Mainstream misrepresentation of how taxation truly works, it is never about "taxing the rich"

[ThinkOfOne]

Oh he's so transactional that he has written he would ignore a starving baby lying in the street unless somebody paid him to assist. Godelian has some order of ASPD. He is the rule following sort of psychopath and dislodging him from that path might not work out the way Big Mikey likes to think it will.

Sorry. Clearly I needed to be much more explicit in my request.

I'm asking about your question in and of itself - setting aside the Godelian/BigMike exchange. What I found curious was the phrase "people who don't predicate their morality on emotion". Can you explain what you had in mind there? Also, what "names" did you have in mind?

People who are morally motivated only by matters relating to personal gain, or ease of getting by, and as such are unmotivated by emotions, don't display empathy, pity, mercy and so on. The colloquial term is psychopath, although medically I believe there are slightly more varieties to consider.

Thanks for elaborating.

Seems like you have things backward. Those who are "morally motivated only by matters relating to personal gain, or ease of getting by" have their morality predicated by selfishness. Ultimately selfishness has its roots in emotions. From what I gather psychopathy and narcissism significantly overlap. They tend to go hand-in-hand. Isn't the lack of "empathy, pity and mercy" for those transgressed/not helped not a product of that selfishness/narcissism?

[FlashDangerpants]

Sorry. Clearly I needed to be much more explicit in my request.

I'm asking about your question in and of itself - setting aside the Godelian/BigMike exchange. What I found curious was the phrase "people who don't predicate their morality on emotion". Can you explain what you had in mind there? Also, what "names" did you have in mind?

People who are morally motivated only by matters relating to personal gain, or ease of getting by, and as such are unmotivated by emotions, don't display empathy, pity, mercy and so on. The colloquial term is psychopath, although medically I believe there are slightly more varieties to consider.

Thanks for elaborating.

Seems like you have things backward. Those who are "morally motivated only by matters relating to personal gain, or ease of getting by" have their morality predicated by selfishness. Ultimately selfishness has its roots in emotions. From what I gather psychopathy and narcissism significantly overlap. They tend to go hand-in-hand. Isn't the lack of "empathy, pity and mercy" for those transgressed/not helped not a product of that selfishness/narcissism?

Seems to me that enlargement of selfishness and reduction of fellow feeling for others sound like two ways of saying the same thing with one highlighting a negative and the other making a positive out of it. But I have no strong opinion on the matter.

[Age]

And, ONCE AGAIN, what 'we' have, here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of one 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT others AWAY FROM its OBVIOUSLY VERY GREEDY and SELFISH 'egotistical' MANNER and WAYS.

If you do anything else than calling emergency services, you will undoubtedly make the problem worse instead of better.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one saying the MOST IDIOTIC and Truly STUPID things, in the HOPE that SOMEHOW those words will back up and support their BELIEFS and/or previous CLAIMS.

LOL So, to "godelian" anyway, if a child is drowning before you, it is much better and much more wiser for you to NOT pulling the child out of that drowning situation and to just leave them there while you call emergency services, and just wait for them to arrive, BECAUSE if you do anything else, including saving their life, other than calling emergency services, you will UNDOUBTEDLY make the problem worse instead of better.

Don't force feed a starving baby or otherwise practice medicine without a license because that is not the solution. In everybody's best interest, let professional medical personnel look into the problem.

LOL 'we' WERE TALKING ABOUT HELPING and/or SAVING a child's life. Now, if you would to just talk about saving a child's life in one very particular situation, where, again, you still would IT do any thing, unless you get some sort of 'return', for "yourself", then so be it, but nothing really changes, here. That is you will NOT help absolutely ANY one unless, of course, you get some thing FROM them.

Also, you now introducing word like 'force', here, are NOT helping you in any way, shape, nor form, here.

[godelian]

LOL So, to "godelian" anyway, if a child is drowning before you, it is much better and much more wiser for you to NOT pulling the child out of that drowning situation and to just leave them there while you call emergency services, and just wait for them to arrive, BECAUSE if you do anything else, including saving their life, other than calling emergency services, you will UNDOUBTEDLY make the problem worse instead of better.

