High court upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law

[1of42]

Yes, his house is big. But why are you quoting its value at me? I got it within $2 million, which off the top of my head I think is rather good. Anyways, given the amount of work he put into Microsoft over several decades (whether or not you agree with his business philosophy, you cannot disagree that he has worked hard), I believe he deserves it.

But I guess that is where socialists/communists disagree (whichever group you happen to put yourself in, or even if you're in neither, you can't disagree you're close). I happen to believe that once a person earns money through hard work, they have a right to spend it however they want.

Now, moving on. I think you are unclear as to where the majority of the Gates' foundation's work is done. It's in Africa and the Third World. And it has nothing to do with giving people MS software. It has to do with developing healthcare and literacy programs for people in that part of the world. But even those relatively small programs that do provide computers for libraries and schools - what exactly is your problem with them being MS? If you lead a company like MS, would you go buy computers from your competitors to donate? Don't be ridiculous.

Now, once again, your numbers are off. To clear this up once and for all, I will bold the following important point: He didn't give millions. He gave $21 billion to endow the foundation, and has given another $7 billion since then. That is a fact, don't argue it, it's documented in so amny places that it's not a point to be debated.

As to me brining up "personal attacks", how is it a personal attack for me to imply that your political views are clouding your grasp of the situation? That is not a personal attack.

As to where he's giving time? Well, I frankly don't have any facts on that, but common sense absolutely dictates that he's giving time, espcially given that front-page photo of him in India, a trip that would require at least 4-5 days, and is probably more time dedicated to community service than you've put in in the last little while.

Now, hate to burst your bubble, but nowhere did you "show" that he gets any money back, from P.R., tax breaks or anything else. You simply assume. You don't know what Gates gets as a tax brak, you don't even know that he gets one at all. In fact, I would suggest to you that he doesn't since the money he gave away was in the form of MS stock, which the foundation then converted (tax free) into cash by selling it off, while diversifying their stock portfolio in order to continue making enough money to extend operations. Bill Gates probably got almost no tax break on it, because it wasn't actually his money to begin with - just the theoretical amount he could have if he sold his stock. Giving the stock away would give him no tax break, since he wasn't taxed on the shares to begin with.

My last paragraph was not a personal attack. It was expressing my feeling of disappointment that you appear to be letting your ideological opposition to Gates blind you to the enormous good he's done for the world. Now, the rest of that paragraph is mostly indecipherable to me, but I get the general idea you're making another comment on your soup kitchen analogy, to which I respond: How do you know him giving away money doesn't reflect a deep good in him? How do you know that he's giving money away for P.R., and not because he realizes that the most good he can do for charity in this world is to finance it? You don't. Again, you assume. Seeing a theme here?

Justin_ wrote:

Thank God for you Dan. I think you made your point very well. I think the picture of Bill Gates' home is end of discussion. He is greedy, he doesn't do enough to be as rich as he is.

If you put the integrity of Bill Gates' character on a teeter totter with his wealth, the situation is gravely unbalanced. He simply isn't such a great guy that he deserves an 80 million dollar house.

Go Socialism! Hurray for Psuedo-Communism!

The picture of Bill Gates home is the end of no discussion other than that he has a big home. It proves nothing about his character, or his integrity. Since you (or I) have no idea how much he does (and has done) to be as rich as he is, I would suggest you are unqualified to comment on it.

Boo-chan wrote:

Hacker Dan you're really pushing the line on abusing your authority as an admin. Just because someone disagrees with your position doesn't mean that they are breaking the rules of the site, unless there are some rules that I'm unaware of. Ad hominem attacks are usually rather stupid but I think your overinterpreting them as personal insults.

Thank you for that. Dan, please stop threatening me with having actions taken against me in every debate we enter into. Take your admin hat off when you start debating.

codemage wrote:

I'm not pointing fingers or defending big Bill, but anyone here that doesn't contribute more money and/or time to charity, etc. (on a relational level to their respective salary and free time) than Mr. Gates doesn't really have an ethical platform to stand on.

Another thank you. My challenge, Dan and Justin, is this: Prove to me that you have contributed as much, or more than Gates has, as a percentage of your wealth or your time (30% of either is a nice ballpark), and I'll grant that you have the right to criticize his philanthropy. Since Gates isn't good enough, let's see you be.

