The Hoax of the Missing Link

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, if someone offered me 7 or 8 times my salary specifically to buy a house I didn't want or need, I would instantly give in, get the huge salary, live in the stupid house for a while, then sell it off and have the best of both worlds🙂 Please, do it🙂 What were the circumstances that led to that kind of offer and why? It is an offer that really doesn't ...[text shortened]... mma joke: Free Pork

I told that to my Israeli boss, he got a wide grin, said NO DILEMMA🙂

sorry, you have misunderstood or perhaps i wasn't clear enough, she was offered a mortgage to buy a house for seven and a half times her salary.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry, you have misunderstood or perhaps i wasn't clear enough, she was offered a mortgage to buy a house for seven and a half times her salary.

Ah, totally different story. That is despicable behavior of the bank. The normal limit is something like 3 times your wage.

So if I make 24 thou a year I could finance a 75 thou house or so. In Pennsylvania you are literally renting your house from the government even after you have the so-called title. So my house payment of 1000 bucks a month included 400 dollars a month in federal, state, and local rent money. So 1000/month is really only 600 a month, here anyway, as far as the actual mortgage is concerned. So I am paying a 40 percent tax on my house. And will pay 400 dollars a month rent even if I live to be 110. Or whatever the rent rate would rise to if I lived that long. Probably 800 bucks a month.

So if you make 25 thou a year under that 8 times rule, they want you to buy a 200,000 dollar house. If I pay 1000 per month for an 80,000 dollar mortgage, then you should be paying something like 2000 dollars a month for a 200 K house.

2000 dollars would be close to 100 % of my present income.

Not a good idea for sure. If she was making 50 thou, then they were trying to talk her into buying a 400 thou house, the payment would for sure be way over 3000 dollars a month. Nice people.

How could they in all conscience do something like that, to give a lose lose situation to a buyer.

Ah, that would be the short term gains by the bank and real estate agents in terms of fees and such. So the fees might be say 4 percent (probably a low 🙄 so that would be about 16,000 dollars up front, paid for by down payments presumably.
Then when the buyer gets foreclosed, they just pull the same scam on another dumb customer.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then see if you can find any evidence that it was not defined in the dictionaries until the 1980s. I say you made it up.

I have already found older dictionaries that did not define man as an ape.
You could do the same, if you would bother to look.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have already found older dictionaries that did not define man as an ape.

Can you present one? So far you have not done so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you present one? So far you have not done so.

Yes, I have and I even gave the definition as it appers in it.
It was from Thorndike + Barnhart Junior Dictionary copyright 1959
by Scott, Foresman, and Company, USA.
It does not use the word "ape" in any definiton for man, mankind,
human or human being.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ah, totally different story. That is despicable behavior of the bank. The normal limit is something like 3 times your wage.

So if I make 24 thou a year I could finance a 75 thou house or so. In Pennsylvania you are literally renting your house from the government even after you have the so-called title. So my house payment of 1000 bucks a month included ...[text shortened]... ly.
Then when the buyer gets foreclosed, they just pull the same scam on another dumb customer.

my goodness man, you're more taxed now in Pennsylvania than when you guys were under British sovereignty! In the US what is the tax threshold before you pay personal tax.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes this is it in its entirety, it seems to me to be about influences and our perceptions of these influences in our lives, whether its through common culture, advertising, the guy next door, the man of the tv. There can be no doubt that Christ lead a simple life, but he was hardly an ascetic, in fact, it was charged against him that he came, 'eatin ...[text shortened]... inks, to counteract the advertising, to distinguish between what we desire and what we need?

I think that you and I may be working from differing definitions of 'materialism'. I would not say that 'materialism' as I understand it had much if anything to do with the housing bubble in Ireland. I think you're referring to 'material consumerism', which is a different animal entirely.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I have and I even gave the definition as it appers in it.
It was from Thorndike + Barnhart Junior Dictionary copyright 1959
by Scott, Foresman, and Company, USA.
It does not use the word "ape" in any definiton for man, mankind,
human or human being.

