legal standard is a sycophantic coping mechanism. Should have that looked at... Where is this absence of violence? Refusing to stop is a physical action and is violence. Further, it also suggests an escalation of violence in order to physically counter any attempts by the victim to regain their right of refusal. The condom accidentally breaking, thereby violating their condom agreement, would be the only part akin to 'accidental death'. Continuing sexual contact after consent has been withdrawn and announced and then pretending that's not rape, is like Dr Kevorkian continuing to help someone die after they announced they changed their mind and then pretending that's not murder.

You just spent 9 short paragraphs before this one on how the victim shares blame directly proportional to the degree they present opportunity to law breakers to turn right around and state women aren't to blame if sexually victimized over how much plant matter they adorn themselves with. Hell, even in the following sentence there contradicts the first one. Looks like you have more work to do here. Finding glaring holes in your belief system isn't the most pleasant feeling, but we're smart people and we can work it out. I understand the conflict, and I think it's based on the assumption of blame within a legal framework. There are things I can do to prevent others from violating the law. Like, I could surround my house with a 16 foot electrical fence. That will drastically reduce the potential for home invasion and etc. But does that mean I now share in blame since I *didn't* put up that 16 foot fence? What if I never *thought* of the idea...am I still partly to blame? Our ability to mitigate the damage by law breakers is directly tied to our imagination and the ability to foresee opportunity. All imaginations are not equal. Thus, right out of the gate, people already share in blame proportional to their talent for criminal empathy, using that logic. No, I think there's a clear distinction between blame and prevention. A woman can go out of her way to prevent criminal opportunity by altering her behavior, her clothing..etc. But that's quite clearly, to me anyway, demonstrations of prevention. We would all probably agree that walking around naked at 3 in the morning is a really dumb idea - because it's universally realized, even among the stupidest of humans, as the most obvious abdication of prevention. Not because she's now partly to blame - but because she's removed all sense of prevention, leaving herself incredibly vulnerable to the criminal element. We can all expect each other to invoke a bit more prevention in their behavior than that. Again, just to summarize, there's a clear difference between blame (like the theif stealing money dangling out of a toddler's diaper) and prevention (like not dangling money out of your toddler's diaper). Failing to imagine criminal intentions is no standard for distributing blame or responsibility. Well I'm sure I don't speak for all libertarians, and I'm hesitant to stamp that title on my forehead since there are many aspects of the ideology I don't buy into (such as privatized police, pure militia defense..etc), but your interpretation of anti-liberty police threatening every nook and cranny suggests you misunderstand the initial accusation: that government is a necessary evil, not an evolutionary benchmark. The philosophy driving libertarians, or classical liberals, is a philosophy who's end game is pure self governance without the need for authority roles or force of any kind. That's an ideal that will never be met, as far as I can tell. But it's similar to the ostensible goal of crime control: to eliminate crime. That also will never be met, but all policies on crime control should be steering in that direction; we should drive to that goal for the best possible result. (we actually don't do this anymore, as we have now "accepted" crime to an unhealthy level, so probably a bad example on my part, but hopefully you'll allow me this sloppy comparison in the interest of constricted time..) In the context of human nature, anti-liberty *is* threatening from every nook and cranny, but this is a statement about the nature of subordination psychology. The attraction by a number of humans to want to be ruled by fair masters, in trade for the security and social justice promised by the institution. This is in direct contradiction to libertarian philosophy to refuse rule by others, to hold freedom and liberty above promises of economic security and social sanitization. While there is still contempt in my statements, I think it really does boil down to leader/follower or independent/codependent pyschological disparity between humans. And that's always been the part about politics that saddens me the most. It's not that socialism "doesn't work" or that capitalism "doesn't work" or that nanny states "don't work" - all of these arrangements "work". It's not about what works, it's about what set of advantages and disadvantages the people want to negotiate. We just have different preferences from each other, but we're made to fight about the preferences we ALL must live under. That's politics under a centralized government. Thanks, and I always like a good round with you TBK. My whole contribution in this thread is one big moment of weakness, I actually had no intention of posting here, but you have a knack for getting my passions broiling. Good job. Regardless, take care.

