Government for the people. How?

[Izzy]

The objective of this thread is to altruistically* design a political structure wherein the needs and interests of EVERY inhabitant of this country are met. (None of this "general public" crap, we should try to make everyone happy. ) It's impossible to not be aware of how inconceivable this sounds, but I think by being mindful of what we're trying to accomplish, but.. just might be feasible?**

Now, before we can even begin devising laws, creating our constitution, bill of rights, etc., I think it's best we assemble a list of what people want from their government. Feel free to contribute ANYTHING. (I stole some of these from the world's smallest political quiz and the bill of rights. >_>)

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet.
2. Military service should be voluntary.
3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults, where a consenting adult is anyone of 16 years of age or older.
4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
5. End government barriers to international free trade.
6. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
7. Keep government welfare, but no taxation without representation.
8. Freedom of speech, religion, sexuality, peaceful protests, and petition.
9. Soldiers may not be quartered in a house without the consent of the owner.
10. People may not be unreasonably searched or kept in captivity.
11. The right to a free, public, and speedy trial.
12. Laws are to remain the same from State to State.
13. Eventual globalization is a priority.

*We can get into the semantics of altruism later. I have.. mixed feelings, but this most closely elucidates my intentions. (Lol, I swear, I bounce back and forth from being the apathetic hippy civilian who just wants to live to the extremely fervent humanitarian practically daily. >_>)
** Eh, truthfully, it isn't. Too many people disagree on matters of religion, which define the moral code for a LOT of people (even if they don't strictly adhere to it, haha). We need to agree now to define morals for ourselves and not base them off of religious texts. Like, if someone proposes "Don't kill", that's perfectly acceptable, and I expect it to be fully ratified. If someone else suggests "Love God", this is more open to debate. While you can submit ideas that coincide with religious texts, submit them because they are mandates you want and agree with, not just because your scripture of choice tells you to follow them.

Edited February 13, 2014 by bonanova

[Guest]

And excuse me for the large font and content of post #398, but I was trying my best to communicate to Izzy. I've tried everything I can think of.

[Izzy]

And yes, I know WHAT we're arguing about, but whhhyy. Whhhyy the hell do these hypothetical situations matter? This is such a f***ing waste of time.

[Izzy]

Actually, saving you (and eventually myself) the effort. Congratulations, after Unreality clarified and reexplained what you were talking about, I came to the realization that I was in agreement with you. The point you vicariously made through Unreality was correct. While I agreed with that specific point anyway and would have from the beginning if it made any sense, if you combine my disagreement with your first point (the point that was still wrong, but that's not what you were trying to say, so I'll forgive you) with what you actually meant when Unreality explained it several pages later, you were right. Congratz. I think that makes you like 1 for 10 or so. Way to go bro. Print this sh*t and frame it. (Then again, it was about as legit as saying "The sky is black sometimes.", but whatever, you can have your little victory if it means that much to you.)

[Guest]

After it gets adjusted, each shell is now worth 2/15 of a shell more,

It is my opinion that each shell becomes 15/13ths the value that it was prior to removing two shells from existence, from the perspective of an individual using the shells to buy goods and services.

The government still LOSES money, even if other peoples' money gains worth. So, suddenly, if health care for our islanders costs 2 shells a person and the government only has 9 shells, someone gets screwed.

I would assume that the government has the power to either 1) Create more money or 2) Tax the people more money, to cover the costs, and therefore I would not conclude that someone gets screwed.

Like Unreality said, the prices items are bartered at adjust gradually. If person 1 is a shop owner and he sees that most people now have more money, he's going to raise prices. No one was disputing that the net worth of the civilization stays the same.

I disagree. I think that unreality was disputing that the net worth of the civilization stays the same when he said, "But if Mr. Five decides instead to smash the seashell, now he only has his shelter, and there are only 19 seashells in circulation, reducing everyone's collective purchashing [sic] power and the society's net worth" (bold added by me) in post number 385 on page 39 of this thread.

We were just saying the burning money (wasting resources) period is stupid.

