My point is that if Japan AND Germany AND Hong Kong AND Korea AND France AND Italy AND Germany AND Russia AND Britain AND China AND Greece AND Norway AND Holland are smoking brickyards at the same time, small wonder the US made money, whatever our rates were

When the G-8 is NOT bombed out, we may want to think about being more competitive, in terms of making paying taxes on US earnings cheaper, than moving to Uganda and opening a robotic factory guarded by child soldiers

You're right. I should just talk to people like idiots, not suggest that they're being hypocritical and could do better with the application of their brains. I'm entirely too constructive and not nearly patronizing enough.

When someone posts something drunk and mostly incoherent, I should just insult them with patronizing BS rather than suggest we could have a better discussion if they actually stated their case and made some arguments/offered some explanation.

When someone complains about the outcomes of policies which they support, I shouldn't suggest that they haven't thought their position through. I should just laugh at them.

If you could ban the people who post incoherent nonsense while clearly on hallucinogens, that would help. And if you could ban the trolls who post nothing but personal insults void of content, that would help. And if you could remove posts with absolutely no arguments or explanations whatsoever as the spam that they are, that would help.

I find this spam insulting. If you don't, well... I don't have to say it.

I always respond to people on content, suggesting that you do not know what "disdain" is. What's offensive is the content-less whining that I use derogatory language to describe. This spam is far more insulting and offensive than occasional jabs at it. Is there a rule against mocking ideas? Please inform me. I didn't think any rule required politics forum posters to treat each other like babies, even when posts have extreme ideas and absolutely no explanation or argument accompanying them. In fact, I thought the disclaimer was clear that posters on this forum wouldn't be treated like babies. My mistake.

I tried stopping by the chat. A few times. The childish moderators were rambling about how intellectually superior they were to everyone else in the universe, and they booted me for asking why I was banned. Talk about insult, disdain, and offense.

when I speak plainly you ban me for bad language

> The Yell wrote:

> when I speak plainly you ban me for bad language

Did I ban you for bad language as a result of your most recent example of speaking plainly?  Perhaps... it's possible to speak plainly while keeping with the forum rules? 

the image of Surak read your thoughts in your rant, Spock

> Mister Spock wrote:

> I Like Trains kid,

I believe that intellectual limitations are a significant factor in why some parties (generally speaking; not referring to posters on this forum) are unable to present a cogent communication of any sort of case for their positions. If such a thought is against implicit rules, I would like to know.

First of all, what does it do to point at someone and say "You're stupid."  First thing's first: It's very unlikely that Justinian, myself, or anyone else that you call stupid, whether directly or indirectly, is suddenly going to say "Holy shit, he's right!  I'm dumber than a rock!  I'm going to immediately switch my entire perspective to agree with Spock based on that well-written assertion that I'm dumber than a log!  Oh, bless ye, bless ye!  God bless us, everyone!"  If you think someone is an absolute moron... you can either use logical reasoning (the thing that supposedly separates you, the supposedly superior intellectual, from them, the idiots) or walk away, and let what you've said do the talking for you.

More than likely, if anything, the only response you're going to get from people once you get to calling them an idiot is to get a reply calling you something else, or spending their time defending themselves personally.  It's nearly impossible for a thread which degrades to personal attacks to then retract as the two people say "Let's let bygones be bygones and go back to discussing the important issues, and just pretend we never spent 40 posts calling each other dumbasses!"  That doesn't do you any good.  That doesn't do him any good.  And as a third party reader, it sure as hell doesn't do me any good.

Remember, debate isn't always about making the other guy admit he's wrong.  Neither Obama or Romney were likely to suddenly drop everything and say "Holy shit, you're right!  As of now, I officially announce I'm suspending my campaign" during the first debate.  However, the resolution doesn't necessarily occur by the two of them battling it out until both are exhausted or one gives up.  Rather, sometimes third parties (like myself) who aren't actually participating may be reading the thread for the purpose of learning more about perspectives and analyses.  When you drop the whole intellectual debate (the thing you, as the intellectual superior, are supposed to have an advantage in), from the third party's point of view, very little separates you from the other person.

