Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (246876)	8/21/2005 9:15:19 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572099

>And you are have talked about putting words in other people's mouths. Where exactly did I say this? I made a reasonable extension to your argument, whereas you were not doing the same to mine. You said that people should not be taxed for purposes that they wouldn't give money to voluntarily. I listed several others, other than social safety nets, where people wouldn't give money if they don't have to. So, it can be concluded that you don't believe that people should be taxed for those purposes. Here's the logic, broken down: Premise: Joe doesn't believe that people should be forced to pay taxes for purposes they wouldn't give money to voluntarily. Premise: Many (if not most), people would not give money to build roads if not forced. Conclusion: Joe doesn't believe that people should be taxed to build roads. That's pretty sound deductive reasoning, and only false if one of the premises are false. Why is that argument important? Because you're using a variation of it to counter my argument, which is essentially "It's OK to tax people for the benefit of others, particularly those less fortunate." Your counter of my argument: Premise: Government aid to the less fortunate would require taxing people. Premise: People should not be forced to pay taxes for purposes they wouldn't give money to voluntarily. Conclusion: The government should not provide aid to the less fortunate. Get it? Correct your premise and we can continue the debate. Until then, we're nowhere. >The only one who is bent out of shape by this seems to be you, since you have just realized that you don't really want to volunteer your hard (or not so hard) earned money to anybody, unless you are compelled to do so. Which doesn't make all your "advocating" very persuasive. See above. -Z