I would not consider choosing "burning money" over "burning buildings" as "wasting resources," because burning X amount of money does not hurt society by X. In fact, I wouldn't say that burning the money hurts society significantly at all. For more detail, see my post to unreality above this post.

Btw, I'd consider a 10% lost in wealth "being hurt in a significant way". So again, burning money DOES hurt some people.

So would I, but a 10% loss in the number of money-shells in a society by no means corresponds to a 10% loss in wealth. I would say that it corresponds to a loss in a small fraction of 1% of wealth at most. I would consider such a loss insignificant in comparison to losing a house.

Yes, burning money hurts the people whose money was burnt because they no longer can trade the money for products. But, it also helps the people who have money by a total amount equal to the amount that the person whose money was burnt was hurt. This occurs because when the money is destroyed the rest of the money in the society becomes more valuable. Therefore, the overall affect on the value of society as a hole cancels out to approximately 0.

If my house is worth 1 shell and I destroy it, the time/effort to make another house aside, the houses around mine are now worth more because there are now less places to live.

I think that "the time/effort to make another house aside" is a poor assumption to make. You're essentially saying, "why its worth saving aside."

Also, the houses around yours are worth more in the sense that they sell for more on the market. They are NOW worth more, however, in the sense that they do not help shelter more people more and they do not shelter people any better than they did before. In that sense, they are the same value to society that they were before. They are seemingly more important to society to preserve, but their usefulness remains the same.

The most important part of all of my posts on the last several pages of this thread:

One of the things I don't understand if how you can see how burning money doesn't get rid of society's net wealth, but you're still against the transfer of money from the government to hospitals.

Yeah, reread. You were still unclear.

What fantastic luck I have. Here you are, cockily mocking me, but, the funny thing is that I answered this exact thing a few pages ago in one of my posts. And the really funny thing is that I predicted, in writing, on this thread, that "one of you" (I was thinking of you, Izzy), would make the mistake of thinking that I ought to support "the transfer of money from the government to hospitals" given that I don't think that burning money gets rid of society's net wealth. And thus I proceeded to explain why this is a bad mistake to make, and yet you made it anyways! Oh, how I love this! It's the funniest thing you've said in a while. What do you think of it? Hilarious that I've already (in the past) mocked you back for the mocking comment you just made to me?

Three days ago, in I answered what you just said you don't understand. Here are my last three paragraphs of the post (the second paragraph mocks you back hilariously):

So as you all hopefully finally realize, I was correct in pointing out that burning the money wouldn't get rid of its value. First Izzy said that she wouldn't take her winnings if she had to kill a baby for it (note: I wouldn't either). Then she said even "if it meant the money would be burned instead, I still wouldn't do it," as if that would destroy the material worth of the lottery winnings. In reality, destroying the money only changes who gets to buy products (i.e. it changes who has money). It doesn't hurt society though at all. So of course I wouldn't kill a baby for the money--killing a baby DOES hurt society!

So now I predict that if I don't write this paragraph then at least one of you will make the mistake of thinking that I should be fine with changing who has a billion dollars of money (taxpayers giving money to doctors) if that would save the baby. The problem is that you are not simply changing who has money... you are not simply giving the money to the doctors... rather, you are exchanging the money for production (i.e. all of the costs of the medical equipment to save the baby, etc). Thus, you are not simply giving the doctors money. Rather, you are buying the doctor's baby-saving house hoping that the baby-saving house that cost a billion dollars to build is actually going to be worth a billion dollars to society. In reality, it won't be worth a billion dollars. It's like spending a billion dollars to dig a gigantic hole. That hole may have cost a billion dollars, but it is only worth a couple million dollars at most to the people who canoe on it, etc. Thus, spending a billion dollars on a hole that is only worth a couple million is a wasteful way to spend your money in the same way that spending a billion dollars to save a baby that is only worth a couple million dollars is a wasteful way to spend your money. Now, you all can continue to disagree with me about the monetary value of a baby--all I can do is show you that economically an individual very rarely produces more than a couple million dollars of houses/services in his lifetime and rarely causes others to increase their production by more than a couple million dollars. Thus said person is not worth a whole lot more than 2x(a couple) million dollars to me and thus I wouldn't pay more than that amount of money to save their life. If they're worth a billion to you, then go ahead and pay a billion dollars to save them. But, don't tax me to use my money on something that I see as extremely wasteful.

