34 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You make out your check to the government and your customers make out their checks to you or your firm.  Pay attention to the observables....

Yes, Baal, I understand this.   I have 28 employees where I need to make payroll twice a month.   This is not a foreign concept to most people.   

The point is, whether they even know it or not, everybody does what Greg claims to have figured out-- no matter what the check says, unless they aren't paying taxes.  

3 hours ago, moralist said:

No, I simply transfer the same taxes paid to me. That's parity. I told you you'll never understand this most simple basic elementary concept of business because you've never been a Capitalist producer. This simple concept is beyond your government educated intellect. But thanks anyway for demonstrating the consequences of your own choice to be imprinted by your government.

 

Greg

So, I charge $450 per hour as a good old fashioned capitalist.    Nobody puts a gun to anybody's head and presto, for some reason, people hire me.

It sure seems like I pay taxes on this money each year:  once every quarter, and once every April 15 to "true up" the gap between the quarterly payments I have made and the remaining amounts owed.   If I didn't do this, jail awaits.

How is this different than what you are describing?  

If all you are saying is that your pricing is higher so that you can capture your tax liabilities, isn't that like saying my $450 hourly rate implicitly captures my tax liabilities?  And isn't the same true for everybody else who either has a job, or is self-employed, including the guy working at McDonald's?  

In other words, the guy at McDonald's makes 7.5% less than he otherwise would because his employer is paying his FICA/FUTA and other taxes.    Everybody's compensation has an implied load attached, i.e., the tax load.   There is nothing special about being a plumber, electrician, or lawyer that makes this more or less true. 

On 5/25/2016 at 9:50 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have only skimmed through this thread, so if the following was mentioned, I missed it and sorry.

I recently finished reading The Confessions of Saint Augustine (John K. Ryan translation).

Augustine's argument about man's need for religion is far more sophisticated than I would have thought for a Catholic around 400 AD. He goes into the nature of time, of memory, senses, even of God as far as Augustine can understand Him--and it is not a trivial understanding. In fact, there is some Greek philosophy mixed in.

The need for religion argument goes something like the following. Man can make many things, but he cannot make himself. Thus God made man. God also made all natural things (including time) out of nothing--but a nothing that was obviously something to God. In other words, this part is beyond human understanding and can only be worshipped (or not). Man can control what he can do and perceive, but he can only worship (or not) what he cannot avoid and does not understand--including the force that made him.

I don't recall where Augustine objected to worshipping idols (his deal was against a pagan dualistic kind of Christianity called Manichaeism because he was a member for over a decade before converting), but I did read this objection over and over in The Old Testament. The reason I mention it is because it is based on a simplified form of Augustine's argument about God making man and nature. The argument is that God made man, then man made idols with the hands and materials God gave to man, then man worshipped those idols instead of God. Man thus worshipped things he made rather than worshipping the thing (God) that made him. This was the reason it was such a sin.

The need for religion to ancient Jews and Christians (as far as I can tell) mostly boils down to trying to understand how man can make things, but cannot make himself or make nature.

One of the coolest parts of Augustine's thinking was about God's rest on the seventh day in Genesis. (Note, Augustine considers a creation day as a time span different than an earthly day). Augustine claimed that God, after making everything, rested and is still at rest (and will continue), and that man reflects this pattern with human death--i.e., man makes a lot of things like God did, and also like God, man rests for eternity when his time comes around.

I can't say much about the metaphysics since this is beyond my experience, but this parallel in Christian storytelling is really cool.

 

Michael

MSK:

The thread's name is Why is There Religion, and you have brought up St. Augustine's Confessions.     

Kudos to you for having recently read this, and thank you for your thoughts on the book.    Very interesting comments.   

It has been a few years since I have read the Confessions, but you have inspired me to take another peak at it/them. 

38 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The processes of your body (that includes the brain, nervous system and glands)  are not deterministic  at the subatomic level.  A great deal of what happens not only to us but in the cosmos  was not pinned down and programmed  at the instant of the Big Bang.  Some things do happen by chance. As long as that is the case one must allow for Free (in t he sense of non-deterministic) Will.  

One can also "allow" for the existence of Ghost Ships and little forest fairies.  

Do you believe free will exists, or not?

1 hour ago, Max said:

That depends on how you define "free will". But whatever your definition may be, Bob's argument is sound and consistent with his framework.

 

Max:  are you certain believes in free will?   I don't think we have a clear statement from him on this quite yet. 

On 5/22/2016 at 9:26 AM, Guyau said:

.

Good for you, Michael.

