Flaser Posts
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Actually being familiar with Boolean logic can also come handy. Boolean logic uses truth tables, that is you write up all possible combinations of basic statements, then you evaluate the expression. I'd like to highlight a frequent problem with implication:
Implication:
P => Q
p implies q
Example:
"If the river is narrow, then we can cross it quickly."
Truth table:
P=True, Q=True, P=>Q=True
P=False, Q=True, P=>Q=True
P=False, Q=False, P=>Q=True
P=True, Q=False, P=>Q=False
The important thing is, that an implication is only false, if the condition is true yet the implication is false.
Example:
"Even though the river is narrow, we couldn't cross it quickly."
So the frequent argument that if something is not true, then it's implication is also false is fallacious logic!
Look at the truth table, even though the initial condition is false, the implied condition can still take on true or false values and the implication itself is still valid.
Contrapositive:
What is implicit in an implication is its contrapositive:
From the definition of an implication we have:
P => Q = NOT(P) OR Q.
Example:
"The river is wide or we can quickly cross it."
Using the commutative nature of the OR operation we get:
P => Q = Q or NOT(P)
Using the double negation rule we get:
P => Q = NOT(NOT(Q)) or NOT(P)
Again, from the definition of an implication we have:
P =>Q = NOT(Q) => NOT(P)
Example:
"If we can't cross the river quickly, it's not narrow."
Negation:
The negation of an implication, is once again not what people normally use, but this is the correct logical result of an implication being false:
From the definition we have:
P => Q = NOT(P) OR Q
Therefore, taking the negation of each side of the equation, we have:
NOT(P =>Q) = NOT(NOT(P) OR Q)
From the negation law we have:
NOT(NOT(P OR Q) = NOT(NOT(P)) AND NOT(Q)
(This a De Morgan relation)
From the double negation rule we know, this is the same as
NOT(NOT(P)) AND NOT(Q) = P AND NOT(Q)
Therefore:
NOT(P => Q) = P AND NOT(Q)
So the negation of an implication doesn't implicate anything else!
Example:
For example, the negation of the statement
"If the river is narrow, then we can cross it quickly"
is the statement:
"The river is narrow and we cannot cross it quickly."
Implication:
P => Q
p implies q
Example:
"If the river is narrow, then we can cross it quickly."
Truth table:
P=True, Q=True, P=>Q=True
P=False, Q=True, P=>Q=True
P=False, Q=False, P=>Q=True
P=True, Q=False, P=>Q=False
The important thing is, that an implication is only false, if the condition is true yet the implication is false.
Example:
"Even though the river is narrow, we couldn't cross it quickly."
So the frequent argument that if something is not true, then it's implication is also false is fallacious logic!
Look at the truth table, even though the initial condition is false, the implied condition can still take on true or false values and the implication itself is still valid.
Contrapositive:
What is implicit in an implication is its contrapositive:
From the definition of an implication we have:
P => Q = NOT(P) OR Q.
Example:
"The river is wide or we can quickly cross it."
Using the commutative nature of the OR operation we get:
P => Q = Q or NOT(P)
Using the double negation rule we get:
P => Q = NOT(NOT(Q)) or NOT(P)
Again, from the definition of an implication we have:
P =>Q = NOT(Q) => NOT(P)
Example:
"If we can't cross the river quickly, it's not narrow."
Negation:
The negation of an implication, is once again not what people normally use, but this is the correct logical result of an implication being false:
From the definition we have:
P => Q = NOT(P) OR Q
Therefore, taking the negation of each side of the equation, we have:
NOT(P =>Q) = NOT(NOT(P) OR Q)
From the negation law we have:
NOT(NOT(P OR Q) = NOT(NOT(P)) AND NOT(Q)
(This a De Morgan relation)
From the double negation rule we know, this is the same as
NOT(NOT(P)) AND NOT(Q) = P AND NOT(Q)
Therefore:
NOT(P => Q) = P AND NOT(Q)
So the negation of an implication doesn't implicate anything else!