Lastly, know that should you decide to admit that you were wrong about burning money not being at all the same as burning products that you buy with the money (the latter hurts society, the former doesn't), then I will move on quietly and think better of you rather than worse. When I'm in such situations, I often deny that I was wrong and try to find a way to think that I was at least partially correct. But when one does this, one does not learn. It is better to admit that you didn't realize that when Farmer burns the house down then there no longer is a second house for Builder to buy with his 9 dollars. Far better....

I changed the font from black to blue in one second just now, and also added the face just now.

So I think this sums everything up just wonderfully. I couldn't have asked for more, Izzy. Thanks for posting!

In summary:

One of the things I don't understand if how you can see how burning money doesn't get rid of society's net wealth, but you're still against the transfer of money from the government to hospitals.

Yeah, reread. You were still unclear.

Three days earlier...

So now I predict that if I don't write this paragraph then at least one of you will make the mistake of thinking that I should be fine with changing who has a billion dollars of money (taxpayers giving money to doctors) if that would save the baby.

Oh boy! You make the mistake anyways AND you demonstrate that you didn't read my posts!

I think it's safe to not bother replying to the rest of what you said. It's most certainly not worth it and can't be more of a joke than this.

[Izzy]

Oh boy! You make the mistake anyways AND you demonstrate that you didn't read my posts!

I don't have time to reply to the rest right now, but this stood out to me.

What part of "Your posts made absolutely no sense" didn't you understand? Thank you for turning what was once a productive thread into pointless arguments about irrelevant things because you couldn't win any of the other arguments. When you're done acting like a child and accept my congratulations, you can come back, but until then, go away, you're wasting everyone's time. (Note, I don't think I can actually make you get out, but you should. I'd hate to waste YOUR time any further.)

[Izzy]

Oh god, I figured out how to prevent all that. Let me fix the statement that sparked this.

If I won the lottery, but it had the stipulation that I had to kill a baby in order to get the money, I would save the baby, even if it meant the money funded a terrorist organization instead.

There. Don't take that too seriously. I was trying to get the point across that I think baby > money, and reinforcing that with something harder, like burning, which just turned into terrorists. You missed the point entirely and sparked an unrelated debate (wasting everyone's time) for the sake of doing so. This could have been prevented with a simple "Burning it doesn't get rid of its value because <your thoughts here>", when I would have continued with an "Oh, very well, I see what you mean. Let me change my statement." Go read my three person scenario. That's why we were confused, not because we weren't reading your posts.

[gvg]

Can we move on to something productive now?

[Guest]

What part of "Your posts made absolutely no sense" didn't you understand?

The part where they do make sense, but you just misunderstand them because you don't want to understand them. You almost used the same wording that I did, so I'm sure you could have understood my sentences if you tried.

"So now I predict that if I don't write this paragraph then at least one of you will make the mistake of thinking that I should be fine with changing who has a billion dollars of money (taxpayers giving money to doctors) if that would save the baby."

"Changing" has the same meaning as "transferring." Replace "changing" with "transferring" and my wording is essentially identical to your misunderstanding:

"One of the things I don't understand if how you can see how burning money doesn't get rid of society's net wealth, but you're still against the transfer of money from the government to hospitals."

Is that not clearly the same thing? I anticipate that you think I ought to "be fine with changing who has a billion dollars of money (taxpayers giving money to doctors)" given that "destroying the money only changes who gets to buy products (i.e. it changes who has money). It doesn't hurt society though at all." I then proceed to explain why I'm not fine with changing who transferring a billion tax dollars to hospitals/doctors. Yet, you seem to ignore that by asking the same question that I just anticipated and explained. You say "One of the things I don't understand if how you can see how burning money doesn't get rid of society's net wealth, but you're still against the transfer of money from the government to hospitals." That's EXACTLY what I just explained (three days prior) very clearly. Blue goes with blue and red goes with red. I answered that exact question for you. It was most definitely clear. The fault of understanding lies on your end. You should have put in the effort to understand what I was saying. That's all. I just wanted you to know that the problem lies on your end far more than mine. It wasn't that what I was saying didn't make sense. It was that you weren't trying to understand it hard enough.

