Emperor Petitt
-
Posts
173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Emperor Petitt
-
-
Celica with a Blessed Sword, and Alm with his trusty Falchion in the endgame
-
5 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:
If you wish to avoid paying taxes, you pretty easily can. All you need to do is check out of all the things taxes pay for, such as infrastructure (roads, electricity, etc.), clean water, and the protections of your property, transactions, and person afforded by police, the justice system, and the monetary system, among many others.
In other words, go live in the wilderness and survive off what you grow yourself, and what you can barter for. Though, I suspect you'll find your life gets significantly less pleasant, and NOT because the government will try to track you down and throw you in jail. (Most governments generally don't bother trying to take tax from people who don't make or spend money.)
Treating taxes as extortion is ridiculous. You have monumentally benefited your entire life from the taxes you and others have paid. I consider myself relatively libertarian but your rhetoric is making me facepalm.
This line of conversation has long since ended to prevent fights. I ignored your comment and am just going to inform you of this.
-
5 minutes ago, Tryhard said:
Alright, so that first source is the daily mail of which on top of being questionable at best, has people in the comments cheering for the resolution and hoping for the same sort of thing to occur in western countries. Conservative values, I think.
Though I think he was imagining you saying that it happened for nations that aren't under heavy authoritarian regimes like China - which I would doubt you would want to live in anyway.
I was saying it for governments in general, not excluding one type or the other, in the US that is why I brought up the minimal punishment was jail, it can range. I would like to stress I do not agree with those conservatives, as killing someone for not paying taxes is a grand break of the non aggression principle or NAP. I not going to continue such a topic here as it is quite clear the end result would just be anger in one or both parties involved. (Though for reference I hate that source just as much as the government funded BBC for similar reasons)
-
4 minutes ago, Mortarion said:
Fucking what?! Show me how the Government kills you for not paying tax, because google is google is giving me nothing.
Right, so the Government getting money to provide for all the things that make society work is exactly the same as paying a mob so that they won't attack you? Bullshit. Explain to me how the Government putting money into healthcare, social services, education, ETC in any way comparable to 'give us money and we won't chuck a brick through your window'?
Taxation is two things; it is a buy-in by you so that you can benefit from all society has to offer, and it is (ideally) an investment by you so that society can improve for your benefit. You actually gain benefits from taxation beyond not getting your legs broken by some thug. Hence, the extortion comparison is faulty.
Again, bullshit. Show me any case where a person is shot in the head for not paying taxes?
Seriously, there are enough faults with current taxation systems and how Governments spend your tax money that you really don't need to fall back on this 'taxation is literally the same as a mob protection racket', 'they will shoot me in the head if I don't pay taxes' crap.
Governments do everything with the threat of force behind them. I found this in the first result in google: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1239060/China-shot-tax-evasion.html
If you want another basic example of what taxes are, say I mowed your lawn and went up to your door and demanded you pay me, and we didn't agree to me mowing your lawn in the first place, such an action is extortion.
another link for you simce you asked for proof, this time in Egypt, I hate using a Christian site but it gets the job done:
-
2 minutes ago, Mortarion said:
You sound ridiculous. Taxation is not extortion, that would mean the government takes money from you while giving nothing in return.
And what's the punishment for not paying taxes, at best you get thrown into a cell, at worst they kill you. Also extortion is must commonly used through a protection racket, and you do get something out of that, the same promise that your business won't suffer from accidents. Getting nothing in return is robbery, a different thing entirely. Even in the case of the landlord, does he then throw you into his personal dungeon and mentally torture you or shoot you in the head?
-
14 minutes ago, Res said:
Your original post talked about federal funds being used for abortion; they aren't, though. Every person pays for their own abortion (except in the cases Sias mentioned). And are you therefore against Medicaid, and against other medical institutions being reimbursed by Medicaid for medical treatments?
Considering those caused the healthcare crisis by artificially stimulating demand, and made it impossible for me and my father to pay for treatments for my now dead mother, yes I am.
-
2 minutes ago, Res said:
For the record, Planned Parenthood receives federal funds through Medicaid and Title X reimbursements for preventative care. The government doesn't give Planned Parenthood cash for PP to distribute as it wishes. Nor, if you're a non-Medicaid/Title X recipient, are you benefiting from government funding if you seek services at Planned Parenthood.