Example:
For example, the negation of the statement
"If the river is narrow, then we can cross it quickly"
is the statement:
"The river is narrow and we cannot cross it quickly."
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Lelouch24 wrote...
I am unable to understand the logic of Biglundi's arguments, while I understand the logic of everyone else. Either I'm not smart enough to understand, or he's being illogical. To determine which is true, I ask:does anyone besides Biglundi think that Biglundi is being logical?
Reasonably Bored wrote...
He does make sense. There is no default position; if one can't present evidence for one thing doesn't automatically make the other correct. Reasonably Bored's remark is indeed true. Although Biglundi and Jash2o2's arguments have become ever more childish, his basic argument is still true.
Jash2o2 has failed to provide any whatsoever secular proof of his position, merely relying on the (false) argument that "(P)==FALSE => NOT(P)==TRUE", which is a logical fallacy.
Actually Biglundi too made the mistake of getting bogged down in scientific terms, as he keeps insisting that a zygote is not alive, when it fact it's scientifically quite proven that it's a living organism (albeit one incapable of life on its own... a trait shared by many "parasites", hence why Doctor House referred to a fetus as suck).
However I agree with his basic position that a zygote is not (yet) a person. Arguments about when life begins, whether the zygote is truly alive is just a smokescreen that detracts from the central ethical problem of when do we (legally) grant person-hood to the unborn.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
crazr wrote...
x-gen wrote...
Oh for the love of god, just do it man. If you did SOT then it's not like she's adverse to the idea of fucking with you. Intentions and all that can be dealt with later. If she's offering then accept gracefully. Stuttering about it with the halfyes-halfno is just gonna annoy her.And come on, you already agreed. Isn't rude to cancel on a girl?
Oh, and if you do reschedule it, do it at the mall, preferably in a lockable washroom on that 4th floor. You don't want to get caught in school, trust me. I've seen idiots that got some serious punishments for it.
Lol, one of my highschool mates who hasn't graduated yet got caught and he got suspended for a hella long time! This is very solid advice, I suggest you take it.
WTF is wrong with you Americans?!? It's not like these teenagers were doing anything wrong.
Heck, in my (old) school, (I've graduated long ago) they probably would've got a stern talking to, maybe a lecture on using protection then told to get a room.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Flaser wrote...
The cells of skin you normally shed during the day are also alive.Skin cells we shed during the day from the epidermis are dead. Same goes for hair, and finger/toe nails. That argument is inane by playing upon the ignorance of those unfamiliar with biology and I request that you cease to use it.
FPOD is correct, cells shed are dead, my comparison was faulty. I'm at a loss here to say a process where we loose living cells, but I'm pretty sure there's one. However since I can't name one at the moment consider my argument void.
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Flaser wrote...
It also shares your DNA. Bacteria and animals are also alive yet the former are usually only thought of as pests, while animals are routinely slaughtered. For the heck of it, I could point out that some researchers consider even virii a form of life.It is a requirement that something must be alive before it can be die. Viruses are indeed a form of life. Just because animals are slaughtered doesn't mean that it is justifying about kill another living creature for arbitrary reasons. If you really wish to use that logic, I could use it to justify killing another human being since we all generally agree that humans are just evolved animals.
I have no comment on the rest of the post. I've already had my fun arguing from the pro-life side and I am certainly not needed for the pro-choice side.
I specifically mentioned virii, since until they inject their genetic package into a cell they lack any metabolism of their own, so some biologists don't consider them living organisms.
However your argument that things should be killed for any arbitrary reason is at odd angles with what I was trying to get across: that possessing life on its own is not a sufficient reason as why humans shouldn't kill it.
We have various reasons why we kill animals and we even have reasons - that society as a whole accepts as moral - why we kill humans.
The point being, that for a beings life to be considered inviolate you need to ascribe more attributes to it. We normally don't agonize over worms, insects or bacteria that are killed as a result of our actions. We reserve our empathy to only a select cadre of animals... and our empathy seems to focus in-on the beings ability to feel pain.
