NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't get it.

So if a company did a thing, then the company changed, got re-arraged, re-grouped and so forth, why does the new cabinet of that company get to pay for something that the other cabinet that formed the company long ago did?

'cause that's the way debts work

'cause that's the way debts work
Yep. I think some people are going to be in for a very rude awakening someday when they try to deal with the real world. ;)

Ha. So the government of the US can be said to have not been responsible for its actions? Are you kidding me? If so, on what day did it become the legal entity it is today? Because according to the law, the law you wish to ignore, it's the same government and has always been a valid legal entity.

Legal entity is not an opinion. The government is one and has been the same one since it was founded. That's not opinion. That's irrefutable and if you don't know that, then you don't understand.

You are repeating yourself. I wont.

Amusing. Didn't you just suggest that I was getting to upset when I said you were misunderstanding and then you say the same. Hypocrite much?


I didnt get upset, I was just not amused. And you people made negative comments after my arguments, I made negative comments after some people made negative comments about my abilities (such as reading skills). There is a difference between two approaches. One is kinda pathetic, IMO, the other is quite healthy and natural (within limits).
So I will just repeat: "Ah...one of the many points you failed to comprehend..."


Meanwhile, if it's not about mental incapacity then the analogy of the four-year-old is inappropriate, since that's the only difference between my analogy and yours.

You don't get it. The US government is a legal entity and despite your trying to ignore that, it hasn't become a different legal entity. While I might evolve throughout my life, I am still legally responsible for things I may not still agree with. Change is not good enough to make the you not legally responsible. Your four-year-old analogy requires that the four-year-old not be able to be responsible.

Again, you are repeating yourself...No point in further discussion.

You are repeating yourself. I wont.



I didnt get upset, I was just not amused. And you people made negative comments after my arguments, I made negative comments after some people made negative comments about my abilities (such as reading skills). There is a difference between two approaches. One is kinda pathetic, IMO, the other is quite healthy and natural (within limits).
So I will just repeat: "Ah...one of the many points you failed to comprehend..."

You realize I wasn't talking about your saying it to me. But, hey, why would you be right about this? That wouldn't be consistent with the rest of your points.

Again, you are repeating yourself...No point in further discussion.

I'm repeating myself, because you're absolutely willing to argue against fact. The government is a responsible legal entity, despite your claims to the contrary. It became one upon refounding and there has been no revolution, and thus not change in the legal entity. That I have to repeat it is evidence of your obstinance and nothing else.

"This is patently false. The US is a legal entity and it's the same legal entity as it was when it was founded. To ignore this is to ignore fact."---Jocabia

So now you are talking about a country instead of a company.....which brings up even more issues. Joining a company is a choice, joining your country of birth is not.....no baby has ever chosen to be born a citizen of a certain country. And you claim that people with no choice in the matter should be punished for the wrongs of other people? People they've never even met? You are talking nonsense.

It is ridiculous to demand reparations of people that have done no wrong, nor even had any choice in the matter.

Sad day when people start wanting to punish the innocent just because the guilty aren't around.

OK, once again, slowly, for the people who seem unable to follow this simple concept:

"Legal Entity" =/= specific group of individuals.

"Legal Entity" can also be an organization that continues to exist even when its membership and leadership change.

Thus, a government is a "legal entity." It continues to exist as a single legal entity, no matter how many personnel changes it goes through. It is ALWAYS the same government.

Likewise, a company is a "legal entity" that continues to exist no matter how many personnel changes it undergoes.

Now, consider: When you enter a cell phone service contract with, for example, Verizon, who are you entering the contract with? Who delivers the phone service? What do you write on your bill payment checks in the space for "Pay to the order of"?

Is it Verizon? Or is it some person, some individual executive at Verizon? It is the company, obviously. Now, say the CEO of Verizon retires and is replaced? Let's say the whole executive suite of Verizon's central offices is replaced at once. Does that erase your service contract? No, it does not, because you were never doing business with those people. You were doing business with Verizon, and Verizon still exists, without any interruptions.

Now apply this to the government. Who do you pay your taxes to? George Bush? No, you pay them to the US Government Department of Internal Revenue. No matter how many presidents or congresses this country goes through, no matter how many directors of the IRS may come and go, your taxes are always collected by the same entity.

So the specious argument that "the company" does not exist because the "collection of people" who make it up have changed is bunk, as a point of fact. If Verizon incurs a debt, then the new management of Verizon are responsible for that debt. If the government does something wrong, then the new leadership of the government are responsible for making it right.

As to the equally specious argument that the government should not be held responsible for something it did because it did it when it was too young to know any better and certainly wouldn't do it now, they really really promise -- please, give me a break. The United States has never been run by children who did not know how to run a country, and there were many centuries of history to show them the wrongness of slavery by example, if they needed to be shown.

And finally to the suggestion that many people have made that we should forget about slavery because it happened long ago, let me explain this: For some crimes there is no statute of limitations -- no expiration date beyond which it can no longer be prosecuted. There is no expiration date for murder, for instance, and there is no expiration date for crimes against humanity committed by governments, for which category slavery qualifies.


Legal entity can also be a natural person. Therefore, a 4 year old is the same legal entity 28 years after. However, the 32 year old is not responsible for the actions of the 4 year old.

Please please, before claiming to explain for others slowly, try to understand this slowly. We are not talking about personal changes in government such as administration changes. We are talking about the change in system. Although USA has officially been a democracy since from the start, the system has changed a lot. The democracy in 1790 is quite different from the democracy in 2007. The "democracy" in 1790 would be classified as oligarchy now. Iran today is more democratic than USA 1790. Despite serious human rights violations, at least everyone is allowed to vote. And Iran isnt considered a functioning democracy today. So relative to modern standarts, USA changed its government.

And again, I suggest you to read my answer to Neesika slowly, because you clearly did not understand the analogy since you said: "The United States has never been run by children who did not know how to run a country". Although you may disagree with the correctness of analogy, "children" wasnt the point.

And you are really making superficial arguments. Modern economics laws, which has been developed mostly in 20th century can not be used as an argument to explain 250 years old issues. They certainly can not fully address political issues. And what about if USA nuked the entire world (except itself) and changed its name to United States of North America, the day after. Does that relieve USNA of any responsibility of 1 day before? No. Similarly West Germany was responsible for some of the actions of Nazi Germany because it had to pay reparations, for example, although the "legal entity" changed. Same/different governments/legal entities is not everything, the issue is complex.

Think about all those slowly now.

You realize I wasn't talking about your saying it to me. But, hey, why would you be right about this? That wouldn't be consistent with the rest of your points.


I do realize that but it seems you dont realize that I wasnt talking about only you. Read Neesika's previous comments about ME after my ARGUMENTS and my comments to HER AFTER her comments about ME. Get it?


I'm repeating myself, because you're absolutely willing to argue against fact. The government is a responsible legal entity, despite your claims to the contrary. It became one upon refounding and there has been no revolution, and thus not change in the legal entity. That I have to repeat it is evidence of your obstinance and nothing else.

Ok.

The Blacks they do not own up to their own stupidity and wickedness. Instead they want to blame whitey or poverty. Poverty is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. In college I did some damn fine research that pretty much proved that the impoverished cosmopolitan slums of about 1890-1920 were pretty darn safe places. It was only after all the whites and Jews moved up in society and out of the slums that the Blacks and there violence made the slums "bad areas" as opposed to merely "poor areas".

