Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Gay Rights] Gays Ran The Holocaust. No, really.

11718192022

Posts

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Give me an easy alternative government which will provide me comparable services with none of the things I hate about the American government for the same price, and I'm there.

    This would seriously be an awesome analogy if there were another government right down the street I could just start paying my taxes to that didn't support any of the awful shit that the current one does.

  • 21stCentury21stCentury Raiding Relics Everyday Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Give me an easy alternative government which will provide me comparable services with none of the things I hate about the American government for the same price, and I'm there.

    This would seriously be an awesome analogy if there were another government right down the street I could just start paying my taxes to that didn't support any of the awful shit that the current one does.

    Couldn't you just reduce your income to the point where you don't pay taxes?

    I don't know how taxation works in the US, though. I think Sales tax is in a per-state basis and income tax is federal, right?

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Easy?

    Why is this about easy? It's about 600 million people. You're the one who got angry at the 'easy' option of just voting to encourage progressivism in regards to 12-13 million.

    Let me just ask outright, Thanatos: do you love your country? Do you contribute to its wealth and improvement? Do you disgree with plenty of the things it does regardless?

    Well shit, that's just how a lot of people happen to feel about their religions.

    And most people who really believe in their religion enough to attend weekly and donate money? Probably think leaving it is about as realistic as you think moving to another country is.

    Erik
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Sip. Sip sip sippy. I don't CARE! I LOVE ITRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    what's this about gays running the holocaust now

    NO.
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Gays = Nazis and Nazis = Holocaust therefore Gays = Holocaust.

    It's all very logical.

    Erik
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Ego wrote: »
    And most people who really believe in their religion enough to attend weekly and donate money? Probably think leaving it is about as realistic as you think moving to another country is.

    Still waiting for that list of countries that will grant citizenship to all comers, since it's as easy as not voluntarily donating money to an organization with no legal jurisdiction over your life.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Raiding Relics Everyday Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    So It Goes wrote: »
    what's this about gays running the holocaust now

    According to some guy named Fischer (He wrote a book), Hitler and the head nazis were gay and that's why they made the holocaust, because they were gay and gays are evil.

  • 21stCentury21stCentury Raiding Relics Everyday Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    adytum wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    And most people who really believe in their religion enough to attend weekly and donate money? Probably think leaving it is about as realistic as you think moving to another country is.

    Still waiting for that list of countries that will grant citizenship to all comers, since it's as easy as not voluntarily donating money to an organization with no legal jurisdiction over your life.

    What about reducing your income below the threshold, thus getting all your paid income tax reimbursed? Is that not something that can happen in the US? In Canada, if your income is below a certain threshold, you don't pay any income tax and all the payroll income tax is reimbursed.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    At least assuming the standard sort of demographics presented on this forum in regards to education.

    And if nothing else: you can always more to some shithole in Africa.

    After all, it's the difference between oppressing 600 million people or not oppressing them.

    Erik
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    argh, forum!

    Erik
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    adytum wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    And most people who really believe in their religion enough to attend weekly and donate money? Probably think leaving it is about as realistic as you think moving to another country is.

    Still waiting for that list of countries that will grant citizenship to all comers, since it's as easy as not voluntarily donating money to an organization with no legal jurisdiction over your life.

    What about reducing your income below the threshold, thus getting all your paid income tax reimbursed? Is that not something that can happen in the US? In Canada, if your income is below a certain threshold, you don't pay any income tax and all the payroll income tax is reimbursed.

    Yes, that's possible, but it's probably not easy enough.

    Who wants to inconvenience themselves that way just to make 50 times the difference in terms of oppression of a group?

    That's just 50 times based on population, mind you, not actually the impact on quality of life. I imagine most people would rather be LGBT in America than average in Latin America.

    Erik
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Ego wrote: »
    Easy?

    Why is this about easy? It's about 600 million people. You're the one who got angry at the 'easy' option of just voting to encourage progressivism in regards to 12-13 million.

    Let me just ask outright, Thanatos: do you love your country? Do you contribute to its wealth and improvement? Do you disgree with plenty of the things it does regardless?

    Well shit, that's just how a lot of people happen to feel about their religions.

