Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[citizenzen]

and it saves you the trouble of actually addressing any of the points she has been making.

If you had taken time to read my posts, you'd have seen that I responded time and time again to the points GenSen was raising. It was his (her?) incessant repeating of the phrase "I see you still refuse to defend your position" even after numerous "defenses" of my position that compelled me to mute her.

I will dig into and discuss any matter under the Sun. I accept and believe that there is no single truth and nobody is in possession of it. I do not believe conservatives are all idiots, or blind and I believe that we have to work together to solve the problems that face us. So when my attempts to discuss these matters are summarily dismissed by a mind that obviously is not interested in absorbing information (The Civil War was not fought over slavery.) there is a limit to what I will endure. And when the quality of the discourse seems to resemble a grade school taunt instead of an adult discussion, then the Ignore List is a perfectly reasonable resource to use.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Stopping the violation of rights does level the playing field.

Not if the thieves get to keep the money they have stolen. Look at the concentration of wealth, does that look like an even playing field to you?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

How do you tell which ones are thieves?

Who gets to decide where the "reclaimed" money goes?

Didn't answer the question did you? Should thieves be able to keep the wealth that they steal?

 

[GenSeneca]

I accept and believe that there is no single truth and nobody is in possession of it.

This is a teachable moment, not for Zen who has me on ignore, but for those of you who seek to understand the underlying differences between individuals that lead to a fundamental problem with finding compromise.

To explain the significance of Zen's statement, we have to look at philosophy behind it.

In philosophy, the term anti-realism is used to describe any position involving either the denial of an objective reality of entities of a certain type or the denial that verification-transcendent statements about a type of entity are either true or false.

Zen is an anti-realist. For him, truth, facts, even reality are all subjective concepts. Which brings us to another term that requires understanding before we can move forward, Subjectivity:

Subjectivity refers to a person's perspective or opinion, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unsubstantiated personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs. In philosophy, the term is often contrasted with objectivity.

Because anti-realists believe that facts, truth and reality are all subjective concepts, independent of objective reality, and dependent on upon the individuals thoughts, feelings and beliefs, there is only one way in which the anti-realist may come to accept something as being factual, true or as a reality - by consensus.

Truth: According to some trends in philosophy, such as postmodernism/post-structuralism, truth is subjective. When two or more individuals agree upon the interpretation and experience of a particular event, a consensus about an event and its experience begins to be formed. This being common to a few individuals or a larger group, then becomes the "truth" as seen and agreed upon by a certain set of people — the consensus reality. Thus one particular group may have a certain set of agreed-upon truths, while another group might have a different set. This allows different communities and societies to have very different notions of reality and truth about the external world.

To put this in practical terms, the realist holds that 2 + 2 = 4 because it is an objectively qualified truth independent of any thoughts, feelings or beliefs on the part of the individual and the answer to the equation is therefore a reality. Whether or not an individual is able to count, has any concept of numbers, and regardless of whether they think, feel, or believe that 2 + 2 should equal something other than 4, the fact that the answer is 4 remains a reality, it is always true.

In contrast:

Truth: For anti-realists, the inaccessibility of any final, objective truth means that there is no truth beyond the socially-accepted consensus.

To bring this back around and explain how it relates to my point about finding difficulty in compromise, I will refer to one of my substantial disagreements with Zen:

We have unfunded debt obligations of more than 100 trillion dollars. These are referred to as unfunded debt obligations because it is money that we have promised to pay out but are not yet obligated to begin paying. Our national debt is an example of money that we already owe, that we have already "paid" out but cannot cover, and that totals around 14 trillion. Our annual deficit is running around 1.5 trillion, the deficit is the difference between money we spent that year and what we had to spend that year, this difference is then added to the national debt.

As an anti-realist, who believes that truth, facts and reality are subjective and therefore dependent upon his thoughts, feelings and beliefs, Zen and I do not agree on reality. He does not accept as fact that we have unfunded liabilities, he does not accept as truth that they exist, he does not accept as reality that we will be obligated for their payment when the time comes.

In conclusion, and in reference to the comment I made earlier about compromise, when two people look at the equation of 2 + 2 and come to different conclusions about the answer, compromise is not only difficult, compromise on any level will necessarily lead to the wrong answer. If my answer is 4 and his is 5, his answer is wrong. If we compromise and agree that the answer is 4.5, we are now both wrong. Compromise has its place but when it comes to dealing with facts, reality and truth, there can be no compromise.

So to any realists out there who have read what I've had to say, the next time you think about compromising on any topic or issue, please consider whether or not you are dealing with an anti-realist, because if you are, any compromise will inevitably lead to the wrong answer.

 

[GenSeneca]

Look at the concentration of wealth, does that look like an even playing field to you?