The following links to an interesting post concerning this thought experiment is: ‘Drowning Child Scenario’ Exposes Moral Hypocrisy — Part I. But then again, you'd better debate this thought experiment with someone else because I do not give a flying fart about it. I am not interested in "all" possible questions in philosophy. I tend to focus on the capital selecta that I choose.

You seem to get emotional about philosophical thought experiments. I don't. I acknowledge that most people don't care about me and that I don't care about most people. Welcome to the real world. I hope that you have had a pleasant bus trip arriving from Lalaland.

That is you will NOT help absolutely ANY one unless, of course, you get some thing FROM them.

Yes, that is the standard scenario. I may sometimes do things for someone else while expecting nothing in return, but that is the exception and not the rule. For example, I occasionally help people who are my kin without expecting anything in return. I would almost surely not do the same things for someone who is not my kin. The basis that I adopt for inter-person dynamics is indeed reciprocity. In order to get something from me, the general case is that you will have to offer something in return of equivalent value.

[Age]

LOL So, to "godelian" anyway, if a child is drowning before you, it is much better and much more wiser for you to NOT pulling the child out of that drowning situation and to just leave them there while you call emergency services, and just wait for them to arrive, BECAUSE if you do anything else, including saving their life, other than calling emergency services, you will UNDOUBTEDLY make the problem worse instead of better.

The following links to an interesting post concerning this thought experiment is: ‘Drowning Child Scenario’ Exposes Moral Hypocrisy — Part I. But then again, you'd better debate this thought experiment with someone else because I do not give a flying fart about it. I am not interested in "all" possible questions in philosophy. I tend to focus on the capital selecta that I choose.

I do NOT do 'debate', and, you do NOT do ANY thing for ANY one unless you can get some thing FROM them.

You seem to get emotional about philosophical thought experiments.

ONCE AGAIN ANOTHER Wrong ASSUMPTION was perceived.

I don't. I acknowledge that most people don't care about me and that I don't care about most people. Welcome to the real world. I hope that you have had a pleasant bus trip arriving from Lalaland.

ONCE AGAIN 'trying to' DEFLECT, here, is NOT helping you AT ALL.

That is you will NOT help absolutely ANY one unless, of course, you get some thing FROM them.

Yes, that is the standard scenario. I may sometimes do things for someone else while expecting nothing in return, but that is the exception and not the rule. For example, I occasionally help people who are my kin without expecting anything in return.

LOL
LOL
LOL

I would almost surely not do the same things for someone who is not my kin. The basis that I adopt for inter-person dynamics is indeed reciprocity. In order to get something from me, the general case is that you will have to offer something in return of equivalent value.

your basic principle IS you will NOT help ANY one, including saving a child's life, unless they will give you some thing in return.

And, it is because of people like you with this Truly GREEDY and SELFISH perspective, WHY 'the world' was in the MESS that it was in, back when this was being written.

[godelian]

your basic principle IS you will NOT help ANY one, including saving a child's life, unless they will give you some thing in return.

Your thought experiments are incredibly farfetched. How many random children have you already saved in your life?

This is a rhetorical question.

I am not interested in that kind of thought experiments. Frankly, I find them stupid. They are suitable only for a particularly retarded brand of virtue signaling. That kind of hypotheticals are plain dumb.

[Age]

your basic principle IS you will NOT help ANY one, including saving a child's life, unless they will give you some thing in return.

Your thought experiments are incredibly farfetched.

WHAT thought experiment?

I was just using YOUR WORDS and what 'you' TOLD 'us'.

How many random children have you already saved in your life?

This is a rhetorical question.

Well 'this' was obviously A WASTE.

I am not interested in that kind of thought experiments.

LOL

Frankly, I find them stupid. They are suitable only for a particularly retarded brand of virtue signaling. That kind of hypotheticals are plain dumb.

What are you even 'trying to' DEFLECT FROM, and TO, here, EXACTLY?

[godelian]

I was just using YOUR WORDS and what 'you' TOLD 'us'.

You have not literally quoted my words.

You have constructed a contorted version of my reply, which is your interpretation of what I would have replied to your imbecile hypothetical.

Question: Do you care about X?
Answer: Almost surely not.

Whatever the problem is, you can indeed safely assume that I probably don't give a flying fart. Furthermore, I repeat, I am simply not interested in your imbecile hypotheticals.