    And most people who really believe in their religion enough to attend weekly and donate money? Probably think leaving it is about as realistic as you think moving to another country is.
    "Love" is a strong word. I like a lot of things about my country, certainly. I contribute to its wealth and improvement because--unlike religious folks--if I don't, a bunch of cops (who I hate) will show up to my door and take me to prison (which is full of prison guards, who I also hate).

    And I stand up and talk about how I feel about my country. I do that in places where it isn't necessarily comfortable, either. I also don't voluntarily contribute to groups that try to change my country for the worse. I recognize that there are alternatives to those groups, who I can contribute to, who do the same good with none of the bad. And if I switch countries, I'm choosing from a bunch of countries that all do bad stuff. Unless you're suggesting there's some magical land I can cheaply immigrate to which has a utopian government of perfect goodness...?

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Ego wrote: »
    Uh, I helped someone move to Australia, which is actually considered a hard place to move to. It's hard to move to America, but it's considerably easier to move anywhere else, and gets easier as the country you're moving to gets less attractive.

    Determination is all it takes, and the willingness to save up some money for the effort. Moving to Latin America or another poor country where you can be the oppressed instead of the oppressor is pretty easy. At least assuming the standard sort of demographics presented on this forum in regards to education.

    Which country do you recommend? I'm fairly sure that you can find disqualifying reasons for almost any country for a whole range of progressive causes and that country's history with regard to them.

    This is ignoring the fact that membership of a religion is simply not like citizenship of a country.

    What I see sees me.
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Raiding Relics Everyday Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Seriously, Thanatos, can't you just reduce your income, then? can't you get all the payroll income tax reinbursed if you make below a certain treshold? I mean, maybe it'd suck living with a small paycheck, but it'd allow you to A) Stay in the US, B) Not contribute to atrocities commited by the US and C) Stay on the right side of the bars.

    Heck, I'd say if you really think that giving money to an organization means you have to take responsibility for any and all actions, going behind bars would be an acceptable sacrifice to make, no?

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Unless you're suggesting there's some magical land I can cheaply immigrate to which has a utopian government of perfect goodness...?

    I'm not, I'm suggesting quite the opposite: that people, every day, trade a little bit of screwing-someone-else-over for a little bit of comfort and ease. I dunno how much the average Catholic donates a year, but do you really think it's worth (literally) more than their vote going to progressive causes is? Are votes actually that cheap to buy?

    That said, I wish I'd started this with use of something that screws over other nations (corn syrup, maybe) that you could opt out of but would be unlikely to, as opposed to being American.

    Erik
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Yes, a life of crushing poverty is equivalent to not voluntarily donating to a cause.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    It doesn't have to be equal, the result is at least 50 times more valuable in terms of how many people are fucked over. As I pointed out, it's probably even more valuable when you consider how much the average GLBT person is fucked over by the Catholic lobby vs how much the average Latin American is fucked over by America.

    Also, surely it's not crushing poverty, don't about half of Americans not end up paying taxes? Do that many actually live in crushing poverty?

    Erik
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Ego wrote: »
    At least assuming the standard sort of demographics presented on this forum in regards to education.
    And if nothing else: you can always more to some shithole in Africa.

    After all, it's the difference between oppressing 600 million people or not oppressing them.
    Most shitholes in Africa have taxes supporting oppressive regimes of one sort or another.

    If not in the legal sense, then in the de facto sense of mandatory bribes.

    And I have, in fact, elected not to be a multi-billionaire, just so that I wouldn't contribute so much money to the American economy.

    So, do you have something specific you can point to in my reasoning that is incorrect, or are you just going to continue using a completely inappropriate analogy to try to prove me wrong?

    Seriously, Thanatos, can't you just reduce your income, then? can't you get all the payroll income tax reinbursed if you make below a certain treshold? I mean, maybe it'd suck living with a small paycheck, but it'd allow you to A) Stay in the US, B) Not contribute to atrocities commited by the US and C) Stay on the right side of the bars.

    Heck, I'd say if you really think that giving money to an organization means you have to take responsibility for any and all actions, going behind bars would be an acceptable sacrifice to make, no?
    I'm not advocating just conversion, here (which, let's face it, is orders of magnitude easier than immigration): I'm also advocating advocacy.

