Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Perfect President

Posted Nov 9, '12 at 10:08pm

endlessrampage73

endlessrampage73

108 posts

This argument is taking up almost all of the posts, preventing any other opinions regarding the original question. Is there any other place for you guys to debate this so we can go back to the original topic?

 

Posted Nov 9, '12 at 10:21pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

the English settled America

==========

let me correct that:
europeans settled america.

befor the english came in power the land was bought from the indians by the dutch.
who then sold it to the english. but by that time. people from all over europe were already settling in america. (mostly the scum and hopeless in search for a new/better life.)

 

Posted Nov 9, '12 at 10:42pm

R2D21999

R2D21999

8,622 posts

Well if they were a PERFECT president then they would make the PERFECT country.

 

Posted Nov 10, '12 at 4:12am

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,553 posts

dats right mods, show him that he cant have an opinion contrary to the popular belief without it being attempted to be utterly proven as incorrect.

If he provided any actual hard evidence to his fantastical claims other than making wild, sweeping assumptions we would not have to. I'm all for different views on several topics, so long as there is evidence and reason behind it.

Regardless as to the fact that I misconstrued this law, the over all proposal of this sin tax is just. The means are just and the ends are good. Whether or not a criminal law requires us to aid these people I shall still attempt to.

Just? Do you define just as 'it targets a select group of people'? The more logical approach would be to make healthier foods cheaper, perhaps provide a certain incentive for buying such foods. They already do it for hybrid/electric cars and such. Why not what we ingest?

Did you become a mod by insulting people and saying silly little comments like "Whatever ignorant and ill-believed hogwash makes you feel better at night when you lay down to rest", or did you just descend into sarcasm and condescension when you became a mod?

If any player says comments such as yours that would earn them a three day ban would it not?

I'll rephrase what I meant for you like I did for NoName: seeing as how Canada and America was built on Christianity, the fact that gluttony is one of the seven sins makes it a good reason for Christians to back up this tax law.

In a single word to answer all above statements? No.
To elaborate, I have always been the same sort of person before or after becoming a moderator. I vehemently oppose any ideas based solely off of ill-conceived opinons and notions, even more so when backed up with faulty or no evidence. I still stand behind what I said, such being "...the other being that I can not stand seeing people incessantly waggle their tongues whilst sophistry pours forth and dribbles down their chins."
Why? Because people nowadays make baseless accusations and wild assumptions with nothing more than their opinion or other such meaningless ideology to hide behind. No hard facts, no proof and no published works to support their claims.
As far as the entire 'Christian nation' balderdash is concerned, why not make more laws based around other fairy tale stories and antiquated ideals? We should still be able to sell our daughters into slavery! As well as stone perceived sinners to death! Also outlaw clothes of mixed fibers! And killing:
- People who don't listen to priests
- Homosexuals
- Anyone who strikes their father/curses their parents
- Followers of other religions
- Nonbelievers
- An entire town if one person worships another god
- Women who are not virgins on their wedding night
- Etc..
If one is allowed, why not the others? They are all equally as old and outdated so why hold one above all others on a pillar of righteousness while casting the others into the abyss? One simply can not pick and choose which verses or scriptures to follow!

I completely disagree with this.

Sp you just decide to disagree with anything you dislike. Based off of one alleged real-life case. Or, as proven several times by yourself, you will be rebutted by one who knows of what they speak and admit that you were more or less speaking about topics oh which you have no grasp of. Congrats, you just won 9,001 Internets.

 

Posted Nov 10, '12 at 6:26am

Strop

Strop

10,824 posts

Moderator

haha three or four mods + Mage and that other guy against von who has 100 posts to his credit, the rest of y'all have thousands :)
dats right mods, show him that he cant have an opinion contrary to the popular belief without it being attempted to be utterly proven as incorrect.

Don't you dare lump me in with the current wall of text business. My post was an attempt to redirect discussion and separate the wood from the trees. So far I see it hasn't been particularly effective.

Furthermore if a person has an opinion contrary to popular belief then it's simply more likely that more people may feel compelled to point out why they disagree. In this case the argument revolves more around inappropriate interpretation of clearly defined institutions, so that's not so much an opinion as being misinformed, unless the premises of the discussion were both acknowledged and altered accordingly.

In this case you ought to ignore the fact that Devoidless and Nemo are mods as they are engaging in this argument as interlocutors, they are not moderating this thread.

