Comments

  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    ↪jorndoe


    We should absolutely be scared senseless. This is unprecedented in human history.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    July is globe’s hottest month in recorded history

    “Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning,” Guterres told reporters in a New York briefing. “The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.”

    Yes indeed.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    “Republicans are high class … but they have to be a little more lower class.” — Trump
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    How is that anything but a Marie Antionette-like dismissal of the plight of the 90% of Americans who are getting screwed? — Mikie

    can tell by your attitude you are not at all interested in discussion so bye bye — I like sushi

    It’s true I’m not interested in discussing ignorant comments. Bye.

    Uummm... there's no such thing as a "true" tax rate, including paper gains on investments. — LuckyR

    They explain their calculations. The term “true tax rate” is not a technical term.

    The story’s main finding was that these 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018 while paying a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes. That amounts to what we called a “true tax rate” of 3.4%.

    Below, we’ve laid out how we performed this analysis. Our story also included calculations of more typical American households in order to provide context for the ultrawealthy’s numbers, and we explain those here as well.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-calculated-the-true-tax-rates-of-the-wealthiest

    Anyway: the wealthy don’t pay as much in taxes, and in fact sometimes avoid paying anything at all. Especially on capital gains, which are already lower than what an average person pays in taxes as a percentage of income. It’s currently capped at 20% — but as the OP discusses, that’s often avoided completely.

    And it’s exactly where they house most of their wealth. They borrow off of it, and then pass it off to kids or spouse tax-free. Hence “buy, borrow, die.”
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    Frequent flights, trips to Europe, better food and alcohol, fashionable clothing and larger dwellings -- it's easy to outspend the family's combined salaries. — BC

    Sure. I heard it called “lifestyle creep.” I like that. As your salary increases, so does your spending— so you remain even, or even get into debt. But you don’t save and don’t invest.

    Who gets the biggest pieces of pie is a matter of POLICY, not talent, luck, prudent investing, or any such thing. Since the 1970s, policy makers have been steering the pie slices to the top decile of income and the very top layer of wealth, the richest .0001%. 90% of us are dividing up a couple of small pieces and arguing over the crumbs. — BC

    :100:
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    Yes, I am ignorant about US. — I like sushi

    That’s fine — so then why come to this thread, which is mostly about how the wealthy avoid paying taxes — and go on about how people should simply save more money, as if it’s easy to become “one of them”?

    How is that anything but a Marie Antionette-like dismissal of the plight of the 90% of Americans who are getting screwed?

    I do question the ‘survey’ that states that over 50% are living pay check to pay check btw. — I like sushi

    Maybe apply equal skepticism to feelings, without a basis in fact whatsoever. I have a number of other sources, if interested.
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    Well if he's got billions in income, he's theoretically paying income tax. — LuckyR

    Yes:

    Bezos paid zero federal income taxes in both 2007 and 2011. From 2006 to 2018, when Bezos' wealth increased by $127 billion, he reported a total of $6.5 billion in income. He paid $1.4 billion in personal federal taxes, a true tax rate of 1.1%.

    https://americansfortaxfairness.org/wp-content/uploads/ProPublica-Billionaires-Fact-Sheet-Updated.pdf
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    Do you think some kind of scheme should be put into place to help minimum wage workers in later life? I do. Maybe open up a pension/saving scheme to set up like I said? Good idea or bad idea? — I like sushi

    That’s fine. Most people can’t afford to invest in stocks or save “5%” a month. Most are in debt up to their eyes. So how does it get done? How about we pay them more?

    Again, real wages have stagnated. Which is why you have more debt— which is why you have people living paycheck to paycheck. To remark that “hey if you can’t beat them, join them” and that it’s “easy,” is just ignorant. Especially given the context of this thread.

    ↪BC


    This applies to some people. But look at the general trend. You know well enough that real wages have flatlined since the late 70s. That’s a robust explanatory data point. Telling people to thrift or wherever— yeah, it’s just not realistic in the context of 37% of Americans not being able to afford a $400 emergency:

    Households survey released Monday, some 37% of Americans lack enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense, up from 32% in 2021.

    https://fortune.com/2023/05/23/inflation-economy-consumer-finances-americans-cant-cover-emergency-expense-federal-reserve/amp/

    That being said — I’m in favor of consuming less and financial education.
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    Uummm... where do the loan repayments come from? — LuckyR

    That’s a good question. It’s not that Bezos has no income — he does. Millions (even billions) cash on hand. Repaying a loan isn’t difficult, especially when the interest rate is so low. But the point is to avoid paying taxes.

    You just need to start early and be disciplined. — I like sushi

    Is this a joke?