The funny thing was that when the slums were cosmopolitan the Black residents were not that bad. It was only when they pooled together that they went all crazed and depraved.

I do realize that but it seems you dont realize that I wasnt talking about only you. Read Neesika's previous comments about ME after my ARGUMENTS and my comments to HER AFTER her comments about ME. Get it?

I'm happy to read her previous comments. Let's see what you were replying to.

The people in government back in the old days were not children or mentally deficient.

Your analogy is at best, spurious. To label it correct, and assume we'll accept it as such is ridiculous.

The goverment system in the particular state it was in back then was not equivalent to a toddler fumbling foolishly around.

Yep, it looks like you're a hypocrite. Thanks for playing. Unless it's an insult to call a spurious example spurious.

You're "she did it first" cries are inane. They have no relevance. Either you're wrong for doing it or you need stop complaining when other people rightly show that you're ignoring the fact that your claiming that the US has not been the same legal entity since its inception is a misunderstanding of the law. Do either. I don't care. But don't expect me not to point and laugh when you use the same tactics in a more grievious form while complaining about how its unfair to actually call you out.

Legal entity can also be a natural person. Therefore, a 4 year old is the same legal entity 28 years after. However, the 32 year old is not responsible for the actions of the 4 year old.

You aren't legally responsible at the time of being a four-year-old. It's not an after-the-fact assessment. The US government was legally responsible at that time and as such is still legally responsible. Do you really want to keep beating this drum because your entire argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of the law and Nees knows it better than you.


Please please, before claiming to explain for others slowly, try to understand this slowly. We are not talking about personal changes in government such as administration changes. We are talking about the change in system. Although USA has officially been a democracy since from the start, the system has changed a lot. The democracy in 1790 is quite different from the democracy in 2007. The "democracy" in 1790 would be classified as oligarchy now. Iran today is more democratic than USA 1790. Despite serious human rights violations, at least everyone is allowed to vote. And Iran isnt considered a functioning democracy today. So relative to modern standarts, USA changed its government.

The system while it has been amended is still the same legal entity. The constitutional government has never ceased to be the same entity. Again, which day did it change into a new legal entity? The debts it held on the day before did they disappear? Relative to modern standards the US may have made changes to its government but its government has never changed. Quick, what date will EVERY person in the world tell you the current government was founded? I promise it won't be in the 19th, 20th or 21rst centuries.



And again, I suggest you to read my answer to Neesika slowly, because you clearly did not understand the analogy since you said: "The United States has never been run by children who did not know how to run a country". Although you may disagree with the correctness of analogy, "children" wasnt the point.

And this is the part you don't get. Children don't change into adults. They are not legally held responsible in certain ways because they aren't held capable of being responsible. There isn't a change as a legal entity. They simply can't be held responsible at that time. Just as a person who was crazy can't be. It's not that you become a new legal entity or a different one. It's that the legal entity at the time wasn't legally responsible.

We've addressed your analogy in the only way it could possibly be applied. The way you're trying to apply it is a complete misapprehension of the law.

You keeping claiming "children" wasn't the point, but you intentionally changed my scenario to one involving children for the reason that children cannot be held legally responsible in some regards. If "children" wasn't the point, then why change the scenario solely for the purpose of including a child. "Think about this slowly now."



And you are really making superficial arguments. Modern economics laws, which has been developed mostly in 20th century can not be used as an argument to explain 250 years old issues. They certainly can not fully address political issues. And what about if USA nuked the entire world (except itself) and changed its name to United States of North America, the day after. Does that relieve USNA of any responsibility of 1 day before? No. Similarly West Germany was responsible for some of the actions of Nazi Germany because it had to pay reparations, for example, although the "legal entity" changed. Same/different governments/legal entities is not everything, the issue is complex.

Think about all those slowly now.

While a change in legal entities may not absolve you of your past debts, 'sins', no change in legal entity certainly cannot do so. The amusing part is the example you give is the exact opposite of what you're arguing.

Let's see, we're supposed to get that when a legal entity changes may not make you completely absolved SO when it doesn't, it does. I really hope that doesn't resemble logic for you, becuase it's not. "I was saw a guy with black shoes eat a sandwich, therefore a guy without black shoes cannot eat a sandwich." Hopefully, in the future you will use examples that actually address the situation instead of spurious examples about what would happen if the US were not the same legal entity or comparing the early US to a child that is not responsible for its actions because it wasn't capable of it.

"This is patently false. The US is a legal entity and it's the same legal entity as it was when it was founded. To ignore this is to ignore fact."---Jocabia

So now you are talking about a country instead of a company.....which brings up even more issues. Joining a company is a choice, joining your country of birth is not.....no baby has ever chosen to be born a citizen of a certain country. And you claim that people with no choice in the matter should be punished for the wrongs of other people? People they've never even met? You are talking nonsense.

It is ridiculous to demand reparations of people that have done no wrong, nor even had any choice in the matter.

Sad day when people start wanting to punish the innocent just because the guilty aren't around.

No one is demanding it of people. They are demanding of a government that did do wrong. That did not fulfill a promise and did not uphold an ideal.

Meanwhile, as an adult, you have a choice. You may leave. My children will have no more choice in the matter of paying off the debt incurred by this administration. However, as a member of the governed, they hold this responsibility. The only way to not pay taxes is to leave. You don't get to decide because you didn't have anything to do with a particulr decision that your tax dollars won't go to it. This is not your role in the government.

And reparations are not a punishment. They are simply addressing an issue. Meanwhile, the "guilty" are around. "They" are called the US government.

Please read the entire thread. I get tired of rehashing arguments because people can't make a small effort.

I'm happy to read her previous comments. Let's see what you were replying to.


And why do you assume that I meant the immediate post before my reply? Lets say two people are in a big fight and after 20 minutes, the first person says something non-offensive. Does that mean the whole fight should be forgotten? No. God, this should be so simple.



Yep, it looks like you're a hypocrite. Thanks for playing. Unless it's an insult to call a spurious example spurious.

You're "she did it first" cries are inane. They have no relevance. Either you're wrong for doing it or you need stop complaining when other people rightly show that you're ignoring the fact that your claiming that the US has not been the same legal entity since its inception is a misunderstanding of the law. Do either. I don't care. But don't expect me not to point and laugh when you use the same tactics in a more grievious form while complaining about how its unfair to actually call you out.

:rolleyes:

This would be the "first blood":

No, you were the one who obviously misread. I was speaking of the government NOW. There is nothing in my post that would lead an person with even average reading comprehension skills to think otherwise.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12701895&postcount=189

She got heated over my ARGUMENTS. And that's what I called pathetic. And I made negative comments about her AFTER her comments about ME. It's pathetic if you really get upset when you receive a personal negative comment in an online forum, but it is healthy and natural to give some sort of balanced response which says you dont appreciate it. This should be really simple. I really have no clue why it is taking so long for you to understand or why you are dragging this matter so much.

You aren't legally responsible at the time of being a four-year-old. It's not an after-the-fact assessment. The US government was legally responsible at that time and as such is still legally responsible. Do you really want to keep beating this drum because your entire argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of the law and Nees knows it better than you.


Repeat.



