destruction of america

[frankendat]

Philosophy of Pessimism

[datzenmike]

I guess my morality and someone else's can be different and both correct but not always for both. So if we leave the word morality out can we agree that given the same facts and " Righteous  is right, not mostly right, sometimes right or often wrong." then truth will be universal for both? If one is different then one has made a mistake in rational thought and both must seek out the error.

 

43 minutes ago, frankendat said:

Philosophy of Pessimism

“The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself.”

[frankendat]

"The skepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

These propositions may seem mild, yet, if accepted, they would absolutely revolutionize human life.

The opinions for which people are willing to fight and persecute all belong to one of the three classes which this skepticism condemns. When there are rational grounds for an opinion, people are content to set them forth and wait for them to operate. In such cases, people do not hold their opinions with passion; they hold them calmly, and set forth their reasons quietly. The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.”--Bertrand Russell

[a.d._510_n_ok]

[datzenmike]

 Well in my world I don't ever trust the experts. You have only to look around you to see the evidence of where experts have taken us to date. When they are in agreement I worry and start looking around. You are your own best and most trusted expert in and on all things.... or you should be. Anything that I'm not an expert on is of little importance to me.  If it was, I would find out what I need to know about it. If that were impossible to do, then, and only then, would I employ an expert, but would I trust them? not on your life!

[paradime]

So who defines what is righteous as being morally right or justifiable behavior? I don't believe in a universally law or truth so I have deep skepticism of "righteousness". Our society affords us the freedom to be our own best and most trusted expert. But oh how quickly we're willing give up our collective freedoms when it plays to our own subjective values. 

Edited April 2, 2023 by paradime

[john510]

20 hours ago, frankendat said:

Are you willing to consider, if only for a moment, that another rational intelligent human may utilize valid reasoning and arrive at different conclusions, as to what is right and what is wrong? (I am neither suggesting that I am this person nor your beliefs and mine must align - only that such an individual could exist)

Yes I'd consider it,for a second.What rational intelligent human would think it's ok to steal,murder,rape,harm a child etc. ? There's no rationale or intelligence involved in that if you believe it's ok to do so.If anybody could even try to justify those actions I'd say they have a few loose screws in their head.

[john510]

13 hours ago, angliagt said:

 

              Plus (maybe) a really bitch'n train.

That's a perfect example of fiscal irresponsibility from the Democrats.There are so many more.How about reparations for Blacks in San Francisco ? Jesus WTF ? How the hell do people get elected that support that shit ? Mind boggling.

[frankendat]

1 hour ago, john510 said:

Yes I'd consider it,for a second.What rational intelligent human would think it's ok to steal,murder,rape,harm a child etc. ? There's no rationale or intelligence involved in that if you believe it's ok to do so.If anybody could even try to justify those actions I'd say they have a few loose screws in their head.

I usually start with the torture of children, when discussing the problem of evil, as it saves time. Due to the inflammatory nature of the topic, I thought might be avoided. It seems I was mistaken. 

 

There are many theories on who(or what) bears the blame for torture, (defined as meaningless harm) of the innocent (children being most innocent). There is some academic debate as to the definition of "child", but I do not find those discussions beneficial. The broader questions must be addressed before details of age/capacity etc. are relevant.

 

I believe this road has been traveled before on Ratsun and will do a bit of searching, to avoid retyping the information

[datzenmike]

 

My motto in life is simple... Try not to be a cunt.

 

[john510]

39 minutes ago, frankendat said:

I usually start with the torture of children, when discussing the problem of evil, as it saves time. Due to the inflammatory nature of the topic, I thought might be avoided. It seems I was mistaken. 

 

There are many theories on who(or what) bears the blame for torture, (defined as meaningless harm) of the innocent (children being most innocent). There is some academic debate as to the definition of "child", but I do not find those discussions beneficial. The broader questions must be addressed before details of age/capacity etc. are relevant.

 

I believe this road has been traveled before on Ratsun and will do a bit of searching, to avoid retyping the information

That was just an example.Didn't mean to make it so serious.I said "harm" not torture.Jesus.

[frankendat]

1 hour ago, john510 said:

That's a perfect example of fiscal irresponsibility from the Democrats.There are so many more.How about reparations for Blacks in San Francisco ? Jesus WTF ? How the hell do people get elected that support that shit ? Mind boggling.

They are elected by those wanting what they are selling. It is easy to understand, take a segment of the population, that feels disenfranchised, feels treated unfairly. Historically, race has been used to separate, I believe at present, it is more economics, but that is a subtle distinction. The difference between the very rich and very poor has never been more extreme. If presented an avenue to obtain more money without sacrifice, few would decline it.

I'll provide a personal example: Recently, when discussing my primary assache- being forced from my home of 30 years, because of insane, (an increase of more than 10x since 2000) property tax, a good friend of mine urged me to let go and realize I will be forced out of my home. Instead of campaigning and talking/debating legislators, stop wasting time and realize that I will be forced to leave my home and the State where I have spent my life.

