What If ObamaCare is Found Constitutional

I

InCognition

Active Member
canndo said:
This is an utterly specious argument. This is not about morals but about order. If a group of us use a road, you and I and others but you refuse to pay for that road along with the rest of us, it is not irrational or unfounded for me to force you to help pay for that road. If a group of us find all of the order provided to us by the government - that government of, by and for the people, to be of great advantage but you refuse to pay your share of the cost of that order then we are within our rights to demand that money from you. Your mistake is in thinking that we provide for others solely for those other's sake. This is not so we provide for others so that order is maintained and our society is predictable and reasonable, if this benefits some folks more than you would like then so be it but it is not as violently immoral as you claim.
Click to expand...
While you could correlate some of my comments into the of public roads, they are an entirely different subject and not a target of my points stated. I see how my views could be intertwined with what you stated, but I would have to rephrase or change my statement a little to show you why public transportation is irrelevant in regards to what I stated.

Health care and public roads are two vastly different subjects, and can barely be compared if at all. There are much too many intricacies pertaining to both, which would differential the two drastically enough to make them non-comparable. I'm not going to get into why they are so vastly different as I would be here for hours... then again I guess I'm here for hours anyways...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
I consent...
Click to expand...
you can't consent AND call it theft, smarty.

for example, i can't give criminals consent to take my plants and then call the cops to report a theft.

see how simple that is? it's even simpler than growing weed, which you can't even figure out.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you can't consent AND call it theft, smarty.

for example, i can't give criminals consent to take my plants and then call the cops to report a theft.

see how simple that is? it's even simpler than growing weed, which you can't even figure out.
Click to expand...
Dude, what? You can totally do that. Nothing like a double cross, bitch.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
abandonconflict said:
It is not within your parameters of morality to save or preserve human life, that does not mean that it is not moral. It is absolutely moral and evolutionarily biological. If your right brain has atrophied so much that you believe morality is best used by ignoring it, then quite simply, you are only using half of your brain. You have admitted yourself that morality is something preexisting, which you believe you must abandon. You must not abandon it, this is not transcendental. Selfishness doesn't come naturally to everyone.
Click to expand...
Really not sure what you're getting at...

I assume that you're trying to tell me that my beliefs are flawed because they stray from a core, fundamental basis of your own perceived code of morality? You appear to try and reinforce this fallacy with the notion that it's evolutionary, and biological? This is how I'm interpreting your convoluted mess off an assertion of my personal, and logical beliefs.

If so, no your biological, and evolutionary moralities are neither biological, nor evolutionary. You can't possibly convince me in a logical manner that what you quoted me on, is illogical, because it's simple rationale thus it's logical on my behalf, in regards to what I stated. You can not take from another human being, via a 3rd party such as government, in order to provide to others, period. There is no deviation from biological or evolutionary morality which makes me come to this conclusion. It's simply a logical and sane conclusion that revolves around the fact that, one can not justifiably steal from one individual to provide for another individual, and proceed to deem such conduct as moral/ethical.

On another note, I and others have the right to be selfish. Others however do not have the right to forcibly deny another human being of selfishness. A justification of such denial of rights, is nothing more that pure hypocrisy... attempting to justify immorality with morality, again.

Someone who wants part of my paycheck to cover their bills, is not me ignoring morality. It's simply me telling that individual to fuck off, and take care of themselves, because I never needed, wanted, or asked for their help to begin with. These people who want help from others are using the strong arm of the government to force this extortion upon those who don't want anyone's help. Extortion will never be moral, even if the person committing extortion needs to do so in order to preserver their life.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
While you could correlate some of my comments into the of public roads, they are an entirely different subject and not a target of my points stated. I see how my views could be intertwined with what you stated, but I would have to rephrase or change my statement a little to show you why public transportation is irrelevant in regards to what I stated.