And by the way, I place the blame on you, but not unreality/dawh/etc who also didn't understand the point, because my original words were in reply to your quote. If didn't read your quote before reading mine then it's quite possible you wouldn't understand what I was saying. But, if you read your quote for the context of what I was saying, I think it is quite clear that what I said was pointing out that your extra scenario ("If it meant the money would be burned instead...") doesn't change anything significantly. You should have realized this because I was replying to what you said. Unreality and dawh didn't say that; you did. Because you bothered to add that statement, it is clear that you thought that it did significantly change something. Thus, why I spent so much time trying to clear up your misunderstanding of money--Burning money does not significantly hurt society, especially in comparison to using the money to buy products and burn the products. Unfortunately you never learned because you were too busy trying to think that I was saying that burning money wouldn't get rid of that money. Anyways, I'm stopping this finally. Your mind is set; there's no point in continuing.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Use the Force

[gvg]

OK, now that that's settled (I hope), let's move on.

Um... how about...

Dang, I don't have anything. Anybody?

[Guest]

Oh god, I figured out how to prevent all that. Let me fix the statement that sparked this.

If I won the lottery, but it had the stipulation that I had to kill a baby in order to get the money, I would save the baby, even if it meant the money funded a terrorist organization instead.

Good, you seem to realize the problem. Assuming that funding a terrorist organization would help the terrorist organization blow up a lot of builds and/or kill people, etc, then I would choose to kill the baby instead for the obvious reason that I value the baby less than all of the structures/people that the terrorists will desotry should they get the lottery funding.

Go read my three person scenario. That's why we were confused, not because we weren't reading your posts.

I did days ago and I replied to it to clear up the confusion, but you ignored it. Go read my cleared up explanations quoting that three person scenario. You can deny that my original reply to your quote was unclear, but you cannot deny that I didn't clear up what I was saying right after you expressed your misunderstanding of what I was saying.

"Thus, the two scenarios are equivalent except for the fact that society was hurt in the scenario where the farmer burnt the houses that he built with his money but it wasn't hurt in the scenario where he just burnt the money. Does it make sense now? By burning the production rather than the money (in the lottery example) you are hurting society by having people spend their time and energy to accomplish nothing." -Me right after your three person example.

"By getting the lottery money you are only getting the opportunity to buy other peoples' products and services. By refusing it you are only giving up your chance to buy a lot of other peoples' services. By burning the lottery money instead you are only destroying the government's (or whoever had the money before offering it to you as a prize) opportunity to buy peoples' products, etc. Because the government can tax people to do that in the first place, destroying that money does absolutely nothing. The only way to hurt society the amount of the material value that the lottery money represents would be to use the lottery money to buy a million Apple computers and then demolish those million computers (or store them in a storehouse until they become obsolete and useless). In this way, society would be hurt a million computers." -Me right after your three person example.

If this didn't clear up why money is of insignificant value in comparison to the products that the money can buy from the perspective of society as a whole when determining which you would rather have burn up, then I don't know what it is.

Eh, this is annoying. Don't reply because if you do I'll be tempted to correct you again by proving yet another quote showing that I did in fact explain myself clearly. Just realize that I was clear and you didn't try to understand or don't. But, don't keep saying that I was unclear... I wasn't. I clearly explained the issue after you expressed misunderstanding and yet for pages more you continued holding your same misunderstanding, disregarding my pages of explanations to clear up your confusion. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Reword. Reword. Reword. Again. Again. Again. You still insist I am unclear. I think not.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Use the Force

[Izzy]

*facepalm* Okay, here we go. Again. You can explain something with absolute clarity and it can still NOT MAKE SENSE because I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU HOLD THAT OPINION. As an unrelated example, you can say "My favorite color is brown", add a bunch of reasons, and I can still say "I do not understand why your favorite color is brown, brown is an ugly color. What you're saying does not make sense." The difference is what you're arguing for isn't as subjective as favorite colors, so ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE EXPLAINED IT, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE YOUR ARGUMENT IS SILLY. I'm not misunderstanding your reasons for choosing why you're against giving money to hospitals, I'm just not understanding why you're against it at all, regardless of those reasons. Another example.