It is still getting cash from the government, which is a large scale protection racket. It could be getting it from the Mafia with the same restrictions and I'd still be against the source of funds.
-
5 hours ago, Sias said:
I realize this is a few day old already, but I still wanted to reply: Are you against any form of tax money going towards abortion in general or do you just have a problem with women getting pregnant on accident and then deciding against having a child (and therefore an abortion)?
If it's just the latter, you really shouldn't have anything to worry about regarding government funds going towards causes you disapprove off. I know that the government "wasting" its money on rectifying other people's "mistakes" is one of the Republicans' most favourite talking points (besides "But think of the children!!!" ofc), but even though they like to make you believe that you're paying for other people's abortions, you really aren't.
There does exist a law called Hyde Amendment which is in effect since 1976 already and prohibits " the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape". And because those three reasons for abortion are the ones that even pro-lifers commonly enough agree with, I really don't get why some people are still so much in arms about Planned Parenthood and such?
Taxation is money taken from extortion, I'm not against giving money to someone that wants an abortion if someone wants to do that. What I am against is forcing someone to pay for it by point of gun. I'm a card carrying Libertarian in the US not a Republican after all. If I was a mob boss running a protection racket, and I gave some of the cash I took from people to give someone else the money for an abortion, I'm still a criminal. I do know federal cash goes to businesses that make a profit, planned parenthood is one of these businesses, this is corporatism and has more in common with socialist ideas. The morality of an abortion has nothing to do with it, it could be a gun factory or a video game developer and I'd say the same thing.
-
2 hours ago, Michelaar said:
I am against both of these things.
In both of these cases, it's murder. The executioners are nothing better than the murderers or criminals themselves. And I think that there is nothing to be gained by having a criminal (or in a lot of cases, innocent people) killed. Wouldn't it be better for society if they would get rehabiliated? Send them to a prison, and let them commit Social works. Let them clean toilets, let them care for animals, let them cook dinners, let them sport, and I can think of a lot of other things. Rehabilitation is something I don't see any negative things in. Many murderers are not mentally well. Which is another reason why they should be rehabilitated, so that they may learn how to better their life. If the mental illness doesn't go away, them keep them in Jail or a mental hospital to at least care for them, and let them learn new things, so that they will get off the criminal path.
The only reason I would be for abortion, is if it would endanger the mother or child's life. In any other cases, i'm strictly against it. Because, it's murder. If you get raped, why would that give you permission to murder an unborn child? While they are unborn, they are very much alive. Giving someone permission to do abortion when they are raped, is like giving yourself permission to murder your little sister because your father abused you. That doesn't make any sense, does it? No, it doesn't. I have seen the argument of getting pregnant under influence, and it's the dumbest reason I have ever heard. THEY choose to drink. It's their choice. If you get pregnant while doing that, that's YOUR problem, not the baby's! You're really just murdering a child who had nothing to do with any of your problems. Especially people who knew that they could get a child, but didn't do much about it, and DID get pregnant, and then get abortion because they didn't want a child, are despicable people.
I do agree with you on both points, though I'd also like to bring up secondary evidence to enforce your later idea. People seem to forget the day after pill exists with a 90-85% effectiveness, and I'm positive that the price of 50 USD is far cheaper than an abortion. In fact for those that still failed, why would one sinply go through 8 months of pregnancy only to then think of an abortion? It's ludicrous at that stage, why wouldn't they do it in the first 3 months if at any time? I swear such incompetence by those wishing for an abortion at that stage can only be matched by Scotland's public services which are far worse than where I live.
-
1 hour ago, Cerberus87 said:
It's in the best interests of the US to support Europe though, since Western Europe has been historically a shield against Russian influence.
Now, please don't feel offended by what I'm saying, but I feel libertarianism is one of the most bizarre political stances that exist nowadays. It denies at least 500 years of political development. In political science terms, it's almost like trying to pass geocentrism as a valid scientific thesis today.
I find it even more bizarre that people forget that the bigger the government, the more likely it will fail and collapse. Case in point Charles V's empire that due to the many problems in the Empire, the problem of the Protestant reformation was ignored until the Thirty Years War, one of the bloodiest and brutal wars of the dawn of modern Europe.