I am aware of that. It doesn't use the word mammal or animal either. Would you agree with me that humans are mammals and humans are animals and that in 1959 it was commonly accepted by everyone that this was the case?
We are not arguing about whether or not a dictionary definition contains the word 'ape', we are arguing about whether or not 'ape' included humans in its definition.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I think that you and I may be working from differing definitions of 'materialism'. I would not say that 'materialism' as I understand it had much if anything to do with the housing bubble in Ireland. I think you're referring to 'material consumerism', which is a different animal entirely.

yes, I apologise, it was perhaps a failure on my part to make this clear and it resulted in confusion, for what has transpired is a shifting from say Darwinian materialistic philosophy which finds expression in evolutionary terms to material consumerism which like you say is a different animal. My main failure has been to demonstrate where one has merged into the other, how scientific materialism has spawned consumer materialism. Its just not as easy as i had initially thought, in fact, its really difficult to be honest.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my goodness man, you're more taxed now in Pennsylvania than when you guys were under British sovereignty! In the US what is the tax threshold before you pay personal tax.

If the Democratic Party over here gets there way we would be taxed
even more. That is why I vote Republican every year, that is without
mentioning that most of the democrats are a bunch of liars.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am aware of that. It doesn't use the word mammal or animal either. Would you agree with me that humans are mammals and humans are animals and that in 1959 it was commonly accepted by everyone that this was the case?
We are not arguing about whether or not a dictionary definition contains the word 'ape', we are arguing about whether or not 'ape' included humans in its definition.

Yes, in 1959 humans were classified as mammals. But what I am trying to point out is the apes and man (humans) are different kinds of mammals.
That means apes do not breed with man to produce offsprings. So there
can not be any ancestorial relationship there. Get it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my goodness man, you're more taxed now in Pennsylvania than when you guys were under British sovereignty! In the US what is the tax threshold before you pay personal tax.

State and local taxes outweigh federal, at least for me. I tag out at about 10 percent fed, but 7 percent SSI, 6% state, then the property taxes, so it gets up there in spite of the low fed rate. But between the property tax and the school tax, that bill is 40% of our house payment. It seems wrong to tax 70 year olds for school tax, I think we should get a break sometime during our life. Makes me want to move to New Hampshire, no property tax there, once you own your house you don't pay rent to the government for it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, in 1959 humans were classified as mammals.

Yet it is not mentioned in your dictionary reference. So you have not proven that humans were not generally classified as apes too. I, on the other hand have provided a reference to show that they were classified as apes long before that. In other words, you are mistaken.

But what I am trying to point out is the apes and man (humans) are different kinds of mammals.
So you believe, but that is not what we were discussing. What we were discussing was whether or not the term 'ape' includes humans in the English language and for how long that usage has been in circulation.

That means apes do not breed with man to produce offsprings.
But what are these 'apes' you keep referring to? In my dictionary (and every other that I am aware of) a human is an ape and thus does breed with man. Other apes such as Gorillas and Chimpanzees do not interbreed either yet you seem happy to group them together as 'apes'.

So there can not be any ancestorial relationship there. Get it?
No I don't 'get it'. Failure to interbreed does not prove that there is no ancestral relationship.

Also what I don't get is why you think that your desire to prove no ancestral relationship gives you licence to make up whatever lies you like about what the word 'ape' means and what its history is.

Originally posted by sonhouse
State and local taxes outweigh federal, at least for me. I tag out at about 10 percent fed, but 7 percent SSI, 6% state, then the property taxes, so it gets up there in spite of the low fed rate. But between the property tax and the school tax, that bill is 40% of our house payment. It seems wrong to tax 70 year olds for school tax, I think we should get a ...[text shortened]... re, no property tax there, once you own your house you don't pay rent to the government for it.

Here in Georgia once you get 65 years old you get an additional $35,000 off
any state tax plus an exemption from paying any school tax. We haven't
always had the $35,000 exemption. That was due to the Republicans that
we elected here.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet it is not mentioned in your dictionary reference. So you have not proven that humans were not generally classified as apes too. I, on the other hand have provided a reference to show that they were classified as apes long before that. In other words, you are mistaken.

[b]But what I am trying to point out is the apes and man (humans) are different k ...[text shortened]... e up whatever lies you like about what the word 'ape' means and what its history is.

You are beginning to talk like an idiot now. I can't reason with an idiot.