Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
I get the feeling you purposely misinterpret several of my statements and use an adhominem style of discussing this issue here with other posters here too.
Nope! Not my style. However, if the argument and the point is not cohesive, then yes.
ad hominem
Let's take this first, since this seems to be a misunderstood concept. ad hominem is about attacking the individual's character or motivations rather than a argument made - ONLY when the argument, position or assertion made is
*worthy, sane position and cohesive* - not otherwise.
In other words, IF your argument is correct and there is nothing else left for for the defender then attacking the debater is wrong. In the above cases, your argument was not even tangent to the point being made.
You want an example? On a discussion of a
circle, circular and round:
Debater 1:
Like a lot of objects such as a pizza, the circumference of the earth is circular and round.
Debater 2:
Yes/ no, but the pizza has also lots of toppings and spices, and which may include both vegetables and meat!
So, in these cases, there is no sane or logical argument that is worth positioning. In this case, ad hominem is a kind and gentle move - to put it subtly. Take this as feedback: Stay on the point. You can drift towards an analogy that supports the point, but stay on point or have a route back to the core and scoring point.
Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
they were clearly marked as "First" and "Second"
Merely marking a point as first, 1st, or 1) OR second, 2nd, or 2) does NOT make the point, argument or assertion cohesive.
Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
need to point out here that you do not master this trade yet.
Been a master debater, adjudicator for years. Doubt if your feedback is enough!
Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
So to come back at your statement that plastics can not all be recycled,
Dude, again, that was not the core nor scoring point.
Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
a circular economy (and not only for plastics btw.).
The idea is that there is greed that destroys the planet for personal gain. And taxing me extra is NOT going to solve the problem, the only thing it does it take money from me.
Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
To come back to the topic of Fly tax instead of the sideline about plastic: yes I agree it is brainfart of some politician that sees easy money
The problem goes far deeper than that.
If a human is born free, i.e. NOT a slave, then his hands, his legs, his brains, and any revenue or income made by the use of those is the person own personal property. Just like muscle, you work out, you gain the muscle and that belongs to you. Nobody can take your muscle from you, nor force you to use them for their benefit. In other words, let's assume you go to the gym for 5 years, build muscles, and then the government comes and tells you to use your muscles and bricks without your will, that is slavery.
Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
money is needed by the state to pay for the current system, no matter how rotten it might be at the moment, the money needs to come from somewhere.
Not my problem, nor my solution. I am done paying these bâ5turds that take the product of my labour as their personal fund.
Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
One could also raise the gasoline tax (again) or the income tax, does not matter, we will eventually pay for it anyway.
Ever heard of taxing people to death? This seems to be it. All they want is a personal cause that they can showcase in the media to put their hands in others pockets.
Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
the benefit of calling it a fly tax and linking it to environmental problems only benefits the awareness of the problems our children are going to face if we do not substantially change our behaviour. So I would say "kill two flies with one stone." (actually spending the money on the repair of the environment would be 3 flies with one stone).
And that is precisely what will not happen. They'll take the money and use it, and there is an endless pit. I am not sure if you read the news in Finnish, it paints a very different picture.
Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
That said, you complain a lot in your posts about the powers that be and their greed, I would suggest:
If you want to do something about it, please go and vote, or even better, become an active member of the system and try to change it from within.
1. For me to join them would mean I need to lower my moral standards and accept that I have a right to the earnings of others for free.
2. There is no way reasoning and logic can stand in the court of the loud media and hysteria.
Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
So I guess everyone can expect his Ticket to become even more expensive in the near future, the money for reaching this goal has to come from somewhere.
And what is the goal? Money? Or environment? Again, you seem to be losing track (intentionally?) towards raking money as well! Many simpler actions can be taken. Legislate and stop producing products that are damaging the earth. Legislate and stop rewarding business ideas that do so. Go back a bit to products or solutions that are really sustainable and not just belching the "sustainable" word
Merely taking money under hysteria and pretext that is the core of the problem.
Piet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 am
Reactions by people on these issues (also here on the forum) are like a love affair being ended, first there is denial, then there is anger, then comes the sadness and finally acceptance. I guess most here are still hanging in phase 1 or 2
If it only were a love affair being ended
; sadly not so! I suggest you actually follow the world news and events. In reality, these kinds of idiotic taxes and initiatives drive people away. And that is bad. Europe is in decline. Finland is in decline. You see cultures don't have a birth day or an expiry date, but they do decline. If you read the Finnish news, 1-person households is on the rise, childlessness is on the rise. Taxes, costs, and expenses of living
don't have a role? At all? This also reflects a change in culture. Children are expensive in Finland. And eventually the population declines into a deep spiral that it will not recover from.
So, it is not a love-affair that ended, but a lover being jilted after he/she started to be a gold-digger. In other words, it is driving the lover straight into the arms of a waiting man/ woman that is better.
My then-wife had been trying to hire people (developers) from other countries - even with a work permit sponsorship, only 1-in-10 wanted to come. You see countries like India, China etc. are going up in terms of economy and personal wealth. Laws are becoming simpler. Personal assets and freedom growing.
In Europe it is declining. I left too because of the tax and the culture (well, yeah the weather and darkness played a role too). So, why does it bother me? Because some times, I need to pay for the kids and missus to visit.
If the f-ing-Id!ots making decisions in Finland do not recognize these issues, then I am sorry to say, your joy is short-lived.
This was previously stated and I am just referring the intent here: Why would a well-educated professional that Finland has NOT paid for, want to come to Finland, and then pay ridiculous levels of taxes and needs to pay even more to be able to visit his family?
How will they impose the tax on tickets not purchased in Finland?
Or is it only Finnish residents that need to pay their tax?
etc.
These were the points made... see the 5th post in the chain
PS. I know more than 1, roughly about 12 families that have moved away from Finland due to the high taxes and the long term feasibility of paying their hard earned money for nonsense.