However I am. And I'm telling you two and vonHeisenbourg that given the last twenty posts has been your exchanges, I don't really see any progress or anything new being said. So your continued to-and-fro is no longer constructive to this thread, as another regular user has already pointed out. Take it elsewhere, and let's get back onto whatever semblance of this topic remains.

 

Posted Nov 10, '12 at 11:34am

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

I see the perfect president as an enabler and taxation as the price a citizen pays in order for the president to provide the conditions in in which the citizen can live in freedom. An individual citizen can decide what's best for him or her, right or wrong. The perfect president has the mjssion impossible od deciding what is best for all citizens.

 

Posted Nov 10, '12 at 1:24pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,715 posts

Not going to try and list what would make a president perfect in my mind...but one thing I would very much admire in a president is him going to war as well if there was one. Not go to war before hand...no no...go to war while President. Like Kings/leaders of nations used to do before...fight side by side with their country-men.

I'm not saying he should be on the front lines...but at least on the battlefield rather than sitting comfortably in an office

 

Posted Nov 10, '12 at 1:37pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

Like Kings/leaders of nations used to do before...fight side by side with their country-men.
====
they never did.
and if you mend the part befor battle to support the troops...
presidents still visit their troops in war areas while in office to support them.

 

Posted Nov 10, '12 at 1:39pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

You need to learn a few things about analogies.
1.You accuse me of making redicilous analogies, because the way taxation works is very different from armed robbery. This is expected with analogies - there is no such thing as a perfect analogy. There will always be differences between the two things being compared. The only way you can have a perfect analogy is if you compare the same thing with itself - but, then you no longer have an analogy.
2. You have strong analogies and weak analogies. You're essentially accusing my analogy of being weak - you believe the two situations I compare are too vastly different. However, I wasn't comparing the situations as a whole - thus why I said A is as to B as C is as to D. The reason your school has you answer those "A is as to B" questions is because you're supposed to learn how to isolate and compare similarities between two different situations or objects.
So how is taxation like armed robbery? You explained that taxation is a form of communication and persuasion, but not a form of coercion.
When you point a gun at someone's head and you demand them to pay you money for buying sugary drinks or cigarettes, then you're using coercion to communicate a message to said person and to persuade them to either pay the extra costs, be shot, or to avoid buying things that make you take money from them.
When you apply a tax, the tax MUST be applied to an object. A person MUST pay that tax or they will be fined or arrested (and if the fine isn't payed, arrested). The government is using this coercive thread as a way to communicate a message to the buyer that they shouldn't buy a product, and the government is persuading them with threats of arrest to either not buy a product, or to pay more for it.
You then explain that taxation is NOT coercion because you have a choice not to buy the good. You're using coercion to force people not to buy a product. Of course, there is one difference, the person CAN buy the product if they want, but they would then be forced to pay more money for said product - but your logic assumes that because they made a choice to buy said product, they weren't forced to do anything. WRONG. Those people were FORCED to pay taxes on said product.
You can argue that some means of coercion are acceptable, but you can't argue that taxation isn't a form of coercion. It is.
Let's say you want to cross a bridge, but bandits have it locked down. They won't let anyone pass unless they pay $200. Even though you do have the option of not crossing the bridge, their actions ARE STILL coercive.
To clarify, I never said taxation was exactly like a hostage situation. I claimed that there is a strong resemblance with taxation and armed robbery when you look at the basic principle of the two and you determine why they're both coercive actions.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. That may even fall on "sophistry". You actually make it sound reasonable that by elaborately and intricately defining analogy and repeating the same thing you were saying earlier that you're right.

Oh but wait... then common sense comes into play and I remember that I've known what analogy has meant for a long time and that your analogy is actually the one that is by far to vague and that it is exceedingly ridiculous, therefore your analogy is weak.

co·erce
Verb:   
Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
Obtain (something) by such means.
Synonyms:   
force - compel - constrain - oblige - enforce

Taxation is certainly not using force or threats. Except for perhaps to the business owners who have to tax the said items or go to jail. However that is not what we're talking about, we are talking about the regular citizens. Now let me tell you the differences between armed robbery and taxes:

Differences between tax and armed robbery:
- Taxation would be parliament/senate approved.
- For tax laws to go into place they follow long and fairly complicated legal procedures.
- Over four different votes have to be approved before new laws can be established.
- Elected officials by the people, who serve the people will have proposed this.

- Armed robbery is illegal.
- Armed robbery is actually coercion (you force your will upon others with threats and physical force).
- Armed robbery is simply and utterly wrong, unconstitutional and unlawful (as defined by the criminal code).
- Tax laws would not be unconstitutional, or unlawful or wrong if officials from your parliament and your elected leader passes this new tax law.

