• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Taxation Slavery?

Is Taxation Slavery?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 16.7%

  • No

    Votes: 53 73.6%

  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 7 9.7%
  • Total voters
    72
the makeout hobo said:
The difference is that you have the choice to leave America and go to another country, you have the choice to change the rules of the "gang", etc. I challenge you to show me any political system that has worked better, since you obviously dislike Democratic Republics.
Click to expand...

Petitio Principii logical fallacy because this line of argument must pre-suppose its own conclusion that the state is legitimate:

"I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they're trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it's not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I've got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don't know, but here I am in my property and they don't own it – at least they haven't given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in "this country" means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it." -- Roderick Long Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objection
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
The burden of proof is upon you and others to disprove it. Here is another pdf that discusses a study of the market of schools in both the north and south pre-1860. In the south, many of the schools were private, charity, or church based. Parents would send their children to one of these schools for education and pay a tuition to have it done. By having such a network of private schools, southerners were educated. So the burden of proof is on you to show that the south wasn't educated.
Click to expand...

#1 Please point out where anyone said the South was "uneducated." In fact, you are the only one. I know you will not as you just ignore the hard questions or dance around them with unrelated fallacy's. Or accuse the person of saying something they did not.

#2 So your reply as usual has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made or the answer expected from you.

#3 The schools them selfs have almost no relevance without statistics of those who attended and those who did not.

So far you have shown nothing but opinion.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
We are talking the 1800's here. No comparison my friend.
Click to expand...

actually there were many people educated in many areas who couldn't read then.
 
bicycleman said:
Democracy is mob rule.
Click to expand...

So you agree that my argument is valid, but you're just being picky about my terminology?

Yes, I agree we are not a true democracy in that we elect people. That was exactly what I was talking about. Not sure how that makes anything I said wrong.
 
TurtleDude said:
actually there were many people educated in many areas who couldn't read then.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the argument either way. Being a blacksmith for example does not make you educated. It makes you trained in a specific vocation.
 
Blackdog said:
#1 Please point out where anyone said the South was "uneducated." In fact, you are the only one. I know you will not as you just ignore the hard questions or dance around them with unrelated fallacy's. Or accuse the person of saying something they did not.

#2 So your reply as usual has absolutly nothing to do with the point being made or the answer expected from you.

#3 The schools themselfs have almost no relivence with out statistics of those who attended and those who did not.

So far you have shown nothing but opinion.
Click to expand...

#1-liblady in post #105 stated, "i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was." This infers that the typical Confederate soldier was uneducated. Therefore, you are wrong that someone didn't say that Confederates were uneducated.

#2-My post highlighting the literacy rates of the south show that the south was educated nearly to the degree the north was. That is, unless, you think that literacy isn't a part of being educated.

#3-Statistics are invalid since they do not exist for either side of the Mason-Dixon. If you want statistics of the south then you present the ones for the north. However, academia has made it difficult for any historian to research into the antebellum south for political correctness reasons and want all of the focus on New England. The two pdfs I linked state this as a fact.

So far you have shown nothing and produced nothing, but are quick to jump on a person that does provide a source. You want me to produce statistics of the southern school attendence then do so for the north first.
 
The_Patriot said:
#1-liblady in post #105 stated, "i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was." This infers that the typical Confederate soldier was uneducated. Therefore, you are wrong that someone didn't say that Confederates were uneducated.
Click to expand...

Oh man I called that one!

She asked a question that inferred nothing but asking a question, so again you are trying to put words in others mouths.

Funny how often that comes up.

The_Patriot said:
#2-My post highlighting the literacy rates of the south show that the south was educated nearly to the degree the north was. That is, unless, you think that literacy isn't a part of being educated.
Click to expand...

Your own evidence says it does not. In fact it goes out of its way to point this out and ask the question why? It then goes on to discuss the reasons why.

Did you even bother to read your own proof? You would have known this.

The_Patriot said:
#3-Statistics are invalid since they do not exist for either side of the Mason-Dixon. If you want statistics of the south then you present the ones for the north. However, academia has made it difficult for any historian to research into the antebellum south for political correctness reasons and want all of the focus on New England. The two pdfs I linked state this as a fact.
Click to expand...

