Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked... - Page 5

Without the roads the jews and the Romans built from the taxes they collected, Jesus would have been stuck in the mud before he could have made pebbles into crack cocaine, oh, it was water into wine sorry. my mistake.
The people who wrote the bible were educated by TAXPAYER $. Yep, the truth is a bitch.

How...ummm...civilized.

Well. That showed me.

You might as well have just written "You are right" and had done.

Oh. I see. You just thought that when "a society collectively decides that some things are worth pursuing for everyone's benefit" that was tyranny in action, and this would be true "whether it is executed by a "democracy" or by an individual dictator."

Moon landings? THE FRUIT OF TYRANNY. Heart transplant? THE FRUIT OF TYRANNY. Eradication of smallpox? THE FRUIT OF TYRANNY.

Winning the Second World War? THE FRUIT OF TYRANNY.

ANYTHING PAID FOR BY TAXES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NATION OR THE WORLD. TYRANNY.

MJ1970. What the fuck do Americans have they can actually be proud of? Anything?

But I don't lie. So that wouldn't have worked.



Just because you're okay with it and some of what is accomplishes, doesn't make it not tyranny.

Taxes are theft ...... ummmm....how educated.

Yes, dear.

I liked our gay sex last night, Your crucifix makes for a great anal stimulator.

Well, it used to be, that America was about liberty. It was about freedom. That is something to be proud for sure! However, it has slowly, almost imperceptibly drifted away from this ideal. It has softened and gotten fat and lazy and comfortable. It decided that ideas like "end can justify the means" and "breaking a few eggs while making an omelet" are okay ideas to try and run a civilized society by. Those are things to not be proud of.

Well I don't know who you had gay sex with, but it sure wasn't me. Yikes! But if that's your thing and you enjoyed it, I guess more power to you.

You would rather that Americans did not have to pay for the things that made it great.

All its accomplishments. Payed for by its people. With taxes.

Was America under tyranny in the 1950s when you were eradicating polio and smallpox with tax money?

Was America under tyranny in the 1940s when you were defeating fascism with tax money?

Was America under tyranny in the 1960s when you were putting people on the moon?

Was America under tyranny in the 1970s when America had the highest standards of living anywhere in the world?

Did you first use the word tyranny about your nation when Barack Obama was elected?

Does your faulty deductive reasoning plague only in these forums or is it something that pervades your whole life?



No.

Look. I have to tell you. Man to man.

"Yes, dear. " is a fucking shit comeback. Seriously. It's basically announcing, in the parlance de nos jours, "I have been pwnd and I am your bitch."

I thought you should know.

Yes, dear.

You're handling them quite well. You can tell when they ratchet the rhetoric up a notch that they're pissed they're not getting to you.

Indeed. There's a lot of frothing at the mouth and spittle laced computer screens. First BR, then Mumbo. It's hilarious actually. Better than a movie and easier than a video game.

You wrote that when "a society collectively decides that some things are worth pursuing for everyone's benefit" that was tyranny in action, and this would be true "whether it is executed by a "democracy" or by an individual dictator."

You have called taxes "stealing."

You wrote that "Just because you're okay with it and some of what is accomplishes, doesn't make it not tyranny."

So. Pretty clear. Taxes are stealing. Social obligations met through taxes are tyranny.

You want to live a country that doesn't pay taxes, right? Because taxes are "stealing." And that is living under "tyranny."

And yet everything that made your nation great was paid for by taxes.

And you have the sauce to question my reasoning.

I'm halfway through a bag of popcorn.

Yeah, like that. Exactly like that.

It's basically saying "I have nothing. I have been, in the parlance de nos jours, pwnd. I am your bitch."

I've warned you, in a friendly way.

I can't stop you writing that, clearly, but you should know that every time you do, I and everyone else who happens to read it, will be thinking "Oh, look, he got pwnd. What a pussy."

Actually I do and will continue to as long as it is fallacious. But, for now, maybe I'll let you ponder how exactly it is fallacious. It's quite clear if you read through the posts. Go ahead and read them. Go ahead and see if you can see things like the non sequitars and the question begging. I'll wait. I won't hold my breath, but I'll wait.

Yes, dear.

[head desk]

OK.

We'll go through in the easiest steps.

A question. A simple question.

Do you believe that when "a society collectively decides that some things are worth pursuing for everyone's benefit" that is "tyranny" in action, and that this would be true "whether it is executed by a "democracy" or by an individual dictator."

This should be easy, since you wrote these words.

This is your first time on the internet?

So you're not going to re-examine your posts to find your fallacies? OK. Fine. I don't find this surprising, but I must admit it's disappointing.

No, is it yours?

Then help me.

Show me where my thinking is fallacious.

We'll go through it step by step and we'll start here, with this question.

Do you believe that when "a society collectively decides that some things are worth pursuing for everyone's benefit" that is "tyranny" in action, and that this would be true "whether it is executed by a "democracy" or by an individual dictator."

OK. Sure. Let's start with this statement:


Do you see anything fallacious in that statement at all. Now, mind you, you may need to zoom out and forget that you said it and not be defensive about it in order to see it.


Next let's look at this statement:


Again, you may need to zoom out and look at things objectively in order to see it.

One thing at a time.

I asked you a question first. I asked it twice. You don't respond to a question twice-asked with a question of your own. There's no honour in it.

Do you believe that when "a society collectively decides that some things are worth pursuing for everyone's benefit" that is "tyranny" in action, and that this would be true "whether it is executed by a "democracy" or by an individual dictator."