The system while it has been amended is still the same legal entity. The constitutional government has never ceased to be the same entity. Again, which day did it change into a new legal entity? The debts it held on the day before did they disappear? Relative to modern standards the US may have made changes to its government but its government has never changed. Quick, what date will EVERY person in the world tell you the current government was founded? I promise it won't be in the 19th, 20th or 21rst centuries.


Repeat.



And this is the part you don't get. Children don't change into adults. They are not legally held responsible in certain ways because they aren't held capable of being responsible. There isn't a change as a legal entity. They simply can't be held responsible at that time. Just as a person who was crazy can't be. It's not that you become a new legal entity or a different one. It's that the legal entity at the time wasn't legally responsible.


That's my point when I say the all white, white men elected government is not legally responsible compared to our standarts today.


We've addressed your analogy in the only way it could possibly be applied. The way you're trying to apply it is a complete misapprehension of the law.

You keeping claiming "children" wasn't the point, but you intentionally changed my scenario to one involving children for the reason that children cannot be held legally responsible in some regards. If "children" wasn't the point, then why change the scenario solely for the purpose of including a child. "Think about this slowly now."


Because the child and adult is the same legal entity but there is a legal cutoff which dictates WHEN there is responsibility.




While a change in legal entities may not absolve you of your past debts, 'sins', no change in legal entity certainly cannot do so. The amusing part is the example you give is the exact opposite of what you're arguing.

Let's see, we're supposed to get that when a legal entity changes may not make you completely absolved SO when it doesn't, it does. I really hope that doesn't resemble logic for you, becuase it's not. "I was saw a guy with black shoes eat a sandwich, therefore a guy without black shoes cannot eat a sandwich." Hopefully, in the future you will use examples that actually address the situation instead of spurious examples about what would happen if the US were not the same legal entity or comparing the early US to a child that is not responsible for its actions because it wasn't capable of it.

Again, you are assuming, as usual. I've never said that I thought no apology was needed ever. An apology would make sense after the abolition of slavery, or 10, 20, 40 years later, I dont know. But it doesnt make sense 100 years later. Just like West Germany making amends some time after WW2 makes sense but not Germany making amends about Nazi Germany 200 years later.
So basically, your criteria is "legal entity, is it same or not?" and I find that approach superficial.

And why do you assume that I meant the immediate post before my reply? Lets say two people are in a big fight and after 20 minutes, the first person says something non-offensive. Does that mean the whole fight should be forgotten? No. God, this should be so simple.

I say we don't take any personal responsibility at all. It's always someone else's fault. Yeah, that sounds good. Or you could just admit your a hypocrite looking for excuses to be rude while complaining about it for several posts. Go ahead. I don't mind. I'm not going to start begging you to be consistent at this point.


:rolleyes:

This would be the "first blood":


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12701895&postcount=189

She got heated over my ARGUMENTS. And that's what I called pathetic. And I made negative comments about her AFTER her comments about ME. It's pathetic if you really get upset when you receive a personal negative comment in an online forum, but it is healthy and natural to give some sort of balanced response which says you dont appreciate it. This should be really simple. I really have no clue why it is taking so long for you to understand or why you are dragging this matter so much.

You mean after you suggested I misunderstood her statements and she clarified to explain to you that I had correctly interpreted them. Yes, yes, you're right. How dare she do so? And since you were already making these types of statements she simply reflected them. Does that make her right? Nope. However, it doesn't put you in a position to judge either. But, hey, why bother applying logic now?

She made no comments about you. She made comments about what you claimed she was talking about. I pointed out specifically what she said and what she was talking about. Your response was to claim I misunderstood. You were incorrect and she clarified for you.

Come on, complain about it more. It will really help your argument become more credible. I love people who claim others are wrong for being rude WHILE being rude. It's so deliciously ludicrous. Or add some smileys. Those things really make for a good argument.

I say we don't take any personal responsibility at all. It's always someone else's fault. Yeah, that sounds good. Or you could just admit your a hypocrite looking for excuses to be rude while complaining about it for several posts. Go ahead. I don't mind. I'm not going to start begging you to be consistent at this point.




You mean after you suggested I misunderstood her statements and she clarified to explain to you that I had correctly interpreted them. Yes, yes, you're right. How dare she do so? And since you were already making these types of statements she simply reflected them. Does that make her right? Nope. However, it doesn't put you in a position to judge either. But, hey, why bother applying logic now?

She made no comments about you. She made comments about what you claimed she was talking about. I pointed out specifically what she said and what she was talking about. Your response was to claim I misunderstood. You were incorrect and she clarified for you.

Come on, complain about it more. It will really help your argument become more credible. I love people who claim others are wrong for being rude WHILE being rude. It's so deliciously ludicrous. Or add some smileys. Those things really make for a good argument.


Oh come on, read all my posts until that point and you'll see that I wasnt making any personal comments but concentrating on the arguments. But then she clearly implied that I have below average reading comprehension skills. That's rude. And it's not healthy to be kind to people who are rude to you. There may be exceptions, based on the situation, but that's the general rule. But I guess all this talk is pointless. My limited impression of you is someone who never admits mistakes...

Repeat.

And yet you continue to misrepresent fact. If you keep making the same stupid arguments why would the reasons why they're wrong change?


Repeat.

And yet...



That's my point when I say the all white, white men elected government is not legally responsible compared to our standarts today.

Says who? According to what law? We're talking about legal responsibility so who said that an all-white government is incapable of understanding its actions (the only reason a legal entity can be found to not be responsible)? You keep making this claim but you've not justified in any way that can be considered legal.

Because the child and adult is the same legal entity but there is a legal cutoff which dictates WHEN there is responsibility.

So there is a legal cutoff that dictates when a government can be responsible? What cutoff is that? Remember we're talking about LEGAL cutoffs which means they have a basis in law. You seem to think your arbitrary cutoffs somehow constitute a legal cutoff.


Again, you are assuming, as usual. I've never said that I thought no apology was needed ever. An apology would make sense after the abolition of slavery, or 10, 20, 40 years later, I dont know. But it doesnt make sense 100 years later. Just like West Germany making amends some time after WW2 makes sense but not Germany making amends about Nazi Germany 200 years later.
So basically, your criteria is "legal entity, is it same or not?" and I find that approach superficial.

My approach is that as a legal entity you are not absolved of certain crimes nor debts according to law. You've claimed that somehow we are not the same legal entity and now you're claiming that we were still responsible after the fact, but in retrospect we weren't capable of being responsible and (add in another nonsensical argument here).

How can you claim we were legally responsible enough to owe an apology 40 years later, but, like a child, we weren't legally responsible as a justification for not being responsible now. You don't see how ludicrous that is? Seriously?

Oh come on, read all my posts until that point and you'll see that I wasnt making any personal comments but concentrating on the arguments. But then she clearly implied that I have below average reading comprehension skills. That's rude. And it's not healthy to be kind to people who are rude to you. There may be exceptions, based on the situation, but that's the general rule. But I guess all this talk is pointless. My limited impression of you is someone who never admits mistakes...

Yes, yes, it's everyone's fault by NMG. Poor NMG. Keep going. Like I said this is beautifully ironic.

Mistakes? I wasn't crystal clear by accident. You misunderstand the basis of a legal entity and I'm not sorry for stating it. My "rudeness" is nothing to apologize for. Nor is yours. However, you've claimed that other people shouldn't do it, but you've shown yourself to be a hypocrite. Keep making excuses, but that's all they are.

