Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
I don't know if - in my country - it's possible to tax on a situation before the tax was announced. You cannot be guilty of something before it was illegal. You cannot tax something before you - as the government - announce the tax.
well taxation is not being guilty, I think this mechanism is perfectly legal everywhere.
And this doesn't change the fact that a lot of Cypriots will think: if they can tax me once, they can tax me another time next year. So let's get our money out of the bank. Do you have a solution for that?
I think that the only answer to this is to look to the past.
In Italy we didn't had this problem (we had "only" a 0.6% tax, but there is anyway the problem of breaking the "sacrality" of bank's deposits!!!)
I know what a domino effect is, I'm an economist. Read, please, for once.
Those banks (that are healthy today) survived the domino effect (since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers). So why would you assume they wouldn't survive another domino effect?
Most of them survived because of help by states. (not only in a direct way, if USA helps Morgan Stanley to survive Lehman Bro default, in-directly they help every bank in the world that owns morgan S. bonds.. and this for every bank in the whole world!)
If no public money are spended very few banks can survive a domino effect.
Those banks (that are healthy today) survived the domino effect (since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers). So why would you assume they wouldn't survive another domino effect?
Most of them survived because of help by states. (not only in a direct way, if USA helps Morgan Stanley to survive Lehman Bro default, in-directly they help every bank in the world that owns morgan S. bonds.. and this for every bank in the whole world!)
If no public money are spended very few banks can survive a domino effect.
...we make assumptions
Whatever... I still don't see why is it a problem if we have different assumptions?
Humans get rights, not ideas or religions.
That's not true at all.* Organizations can also have rights. Religions don't have rights, their institutions, the churches have legal rights. The same goes for ideas. Their institutions are the political parties for example. Now, parties and politicians have very special rights.
How does that change the fact that religion has been the cause of quite some wars?
Religion has never been the cause of wars. Like many other ideas (freedom, democracy, nation, equality, etc), it was just a mask, and a tool to rally people. The cause of wars is lust for power, and human nature. It's the same like some territorial predator's nature. Lions attack each other sometimes, humans do it too. We just do everything in larger scale and a more sophisticated way, than predators.
So you're in favor of private gun ownership without restrictions by the government?
Like car owners, gun owners should also get a license, and they should register their weapons. If all that is done, they should be free to own guns.
* Ok that was contradictionary, but not only humans get rights.
(edited)
Whatever... I still don't see why is it a problem if we have different assumptions?
Humans get rights, not ideas or religions.
That's not true at all.* Organizations can also have rights. Religions don't have rights, their institutions, the churches have legal rights. The same goes for ideas. Their institutions are the political parties for example. Now, parties and politicians have very special rights.
How does that change the fact that religion has been the cause of quite some wars?
Religion has never been the cause of wars. Like many other ideas (freedom, democracy, nation, equality, etc), it was just a mask, and a tool to rally people. The cause of wars is lust for power, and human nature. It's the same like some territorial predator's nature. Lions attack each other sometimes, humans do it too. We just do everything in larger scale and a more sophisticated way, than predators.
So you're in favor of private gun ownership without restrictions by the government?
Like car owners, gun owners should also get a license, and they should register their weapons. If all that is done, they should be free to own guns.
* Ok that was contradictionary, but not only humans get rights.
(edited)
Hey, I've linked it a couple of weeks ago. This animation is apparently quite popular. Unfortunately. :|
well taxation is not being guilty, I think this mechanism is perfectly legal everywhere.
I think it's supposed to be illegal, but politicians can always change the laws. So if they really want to do it, they just do it anyway.
I think it's supposed to be illegal, but politicians can always change the laws. So if they really want to do it, they just do it anyway.
So once again, you're not reading. So I'll end this discussion here.
I still don't see why is it a problem if we have different assumptions?
The difference is that atheists make assumptions based on the current state of science. Christians make assumptions based on a very old book. That's why Christianity is a belief and atheism isn't a belief.
Organizations can also have rights.
Let me rephrase: organizations should not get special rights. Only humans (and perhaps animals, but that's irrelevant to the discussion) should get rights.
The cause of wars is lust for power
Yes, indeed. That's why I hate Catholicism that much. Their historical record.
If all that is done, they should be free to own guns.
Including full automatic rifles?
The difference is that atheists make assumptions based on the current state of science. Christians make assumptions based on a very old book. That's why Christianity is a belief and atheism isn't a belief.