Also evident in that search, using "President Obama" in their own address (not in quote from media): Peter, William, Ed, and Robert.

I'll definitely be going with "President Clinton" (not "Evita") or "President Trump," even "President Sanders." The derisive labeling can spill over into disrespect for this country. One's fellow-American opponents have more commitment to our constitutional process than one might like to admit in the heat of (now every-day-of-every-year) making propaganda against them. Not one of these candidates is anything remotely near the character and deeds of the elected leaders in Venezuela right now. That goes for President Obama too. All the Presidents as far back as I can remember have argued in court for increase in the powers of their office. But all of them and their attorneys have yielded and intended to yield to the constraints from the judiciary (it was not so smooth as that in the early years of this constitutional republic, but now it's deeply set).  

Stephen:

Although I see your point, this strikes me as pretty easy patriotism--if it can even be called that.

Thankfully, we still live in a country where people can simply refer to "Bush" for political purposes, but pretty much everybody knows that's he was "President Bush" the day after 9/11.   Same with Obama.   And President Obama too. 

20 minutes ago, Peter said:

No one can look good with a cigar in their mouth, though the various, poor images differ. Bill looks mad and criminal. As Cervantes didn't say, A good cigar: it looks like a turd and it smells like shit.

If she wants to keep playing the woman's lib card she is going to need to do something about her past quotes about the women Bill, harassed, molested, or raped. She called them bimbos, etc. But my favorite is the one about if you drag a dollar through a trailer park, watch the whores come out. . . or something to that affect . . . they all are lying or they deserved it.

Peter

Speaking of matters scatological, if Slick Willie took plane trips to an island to meet teenage girls and left his secret service people behind than the Clinton campaign is in deep, deep Doo-Doo. If that happened, Trump is going to be running against Biden or Warren or even Bernie the Commie.   The recklessness of such behavior will amplify Hillary's recklessness with her server.    1 + 1 will equal more than 2 in that situation. 

I stand by my original prediction of a Hillary landslide, but I'm also becoming concerned that there isn't enough pepper in the world to make crow taste much good...

37 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am programmed (or "wired") to do as I do and think as I think.  However the underlying  quantum processes are non-deterministic.  Free Will dwells within the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  

Please keep in mind that all of us Terran animals are physical  down to the subatomic level.  

Can you point me to an authoritative source for the statement that free will dwells within the HUP?    Not being snarky.   i am genuinely interested. 

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am in favor of letting people live,  all other things being equal.  I guess I am just a sentimentalist.  Or maybe I don't like the idea of being left to perish.

If I don't like when something is done to me,  I am disinclined to do that thing to other folks if I don't have to. 

How sentimental of you. 

None of these preferences make any sense with in the framework you claim to adhere to.   These preferences and disinclinations imply such a thing as "free will".    According to your "Man is Merely a Glorified Amoeba" theory, there could be no free will.   

I agree with Brant that you need to go read yourself some Ayn Rand.   

For obvious reasons, a good start would be her explication of the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. 
 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Thank you for your donation to OL.

 

Michael

You might be welcome!

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Come on. That's the way you want to argue this?

 A: Tell me something about X that proves your point, I dare you. You can't can you? See? You can't...

B: Blah blah blah...

A: Oh... OK, well tell me another. You can't can you?

 

I'm not biting.

Also, I'm going to seriously regret this, but I will not wager on what Trump will do. This would be the easiest money I ever made in my life, but I don't gamble on the principle of keeping myself alive as long as my natural days allow. (I've been a serious drug and alcohol addict, remember?  )

Let's just say Trump is being hired to do a job (several, actually, but let's lump them all under the singular). If he doesn't do that job, or if he doesn't get reasonably close to getting it done with some serious-ass reasons why he didn't complete it, I am going to be pissed as hell at him--like millions and millions of others. And, if he fails at his job, at such time I will take whatever means I can to help remove him and get someone else who can do that job.

So I'm not going to waste my time--after doing this thread of over 6,000 posts and a lot of writing at other places, trying to convince anyone that I really believe Trump will do what he says. I believe it.

Besides, I'm extremely time-constrained at the moment (good things are happening to me in other areas of my life, but they are time-consuming to get right) and I have not yet answered Robert Campbell and some friendly passive/aggressive gossip shit William is trying to stir up backstage.  

Life is short, but this stuff can get awfully long...

And then there's this:

Trump is winning...

 

Michael

MIchael:  that's fine--I respect your point about wagering, and I also respect your statements about being pissed if Trump doesn't do what he says he will do.    

