APP - Ask me about social conservatism

[DamnYankee]

1. No, it is an issue of the gov't interferring with a private business on private property. You cannot argue for smaller gov't and freedom while backing the no smoking laws.
3. If it means teaching abstinence only, the parents are not in control when they want comprehensive sex ed.
4. No, it discriminates against same-sex couples for no reason.
5. I need to clarify what you want or believe? Nice dodge.
6. Then there will be plenty of porn around.
7. You made the claim, so I am expecting you to back it up. I expect you to conform to the same standards you expect of others.
But since you asked: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut4.htm
And considering the number of convictions overturned with new evidence, there is a significant chance of executing the innocent.
8. I am trying to discuss the issue with the person who brought it up.
9. So a pay increase is all? lol
11. Actually it doesn't.
From: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_glossary
"Under the FairTax deductions are no longer necessary since there are no taxes on your income, i.e., there is nothing to deduct them from."
The Fair Tax is a consumption tax. Your income is irrelevant. Deductions only serve to lower your taxable income. A consumption tax is paid on purchases.

1. No, its a state and local issue. If you don't like what your local government has done then you can move to another location where you have more of your perceived freedoms. Conservatism means limiting the federal government to its Constitutional mandates only- states are allowed to do whatever their residents want them to.
3. They can teach it themselves or send their kid to a private school or privately funded class that puts condoms on cucumbers.
4. Wrong, because those couples can marry a person of the opposite sex just like normal folk.
5. Yes. No.
6. Knock yourself out. 3D needs company while he's masturbating.
7. Already done so in this thread.
8. See item 1.
9. Straw man- your specialty. Keep at it.
11. From that site: "The FairTax provides every American family with a rebate of the sales tax on spending up to the federal poverty level (plus an extra amount to prevent any marriage penalty). The rebate is paid monthly in advance. It allows a family of four to spend $27,380 tax free each year."

 

[Minister of Truth]

This reply only demonstrates the weakness of your thought and argument - you have none so you resort to ad homs. Try this reply, tell us why my analogy is wrong. So far no one has none that and in truth no one ever could. Darn, I gave away the answer. Language is not life, and libertarianism like most isms is simply a mask to put over a present, preferred and often personal reality. This thread has proved that over and over again. Out there the world turns.....

"Like everything metaphysical the harmony between thought and reality is to be found in the grammar of the language." Ludwig Wittgenstein

Until you cease posting irrelevant analogies and fables which are also ad hom attacks (i.e. libertarianism = toothfairyism), then you should not get mad when someone ad homs you by calling you an idiot. Your postings also leave us with nothing to respond to, so don't keep asking me to respond to nothing.

 

[midcan5]

1. What?
2. Nothing in the OP statement imposes religion on anyone.

1. Anyone can make up a list and think it applies to others or seek to impose it on others. For that you need the authority given by law that the list must be followed, or there would be consequences. That renders the list moot as it is simply part of your belief system and not shared by other citizens who have rights too, which leads to 2.

2. If religion is not the basis of anti free choice or gay marriage then there is no grounded prohibition, eventually legislation and law will condone these actions as they have in the US and Europe. Religion is the only established entity infringing on the rights of others to lead their lives in the moral way of their choice, assuming the moral choice does not break established law.

So your list is fine for you just keep it to and you will be fine. But keep your religious based ideas out of the public sphere, and if they aren't religious based, they are personally based and equally not part of the public commons.

And I know many conservatives who don't share these ideas so that too makes them irrelevant in the real world.

Until you cease posting irrelevant analogies and fables which are also ad hom attacks (i.e. libertarianism = toothfairyism), then you should not get mad when someone ad homs you by calling you an idiot. Your postings also leave us with nothing to respond to, so don't keep asking me to respond to nothing.

I never get mad. I asked a simple question and you cannot answer it so you hide like a child. Once more prove to me and the audience that libertarianism is a better political philosophy than Toothfairism? If libertarianism is grounded in factual accomplishments that should be easy. Give it a try and we'll see if the task is doable and/or if you are up to it. If you can't do that you should keep quiet.

