Now I realized that you all had this conversation before I got here, but I would like to answer this question:
>> ^blankfist:

Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor?

You stole it. That's all I need. What you have in your hand is not the result of your labor only, but disproportionately a result of the all of the infrastructure of government which allows you to do what you do efficiently.

We have decided, through our government, to socialize those things which we have found to be inefficient to keep in private hands. Every road is not a toll road, the police do not protect people on a fee-per-call basis, the military does not protect our borders selectively, we all benefit, and we all pay when we make money, because, in reality, those who make the most take the most from the commons.

I'm a computer geek. Everything I work with on a daily basis is dependent on technology created with money from the DOE or DARPA, they don't charge me for this common technology, but it makes my field possible, and it makes what we do orders of magnitude more powerful and profitable.

Don't think your exempt, every business that you depend on, every service and product that you buy is cheaper and more plentiful because of our socialized roads, legal systems, DARPA funded tracking technology etc. etc. etc.

The fact that you WANT not to be the recipient of this socialized charity does not make it so, you have taken something that you did not earn. Don't whine when we expect you to give it back.

>> ^blankfist:

I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?


Some of it is, lots of it is not, at the moment nobody in a position to act on the issue seems at all interested in pushing hard to remove the bad programs, only the good. I'll not champion the destruction of good programs in the name of some arbitrary context free judgement that taxes are bad.

>> ^shogunkai:

>> ^blankfist:
I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.
I don't care about the guy in the video, I'm just curious what people's reasoning is on this because it seems to be such a hot button issue these days. That people really, really, really want taxes to be raised, and I don't understand it. Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor? Keep in mind income tax only makes up a third of the federal revenue, although some charts go as high as 45%. And most states and local governments collect income tax already, and that's where we already fund the important stuff like police, fire departments and roads.
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars. I'm okay with creating an excise tax for paying for roads, police, etc. But that's not what federal income tax goes to. Why can't we work on cutting the bad spending first (wars being number one on that list)? And then we can have a dialog about what we need to fund after that?
I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?

Yes, I'm sure if you get rid of income taxes people will donate money to build roads and fund schools. I'm sure the person making 600k a year would gladly give the same percentage of their income as someone making 40k a year.


maybe roads, but not the schools... slaves need to be able to get from pyramid to pyramid... they don't need to read roadsigns... there are slave drivers with whips for that

>> ^blankfist:

I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending not look elsewhere for more money.
I don't care about the guy in the video, I'm just curious what people's reasoning is on this because it seems to be such a hot button issue these days. That people really, really, really want taxes to be raised, and I don't understand it. Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor? Keep in mind income tax only makes up a third of the federal revenue, although some charts go as high as 45%. And most states and local governments collect income tax already, and that's where we already fund the important stuff like police, fire departments and roads.
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars. I'm okay with creating an excise tax for paying for roads, police, etc. But that's not what federal income tax goes to. Why can't we work on cutting the bad spending first (wars being number one on that list)? And then we can have a dialog about what we need to fund after that?
I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?


Can you really not differentiate between how the money is collected and what it's spent on? It is possible to be against militarism, the war on drugs, etc, and not have a problem with how the money is collected.

As for taxing income, I have no problem with it whatsoever. I earn good money and I have no problem contributing money to the society in which I reside. Taxes as a general rule are a good way to insure that everyone pays.

I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.

I don't care about the guy in the video, I'm just curious what people's reasoning is on this because it seems to be such a hot button issue these days. That people really, really, really want taxes to be raised, and I don't understand it. Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor? Keep in mind income tax only makes up a third of the federal revenue, although some charts go as high as 45%. And most states and local governments collect income tax already, and that's where we already fund the important stuff like police, fire departments and roads.

One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars. I'm okay with creating an excise tax for paying for roads, police, etc. But that's not what federal income tax goes to. Why can't we work on cutting the bad spending first (wars being number one on that list)? And then we can have a dialog about what we need to fund after that?

I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?

>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist I'm pretty confident that by this point I could recite your position on health care and government in my sleep.
That's why I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. "Free market" rules work like this:
Person A has X dollars, and wants cherries. The market price of cherries is Y dollars. If X < Y, then Person A can't have cherries, no matter how badly he might want them.
Should those rules ever be different if we're talking about life-saving medical procedures?
Since this keeps being answered with cries of "Charity!" I guess I need to point out that charity doesn't change that fundamental picture, nor does it eliminate the possibility of that ever happening to anyone.
So we're back to the same question, with just one more caveat. What should be done with people who can't pay, and didn't get helped by charity? Leave them to die?


