Athias

Shila is wrongly muted and if I were the site president right now, I would be opposing this ban (which may be coming) or mute (at present) as wrong reasoning.

You're not very smart, are you? 

And pretty emotional, too, right? 

It certainly looks impressive to me. Several steps up from the anime previously.

You look the type that would urinate in public as a way to encourage others to urinate with you.

You have failed to state a coherent point about corporal punishment or those who support it. 

To whatever extent you have convinced yourself into thinking that you've done otherwise, your imagination is where that delusion begins and ends.  

But yes, I assume you're probably still spanked by your parents.  I assume you're Korean.  I've had enough Korean friends to know they were spanked by their parents, how often, for how long, with what and why.  

But you're almost certainly no older than 14-15,

Your use of language suggests you lack the maturity to take responsibility for your own actions, which is probably a significant contributing factor to why you're still spanked. 

For example, you externalize blame to "those people" who support or at least do not oppose corporal punishment.  You call them "psychopaths," but say no more.

So, I get both your age and your educational level (as well as the fact that you're still a student)\

from both how you are making the point you're making and how you're psychologically reacting to those who disagree with you. 

To illustrate, you have an unsophisticated yet concrete understanding of psychopathy. 

So, psychologically you've not matured at the same rate that you've physically grown and you'd be generally behind the curve, relative to a typical adolescent.

But the fact that you felt humiliated is reflected by what you said in response to me.

Now, here me when I say this:  There is absolutely no reason to feel humiliated because your parents spank you. 

The next time your parents spank you, after its over ask yourself why you were spanked.  Ask yourself "What have I done that brought about this result?" and "How could I have acted differently, that might have prevented me from being spanked?"  And the lesson you should be taking from that self reflection is not to become better at avoiding getting caught.  It is to recognize the behaviour that caused them to spank you, and stop doing it.  

If the IRS knew Which income brackets pay no taxes on the dividends received from or sale of their stocks. We wouldn’t have tax cheats anymore.

58% of Americans own stocks. But stocks are part of their employment pension and retirement plans.

Owning stocks is one way to defer paying taxes. But only the very rich can cheat on their taxes by hiring fancy accountants.

It's not a child

it exists the same as a cancer tumor exists as well. We don't call the tumor a child, now do we!

You just took what I said out of context

with an irrelevant example, and a really bad example at that. 

It's absolutely 100% true. Again, you're taking what I said out of context with an irrelevant and really bad example. Children do not contribute to society until they mature to the age of adulthood. When they are educated and entering the workforce and interact with others and provide useful across a spectrum of ways, and not just employment.

Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s. That paper concluded with a strong out-of-sample prediction regarding the next two decades: “When a steady state is reached roughly twenty years from now, the impact of abortion will be roughly twice as great as the impact felt so far. Our results suggest that all else equal, legalized abortion will account for persistent declines of 1 percent a year in crime over the next two decades.” Estimating parallel specifications to the original paper, but using the seventeen years of data generated after that paper was written, we find strong support for the prediction. The estimated coefficient on legalized abortion is actually larger in the latter period than it was in the initial dataset in almost all specifications. We estimate that crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s.

The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime over the Last Two Decades | NBER

This is a well-known study, but I guess less educated folk wouldn't know it. 

Partially correct.

Is this question in reference to something specific I said in this thread, or are you asking about the nature of law in general?

I do agree abortion is a moral issue but it's also a legal one.

The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans are the nation's most egregious tax evaders, failing to pay as much as $163 billion in owed taxes per year, according to a Treasury Department report released on Wednesday.

What percentage of Americans cheat on their taxes?

Your worst case scenario: up to five years in prison. Six percent of individuals 'fessed up to cheating on their taxes.

Cannot have empathy for that which does not even exist, yet. 

In no world or society on this planet is a born child's rights more important than the adult's life.

The adult contributes to society, a child does not.

Born human life (i.e., [a] human being/[a] person) does have value, a pregnancy does not until birth. A pregnancy is NOT "another human (being)".

And since study after study has shown that unwanted children, those born to single parent homes, contribute greatly to the crime problem in human society, abortion reduces crime, among other social/cultural ailments.

The black out of wedlock birth rate went from 20% to over 70% at the turn of the civil rights movement, which resulted in an exponential increase in criminality among black male youth leading to career adult criminals. Unwanted children, children that a single parent simply cannot care for, becomes society's problem that costs more than just money to deal with. 

