Random MSN Gibberings LXX: A little sexier than normal vomiting

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I think your intent is good, but the motivation behind it is something youre not fully aware of. and it's very different than your intent

that's the best explanation I have that could be of any use to you.

And what does motivation have to do with something when we are dealing with establishing facts, figures, causality, and deciding where we as a collective society should direct our efforts? I have a history degree so I understand the importance of looking at the motivations behind creating sources, and then deciding how much weight to give to the evidence they have created. I do not, however, understand how or why it should be applies to facts. It seems that using your argument you could just shut down any debate with anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how strong their evidence and arguments are, by simply questioning their motives - which you can't prove or disprove. Basically, anyone who doesn't think exactly as you do must have motives that you emotionally feel are wrong, therefore anything they say is instantly redundant.

Can you not see how this isn't debating in any way shape or form? It basically allows you to make unreferenced statements, and any point you make, and present it as an absolute truth.

 

[Mailmonkey]

It's nice to see someone validate my suspicion that all active male feminists are just in it to get laid

I wouldn't tar all male "feminists" with me own filthy brush. But I suspect there's a few.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

Women, their lives, and how they are treated is studied to the nth degree and it seems that comparatively we know very little about men.

Oh my god. Virtually all recorded history is the history of man. For every Cleopatra I'll give you 200 Henry VIII's.

we know very little about men

Natural born hunters and football fans innit.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

The Voice of Bitterness rings out through the Township of Bullshit once again...

As for knowing about man, I know all about that being the prime, crotch-thrusting example of one. I just like women and don't feel particularly threatened by them unless they have a knife at my throat.

What does bitterness have to do with any of my points? I could just as easily convince myself that feminism wasn't a crock of shit if I was desperate to get my leg over one, but I don't. I much prefer genuinely confident women, who don't need to join a group because they are in fact not confident - despite their almost continuous attempts to prove they are.

 

[parttime crackhead]

No. Tax evasion, not even 'avoidance', is done by the super-rich. It costs the country billions. You seem to think the rich are just cleverer, using cunning and guile. No. They're crooks. With money to defend themselves. And friends in high places who write or execute the law.

Nonsense. It is tax avoidance rather than evasion. The so-called "super-rich" have a specific team of people dealing with their tax affairs. It was called the High Net Worth Unit the last time I checked. It's a million times more difficult when someone who knows you (or your accountant) on a first name basis is checking your tax returns individualy than when they're just being scanned into a computer & assumed to be correct unless something glaringly obvious shows up. That doesn't mean some people won't be stupid enough to try it but they won't get away with it.

The money to defend themselves is meaningless. If they come out with any sort of bullshit regarding their tax then no lawyer in the country can help them. A legal-aid lawyer would be as much use as Johnnie Cochran in that case. "Friends in high places" comment is bollocks an all, is a "friend in a high place" going to erase your tax record? Are they fuck. Are they going to re-write the law so that you are somehow innocent? Aye, no danger. That's really gonna happen.

"You seem to think the rich are just cleverer, using cunning and guile." Nope. They can afford to hire better accountants who are better at avoiding tax. You think an accountant good enough to be working for the so called super-rich is going to happily throw it all away to save the cunt some money? No. They pay as little tax as possible within the confines of the law.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Oh my god. Virtually all recorded history is the history of man. For every Cleopatra I'll give you 200 Henry VIII's.



Natural born hunters and football fans innit.

So how does that lead one to the conclusion that we should study women from a sociological perspective over men? As if the whole purpose of it is to somehow play catch up?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I wouldn't tar all male "feminists" with me own filthy brush. But I suspect there's a few.

How did you manage to go along with some of the more extreme stuff without laughing and giving the game away?

 

[Myshkin]

What does bitterness have to do with any of my points? I could just as easily convince myself that feminism wasn't a crock of shit if I was desperate to get my leg over one, but I don't. I much prefer genuinely confident women, who don't need to join a group because they are in fact not confident - despite their almost continuous attempts to prove they are.

Ah, all feminists are a part of a 'group' and not individuals with their own principles?

You've revealed more in those few words than you have in any of the rest of your post.

The 'bitterness' in question was pure speculation as to the source of your passionate defence of the apparently much-misunderstood conservative heterosexual male.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

"Friends in high places" comment is bollocks an all, is a "friend in a high place" going to erase your tax record? Are they fuck. Are they going to re-write the law so that you are somehow innocent? Aye, no danger. That's really gonna happen.

You view the world through the innocent eyes of a 7 year old. See if you can think of any other ways that having friends/masons/whatever in high places might just swing a decision to prosecute.