And I too could recite your position. In my sleep. In a coma. In my grave.

If no one is willing to help someone who is dying, then they would die. I felt like I've answered this. But you want me to say something sensational and controversial, that I want people to die or think they should. But my point is it shouldn't be up to me or you. It should be up to the individual how he handles his life even in life-saving health treatment.

What you've created is a very specific scenario that appeals to our fears as mortal beings. And using it to promote a political agenda is just as disgusting as those who used 9/11 to justify taking away our liberties and rights.

What's worse, you think you've discovered some big gotcha question to rule them all. You didn't. It appeals to the basest of emotions instead of reason. And it shows the narrow-mindedness of your movement. We let people die all the time. It's almost an accepted part of our lives. You thump your chest over saving lives with universal healthcare, yet say nothing about military aggressions that lead to large scale life loss. At least dying in a hospice gives you some dignity and comfort unlike dying in a wartorn street from phosphorus burns.

I see a lot of self-righteous posturing over this trivial snippet of video. When the debate for raising taxes and increasing government's scope is about lifting up the fringes of society, those in favor of raising taxes like to thump their chests with indignation and take the grossly sanctimonious position their somehow kinder, morally superior and more generous.

But this is misdirection and a deceptive argument they play. Because they rarely point out that the majority of your taxes are already spent on things you dislike like militarism, hegemony and building the US empire. Yet they speak barely at all in objection to that.

Thank you for speaking my mind with much more eloquence and brevity than I ever could've!

In reply to this comment by AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^xxovercastxx:

I don't support the idea that you have to respect every opinion but calling people idiots doesn't help either.
One of the things I've come to hate about debate is people are less interested in discussing, comparing and evaluating ideas than they are about thumping their chests and insulting people. Even women are apparently not immune to machismo.
Does anyone really think this is going to help? Will we (atheists) be more accepted/trusted/respected if we just call enough people idiots? Will theists see the errors of their ways if only we insult them enough?
There's a reason argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy; it's a failure to make any relevant argument and often a sign of incompetence.
The objective of debate is to sway people to your side (though not necessarily the people you're arguing against) and you don't do that by forcing them to shore up their defensive wall.


But...but... calling people idiots and addressing the argument aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

Simple insults aren't ad hominem unless they're used as a substitute for actual reasoning. Calling someone an idiot doesn't magically negate the relevant criticism that preceded it.

"Your argument is wrong because you're an idiot, liar, or some other negative human characteristic picked out of a grab bag to give the appearance of discrediting you and thus, your entire argument." = ad hom

Sure, I suppose you could make that argument that even a biting, rational critique interspersed with some choice derogatory flourishes can undermine any attempt at bringing the other person to reason, but I disagree that a definitive statement like yours can be made on whether it's ineffective on everyone; I like to think there's multiple paths of approach. Often the target of ridicule isn't the one you convert, but the people on the sidelines watching.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I don't support the idea that you have to respect every opinion but calling people idiots doesn't help either.
One of the things I've come to hate about debate is people are less interested in discussing, comparing and evaluating ideas than they are about thumping their chests and insulting people. Even women are apparently not immune to machismo.
Does anyone really think this is going to help? Will we (atheists) be more accepted/trusted/respected if we just call enough people idiots? Will theists see the errors of their ways if only we insult them enough?
There's a reason argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy; it's a failure to make any relevant argument and often a sign of incompetence.
The objective of debate is to sway people to your side (though not necessarily the people you're arguing against) and you don't do that by forcing them to shore up their defensive wall.


But...but... calling people idiots and addressing the argument aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

Simple insults aren't ad hominem unless they're used as a substitute for actual reasoning. Calling someone an idiot doesn't magically negate the relevant criticism that preceded it.

"Your argument is wrong because you're an idiot, liar, or some other negative human characteristic picked out of a grab bag to give the appearance of discrediting you and thus, your entire argument." = ad hom

Sure, I suppose you could make that argument that even a biting, rational critique interspersed with some choice derogatory flourishes can undermine any attempt at bringing the other person to reason, but I disagree that a definitive statement like yours can be made on whether it's ineffective on everyone; I like to think there's multiple paths of approach. Often the target of ridicule isn't the one you convert, but the people on the sidelines watching.

