Nom's link says in socialism there's no money. Then his taxation arguments flop
Flop
Side Score: 9
|
 |
Double flop
Side Score: 15
|
|
|
|
|
Nom's link says in socialism there's no money. Then his taxation arguments flop Wrong. Your fallacy is based on a number of false and/or arbitrary assumptions:- A) That payment of monies is the only form which taxation can take. B) That physical money has no alternative. C) That the link was correct in its claim (this assumption is more of a deliberate omission, since I already disagreed with the claim, and provided other literature to back it up). D) That the claim was even a claim, as opposed to the private opinion of the author. E) That the claim is relevant to the defence of one of your own claims which we were discussing when you brought this up (i.e. you tried to change the subject as an alternative to admitting you were wrong about the claim you were trying to defend). F) That the link is mine or has any relationship to me. This is simply a trick to try to associate falsely the discrediting of the article with the discrediting of me, followed by the further trick of discrediting the entire article on the basis of one ambivalent claim. I linked one part of the article which proved my point; you criticised another which had nothing to do with my point. Simple. Side: Flop
Wrong. Your fallacy is based on a number of false and/or arbitrary assumptions:- Not wrong. Your link literally says that in socialism, there is no money. In a completely socialist society, there would be no money. Basic needs such as food, shelter, education and healthcare would be available and provided to everyone, so division of classes based on wealth would not exist. Side: Double flop
Not wrong, I've just explained meticulously why it is wrong. You'll have to do considerably better than lazily stating "not wrong", you silly little liar. In a completely socialist society, there would be no money. The author is implicitly referring to a hypothetical situation which he believes represents socialist theory. He isn't claiming socialists don't tax you, because the entire point of the article is that socialists tax you. That's why I posted it in the first place. There are only one of two possibilities. Either this article is one huge contradiction of itself, or you have seized upon a single sentence and are trying to twist it to mean something it does not mean. My previous post explains why it is the latter. Hence, see above. PS. Demonstrably false. PPS. False equivalence. Side: Flop
What's the alternative? Yes, pretend you have never heard of Bitcoin. That's the smart move to make. The people have no private property. Doesn't rule out digital currency I'm afraid. How could a socialist country trade with the outside world if it did not have some form of currency? It would be impossible. It could not import goods. Your arbitrary assumptions are silly and you are more dishonest than Hitler. Therefore I win. Side: Flop
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