Organizations can also have rights.
Let me rephrase: organizations should not get special rights. Only humans (and perhaps animals, but that's irrelevant to the discussion) should get rights.
The cause of wars is lust for power
Yes, indeed. That's why I hate Catholicism that much. Their historical record.
If all that is done, they should be free to own guns.
Including full automatic rifles?
Only humans (and perhaps animals, but that's irrelevant to the discussion) should get rights.
So you mean we should get rid of the parties and companies? Those are not humans either. Laws recognize companies as something like "non-natural legal person" (I don't know the correct English form). Otherwise they couldn't exist legally. These "persons" also have rights (for example you can't steal from them).
That's why I hate Catholicism that much.
You have your right to hate anyone.
Including full automatic rifles?
Maybe some special license should be needed, like you can't drive a truck with a normal license. And no, people shouldn't be free to own their private tank, that would be a bit too much.
So you mean we should get rid of the parties and companies? Those are not humans either. Laws recognize companies as something like "non-natural legal person" (I don't know the correct English form). Otherwise they couldn't exist legally. These "persons" also have rights (for example you can't steal from them).
That's why I hate Catholicism that much.
You have your right to hate anyone.
Including full automatic rifles?
Maybe some special license should be needed, like you can't drive a truck with a normal license. And no, people shouldn't be free to own their private tank, that would be a bit too much.
That's why Christianity is a belief and atheism isn't a belief.
Atheism is not a lack of belief. It can be theoretically but usually it is not per se. An atheist usually does believe that there is no God. The fact that athiests believe in a negation doesn't negate the belief itself. The fact that some atheists claim to be most certainly right about their belief, also doesn't negate the belief itself.
What you are implying at is very rare and it's called apatheism or pragmatical atheism. So, it's atheism in a narrower sense and it assumes a position that there is no God but without any interest in assessment of whether this position is true or false. This position finds the question without sufficient relevance to think about it and so they don't have a belief about it.
If you ask an apatheist "Is there a God?", he will reply "I don't care.". That's the man without a belief on this issue. You passionately advocate that there is no God and so you don't have a lack of belief. You believe. ;)
That's why I hate Catholicism that much. Their historical record.
You have wrong records or a biased opinion.
Btw, why don't you hate Belgians then? Remember historical record of King Leopold?
(edited)
Atheism is not a lack of belief. It can be theoretically but usually it is not per se. An atheist usually does believe that there is no God. The fact that athiests believe in a negation doesn't negate the belief itself. The fact that some atheists claim to be most certainly right about their belief, also doesn't negate the belief itself.
What you are implying at is very rare and it's called apatheism or pragmatical atheism. So, it's atheism in a narrower sense and it assumes a position that there is no God but without any interest in assessment of whether this position is true or false. This position finds the question without sufficient relevance to think about it and so they don't have a belief about it.
If you ask an apatheist "Is there a God?", he will reply "I don't care.". That's the man without a belief on this issue. You passionately advocate that there is no God and so you don't have a lack of belief. You believe. ;)
That's why I hate Catholicism that much. Their historical record.
You have wrong records or a biased opinion.
Btw, why don't you hate Belgians then? Remember historical record of King Leopold?
(edited)
These "persons" also have rights (for example you can't steal from them).
You can't steal from those legal entities because in the end, that legal entity is the property of a person.
You can't steal from those legal entities because in the end, that legal entity is the property of a person.
You can't steal from those legal entities because in the end, that legal entity is the property of a person.
Then that's why tax isn't stealing either. A state is owned by all its citizens and so it can't steal from them. It would mean that citizens steal from themselves. ;)
Then that's why tax isn't stealing either. A state is owned by all its citizens and so it can't steal from them. It would mean that citizens steal from themselves. ;)
If you ask an apatheist "Is there a God?", he will reply "I don't care.". That's the man without a belief on this issue. You passionately advocate that there is no God and so you don't have a lack of belief. You believe. ;)
The difference is that religious people spread their religion by saying they KNOW that their god exists. I say that both cases are possible, but that one case is more probable because of what we know by science. If you can't see the difference, that's your problem. You try to drag me down to your level (belief) and beat me with experience.
Btw, why don't you hate Belgians then? Remember historical record of King Leopold?
For starters, I never said I hate Catholics, I said I hate Catholicism. So ergo, your question should have been 'Why don't you hate Belgium then?', and as you know, I hate Belgium.
Why would I hate persons who adhere to a certain religion? If I would hate Catholics, I'd have to hate my own mother...
The difference is that religious people spread their religion by saying they KNOW that their god exists. I say that both cases are possible, but that one case is more probable because of what we know by science. If you can't see the difference, that's your problem. You try to drag me down to your level (belief) and beat me with experience.
Btw, why don't you hate Belgians then? Remember historical record of King Leopold?
For starters, I never said I hate Catholics, I said I hate Catholicism. So ergo, your question should have been 'Why don't you hate Belgium then?', and as you know, I hate Belgium.
Why would I hate persons who adhere to a certain religion? If I would hate Catholics, I'd have to hate my own mother...
Then that's why tax isn't stealing either. A state is owned by all its citizens and so it can't steal from them. It would mean that citizens steal from themselves.
No, because the money doesn't go back to whom it belonged in the first place.
If I am one of the shareholders of a company, the company can't just take stuff away from me. That's theft. Like the governments steals from us. It's not because you own a company/state (partially) that that company/state can't steal from you. And you're the one claiming logic all the time?
No, because the money doesn't go back to whom it belonged in the first place.
If I am one of the shareholders of a company, the company can't just take stuff away from me. That's theft. Like the governments steals from us. It's not because you own a company/state (partially) that that company/state can't steal from you. And you're the one claiming logic all the time?
The difference is that religious people spread their religion by saying they KNOW that their god exists.
What? All religious people do that? Sorry but I don't know such religious people. Don't go to Afganistan for vacation any more.
I say that both cases are possible, but that one case is more probable because of what we know by science.
That's your guess. I am a better scientist than you are and so I will say it's a 50/50 call. ;)
If you can't see the difference, that's your problem.
Why wouldn't I see the difference? I see it. And you're still wrong.
You try to drag me down to your level (belief) and beat me with experience.
I see what you did there. ;)
For starters, I never said I hate Catholics, I said I hate Catholicism. So ergo, your question should have been 'Why don't you hate Belgium then?', and as you know, I hate Belgium.
I apologize. I obviously meant Belgium. And it's easy to hate. Which country do you love? Lichtenstein, was it? Now I get why. It is too small to be very wrong. ;)
Why would I hate persons who adhere to a certain religion? If I would hate Catholics, I'd have to hate my own mother...
Your mother? Tell me more about your mother. ;)
What? All religious people do that? Sorry but I don't know such religious people. Don't go to Afganistan for vacation any more.
I say that both cases are possible, but that one case is more probable because of what we know by science.
That's your guess. I am a better scientist than you are and so I will say it's a 50/50 call. ;)
If you can't see the difference, that's your problem.
Why wouldn't I see the difference? I see it. And you're still wrong.
You try to drag me down to your level (belief) and beat me with experience.
I see what you did there. ;)
For starters, I never said I hate Catholics, I said I hate Catholicism. So ergo, your question should have been 'Why don't you hate Belgium then?', and as you know, I hate Belgium.
I apologize. I obviously meant Belgium. And it's easy to hate. Which country do you love? Lichtenstein, was it? Now I get why. It is too small to be very wrong. ;)
Why would I hate persons who adhere to a certain religion? If I would hate Catholics, I'd have to hate my own mother...
Your mother? Tell me more about your mother. ;)
You can't steal from those legal entities because in the end, that legal entity is the property of a person.
Next: Whose properties are political parties?
No, because the money doesn't go back to whom it belonged in the first place.
It comes back as different public services.
The difference is that religious people spread their religion by saying they KNOW that their god exists.
You're missing the whole point. Belief is about belief which is different from knowledge. If you don't know something, you can believe it or not. But you're saying, non-existence of God is more probable, when the fact is, we don't know anything about the probabilities. So you're mistaken, normal believers don't, because they don't claim to know anything about probabilities, they just believe.
Next: Whose properties are political parties?
No, because the money doesn't go back to whom it belonged in the first place.
It comes back as different public services.
The difference is that religious people spread their religion by saying they KNOW that their god exists.
You're missing the whole point. Belief is about belief which is different from knowledge. If you don't know something, you can believe it or not. But you're saying, non-existence of God is more probable, when the fact is, we don't know anything about the probabilities. So you're mistaken, normal believers don't, because they don't claim to know anything about probabilities, they just believe.