Looks like someone has a hard-on for me!
thetabularasa:I've seen a few of your posts on here.
Well that's nice, I guess.
thetabularasa:Why do you insist on needing to clarify definitions for everything?
Please show me how I've insisted on needing to clarify definitions for everything.
thetabularasa:By believing that definitions are circumstantial or relative, you must admit that you commit an ontological fallacy.
Then you should have no problem telling me just what ontological fallacy that is.
thetabularasa:How are we communicating at all but by using words to define the words we're defining, thus negating any possibility of true communication.
Well that depends on the definition of "communication" you're using.
thetabularasa:G.E. Moore would probably have a nice conversation with you, if you can even call it a conversation.
... Not sure how I'm supposed to take this, lol.
thetabularasa:It seems that when you are backed into a logical corner that you resort to the whole, "How do you define..." argument, thereby admitting to defining something differently than your intellectual opponent and finding a convenient back-door exist to the argument altogether. Weak.
Care to provide an example? Because the thing is, "How do you define..." isn't an argument to me. Nor is it trying to find a convenient back-door with which to exit the argument altogether. It's just me trying to find/figure out what a person is saying in my own terms. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
And what's right is best left to the right.
Left to the right as in left of right or what's right is best left up to the right?
I think there might be a mistake somewhere in this conversion, but I'm not sure I can right it.
"Uhm, I don't quite think so."
What the hell are you talking about Wheylous? Have you ever even talked to Autolykos? Man's a raging commy.
As a self-professed "Socialist Neodoxian Marxist sleeper cell agent", you would know, wouldn't you?
-1 for Neodoxy being a member of the Peace and Freedom Party. RALPH NADER SUPPORTER! ALERT!
I got an eyelash in my eye socket. It's between my upper right eye lid and my eyeball. I'm pretty upset about it. In fact, I'm ranting about it.
I thought I was going to go see Skyfall over the weekend. Looks like that's not going to happen.
QuisCustodiet:I got an eyelash in my eye socket. It's between my upper right eye lid and my eyeball. I'm pretty upset about it. In fact, I'm ranting about it.
Man, I hate when that happens!
Autolykos: Looks like someone has a hard-on for me! thetabularasa:I've seen a few of your posts on here. Well that's nice, I guess. thetabularasa:Why do you insist on needing to clarify definitions for everything? Please show me how I've insisted on needing to clarify definitions for everything. thetabularasa:By believing that definitions are circumstantial or relative, you must admit that you commit an ontological fallacy. Then you should have no problem telling me just what ontological fallacy that is. thetabularasa:How are we communicating at all but by using words to define the words we're defining, thus negating any possibility of true communication. Well that depends on the definition of "communication" you're using. thetabularasa:G.E. Moore would probably have a nice conversation with you, if you can even call it a conversation. ... Not sure how I'm supposed to take this, lol. thetabularasa:It seems that when you are backed into a logical corner that you resort to the whole, "How do you define..." argument, thereby admitting to defining something differently than your intellectual opponent and finding a convenient back-door exist to the argument altogether. Weak. Care to provide an example? Because the thing is, "How do you define..." isn't an argument to me. Nor is it trying to find a convenient back-door with which to exit the argument altogether. It's just me trying to find/figure out what a person is saying in my own terms. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
http://memefrontier.com/sites/default/files/meme/you-mad-bro-he-mad-son.jpg
So the talk about politics have been coming up over lunch at uni ( we are about 4 in a study group), and one guys says taxes are bad, don't want goverment to fiddle with his stuff. Yet he CAN'T understand that if you force someone to spend money on something society suffers. I think great, lets use The Broken Windows fallacy. WRONG! He says that's just a single example and you can't extrapolate it anywhere.... Then i try to say that you have to give up something because you were forced to spend that extra money... SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DEEEEEEEEEEENSE...
Also he thinks taxes should be replaced that when a person dies all the belongsing of that person get seized by the state to fund it... He thinks iheritance is BAD because the ones recieving it didn't "earn it"... ./facedesk
fml...
On the other hand I did do well on my latest exam ^^ baby steps
You know what pisses me off even more than left-libertarians? My dog giving me this look, he always gives me this goddamn smirk, EVERY GODDAMN TIME, EVERY DAY, EVERY DAY, THIS RETARDED LOOK
Define low. Define content. Define rant. Define vent. Define thread. Define definition. Define Ayn Rand. Define 'de plane, de plane. William Devane. Dana Delaney. Doris Day. Days of our lives.
