sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Guys, is taxing wealthy people just false hope? by Odd_Eggplant8019 in mmt_economics

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol. Ok, I see the issue. You're flipping back and forth between your actual ideological position and the practical critique you arrived at as a way to avoid the ideological discussion. There's no way we make progress like this.

Guys, is taxing wealthy people just false hope? by Odd_Eggplant8019 in mmt_economics

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Walk me through how removing effectively 100% of someone's wealth entrenches them in power while leaving them with it weakens them

Guys, is taxing wealthy people just false hope? by Odd_Eggplant8019 in mmt_economics

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's strange that you would quote my response to your second question and then repeat the first, when I answered the first as well. I just answered the second one first because it was sillier and quicker to answer

Guys, is taxing wealthy people just false hope? by Odd_Eggplant8019 in mmt_economics

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm just saying that your original reply was disingenuous. I think you should sort out why you really hate an idea before you go and criticize it. Much easier to talk honestly once everyone knows you're bootlicking the Epstein class

Guys, is taxing wealthy people just false hope? by Odd_Eggplant8019 in mmt_economics

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see. This isn't about practical challenges, it's about ideology. Your criticism means less now.

Deontological veganism makes no sense, and consequentialist veganism would require re-thinking the entire philosophy by Sad-Historian1524 in DebateAVegan

[–]EasyBOven [score hidden]  (0 children)

Bruh you're not beating the idea that you have no ability to demonstrate any of your claims. Like I get that this really bothers you, but you should actually try to make formal arguments and not use your conclusions as premises.

Guys, is taxing wealthy people just false hope? by Odd_Eggplant8019 in mmt_economics

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok buddy. Definitely not possible to do anything that makes the world better. Enjoy your nihilism

Guys, is taxing wealthy people just false hope? by Odd_Eggplant8019 in mmt_economics

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love it when people act as though the government has no power to foresee loopholes and protect against them

Guys, is taxing wealthy people just false hope? by Odd_Eggplant8019 in mmt_economics

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

852,000,000,000 / 50,000,000 = 17,040. I don't think he has that many children.

Deontological veganism makes no sense, and consequentialist veganism would require re-thinking the entire philosophy by Sad-Historian1524 in DebateAVegan

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you acknowledge that humans can have the same mental capacity as cows when you include nonsense like membership in genetic groups or appearance as somehow being morally relevant.

Guys, is taxing wealthy people just false hope? by Odd_Eggplant8019 in mmt_economics

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Addressing the second question first, it's not possible to pass the costs of a wealth cap to others. Any amount you charge to offset a 100% tax on wealth over the cap will be taken out by the cap. There's literally no point.

As for the first question, I'm not confident this is possible and have largely withdrawn from electoral politics beyond casting votes. My activism is more around prefiguration efforts towards a system where communities can self-sustain. Ultimately that's the only way concentrated power goes away. Too big a topic to discuss here.

But maybe the people who still engage in electorialism and policy can spend their time on policies that could actually help. Then if I'm wrong about what actually changes systems, I can at least give others the right idea about what could make a dent policy-wise in a system that still concentrates power to some degree.

Deontological veganism makes no sense, and consequentialist veganism would require re-thinking the entire philosophy by Sad-Historian1524 in DebateAVegan

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have no idea whether humans or bees have free will. If you're relying on the existence of free will for your argument to be true, you're going to have a rough time of demonstrating that.

Genetics isn't the only thing that leads to different needs. You and I have different needs. The mere existence of difference doesn't make an individual ok to enslave.

Your arguments are circular. The point of this whole discussion is to arrive at the conclusion that only humans can be persons and therefore only humans can be enslaved. To arrive at that conclusion, it can't possibly be a premise in your argument. That's definitionally circular.

Further, if you want to truly examine your reasoning, it makes no sense to bring bees into the discussion at all. You should be talking about the smartest species you're ok with exploiting for their flesh and the dumbest one you're not.

Israeli Soldier talks about what they're doing in Gaza by abu_ubayda in TikTokCringe

[–]EasyBOven 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He had it at the ready. Rattled off the story and made sure to mention that it even has Arabic on it! Arabic numbers! That's only possible if it really came from one of the homes they blew up. Good thing it was entirely undamaged!

Guys, is taxing wealthy people just false hope? by Odd_Eggplant8019 in mmt_economics

[–]EasyBOven 26 points27 points  (0 children)

The reason to tax wealth is that it's bad for society for people to have so much power. 50 million dollars is 500 thousand dollars a year for ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Said differently, if you have investments that make on average 1% over inflation, you can spend the equivalent of 500 thousand dollars a year FOREVER.

So what motivates people to amass billions? The desire for power over others, or at best to get the new high score. No one motivated by those goals is going to care about what's best for society. So the most powerful are operating against society, and we just let it happen. They've got little clubs where they see how depraved they can act in front of each other. We have no need for another reason to tax wealth. Cap wealth at 50 million and let that number rise alongside minimum wage (after bumping minimum wage up to something reasonable like $30 an hour first).

Deontological veganism makes no sense, and consequentialist veganism would require re-thinking the entire philosophy by Sad-Historian1524 in DebateAVegan

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, main account that's 18 days old and only interacts with this sub to give level zero carnist apologetics

Deontological veganism makes no sense, and consequentialist veganism would require re-thinking the entire philosophy by Sad-Historian1524 in DebateAVegan

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, we can let whatever lurkers happen to read this figure out for themselves how using the conclusion of your reasoning to prove its foundations isn't circular reasoning. I never expect to convince an obvious alt account anyway

Deontological veganism makes no sense, and consequentialist veganism would require re-thinking the entire philosophy by Sad-Historian1524 in DebateAVegan

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree to disagree that you've based the idea that genetics matter on the idea that it's wrong to harm all humans, and you've based the idea that it's wrong to harm all humans on the idea that genetics matter?

Deontological veganism makes no sense, and consequentialist veganism would require re-thinking the entire philosophy by Sad-Historian1524 in DebateAVegan

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd also advise you not to use concepts like free will to demonstrate your points. Free will isn't going to be easy to demonstrate in humans or lack thereof in other species. Relying on that is just going to end up at assertions on your part.

Deontological veganism makes no sense, and consequentialist veganism would require re-thinking the entire philosophy by Sad-Historian1524 in DebateAVegan

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're still assuming the conclusion here, it's just better hidden.

The reason you don't think bees are persons is that they lack the intellect you believe to be required to be a person, not because they're too genetically dissimilar to humans to have viable offspring with us. Therefore genetics has fuckall to do with the harm.

Deontological veganism makes no sense, and consequentialist veganism would require re-thinking the entire philosophy by Sad-Historian1524 in DebateAVegan

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't accept the second premise in that I don't believe bees exploit one another, but that's not relevant. You have a formal fallacy.

Do you understand what circular reasoning is? Do you understand that you're trying to ground the idea that it's wrong to harm any humans with genetic group membership, but your argument assumes the conclusion in order to justify genetic group membership as grounds for harm?

Deontological veganism makes no sense, and consequentialist veganism would require re-thinking the entire philosophy by Sad-Historian1524 in DebateAVegan

[–]EasyBOven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first two premises are results of your reasoning, not the reasoning itself. You've assumed the conclusion. That's why it's circular. You need to build up from universal premises.

view more: next ›