Total Posts:174|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tax is not theft.

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:46:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm sick of hearing that tax is theft. Seriously. I honestly believe that the sort of philosophy that preaches this has no application whatsoever and mainly exists because it's cool to hang on to because it rebels against something we held to be a fact of life.

That's the biggest selling point for that philosophy. "Hey guys, we're original and cool because we're making you QUESTION stuff".

When we really look at the basis, it's all BS. Complete and utter BS.

***

1. Natural rights- Don't bleeping exist the same way the laws of nature do. It pisses me off beyond belief when people pretend that the arbitrary philosophy of natural rights is some form of morality written in stone by the finger of God.

Why is this relevant? Because understanding that natural rights aren't God-given eliminates a series of absolutes. Arguments for this "tax is theft" philosophy hinge on the absolutism of natural rights. If you allow room for exceptions, you cut out idealistic crap with no practical application. Much like this philosophy.

2. When you have a piece of idealistic floof, the main goal is to make it sound good. Give it a good central argument.

Tax is theft because you are forced to hand over what is yours.

How is this a screwed up concept from screwed up logic?

Because natural rights don't manifest in any form until a society is formed. Some may argue that they exist inherently, but they never manifest until a society is formed. It is society that gives meaning to the rights. Possession of goods is something respected by society, not something inherent to man. It is respected by society because respecting the possession of others leads to greater societal good. However, even greater good comes from contribution to group projects. Tax is not theft. Tax is an outgrowth of the same mechanism that respects the "right" of possession.

3. Other arguments. Prepare for a counter.

"Well, tax comes from social contract"

"Whaat? I don't remember signing a contract! (I'm so witty and clever, let me come up with some flawed analogies now).

This retort has about as much intellectual validity as the statement

"It is immoral for a man to incur oxygen debt after running because he never spends any oxygen that he did not earn".

Screwed up terminology. You can't take nature to court, and nature doesn't care what you assume your imaginary rights are. A bear will still eat you, and your wife, and your children.

Natural laws have a tendency towards what optimizes a society. Human beings are social creatures, who evolved from a long line of social creatures. Formation of a society is as natural as incurring oxygen debt when running. Just as natural as contributing to group causes to accomplish large goals. Taxes are just efficient, modern versions of band hunting activities. Taxes are natural.

4. And of course, never leave yourself open. Proponents for this BS like to poke tiny holes and make their fallacious counterpoints when faced with reality. The problem is, I have never once seen one of these proponents set forth an illustration of a society that exemplifies tis philosophy, even theoretically.

Tell you what, you set up a society where we can do away with taxes, set up a free market, etc. and *I'll* poke holes wherever I see BS. If you can reconcile all that, then I'll entertain the notion that what you say can be deemed legitimate.

For the love of god, it's like dealing with Intelligent Design >.>
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:49:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The problem is, I have never once seen one of these proponents set forth an illustration of a society that exemplifies tis philosophy, even theoretically.
No one but you is responsible for the fact that you haven't paid attention, at least if by society you mean political system complete with a government and a means of funding that government.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:49:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 3:18:26 PM, shaniqualawyers013 wrote:
At 4/10/2010 2:49:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
So if a person stops participating in society (they stop paying their taxes, their kids are home schooled, they don't borrow sugar from the neighbors) does that mean that they lose the right to life?
At 4/10/2010 3:05:08 PM, Kleptin wrote:
An example of a person who exists outside of society is some random tribal boy who is raised by wolves. There is no social responsibility there.

A new reason to make friends
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:50:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:46:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
A bizarre attempt to equate idealistic rights to societal structure.
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:52:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Haven't seen anything that answers #4, therefore, nothing is worth reading :)
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:54:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:46:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Screwed up terminology. You can't take nature to court, and nature doesn't care what you assume your imaginary rights are. A bear will still eat you, and your wife, and your children.

Natural laws have a tendency towards what optimizes a society. Human beings are social creatures, who evolved from a long line of social creatures. Formation of a society is as natural as incurring oxygen debt when running. Just as natural as contributing to group causes to accomplish large goals. Taxes are just efficient, modern versions of band hunting activities. Taxes are natural.

These are the best ones
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:54:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As for the rest, no, removing God does not lead logically to removing absolutes. I do enjoy my rights hypothetically in the absence of society. I may not think about them much, but they are there, and they are far more "manifest" because no one is violating them.