HabbaBabba: Define low. Define content. Define rant. Define vent. Define thread. Define definition. Define Ayn Rand. Define 'de plane, de plane. William Devane. Dana Delaney. Doris Day. Days of our lives.
lol
A comment I just saw on a Chomsky video: Science and technology has made a WORLD of plenty in harmony a reality, however the dominant minority interest has created the MARKET MECHANISM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and THE WAGE SLAVERY for the abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration. If you can not comprehend these few words then your life journey is utter waste and distortion
Seriously. Fucking Chomskyites.
Buzz - you should post that on Reddit. They would love it. If not, do I have permission to post it there? Not that I believe that permission is some legal necessity, but I will not post it if you do not want me to, out of respect.
Grrr, so much fail in the comments on this article: How Occupy Wall Street Is Beating the Liberty Movement
Example: "IMHO being a "libertarian" means ignoring problems that destroy your neighbor until they affect you. So you can't learn much from any problem solving organization." and "Liberty is the word right wingers use for a concept that in simplest terms means that businesses can get away with anything."
Where are they getting this stuff? Is it because of the so-called "Tea Party libertarianism" featured in the mainstream media? I hardly read or watch mainstream news so I don't know. Though my dad, who does follow the news nonstop, said something interesting the other day. I told him how Ron Paul's nickname is "Dr. No." My dad asked if it was because he always votes "no" on spending increases, etc. When I told him yes, he said, "But, I thought that was the Tea Partiers." /facepalm
In short, I see we still have an image problem.
Buzz Killington: You know what pisses me off even more than left-libertarians? My dog giving me this look, he always gives me this goddamn smirk, EVERY GODDAMN TIME, EVERY DAY, EVERY DAY, THIS RETARDED LOOK
LMAO. Reminds me of this:
Wheylous:Buzz - you should post that on Reddit. They would love it. If not, do I have permission to post it there? Not that I believe that permission is some legal necessity, but I will not post it if you do not want me to, out of respect.
It's not mine, I stole it shamelessly: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-faggot-dog
define definition.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Oh, LAME! Pshhh.
I stayed up all night studying for a damn test this morning only to come in to find out she had changed the test day! WTH!!!!!!!!!!! Not only do these socialist teach a whole huge pile of useless crap, but now they want us paying attention to them while they teaching this crap to figure out when the crap is due?!
My inexperienced ast. general manager (more so the assistant to the general manager) wrote me up last night for something really trivial. Either my GM will see the write up and throw it out, or I need to finally find out what car he drives....
thetabularasa:http://memefrontier.com/sites/default/files/meme/you-mad-bro-he-mad-son.jpg
So in other words, you don't have the backbone to actually respond to my post? Or are you just trying to troll me?
Autolykos: thetabularasa:http://memefrontier.com/sites/default/files/meme/you-mad-bro-he-mad-son.jpg So in other words, you don't have the backbone to actually respond to my post? Or are you just trying to troll me?
Define "troll."
Yeah, I don't think you really want me to provide my definition of "troll". So whether you are trying to troll me or not, you're clearly being dishonest.
I'll further go out on a limb and suggest that maybe you expected me to rethink my style of argument after you criticized it. Since I not only haven't done that, but have also rebuffed your criticism, you seem to have gotten upset. While you're hiding behind a mask of not taking me seriously anymore, I think your point with that is to see if now I'll do what you want. Trust me, I won't. But hey, it's up to you if you want to still have a hard-on for me.
I will not proceed with this discussion unless you first define "troll." Unless you submit to doing this, I will no longer converse with you on this thread.
Yeah, I don't believe you. And I stand by what I said.
I'm sure this one's a pet peeve of many of us. So I propose a drinking game to get some fun out of it! Take a drink every time someone claims to be "helping the economy" by buying something.
Had to mentally /facepalm when a colleague used that today to justify buying a new Prada handbag.
If Google search were implemented in the USSR (sorry, in Russian only):
So apparently Portugal is set to raise taxes by 30%. And cutting the welfare state is on the table.