I don't support the idea that you have to respect every opinion but calling people idiots doesn't help either.

One of the things I've come to hate about debate is people are less interested in discussing, comparing and evaluating ideas than they are about thumping their chests and insulting people. Even women are apparently not immune to machismo.

Does anyone really think this is going to help? Will we (atheists) be more accepted/trusted/respected if we just call enough people idiots? Will theists see the errors of their ways if only we insult them enough?

There's a reason argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy; it's a failure to make any relevant argument and often a sign of incompetence.

The objective of debate is to sway people to your side (though not necessarily the people you're arguing against) and you don't do that by forcing them to shore up their defensive wall.

That would solve a lot of religious hatred. But most people in turbans and those thumping bibles wouldn't be as grownup as you.

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^blankfist:
I was raised not to hit women. In my core I think it's wrong, though I think it's a terribly biased and arcane belief. Once in high school during a breakup my ex-girlfriend started wailing on me and trying desperately to kick me in the nuts. I wanted to defend myself, but felt I couldn't outside trying to catch her arms before they hit me.
I think in the deep recesses of my mind, I watch this and feel some sense of perverted justice for all the times a girl was violent against me and I felt I couldn't retaliate.
Also, how many times has a woman put your ass in danger by mouthing off to some dude? And all of a sudden you have to fight to defend her honor or some crazy archaic primal bullshit like that.

I was raised the same way, but whenever something like that happened to me, I found the best possible way to resolve the situation (And I actually mean this in all seriousness)
Was a hug.
After a few seconds of taking a hit or two, I'd grab an arm, spin them so their back was to me and hold their arms in a "Hug" type of stance.
It was almost an instant de-escalator. They're either forced to talk about why they were taking swings at me in the first place, or too embarrassed to keep going because they got beat by a hug.
In this situation mind you, I don't think the hug would go so well.

I had a great High School Chemistry teacher.

One day we were having a lesson about butane, so we had a bunch of lighters that were missing their sparker rolls. We filled test tubes with butane by putting a test tube under water and pressing the gas release button on a lighter, then having the released bubbles of butane displace the water in the tube (held upside down in the water).

Once the test tube was filled with the gas, we would put a hand in the water and cap the tube with a thumb, then take it out of the water.

Our teacher said that butane was heavier than air, so we could light small pockets of butane by holding the tubes right-side up (thumb covering the opening at the top), taking our thumbs off of the top and dropping the test tube about an inch or so to make some turbulence and release some of the gas before re-capping it with our thumbs, and then having our lab partner quickly strike a sparker in the area just above the tube.

That worked great -- you get small bursts of the butane burning / exploding, but after several of the pops the butane at the top of the tube has been replaced by air and you have to give the tube a more severe drop/shake to get more butane out. We did that for a while until we stopped getting reactions.

At that point, I figured that there was probably a little more butane left in the tube at the very bottom. So, I told my lab partner that I was going to hold the tube upside down at a bit of an angle so the remaining heavy butane could run out of it, remove my thumb, and then he could spark the area at the end of the tube.

We got set, I took my thumb off the tube's mouth, and about a second later my lab partner hit the spark. Instead of the small fist-sized flashes we had been getting with the other technique, there was a huge burst like the one in this video, accompanied by a pretty loud thump. My lab partner and I had pretty much frozen in space with shock, although neither of us was injured at all except for some singed hair on my hand. Everyone else in the room spun around to see what had happened and went dead quiet.

My teacher said: "Somebody tries that one every year" and grinned.

>> ^longde:

let me clarify a few things:
-I didn't say you wanted the comments to flourish; I don't think you do. I'm saying I don't think you would mind or care if they did. I see you as indifferent.
-I never said or advocated a permaban for people making racist or hate statements. I do think such statements should be prohibited; there are many ways to do so, just like we prohibit other things on the sift.
-We have to use some judgement, but hate or racist statements against any race should be off-limits. I also see the distinction about statements which are about race and racist statements. What stood out for me in BKs comment:
The tone of the comment; I didn't read any sarcasm, irony or jest in the comment; and BK didn't clarify that there was any.
The blanket, non-factual statement which cast all members of the race in an extremely negative light. Let me put it this way: If BK had said "BurdT, this is why people call you nigger" I think we agree that would be bad, since it targets BurdT specifically due to his race. However, BKs statement is much worse, because rather than target BurdT only, he is slurring any and all black people who will read the thread. No qualifiers; these people on the video are scum, so you of the incidental same ethnic group are also scum. WTF
Using "nigger" was the least of it, IMO; but clearly he was using it its most derogatory way
Yes, I can ignore BK, but what about new potential black sifters? Shouldn't the sift be a welcoming place to all? When statement like that are not called out and dealt with, it implies acceptance to those unfamiliar with the sift.


