I don't believe you

[+Hammerclaw]

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I thought it meant cellar rats 

Yeah, they're called that, too.

[Guyver]

18 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I'll settle for copacetic, myself.

Ouch.  Miss that bashtard.

[Guyver]

14 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Because it's only one of countless other individual definitions of "perfection." It suggests that perfection is merely subjective.

Are you seriously arguing the universe is perfect?...

Ok...everything is subjective including definitions.....and Hell yes I’m serious about the last part.

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

Ok...everything is subjective including definitions.....and Hell yes I’m serious about the last part.

No, I'm not saying that "everything is subjective." Hell, I'm not even sure if "perfection is subjective." I'm saying that there's no reason to believe that anything perfect actually truly exists, and have yet to ever see someone be able to definitively prove something to be objectively "perfect."

[+Hammerclaw]

''Perfect" is like the word "delicious" with endless variations in meaning.  

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

We've covered this, and I have  proved that the maths does add up. This is just another thing you refuse to believe, not something which can't be true.

It only required giving way about 25 % of our income over 40 plus years, (which we could manage very comfortably)  and then giving away the quite large tax rebates we got for giving to charity. Eg (figures hypothetical) if i gave away 10,000 dollars i would get back about 3000 dollars next year in tax. By giving that away, also, i gained another 1000 dollars return, the next year.

 Thus every dollar donated is multiplied considerably, due to the nature of our tax system and the rebates given for donations to charities.

  We alos gave awy large sums from monies  that we received in inheritances, and from some insurance payouts.  Finally, for about 20 years we owned an investment [property which we rented out to low income families and single mothers who otherwise struggled to get a home to rent  Due to tax policies, again, this gave us 15000 dollars extra income every yea r which we could also give awy That alone raised 300,000 of the million dollars 

Even today, on the age pension, we give away about  20 % of that  (roughly $7000,) although we can no longer claim tax concessions as we don't pay taxes on the pension.    

In other words, if I question long enough the real deal comes out,  you found a way to cheat the system that served double duty, you can “give away” money and then deduct it from your taxes get more back and then use this loop hole to brag about how awesome you are.

You sound like a con man to me.

 

 

[Guyver]

21 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

No, I'm not saying that "everything is subjective." Hell, I'm not even sure if "perfection is subjective." I'm saying that there's no reason to believe that anything perfect actually truly exists, and have yet to ever see someone be able to definitively prove something to be objectively "perfect."

Dude.  Have you studied the atom?  That’s as close to perfect as we’re ever gonna see.  IMHO.

[Guyver]

18 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

''Perfect" is like the word "delicious" with endless variations in meaning.  

It is important to define things when discussing with intelligent people.  And yes, that is simultaneously the problem.

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, Guyver said:

Dude.  Have you studied the atom?  That’s as close to perfect as we’re ever gonna see.  IMHO.

Uh, if you're talking about the model that looks like a miniature solar system, it was actually disproven and discarded almost a century ago. It's just symbolic, now.

[Guyver]

9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Uh, if you're talking about the model that looks like a miniature solar system, it was actually disproven and discarded almost a century ago. It's just symbolic, now.

Not all the way.  But the atomic numbers are known and there is perfection in that and the framework distinguishing them.

[+Hammerclaw]

4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Not all the way.  But the atomic numbers are known and there is perfection in that and the framework distinguishing them.

Arguing about perfection is like throwing money down a bottomless hole---you're never going to get anything out of it. Besides, it's religious dogma and can never be nailed down. Just sayin'.

[Alchopwn]

26 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Arguing about perfection is like throwing money down a bottomless hole---you're never going to get anything out of it. Besides, it's religious dogma and can never be nailed down. Just sayin'.

Agreed.  Perfection is a journey without a destination.  Everyone's perfection is different, so it is definitely a subjective concept, but worse, half the people who arrive at their notion of perfection find they don't actually like what they have achieved.  That is because perfection is a form of absolute, and all absolutes are intrinsically barren concepts.

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

In other words, if I question long enough the real deal comes out,  you found a way to cheat the system that served double duty, you can “give away” money and then deduct it from your taxes get more back and then use this loop hole to brag about how awesome you are.

You sound like a con man to me.