So as long as the zygote is incapable of feeling pain - or feeling anything et all - than I don't believe a similar reason could be used to justify its welfare against the wishes of the woman bearing it.
You *could* ascribe a special potential to it, and this is a valid argument as it doesn't hinge upon either religious belief or non-religious "meaning" (once again belief) as the zygote's potential is something that has been objectively demonstrated.
However my counter argument to this is that said potential of zygotes is overstated: 2/3 of natural pregnancies end in miscarriage as the zygote fails to embed in the womb. Lots of zygotes are routinely destroyed in the process of in-vitro fertilization.
If we ascribe absolute significance to this potential, then its being routinely violated both by nature and a human practice that's widely accepted as good and honorable.
I'm *NOT* arguing that a zygote or more precisely a *fetus* shouldn't have any rights of its own. What I *AM* arguing against is the categorical, absolute deference of the zygotes rights over that of the bearer.
At some point during the pregnancy, you can no longer handle the fetus as just a bunch of cells. It has a nervous system of its own and is so developed that - given the medical state of our age - its healthy delivery is almost a given thing.
*Where* that point is, is debatable.
What I find *unjustifiable* though, is that you'd ascribe the same right to zygote, when in reality zygotes are routinely lost due natural causes (and a lot more frequently than people think, the zygote gets expelled during menstruation and even the woman won't know about it) or in processes already approved.
Until the pro-life camp comes up with reasons why a first trimester zygote can be morally destroyed in some cases - rape, natural causes, in-vitro processing, intra uteral devices - but can't be morally destroyed in others - namely abortus - your arguments will lack the necessary coherence to pass musters of objectivity.
Referring to the potential of the zygotes, simply won't do, as I've amply demonstrated the same potential in cases where it exists and is still ignored.
The only avenue I see open for you is the distinction of preventive and reactive action.... however for the life of me I can't see why you'd see the later as immoral and the formal as moral when the practical results are the same.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
GodofAethism wrote...
When I play a video on my Media Player Classic Home Cinema that I downloaded from \CCCP, the video is upside down and has a mirror image. Now I know that the problem is with my Codec, however, I do not trust many services available online and would rather trust people who have done their research and could direct me to a software which could solve my problem with minimum problems. So please help!Quick check: see if in the playback properties - either in MPC-HC, or the FFDshow filter - you have accidentally set mirrored image somewhere. If its not set, you could try setting it and see if it helps (in case this behaviour is caused by your decoder).
What content are you trying to play and what decoder do you use for this?
-When playing a file, right-click, go into properties and check what the encoding of the video stream is. (E.g. divx/xvid, h262, etc).
-Next go into CCCP's filters in your start menu, and select the FFDShow video filter. Go into the codecs tab and check what's selected for this content type.
--If it's libvacodec, then you need to tweak the setting of FFDShow video filter.
--If it's something else, e.g. CoreAVC, you need to tweak the appropriate codec's settings. (Check your start menu for related items).
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
brok3n butterfly wrote...
I noticed that my hard drive starting making a humming that was of a lower pitch than normal. I wasn't totally sure what it was but I decided to shut off my laptop for a while since it had been on and active for about 15 hours. When I turned it back on about 20 minutes later the sound came back. I put in my 12 cell battery, which makes the whole laptop sit higher at the back. After that the sound went back to its normal hum. I was wondering if its common for hard drives to change pitch like that and what was the cause? I want to say it was unbalanced but HDD's are very sealed so I don't see how something found its way in there and changed the balance.
I hope its not going to fail on me. The one time one did fail it was a slow painful blue screen, crash filled, take-6-months-to-load-"my-computer" train wreck. I have my data backed up too :) so no big worries there.
FYI: My laptop is a HP dv4-1220us and the HDD itself is a fujitsu mhz2250bh g2.
Thanks for the help!
If you're concerned about the state of your hard-disk install speedfan and check the SMART tab. The readings you should look out for are reallocated sector count and bad sector count... if these start to rise your hard-disk is dying.
About the "hum" - it's normal for hard-disks to produce various kinds of low vibrations as they spin their disc at a significant RPM. There's a reason why PC quiet enthusiasts put rubber wafers under them.
