All religious denominations should pay taxes

[mannyamador]

---

bfginus wrote:

you failed again to grasp the gist of that question, my dear. or rather, you refused to grasp the gist of that question. the question is not what you want the government should do or not do. the question is what you want to happen, as a consequence, to this government which (in your own words) is corrupt beyond belief, without moral authority to govern.

It's still basically the same: What I want to happen is that this government be prevented from imposing such new taxes since it doesn't have the moral authority to do so. You should be able to grasp that.

bfginus wrote:

later, you impugned yourself by saying that although this is no valid argument in church's favor, this is nontheless a justification.

That's only because you failed (or refused) to understand what I said. I said it is not proof of the validity of tax exemption, but that does not prejudice the Church's opposition to it. Any party can, in the absence of a final judgement, argue in favor of its position. You are creating a false dilemma, and that is a logical error.

bfginus wrote:

and "disobedience", in the context of our discussion, means staging a revolt and causing the downfall of the goverment by non-ppayment of taxes.

Non sequitur It does not follow. You are creating another false dilemma. The disobedience can come in the form of opposition to the imposition of new taxes.

bfginus wrote:

premise: if the government is corrupt "beyond belief", it loses its moral authority to govern.
conclusion: the people should, therefore, not pay taxes and revolt against it.

Another false dilemma. You've been making lots of those lately. That is neither honest nor prudent. It is an indication that you have no argument.

There is no premiss that a "government corrupt beyond belief" has ABSOLUTELY ZERO moral authority and that it has reached the point that justifies armed rebellion. That is a determination that has to be made depending on the facts on the ground. But you are putting words in my mouth. What it most certainly DOES justify, however, is opposition to new taxes.

It is quite obvious you are mis-stating my arguments so as to cast them as absolutist in nature, with no degrees or nuance. That is a clear indication of a straw man argument.

I would suggest that you stick to the facts presented and not twist thinbgs to suit your fancy. Alll you have is a strawe man argument. It means that so you have failed to make your case.

[mannyamador]

By the way, you have asserted that although the general idea of tax exemption for the Church is consitutional, there are certain activities that should NOT be exempt. May I ask exactly what activities are you referring to?

[bfginus]

bfginus wrote:
you failed again to grasp the gist of that question, my dear. or rather, you refused to grasp the gist of that question. the question is not what you want the government should do or not do. the question is what you want to happen, as a consequence, to this government which (in your own words) is corrupt beyond belief, without moral authority to govern.

mannyamador answerred:
It's still basically the same: What I want to happen is that this government be prevented from imposing such new taxes since it doesn't have the moral authority to do so. You should be able to grasp that.

there you go again, my dear, giving a lie to your own words. here are the words that answered the question above.

1. [b]The authority of the State to collect taxes rests on the assumption that it has a moral authority to do so.[b]4/26/05 post

2. Massive corruption can (and does) undermine the authority of the State to collect taxes. 4/26/05 post

3. Our government is CORRUPT beyond belief! What logic can there be in taking money from the Church (which is far less corrupt) and giving to an entity that will surely waste most of it? 4/25/05 post

evident is the gist of your pronouncements that what you want is total non-payment of taxes, not non-payment of more taxes.

but you later backtracked and said that you only wanted to prevent the government from imposing "new" taxes. so, in effect, your position/s now go/es like this:
earlier: a government that has no moral authority to govern should not be allowed to collect taxes (and be revolted against)
later: a government that has no moral authority to govern should be only prevented from collecting new taxes

bfginus wrote:
later, you impugned yourself by saying that although this is no valid argument in church's favor, this is nontheless a justification.

mannyamador answerred:
That's only because you failed (or refused) to understand what I said. I said it is not proof of the validity of tax exemption, but that does not prejudice the Church's opposition to it. Any party can, in the absence of a final judgement, argue in favor of its position. You are creating a false dilemma, and that is a logical error.

there you go again, bringing up another irrelevant point to the discussion. who says lack of a final court judgment prejudices church opposition to tax impositions? and since when is the right of the church to argue, with or without court judgment, put to question?
what is demanded of the faitfhful is the tender of arguments more solid and intelligent than the "court judgment lack" stuff. my dear, you're arguing on an uncontested point for the nth time.

false dilemma? why for crissakes did it come into the picture? are you sure you're able to absorb the logic stuff you've just googled?

bfginus wrote:
and "disobedience", in the context of our discussion, means staging a revolt and causing the downfall of the goverment by non-ppayment of taxes.

