Forums
Whats up with this?
Quick find code: 23-24-617-66279054
Averia Light
said
:
And the opposite is true - just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is inherently good. Absolutely.
Averia Light said :
Venture capitalism falls squarely in the "legal, but absolutely abhorrent and a lot of practices should be illegal" category Well, you mentioned "swindle" which would imply fraud. I wouldn't agree with defrauding people, regardless if it's against the law or not.
Averia Light said :
instead of the "hey everyone should take advantage of loopholes because they are legal regardless of who it's hurts" category. You only mentioned tax loopholes. I have no issues with people using the tax laws, as written by the government, to prevent the government from stealing a higher amount of money from them during tax season.
Averia Light said :
[This is exactly why I went through this exercise. It is good to know that you do care about morals. Well, I'm glad I could help you facilitate your psychological analysis of myself.
And the opposite is true - just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is inherently good. Absolutely.
Averia Light said :
Venture capitalism falls squarely in the "legal, but absolutely abhorrent and a lot of practices should be illegal" category Well, you mentioned "swindle" which would imply fraud. I wouldn't agree with defrauding people, regardless if it's against the law or not.
Averia Light said :
instead of the "hey everyone should take advantage of loopholes because they are legal regardless of who it's hurts" category. You only mentioned tax loopholes. I have no issues with people using the tax laws, as written by the government, to prevent the government from stealing a higher amount of money from them during tax season.
Averia Light said :
[This is exactly why I went through this exercise. It is good to know that you do care about morals. Well, I'm glad I could help you facilitate your psychological analysis of myself.
02-May-2023 06:01:19
Averia Light
said
:
the government is stealing money? Well, yes, you don't really have a choice in whether you pay them or not. If you don't pay them, they send people with guns to your house to kidnap you.
Averia Light said :
They provide services for that money and you can choose to live elsewhere amirite?. Theoretically they should provide services, but, reality is so far removed from theory that the sentiment no longer really holds value.
A good example of that are the different city governments that have decided that homeowners who don't make use of public transit should have to pay higher homeowner taxes to provide those services to other people for cheaper or for free. New York City, for example, wants to raise the taxes of all homeowners to cover the cost of providing free subway to everyone. Instead of having the customers who use the service, pay for the service, they're having homeowners pay for everyone else to use them. Ottawa (in Canada) is doing the same thing. They're raising the taxes on homeowners outside of the main city, in order to prevent the city from having to raise the cost of bus fare by 25 cents (from $2.75 to $3.00). They're literally targeting the people who will almost never use the service. Homeowners inside the main city are not subject to the new tax, only those on the outskirts of the main city.
What's up with that? Is it legal? Sure. Is it fair or just? Nope.
Averia Light said :
And. I just had a lil fun is all. I find it silly how gung ho people are about laws when it suits them and how quickly they are willing to toss those laws when they don't. My only real opinion here is that venture capitalists are pretty much parasites, the rest is just me playing devil's advocate. Nothing wrong with devil's advocate.
Averia Light said :
Anyway, thanks for the debate, nexus origin. Anytime!
the government is stealing money? Well, yes, you don't really have a choice in whether you pay them or not. If you don't pay them, they send people with guns to your house to kidnap you.
Averia Light said :
They provide services for that money and you can choose to live elsewhere amirite?. Theoretically they should provide services, but, reality is so far removed from theory that the sentiment no longer really holds value.
A good example of that are the different city governments that have decided that homeowners who don't make use of public transit should have to pay higher homeowner taxes to provide those services to other people for cheaper or for free. New York City, for example, wants to raise the taxes of all homeowners to cover the cost of providing free subway to everyone. Instead of having the customers who use the service, pay for the service, they're having homeowners pay for everyone else to use them. Ottawa (in Canada) is doing the same thing. They're raising the taxes on homeowners outside of the main city, in order to prevent the city from having to raise the cost of bus fare by 25 cents (from $2.75 to $3.00). They're literally targeting the people who will almost never use the service. Homeowners inside the main city are not subject to the new tax, only those on the outskirts of the main city.
What's up with that? Is it legal? Sure. Is it fair or just? Nope.
Averia Light said :
And. I just had a lil fun is all. I find it silly how gung ho people are about laws when it suits them and how quickly they are willing to toss those laws when they don't. My only real opinion here is that venture capitalists are pretty much parasites, the rest is just me playing devil's advocate. Nothing wrong with devil's advocate.
Averia Light said :
Anyway, thanks for the debate, nexus origin. Anytime!