-
4 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:
You fail to grasp that the reason we don't have the same level of healthcare as the rest of the world is because we have a military that's drunk on it's own power. If the field of medicine had the 600+ billion dollar budget that the US military does, I would sure as hell hope my healthcare was free and universal, even if I had to pay in the amount of time I would have to wait. I also understand that taxes are necessary (and that the US uses them as poorly as they do), but the 16th amendment was only the result of a decision from the Supreme Court, which means that as an amendment originating from the bench, should first be reexamined and, if necessary, repealed and replaced with a law that has equal emphasis on business taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and income taxes, as well as a flat tax of 25% of everyone's income, down to about 16,000 a year, which would be taxable at 10%, down to $9,000, which wouldn't be taxed (9,000 is close to the amount people on Social Security make every year, so yeah, not taxing the disabled or the elderly).
I am more than happy to scale down the US military, I'm tired of paying for the defense budget of Europe.
-
36 minutes ago, Tryhard said:
American libertarians - who always echo this "taxation is theft" rhetoric - are short-sighted, as a country without any form of viable taxation would be one with broken down infrastructure and abysmal public services that no-one except them would want to live in as it would be regressing to a time before modern efficiency and convenience - also vague about what "minimal taxation" is. As much as you criticise the government for their spending, very few individuals are going to spend to help their communities out of their own pocket. Especially when the social policies such as single payer healthcare are incredibly popular that is never going to happen under such a system.
A true libertarian "state" has never and will never exist. Actually, the closest to that right now in the western world is probably already the United States, aside from how they are usually against the huge amount of defense spending. Taxation is always going to be necessary, everyone understands that it is, and I'm sorry that you feel as though it is theft, but you always have the prospect of moving to somewhere else.
Alas, off topic.
I did not state taxation was theft, I stated it was extortion, they are two different things, learn what they mean. Ah yes "without government who would fix the roads" arguement, news flash, the government with high taxes already fails to maintain infrastructure, if you want proof of that just look at any road in PA not in Harrisburg, Philadelphia, or Pittsburgh. The biggest joke around here is PennDOT known for its incompetence when it comes to maintaining infrastructure, and to the north of me turns out NYC's entire infrastructure is falling apart due to a lack of maintenance since the state thought to push it back repairs even further. Also the because it's popular argument is a poor argument, do you think that if slavery was popular it should exist as well? I bring that up because a single payer system would make doctors slaves all but in name.
The USA a libertarian society? We spend over 60% of taxes on social security and the healthcare programs which caused the healthcare crisis to begin with, if anything those in the 1970s were shortsighted and did not see that when making such laws. Once again I said it was extortion not theft, they are two different things.
-
9 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:
Tax money can often go to support things one doesn't personally support. Military action, for instance. Or subsidies for certain industries. I definitely don't agree with giving people a carte blanche to veto how their tax money is used, so I'd certainly argue very strongly that at the very least any abortion which is done for the health/safety of the potential mother, or in the case of rape, should be publically funded, since that falls under healthcare to me.
Those incidents are already covered by insurance though. This is for an argument that money that was taken from someone by point of gun should not be used to give a business that is ALREADY turning a profit more cash. A business in that cash is just getting free money, and has less more motivation to decrease there prices to increase demand. You also assume I am for military action, which I've always been against as it is a waste of resources, and only manages to make things worse in our modern world, just look at Lybia or Iraq. I'm not referring to "a veto on how there cash is used" to paraphrase you, I'm calling for so little tax that the government only maintains a sense of order in society, anything else is stealing my cash by point of gun, extortion, which of anyone else does it the action is labeled as a crime, but it's okay when the state does it, bloody hypocrisy.
-
4 minutes ago, Cerberus87 said:
I actually don't know about the specifics of Planned Parenthood so I can't really comment on it. Sorry!
Though, to be fair, usually abortion is granted by public healthcare when legalized. I have no idea how it works in the American states where it's legal.
I don't really understand why it would be a part of Planned Parenthood, though, since abortion is not birth control and should not be used as such except for emergencies.
It's legal in PA so I'll give a short summary of how it works. Concerning medical emergencies where the mother's life is at risk abortion is covered by insurance in the first place. I can agree with your last statement, however most areas that give abortions do so with allowing it as a form of birth control, with using federal cash to intake more revenue to expand even though such places like Planed Parenthood already make a profit (and while yes Planed Parenthood does offer services outside of abortion, most of their revenue comes from selling it to the masses).
