Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Quote1. Having roman currency means they operate under roman society.
2. If you operate in a society you pay your tax to the maintainers of the infrastructure for said society.
3. Tithing is a literal tax.
Let's start in reverse.
3. Tithing, at least in countries that are not in unholy alliance between church and state, is voluntary. That is, I, as an attendant of a church service, am fully within my rights to give $10,000,000 or $500 or $0.10 or even nothing. That's right, I help (or not) because of goodness that is in my heart. Voluntaryism is a system of government where people are encouraged to give (carrot) versus beating them over the head with a fucking stick. Not everyone will give, but by offering perks for giving, some people will decide this is a good idea and support the system.
https://fee.org/articles/why-politicians-use-force-rather-than-markets/QuoteTo solve this puzzle, we need to clarify the difference between two different types of interaction: positive sum and zero sum.Voluntaryism represents a positive sum game. If we replace market with the government, government has offered us something we want (this is why I support sales tax, we are already buying what we want, so it's no big deal if government takes a cut), so everyone is happy.
An example of the first is typical market interaction. Imagine you go to the store to buy a new phone. When you trade your $500 for a phone, it must be the case that you valued the phone more than $500, at least in that moment. If this were not the case, you wouldn’t have purchased the phone voluntarily.
So you’re better off. Does this mean that the store is worse off? Certainly not. The owner of the store that sold you the phone must also be better off for the transaction—else they would not have sold it.
In other words, when you voluntarily purchase or sell something, both members of the transaction are made better off. Economists call this a “positive sum” game because both members of the transaction receive a positive benefit.QuoteReal data confirm this. The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Index highlights that countries that allow more free voluntary exchange are richer and healthier.But of course, there's also a zero sum game. In a positive sum game, net value has actually exceeded the transaction. But in a zero sum game, you lose and I win, or vice versa. If the thief also robs $500 (the same amount as the phone), is it somehow better for the robber? No, $500 is $500. But in a real zero sum game, the thief ultimately risks being caught and killed.QuoteIn reality, you could argue this sort of interaction is even negative sum. Likely thieves must spend time and resources to successfully steal money. So not only do you lose $500, but the thief only gains $500 minus the cost of stealing the money.Zero sum game is not what Jesus taught.
In short, extractive interactions like theft are bad for the wealth of society whereas productive, win-win interactions like commerce grow the wealth in society.
2. But they weren't benevolent overseers for Israel. They were an occupying force that robbed them blind. The way Roman taxes were set up had nothing to do with our thinking today about how taxes pay for roads and bridges (that's crap btw, but maybe later), they were more like a tribute to an occupying army. Furthermore, on the way to the official tax office, wandering tax people (call him Taxer B) could collect the money. And taxes to Taxer A would still be owed! I am not joking about this.
1. Israel already had a religious government. It was performing blood sacrifices for the atonement of sins. People had to go to the Temple Square to exchange their money for temple money, then temple money for animals. Add on top of this and unwanted tax to Rome, and you have a problem. Two governments, two sets of laws. Then they were asking Jesus "Is it right for there to be a temple tax?" And you, a good little serf of the state, read it as "pay your taxes because you should serve Rome." Sorry, but this is Israel.
Since The Chosen has offered their own series for free, I will show you an episode that demonstrates what the strain of Roman taxes are actually like.
https://www.angel.com/watch/the-chosen/episode/dc0d3fab-7477-4348-a490-91c3743b94cf/season-1/episode-4/the-rock-on-which-it-is-built
Your [smokemachine] experience is from an American perspective
His is from an Australian one
Have any of those predicted effrects been experimentally verified? Has the EA formula been finalized and tested against real world observations?
I think that this clearly demonstrates the double standard that FE'ers use when talking about "evidence".
I did test EA against real world observations. I saw the Moon Tilt Illusion for myself. The geometry of FE's EA said that it would not point at the Sun, and would point above the Sun, especially between rising and midmoon.
I also created a 3D model showing that perspective does not explain it. RE conceded without further rebuttal, unable to justify the obviously wrong perspective explanation.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion
There's none of it hard t o understand.An object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an external force.Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course. Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Explain it.
What part of that is so hard to understand?
It tells you exactly what you want to know.
The problem is, it's not showing a reality and cannot show a reality.
You see, the object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force.
Great, you could argue this is the case....but is it?
You see, there's ALWAYS an external force acting upon any object. It is never at rest.
However, the next one is the clincher.
An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
It clearly will not stay in motion then, because there's always an external force acting upon the object.
The only way you can argue this is to use the fiction of a vacuum of so called space to say something will move forever once in motion or stay perfectly still forever if left in space.
It becomes a nonsense.
This is why the law is not a law at all. It's made up nonsense.Quote from: markjoNo. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes. That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.
Heyhey
Every now and then i receive a msg requesting i stop spamming.
No reference to which of the few clusters of posts i post.
Side note, many others "spam" as well in their own personal ways.
Just curious what the criteria is for reasonable sarcasm and snideness.
Also, to the admins, please ref the post if i am to moderate my behaviour.
Whoopwhoop.
The earth is not a planet because it does not exhibit planet-ness.