It is irrelevant what nature respects, because "nature" has nothing to do with the morality of a rational animal, at least in the sense there is anything that is not "nature.

Taxes are definitely not "natural." "Social creatures" are bees, who don't know what to do in the absence of a society. Humans, many anyway, know precisely what to do.

As for setting up the tax-free society, get your gummint out of the way and watch, but right now the government you advocate will use a gun on me if I make the attempt, making your request intellectually dishonest.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:55:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:52:48 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Haven't seen anything that answers #4

The very first post addressed it with the fact that I've given you the answer many times in our previous conversations. It's called a society much like our own, except the gummint is funded by user fees and leaves the property of nonconsenting people alone, what more do you need illustrated?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:56:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree with you 100% Kleptin. However, the reason I do not believe in taxation is simply for sake of the consequences which, I think, are better if forced taxation is not there.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:57:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:54:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As for setting up the tax-free society, get your gummint out of the way and watch, but right now the government you advocate will use a gun on me if I make the attempt, making your request intellectually dishonest.

I didn't ask you to set it up physically. I doubt you can even set one up in theory. Sure, if you want, let's pretend the government didn't exist. Hell, let's pretend you're starting civilization over in the Gulch, just without the forcefield, the fancy toys, and the limitless energy XD
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:57:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:56:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I agree with you 100% Kleptin. However, the reason I do not believe in taxation is simply for sake of the consequences which, I think, are better if forced taxation is not there.

I didn't use the word taxation because I'm not in favor of force. But as either voluntary or non-voluntary, it's still in every individuals best interest.

Can you make up your mind for ten seconds? Please?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:58:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:54:01 PM, Tamikajones wrote:
Natural laws have a tendency towards what optimizes a society. Human beings are social creatures, who evolved from a long line of social creatures. Formation of a society is as natural as incurring oxygen debt when running. Just as natural as contributing to group causes to accomplish large goals. Taxes are just efficient, modern versions of band hunting activities. Taxes are natural.

The naturalistic fallacy is often claimed to be a formal fallacy. It was described and named by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica. Moore stated that a naturalistic fallacy was committed whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.).

Alternatively, the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" is used to refer to the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is bad or wrong (see "Appeal to nature"). It is the converse of the moralistic fallacy, or that what is good or right is natural and inherent.
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:59:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:55:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:52:48 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Haven't seen anything that answers #4

The very first post addressed it with the fact that I've given you the answer many times in our previous conversations. It's called a society much like our own, except the gummint is funded by user fees and leaves the property of nonconsenting people alone, what more do you need illustrated?

Ragnar: I just got an idea for a flying car!
Kleptin: ORLY? That's awesome dude! Tell me how it works
Ragnar: Well, see, it's like this...CAR. Except...IT FLIES!
Kleptin: Kill yourself.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:59:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:57:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:56:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I agree with you 100% Kleptin. However, the reason I do not believe in taxation is simply for sake of the consequences which, I think, are better if forced taxation is not there.

I didn't use the word taxation because I'm not in favor of force. But as either voluntary or non-voluntary, it's still in every individuals best interest.

Can you make up your mind for ten seconds? Please?

You're miss-understanding what I said. I was making a case purely for collectivization but the form of collectivization I am personally in favor of is voluntary.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 9:59:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:57:28 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:54:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As for setting up the tax-free society, get your gummint out of the way and watch, but right now the government you advocate will use a gun on me if I make the attempt, making your request intellectually dishonest.

I didn't ask you to set it up physically. I doubt you can even set one up in theory
What part is not set up? What question about it has been unanswered?

Hell, let's pretend you're starting civilization over in the Gulch, just without the forcefield, the fancy toys, and the limitless energy XD
The fancy toys explained nothing except how they kept the government they didn't like out, the rest of their society they explained themselves (inadequately insofar as Judge Narragansett went, but make him a user-fee funded dictator and poof, inadequacy gone if the rest stays the same).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:01:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:59:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:55:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:52:48 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Haven't seen anything that answers #4

The very first post addressed it with the fact that I've given you the answer many times in our previous conversations. It's called a society much like our own, except the gummint is funded by user fees and leaves the property of nonconsenting people alone, what more do you need illustrated?