You've talked the talk. Now walk the walk, and you will have my respect, just as Gates does.

[Dan]

Boo-chan wrote:

Hacker Dan you're really pushing the line on abusing your authority as an admin. Just because someone disagrees with your position doesn't mean that they are breaking the rules of the site, unless there are some rules that I'm unaware of.

Did you even read any of the debate? I am sorry if u do not like it but calling users stupied or other perosnal instuatls is agsaisted the rules of the site and is not a debating method. 2ndly if u aucatly read my post above in full befor saying things like that you whould know i side "if you push it further with the personal atacks you whould be breaking the rules of the site" i did not say he was. Persoanly i do not like my options being called "pseudo-communist facade" nor do i like being called stuiped with Justin_ was and it was impleyed i was in some of his eraly posts in this same topic. Also saying some one has an "complete and utter lack of perspective" or to "Get a grip" for disagraing with you is not so nice ether.

I realy do not see how warning some one about the rules of the site is "abusing your authority as an admin" i mean 1/2 the peoleop that get in trouble on this site say somthing like "but no one warned me....". Also no where did i say he was breaking the rules for disagraing with me, i gave him a warnning about using personal atacks in a debate. This has been a problem for a bit and i have been geting user comapin about in this and other topics. It is my job as admin give such warnings BEFOR it gets out of control. Also it is my job to take any user comapints secorsys and try to pervent the thing that casued them from happening BEFOR it happens again.

You have side i am wrong and i am not giving you a warning, tones of peoleop have. But if u started adding in things that are insutating i whould warn you too. If you think that peoleop should be able to falme each other to death to the point where users start leaving the site that is great for you but as long as i pay the bills here i am not going to let the forums and debates get out of control like that. If you whont to insualt some one go on msnm and go nuts. But not here.

Also since when is warrning some one abusing power? Any user on this site who is not blocked or banned can warrn some one about the rules. If i was abusing my powers i whould say somthing like "i am going to block you if you contion to debate me" or i aucatly whould just block them or do somthing to them.

In fact i can not just block some one like that, the only case i can even block some one that is not masively breaking the rules by trying to masive spam the site or hack it is to go to the borad of senior staff we have set up here and call a vote on it. The system was set up like this so no admin or mod could abouse there powers.

In fact if u whont to aucatly look unbasiesly in to cases of admins/mods abousing there power you whould see that in reality i have been the most anti-abouseing and have sported not banning a user more then others. Also in cases of lesser pushemtes like title chages and bits chages, i have never chaged a title with out warning (witch some mods have done and have done with no reason b4 in some cases) and i have been the most firendly with bit matters.

The reason why i am acussed the most for "abusing my power" is becasues i give so many warrning rather then doing somthing to the person. I mean if i was just to secritly block him no one whould know or do somthing less drastick no one whould know unless he side somthing. Also due to the fact that i am in the debates more then most mods and have more contversal views i am also balmed more.

I whould realy apreasahte it if you whould think more before accusing a admin or mod on this site of abusing there power. Since most of us are aucatly working hard at keeping this site going and ushely are paying to keep it going out of our pockets exceted for a few found rasing things we did in the past.

[Andy]

okok i admit, me, coutsos and martin abuse our powers the most..

[1of42]

Hacker Dan wrote:

Did you even read any of the debate? I am sorry if u do not like it but calling users stupied or other perosnal instuatls is agsaisted the rules of the site and is not a debating method. 2ndly if u aucatly read my post above in full befor saying things like that you whould know i side "if you push it further with the personal atacks you whould be breaking the rules of the site" i did not say he was. Persoanly i do not like my options being called "pseudo-communist facade" nor do i like being called stuiped with Justin_ was and it was impleyed i was in some of his eraly posts in this same topic. Also saying some one has an "complete and utter lack of perspective" or to "Get a grip" for disagraing with you is not so nice ether.

The first stupid comment was a mistake which I apologised for, and did not repeat. This makes it irrelevant to your later warnings of "don't flame me or I will take action"

Now, on to the rading comprehension section. I didn't call you a facade. Do you know what a facade is? No? It has nothing to do with you, it was me insinuating that your ideology is preventing you from being reasonable.

