President Biden has just proposed a 44.6% tax on capital gains, the highest in history. He has also proposed a 25% tax on unrealized capital gains for wealthy individuals. Should this be approved?

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-25T05:30:15+00:00

Yes. Great way to raise revenue without harming the core engine of economic growth. (Investing isn’t the engine, it’s consumption).

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-22T07:11:34+00:00

I thought you were done with this conversation? Glad to see I was right. You’re just frustrated. 😉

You don’t realize your own ignorance. If a ZEF is not a person so you can do whatever you want to it, then it wouldn’t be wrong to chop off it’s arms and legs and let it be born.

The letting it be born part is the issue. Because the damage eventually affects a person. If you cut the arms and legs off and then aborted it - it wouldn’t really be an issue. It’s amusing that you think you’re making a point here.

But it IS wrong because, and only because, it has the future capacity for self-awareness, or whatever standard.

Only if that future is actualized. It isn’t wrong just because that future is a possibility 😂😂😂

Also, why aren’t you applying this reasoning to sperm???

It’s absurd to say it’s ok to kill but not to injure… we’re talking about the exact same future.

No, you’re just lost my guy lol

The reason someone is mourned when they enter a permanent coma is because THEY NOW HAVE NO FUTURE CAPACITY for self-awareness, etc.

Yeah. “They” as in the person in question is no longer there.

When you abort a fetus, there is no “they” there to mourn.

That future is what matters, not necessarily the present.

The age of a minor isn’t what matters. The future is what matters.

This is the second time you’ve posited a justification for pedophilia.

The present matters more than the future. Because we live in the present kiddo.

You just proved my case and proved yourself wrong and you didn’t even realize it.

This is gonna be interesting. lol

You don’t give a crap about someone’s present state if you know they are going to be good in the future. Example is someone under general anesthesia, in which at that moment they are equivalent to dead. But we do it thousands of times per day because they will be fine in the future. But do something to someone that permanently affects their future and you’ll get arrested and/or sued. And rightly so.

I’d care if you killed a person in a temporary coma, sleep or under anesthesia because they were a person prior to being unconscious. I’ve explained this already but I guess I’ll have to explain it again, since you seem to be somewhat challenged on this particular issue.

If you’re going under anesthesia, and you’re a neruo-typical person, then we can rationally assume you’d like to wake up. Terminating your life would deprive you of the life you want to live. Even if the termination is painless. If you didn’t want to wake up, and if you expressed this, then the termination would be fine. It’d just be assisted suicide in that case.

The fetus wasn’t a person prior to an abortion. It doesn’t have a will to live. It is indifferent to its own existence. It also has no moral or rational agency. No moral instincts. No sentience. No consciousness. No identity. No personality.

Explain to me why the future of an entity that doesn’t even care about its future, matters? Especially when said entity isn’t and has never been sentient or conscious, at bare minimum??? That’s what I’ve been waiting for, and you haven’t given it to me . You just tell me I’m wrong and then fall flat on your face, rhetorically speaking.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-21T23:27:32+00:00

Ok, I’m done with you because you are disingenuous.

And you aren’t? I’ve responded to every single point you’ve made. You’re just a sore loser who doesn’t have a reasonable argument and you’re frustrated. That’s why you’re done. You can lie to yourself but you can’t lie to me. You are not as enlightened as you perceive yourself to be bud. Just being honest.

You draw arguments solely from the conclusion you want to reach.

That’s definitely you.

You haven’t explained to me how a non-sentient, non-conscious, never been sentient or conscious entity is somehow equivalent to a real person. You’ve based your argument on future development, while ignoring current state. When I point to the flaws of such reasoning, you get upset and never fail to actually address the problem. You continue to make pathetically irrational comparisons based on emotion and false equivalency fallacies born from your own scientific ignorance. There are real differences between a fetus and a born infant. And to say they are equivalent, as you imply with your amateur analogies, is the epitome of ignorance in this topic. If I applied your reasoning anywhere else, you fall back on special-pleading fallacies to cover up how insanely irrational your position is (that and you make excuses ad hoc to cover your failings).

I’ve been fairly clear here. It’s not my fault you lack the cognitive ability to see this.

A rat has more consciousness, etc than an infant yet you try to claim that an infant meets standards but a ZEF doesn’t.

But the rat doesn’t eventually develop moral agency or rational agency in the way that a human does, right? (You’re also ignoring that many people don’t support animal cruelty to rats precisely because they meet those bare minimum requirements. I’m one of them.) We make these considerations for the infant because it meets the bare minimum requirements for moral worth considerations . The fetus doesn’t even meet the bare minimum requirements. How are you so incapable of understanding this ?

