Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Brexit

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 75 of 595
  1. #1

    Default Brexit

    Y'all doing it or what?
  2. #2
    Probs not.

    Think I'm going to vote leave though. Just have to weigh up how much I think a leave vote would prop up parties who are absolute vile cunts. If it gives them some sense of power to the general public it's probably not worth it, especially when most predictable short term effects will be bad (most likely not very).
  3. #3
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
  4. #4
    I like how politicians changed things to a point that this change created a colossus of a problem, then turn around and now say that if that change is reformed, it's doomsday.

    Britain getting its ass out of Brussels would be godly work. The short term negatives would be very mild and very short. The benefits would be high and gradually rising as time passes by.

    If Brexit happens, I think this would end up being one of the most important (in a positive way) votes of the 21st century. If the EU remains, it's likely to be a federal government by the 22nd century. If you think the US is a mess, we'd be pristine in comparison to the disaster that a federalized Europe would be.
  5. #5
    I'd totally like to discuss specific issues anybody has on this.
  6. #6
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    they're all cucked in sharia law by 2050 so it doesn't really matter
  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    they're all cucked in sharia law by 2050 so it doesn't really matter
    Referencing this?


  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Probs not.

    Think I'm going to vote leave though. Just have to weigh up how much I think a leave vote would prop up parties who are absolute vile cunts. If it gives them some sense of power to the general public it's probably not worth it, especially when most predictable short term effects will be bad (most likely not very).
    what are the vile cunt elements you're referring to?
  9. #9
    Polls have it as close at the moment, with 43% exit, 40% stay in and 17% undecided. I was definitely in the stay in camp, as most people that work for big companies are, but I'm coming round to considering the leave option more. My concern is that your average Joe Retard who's scared of anybody that doesn't look and sound like them will vote purely on the basis of some bs "facts" they've read in the national rags, rather than considering a more balanced argument.

    The ideal for me would be to have a free trade area with the geopolitical benefits, but with greater control over economic migration and none of the other stupidity e.g. Allowing Greece to join and the agricultural policy.
  10. #10
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Referencing this?


    lol that's pretty funny, i just pulled the number out of my ass, but i'm glad to see great minds think alike and statistics don't lie
  11. #11
    Out.

    Sovereignty etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #12
    Britain won't be majority Muslim in 2050. We'll have too many Polish, Albanians, Romanians, and whateverelseanians tipping the balance in favour of whites.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #13
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Why is Brexit a word? Is it so I have to google it?

    It seems like the more complex and unnknowable the outcome of a particular political action is, the more confident the public opinion on it is.

    I can't get over how dumb of a word Brexit is.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  14. #14
    youda loved grexit.
  15. #15
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    You know what really pisses me off is that in europe I can't be for immigration but violently against organized religion. I don't care if half the people in the country are not native. I do care being stuck between two smelly burkas (and they do stink,) in a crowded market but I can't say a fucking word without committing social suicide.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  16. #16
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    youda loved grexit.


    I love how newspapers use it with complete an utter confidence as if everyone obviously knows what grexit and brexit is. Who needs that word? Is it a clickbait thing? If you put a question in the head of the person who reads the title, they're more likely to click the article, right? brilliant. You won't believe what these 7 countries with 14 languages call their 3 ways of getting out of these economic-political unions!
    Last edited by oskar; 06-06-2016 at 07:42 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  17. #17
    It's a stupid buzzword for the morons. Why does this surprise you?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #18
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    I'm voting in.

    I get the impression that leaving would be bad economically but I haven't really put in the required effort to have any real idea of how it would effect us.

    But my reasons for wanting to stay are based on a belief that things are better when we try to work together and that when we spend our time focusing on why we're different and what we don't agree on we tend to alienate each other and find reasons to not get along, where as when we spend time looking at what we have in common and working towards doing things together we tend to find that do get along.

    Anything that makes us feel closer and more unified is broadly a good thing. I like the idea of finding shared values and common ground and ways to feel part of a wider community and leaving the EU would be the exact opposite of that.

    Plus, when my business takes off and I'm rich I intend to spend most of my time in southern France, Italy and Spain working remotely and staying in the EU makes that a lot easier.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by rong View Post
    Plus, when my business takes off and I'm rich I intend to spend most of my time in southern France, Italy and Spain working remotely and staying in the EU makes that a lot easier.
    Almost no country in the world is going to stop people with money coming into their country. Even those countries with points based systems etc are all for letting rich people in. I also can't really see movement around Europe being that big of an issue whether we're in or out. They don't expect English people living in other countries in Europe to go through any real change whether we're in our out.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    what are the vile cunt elements you're referring to?
    Just go look up some of the big names behind the leave campaign & the big parties associated with the ideas more generally. They only want out as they think they'll get more power from it they couldn't give a fuck if people were generally worse off. They are a bunch of backward inbred racists who would love to go back to some fuedal system.
    Last edited by Savy; 06-07-2016 at 10:27 AM.
  20. #20
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    That bit wasn't the main reason for staying in, but you're right, if I ever get rrich I'm fine regardless.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by rong View Post
    That bit wasn't the main reason for staying in, but you're right, if I ever get rich I'm fine regardless.
    I was going to add the rest of your quote and say how I mostly agree with you but I couldn't be arsed. I was only saying what I did because you said you hadn't looked into it much (may have misread re economics part of your post) so may have thought it'd make things a pain. Whereas everything I've read about the topic tends to say they're not really sure on the details of how things will change but it's unlikely to affect individuals in any noticeable way.