I don't like that reasoning and I really don't like that it is more probably than not--true. So I feel disenfranchised, feel treated unfairly and if given an opportunity to stop it (there isn't one, Idaho Democrats and Idaho Republicans champion growth without restraint.)  by voting in a candidate who promised to save my home, even at the cost of slamming the economy, I would seriously consider it.

[paradime]

At one time or another, theft ,murder, rape, and even harming children have been deemed justifiable within a given circumstance. A universal law or truth would hold that right and wrong are fixed and self evident. I just don't see where that exists even with our supposed knowledge of good and evil. When has all humanity ever agreed on anything? Some believe that it's our own folly to rely on the legal system and the political process to tell us what's acceptable behavior, but what be the alternative? 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2023 by paradime

[frankendat]

3 minutes ago, john510 said:

That was just an example.Didn't mean to make it so serious.I said "harm" not torture.Jesus.

It is where these conversations go, first it is harm, then it goes to kill, but what about killing in self-defense or war, then it drifts into collateral damage and maybe the number of lives saved vs children killed by the atomic bombs in WWII. Agreement is difficult on whether child harm is ever justifiable. Torture, not torture to "find the bomb" or whatnot, torture  without purpose would be the worst torture. The worst torture applied to the most vulnerable, most cherished is the greatest evil.

One might think that dissecting that was a waste of time, because who would ever argue against it? It must be a "universal" or "absolute" truth. If that is true, then why does it exist?

And now I wait to dismantle the free will argument or we can branch off into "Can an executioner love their job?" 

[datzenmike]

Absolutely an executioner can love his work but he wouldn't be within the definition of a 'normal' human being. John C Woods was the executioner at the Nuremberg Trials. How hard was it to calculate weight and drop to snap a neck? yet some had their heads torn off and some strangled to death over 20 minutes.

 

 

[a.d._510_n_ok]

16 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

My motto in life is simple... Try not to be a cunt.

 

I dunno, man.....some days that's asking a lot, ya know?

[frankendat]

21 hours ago, datzenmike said:

Absolutely an executioner can love his work but he wouldn't be within the definition of a 'normal' human being. John C Woods was the executioner at the Nuremberg Trials. How hard was it to calculate weight and drop to snap a neck? yet some had their heads torn off and some strangled to death over 20 minutes.

 

 

Please provide the definition of a "normal" human. Are you going for the "average"? I believe the "normal" human in the United States, is one major personal catastrophe from being homeless, one unfortunate set of circumstances, or one zealous audit, from being criminal.

But, returning to our happy executioner, I present that the rationale behind not allowing for a joyous execution has something to do with a belief in the sanctity of human life. However, unless you accept that life is predetermined and there is no such thing as free will (which turns my stomach and I refuse to accept, despite the fact that those with proven intellect far, far, greater than mine support, e.g. Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris) As a believer in free will, all aspects of life are open to change, including humanity. Therefore, someone who chose or chooses to kill or harm another in a manner not excused by law (mine or societies), forfeits their humanity and their life is no longer sacred; their destruction cause for celebration.

[datzenmike]

Well I don't think I could be an executioner no matter the crime or the prescribed punishment for the guilty. The death penalty being outlawed in most civilized countries for good reason. Death is absolutely certain but justice is not. The condemned should forfeit their right to walk among the rest of humanity but with the remotest chance for reprieve. Having said that, it might be different if I was the aggrieved party in a murder or heinous crime but again justice is not certain and mistakes are made.

 

War, which is diplomacy by other means, is another matter. As a last resort, killing in defense of your yourself your family, home and country is allowed. If you have trouble killing there are other ways to support the war effort.

 

[bottomwatcher]

Frankendat your state doesn't have any kind of homestead exemption that keeps you from getting taxed out of your home? Florida for all of its craziness does have this protection as long as it is your primary residence and you don't rent it out your taxes can only be raised a few percent a year. My second home in Maine different rules and well, your Fucked. I see up there what happened to you and that sucks. You should be able to own your place and not worry because the taxman wants to make a grab on your perceived value of your home. My home in Maine is less than 1/3 the value of my Florida residence and taxes are within $50 of each other. I get that there are fewer people to share road maintenance ect.  but I pay a bucket of money for shitty roads, non existant fire protection and up the ass for vehicle registration. Anyways rant over. Good luck.

[Ooph!]

On 4/2/2023 at 5:37 PM, frankendat said:

They are elected by those wanting what they are selling. It is easy to understand, take a segment of the population, that feels disenfranchised, feels treated unfairly. Historically, race has been used to separate, I believe at present, it is more economics, but that is a subtle distinction. The difference between the very rich and very poor has never been more extreme. If presented an avenue to obtain more money without sacrifice, few would decline it.

I'll provide a personal example: Recently, when discussing my primary assache- being forced from my home of 30 years, because of insane, (an increase of more than 10x since 2000) property tax, a good friend of mine urged me to let go and realize I will be forced out of my home. Instead of campaigning and talking/debating legislators, stop wasting time and realize that I will be forced to leave my home and the State where I have spent my life.

