The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 12:31 am 1) Is taxing the wealthy in order to pay for social programs "theft" and therefore immoral, or is it not the case that taxing the wealthy in order to pay for social programs is "theft" and therefore immoral? Which is it? Is the statement True or not true?

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 12:42 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 12:31 am 1) Is taxing the wealthy in order to pay for social programs "theft" and therefore immoral, or is it not the case that taxing the wealthy in order to pay for social programs is "theft" and therefore immoral? Which is it? Is the statement True or not true?

Gary, do you realize that you are posing morality questions to a person who believes that it will be perfectly okay for God to savagely and mercilessly torture infants and toddlers in Hell for ETERNITY?
_______

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:01 am

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 12:42 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 12:31 am 1) Is taxing the wealthy in order to pay for social programs "theft" and therefore immoral, or is it not the case that taxing the wealthy in order to pay for social programs is "theft" and therefore immoral? Which is it? Is the statement True or not true?

Gary, do you realize that you are posing morality questions to a person who believes that it will be perfectly okay for God to savagely and mercilessly torture infants and toddlers in Hell for ETERNITY?
_______

IC will simply say he's "never said that". He simply believes that God is benevolent, and therefore not believing in God is worthy of eternal Hell. Unbelievers deserve it if they are the least bit aware of the existence of the Bible.

And ordering people to commit genocide is a divinely righteous order. Some peoples, such as the Amalekites, have it coming to them and therefore deserve genocide all the way down to women and children. The Bible is right about everything. There's nothing in the Bible that isn't sacrosanct. We should all spend copious amounts of time learning the Bible down to every last detail. Forget logic books and science. All we need to know is the Bible. Quoting from the Bible amounts to a refutation of anything that doesn't agree with the Biblical quote being recited.

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:29 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:01 am

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 12:42 am
Gary, do you realize that you are posing morality questions to a person who believes that it will be perfectly okay for God to savagely and mercilessly torture infants and toddlers in Hell for ETERNITY?
_______

IC will simply say he's "never said that". He simply believes that God is benevolent, and therefore not believing in God is worthy of eternal Hell. Unbelievers deserve it if they are the least bit aware of the existence of the Bible.

And ordering people to commit genocide is a divinely righteous order. Some peoples, such as the Amalekites, have it coming to them and therefore deserve genocide all the way down to women and children. The Bible is right about everything. There's nothing in the Bible that isn't sacrosanct. We should all spend copious amounts of time learning the Bible down to every last detail. Forget logic books and science. All we need to know is the Bible. Quoting from the Bible amounts to a refutation of anything that doesn't agree with the Biblical quote being recited.

Yet you still spend vast amounts of time debating him and seeking his opinion on certain issues.

Are you just toying with him?

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:29 am Are you just toying with him?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:48 am I don't think either one of us is "toying" with the other. We clearly have differences in what we believe. Arguing and debating things is what people do when they disagree, so that mutual agreement can be reached (if mutual agreement is even possible). If mutual agreement cannot be reached, then it's a matter of demonstrating to those reading the debate, who is more in touch with truth or reality.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:48 am Unless I'm mistaken, your position seems to be that I am wasting my time. If so, then it's a fair point, and it's entirely possible. However, it keeps my mind busy and keeps me out of a morose state of depression.

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 2:34 am

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:29 am Are you just toying with him?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:48 am I don't think either one of us is "toying" with the other. We clearly have differences in what we believe. Arguing and debating things is what people do when they disagree, so that mutual agreement can be reached (if mutual agreement is even possible). If mutual agreement cannot be reached, then it's a matter of demonstrating to those reading the debate, who is more in touch with truth or reality.

All of that, of course, makes good sense, Gary.

However, the problem is that IC can be quite eloquent and persuasive at times, and if readers aren't familiar with some of his core beliefs, then they can be fooled into thinking that he is a fair, honest, and rational person.

Now I don't mean to be mean-spirited about this, and I am not suggesting that IC can't be correct in some of what he argues about, but I think you understand what I'm getting at.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:48 am Unless I'm mistaken, your position seems to be that I am wasting my time. If so, then it's a fair point, and it's entirely possible. However, it keeps my mind busy and keeps me out of a morose state of depression.

Well, in that case, do carry on, and I'll end this by quoting one your favorite replies...

..."fair enough".
_______

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:01 am IC will simply say...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:01 am IC will simply say...