I didn't call you stupid, and if you want to take that implication, it is completely your own choice, and I refuse to be held to have anything to do with it.

Saying you have a lack of perspective, while not necessarily nice, is not a personal attack either, just like saying "you're completely wrong" while maybe not being an attack wouldn't be nice - however it is not against any rules.

Get a grip is not a personal attack either. If I phrased it differently, it would read: "Get more perspective and stop letting your ideology cloud your arguments", which is also not a personal attack.

Look Dan, I don't dislike you, I simply disagree with you. However, Boo-chan is correct. Your post here reinforces her (his? , I have no idea) point: you overinterpret shar arguments as insults. I am not insulting you. I am using sharp, blunt language, because I think your argument is ridiculous, but I am not insulting you, merely your arguments - which in debating, is in fact the best method.

But anyways, don't respond to this post, let's keep going with the argument I'd like to see your response to my last

[Dan]

1of42 wrote:

Yes, his house is big. But why are you quoting its value at me? I got it within $2 million, which off the top of my head I think is rather good. Anyways, given the amount of work he put into Microsoft over several decades (whether or not you agree with his business philosophy, you cannot disagree that he has worked hard), I believe he deserves it.

I can disagree with what ever i wont, it is a free countory. Also i blive that others have worked much harder them him for 100s of millions less.

1of42 wrote:

But I guess that is where socialists/communists disagree (whichever group you happen to put yourself in, or even if you're in neither, you can't disagree you're close). I happen to believe that once a person earns money through hard work, they have a right to spend it however they want.

As i side befor this realy dose not have that much to do with potical alinments and if it did i could revurese it for you and as i side befor peoleop have worked harder and longer for much less.

1of42 wrote:

Now, moving on. I think you are unclear as to where the majority of the Gates' foundation's work is done. It's in Africa and the Third World. And it has nothing to do with giving people MS software. It has to do with developing healthcare and literacy programs for people in that part of the world.

Thats not what there site says.......

1of42 wrote:

But even those relatively small programs that do provide computers for libraries and schools - what exactly is your problem with them being MS? If you lead a company like MS, would you go buy computers from your competitors to donate? Don't be ridiculous.

M$ is not donateing the computers and software in all case. Witch means they are making moeny off the goverment garnts and peoleop donations.

In the cases they are, they are helping along there magority and training the young to like M$ and IE and that makes them alot less likey to chage.

1of42 wrote:

Now, once again, your numbers are off. To clear this up once and for all, I will bold the following important point: He didn't give millions. He gave $21 billion to endow the foundation, and has given another $7 billion since then. That is a fact, don't argue it, it's documented in so amny places that it's not a point to be debated.

When i say millions that is not sposted to be a prices fact, lol and once again? where was the last one? Also none of this aucatly chages anything since it just goses back in the form of tax breaks, M$ reinvrenstments threw software and P.R.

1of42 wrote:

As to me brining up "personal attacks", how is it a personal attack for me to imply that your political views are clouding your grasp of the situation? That is not a personal attack.

See above.

1of42 wrote:

As to where he's giving time? Well, I frankly don't have any facts on that, but common sense absolutely dictates that he's giving time, espcially given that front-page photo of him in India, a trip that would require at least 4-5 days, and is probably more time dedicated to community service than you've put in in the last little while.

Yes sing checks and taking vecations to indea are very hard work. Also you are geting in to persoanl atacks again with the community service thing. Witch obvesly is not a debating point since what ever i do dose not effect bill gates community worth.

1of42 wrote:

Now, hate to burst your bubble, but nowhere did you "show" that he gets any money back, from P.R., tax breaks or anything else. You simply assume.

That is how the tax system works in the u.s.

If you do not get how he gets it back threw M$ then there is not much i can do since i state it prity obvesly.

As for P.R. it shure worked on you, lol

1of42 wrote:

You don't know what Gates gets as a tax brak, you don't even know that he gets one at all.

You don't know that he dose not get one and seeing other peoleops tax info is agaisted the law...

1of42 wrote:

In fact, I would suggest to you that he doesn't since the money he gave away was in the form of MS stock, which the foundation then converted (tax free) into cash by selling it off, while diversifying their stock portfolio in order to continue making enough money to extend operations.