With all these differences you really think that your analogy is a strong one? You accuse mine of being to weak and vague when yours is all around flawed? The same differences can be applied with your bridge comments. The differences between sin taxes and armed robbery/people blocking a bridge is by far to large to use as an analogy.

Meanwhile sin taxes and car insurance is a stronger analogy because...

Similarities (if these sin taxes are ever passed):
- Legal.
- Parliament approved.
- Most importantly it rewards people for good behaviour (which is the basic principle of car insurance).

Meanwhile the basic principle of armed robbery isn't to politely talk and discuss what both parties want (which is what negotiation really is).  Therefore my analogy is automatically stronger than yours because mine follows the same basic principle of what I'm comparing the two things to (which all analogies should follow the same basic principle, yours does not).

To clarify, I never said taxation was exactly like a hostage situation. I claimed that there is a strong resemblance with taxation and armed robbery when you look at the basic principle of the two and you determine why they're both coercive actions.

Which is wrong on so many levels for the above reasoning.

This is an example of a weak analogy, because the reason you gave is too vague.
Yes, both systems are similar in that one regard, but one doesn't justify the other because there are other VERY important factors between the two you failed to address (and these factors are important because they serve as the core of this debate).
Insurance is required because it protects people and their property from each other. If one person crashes into another, his insurance will cover the person he ran into. In fact, you don't need to cover yourself when you drive, only other people.
Sin tax is put in place to protect people from themselves. Completely different.

The reason I gave was to vague? That the basic principle of the two are the exact same? That both are an incentive to behave better?

I disagree. Yes there are key differences (as there are in many analogies) between insurance and sin taxes. But the above similarities are certainly close enough to consider it a strong analogy I'm thinking. Meanwhile the differences by armed robbery and taxation is to strong and the similarities to remote to consider your analogy strong.

Although there is such thing as bad parenting, you have to let parents do their thing and intervene only when ABSOLUTELY necessarily.

Oh and you don't consider 22 million overweight (5% of which are obese) children a good enough reason for intervention and you think that it isn't absolutely necessary? I disagree with that statement with every fiber of my being.

Wrong, you still don't understand that having another option doesn't negate the existence of coercion

In this context it would negate the "existence" of coercion. Since you are not at all forced to buy the foods it isn't coercion. You don't seem to understand that for there to be coercion an entity must be forcing another entity to do something. Seeing as how no one is at all forcing another person (or people) to buy these foods this automatically makes it not coercion.

Giving someone a choice doesn't negate the existence of coercion.

You don't understand what coercion is if you say that so repeatedly. Giving someone a choice automatically takes coercion out of the equation.

Essentially, other people's lives are your business because you want to make it your business. The problem is that merely wanting to do something doesn't (shouldn't) grant you the authority to magically intervene.

It does give me the right as a citizen of Canada to try and pass and propose whichever laws I want though.

Westboro Baptist Church wants to help people by banning all gay activities and put an end to any religion that isn't their own. These people might actually want what's best for everyone. Why do we hate them? Because they're forcing their views on everyone else.

Fortunately I'm not forcing my views on anyone, I'm using an incentive. Taxes in this context is an incentive. It is by no means force. This law would be encouraging and motivating people into quitting their unhealthy habits. That is incentive, not coercion.

These are ALL strawmen and a false dichotomies.
In short, you can be against sin tax and still care enough for other people to try and help them. Not everyone who's against sin tax has the mentality that people should be left to kill themselves.

Those are not strawmen and false dichotomies. These are true because people have already tried to explain (with words and facts) the problems with obesity and how to live a healthier life. That obviously hasn't gotten the job done, so we need something a little more drastic (can a tax even be considered drastic?)  to get the "job" (so to speak) done.

Suggesting that we should only talk and provide facts as to how and why people should stop committing self-destructive acts is the same thing as simply ignoring these people and leaving them to fend for themselves. This is true because your method has already been proven to work on such a small scale that we can say it doesn't work at all. Therefore these are not false dichotomies.

No, I didn't agree to these laws. No, I do not give my consent merely by living in an area.

We aren't talking about your consent to laws. We're talking about how it would be right and just for said laws to be passed.

is would justify **** if it were legalized. In many parts of the middle east, it is acceptable to hit your wife and have sex with her whenever you want, it doesn't make it any more right.