-
11 hours ago, Cerberus87 said:
I'll be very clear and people may not like what I have to say, but I find it necessary to do it.
I think these subjects aren't as closely related as people think. They both deal with life, but they're not really the same thing.
I don't find the conservative take on it hypocritical, because their opposition to abortion does show the conservatives value life, to an extent. The thing is that a foetus being gestated is simply something different from a grown up person who's in the death row. The foetus does not have any flaws of character whatsoever, because it's not yet born, while criminals are considered "broken beyond repair", which is why people support death penalty.
I'm in support of legalizing abortion and banning the death penalty. But, especially in the case of abortion, this will not come without negative consequences of its own.
I'm not saying for a ban on abortion or a constitution of the death penalty, but I'll avoid my death penalty talk as we both agree it should go even for different reasons. Abortion on the other hand I'm against using federal funds to give, for example Planed Parenthood, cash they extorted to a cause one may or may not support. I'm saying let it be legal, I just don't want to be forced by point of gun to give human number xxx-xx-xxxx, the cash to pay for an abortion when I don't know this person and I have nothing to gain. However if someone wants to do it voluntarily, go right ahead, I won't stop you. I just don't think one should have to do something without his consent.
-
I'm against both of these things, and let me state why in simple terms. For the death penalty there is the cost of having to kill the person, then the cost of having a funeral for the individual has to be taken into account. Personally to save resources, for those convicted of murder that reasonable doubt has been eliminated, I'd put the individual in a straitjacket, then push him out to the middle of the ocean on a small wooden boat. I'll never see the psychopath again, and compared to having to feed him/her every day or killing him/her and paying for the funeral, the person is simply gone. No for more basic crimes such as theft, of course rehabilitation should be undertaken, I know not all crimes are equal to one another. Yes it's barbaric, I agree with that statement, but I do not consent to the use of my income that was extorted from me to pay for anything for a murderer, but I understand that you can not let them back into society, if a better alternative exists except feeding him everyday, along with paying for any health related issues with him, I'd take that in a heartbeat. When it comes to abortion, I'm not stating an outright ban, such thing for the incompetent government to do is pointless as those in power can barely decide what briber they want to have a free lunch with on a dayly basis. Instead I'd prefer the government allow it yes, but not give a single cent towards it (this extends to allot of things in government as well, these assholes are so useless that they waste billions of dollars on useless shit). Sure if you support it and wish to give your money voluntarily to abortion or anything else for that matter, go right ahead. As for me, I would want to buy modern artillery so I can form an effective private militia to remind those in power that they are to serve the people they voted for, with a modern day Battle of Athens on a larger scale would be the punishment for failing to understand that.
-
19 hours ago, Lyon's Dirge said:
And therein lies your problem. Fire Emblem is a TRPG not a RPG. Gaiden and Echoes fail at both. GameXplain and NintenDann saying it feels a lot like an actual traditional RPG is nothing to be happy about.
Fire Emblem is not a tabletop role playing game. At best it is a computer turn based strategy game with computer role playing game elements, or CTBS with CRPG elements. I find it annoying that people use TRPG to mean tactical role playing games, when from my community it means tabletop role playing games; was it too hard to put a C at the front for the people who made that acronym in the first place?
-
Then Morgan is 100% confirmed to have a father/mother complex that see needs a therapist to work out.
What if Phila was secretly a bloodthirsty supernatural entity that only appears human due to some really complex magic, and the likable parts (in universe) to her are an act?
-
is actually correct as it just happened today
-
Still has a mother alive.
-
802,701, well that was a fun thread guys see you in the next one.
(serious count now 27,989)
-
Mates, I'm getting swarmed by Tiki, please send help.
-
3 hours ago, Rezzy said:
So when are we supposed to get the results, exactly? Are they doing an audit for voter fraud or something?
I think Jill Stein is bitching that she put in the application for a recount late, again, and holding up the results from coming out : P
-
2 minutes ago, escotanner said:
Dammit! I wanted Linde, Caeda and Marth! I already had Barst and he's...stronger than his FE11 and FE12 counterparts...if that's even possible.
Do you want Roy? I don't want him and I get him twice ( I know you can't trade, I just don't want him again)
What Would You Do If You Woke Up With The Above Avatar In Your Bed?
in Forum Games
Posted
Sick my Pitbull on whatever the hell I'm looking at is.