You have already provided proof that says the Northerners were more educated. Why would anyone but you want to refute your own proof that says the opposite of what you wanted it too?

The_Patriot said:
So far you have shown nothing and produced nothing, but are quick to jump on a person that does provide a source. You want me to produce statistics of the southern school attendence then do so for the north first.
Click to expand...

No. I want you to stop ignoring/misrepresenting what others are saying and address the actual subject.
 
Blackdog said:
Oh man I called that one!

She asked a question that inferred nothing but asking a question, so again you are trying to put words in others mouths.

Funny how often that comes up.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but what she said was a statement and not a question. So no, I'm not putting words in her mouth. Funny how often you assume that I do. The opposite of education is uneducated. Therefore, she inferred that the south was uneducated by default.

Blackdog said:
Your own evidence says it does not. In fact it goes out of its way to point this out and ask the question why? It then goes on to discuss the reasons why.

Did you even bother to read your own proof? You would have known this.
Click to expand...

You're the one that stated that literacy is not education. Back up your statement with a source before you jump on me about using a source. Back up your statement that literacy does not equal education with a source.

Blackdog said:
You have already provided proof that says the Northerners were more educated. Why would anyone but you want to refute your own proof that says the opposite of what you wanted it too?
Click to expand...

The north was more educated by a slim margin. That does not mean you can infer that the south was less educated. As I said before, put up some proof to your statements. Your rhetoric and baseless accusations are no longer enough for me.

Blackdog said:
No. I want you to stop ignoring/misrepresenting what others are saying and address the actual subject.
Click to expand...

I want you to stop passing your opinion and rhetoric as facts. I want you to start providing sources that back up your statements. If you cannot adhere to the standard you set for me then I'm sorry we will not have anything to discuss further. Also, stop misrepresenting and ignoring what I've said using sources.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
Sorry, but what she said was a statement and not a question. So no, I'm not putting words in her mouth. Funny how often you assume that I do. The opposite of education is uneducated. Therefore, she inferred that the south was uneducated by default.
Click to expand...
Her question did not infer any such thing.

At most, it only inferred that southern soldiers were LESS educated. Not uneducated.

As I read it, no inferring of even that sort occurred, and it simply asked a question.

The_Patriot said:
You're the one that stated that literacy is not education. Back up your statement with a source before you jump on me about using a source. Back up your statement that literacy does not equal education with a source.
Click to expand...
It’s blatantly obvious that literacy =/= education. It’s a key part, true, but many other aspects make up education. No backing up needed. If you can’t see this, well…

The_Patriot said:
The north was more educated by a slim margin. That does not mean you can infer that the south was less educated. As I said before, put up some proof to your statements. Your rhetoric and baseless accusations are no longer enough for me.
Click to expand...
Umm…So, you’re saying that “north slightly more educated than south” =/= “south slightly less educated than north”?

I chuckle at you.

No, I LOL.
 
The_Patriot said:
Sorry, but what she said was a statement and not a question. So no, I'm not putting words in her mouth. Funny how often you assume that I do. The opposite of education is uneducated. Therefore, she inferred that the south was uneducated by default.
Click to expand...

I am not even going to bother with the rest as it was covered pretty well by The Mark.

Your statement above is an exaggeration of what she said at best, and a lie at worst.
 
The Mark said:
Her question did not infer any such thing.

At most, it only inferred that southern soldiers were LESS educated. Not uneducated.

As I read it, no inferring of even that sort occurred, and it simply asked a question.

It’s blatantly obvious that literacy =/= education. It’s a key part, true, but many other aspects make up education. No backing up needed. If you can’t see this, well…

Umm…So, you’re saying that “north slightly more educated than south” =/= “south slightly less educated than north”?

I chuckle at you.

No, I LOL.
Click to expand...

If she asked a question then she would have used a question mark. No, she inferred that Confederate soldiers were uneducated when asking about their education.

Back up with a source that literacy does not equal education. Prove it with a source. I'm sorry but empty rhetoric and opinions is getting old.

I phrased it wrong when I should have said, "That does not mean you can infer that the south was uneducated."
 
Blackdog said:
I am not even going to bother with the rest as it was covered pretty well by The Mark.