    Even people with reasonable money wouldn't really have any problems retiring in other countries.
  22. #22
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    I expect the cost of borrowing to go up as it tends to when faced with uncertainty. And that's a bad thing for my line of work. Most businesses strive with greater certainty and struggle with uncertainty, so that alone makes me think leaving would be bad initially. I'm sure a few wealthy folk who are no doubt pushing for an exit will profit considerably from it.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by rong View Post
    But my reasons for wanting to stay are based on a belief that things are better when we try to work together and that when we spend our time focusing on why we're different and what we don't agree on we tend to alienate each other and find reasons to not get along, where as when we spend time looking at what we have in common and working towards doing things together we tend to find that do get along.
    FWIW I think leaving would help that. Look at the US and the UK for example. Our countries have a seriously fantastic relationship yet it's not predicated on the political will of our governments. In fact, if we didn't have our independence, it is likely that we'd still have a toilsome relationship.

    I don't think the idea that people should be responsible for their own houses detracts from the positive pursuit of togetherness. I don't like the idea of London being told what to do by Brussels. London should be responsible for London.



    Briefly, on the economics of this, the EU has three main factors of unity: monetary, fiscal, and regulatory. When this thing started, it had a monetary union without a fiscal union. Economists screamed bloody murder. They said this cannot work and it would spell doom in the future, but the political will was too great; Europe's collectivist ideals were too great. This monetary-but-not-fiscal union showed no problems for several years, but at the first hiccup (2008 financial crisis), the gargantuan flaw in a monetary-but-not-fiscal union revealed. The EU economy has been garbage ever since. Note that the UK economy has been better than the continental EU economy during this time. This really is because the UK retained its own currency. The technical reasons for why the monetary-but-not-fiscal union has created this disaster are unimportant, but the short is that the union disallows the two main ways for a country to escape economic doldrums: (1) currency devaluation and/or (2) regional fiscal redistribution.

    For the EU to work over the long run, a fiscal union is required. Make no mistake, if this thing keeps together, it will eventually be a federal government and the UK will be just a subservient state to the federal government. It's gonna take a while for it to get there, but that's the direction and it's a necessary consequence of the monetary union. The US federal government didn't have tax power for a long time too. Brussels is gonna do the same thing to London.

    The third factor, the regulatory framework, is already a mess. I don't remember specific details, but I've read of many different really silly regulations imposed by Brussels. These aren't "keep people safe" regulations, but "only this type of product, only this region, only this producer, etc." type regulations. Why is it important that Brussels be in charge of huge swaths of land and peoples that they know nothing about? Is Brussels better at regulating London than London is?


    I'll end by saying the EU economy is remarkably bad and the reason is the EU. Politicians say things like Europe has been peaceful because of the EU. That is false. Europe has been peaceful for a mix of reasons that include Germany no longer wanting to start wars, central banks no longer causing deflation, America (fuck yeah) having a military that ain't nothing to fuck with and having many troops stationed in Germany. Additionally, Germany is finally getting its wish and taking over the continent. Germany controls EU policy, and the policy curiously reflects the wishes of Germany.

    The negatives of leaving would be very short-lived. The future doesn't end in a few months.
  24. #24
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Q: What have you learned from teaching World history for a year?

    A: I've learned that humans generally get less miserable when we collaborate and that we get totally hosed when we choose ideology over actual humans.
  25. #25
    Q: What have you learned from a year of teaching a World History class that includes America?

    A: That the world made very little progress towards the betterment of humans until America embraced Enlightenment ideology and others followed.


    It should be noted that regardless of what you choose, you're choosing an ideology.
  26. #26
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    My quote was from an actual Q&A with a college professor of history. Was yours?
  27. #27
    I'm not sure why that matters.
  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Q: What have you learned from teaching World history for a year?

    A: I've learned that humans generally get less miserable when we collaborate and that we get totally hosed when we choose ideology over actual humans.
    Found a commie.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    words
    Well done for having a much better grasp of this subject than 95+% of UK.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #30
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm not sure why that matters.
    I don't believe this is a true fact.

    The appeal to authority may be a signal to be skeptical about the "facts" presented, but you (wufwugy) definitely know the importance of letting the experts in their fields set the landscape for the discussion.

    Questioning those presented "facts" is important, but knowing the context of the speaker is equally important.

    ***
    Claiming that you're notions of history hold equal weight as a professional historian is silly.
    EDIT: not necessarily wrong, but still silly to just throw out your opinion behind a professional's and no further data or argument than your opinion.

    ***
    The point of the quote was to add a historical frame of reference to this dialogue rather than everyone speculating at some unknown future outcomes without context. Or at least.. to hint in the direction of context.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 06-07-2016 at 03:06 PM.
  31. #31
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    madcuckmonkey at it again
  32. #32
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    You (spoon) only waste your time name-calling when you don't have anything intelligent to add, but still disagree with someone.

    Look back at your crystal ball and tell me more about 2050.
  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Look back at your crystal ball and tell me more about 2050.
    I see wasteland and cockroaches.

    Oh wait, it's just my bedroom floor. Glad to see I'm still alive in 2050.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #34
    I have a feeling the professor had the same opinion before he was a professor.

    For fun, let's dissect his statement.

    humans generally get less miserable when we collaborate
    Ah, the good ol correlation equals causation that academic essays teach one to employ.

    when we collaborate
    A top notch outcome indeed. What incentivizes people to collaborate but shared ideals?

    miserable
    This outcome's the dumps, yo. What deflects this outcome but shared ideals of the type that constructs a sustainable system that diverges from the outcome of misery?

    when we choose ideology over actual humans
    My ideology is that humans come first. Checkmate, professors!
  35. #35
    How wuf plays Sicilian...