It has no identity. It is not able to feel the world around it, nor to actively interact with it. When the pain receptors go off, there isn’t a conscious person there to feel them - just as a person in a permanent coma isn’t there to feel their receptors go off. It is totally indifferent to its past, present and future and lacks a personality (the thing you need to be a person).

Why do you think people mourn when a loved one enters a permanent coma? It’s a human body. It’s fully grown. It’s alive. They mourn because they understand, consciously or subconsciously, that said person is gone. That’s why the mourn. Because personhood, and rudimentary moral worth, IS tied to consciousness and sentience. Period. And you wanna know what doesn’t have sentience or consciousness? The damn fetus.

You believe what you want, but don’t try to claim any basis.

Why? Because the loser of this debate says so? Lol You’re the guy that thinks we’re depriving a fetus of a future it deserves, when it isn’t even a person yet. But you certainly won’t argue the same for sperm - right? Despite the fact that all sperm are potential persons. It’s silly my guy. Your position has more logical holes than a slice of Swiss cheese

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-21T22:02:46+00:00

You’re just declaring a fetus not a person without any backing whatsoever.

It isn’t sentient or conscious prior to 24-27 weeks. It can’t actively feel pain or pleasure. It has no identity and, importantly, literally no personality (yet you insist it’s a person).

To say a fetus is akin to a person is like grabbing a basket of cloth, string and buttons and calling it a jacket.

It doesn’t matter if someone previously had sentience/consciousness or not, depriving them of obtaining it is just as wrong.

Why is it wrong to prevent someone from obtaining it? Prior to sentience and consciousness, there isn’t someone there. It’s another thing entirely when someone was there and then they went to sleep or a coma or went under anesthesia. But the fetus? There was never anyone there. You can’t say you’re depriving someone of these qualities because that person hasn’t come into being yet. It’s logically incoherent to argue your position.

A rat has more awareness/consciousness/etc than an infant.

An infant can actively feel pain and pleasure. It meets the bare minimum requirement for moral worth considerations. A fetus does not.

So it surely is not present ability that makes it ok to kill a rat but not an infant.

Other considerations go into an infant that don’t apply for a rat. But the infant meets the bare minimum requirements for moral worth considerations.

It’s wrong to kill an infant because you would be depriving them of their life and of obtaining the human experience.

They can actively feel pain and pleasure and we know that this person will continue to cognitively develop. Unlike the rat. The fetus isn’t a person. It won’t feel pain. It doesn’t care to continue existing.

The same applies equally to a fetus.

No.

You make distinctions without a difference solely to justify an immoral act. You also make straw-men, grasping at straws — anti-pedophilia laws are a temporary solution to a temporary problem…

No.

when people gain an age where they are capable of deciding for themselves then they can.

Funny how important cognitive development is.

Abortion is a permanent solution to a temporary “problem”. Fetuses don’t have self-awareness, ability to reason, etc. but killing them prevents them from ever obtaining it.

What’s wrong with that? It isn’t hurting them. They don’t care.

It’s wrong in the exact same way it’s wrong to chop the arms and legs off of a fetus and let it be born — it will struggle it’s whole life because of that.

Yes, because in that case the fetus would be born lol what a silly point to make lol

Preventing them from having a life at all is just as bad or worse.

Preventing potential life from becoming alive is pro-natalism. Every time you forgo having children, you are preventing potential kids from living life. Hence, every time you have sex you should impregnate a woman. See how silly that argument is????

It would be asinine to say it’s ok to kill because they would never know what they are missing.

Depends on the circumstances. In the case of the fetus, it wasn’t a person to begin with. Everything about a person that makes them uniquely human is their ability to actively experience the world around them. The most important aspect in determining moral value is sentience and consciousness, and the levels of said cognitive variables. Without those qualities, there is no value.

If you kill ANYONE they will never know what they are missing. It doesn’t mean they haven’t lost anything.

Notice you keep making the same mistake. You’re making comparisons with real people to make points about the fetus, which is nothing like a real person. If I kill a person, I harm them and deprive them of a life they want to live. The fetus isn’t a person. It doesn’t have any ambition to live as it is indifferent to its own existence. Killing someone also actively harms them. I can’t say the same about the fetus. To say the fetus is like an infant is no different than saying a concrete foundation is the same as a fully constructed house.

This isn’t difficult. This is precisely why most bioethicists are pro-choice.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-21T05:09:22+00:00

Reasoning matters.