Portugal debates future of welfare state
“There appears to be an enormous divergence between what the Portuguese believe the state should deliver and the amount of taxes they are prepared to pay,” he told parliament recently. Taxes have already risen substantially. The 2013 budget, the toughest in living memory, includes income tax increases of about 30 per cent. Mr Gaspar described the tax rises as “enormous” . Designed to keep Lisbon on track with its €78bn bailout programme, they are the latest in a series of austerity measures that have pushed Portugal into its deepest recession in 40 years, with record unemployment reaching close to 16 per cent. The prime minister, said António Arnaut, a member of the opposition Socialists and a founder of the national health service, is bent on a “neoliberal project to destroy the welfare state”...
“There appears to be an enormous divergence between what the Portuguese believe the state should deliver and the amount of taxes they are prepared to pay,” he told parliament recently.
Taxes have already risen substantially. The 2013 budget, the toughest in living memory, includes income tax increases of about 30 per cent. Mr Gaspar described the tax rises as “enormous” . Designed to keep Lisbon on track with its €78bn bailout programme, they are the latest in a series of austerity measures that have pushed Portugal into its deepest recession in 40 years, with record unemployment reaching close to 16 per cent.
The prime minister, said António Arnaut, a member of the opposition Socialists and a founder of the national health service, is bent on a “neoliberal project to destroy the welfare state”...
So are the taxes now 30%? Or are they what they were plus 30%? Or plus 30% of the tax rate?
Knowing that personal income tax was around 50% in Portugal, I may assume it's not the first variant. But are they 80% now or just 65%?
Well, that article's paywalling me now :\ From what I read it seemed to me they were raising the rates by 30% on top of what it was. It seemed ambiguous as to whether the idea was taxes going up by 30% (as a multiplier), or whether they were adding 30% to the existing % rate.
In practical terms, I think it means 30% as a multiplier. I can hardly imagine any politician getting away with adding 30% to the current % rate.
I also remember seeing somewhere the taxes were to be raised by "enormous 4%". If these 4% are 30% of the previous rate, the previous rate must be around 13%.
However, the Eurostat's report (with the official Politburo Eurocommission sign) says Portugal's taxes on personal income were ~50%. I am confused. Any people here having first-hand knowledge of Portugal's taxes?
Here's another article on the same thing.
The government is aiming to increase income tax revenue by 30 percent next year while enacting spending cuts worth (EURO)2.7 billion.
Seems to indicate how the 30% figure is being used, on revenue derived from taxes.
This is rich:
Outside Parliament, protesters jeered and whistled and chanted "Thieves!" Portugal has witnessed two general strikes this year and almost daily street protests, though there has been little violence.
Lol, finally someone's getting it :P Though, I'm afraid he may mean not taxation, but the austerity portion of the plan!
As for total tax rates in Portugal:
The tax increases are especially hard on Portugal's middle class. Due to the changes, someone earning (EURO)41,000 a year, for example, will pay 45 percent income tax from Jan. 1 compared with 35.5 percent now. Most workers fall into the (EURO)7,000-(EURO)20,000 annual income bracket. Those people will pay 28.5 percent income tax, up from 24.5 percent. Previously, the top rate of tax of 46.5 percent was for workers or married couples who together earned over (EURO)153,300 a year. That top rate will be lowered to cover single or joint earnings above (EURO)80,000, which will be taxed at a rate of 48 percent. That income will also be subject to a special "social solidarity" tax of 2.5 percent. Also, there will be a 3.5 percent surcharge tax on everyone's earnings in 2013.
The tax increases are especially hard on Portugal's middle class. Due to the changes, someone earning (EURO)41,000 a year, for example, will pay 45 percent income tax from Jan. 1 compared with 35.5 percent now.
Most workers fall into the (EURO)7,000-(EURO)20,000 annual income bracket. Those people will pay 28.5 percent income tax, up from 24.5 percent.
Previously, the top rate of tax of 46.5 percent was for workers or married couples who together earned over (EURO)153,300 a year. That top rate will be lowered to cover single or joint earnings above (EURO)80,000, which will be taxed at a rate of 48 percent. That income will also be subject to a special "social solidarity" tax of 2.5 percent. Also, there will be a 3.5 percent surcharge tax on everyone's earnings in 2013.
My English class today:
"It's a dog eat dog world."
"It's a zero-sum game."
"Rich get richer,poor get poorer."
"Machines are putting people out of work."
Also, according to my history textbook, if you support strict property rights, you support slavery.
“Write drunk; edit sober.” ― Ernest Hemingway
I'm beggining to appreciate this.