    You just have to set aside a little and put it into savings. That is how people become millionaires. It is not really that difficult if you start young. — I like sushi

    Apparently not.

    1) That is not how most people become millionaires.
    2) If it were so simple, everyone would do it. Perhaps ask yourself why they can’t. (If you think it’s laziness or lack of education, I’ll leave you to it.)

    Very, very few people today are completely unable to put aside something on a monthly basis. — I like sushi

    Hundreds of millions of people.

    When 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, are in enormous amounts of debt, don’t have a $400 emergency fund, and whose real wages have flatlined for 40 years — yeah, your thoughts on this matter are not only ignorant, but callous.
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    ↪Relativist


    Agreed. There are many things we can do — any of them would be a start. Close these loopholes; wealth tax; higher corporate and individual taxes; higher capital gains tax; get rid of the social security cap. You name it.

    A spouse dying also works. I don't recommend it. — L'éléphant

    I guess this would fall under “die,” yeah. Rather than to kids, you have it to your spouse. The stepped-up basis applies there too.

    Expropriating the expropriators would be a simpler solution to the problem of too many way too rich people than screwing around with the complicated tax code. — BC

    Simpler in theory, but I think much more drastic and therefore less likely for success. Government taking private property isn’t a good look for most Americans.

    The tax code is complicated by design, as you know — and always manages to favor the wealthy. That can be undone just as it was done.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    Those ideas may have their place in theology or discussion within the context of shared faith, but not in philosophy, whereas the practical human wisdom (phronesis) which may be exemplified in literature, including religious scriptures, does have a place in philosophy. — Janus

    :up:

    You put it much more succinctly than I did.

    Moderator Mikie's thread on religion has been troubled by unclear communication which I think is his problem. — BC

    You’re right. See my response to unenligtened, above. I try to go over the reasons for why it’s unclear and thus misunderstood.

    Unless that is unclear as well— in which case I may have to accept the fact that maybe I suck at writing and should hang myself. :lol:
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    ↪unenlightened


    Sure, but I’m not really advocating avoidance.

    Here’s the problem with OP, I think: I’m making a lot of assumptions which are not explained and using a lot of words that I haven’t defined (e.g., philosophy, religion). (Also, that the title is too provocative, potentially evoking an adversarial response on the part of the reader.)

    I agree we all have perspectives, beliefs, and stories. In one sense, I see them all as part of a bigger whole and respect them as important, and in another sense I discriminate some as sillier than others, and so deserving of less attention — like my made up god tries to show.

    That’s a personal judgment. For example, I think the story of the Big Bang is deserving of more time than creation stories— even though it is a kind of creation story itself. I do think there’s something to naturalism, in other words, that is indeed unique and special.

    So this can be seen as my religion, when put like that. But then again, I also believe in something “bigger” than nature. I prefer terms like “such-ness” over God or Brahman, but it’s still something not within the purview of science (which I see as the philosophy of nature; assuming naturalism by default).

    Anyway— I see the problem now, and it’s that I’m presupposing that there is no such thing as Christian philosophy, and I assume most others here agree with that. Turns out that’s not the case. So my advice is bound to fall flat, except for a few outliers.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    I don't feel persecuted at all, as it happens, at least, not by you. — unenlightened

    Glad to hear it.

    then who are you addressing, and what are you saying for them not to do? — unenlightened

    Not to treat it as special or requiring special attention, philosophically. I think we do that subconsciously — I’ve been guilty of it too. It’s why I invoked ethnocentrism, which I think is a related phenomena.

    I’m not saying don’t read the Bible, or deprive yourself of the wisdom of Christianity, etc.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    ↪unenlightened


    Your entire post is a strawman. But you’re free to feel persecuted if you wish.
  • What do we know absolutely?
    ↪Cidat


    There are no absolutes; I’m absolutely certain of it. :wink:
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    If a believer thought their religion was just a bunch of stories they wouldnt be a believer. — DingoJones

    It’s rare perhaps, but not as rare as you’d think. Tradition and identity go a long way. What’s so great about belief?

    Anyway— I’m surprised you didn’t ask whether it’s impossible to be a believer and do philosophy; i.e., whether a Christian philosophy is possible. I’d have answered in the negative.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    For many, abstract thinking is toil; for me, on good days, it is feast and frenzy. Abstract thinking a feast? The highest form of human existence? … The feast implies: pride, exuberance, frivolity; mockery of all earnestness and respectability; a divine affirmation of oneself, out of animal plenitude and perfection—all obviously states to which the Christian may not honestly say Yes. The feast is paganism par excellence. For that reason, we might add that thinking never takes place in Christianity. That is to say, there is no Christian philosophy. There is no true philosophy that could be determined anywhere else than from within itself.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    I don't expect an idealist to treat idealism the same as any other ontology and I don't expect a Muslim to treat Islam like any other religion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Well I consider this a kind of dogmatism, and especially so if it’s simply due to the happenstance of upbringing.