I assume that, being Korean, your parents whipped or spanked you to the extent you did not bring home A's when you were in school.  Or, if you are in school now, I assume you are still whipped or spanked by your parents whenever you do not bring home A's.

This is because your parents want the best for you.

If your parents did not care, they would let you fail. 

By imposing consequences, they affirm the extent to which they want you to succeed.

Wanna know how they turned out?  

They're engineers, doctors and one is an accountant now. 

so anyone who disagrees with you is a psychopath? 

The wealthiest 10% of American households now own 89% of all U.S. stocks, a record high that highlights the stock market's role in increasing wealth inequality. The top 1% gained over $6.5 trillion in corporate equities and mutual fund wealth during the pandemic, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve.

Owning stocks is a way to defer paying taxes.

Objective mode: This combined with the diary, the sniffing, the pool story, the lack of Epstein related prosecutions all combine to give the pedo witchhunt crowd plenty of material to work with; if he had any marbles left he would be extra careful but he doesn't. The man is not responsible for what comes out of his mouth at this point, he belongs on the rocker; and saying "we go way back" is hardly an admission of pedophilia.

Gated community residents pay for the repair of their roads themselves,

Rather than pay the government to do it,

Besides, what is the government often but an interfering middleman,

Paying private contractors to pave the road.

Though I suppose one could argue the government is an 'attempt at fairness to all, and that all people are equally spent tax money on,

I make a point of the word 'attempt,

He is not compelled. If he doesnt want to work for the coop for the wage decided by its workers, he can go to another coop. He can work alone, if he wants. But if he does decide to work for any coop, he gets an equal vote on setting prices and wages.

Equal vote matters to workers, since it allows them to run a buisness and not get exploited. So it matters to a dissenter too.

Selling the land is banned in Communism. After the owner dies, the land is usually distributed to his children. I dont see why would he be allowed to sell it and deprive his children of it.

Actually, the only difference between Communism and Capitalism is that in Capitalism the rich own the means of production. In Communism, the workers own the means of production.

Workers coops set prices according to supply and demand. If the product isnt selling, they have to either lower the price either change buisness. 

If a single worker works on a farm, he sets price to his products. If the product doesnt sell, he lowers the price according to the market demand. This same thing happens when there are more workers.

He earns more money. This means other coops have to compete to also produce a good product.

This is market Communism, or workers coops.

Its not free to Capitalists, since they cant exploit the workers anymore.

In Communism, the workers mostly trade with other workers because workers own all buisnesses.

Capitalism allows Capitalists to own buisnesses and earn money based on that.

Yes, she is "working". But the main distinction is that in Communism, she wont get as rich as she would in Capitalism.

Is it fair to have others work for you while you consume most of what they produce leaving them with only little bits of their work?

Who should be the owner of the things I produce?

In Capitalism, in most cases, workers can only sell to the Capitalists.

This allows Capitalists to get richer.

Since in Communism, workers earn more, they have better life standards.

Yes, but both are produced by workers. And sure, not all workers produce products of equal quality. This is why in Communism, the worker will earn more if he produces product more desired by the market.

Like most other countries. If you dont pay taxes, you cant work.

Individual sovereignty can be implemented in Communism too. It just takes majority of the people to support it.

Yes, but if that sovereignty is to exist, someone has to defend it.

Someone with power has to defend it.

If individuals are left alone to defend themselves, their sovereignty wont last long.

If they unite by majority of them making decisions, you have democracy.

So if it wont be by democratic choice, who will defend the individual sovereignty? Individuals?

Communism can exist without the state. But whether that would be good or not, I am not sure.

Yes, I agree that participation should not be forced.

The assistance of others means all such cases would be decided by individuals who are around, or should I say majority of the people who are around. It will still be the majority deciding what is and what isnt a violation of sovereignty

 So how is that different from democracy or commune democracy? If it depends on majority to be upheld?

Products are wealth, since the wealth(money) is only good if it can buy products. No workers = No products = No wealth

Having money without work is an exploitation, since you are making a living thanks to someone elses work.

imagine if you lived on some plot of land, where you and your family could grow and store your own food, build your own shelter, and sew your own clothes

basically self-sufficient

you could FREELY-CHOOSE to travel to a factory and FREELY agree to work for some period of time

there is absolutely zero chance the historical jesus has white skin and silky brown hair

Hardly. 