Bottom-line: unless the SMART data suggests otherwise I wouldn't really worry about it.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
zeroniv_legend wrote...
gizgal wrote...
You forget the whole "maybe said woman who is raped/unable to( or uninterested in) support(ing) a child" doesn't want to go through with carrying a being inside her for just under a year.And then being responsible for it for at least 18 more years.
At the LEAST.
I know someone who was 10 years old at that time and she was raped (and pregnant) by his own grandfather, but she was still willing to bear the children, saying "The baby has done nothing wrong".
Nuff said
...and I know a guy who was willing to have a nail driven into his penis. Another one was willing to drink battery acid. An individuals choice to do something carries no weight toward mandating the behavior for everyone else.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
QualiaSoup made some excellent videos demonstrating that some morals *can* be objectively defined, as well as why you don't need God for morals to exist:
The fallacy of God as a moral compass:
Why the Bible fails as a moral compass:
He does *not* claim that morality is objective. In fact that very fact that once slave ownership was considered moral demonstrates that it isn't.
However we can agree that as science marches on and we *know* more and more about the world, morality too becomes more and more objective as there's less room for personal belief. Furthermore there are objective criteria for one's morality else it can't pass muster of modern society.
The fallacy of God as a moral compass:
Why the Bible fails as a moral compass:
He does *not* claim that morality is objective. In fact that very fact that once slave ownership was considered moral demonstrates that it isn't.
However we can agree that as science marches on and we *know* more and more about the world, morality too becomes more and more objective as there's less room for personal belief. Furthermore there are objective criteria for one's morality else it can't pass muster of modern society.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Jash2o2 wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
Jash2o2 wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
i am adamantly pro choice. A woman has the right to her own body, pregnant or no.I think something people don't seem to be understanding is that just because you're pro choice, that doesn't mean you're going, "Woo hoo! Abortion! Let's do it!" It means you respect the right a woman has to her body, despite your own personal disagreement with what she's doing with it.
It's not that pro-life people don't understand that. The problem is that pro-life people also believe that the child has the right to his/her own body. It's all about when we perceive life to begin and when should constitutional rights apply. The constitution has no definition as to when life begins, so it is really hard to solve this kind of problem. If you look at it scientifically, life already exists in the sperm and eggs but that life does not get constitutional rights. At what point should the constitution apply if the constitution itself does not say? You could say that the child at birth is when life begins, but why? Because before that, it is not fully formed? That is just another way of saying that it hasn't grown enough. The constitution still applies to people that are in the process of growing, so why is it any different in this circumstance? I've never understood the reasoning behind saying that life begins at birth.
In my opinion, life begins at conception. That is when the process of growth begins. After meiosis when the sperm/egg is created, there is no more growth for those cells. Only when the egg is fertilized by the sperm is there a continuation of growth. It is that initiation of growth that I believe defines the beginning of a humans life.
I believe life starts at the third trimester. That's when babies begin to feel pain and the like, it's when they become sentient, it's when they show all the different signs of life that we recognize .Heartbeat included. There really is no justification that life begins at conception. The fertilized cell is completely unfeeling, nonsentient, and is far less than a bacterial cell in DNA information.
I already gave the logical justification as to when life begins. Life already exists within the sperm and egg. Those cells are scientifically proven to be alive. They do not grown anymore until the egg is fertilized and that is when growth begins again. Feeling pain is not a factor at all when determining if something is alive or not, and neither is a heartbeat or sentience. There really is no justification that those are factors in determining if life exists.
Now I believe that a person exists once the growth process begins again. You seem to believe that a person exists once sentience exists. I see that as a flawed view since sentience is merely a product of the growth process. That and there are people with mental issues so severe as to where they could almost be considered to be without sentience and yet, they still have constitutional rights.
Your justification is just as arbitrary BigLundi's.
The quality you use to define a person - life - is not unique to the zygote. The cells of skin you normally shed during the day are also alive. It also shares your DNA. Bacteria and animals are also alive yet the former are usually only thought of as pests, while animals are routinely slaughtered. For the heck of it, I could point out that some researchers consider even virii a form of life.