You seem to think life's all legal and fair. ("within the confines of the law"). Good luck with that perspective.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Nonsense. It is tax avoidance rather than evasion. The so-called "super-rich" have a specific team of people dealing with their tax affairs. It was called the High Net Worth Unit the last time I checked. It's a million times more difficult when someone who knows you (or your accountant) on a first name basis is checking your tax returns individualy than when they're just being scanned into a computer & assumed to be correct unless something glaringly obvious shows up. That doesn't mean some people won't be stupid enough to try it but they won't get away with it.

The money to defend themselves is meaningless. If they come out with any sort of bullshit regarding their tax then no lawyer in the country can help them. A legal-aid lawyer would be as much use as Johnnie Cochran in that case. "Friends in high places" comment is bollocks an all, is a "friend in a high place" going to erase your tax record? Are they fuck. Are they going to re-write the law so that you are somehow innocent? Aye, no danger. That's really gonna happen.

"You seem to think the rich are just cleverer, using cunning and guile." Nope. They can afford to hire better accountants who are better at avoiding tax. You think an accountant good enough to be working for the so called super-rich is going to happily throw it all away to save the cunt some money? No. They pay as little tax as possible within the confines of the law.

The way I understand tax avoidance among the richer people is that say they earn £1 million per year, and the government wants to take 50%, that's £499,999 that he can spend on accountants to try and get that down before he is making as loss on that expenditure. Once all those millionaires group together to pay for the tax loopholes they save a small fortune in tax. The trouble, and perhaps unfairness, of it all is that there is no economic incentive for someone earning £30k to go to a good accountant because the bill will far exceed what he will save. But I don't really know what you can do about this? Sometimes I feel that as the super rich are paying less tax as a percentage as the man on the street, we might as well have a flat tax, no loop-holes no get outs.

 

[Marmalade]

And what does motivation have to do with something when we are dealing with establishing facts, figures, causality, and deciding where we as a collective society should direct our efforts? I have a history degree so I understand the importance of looking at the motivations behind creating sources, and then deciding how much weight to give to the evidence they have created. I do not, however, understand how or why it should be applies to facts. It seems that using your argument you could just shut down any debate with anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how strong their evidence and arguments are, by simply questioning their motives - which you can't prove or disprove. Basically, anyone who doesn't think exactly as you do must have motives that you emotionally feel are wrong, therefore anything they say is instantly redundant.

Can you not see how this isn't debating in any way shape or form? It basically allows you to make unreferenced statements, and any point you make, and present it as an absolute truth.

I am aware of my own motives, or at least try to be brutal with myself about them [100% accuracy is not always possible]. the point is, I consciously consider them when engaging. how they determine what I choose to post, and what I choose to not post. how they influence what I say and what I do not. I hold everyone to the same scrutiny as myself. whether they agree with my point of view or not is inconsequential. someone not of the same opinion, but exhibiting the same filter process, is someone to be listened to and knowledge gained from.

they have my 100% attention. in truth? I really hope they'll tell me something I dont know. theyre the type of people i love to get the opportunity to read, and who Im most receptive to

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

So how does that lead one to the conclusion that we should study women from a sociological perspective over men? As if the whole purpose of it is to somehow play catch up?

Men are studied from all sorts of sociological perspectives. Nearly all academic subjects are male-dominated, we just don't label them as such.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Ah, all feminists are a part of a 'group' and not individuals with their own principles?

You've revealed more in those few words than you have in any of the rest of your post.

The 'bitterness' in question was pure speculation as to the source of your passionate defence of the apparently much-misunderstood conservative heterosexual male.

Feminists are all part of a group in so far as all conservative heterosexual males are. And as far as bitterness from reading the other persons posts comes across, it seems you are more bitter towards conservative heterosexual males than I am towards feminists. And my concern was not that conservative heterosexual males were being understudied in comparison to women, it was that all males lives are understudied, and that given men's and women's are intrinsically linked our society would be a better place if men could steal a fraction of the academic spot light.

 

[Mailmonkey]

How did you manage to go along with some of the more extreme stuff without laughing and giving the game away?

I lived in fear of the "sex-strike".

I'm not entering into this debate.

I didn't blindly agree with everything, I think she'd have seen straight through me if I had.

And I did genuinely see the need for a feminist movement, and some of the writers she introduced me to were very entertaining too.

I'm not quite as phallocentric as my initial post might have suggested.

 

[parttime crackhead]

The way I understand tax avoidance among the richer people is that say they earn £1 million per year, and the government wants to take 50%, that's £499,999 that he can spend on accountants to try and get that down before he is making as loss on that expenditure. Once all those millionaires group together to pay for the tax loopholes they save a small fortune in tax. The trouble, and perhaps unfairness, of it all is that there is no economic incentive for someone earning £30k to go to a good accountant because the bill will far exceed what he will save. But I don't really know what you can do about this? Sometimes I feel that as the super rich are paying less tax as a percentage as the man on the street, we might as well have a flat tax, no loop-holes no get outs.