    Why shouldn’t we treat idealism as any other ontology? At some point we should, no? Maybe we’re convinced by it and grant it special importance, but that’s further down the road — and definitively not simply because it was the ideology of our family.

    By my conception of philosophy, we should be free to question everything. If we aren’t willing to, that’s fine— but then whatever else this activity may be, it isn’t philosophy.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    You were taught these stories as a child. Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales — on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League.

    IDK, this seems to imply that the religious are simply weak minded simpletons, unable to let go of past conditioning.     — Count Timothy von Icarus

    I see that now. I didn’t mean that exactly— by “strong enough” I’m referring to how difficult it is to make that transition. It’s extremely hard. But I’m aiming this at those who already have done so, or at least are close to doing so. I’ve met people who describe themselves as Christian who even agree with Nietzsche’s characterization!

    But no, to be clear: I don’t consider Christian people — or Muslim people, or Hindu people, or followers of Shinto, etc —to be simpleminded or weak minded on account that they don’t share my view of their religions as cultural phenomena (on par with languages or music) and not deserving of any special attention. To them I assume it’s very special indeed.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    So what’s your point? All you have done is petition believers to lay down delusions they do not believe they possess. — DingoJones

    As the disclaimer notes, I’m not aiming this at believers. I’m aiming this at those who are interested in questioning; in philosophy. That can be anyone— Christian or non-Christian, Hindu or non-Hindu. Those who recognize whatever religion they happen to be brought up in as one of many stories.

    Given this situation, I would argue it’s just as much a waste of time to give special attention to Shiva (because one happened to be raised in India) or God (because one happened to be raised in the West) as it is to Xhandizi. It’s all perhaps interesting in an anthropological sense— but we needn’t give it extra weight or seriousness based on cultural familiarity. I see it done often — especially by atheists, in fact. So my advice is based on personal feeling, of course — but I think it’s potentially useful. Just let it go. I speak from experience in fact.

    As for those who really do believe, and don’t view Christianity (or pick a religion) as just one of others, but assign it extra importance because it’s their faith— well, let them be happy with that. It’s not my business to tell people what to believe or to upbraid them for not being secular enough or whatever. Especially if they’re kind and moral people, of which I know many. My advice doesn’t even apply to them.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    What kind of argument is that? You're basically saying, "I don't agree with you so I'm right and you're wrong. That's not an argument, and it's not doing philosophy. — Sam26

    No, I’m not saying I’m right. I’m saying I have a different definition of philosophy. I said that before, too. Yours is fine— but that’s not what I’m meaning when I use the term.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    Your question was sloppily phrased.
    I try not to make assumptions about what other people mean.     — DingoJones

    Yep— I should have specified. I was in part building off of an earlier response that didn’t involve you, so you had no way of knowing.

    “Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of delusional reasons and evidence and arguments.“ — DingoJones

    Well, kind of. My point is that everyone has arguments and reasons, and I added that because in another discussion it didn’t seem obvious. No one will come right out and say they have no reasons, nor will they say they’re delusional. It’s up to us to figure that out.

    With that being said, the question stands— is this easier to ignore than other claims? I say it is for a simple enough reason: it’s completely made up by me. I think you must agree with this somehow. You wouldn’t really waste time on any of my questions, because it’s just fabricated nonsense. Right?

    ↪Tom Storm


    Yes indeed!
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    You're saying that such questions are a waste of time for you... and only you? — creativesoul

    Nope. I feel they’re a waste of time for others too. As I think was clear.

    What a load of bullshit! — creativesoul

    Bye.

    Cool. I agree. Thanks for indulging me. — Tom Storm

    Any time.

    ↪Janus


    :up:
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time. — creativesoul

    I know it for myself. I think I’ve been clear that this is my opinion— and only applicable to a narrow case, which you’d know if you deigned to read the OP.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    Mikie was not just addressing God and Christianity, which should be clear if you read the OP. — Janus

    Yes — if this were India I’d be saying the same things about Brahman and Hinduism.

    Thanks for reading the OP and not simply reacting to what you think the OP is saying. Appreciated.

    Don't hate me, but I'm not sure I fully get your position. — Tom Storm

    :lol: No hatred buddy.

    I read the words and understand the sentences and I also understand that you are not hating on religion per say, but you seem to me making a fairly simple point. — Tom Storm

    Guilty as charged. Apparently TOO simple.

