When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income

>our purpose in founding our state was not to promote the happiness of a single class, but, so far as possible, of the whole community. Our idea was that we were most likely to justice in such a community, and so be able to decide the question we are trying to answer. We are therefore at the moment trying to construct what we think is a happy community by securing the happiness not of a select minority, but of a whole.

I interpret this as the dedicated labor force (people who actually fucking work, ie white people) get taxed more to fund a bloated government while the "other people" (niggers and spics who just take the welfare and dont contribute or work) get off scot free.

Taking a quote out of context is very dishonest. You need to post the discussions about what a just man is before you can tackle this quote.

You have to obey the law no matter what you think. What's the "if" supposed to mean?

>appealing to authority
You're what every philosopher hates

"if" was in the quote you pleb...
Oh yea I am sure they love ad hominem

The irony is you do the same i.e "what every philosopher hates"

Back in its day minorities were rich and influent people, not niggers, that's a recent thing buddy, countries used to have their own demohraphics

This. Socrates himself would have raped him in the butt, and I say this not in the sense of demeaning either Socrates nor the noble act of butt rape. It was a trusted method of censure known well to the Ancients. It's also the origin of the word "rebuttal".

And you too, far worse is that you misuse the meaning of the word "irony" to signify that he has contradicted himself, which was a common tactic employed by the Sophists. Now drop your pants, son.

It was a Plato quote to respond to his Plato quote, to show him that the idea of the meaning of justice according to Plato might not be what he thinks it is.

Attached: least intelligent.png (1190x906, 178K)

The Ancients were known for having passionate surprise buttsex with boys who they tutored or mentored. It's not only likely that Socrates had violent anal intercourse with Plato, Plato also ruined Aristotle's boypussy as well. It was part and parcel of living in an ancient city-state.

It has nothing to with contradicting yourself. The irony is in the fact that "the pot calling the kettle black" without being aware of doing so.

You seem to be the Sophist by misrepresenting "the pot calling the kettle black" without being aware of it, as a contradiction.

Not that i have anything against Sophistry.

Attached: 1471899153437.jpg (3500x2379, 744K)

The Kraut is obviously making a shitpost effort best to ignore him

Establishing a principle while violating it yourself through your own actions is hypocrisy. When you consider that philosophy is intended to be lived as well as discussed, then it's a contradiction. Take Seneca, for example. He wrote at great lengths about virtue and ethics and yet he tutored the Emperor Nero and grew wealthy by using his influence to have his rivals destroyed. While Seneca is often valued as an example of classical Latin rhetoric, nobody really thinks all that much of him as a philosopher. It is a question of the hegemonikon.

Literal butthurt.

Again the irony is in the fact that you are not aware of the fact that you are calling the kettle black.

Irony
"a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character."

And then to think that Germany was once a proud nation of the greatest philosophers on earth, what happened to you guys.

Your Sophistry has no power here Kraut.

>throws some autistic bullshit
>Is not smart enough to follow simple conversation
The original Kraut called me "appeal to authority" which was not the case. Maybe instead of just skimming books you actually try to understand them and learn something instead of using it to shitpost?

That was not an Ad hominem.

>Jow Forumsyp intellectuals

It was the original guy piratefag called him a monkey without actually making an argument to why that statement was true or not. Please try to follow...

This was an Ad hominem.

Fair enouge.

It’s true tho. Source: niggers

Wait that wasn't even the same guy, you called the Kraut out for an Ad hominem

I was talking about piratefag
The Kraut was accusing me of "appeal to authority" as I was just saying to the piratefag that he was not making an argument...

You didn't not make an argumentum ad verecundiam, in the first place. But you made an ad hominem yourself. But even if someone made a logical fallacy that does not excuse you to make a logical fallacy.

I was not making any appeals of authority, my original comment was asking how was he wrong. Pirate fag responded with ad hominem, I responded with asking him to make an actual argument to which he never replied. Do you seriously think I am the one in this tread who is mindlessly shitposting?

>You are literally some no name
Is an ad hominem.

No i do not think that, but since this is a philosophy tread, i am shitposting to everyone who makes a logical fallacy

>You are literally some no name
>Is an ad hominem.
I was calling him out on his obvious shitpost, to make an actual argument
You never attacked anyone making shit points
You never engaged anyone making arguments
All you are doing is engaging in infantile dick waving competition that actually kills any possibility of genuine discussion

>You never attacked anyone making shit points
Did i not BTFO the Kraut aswell.

But you made wrong attack, not your fault since you did not understand me in first place. But correct way would have been to attack his "appeal to authority fallacy" since I was not making that fallacy. Also I find it funny that every pleb that read the sticky.jpg think they are some big brained niggas

Again even if someone made a logical fallacy that does not excuse you to make a logical fallacy. You were both wrong in a sticker sense.

I studied philosophy, it has nothing to with the sticky.jpg. Also i do not particularity identify myself with a "big brained nigga" if that is what you were implying.

which dumb fuck said that?

that kraut sure seemed someone fresh from sticky.jpg
>I studied philosophy
Ever heard of play called Erasmus Montanus? You remind me of that guy
>does not excuse you to make a logical fallacy
my intention was never to call anyone stupid or to appeal to Plato. I was just asking how it was wrong that is all. I am sorry that it looked like I was basing my own arguments with ad hominem, was never my intention

>Erasmus Montanus
I have not seen it. Is it about an autistic stickler? because i am never like this, just shitposting on pol.

Haha i read it seems like a great play, but no in reality i am a postmodernist, i do not value an objective notions of truth, nor do i really care much for changing other peoples convictions, i just enjoy some shitposting.

>I have not seen it
Well one could also read it, but probably it is not popular outside Norway/Denmark. It is about a guy who uses his education to shitpost on plebs instead of applying to any practical use.

>i do not value an objective notions of truth, nor do i really care much for changing other peoples convictions, i just enjoy some shitposting.
Seems kinda lame desu
Why though?

Haha well it seems like a fitting comparison, i am sorry Lithuania bro. lets end it like the play i give up my foolish pride.

Because i do not think we can ever come to such an understanding, what seem obviously true or just to us, tends to be a more a conflation of lived experiences and your education.

I would rather go a more pragmatic route try to find a mutual satisfying agreement (because i believe that in the end most people are willing to compromise) rather than to blast down some absolute truth from up high and force everyone to fit in that frame work, it is impossible to have a understanding of everyone circumstances, needs and motivations.

it also has to do with my epistemology but i don't want to get in to all of that.

Truth is infinitely complex, all we can have is some wisdom in how we deal with the challenges we face.

>lets end it like the play i give up my foolish pride.
Wait are you leaving?

I can stay if you want to discuss something. but the thread seems pretty dead.

To be honest I should probably go I already wasted to much time while I should be doing something right now, but I will keep this in mind when talking to post modernist, would be interesting to find some faults in your thinking even if does seem quite convincing.

World of forms bros. And human and featherless chicken yo.

So you figured out that philosophy and religion is a pile of haughty shit an ancient form of virtue signalling.
Pretty impressive from a mutt.

Just men don't need laws because they know right and wrong in their hearts. And for this reason, laws are neccessary.