4 ms·

Money is life time. People exchange their life time for money. How money is introduced into the economy is a red herring. The rest of your argument is red herr

Money is life time. People exchange their life time for money. How money is introduced into the economy is a red herring. The rest of your argument is red herring as well, you just switched to talking about violent crime, which has nothing to do with our conversation. I was talking specificzlly about misdemeanor theft, not robbery or felony theft.

allendoerfer 10y ago
> Money is life time. It is not and it does not become it by you repeating that claim. Lifetime spent working is not gone. You still live while working, thus it accounts to your lifetime. There are even people who very much enjoy their time spent working. Lifetime spent dead, in or near a coma is gone. > How money is introduced into the economy is a red herring. It is not, it is the explanation, what money actually is (not lifetime, by stating that central banks cannot create lifetime for you). You are just claiming what you think it is, I was describing what it actually is. You are welcome to back up your claim, too. > you just switched to talking about violent crime, which has nothing to do with our conversation. Since you originally answered to my comment comparing the punishments for violent crimes and embezzlement, yes it has everything to do with our conversation. I am saying life is more valuable than money, so punishments for violent crimes should be harsher. You then first claimed that crimes involving money are actually about lifetime (and thus life). I argued against that point and now you have gone full circle and claim that we aren't even talking about violent crimes. Why do you try to pull misdemeanor theft on a level where it can be compare to violent crimes then, by introducing lifetime as a currency?
- imaginenore 10y ago
  > It is not and it does not become it by you repeating that claim Yes it is, and it does not not become it by you repeating that claim. Most people would not be working where they work if they didn't need money. They would do what they actually enjoy. The percentage of people who love their jobs is tiny. > It is not, it is the explanation, what money actually is No, it's the explanation of how money is introduced, not what it "actually is". Money is the measure of human labor. You clearly can't comprehend the difference.
  - allendoerfer 10y ago
    I clearly described why lifetime is not money (because it is not traded, you still live) and what money is (it is not only the mechanism of how it is introduced, but also how it's value can be changed afterwards and so on). > Most people would not be working where they work if they didn't need money. They would do what they actually enjoy. Just a claim. Even if this were true, lifetime is still not lost. > The percentage of people who love their jobs is tiny. People like to be needed. Also just a claim. I think at this point the discussion makes no sense. I will stop writing this over and over again now, as long as you do not answer my main argument: When someone gives human labor and gets money, he does not give away lifetime in the way a murderer takes away his lifetime. He still lives while working.

allendoerfer 10y ago

> Money is life time. It is not and it does not become it by you repeating that claim. Lifetime spent working is not gone. You still live while working, thus it accounts to your lifetime. There are even people who very much enjoy their time spent working. Lifetime spent dead, in or near a coma is gone. > How money is introduced into the economy is a red herring. It is not, it is the explanation, what money actually is (not lifetime, by stating that central banks cannot create lifetime for you). You are just claiming what you think it is, I was describing what it actually is. You are welcome to back up your claim, too. > you just switched to talking about violent crime, which has nothing to do with our conversation. Since you originally answered to my comment comparing the punishments for violent crimes and embezzlement, yes it has everything to do with our conversation. I am saying life is more valuable than money, so punishments for violent crimes should be harsher. You then first claimed that crimes involving money are actually about lifetime (and thus life). I argued against that point and now you have gone full circle and claim that we aren't even talking about violent crimes. Why do you try to pull misdemeanor theft on a level where it can be compare to violent crimes then, by introducing lifetime as a currency?

imaginenore 10y ago
> It is not and it does not become it by you repeating that claim Yes it is, and it does not not become it by you repeating that claim. Most people would not be working where they work if they didn't need money. They would do what they actually enjoy. The percentage of people who love their jobs is tiny. > It is not, it is the explanation, what money actually is No, it's the explanation of how money is introduced, not what it "actually is". Money is the measure of human labor. You clearly can't comprehend the difference.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  I clearly described why lifetime is not money (because it is not traded, you still live) and what money is (it is not only the mechanism of how it is introduced, but also how it's value can be changed afterwards and so on). > Most people would not be working where they work if they didn't need money. They would do what they actually enjoy. Just a claim. Even if this were true, lifetime is still not lost. > The percentage of people who love their jobs is tiny. People like to be needed. Also just a claim. I think at this point the discussion makes no sense. I will stop writing this over and over again now, as long as you do not answer my main argument: When someone gives human labor and gets money, he does not give away lifetime in the way a murderer takes away his lifetime. He still lives while working.