    Are you saying that if you inherit religious beliefs from your culture and upbringing, you are not entitled to treat these as if they are philosophy arrived at through careful reflection, a set of beliefs and values which others should also take seriously? — Tom Storm

    Just that they shouldn’t be treated as special — IF, and this is very important and maybe I wasn’t clear about, you assume Christianity is indeed one religion among others.

    That includes those who argue against the existence of God! I think this is being overlooked. They too are treating Christianity as special.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    It wouldn’t be easier to ignore, since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments. — DingoJones

    But remember: everyone thinks they have good reasons, evidence, and sound arguments. True, I didn’t specify that this person believes this “delusionally,” as you said — but given that it’s obviously made up, isn’t that assumed?

    To claim this isn’t easier to ignore is just crazy to me. If this isn’t easy to ignore, then nothing is easy to ignore. Maybe that’s your position, I don’t know. But it strikes me as bizarre.

    Part of what philosophy does is to examine various beliefs and belief systems in relation to reality (physical or metaphysical). Some of the philosophical tools used to examine these beliefs are logic (correct reasoning), epistemology, and linguistic analysis. To the extent that people use these three tools they are doing philosophy. — Sam26

    That’s all very nice. It’s not philosophy in the sense I mean. I don’t agree with your particular characterization. So my former point stands.

    I think it's a mistake to think that the only people who can do philosophy are those trained in philosophy. — Sam26

    I never said that though.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    Hypothetical thesis: The God Xhandizi is the one true God. He was revealed by a man in Bora Bora. He is known to have one thousand eyes and fifteen heads. If you don’t believe in him you go to hell.

    Questions: does he care about us? What would we do without him, morally speaking? Some say he only has 10 heads— let’s discuss. How does he manifest in the world? Is he only metaphorical? If we don’t believe, should we be worried about the consequences? Is he infinite? Who created him? Is he even a “he”?

    —

    Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments. Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims? Or is it easier to ignore?
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    Welcome brother! To the group of TPF members, described by another TPF member as fanatic! — universeness

    Bound to happen whenever one brings up Christianity — or any belief with strong emotional aspects. You get both the thin-skinned faithful and the non-believers who come to display their sanctimony by rushing to the defense of those being “attacked” (even when no such attack exists).

    Too bad so few bother to read (or read carefully). What can you do.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    this post seems motivated by a fairly bigoted conception of religion. Not all religion is necessarily at odds with naturalism and science, so the dichotomy set up is a false one. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    I never set up such a dichotomy. Any bigotry is projection on the readers’ part. I made no claims about the value of religion. In fact I’ve often been a staunch supporter of religions. For evidence, look at anything I’ve written for the last 5 years.

    You’re just misreading me. The point should be clear by both the title and what’s written. It’s a narrow one— it does not make sweeping claims about religion.

    Anytime someone gives an argument in support of their beliefs, even if it's in defense of the Earth being flat, their applying reason to defend their belief. — Sam26

    Then we define philosophy very differently. Anyone can argue in favor of their beliefs. That doesn’t mean it’s philosophy … or science.

    Do you consider folks such as Dan Dennett, Sam Harris et al, deserving of the title 'philosopher?' — universeness

    Not really. If they are it’s for reasons apart from critiques of faith.

    I'm neither a believer nor am I offended by your "disclaimer". — Alkis Piskas

    Cool.

    I consider this "disclaimer" already quite offensive — Alkis Piskas

    Oh.

    And I'm afraid that the fanatic in the present case is yourself. — Alkis Piskas

    Well that doesn’t sound too good for me.

    From what I gathered reading your post, is that you are supercritical against not only Christian believers, but also theists, independent of any religion. — Alkis Piskas

    Well then you “gathered” wrong. You’re welcome to review anything I’ve written over the years to see why.

    I guess you must be a young person. You show revolutionary tendencies and immaturity. — Alkis Piskas

    :rofl:

    Thanks pal.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    Would you consider that idea as philosophically significant? — Quixodian

    Absolutely.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    God may mean nothing to you, — Quixodian

    And to the person I’m directing my advice to. It’s not that it means nothing — it has sentimental value perhaps, for example — but there’s no reason to privilege it. It’s simply not special, any more than Santa Claus.

    Again, this ASSUMES we’re facing this philosophically, in the same way we’re facing the fossil record scientifically rather than through creationism.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    ↪Banno


    :up:

    The issue I’m raising isn’t really a mod one. I’m not suggesting censoring anyone or deleting anything. I’m merely giving a personal view on a fairly narrow issue.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    But that itself is tendentious. You're asking others to question their beliefs, but taking your own for granted. — Quixodian

    I don’t take them for granted. I’m happy to question them. It’s more of a definition, really — I don’t consider creationists to be doing science, while they would disagree. Likewise, I don’t see those explaining the miracles of Jesus to be doing philosophy — that’s more Biblical studies or theology.