    1. e5 c5
    2. Nf3 d6
    3. d4 cxd4 mate
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  36. #36
    I would just like to say that I have every right to troll this thread because I'm British and am bored fucking shitless of discussing this subject on social media.

    I'm voting out. I don't give a flying fuck what anyone else is doing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #37
    How wuf places Sicilian...

    wtf is Sicilian?
  38. #38
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I have a feeling the professor had the same opinion before he was a professor.
    Even if your feeling is correct, what's your point? That when someone has an opinion, then they study the facts on the matter, which support their opinion, that they're only holding that conclusion because of bias?

    Does this mean that your notions of free markets are all biased because the more you learn about free markets, the more you like them? You like them to begin with, but then you learned more and your opinion didn't change, so... obv. bias?

    Of course not.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    For fun, let's dissect his statement.

    Ah, the good ol correlation equals causation that academic essays teach one to employ.

    A top notch outcome indeed. What incentivizes people to collaborate but shared ideals?

    This outcome's the dumps, yo. What deflects this outcome but shared ideals of the type that constructs a sustainable system that diverges from the outcome of misery?

    My ideology is that humans come first. Checkmate, professors!
    So... you're saying you agree with the sentiment, then?
  39. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How wuf places Sicilian...

    wtf is Sicilian?
    My thoughts after playing it as black a few times the other day.
  40. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Even if your feeling is correct, what's your point? That when someone has an opinion, then they study the facts on the matter, which support their opinion, that they're only holding that conclusion because of bias?

    Does this mean that your notions of free markets are all biased because the more you learn about free markets, the more you like them? You like them to begin with, but then you learned more and your opinion didn't change, so... obv. bias?
    I was majorly against free markets until I learned about them.

    My comment about the professor probably believing his line before he was a professor is because the line reads to me like something that isn't learned from studying history. It reads like an ideal confirmed by his view of reality.

    So... you're saying you agree with the sentiment, then?
    I am in stark disagreement with his sentiment. I am claiming he misunderstands what ideology is and its role in history. I am also claiming that it's the embrace of Enlightenment ideologies that has resulted in what he considers the positive aspects of history.
  41. #41
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I was majorly against free markets until I learned about them.

    My comment about the professor probably believing his line before he was a professor is because the line reads to me like something that isn't learned from studying history. It reads like an ideal confirmed by his view of reality.
    I don't even know where to begin with this. The level of assumptions you've made about this person based on one sentence out of context is pretty huge.

    Your argument seems to be, "I disagree, therefore he's biased."
    Come on, man.

    Besides, what you said about what you think on this topic is pretty much in line with what this person has had to say beyond this quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I am in stark disagreement with his sentiment. I am claiming he misunderstands what ideology is and its role in history. I am also claiming that it's the embrace of Enlightenment ideologies that has resulted in what he considers the positive aspects of history.
    Tell me what he misunderstands about ideology and its role in history. Please reference the quote I used to make your case.

    I must learn how you glean so much about someone from a single sentence taken w/o context.
  42. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Tell me what he misunderstands about ideology and its role in history. Please reference the quote I used to make your case.

    I must learn how you glean so much about someone from a single sentence taken w/o context.
    It is impossible to "choose ideology over humans" because "choosing humans" is an ideology.

    Historically, ideologies are at the root of that which he considers the positive-for-humans developments. These ideologies are mostly the ones from the Enlightenment that the West embraced. Even with the sledge hammer of the anti-Enlightenment education system adopted by the West, academic historians still cover this a bit.
  43. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    My thoughts after playing it as black a few times the other day.
    1... c5 is practically a reflex for me when facing 1.e4. It's black's strongest defence, this claim can be backed up by any sizable database.

    I can't be fucked to learn all the different openings, but I recognise the value of Sicilian.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #44
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It is impossible to "choose ideology over humans" because "choosing humans" is an ideology.
    What? Really? You think that's what he meant? It was a sentence, not an essay.

    Do you find any value in trying to understand what someone means rather than pedantically saying that something they didn't mean is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Historically, ideologies are at the root of that which he considers the positive-for-humans developments. These ideologies are mostly the ones from the Enlightenment that the West embraced. Even with the sledge hammer of the anti-Enlightenment education system adopted by the West, academic historians still cover this a bit.
    The original quote was: I've learned that humans generally get less miserable when we collaborate and that we get totally hosed when we choose ideology over actual humans.

    He didn't say anything about what he "considers positive-for-humans developments"; I don't see where you got this from that quote. "Generally get less miserable" is about as broad a brush as can be painted while specifically avoiding saying that said reduction in misery is positive. If anything, I grant you, he's implying that it's less bad than being "totally hosed."

    He didn't say what the root causes or manifestations of collaboration are (or aren't). I don't see how the Enlightenment is antithetical to the sentence. A quick Google search shows that the Enlightenment looks like it was about freeing humans to think and share their thoughts in an open and free way, which is fairly rockin'.

    I think he'd say that to the extent that Enlightenment ideologies promoted the humans, things generally got less miserable and that to the extent that the ideals of the Enlightenment were used to suppress humans, things got totally hosed.
  45. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The original quote was: I've learned that humans generally get less miserable when we collaborate and that we get totally hosed when we choose ideology over actual humans.
    A literal impossibility.