Your limited impression is exactly that. Many people here can attest to times I've come into an argument to admit my error. However, I've only done so when the person I was arguing with proved me wrong. Considering we're still trying to explain to you that a government remains the same legal entity from it's founding to its refounding or destruction, I'm not going to hold out hope that I'm going to be proven wrong.

....
Mistakes? I wasn't crystal clear by accident. You misunderstand the basis of a legal entity and I'm not sorry for stating it. My "rudeness" is nothing to apologize for...

Again, you assume that that's what I considered rude.

Again, you assume that that's what I considered rude.

I assume nothing. I respond to what you say. I know that the specific thing I referenced is something you responded to with claims I was rude. I don't care what goes on in your mind. I care about what you type. If you didn't say something was rude, I don't assume either way. But, hey, assume can just be another word you misuse. Again, how does continuing this ludicrous aside help your credibility?

And yet you continue to misrepresent fact. If you keep making the same stupid arguments why would the reasons why they're wrong change?


And yet...

Says who? According to what law? We're talking about legal responsibility so who said that an all-white government is incapable of understanding its actions (the only reason a legal entity can be found to not be responsible)? You keep making this claim but you've not justified in any way that can be considered legal.


I've never said that an all-white government is incapable of understanding its actions. I just said that there is a disconnection between that kinda government and current government although both are the same legal entity. Just like there is a disconnection between a 4 year old and 32 year old although both are the same legal entity. As I said multiple times, the analogy is not about mental incapacity.


So there is a legal cutoff that dictates when a government can be responsible? What cutoff is that? Remember we're talking about LEGAL cutoffs which means they have a basis in law. You seem to think your arbitrary cutoffs somehow constitute a legal cutoff.


Of course there is no legal cutoffs since there is no law about when to apologize slavery. There are no such laws and I'm giving my opinion about what is right.



My approach is that as a legal entity you are not absolved of certain crimes nor debts according to law. You've claimed that somehow we are not the same legal entity and now you're claiming that we were still responsible after the fact, but in retrospect we weren't capable of being responsible and (add in another nonsensical argument here).

How can you claim we were legally responsible enough to owe an apology 40 years later, but, like a child, we weren't legally responsible as a justification for not being responsible now. You don't see how ludicrous that is? Seriously?

Because too much time has passed. The system has changed. The current system is not responsible for an oligarchic system. Current people arent responsible to what's happened to long dead. There may be efforts to address social injustices but an apology does not make sense. Your only argument has been about the legality of the issue, rather than what makes sense. That's why I used the child analogy, saying that even when it's the same legal entity, it is not responsible for EVERYTHING within its existance. And that concludes my responses. I've spent enough time on this issue.

I assume nothing. I respond to what you say. I know that the specific thing I referenced is something you responded to with claims I was rude. I don't care what goes on in your mind. I care about what you type. If you didn't say something was rude, I don't assume either way. But, hey, assume can just be another word you misuse. Again, how does continuing this ludicrous aside help your credibility?

You assumed that me misunderstanding the basis of a legal entity (as you claim...) and you not sorry for stating it is what I considered rude. Duh....

Besides, you werent responding to what I said at that particular point because I was talking about Neesika, not you...

I guess all this discussion means a lot to you or you really cant see the problem, since you are dragging it so long. For the first part, I guess I may as well give it to you. It's time for me to stop about this rudeness issue as well as slavery apology issue...

I've never said that an all-white government is incapable of understanding its actions. I just said that there is a disconnection between that kinda government and current government although both are the same legal entity. Just like there is a disconnection between a 4 year old and 32 year old although both are the same legal entity. As I said multiple times, the analogy is not about mental incapacity.

And, again, then your claim does not apply, because this is the ONLY reason that adults are not held responsible for their actions as children. The ONLY reason. Change has nothing to do with it as has been repeatedly explained.



Of course there is no legal cutoffs since there is no law about when to apologize slavery. There are no such laws and I'm giving my opinion about what is right.

So you admit that your opinion has no effect on the FACT that the US is the same legal entity. Good. Becuase absent some legal reason why it's change, your opinion has no value to the FACT it is the same LEGAL entity.




Because too much time has passed. The system has changed. The current system is not responsible for an oligarchic system. Current people arent responsible to what's happened to long dead. There may be efforts to address social injustices but an apology does not make sense. Your only argument has been about the legality of the issue, rather than what makes sense. That's why I used the child analogy, saying that even when it's the same legal entity, it is not responsible for EVERYTHING within its existance. And that concludes my responses. I've spent enough time on this issue.

You stated that it's not the same legal entity. You admit you were wrong. Settled.

Meanwhile, whether or not you think it SHOULD work this way, we are legally responsible for everything we do as an entity forever provided no statute of limitations applies, which doesn't with slavery.

So your options are admitting that any claims for reparations are legal justified, asking that a statute of limitations be created for slavery, or admit that while the US is legally responsible that you are comfortable with the US ignoring those legal responsibilites. Pick one.

And your child analogy remains spurious as the ONLY thing that makes one not responsible for a past indiscretion is being legally incapable of being responsible or a statute of limitations. You've not shown this to be the case.

You assumed that me misunderstanding the basis of a legal entity (as you claim...) and you not sorry for stating it is what I considered rude. Duh....

You said plainly that I was rude for stating that you misunderstood the the basis of the legal entity. That's not an assumption.


Besides, you werent responding to what I said at that particular point because I was talking about Neesika, not you...

I was talking about your hypocrisy, and referencing when you suggesting I was wrong for stating that you misunderstand the legal entity. As such, it's the only thing I need to assume you considered rude. I know you're having trouble following, but try.

I guess all this discussion means a lot to you or you really cant see the problem, since you are dragging it so long. For the first part, I guess I may as well give it to you. It's time for me to stop about this rudeness issue as well as slavery apology issue...

No, I love this discussion. It's positively delicious. It's you claiming that people should be polite but that you don't have to because people deserve it. It's amusing and it hurts your credibility. Of course, it means that so long as others thing that YOU deserve that they are equally justified and makes the entire point ludicrous as well as demonstrating your willingness to push even the most unreasonable agendas. Why wouldn't I love to continue this discussion? The question is why would you? It's really making your entire point here seem silly.

"No one is demanding it of people. They are demanding of a government that did do wrong. That did not fulfill a promise and did not uphold an ideal.

Meanwhile, as an adult, you have a choice. You may leave. My children will have no more choice in the matter of paying off the debt incurred by this administration. However, as a member of the governed, they hold this responsibility. The only way to not pay taxes is to leave. You don't get to decide because you didn't have anything to do with a particulr decision that your tax dollars won't go to it. This is not your role in the government.

And reparations are not a punishment. They are simply addressing an issue. Meanwhile, the "guilty" are around. "They" are called the US government.

Please read the entire thread. I get tired of rehashing arguments because people can't make a small effort."---Jocabia


You are not making any sense. Demanding it of the government IS demanding it of the people. You obviously don't understand the concept of taxes or where government money (and government itself) comes from.

furthermore, the current government has done plenty of wrongs, but slavery is not one of them. The governments responsible for slavery were taken out of power. Reparations are an attempt to take money from innocent people that have never owned a slave or supported slavery.

If you get tired of 'rehashing' your arguments, maybe you should try making a reasonable one instead.

You are not making any sense. Demanding it of the government IS demanding it of the people.

It is not. The government is a legal entity separate from the people. This is why the company reference was made.