That's really all I was driving at.    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, with a little crow thrown on top.  

Now let me put my money where my mouth is:.  If Trump signs a budget bill that reduces federal spending, I will send $500 to OL and I will personally send you a taxidermed crow.    I will be happy to do so, and happy to be wrong on this point.    And you are welcome to remind me should I forget this in this future.  

3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Also found on DT's website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/a-joint-statement-from-house-speaker-paul-ryan-and-donald-j.-trump

So the big questions going into the meeting were can there be unity between Trump and Ryan?  Can they work together?  "Yes":

Here is a press conference with Ryan after the meeting.  Listen for the line, "I was very encouraged with what I heard from Donald Trump today."  Also, at the end Ryan does a grammatical elliptical, the sentence is, "That is why, like I said, we had a very good start to a process on how we unify <the rest of the party>."  Ryan is very much on board here, and I am excited to see it.

About Ryan and last year's budget, I think he did what he had to do--Obama wouldn't have passed a Republican budget anyway, and why start a fight that would only end up with the Republicans painted as a party that can't be worked with, especially with the Presidential election looming?  By going forward with the budget, Ryan negated this accusation.  Priebus hinted at this on Hannity recently as well.  I like Ryan and think he was thinking long range here...

 

Korban: I agree re your last paragraph about Ryan.  

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Bob's not an idiot. If you say and/or imply you believe in "God" he takes you at your literal word. You have no argument to win on that level, especially when your statements get too broad. Many Jews gave up their belief in a Supreme Being because of the Holocaust. It's kind of hard to make sense of the idea that the victims of Nazism had it coming to them as did the additional 65 million victims of WWII-- and those were just the ones killed.

Looking through my father's files the day before yesterday, I found a poem written by my his mother--whom I never knew (she died in an accident in 1938)--lamenting the loss of her two baby boys in 1904. (Streetcar hit by a train in Defiance, Ohio. She also lost her sister and she was injured.) Did those babies have it coming? Did their mother?

--Brant

I look forward to Greg's answer to this question.   

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

You mean like his efforts to pass last year's budget?

 

Yeah, he rationalized it (something to the effect that we had to get that nastiness and further budget bloating out of the way by capitulating to be able to concentrate on the glorious small government future), but rationalizing his principles when the going gets tough seems to be his standard MO.

Michael

Okay.    Can you name something specific you object to about last year's budget?   

I am going to assume your objection--like mine--is that the budget increased federal spending.   Yet again.  

Do you plan to hold Trump to this same standard when he signs a new budget bill in 2017?    Or any year thereafter?

Because I will bet you a serious sum of real money that Trump will not sign a budget bill that actually reduces federal spending in any year he is President.    

Are you willing to make that bet with me?   We can negotiate the terms of the bet privately if you are interested.  

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

I have held this belief from the beginning with one nuance. I think Trump has been far closer to our beliefs since the beginning than many who proclaim to be.

Especially Paul Ryan, who, in political practice, is a pragmatist, not a man of principled vision. He says he is, but his acts don't align to his words. He works as a decent copywriter for his principles, I suppose, but he sure as hell doesn't live them.

Trump, on the contrary, has left a physical trail of his productive vision all over the world. If he had a slightly different personality (on a lower fundamental level, i.e. less bragging, less bickering and more polite, essentially), I have no doubt many people in our subcommunity would say Ayn Rand anticipated him in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Michael

Is there anything that Ryan has specifically done that leads you to say that he is not a man of principled vision?   Can you be specific with an example or two?   Implicit in your statement is the idea that being a person of "principled vision" is important to a politician.    Is Trump a principled politician?

It is indeed true that Trump has a physical trail of buildings around the world, but he is not running for the position of chief real estate developer.      As I have said before, I have a client just like Trump:  life-long developer, billionaire, excellent employer of thousands of employees, and great visionary.  He is also humble, not prone to exaggeration, can take a punch without acting like a bully, and gives a great deal to charity.    None of this means my client would be a good president.  

Assuming the same standards apply to judgments about the "principled vision(s)" of both Ryan and Trump, I would say Trump's actions do no quite align with his words either.    Just as one example, do Trump's actions regarding non-Americans that he employs at his hotels align with his words about immigrants?    I don't think so.    Trump also claims to have a principled objection to the Clintions, but his actions (which unfortunately his nose will be rubbed in mercilessly in the coming months) are belied by this.   He not only gave money to Hillary and endorsed her, but claimed that her vote for one of the Endless Wars was justified by the "lies" told to her.  Trump also (now) claims that the government should initiate force and require employers to pay a higher minimum wage.    Does Trump voluntarily pay his lowest paid employees higher than minimum wage, like he expects others to do?