You don't need to assert that the other person is stupid to show that they're stupid.  The better intellectual will let their logical superiority win over someone who clearly has no idea what they're talking about.  Just... show the other person is wrong.  Answer their arguments WITHOUT resorting to personal attacks. 

You're a smart person.  You know what a personal attack is.  That is what we are trying to avoid.

> I'm not allowed to think racists are ignorant? Or that fascist tyrant-dictator-wannabes are psychologically dysfunctional? Or speak those genuine thoughts? I'm not going to argue with the rules, but I think all posters at least deserve to know what those rules are. The forum rules include no such prohibition against voicing thoughts on the intellect/psychology/morality of people who hold any thoughts.

1. Use appropriate language
Do not use language which is sexually explicit, threatening, abusive, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive. This includes both clear and implied language,

3. Respect others and behave maturely
You must respect others and their rights to enjoy this game and the forums. In order to show proper respect, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, insult, name call, or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players or the moderators. This includes using words which do not fall under the coverage of rule 1 concerning inappropriate language.

6. No flaming or trolling
Do not verbally attack or provoke others into fights or post for the sole purpose of causing unrest or dissent and stirring up trouble. Do not use immature name-calling and do not take personal conflicts onto the forums in public.

The rules are very simple.  Avoid inflammatory language.  You know very well what I'm talking about.  When your reply to Justinian begins with: "How much pot do you smoke daily? How many drugs are you on?," you know very well what is inflammatory.

The sad thing is, Kemp, that I've seen your stuff and I know there's logic to much of what you say.  Genesis knows it too.  The fundamental problem isn't your arguments.  It's that, in between the actual logical reasoning, you fill so much of so many of your posts with personal attacks which are absolutely unnecessary.  There was no reason to go ask Justinian what drugs he was on.  All you had to do was make your logical point (which I agree with), then stop and let your logic carry through.  But that didn't happen.  You had to add the attacks in.

There's my appeal.  I'm giving you this one shot to show that you actually are better than some people make you out to be.  Do what you want with it.  But do know that I'm done justifying why a rule exists against personal attacks.  This has taken more than enough time as is, in a forum where it is absolutely inappropriate.  You have been, unequivocally, undeniably, absolutely, without question warned.  Don't... push... it.

I Like Trains kid, ===>Off-topic! save yourselves! skip down to the break!<===

"First of all, what does it do to point at someone and say "You're stupid." "

I didn't do this. I explained my point about intelligence/psychology as it may bear statistically significant correlations to political ideas. You opened up with condemnation of behavior I neither engaged in nor defended. I do honestly believe that many people have strong opinions on economic matters they know nothing about precisely and literally because the have very limited intellectual capacities.

I was honestly interested in what psychoactive substances may have influenced Justinian I's thinking. Since you moderators rarely delete trolling or spam nor ban trolls or spammers, I figured I might as well ask what was making this so funny to him.

I understand that this legitimate question regarding psychoactive substances can be interpreted as "inflammatory." Noted.

The clutch issue here moderators tend to ignore is context. There is no context to his "well, fascism and totalitarianism can solve literally anything!" statement. No argument in favor of it. No explanation. No attempt to refute or respond to disagreement whatsoever. That's disrespectful. That's spam. That's trolling. And this forum is filled with it: Trolling with absolutely no responsiveness to what else is posted.

Compared to this, I find a little light joshing in response to be irrelevant. I don't mind it when directed at me--it's a challenge! rise to it!--but then, I respectfully respond to people's ideas and explain what I do and do not agree with. Mr. Augustus and myself have been posting here for many years. That he posted such without any argument or explanation suggests to me he's obviously trolling. If he's not, he certainly ought to have offered some context/argument/explanation for his extreme proposal. If he took offense at my admittedly sharp language in asking for that explanation, that's just funny. In any event, he should easily know that I don't have a problem with him, nor do I think he's an idiot.

There are plenty of posters over the years whom I could call yellow-bellied communist child-eating robots, and they wouldn't be offended. Given Justinian's history of viewpoints, philosophy, and religion over the past decade, I merely intended my drug-use reference as a "wait, whaaaat?" request for an explanation of whether he was serious and, if so, some much more dense explanation of how he actually believes the stuff he referenced. I'm still not convinced it wasn't a legitimate question.