When characters are written specifically to be/represent a certain race/ethnicity and sex (M/F), actors must reflect that in order to accurately reflect what the author/creator of the character intended. 

If diversity is necessary, then a new character and storyline must be written. 

The best approximation of this reasoning to monotheism and polytheism would incorporate an infinite regression argument which encapsulates neither.

How so? Can you outline where the infinite regress comes into play when applying the logic to theism?

P1) A Single God can be derived from Multiple Gods

P2) Multiple Gods cannot be derived from a Single God.

C) Multiple Gods seem more fundamental than a Single God.

P3) Multiple Gods exist.

C2) Multiple Gods are fundamental.

C3) A Single God is not fundamental.

P4) Monotheism denotes the belief in a single God and polytheism denotes the belief in multiple gods.

C4) Therefore, polytheism is true (derived from C2, C3, and P4).

the money the united states has spent "helping ukraine" could have solved homelessness three times over

try to imagine what that world would feel like

why would you express concern about qualifying for clothes unless you were afraid of walking around naked ?

https://youtu.be/CjrFHzwx5AU

In your example, the woman could have a private buisness only on her own territory.

On the territory of a collective, she has to follow certain rules. These rules are what makes capitalist private buisness impossible on collective territory. Number one being that all workers have equal vote.

Yes, there is a limit. You cant own too much land while others own none. In my opinion, everyone should own a piece of land, which represents their territory.

"No, they can't. Because Capitalists determine "desires" by using a free-flowing price system."

So do Communists.

Or allow workers to set price for the product they create, and then engage in free trade with other workers.

The entire point of workers owning a buisness is to let workers decide and trade between each other.

The labor theory of value:

This is a very old theory. It consists of "time value", by which a price of a product is determined by the usual time needed to make it.

The problem with this in practice is the difficulty of control. It cant be left to be managed by the workers, because then some workers might lie about the price. There would need to be mass control and inspection just to make sure prices are right.

Also, it gets complicated because some jobs have more intensive labor. Some others, like agriculture, would have to be calculated with a total sum of seconds or minutes of work in every day worked in a year.

Seems like a lot of work.

Arbitrary prices determined by the state:

This was a practice in USSR during Stalin. Similar problems as in previous case.

Also, the problem is that some workers might hide the products and sell them privately.

These two ways to calculate prices create many complications.

Its much simpler to just let workers decide the price of their products and engage in free trade.

Many people think that Communism abolishes free market. 

No.

Communism lets workers own buisnesses. Free market can still remain in many forms.

If they lived in Communism, workers would earn more. Since they are in capitalism, they earn less.

The distribution of products in capitalism is according to the amount of money. Since rich have more money, more products are distributed to them. In case of absence of the rich, those products are instead distributed to the workers.

I agree that in capitalism, she would make a lot of money doing basically nothing.

So this is more fair towards those who actually work.

No workers = No products'

Workers can create products without capitalists.

Capitalists cannot create capital without workers.

Since workers produce all capital, capitalists are not necessary.

This happens all the time. One capitalist exploits the workers and acquires capital from them. Then trades that capital to the capital of other capitalists.

Assume you are my worker, and you made a chair.

I sell your chair to some other capitalist. In this scenario, you made the chair of that capitalist even tho you are not his employee but mine.

"Yes, but you are claiming that workers are "exploited" in Capitalism which connotes an unfair or inequitable arrangement, correct?"

Yes, unfair. 

The consent is given, yes. However, what options are present if consent is not given?

He can go seek other jobs, yes. And in every job, he will find a new capitalist exploiting him.

There would be no capitalists to exploit workers. Workers  would have more wealth. Those who produce would be those who consume. The rich, who produce nothing while consuming the products of workers, wouldnt exist.

"And which demographic pays the most for art?"

In North Korea, its the citizens. Through taxes.

The state only pays for it if workers pay taxes for it.

Who exactly has the incentive to defend individual sovereignty? Do the rich defend individual sovereignty?

Because sovereignty has to be defended if its going to exist.

Sovereignty is an ideal that cannot be realized unless most people support it and defend it.

If it shouldnt be democratic society, what should it be and who would control it?

What if the masses accept the idea of individual sovereignty and decide to defend it?

Yes, this is assuming there will be unanimous vote on all decisions.

