Jobs

[Wingnut]

You also have to keep in mind the cost to train those employees, the extra work to pay them, keep track of their hours, that they are slacking off, taking money out of their paycheck for fica and social security, etc.  I would say it comes out to be about even. So 1 person would be better. 

All of the costs you listed for part-timers are automated, one time, or negligible.

If you want to discuss here, provide data. If you claim that the above costs are negligible, you are either lying outright or are clueless and still taking part in the discussion. This is your last warning before you spread any more socialist propaganda on my forum.

Piotr, I'm against socialism as much as you are, but he does have the freedom of speech.  He can say what he wants.

True. Also, Piort, I am GREATLY against you forcing your views on others as it seems you are doing.

I don't always agree with him, but in the end this is his house and I respect him. He provides this app to us and TONS of information we may not have otherwise, for free. We have to respect his right to post and rule as he chooses, otherwise we must find somewhere else to collect free information and spend time on forums. But that's my opinion, others may choose to piss him off and look for other respurces.

[Boringanarchy2]

You also have to keep in mind the cost to train those employees, the extra work to pay them, keep track of their hours, that they are slacking off, taking money out of their paycheck for fica and social security, etc.  I would say it comes out to be about even. So 1 person would be better. 

All of the costs you listed for part-timers are automated, one time, or negligible.

If you want to discuss here, provide data. If you claim that the above costs are negligible, you are either lying outright or are clueless and still taking part in the discussion. This is your last warning before you spread any more socialist propaganda on my forum.

Piotr, I'm against socialism as much as you are, but he does have the freedom of speech.  He can say what he wants.

True. Also, Piort, I am GREATLY against you forcing your views on others as it seems you are doing.

I don't always agree with him, but in the end this is his house and I respect him. He provides this app to us and TONS of information we may not have otherwise, for free. We have to respect his right to post and rule as he chooses, otherwise we must find somewhere else to collect free information and spend time on forums. But that's my opinion, others may choose to piss him off and look for other respurces.

I would think being able to express a fairly common viewpoint in a non political viewpoint would be a reasonable enough action.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Regardless, lets go back to the debate.  I was enjoying it.

I enjoy a good debate too but I have to say I think this one is a stalemate. Let's move on to a new argument.

[Piotr]

The problem we have with the economy was caused by reduction of freedom in the market. Your solution to the problem? More regulation. That is either naive, or malicious.

That's right because there was so much regulation leading up to the crisis...wait.

Are you saying that the financial sector prior to 2007 mortgage crisis was unregulated and free? Do you also claim that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did not exist and did not have government guarantees, and that the financial institutions were not subsequently bailed out by taxpayers money?

Never claimed they did not exist, but a lack of regulation exacerbated the situation. There is an excellent documentary called Inside Jobnif you are interested.

Mac and Mae are government created and regulated financial entities without which the financial crash of 2007 wouldn't happen. The government regulation of financial sector created the problem in the first place. I nor anyone else were not able to start our own bank nor financial institution without going through the hoops of government enforced bureaucracy and regulation. This is true and enough to prove that you lie about the lack of regulation, you are out of here for a week. Get back to us when you learn to behave.

[Piotr]

You also have to keep in mind the cost to train those employees, the extra work to pay them, keep track of their hours, that they are slacking off, taking money out of their paycheck for fica and social security, etc.  I would say it comes out to be about even. So 1 person would be better. 

All of the costs you listed for part-timers are automated, one time, or negligible.

If you want to discuss here, provide data. If you claim that the above costs are negligible, you are either lying outright or are clueless and still taking part in the discussion. This is your last warning before you spread any more socialist propaganda on my forum.

Piotr, I'm against socialism as much as you are, but he does have the freedom of speech.  He can say what he wants.

Sure he can, and I can punish him for lying according to our law.

[Mlerner12]

You also have to keep in mind the cost to train those employees, the extra work to pay them, keep track of their hours, that they are slacking off, taking money out of their paycheck for fica and social security, etc.  I would say it comes out to be about even. So 1 person would be better. 