I'm not indifferent to it. I don't want people being hostile toward a group of people based on things they cannot help. It's one thing to make light of it, but to seriously hate and then vehemently target people is another thing altogether. And luckily we don't have that here on the Sift. Let's be thankful.

I also didn't read any sarcasm in BK33's comment. Like I said, I think he meant it to be racist. I don't want us policing behavior on this site. Let me qualify that statement. I don't mean I want people going around attacking people of a different color; I simply think we cannot police matters of the heart, and if we try we'll probably experience more bad behavior than good. What he said was racist. No doubt. I don't condone what he said. Still, his comment is to a hateful, hostile comment what thumping someone on the ear is to a knife wound.

To your point, I agree if he called burdy the n word, that would be something entirely different than what we have here. If BK33 called burdy that, I'd ban him myself. You and I will have to disagree that calling all black people the n word is worse, because I just see that as the absurdity of collectivizing race. Though if BK33 went around calling all black people "n***ers" on here, then I'd also ban him on the spot. That's not what he did with his comment, though. He made a generalized absurd comment that was a thump on the ear, not a knife wound.

Not to sidetrack the conversation but campi also makes a good point above: why is burdy exempt from not using the word? It was his subdomain at one point if you remember?

I don't mean deaths. I meant injuries to the riotters.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^ant:
>> ^Payback:
You know, in hindsight I'm sure I would have regretted it... but if that was my truck and I was there? I'd punch the switch into 4H and give out a bit of road rash and street pizza to everyone in front of me... if you're not part of the solution, you're traction material.

And you wouldn't care if they sue you with multiple lawsuits?

Well... that's the neat thing about BC vehicle insurance. It's what's called a "crown corporation", basically a for-profit company controlled by the government. It means we have limited choice in insurance, but oddly, because our elected officials have to get insurance too, the rates stay low (oddly enough, ICBC still makes a solid profit... hmmm?).
Now, as for my little diatribe, which was mostly hyperbole and chest thumping. Should one decide to perpetrate what I described, BC law forces the plantiffs to either sue the driver directly (getting less than dick) OR sue/settle with ICBC (for guaranteed thousands). Not both. I would think most people would go for the guaranteed cash, rather than try to get blood out of a stone.
Another plus, if it was considered only one incident... my discount of 43% (safe driver) would go down to 0%, and, due to the already low insurance rates, I'd pay like $350 more than my previous 43% over 4 years, then I'd be back at 43%.
Also, there would be arguably enough evidence for self-defence to keep me out of jail. So it'd be win-win for everyone. I doubt I'd kill anyone, I'd only be going slightly faster than human sprinting speed.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Payback:
You know, in hindsight I'm sure I would have regretted it... but if that was my truck and I was there? I'd punch the switch into 4H and give out a bit of road rash and street pizza to everyone in front of me... if you're not part of the solution, you're traction material.

And you wouldn't care if they sue you with multiple lawsuits?


Well... that's the neat thing about BC vehicle insurance. It's what's called a "crown corporation", basically a for-profit company controlled by the government. It means we have limited choice in insurance, but oddly, because our elected officials have to get insurance too, the rates stay low (oddly enough, ICBC still makes a solid profit... hmmm?).

Now, as for my little diatribe, which was mostly hyperbole and chest thumping. Should one decide to perpetrate what I described, BC law forces the plantiffs to either sue the driver directly (getting less than dick) OR sue/settle with ICBC (for guaranteed thousands). Not both. I would think most people would go for the guaranteed cash, rather than try to get blood out of a stone.

Another plus, if it was considered only one incident... my discount of 43% (safe driver) would go down to 0%, and, due to the already low insurance rates, I'd pay like $350 more than my previous 43% over 4 years, then I'd be back at 43%.

Also, there would be arguably enough evidence for self-defence to keep me out of jail. So it'd be win-win for everyone. I doubt I'd kill anyone, I'd only be going slightly faster than human sprinting speed.