02-May-2023 06:29:44 - Last edited on 02-May-2023 06:38:34 by Origin Nexus
Origin Nexus
said
:
Joel said :
Celebs in general do not need any defence from regular Joe's like 99% of the world's population Why not?
If we're talking about defence of misinformation, mischaracterization and so on then sure. Nothing wrong with that, but that should be down to the information being incorrect, not down to them being a famous celebrity so that would be something done regardless of an individual's celebrity status or lack-thereof
But going above and beyond to needlessly defend somebody, which to be fair a lot of people do for celebrities they really like (or worship in a lot of cases) is just unnecessary lol
Celebrities already have huge platforms in which to defend or stick up for themselves and if needed, support that with financial backing. To my earlier point, an average person with no platform shouldn't really be wasting their time defending people of status with a platform. But each to their own
Everyone is free to do what they want in that regard
Need support? Support Centre | Forum Help
Joel said :
Celebs in general do not need any defence from regular Joe's like 99% of the world's population Why not?
If we're talking about defence of misinformation, mischaracterization and so on then sure. Nothing wrong with that, but that should be down to the information being incorrect, not down to them being a famous celebrity so that would be something done regardless of an individual's celebrity status or lack-thereof
But going above and beyond to needlessly defend somebody, which to be fair a lot of people do for celebrities they really like (or worship in a lot of cases) is just unnecessary lol
Celebrities already have huge platforms in which to defend or stick up for themselves and if needed, support that with financial backing. To my earlier point, an average person with no platform shouldn't really be wasting their time defending people of status with a platform. But each to their own
Everyone is free to do what they want in that regard
Joel
Need support? Support Centre | Forum Help
02-May-2023 15:03:43
Origin Nexus
said
:
Don't get the wrong idea either, I'm not just "defending celebrities". I mean, if we were discussing Jimmy and the "plant a million trees" sham, well, I wouldn't be defending those actions. That was absurd, and seemed like wasted money, but I guess it pleased all the environmentalists that don't actually know how trees grow. Like, if you plant a million trees together all 2 feet apart, the majority of those trees will die. Trees need far more room.
Look at how the trees are planted:
They're so close together, and they're all different species. Ultimately, they'll be fighting for both earth space, and air space, and the majority of them will die, leaving only the few victors to take over.
Then take into account that over 2.5 billion trees are planted in the U.S. every year.
I'm sure he thought he was doing good, but, ultimately, it was just a huge fiasco.
I wouldn't defend his actions there, but, paying the medical bills so that 1000 people can see again? I would absolutely defend that.
But people like these:
-----
Food freebies: restaurants fighting back against social media influencers
-----
Those are the kinds of "celebrities" that people shouldn't be propping up at all. The amount of entitlement and expectation from them while not actually providing anything to substantiate in return is mind blowing, all because "the algorithm" promoted them.
I think the trees will be fine; maybe not optimal growth but unless they cast too much shade on each on the will just grown on top of each other.
And another example of when looking up to celebs too much goes wrong; almost parody level knock offs appearing. <<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<
>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>>
<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<
>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>>
Don't get the wrong idea either, I'm not just "defending celebrities". I mean, if we were discussing Jimmy and the "plant a million trees" sham, well, I wouldn't be defending those actions. That was absurd, and seemed like wasted money, but I guess it pleased all the environmentalists that don't actually know how trees grow. Like, if you plant a million trees together all 2 feet apart, the majority of those trees will die. Trees need far more room.
Look at how the trees are planted:
They're so close together, and they're all different species. Ultimately, they'll be fighting for both earth space, and air space, and the majority of them will die, leaving only the few victors to take over.
Then take into account that over 2.5 billion trees are planted in the U.S. every year.
I'm sure he thought he was doing good, but, ultimately, it was just a huge fiasco.
I wouldn't defend his actions there, but, paying the medical bills so that 1000 people can see again? I would absolutely defend that.
But people like these:
-----
Food freebies: restaurants fighting back against social media influencers
https://youtu.be/rrJse_j1qW8
-----
Those are the kinds of "celebrities" that people shouldn't be propping up at all. The amount of entitlement and expectation from them while not actually providing anything to substantiate in return is mind blowing, all because "the algorithm" promoted them.
I think the trees will be fine; maybe not optimal growth but unless they cast too much shade on each on the will just grown on top of each other.
And another example of when looking up to celebs too much goes wrong; almost parody level knock offs appearing. <<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<
>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>>
<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<<><<
>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>><>>>
02-May-2023 21:01:57
Quick find code: 23-24-617-66279054 Back to Top