I may have to start watching this dyke more often!

medicineman said:

Whoopass I'd say.

Click to expand...

lol..........

Rob Roy said:

Hello tinyTURTLE. I'm Rob Roy. Pleased to meet you. I'm against the healthcare bill on the grounds I believe nobody owns anothers life, liberty or property. Honest, I'm not lying.

Well EVERYONE, but one I guess.

Click to expand...

so you are against the postal service because your taxes are paying to mail other peoples' letters? That argument is too ambiguous to take seriously. That 'don't tread on me' bullshit was relevant in the revolutionary war, and has no place in a public health discussion in the 21st century. Besides, i don't know you, Mr. Roy. You are just another resident of the internet. I know you less well than i know the person who bags my groceries, i at least know what they look and sound like. So no, i don't know you. And for the record, i don't mind paying some taxes to keep my counrymen healthy. But then, I am a patriot, not a selfish prick.

tinyTURTLE said:

so you are against the postal service because your taxes are paying to mail other peoples' letters? That argument is too ambiguous to take seriously. That 'don't tread on me' bullshit was relevant in the revolutionary war, and has no place in a public health discussion in the 21st century. Besides, i don't know you, Mr. Roy. You are just another resident of the internet. I know you less well than i know the person who bags my groceries, i at least know what they look and sound like. So no, i don't know you. And for the record, i don't mind paying some taxes to keep my counrymen healthy. But then, I am a patriot, not a selfish prick.

Click to expand...

Freedom and the protection of individual liberty is timeless, relevant then, relevant now. What's ambiguous about that, it's fairly direct.

Post Office? I'm out of stamps, mind sending me some?

That's charitable of you to offer to pay for others healthcare. Why not cut out the government middleman and invite a hungry person to share a meal or donate time to directly helping somebody. Whatever you do or don't do should always be YOUR choice. Do you agree that others should have choices too?

I'm not sure how you can consider yourself a "patriot" if you are advocating less individual choice and more government intervention in others lives. Please explain that. Weren't the original Patriots fighting for individual liberty and against being "ruled"?

Selfish prick? Not me. I'm perfectly happy letting you run your life, why can't you let me and others who prefer not to participate in something run ours?

This is the internet, but manners are still important, no?

Rob Roy said:

Freedom and the protection of individual liberty is timeless, relevant then, relevant now. What's ambiguous about that, it's fairly direct.

Post Office? I'm out of stamps, mind sending me some?

That's charitable of you to offer to pay for others healthcare. Why not cut out the government middleman and invite a hungry person to share a meal or donate time to directly helping somebody. Whatever you do or don't do should always be YOUR choice. Do you agree that others should have choices too?

I'm not sure how you can consider yourself a "patriot" if you are advocating less individual choice and more government intervention in others lives. Please explain that. Weren't the original Patriots fighting for individual liberty and against being "ruled"?

Selfish prick? Not me. I'm perfectly happy letting you run your life, why can't you let me and others who prefer not to participate in something run ours?

This is the internet, but manners are still important, no?

Click to expand...

this is a society that you live in. you are not sequestered away in some enclave. like i told someone else: you want to live someplace where you can keep all your money without some governmnet telling you what to do with some of your money, you are gonna have a hard time finding anyplace on planet earth where you can live like that. Except maybe Somalia... so start packing for your new life in that tax-free paradise, the jewel of the horn of africa.
lol

tinyTURTLE said:

this is a society that you live in. you are not sequestered away in some enclave. like i told someone else: you want to live someplace where you can keep all your money without some governmnet telling you what to do with some of your money, you are gonna have a hard time finding anyplace on planet earth where you can live like that. Except maybe Somalia... so start packing for your new life in that tax-free paradise, the jewel of the horn of africa.
lol

Click to expand...

Thank you for conceding the point that all governments rely upon extortion.

Now if I took something from you against your will, it would be considered theft wouldn't it? How does the meaning of theft change when we replace me as the robber with another person or group of persons calling themselves government?

Rob Roy said:

Thank you for conceding the point that all governments rely upon extortion.

Now if I took something from you against your will, it would be considered theft wouldn't it? How does the meaning of theft change when we replace me as the robber with another person or group of persons calling themselves government?

Click to expand...

dude i totaly see your point. you've changed my mind!
just joking.

tinyTURTLE said:

dude i totaly see your point. you've changed my mind!
just joking.

Click to expand...

Yet, You haven't addressed my questions have you? Maybe if you did you could convince me of your position...

...nah just kidding.


Forgive me, my goal isn't to be condescending it is to help people recognize their cognitive dissonance for what it is. A paradigm shift does not happen all at once, but the rumblings in the force have started. No need to call me Yoda or anything though. I assure you I have more hair than he does.
Peace.

Rob Roy said:

Yet, You haven't addressed my questions have you? Maybe if you did you could convince me of your position...

...nah just kidding.


Forgive me, my goal isn't to be condescending it is to help people recognize their cognitive dissonance for what it is. A paradigm shift does not happen all at once, but the rumblings in the force have started. No need to call me Yoda or anything though. I assure you I have more hair than he does.
Peace.

Click to expand...

when you equate taxation to outright theft, it makes me question the quality of your logic. Might as well try to convince someone that penguins are fish. They aren't? Well, they swim in the ocean with flippers and eat fish, so they must be fish.
Obtuse definitions: the big guns of the weak argument.

tinyTURTLE said:

when you equate taxation to outright theft, it makes me question the quality of your logic. Might as well try to convince someone that penguins are fish. They aren't? Well, they swim in the ocean with flippers and eat fish, so they must be fish.
Obtuse definitions: the big guns of the weak argument.

Click to expand...