    He didn't say anything about what he "considers positive-for-humans developments"; I don't see where you got this from that quote. "Generally get less miserable" is about as broad a brush as can be painted while specifically avoiding saying that said reduction in misery is positive. If anything, I grant you, he's implying that it's less bad than being "totally hosed."
    His view is that some things make things better (less miserable) than other things (totally hosed). That he considers the former to arise from "positive-for-humans developments" is necessary.

    He didn't say what the root causes or manifestations of collaboration are (or aren't). I don't see how the Enlightenment is antithetical to the sentence. A quick Google search shows that the Enlightenment looks like it was about freeing humans to think and share their thoughts in an open and free way, which is fairly rockin'.
    I added the explanation about the Enlightenment for your benefit.

    I think he'd say that to the extent that Enlightenment ideologies promoted the humans, things generally got less miserable and that to the extent that the ideals of the Enlightenment were used to suppress humans, things got totally hosed.
    This is the same as saying that which is good for people is good for people. A meaningful explanation regarding history provides a description of potential causality. The Enlightenment is widely considered that causality for the betterment of humankind.

    It is NOT the case that pursuit of ideology has made things worse and pursuit of "humans" makes things better. His statement misses the mark in two ways: (1) that which he says is not ideology is still ideology and (2) particular ideologies are the backbone for what made things "less miserable."
  46. #46
    I'm confused on what the guy would actually teach. Every in-depth history class I've had teaches history as a bunch of ideological movements.

    His statement is remarkably similar to the same kind I've seen probably a hundred times on the internet, where one group of people thinks of themselves as believing in bettering peoples' lives while groups they oppose are just "ideological."
  47. #47
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    My thoughts after playing it as black a few times the other day.
    Try the Accelerated Dragon, it's easy to learn and fairly easy to play with clear-cut plans, plenty of videos on it on YouTube that are of decent quality as well
  48. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Try the Accelerated Dragon, it's easy to learn and fairly easy to play with clear-cut plans, plenty of videos on it on YouTube that are of decent quality as well
    I just played a few blitz games with it to see how it felt & the games didn't go great but that was always going to be the case when I don't know the main ideas & playing 3|2 I'm not exactly going to work out anything decent. That being said the level I play at people are hardly that clued up themselves. But ye I should look into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    1... c5 is practically a reflex for me when facing 1.e4. It's black's strongest defence, this claim can be backed up by any sizable database.

    I can't be fucked to learn all the different openings, but I recognise the value of Sicilian.
    At the same time though there's also a lot to learn. I reply with e5 & know the basics of the italian & spanish so I get playable positions out of the opening which is all I really want.

    Strangely (as an e4 player) I always seem to do reasonable when people play it against me when I don't really know what I'm doing, maybe it's because my tactics are the only somewhat reasonable part of my game so I should probably look to learn some nice open tactical openings.

    I hope no one minds this is now the chess thread.
    Last edited by Savy; 06-08-2016 at 01:02 PM.
  49. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I hope no one minds this is now the chess thread.
    The idea of Americans discussing our referendum while we talk chess amuses me.

    Generally, against weaker players, open games are better. As white, I like open games. When facing 1... e5, I tend to castle quickly and then offer pawns in the hope I can develop while black isn't castling. That can make for very open games where I need to win by middlegame because I won't stand a chance in endgamde. In a recent game, I ditched four pawns in the opening before using the space to punish black's greed.

    You might be able to view the game if it interests you... https://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1605679422#

    (might be login required access, idk)

    As black, I don't like open games unless I've nullified white's opening advantage. I'm happy with Sicilian because often white castles queenside, for allows for exciting counter attacks. If white castles kingside, I tend to move quickly and conservatively to put white under time pressure, knowing that closed Sicilian positions often get settled at endgame.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #50
    how dare you carnies turn a perfectly good wuf-gets-to-talk-economics thread into this barmy shit.
  51. #51
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    A literal impossibility.
    Not even a little bit.

    Death penalty is a thing that still happens in the USA.
    We place the ideal of punishing criminals above that criminal's life.
    Or above the ideal that humans' lives are the most important thing.

    For you to say that it's literally impossible to favor an ideology before favoring the person is just blowing my mind. At most you are saying "assigning extreme value to human lives" is an ideology. Do you really think that is the definition of ideology that the speaker intended? Even so... if that ideology is used as a tool to suppress someone, I think he'd still describe that as the path to being totally hosed.

    Again I ask: Do you find any value in trying to understand what someone means and not pedantically telling them that something they didn't mean is wrong?

    I ask twice since you play devil's advocate and say things like "Taxation is theft" when it's clear through conversation with you that what you mean is closer to, "Taxation is very much like theft except for a subtlety in the definitions of the two concepts which is tenuous at times and is not the kind of subtle distinction we commonly find in the English language." So I can see why you choose the more terse, "Taxation is theft," even though it's not - strictly speaking - what you actually believe. Or if it is what you believe, it's based on non-standard definitions which you invented to talk about the "essence" of taxation as identical to the "essence" of theft... which is still a different statement, and those terms are purely subjective, with no agreed upon meaning.

    So you use your words in - shall we say interesting - ways, and I don't see how you can do so, but then refuse to be delighted when someone else takes a similar liberty.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This is the same as saying that which is good for people is good for people.
    So you agree with it, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    A meaningful explanation regarding history provides a description of potential causality. The Enlightenment is widely considered that causality for the betterment of humankind.

    It is NOT the case that pursuit of ideology has made things worse and pursuit of "humans" makes things better. His statement misses the mark in two ways: (1) that which he says is not ideology is still ideology and (2) particular ideologies are the backbone for what made things "less miserable."
    Again: What did he say is or is not ideology? This is all in your head.