ROFL, that is even worse. You are saying that in realty he is givng stock not money witch is then sold back to his own company. This almost sounds illgeal.

1of42 wrote:

Bill Gates probably got almost no tax break on it, because it wasn't actually his money to begin with - just the theoretical amount he could have if he sold his stock.

Ah, i though i was debating that in reality he was not giving anything...

1of42 wrote:

How do you know him giving away money doesn't reflect a deep good in him? How do you know that he's giving money away for P.R., and not because he realizes that the most good he can do for charity in this world is to finance it? You don't. Again, you assume. Seeing a theme here?

Crealy you are not reading my posts well. As i side the relsotes of ones intentions are not what makes them "good" but there intentions are. For example if i give away moeny just for the reason to get somthing back, althought this may be good for the peoleop geting the money it dose not make me good. As for if he is doing that or not, that is what this debate is about and nether of us could ever prove that for shure with out being him.

1of42 wrote:

The picture of Bill Gates home is the end of no discussion other than that he has a big home. It proves nothing about his character, or his integrity. Since you (or I) have no idea how much he does (and has done) to be as rich as he is, I would suggest you are unqualified to comment on it.

And you are? Every one is qualifed to have there option hured on this site.

1of42 wrote:

Thank you for that. Dan, please stop threatening me with having actions taken against me in every debate we enter into. Take your admin hat off when you start debating.

That is a very big acusation there, i whould like to see any prof of it. Witch you clearly do not have since it dose not exists. You should read my post above. I am quite hurt that you two think that affter the work i do for this site.

1of42 wrote:

Another thank you. My challenge, Dan and Justin, is this: Prove to me that you have contributed as much, or more than Gates has, as a percentage of your wealth or your time (30% of either is a nice ballpark), and I'll grant that you have the right to criticize his philanthropy. Since Gates isn't good enough, let's see you be.

I have he right to critixize anything i whont allready and you can not take that away. Also as i side before if i gave everything or nothing it whould make no diffrences to the debate. But if i most i will show you:

Amount of moeny i am eraning this year since i am in school and not working: $0

Amount of my personal money that has gone to compsci.ca, a non profit orgastion that helps peoleop with comper sinces topics and provied a comiunity for them: over $200 (this year) (pay for the next 2 years)

Amount of time i have put in to compsci.ca: well i have been working on this site/comunity for years, the number of housrs is probly admazing high.

that whould be a % of 100%. And i am not even listing any other charoity work.

1of42 wrote:

You've talked the talk. Now walk the walk, and you will have my respect, just as Gates does.

Done.

[1of42]

Hacker Dan wrote:

ROFL, that is even worse. You are saying that in realty he is givng stock not money witch is then sold back to his own company. This almost sounds illgeal.

Most of your post was a rehash, but this particular one stood out, and frankly makes me wonder whether you even read what you're writing. Do you know how the stock market works? When shares in a company are sold, the company gets no cut of it other than on the initial public offering. When Bill Gates gives away his personal shares to his foundation, they are sold, and the foundation gets the money. They are sold to whoever wants to buy them, at market price. MS gets no cut. Do you understand?

Anyways, as to your last point, touche. But I've decided that I don't respect you for it, since you're just

Hacker Dan wrote:

singing a check

which according to you shows no real charitable thought or intent. How's your tax break and P.R. coming along then? Well? Excellent.

[Dan]

Quote:

The first stupid comment was a mistake which I apologised for, and did not repeat. This makes it irrelevant to your later warnings of "don't flame me or I will take action"

Where did i say i will take action? I side if u keep pushing it you whould break the rules. Also as i side in the above post i can not take acuation alone. Also it dose make it realiven if u have done it befor in this topic.

Quote:

Now, on to the rading comprehension section. I didn't call you a facade. Do you know what a facade is? No? It has nothing to do with you, it was me insinuating that your ideology is preventing you from being reasonable.

Now you are saying what words i do or do not know? Since i could look it up if i did not going futher in to it whould show nothing but if u look at the post i side you side that about my idea.

Quote:

I didn't call you stupid, and if you want to take that implication, it is completely your own choice, and I refuse to be held to have anything to do with it.

i blive you side "ok, my bad. On the other hand, your response makes me want to use the same personal attack on you." affter calling justin stupied.

