Evolution vs Creationism---Is there a God? Or is it all just random chance?

PostmodernProphet said:
odd you mention Owl, since you are new......I've had her on ignore since long before you joined, so you have seen no interaction at all between us.......if you're just another Amazonerd, then I've had enough time to give up on you......goodbye......
Click to expand...

I don't know what an Amazon nerd is. But just because neither of you don't interact doesn't mean I don't see both of your comments in this forum. She told me she blocked you, I didn't assume you blocked her, but w/e.
 
Casual Leftist said:
I mean, people who complain about taxes care. I don't care though. This whole point of conversation came up because I suggested rich Christians should pay their taxes, even if they're high - especially because it would go to help the poor which is what Jesus was known for.
Click to expand...

Why haven't you sold your computer, your smart phone, bought a cheap flip phone, and given the money to the poor?

Aren't you able to live in a smaller place and give the cost difference away??
 
Casual Leftist said:
I don't know what an Amazon nerd is.
Click to expand...

amazonerds are all the pests that infested this board when Amazon threw them out.....I have them all on ignore because all they do is bite each other on a daily basis......Owl and the Masons were the leaders of the board that was shut down on Amazon.....
 
Casual Leftist said:
I mean, people who complain about taxes care. I don't care though. This whole point of conversation came up because I suggested rich Christians should pay their taxes, even if they're high - especially because it would go to help the poor which is what Jesus was known for.
Click to expand...

can you make us a list of the rich Christians here who do not pay their taxes?......and did you know that taxes go for things besides helping the poor?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
can you make us a list of the rich Christians here who do not pay their taxes?..
Click to expand...

Well besides the legal practice of 'tax avoidance' which they all do, I'm most concerned about the rich Christians who try to lower the taxes as much as possible and try to prevent people like Sanders from raising them.

The Walton Family, The Kochs, the Mercers - these families tend to fund right wing christian fundamentalist think tanks that go on to sport politicians talking points and legislation. Grover Norquist being another example of being a zealous anti-tax crusader with his pledge promise to politicians.

....and did you know that taxes go for things besides helping the poor?......
Click to expand...

Yes I know that. But when it comes to those tax hikes they would be tied to the new/expanded social policies in question. It would be a Palpatine level play if Sanders won the WH and convinced Congress to raise taxes for increased social spending to only then to use those funds to support the military. I would be very surprised.
 
Casual Leftist said:
Well besides the legal practice of 'tax avoidance' which they all do .
Click to expand...

first, do you have an objection to filing taxes the legal way....
second, do you think this is a characteristic of only rich Christians.......

I'm most concerned about the rich Christians who try to lower the taxes as much as possible and try to prevent people like Sanders from raising them.
Click to expand...

and what is your objection to lowering taxes as much as possible.....

It would be a Palpatine level play if Sanders won the WH and convinced Congress to raise taxes for increased social spending to only then to use those funds to support the military. I would be very surprised.
Click to expand...

to be honest, I would be surprised if 1) Sanders won the WH and 2) he managed to convince the Congress to do anything at all.......did you know that in all the years he's been in Senate he has only passed three bills?.......two were to name post offices in his state and the other was to raise pensions for the military..........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
first, do you have an objection to filing taxes the legal way....
second, do you think this is a characteristic of only rich Christians.......
Click to expand...

I have an objection to legal loop holes that allow billionaires to funnel money through various accounts to avoid paying what they should pay. As I've said before legality is not a carte blanche for morality. And no, I said all for a reason, I know it's not just christians.

and what is your objection to lowering taxes as much as possible.....
Click to expand...

If taxes become too low the government wouldn't be able to fund its various programs, leading to problems in various sectors of society.

did you know that in all the years he's been in Senate he has only passed three bills?.......two were to name post offices in his state and the other was to raise pensions for the military..........
Click to expand...

Being the only non-neo-liberal in the senate that's not too surprising. And the people of Vermont seem fine with it.
 
Casual Leftist said:
I have an objection to legal loop holes that allow billionaires to funnel money through various accounts to avoid paying what they should pay. As

I've said before legality is not a carte blanche for morality. And no, I said all for a reason, I know it's not just christians.

If taxes become too low the government wouldn't be able to fund its various programs, leading to problems in various sectors of society.

Being the only non-neo-liberal in the senate that's not too surprising. And the people of Vermont seem fine with it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting that it's LEGAL. :good4u:

What's stopping you from finding your own legal loopholes??
 
Last edited:
Casual Leftist said:
I mean, people who complain about taxes care. I don't care though. This whole point of conversation came up because I suggested rich Christians should pay their taxes, even if they're high - especially because it would go to help the poor which is what Jesus was known for.
Click to expand...

Certainly right. I was talking about Jesus's time, when there weren't any rich Christians (and it could be argued, if you are being purist about the matter, that there never have been). Rich pretend-Christians should certainly be squeezed till the pips squeak!
 
Casual Leftist said:
to avoid paying what they should pay.
Click to expand...
and yet, if the law provides that "loophole" (which is what lib'ruls like to call exemptions proscribed by IRS regulations to regulate the collection of taxes) aren't they paying exactly what they should pay?......

If taxes become too low the government wouldn't be able to fund its various programs, leading to problems in various sectors of society.
Click to expand...

doesn't the legislature decide which programs to provide?.......



Being the only non-neo-liberal in the senate that's not too surprising. And the people of Vermont seem fine with it.
Click to expand...

true......if he gets elected president he won't be the only "non-neo-liberal" in the senate any more........I guess that means you think the other 99 senators will suddenly start doing the things he wants.........
 
Penderyn said:
Certainly right. I was talking about Jesus's time, when there weren't any rich Christians (and it could be argued, if you are being purist about the matter, that there never have been). Rich pretend-Christians should certainly be squeezed till the pips squeak!
Click to expand...

