Taxation is slavery

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: jimmyx
c'mon...taxes are not slavery....they are a way for non-wealthy people to benefit from shared costs.....such as roads, bridges, military armies, water mains, sewers, etc.....the wealthy overwhelmingly benefit from not having to pay taxes.

This is not an argument.

it's not an argument...it's a statement.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

Neither is yours as you have redefined the meaning of slavery to suit your agenda.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: jimmyx
c'mon...taxes are not slavery....they are a way for non-wealthy people to benefit from shared costs.....such as roads, bridges, military armies, water mains, sewers, etc.....the wealthy overwhelmingly benefit from not having to pay taxes.

This is not an argument.

it's not an argument...it's a statement.

What?

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

Neither is yours as you have redefined the meaning of slavery to suit your agenda.

By definition, mine is an argument. I have given the actual definition of slavery. And you have yet to give me an argument.

income taxes are legal is because income is classified as profit. However, income most certainly is not profit. We trade our time and labor for money -- an even trade.

The Grace Commission outlines all we need to know about where our tax dollars go. To my knowledge, nothing has changed.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

Neither is yours as you have redefined the meaning of slavery to suit your agenda.

By definition, mine is an argument. I have given the actual definition of slavery. And you have yet to give me an argument.

And changed it to suit your agenda.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

Neither is yours as you have redefined the meaning of slavery to suit your agenda.

By definition, mine is an argument. I have given the actual definition of slavery. And you have yet to give me an argument.

And changed it to suit your agenda.

Not an argument.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

Neither is yours as you have redefined the meaning of slavery to suit your agenda.

By definition, mine is an argument. I have given the actual definition of slavery. And you have yet to give me an argument.

And changed it to suit your agenda.

Not an argument.

Slave definition

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

Therefore tax can't be slavery.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

Neither is yours as you have redefined the meaning of slavery to suit your agenda.

By definition, mine is an argument. I have given the actual definition of slavery. And you have yet to give me an argument.

And changed it to suit your agenda.

Not an argument.

Slave definition

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

Therefore tax can't be slavery.

That's an absurd definition. For instance Sex traffickers in the United States do not own the women that they kidnap, yet the women still are sex slaves.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

Neither is yours as you have redefined the meaning of slavery to suit your agenda.

By definition, mine is an argument. I have given the actual definition of slavery. And you have yet to give me an argument.

And changed it to suit your agenda.

Not an argument.

Slave definition

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

Therefore tax can't be slavery.

That's an absurd definition. For instance Sex traffickers in the United States do not own the women that they kidnap, yet the women still are sex slaves.

It's an absurd definition? It's the definition out of the dictionary.

So, you just make up your own definition to suit your agenda.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

Neither is yours as you have redefined the meaning of slavery to suit your agenda.

By definition, mine is an argument. I have given the actual definition of slavery. And you have yet to give me an argument.

And changed it to suit your agenda.

Not an argument.

Slave definition

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

Therefore tax can't be slavery.

That's an absurd definition. For instance Sex traffickers in the United States do not own the women that they kidnap, yet the women still are sex slaves.

It's an absurd definition? It's the definition out of the dictionary.

So, you just make up your own definition to suit your agenda.

Yes you got it out of the dictionary and I have given you a sound instance that contradicts it. It's a false definition. You apparently have a poor understanding of definitions. A proper definition includes all cases of the meaning of the word and implicitly or explicitly excludes everything that it is not. To come to a proper definition is to come to a thing's essence. I'm formally trained in logic and philosophy. Dictionaries are notoriously bad about propounding false definitions.

Ruh roh... someone took a debate 101 class last semester.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

Neither is yours as you have redefined the meaning of slavery to suit your agenda.

By definition, mine is an argument. I have given the actual definition of slavery. And you have yet to give me an argument.

And changed it to suit your agenda.

Not an argument.

Slave definition

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

Therefore tax can't be slavery.

That's an absurd definition. For instance Sex traffickers in the United States do not own the women that they kidnap, yet the women still are sex slaves.

It's an absurd definition? It's the definition out of the dictionary.

So, you just make up your own definition to suit your agenda.

Yes you got it out of the dictionary and I have given you a sound instance that contradicts it. It's a false definition. You apparently have a poor understanding of definitions. A proper definition includes all cases of the meaning of the word and implicitly or explicitly excludes everything that it is not. To come to a proper definition is to come to a thing's essence. I'm formally trained in logic and philosophy. Dictionaries are notoriously bad about propounding false definitions.

It's only a false definition because you dont accept it.

But you know, just make up your own definition to suit your agenda.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

Neither is yours as you have redefined the meaning of slavery to suit your agenda.

By definition, mine is an argument. I have given the actual definition of slavery. And you have yet to give me an argument.

And changed it to suit your agenda.

Not an argument.

Slave definition

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

Therefore tax can't be slavery.

That's an absurd definition. For instance Sex traffickers in the United States do not own the women that they kidnap, yet the women still are sex slaves.

It's an absurd definition? It's the definition out of the dictionary.

So, you just make up your own definition to suit your agenda.

Yes you got it out of the dictionary and I have given you a sound instance that contradicts it. It's a false definition. You apparently have a poor understanding of definitions. A proper definition includes all cases of the meaning of the word and implicitly or explicitly excludes everything that it is not. To come to a proper definition is to come to a thing's essence. I'm formally trained in logic and philosophy. Dictionaries are notoriously bad about propounding false definitions.

It's only a false definition because you dont accept it.

But you know, just make up your own definition to suit your agenda.

No sense in communicating with you. You can't be reasoned with.

originally posted by: MrThortan
Ruh roh... someone took a debate 101 class last semester.

This is a garbage post.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'll be defending this argument:

Premise 1:All cases of slavery are cases of a person's time, body, money, or other resources, being allocated without that person's consent.

False.

Premise 2: Taxation is an instance of a person's money being allocated without their consent.

False.

Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is slavery.

Here's a very interesting link to read, also.
www.titanians.org...

Already have. The guys a nut.

This is not an argument.

Neither is yours as you have redefined the meaning of slavery to suit your agenda.

By definition, mine is an argument. I have given the actual definition of slavery. And you have yet to give me an argument.

And changed it to suit your agenda.

Not an argument.

Slave definition

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

Therefore tax can't be slavery.

That's an absurd definition. For instance Sex traffickers in the United States do not own the women that they kidnap, yet the women still are sex slaves.

It's an absurd definition? It's the definition out of the dictionary.

So, you just make up your own definition to suit your agenda.

Yes you got it out of the dictionary and I have given you a sound instance that contradicts it. It's a false definition. You apparently have a poor understanding of definitions. A proper definition includes all cases of the meaning of the word and implicitly or explicitly excludes everything that it is not. To come to a proper definition is to come to a thing's essence. I'm formally trained in logic and philosophy. Dictionaries are notoriously bad about propounding false definitions.

It's only a false definition because you dont accept it.

But you know, just make up your own definition to suit your agenda.

No sense in communicating with you. You can't be reasoned with.

Says the person who doesn't understand they changed the definition to suit their own agenda.

You must be a duck. The definition says so. Ignore what the dictionary says, it's wrong. You're a duck.

Public Service Announcement.....

Quit the bickering and name-calling!!!!!!!!!

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts.

*** ALL MEMBERS *** Ending Rudeness, Hate, Bigotry: Getting Back to Basics

ETA
and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: Aristotelian1

I would think that in the history of mankind, not one working example in modern day of this system working is proof enough.

If you actually believe this is possible in today's day and age, i don't know what to tell you.