Spoiled rich teenager commits fraud - you gotta read this

[Cool Hand]

xouper,

care to join me?

*Plonk!*

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

I dunno. Looking at the post of yours, one could argue that you were being a braggart there.

Only if someone were deliberately trying to find debate points to score.

On the other hand, if anyone actually delved into the issue, or read my previous posts about such matters, your tortured conclusion would not be possible.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Well, I also think it's a bit of a gross stereotype of conservative republicans as well. Neither one of my parents, or my sister, all conservative republicans, are of the "fuck everyone else, I got mine" mold. I should know, I've known them for 30+ years.

I think there probably are quite a few liberal, democratic pricks out there who look down on people ... look at most of Hollywood for example. So what does that mean? Not a damn thing ... other than some people, regardless of political affiliation can be total pricks.

Nonsense. The logical extension of your argument is that all political philosophies are equal; and that no particular philosophy attracts, breeds or encourages a particular kind of person.

Care to defend that position?

[xouper]

Sauron: I have an accurate perception.

xouper: Quite clearly, you do not have an accurate perception of libertarianism.

Sauron: No, I do. As you're demonstrating in the Microsoft thread.

Bullshit. What you posted to me in that thread is a cheap shot and false. If that's what you consider proof that you have an accurate perception of libertarianism then may I suggest you ask your old professors for a tuition refund on your courses in critical thinking.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

It's a good way to raise money for the school,

The school doesn't need money. The school is in the 2nd or 3rd most affluent zip code in the state. The auction was used as a way to ration the scarce resource.

Instead of, oh, I don't know.....highest GPA, student of the month, random lottery, "most improved athlete", any of a dozen or so other more relevant rationing methodologies.

fact of the matter is, it's their money.

Actually, the fact of the matter is that it's a public school, with responsibilities other than profiteering - or perpetuating the clique of rich kids' privilege, by adding another status symbol opportunity.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sauron

The logical extension of your argument is that all political philosophies are equal; and that no particular philosophy attracts, breeds or encourages a particular kind of person.

Care to defend that position?

Actually, my argument is that, at least in the United States, the two dominant political philosophies are worthless and meaningless.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

Bullshit. What you posted to me in that thread is a cheap shot and false.

It is neither.

If that's what you consider proof that you have an accurate perception of libertarianism then may I suggest you ask your old professors for a tuition refund on your courses in critical thinking.

Libertarianism is precisely what I indicated - and given the large contingent of libertarians at Microsoft, I have ample experience with the topic. I even dallied with joining the libertarian party at one point; the state chair was a Microsoft employee. After he crumbled under pointed questioning, that was one of my first indications that something was amiss with the philosophy.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by xouper

Bullshit. What you posted to me in that thread is a cheap shot and false. If that's what you consider proof that you have an accurate perception of libertarianism then may I suggest you ask your old professors for a tuition refund on your courses in critical thinking.

I have to agree with xouper here, Sauron. Which is to say I don't think it's logical to infer anything about his economic viewpoint from his opinion that Microsoft's reversal on support of Bill 1515 is not that big of a deal. I don't really have an opinion on whether you should ask your old professors for a refund.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

So you will pre-emptively assume I am an asshole until I prove otherwise?? Very big of you.

Trying hard to avoid invoking Godwin's law here.....

If you told me that you were Christian Identity political affiliation, would I be justified in pre-emptively assuming that you were against racial equality?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I have to agree with xouper here, Sauron. Which is to say I don't think it's logical to infer anything about his economic viewpoint from his opinion that Microsoft's reversal on support of Bill 1515 is not that big of a deal. I don't really have an opinion on whether you should ask your old professors for a refund.

In my opinion, xouper is trying to square the circle here: he wants to beleive that a company can be friendly toward a group, and yet be neutral about legislation critical to that group's civil liberties.

I'm friendly to my nextdoor neighbor and her causes, but I'm not going to help her out when her husband beats her black and blue - how does that little moral dilemma work out, hmm?

You disagree - that's fine. Everyone here is free to disagree without coming to physical blows. Or the fear of massive editing.

[xouper]

Cool Hand: xouper, care to join me?

*Plonk!*

Took me a little longer to come that conclusion, but yes, but I have little patience for dealing with fucking morons like Sauron. So, yes, he's now PLONKED.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

Took me a little longer to come that conclusion, but yes, but I have little patience for dealing with fucking morons like Sauron. So, yes, he's now PLONKED.

*sigh*.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sauron

In my opinion, xouper is trying to square the circle here: he wants to beleive that a company can be friendly toward a group, and yet be neutral about legislation critical to that group's civil liberties.