Yet, you persist in avoiding answering my questions. Why not address my questions?

If I take something from a person against their wishes. It is theft. I am a robber. Do we agree on that definition?

Do the meanings of words like theft change when we change the identity of the robber?

If government takes something from a person against their wishes. It is STILL theft isn't it?

You seem to assign government some magical status that permits them to steal
or at least when they are the perpetrator somehow the meaning of theft evolves into something else. How does this happen? Please tell me.

If something of value that is owned by me is forcibly taken against my wishes, I HAVEN'T been robbed? Is that what you are trying to tell me? So is government incapable of theft?

I'm thinking my logic is sound. I am applying CONSISTENT meaning to the word theft, you are not.

What you are really doing is giving them a license to steal and ACCEPTING it. You are rationalizing their behavior, to avoid the tidal wave of cognitive dissonance that might drown you if you didn't rationalize.

You are allowing them to define their taking action as a fish, while calling my taking action a penguin.

When ANYBODY takes from another without their consent it's theft isn't it?

theft is defined as the UNLAWFUL taking of personal property with the intent to deny the rightful owner of it.
taxes are legal, so it isn't theft. it's taxes. they're different like fish and penguins: they may share some attributes, but one certainly isn't the other.

tinyTURTLE said:

theft is defined as the UNLAWFUL taking of personal property with the intent to deny the rightful owner of it.
taxes are legal, so it isn't theft. it's taxes. they're different like fish and penguins: they may share some attributes, but one certainly isn't the other.

Click to expand...

Nice try, but it doesn't work in the logical world, sorry.

When the same "person" that makes the law, is also the "person" that holds the gun while he robs you it becomes very telling. Redefining theft
by "them" does not change the meaning, no matter how clever the attempt.

What is "lawful" or "unlawful" really? According to you it's whatever "they" say it is. Let's not confuse the law with justice. I'll assume you smoke pot or have "unlawfully". Does that mean if they incarcerate you, they're right and you're wrong? I maintain they are wrong.

Rob Roy said:

Nice try, but it doesn't work in the logical world, sorry.

When the same "person" that makes the law, is also the "person" that holds the gun while he robs you it becomes very telling. Redefining theft
by "them" does not change the meaning, no matter how clever the attempt.

What is "lawful" or "unlawful" really? According to you it's whatever "they" say it is. Let's not confuse the law with justice. I'll assume you smoke pot or have "unlawfully". Does that mean if they incarcerate you, they're right and you're wrong? I maintain they are wrong.

Click to expand...

persecution complex much?

tinyTURTLE said:

persecution complex much?

Click to expand...

Well, no.

I don't allow the definition of a word to be flexible depending upon who makes the rules.

Okay by your definition is it impossible for the government to steal or do wrong? All they have to do is give themselves a "lawful" permission slip and then proceed?

How about murder? If a person can be guilty of murder for taking someone's life, in similar circumstances can government ever be guilty of murder?

So why is it you don't address my questions again?

rob roy has the most logical argument tiny . you just got WHOOPED ..rob just made you look like a mental midget.

max420thc said:

rob roy has the most logical argument tiny . you just got WHOOPED ..rob just made you look like a mental midget.

Click to expand...

Thanks Max for seeing my point of view.

I'm not trying to whoop anyone though. Not a peguin, not a fish, not a turtle even. Peace.

Rob Roy said:

Well, no.

I don't allow the definition of a word to be flexible depending upon who makes the rules.

Okay by your definition is it impossible for the government to steal or do wrong? All they have to do is give themselves a "lawful" permission slip and then proceed?

How about murder? If a person can be guilty of murder for taking someone's life, in similar circumstances can government ever be guilty of murder?

So why is it you don't address my questions again?

Click to expand...

it isn't MY definition. it's the definition in websters dictionary. a government isn't a private entity like a corporation or a person. So comparing the actions of one against the actions of the other makes no sense. This thing you have against being taxed isn't new. It's not as though i don't understand your position. I am just taking reality into consideration. Where it seems as though you are fabricating some kind of utopian, quasi-anarchistic, infrastructure-free fantasy.

When the same "person" that makes the law, is also the "person" that holds the gun while he robs you it becomes very telling.

That person 'holding the gun robbing you' was elected by folks with whom you share this society. Those same folks also gave that elected official a mandate to create a certain law saying he can levy taxes from you. So your logic, while sounding good to folks like me who derive no enjoyment out of paying taxes, is empty.

If you really hate paying taxes so much, why don't you go into the wild and become self sufficient? The society you are a part of certainly isn't going to give up the idea of taxation anytime soon, we enjoy too many benefits because of it.

dukeofbaja said:

When the same "person" that makes the law, is also the "person" that holds the gun while he robs you it becomes very telling.

That person 'holding the gun robbing you' was elected by folks with whom you share this society. Those same folks also gave that elected official a mandate to create a certain law saying he can levy taxes from you. So your logic, while sounding good to folks like me who derive no enjoyment out of paying taxes, is empty.

If you really hate paying taxes so much, why don't you go into the wild and become self sufficient? The society you are a part of certainly isn't going to give up the idea of taxation anytime soon, we enjoy too many benefits because of it.

Click to expand...

You must be the largest portion of the public, THE ONES WHO HAVE NEVER PAID TAXES. Is it alright to enslave people? Are the producers in this country here to serve you?

My tax liabilities this year were in the thousands, just to clarify

I'm sorry Duke but the idea of taxes was to collect from everyone a lite burden to pay for things that are essential and that individuals could not afford on their own. For example, the military, postal service, treasurey, roads. Taxes have been twisted into this progressive nightmare that makes folks think twice about making "too much money". This way of thinking does nothing to advance society.