Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Income Inequality?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post




    This is an open thread, which means I can make a post directed at you if I so choose.
    You are right. But if you do, don't play dumb and back out of the conversation.

    You decided to jump on the "avarice" bandwagon with your comment out of the blue. The conversation was about whether a business owner had a right to maximize his profit or was it automatically considered "avarice" and he should be limited on his profits. So you commented on how you could tell someone was greedy by what they owned. Which prompted me to mention that God used rich people in the bible, such as Abraham, David, etc, who owned quite a bit more than the average person at the time, and they didn't just give it away and it was not considered avarice. And even today the Catholic church owns quite a few rich things, like gold scepters, thrones, gilded altars, etc. And most people (especially catholics like Sparticus) would not consider that avarice.

    Yet when I bring that up, you play stupid all of a sudden and say "what's that got to do with me? I never said anything about that, blah blah blah"

    So if you are going to make comments, at least know what you are commenting on and own your comments.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      I am curious: when you claimed that recognising same-sex marriages would cause a "substantial drain" on government monies, did you just consider outlays, without considering inlays?
      No.


      And criminal behaviour has nothing to do with avarice.
      Tell Bernie Madoff's victims that.
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        You are right. But if you do, don't play dumb and back out of the conversation.
        Back out? I'm still here replying, am I not?

        The conversation was about whether a business owner had a right to maximize his profit or was it automatically considered "avarice" and he should be limited on his profits. So you commented on how you could tell someone was greedy by what they owned. Which prompted me to mention that God used rich people in the bible, such as Abraham, David, etc, who owned quite a bit more than the average person at the time, and they didn't just give it away and it was not considered avarice.
        Oh, that was a serious argument? Okay, I'll address it.

        How much luxury did Abraham have? Or Moses? Or David? Or Solomon? Or the Pope today?

        Reading the bible, I see God using a lot of rich people as his chosen leaders, and they all had luxurious belongings compared to the people they led or lived around. I don't recall God telling them to give away all of their riches, do you?
        I don't seem to recall Moses owning "quite a bit more than the average person at the time". If anything, the Scriptures say approvingly of Moses that he gave up his riches as he "refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt".

        Solomon is notable for clearly violating God's commands that the king "must not acquire many horses for himself... he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold."

        But as to your general points: you claim that "God used rich people who owned quite a bit more than the average person at the time...it was not considered avarice." Do substantiate the claim that they it was not considered avarice. Do substantiate the claim that God uses "a lot" of rich people as his chosen leaders.

        And even today the Catholic church owns quite a few rich things, like gold scepters, thrones, gilded altars, etc. And most people (especially catholics like Sparticus) would not consider that avarice.
        Let's assume that most people don't consider that avarice. Does that imply that it is not avarice?

        Yet when I bring that up, you play stupid all of a sudden and say "what's that got to do with me? I never said anything about that, blah blah blah"
        When you bring up irrelevant points it is my general practice to ignore them.
        Last edited by Paprika; 10-24-2014, 01:09 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          No.
          Then why did you not mention the substantial revenue that would be generated as per the report: revenue greater than the estimated losses due to increased Social Security payouts?

          Tell Bernie Madoff's victims that.
          Ah, so you're one of the people this was intended for:

          For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest


          And criminal behaviour has nothing to do with avarice.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            The conversation was about whether a business owner had a right to maximize his profit or was it automatically considered "avarice" and he should be limited on his profits.
            That's not the conversation I thought I was having

            Also, is there a reason you keep spelling my screen name with an "i"?
            Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              Back out? I'm still here replying, am I not?


              Oh, that was a serious argument? Okay, I'll address it.


              I don't seem to recall Moses owning "quite a bit more than the average person at the time". If anything, the Scriptures say approvingly of Moses that he gave up his riches as he "refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt".
              Oh you mean AFTER he murdered the Egyptian and had to go on the run?

              Solomon is notable for clearly violating God's commands that the king "must not acquire many horses for himself... he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold."
              And David? And all of the other Kings? and Abraham?