All of the costs you listed for part-timers are automated, one time, or negligible.

If you want to discuss here, provide data. If you claim that the above costs are negligible, you are either lying outright or are clueless and still taking part in the discussion. This is your last warning before you spread any more socialist propaganda on my forum.

Piotr, I'm against socialism as much as you are, but he does have the freedom of speech.  He can say what he wants.

Sure he can, and I can punish him for lying according to our law.

Is it lying if he THINKS he speaks the truth?

[Piotr]

Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

"...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We aren't lying, we are debating with what is to the best of our knowledge completely correct information. I realize that you survived socialism but as I said I support Social Democracy which isn't that different from America has right now.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

"Do not do to others what they would not want to be done to them" How would you feel if we said you were lying because you were expressing your opinions?

[Mlerner12]

Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

I agree with most of this, except I still think he should be punished less if he BELIEVES he speaks the truth, for then it is no lie.

[Piotr]

"...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We aren't lying, we are debating with what is to the best of our knowledge completely correct information. I realize that you survived socialism but as I said I support Social Democracy which isn't that different from America has right now.

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to lie. It does not give you the right to invade my property and tell me what I don't want to hear.

He lied that the financial crisis was caused by the lack of regulation, while the truth is that financial crisis was caused by over regulated financial sector, by direct government intervention into the mortgage markets using regulations such as Mac and Mae.

He had his chance to back off but he chose to continue spreading the lies. I decided to ban him from my property for a week. That is his punishment, he is not guilty.

Regarless of the fact that he was actually spreading lies, I can ban anyone else from here at my whim. I choose not to do so, but it is my right as the property owner, this is not a public place this is a server paid by me. I stop paying the hosting, the server disappears from the Internet. I own this place in a natural way by natural law.

[Piotr]

"Do not do to others what they would not want to be done to them" How would you feel if we said you were lying because you were expressing your opinions?

Give me an example

[Piotr]

Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

I agree with most of this, except I still think he should be punished less if he BELIEVES he speaks the truth, for then it is no lie.

For the purpose of the law, lie is statement which is not true. You can read 'do not lie' as 'do not claim false statements to be true'.

It does seem logical to reduce the punishment if there are no clear malicious intent, thus only 7 days in our particular example.

[Double-O-Scotch]

Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

I agree with most of this, except I still think he should be punished less if he BELIEVES he speaks the truth, for then it is no lie.

For the purpose of the law, lie is statement which is not true. You can read 'do not lie' as 'do not claim false statements to be true'.

It does seem logical to reduce the punishment if there are no clear malicious intent, thus only 7 days in our particular example.

Piotr. This keeps happening on here.

You need to work on your definition of the word lie. There is a fine line between a lie and a falsehood but there IS a difference.  A lie is an intentional deception. A falsehood is simply a statement which is not true.

Your belief that something is not true is just as valid as somebody else believing it is true. The punishment should be based on intent. Was the individual expressing an opinion they truly believe? Or were they intentionally proliferating misinformation?

To punish someone for expressing their opinion is morally wrong and I must strongly condemn this action on principle alone.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

I agree with most of this, except I still think he should be punished less if he BELIEVES he speaks the truth, for then it is no lie.

For the purpose of the law, lie is statement which is not true. You can read 'do not lie' as 'do not claim false statements to be true'.

It does seem logical to reduce the punishment if there are no clear malicious intent, thus only 7 days in our particular example.

Piotr. This keeps happening on here.

You need to work on your definition of the word lie. There is a fine line between a lie and a falsehood but there IS a difference.  A lie is an intentional deception. A falsehood is simply a statement which is not true.

Your belief that something is not true is just as valid as somebody else believing it is true. The punishment should be based on intent. Was the individual expressing an opinion they truly believe? Or were they intentionally proliferating misinformation?

To punish someone for expressing their opinion is morally wrong and I must strongly condemn this action on principle alone.

Its funny because this incident is proving exactly why nomocracy doesn't work. All rules are open to interpretation, especially vague rules like the Ultimate Law, and it eventually comes down to whoever is allowed to interpret the law is the ruler.