I don't like that reasoning and I really don't like that it is more probably than not--true. So I feel disenfranchised, feel treated unfairly and if given an opportunity to stop it (there isn't one, Idaho Democrats and Idaho Republicans champion growth without restraint.)  by voting in a candidate who promised to save my home, even at the cost of slamming the economy, I would seriously consider it.

 

Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann were property tax advocates in California back in the 70's that came up with a ballot initiative Prop 13 that is still with us and protecting California Homeowners by limiting increases to inflation or 2%.

 Maybe you could start there https://www.hjta.org/ and organise an Idaho version

[frankendat]

28 minutes ago, bottomwatcher said:

Frankendat your state doesn't have any kind of homestead exemption that keeps you from getting taxed out of your home? Florida for all of its craziness does have this protection as long as it is your primary residence and you don't rent it out your taxes can only be raised a few percent a year. My second home in Maine different rules and well, your Fucked. I see up there what happened to you and that sucks. You should be able to own your place and not worry because the taxman wants to make a grab on your perceived value of your home. My home in Maine is less than 1/3 the value of my Florida residence and taxes are within $50 of each other. I get that there are fewer people to share road maintenance ect.  but I pay a bucket of money for shitty roads, non existant fire protection and up the ass for vehicle registration. Anyways rant over. Good luck.

Thanks, I was jealous of your States handling of new comers last time we spoke. Our misery over the problems created by the influx of the masses made for good company, but your State makes those requiring additional service, pay for the additional service (impact fees) My State makes everyone pay. So, new comers are not only annoying they force long term residents to leave. I have new found admiration for all the grumpy old men I have met, there was good reason for their grump. 

Homeowner's exception is capped a $100,000. There has been a fight to double it for years, but even doubling it will be little help. Like Florida, impact fees are necessary at least. Raising tax liability based on the subjective and illusory science of what other people covet is unjust and criminal. It is stealing my land. For those who think all American  land is stolen,  is that a point of pride? Enough to believe it should be repeated? At least if War is officially declared there is opportunity to fight to protect what you claim. Here property taxes are included in the monthly mortgage. It is of no matter that the tax portion of the bill, dwarfs the mortgage portion. If unable to pay it is simple foreclosure, another American living above their means. Fight? Kill the sheriff and the repo man? It would make no grand statement, no one is going to join the uprising of someone who can't pay their bills. The manipulation of property tax to take from the poor and give to the rich is unseemly and grotesque, but not illegal.

It bothers me because it is out of my control. I hate my fate rides on the whims of the wealthy. Injustice is a splinter in my mind.

[frankendat]

39 minutes ago, Ooph! said:

 

Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann were property tax advocates in California back in the 70's that came up with a ballot initiative Prop 13 that is still with us and protecting California Homeowners by limiting increases to inflation or 2%.

 Maybe you could start there https://www.hjta.org/ and organise an Idaho version

It was brought to Idaho, brought to a vote, and passed. After a couple of years, without great fanfare or publicity the Legislature overturned it. Rich Democrats want high property tax for fancier schools and more public services, rich Republicans want more residential property tax and less business property tax to promote growth. Both do not want growth to pay for growth because that would raise home prices (Democrats cry housing is already too expensive, Republicans cry growth paying for growth would slam the economy)

Neither will admit the truth, Idaho's growth rate is unsustainable. It is not a debate, the growth rate cannot be maintained at current levels; it is mathematical fact. The multi unit block apartment complexes throw up all around will become ghettos, but they don't have to---so quickly.

Start dialing back the growth rate through fees and regulation, just a little at a time to keep Idaho growing, even growing at an "unsustainable rate" but at a rate that keeps Idaho desirable for another couple decades. As long as other places are worse, there will still be growth, a fire sale is not necessary.

As far as "affordable" single family homes, for Boise, that ship has sailed. Condos in my neighborhood are at 1.4 million, house less than a block from me went for 2.5 million, anyone building around here is not building affordable housing.

[a.d._510_n_ok]

the Biden administration may very well kill the petro dollar with their arrogance.

[Ooph!]

7 hours ago, a.d._510_n_ok said:

 

the Biden administration will kill the petro dollar with their arrogance.

 

There, I fixed it for you

[Str8jacket]

Your dollar that is "under attack" from evil other nations is the same dollar that is causing people to lose their homes under ever increasing tides of immigration and taxes. 

The 80% increase in supply of so called money is causing the same issue that's going on in your back yard, state, country to happen in every country in the world. 

Ironic that people can discuss how to stop the effects of the US dollar fucking the shit out of them within the US. But if another country is trying to stop themselves from going under its an attack. Better nuke the fuckers to oblivion to protect ourselves. There is no fucking way the world is going to convert to a BRICKS currency, who wants China to control the money supply? No, we are in for decades of slow decay, or your government blows up the planet, hard to say what happens first. But the FIAT money system is what it is and now the death spiral has started they are going to print to infinity.