Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The pseudo-Randian "the victim is always at fault unless the aggressor calls itself a government" morality that pervades this whole forum.
ideology aside, the fact is, with the way the internet works, with the way telemarketing scams work, there is no way the government could efficently police these things.
Do you not think it reasonable, in 2010, to expect people to maybe be on guard for people asking for money? Whether their lie is ok or not?
same would go for identity theft in some cases, no? Its wrong to steal, but I have a fault if I'm emailing my credit card info to people posing as VISA
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes I can name one, and more. Also, your first commit suggests that there is fairness going on in this forum. If there was even a hint of balance, you would find my commits to be quite different. Also, which moral system are you talking about?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then do so. I don't follow charity scandals.No it doesn't. Anyone can go look at it and see that, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do.
The pseudo-Randian "the victim is always at fault unless the aggressor calls itself a government" morality that pervades this whole forum.
Lol, you both understand yourselfs as the balanced guards of these oh so biased forums, it's pretty funny.
Originally posted by inimalist
ideology aside, the fact is, with the way the internet works, with the way telemarketing scams work, there is no way the government could efficently police these things.Do you not think it reasonable, in 2010, to expect people to maybe be on guard for people asking for money? Whether their lie is ok or not?
same would go for identity theft in some cases, no? Its wrong to steal, but I have a fault if I'm emailing my credit card info to people posing as VISA
I think his point was more towards the: If you replace the words 'Sean Hannity/Fake Charity' here with the word 'Government', while keeping the body of it the same, then suddenly it's not the victims fault at all for being the ignorant, but the [evil] Government.
That's the way I took his statement at least; he's likely right too. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That would defeat my point in asking the question.
You seem ridiculously concerned with not posting anything that would prove your point. If there is a liberal charity that used this scheme or a similar one I would love to hear about it. You could literally make you entire case in three words.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"Wait, people (conservatives) shouldn't be criticized for posing as a charity and lying?" In other words, the people on this forum think that only conservatives do things that are wrong, and liberals are always pure as the driven snow. The fact you can't name any corrupt liberals says everything.
You're complaining about something you added to my statement.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about Karma? You know, something having to do with Buddhism.
Which I gather from your posts on the topic either exploded to form the Big Bang or represents "shit happens". Neither of those has anything to do with morality, unless you want to tack on yet another definition.
Originally posted by Robtard
I think his point was more towards the: If you replace the words 'Sean Hannity/Fake Charity' here with the word 'Government', while keeping the body of it the same, then suddenly it's not the victims fault at all for being the ignorant, but the [evil] Government.That's the way I took his statement at least; he's likely right too. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
well, then its just a bad comparison
for instance, what does a fake charity do when you uncover its fraud and refuse to pay them?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem ridiculously concerned with not posting anything that would prove your point. If there is a liberal charity that used this scheme or a similar one I would love to hear about it. You could literally make you entire case in three words.
Your attempt at reverse psychology made me laugh.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're complaining about something you added to my statement.
Straw man.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which I gather from your posts on the topic either exploded to form the Big Bang or represents "shit happens". Neither of those has anything to do with morality, unless you want to tack on yet another definition.
😆 Now, he brings in the big bang.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your attempt at reverse psychology made me laugh.
No reverse psychology at work.
Fact: you claim liberal charities cheat people
Fact: you claim to know specific examples
Fact: you can prove that liberal charities cheat people by writing the name of one of those examples
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Straw man.
Not even remotely. It's a fact that anyone who cares can go see that I didn't say anything about conservatives, you are the one who added that and then subsequently complained about me saying it. (which is actually a perfect example of someone using a strawman)
Originally posted by Robtard
Same could be said with false advertisement on products, ultimately it would be the buyers fault for not researching what's in the shampoo, food or car they purchased and just goign by what the label tells them, no?
Yeah, cept, one you actually get something tangible and consume it. The other, it's not tangible and you don't consume it. You are giving away your money, trusting that another will use it on your behalf. The former is direct and tangible: the other is indirect and intangible.
It is up to you to research both BUT, the consumables have the problem of directly impacting you, physically, so, they require something other than "trust", they require regulations: FDA, FTC, etc.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No reverse psychology at work.Fact: you claim liberal charities cheat people
Fact: you claim to know specific examples
Fact: you can prove that liberal charities cheat people by writing the name of one of those examplesNot even remotely. It's a fact that anyone who cares can go see that I didn't say anything about conservatives, you are the one who added that and then subsequently complained about me saying it. (which is actually a perfect example of someone using a strawman)
🙄 I didn't start off by talking to you. I was responding to tru-marvell. It's not my fault that you have no idea what is going on here.
Go back to the beginning of the thread, and read the starter. Everything I am talking about has to do with that. I took everything you said as if you had read the first post.
As of now, you have diverged from the topic. It is no surprise that you think I am talking about you.
Let me help you: If tru-marvell was a regular listener to Sean Hanity, then he would know about liberals that are corrupt. The conservatives are just like the liberals in that they do nothing but rant and insult the other side of politics. If tru-marvell wishes to rise about it all, then he/she should know both sides.
I have no idea why you jumped in, but it is a free forum. It's just your Karma.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, cept, one you actually get something tangible and consume it. The other, it's not tangible and you don't consume it. You are giving away your money, trusting that another will use it on your behalf. The former is direct and tangible: the other is indirect and intangible.It is up to you to research both BUT, the consumables have the problem of directly impacting you, physically, so, they require something other than "trust", they require regulations: FDA, FTC, etc.
It's still a lie on both accounts; where you used your money, based on a false premise. Be it the shampoo that regrows hair, or a donation that will help African children. Lies as lie and they both butt-****ed you out of money.
Some yes, not all things purchased could impact you physically.
Originally posted by BackFire
The moral is to not give to charities. In fact, it may be a good idea to steal from them. I'm on it.
There's one good way to give to charity. Take a bunch of money and toss it in the air. God will take the amount needed to maintain his good works and you take whatever falls to the ground.