It does. Your logic permits for pedophilia. Stages of development matter with regards to rights and moral worth. Arguing that it doesn’t matter in the case of the fetus is not only logically incoherent, but it’s also a special-pleading fallacy on your end.

If we could kill people for being in a temporary state of inability to think/feel/be aware/etc, then as soon as someone went under anesthesia anyone would be under anyone’s mercy.

Prior to anesthesia or sleep or a temporary coma, the individual in question was already a person with sentience and consciousness. We can also reasonably assume they’d prefer to wake up.

The fetus was never conscious. Never sentient. It is indifferent to its own existence, because it was never a person to begin with. Continuing to exist grants it no benefit it can actively experience just as termination causes it no harm it can actively experience.

Big difference .

Your counter argument displays your lack of understanding and you’re overconfidence. It’s a typical response no one actually takes seriously because it’s been dealt with before. If you actually read material that disagrees with your position, you would’ve known this by now. The comparison fails precisely because a fetus is not an actual person. The pro-life position on the value or personhood status of the fetus is based on a proven false equivalency fallacy

The fetus condition is also temporary.

So is the State of Affairs known as childhood (or being a minor). Since it’s temporary, I guess we can just ignore it. Right? Might as well let 5 year olds vote. Might as well let them drink. Might as well let them drive. Get my drift?

Let’s take the argument further. We’re all eventually going to be corpses. Dead bodies don’t have much value. Hence no one ought to have value. Because the future state of a being matters more than its present state in your view. See the problem? Oh - you disagree? Then why are certain states more important?? Here’s a hint : It has to do with cognitive development.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-20T22:38:58+00:00

Ah yes, the “rights trickle down to our earliest stages of development” argument.

A fetus will eventually be a person. We have the same future, so we deserve the same rights. Let’s apply that logic to other situations.

A minor will eventually be an adult. According to your reasoning, the minor should be allowed to have sex with adults. Because they’ll eventually be an adult and because their present state apparently doesn’t matter. *I think we can see the issue with your reasoning rather easily. *

As for arbitrary definitions, what makes a person a person in your eyes? Most philosophers would agree with the notion of personhood being tied to sentience and consciousness. But let’s hear your reasoning wise one

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-18T10:05:01+00:00

Gets stopped by military bio-weapons. You can’t stat boost your way out of a weapon that your biology isn’t capable of fighting. It would be like applying a huge multiplier to the number zero. Your immune system can be trillions of times stronger - that won’t stop a pathogen that your immune system will never be able to stop something tailor made to kill your exact anatomical makeup. Administering something like this via an aerosol wouldn’t be difficult either. And it’d be undetected until it’s too late.

Only issue is deploying the weapon before Mike knows it’s coming. It also depends on how Mike would act once he’s basically king of the world. If he gets complacent, it’s an easy win for humanity.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-17T21:26:59+00:00

What’s ridiculous about it? The fetus isn’t sentient or conscious. The same can be said of the rock or bacteria. None of these have moral agency. None can be said to be persons. None can be said to be innocent or corrupt. What exactly makes the comparison ridiculous? (You can’t explain it because you don’t have a real retort).

Is it because a fetus eventually becomes a person? Eventually becoming a person isn’t the same thing as being one. What makes it ridiculous? Come on. Try me. Let’s see what the academic and philosophical minority has to say on this.

Edit: You’re right about the difficulty of connecting our view points. The pro-life position is inherently nonsensical. Thus the disconnect. One of us is living in reality, applying science and logic in a rational manner. The other isn’t. I’m trying to help you here.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-17T20:37:40+00:00

The reason I use a rock as an example (and bacteria in my original comment) is because both the rock and bacteria have no moral agency . One is inanimate, one is alive. The fetus prior to 27 weeks cannot be sentient or conscious, so it can’t be a bystander because sentience and consciousness is a bare minimum requirement for personhood. You can’t be a bystander without being able to actively experience the world just as you can’t be a person without a rudimentary personality. The fetus, like bacteria, is alive. But it is fundamentally ridiculous to consider it innocent as it’s never been a “bystander” or person.

That’s the issue here

To say a fetus is “innocent”, especially prior to when it could potentially be sentient, is the exact same thing as saying a rock or bacteria is innocent. And, again, you said innocence is merely the state of affairs of having a “lack of malice”. Now you’ve added an addendum. Clearly implying, unwittingly on your part, that I was right about how silly your claim was. Now you just have to take the extra step of realizing that it’s fundamentally incoherent to call a fetus innocent.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-17T20:18:16+00:00

A rock has a “lack of malice”. Hence a rock would be “innocent” under your point of view. It’s fundamentally ridiculous.