Who appoints this "government"? The rich? The majority?

The reason why so many countries are either democracy either monarchy is because most other ways to ellect government get complicated.

Ideally, yes. However, you need military to defend yourself. Who controls the military and why he wont misuse that power? And who controls him?

In Communism, you can have that same power.

And the wealth is enjoyed more by those who produce it.

Instead of being creative, corporations like Disney are "blackwashing" traditional white characters, to be black like the Little Mermaid. Naturally it is causing backlash. The same as it has been for changing well-established characters like Superman and even 007, James Bond, to be "blackwashed" instead of the obvious solution: create your own new characters and stop ripping off well-established white (or other races) characters. All they are doing is causing further division. It's senseless and unneccesary.

i'm starting to think your account is an alt of rationalmadman

Not penalty. If she uses her beauty to sell burgers, she needs to be there selling them. Hence, working.

If she hires another beautiful woman as a worker to work instead of her, she risks that the other woman might take over her buisness. Also, its not privately owned buisness, so the workers included in it have an equal vote. 

In my view, people have sovereignty over their body and their territory. What is considered their territory? Their house, and a piece of land.

Same way capitalists determine it.

If buisness produces things that arent desired, it will fail. Hence, move to another buisness.

It is bad considering that later in Capitalism she will not work at all, but have others do all the work for her. Others will earn less money doing more work, because she is taking most of it for herself.

Your argument was that capitalists provide the capital to the workers.

Workers create all wealth and all capital in the society. Capitalists are not needed.

Capitalist existence means that workers work more to sustain themselves and the capitalists.

Yes, the workers consent to work for the capitalist. They consent to the wage. My argument was never about their lack of consent in capitalism. 

They can quit and search for other job somewhere else.

Art is a product, in that case. So the production would increase in a sense that products desired by people would be produced.

People would buy art.

Same with history, in cases where those who know history can work on educational shows or politics.

Now about gender studies... maybe... if people are ready to pay for that....doubt it.

They are not gonna be prohibited, I dont see the need for that. Maybe they simply wont be financed. If people dont want to pay money to finance gender study, it goes to say that gender study would have to rely on unpaid volunteers.

The basic economical classes in Communism are:

1) The state

2) The workers

The state must be democratic, so controlled by the workers. State is funded by taxes. It return, it protects the workers and their property and their freedom to own buisnesses.

The basic economical classes in Capitalism are:

1) The capitalists

2) The workers

The capitalists own the capital and most of the means of production. Workers agree to work for the capitalists in trade for the wage. Capitalists allow workers to use means of production to produce products. From this, the capitalists usually gain profit.

The protection of property is regulated without the state. So it is privately regulated.

The economical structures look similar. Both societies are, in theory, based on consensual participation of every individual.

To expand on this point, 'God', as classically understood, seems fundamental to the universe.

The universe can be derived from God, but God cannot be derived from the universe.

However, this does not make God actually fundamental to the universe, as one would first need to show God exists. If God does not exist, then God cannot be actually fundamental (as there is no God).

Thus the breakdown. First, you show the relation between two things to see which seems more fundamental than the other, then you show existence to show it is, in fact, fundamental.

So, P1, P2, & C1 merely shows that "if Polycentric Manifolds exist, they are fundamental".

It is due to P3 that we can actually show C2 & C3 as true.

This means that a way to attack the argument, without the frustration that would come with trying to show that Monocentric Manifolds could be fundamental, is to try and argue that Polycentric Manifolds do not actually exist. Of course, it seems plainly obvious that they do, but it would be either show that or somehow show a way for Polycentric Manifolds to be able to be derived from Monocentric ones (or show that some third thing is, in fact, Fundamental to both).

Geez man you practically listed everybody, your better off saying the artists you do like instead.

The example which you provided is the example of free trade with later some hints of exploitation.

Free trade can exist in Communism in a way that you are free to sell your products at the price you set. And others are allowed to resell them.

Whether someone will get rich from that is not so important.

If your example was happening in Communism, the beautiful woman would still have to work spending her time selling burgers. She wouldnt be able to hire workers to work instead of her.

She would never have an empire.

If my buisness fails because of her, it means the products I produce are no longer wanted by society. So the state provides me with different job to produce products desired by society.

Notice that the same example in capitalism would maybe allow her to start an empire, earn much more money with much less work.