Yes, that's so cool. Now we can go back and let those gang rape victims know they *did* have something to do with it afterall. That short skirt with "hottie" written on the ass getting toasty with a group of aggressive teenage males...it's not like she didn't put herself in the situation right? And that's what we tell them with tears streaming down their face in the ER too right? "Next time just don't dress like a slut, dear". Yeah, sorry, but I don't agree. This logic uses the premise that humans cannot be expected to be ethical given hyper opportunity as opposed to regular, good ole standard opportunity. Somehow, a locked door between my jewelry and someone else's lack of ethics gives me excuse from responsiblity, but once that lock isn't used, the opportunity is too attractive for normal ethical humans and we graduate to a whole new concept of blame and responsiblity. That's more hindsight scrambling to build a logical exception when one empathizes with such dramatic opportunity - in other words, this says more about you and your ethics and morals, that you would tier the degree of opportunity in order to partition blame. Strange. Tell me, do you also do this with drive by murder victims? After all, they know how dangerous it is on the street, and if they're out walking at 3 am then aren't they partly to blame to being murdered by a gang that thought they were a rival gang member? How about when kiddos are tricked by strangers and assaulted or kidnapped after they've been taught at school not to talk to them? Do we let them and their parents know how they share in the blame? Pardon me while I find somewhere to puke... Yes, it means they're apologists for people who rob or mug, among other violent criminal acts, innocent people. Absolutely. The humane, moral and ethical approach would be to inform people how to minimize opportunity for criminals. This is why we lock our doors - not to remove blame when our house is invaded, but to minimize the opportunity to invade our house. Because we know criminals exist, does not translate to being partially responsible for their exploitations when we fail to foresee our own weakness. Since when is the ACLU "the left"? Are we watching Fox News again? The ACLU has a considerable record fighting for civil rights that others would consider conservative positions. Like college students being free to protest gun control policies in colleges using an empty holster protest. Because civil liberties is a central theme in liberal and libertarian ideology, does not corroborate any endorsement of either ideology. In fact, they're more aligned with libertarians since liberals are now offenders of civil liberties. Maybe I should start referring to the "Libertarian ACLU".

If you aren't looking to be challenged, and if you can't take criticism, then why bother posting? I find it very disturbing that a moderator here can't get past his ego enough to give someone a fair point. It's just not that big of a deal. And it doesn't invalidate or counter any of your points and arguments. Just an observation that entertaining that numbers argument was validating the numbers argument. It's the kind of thing that you usually point out to the rest of us. I'm genuinely surprised. I'm also disturbed by the "ignore" comment from a moderator. Such an odd step for an otherwise reasonable logician. But I'll make it easy and split. I think I've had enough, again. The rest of you take care.

No, you were not silent one bit. You engaged in that numbers argument loud and clear. And then you missed the point when it was pointed out to you: The premise of the argument you were engaged in with jryan was challenged. Silence was not assent and doesn't apply. Your position and motives were not assumed, nor referenced. Only the entertainment of an invalid metric was being challenged, and for good reason. When we get locked into battle with people, often we don't see what premises we're validating. It's easier for folks outside of an exchange to see such things. We usually thank them for pointing it out to us.

This is an example of what I mean by conditioning. You actually see something admirable in submitting to the status quo? You think it's important lesson that you can't beat the system all by yourself, and you lose? Good thing Frederick Douglass didn't believe that. Good thing my country's founders didn't buy that. Good thing the gay community isn't listening to that either. It always starts with somebody standing up for themselves, and then others, and then it gains momentum until it becomes a movement. I don't see anything good out of accepting a system. Every system ought to earn its existence. We should be able to audit every idea a human has ever shared, without a deadline or threshold. Otherwise, you're conditioning subordinates to obey and accept the world as-is. Nothing evolves when its accepted, as-is. It's the idea of not accepting something as good enough that causes change and advancement. This is true, to me, but it goes both ways. There will definitely be disadvantages to self-driven academia, and could conflict with post-school life. Thing is, that's already happening right now too, with formal education institutions. Kids grow up and form under years and years of being processed by grownups. Stand in this line, eat at this time, learn this subject, go to this class, get on this bus - everything they experience is standing around waiting to be processed by grownups. So it's no wonder to me that teens and young adults have what's commonly described as an "entitlement" attitude. It's not really entitlement, in my opinion. It's standing around waiting to be processed, to be assigned to a task, waiting for someone to tell them the things they need to know. There's not alot of initiative, because it's contrary to their life experience up to that point. You don't take it upon yourself to learn things - you wait for grownups to give you what you need, and tell you what you need to know. It looks like entitlement, but it's really just the result of showing up to government buildings to be processed. We may actually have more entrepreneurs and innovators if we would stop molding everyone into the same casting. There will be consequences. And there will be benefits. Most of all, there will be diversity. I believe that will serve society better than stagnant, calm, boring, sameness.