              But as to your general points: you claim that "God used rich people who owned quite a bit more than the average person at the time...it was not considered avarice." Do substantiate the claim that they it was not considered avarice. Do substantiate the claim that God uses "a lot" of rich people as his chosen leaders.
              Well considering God blessed them with their riches, it would seem odd that he then would claim they were greedy sons of guns, eh? Where does God admonish them for their riches or how they spent them? Where does he tell Abraham to give up all of his riches and wealth? Where does he tell David that? Or Moses? Heck in the case of Moses, he took them to a land full of more riches and wealth.


              Let's assume that most people don't consider that avarice. Does that imply that it is not avarice?
              Let's ask Spartacus about that.

              When you bring up irrelevant points it is my general practice to ignore them.
              right. You jump into a thread making stupid comments and then when called on them, you say you are ignoring irrelevant points.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                That's not the conversation I thought I was having

                Also, is there a reason you keep spelling my screen name with an "i"?
                I am a pirate. I can't spell.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Oh you mean AFTER he murdered the Egyptian and had to go on the run?
                  I quoted Scripture. Look up the book of Hebrews.

                  And David? And all of the other Kings? and Abraham?

                  Well considering God blessed them with their riches, it would seem odd that he then would claim they were greedy sons of guns, eh? Where does God admonish them for their riches or how they spent them? Where does he tell Abraham to give up all of his riches and wealth? Where does he tell David that? Or Moses? Heck in the case of Moses, he took them to a land full of more riches and wealth.
                  1) You haven't even shown that Moses had, relative to the rest of his people, a great deal of wealth.
                  2) You claimed that "it was not considered avarice" - a positive claim; I'm still waiting for you to show it - absence of record of condemnation in Scripture does not mean that God did not consider it avarice.


                  right. You jump into a thread making stupid comments and then when called on them, you say you are ignoring irrelevant points.
                  Take as much rope as you need.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    I quoted Scripture. Look up the book of Hebrews.


                    1) You haven't even shown that Moses had, relative to the rest of his people, a great deal of wealth.
                    Yeah because being raised in Pharoah's household as his son was such a poor way to life.

                    2) You claimed that "it was not considered avarice" - a positive claim; I'm still waiting for you to show it - absence of record of condemnation in Scripture does not mean that God did not consider it avarice.
                    You are arguing from silence. So I dismiss your idiotic comment. ER, I mean "irrelevant"

                    Also,
                    Forget what we are talking about earlier? The vatican and catholic church? This was directed at Spartacus originally since he seems to think that avarice is something rich owners of businesses have in abundance and should be controlled. Yet I bet he doesn't think the same thing about the Church he belongs to, which has gold and silver just being wasted as decorations instead of using it to help the poor.




                    Take as much rope as you need.
                    I think you already hung yourself.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      Then why did you not mention the substantial revenue that would be generated as per the report: revenue greater than the estimated losses due to increased Social Security payouts?
                      Because it is well beyond unknown. They are ASSUMING that the same sex partners are dual income couples who make equal salaries, which they admit in the report is pure and unadulterated conjecture.


                      Ah, so you're one of the people this was intended for:

                      For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest


                      And criminal behaviour has nothing to do with avarice.

                      I misread your question. Let's recap...


                      Originally posted by you
                      So if, as you say, the government is 'useless' in preventing harm from avarice of financial speculators, would you agree then that there's no need to have any financial regulation at all?
                      Here, you seem to be asking me if financial regulation can prevent or reduce avarice, and if not, why have any at all.
                      Originally posted by me
                      Of course not. The tools that are available can be beneficial (such as what happened with Bernie Madoff).
                      I respond that some regulations are beneficial in helping criminal forms of avarice from hurting citizens
                      Originally posted by you
                      What are these tools, and how are they beneficial?
                      You ask what tools
                      Originally posted by me
                      Consumer Protection laws and regulations
                      I respond with Consumer Protection
                      Originally posted by you
                      Are not such laws and regulations intended to protect individuals or society in general from certain forms of avarice?
                      You then ask if these laws are intended to protect people from criminal avarice (which I already answered 3 questions before).
                      Originally posted by me
                      No. They are typically to protect consumers from criminal behavior
                      And here I misread what you were asking. Mea culpa.
                      Originally posted by you
                      And criminal behaviour has nothing to do with avarice.
                      Avarice in and of itself is not criminal. It can lead to criminal behavior to feed it, but it can also result in legal business practices too. And there is no U in behavior.
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      - Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Yeah because being raised in Pharoah's household as his son was such a poor way to life.
                        And he gave that up, did he not? And was he not commended for it?