Person 1: Oh, I think we should kill the mentally retarded.

Person 2: Huh? Why?!

Person 1: Oh, they put a strain on society, don't produce anything, get in the way, will never reproduce succesful offspring, drool, etc.

Person 2: I don't understand how you could think that!

Person 1: I JUST EXPLAINED WHY I THINK THAT.

Person 2: ...Chill out broski.

Jesus. I was going to drop it.

So, no, if we're playing the blame game, you're "it" for holding an insane view most people in this thread can't understand, and, just to be absolutely clear here, understand, as in "I don't understand why person 1 would want to kill those people; how could he think that?"

[Guest]

OK, now that that's settled (I hope), let's move on.

Um... how about...

Dang, I don't have anything. Anybody?

I don't think it's settled, but it's over.

What is there to move on to? The point of this thread was "to altruistically* design a political structure wherein the needs and interests of EVERY inhabitant of this country are met." This task would be impossible if we said each individual inhabitant got to decide whether his needs and interests were met. I strongly don't think that we should have people vote to decide on a single standard of needs and interests to impose on every inhabitant (as the U.S. is now), so that leaves us to the best remaining solution: Treat others the way they treat people. In this way, we can have our political structure satisfy the needs and interests of each inhabitant of this country as best as possible. Each individual gets to decide how the government treats him or her (thus getting to decide what needs/interests the government will fulfill for each individual) by choosing to treat others the way he or she would like to be treated. For me this means I ought to be free from a tyrannical government. For you you might wish to have the government have more control over your life. It's different for everyone, but that's the point. That's how we make a society where the political structure fulfills each person's needs and interests as best as possible.

[Izzy]

Good, you seem to realize the problem. Assuming that funding a terrorist organization would help the terrorist organization blow up a lot of builds and/or kill people, etc, then I would choose to kill the baby instead for the obvious reason that I value the baby less than all of the structures/people that the terrorists will desotry should they get the lottery funding.

We're actually funding out enemies right now anyway, for the sole reason that if we don't, they'll turn to the Taliban. A million or so dollars honestly wouldn't make much of a difference. There's also the potential to stop the terrorist attack, saving the people that you pessimistically assume would die. There's no chance the baby would survive. WHILE I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING, I don't understand how you could hold that view. (Just to make sure we're *absolutely* clear here.)

I did days ago and I replied to it to clear up the confusion, but you ignored it.

Right, the one I posted last night. Not the other one. Looks like someone didn't read my posts. But don't worry, I won't get offended and type in size seven font to express my annoyment.

[Izzy]

I don't think it's settled, but it's over.

What is there to move on to? The point of this thread was "to altruistically* design a political structure wherein the needs and interests of EVERY inhabitant of this country are met." This task would be impossible if we said each individual inhabitant got to decide whether his needs and interests were met. I strongly don't think that we should have people vote to decide on a single standard of needs and interests to impose on every inhabitant (as the U.S. is now), so that leaves us to the best remaining solution: Treat others the way they treat people. In this way, we can have our political structure satisfy the needs and interests of each inhabitant of this country as best as possible. Each individual gets to decide how the government treats him or her (thus getting to decide what needs/interests the government will fulfill for each individual) by choosing to treat others the way he or she would like to be treated. For me this means I ought to be free from a tyrannical government. For you you might wish to have the government have more control over your life. It's different for everyone, but that's the point. That's how we make a society where the political structure fulfills each person's needs and interests as best as possible.

We've been over this and why it would never work. It's not a unified government if everyone obeys different rules, and progression would ultimately cease. If people are exempt from taxes, we won't have the money to pay for anything, and all schooling, health care, probably even roads, etc. become privatized and available only to upper-middle class America. The lower and lower-middle classes would have a helluva time surviving, and while I know some people like you don't exactly care, you're destroying what the constitution stands for. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I still like the thought of, "If you don't like it, gtfo." Again, you're more than welcome to form your own nation, but don't expect American benefits in the process. And, again, when you run out of land to secede in because no one in your country universally agrees on a set of rules so all form their own countries, don't expect our sympathy, because we told you.