That may be true, I'm not sure. But my point was that either way it doesn't constitute evidence, as you have suggested it does, that xouper is operating under an "I got mine fuck everyone else" Libertarian economic philosophy.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

That may be true, I'm not sure. But my point was that either way it doesn't constitute evidence, as you have suggested it does, that xouper is operating under an "I got mine fuck everyone else" Libertarian economic philosophy.

There is an assumption I made here, that he took that position because he prioritized the company's "right" to make money in this scenario.

I happen to believe the assumption is correct, but if not - then you are right; I may have jumped the gun.

However, he's decided not to participate, so the point is probably moot.

[xouper]

viscousmemories: ... my point was that either way it doesn't constitute evidence, as you have suggested it does, that xouper is operating under an "I got mine fuck everyone else" Libertarian economic philosophy.

Exactly. Based on my comment that I do not hate Microsoft for their choosing not to be politically active on a certain issue, Sauron irrationally presumes that's evidence that I have a philosophy of "I got mine fuck everyone else." What a fucking moron. If Sauron cannot discuss the issues without attacking me personally, then I have no patience for such idiocy.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

Based on my comment that I do not hate Microsoft for their choosing not to be politically active on a certain issue,

No, based upon your attempt to try and say that a company can make Claim A, while acting in a manner opposite of that claim.

If Sauron cannot discuss the issues without attacking me personally,

No one attacked you personally. You stated an absurd position. All I did was state my belief that the very act of making the absurd statement was evidence of your political philosophy.

If I said that you were a fucking moron - like you said about me - now THAT would be a personal attack.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sauron

There is an assumption I made here, that he took that position because he prioritized the company's "right" to make money in this scenario.

I happen to believe the assumption is correct, but if not - then you are right; I may have jumped the gun.

Right. And like I said, I have no idea if the assumption was accurate or not either. All I know for sure is:

1. Xouper claims to be a Libertarian who does not operate under an "I got mine, fuck everybody else" economic philosophy, and

2. Xouper doesn't think MS withdrawing their support for a gay rights bill--despite their claim to be a "gay-friendly" company--is a big deal.

All I'm saying is that whatever you think about 2, I don't think it disproves 1. I can understand why you might think they're related, but I just don't think it's a reasonable assumption. Not without a lot more information.

Originally Posted by Sauron

No one attacked you personally. You stated an absurd position. All I did was state my belief that the very act of making the absurd statement was evidence of your political philosophy.

If I said that you were a fucking moron - like you said about me - now THAT would be a personal attack.

I just have to comment on this since it's a pet peeve of mine, sorry. I think one of the worst things IIDB has done for discourse on this planet is endorsing this meme: That nothing short of namecalling or character smears directed at a person by name constitutes a "personal attack". I don't think it's at all unreasonable for xouper to perceive your accusation that he operates under an "I got mine, fuck everybody else" economic philosophy as a personal attack. Even if you only meant it as what you consider a statement of fact, it's obviously an unflattering assessment.

[xouper]

xouper: Based on my comment that I do not hate Microsoft for their choosing not to be politically active on a certain issue,

Sauron: No, based upon your attempt to try and say that a company can make Claim A, while acting in a manner opposite of that claim.

Nice bit of after-the-fact spin-doctoring which is clearly refuted by your own words in that other thread:

xouper: In any case, I don't hate them for not being politically active on gay issues.

Sauron: Yes, I know - you got yours. Not doing much to make me believe that claim, are you?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

Nice bit of after-the-fact spin-doctoring which is clearly refuted by your own words in that other thread:

Huh? That comment does not refute what I said.
It reinforces it.

Either that, or I missed the connection you're trying to illustrate.

[Sauron]

There is an assumption I made here, that he took that position because he prioritized the company's "right" to make money in this scenario.

I happen to believe the assumption is correct, but if not - then you are right; I may have jumped the gun.
Right. And like I said, I have no idea if the assumption was accurate or not either. All I know for sure is:

1. Xouper claims to be a Libertarian who does not operate under an "I got mine, fuck everybody else" economic philosophy, and

Yes, that's correct.

2. Xouper doesn't think MS withdrawing their support for a gay rights bill--despite their claim to be a "gay-friendly" company--is a big deal.

Well, somewhat inaccurate.

What Xouper believes is that the MSFT can take a neutral position on this legislation and still hold the claim of being gay-friendly. In point of fact, the refutation of this isn't rocket science:

• If the company is pro-gay, then they are in favor of legislation important to gays.
• If the company is gay-neutral, then they are neutral with regards to legislation important to gays.
• If the company is anti-gay, then they are against legislation important to gays.

