Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote: Taxpayer? He only defrauded his employer.

Let's be careful not to stray off the point here, Bob. I don't know the details of the case you're referring to but if the research project he was working on received any government funding at all then the taxpayer was defrauded. If the project was entirely privately funded then it was the owners of the company involved who were defrauded, the owners of course being the shareholders. However this is not the point. The point is whether or not such fraud should be unlawful. You seem to be suggesting that it shouldn't be but I may have misunderstood your meaning. Will fraud be decriminalised under an AEP government?

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Taxpayer? He only defrauded his employer.

Let's be careful not to stray off the point here, Bob. I don't know the details of the case you're referring to but if the research project he was working on received any government funding at all then the taxpayer was defrauded. If the project was entirely privately funded then it was the owners of the company involved who were defrauded, the owners of course being the shareholders. However this is not the point. The point is whether or not such fraud should be unlawful. You seem to be suggesting that it shouldn't be but I may have misunderstood your meaning. Will fraud be decriminalised under an AEP government?

First of all, fraud is improper, and I trust that answers your AEP question. Secondly, the scientist only defrauded his employer, whomever that was. I'm sure he didn't work directly for the government, so he couldn't have defrauded the government. Thirdly, since the only proper function of government is social integration, it should only be involved in research relating to defense, not health, and if it was involved in this project, it is the U.S. government that defrauded its own citizens.

bobevenson wrote: First of all, fraud is improper, and I trust that answers your AEP question.

I'm afraid it doesn't, Bob. The question I asked is whether you believe that fraud should be unlawful, not whether you believe that fraud is improper. For instance I believe that wearing a mauve tie on a pink shirt is improper but I stop short of suggesting that it should be designated as a criminal offence.

Even though we are yet to clarify my terms of employment as your campaign strategist it's rather important that you clarify this position for your AEP manifesto. Your constituency will need to know where you stand on such matters and what legislation you propose to introduce which will overturn the status quo.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:.... Gaol? Learn English while you're at it.[/size][/b]

I think you will find that GAOL is the correct ENGLISH spelling, you fucking brain dead moron.

You call jail a gaol, you call the hood of a car a bonnet. You don't even know how to spell the word color. And there you are, trying to tell an American how to speak English!

The British expelled the ignorant and illiterate to the colonies, that's why you can't spell, or think.

You Welsh sheep shagging wanker.
You can't even spell your own surname.

bobevenson wrote:American English is used around the world,

No it isn't, Bob. Apart from in the US American English is not used in any country of the world where English is the first and primary language. However it is used in a few countries where English has been adopted as a second or supplementary language. It also seems to have been adopted as the language of the internet. Why is this a matter of such importance to you?

Obvious Leo wrote:American English also seems to have been adopted as the language of the internet.

The Internet is the world, my friend, and you're obviously not part of it!

Obvious Leo wrote:American English also seems to have been adopted as the language of the internet.

It's just a reflection of the current situation but there are a couple of billion Indians and Chinese who are building their own stuff.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote: First of all, fraud is improper, and I trust that answers your AEP question.

I'm afraid it doesn't, Bob. The question I asked is whether you believe that fraud should be unlawful, not whether you believe that fraud is improper.

Well, let me spell it out for you, when I say improper from a political standpoint, I mean the government should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent reoccurrence. I don't use the term "unlawful" since it refers to the literally billions of digital laws at the federal, state, county and local level that citizens couldn't possibly be familiar with. The only proper form of social control is analog law.

bobevenson wrote: The only proper form of social control is analog law.

This seems to be a term of your own invention, Bob, so perhaps you could explain what you mean by it.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote: The only proper form of social control is analog law.

This seems to be a term of your own invention, Bob, so perhaps you could explain what you mean by it.

For the most part, society gets along without everyone or anyone being familiar with the billions of laws on the books. People develop an osmotic understanding of acceptable behavior. This is the basis of analog law.

Osmosis
noun
2. a subtle or gradual absorption or mingling:
He never studies but seems to learn by osmosis.