Your statement above is an exaggeration of what she said at best, and a lie at worst.
Click to expand...

Yeah being called to the mat to provide a source to back up your position is so very difficult. :roll:
 
The_Patriot said:
Back up with a source that literacy does not equal education. Prove it with a source. I'm sorry but empty rhetoric and opinions is getting old.
Click to expand...

Yes it is getting old. Your own source already backs up our position.

So you want us to post proof other than your own? :lol:

You made our case for us.

The_Patriot said:
I phrased it wrong when I should have said, "That does not mean you can infer that the south was uneducated."
Click to expand...

She did not infer that and stated as much when you inferred she was "calling all Southerners uneducated." Another exaggeration I mite add.
 
The_Patriot said:
If she asked a question then she would have used a question mark. No, she inferred that Confederate soldiers were uneducated when asking about their education.
Click to expand...
As I stated, as I read the quote, even if it were NOT a question, it STILL wouldn’t infer that Confederate soldiers were uneducated – Just that they were LESS educated, in general.

The_Patriot said:
Back up with a source that literacy does not equal education. Prove it with a source. I'm sorry but empty rhetoric and opinions is getting old.
Click to expand...
I'm simply using logic.

And as you are making the claim to me that literacy =/= education, I say YOU should prove YOUR statements.

But on with the logic.

---------

First, what is an education, or the state of being educated?

As I understand it, education is the knowledge you possess that you gained from instruction you received.

Second, what is literacy, or the state of being literate?

As I understand it, literacy is the state of being able to read (in whatever language is in use) a document and gain useable knowledge from doing so (dependent on prior knowledge in some cases, obviously).
---------

This leads me to the conclusion that:

Literacy is a key part of obtaining and using an education, but many other factors are important.

As an example, if I know nothing about algebra, I will have very little chance of gaining useable knowledge from a book on quantum physics.

By the same token, if I know nothing about biology, I would have little chance of gaining useable knowledge from a book on genetic science.

---------

This kind of thing should be self-evident. I do not understand why you demand proof.

The_Patriot said:
I phrased it wrong when I should have said, "That does not mean you can infer that the south was uneducated."
Click to expand...
With that change, your statement would be correct.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes it is getting old. Your own source already backs up our position.

So you want us to post proof other than your own? :lol:

You made our case for us.



She did not infer that and stated as much when you inferred she was "calling all Southerners uneducated." Another exaggeration I mite add.
Click to expand...

No source to back up your statements, so that means I'll disregard what you have to say.
 
The Mark said:
As I stated, as I read the quote, even if it were NOT a question, it STILL wouldn’t infer that Confederate soldiers were uneducated – Just that they were LESS educated, in general.

I'm simply using logic.

And as you are making the claim to me that literacy =/= education, I say YOU should prove YOUR statements.

But on with the logic.

---------

First, what is an education, or the state of being educated?

As I understand it, education is the knowledge you possess that you gained from instruction you received.

Second, what is literacy, or the state of being literate?

As I understand it, literacy is the state of being able to read (in whatever language is in use) a document and gain useable knowledge from doing so (dependent on prior knowledge in some cases, obviously).
---------

This leads me to the conclusion that:

Literacy is a key part of obtaining and using an education, but many other factors are important.

As an example, if I know nothing about algebra, I will have very little chance of gaining useable knowledge from a book on quantum physics.

By the same token, if I know nothing about biology, I would have little chance of gaining useable knowledge from a book on genetic science.

---------

This kind of thing should be self-evident. I do not understand why you demand proof.

With that change, your statement would be correct.
Click to expand...

No source to back up your statements, so that means I'll disregard what you have to say. I have been asked to back up my positions with proof from the opposite side of the debate, so I am extending quid-pro-quo. I want you to back up your position with a source that literacy does not equal an education.
 
The_Patriot said:
No source to back up your statements, so that means I'll disregard what you have to say.
Click to expand...

At least be honest (I know it must be hard for you) you are not going to respond because you got nothing. Your own source already backed up what we were saying. so what more do we need?
 
Blackdog said:
At least be honest (I know it must be hard for you) you are not going to respond because you got nothing. Your own source already backed up what we were saying. so what more do we need?
Click to expand...