Aye you're almost spot on there. Other than the paying for loopholes bit, possibly in the past but not now. Exploiting existing loopholes, yes. These are being closed on a regular basis & the UK's tax system is tightening up massively though. *** Edit - They don't quite lose 50% of their million quid btw, so he has a wee bit extra to spend on accountants, hookers & cocaine. He'd have £525,500 to be exact

SHM, you say I have a 7 year old's view of the world but you seem to have a view of these super-rich tax avoiders taken straight from tabloid newspapers. Next you'll be hitting out with the "VODAFONE DIDN'T PAY THEIR 6 BILLION QUID" bullshit. I suspect that I know more about tax & what goes on outside of the newspaper reports than you do.

Anyway, I've somehow ended up defending rich bankers, or the "super-rich", as though I love them & agree with everything they do. I most certainly fucking don't.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Men are studied from all sorts of sociological perspectives. Nearly all academic subjects are male-dominated, we just don't label them as such.

There are hundreds if not thousands of women's studies courses in the world, dedicated solely to studying women. In comparison there are almost none for men. Do you not think that 'women' being considered a whole field of academia, and there being no male equivalent, one group is getting a disproportionate amount of the time and effort? I do not really see how nearly all academic subjects are male-dominated, or how this in any way makes up for the fact we know far more about the problems, issues, and lives about modern day women than we do about men.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I am aware of my own motives, or at least try to be brutal with myself about them [100% accuracy is not always possible]. the point is, I consciously consider them when engaging. how they determine what I choose to post, and what I choose to not post. how they influence what I say and what I do not. I hold everyone to the same scrutiny as myself. whether they agree with my point of view or not is inconsequential. someone not of the same opinion, but exhibiting the same filter process, is someone to be listened to and knowledge gained from.

they have my 100% attention. in truth? I really hope they'll tell me something I dont know. theyre the type of people i love to get the opportunity to read, and who Im most receptive to

And how would one exhibit that they are using this filtering process when posting, so that their posts may be of a satisfactory standard to demand an actual response from you? I am genuinely intrigued as to if you have an actually objective way of figuring out whether the person responding to you is doing so whilst considering their motives, or whether it just comes down to how you feel they have come across. I suspect it is the latter, and that it is just a very simplistic mental device you deploy to avoid cognitive dissonance.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Aye you're almost spot on there. Other than the paying for loopholes bit, possibly in the past but not now. Exploiting existing loopholes, yes. These are being closed on a regular basis & the UK's tax system is tightening up massively though.

SHM, you say I have a 7 year old's view of the world but you seem to have a view of these super-rich tax avoiders taken straight from tabloid newspapers. Next you'll be hitting out with the "VODAFONE DIDN'T PAY THEIR 6 BILLION QUID" bullshit. I suspect that I know more about tax & what goes on outside of the newspaper reports than you do.

Anyway, I've somehow ended up defending rich bankers, or the "super-rich", as though I love them & agree with everything they do. I most certainly fucking don't.

The system is fucked from the start any way. Whenever it gets too bad, or the government gets too good at it's tax collecting, the super rich just deploy their ultimate weapon: Go abroad and take their money with them. It's why The Beatles did it, and why i'll be doing it when this economy truly hits the fan and they begin getting more and more desperate.

 

[parttime crackhead]

The system is fucked from the start any way. Whenever it gets too bad, or the government gets too good at it's tax collecting, the super rich just deploy their ultimate weapon: Go abroad and take their money with them. It's why The Beatles did it, and why i'll be doing it when this economy truly hits the fan and they begin getting more and more desperate.

True. Part of the reason why certain loopholes do still exist & why we have to be careful with the "tax fuck out the rich" ideas. Getting close to half their income in tax is far better than getting none of it.

There's been cases where international sports/music stars will not play in the UK because they would actually lose money by doing so due to the way our tax legislation works & that in certain circumstances they can be liable for UK tax on all of their foreign income (I'm not 100% on the specifics of this, I think it may just be income from sponsorships).

 

[Myshkin]

There are hundreds if not thousands of women's studies courses in the world, dedicated solely to studying women. In comparison there are almost none for men. Do you not think that 'women' being considered a whole field of academia, and there being no male equivalent, one group is getting a disproportionate amount of the time and effort? I do not really see how nearly all academic subjects are male-dominated, or how this in any way makes up for the fact we know far more about the problems, issues, and lives about modern day women than we do about men.

You could always ease the pain by getting a four-pack of Stellas in and watching Top Gear or something...