Bank Error In My Favor

[digitalmonkey 929]

I'm happy to remind you. Someone who does not believe there are any correct moral answers is not in a position to help us decide whether or not it's moral to keep a bank error. What makes his beliefs wrong is that they are wrong, not your opinion about it. Are you now saying you don't believe anyone is ever wrong? That would be nice because then we could rule you out of any argument, instead of just the ones involving morals. I.. What? Are you using that word incorrectly or am I missing something?

How can YOU decide whether it's moral for someone to keep a bank error? To do so is assuming everyone operates with the same set of morals. Arguing whether or not it is legal is another story.Oh no...people are often wrong. You were wrong when you said one of my earlier posts was embarrassing for me. Perhaps you felt i should have been embarrassed or you felt embarrassed for me, but i wasn't embarrassed...so you were wrong. At first i though you were ignoring the difference, but now I'm starting to believe you don't see the difference.Claiming his beliefs are wrong is akin to someone claiming your belief that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross bearing the burden of our sins is wrong.Re: schadenfreudeI swallowed a mosquito. It was unpleasant. I was asking if it gave you some joy.

[El Guapo 8]

1.I think it does. Certain people are arbitrarily chosen by fate to receive far more wealth than others. Since society allows this then they are in effect choosing this system. I took that political scale test. For what it's worth I scored as more libertarian than most people here. http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/p...8&soc=-4.97

1. The simple fact that you say 'society allows this' make everything you say past that null and void.Graph - LOL that you interpret your ranking as a Libertarian.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Toast isn't supposed to have bones.

[El Guapo 8]

Toast isn't supposed to have bones.

But when it does, BONUS!

[vbnautilus 48]

1.I think it does. Certain people are arbitrarily chosen by fate to receive far more wealth than others.

You can't separate "fate" from the results of human action. While surely some children come about by accident (see "digitalmonkey") many of us came about through the deliberate choices of our parents. In your "ideal" world where everyone starts with the same stuff, why would anyone ever try and do anything to improve their lives? Why should I try to earn money and buy a nice house if my child can't live in it with me? Part of why we do these things is to create a better environment for our children to live in. I got this child through my own actions (earned him!) and now you are telling me I can't give him what I want to give him. You want to take what I've earned away from him (steal!) in order to satisfy some idea you have about everyone starting out on level ground, when in fact there is no reason to think that arranging life in that way leads to increased collective well-being. In fact, we know from experience that when people try to force equal resource distribution the result is a poorer quality of life for all.

3.I would think that the current system of forcing unequal distribution of wealth is far less libertarian.

Who forces the wealth to be unequally distributed? Wealth is unequally distributed largely because people vary in their ability to acquire it. That will always be the case.

[vbnautilus 48]

How can YOU decide whether it's moral for someone to keep a bank error? To do so is assuming everyone operates with the same set of morals.

No, I don't need to assume that everyone operates with the same set of morals, only that there is an objective truth of the matter as to what the better moral decision is in any given circumstance. As you've said, people can be wrong. Morality is another realm where people can be wrong. If you want to know more about my position on this we can take it up in this thread where it was discussed extensively.

Oh no...people are often wrong. You were wrong when you said one of my earlier posts was embarrassing for me. Perhaps you felt i should have been embarrassed or you felt embarrassed for me, but i wasn't embarrassed...so you were wrong. At first i though you were ignoring the difference, but now I'm starting to believe you don't see the difference.

Your post was worthy of embarrassment. If you feel no shame at being so obstinately and repeatedly obtuse, then there is nothing I can do about that.

Claiming his beliefs are wrong is akin to someone claiming your belief that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross bearing the burden of our sins is wrong.

Yes, his claim is wrong just like the claim that jesus died on a cross for people's sins is wrong. So... what?

[hblask 1]

You can argue that by your standards I am immoral, but you cannot argue that I am incorrect in believing I am moral.

Theft is immoral and frowned upon in every society in history. Making an exception for yourself on the ground of moral relativism is not just immoral, it is batshit crazy.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Theft is immoral and frowned upon in every society in history. Making an exception for yourself on the ground of moral relativism is not just immoral, it is batshit crazy.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Theft is immoral and frowned upon in every society in history. Making an exception for yourself on the ground of moral relativism is not just immoral, it is batshit crazy.

Depends how you define theft. Is conquering, the strong taking lands from the weak, considered theft? Are raiding your enemy neighbors and stealing their horses considered theft? Is paddling up on shore in a long boat, and looting a town considered theft? Could enslavement be considered theft ( or something much worse?).Also there are many cultures ( that would be considered primitive) that didn't have such a rigid concept of property and property rights that we do in the west, where "stealing" from your neighbor wasn't considered wrong at all, but the cultural norm, Everyone would steal from everyone else.And lets not forget the gypsies, a culture that's pretty much based on theft, and skill at thieving and conning is a virtue. I would say that most cultures would consider stealing from other members of that culture, your nominal "allies", would be wrong, but stealing from other cultures and your cultural and political enemies or rivals as not only not immoral, but encouraged. I would guess what Silent snow (and perhaps monkey) are arguing is some sort of marxist view of the world, where banks are not our allies, but are in some way the enemy of the working classes, who exploit the working classes, and as such, it's morally justifiable to steal from your enemy. Me personally? I think it's stupid to take that money from a bank of a bank error, because you're 100% (or close to it) going to get caught. The risk to reward isn't there. There are situations where, if the risk/reward were favorable enough, I would steal, but a bank error for like 30K is certainly not one of them.

[SilentSnow 1]

In your "ideal" world where everyone starts with the same stuff, why would anyone ever try and do anything to improve their lives? Why should I try to earn money and buy a nice house if my child can't live in it with me? Part of why we do these things is to create a better environment for our children to live in. I got this child through my own actions (earned him!) and now you are telling me I can't give him what I want to give him. You want to take what I've earned away from him (steal!) in order to satisfy some idea you have about everyone starting out on level ground, when in fact there is no reason to think that arranging life in that way leads to increased collective well-being. In fact, we know from experience that when people try to force equal resource distribution the result is a poorer quality of life for all. Who forces the wealth to be unequally distributed? Wealth is unequally distributed largely because people vary in their ability to acquire it. That will always be the case.

Nice strawman. You can improve your life a lot, your kid can live with you in a nice house and you can create a much better life for your children. You just wouldn't be able to pass on massive amounts of money. Well we don't know that. Nearly every measure of well-being correlates strongly with decreased inequality. The worst places on earth tend to be the most unequal. The rest of your paragraph strengthens my point. It is precisely because so few people care about universal justice that the government must defend it. Society forces it by enforcing unjust property laws. I think the wealth distribution also varies a lot due to poor societal structures and luck. I have no problem with wealth being unequally distributed as long as it is earned and not gained through exploitation of inefficient economic systems. I do have a problem with wealth being passed on down through generations creating a class of idle rich who rule over the rest of society.

[vbnautilus 48]

Nice strawman. You can improve your life a lot, your kid can live with you in a nice house and you can create a much better life for your children.

But why is that fair? Why does my child get to live in luxury and go to a good school just because of an accidental parenting assignment? He didn't earn it. I don't get why you would treat differently the gifts that children get from living parents as opposed to dead parents. Many people are most of the way through their lives by the time their parents die and inheritance has an effect. By that time they have already enjoyed a life of privilege.

[El Guapo 8]

I have no problem with wealth being unequally distributed as long as it is earned and not gained through exploitation of inefficient economic systems. I do have a problem with wealth being passed on down through generations creating a class of idle rich who rule over the rest of society.

Is this England in the 1300's? What the **** are you talking about?To the bolded, that is what makes capitalism work.

[brvheart 1,752]

Toast isn't supposed to have bones.

I chuckled.Doesn't get it:

But when it does, BONUS!

[SilentSnow 1]

But why is that fair? Why does my child get to live in luxury and go to a good school just because of an accidental parenting assignment? He didn't earn it. I don't get why you would treat differently the gifts that children get from living parents as opposed to dead parents. Many people are most of the way through their lives by the time their parents die and inheritance has an effect. By that time they have already enjoyed a life of privilege.

Of course it's not fair. But just because life will never be completely fair doesn't mean we shouldn't take some steps to make it more fair. In this case society is trying to balance the freedom not to be a slave in an oligarchy with the freedom to undertake selfish actions that often make people happy since people are hardwired to favor their children.

[AmScray 355]

Obviously you can't correct all injustices. But you can heavily restrict inheritances, work hard to eliminate externalities and provide economic opportunities to the poor through various educational and social programs.

Just wondering; what's your practical experience in dealing with "the poor"?Like, not your thoughts or ideals on how a perfect world might treat 'the poor', but your actual, practical, hands-on experience in trailer parks and urban ghettos? Or Africa or India? For example, how many nights have you slept in a neighborhood that was over 80% black? How much time have you spent in 3rd World countries? Your total outlook on life hints at the sort of delusionaly idealistic ninny who hasn't had much life experience and is afforded the luxury of soaring idealism, due to their being sheltered from the practical outcome of their ideas... you know... the ones that wind up starving to death in abandoned busses in the Alaskan wilderness, should they actually manifest their thoughts into a real world lifestyle choice.I'd be really interested in hearing your resume on this one.

[Spademan 94]

Are digmonk and SS considered "liberal"? And All-in for that matter? Because I've been looking for some liberals that are really, really stupid to point to as examples. Normally I take note of idiocy due to fundy religious nonsense, so I usually ridicule those who are of the religious "right". My favorite part of this thread is digmonk using the "Spademan fanclub" as "misleading" "inaccuracies" and "lies" proponents, and uses examples from "The club" that are absolutely clear, like the inheritance context, and obviously qualified statements like "it seems to me". Multiple times confusing not understanding what is said because he's a moron with the person who said it trying to mislead him or others. Pretending like his failure to grasp the common meaning of words is a deliberate attempt at trickery by his opponent. The only inaccuracy was adding that the girl was "cute", which I assume comes from you adding that she was 18-27. I kind of imagined a cute girl too, being a fan of 18-27 year old girls. You are, for once, correct however in that you never made any claims to her attractiveness - so it was innacurate. But, even this "inaccuracy" does nothing to change the argument. lol, you're making relativistic/nihilistic arguments about morality and then pretending like either of those positions can possibly have any bearing on this discussion. digmonks idiocy was hammered in another thread and now he attempts a vacant and specious smear campaign using my name in a pitiable attempt to nullify how ignorant he was made to look. And he thinks that claiming I or my "fan club" use inaccuracies, misleading arguments and lies over and over will both make his claims true and support his failure at logic. Haha. So... stupid.And a thief to boot.Good stuff.

[ShakeZuma 585]

don't forget the time he had PAYforUSC banned because he made a joke about his baby or some shit. add "crybaby" to the list too.

[Spademan 94]

don't forget the time he had PAYforUSC banned because he made a joke about his baby or some shit. add "crybaby" to the list too.

I can't forget something I didn't know in the first place.tl,dnr: wat?

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Digimonk really made an ass of himself in this one. I would have laughed if it wasnt so sad.

[Spademan 94]

Jesus. I'm down in the area where the only examples given are Ghandi, Dali Lama, and Nelson Mandela according that test site.Somehow though, I'm not surprised. I'm a better fucking human being than the vast majority of people, and certainly than most of you dumbasses. Add me to that graph so people know what to shoot for to avoid being an idiot, a selfish prick, or the worst combination of both.

[ShakeZuma 585]

I can't forget something I didn't know in the first place.tl,dnr: wat?

I don't remember the details. wait till skeleton jelly gets back on monday and I'm sure he can do some searching.edit: and post a screenshot of your graph.

[SilentSnow 1]

Jesus. I'm down in the area where the only examples given are Ghandi, Dali Lama, and Nelson Mandela according that test site.Somehow though, I'm not surprised. I'm a better fucking human being than the vast majority of people, and certainly than most of you dumbasses. Add me to that graph so people know what to shoot for to avoid being an idiot, a selfish prick, or the worst combination of both.

On the other hand, a "really really stupid" person got a very similar score.See post 100.

[ShakeZuma 585]

looks like I'm still in the "intelligent and reasonable people's" quadrant.

[Spademan 94]

On the other hand, a "really really stupid" person got a very similar score.See post 100.

Ya... but no.One can find "really, really stupid" people all over the scale because a stupid person can believe anything. Literally anything. From Hitler to Ghandi. Holding stupid beliefs can land you anywhere on that scale.Correlation does not equal causation. Not being stupid would have made that obvious.You've said absurd things in this thread, and I recall marginalizing you elsewhere. Nice try though. I advise making a concerted, ridiculous to everyone you know, absurdly focused effort at learning logic. We can discuss the issues after.

[Spademan 94]

looks like I'm still in the "intelligent and reasonable people's" quadrant.

No you aren't. VB pushes the boundary of that description. And you are to his far right. If you aren't green, you're likely an idiot or a self-centered piece of shit. Or an amalgam of the two.