Health care and public roads are two vastly different subjects, and can barely be compared if at all. There are much too many intricacies pertaining to both, which would differential the two drastically enough to make them non-comparable. I'm not going to get into why they are so vastly different as I would be here for hours... then again I guess I'm here for hours anyways...
Click to expand...
I used transportation as an example - read a bit further on and you will see I used the encompassing "order" to make my point. Health care is a part of that order and we expect each other to pay for that order especially when we collect the advantages of that same order.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
I consent to paying money so that I do not get locked in a cage, yes. That is theft enforced via coercion. It just so happens you don't believe a tax could possibly be theft. It's sheep like you that the government prays off of. They are the wolves and their feasts will remain steady with silly-type folks such as yourself.

If you're mad about that complain to the wolves, I'm sure they care about your needs a sheep...

You dumb fucking fuck....
Click to expand...

As I have already pointed out a number of times - this "being locked in a cage if we don't comply" is simply a part of a narrative that works for the recounter. If you truely believe that the takings are theft then do not pay them, you will not be placed in jail - this (so far) is a fallacy. You may well have your wages taken, the ownership of your home endangered and harrassed in a number of other ways but you are in no danger of being placed in jail - unless of course you commit the crime of fraud, misstate your earnings or fail to make them known.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
Really not sure what you're getting at...

I assume that you're trying to tell me that my beliefs are flawed because they stray from a core, fundamental basis of your own perceived code of morality? You appear to try and reinforce this fallacy with the notion that it's evolutionary, and biological? This is how I'm interpreting your convoluted mess off an assertion of my personal, and logical beliefs.

If so, no your biological, and evolutionary moralities are neither biological, nor evolutionary. You can't possibly convince me in a logical manner that what you quoted me on, is illogical, because it's simple rationale thus it's logical on my behalf, in regards to what I stated. You can not take from another human being, via a 3rd party such as government, in order to provide to others, period. There is no deviation from biological or evolutionary morality which makes me come to this conclusion. It's simply a logical and sane conclusion that revolves around the fact that, one can not justifiably steal from one individual to provide for another individual, and proceed to deem such conduct as moral/ethical.

On another note, I and others have the right to be selfish. Others however do not have the right to forcibly deny another human being of selfishness. A justification of such denial of rights, is nothing more that pure hypocrisy... attempting to justify immorality with morality, again.

Someone who wants part of my paycheck to cover their bills, is not me ignoring morality. It's simply me telling that individual to fuck off, and take care of themselves, because I never needed, wanted, or asked for their help to begin with. These people who want help from others are using the strong arm of the government to force this extortion upon those who don't want anyone's help. Extortion will never be moral, even if the person committing extortion needs to do so in order to preserver their life.
Click to expand...

The problem you seem to be having is that you are using hot button words that really don't apply - there is no theft, there is no stealing and that which is being taken is not used exclusively to "help" another. If I take from you what is owed by you, that is not theft.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
canndo said:
The problem you seem to be having is that you are using hot button words that really don't apply - there is no theft, there is no stealing and that which is being taken is not used exclusively to "help" another. If I take from you what is owed by you, that is not theft.
Click to expand...
When the government says that an individual owes something, based on the premise that it will make someone else's life better, while potentially lessening the quality of the person they took it from... that is theft.

I'll reword it in Layman's terms... The government is taxing the middle class & upper class, in an attempt to better the quality of life for the poor or the lesser off, of the middle class.

The notion that a tax is not theft, is why the government can now label new fraudulent fees as "taxes". "Taxes" are the just facade term of these new fees they will keep coming up with, that they use to mask the true roots, body, and ethics behind these taxes. So when the government labels something a tax, you're supposed to bow down and take it as such, even if it's core basis deviates from the foundation of an original and legitimate tax... that is not an intelligent approach to viewing, understanding, and paying/not-paying a tax.