 

 

lol You just have to be negative and nasty especially when i prove your first guess to be wrong 

Explain how I "cheated  the system " 

1 Everything i did was not just legal but approved by the tax office ie not  a legal loop hole but a deliberate design of the tax system to encourage individuals to support charities, so that govt's can spend less.  

Not sure how it works in the US but i suspect it is similar. 

2 i used a registered reputable group of chartered accountants and never claimed one cent which i was not entitled to and did not have evidences for  

3 Rather than make a profit on the house, we rented it (through an agent) at the lowest rate we legally could to peole who really needed housing.

4. I never made anything nor gained any personal benefit but used the legal taxation regime  to allow me to give more and to help more people

You see i don't think you have any comprehension of people with a mindset like mine and you don't believe peole in real life actually make those sort of choices about money 

I don't expect you to live as i live, but I do think its a bit cheeky first to say i am making it up and when i show how it can be done to claim  that is cheating 

Maybe a sign of a touch of guilty conscience ?  

Ps no one but the accountant /tax office, my wife and i, and the people we donated to, had any idea how much we were giving. although each of the difernt organisations we worked through knew a part of it.  

This only came out, online, when someone on UM (and i think it was you) challenged me  for being a hypocrite, living a good life in a wealthy country, while others suffered

I then explained our situation, and then you accused me of bragging   

just who am i conning, and how is it a con?  

quote

Organisations entitled to receive tax deductible gifts are called 'deductible gift recipients' (DGRs). You can only claim a tax deduction for gifts or donations to organisations that have a DGR status.

The person that makes the gift (the donor) is the person that can claim a deduction.

To claim a tax deduction for a gift, it must meet four conditions:

The gift must be made to a DGR. Check whether your donation was to an endorsed DGR at ABN Look-up: Deductible gift recipientsExternal Link.

The gift must truly be a gift. A gift is voluntary transfer of money or property where you don't receive, or expect to receive, any material benefit or advantage in return.

The gift must be money or property, which includes financial assets such as shares.

The gift must comply with any relevant gift conditions. For some DGRs, the income tax law adds extra conditions affecting types of deductible gifts they can receive.

You can't claim a tax deduction for donations made to crowdfunding platforms if they are not a DGR.

https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/income-and-deductions/deductions-you-can-claim/other-deductions/gifts-and-donations/

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Mr Walker

[+Hammerclaw]

Time for this thread to be laid to rest. I'm tired and not feeling well. To all of you I've incited, belittled mocked, enraged and otherwise irritated......I hope I feel better and more rested, soon, so I can do it to you all over again!  Ciao!

[Habitat]

[danydandan]

9 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Maslow`s Hierarchy of Needs lists them if you are interested.

How is that an argument for us, as humans, being nothing more than our baser instincts? 

[Duke Wellington]

7 minutes ago, danydandan said:

How is that an argument for us, as humans, being nothing more than our baser instincts? 

Well, thats one of the leading models showing the psychological needs of human beings used by psychologists.

Its all you are, a collection of needs trying to satisfy themselves.

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Time for this thread to be laid to rest. I'm tired and not feeling well. To all of you I've incited, belittled mocked, enraged and otherwise irritated......I hope I feel better and more rested, soon, so I can do it to you all over again!  Ciao!

Hammer your inner Conor McGregor is coming out in force.

He once said.

"Now that I'm here, I'd like to take this time to apologise.............for absolutely ****ing nothing."

[danydandan]

11 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Well, thats one of the leading models showing the psychological needs of human beings used by psychologists.

Its all you are, a collection of needs trying to satisfy themselves.

No we aren't, you need read Maslow's book from 54 Motivation and Personality.

His theoretical framework is far more to do with motivation and what feeds it. These overlapping needs are part of it, but not all of it.

Also perhaps you should consider reading the hundreds of papers and books who's Authors are critical of his work. 

But anyways, it's no longer considered a hierarchy and your are making no argument for your position. As I said our baser instincts are a massive part of our motivation, but obviously aren't the only part of our motivation. If what you say is the case, surely nobody would sacrifice themselves to save others, people would not abstain from food or drink etcetera.

[Duke Wellington]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

No we aren't, you need read Maslow's book from 54 Motivation and Personality.

His theoretical framework is far more to do with motivation and what feeds it. These overlapping needs are part of it, but not all of it.

Also perhaps you should consider reading the hundreds of papers and books who's Authors are critical of his work. 