Even on a level playing field, there will inevitably be concentrations of wealth. While I don't deny that some have ill gotten gains, it is a fallacy of logic to claim that all people with wealth have acquired it through force or fraud.

Should thieves be able to keep the wealth that they steal?

Actual thieves, who have acquired their gains through force or fraud, should go to jail and lose their ill gotten gains.

Now it is upon you to answer my question, how do you know which ones are thieves? Or do you simply consider everyone with wealth guilty and therefore feel justified in violating the rights of innocent people?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Look at the concentration of wealth, does that look like an even playing field to you?

If the people among who the wealth is concentrated, worked hard, took the risks and the lumps, while the people for whom wealth is sparse took no chances and did far less, then yes, that looks like a perfectly even playing field to me. People received exactly according to what they put in.

When all results come out even, I have to wonder if the people were all robots who did exactly the same, person to person.

(No, I didn't look back at the particular situation MT is talking about. My statements were general, as they should be. When a thread gets beyond 5 pages or so, there's usually little point in searching thru it for the occasional nugget among all the namecalling, yes-you-said-it-no-I-didn't crap)

 

[dogtowner]

If the people among who the wealth is concentrated, worked hard, took the risks and the lumps, while the people for whom wealth is sparse took no chances and did far less, then yes, that looks like a perfectly even playing field to me. People received exactly according to what they put in.

When all results come out even, I have to wonder if the people were all robots who did exactly the same, person to person.

(No, I didn't look back at the particular situation MT is talking about. My statements were general, as they should be. When a thread gets beyond 5 pages or so, there's usually little point in searching thru it for the occasional nugget among all the namecalling, yes-you-said-it-no-I-didn't crap)

you missed nothing more than the usual socialist claptrap.

 

[PLC1]

This is a teachable moment, not for Zen who has me on ignore, but for those of you who seek to understand the underlying differences between individuals that lead to a fundamental problem with finding compromise.

To explain the significance of Zen's statement, we have to look at philosophy behind it.



Zen is an anti-realist. For him, truth, facts, even reality are all subjective concepts. Which brings us to another term that requires understanding before we can move forward, Subjectivity:



Because anti-realists believe that facts, truth and reality are all subjective concepts, independent of objective reality, and dependent on upon the individuals thoughts, feelings and beliefs, there is only one way in which the anti-realist may come to accept something as being factual, true or as a reality - by consensus.



To put this in practical terms, the realist holds that 2 + 2 = 4 because it is an objectively qualified truth independent of any thoughts, feelings or beliefs on the part of the individual and the answer to the equation is therefore a reality. Whether or not an individual is able to count, has any concept of numbers, and regardless of whether they think, feel, or believe that 2 + 2 should equal something other than 4, the fact that the answer is 4 remains a reality, it is always true.

In contrast:



To bring this back around and explain how it relates to my point about finding difficulty in compromise, I will refer to one of my substantial disagreements with Zen:

We have unfunded debt obligations of more than 100 trillion dollars. These are referred to as unfunded debt obligations because it is money that we have promised to pay out but are not yet obligated to begin paying. Our national debt is an example of money that we already owe, that we have already "paid" out but cannot cover, and that totals around 14 trillion. Our annual deficit is running around 1.5 trillion, the deficit is the difference between money we spent that year and what we had to spend that year, this difference is then added to the national debt.

As an anti-realist, who believes that truth, facts and reality are subjective and therefore dependent upon his thoughts, feelings and beliefs, Zen and I do not agree on reality. He does not accept as fact that we have unfunded liabilities, he does not accept as truth that they exist, he does not accept as reality that we will be obligated for their payment when the time comes.

In conclusion, and in reference to the comment I made earlier about compromise, when two people look at the equation of 2 + 2 and come to different conclusions about the answer, compromise is not only difficult, compromise on any level will necessarily lead to the wrong answer. If my answer is 4 and his is 5, his answer is wrong. If we compromise and agree that the answer is 4.5, we are now both wrong. Compromise has its place but when it comes to dealing with facts, reality and truth, there can be no compromise.

So to any realists out there who have read what I've had to say, the next time you think about compromising on any topic or issue, please consider whether or not you are dealing with an anti-realist, because if you are, any compromise will inevitably lead to the wrong answer.

In summary, a realist bases conclusions and beliefs on hard facts, while a subjectivist believes that reality is dependent on belief.

Science, then is based on realism, but religion is based on subjectivism.

As for your example, try adding two cups of water to two cups of salt and see if you get four cups of salt water. Sometimes, 2 + 2 is not equal to four.

And I'm a realist, not a subjectivist, at least I think so.

But, that's based on belief.

 

[dogtowner]

In summary, a realist bases conclusions and beliefs on hard facts, while a subjectivist believes that reality is dependent on belief.

Science, then is based on realism, but religion is based on subjectivism.