    He doesn't say that ideology is bad or destructive or miserable. He says that when we choose ideology over humans, we get hosed. He does not say that choosing humans is not an ideology. He says that when ideology is used as a tool to dehumanize, things go to shit.
  52. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The idea of Americans discussing our referendum while we talk chess amuses me.

    Generally, against weaker players, open games are better. As white, I like open games. When facing 1... e5, I tend to castle quickly and then offer pawns in the hope I can develop while black isn't castling. That can make for very open games where I need to win by middlegame because I won't stand a chance in endgamde. In a recent game, I ditched four pawns in the opening before using the space to punish black's greed.

    You might be able to view the game if it interests you... https://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1605679422#

    (might be login required access, idk)

    As black, I don't like open games unless I've nullified white's opening advantage. I'm happy with Sicilian because often white castles queenside, for allows for exciting counter attacks. If white castles kingside, I tend to move quickly and conservatively to put white under time pressure, knowing that closed Sicilian positions often get settled at endgame.
    I have a chess.com account, if you ever fancy some games let me know. I sent you a friends request. In fact my membership ran out today

    I've been meaning to put some effort into actually getting better rather than pissing about playing blitz games. Strangely enough I was doing more whilst I was working full time as I'd play in my lunch break almost every day.
  53. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Again I ask: Do you find any value in trying to understand what someone means and not pedantically telling them that something they didn't mean is wrong?
    I tend to let you do this a couple dozen times before I acknowledge it.

    It seems impossible for you to converse with somebody without swiftly leaping to judgments of their character and motives.

    I ask twice since you play devil's advocate and say things like "Taxation is theft" when it's clear through conversation with you that what you mean is closer to, "Taxation is very much like theft except for a subtlety in the definitions of the two concepts which is tenuous at times and is not the kind of subtle distinction we commonly find in the English language."
    That's not what I believe. I believe taxation is theft. I haven't mucked my words on this. The concept of theft does not require legal codification. By law, taxation is not theft, but by fundamental concept, theft and taxation do not diverge. The word "theft" is used instead of "wrongful taking" because nobody (except when arguing against me on the internet) believes that something is only theft because the law says so. If the government passes a law that says it now gets to take all the stuff you and nobody else uses, you're gonna describe their actions as theft and not give two shits what the law says.

    He doesn't say that ideology is bad or destructive or miserable. He says that when we choose ideology over humans, we get hosed. He does not say that choosing humans is not an ideology. He says that when ideology is used as a tool to dehumanize, things go to shit.
    How can I choose an apple over a fruit?

    The bold is what he likely meant, but it ain't what he said. I've seen the meme many times before, and I point out its mistake because I think the misunderstanding causes problems.
  54. #54
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    www.lichess.org is pretty good
  55. #55
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I tend to let you do this a couple dozen times before I acknowledge it.

    It seems impossible for you to converse with somebody without swiftly leaping to judgments of their character and motives.
    I asked you a question, with no judgement on your character.

    You replied by attacking my character.

    ***
    Truth be told, I do hold judgements on your character, but I think you'd be surprised to hear that they are almost 100% positive things.

    That said, I do not conflate your character with your reasoning skills. Whether or not you intend to be an actor for the good of the world as best you see fit is separate from your ability to form a coherent world view, which I remain on the fence about even myself. So don't just jump to some conclusion that I don't value your world view. I am skeptical of all world views.

    Yes, I find your reasoning procedures to be baffling and I don't know how you can say half of the things you say with such confidence. I don't consider this a fault of yours, though, so that is in your head. My desire to unravel the baffling bits is a testament to the fact that I do, in fact, think you are intelligent and that I can learn a lot from you, as long as I keep epic patience and keep asking questions.
  56. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    www.lichess.org is pretty good
    I use that for most of my chess analysis, chess.com for most of my games, chess24 (and a little chess.com) for viewing & I'm going to start using chesstempo for my tactics training.
    Last edited by Savy; 06-08-2016 at 05:05 PM.
  57. #57
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Wuf: I believe taxation is theft. I haven't mucked my words on this.

    MMM:Let the mucking begin!

    Wuf: The concept of theft does not require legal codification.

    MMM: Muck! The "concept of theft" is not the "definition of theft."
    The concept is subjective and the definition is objective. We may disagree about whether the legal part of the definition is central to the concept, because we all put different weight on the different aspects of any idea when we conceptualize it.


    Wuf: By law, taxation is not theft, but by fundamental concept, theft and taxation do not diverge.

    MMM: Muck!
    If the fundamental concept is "taking," then any exchange of materials is theft. If there's a sense that there is "rightful taking" and "wrongful taking" then you need to state the moral authority making this distinction between right and wrong.


    Wuf: The word "theft" is used instead of "wrongful taking" because nobody (except when arguing against me on the internet) believes that something is only theft because the law says so.

    MMM: Muck!
    I'm not interested in what "nobody" or "everybody" believes. I place 0 value on these things. I am interested in what you believe and why. Furthermore, I don't believe that you are authorized to speak for "nobody" or "everybody," anyway.

    Wuf: If the government passes a law that says it now gets to take all the stuff you and nobody else uses, you're gonna describe their actions as theft and not give two shits what the law says.

    MMM: Again with telling me what I think and even what I will feel, thought it's directly at odds with what I've told you I do think and feel. You've done this before, and I've pointed it out before, so I wonder: Does the fact that you keep saying this mean that you're ignoring the obvious - that we don't know what each other thinks and feels?

