Is the Slippery Slope arguement a legitimate arguement.
Yes
18.1% (15)
18.1% (15)
No
80.7% (67)
80.7% (67)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Legitmacy behind slippery slope?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

nyysjan:

ravenshrike:

nyysjan:
Also, how did that "can't live in two homes with 60k yearly income" come from? how is that relevant to anything?

His secretary, which is a misnomer anyway given that her position is really that of an executive assistant, has two houses, in two different states. Both paid off, and both quite expensive. In other words, an impossibility given her purported salary. Simply put, Buffet lied out his ass, both about his secretary's compensation, and her supposed federal tax rate(which using any sane metric was an impossible number to achieve. You have to twist the definition of federal tax rate into a mobius strip in order to come anywhere close). And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker, like a good little minion because that was what you wanted to hear.

And this relates to the idea that rich should not be able to pay less tax on their income and that some people think the idea of progressive taxation, or even non regressive taxation, will inevitably lead to, or is equivalent of, robbery, how?

They don't pay less tax on income. That's the point. Your entire talking point is smoke and mirrors. They pay less tax on capital gains, but then so do I. And I started out with less than 3 grand(which I saved entirely for the purpose of putting there) on the stock market. The ONLY way it makes any sense for capital gains taxes to equal income taxes is if you get tax credits for any losses. In which case the bailouts for banks and auto companies would have looked like fucking chump change compared to the amount of tax money the government would have had to forgo.

ravenshrike:
They don't pay less tax on income. That's the point. Your entire talking point is smoke and mirrors. They pay less tax on capital gains, but then so do I. And I started out with less than 3 grand(which I saved entirely for the purpose of putting there) on the stock market. The ONLY way it makes any sense for capital gains taxes to equal income taxes is if you get tax credits for any losses. In which case the bailouts for banks and auto companies would have looked like fucking chump change compared to the amount of tax money the government would have had to forgo.

And when you have so much money, you can pretty much live of only capital gains, you get taxed less.
Why should capital gains be taxed any less than other sorts of income?
Although we're weered way of the purpose of this topic, so probably best end this here.

Seekster:
snip

You've quite a few comments in this thread that I don't agree with, but I'll just pick this one. In fact I'll just pick this one point you make: 'Why is there a limit on how far people will go? Has progress or "progress" ever stopped in history?'

Now I think there's an argument to be had about whether humans are happier now than they were in ancient times, or a hundred years ago (I think they are happier now, but that's beside the point.)

But your 'progress' is an obvious good thing. Now I know you weren't making this point, but interracial marriage was definately progress wasn't it? And you say you are worried about changing attitudes. But there's a reason why literally no one, on the left or the right, who has any sort of intellectual integrity, is arguing for the ability to marry an animal. It's not something like homosexuality, which attitudes about tend to differ form culture to culture (think greeks) or race, where foreward thinking people had always been calling for equality.

There are certain base morals where people just go no, that's bullshit. For example murder and stealing are never going to be seen as morally right. There's nothing ambiguous about bestiality.

Now polygamy, at the moment is only practised in crazy sects, and making it recognized would be stupid. If loads of people (10-20%) started doing it, then I would be tempted to call for it to be legalized. Can you give me a logical explanation about what's so bad about it? And I'm not taling about the way sects do it, I mean if ordinary people just did it occasionally?

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say all social progress throughout the twentieth century was justified and morally right, and decreased suffering in the world. Give me one counter example. (And I'm not talking about the internet or whatever, I mean giving women the vote, gay marridge, that sort of social progress.)

That said, I'm not actally sure what you meant by the comment I called you out on. If I misrepresented you, sorry.

asacatman:

Seekster:
snip

You've quite a few comments in this thread that I don't agree with, but I'll just pick this one. In fact I'll just pick this one point you make: 'Why is there a limit on how far people will go? Has progress or "progress" ever stopped in history?'

Now I think there's an argument to be had about whether humans are happier now than they were in ancient times, or a hundred years ago (I think they are happier now, but that's beside the point.)

But your 'progress' is an obvious good thing. Now I know you weren't making this point, but interracial marriage was definately progress wasn't it? And you say you are worried about changing attitudes. But there's a reason why literally no one, on the left or the right, who has any sort of intellectual integrity, is arguing for the ability to marry an animal. It's not something like homosexuality, which attitudes about tend to differ form culture to culture (think greeks) or race, where foreward thinking people had always been calling for equality.