Xouper is trying to say the company is pro-gay, even though they are neutral with regards to legislation important to gays. And they are in a position to influence the outcome of the legislative debate - yet fail to do so.

I'd also have to say that I'm not sure your version of Xouper's beliefs is much of an improvement for his cause. It basically says that he doesn't that MSFT support for civil rights for gays and lesbians is "an important issue". That ignores the fact that the legislation has languished for 30 years, and the swing vote could have been influenced by such a large and regionally important company as MSFT.

Would you want to have lunch with someone who didn't think that women's rights / religious liberties / abortion rights was an important issue, especially in a swing-vote scenario? What conclusions would you draw about their political viewpoints, based upon that position?

All I'm saying is that whatever you think about 2, I don't think it disproves 1. I can understand why you might think they're related, but I just don't think it's a reasonable assumption. Not without a lot more information.

I stated the assumption that I made. If I'm wrong, then Xouper can (or could have) called me on it. Instead, he decided to take his ball and go home.

Originally Posted by Sauron

If I said that you were a fucking moron - like you said about me - now THAT would be a personal attack.

I just have to comment on this since it's a pet peeve of mine, sorry. I think one of the worst things IIDB has done for discourse on this planet is endorsing this meme: That nothing short of namecalling or character smears directed at a person by name constitutes a "personal attack". I don't think it's at all unreasonable for xouper to perceive your accusation that he operates under an "I got mine, fuck everybody else" economic philosophy as a personal attack. Even if you only meant it as what you consider a statement of fact, it's obviously an unflattering assessment.

Well, IIDB did encourage the type of hairsplitting that you describe. But I think I also went into great detail to avoid calling Xouper a liar. I just think that some people don't fully process the end results of their beliefs; I used the example of fundamentalists who truly don't think they are anti-gay.

Moreover, I told xouper that I was willing to be convinced that he did not, in fact, have that mindset. But I told him that since:

a. every other libertarian I've ever met -- bar none - has ultimately had such a mindset; and
b. every other libertarian I've met claimed loudly that they didn't have that mindset,

that he'd have to convince me. given a and b above, I was making the logical conclusion based upon all the evidence that I have.

If every other Arizona Republican I had ever met was in favor of strict immigration laws, and here comes a new AZ Republican who claims he is not in favor of them, then my experience tells me that this is probably not the case.

Do you think I am still missing something?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sauron

What Xouper believes is that the MSFT can take a neutral position on this legislation and still hold the claim of being gay-friendly. In point of fact, the refutation of this isn't rocket science:

• If the company is pro-gay, then they are in favor of legislation important to gays.
• If the company is gay-neutral, then they are neutral with regards to legislation important to gays.
• If the company is anti-gay, then they are against legislation important to gays.

Xouper is trying to say the company is pro-gay, even though they are neutral with regards to legislation important to gays. And they are in a position to influence the outcome of the legislative debate - yet fail to do so.

I would agree with livius' post about this in the other thread. I don't think a company needs to be politically active in support of gay rights to call themselves gay-friendly, since I think gay-friendly typically refers to how they operate internally.

I'd also have to say that I'm not sure your version of Xouper's beliefs is much of an improvement for his cause. It basically says that he doesn't that MSFT support for civil rights for gays and lesbians is "an important issue". That ignores the fact that the legislation has languished for 30 years, and the swing vote could have been influenced by such a large and regionally important company as MSFT.

I wasn't trying to defend his position on Microsoft's political behavior. I've already expressed my view in that thread that I consider MS's reversal of support for bill 1515 an important piece of news.

Would you want to have lunch with someone who didn't think that women's rights / religious liberties / abortion rights was an important issue, especially in a swing-vote scenario? What conclusions would you draw about their political viewpoints, based upon that position?

I don't get the impression that xouper doesn't think that civil rights for gays are an important issue, just that he didn't see that particular circumstance as an important issue. And while I disagree with him on that, I maintain that it does not necessarily reveal an "I got mine, fuck everybody else" economic philosophy.

Well, IIDB did encourage the type of hairsplitting that you describe. But I think I also went into great detail to avoid calling Xouper a liar. I just think that some people don't fully process the end results of their beliefs; I used the example of fundamentalists who truly don't think they are anti-gay.