I get to choose what I care about, and not you or any of the other virtue signaling idiots.

[Age]

I was just using YOUR WORDS and what 'you' TOLD 'us'.

You have not literally quoted my words.

You have constructed a contorted version of my reply, which is your interpretation of what I would have replied to your imbecile hypothetical.

Question: Do you care about X?
Answer: Almost surely not.

Whatever the problem is, you can indeed safely assume that I probably don't give a flying fart. Furthermore, I repeat, I am simply not interested in your imbecile hypotheticals.

I get to choose what I care about, and not you or any of the other virtue signaling idiots.

it was you who claimed that you would not help ANY one, unless they provided you with some thing.

Are you now trying to suggest that this is not true?

[godelian]

it was you who claimed that you would not help ANY one, unless they provided you with some thing.
Are you now trying to suggest that this is not true?

I generally consider reciprocity to be the basis for interpersonal dynamics. However, there are some side notes.

The reciprocity may have to bridge long time gaps. For example, it may take twenty to fifty years before children start taking care of their elderly parents, if need be.

There is also the Islamic doctrine of "zakaat", i.e. mandatory charity which instructs the believer to set aside some small part of his wealth or income for assistance to the poor or the needy. But then again, that has nothing to do with unbelievers as they cannot claim rights under a moral system that they do not accept.

There are indeed niches of non-reciprocal situations but at the very least they require the existence of a common understanding of morality. They are therefore the exception and not the general rule.

[Age]

it was you who claimed that you would not help ANY one, unless they provided you with some thing.
Are you now trying to suggest that this is not true?

I generally consider reciprocity to be the basis for interpersonal dynamics. However, there are some side notes.

The reciprocity may have to bridge long time gaps. For example, it may take twenty to fifty years before children start taking care of their elderly parents, if need be.

What are you even 'trying to be' on about, here, exactly?

Creating ACTUAL DEFLECTION is NOT one of your strong points.

There is also the Islamic doctrine of "zakaat", i.e. mandatory charity which instructs the believer to set aside some small part of his wealth or income for assistance to the poor or the needy. But then again, that has nothing to do with unbelievers as they cannot claim rights under a moral system that they do not accept.

There are indeed niches of non-reciprocal situations but at the very least they require the existence of a common understanding of morality. They are therefore the exception and not the general rule.

AGAIN, it was you who claimed that you would not help ANY one, unless they provided you with some thing.
Are you now trying to suggest that this is not true?

Did you NOT notice the Truly VERY SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION being asked, to you, here?

EVERY one ELSE has.

[godelian]

AGAIN, it was you who claimed that you would not help ANY one, unless they provided you with some thing.

That is indeed the general rule. The few exceptions are explained by Islamic law.

[Age]

AGAIN, it was you who claimed that you would not help ANY one, unless they provided you with some thing.

That is indeed the general rule. The few exceptions are explained by Islamic law.

LOL 'the' 'general rule'.

This one, AGAIN, 'TRIES TO' DEFLECT.

It IS 'your rule', and NOT some so-called 'general rule'. In fact, unlike you, MOST adults would do things for children, without wanting absolutely ANY thing in return.

you, REALLY, do have very narrowed, and skewed, views, and perceptions, here

[godelian]

[In fact, unlike you, MOST adults would do things for children, without wanting absolutely ANY thing in return.

Such as feeding someone else's child without the permission of its parents? As an adult male, unless you happen to be a teacher, it is even uncommon to interact with other people's children. It is mostly considered to be inappropriate anyway.

[Age]

[In fact, unlike you, MOST adults would do things for children, without wanting absolutely ANY thing in return.

Such as feeding someone else's child without the permission of its parents? As an adult male, unless you happen to be a teacher, it is even uncommon to interact with other people's children. It is mostly considered to be inappropriate anyway.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, 'DEFLECTION' is NOT your BEST ATTRIBUTE, here.

you have CLAIMED that you would NOT HELP ABSOLUTELY ANY one, including children, UNLESS you GOT SOME thing, FROM them.

Now, you can 'TRY' EVERY TACTIC you like to 'TRY TO' DEFLECT and DETRACT the readers, here, but MOST ALREADY KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, here.