A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share?

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
So you tell me that wild animals take care of their young/weak/injured, and somehow affiliate that theory with the intended good in a socialism-based society. That's some type of inference that mother nature wants socialism embedded into society, is it not?.
Click to expand...
no, that's just me describing stuff that happens in nature. you're the one with the hyper-sensitive "socialism detector" trying to make arguments out of what's not there.

they call those strawmen. they are a logical fallacy, just like your anthropomorphization. they'll cover that in 10th grade philosopohy.

InCognition said:
Mother nature is about to show you and the rest of the world socialism doesn't work. Mother nature will not allow socialism to exist in a self-sustainable society, and a non-self sustainable society implodes as a result. Mother nature 101.
Click to expand...
she's sure taking her sweet time. socialistic models have been around for a long fucking time.

they'll cover that in 9th grade history class, just hang in there, kiddo.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
no, that's just me describing stuff that happens in nature. you're the one with the hyper-sensitive "socialism detector" trying to make arguments out of what's not there.
Click to expand...
It was actually you attempting justifying the presence of socialism in a civilized & free society, via the basis of what goes on with wild animals in nature. In that sense, you made an argument of what isn't there, though I doubt you will wrap your head around the hypocrisy you've inferred and stated.


UncleBuck said:
they call those strawmen. they are a logical fallacy, just like your anthropomorphization. they'll cover that in 10th grade philosopohy.
Click to expand...
They actually call it the laws of mother nature, and they are not a logical fallacy, they are the unbeatable laws of how this planet operates. Socialism on the other hand, is a mathematical fallacy, thus is a logical fallacy. We know which law is the correct one, because one can not be defeated, while the other takes a flick of the pen to defeat. Without the flick of a pen the later law will self-defeat itself via unsustainability, while the first law enforces sustainability. Mother nature just proved you wrong as well, on this basis.


UncleBuck said:
she's sure taking her sweet time. socialistic models have been around for a long fucking time.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree... she sure is taking her sweet time with America and comparable nations. Socialistic models have imploded & collapsed for a long fucking time. America will see it's day of implosion as well. When the implosion cleans the slate of the recipients and those dependent upon socialistic supports, just remember it's a law that even this country and paradigm of society will succumb to.

Don't blame me for supporting the opposition to a naturally-enforced fallacy, blame mother nature for making the laws, that do not allow for continued existence of a system that operates off of illusions, and the absence of self sustainability.

I don't actually have to tell you this tough, mother nature will prove it, when socialistic systems begin to collapse on a global scale, as they have before.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
It was actually you attempting justifying the presence of socialism in a civilized & free society, via the basis of what goes on with wild animals in nature. In that sense, you made an argument of what isn't there, though I doubt you will wrap your head around the hypocrisy you've inferred and stated.




They actually call it the laws of mother nature, and they are not a logical fallacy, they are the unbeatable laws of how this planet operates. Socialism on the other hand, is a mathematical fallacy, thus is a logical fallacy. We know which law is the correct one, because one can not be defeated, while the other takes a flick of the pen to defeat. Without the flick of a pen the later law will self-defeat itself via unsustainability, while the first law enforces sustainability. Mother nature just proved you wrong as well, on this basis.




Yes, I agree... she sure is taking her sweet time with America and comparable nations. Socialistic models have imploded & collapsed for a long fucking time. America will see it's day of implosion as well. When the implosion cleans the slate of the recipients and those dependent upon socialistic supports, just remember it's a law that even this country and paradigm of society will succumb to.

Don't blame me for supporting the opposition to a naturally-enforced fallacy, blame mother nature for making the laws, that do not allow for continued existence of a system that operates off of illusions, and the absence of self sustainability.

I don't actually have to tell you this tough, mother nature will prove it, when socialistic systems begin to collapse on a global scale, as they have before.
Click to expand...
listen dude, despite your abundant protestations, nature does not have "wants". that's a logical fallacy that you somehow believe in.

you're free to run with that logical fallacy all day and night, but it's still a logical fallacy.

at least you've toned it down on the whole seeing the death of others as perfectly wonderful and righteous.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
beenthere said:
I, unlike you, didn't make a claim I cannot backup. And, I never claimed there were thousands of farms going under because of the inheritance tax. If you could provide a post where I did, I will concede that point.

You on the other hand, stated a Supreme Court decision can be overruled by a higher court, please inform us all who that higher court would be.
Click to expand...
Again, I never made a claim that 1000s of farms were going under because of the inheritance tax, I asked you if you were saying that 1000s of American families aren't forced to sell farms and businesses to pay off government taxes. Perhaps now you may comprehend that it was a rhetorical question, not a claim, plus you will notice the fact I lumped in businesses with farms.