Moreover, I told xouper that I was willing to be convinced that he did not, in fact, have that mindset. But I told him that since:

a. every other libertarian I've ever met -- bar none - has ultimately had such a mindset; and
b. every other libertarian I've met claimed loudly that they didn't have that mindset,

that he'd have to convince me. given a and b above, I was making the logical conclusion based upon all the evidence that I have.

If every other Arizona Republican I had ever met was in favor of strict immigration laws, and here comes a new AZ Republican who claims he is not in favor of them, then my experience tells me that this is probably not the case.

Do you think I am still missing something?

I don't think you're missing anything from that reasoning, no. But I remain unconvinced that his ambivalence on the MS issue is evidence to support your conclusion that he fits your stereotype of Libertarians. I really just don't think that's a logical inference to make.

[xouper]

viscousmemories: I don't get the impression that xouper doesn't think that civil rights for gays are an important issue, just that he didn't see that particular circumstance as an important issue.

Exactly. Just because I don't hate Microsoft for their lack of political activism, does not mean that I think civil rights are not important in general. I don't much appreciate the way Sauron misrepresents my position on these things and is yet another reason why I feel his opinions are worthy of being shunned.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

Exactly. Just because I don't hate Microsoft for their lack of political activism,

Way to mischaracterize the event.

It wasn't a lack of activism.
It was a reversal of support at a time when their support might have made the difference.
And it was a reversal caused by pressure from right-wing religious groups.

Still don't think that it's a big deal?

I don't much appreciate the way Sauron misrepresents my position on these things and is yet another reason why I feel his opinions are worthy of being shunned.

I am not misrepresenting you.

[Darren]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

It's a good way to raise money for the school, which, as long as it's used for educational purposes, is a good idea. If someone wants to spend $10,000 for a parking spot ... let them. I'd be taking the bus, and I might be a bit envious of the whole shebang but ... fact of the matter is, it's their money.

The problem with this is that it only raises money for a school for the children of the wealthy, not for children in general. This gives these children (through no merit of their own) a better chance at an education which will lead on to a head start, if not an assured advantage, in the rat race.
Thus this practice will at least perpetuate, if not widen, the existing gap between rich and poor. Many, if not the majority, of the parents more than likely benefited from a similar relatively privileged position in society which in turn allows them to pass this advantage on to their children.
The way things are, I certainly wouldn't blame the parents for wanting a better education and future for their kids, nor could anyone fairly blame the kids for having this advantage (as much as it is through no merit of their own, so it is through no fault of their own either).
It is rather the prevailing politico-economic system which is at fault, by allowing the perpetuation of inequality between the rich and poor sectors of society. I would say that the parents are not being taxed enough, giving them money to burn which would be better spent on, say, eradicating illiteracy from the U.S. (what's the percentage of illiterate U.S. adults at nowadays? )

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Darren

The problem with this is that it only raises money for a school for the children of the wealthy, not for children in general. This gives these children (through no merit of their own) a better chance at an education which will lead on to a head start, if not an assured advantage, in the rat race.

I'm not sure that I'd call life a "rat race". Also, I don't think you can fault these kids for being born to parents who happen to be rich, and live in affluent neighborhoods. I also do not think that they'll have an "assured advantage". Growing up, we lived much closer to poor than we did to rich, and I remember growing up being told constantly ... if you want something, you'll achieve it if you put everything you have into it. Which may be why growing up in a two parent family with only one high school diploma between them, my sister and I both have several graduate degrees now.

You also do not know the civil responsibilities that these children may be presented with. To whom much is given, much is expected, and I think we can only hope that these kids who are rich, will see that money isn't everything and will give back to the less fortunate. We also do not know how the money is being spent ... all I've seen in this thread is some horrible generalizations, with little to no support for them.

Many, if not the majority, of the parents more than likely benefited from a similar relatively privileged position in society which in turn allows t them to pass this advantage on to their children.

IIRC, most millionaires in this day and age are "new money" which means they earned their lot in life by hard work and perseverence ... not by being born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

It is rather the prevailing politico-economic system which is at fault, by allowing the perpetuation of inequality between the rich and poor sectors of society. I would say that the parents are not being taxed enough, giving them money to burn which would be better spent on, say, eradicating illiteracy from the U.S. (what's the percentage of illiterate U.S. adults at nowadays? )

Do we need to raise taxes, or just allocate the current US budget more wisely than we do? Pork barrel spending needs to stop, and health care needs to become more affordable.

As an example, when I was working part-time at Buffalo General Hospital getting my Masters degree in Clincal Laboratory Science, I used to run tests which counting man power, machine cost/upkeep and reagents costs would run about $7. We charged around $150.