You obviously don't understand the concept of taxes or where government money (and government itself) comes from.

I don't? Taxes come from the people. This doesn't mean that if I sue the government for its indiscretions that I am blaming you personally or anyone personally. The government, while it relies on you, is not you. Just like a company is not you. As said before, who do you pay your taxes to? Hint: It's not a person.

furthermore, the current government has done plenty of wrongs, but slavery is not one of them. The governments responsible for slavery were taken out of power. Reparations are an attempt to take money from innocent people that have never owned a slave or supported slavery.

Pardon? When was the US government taken out of power? I want a specific date.


If you get tired of 'rehashing' your arguments, maybe you should try making a reasonable one instead.

Amusing. So noticing that the US has been the same legal entity throughout its history is an unreasonable argument? How can I not laugh? You've just claimed that the current government isn't the same government that allowed slavery and that the government that did was taken out of power and I'm the only making unreasonable arguments? Seriously, this stuff is gold.


As an aside, there is a quote button at the bottom of each post. If you click it, you won't have to add my quote to your post. I don't mind if you don't use it, but I figured you probably weren't familiar with it and that's why you were quoting the way you are. I hope that helps (no sarcasm intended).

Thank you for the quote button help, but i know how to use it. I just prefer the use of standard quotation.

You want a date when the United States government was taken out of power? I can give you hundreds, but to shorten a very very long list, i'll just use one word---Elections.

19 pages of post after post in which nobody has provided any decent arguments for taking money from innocent people. That alone should be rather telling.

For the record, companies and countries are an entirely different type of legal entity than people. Countries do not commit crimes. People commit crimes. You may have noticed many people in jails around the world, but you will find very few countries in jail. Countries are incapable of action, just as companies......they rely on people to take actions.

The concept of reparations is another sad example of a country today in which so many people find no importance of the idea of responsibility. 'I did rob that bank, but i'm not RESPONSIBLE.....it's the way i was raised' 'I raped and killed that woman, but i'm not RESPONSIBLE.....it's the culture' 'My great-great-grandparents were slaves.....i don't care about who was RESPONSIBLE, i just want some money'

Responsibility....the idea that people should be held accountable for their actions.

Reparations: there are two possibilities:

1) you want to hold the people responsible for slavery accountable for their actions
2) you are greedy, and want money.....whatever the source

the first type of reparations are fine......make everybody involved in the slave trade, everybody that owned a slave, etc. pay for their misdeeds

the second type is disgusting.....making innocent people pay for wrongs they have not committed? pathetic greed

Any argument for reparations should specify whether they are supporting responsibility or greed.

I stand with all the supporters of responsible reparations in my willingness to pass a resolution supporting reparations as soon as a time machine is created to give us access to the people responsible.

Thank you for the quote button help, but i know how to use it. I just prefer the use of standard quotation.

You want a date when the United States government was taken out of power? I can give you hundreds, but to shorten a very very long list, i'll just use one word---Elections.

19 pages of post after post in which nobody has provided any decent arguments for taking money from innocent people. That alone should be rather telling.

For the record, companies and countries are an entirely different type of legal entity than people. Countries do not commit crimes. People commit crimes. You may have noticed many people in jails around the world, but you will find very few countries in jail. Countries are incapable of action, just as companies......they rely on people to take actions.

The concept of reparations is another sad example of a country today in which so many people find no importance of the idea of responsibility. 'I did rob that bank, but i'm not RESPONSIBLE.....it's the way i was raised' 'I raped and killed that woman, but i'm not RESPONSIBLE.....it's the culture' 'My great-great-grandparents were slaves.....i don't care about who was RESPONSIBLE, i just want some money'

Responsibility....the idea that people should be held accountable for their actions.

Reparations: there are two possibilities:

1) you want to hold the people responsible for slavery accountable for their actions
2) you are greedy, and want money.....whatever the source

the first type of reparations are fine......make everybody involved in the slave trade, everybody that owned a slave, etc. pay for their misdeeds

the second type is disgusting.....making innocent people pay for wrongs they have not committed? pathetic greed

Any argument for reparations should specify whether they are supporting responsibility or greed.

I stand with all the supporters of responsible reparations in my willingness to pass a resolution supporting reparations as soon as a time machine is created to give us access to the people responsible.

A few simple questions:

1)Should people that have profited or benefitted from slavery be held responsible for reparations?

2)Is your only argument against reparations is that they come too late? If they had been adopted in 1865 you would fully support them? What about reparations for segregation -- they'd be timely, right?

3) Do you understand the difference between holding individuals responsible for something and holding their government responsible?


P.S. use the quote function. Not using it is obnoxious.

Thank you for the quote button help, but i know how to use it. I just prefer the use of standard quotation.

You want a date when the United States government was taken out of power? I can give you hundreds, but to shorten a very very long list, i'll just use one word---Elections.

I expect this answer. Unfortunately, this is of course patently untrue. It's the same legal entity or no one would do business with our government. Your claim is a complete misapprehension of the term "legal entity".


19 pages of post after post in which nobody has provided any decent arguments for taking money from innocent people. That alone should be rather telling.

Sure, so long as you pretend that a legal entity called the US government doesn't exist. Yep, sans that, not one single good argument. But, hey, why bother dealing with what really occurred. Let's just make crap up. It's what the against argument relies on.



For the record, companies and countries are an entirely different type of legal entity than people. Countries do not commit crimes. People commit crimes. You may have noticed many people in jails around the world, but you will find very few countries in jail. Countries are incapable of action, just as companies......they rely on people to take actions.

You won't find companies in jail either, so I'm not sure why you started a paragraph with one claim and then evidenced another.

Meanwhile, false. Countries do commit crimes. Legal entities that are not physical entities cannot be incarcerated. The laws of physics are funny that way. Countries, and various other government entities, as well as companies, can all be subject to legal sanctions and penalties. Pretending as if incarceration is the only one does not a good argument make.



The concept of reparations is another sad example of a country today in which so many people find no importance of the idea of responsibility. 'I did rob that bank, but i'm not RESPONSIBLE.....it's the way i was raised' 'I raped and killed that woman, but i'm not RESPONSIBLE.....it's the culture' 'My great-great-grandparents were slaves.....i don't care about who was RESPONSIBLE, i just want some money'

The only one trying to deny responsibility is those claiming that reparations are not owed. I actually don't support paying them to individuals and what you're referencing is a seperate argument. However, that fact is that if one has any concept of responsibility then the US government is and should be responsible for allowing a legal slave trade.


Responsibility....the idea that people should be held accountable for their actions.

False. Responsibility - the idea that everything capable of consciously acting is responsible for those actions. Corporations and other legal entities can be held responsible as well. Denial of this is precisely that, denial.



Reparations: there are two possibilities:

1) you want to hold the people responsible for slavery accountable for their actions
2) you are greedy, and want money.....whatever the source

Or 3) you want to hold the legal entity responsible for slavery responsible.

You attempt to create a false dichotomy. It's called a fallacy for a reason.

the first type of reparations are fine......make everybody involved in the slave trade, everybody that owned a slave, etc. pay for their misdeeds

The US government is part of that every BODY. The governmental body was involved.


the second type is disgusting.....making innocent people pay for wrongs they have not committed? pathetic greed

Strawman. No one is discussing either of these actually.


Any argument for reparations should specify whether they are supporting responsibility or greed.