Again, this should be simple, since these are your words.

Yes. Now back to my post. Do you see the fallacies embedded in your statements?

Excellent.

Now. Do you believe that taxes are "stealing"?


No.

Many of America's greatest achievements were paid for by taxes.

I'm talking about putting a man on the moon and defeating fascism in the Second World War. These were two of humanity's greatest achievements. These things define your nation, and they should, they're things to be proud of.

If you believe that when "a society collectively decides that some things are worth pursuing for everyone's benefit" that is "tyranny" in action, and that this would be true "whether it is executed by a "democracy" or by an individual dictator" then you believe that these were the fruit of tyranny.

If you can see a fallacy in there, you're being pretty fucking kind to yourself, you Randian robot.

Yes. I think I made this quite clear. Now you're just getting annoying.



Hmmm.



Tsk Tsk Tsk. Now you are slightly changing the statement. Perhaps intentionally. Perhaps it's a result of sloppy thinking. Not sure yet.



You're doing it again here. Sure you don't see it?



No. I'm trying to point you to where you've committed some fallacies but you seem to be ignoring them.

No, you're not. You're writing "tsk tsk" and "hmmm" and calling me annoying and accusing me of engaging in "sloppy thinking" or of being intentionally lax.

I haven't got a clue what you're trying to say. You haven't actually made a point or specifically adduced a single phrase. I do not have a clue where my logic has failed.

Many of America's greatest achievements were paid for by taxes. This is true. Whether I've changed my statement or not, this is still a fact.

The moon landings and the victory in the Second World War define your nation's greatness. Again, there can be no argument with this.

And yet these things were paid for by taxes. They are the fruit of tyranny since when "a society collectively decides that some things are worth pursuing for everyone's benefit" that is "tyranny" in action, and that this would be true "whether it is executed by a "democracy" or by an individual dictator"

I'm only getting started, by the way.

I very much want you to help me by showing me where my reasoning is "fallacious."

Hey, MJ1970.

Was putting a man on the moon the fruit of tyranny?

Hey, MJ1970.

Paying taxes is stealing. You'd rather not do it.

I understand this.

But would you rather live in a country where taxes are optional, like Somalia, or Sierra Leone, or Nigeria, or in a country that can put a man on the moon?

Hey, MJ1970.

You know you live in a country with no smallpox or polio?

OK. And these things were eradicated because your society collectively decided that some things were worth pursuing for everyone's benefit and everyone chipped in with their taxes?

Would you rather live in a tyranny, like the United States of America, or in Zambia?

Hey, MJ1970.

You know how it's illegal for two men to get married in the United States of America?

My god. That must really, really annoy you. How can the state be so tyrannical? Interfere in the happiness of its citizens.

Have you been on the marches? I hope you're writing letters and agitating. SOLIDARITY WITH AMERICA'S HOMOSEXUALS!

Well, fair enough, I was trying to isolate where the fallacies existed to see whether or not you could detect them.



Correct. Very good.





Let's start here. Your two statements do differ and in an important way. Either way they both are making an important mistake:

"And yet everything that made your nation great was paid for by taxes."

and

"Many of America's greatest achievements were paid for by taxes."

These both contain a fallacy called "begging the question" or, more casually "assuming the point." In these statements you are assuming a couple of different points including what has made America great and that all of the achievements you speak of are, in point of fact, great. You say so much here:


What you are also doing is offering an opinion as objective, undebatable fact. This is fallacious also.

Both of these claims that all (or any) of the specific items you listed are in fact great, that they are in fact what has made America great and, finally, that the only path to their achievement is through taxation. Now, I will grant that, some of these things might only have been achievable through taxation (e.g., wars are almost always necessarily paid for through taxation) but others are far more debatable as to a) whether they were great, necessary and worthwhile achievements (e.g., moon landing), or b) necessarily accomplished by government action (e.g., disease eradication).



I have no doubt of it!



Now let me go to the other statement that I accused of being fallacious:

"You would rather that Americans did not have to pay for the things that made it great."

I have already address the "things that made America great" part above. Here I will only address the non sequitar contained within this statement. A non sequitar means, basically, "it does not follow." In other words, you conclusion does not follow from the premise. Your conclusion here is that I "would rather that Americans did not have to pay for the things that made it great." This is based on the premise that I oppose taxation. You are assuming here that taxation is the only ay to pay for great things to be achieved. You are also assuming that I would rather Americans did not pay for great things to be achieved. Both of these are incorrect conclusions, and neither logically follow from the premise.

Now, is this becoming more clear?

I would prefer to live in a nation where the government in minimized to its proper role, that of protecting the life, liberty and property of its citizens from both foreign and domestic aggressors and where individual liberty is maximized and where the population is one of high moral standing.

Ah. You're resorting to syntax.

OK. We'll simplify. I very much want you to help me with my logic.

I think we can both agree that putting a man on the moon is one of our species' most extraordinary achievements.

Do you not agree that this achievement helps to define America's greatness?

Yes. Well in some parts I believe it is now legal. Vermont? Massachusetts?



I've commented in more detail about my position on this subject in another thread. I'll refrain from the details here, you can search for the other if you really care about what I think. In short though, yes, I do believe it is wrong for the government to inject itself and interfere in the voluntary relationships among consenting adults. I believe government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether.

Incorrect. I'm focused on the logic of your statements and claims.



I have tried in the previous post. Given the quickness of your response I question whether you have taken the time to really read and digest and understand it.

Having said that, I will allow this thread to return to its regularly schedule programming.