    It seems like you aren't interested in understanding my point of view on this. It seems that you're demanding that I share your point of view, no matter what I say. It seems like when I disagree, you assume that I'm judging you.

    So, again, and it's not a troll, nor is it any judgement:
    I'm particularly curious if you find value in trying to pause and understand what someone means rather than pedantically telling them that something they don't mean is wrong. If so, can you tell me what that value is. If not, do you think that I'm mischaracterizing your tendencies on this? (FYI, I've told you that I consider paying federal taxes a privilege and that I do so willingly and proudly, yet you insist that I'm being robbed. I have told you that I believe that the legal framework which acts as the moral authority is something we are all invited to be a part of, but you insist that the government is something that happens to me, and not by me.)
  58. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Wuf: If the government passes a law that says it now gets to take all the stuff you and nobody else uses, you're gonna describe their actions as theft and not give two shits what the law says.

    MMM: Again with telling me what I think and even what I will feel
    So you're saying that it's okay if somebody takes everything that you use that nobody else does and calls it the law?

    It seems that you're demanding that I share your point of view, no matter what I say. It seems like when I disagree, you assume that I'm judging you.

    I'm particularly curious if you find value in trying to pause and understand what someone means rather than pedantically telling them that something they don't mean is wrong.


    ...

    If so, can you tell me what that value is. If not, do you think that I'm mischaracterizing your tendencies on this? (FYI, I've told you that I consider paying federal taxes a privilege and that I do so willingly and proudly, yet you insist that I'm being robbed. I have told you that I believe that the legal framework which acts as the moral authority is something we are all invited to be a part of, but you insist that the government is something that happens to me, and not by me.)


    Well government is something that happens to you instead of by you, but your embrace of it using your capital does mean that in your case you're not being robbed. This was included in my original point from way back when. Taxation has been culturally accepted, but that doesn't change the fact that if somebody does not accept it, they are being robbed.
  59. #59
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    the aspie is strong itt
  60. #60
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    So you're saying that it's okay if somebody takes everything that you use that nobody else does and calls it the law?
    No... and I know you've heard this before, so I'm confused as to why you need to ask again.

    I'm saying that my statement that it's not OK that their statement that it is OK are on equal footing until and unless some authority is cited to make that distinction. I'm saying that their appeal to their moral code which says they're entitled to the things is no different from my appeal to my moral code which says that I'm entitled to the things. We are at an impasse.

    I'm saying that we can both cry "theif!" but there is simply no objective way to resolve the situation without calling on another party to intervene. That party will be tasked to define who is the thief and who is not. Whether or not this is a government is kind of moot beyond the notion that, in the modern world, we have assigned the burden of adjudication to governments. (Jedi would be a better choice, I think.)

    This illustrates that saying, "Taxation is theft." is assigning a moral quality to taxation. Taxation is not just "taking;" it's "wrongful taking." However, as a society, we have ceded the right to determine the moral high ground to the gov't. Also, we have empowered the government to collect taxes. We can't at the same time say that the gov't gets to decide who is a thief and who is not and then also say that the government doing what we have empowered them to do (make laws and collect taxes) is thievery. We can say, "Oops. That was a bad move. Let's change the laws." if we made a mistake, though. 'Cause this is America. (Other people are cool like, us, too.)

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ...
    Well, I wont be holding my breath for an answer, now that you've dodged the question 3 times. I can only guess and hope that someday I meet someone who shares your opinion, but is more outspoken about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Well government is something that happens to you instead of by you
    This is not true in the USA and (last you said) you live in the USA. Since you ignored me last time I did so, let me again formally invite you to be a part of the government of the USA. All you need to do is show up at any government function at any level (community, city, state, national) and then keep showing up. Welcome! We've been long in need of your voice, here.
    In fact:
    Please. I'm begging you, for all of our sakes. Please become active in the government and let your love of humans and human achievement become a greater part of what we do, here.

    If you still insist that the gov't is something that happens to you and not by you, then that is your own choice, and not a reflection of the reality of your situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    but your embrace of it using your capital does mean that in your case you're not being robbed. This was included in my original point from way back when. Taxation has been culturally accepted, but that doesn't change the fact that if somebody does not accept it, they are being robbed.
    So you're saying taxation is theft if it "feels" like it is? That leaves us at my point at the top of this post. One party says they feel like the things are theirs and another party says otherwise and who gets to decide which claimant gets their wish?

    Your definitions leave us with no actual framework to resolve this. You've stripped any meaning by the word "wrongful" in wrongful taking by leaving it up to each individual to define on their own terms.
  61. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I have a chess.com account, if you ever fancy some games let me know. I sent you a friends request. In fact my membership ran out today

    I've been meaning to put some effort into actually getting better rather than pissing about playing blitz games. Strangely enough I was doing more whilst I was working full time as I'd play in my lunch break almost every day.
    Added. I'll keep an eye out for us being online together, although the difference in our ratings means I won't have any bragging rights if I beat you

    I only tend to play blitz these days, haven't played a long game in a while. I'd sometimes spend maybe an hour a day for a week analysing a single move, that level of depth meant my rating approached 2000 at gameknot. That's a great site if you're willing to pay, the database and openings book are extremely useful tools. I intend to take a look at that site spoon has linked though, see what's available for free.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Added. I'll keep an eye out for us being online together, although the difference in our ratings means I won't have any bragging rights if I beat you

    I only tend to play blitz these days, haven't played a long game in a while. I'd sometimes spend maybe an hour a day for a week analysing a single move, that level of depth meant my rating approached 2000 at gameknot. That's a great site if you're willing to pay, the database and openings book are extremely useful tools. I intend to take a look at that site spoon has linked though, see what's available for free.
    I literally just made a new account on there as I disliked my old name + it was with an email I never use. So I sent you a message on the account I'll be using. Sorry for being a pain in the arse.