I side you immpleid it not side it.

Quote:

Saying you have a lack of perspective, while not necessarily nice, is not a personal attack either, just like saying "you're completely wrong" while maybe not being an attack wouldn't be nice - however it is not against any rules.

Wording is everything, if u make it sound insuatling and it is taken that way it becomes that way. I am not shure what exctaly (part of post wise) you are refuring to here, but i did say some of your stuff was just not nice and not nessary to the debate.

AND FOR THE 100th TIME WHERE DID I SAY YOU WHERE BREAKING THE RULES. Please read what i say befor you start making acusations.

Quote:

But anyways, don't respond to this post, let's keep going with the argument I'd like to see your response to my last

You seem to be big on tell what others to do for some one who is accusing me of abouse of power.....

[Dan]

1of42 wrote:

Anyways, as to your last point, touche. But I've decided that I don't respect you for it, since you're just

Hacker Dan wrote:

singing a check

which according to you shows no real charitable thought or intent. How's your tax break and P.R. coming along then? Well? Excellent.

Yes the hours of work and trouble i go to is just singing a check. Yes geting woken up at 3am to fix problems with the site or script kiddy hacks is just singing a check. Lising to litte punks comapin about everything from the color of the site to how i do not do there work for them is just sing checks. Dealing with 100s of e-mails and msn messages about helping peoleop with proging is just singing checks. Updating software and writing new parts of this site for hours on end is just singing checks. Giving moeny i do not have to spend to keep it up is nothing apreantly. Reading 100s of posts per day and modrating them, users and the staff is just singing checks. Distubiving resorces for other peolops projects and other comunitys is just singing checks. Listing and dealing with user comapints is just singing checks. Helping peoleop progaming is just sing checks. And a hell lots more.

And what do i get for it? I get a negitve balnce in the bank and user saying that i am adbusing my power and a hell load of hate mail. Also i get to be the most unpopualr admin/mod who dose the most work. Poelop like you make me whont to just give up this and let the site fall aprent the next day........

[1of42]

I totally agree, which is why if I were saying that for anything other than to make a point, I would feel terrible. How do you think Bill Gates would feel to hear you belittling his charitable work? I oversimplifiedyour work in the same way you oversimplified Gates' work - and your response to it shows the exact same sentiment that mine does. Please reread my point, notice the similarities of what I said about you to what yous aid about Bill Gates, both based off assumptions, and comprehend.

[Dan]

1of42 wrote:

I totally agree, which is why if I were saying that for anything other than to make a point, I would feel terrible. How do you think Bill Gates would feel to hear you belittling his charitable work? I oversimplifiedyour work in the same way you oversimplified Gates' work - and your response to it shows the exact same sentiment that mine does. Please reread my point, notice the similarities of what I said about you to what yous aid about Bill Gates, both based off assumptions, and comprehend.

Ah but we know what i do we do not know what bill dose, witch is the topic of this debate. Also you side that on my site directly to me, i did not post that on M$.com and have bill read it. I whould much like to hear some aswsers from him on some of the above but that is not goign to happen. I do not consdier it the same since he aucatly gains from it, i mean the foundation is named affter him.

[1of42]

The diferences are semantical. All of a sudden, after you realise I'm not being serious, you are less offended. The rest of the points you make in your post are semantical differences, jumping around one simple fact: you belittle his work and see no problem with it, and I belittle yours and your eact defensively. Where it is said is irrelevant.

[Dan]

1of42 wrote:

The diferences are semantical. All of a sudden, after you realise I'm not being serious, you are less offended. The rest of the points you make in your post are semantical differences, jumping around one simple fact: you belittle his work and see no problem with it, and I belittle yours and your eact defensively. Where it is said is irrelevant.

That makes litte to no scens unless you are bill gates and i am not trying to say i am better or worse then bill gates, in fact i side what i do is irealvent to the debate befor. And of corse i defened my work and i am shure bill gates whould to if he was here. My hole point threw this all is that one is not a saint just b/c they give money to some causes. If you have money to build masive houses you should be giving moeny to cahritys. Also % are not a gr8 way to measue how much moeny gives and they are doing somthing so gr8, bill gates probly dose not need 80%+ of his income while some one in the midele or lower class giving 10% could make a masive difernce to there life.