With that being said, now lets hear about you CLAIM of a higher court that overturns the SCOTUS.
This will be amusing for sure!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
Again, I never made a claim that 1000s of farms were going under because of the inheritance tax, I asked you if you were saying that 1000s of American families aren't forced to sell farms and businesses to pay off government taxes. Perhaps now you may comprehend that it was a rhetorical question, not a claim, plus you will notice the fact I lumped in businesses with farms.

With that being said, now lets hear about you CLAIM of a higher court that overturns the SCOTUS.
This will be amusing for sure!
Click to expand...
lol, way to backpedal. that way you get to make your false insinuation and not take responsibility for it.

you're like these conservatives who want a great america but don't want to pay for it. you want to have your cake and it eat it too. it's untenable.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
UncleBuck said:
lol, way to backpedal. that way you get to make your false insinuation and not take responsibility for it.

you're like these conservatives who want a great america but don't want to pay for it. you want to have your cake and it eat it too. it's untenable.
Click to expand...
I've got my own quotes to back myself up, how about you?

UncleBuck said:
your argument is that taxes are unconstitutional.

my argument is that you need to read the 16th amendment. browsing up on SCOTUS precedent for cases surrounding the 16th amendment would help too, but you'll just cherrypick the one or two cases that got reversed later on by higher courts.
Click to expand...
Again for the third time, what higher court has the authority to reverse Supreme Court decisions?

Cmon Bucky, are you dodging this embarrassing moment? LMAO
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
I've got my own quotes to back myself up, how about you?
Click to expand...
i've got your quotes to show you were making wildly false insinuations, too.

beenthere said:
Again for the third time, what higher court has the authority to reverse Supreme Court decisions?

Cmon Bucky, are you dodging this embarrassing moment? LMAO
Click to expand...
don't even know what you're talking about, your reading comprehension must be failing you again.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
UncleBuck said:
don't even know what you're talking about, your reading comprehension must be failing you again.
Click to expand...
You've got to be joking (disingenuous), what happened to all that intuitiveness you display when you're dissecting other peoples comments, why the hazy brain now? Here, I'll post your quote again and highlight it for ya LOL

UncleBuck said:
your argument is that taxes are unconstitutional.

my argument is that you need to read the 16th amendment. browsing up on SCOTUS precedent for cases surrounding the 16th amendment would help too, but you'll just cherrypick the one or two cases that got reversed later on by higher courts.
Click to expand...
It must be devastating to realize you're not the intellect you thought you were!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
You've got to be joking (disingenuous), what happened to all that intuitiveness you display when you're dissecting other peoples comments, why the hazy brain now? Here, I'll post your quote again and highlight it for ya LOL



It must be devastating to realize you're not the intellect you thought you were!
Click to expand...
where did i say SCOTUS decisions got reversed by higher courts? i mentioned cases getting reversed by higher courts, which means those cases would have been decided by lower courts.

you're flailing.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
listen dude, despite your abundant protestations, nature does not have "wants". that's a logical fallacy that you somehow believe in.

you're free to run with that logical fallacy all day and night, but it's still a logical fallacy.

at least you've toned it down on the whole seeing the death of others as perfectly wonderful and righteous.
Click to expand...
You're correct, mother nature doesn't have wants, it has laws, which of whom one with an open mind would comprehend quiet clearly. "Wants" and laws of nature are one in the same, and you can manipulate that terminology all you want, it has no bearing on the way in which mother nature works. Nature's laws obligate a forced system of socialism to collapse. In essence, one could say that this means nature does not "want" such a system to prevail, because nature itself will defeat the system before it's birth, which completely disables it's ability to prevail. If such a system prevails it's due to human circumvention and/or corruption of the natural process that's defeating it.

You telling others they have logical fallacies? That's funny, being that you believe in socialistic ideas, based strictly off a foundation of self-determined morals, without your own due diligence in the mathematical parameters regarding such destined-to-fail theories, and their natural obligation to collapse. The only one with a logical fallacy here is you. Socialism on a general basis, is a logical fallacy, as it mathematically defeats itself. Math is a law a nature, and as such will obligate the failure of such systems as I've mentioned before. Deny this as you please, but nature is smarter than you or I.

Those who do not retain and/or possess the ability of self-responsibility or self-sustainability, will die righteously and justifiably at the mercy of nature. My view on that hasn't changed. You can retain your ignorant belief that the justified death of one's self via natural processes, is somehow joyful on my behalf, which of I've never stated. Nothing about death of another is joyful, yet in some circumstances it can be absolutely warranted via the laws of nature and her root-bound laws.

This is how the world works. You can stand for a mathematical fallacy all day, but you've done nothing other than deny nature and the laws in which she obligates this reality and it's inhabitants to.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
You're correct, mother nature doesn't have wants, it has laws, which of whom one with an open mind would comprehend quiet clearly. "Wants" and laws of nature are one in the same, and you can manipulate that terminology all you want, it has no bearing on the way in which mother nature works. Nature's laws obligate a forced system of socialism to collapse. In essence, one could say that this means nature does not "want" such a system to prevail, because nature itself will defeat the system before it's birth, which completely disables it's ability to prevail. If such a system prevails it's due to human circumvention and/or corruption of the natural process that's defeating it.