    If you're about for a bit now I'll happily play a game or two, not arsed on the time control. Unrated if you want as although you'll probably beat me every game my rating on this new account is artificially low.
  63. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    how dare you carnies turn a perfectly good wuf-gets-to-talk-economics thread into this barmy shit.
    I really don't care about the economics of staying or leaving, I'm interested in soverignty. Like fuck should our laws be trumped by European laws. The referendum debate isn't an economics debate for me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I literally just made a new account on there as I disliked my old name + it was with an email I never use. So I sent you a message on the account I'll be using. Sorry for being a pain in the arse.

    If you're about for a bit now I'll happily play a game or two, not arsed on the time control. Unrated if you want as although you'll probably beat me every game my rating on this new account is artificially low.
    I'm not sure how to challenge you to a blitz game, I only seem to be able to challenge you to a long game.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #65
    Ong 2 ImSavy 1 in case anyone is interested.

    ImSavy beat me when I was black and didn't play Sicilian... out of my comfort zone!
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    No... and I know you've heard this before, so I'm confused as to why you need to ask again.

    I'm saying that my statement that it's not OK that their statement that it is OK are on equal footing until and unless some authority is cited to make that distinction.
    The authority was cited. In the hypothetical, it became the law to take everything that only you use. Would this be okay with you? If it would not, why would it not?

    Well, I wont be holding my breath for an answer, now that you've dodged the question 3 times. I can only guess and hope that someday I meet someone who shares your opinion, but is more outspoken about it.
    I'm not interested in answering your judgments of my character and motives.

    Since you ignored me last time I did so
    An example of the above.

    If you still insist that the gov't is something that happens to you and not by you, then that is your own choice, and not a reflection of the reality of your situation.
    List all the things the government does that affects you that you did not have a choice in and then list all the things you did that altered something about the government. The first list will be endless and the latter will include a handful tops.

    Your definitions leave us with no actual framework to resolve this. You've stripped any meaning by the word "wrongful" in wrongful taking by leaving it up to each individual to define on their own terms.
    I'm not looking for any reasoning from the individual. I ask people to apply the elements of theft and taxation onto each other.
  67. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I really don't care about the economics of staying or leaving, I'm interested in soverignty. Like fuck should our laws be trumped by European laws. The referendum debate isn't an economics debate for me.
    Evarthing is economics homey.
  68. #68
    At the risk of talking about non-EU stuff nor chess, I'd like to know...

    What is the alternative to tax? Privatisation of everything? Who's gonna pay for the military?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Evarthing is economics homey.
    Chess isn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ong 2 ImSavy 1 in case anyone is interested.

    ImSavy beat me when I was black and didn't play Sicilian... out of my comfort zone!
    A 1600 should never lose to someone rated 900 though really, should they?

    http://en.lichess.org/fLhCGJYp/white#69

    Masterclass!

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I really don't care about the economics of staying or leaving, I'm interested in soverignty. Like fuck should our laws be trumped by European laws. The referendum debate isn't an economics debate for me.
    My issue with this is the people in charge pushing for this want EU laws to not exist so they can basically attempt to repeal peoples human rights and so they can wank over the queen a bit more whilst taking away peoples rights to do things. If they were pushing it through as some libertarian issue I'd be much more on board but they just want the power for themselves not so they can give it to us.

    Can you imagine a parliament led by Boris Johnson with a large proportion of UKIP. I dread to think.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Then why don't you rush in with your queen at the start?
    I do?
    Last edited by Savy; 06-08-2016 at 09:15 PM.
  71. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Chess isn't.
    Then why don't you rush in with your queen at the start?
  72. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    At the risk of talking about non-EU stuff nor chess, I'd like to know...

    What is the alternative to tax? Privatisation of everything? Who's gonna pay for the military?
    Security payments would be voluntary just like most peoples' payments for food, clothes, and shelter are voluntary today.

    Look at it this way, governments' desire for security doesn't arise because there's something unique about governments; the desire arises because people have it. Without governments to allocate capital towards security, people would do so voluntarily just fine. If governments paid for everybody's food, nobody would voluntarily pay for food, but that doesn't mean that people need governments to pay for food. If governments paid for food long enough, lots of people would probably think that they need governments to do so in order to survive. There has yet to be an identified reason why the same wouldn't be true of security.
  73. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I do?
    Then why do you?
  74. #74
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The authority was cited. In the hypothetical, it became the law to take everything that only you use. Would this be okay with you? If it would not, why would it not?
    If "the law" was my community's law, then I abide.
    After, I may decide that this is OK, as it reflects my own standards, or I may decide that this is not OK and I would appeal to the community to change the law. If this failed, I would know that this community's standards are not my standards, and I would leave the community, as we made a poor fit.

    If "the law" is some community of which I am no voluntary part, then I would appeal to them to change their law. If they refused, I would be aggrieved and appeal to my community for help. If no help were viable, I would leave or fight, but probably just leave. Leaving is almost always lower risk for nearly equal outcome.

    When we spoke of this before, you said that leaving was not viable. Then later, in an entirely different thread and on a different topic, you were musing on the subject of moving to another state for socio-economic benefits. Do you still think that leaving is not viable?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm not interested in answering your judgments of my character and motives.