False, that would not justify said action or hitting or abusing your wife or raping her. That would contradict to many parts of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or American constitution) for that law to be ever passed. Taxation doesn't contradict the American or Canadian constitutions in such a horrendous manner.

You're not making them stop, you're making them pay more if they choose to buy something you don't agree with. Still coercion.

The right word to use is incentive, oh and the right sentence to use is "I'm making them pay a higher tax so as to try and convince them to stop killing themselves and negatively influence their children in such a heinous manner."

You should respond to Strop's post, I'm most curious as to your response to him.

Taxation is a form of coercion insofar as your liberties will be restricted if you fail to comply.

This would have been true if the taxes were taken off of your paychecks, however I clarified that, that is not what I meant at all.

I'm not sure how relevant this line of argumentation is to the broader point of contention

I agree with that. Even if you consider this sin tax coercion (which would be wrong and incorrect I think) it would be acceptable and reasonable "coercion", considering that it is in the best interest of everyone's health and seeing as how the tax money would go back to the country.

however, which seems to focus on whether it is right or not to consider whether or not a person is entitled to act in ways other than their best interests, and what limitations to impose upon them.

My comment to that is that yea, it is right to impose limitations upon people not smart enough to treat themselves reasonably.

This is not the first step towards a totalitarianism or police state society. This is only the first step to rectifying this obesity issue. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's important to consider the relationship and distinction from laws preventing people from behaviours that restrict or infringe other peoples' freedoms. In short, is all coercion necessarily bad, and if not, what kinds are acceptable, and how can one then reach a consensus on restriction of self-liberties?

One can reach a consensus on restrictions and self-liberties via a country wide vote.

P.S. This is not an infringement on other peoples freedoms, nor is it a restriction on freedoms. It is simply a sin tax which should not be considered as infringement upon freedoms.

Besides, "in one's best interests" is nebulous and difficult to define, and what I consider in my best interests may not be what law defines as in my best interests, despite the fact that I consider myself more educated than those who would decide how I should behave if I were behaving in my best interests, and frankly that doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense? Others dictating what is in your best interests, or ignoring the law?

Restrictive laws may dictate but they also engender resistive culture, and that's what really needs addressing: education, dissemination, proliferation and assimilation are the steps needed to adopt lasting change. Not some law that unreasonable people will ignore and reasonable people think they're being unfairly targeted because of alleged unreasonable people.

I think that a tax law would only engender a resistive culture to the unreasonable people and that the reasonable people would realize they're not being unfairly targeted. Instead they would realize that this is to make a healthier society. Not bring upon a resistive culture.

 

Posted Nov 10, '12 at 2:53pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

If he provided any actual hard evidence to his fantastical claims other than making wild, sweeping assumptions we would not have to. I'm all for different views on several topics, so long as there is evidence and reason behind it.

Evidence and Reason to suggest this sin tax would be wise:

1. To cut down on obesity, as a mod (I forget who, it was either you or NoName said) even agreed it would be helpful to this obesity issue to a small degree. The degree of which shall remain unknown unless this sin tax is implemented.
2. None of the current strategies to help rectify this issue has even been slightly effective. Therefore we need to try a different approach. This would be a good example of a different approach.
3. All tax money goes straight back into your streets, cops salaries, hospitals etc... so even though the reason of this sin tax is not one of gaining money for they country and community it is still an advantage of this sin tax nonetheless.
4. This is a reasonable alternative strategy to help rectify this issue because it is neither unlawful nor unconstitutional.
5. If this sin tax achieves its goal (which is to help rectify this obesity problem) the sin tax would then go away, until such a time as it is needed again if ever. So it is not like this would be a permanent solution.
6. Many people in Canada and America are Christians (over 70% of the population according to recent demographics), gluttony is also one of the seven deadly sins. Therefore it stands to reason that many people would approve of this sin tax. Even though religion is not one of the reasons for this sin tax being implemented, having many people back this law up would be a benefit.

I do not think any of these points is "sophistry" or "ill-conceived hogwash" or any of your other patronizing remarks, and by the way these are my main reasons as to why this sin tax would be smart/beneficial.

Just? Do you define just as 'it targets a select group of people'? The more logical approach would be to make healthier foods cheaper, perhaps provide a certain incentive for buying such foods. They already do it for hybrid/electric cars and such. Why not what we ingest?

However much you disagree with this an entity can be just and target select groups of people.

As for your proposal, it would be a good idea except for the fact that you can not legally tell privately owned companies what to charge on their products, however you can tell them the taxes they must implement.