All the rights you quote are a property of a person. Therefore the whole question of "when does life begin" is inappropriate. The question should be, when does a fetus become a person?
The answer would be very much an arbitrary one, but at least it's clear it's such an arbitrary decision, whereas questions over life are waxing biological fact with personal belief or faith if you will in metaphysics.
This is an ethical question.
Biology can't be used as a scalpel to cut the Gordian not. It won't have answer for you. If will tell you when a cellular organism comes to exist, when its various functions develop and finally when it will have the capacity for thought and feelings.
When you ascribe natural rights to that organism is a tricky thing, but if you ascribe it at the moment of conception, you also ascribe such rights to all the myriads of zygotes that never manage to embed in the womb. You also ascribe it to all the zygotes routinely destroyed in artificial insemination.
Even if you ascribe these rights only to zygotes embedded in the womb, if you put in clauses for rape, the safety of the mother, then you still - even if unconsciously though - accept that it does not yet have the full range of rights a person does.
Imagine if we were talking about a breathing, living new born and were debating whether to kill it, because it was born as a result of rape? Even pro-choice people would find the idea repugnant, yet the fact that you'd allow for that to happen to a zygote in case of rape shows that even you don't believe that a zygote is a person yet.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
The key difference between a lame blowjob and a good one is suction. I've seen (and experienced) a lot of girls just push the penis in and out... if you add suction it feels x10 times better. Next comes details. Using the tongue, twirling it around the head... these tricks can make a good blowjob a great one. Finally learn to pace yourself, take breaks and just lick/kiss the sides, only use your tongue for a while otherwise your jaw will quickly tire.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
animefreak_usa wrote...
SNIPThis, so much this. +Rep. It's not legal or illegal, but a gray area where you'll likely loose if brought to court.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
BornToLose wrote...
gizgal wrote...
...I think if men could also become pregnant from sex, you'd feel a bit differently about this idea of "responsibility".Awfully presumptuous of you to assign me a gender or is it because I don't fit the stereotype of a feminist screaming "my body my rights" that you assume I'm a male?
Anyways, your arrogance aside, abortion is the quick way out for women who can't accept the responsibility of having sex. It's simple, if you don't want the chance of getting pregnant, keep your legs closed. If you can't, well that's a shortcoming on your end.
Guess what? You are the only arrogant bastard here.
A guy can always just skip town and leave the woman high and dry... no such chance with a pregnancy. How about preaching about *responsible fatherhood* first, before you start to make claims on women's bodies?
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
As mentioned, the two biggest dangers are surgery foul ups - though these are pretty rare - and your sight further deteriorating as you grow older and then you'd have a lot harder time getting it fixed.
Keep in mind though that so far (AFAIK) only laymen have posted. Ask an optician/doctor who's not directly involved in the surgery business.
Keep in mind though that so far (AFAIK) only laymen have posted. Ask an optician/doctor who's not directly involved in the surgery business.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Actually, there not another religion as divided as Christianity. Why? Because (most of the ) other religions don't claim absolute knowledge or absolute interpretation of knowledge.
Warning! The following video is Atheist propaganda, if such material causes you to incessantly rage, just don't watch it! If you're religious, but have the good humor to laugh at a satire that pokes at the inconsistencies surrounding your belief, you'll likely have a laugh too... though chances are you'll be still offended.
...so I wonder what "singular religion" or RELIGION in big capital letters does OP refer to?
Warning! The following video is Atheist propaganda, if such material causes you to incessantly rage, just don't watch it! If you're religious, but have the good humor to laugh at a satire that pokes at the inconsistencies surrounding your belief, you'll likely have a laugh too... though chances are you'll be still offended.
Spoiler:
...so I wonder what "singular religion" or RELIGION in big capital letters does OP refer to?
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Andoru-Kun wrote...
