The next step in a "debate" would be to examine the ethical or logical basis for our opinions. For instance, we could start by establishing some agreed upon "truths":
Okay.
Coercing other people into paying for things they don't want or need is unethical. Yes or no? And I'm not asking you to state, as a fact, that this is "ethical", I'm simply asking your opinion.
No. It's perfectly ethical, in my opinion to force people to pay for things that they don't want or need. I don't want or need the roads to be kept up in Hawaii, but i should be coerced into paying for their upkeep through my tax dollars, and i am rightly so forced, as are you.
The nature of taxation is that you sometimes pay for things that you don't want or need. That's the way it works, and not only that, but i think that it's a good way for things to work.
The logical progression of thought which dictates that coercing people to pay for things they do not want or need is unethical. I thought that was blatantly obvious.
Obviously not, since i think it's perfectly fine to force people to pay for things that they don't want or need. I think that this goes without saying in a civilized society that demands taxes from its citizens.
Well, I suppose I just assumed you and I would share a common ethical basis which holds unjust coercion in contempt. I didn't know you liked unjust coercion.
I don't like unjust coercion, but sometimes it's necessary for the common good. Also, what is "unjust" or "just" changes depending on who you ask. I might think that a certain thing is "just" while you think it's "unjust". Basically, when the law declares it "just" you've got to go along or protest or whatever, but you've got to pay your taxes.
I could not prove it, I could only show it to be illogical, based upon an agreed set of moral standards, which I falsely assumed you held. Apparently, you think unjust coercion is okay. That is a fundamental disagreement that cannot be reconciled. The letter and spirit of this nation's laws do not suite you. Perhaps you should exercise your right to leave the country.
The letter and spirit of the laws suit me just fine. I'm in agreement with them, mostly, and the ones that i don't agree with i go along with in order to maintain my good standing in the citizenry. If the law changes to make my taxes pay for abortions, i'll consider it a good law, and you can do as you wish. As to showing something to be illogical, you notice that you could only do that based on a certain set of standards. When a person holds to a different set of standards, what is "logical" may be quite different, as you seem to agree. Some things that you don't consider "logical" may be perfectly logical to somebody with a different set of standards, so you research that set first. I don't claim that your stance is illogical, because it likely is, to you, from your viewpoint. I've no problem with that, just like you should have no problem recognizing that from my viewpoint, with my standards, it's logical. Your argument isn't with what is or isn't logical, as if that's some sort of set-in-stone fact, but with my standards and viewpoint. This is the entire point that i was trying to get to, and we've finally arrived.
You sound like you're having a great time reading my posts. I'm glad of it. Maybe we could be friends...
I don't know why not. I have plenty of friends with completely different ideological standpoints and contesting views.
Mmmmm, not addressing the point.
Oh, pardon me. Yes, yes, Ethereal, quite right, two wrongs don't make a right. By the way, wood typically floats. NOW ADDRESS THIS POINT!!
I was merely stating a fact. No whining involved. Get your ears checked.
What you suggested was unconstitutional. Sure, it can be changed if the constitution is amended or gone against, but it is unconstitutional. Do you need me to explain how, or what?
And, that's it. Voice your opinions. See if you can change the laws to reflect your values. What do you need, me to ship you my spare soapbox?
Actually, the fact that such a law is unconstitutional means you would have a logical basis for your argument.
Yes, it would. This was my point. If the constitution says something about a law, we should look at that.
I must remind you that I am perfectly comfortable with you admitting that your statements are illogical. There's no need for you to insist on driving my point home, although I do appreciate it.
LOL!! This is your reply to me busting you for implying that i thought something that i've never expressed!!! ha!! Look, i never said what you accused me of thinking. Get over it, and get on with your life.
So long as you admit your question was a loaded one with no basis in sound reasoning or logic I'm in no position to complain.
I have asked you NO illogical questions. If you feel i have, quote it, and explain how it seems illogical, and i will reword it for you. If you still find it illogical, i'll rephrase and try again. I'm sure that eventually we can find a way to discuss the issue without you simply labeling my questions with some description that enables you to squirm out of answering.