Ragnar: I just got an idea for a flying car!
Kleptin: ORLY? That's awesome dude! Tell me how it works
Ragnar: Well, see, it's like this...CAR. Except...IT FLIES!
Kleptin: Kill yourself.

I've got an idea. See, it's like a government today. Except it replaces taxes with fee-for-service, denying service to nonpayers.

So take your straw man and shove it because I TOLD YOU how it works. I've told you in more detail before too. What part do you not understand?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:02:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:46:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I have never once seen one of these proponents set forth an illustration of a society that exemplifies tis philosophy, even theoretically.

Tell you what, you set up a society where we can do away with taxes, set up a free market, etc. and *I'll* poke holes wherever I see BS. If you can reconcile all that, then I'll entertain the notion that what you say can be deemed legitimate.

For the love of god, it's like dealing with Intelligent Design >.>

Description of Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X is old or traditional
2. Therefore X is correct or better.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:02:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:59:42 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:57:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:56:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I agree with you 100% Kleptin. However, the reason I do not believe in taxation is simply for sake of the consequences which, I think, are better if forced taxation is not there.

I didn't use the word taxation because I'm not in favor of force. But as either voluntary or non-voluntary, it's still in every individuals best interest.

Can you make up your mind for ten seconds? Please?

You're miss-understanding what I said. I was making a case purely for collectivization but the form of collectivization I am personally in favor of is voluntary.

And why is that if they both give the same benefit supposedly?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:02:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:46:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
1. Natural rights- Don't bleeping exist the same way the laws of nature do. It pisses me off beyond belief when people pretend that the arbitrary philosophy of natural rights is some form of morality written in stone by the finger of God.

Agreed.

Why is this relevant? Because understanding that natural rights aren't God-given eliminates a series of absolutes. Arguments for this "tax is theft" philosophy hinge on the absolutism of natural rights. If you allow room for exceptions, you cut out idealistic crap with no practical application. Much like this philosophy.

Not so. Most people, at least in America, believe that man can come to own something in such a way that taking it away from him would be "wrong" and they would denounce him. They would cry "Boo!" "Hiss!" "That is his!" This act of taking something that one had toiled to work upon and make valuable is commonly known as theft.

Yet for some reason or another this has not been applied to taxation though by all right it should.

2. When you have a piece of idealistic floof, the main goal is to make it sound good. Give it a good central argument.

Tax is theft because you are forced to hand over what is yours.

How is this a screwed up concept from screwed up logic?

Because natural rights don't manifest in any form until a society is formed.

Even if there exist only two people in society. If one were to kill the other in an act of aggression I would cry "You are an evildoer and in the wrong!". "Halt, I do not like these proceedings!".

Some may argue that they exist inherently, but they never manifest until a society is formed.

If man lived a solitary existence then no one would respect his rights. That is, leave him alone, as no one else would be there. When man lives with other men, the other men may choose to kill him or they may not.

It is society that gives meaning to the rights.

Men may respect the values of peaceful nonaggression or they may not.

It is respected by society because respecting the possession of others leads to greater societal good. However, even greater good comes from contribution to group projects. Tax is not theft. Tax is an outgrowth of the same mechanism that respects the "right" of possession.

Your argument proves too much. By your same logic, Slavery is not wrong. Society merely decided that some men have to work for the benefit of other men.

Tax is Wrong. Murder is Wrong. Slavery is Wrong. I don't care what others think. Those are my values. If you have any moral values whatsoever then you must abandon your argument.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:03:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:46:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'm sick of hearing that tax is theft. Seriously. I honestly believe that the sort of philosophy that preaches this has no application whatsoever and mainly exists because it's cool to hang on to because it rebels against something we held to be a fact of life.

That's the biggest selling point for that philosophy. "Hey guys, we're original and cool because we're making you QUESTION stuff".

When we really look at the basis, it's all BS. Complete and utter BS.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: "Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill's claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations."
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:05:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:58:18 PM, Tamikajones wrote:
I realize that Kleptin still remembers that I am an intelligent person and that he ignores me when I troll not because he dislikes me, but because he gets disappointed. So I'm going to say something that isn't simply an attempt to provoke or anger.

I'm in no way saying that what is natural is good, just that what is natural is unavoidable. I'm not arguing that this philosophy is morally reprehensible, just too idealistic, completely impractical, and likely to do more harm than good in the attempt to get there.