*edit*Don't reply. We've already had this exact conversation. Clearly neither of us changd our minds. Figure out something new to discuss.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Izzy

[Guest]

I'm not misunderstanding your reasons for choosing why you're against giving money to hospitals, I'm just not understanding why you're against it at all, regardless of those reasons

So you're saying that its impossible for me to say something that makes sense if you choose to ignore whatever reasons I give and conclude that you just don't understand why I am saying what I say? That's silly. I can say that what you're saying doesn't make any sense for the same reasons.

Person 1: Oh, I think we should kill the mentally retarded.

Person 2: Huh? Why?!

Person 1: Oh, they put a strain on society, don't produce anything, get in the way, will never reproduce succesful offspring, drool, etc.

Person 2: I don't understand how you could think that!

Person 1: I JUST EXPLAINED WHY I THINK THAT.

Person 2: ...Chill out broski.

Jesus. I was going to drop it.

So, no, if we're playing the blame game, you're "it" for holding an insane view most people in this thread can't understand, and, just to be absolutely clear here, understand, as in "I don't understand why person 1 would want to kill those people; how could he think that?"

Oh! So you do think that what I say makes sense! You just say that person 1 doesn't make any sense (even though he clearly explained why he holds his view) because that's your silly way of saying you still disagree with him. Wow. Don't do that, it results in pages of wasted discussion. Next time just say that what the person you are arguing with is saying makes sense, but you still don't understand why it's worse to destroy something valuable that takes thousands of man-hours to produce than it is to destroy something that only takes a small amount of effort to reproduce, but isn't even valuable enough to society to need to be reproduced anytime soon.

So dawh was right, the English language was at fault. I had never encountered someone who successfully understood the idea that I was intending to convey in my writing, yet said that my writing still didn't make sense. What one would normally say in your position would be that what I say makes sense, but you still don't think why what I say makes me right about burning money being the far better choice than burning the products. By saying that I don't make sense, you make it sound like I need to provide more clarification. In reality though, you understand what I'm trying to say, you just don't understand why what I am trying to say is necessarily true. Very silly....

Edited August 15, 2010 by Use the Force

[Izzy]

I can agree with you, but I'm only going to agree if what you're saying is something I actually agree with. Like, if you say "Star Wars is awesome!", I'm going to agree. If you say "Twilight is awesome!" I'm going to be like "I don't understand.." And omfg, that's what I've been saying this entire time. Well, okay, the first time when you said it, it didn't make sense because you didn't elaborate enough for anyone to comprehend what you were saying. After that, I understood what you were getting at but it still didn't make any sense (as in, the "sense" mentioned above.). Also, I'll term what I say however I want. It's not like understanding is exclusively used to describe the comprehention of something. It has multiple meanings, one of which I've been using for the last who knows how many pages. (Which I assumed was evident, obviously not, meh.)

Wow. That was.. a massive waste of time.. for nothing.

I guess we were both guilty in omitting a "because" in our answers. *glares at the English language*

[Guest]

WHILE I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING, I don't understand how you could hold that view. (Just to make sure we're *absolutely* clear here.)

No, you DO understand how I could hold that view. You understand that I hold that view because I think that a baby isn't as valuable as the the things that the terrorists will likely destroy with the funding. You understand that I realize that their is a chance that we will be able to stop the terrorist attacks, but even taking that chance into account, the risk that a lot could be destroyed by the terrorists is great enough, and likely to occur enough, that I'd rather kill the baby instead of taking such a horrible gamble hoping that we could stop the terrorist attack. Right? You understand all of this, I assume. Thus, I would like you to say, "WHILE I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING and I understand how you could hold that view, I still don't understand why the reasons you gave are good enough reasons to make me want to hold that view as well."