Gary, why are you asking me questions, when you claim (errantly) already to know what I will say? But let's see if you're right about that.

Socialists envy. It's their only "virtue." They look at what somebody who has more than them has, and grind their teeth in anger. But you know what they never look at? Those below them.

2/3 of the world lives at a level far below you. All those billions of people have a Socialist-envy claim against you: you are the wealthy one. The possessions you have should, from a Socialist perspective, already have been given to them and divided "to each according to his need," as they say.

But you don't do it, do you? Do you not hold that your own possessions, if not stolen or otherwise illegitimately obtained, are your own? And are they not? Are you, inasmuch as you own things, "abolishing private property"?

I suspect not. At the minimum, I know you own a computer -- which none of them can dream of affording. And you have a tennis racquet, which is a very bourgeois kind of luxury...they have no such luxury.

What Socialists need to do (among other things) is look at the real claim that the world's poor have against them, on a Socialist theory of things. They can start to talk about what should happen to the possessions of those more blessed than them just as soon as the Socialists themselves have fully divested themselves of their possessions, thus demonstrating their unhypocritical and sincere commitment to Socialist dogma.

Until then, they're just hypocrites. We can ignore them. They don't believe what they say they believe, because they never practice it for themselves.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:01 am IC will simply say...

Gary, why are you asking me questions, when you claim (errantly) already to know what I will say? But let's see if you're right about that.

Socialists envy. It's their only "virtue." They look at what somebody who has more than them has, and grind their teeth in anger. But you know what they never look at? Those below them.

2/3 of the world lives at a level far below you. All those billions of people have a Socialist-envy claim against you: you are the wealthy one. The possessions you have should, from a Socialist perspective, already have been given to them and divided "to each according to his need," as they say.

But you don't do it, do you? Do you not hold that your own possessions, if not stolen or otherwise illegitimately obtained, are your own? And are they not? Are you, inasmuch as you own things, "abolishing private property"?

I suspect not. At the minimum, I know you own a computer -- which none of them can dream of affording. And you have a tennis racquet, which is a very bourgeois kind of luxury...they have no such luxury.

What Socialists need to do (among other things) is look at the real claim that the world's poor have against them, on a Socialist theory of things. They can start to talk about what should happen to the possessions of those more blessed than them just as soon as the Socialists themselves have fully divested themselves of their possessions, thus demonstrating their unhypocritical and sincere commitment to Socialist dogma.

Until then, they're just hypocrites. We can ignore them. They don't believe what they say they believe, because they never practice it for themselves.

I don't own any means of production. I own only what I need to live.

The means of production are what Marx called "private property", what I need to live, Marx called "personal possessions."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:42 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:26 pm
Gary, why are you asking me questions, when you claim (errantly) already to know what I will say? But let's see if you're right about that.

Socialists envy. It's their only "virtue." They look at what somebody who has more than them has, and grind their teeth in anger. But you know what they never look at? Those below them.

2/3 of the world lives at a level far below you. All those billions of people have a Socialist-envy claim against you: you are the wealthy one. The possessions you have should, from a Socialist perspective, already have been given to them and divided "to each according to his need," as they say.

But you don't do it, do you? Do you not hold that your own possessions, if not stolen or otherwise illegitimately obtained, are your own? And are they not? Are you, inasmuch as you own things, "abolishing private property"?

I suspect not. At the minimum, I know you own a computer -- which none of them can dream of affording. And you have a tennis racquet, which is a very bourgeois kind of luxury...they have no such luxury.

What Socialists need to do (among other things) is look at the real claim that the world's poor have against them, on a Socialist theory of things. They can start to talk about what should happen to the possessions of those more blessed than them just as soon as the Socialists themselves have fully divested themselves of their possessions, thus demonstrating their unhypocritical and sincere commitment to Socialist dogma.

Until then, they're just hypocrites. We can ignore them. They don't believe what they say they believe, because they never practice it for themselves.

I don't own any means of production. I own only what I need to live.

Your computer and your tennis racquet are luxuries. Maybe you imagine they're essentials: but 2/3 of the world can't dream of having them, and could use the money you are hoarding for food and medicine. Do you care? Do you do anything about that? Or are you just happy to remain among the world's 10% of most wealthy (which you are), and bellyache about the 1% who are the uber-prosperous?

The means of production are what Marx called "private property", what I need to live, Marx called "personal possessions."