Flaser, don't bother trying to convince others of an opposing argument. Once people are set in their beliefs and agendas, it takes nothing but the most destructive of forces to make them open their eyee and change their ways. I agree that people have relied to much on government for practices that are their own fault, I.E. bad parenting (no parenting) or healthcare in which most diseases hold an important prevention variable. Such as healthy diet, excersise, stress maintenance. Otherwise, I'm going to have to agree with Flaser that we need far more regulations by the government, in most every field. Also, lmfao at any politics I read about.
I'm not sure we need to mandate more regulation, but making sure the various federal organizations actually do their part would be a start. Like SEC finally sending a lot of brokers to jail for fraud instead destroying evidence.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817
...right now the various federal organizations are suffering from systematic corruption and co-option by corporations. Cleaning house, reinstating the strict policies these organizations were founded with and screening employees for industry ties would be the bare minimum to actually get the regulations enforced.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Fruid wrote...
From what I understand MPC (Media Player Classic) is just an executable, it doesn't need to be installed. If the aforementioned is true then cleaning the registry would have no effect on your problem.If KireruX's advice did not work dl the newest version of MPC, google it, then play your movies.
If the newest version of MPC doesn't work I'm somewhat certain it's a codec problem, reinstall or upgrade your codecs. I recommend getting the CCCP pack, again just google "CCCP pack".
You're not understaning the OP's problem. MPC-HC is loosing focus to another application that tries to pop-up. He could try setting in MPC-HC, so it's "always on top" and see if that helps. Otherwise, he'll have to hunt down the application in question and see why it pops up.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
...and another classic, this game even had a Jukebox mode:
Tyrian - Main (Tyrian) Theme
Tyrian - Camais
Tyrian - Asteroid Dance
Tyrian - Main (Tyrian) Theme
Tyrian - Camais
Tyrian - Asteroid Dance
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Haburi-Chan wrote...
gizgal wrote...
I agree that shota should be off the site. But yaoi is free to stay.o: I would never have thought we'd disagree on something. Lol.
At the first poster: this is the bazillionth topic about it. You don't see us girls complaining about yuri on the site, so shut up and deal with it. We get it: you guys don't like to see delicious hot men having sex with other delicious hot men. You're either raging homophobes who want to force your beliefs upon this website in a very arrogant and egotistical way, or a closet fag who hates being confronted with it.
There's a lot of warning for trap mangas. If you're still too stupid to notice the yaoi and trap tags or the giant admiral ackbar comments and then go and complain about it you obviously deserve your -rep.
Now if you'll excuse me I'll be busy shlicking or something.
...I believe you misunderstand what gizgal wrote. As she wrote, she has no problem with yaoi - i.e. works him homoerotic content. She specifically mentioned *shota*, which means underage boys, which BTW can't be hosted on the site due the same reason loli can't. (Because the advertisers).
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
FPOD I don't know whether to be amazed or annoyed:
You quoted yet more statistics that show *gross* payment, not payment as % of one's income. When the top 10% owns in wealth more than the rest of society combined, it's no wonder they have to pay more... in fact they'd have to pay more even if the tax-rate was flat.
...yet they still pay less than Average Joe the blue-collar worker or Joe Average the white collar wage slave. There is no tax on interest, dividend and capital gains.
In other words, even though they "pay more", what they pay is still not measurable to what the average American has to shell out as a percentage of their wage. The key difference is that while the rich may be annoyed, the poor are barely getting by... or not at all. The USA is experiencing a record number of foreclosures.
For the hell of it, I could quote your very own source:
"You’ll see that one major reason why the share of taxes paid by the richest Americans has risen is that the richest Americans have experienced much greater income growth."
As for the AT&T, or "Ma Bell" story:
The most ridiculous twist on the truth I've ever seen. Bell Systems was *always* a private company. In fact it was after a range of *government* law suits, based on anti-trust laws - government *regulation* - that it was finally broken up.
Between 1956 and 1984 government *didn't* mandate any "privilege" for "Ma Bell" in fact it was restricted to 85% of the United States' national telephone network.
...so your argument is the very opposite of what has happened:
Government regulation finally broke up a monopoly and has allowed various startups to liven up the tel-co industry.