I stand with all the supporters of responsible reparations in my willingness to pass a resolution supporting reparations as soon as a time machine is created to give us access to the people responsible.

Amusing. Your misunderstanding of the concept of responsibility, particularly in a legal sense, is just that, a misunderstanding. Responsibility applies to governments and corporations. Or, legally, it's supposed to.

A few simple questions:

1)Should people that have profited or benefitted from slavery be held responsible for reparations?

2)Is your only argument against reparations is that they come too late? If they had been adopted in 1865 you would fully support them? What about reparations for segregation -- they'd be timely, right?

3) Do you understand the difference between holding individuals responsible for something and holding their government responsible?


P.S. use the quote function. Not using it is obnoxious.

3) Amusingly, he thinke the government becomes a new legal entity every election. That huge national debt. No worries, becuase we have an election coming up. Let's pile it on.

"
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Forever Dusk View Post
Thank you for the quote button help, but i know how to use it. I just prefer the use of standard quotation.

You want a date when the United States government was taken out of power? I can give you hundreds, but to shorten a very very long list, i'll just use one word---Elections.

19 pages of post after post in which nobody has provided any decent arguments for taking money from innocent people. That alone should be rather telling.

For the record, companies and countries are an entirely different type of legal entity than people. Countries do not commit crimes. People commit crimes. You may have noticed many people in jails around the world, but you will find very few countries in jail. Countries are incapable of action, just as companies......they rely on people to take actions.

The concept of reparations is another sad example of a country today in which so many people find no importance of the idea of responsibility. 'I did rob that bank, but i'm not RESPONSIBLE.....it's the way i was raised' 'I raped and killed that woman, but i'm not RESPONSIBLE.....it's the culture' 'My great-great-grandparents were slaves.....i don't care about who was RESPONSIBLE, i just want some money'

Responsibility....the idea that people should be held accountable for their actions.

Reparations: there are two possibilities:

1) you want to hold the people responsible for slavery accountable for their actions
2) you are greedy, and want money.....whatever the source

the first type of reparations are fine......make everybody involved in the slave trade, everybody that owned a slave, etc. pay for their misdeeds

the second type is disgusting.....making innocent people pay for wrongs they have not committed? pathetic greed

Any argument for reparations should specify whether they are supporting responsibility or greed.

I stand with all the supporters of responsible reparations in my willingness to pass a resolution supporting reparations as soon as a time machine is created to give us access to the people responsible.
A few simple questions:

1)Should people that have profited or benefitted from slavery be held responsible for reparations?

2)Is your only argument against reparations is that they come too late? If they had been adopted in 1865 you would fully support them? What about reparations for segregation -- they'd be timely, right?

3) Do you understand the difference between holding individuals responsible for something and holding their government responsible?


P.S. use the quote function. Not using it is obnoxious."---The Cat-Tribe


First of all, if you do not like the English language manner of quotation, then use a different language. I prefer to read this method, and your use of the other is every bit of 'obnoxious' to me as this method is to you. Why are you such a hypocrite? I have never demanded you to change your ways merely because i do not find it visually appealing.

The issue has nothing to do with time....the issue is all about responsibility and the profit made off slave labor. If you can prove that a personal fortune was based on slave labor, then you have shown that the money does not rightfully belong to the current holder. Profits gained from the investing of said money belong to the person or people that have taken the time and effort to further develope the capital. Punitive reparations can be demanded of those that owned slaves, engaged in the slave trade, etc.

I've already explained the concept of responsibility. Slavery is the responsibility of those that captured slaves, sold slaves, traded slaves, owned slaves, passed laws to punish slaves for exercising their human rights. Individuals committed the crimes, thus individuals are those that should be held accountable for the crimes. That's how the whole concept of responsibility works.

"Let's just make crap up."---Jocabia

Yep, that's basically what all of your posts have relied upon, and it is tiring.

The whole concept of forcing millions of innocent Americans to pay for a crime they have never committed is called greed, and i'm tired of your pathetic excuses for it.

First of all, if you do not like the English language manner of quotation, then use a different language.

Except you're not QUOTING him. You're copying the page which is adding all kinds of strange language. Meanwhile, the internet is a specific medium with specific standards and if you don't wish to follow them, use a different medium.


I prefer to read this method, and your use of the other is every bit of 'obnoxious' to me as this method is to you. Why are you such a hypocrite? I have never demanded you to change your ways merely because i do not find it visually appealing.

Hypocrite? He's asking you to follow the accepted behavior of this medium. You wish for people to do otherwise. Please, be more careful with your word choice in the future. Currently, you're just being silly.


The issue has nothing to do with time....the issue is all about responsibility and the profit made off slave labor. If you can prove that a personal fortune was based on slave labor, then you have shown that the money does not rightfully belong to the current holder. Profits gained from the investing of said money belong to the person or people that have taken the time and effort to further develope the capital. Punitive reparations can be demanded of those that owned slaves, engaged in the slave trade, etc.

Oh, you mean like the current government which made money off of the sale and trade of slaves? You mean like that. Thanks for playing.

Meanwhile, so much of what you said is factually incorrect. If I steal $1000 from you and invest it, if it's shown that all of what I made was made through monies I gained illegally, then I most certainly would be required to give it up. You are not allowed to profit from ill-gotten gains. That's the law, buddy.



I've already explained the concept of responsibility. Slavery is the responsibility of those that captured slaves, sold slaves, traded slaves, owned slaves, passed laws to punish slaves for exercising their human rights. Individuals committed the crimes, thus individuals are those that should be held accountable for the crimes. That's how the whole concept of responsibility works.

You explained your incorrect version of responsibility. It is, however, woefully short of the actual meaning of legal responsibility or even non-legal responsibility. What you described is not even close to how the concept of responsibility works. If it were, then I couldn't owe debts to Verizon.

"Let's just make crap up."---Jocabia

Yep, that's basically what all of your posts have relied upon, and it is tiring.

The whole concept of forcing millions of innocent Americans to pay for a crime they have never committed is called greed, and i'm tired of your pathetic excuses for it.

Oh, look, now you've resorted to dropping arguments. How fun. So do you admit that your concept of responsibility does not address the fact that legal entities are in fact responsible for things and as such are held so? Since you didn't reply, a reasonable assumption is you can't counter and as such let the argument stand. As such, your argument is refuted. Again, thanks for playing.

I take it you also cannot refute the the government remains the same legal entity through elections. Thanks for playing.

I take it you also cannot refute that you created a false dichotomy. Thanks for playing.

I take it you also cannot refute that companies also cannot be put in jail and as such a comparison between governments and companies is apt using this standard. Thanks for playing.

You want to continue being proven wrong or do you give up? Nova did. That's the common tactic among those making this type of argument. Make an argument and when you've got no ability to refute the arguments against you claim people are being obtuse and fly away. Isn't it time to call me obtuse?

Holding a government responsible for its actions is called justice. I'm sorry you don't recognize the difference.

Calm down, buckaroo. I'm so sorry that my RL interferes with your posting schedule.

For the record, "last time" I left the forums for about an hour or two for a doctor's appointment and posted a lengthy reply when I returned. You never came back to the thread.



****** is a more than simply a word. It is a nasty epithet with a horrorific history. You shouldn't throw it around casually. Your comfort with doing so is exactly what put you in my cross-hairs to begin with.

