 |
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
And one might point out in response to your tax example, the principle of diminishing marginal utility. All other things being equal, taking ten dollars from someone who only has twenty makes that person worse off proportionally than taking ten dollars from someone who has twenty million dollars. |
Speak in terms of differing percentages and then you might somewhat know what the whole case is about. Then try explaining how that's a "rightful" discrimination
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
That's not my point. My point is that it's only morally discriminatory if it doesn't accord with some particular moral rule, and that every moral rule that doesn't discriminate in one way will, of necessity, discriminate in other ways. |
Your "point" demonstrated in the ten dollar ten dollar example is simply fraudulant - as it evades reality of the situation and paints a false proportional base for sympathy. Make points on situational reality and we'll talk
quote:
If you tax everyone the same amount or even the same percentage (a flat tax) then it will affect some people's welfare more than others. |
That's so indirect and bias linked a conclusion that you'd have to play God to run a society on equating measures. You're proposing taking MORE PORTION from the "SAME" PEOPLE. You do not judge on what more to take from who; simply because a society can only be (nearest) equal on structural distribution of wealth through %
Anything else is arbitray bullsh*t protected by silent tyranny of the masses
quote:
Anyway, Z tell me, do you believe that your preference for hot looking women is wrongful discrimination against the ugly pigs of this world? |
No - because it's a personal opinion which takes nothing concrete away from other human beings - other than my small yet elite c0ckmeat. Gaw man, you should really get me in on this UT philo biz if it's this easy. We could be like the odd couple!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by St Leo
Level of income is not a civil rights issue. |
Right. Acquisition, handling and continued ownership of personal property has no place in the hands of the individual.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
No - because it's a personal opinion which takes nothing concrete away from other human beings - other than my small yet elite c0ckmeat. |
 Sounds like the King's chat.
Agathon - quote:
I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you again. |
Did you forget my orientation?
quote:
Every distributive rule discriminates. A rule that says "put red balls in the right urn and green ones in the left urn" discriminates. |
Since it has escaped your less than all encompassing attention  , we're not here arguing against discrimination. That would be your leftist friends who are decrying discrimination and unequal treatment. You'll have to explain your desire to discriminate to them since they don't like discrimination.
quote:
Similarly with any rule that distributes goods to persons. They all discriminate by picking out some feature in accordance with which the distribution is to take place. |
These aren't your goods to "distribute".
quote:
That's different from normative claims in which the distribution is evaluated according to some moral standard. |
Moral theft?
quote:
Even Libertarianism discriminates by entailing that only property acquired through voluntary transactions is rightfully owned. But of course there is disagreement over what counts as the right rule. |
Yes, libertarians discriminate against thieves. I like discrimination, I do it every day when I buy something.
quote:
If you really outlawed all discrimination (as you seem to want to do with your accusations of discrimination) then it would be immoral to reserve lavatories for each sex or to charge people different insurance premiums for different levels of risk. That's just dumb. |
Wow! Talk about missing the point. I don't want to outlaw discrimination, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who argue that discrimination is wrong when it comes to homosexual couples adopting children while supporting a discriminatory tax code. And for these same people to couch their argument in terms of "civil rights" is even more ridiculous, I now have a civil right to adopt a child but not be treated equally wrt the taxes?
quote:
And one might point out in response to your tax example, the principle of diminishing marginal utility. All other things being equal, taking ten dollars from someone who only has twenty makes that person worse off proportionally than taking ten dollars from someone who has twenty million dollars. |
Taking $10 from anyone is wrong, it's called stealing and making it legal can't change the immorality of the act. But obviously the people who support this law believe that "diminishing marginal utility" requires that children be adopted by married heterosexuals. Why? For the good of the children, a factor the homosexuals conveniently ignore. Adoption is not about giving homosexuals a child, it's about finding suitable homes for orphans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I am slightly amused.
It is "right" for people to make more money than others under a set of rules put into place by the government, but somehow it is "not right" when the same set of rules stipulate that the same people who make more money need to pay more. |
You're also slightly lacking of a fundamental education beyond redgold communist leanings - so enjoy the performance while it's still in town.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
Sky - quote:
I'm actually with Agathon on this one - "liberals" are claiming that discriminating based on sexual orientation is wrong, not that discrimination is wrong or even that discrimination based on level of income is wrong. They are seperate concepts and thus there is no hypocrisy. |
Sure it's hypocrisy, discrimination is okay for me, but not for thee. Furthermore, if liberals want to go down the road of justifiable discrimination to mask the hypocrisy, i.e., we have good reason to discriminate but not you, then you'll have to argue that it is just as good for an orphan to be adopted by homosexuals as it is for married heterosexuals. That dog won't hunt... Adoption is, or should be, finding suitable homes for children without families, not soothing some desire to parent...
UR - quote:
Only if you can prove that it is moral to own private properties, without any sort of limit or responsibility to the society that allows this to happen. |
Two options: "society" steals your property; "society" doesn't steal your property. What, if anything, is "society" entitled to? Taxes for services wanted and rendered, nothing more, nothing less. Once you tax someone just to enrich yourself or your friends and constituents, you've gone beyond moral justification into legalised plunder.
Now, why is private property moral? One need only ask who owns you. If I own you, then you are a slave. If you can leave if you don't like it, well, so can victims of Mafia extortion. Your ability to flee doesn't exonerate me of my crime. You've been given a certain amount of time on this planet by that which is responsible for existence and this time belongs to you. If I can steal your $10, I've taken from you the time you lost obtaining that $10. If no government existed, how would any person feel if someone else came along and stole their home or land? We'd all feel roughly the same, a universal reaction. That is the basis for a moral principle, stealing is wrong because no one wants to be stolen from.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-01-2004 07:07
- "liberals" are claiming that discriminating based on sexual orientation is wrong, not that discrimination is wrong or even that discrimination based on level of income is wrong. They are seperate concepts and thus there is no hypocrisy.
|