The regulation you quote, were *company*, not state or federal mandates.
...as for "self-regulation":
-The very same regulation that has been "in effect" in Wall Street? Good job, hasn't worked out so great.
-How about the MPAA?
-How about the Comics Code Authority? Which is universally acknowledged as a repressive regime?
Both those have been tools for censorship, enforcing the wishes of select interest groups, instead the country as a whole.
You quoted yet more statistics that show *gross* payment, not payment as % of one's income. When the top 10% owns in wealth more than the rest of society combined, it's no wonder they have to pay more... in fact they'd have to pay more even if the tax-rate was flat.
...yet they still pay less than Average Joe the blue-collar worker or Joe Average the white collar wage slave. There is no tax on interest, dividend and capital gains.
In other words, even though they "pay more", what they pay is still not measurable to what the average American has to shell out as a percentage of their wage. The key difference is that while the rich may be annoyed, the poor are barely getting by... or not at all. The USA is experiencing a record number of foreclosures.
For the hell of it, I could quote your very own source:
"You’ll see that one major reason why the share of taxes paid by the richest Americans has risen is that the richest Americans have experienced much greater income growth."
As for the AT&T, or "Ma Bell" story:
The most ridiculous twist on the truth I've ever seen. Bell Systems was *always* a private company. In fact it was after a range of *government* law suits, based on anti-trust laws - government *regulation* - that it was finally broken up.
Between 1956 and 1984 government *didn't* mandate any "privilege" for "Ma Bell" in fact it was restricted to 85% of the United States' national telephone network.
...so your argument is the very opposite of what has happened:
Government regulation finally broke up a monopoly and has allowed various startups to liven up the tel-co industry.
The regulation you quote, were *company*, not state or federal mandates.
...as for "self-regulation":
-The very same regulation that has been "in effect" in Wall Street? Good job, hasn't worked out so great.
-How about the MPAA?
-How about the Comics Code Authority? Which is universally acknowledged as a repressive regime?
Both those have been tools for censorship, enforcing the wishes of select interest groups, instead the country as a whole.
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Dear FPOD! Your so called "rebuttals" have been getting a bit stale as of late:
1. Quoting statistics from a libertarian organization.
2. Calling me pretentious, misguided or just all in all wrong.
3. An attack on my person, likening me to a retard.
Before exchanging another broadside, I'd thought I'd go look for some hard data, from independent sources without an agenda. (Your source does not qualify, for it was made with the intention of promoting a flat tax rate).
However your blatant disregard toward anything I write combined with your smug assurance that your fairy tale philosophy must be right has aggravated me to the degree that you have this post.
So without sufficient research here is my response:
1. Your statistic that measures *absolute* payments toward taxes and is therefore meaningless. Let's have an example to demonstrate: I have a 100 sheep. You have 10. We live in the middle ages. We pay in tax 10% to the "holy temple". I pay 10 sheep. You pay a single one. Whoa! I just paid 90% of the tax! How unjust is that?
2. Could you quote a study how regulations hurt small businesses? Last I recalled it actually *helped* them. Without regulations, you'd still only have a single tel-co company (AT&T) and you couldn't start your own ISP as they'd own the whole network lock, stock & barrel.
You claim that big government organizations make it easier for big business to make things go their way... so the good response is to get rid of all regulation? This is a classical libertarian leap in logic, pointing out an existing, real-world problem than offering a fairy tale solution without any basis on reality... and if I point out a the thousands of times, when deregulation has hurt the public, you'll just go "revolutionary" on me, claiming that the "real" libertarian principles couldn't come to play, since the country in question hasn't yet implemented the big deregulated libertarian utopia.
3. ...and your fixation on "regulation = BAD", "deregulation = GOOD" is pathologic as shown by this comment:
.
Regulatory organizations...not regulated. Make up your mind. Was it regulated or was it not regulated? Either the regulators were corrupted by outside money or the industry wasn't regulated anyways.