Believe me, I'm a Rand fan too. I may not know the philosophies as well as the rest of you, but I know how great it would be and at the same time, how it's impossible.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:06:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 9:46:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
3. Other arguments. Prepare for a counter.

"Well, tax comes from social contract"

"Whaat? I don't remember signing a contract! (I'm so witty and clever, let me come up with some flawed analogies now).

This retort has about as much intellectual validity as the statement

"It is immoral for a man to incur oxygen debt after running because he never spends any oxygen that he did not earn".

Screwed up terminology. You can't take nature to court, and nature doesn't care what you assume your imaginary rights are. A bear will still eat you, and your wife, and your children.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: "Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill's claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations."

Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:07:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 10:03:57 PM, Tamikajones wrote:
I'm continuing to play with logical fallacies

Appeals to ridicule can be labeled as logical fallacies only when they are used explicitly as a supporting point for a logical conclusion.

If the statement itself was not meant to lend credence to the argument, but is simply there as a side remark, then it is not a logical fallacy, and tagging it as such does nothing productive.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:07:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 10:01:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:59:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:55:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 9:52:48 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Haven't seen anything that answers #4

The very first post addressed it with the fact that I've given you the answer many times in our previous conversations. It's called a society much like our own, except the gummint is funded by user fees and leaves the property of nonconsenting people alone, what more do you need illustrated?

Ragnar: I just got an idea for a flying car!
Kleptin: ORLY? That's awesome dude! Tell me how it works
Ragnar: Well, see, it's like this...CAR. Except...IT FLIES!
Kleptin: Kill yourself.

I've got an idea. See, it's like a government today. Except it replaces taxes with fee-for-service, denying service to nonpayers.

So take your straw man and shove it because I TOLD YOU how it works. I've told you in more detail before too. What part do you not understand?

And in case you don't get why I'm calling it a straw man, let's fix the analogy by inputting the equivalent of user fees

Ragnar: I just got an idea for a flying car!
Kleptin: ORLY? That's awesome dude! Tell me how it works
Ragnar: Well, see, it's like this...CAR. Except...IT FLIES! Because you put WINGS AND ROCKETS ON IT TO GIVE IT UPWARD TRUST!
Kleptin: Kill yourself.

Granted, this is probably still a stupid car design, but that's because I don't know much about flying. Lol.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:07:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You're argument = logical fallacies

It's not trolling to point out what is and what is not.

Your argument is a logical fallacy.

It is not anything worth reading.
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:07:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Your argument = logical fallacies

It's not trolling to point out what is and what is not.

Your argument is a logical fallacy.

It is not anything worth reading.
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:07:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 10:05:10 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'm in no way saying that what is natural is good, just that what is natural is unavoidable. I'm not arguing that this philosophy is morally reprehensible, just too idealistic, completely impractical, and likely to do more harm than good in the attempt to get there.

What is, is. Taxation is not unavoidable however. You just need to convince enough people that it is wrong and that they should oppose it. Just like how you convince others that slavery is wrong and that murder is wrong. If a society existed that went around murdering people it would still be wrong, even though it would be.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:08:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
*thrust not trust.

Believe me, I'm a Rand fan too. I may not know the philosophies as well as the rest of you, but I know how great it would be and at the same time, how it's impossible.
How's that?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:09:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 10:07:21 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Appeals to ridicule can be labeled as logical fallacies only when they are used explicitly as a supporting point for a logical conclusion.

If the statement itself was not meant to lend credence to the argument, but is simply there as a side remark, then it is not a logical fallacy, and tagging it as such does nothing productive.

Then you admit that 95% of what you just said is a "side remark"

Nice try bro.
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:09:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 10:07:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/15/2010 10:05:10 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'm in no way saying that what is natural is good, just that what is natural is unavoidable. I'm not arguing that this philosophy is morally reprehensible, just too idealistic, completely impractical, and likely to do more harm than good in the attempt to get there.

What is, is. Taxation is not unavoidable however. You just need to convince enough people that it is wrong and that they should oppose it. Just like how you convince others that slavery is wrong and that murder is wrong. If a society existed that went around murdering people it would still be wrong, even though it would be.

You just gave me a bit of inspiration. I'm gonna run wid it somewhere else on these forums. Since you don't believe in IP you should have no protests even if you did have a legit case :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.