I have no desire to rehash the particulars, but am interested in the underlying principle:  why are actions that don't align with his stated  principles okay when it involvies Trump, but different when involving Ryan?

9 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Donald Trump is considering Newt Gingrich for vice presidential role

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-is-considering-newt-gingrich-for-vice-presidential-role/ar-BBsX0mg?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

------

Newtzilla for VP?  Yes, absolutely!  I liked Newt back when he was speaker, and I liked him for his presidential bid (well, until his space race gaffe, but I still liked him (not the gaffe)).  Newt has gushed a bit in interviews when he's been asked about VP.  This might happen, get ready.

Newtzilla!

 

I have always loved Newt's intellect, but I think this would be a disaster--not unlike the Cruz selection of CF.

Trump and Newt are too much alike.    I am not saying Trump should add a VP choice in some conventional fashion, but there are better unconventional options out there. 

I am partly kidding: what about somebody like Mark Cuban?

On May 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

God has not constructed a perfect world.  That indicates

1. God is malicious

or

2. God is incompetent

or

3. God never constructed the world

If your objection to God is that he failed to construct a "perfect world", then you have no objection at all.

The only world in which something called an objection would exist is one that is not perfect.  

You are in effect objecting to water because it is wet.   

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

God stands idle while people harm themselves.  Nice God????  That proves God is malicious.  God the Father is a criminally negligent parent.

Now you're just emoting.  

What do you want God to do when I'm about to stub my toe?  Smooth the sidewalk?

You can do better than this Baal.  

Make an argument.  You're acting like an angry old man telling God to get off his lawn.  ?

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

God has not constructed a perfect world.  That indicates

1. God is malicious

or

2. God is incompetent

or

3. God never constructed the world

How can perfection be judged absent the concept of imperfection?   

2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The existence of evil implies at least one of three things:

1. God is malicious

2. God is incompetent

3. God does not exist

 

You didn't address my point.   Are you talking to yourself, or are we having a conversation?

Truly not trying to score a debate point:  I'm genuinely curious as to your response to the fallacy above.  

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

But not the bites of Tyrannosaurus-Rex!

--Brant

you should be grateful

My views have evolved in this topic.  ?

45 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Yeah, it's kind of funny how Trump and Ryan have basically traded positions during that decade. Trump has become more conservative and Ryan has become a moderate, spineless puke (alone with many other Washingtonized Republicans).

J

I'm curious what has led to your dim view of Ryan.  He seems like a standard-issue politician to me-- with a dash of lip service to Rand thrown in.  

But I'm not aware anything he's specifically done that Trump (at least when he's impersonating a conservative) would claim not to generally agree with.  

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

I look very much forward to meeting w/Paul Ryan & the GOP Party Leadership on Thurs in DC. Together, we will beat the Dems at all levels!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2016

 

Good to see that Man Baby is such a stalwart Republican. 

2006 was, what, a decade ago? 

39 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

We eat cows to live and mosquitoes eat us to live.

Understood.

But I am hoping to make a more subtle point. 

Any complaint you might make about God's actions, such as allowing "evil" really comes down to a complaint that God has not constructed a perfect world.    I assume you are familiar with this form of Nirvana fallacy.

Let's say your complaint was that God allows the very worst disease imaginable, and therefore, to use your word, is "pathetic".   Let's name that diseases cancer for young children.  Assume further that God heard your prayers or otherwise decided to eliminate that disease.   The result of that action by God be to would leave the human race with what used to be the 2nd worst disease, maybe cholera for children or something.

The only way there would not be a complaint about God in, for instance, the realm of disease would be for him to eliminate all diseases.  And then, once all diseases were eliminated, we would complain that God allows sneezing, coughing, or broken arms, since--at that point in time--those conditions would be the worst medical conditions left.  Etc. Etc.   Eventually, after many prayers and much compliance by God in response to your complaints, you'll get to mosquito bites.    Mosquito bites will be the worst element of the human condition left.

God thus cannot win unless he eliminates anything we view, through our human lenses, as negative.

Until, of course, he constructs a perfect world. 

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I was raised on the view from Har Sinai (Mt. Sinai).  God is powerful.  Do not fuck with God.  God is also pathetic.  Only a pathetic Deity would command Love. Now how can one love a God that kills children???

For that matter, how can one love a God that allows there to be mosquito bites?