*snip and all that for size*

Why continue to argue, I put down his reasons not mine. If you want to continue to be unhappy thats your own problem. I'm washing my hands of this. Everyone wants to take everything that is said litterally without trying to determine what I mean.

If you met in in person you'd likely have a much different view of me; but since you probably won't, continue to hate me if you like. Its the internet, I could really not care any less.

I posted my personal view which is more elequently put: If people want true social equality then things such as reperations and affirmative action need to be removed. They cause resent among induviduals and only serve to strengthen the prejudice that fuels so many supremecy groups. Interest groups such as the ACLU and the NAACP earn my resent because as they push for equality, many times too hard, they also build prejudice within and strengthen hate. There is no way we could ever reach true peace between people, it is in human nature to be ignorant and savage and until we transcened our own nature and forge ahead no amount of arguing or bickering will solve it, no amount of human interest groups will make enough progress; because no matter what; human ignorance will continue to defeat all reasoning.

I can provide examples but I'm getting out of this post for good, have fun arguing.

"Except you're not QUOTING him. You're copying the page which is adding all kinds of strange language. Meanwhile, the internet is a specific medium with specific standards and if you don't wish to follow them, use a different medium."---Jocabia

Actually, I am quoting him. This is certainly not the 'standard' for quoting on the internet. You may wish it were so, but you do not get to make that decision. If at some future point, it were to become the rule for this forum, then I would use that method of quotation.


"Meanwhile, so much of what you said is factually incorrect. If I steal $1000 from you and invest it, if it's shown that all of what I made was made through monies I gained illegally, then I most certainly would be required to give it up. You are not allowed to profit from ill-gotten gains. That's the law, buddy."---Jocabia

Except it isn't the law. If your ancestors stole $10 from somebody one hundred years ago.....passed the money down to you.....which you then used to invest in paints and brushes....you do not legally owe your life earnings from selling paintings to the person your relatives stole $10 dollars from. The $10 is still theirs, but they have no claim to your fortune.


"Oh, look, now you've resorted to dropping arguments. How fun. So do you admit that your concept of responsibility does not address the fact that legal entities are in fact responsible for things and as such are held so? Since you didn't reply, a reasonable assumption is you can't counter and as such let the argument stand. As such, your argument is refuted. Again, thanks for playing.

Holding a government responsible for its actions is called justice. I'm sorry you don't recognize the difference."---Jocabia

Equating my lack of desire to refute every single of your fallacies to a lack of my own argument is hardly reasonable, but then that should be nothing new to you.

Holding people that were not alive and never approved or supported the crime responsible for the actions of the criminals is a sad, twisted version of 'justice'

"Except you're not QUOTING him. You're copying the page which is adding all kinds of strange language. Meanwhile, the internet is a specific medium with specific standards and if you don't wish to follow them, use a different medium."---Jocabia

Actually, I am quoting him.

No, you're not. When did TCT say the following.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Forever Dusk View Post"

You're copying much more than what someone said which means you're not even following the non-internet standard for quoting. Thanks for playing.

This is certainly not the 'standard' for quoting on the internet. You may wish it were so, but you do not get to make that decision. If at some future point, it were to become the rule for this forum, then I would use that method of quotation.

There is a standard for quoting on the internet. I'm sorry you don't recognize it, but it does not make it cease to exist. It exists because it aids in readability as well as giving the poster the ability to quote you without quoting them. Also, on this forum, it includes a link that takes you to the original post. Asking you to follow the standard is a reasonable request, but you're welcome to continue being unreasonable. I don't particularly care.



"Meanwhile, so much of what you said is factually incorrect. If I steal $1000 from you and invest it, if it's shown that all of what I made was made through monies I gained illegally, then I most certainly would be required to give it up. You are not allowed to profit from ill-gotten gains. That's the law, buddy."---Jocabia

Except it isn't the law. If your ancestors stole $10 from somebody one hundred years ago.....passed the money down to you.....which you then used to invest in paints and brushes....you do not legally owe your life earnings from selling paintings to the person your relatives stole $10 dollars from. The $10 is still theirs, but they have no claim to your fortune.

You're quite wrong there. According to the law, you cannot profit from ill-gotten gains. If it's proven that your fortune is built on stolen goods, if you are aware of it, you will most certainly lose that fortune, even if you got it legally. You don't just lose the tree, you lose the fruit.



"Oh, look, now you've resorted to dropping arguments. How fun. So do you admit that your concept of responsibility does not address the fact that legal entities are in fact responsible for things and as such are held so? Since you didn't reply, a reasonable assumption is you can't counter and as such let the argument stand. As such, your argument is refuted. Again, thanks for playing.

Holding a government responsible for its actions is called justice. I'm sorry you don't recognize the difference."---Jocabia

Equating my lack of desire to refute every single of your fallacies to a lack of my own argument is hardly reasonable, but then that should be nothing new to you.

Any argument not refuted stands. You dropped arguments. "I could prove your arguments wrong, but I just don't wanna." Doesn't work on the playground and certainly doesn't work here. It's funny that you said not one good argument could be made, yet you can't refute a plethora of arguments. So either you are unable to refute even bad arguments or you were not telling the truth. Which is it? Nevermind. We all know the answer.



Holding people that were not alive and never approved or supported the crime responsible for the actions of the criminals is a sad, twisted version of 'justice'

We're not holding people responsible. We're hold a legal entity responsible. I know you don't understand, but you aren't personally responsible for all your government does. I have to pay taxes during an administration I didn't vote for and don't support. I have to pay taxes that are used for a war I don't support. That's not holding me personally responsible for anything other than paying taxes.

Here's how it works. You pay taxes. That money becomes the property of the government. Any fine or penalty or suit levied against the government is not holding your responsible. It's taken from the government's property. That it originally came from taxpayers is inevitable, but it doesn't claim that they are personally responsible for anything.

It's sad that your idea of responsibility is so skewed and lacking.

Actually, Jocabia, I am quoting him. Your ignorance of the meaning of the word quote does not CHANGE the meaning.


"There is a standard for quoting on the internet."---Jocabia


Interesting, I just looked at a number of sites and found passages quoted in more than half a dozen different ways. Please tell me, are you a liar or just ignorant and persistent?


"Any argument not refuted stands."---Jocabia


Then my arguments still stand, since you have not refuted, or even made a factual argument against them.


"We're not holding people responsible."---Jocabia


Which is part of the problem with your scewed view of the world. People committed the crimes, they are the ones responsible. I'm sorry that with your misunderstanding of the concept of responsibility that you are unable to figure that out. On the other hand, I am not sorry in the least that the greed you support will never find a way into law.

Maybe one day you will understand that people are responsible for their own actions.

Actually, Jocabia, I am quoting him. Your ignorance of the meaning of the word quote does not CHANGE the meaning.

As I explained, you're not quoting him. You including much that he didn't write in the quotes as I pointed out. Saying "nuh-uh" doesn't really refute that. Or are you really claiming that he said "quote" and the rest of that nonsense you're putting in the quotes because you're too lazy to do things properly.

"There is a standard for quoting on the internet."---Jocabia


Interesting, I just looked at a number of sites and found passages quoted in more than half a dozen different ways. Please tell me, are you a liar or just ignorant and persistent?

Hmmm... you're not aware that stadard doesn't mean "everyone does it like drones." For example someone could come on this site and use you as an example. However, are you honestly claiming that using a button that says QUOTE in order to QUOTE is not the standard. Man, you're just itching to lose an argument, aren't you?