Anyhow this debate is geitng very offtopic and going in cricles. In turth you may be right or i might be right but nether of us can prove it with out aucatly being bill gates or geting infromation that only a few peoleop whould have. It comes down to a matter of option in the end like most things.

[Justin_]

Well my intent is to try and put communism in some perspective. While it is nice to think that the hardest working people earn the most, it is not true.
What about doctors and teachers and people who spend all their time helping others, helping the world?

In this world their is only one fact. The profitable business man is dirty. Bill Gates is more than a ruthless business man, and though he's good at it, from a communist stand point business and self-imbetterment have no place in the collective whole.

Communism is really an ungreedy place, where everyone does their part for the well being of everyone else. It's a really beautiful thought, actually.

Selling sh*tty products, and stealing peoples livelihood is not working toward the good of human kind. Yes, M$ is responsible for stealing other peoples inventions. How? They beat them to the patent office. (Because they can afford to)

Conclusion: Just grow a heart ladies and gentlemen, and start thinking of what's missing from your life. Because I bet it has to do with something you can't afford to do, like go skiing, or rock climbing. Whatever it is, the reason you don't have it, is because someone else does and isn't sharing.

[Martin]

In the world today, 6 biliion 300 million people live.
If this world were shrunk to the size of a village,
what would it look like?
If 100 people lived in this village,

* 52 would be women, 48 would be men
* 30 would be children, 70 would be adults.
* 7 would be aged.
* 90 would be heterosexual, 10 would be homosexual
* 70 would be nonwhite, 30 would be white
* 61 would be Asian, 13 African, 13 from North and South America, 12 Europeans, and the remaining one from the South Pacific.
* 33 would be Christians, 19 believers in Islam, 13 would be Hindus, and 6 would follow Buddhist teachings. 5 would believe that there are spirits in the trees and rocks and in all of nature. 24 would be believe in other religions, or would believe in no religion.
* 17 would speak Chinese, 9 English, 8 Hindi and Urdu, 6 Spanish, 6 Russian, and 4 would speak Arabic. That would account for half the village. The other half would speak Bengal, Portuguese, Indonesian, Japanese, German, French, or some other language.
* In such a village with so many sorts of folks, it would be very important to learn to understand people different from yourself and to accept others as they are. But consider this. Of the 100 people in this village,
o 20 are underonurished, 1 is dying of starvation, while 15 are overweight.
o Of the wealth in this village, 6 people own 59% (all of them from the United States), 74 people own 39%, and 20 people share the remaining 2%.
o Of the energy of this village, 20 people consume 80%, and 80 people share the remaining 20%.
o 75 people have some supply of food and a place to shelter them from the wind and the rain, but 25 do not. 17 have no clean, safe water to drink.
o If you have money in the bank, money in your wallet and spare change somewhere around the house, then you are among the richest 8.
o If you have a car, you are among the richest 7.
o Among the villages, 1 has a college education. 2 have computers. 14 cannot read.
o If you can speak and act according to your faith and your conscience without harassment, imprisonment, torture or death, then you are more fortunate than 48, who can not.
o If you do not live in fear of death by bombardment, armed attack, landmines, or of rape or kidnapping by armed groups, then you are more fortunate than 20, who do.
o In one year, 1 person in the village will die, but in the same year, 2 babies will be born, so that at the year's end the number of villagers will be 101.

From: http://pratyeka.org/library/text/100people.html

----

I've never been a fan of communism. Communism is a system that lends itself to corruption, because people will always want power. The nice thing about capitalism is that power is given a material name - money and this can be tracked, changed and most of all controlled (which is the US's secret to success, and why Alan Greenspan is probably the most powerful person in the world.). In a communist system, there is no way to track who has power or what power is available, and so the system inevitably falls into corruption and crime. Look at China for a great example of this.

[Justin_]

No country in the history of humankind has ever been marx-communist (which is also the true communist). You cannot say it doesn't work. When the world is ready communism will take over, maybe not entirely pure marxist communism, but a very benevolent communism nevertheless, and when this happens, the world will never again have another revolution.