The capital of the rich was created by workers. The rich are not necessary in this situation.

"If one or more of the workers dissent, how is their input evaluated?"

Probably by a vote of majority.

Basically, if there are 20 people owning the buisness, they set wages by a vote. Every worker gets to vote. If most of them agree on a wage, thats what the wage becomes.

But this is only in the case where there is a production line.

The cost of production, to sum it up, is payed by the workers themselves. Either directly with their money, either helped by the state.

Who pays the taxes? The workers. But workers only pay the taxes that they have benefits from. For example, worker pays tax that allows education. In return, children are able to have an education. That increases production and quality of life in society.

So its for the benefit of a worker too and the society as a whole.

Altogether, we have:

A) Some form of theism is true.

P1) Monocentric Manifolds can be derived from Polycentric Manifolds.

P2) Polycentric Manifolds cannot be derived from Monocentric Manifolds.

C) Polycentric Manifolds seems more fundamental than Monocentric Manifolds.

P3) Polycentric Manifolds exist.

C2) Polycentric Manifolds are fundamental.

C3) Monocentric Manifolds are not fundamental.

P4) Monotheism is Monocentric and polytheism is Polycentric.

C4) Therefore, polytheism is true.

There are less than a dozen active posters. I faced little competition.

i'm not sure what kind of family you've experienced

but it would seem to be pretty rare for a family to let one of their members walk around without clothes

In accordance to work:

1) Workers are paid equal to their work. If worker produces 5 phones, he has 5 phones in money value. The only tax allowed is the one which benefits the worker.

Free:

2) There are things guaranteed to all. They are free in a sense that they are given even if no previous work is done by the individual. This includes house, piece of land, education, healthcare.

"What is your preferred description of communism?"

In simplest way, it is society without exploitation.

But one shouldnt stop at just that, but work for sovereignty of all people.

Now, what is exploitation?

In our society, nothing can be produced without workers. But workers earn very little money(wealth). The rich earn a lot of money. The rich didnt work to earn most of the money they have.

Workers must work to produce money for themselves and the rich.

Money(wealth) is used to buy products.

The economy is about production and distribution of products.

1) Workers spend time to produce products later distributed to the workers.

2) Workers spend time to produce products later distributed to the rich.

Workers working to increase the wealth of the rich, when rich dont work to equally increase the wealth of the workers, is exploitation.

Workers coops are one way to throw rich out of the equation.

Workers coops are owned by workers. Workers make the decisions by voting. I guess thats how the wages are decided. I dont know exactly how it works, but apparently its getting popular.

About state:

I do agree that the state meddling is not pure capitalism. However, state is not really something that just goes away. It sticks to capitalism just as it sticks to all systems. It is very hard to destroy it or minimize its influence.

well, it stands in stark contrast to "capitalism" which many treat as a "political -ism"

that's already basically the case

the police force is functionally indistinguishable from a local mafia

and if you really irritate your neighbors, they will take everything from you

communism is modeled after how a family operates

each member is motivated by a sense of loyalty and duty to the family

and not by pure profit motive

each member of the family still has their own clothes and their own room and their own personal possessions

but they also share many things

Well, people have different ideas about what Communism is.

However, in most of his works, Marx talks about exploitation being the greatest problem.

Today, some countries such as China, Japan and Vietnam have workers coops. Workers coop is buisness owned by workers, and it is considered as a form of Socialism.

In his words, all people and all countries have sovereignty, and no one should tolerate the violation of his sovereignty.

This ideology of Juche is like the advanced form of Communism.

If we assume that every individual has sovereignty over his body and his property, what makes a difference is how one earns property.

In Juche, some of it is earned according to work while some of it is free(such as a house, piece of land...).

In Capitalism, rich people multiply their money with very little work.

The masses are forced to work much more for much less money.

In capitalist countries, you dont have sovereignty over your body.

While the capitalist countries have made some small progress on the field of sovereignty, they still seem to prefer to violate sovereignty whenever they like.

that's actually a bit cartoonish

Also, Shila is most definitely a chatbot, or at least copy and pasting from a chatbot.

we have strong instincts to protect what we perceive as the most vulnerable

You should follow my latest debate about children being able to do whatever they want to their bodies. Its really just an expansion on self governing and personal sovereignty. Its an ideology that protects children not just from spanking, but also from circumcision and many other forms of unfairness