There are certain base morals where people just go no, that's bullshit. For example murder and stealing are never going to be seen as morally right. There's nothing ambiguous about bestiality.

Now polygamy, at the moment is only practised in crazy sects, and making it recognized would be stupid. If loads of people (10-20%) started doing it, then I would be tempted to call for it to be legalized. Can you give me a logical explanation about what's so bad about it? And I'm not taling about the way sects do it, I mean if ordinary people just did it occasionally?

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say all social progress throughout the twentieth century was justified and morally right, and decreased suffering in the world. Give me one counter example. (And I'm not talking about the internet or whatever, I mean giving women the vote, gay marridge, that sort of social progress.)

That said, I'm not actally sure what you meant by the comment I called you out on. If I misrepresented you, sorry.

Well yes I think those are all good things, the way society is built you are going to have Conservatives and other types of people who resist change and in doing so act as a filter. Mind you this filter isnt fool proof. Abortion on demand for example is "progress" which actually represents a step backwards in my opinion. Also so forms of progress can have both positive and negative consequences. For example the internet is perhaps the greatest advancement in communication since the printing press was invented. Ironically though there is some evidence (not conclusive as of yet since the study of the internet's effects on society is young) that the internet actually dampens the ability of people who use it too much to communicate with others in person. Now in the case of the internet, the good things outweigh the bad but this is not always the case. I think the view with many people who oppose same-sex marriage is that the potential drawbacks would outweigh the benefits.

Now only 10 countries have actually formally recognized same-sex unions as marriage and perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. Even there same-sex marriage has only been legally recognized for about a decade at the earliest. It is far too early to put aside the concerns of what this could do to society. I am sure things seem to be working well in Europe to Europeans but with all due respect Americans don't really see European society as a paragon of social morality. Canada on the other hand is close enough to American society to serve as a proper test case to point at. Canada has had nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage since 2005. The early signs seem positive but the best thing you could do was have a generation of children growing up never knowing a time when marriage was a union of one man and one woman and seeing how they act in society. Until then just keep providing anecdotal evidence that kids raised by two dads or two moms turn out no different from those raised by one mom and one dad. If it is meant to be it will be and most likely sooner rather than later.

Seekster:
snip

How did you know I'm European? 0_0

Anyway, I doubt it'll ever be possible to get good science on the effects of legalizing gay marriadge. Seems like an impossible task, but I guess someone could try.

But I don't really see how it could have any adverse effects (or is it affects? Always mixing those up.). A thing you mentioned earlier in the thread was that it could lead to legalizing polygamy (or even bestiality, but I don't think you said that), which I kind of dealt with in my first response to you.

Other than that I don't see it.

Now kids growing up with gay parents is a different issue. I am totally pro gay marriage, but while I agree with adoption for gay people, I'm not quite as certain it's a good idea. It might have bad consequences. That is not the issue. The fact is gay marridge is fine.

I guess we've reached an impasse. I just can't see any bad things that could even potentially lead from it. You apparently can.

asacatman:

Seekster:
snip

How did you know I'm European? 0_0

Anyway, I doubt it'll ever be possible to get good science on the effects of legalizing gay marriadge. Seems like an impossible task, but I guess someone could try.

But I don't really see how it could have any adverse effects (or is it affects? Always mixing those up.). A thing you mentioned earlier in the thread was that it could lead to legalizing polygamy (or even bestiality, but I don't think you said that), which I kind of dealt with in my first response to you.

Other than that I don't see it.

Now kids growing up with gay parents is a different issue. I am totally pro gay marriage, but while Iagree with adoption for gay people, I'm not quite as certain it's a good idea. It might have bad consequences. That is not the issue. The fact is gay marridge is fine.

I guess we've reached an impasse. I just can't see any bad things that could even potentially lead from it. You apparently can.

First of all it says you are from the UK in your profile. Secondly its a pretty fair bet that most of the people here are either European or wish they were (or alternately Canadian or Australian).

Doesnt necessarily need to be science, just a good amount of anecdotal evidence.

Like I said on the other forum, the issue is pretty much settled in terms of the legal framework, now all thats left is to let things play out within that framework. In the meantime I would recommend focusing on getting things like visitation rights and such for same-sex unions.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked