61–70 of 150 posts
P.S. I love my dog too but ...
I like this guy. Except for when he acted like cat owners couldn't make sacrifices too. I once had to cut a trip short because my cat missed me so much that he made himself sick.
lol. Sorry for ripping on cat people at the end. For the sake of my dog, I felt like I had to get at least one jab in there.
There are probably a lot of people out there who balk at the idea of personal sacrifice for a dog. It’s easy to spot these people, however. They are cat people. I spent $1000 last month so one of my cats could get an abcessed tooth removed on Memorial day, out of about $2500 that I took in. You're not special.
That closing remark was obviously tongue-in-cheek! :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That is patronizing. There is a wide spectrum of reasons why one might say vote for lower/higher taxes between "they worked hard, so they deserve it" and "fuck you, I want mine". Since I never clarified what I meant and you came up with such a specific notion, it would appear you're projecting some defensiveness here. But I will go ahead and clarify my position: The fact of the matter is, the US is a combative syste…
> Since I never clarified what I meant and you came up with such a specific notion, it would appear you're projecting some defensiveness here. Correct, I was taking up an example, which is why I used the phrase "one might say ". I didn't advocate a specific position (higher or lower taxes). I am completely detached; I don't participate in the political system in America (neither do I plan to ever) so I simply don't c…
Go to America. Live there for a while. Move to a red state and actually talk to people. This presumption won't seem so arrogant when you meet so many people for which there is no other logical conclusion to make.
>I would argue that it is not in Warren Buffett's self interest to vote for higher taxes
It's not, but the voting environment has gotten so skewed that people like Buffet feel they have to abandon voting in their best interests to try and get some kind of balance. At least they claim to publicly.
> If you’ve ever owned a dog, you know just how intelligent they actually are (especially larger breeds) yes, some larger breeds rate higher on obedience scale, and we, humans, equate that to the intelligence in animals. There is another bias also is that large breeds are more frequently working breeds, thus a lot of specialized effort is invested into training them, and thus more of the obedience results achieved.
Couldn't obedience be another form of intelligence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That is patronizing. There is a wide spectrum of reasons why one might say vote for lower/higher taxes between "they worked hard, so they deserve it" and "fuck you, I want mine". Since I never clarified what I meant and you came up with such a specific notion, it would appear you're projecting some defensiveness here. But I will go ahead and clarify my position: The fact of the matter is, the US is a combative syste…
I strongly disagree. In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain. "The God Delusion" by Dawkins includes a great (and somewhat Rawlsian) rule, 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.' E.g., as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I ga…
Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties.
> 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.'
This is a Utopian way to govern, which would be great. But it doesn't apply to the US system. If your position is reasonable and the other side is pushing extremely toward their interests you're going to end up with the middle point between you both.
> as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not.
Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner.
I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.
As an Indian, I'd like to chip in with the actual meaning of "Karma" - the closest synonym in English is "fulfilling your purpose".
The Indian culture is heavy with assumptions that everyone has some purpose in life. The concept of karma urges you to act upon your purpose in life - intended or perceived. It never promises any rewards or punishments by itself. That is primarily taken care of by the rest of the philosophy in these books - unsurprisingly similar to all the other religions of the world.
By itself, karma has no positive or negative association. In fact, one of the holy texts dissociates your "karma" with the fruits reaped subsequent to it. "Continue fulfilling your purpose in life without expecting any rewards for your actions whatsoever." In other words:
Happiness = Reality - Expectations.
The lower the expectations and 'better' the reality, the greater your happiness. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly disagree. In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain. "The God Delusion" by Dawkins includes a great (and somewhat Rawlsian) rule, 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.' E.g., as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I ga…
>In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain. Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties. > 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you…
Well, I'm not an american, so I don't vote in the US, but if I could I would vote for Libertarian Party candidates.
> Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner.
No, but it's not about helping myself, it's about having a system which I consider ethical.
> I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.
I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the wonderful and horrible thing about the US. There are a myriad of high risk high reward options like credit cards and student debt. For some people they pay off, for others they end up drowning in debt. There are some wonderful success stories and some terrifying stories of lives reduced to abject poverty.
I think it is mostly wonderful. In the part of the third world my parents are from unless your family is independently wealthy then you simply won't be able to afford to go to college and thus are destined to (at best) have some very low-paying menial labor job. Contrast this with the US, you can get federally-backed, low-interest loans, go to school majoring in engineering and move from poverty to middle class in on…