As for your example, try adding two cups of water to two cups of salt and see if you get four cups of salt water. Sometimes, 2 + 2 is not equal to four.

And I'm a realist, not a subjectivist, at least I think so.

But, that's based on belief.

religion is based on faith. I demonstarted my faith and was rewarded with more than ample reality. I accept that you cannot understand this, I could not until I did it either.

 

[GenSeneca]

Science, then is based on realism, but religion is based on subjectivism.

Actually, to be technically accurate, science is based on empirical realism, a conceptual theory must be tested to have reliable outcomes in order to be considered scientific fact and these facts are not subject to thoughts, feelings or beliefs. Realism itself states that existence exists, so whether or not we are even aware of a spec of dust in space, whether or not we can use the scientific method for proving its existence, it exists none the less.

As for your example, try adding two cups of water to two cups of salt and see if you get four cups of salt water. Sometimes, 2 + 2 is not equal to four.

Clever point PLC but I would like to point out that to the realist, the answer to that particular equation would not be dependent upon their thoughts, feelings or beliefs regarding what they think the answer should be while the anti-realists answer would.

This of course just reinforces my comment about the danger of compromising on truth, it does nothing to change reality, it only creates more problems.

 

[PLC1]

Actually, to be technically accurate, science is based on empirical realism, a conceptual theory must be tested to have reliable outcomes in order to be considered scientific fact and these facts are not subject to thoughts, feelings or beliefs. Realism itself states that existence exists, so whether or not we are even aware of a spec of dust in space, whether or not we can use the scientific method for proving its existence, it exists none the less.

So, if a tree falls, it makes a noise whether or not anyone hears it.

Is that a hard fact, or is it a philosophical position?

Clever point PLC but I would like to point out that to the realist, the answer to that particular equation would not be dependent upon their thoughts, feelings or beliefs regarding what they think the answer should be while the anti-realists answer would.

This of course just reinforces my comment about the danger of compromising on truth, it does nothing to change reality, it only creates more problems.

The example of 2 and 2 has an easy answer, of course, as two kilos of water + 2 kilos of salt will always render 4 kilos of salt water. If you use volume measure, however, it then 2 and 2 aren't actually four in that example.

So, even your simple and apparently undeniable example doesn't always work. Moreover, it's hard to find hard and fast undeniable truths outside of the realms of mathematics and physics. Right off hand, I can't think of one, can you?

 

[GenSeneca]

So, even your simple and apparently undeniable example doesn't always work.

The point remains, truth, facts, and reality are not dependent on your thoughts, feelings or beliefs regarding what you think the answer should be.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Even on a level playing field, there will inevitably be concentrations of wealth. While I don't deny that some have ill gotten gains, it is a fallacy of logic to claim that all people with wealth have acquired it through force or fraud.

Not all, but a lot.

Actual thieves, who have acquired their gains through force or fraud, should go to jail and lose their ill gotten gains.

Now it is upon you to answer my question, how do you know which ones are thieves? Or do you simply consider everyone with wealth guilty and therefore feel justified in violating the rights of innocent people?

First we had to agree that a crime had been commited and that the perps should have their gains taken from them. Without that agreement then any further discussion was pointless.

What do we do any time when we know a crime has occured? We investigate. From what I've seen it shouldn't be too difficult to find the most egregious abusers, let's start with Blackwater. Then we can move on to Union Carbide and their failure to make adequate reparations in Bhopal, India. I suspect that if we look we will find no shortage of greedy criminals. How about the people who caused the current economic crash and got bailouts so they could pay themselves bonuses?

 

[citizenzen]

Even on Ignore I can still read Quotes.

If you want to talk about teachable moments, I'd like to talk about your habit of telling me what I think and who I am instead of asking me. I imagine its convenient for you to categorize people as you do. It does however reveal a character flaw: a laziness to actually learn and engage, and the narcissism to believe that it doesn't benefit you to do so.

Zen is an anti-realist. For him, truth, facts, even reality are all subjective concepts. Which brings us to another term that requires understanding before we can move forward, Subjectivity:

Because anti-realists believe that facts, truth and reality are all subjective concepts, independent of objective reality, and dependent on upon the individuals thoughts, feelings and beliefs, there is only one way in which the anti-realist may come to accept something as being factual, true or as a reality - by consensus.​

Once again GenSen is able to reach into my mind and read my very thoughts and motivations. It's another excellent example of why GenSen deserves to be on Ignore. She has no interest in actually learning about people, she just fills in the blank with her own off-base assumptions and is satisfied with that. Pity.

Though the following story is well known, I will take a moment to repeat it...

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"​

Talk about teachable moments. GenSen, you learn anything yet?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

GenSeca,
Are you female as Citizen refers to you? I have no idea and I don't wish to address you incorrectly.
Mare