But there was a rich christian! Or at least a rich man asking how to be "christian" - and do you know what Jesus said?! I quoted it already!!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and yet, if the law provides that "loophole" (which is what lib'ruls like to call exemptions proscribed by IRS regulations to regulate the collection of taxes) aren't they paying exactly what they should pay?......
Click to expand...

I would argue that if a billionaire "donates" to a politicians political campaign, then that politician lowers taxes it represents a problematic conflict of interest. Again, just because something is legal does not make it morally good. Do I need to bring up the cliche example that slavery was legal yet immoral?

doesn't the legislature decide which programs to provide?......
Click to expand...

They fund the programs - but it's the Executive that controls the departments and how they'll spend those funds, unless explicitly noted in legislation.

true......if he gets elected president he won't be the only "non-neo-liberal" in the senate any more........I guess that means you think the other 99 senators will suddenly start doing the things he wants.........
Click to expand...

Sure, but 1 of 100 isn't terribly important in the first place. 1 of 1 is a much stronger position to bargain when alone. But I hope you can reflect on what is means to get nothing done while the Reaper of the Senate is in charge of Washington.
 
Casual Leftist said:
Just because the Fallacy fallacy is my favorite fallacy
Click to expand...
It seems to be. You've committed it numerous times throughout your comments that I've skimmed over.

Casual Leftist said:
and like most of your fallacy claim you're misusing it
Click to expand...
He used it correctly. You are just illiterate in logic.

Casual Leftist said:
I'll respond to this one BS point of yours. The fallacy fallacy isn't "you used the wrong fallacy therefore you're wrong".
Click to expand...
Yes, it quite literally is. That's one specific way that the Fallacy Fallacy can be committed. There are other ways, however.

Casual Leftist said:
Its a call on the pretentious notion that just because an argument contains a fallacy it's wrong. Which is what you've been doing. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Click to expand...
Any argument that contains a fallacy is void. An argument cannot contain errors yet simultaneously be a valid argument.

I think what you're attempting to get at here is the incorrect notion that "an argument contains a fallacy, therefore the conclusion of that argument MUST be False". This would indeed be one form of the Fallacy Fallacy. Here's an example:

1. If Jane has a cat, then Jane has a pet
2. It is not the case that Jane has a cat
3. Therefore, it is not the case that Jane has a pet

1. If A, then B.
2. NOT A.
3. Therefore, NOT B.

In this example, the argumentation is void. It is invalid, as it contains a formal logic error (Denying the Antecedent). Now, even though the argumentation contains a fallacy, the conclusion of the argument (that Jane does not have a pet) could still very well be true.

But regardless, since the argumentation used to reach that conclusion is invalid, one would still need to replace the invalid argument with a valid argument of some sort. For example:

1. Jane does not have a pet.
2. Therefore, Jane does not have a pet.

1. NOT A.
2. Therefore, NOT A.

Here, I am using my conclusion as a predicate. I simply have faith that Jane does not have a pet. This is formally valid argumentation, as the conclusion follows from the predicate.


I like to describe the Fallacy Fallacy as "an error of logic about an error of logic", as that's what the fallacy's very name spells out.
 
gfm7175 said:
Any argument that contains a fallacy is void. An argument cannot contain errors yet simultaneously be a valid argument.
Click to expand...

This is not a debate or logic class. Void does not mean "wrong". An argument can contain fallacies and still be right. That is what I cited in the source I provided.
 
Casual Leftist said:
I would argue that if a billionaire "donates" to a politicians political campaign, then that politician lowers taxes it represents a problematic conflict of interest. Again, just because something is legal does not make it morally good. Do I need to bring up the cliche example that slavery was legal yet immoral?
Click to expand...

no.....I understand......it like when you point out that killing unborn children is legal when anyone with a human soul knows its immoral.......

Sure, but 1 of 100 isn't terribly important in the first place. 1 of 1 is a much stronger position to bargain when alone. But I hope you can reflect on what is means to get nothing done while the Reaper of the Senate is in charge of Washington.
Click to expand...
you are dodging a simple question.........straight up yes or no.......do you think Bernie will pass anything that is on his agenda if elected president?.......



Sure, but 1 of 100 isn't terribly important in the first place. 1 of 1 is a much stronger position to bargain when alone. But I hope you can reflect on what is means to get nothing done while the Reaper of the Senate is in charge of Washington.[/QUOTE]
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no.....I understand......it like when you point out that killing unborn children is legal when anyone with a human soul knows its immoral.......
Click to expand...

Anyone with a soul, huh? Even if I don't believe in the concept of a soul that's still a dehumanizing position to hold.


you are dodging a simple question.........straight up yes or no.......do you think Bernie will pass anything that is on his agenda if elected president?.......
Click to expand...

It entirely depends on the makeup of Congress after the election. If Dems take the Senate and keep the House then its highly likely Sanders could get some of his legislation passed. I'm sure he'll make light concessions to Dem establishment as a way of getting what he wants passed - so yes. But if Congress is unchanged then McConnell will continue to kill any bill sent to him - so no.
 
Casual Leftist said:
Anyone with a soul, huh? Even if I don't believe in the concept of a soul that's still a dehumanizing position to hold.
Click to expand...
that is my point......anyone willing to kill unborn children is already dehumanized.....

It entirely depends on the makeup of Congress after the election. If Dems take the Senate and keep the House then its highly likely Sanders could get some of his legislation passed. I'm sure he'll make light concessions to Dem establishment as a way of getting what he wants passed - so yes. But if Congress is unchanged then McConnell will continue to kill any bill sent to him - so no.
Click to expand...

the demmycrats controlled Congress most of the time Sanders was a senator and he couldn't get them to pass what he wanted........why do you think they would now?....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top