Context matters. It wasn't intended as a personal insult. At least not a serious one with any offense intended.  If he was one of the people spamming the report link, that's just hilarious. That'd be like me hitting report because The Yell seemed intolerant of homosexuality. That'd just be dumb. This is a politics forum.

There's not much parallel that could happen directed back at me because I don't engage in the disrespectful, spamming, trolling behavior which illicits such a response from me. That you don't moderate this spam/trolling/ad hominem nonsense out of the forum to begin with is your failing.

Frankly, I find your disinterest in moderating the forum disrespectful. Pointless, obvious spam and trolling are untouched 99% of the time. Personal attacks are untouched 90% of the time, except in the case of the receiver being a troll who mashes the report link to further troll the forum after getting an initial reaction. I would be much more comfortable just ignoring spam/trolling/harassment if moderators did not regularly (>90% of the time) ignore it. I would be much less likely to say a few disparaging remarks about trolls, pointless posts without any arguments or explanations, off-topic whining, etc. if any moderators ever actually moderated this garbage out of the forum. Often they even respond to it. Nothing like fresh trolling at the top of the forum!

I can understand and certainly appreciate your position, but the bottom line is that, if this is all the moderation you intend and how you intend to do it, I'd rather be banned than post on a forum where moderators literally don't care about spam and trolling unless trolls mash their report buttons to achieve more entertainment. It's embarrassing.

I've been warned. Do what you gotta do. If you remove some of the thoughtless/pointless spam on occasion, though, I'll be cool with that. The funniest part is that you decline to address a lot of trolling because you're giving the poster the benefit of the doubt: That they're not intentionally trolling but post pointless, substance-less, often incoherent posts because they're just that incapable.  I've gotten quite a few good laughs out of this over the years.

AdriusAvangion,

Taxing the rich at any rate, even approaching 100%, would barely put a dent in our debt. They simply do not have enough money to balance our budget, or anywhere near that much. You cannot tax the rich "instead" of poor people to balance our budget. If taxation is to be the sole means of balancing our budget, no amount of taxation on the rich will significantly reduce the increased taxes the working and poor will have to pay. They literally don't have enough money.

There is literally no circumstance in which you can tax the rich "instead of" the poor to balance budgets except to, theoretically, reduce the amount of the budget that needs to be cut by a few, very few, percentage points. There is absolutely no economic, revenue, or mathematical argument to be made in favor of "taxing the rich," because it absolutely cannot balance our budget. The idea of taxing the rich, who already pay most of our taxes, more in order to balance the budget is a lie.

It's a complete falsehood. The idea of "taxing the rich" has nothing to do with budgets, it's purely a class-warfare campaign tactic to dupe those ignorant of the fact that they can't get more out of our government without taxing _everyone_ to pay for it. It's a slogan designed to attract people who want more from government w/o having to pay for it. Mathematically that is impossible: A 100% tax on the rich would make virtually no difference to our budget. Our deficits exceed their incomes by such a massive amount that their income is virtually irrelevant.

Anything more our government does, everyone has to pay for. "Tax the rich" is a nonsense slogan to convince people that it's okay to grow government, as if "the rich" can fund it instead of all of us. They can't.

lol @ Mister Spock!

None of that really makes a difference to me. I look at it this way..... a rich person doesnt have to worry about where the next meal is coming from or how they are gonna put gas in their car to get work that week. Raising taxes on the rich isnt going to effect their lifestyle or ability to take care of themselves.

So you can blah blah blah at me all day about numbers and facts and what not. Doesnt change the fact that they have more money. Im poor. I live it everyday and all  my friends and people i know are pretty much poor too. You will never be able to convince me that NOT taxing the rich a bit more wouldnt be helpful somehow.

Wow Kemp. That was a high quality, no personal attack thread. I dare say one of your top 5 threads in both regards

Keep it up!

I encourage you to try for a first. tongue

lol.

It's painfully obvious that the tax base of math users would be even smaller than that of high income earners.