Listen: Theft, Murder, IRS discussed on Part of the Problem
"And you come back, and you said don't worry I took care of the problem. And I said to you taking care of the problem is murder. What saying taxation is theft is saying is fuck your euphemism. That's murder like in this example. Now, if I said, you taking care of the problem, quote, unquote, this term that you use is murder, and you said, well, Dave committed a logical fallacy you you're saying that taking care of the problem is wrong because it's murder and it's murder because it's wrong. This is circular logic. Don't you see where the point that the point is that government uses this euphemism called taxation, the argument is that it's now the argument that's just an assertion say tax, Asians that the argument is that you are the rightful owner of your money. Somebody is taking your money against your will off the threat of violence. And that would meet the definition of theft, which yes has been considered wrong for I believe we could go back to the ancient Sumerians theft has been considered wrong. So yes, it is. It is kind of given that murders mentioned Severi, certainly tax. Did consider that wrong. So the, you know, the idea of theft, certainly considered wrong. No, listen, I agree with you also goes all the way back to much the beginning. I mean, not every Perry and there's been different forms. But if I would say this to me you can disagree with the assertion or you can disagree. I I think this would be the distinction that you were talking seven mile knew about of validity verse aound, so you can disagree with the soundness of the argument. But if I were to say taxations theft theft is immoral therefore taxation is immoral that is. You may not see that sound. But it certainly is not a logical contradict. Yeah. Well, this question begging argument that is valid are generally valid, right? So the problem with question begging arguments, isn't that? They're not valid right. Valid just means if the premises are true. So as the yes fairness, so it's generally feature of question begging arguments. Right. So what I say question begged arguments, but anybody's not familiar with the term that just means circular arguments arguments where the conclusion of smuggled into the premises. So like just an example of that if you were to say, I have I know that my dog weighs seventy pounds because of my scale says at seventy pounds, and I know my scales accurate because it accurately measured my dog at seventy pounds that would be circular logic. You're using the same tool to verify the other. Absolutely. Okay. Just. Yeah. That would be that would be a nice example of of circular logic beg the question, of course, arguments like that are generally valid because if I say Xs true, therefore Xs true. Well, if true that it's true. So if the premises true, the conclusion is true, they're not bad arguments because they're invalid they're bad arguments. Because they haven't given anybody who doesn't start out a green a new reason to you right oppressive suasion, right? Which is alternately what we're trying to do make arguments. Now, I think that in the case that you gave me I do think that that you probably if your if your purpose is to like convince the purse to Bruder right that they just did something wrong then. Yeah. I think that you probably have made a circular argument, but it doesn't really matter because the obvious of the truth of what you're saying is so overwhelming that like if don't already get it. You're not gonna let convinced them like right in there. But in my example, if I was not just talking that murderer, but talking to a lot of other people who are around this murderer, you might convince some of them, I doubt convince any tax collectors at the IRS that. Tax. That's I think. Really go.."