I have replied to you even when you called for a source. I called for a source and you can't provide one to back up your position. I will not reply to your baits until you can actually prove your side of the debate.
 
well one thing this thread proves is that the claims of some libs are wrong. SOme of them claim all conservatives think alike.:mrgreen:
 
The_Patriot said:
No source to back up your statements, so that means I'll disregard what you have to say. I have been asked to back up my positions with proof from the opposite side of the debate, so I am extending quid-pro-quo. I want you to back up your position with a source that literacy does not equal an education.
Click to expand...
Look, as I understand the process, the one who makes a claim then must back it up if called on it.

As I only recently entered this conversation, and haven't read the preceding posts, I have no idea who made a claim first.

But I was simply responding to what I saw as a claim by YOU that literacy = education.

I presented to you my reasons for disagreeing, and have asked you to back up your statement with proof.

But your response is to ask ME for proof.

Which as I have noticed, is a typical tactic of one who has no proof.

So...
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
Look, as I understand the process, the one who makes a claim then must back it up if called on it.

As I only recently entered this conversation, and haven't read the preceeding posts, I have no idea who made the claim first.

But I was simply responding to what I saw as a claim by YOU that literacy = education.

I presented to you my reasons for disagreeing, and have asked you to back up your statement with proof.

But your response is to ask ME for proof.

Which as I have noticed, is a typical tactic of one who has no proof.

So...
Click to expand...

Nope, it is standard in debate to disprove a claim one has to supply evidence and support that destroys the original claim. You have yet to produce any source to back up your position except for your opinion regarding logic, which isn't even sourced. I provided a source as proof and it is up to you to produce proof that will destroy the proof I have.
 
The_Patriot said:
I have replied to you even when you called for a source. I called for a source and you can't provide one to back up your position. I will not reply to your baits until you can actually prove your side of the debate.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean like this...

Our image of non-slaveholding whites and their
descendants–their lack of schooling that resulted in illiteracy, their lack of skills that kept their
wages low and limited their mobility–receives plenty of support in the historical record.

Oh but wait your source goes on....

Southern literacy rates were high relative to the rest of the world. While the South did
not place a high regard on book learning and is usually thought of as backward relative to the rest
of the United States, white adult literacy rates there compared favorably to those in the second
rank of European nations, lower than Sweden but higher than Prussia or Scotland. - http://eh.net/Clio/ASSAPapers/Murray03.pdf

Next time you mite want to read your own source. :lol:
 
The_Patriot said:
Nope, it is standard in debate to disprove a claim one has to supply evidence and support that destroys the original claim. You have yet to produce any source to back up your position except for your opinion regarding logic, which isn't even sourced. I provided a source as proof and it is up to you to produce proof that will destroy the proof I have.
Click to expand...
I didn't provide a source because I thought the logic and reasoning would be enough to convince you.

Apparently not.

And could you direct me to which post you provided the proof in? I have not seen it.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Oh you mean like this...

Our image of non-slaveholding whites and their
descendants–their lack of schooling that resulted in illiteracy, their lack of skills that kept their
wages low and limited their mobility–receives plenty of support in the historical record.

Oh but wait your source goes on....

Southern literacy rates were high relative to the rest of the world. While the South did
not place a high regard on book learning and is usually thought of as backward relative to the rest
of the United States, white adult literacy rates there compared favorably to those in the second
rank of European nations, lower than Sweden but higher than Prussia or Scotland. - http://eh.net/Clio/ASSAPapers/Murray03.pdf

Next time you mite want to read your own source. :lol:
Click to expand...

I already did read my own source. You still haven't produced a source with the statistics for the north in regards to you wanting me to produce for the south. I have provided two sources and you have provided none. 2 is greater than 0. You still lose.
 
The_Patriot said:
I already did read my own source. You still haven't produced a source with the statistics for the north in regards to you wanting me to produce for the south. I have provided two sources and you have provided none. 2 is greater than 0. You still lose.
Click to expand...

Why would I need too? Your source says "While the South did not place a high regard on book learning and is usually thought of as backward relative to the rest of the United States" what more do I need to add other than you are as usual wrong. So I just posted a source, just happens to be the same one you used. It just so happens it backs up my position and destroys yours. Quite funny actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom