Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Too bad billy mays is dead. Imagine him shouting at you at 3am about taking a pregnancy test. now that would be "education".
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
"...but wait, that's not all! If you order in the next 15 minutes you'll not only get double pregnancy, the do-it-yourself paternity test, AND the child support kit, but we'll include the abortion rebate!! That's right, the government will pay for your $300 abortion for a low yearly payment of $2,500 for the rest of your life!!
Here's how to order.
2. This is a straw man. No where have I denied the reality of American tax policy. The very fact that I'm arguing against such policy means I fully acknowledge its existence.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you ALWAYS try to avoid the issue by mucking up the conversation with incoherent tangents? It's a very simple proposition, let's try it again...Again, we come to the crux of what you find logical based on your ideology versus what i find logical based on my ideology. Certain issues that THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT finds deserving (say the space program) are funded by your tax dollars when you may not approve of those expenditures. If you don't like it, you can leave the country, and try to find a home country that doesn't do this. It doesn't matter to me, other than that it shows the flaw in your reasoning concerning your beef over what your tax dollars are spent on. If abortion is the one issue out of thousands and thousands that you don't want your tax dollars spent on, then fine, say that this is the tipping point for you, personally, but don't act like it's wrong that your tax dollars are spent on things you don't like, but you've not once brought that up in a thread where you're shouting and hollering about THAT EXACT ISSUE. If you don't like the fact that your tax dollars are paying for things you don't like, then i'd have expected you to talk about that at some point in this thread AS you were talking about abortion being ADDED to that list.
WHY must people in Michigan pay for roads in Hawaii? WHY is it a "good" thing that they are forced to do such things? YOU made the assertion, NOW I am asking you to validate it with some kind of argument.
Right, so you cannot point to any specific aspect of "civilization" that is maintained by the tax policy initiatives you support, nor can you reference any sort of legal or philosophical viewpoints unique to American history which would suggest you are correct. It seems the only argument you are capable of espousing is this:It's not just one aspect, it's a combination. Governments throughout history have recognized the value in taxation and then making decisions about what to do with that money. The most powerful civilizations have been those that taxed their citizens, and it's bleeding obvious that not every citizen always approves of every tax dollar spent. That's the nature of governments that use taxation, as any student of history and current socio-economic engines is aware.
"This is the way things have been and this is the way things are! So accept it or leave the country!"
You made the initial assertion that doing what is unjust can serve the common good, therefore the onus falls upon you to "prove" the argument.I disagree, and lots of people think that the government has treated them unjustly. If you want to make an argument out of this unproven premise, then you'll have to demonstrate how "doing unjust never serves the common good," and then prove that "abortion funded by taxation is unjust" not just in your opinion, but in reality, in a way that is nearly obvious to anyone. That's a tall order, but i'd like to see your attempt.
Oh, right, those "intelligent" people - forgot about them! Never mind the fact that the Founding Fathers did not engage in the kind of tax policy you are currently advocating. Let's just ignore American history and pretend like our country's laws and moral philosophy is actually somehow in line with nationalized tax policy used to pay for whatever pet projects the ignorant masses (see: you) deem fit.Maybe to you, but intelligent people who are decent students of civic policy understand the necessity and the reality of normal taxation policy. Everybody who pays taxes pays for things that they'd not choose to pay for were they the ones deciding. That's why there's committees and such in congress, and you and me don't vote on 75 different decisions during our lunch break every day.
"I like abortions! They're swell! People should be made to pay for them, and if they don't like it I'm going to send the government to their house with guns! Don't like it? Get out of the country then!"
Yea, The Founders would have totally been with you on that one...
AND!? You keep regurgitating the same nonsense over and over again as if it justified your position.Okay, that's good. Go with that and build a case instead of all your whiny little self-centered arguments about how it pisses you off so bad that you're slamming down your coffee cup between sips. You may have something. My initial response is that the gov't currently uses your tax dollars to pay for all sorts of things and the fact that the constitution doesn't address these expenditures hasn't stopped them. (For example, public schools are paid for with tax dollars, and the gov't doles out the cash, but you have zero say so in the process and it's not a constitutional procedure).
"THAT'S THE WAY IT IS! STOP BEING SO SELF-CENTERED AND JUST ACCEPT THE STATUS QUO! YOU ARE WHINEY!"
I've tried heartily to accommodate you but for some reason you insist on remaining pompous and condescending towards me. I never assumed an argument was won by mere virtue of my opinion's existence. I understand the quandary posed by arguing from a divergent set of ethical standards, which is why I've been trying very hard to establish a common basis from which to discuss this issue. Whenever you want to stop lecturing me on things I've never said then perhaps this dialogue will progress in a logical and civil fashion.You were, but you were acting like your opinion was AUTOMATICALLY more logically sound and obvious. Even when you think it is, you shouldn't act like that. I reminded you what was the proper sort of thing for you to do, and where it's limit was to be found. Just listing a premise, and qualifying it as obvious, does not an argument make. It's sloppy, and beneath you, i hope.
Dude, I was being totally sarcastic. It was nothing more than a playful jab.As long as you act this way, and as though your opinions are automatically right, you can learn nothing from anyone anywhere. Do you really want to claim that kind of godhood and in that process admit that you have learned all you will ever learn? To be teachable is to know that you do not have all the facts or divine opinions. Forums such as this one are a great place to learn more about life and yourself, but if your opinion of yourself is so high, that you automatically think that you are right, then you are useless to the forum, and the forum is useless to you. No one can ever learn from a person with that ego, and a person with that ego can never learn from anything or anyone. I don't care if you want to behave that way, but it might make a difference to you.
Because the letter of the law can be ambiguous at times, thus necessitating an analysis of the "spirit of the law" in order to better clarify the meaning of the letter. This is basic legal analysis.Good. I like it a lot. Now tell me why you think we should
1. Look at the "spirit" of the law.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_the_law]Letter and spirit of the law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]2. Explain carefully what is meant by the phrase "spirit-of-the-law" (versus the letter of the law-- which i would probably prefer, but i'm not sure).
In understanding the minds of those who wrote the law we are better able to understand their intent, which helps us to better implement the law. This SHOULD be self-evident to anyone that isn't pathologically obtuse...3. Explain why we must understand the minds of the men who wrote it.
By reading what they wrote and applying it in a modern context.4. Explain what method we can use (falsifiable/verifiable and not just opinion) to determine FOR SURE that we actually "understand the minds of the men who wrote it".
Because it's unconstitutional and undermines the concept of negative liberties.5. Show, with careful reasoning and syllogism how it might be that this policy goes against what they would have supported.
No, they couldn't use the same rhetoric because I've already outlined two logical reasons why the Founders would have NEVER supported such an idiotic tax policy.The reason that you've got to take these steps, is because on the face of it, you've just provided a nice little slot of rhetoric, as easily used by either side of the debate. For example, an opponent of yours could use the same sentences, and then you've both got the same rhetoric, but neither of you has any demonstrable evidence to support your claim. Here, i'll show you what i mean:
We should also look to the spirit of the law, which is to say we must understand the minds of men who wrote it. Based upon what they have written and said I am inclined to believe they would support such a thing as abortions paid for with general tax dollars.
Do you see?
1. It's blatantly unconstitutional.
2. It undermines the basis for American legal theory, i.e. the concept of negative liberty.
Just because the government shits on these two concepts with considerable regularity does not make it right.
Once again, I was being sarcastic.Suit yourself. I've forgotten it and hadn't thought about it since, and had to go back and look up what the heck you were talking about. Hell, dwell on it as much as you want. I was just giving you sound advice, but i should have know that you wouldn't take it.
I'm sure there's a point buried beneath this mountain of self-serving BS but I'm loathe to look for it. Perhaps you could condense this tirade into a coherent sentence…Well, why should i try to explain how a rhetorical question works to somebody with enough brain power to operate a computer? Because i'm willing to help you, and correct you so that you can see what you were to blind to before. You should be appreciative of my efforts and either accommodate me or correct me. I'll do my best to remember not to ask any more rhetorical questions, and if you suspect that i have, you can ask me if it was a serious question or not (or alternatively, you could grab the nearest 4th or 5th grader that happens to wander by). It won't bother me, and i'll learn a little more about your mental processes--which will help me talk to you in a way that you will understand.
The larger point is that you have your free-speech rights to attempt to stop such a law from ever happening. I have my free-speech rights to attempt to get the law passed. As long as you go around acting like your opinion is obvious and right, but you don't detail why, then i'll beat you every time, whether or not i'm obvious and right. The reason? Because i won't act so high and mighty, and i'll carefully explain the logic and reasoning behind my perspective. So while you might have a better argument, if you were to take the time to suss it out, you'll never know and you won't win many converts to your cause because just acting pretentious about it is unattractive and only gets you the followers that already agree with you anyway. The people you'd like on your side are the ones who didn't agree with you to begin with, and for them you're going to have to do better than just thumping your chest and cawing out hoarsely, "ME RITE ON NO TAXAMATION FOR NABORSHON". This is sometimes why there is surprise upsets from the underdog. The underdog can't act like he's automatically right and his position sensible. He has to do the slow, hard, dirty work of convincing those that don't already agree with him. And this process, of explaining carefully and logically, is what i'm looking for from you. I promise you that i'm open and willing to look extremely carefully at what you present--if you'd actually present something--anything at all. If you can actually put feet on your position, and show how it is more sensible than mine, you'll have a convert from the other side instead of a bunch of puppet heads on strings nodding whether you say "Scooby Doo" or whatever it is you say dogmatically and with vigor about "IT'S 'A WRONG, I TELL YOU BRATHAS!!" without any thought or construct. Get you a convert, and that's something of which to be proud, and then that guy is out fighting your battle for you, with logic and reasoning. Talk to mirrors, and all there is is the echo of your own raspy voice.
I'm not one to wallow in denial, nor am I too proud to admit when I'm wrong. What I will not do is sit here and allow you to insult my intelligence by comparing me to a six year old.
If you want to engage me in a civil debate I'm more than happy to accommodate you. I'm here to learn and I'm always willing to listen. If you feel like I've done something which is illogical or rude you need only explain yourself and I will take your words into the fullest consideration.
That is all.