The direction the government is going with their taxes, I should expect to see a "your rich so we're taking you shit tax". This type of tax would likely operate in a fashion that would send out more free paychecks to the poor, off the taxes of the rich, just because the government would deem that being poor just isn't fair anymore.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
canndo said:
As I have already pointed out a number of times - this "being locked in a cage if we don't comply" is simply a part of a narrative that works for the recounter. If you truely believe that the takings are theft then do not pay them, you will not be placed in jail - this (so far) is a fallacy. You may well have your wages taken, the ownership of your home endangered and harrassed in a number of other ways but you are in no danger of being placed in jail - unless of course you commit the crime of fraud, misstate your earnings or fail to make them known.
Click to expand...
So locked in a cage, or have your personally owned assets threatened... is there much a difference? Either is coercion in my books. To a sheep who just likes to pay all his taxes, and doesn't give a flying fuck what the core premise of a tax is, maybe it's not coercion...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
tryingtogrow89 said:
I call for a ban of unclebuck all in favor say i.
Click to expand...
i call for you to resign your moderator status, as you are clearly an abusive, insulting, biased, addle brained rawn pawl spammer.

no need for me to ask others to say "aye", all one has to do is review your history of posts.

rawn pawl spam.

say goodbye to the old shitter, he's retiring because he's too unpopular to win reelection with the redistricting of tx-14.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
When the government says that an individual owes something, based on the premise that it will make someone else's life better, while potentially lessening the quality of the person they took it from... that is theft.

I'll reword it in Layman's terms... The government is taxing the middle class & upper class, in an attempt to better the quality of life for the poor or the lesser off, of the middle class.

The notion that a tax is not theft, is why the government can now label new fraudulent fees as "taxes". "Taxes" are the just facade term of these new fees they will keep coming up with, that they use to mask the true roots, body, and ethics behind these taxes. So when the government labels something a tax, you're supposed to bow down and take it as such, even if it's core basis deviates from the foundation of an original and legitimate tax... that is not an intelligent approach to viewing, understanding, and paying/not-paying a tax.

The direction the government is going with their taxes, I should expect to see a "your rich so we're taking you shit tax". This type of tax would likely operate in a fashion that would send out more free paychecks to the poor, off the taxes of the rich, just because the government would deem that being poor just isn't fair anymore.
Click to expand...


I see you are stuck in the "they are taking from me and giving to someone else" mode and you have repeated yourself several times without addressing the crux of the argument I bring you. I will not argue that all taxes are good, nor will I argue that all taxes are indeed taxes as we commonly understand them but I will repeat what you seem to be ignoring. We pay for order, we are taxed that we perpetuate order. Order means many things and sometimes it means that some people get money that you and I don't think deserve it but even that is not theft and repeating it over and over again, lamenting that you are being taken advantage of even though you experience the benifits of this order that we all pay for, changes nothing.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
So locked in a cage, or have your personally owned assets threatened... is there much a difference? Either is coercion in my books. To a sheep who just likes to pay all his taxes, and doesn't give a flying fuck what the core premise of a tax is, maybe it's not coercion...
Click to expand...

The point here is that YOU said you would be locked in a cage, this indicates that you have such a narrative - the poor hard working citizen who will be placed in jail unjustly if he refuses to submit to the big bad government machine that robs him of his bread and limits his ability to accomplish solely because people more poor than he want his money. That is the narrative you portray. Beyond even that, on the one hand folks with your point of view resent a national "victim mentality" all the while portraying themselves as victims.

did you really think that you attained all of those assets without government help? do you really think that everything you have is solely as a result of your hard work alone?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
tryingtogrow89 said:
Ha UB is having such a meltdown he cant even respond to the right people :dunce:
Are you sure you even smoke weed?:confused:
Click to expand...
you should change your name to tryingtoactlikerawnpawlhatedoesntbotherme. it's pretty clear that you were the one that reported my comment about rawn pawl lovers like yourself always calling people sheep.

let's not forget how you insufferable rawn pawl spammers like to tell people to wake up and open their eyes.

totally awesome way to win over supporters there, just insult them. and it's totally working. i mean, how is that "revolution" of yours doing? :lol:

LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top