When they finally emerge into the objective world? You're describing public institutions as part of the "objective world"? How very telling. That's the problem with centralized processed education...conditioning. Yes, we must all go to absurd public institutions in order to find absurd public institutions normal, and tolerable. Formal, institutionalized schooling teaches important skills for dogmatic cultures layered with centralized bureaucratic processes that require citizens to subordinate themselves to state demands, like subjects. And what's with the missing time? Do the self-taught never enter the "objective world" until they're done schooling? They don't have to wait in line, deal with the driver's license bureau, or go out and play with their friends in the neighborhood? And gradution day is the day mom and dad let them out of the house to see the outside for the very first time? 'Look son...trees, grass, fresh air, sunlight, bureaucratic public institutions...' It's the same story we get from the autodidacts. They read a book on their own and call it part of their education. This is likely true, as I teach myself things everyday of my life. And we all do this. I'm not sure why they feel compelled to feel superior about it. Just as I'm not sure what's to admire about schools of sameness.

I think post 56 is where the confusion started.... Do you see what you're doing? You're arguing over the numbers to imply that there is some legitimate threshold where you can hold individuals accountable for actions attributed to a collective identity. Here, I think Lemur is making the point that by challenging the inconsistent placement of said "goal posts", it is thereby validating the very notion that there even could be properly set "goal posts" that would justify indicting individuals in the same group for actions of other individuals in that group. In other words, if Person A says 5 out of 10 black guys commit theft, concluding that all black people are thieves, then the proper argument against that is to challenge the notion that any ratio of good-to-bad black folks suggests anything about black folks in general - not to argue that 5 out of 10 is inaccurate, and it's really 1 out of 10. That second argument validates the thought process introduced by Person A, even though his ratio may be inaccurate. Lemur, my apologies if this appears like I'm hijacking your argument or misrepresenting you, I don't mean that at all. I just enjoy trying to figure out people - the more they are misunderstood, the more fascinated I get. Let me know if I have more work to do!

Didn't he say that the public sentiment that could be said to have driven the work of Hitler's Mein Kampf is also found in this illegal immigration issue in America? And that similar to the Mein Kampf, it's a stirring "within"? Not that I agree, but that seems like what he's saying, to me. Although, I'm not sure how racist Mein Kampf is, as I've never read it. I know other people say it is, but then other people also say that state approved racism, or affirmative action, is not actually racism - in fact, some have even invented new redundant phrases, like 'reverse racism'. And it looks like it's illegal for you to know, for yourself. By law, you're required to attain that information by other peoples' interpretations, or do without the knowledge altogether. I'll bet that's unusual for the Netherlands though, am I right? I've always admired the Netherlands I've been exposed to. Not sure how you all negotiate property and liberty, but I've been impressed with your social liberties. Would love to visit someday.

Sweet. If only we would listen... That's so awesome. I wish I could turn that whole bit into a signature. Seriously though, I've been enjoying your thread here. Thanks.

Well pardon me if I'm taking this a bit far, but that would seem to imply that as long as we identify with a group of any kind, then we have created the partition to provide for fear and hatred. So even if I identify with my family group, as in wife and kids, then there is no peace, for there is the potential to fear and hate my neighbor due to normal/foreign and all that. It's interesting, I'm just not sure where to apply the brakes on this logic without it being an arbitrary stopping point for the sake of convenience.