    And as I've said, I have nothing but the greatest of respect for the very, very few regular churchgoers who show up every week, and audibly speak out for gay rights. I wish there were way more of them. In this aspect, I lead by example.

    The people I'm complaining about here are the ones who either actively support the church's anti-gay activity, or sit in church quietly every week, continuing to write checks for the church's lobbying, and then turn around and try to claim that they're pro-gay-rights.

  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    Seriously, Thanatos, can't you just reduce your income, then? can't you get all the payroll income tax reinbursed if you make below a certain treshold? I mean, maybe it'd suck living with a small paycheck, but it'd allow you to A) Stay in the US, B) Not contribute to atrocities commited by the US and C) Stay on the right side of the bars.

    Heck, I'd say if you really think that giving money to an organization means you have to take responsibility for any and all actions, going behind bars would be an acceptable sacrifice to make, no?

    why are you comparing taxes to charitable donations

    even in your hypothetical situation where than can magically erase some of the money he makes, that would still be a much less reasonable solution than simply not donating money to a bigoted organization

    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Raiding Relics Everyday Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    adytum wrote: »
    Yes, a life of crushing poverty is equivalent to not voluntarily donating to a cause.

    I don't know would you rather be a free nazi or someone in a concentration camp?

    If Thanatos really believes that giving money to an organization means you have to take responsibility for any and all actions perpetrated by it or in its name, I'd say living in poverty would be a pretty acceptable sacrifice to make.

  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Ascension. Ascension. Hallelujah. Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    But Thanatos, aren't you funding an anti-gay organization since the Federal Goverment gave money to that one bitch from N.O.M.?

    Raoul Duke wrote:
    There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

    I have a tumblr.
    Check it out.
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Federal taxes, maybe.

    What about state, local, property? Gas, sales, use?

    You can probably pay no taxes by squatting and growing your own food without the benefit of municipal water and electricity.

    That's a reasonable lifestyle, right?

    etxvv5.jpg
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    At least assuming the standard sort of demographics presented on this forum in regards to education.
    And if nothing else: you can always more to some shithole in Africa.

    After all, it's the difference between oppressing 600 million people or not oppressing them.
    Most shitholes in Africa have taxes supporting oppressive regimes of one sort or another.

    If not in the legal sense, then in the de facto sense of mandatory bribes.

    And I have, in fact, elected not to be a multi-billionaire, just so that I wouldn't contribute so much money to the American economy.

    So, do you have something specific you can point to in my reasoning that is incorrect, or are you just going to continue using a completely inappropriate analogy to try to prove me wrong?

    Most shitholes in Africa don't fuck over 600 million people, though. It's all about cost/benefit.

    But I really think it's self evident that someone can think the net value towards society presented by a group is worth more than the net harm to society by said group. You don't?

    Erik
  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    I don't think it's unreasonable to say that voluntarily giving money to an organization that is well-known for holding certain positions and engaging in certain activities means that you support the things they do

    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Raiding Relics Everyday Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Seriously, Thanatos, can't you just reduce your income, then? can't you get all the payroll income tax reinbursed if you make below a certain treshold? I mean, maybe it'd suck living with a small paycheck, but it'd allow you to A) Stay in the US, B) Not contribute to atrocities commited by the US and C) Stay on the right side of the bars.

    Heck, I'd say if you really think that giving money to an organization means you have to take responsibility for any and all actions, going behind bars would be an acceptable sacrifice to make, no?

    why are you comparing taxes to charitable donations

    even in your hypothetical situation where than can magically erase some of the money he makes, that would still be a much less reasonable solution than simply not donating money to a bigoted organization

    Thanatos claims that people who give money to the Catholic Church should be responsible for any and all actions done by the church, regardless of if they agree or disagree with them.

    In other words, he's saying that the money you give to organizations gives you responsability for its actions.

    The American Government is an organization, he gives money to it, it used it to do, well, bad things. Recently, still. If he has at least one way to not give money to the government, shouldn't that mean he should be held to the same standards as he holds catholics?

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The fact that you can't tell the difference between voluntary donations and taxes is a little disturbing.


    Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
    get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
    have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Seriously, Thanatos, can't you just reduce your income, then? can't you get all the payroll income tax reinbursed if you make below a certain treshold? I mean, maybe it'd suck living with a small paycheck, but it'd allow you to A) Stay in the US, B) Not contribute to atrocities commited by the US and C) Stay on the right side of the bars.

    Heck, I'd say if you really think that giving money to an organization means you have to take responsibility for any and all actions, going behind bars would be an acceptable sacrifice to make, no?

    why are you comparing taxes to charitable donations

    even in your hypothetical situation where than can magically erase some of the money he makes, that would still be a much less reasonable solution than simply not donating money to a bigoted organization

    Thanatos claims that people who give money to the Catholic Church should be responsible for any and all actions done by the church, regardless of if they agree or disagree with them.

    In other words, he's saying that the money you give to organizations gives you responsability for its actions.

    The American Government is an organization, he gives money to it, it used it to do, well, bad things. Recently, still. If he has at least one way to not give money to the government, shouldn't that mean he should be held to the same standards as he holds catholics?
    no, because the things that require him to support the government are much more severe than those that require people to support the church

    how many catholics would have to give up their homes, jobs, and possessions to stop giving donations

    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    adytum wrote: »
    Federal taxes, maybe.

    What about state, local, property? Gas, sales, use?

    You can probably pay no taxes by squatting and growing your own food without the benefit of municipal water and electricity.

    That's a reasonable lifestyle, right?

    Surely the simple act of not paying federal taxes is worth enough that an American who wants to minimize their oppression of Latin America should still endeavour not to make enough to have to pay them, yes?

    Erik
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    If the options for catholics were to keep donating or give up every worldly possession in pursuit of a life of grinding poverty off the grid, then this might be a meaningful conversation.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    there is nothing simple about not paying federal taxes without repercussions

    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    I don't think it's unreasonable to say that voluntarily giving money to an organization that is well-known for holding certain positions and engaging in certain activities means that you support the things they do

    Or that you support the net value of the things they do?
    there is nothing simple about not paying federal taxes without repercussions

    I'm not saying to do it illegally. I'm saying to do it the way 47% of Americans apparently do it.

    Erik
  • ATIRageATIRage Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I guess, the answer to that question is yes under that rubric. I feel what others have said is right though, you can't only focus on the bad but also focus on the positive things these organizations do, which is also where our money goes when we donate/pay taxes. For example: I was very happy to be a taxpayer the day that DADT was outlawed.

    I've talked to numerous Mormons (whose religion drove the prop 8 debate) and they had trouble contributing their mandatory 10% tithing after the prop 8 debate. But ultimately, the organizations we belong to are both good and bad. I'm glad that America is one where we at least attempt to walk the path of equality and justice, even if we stumble. Go gay rights!

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Seriously, guys, point me to the country where my taxes (either via a legal structure, or de facto taxes via mandatory bribery or robbery) aren't going towards horrible things, that is easy to immigrate to and I'm there. Show me this awesome alternative. I'll pack tonight.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Seriously, Thanatos, can't you just reduce your income, then? can't you get all the payroll income tax reinbursed if you make below a certain treshold? I mean, maybe it'd suck living with a small paycheck, but it'd allow you to A) Stay in the US, B) Not contribute to atrocities commited by the US and C) Stay on the right side of the bars.

    Heck, I'd say if you really think that giving money to an organization means you have to take responsibility for any and all actions, going behind bars would be an acceptable sacrifice to make, no?

    why are you comparing taxes to charitable donations

    even in your hypothetical situation where than can magically erase some of the money he makes, that would still be a much less reasonable solution than simply not donating money to a bigoted organization

    Thanatos claims that people who give money to the Catholic Church should be responsible for any and all actions done by the church, regardless of if they agree or disagree with them.

    In other words, he's saying that the money you give to organizations gives you responsability for its actions.

    The American Government is an organization, he gives money to it, it used it to do, well, bad things. Recently, still. If he has at least one way to not give money to the government, shouldn't that mean he should be held to the same standards as he holds catholics?
    no, because the things that require him to support the government are much more severe than those that require people to support the church

    how many catholics would have to give up their homes, jobs, and possessions to stop giving donations

    The oppression of 600 million Latin Americans by America is also much more severe than the oppression of 12-13 million GLBT by the Catholic lobby.