"Thought is a process of exaggeration. The refusal to exaggerate is not infrequently an alibi for the disinclination to think or praise." Eric Hoffer

 

[Minister of Truth]

Midcan, prove to me that 1+1 = 3. And don't tell me its not possible, because that is not an acceptable answer in Toothfairydom, from whence you came. Out there, in the boonies of Molar County, the mouthshine runners have a solution to that problem, of which I'm sure you are familiar with.

 

[DamnYankee]

1. Anyone can make up a list and think it applies to others or seek to impose it on others. For that you need the authority given by law that the list must be followed, or there would be consequences. That renders the list moot as it is simply part of your belief system and not shared by other citizens who have rights too, which leads to 2.

2. If religion is not the basis of anti free choice or gay marriage then there is no grounded prohibition, eventually legislation and law will condone these actions as they have in the US and Europe. Religion is the only established entity infringing on the rights of others to lead their lives in the moral way of their choice, assuming the moral choice does not break established law.

So your list is fine for you just keep it to and you will be fine. But keep your religious based ideas out of the public sphere, and if they aren't religious based, they are personally based and equally not part of the public commons.

And I know many conservatives who don't share these ideas so that too makes them irrelevant in the real world.

1. No the list only applies to those who believe in true conservatism, not like you or your friend who is not a true conservative. It's not a law, but the basis for how conservatives make and apply law.
2. Sorry, but morality is a fixed perspective on how civilized people should behave with rules established several thousand years ago by many diverse cultures. Moral man is not a beast who sticks his dick in any hole that presents itself. If that is how you and your friends choose to live then so be it as long as you don't harm children and non-consenting adults, but don't expect society to give you special privileges.

 

[WinterBorn]

11. From that site: "The FairTax provides every American family with a rebate of the sales tax on spending up to the federal poverty level (plus an extra amount to prevent any marriage penalty). The rebate is paid monthly in advance. It allows a family of four to spend $27,380 tax free each year."

It has been a long weekend and I am too tired to respond to all the bullshit. But your understanding of the Fair Tax Act is woefully flawed. There are no deductions in the Fair Tax Act.

 

[DamnYankee]

"The FairTax provides every American family with a rebate of the sales tax on spending up to the federal poverty level (plus an extra amount to prevent any marriage penalty). The rebate is paid monthly in advance. It allows a family of four to spend $27,380 tax free each year."

Main Entry: deduction
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: something subtracted
Synonyms: abatement, abstraction, allowance, credit, cut, decrease, decrement, depreciation, diminution, discount, dockage, excision, rebate, reduction, removal, subtraction, withdrawal, write-off

http://thesaurus.com/browse/deduction

 

[WinterBorn]

"The FairTax provides every American family with a rebate of the sales tax on spending up to the federal poverty level (plus an extra amount to prevent any marriage penalty). The rebate is paid monthly in advance. It allows a family of four to spend $27,380 tax free each year."

http://thesaurus.com/browse/deduction

It is a rebate. That is completely different from a deduction. A deduction would lower your taxable income. The Fair Tax Act does not look at your income at all. Every family gets the rebate.


"tax deduction 
–noun
an expenditure that is deducted from taxable income. Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011."

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax+deduction

It is also not a deduction because every family gets it. Even families with a gross income of zero will get the rebate.

 

[DamnYankee]

No. A tax free dollar is a tax free dollar.

 

[WinterBorn]

No. A tax free dollar is a tax free dollar.

No, that is untrue. If I am tax exempt, is the money I earn a "deduction"?

You are getting a rebate, since your gross income is irrelevant.

But, since you went and did some research on the topic, I am glad I could educate you on the topic.

 

[DamnYankee]

A tax free dollar is a tax free dollar.

.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, that is untrue.

.

 

[midcan5]

... So let me get this straight...Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 yr marriage by phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods while married were having sex with EVERYONE, 53% of Americans get divorced and 30-60% cheat on their spouses. Yet, same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really? PLEASE ...

Perfect, an excellent point.

Midcan, prove to me that 1+1 = 3. And don't tell me its not possible, because that is not an acceptable answer in Toothfairydom, from whence you came. Out there, in the boonies of Molar County, the mouthshine runners have a solution to that problem, of which I'm sure you are familiar with.