    If I’m asking anything, I’m asking for less privileging of “God” amongst philosophers simply because they were raised in the Christian faith or in a Christian culture.
  • Regarding Evangelization
    You can hear yourself, right? — Srap Tasmaner

    Yes. I stand by that. Vindictive people going around bad-mouthing others simply because they’re called out on their sanctimony is something I’ll gladly point out for the pettiness it is. Being a moderator has nothing to do with it — I’m not modding him in any way.

    If even responding to such childishness makes me petty too, as you’re implying, so be it. But I don’t initiate these things.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    ↪180 Proof


    No, because the one that catalyzed me to write this is actually someone who I like and who is a good contributor. But there are usually dozens of discussions a month with “God” in the title. I’m all for theology if that’s what people want to discuss.

    But in the narrow case I mean, I think it’s treating Christianity as special and is a waste of time.
  • Regarding Evangelization
    Sad to say, Mikie is a moderator. — T Clark

    Sad to say, you’re as petty a member as they come.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    ↪180 Proof


    I’m objecting to otherwise non-religious people who want it to engage in philosophical inquiry spending inordinate amount of time wallowing in — giving special attention to — mythical stories, just because they were raised with them.

    It’d be like discussing the philosophical aspects of Santa Claus when you’ve long recognized him as a myth. Do why the endless theses about him? Santa Claus isn’t anything special.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    I think you're right, Mikie – the topic (re: god religion theology faith etc) is a waste of time. — 180 Proof

    I don’t really think that though— I’m saying it’s a waste of time to treat God or Christianity as special (here the thread name), assuming that you approach the matter from a philosophical (or historical or anthropological) point of view. If one doesn’t approach it that way, I have no personal gripe with them — I would only argue that they’re not doing philosophy or anthropology, they’re doing theology.

    On a philosophy forum, I take the liberty of assuming most people approach it in the philosophical sense. That is, they’re not devout or literal believers, but were likely raised with it (as I myself was and I imagine many people in the West were too). Of these people, my argument is that to privilege the stories of youth and take seriously those questions — but not, say, the questions of Vishnu — is a waste of time and, in a way, ethnocentric.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    ↪creativesoul


    What’s pathetic is your understanding.

    that their considerations regarding their own worldview are a waste of time — creativesoul

    Complete straw man. Not once did I say that. But keep fabricating all you want if it makes you feel virtuous.

    You are rejecting the specificity of people's experience and their development as persons. — BC

    I’m doing the exact opposite of this.

    If you were raised in a secular family and have no religious experiences or interests, there's no reason for you to ditch that. — BC

    I’m not advocating anyone ditch their culture or religion.

    How about some nuance, some context? I think Mikie means that talk about religion and Gods is a waste of time, not that practicing religion is, for the faithful, a waste of time. No doubt he will correct me if I have misrepresented his view. — Janus

    I appreciate the effort to give a least a small benefit of the doubt.

    It’s not a waste of time for believers. That’s theology— which is fine by me. What’s a waste of time is engaging in philosophical questioning and discussion about various aspects of God when you already accept that Christian dogma is one of many and accept the anthropological point of view.

    Which is also to acknowledge the culture and beliefs of the rest of the world, and thus that we shouldn’t give Christianity special treatment.

    As an example: if one is a creationist, fine. But don’t pretend you’re doing science. If one is a Christian believer, do theology — but don’t pretend to be questioning philosophically. If one isn’t a Christian believer, but was raised in a Christian culture, then don’t waste time by dwelling on and privileging Christian stories simply on account of being raised in it.

    That’s my point. I’m not saying religion is a waste of time — one is free to search my history on what I’ve written about religion for evidence.

    he thing is, much of Western philosophy is based on esoteric or religious foundations. — schopenhauer1

    That’s an interesting point. The similarities between religion and philosophy is worth discussing. I think we all have a religion, in a sense. But that’s not really what I’m getting at here. I’m making a much more narrow argument about objects of philosophical inquiry, what’s worthwhile and what isn’t.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    ↪BC


    Unlike you to deliberately quote out of context. Kind of disappointing. The context:

    To me, all this talk/questioning about God is as silly as watching people in India talking about the specific patterns of Vishnu’s tunic. It’s a waste of time. — Mikie

    This does not mean religion is a waste of time. Giving special attention to the minutia of one myth is a waste of time— assuming you view it as a myth.
Home » Mikie