    Erik
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Raiding Relics Everyday Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    adytum wrote: »
    If the options for catholics were to keep donating or give up every worldly possession in pursuit of a life of grinding poverty off the grid, then this might be a meaningful conversation.

    There's no need to give up every worldly possession, though.

    I believe it's called "Volountary Simplicity"? Loads of books about how to live tax-free. Basically, by cutting in things like TV and the Internet, using public libraries and such you can really cut down on your spending, thus facilitating living with a lower wage. I mean, there's loads of people who live without having to pay taxes, but I guess lowering yourself to their level is too horrible to speak of, right?

  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    Ego wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    I don't think it's unreasonable to say that voluntarily giving money to an organization that is well-known for holding certain positions and engaging in certain activities means that you support the things they do

    Or that you support the net value of the things they do?

    I don't think you can have a net value

    it's great that the church feeds the poor and funds schools and so on, but it is still a bigoted organization that actively oppresses homosexuals and people who donate to it should be aware that their money also supports bigotry

    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    adytum wrote: »
    If the options for catholics were to keep donating or give up every worldly possession in pursuit of a life of grinding poverty off the grid, then this might be a meaningful conversation.

    There's no need to give up every worldly possession, though.

    I believe it's called "Volountary Simplicity"? Loads of books about how to live tax-free. Basically, by cutting in things like TV and the Internet, using public libraries and such you can really cut down on your spending, thus facilitating living with a lower wage. I mean, there's loads of people who live without having to pay taxes, but I guess lowering yourself to their level is too horrible to speak of, right?

    But they do still pay taxes, directly or indirectly.

    Learn how the system works before you try and comment on it.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I don't think you can have a net value

    OK. Well, I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion if you don't believe that an organization can do both harm and good in different amounts. I'm kind of taking that as a tacit assumption, here.

    Erik
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Ego wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Seriously, Thanatos, can't you just reduce your income, then? can't you get all the payroll income tax reinbursed if you make below a certain treshold? I mean, maybe it'd suck living with a small paycheck, but it'd allow you to A) Stay in the US, B) Not contribute to atrocities commited by the US and C) Stay on the right side of the bars.

    Heck, I'd say if you really think that giving money to an organization means you have to take responsibility for any and all actions, going behind bars would be an acceptable sacrifice to make, no?

    why are you comparing taxes to charitable donations

    even in your hypothetical situation where than can magically erase some of the money he makes, that would still be a much less reasonable solution than simply not donating money to a bigoted organization

    Thanatos claims that people who give money to the Catholic Church should be responsible for any and all actions done by the church, regardless of if they agree or disagree with them.

    In other words, he's saying that the money you give to organizations gives you responsability for its actions.

    The American Government is an organization, he gives money to it, it used it to do, well, bad things. Recently, still. If he has at least one way to not give money to the government, shouldn't that mean he should be held to the same standards as he holds catholics?
    no, because the things that require him to support the government are much more severe than those that require people to support the church

    how many catholics would have to give up their homes, jobs, and possessions to stop giving donations

    The oppression of 600 million Latin Americans by America is also much more severe than the oppression of 12-13 million GLBT by the Catholic lobby.

    How does this help American Catholics who are giving money to the Church? It would appear that at best it would show that they have two moral obligations that they are failing to fulfill, unlike Thanatos, who only has one.

    What I see sees me.
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Raiding Relics Everyday Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Seriously, guys, point me to the country where my taxes (either via a legal structure, or de facto taxes via mandatory bribery or robbery) aren't going towards horrible things, that is easy to immigrate to and I'm there. Show me this awesome alternative. I'll pack tonight.

    You could try Simple Living allowing you to work less, pay no federal income tax (thus not give money to the federal government) and have a lot less weight on your conscience.

    Of course, you'd need to move to a state that doesn't use the sales tax to promote bad things and a community that doesn't use the property tax to promote bad things, but that's probably not that hard, right?

This discussion has been closed.