The problem with Wall Street finance is that the SEC (& a whole range of other regulatory agencies) have failed to do their purpose: regulate.
In other words the whole problem stemmed from the fact, that in practice there was no regualation.
...going to a pure "arachno-capitalistic" basis, would help this how? How can Average Joe on the street ensure that a finance company won't screw him over by selling his pension fund crap? How can he insure that credit rating agencies won't rate this shit as the best thing ever?
Going back a step ow can Joe Average ensure that his telco company won't unfairly price his service? Go to another company? Who? In an unregulated world, AT&T + Verizon can deny forwarding calls from any other company. Only a startup with massive capital - enough capital to lay their parallel network everywhere! - could stand a chance.
Let's take another step, and say you want to open a small store of your own. How do you compete with Walmart, who buys the majority of foodstuff from producers? Walmart can stop buying anything from a producer if they directly sell to you. Agriculture is an area where you can make massive increases in productivity by going big... unless your "store chain" is big enough buy up the majority of the products of a producer Walmart can deny you stuff to sell as a producer without an outlet to Walmart is "dead".
1. Quoting statistics from a libertarian organization.
2. Calling me pretentious, misguided or just all in all wrong.
3. An attack on my person, likening me to a retard.
Before exchanging another broadside, I'd thought I'd go look for some hard data, from independent sources without an agenda. (Your source does not qualify, for it was made with the intention of promoting a flat tax rate).
However your blatant disregard toward anything I write combined with your smug assurance that your fairy tale philosophy must be right has aggravated me to the degree that you have this post.
So without sufficient research here is my response:
1. Your statistic that measures *absolute* payments toward taxes and is therefore meaningless. Let's have an example to demonstrate: I have a 100 sheep. You have 10. We live in the middle ages. We pay in tax 10% to the "holy temple". I pay 10 sheep. You pay a single one. Whoa! I just paid 90% of the tax! How unjust is that?
2. Could you quote a study how regulations hurt small businesses? Last I recalled it actually *helped* them. Without regulations, you'd still only have a single tel-co company (AT&T) and you couldn't start your own ISP as they'd own the whole network lock, stock & barrel.
You claim that big government organizations make it easier for big business to make things go their way... so the good response is to get rid of all regulation? This is a classical libertarian leap in logic, pointing out an existing, real-world problem than offering a fairy tale solution without any basis on reality... and if I point out a the thousands of times, when deregulation has hurt the public, you'll just go "revolutionary" on me, claiming that the "real" libertarian principles couldn't come to play, since the country in question hasn't yet implemented the big deregulated libertarian utopia.
3. ...and your fixation on "regulation = BAD", "deregulation = GOOD" is pathologic as shown by this comment:
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Flaser wrote...
All of this came about, because the SEC and other regulatory organizations were stuffed with financial lobbyists, because derivative trading was *not* regulatedRegulatory organizations...not regulated. Make up your mind. Was it regulated or was it not regulated? Either the regulators were corrupted by outside money or the industry wasn't regulated anyways.
The problem with Wall Street finance is that the SEC (& a whole range of other regulatory agencies) have failed to do their purpose: regulate.
In other words the whole problem stemmed from the fact, that in practice there was no regualation.
...going to a pure "arachno-capitalistic" basis, would help this how? How can Average Joe on the street ensure that a finance company won't screw him over by selling his pension fund crap? How can he insure that credit rating agencies won't rate this shit as the best thing ever?
Going back a step ow can Joe Average ensure that his telco company won't unfairly price his service? Go to another company? Who? In an unregulated world, AT&T + Verizon can deny forwarding calls from any other company. Only a startup with massive capital - enough capital to lay their parallel network everywhere! - could stand a chance.
Let's take another step, and say you want to open a small store of your own. How do you compete with Walmart, who buys the majority of foodstuff from producers? Walmart can stop buying anything from a producer if they directly sell to you. Agriculture is an area where you can make massive increases in productivity by going big... unless your "store chain" is big enough buy up the majority of the products of a producer Walmart can deny you stuff to sell as a producer without an outlet to Walmart is "dead".