    An example of the above.
    First of all, my saying you ignored me is not a judgement. I don't understand why you assume so. When you keep asking me the same questions, and I keep telling you the same answers, and it keeps going in the same conversation, then why are you ignoring my answers? I'm trying to understand you, here. I'm not messing with you. I don't have the time to mess with you.

    I do troll spoony a bit from time to time, now, because if you want an example of judgement, just read spoony's posts to me. And on that note... I could maybe care less about spoony's contempt, but not much, so I also don't even understand why you would be apprehensive about my judgement.

    I mean.. I'm judging you for NOT answering the question just as much as I'd be judging your answer. I'm a person. I can't help but judge things as I come across them.
    Here's my judgement on you, since you're so worried about it:
    wufwugy is a cool guy who says odd things that I think at first sound dumb, but I know he's quite clever. He makes me think about things in a new and interesting light. Also, he's pretty funny when he wants to be, but will wall-of-text your ass without warning if you get him on certain topics. I've come to learn that he's passionate and caring and ultimately concerned about making the world generally less bad. And stubborn as a boulder, kinda like me in that regard.

    That's it. The parts that sounds negative about you are more of a statement about me and how I perceive your approach to thinking.

    It's interesting to me that you persist in assuming that I am judging you any more than my always-for-everyone-judging, even though I assure you that I'm only trying to learn about you and understand other people in the world who think like you do. It is different from the way that I think. I get it that in our culture that can lead to harsh judgement and childish name-calling, but that is not my interest.

    I got over calling you names years ago... has it been years? anyway... a long time ago. I realized that my judgement was just a weird kind of self-reflection and that I was really angry about parts of myself that I didn't understand. Which I think I told you at the time when I apologized. I was being dumb and short-sighted and not introspective. The opposite of now. Well... prob still dumb, but trying to not be, so...

    whatever. I'll respect your boundaries.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    List all the things the government does that affects you that you did not have a choice in and then list all the things you did that altered something about the government. The first list will be endless and the latter will include a handful tops.
    Seriously, dude. You get harsher judgement from me for *asking someone to share their perspective then telling them what it is before they respond* than about anything else you could do. How bad is it to be judged be me? Does it burn? Do you even notice? I would never let that single (what I perceive to be a) flaw overshadow the greater man. I'm far from flaw-free.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm not looking for any reasoning from the individual. I ask people to apply the elements of theft and taxation onto each other.
    You seem to assume that everyone perceives "the elements of theft and taxation" the same way you do. Yet, when confronted with someone like myself who voluntarily and willingly pays taxes, you agree that it is not theft. The elements that I focus on are different than the elements you focus on, and it makes all the difference in the truth of your statement.

    Ultimately, you're talking about feelings. You're saying that if taxation feels like theft, then taxation is theft. If it doesn't feel like theft, then it isn't.

    But that's not as easy and cutting as saying, "Taxation is theft." so you open up the doorway to the conversation by gently misleading the nuance of your actual belief in the introduction. Which I don't judge as positive or negative unless your motives are known. If you're engaging in an open and respectful exchange of ideas, then great. If not, then boo.
  75. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    If "the law" was my community's law, then I abide.
    After, I may decide that this is OK, as it reflects my own standards, or I may decide that this is not OK and I would appeal to the community to change the law. If this failed, I would know that this community's standards are not my standards, and I would leave the community, as we made a poor fit.

    If "the law" is some community of which I am no voluntary part, then I would appeal to them to change their law. If they refused, I would be aggrieved and appeal to my community for help. If no help were viable, I would leave or fight, but probably just leave. Leaving is almost always lower risk for nearly equal outcome.
    What about when the marginal benefit of staying and accepting your fate is greater than leaving?

    When we spoke of this before, you said that leaving was not viable. Then later, in an entirely different thread and on a different topic, you were musing on the subject of moving to another state for socio-economic benefits. Do you still think that leaving is not viable?
    This would be in a situation where the marginal benefit is greater by leaving.

    but will wall-of-text your ass without warning
    i literalold.

    It's interesting to me that you persist in assuming that I am judging you any more than my always-for-everyone-judging
    I'll keep in mind that you don't intend to. My perception on this comes from some typical phrasing that reads as assumptive and accusatory. For example, saying I'm "ignoring" you implies that I don't care about your point and I have an ulterior motive.

    You seem to assume that everyone perceives "the elements of theft and taxation" the same way you do. Yet, when confronted with someone like myself who voluntarily and willingly pays taxes, you agree that it is not theft. The elements that I focus on are different than the elements you focus on, and it makes all the difference in the truth of your statement.
    The element that distinguishes your position from, say, mine is that when the people knock on the door to take stuff, you welcome them in under the belief that you are not being coerced. You accept it and promote it. But what does this mean if somebody doesn't accept it or promote it? It means that this distinguishing element is not relevant. This is why for your case it can be said that it's not theft. If a guy breaks in your window and you jump to your feet and gladly hand him over your TV and are glad that he broke your window, he's not stealing from you. But this isn't how these things are typically viewed. When people are taken from in this type of way, they almost always (but not strictly always) liken it to theft. When the distinguishing elements between this type of thing and taxation include things like taxation has been embedded into the cultural psyche, you can see where the claim it is theft comes from.

    It's like if you think Soylent Green is food and I tell you it's people. Then you say no it's food and I grab you by the collar and say it's people and you look at me as if I'm crazy since it's food. To you, people are not food, and since Soylent Green is food, it can't be people. Taxation is like this. People with literal guns come into your literal home and take your literal stuff. Our culture calls this theft except for when those people are called the law.

    Sorry for bastardizing the theme of the Soylent Green reveal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •