Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You’re asking me to make a moral determination of an action without defining the action. That’s not possible.
I don’t know.
Well we can't litigate whats just on every imaginable scenario here either, and the extreme of 100% forfeiture is not really helpful for discussion. That's why I was explaining my thought process and focus on fundamental philosophical differences rather than case by case figure out whats just. For me, the burden of proof is on the party that wants to take from the individual. For many it seems the burden is on the individual to demonstrate they should keep it.
Since this part of your post appears to be quoting me, I want to point out that it’s inaccurate. I never wrote what you should want. I wrote what I wanted. What you want is up to you.
Hi Tim. There must have been a purpose you added your comments to my post other than to randomly elaborate on your desires. That could be accomplished in a separate thread or even a separate posting in this thread. But you replied to mine with those desires. Why?
Because your comment made me think. As I wrote I agreed with it. But it wasn’t enough for me, I wanted to add thoughts of my own.
It’s hard to determine the morality of actions without determining need, how well the action would address the need, and what the ramifications would be.
OK. Yes, others took issue and without any context yours seemed to as well. The third alternative is great, in practice it requires sacrificing principles (like wealth belonging to an individual), different folks have different priorities/principles.
Agree in principle, again would say my dial for rights of the individual vs societal needs is likely more towards the individual than most.
I think if Jeff Bezos died tomorrow his estate should pay a great deal more than $1bn in taxes. I could be wrong about his liquid worth.
Dead or alive. $1B next year in addition to what he pays today or $1B in addition from his estate based on todays tax code.
I’m sorry, I’m losing your example. Now it’s just taking money from Jeff Bezos alone while still living to pay for traffic signs? I think I’ve made my position fairly clear. This seems to just be randomly peppering me with fairly ridiculous questions.
No, I didn’t.
I don’t think my view requires support of corporate or rich people welfare. I support the opposite. I don’t like that Buffet pays a lower % than his secretary, if that’s an example of what you mean.
I believed it. I usually always believe people in these situations. It really angers me that this guy would do this; makes it so much more difficult for others. Like the Duke Lacrosse rape case it will be offered again and again as “proof” that actual bigotry isn’t as bad as most of us know it to be. I hope his career is ruined.
It should never be embarrassing to believe people who claim to have been victimized, while also verifying.
Ha, it wasn't a serious idea!Ed Markey co-sponsored the New Green Deal with AOC and calls Mitch McConnell trying to bring it to a floor vote “sabatge.â€Â What a steaming dumpster fire we have here.
This one was not looking good from the beginning. I'm surprised it took this long for the police to get to get to this point.
Do you expect AOC, Pelosi, Harris, other Democratic leaders who called this a public lynching without any evidence to actually address this? We'll just pivot back to being outraged about the wall, and this will be yesterday's new before long.
If they do address it, I'd like to know why they made the statements they made (without evidence) before this was investigated. Did they learn any lessons that they can apply in the future?
Nobody is perfect, everyone makes mistakes, and she'll continue making reactionary statements, but she should expect backlash for comments like this in regards to the incident that didn't occur. Not about being right or wrong, just don't say stupid things like this before knowing the facts. I realize you're going to respond by attacking Trump, etc. and that's fine, but his behavior doesn't excuse her's.
Did you admit you were wrong Friday? Nope you doubled down and trolled again. Like you have a long history of doing. You can pull this crap on others around here but I’m calling you out.
Nothing is going to change after this latest example of the mainstream media and Dems jumping to conclusions. Nothing will change from the next time that it happens either. This is the state of our country.
The real issue at hand is that the city is basically colluding with one business to help screw other businesses.
Why would I have admitted I was wrong on Friday? I didn’t think I was. As I wrote, I watched Smollett on TV and found him compelling. I offered an honest opinion.
My personal trainer always has it on at his gym when I’m on the treadmill. Otherwise I wouldn’t; it’s not my kind of show. I don’t care who wins The Bachelor, and Michael Strahan seems like a nice guy but I’m not really interested in what he’s cooking for the holidays.
There’s nothing to apologize for kaep. Your just angry he sold out for the money and started trolling me. .
I didn’t troll you. Again I offered an honest opinion. You seem to have some difficulty distinguishing between the two.
Then when asked to back it up with Facts retreated and was proven to be a troll. And then doubled down in this thread. Just own your behavior. There’s a reason Joe put you on notice last year.