That would make a lot more sense because to me because I wouldn't interpret what you are saying as you not understanding why I hold the view I hold: "I don't understand how you could hold that view." This totally makes me think that I didn't express my reasoning clearly enough. If I didn't express my reasoning clearly enough, then say that. But, if I did express it clearly and you understand what I am saying and you understand the reasons for why I hold the view that I say I hold, then say that you DO understand how I can hold the view that I hold. Then add that you still don't understand why the reasons that I have were strong enough reasons to persuade you that you ought to hold the view as well. In this way you are expressing disagreement with me rather than implying that I wasn't clear. Knowing this ahead of time would have saved us both a lot of trouble....

[Guest]

We've been over this and why it would never work. It's not a unified government if everyone obeys different rules, and progression would ultimately cease. If people are exempt from taxes, we won't have the money to pay for anything, and all schooling, health care, probably even roads, etc. become privatized and available only to upper-middle class America. The lower and lower-middle classes would have a helluva time surviving, and while I know some people like you don't exactly care, you're destroying what the constitution stands for. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I still like the thought of, "If you don't like it, gtfo." Again, you're more than welcome to form your own nation, but don't expect American benefits in the process. And, again, when you run out of land to secede in because no one in your country universally agrees on a set of rules so all form their own countries, don't expect our sympathy, because we told you.

*edit*Don't reply. We've already had this exact conversation. Clearly neither of us changd our minds. Figure out something new to discuss.

The only reply I am going to make is that I would have liked it if you said, "We've been over this and why I think it would never work," rather than what you actually said: "We've been over this and why it would never work." The reason is because I strongly disagree with you and think that this view of treating others would result in a better future than following our current, relatively-liberal government.

[Guest]

I can agree with you, but I'm only going to agree if what you're saying is something I actually agree with. Like, if you say "Star Wars is awesome!", I'm going to agree. If you say "Twilight is awesome!" I'm going to be like "I don't understand.."

No!!! Don't say that you don't understand! That makes it seem like you don't understand that I am saying that Twilight is awesome. Rather, say that you understand what I am saying and what my reasoning, but also say you still disagree that whatever reasoning I am giving is good enough reasoning to make you think that Twilight is awesome also.

I understand why some people like Twilight, but I still don't like it at all.

And omfg, that's what I've been saying this entire time. Well, okay, the first time when you said it, it didn't make sense because you didn't elaborate enough for anyone to comprehend what you were saying. After that, I understood what you were getting at but it still didn't make any sense (as in, the "sense" mentioned above.). Also, I'll term what I say however I want. It's not like understanding is exclusively used to describe the comprehention of something. It has multiple meanings, one of which I've been using for the last who knows how many pages. (Which I assumed was evident, obviously not, meh.)

Wow. That was.. a massive waste of time.. for nothing.

I guess we were both guilty in omitting a "because" in our answers. *glares at the English language*

That was a waste of time. But, I'm happier to find out that I found your use of "I don't understand what you are saying" to mean both "I don't understand what you are saying" and "I do understand what you are saying, but I don't understand why your reasons are good enough to make me share your viewpoint," confusing, then to find out that you literally weren't understanding what I was saying as the result of poor communication and clearness on my part (which is what I thought you were saying was the case just a few posts ago).

Edited August 15, 2010 by Use the Force

[Izzy]

Lol, yeah, Dawh tends to be right about.. everything.

Nono. I understand that there is some validity to your reasoning, but I cannot fathom why you would hold that view in the first place, regardless of reasoning. Eugh, words are tricky and I can't think (or find) a good synonym. Back to the Twilight example. If you told me you liked Twilight because Edward is hot, I wouldn't be like "That's not a good enough reason for me to hold that view.", I would be like "While your reasoning is valid, I don't understand how you could think that." Like.. Bah, idk how to word it. Like, okay, here. Do you see the difference in these two scenarios?

Tom: I don't understand why the printer printed in red when I told it to print in black.

---

Jack: *prints out essay in red*

Tom: Wow, I do not understand why you would want to do that.

..Do you understand? I know it's getting a little confusing, and linguistics are not my speciality.