You telling others they have logical fallacies? That's funny, being that you believe in socialistic ideas, based strictly off a foundation of self-determined morals, without your own due diligence in the mathematical parameters regarding such destined-to-fail theories, and their natural obligation to collapse. The only one with a logical fallacy here is you. Socialism on a general basis, is a logical fallacy, as it mathematically defeats itself. Math is a law a nature, and as such will obligate the failure of such systems as I've mentioned before. Deny this as you please, but nature is smarter than you or I.

Those who do not retain and/or possess the ability of self-responsibility or self-sustainability, will die righteously and justifiably at the mercy of nature. My view on that hasn't changed. You can retain your ignorant belief that the justified death of one's self via natural processes, is somehow joyful on my behalf, which of I've never stated. Nothing about death of another is joyful, yet in some circumstances it can be absolutely warranted via the laws of nature and her root-bound laws.

This is how the world works. You can stand for a mathematical fallacy all day, but you've done nothing other than deny nature and the laws in which she obligates this reality and it's inhabitants to.
Click to expand...
Old Commies like Buck won't have their minds changed, just disagree with him on Socialism and move on to something else. I don't like socialism, Bucky knows it, I know he disagrees...so what's the point in flogging that dead horse?
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
Harrekin said:
Old Commies like Buck won't have their minds changed, just disagree with him on Socialism and move on to something else. I don't like socialism, Bucky knows it, I know he disagrees...so what's the point in flogging that dead horse?
Click to expand...
And that's why it's so sad. When is one is so convinced on the intentions of a system, rather than the hypocrisy, and repercussions those intentions are obligated to ultimately cause, it's nothing more than convincing one's self of ignorance.

The paradigm of such ignorance is somewhat comparable to that of anti-firearm laws. You can deny people of firearms all you want, but essentially all you've done is denied human beings the right to defend themselves. It's an unjust repercussion of a good-willed intention, and as such it's the epitome hypocrisy. Hypocrisy can always lead ignorance, but it will never lead logic.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
And that's why it's so sad. When is one is so convinced on the intentions of a system, rather than the hypocrisy, and repercussions those intentions are obligated to ultimately cause, it's nothing more than convincing one's self of ignorance.

The paradigm of such ignorance is somewhat comparable to that of anti-firearm laws. You can deny people of firearms all you want, but essentially all you've done is denied human beings the right to defend themselves. It's an unjust repercussion of a good-willed intention, and as such it's the epitome hypocrisy. Hypocrisy can always lead ignorance, but it will never lead logic.
Click to expand...
the guy who said mother nature has "wants" is now lecturing me on logic.

lulz.


  • If you weren't oblivious you would have a basic understanding as to the obviousness, of what mother nature wants​




 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
the guy who said mother nature has "wants" is now lecturing me on logic.

lulz.


  • If you weren't oblivious you would have a basic understanding as to the obviousness, of what mother nature wants​
Click to expand...
Go back to Russia, you Red Starred Bastard ;)
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
the guy who said mother nature has "wants" is now lecturing me on logic.
Click to expand...
The guy who inferred that socialism exists in nature, is now telling me that nature doesn't have laws/wants. lol.

Nature's wants are her laws. Learn to love them, as you can't change them.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
The guy who inferred that socialism exists in nature, is now telling me that nature doesn't have laws/wants. lol.

Nature's wants are her laws. Learn to love them, as you can't change them.
Click to expand...
1. i never said socialism exists in nature. i described things that happen in nature, you inferred the socialism somehow. you are one of the many people whose socialism detectors are in overload. god help us all if the cold war were still going on, your head would explode.

2. nature does not have wants or intention of any sort. nature is completely indifferent. i really can't believe you keep pushing this logical fallacy. kinda telling.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
1. i never said socialism exists in nature. i described things that happen in nature, you inferred the socialism somehow. you are one of the many people whose socialism detectors are in overload. god help us all if the cold war were still going on, your head would explode.

2. nature does not have wants or intention of any sort. nature is completely indifferent. i really can't believe you keep pushing this logical fallacy. kinda telling.
Click to expand...
You did infer socialism exists in nature. Stop denying it, as you've done that enough. Then again we all know you don't admit when you're wrong, you just reinforce your wrongs with more ignorance. This is how ignoramuses operate.

I've already stated that my definition of "nature's wants" are nature's laws. Read what I've typed instead of ignoring it for your own purpose of ignorance. Kind of telling.

Your ignorance and those who share it with you, will not change the laws of nature either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top