But anyways, it's no longer considered a hierarchy and your are making no argument for your position. As I said our baser instincts are a massive part of our motivation, but obviously aren't the only part of our motivation. If what you say is the case, surely nobody would sacrifice themselves to save others, people would not abstain from food or drink etcetera.

They are a good map of all human psychological needs. It is, if I remember correctly, over 50 years old but still very relevant within the sciences. Yes there are some criticisms, and some additional models to go with the hierarchy to cover them. And no, they are not just your base needs but all of them - lower and higher.

Whether you realise it or not you are motivated to satisfy them all. And trying to satisfy them is all you do, all day everyday. With self-sacrifice I would class that as morality under self-actualisation. You are distorting the meaning of physiological needs. The need for food in it is for survival. If you have a need to lose weight for self esteem reasons then that is a self-esteem need.

[Mr Walker]

16 minutes ago, danydandan said:

No we aren't, you need read Maslow's book from 54 Motivation and Personality.

His theoretical framework is far more to do with motivation and what feeds it. These overlapping needs are part of it, but not all of it.

Also perhaps you should consider reading the hundreds of papers and books who's Authors are critical of his work. 

But anyways, it's no longer considered a hierarchy and your are making no argument for your position. As I said our baser instincts are a massive part of our motivation, but obviously aren't the only part of our motivation. If what you say is the case, surely nobody would sacrifice themselves to save others, people would not abstain from food or drink etcetera.

Baser is a subjective/ emotional, word.

 I prefer "animal", or "natural evolved," instincts.

Humans have the same natural instincts as all primates 

However as we evolved self awareness, and thus many complex psychological fears and needs, we began to construct idealised behaviours, based on abstract concepts like selflessness,  honour, duty,love, empathy,  compassion etc .

Humans can use their self conscious awareness to override their animal instincts, and to live by those constructed ideals.

We base our laws around them, and all our morality and ethics upon them 

We recognise that other animals cant be held accountable to those ideas,  concepts and  laws, as a human can; and we also recognise that some humans, such as young children, the mentally impaired, and the really psychologically impaired, cannot construct or live by them, either, and thus cannot be held accountable to them   

[danydandan]

18 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

they are not just your base needs but all of them

This here is contradictory to your initial premise. 

16 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Actually a psychologist would say thats all we all.

Which was in response to me saying we are more than our baser needs.

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Baser is a subjective/ emotional, word.

 I prefer "animal", or "natural evolved," instincts.

Humans have the same natural instincts as all primates 

However as we evolved self awareness, and thus many complex psychological fears and needs, we began to construct idealised behaviours, based on abstract concepts like selflessness,  honour, duty,love, empathy,  compassion etc .

Humans can use their self conscious awareness to override their animal instincts, and to live by those constructed ideals.

We base our laws around them, and all our morality and ethics upon them 

We recognise that other animals cant be held accountable to those ideas,  concepts and  laws, as a human can; and we also recognise that some humans, such as young children, the mentally impaired, and the really psychologically impaired, cannot construct or live by them, either, and thus cannot be held accountable to them   

What Rapidmongoose is saying is we are only our base instincts and our needs evolve to meet these in various ways. 

While I agree that there is obviously a significant connection between the two, often we aren't look to meet our basic needs. By that I mean eating, sexing, breathing, living. 

[Duke Wellington]

21 minutes ago, danydandan said:

This here is contradictory to your initial premise. 

Which was in response to me saying we are more than our baser needs.

Actually its you that implied it only covered base needs. I indicated all needs.

[Duke Wellington]

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

What Rapidmongoose is saying is we are only our base instincts and our needs evolve to meet these in various ways. 

While I agree that there is obviously a significant connection between the two, often we aren't look to meet our basic needs. By that I mean eating, sexing, breathing, living. 

There seems to be some confusion here about base needs.

Maslow`s Hierarchy of Needs covers lower needs (the base needs) which are survival needs and securing your resources needs. But then it moves on to cover higher needs which are social needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualisation needs. Maybe you dont realise this because you haven't seen each level of needs broken down to show all component needs in them. But I can assure you, the higher needs are not primal ones.

For example self-actualisation includes the need for spirituality and to behave morally. And for people who dont believe in spirituality when you examine their psychology you can see they are stuck trying to satisfy one of the levels below it, usually self-esteem needs.

Edited May 17, 2019 by RabidMongoose