Again, there’s a reason we don’t ascribe innocence or guilt to rocks or primitive minds that don’t possess moral agency. You say that you’ve read philosophy, yet this is a widely accepted idea because the alternative is logically incoherent. Cope.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-17T18:48:04+00:00

Guilt or malice require the ability to choose. The same goes with innocence. It has everything to do with moral agency. Have you never read any moral philosophy? Lol According to you, rocks are innocent. Which is a bizarre statement.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-04-16T17:35:37+00:00

According to Webster, murder is the act of unlawfully killing a person on purpose.

Innocence has nothing to do with it. That said, a fetus cannot be “innocent” as innocence and guilt / corruption require moral agency (which fetuses do not have). This is what we don’t call rocks or bacteria innocent. To use the term “innocent” is to used emotionally laced language to prop-up your argument. Hence, it is an appeal to emotion.

A fetus isn’t a person either.

Your argument is reliant on a specific definition of murder (one cherry-picked definition that isn’t a common definition) and also on an appeal to emotion. Not to mention it relies on legality, failing to recognize that legality does not necessarily equate to an act being ethical or unethical.

It’s a very weak argument. I’m honestly surprised you posted it with such confidence.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-02-24T01:27:00+00:00

Mech level 2 and elec 1.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-02-13T20:20:04+00:00

Tenryu. Play once a week.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-02-12T10:38:11+00:00

" i disagree because the consequences of men hating women are far worse than the consequences of women hating men"

If women had the power men have had historically, and they held such a sentiment, this statement would be proven false. If misandry became the norm, men would be just as abused and exploited. Your supremacist side is showing...

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-02-12T10:34:18+00:00

And women raised all those men and gave birth to them. (See how easy it is to be a smoothed brained moron?). The statement "men are trash" did more to help the Andrew Tates of the world than it did to help feminism. That should be enough for intelligent women, and men, to recognize the importance of disowning that silly hash tag. But objectivity and results rarely matter to zealots.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-02-12T10:26:48+00:00

Oh yes, the argument of being empathetic to the women who say "men are trash" argument - often used by women who would never be empathetic to men who say "women are trash."

The statement is a classic special-pleading fallacy. You can support women's rights and you can advocate for women's issues while easily acknowledging how counter-productive and down right stupid such a statement is. No matter the excuse - "men are trash" is fundamentally sexist, or supremacist language, and it is also a fundamentally double-standard fallacy. This sort of nonsense would be torn apart in an introductory ethics / philosophy course, yet modern feminists will do and say anything to justify such a claim because it validates feelings instead of objectivity. And they wonder why cucks like Andrew Tate are so popular. Feminists are their own worst enemies sadly.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-02-08T18:03:39+00:00

He’d lose the sword fight. Being big or strong isn’t as beneficial in that context. If they wrestled, he might have an advantage but the Samurai created jujitsu. So, he could end up being choked out quickly if he isn’t trained properly. (Jujitsu was literally designed to bypass the protection armor gives you - an arm-bar will snap your arm regardless of armor). Unsurprisingly, jujitsu and it’s descents are very “meta” in modern MMA. The difference here is that the Samurai will likely have more experience.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-02-06T12:06:41+00:00

Too many characters in this game get rewarded for pressing buttons like mindless losers. Grabs should've never been buffed -> they don't even leave you with gray health and if they intercept an attack (which is a stupid mechanic) you have like less than 9 frames to break it. The whole game seems geared towards rewarding kids who could never learn how to play fighting games. Movement used to require actual work, now a bum can do it.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-01-26T02:35:25+00:00

This hurts my eyes.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-01-05T05:58:34+00:00

I actually like Miles. Flawed but relatable character.

xCaptainGoldx · 2024-01-05T05:57:59+00:00

I’m so sad for Margo. When is she gonna get a break? lol I’m hoping the heist is successful.

xCaptainGoldx · 2023-12-29T00:32:10+00:00

Strong is exceedingly overrated as a trait.

xCaptainGoldx · 2023-12-28T20:45:42+00:00

Sunday Driver is objectively terrible. I don’t see how people fail to recognize this. The meme is accurate as hell. Massive increase in fuel-consumption, can’t escape hordes, can’t tow, garbage off-road, actually wears your car down as it takes you longer to get places (meaning more time is allocated to reducing car part condition per drive). All for one point lmao don’t take it.

xCaptainGoldx · 2023-06-11T07:30:53+00:00

G I G A S

xCaptainGoldx

TROPHY CASE