Marxism

Project much? It is you, my dear Faith, who has an idiosyncratic definition of "stealing", which, as you can see by reading this thread, is not shared by English-speaking people. It is you who have redefined the word "stealing" to suit your agenda --- everyone else round here is using it normally.In the real world, the question of whether or not the transfer of money from A to B is stealing depends on the manner in which the money is transferred, not on what B is going to spend the money on. No-one ever phoned 911 and said:--- "I think I might have been mugged."--- "What do you mean, you think you might have been mugged? Surely you know whether or not you've been mugged!"--- "Well, you see, a man forcibly took my wallet at knifepoint, but I don't know what he's going to spend my money on."But through the looking-glass in Faithworld, that is apparently what we need to know. If agents of the government take (let us say) $100 from me, then what I need to know in order to find out if they're stealing is not "Was their action lawful?" --- that, it seems, is irrelevant. No, in Faithworld, I need to know what they're going to do with the money. If they're going use it to defray the costs of bombing an Iraqi village, they aren't stealing, but if they're going to buy medicine for a sick child, they are stealing. Either way I'm $100 poorer, but it's only theft if they put it to a use I approve of.This raises some interesting questions. Consider the following two cases:(a) They take the money in order to heal the sick, but then war breaks out so they spend it on bombs instead.(b) They take the money in order to spend on bombs, but peace breaks out so instead they spend it on healing the sick.It seems to me that in Faithworld only one of these is theft, but I can't figure out which.But back in the real world, stealing is the unlawful acquisition of someone else's property, and that's all there is to it.

Of course the denizens of Wonderland don't KNOW they're in Wonderland, same as when leftists read the newspaper they don't know it has a leftist bias.I never said a word about defining stealing by what the money is used for. I've defined it so many times by now that you ought to know that. It's simply taking from one to give to another for no defined purpose whatever except that the person is needy in the case of welfare. But this IS my world. You must have had too much of the caterpillar's hookah. Oops, forgot about that way "unlawful" is defined in Wonderland, I guess I spoke too soon. Stealing IS the unalawful acquisition of someone else's property by the UNIVERSAL law written even on YOUR conscience if you'd just put down that hookah long enough to find out.It's SO much fun to be a figment of your imagination though, kind of like getting to be a character in a bad novel or a star in a B movie. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

so go back to your post #149 you said so which is it?Edited by bluescat48, : missing /

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Quite so. However, here's a tip --- when everyone else around you is laughing at your folly, that could be a clue that you've gone down the rabbit hole. Yes you did. And now you're going to do it again. Watch: See? You don't define stealing by the method of acquiring the money, but by the purpose to which it's applied.Whom do you hope to deceive by pretending otherwise? Thank you for admitting it. And taxation is, of course, legal. Your ravings are amusing, but probably not in the way that you intended.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh I see, because I add that in the context of the discussion that gives you an excuse to say I'm making it the definition of stealing. Don't you make yourself sick sometimes with your deviousness?

Don't see anything here about taking care of people beyond the specific functions of government: Bet you all love that part about the preservation and improvement of their morals.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The fact that what I said is true does indeed give me an "excuse" for saying it. Why you characterize this as "devious" is puzzling --- did you actually take some sort of oath to be wrong about everything?

Such functions as "the preservation of ... prosperity", "the augmentation of its strength and resources", and "the protection of its citizens in their rights".Incidentally, that's not Webster's definition of politics. That's what Webster's definition of politics was in 1913. It must have taken you a while to find a definition that you could even try to twist into supporting your fantasies.

Since the "the denizens of Wonderland don't KNOW they're in Wonderland," isn't it possible that you're the one in Wonderland and don't know it?--Percy

Hmm, you don't think ensuring equitable and adequate health care for all human beings can be derived from the statement above?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Give me an example form long ago then. Give me any example of a 90% tax burden.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi Faith, It's not a put down to show that your position is inconsistent.It's not a put down to show that your argument is based on emotional appeals rather than a logical position supported by evidence.The problem Faith, is that your position is not consistent and it is based on emotional appeals, not that you are getting picked on.You list Police and Fire depts as good things to provide because of the possibility of something that "could happen to yours too" and claimed that this was a simple principle.You list Welfare and Healthcare as stealing while the rest of us note that they are good things to provide because of the possibility of something that "could happen to yours too."So this shows that you are not consistent in applying what you claimed was a simple principle.Then you throw a temper tantrum about how you can't understand why people don't understand and accept your point if view. No, Faith, what you are doing is wrong. It has been pointed out several times that your use of the fallacy of prejudicial language is an invalid form of argument, and that you cannot expect people to be swayed by emotional arguments using prejudicial language, especially when it is accompanied by an absolute void of any rational reason for your position.The reason you get tripped up on your statements is because your position is inconsistent, it is that simple. You can't apply your principle of "it could happen to yours too" in one situation and then take the opposite position in another another situation, and expect people not to notice. When we apply your principle of "it could happen to yours too" to the provision of welfare, then we see that it, like the provision of fire departments, is not stealing. It's not a matter of splitting hairs, but of consistency.If you have a simple test and apply it consistently, then there should be little gray area. If you find an area where your test says "yes" and your personal opinion says "no" then either your simple test is wrong or your personal opinion is wrong, and one or the other needs to be changed. ... and have you learned anything about the accuracy of your initial opinion/s, or have you only reacted with emotional tantrums to the replies you have received?Enjoy.

---

It seems her opinions are based upon lies, untruths, fallacies and disinformation. As of yet she refuses to answer my request for her to give us her definition of Marxism, or my request for an explanation from her as to how she believes the US tax system works. She claims the wealth pay a huge part of their income in taxes, but provides no evidence or argument to back up this fallacy.I do not believe that she understands the basics behind what she is trying to argue. There is no factual basis behind the arguments. It is all emotion.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi Faith, Yes I do, especially the "and improvement" part, and most especially with the whole phrase for context: ... "and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals."So the rights of women and blacks to vote is an improvement over earlier times. Now we can work on the improvement of morals to include the protection of the rights of gays, and apply equality to all.Politics - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in other group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of a political unit,[2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[3]

---

Collective decisions. Curiously, Marx advocated applying that same principle to business.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : /quoteEdited by RAZD, : /i

---