So, again, I understand your reasoning, but I don't understand why you would hold that view, because I disagree, and apparently am not good at empathizing with your view. Omg, there we go. I was using this understand: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathize: Related Words for : empathize

empathise, sympathise, sympathize, understand

[Guest]

So I think it's safe to say that my first online discussion of politics was very inefficient, to say the least. I'm far better at quickly and clearly expressing my views and understanding what others are saying on philosophical subjects, especially the black and white issues that are well defined like the existence of a god or free will. Anyways, if someone thinks of something worth discussing then I'll likely join in, but until then I'm taking a break.

[Guest]

Lol, yeah, Dawh tends to be right about.. everything.

Nono. I understand that there is some validity to your reasoning, but I cannot fathom why you would hold that view in the first place, regardless of reasoning. Eugh, words are tricky and I can't think (or find) a good synonym. Back to the Twilight example. If you told me you liked Twilight because Edward is hot, I wouldn't be like "That's not a good enough reason for me to hold that view.", I would be like "While your reasoning is valid, I don't understand how you could think that." Like.. Bah, idk how to word it. Like, okay, here. Do you see the difference in these two scenarios?

Tom: I don't understand why the printer printed in red when I told it to print in black.

---

Jack: *prints out essay in red*

Tom: Wow, I do not understand why you would want to do that.

..Do you understand? I know it's getting a little confusing, and linguistics are not my speciality.

So, again, I understand your reasoning, but I don't understand why you would hold that view, because I disagree, and apparently am not good at empathizing with your view. Omg, there we go. I was using this understand: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathize: Related Words for : empathize

empathise, sympathise, sympathize, understand

I don't understand (as in I don't understand the idea you're meaning to convey to me) your Tom/Jack example.

As for: "If you told me you liked Twilight because Edward is hot, I wouldn't be like "That's not a good enough reason for me to hold that view.", I would be like "While your reasoning is valid, I don't understand how you could think that."

I would reply to that differently if I were you. Isn't it simple to understand why someone likes the movie? They like the movie because they think that guy is hot and to them that's a good enough reason to like the movie. That's perfectly understandable and you can reply, "Okay, I understand why you like the movie." I suppose you could also say what you've been saying: "OMG! I can't understand how you can think such a thing!" I think though, that this only works with spoken words. In a forum discussion of pure writing I find it essentially impossible to tell whether "OMG! I can't understand how you can think such a thing!" means that you didn't understand the reason I gave or you understood the reason I gave, but disagreed that it was a good enough reason to like Twilight. So this is why I only use my version of "I don't understand." In conversation I sometimes use your "I don't understand how you can think such a thing!" when someone gives a really stupid reason for holding their silly view, but in written words when you do this to me it just results in me thinking I was unclear. Ugh. I think we can both see how annoying this was. Still, the English language being at fault is less annoying than you seriously not understanding what I was trying to say as if I was being unclear. So I'm happy.

[unreality]

So I think it's safe to say that my first online discussion of politics was very inefficient, to say the least. I'm far better at quickly and clearly expressing my views and understanding what others are saying on philosophical subjects, especially the black and white issues that are well defined like the existence of a god or free will. Anyways, if someone thinks of something worth discussing then I'll likely join in, but until then I'm taking a break.

not to turn this into a whole nother debate but the issue of free will is FAR from black and white.

And yeah in general politics are way more confusing to debate about because for the most part we don't really know what we're talking about, it's an exercise in the hypothetical

[Guest]

not to turn this into a whole nother debate but the issue of free will is FAR from black and white.

I think it's quite clear that nobody has free will. I wouldn't mind turning it into another brief debate if you want to. If you do, perhaps another thread? I think I could persuade you very quickly. We could set a three page forum limit in case we hit a dead end, that way another long, unproductive discussion doesn't ensue as it did in this political discussion.

And yeah in general politics are way more confusing to debate about because for the most part we don't really know what we're talking about, it's an exercise in the hypothetical

Yes, I got a 3 on the College Board's AP US Government and Politics examination.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Use the Force

[Izzy]

Oh god, can we not talk about AP History classes? I'm so screwed for tomorrow because I didn't do any of my APWH work.

Wait, free will as in the deterministic kind, like "I am deciding to move my arm right now", or free will as in freedom within our nation? Free will as in I'm predestined to type this exactly as I am, up to every typo that needs to be back spaced?