One plus one is two, that is easy to prove. I can take you into any first grade class in America and ask for the answer and it will be two. See how easy it to answer a question. This gets to the heart of my Wittgenstein debate reply. Kripke hashes out this point in his book on Witt. Not sure what 'out there' means but unless we change names for things or create another sort of math, the answer is always two. We can accept that as fact, not to accept it as fact would mean you are outside our in here. Now answer my question.

1. No the list only applies to those who believe in true conservatism, not like you or your friend who is not a true conservative. It's not a law, but the basis for how conservatives make and apply law.
2. Sorry, but morality is a fixed perspective on how civilized people should behave with rules established several thousand years ago by many diverse cultures. Moral man is not a beast who sticks his dick in any hole that presents itself. If that is how you and your friends choose to live then so be it as long as you don't harm children and non-consenting adults, but don't expect society to give you special privileges.

You don't seem to realize this is your conservatism. Surely there are gay conservatives who engage in what you find despicable or immoral. Most conservatives I know are among the upper middle classes, and they think pro choice and gay marriage are fine. It could be they are the real conservatives today, as you need to realize history, aka time, moves forward and what was once thought wrong, such as interracial marriage, is now fine. 'Special privilege' is hypocritical of you, aren't you the ones who argue for freedom? Or could it be that when pressed, the real nature of your (so called) conservatism reveals its ugly head?

 

[Minister of Truth]

One plus one is two, that is easy to prove. I can take you into any first grade class in America and ask for the answer and it will be two. See how easy it to answer a question. This gets to the heart of my Wittgenstein debate reply. Kripke hashes out this point in his book on Witt. Not sure what 'out there' means but unless we change names for things or create another sort of math, the answer is always two. We can accept that as fact, not to accept it as fact would mean you are outside our in here. Now answer my question.

So, you can't answer my question? You are dismissing the reality of Toothfairydom, in which the answer to 1+1 is always 3, and in which everyone accepts that as obvious. Everyone there is also a neokeynesian, so that makes sense, of course.

 

[DamnYankee]

You don't seem to realize this is your conservatism.

Again, this is not "my" conservatism, but a common platform of conservative organizations throughout the US.

 

[midcan5]

Again, this is not "my" conservatism, but a common platform of conservative organizations throughout the US.

Which is why it is a problem when it tried to impose its 'religious beliefs' on others in a pluralistic, secular society governed by a constitution with rights for all.

So, you can't answer my question? You are dismissing the reality of Toothfairydom, in which the answer to 1+1 is always 3, and in which everyone accepts that as obvious. Everyone there is also a neokeynesian, so that makes sense, of course.

I did answer your question, if you need more proof look at your hands or feet and count them; I am assuming you are a normal human being. If not normal, go to a mall and do the math. If you still get three, please consult others with this problem, for it is in others that you get confirmation you are correct or wrong. In the same manner I have used addition, if you are insane or from another planet that could excuse you. But you refuse to answer my question, which I will phrase one more time in a slightly modified form to help you, tell me why libertarianism is a viable political theory given it exists nowhere except in some minds? See we can even leave toothfairism out of the equation.

btw Kripke uses 'quus' as the sort of meaningless argument you give with a math that does not exist.

 

[DamnYankee]

Which is why it is a problem when it tried to impose its 'religious beliefs' on others in a pluralistic, secular society governed by a constitution with rights for all.

This is a straw man argument. The stated platform doesn't even mention religion.

 

[midcan5]

This is a straw man argument. The stated platform doesn't even mention religion.

Of course it doesn't, political spin or rhetoric or propaganda, call it what you will, is too sophisticated today to give itself a large and easy target, it hides behind words. Refined subterfuge. Consider only creationism as an obvious example.

 

[DamnYankee]

Of course it doesn't, political spin or rhetoric or propaganda, call it what you will, is too sophisticated today to give itself a large and easy target, it hides behind words. Refined subterfuge. Consider only creationism as an obvious example.

Again with the straw men. Why are you so afraid to debate the stated agenda?

 

[WinterBorn]

If the prayer in schools is not a religious issue, can the anti-gay marriage stance be anything but a religious issue?

Other than religious dogma against it, why else would anyone oppose it?