I knew you'd try that excuse. But you know your computer and your tennis racquet are luxuries, not essentials. If you say they're not, then Nancy Pelosi's swimming pool and Bernie Sanders three remaining houses are also "personal possessions" and not "means of production." And you should stop envying them, because their retention of those things is, according to your pseudo-Socialist theory, not up for grabs anyway.

You don't believe in Socialism, Gary. You only believe in pillaging those above you. You don't take any personal responsibility to redistribute your own benefits and privileges to others.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 2:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:42 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:36 pm

I don't own any means of production. I own only what I need to live.

Your computer and your tennis racquet are luxuries. Maybe you imagine they're essentials: but 2/3 of the world can't dream of having them, and could use the money you are hoarding for food and medicine. Do you care? Do you do anything about that? Or are you just happy to remain among the world's 10% of most wealthy (which you are), and bellyache about the 1% who are the uber-prosperous?

The means of production are what Marx called "private property", what I need to live, Marx called "personal possessions."

I knew you'd try that excuse. But you know your computer and your tennis racquet are luxuries, not essentials. If you say they're not, then Nancy Pelosi's swimming pool and Bernie Sanders three remaining houses are also "personal possessions" and not "means of production." And you should stop envying them, because their retention of those things is, according to your pseudo-Socialist theory, not up for grabs anyway.

You don't believe in Socialism, Gary. You only believe in pillaging those above you. You don't take any personal responsibility to redistribute your own benefits and privileges to others.

A computer is not a "luxury" in this day and age.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 2:29 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 2:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 1:42 pm
Your computer and your tennis racquet are luxuries. Maybe you imagine they're essentials: but 2/3 of the world can't dream of having them, and could use the money you are hoarding for food and medicine. Do you care? Do you do anything about that? Or are you just happy to remain among the world's 10% of most wealthy (which you are), and bellyache about the 1% who are the uber-prosperous?


I knew you'd try that excuse. But you know your computer and your tennis racquet are luxuries, not essentials. If you say they're not, then Nancy Pelosi's swimming pool and Bernie Sanders three remaining houses are also "personal possessions" and not "means of production." And you should stop envying them, because their retention of those things is, according to your pseudo-Socialist theory, not up for grabs anyway.

You don't believe in Socialism, Gary. You only believe in pillaging those above you. You don't take any personal responsibility to redistribute your own benefits and privileges to others.

A computer is not a "luxury" in this day and age.

It certainly is.

You're using "spoiled Westerner" as you standard of what's not "luxury," obviously. In places where I've lived and travelled, it certainly is a luxury beyond anybody's wildest dreams. So stop making excuses and answer the question: have you redistributed your wealth?

Orwell, it is said, once told the English Socialists, "You don't love the poor; you just hate the rich." Apocryphal or not, the saying perfectly captures the Socialist spirit. It's not about the poor, or equality, or justice or fairness: it's about how to covet and acquire the possessions of those who have more.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 2:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 2:29 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 2:07 pm

A computer is not a "luxury" in this day and age.

It certainly is.

You're using "spoiled Westerner" as you standard of what's not "luxury," obviously. In places where I've lived and travelled, it certainly is a luxury beyond anybody's wildest dreams. So stop making excuses and answer the question: have you redistributed your wealth?

Orwell, it is said, once told the English Socialists, "You don't love the poor; you just hate the rich." Apocryphal or not, the saying perfectly captures the Socialist spirit. It's not about the poor, or equality, or justice or fairness: it's about how to covet and acquire the possessions of those who have more.

If people in the third world were paid comparable living wages by the industry owners who employ them, then they might be able to have access to affordable computers also.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 2:38 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 2:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 2:29 pm
It certainly is.

You're using "spoiled Westerner" as you standard of what's not "luxury," obviously. In places where I've lived and travelled, it certainly is a luxury beyond anybody's wildest dreams. So stop making excuses and answer the question: have you redistributed your wealth?

Orwell, it is said, once told the English Socialists, "You don't love the poor; you just hate the rich." Apocryphal or not, the saying perfectly captures the Socialist spirit. It's not about the poor, or equality, or justice or fairness: it's about how to covet and acquire the possessions of those who have more.

If people in the third world were paid comparable living wages by the industry owners who employ them, then they might be able to have access to affordable computers also.

No, you, Gary...you're the Socialist. Stop telling other people what to do, and show that you are a Socialist. How have you redistributed "to each according to his need"? You. You. You.