"Any argument not refuted stands."---Jocabia


Then my arguments still stand, since you have not refuted, or even made a factual argument against them.

Amusing. I've made them. You dropped them. Please list for me even one of your claims I didn't address. You're a card. Never stop posting, it's great for pointing out how bad your argument really is.

Again, dropping arguments is a great way to lose a debate and you admit to doing it.



"We're not holding people responsible."---Jocabia


Which is part of the problem with your scewed view of the world. People committed the crimes, they are the ones responsible. I'm sorry that with your misunderstanding of the concept of responsibility that you are unable to figure that out. On the other hand, I am not sorry in the least that the greed you support will never find a way into law.

Maybe one day you will understand that people are responsible for their own actions.

Not familiar with the law, are you? Who got sued McDonald's or the guy who served the coffee when that woman spilled in her lap? You've never heard of suing the government, no? You've never heard of a company being parted out for tax evasion? How about that lawsuit against Big Tobacco? Or was that against individuals? I forget.

But, hey, maybe I'll forget that governments are legal entities with responsibilities so I can "understand" your claim that responsibilities are far more narrow than people and the law hold.

"As I explained, you're not quoting him. You including much that he didn't write in the quotes as I pointed out. Saying "nuh-uh" doesn't really refute that. Or are you really claiming that he said "quote" and the rest of that nonsense you're putting in the quotes because you're too lazy to do things properly."---Jocabia

Every single word that I have said is a quote is taken directly from the person being quoted. I have never claimed that anybody said "quote".....that was YOU. Which makes even less sense when you quote me as saying "Originally Posted by The Forever Dusk"! Until now, I have never said that.


"Hmmm... you're not aware that stadard doesn't mean "everyone does it like drones." For example someone could come on this site and use you as an example. However, are you honestly claiming that using a button that says QUOTE in order to QUOTE is not the standard. Man, you're just itching to lose an argument, aren't you?"---Jocabia

I am aware (as you obviously are not) that if the vast majority of people do not do something a certain way, then it is not the 'standard' way of doing it. If i wanted to lose an argument, I would argue with somebody. I'm not exactly arguing with you.....I realize that there is very little chance that you will either understand your ignorance or care....I am not trying to convince you of anything...I only feel compelled to state things as they actually are.


I have not 'dropped' your 'arguments' as you keep claiming. I merely feel that correcting your blatantly false statements once is enough.

"As I explained, you're not quoting him. You including much that he didn't write in the quotes as I pointed out. Saying "nuh-uh" doesn't really refute that. Or are you really claiming that he said "quote" and the rest of that nonsense you're putting in the quotes because you're too lazy to do things properly."---Jocabia

Every single word that I have said is a quote is taken directly from the person being quoted. I have never claimed that anybody said "quote".....that was YOU. Which makes even less sense when you quote me as saying "Originally Posted by The Forever Dusk"! Until now, I have never said that.

I'm sorry, you don't actually follow, but let me help.

"
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Forever Dusk View PostThank you for the quote button help, but i know how to use it. I just prefer the use of standard quotation.

You want a date when the United States government was taken out of power? I can give you hundreds, but to shorten a very very long list, i'll just use one word---Elections.

19 pages of post after post in which nobody has provided any decent arguments for taking money from innocent people. That alone should be rather telling.

For the record, companies and countries are an entirely different type of legal entity than people. Countries do not commit crimes. People commit crimes. You may have noticed many people in jails around the world, but you will find very few countries in jail. Countries are incapable of action, just as companies......they rely on people to take actions.

The concept of reparations is another sad example of a country today in which so many people find no importance of the idea of responsibility. 'I did rob that bank, but i'm not RESPONSIBLE.....it's the way i was raised' 'I raped and killed that woman, but i'm not RESPONSIBLE.....it's the culture' 'My great-great-grandparents were slaves.....i don't care about who was RESPONSIBLE, i just want some money'

Responsibility....the idea that people should be held accountable for their actions.

Reparations: there are two possibilities:

1) you want to hold the people responsible for slavery accountable for their actions
2) you are greedy, and want money.....whatever the source

the first type of reparations are fine......make everybody involved in the slave trade, everybody that owned a slave, etc. pay for their misdeeds

the second type is disgusting.....making innocent people pay for wrongs they have not committed? pathetic greed

Any argument for reparations should specify whether they are supporting responsibility or greed.

I stand with all the supporters of responsible reparations in my willingness to pass a resolution supporting reparations as soon as a time machine is created to give us access to the people responsible.
A few simple questions:

1)Should people that have profited or benefitted from slavery be held responsible for reparations?

2)Is your only argument against reparations is that they come too late? If they had been adopted in 1865 you would fully support them? What about reparations for segregation -- they'd be timely, right?

3) Do you understand the difference between holding individuals responsible for something and holding their government responsible?


P.S. use the quote function. Not using it is obnoxious."---The Cat-Tribe

Notice you open the quotes and include statements from yourself and then attribute the whole thing to The Cat-Tribe. That top part is what happens when you highlight from the screen and copy and paste. And that part that says your name is a link. Click and you'll see this is an accurate quote (another reason for using the quote function). Using the quote function properly not only is the quote accurate, while yours wasn't, but unlike yours, you can see where I got the quote of you from. It's superior in every way including making you look less silly. But don't bother. I mean, if you prefer to look silly.


"Hmmm... you're not aware that stadard doesn't mean "everyone does it like drones." For example someone could come on this site and use you as an example. However, are you honestly claiming that using a button that says QUOTE in order to QUOTE is not the standard. Man, you're just itching to lose an argument, aren't you?"---Jocabia

I am aware (as you obviously are not) that if the vast majority of people do not do something a certain way, then it is not the 'standard' way of doing it. If i wanted to lose an argument, I would argue with somebody. I'm not exactly arguing with you.....I realize that there is very little chance that you will either understand your ignorance or care....I am not trying to convince you of anything...I only feel compelled to state things as they actually are.

The vast majority now, huh? Amusing. It seems like everyone here is doing it save you. It looks like the burden of proof is on you. Again, if you'd like to continue to look silly, please, continue. Or you could just drop another argument.

This is a debate forum. You're participating in debate whether you like it or not. You're not trying to lose? So I'll take it you're losing the debate by accident. You've been asked patiently to show how the US is a new legal entity every election as you claimed, but you've avoided it. Yes, that means that you fail. I find it amusing that you've dropped every reasonable argument and then called me ignorant.



I have not 'dropped' your 'arguments' as you keep claiming. I merely feel that correcting your blatantly false statements once is enough.

Delicious. How about just once? Hmmm... How about you link to where you've corrected them? Oh, please. It will be so fun.

Yes, you've dropped many arguments. I listed them. Yes, that's what losing debate entails. But, hey, if you're not interesting in make your points look credible, I don't mind. Really, I don't.

You made the claim I haven't refuted your arguments. I asked you to list one. Unsurprisingly, you supplied none. Looks like you can't even fool yourself that your arguments stand.

Man, I love summer. Every year the same arguments. Every year they refuse to address the relatively simple arguments because they don't understand what a legal entity is. But, hey, keep arguing over the indisputable fact that according to the laws of the US the US has been the same legal entity for over 200 years. You guys just never get tired of losing. How could that not be fun?