In a single word to answer all above statements? No.
To elaborate, I have always been the same sort of person before or after becoming a moderator. I vehemently oppose any ideas based solely off of ill-conceived opinons and notions, even more so when backed up with faulty or no evidence. I still stand behind what I said, such being "...the other being that I can not stand seeing people incessantly waggle their tongues whilst sophistry pours forth and dribbles down their chins."

That is one of the most subjectively pompous things I have ever heard. You simply disagree with my reasoning. You don't agree with my reasoning so you proceed to insult it and me. I do not find my reasoning faulty or any such junk that you have called it. However I do find your argument and NoNames flawed and kind of selfish. "It's their bodies, leave them to their own devices, do not even ask me to help them, even if it is only with taxes." I find that flawed and selfish (not wanting to efficiently help others).

Why? Because people nowadays make baseless accusations and wild assumptions with nothing more than their opinion or other such meaningless ideology to hide behind. No hard facts, no proof and no published works to support their claims.

I could easily say the same about you and NoName. I have made no baseless accusations and wild assumptions with nothing more than opinion and "meaningless ideology." I've backed everything I said up with reasonable responses.

You however have not. As soon as you choose to intentionally insult and patronize others as part of your argument, your argument loses all credibility.

As far as the entire 'Christian nation' balderdash is concerned, why not make more laws based around other fairy tale stories and antiquated ideals? We should still be able to sell our daughters into slavery! As well as stone perceived sinners to death! Also outlaw clothes of mixed fibers!

Laws are designed to reflect on today's societies ideologies. Killing everyone that you mentioned and selling people into slavery does not follow modern day ideologies. However trying to get rid of obesity does reflect on modern day societies ideologies.

I was saying one reason to pass this law was that over 70% of the population according to recent demographics are Christians. One of the seven deadly sins is gluttony. Since this law has an okay chance of reducing gluttony, this law would reflect modern day ideologies, so even though this law was not intended as a religious reason, it is one of the bonuses of it (people agreeing with the law).

Sp you just decide to disagree with anything you dislike. Based off of one alleged real-life case. Or, as proven several times by yourself, you will be rebutted by one who knows of what they speak and admit that you were more or less speaking about topics oh which you have no grasp of. Congrats, you just won 9,001 Internets.

Everyone in the world decides to mostly disagree with things they dislike. Including you. If you dislike something why would you agree with it? Especially in this circumstance. Just to let you know you can't say I disagree with everything I dislike based off two or three comments. That is false because I dislike most vegetables, yet I still agree that eating them is smart. I dislike math, but I still agree being taught math in elementary/high school is smart. I do not disagree with everything I dislike. However politically I usually do as do most people.

That was one hell of an assumption and baseless claim by yourself if I may say so myself.

I don't really think I was successfully rebutted on most of my points, except for the Good Samaritan Law. Where I did have a grasp of it, but slightly misconstrued it. When you say I'll be rebutted by one who knows what they're speaking of I hope you were not speaking of yourself. In the same statement where you say I'll be rebutted by people who know what they speak of you go ahead and say I disagree with anything I dislike. Which is blatantly false.

P.S. I do have a grasp of just about everything I speak of. You can't just say I don't have a grasp on anything I speak of because of one or two mistakes.

P.P.S. What in the hell does winning 9,001 Internets even mean?

Furthermore if a person has an opinion contrary to popular belief then it's simply more likely that more people may feel compelled to point out why they disagree. In this case the argument revolves more around inappropriate interpretation of clearly defined institutions, so that's not so much an opinion as being misinformed, unless the premises of the discussion were both acknowledged and altered accordingly.

I doubt my opinion is against contrary belief, I think most people in Canada and America would agree that a sin tax would be for the best. You nor JerrBear can say it is against popular belief because 2-4 people on an AG forums disagree with it. From what I can see is that the slight majority of people who post in the religion threads/abortion threads are atheists and  support pro-choice. I do not think that the popular belief of  the average person is pro-choice and atheism. 

By the way I would like to know what the inappropriate interpretation of clearly defined institutions are and who is misinformed about what.

In this case you ought to ignore the fact that Devoidless and Nemo are mods as they are engaging in this argument as interlocutors, they are not moderating this thread.

Ah, so since they aren't mods in this thread and they're interlocutors that gives them the right to just insult, and condescend when they feel like it? And that "Nemo" can use cap locks far to often.

 
Reply to The Perfect President

You must be logged in to post a reply!