Philosophy Now Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 9:53 pm God didn't define 'property'.

People define 'property'.

That's your assumption, I accept. It's false, of course, but I accept that it is your assumption.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 6:42 pm [
Does that elucidate the concept?

No. Perhaps God has given the government custody over a portion of one's income, for all you know.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 11:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 6:42 pm [
Does that elucidate the concept?

No. Perhaps God has given the government custody over a portion of one's income, for all you know.

He hasn't. But if you think maybe He has, show where.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 11:35 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 11:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 6:42 pm [
Does that elucidate the concept?

No. Perhaps God has given the government custody over a portion of one's income, for all you know.

He hasn't. But if you think maybe He has, show where.

He has to the same extent that he give individuals custody over things. "Render unto Caesar..."

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 12:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 11:35 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 11:16 pm

No. Perhaps God has given the government custody over a portion of one's income, for all you know.

He hasn't. But if you think maybe He has, show where.

He has to the same extent that he give individuals custody over things. "Render unto Caesar..."

"...the things that are Caesar's." What do you suppose those are?

Oh the exquisite irony. The only one on here who resents taxes being distributed for services that will benefit everyone, including the poor, but is fine with them being distributed to arms manufacturers, is the only one who bleats incessantly about being a 'kristian'. The gift that keeps giving

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 1:34 am ...taxes being distributed for services that will benefit everyone, including the poor...

Do I need to point out to you the ridiculous examples of fraud found at USAID? Or how about the 186,000 dead people who were receiving food stamps? Does the 7.01 trillion dollars in bureaucrats spent in 2025 alone help the poor? How about the Democrats' war in Ukraine; is that helping the poor?

There are taxes at work...enriching government, and throwing peanuts to the people.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 2:01 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 1:34 am ...taxes being distributed for services that will benefit everyone, including the poor...

Do I need to point out to you the ridiculous examples of fraud found at USAID? Or how about the 186,000 dead people who were receiving food stamps? Does the 7.01 trillion dollars in bureaucrats spent in 2025 alone help the poor? How about the Democrats' war in Ukraine; is that helping the poor?

There are taxes at work...enriching government, and throwing peanuts to the people.

Give it up old man. It's the helping of the poor that you have a problem with, not any alleged corruption. A Govt. can't 'get rich'. Its tax revenue has to be accounted for. Probably the MOST corrupt, greedy and hypocritical organisations in the world are the so-called 'christian charities' that you advocate for. You are no more christian than every other 'kristian'. In fact you are the exact polar opposite of everything the Christ fictional character stood for.

ps. You are lucky he's fictional

IC didn't answer right away. This means that he has admitted that he has lost the argument and is conceding defeat.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 2:34 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 2:01 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 1:34 am ...taxes being distributed for services that will benefit everyone, including the poor...

Do I need to point out to you the ridiculous examples of fraud found at USAID? Or how about the 186,000 dead people who were receiving food stamps? Does the 7.01 trillion dollars in bureaucrats spent in 2025 alone help the poor? How about the Democrats' war in Ukraine; is that helping the poor?

There are taxes at work...enriching government, and throwing peanuts to the people.

...alleged corruption.

"Alleged"? I guess you don't watch the news.

He can't read either. What's the point in arguing with someone who can't read?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 1:11 am [

"...the things that are Caesar's." What do you suppose those are?

Taxes.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 3:25 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 1:11 am [

"...the things that are Caesar's." What do you suppose those are?

Taxes.

Nope. Things with Caesar's image and inscription. Haven't you actually read the text?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 3:31 am

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 3:25 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 1:11 am [

"...the things that are Caesar's." What do you suppose those are?

Taxes.

Nope. Things with Caesar's image and inscription. Haven't you actually read the text?

Don't U.S.legal tender bills bear the faces of "Caesars"? Wasn't Jesus referring specifally to taxes? Have you read the text?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 11:05 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 9:53 pm God didn't define 'property'.

People define 'property'.

That's your assumption, I accept. It's false, of course, but I accept that it is your assumption.

So, 'your assumption' is not false, while it is 'other's assumptions', which are false.

Do you have any actual proof for 'your assumption' and 'your claim' that people do not define 'property'?

If yes, then will you provide it?

If no, (to either question), then why not, exactly?

Why would a 'sane person' come into a 'philosophy forum', present 'their claim/s', and not have actual proof, or if so, then not provide the actual proof, for 'their claim', when asked?

What would be 'the purpose' for doing 'this', if there is any 'actual purpose' for doing 'this'?