Any topic relate to Taxation, State, Federal etc.
I should know better by now than to think that there are people on this forum that do not need to be hand held (BTW I thought you told Bobt12 to remove you and every post you've made from this forum)
[quote="palani"][quote="Nunya_Bizness"] Geeze not that idiotic argument again
Reasons are not arguments. Facts are facts. Ignore them at your own peril.
[quote="Nunya_Bizness"] Your mother is a prostitute.
Just because YOUR mother is one doesn't make mine one.
But you do make one valid point. If coinage wasn't involved would it be prostitution?
Generally the mercantile system is established so that a USE can exist in an environment of a USUFRUCT. The merchant has the USUFRUCT and is entitled to enjoy the profits from his inventory as well as the USE of that inventory. Someone who deals in powerboats might have the USUFRUCT of 20 of them and might take any of them out on the ocean any time he likes. This is the USE portion. He might also sell any of them for either a profit (his enjoyment) or a loss (not so enjoyable). USUFRUCT is the sum total of USE + profit/potential loss.
The employee has a W-2 or W-4 on file because he only has the USUFRUCT of his labor. In this society there is no actual ownership. You voluntarily submit to slavery/servitude or you get to starve.
Reporting loss on a 1040 form is a benefit.
I also see that the puritans of this forum seem to think there is something wrong with the word (v)agina and needed to sensor my above post. And because of that you were willing to take the childish stance that I said that your mother is a prostitute, without recognizing that I was only showing another slippery slope fallacy like you are using.Since you and many others on this forum are incapable of clicking on a hyperlink, it seems that one needs to spell out every last detail,,yeah yeah I know it's hard to think.
Your argument is what's known by the logical fallacy describes as
The slippery slope
(also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino fallacy)
Definition: When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”
If A, then B, then C, ... then ultimately Z!
We cannot unlock our child from the closet because if we do, she will want to roam the house. If we let her roam the house, she will want to roam the neighborhood. If she roams the neighborhood, she will get picked up by a stranger in a van, who will sell her in a *** slavery ring in some other country. Therefore, we should keep her locked up in the closet.
Explanation: In this example, it starts out with reasonable effects to the causes. For example, yes, if the child is allowed to go free in her room, she would most likely want to roam the house -- 95% probability estimate. Sure, if she roams the house, she will probably want the freedom of going outside, but not necessarily “roaming the neighborhood”, but let’s give that a probability of say 10%. Now we start to get very improbable. The chances of her getting picked up by a stranger (.05%) in a van (35%) to sell her into *** slavery (.07%) in another country (40%) is next to nothing when you do all the math:
.95 x .10 x .0005 x .35 x .0007 x .4 = about 1 in 25,000,000.
Morality and legality aside, is it really worth it to keep a child locked in a closet based on those odds?
If you accept that the story of Adam and Eve was figurative, then you will do the same for most of the Old Testament stories of similar literary styles. Once you are there, the New Testament and the story of Jesus does not make sense, which will lead you to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a “spiritual” one. Once you accept that, you won’t be a Christian anymore; you will be a dirty atheist, then you will have no morals and start having *** with animals of a barnyard nature. So you better take the story of Adam and Eve literally, before the phrase, “that chicken looks delicious”, takes on a whole new meaning.
Explanation: Accepting the story of Adam and Eve as figurative rarely (it is sad that I cannot confidently say “never”) leads to bestiality.
Exception: When a chain of events has an inevitable cause and effect relationship, as in a mathematical, logical, or physical certainty, it is not a fallacy.
Tip: The concept of a “bad day” is part of this fallacy. You wake up in the morning, and you discover that you are out of coffee. From there, you fallaciously reason that this means you will be grumpy, late for work, then behind all day in work, then have to stay late, then miss dinner with the family, then cause more friction at home, etc. This is only true if you act it out as if it is true. Of course, with an already bad attitude, you look back on the day, block out the good and wallow in the bad, just so you can tell yourself, that you were right all along about having a “bad day”.
Don’t let that happen.
Walton, D. N. (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Clarendon Press.
 I am basing these estimates on my best guess... this is not meant to be an accurate study on child abduction, just an illustration of how odds work in the fallacy.
Just because one uses the acceptable currency used by most merchants and most of the people of a culture or geographical area does not make one "fall under their rules."
If one were to use your line of logical fallacy.
If I and someone else decided to use rupies as a medium of exchange, then that would make me and the someone else under the rules of Shigeru Miyamoto and the legend of Zelda.
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a personhttp://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... .php?id=93