                        You are arguing from silence. So I dismiss your idiotic comment. ER, I mean "irrelevant"
                        No, you are arguing from silence. You have made a positive claim that David, Solomon, Abraham were simultaneously rich and having no avarice, and you have raised zero evidence to support the claim

                        Forget what we are talking about earlier? The vatican and catholic church? This was directed at Spartacus originally since he seems to think that avarice is something rich owners of businesses have in abundance and should be controlled. Yet I bet he doesn't think the same thing about the Church he belongs to, which has gold and silver just being wasted as decorations instead of using it to help the poor.
                        And what does this have to do with me, since it's directed at him?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          And he gave that up, did he not? And was he not commended for it?
                          He had to give it up, did he not? After going on the run for murder?

                          No, you are arguing from silence. You have made a positive claim that David, Solomon, Abraham were simultaneously rich and having no avarice, and you have raised zero evidence to support the claim
                          Usually if God thinks something someone is doing is a sin, he let's them know about it. He blessed them and made them wealthy and did not complain they were greedy for having the wealth he gave them. I think that pretty much covers it.
                          And what does this have to do with me, since it's directed at him?
                          Because you jumped into the middle of a conversation, apparently without knowing what was even being discussed. Back to my initial comment of "mind your own business" especially if you can't be bothered to know what the hell you are even interrupting.


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            Because it is well beyond unknown. They are ASSUMING that the same sex partners are dual income couples who make equal salaries, which they admit in the report is pure and unadulterated conjecture.
                            Excuse me? They also make the same assumption when calculating increased Social Security payouts:

                            Source: The Report

                            Benefits paid to spouses and widow(er)s account for almost one-fifth of Social Security spending. In 2004, $21 billion in benefits will go to 5.5 million spouses and $69 billion to 8 million aged widows and widowers, CBO estimates. Almost half of those recipients are dually entitled.

                            If permitted to marry, same-sex couples would benefit from those spousal and survivor features. However, their gains would be modest, CBO expects, for two reasons. First, most same-sex couples include two workers, and on average, their earnings are closer to one another’s than is the case for a husband and wife in a two-earner couple.

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            So isn't the estimation of the increase in Social Security payouts based on "pure and unadulterated conjecture" too?

                            I respond that some regulations are beneficial in helping criminal forms of avarice from hurting citizens
                            I must have missed you answering this earlier. So we are agreed that the government has some power to protect citizens to some extent from certain forms of avarice, and it does intervene at times to exert this power, contra your earlier claim that "Avarice is a personal issue where a single person fails in a moral decision which results in potential harm to a segment of society (with no government intervention or responsibility)".

                            And there is no U in behavior.
                            Surely you jest.
                            Last edited by Paprika; 10-24-2014, 02:08 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              He had to give it up, did he not? After going on the run for murder?
                              Indeed. But since he gave up his riches, he was no longer rich when he led Israel, was he?

                              Usually if God thinks something someone is doing is a sin, he let's them know about it. He blessed them and made them wealthy and did not complain they were greedy for having the wealth he gave them. I think that pretty much covers it.
                              Allow me to reconstruct your argument, as I understand it:
                              P1: If Abraham, David and Solomon had the sin of avarice: God would have let them know about it, and it would be in Scripture.
                              P2: There is an absence of any such record
                              C: Thus they had no avarice

                              I think it's pretty clear who's using argument by silence.

                              Because you jumped into the middle of a conversation, apparently without knowing what was even being discussed. Back to my initial comment of "mind your own business" especially if you can't be bothered to know what the hell you are even interrupting.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                Indeed. But since he gave up his riches, he was no longer rich when he led Israel, was he?


                                Allow me to reconstruct your argument, as I understand it:
                                P1: If Abraham, David and Solomon had the sin of avarice: God would have let them know about it, and it would be in Scripture.
                                P2: There is an absence of any such record
                                C: Thus they had no avarice
                                No you are the one making the positive claim that it was avarice. yet God gave them the wealth. It was a blessing.



                                Go play in the street.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
                                2 responses
                                7 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                419 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Working...
                                X