mannyamador answerred:
Non sequitur It does not follow. You are creating another false dilemma. The disobedience can come in the form of opposition to the imposition of new taxes.

yes, it does follow. the problem is you disown again your own admissions. and false dilemma again? if there's one, anyway, you created it yourself. it's you who limited your choices. with your judgment that this government has no moral authority to govern comes the form of disobedience you want. i need not quote again your assertions that i've quoted many times here. do justice to your own words. read and understand them.

bfginus wrote:
premise: if the government is corrupt "beyond belief", it loses its moral authority to govern.
conclusion: the people should, therefore, not pay taxes and revolt against it.

mannyamador answerred:
Another false dilemma.

unfortunately, it is a false dilemma you created for yourself.

mannyamador wrote:
You've been making lots of those lately. That is neither honest nor prudent. It is an indication that you have no argument..

i know you just enrolled in a crash course in logic on-line. guess what fallacies you've just commited with your statements above.

There is no premiss that a "government corrupt beyond belief" has ABSOLUTELY ZERO moral authority and that it has reached the point that justifies armed rebellion. That is a determination that has to be made depending on the facts on the ground. But you are putting words in my mouth. What it most certainly DOES justify, however, is opposition to new taxes.

wow! palusot, ha? so "corrupt beyond belief", you're claiming now, does not mean absence of moral authority at all. and, therefore, the church would still pay taxes to the state. hmm, let's see. please bear with these:

Our government is CORRUPT beyond belief! What logic can there be in taking money from the Church (which is far less corrupt) and giving to an entity that will surely waste most of it? your 4/25/05 post

there. no logic in government collecting taxes. it does not say there is no logic in the imposition of new taxes.

Massive corruption does violence to that (moral) authority. Ultimately, citizens are NOT obliged to pay taxes to a government that is thoroughly corrupt. " (4/26/2005 post)

Our government is CORRUPT beyond belief! What logic can there be in taking money from the Church (which is far less corrupt) and giving to an entity that will surely waste most of it? your 4/25/05

"...In cases where the corruption is great, the moral grounds to demand taxes is eroded. Then the people have a right to revolt." (4/27/2005 post)

our government is corrupt beyond belief; there is no logic in paying taxes to it. the government is thoroughly corrupt; its citizens are not obliged to pay taxes to it. the government corruption is great; its moral ground to tax is eroded, the people have a right to revolt.

"beyond belief". "massive", "thorough", "great" - four adjectives to describe the degree of corruption in the government that causes it to lose its moral and logical grounds to collect taxes ( not just to impose new taxes), and give the people "a right to revolt.

these are all yours. am i mis-stating them? now, who's trapping you into a false dilemma?

but when later asked what you wanted to happen to this government now, you changed your tune:

What I want to happen is that this government be prevented from imposing such new taxes since it doesn't have the moral authority to do so.

and accuse me of mis-stating your assertions. poor bfginus.

It is quite obvious you are mis-stating my arguments so as to cast them as absolutist in nature, with no degrees or nuance. That is a clear indication of a straw man argument.

i'm not mis-stating your arguments. i am re-stating them to keep you on your own track. you stated the "degree" of corruption and the corresponding "degree" of punishment. i just restated them. when you changed tack inconsistent to your original pronouncements, you mis-stated yourself.
and the strawman argument, i would appreciate it if you try to understand its nuances first before you start talking about it..

I would suggest that you stick to the facts presented and not twist thinbgs to suit your fancy. Alll you have is a strawe man argument. It means that so you have failed to make your case.
Back to top

stick i did long before you made the suggestion. you see, i repeatedly quoted your main arguments - the man, not the strawman - so that even the blind can see that i've kept them in steady focus. you created the strawman with your new tact. but as i said, i burned the man, not the strawman. i never miss my target as never let it stray from the line of fire.

twist? twist, if there be one, lies in the thought of your argument, if not in the presentation of your "correct" thinking in written words. keep trying, anyway. there is always room for improvement.

failed to make my case? i have not even presented it as yet at this stage, dont you know it? how can it fail then? at this point, you're the one yet trying to build your case. i am trying to examine its strength. it miserably fails.

sorry ha?

mannyamador asked:
By the way, you have asserted that although the general idea of tax exemption for the Church is consitutional, there are certain activities that should NOT be exempt. May I ask exactly what activities are you referring to?

my dear mannyamador, the information you wanted could easily be obtained from any basic political science textbook you can borrow. just do your homework.

peace.

[Uzer]

Grabeha nas inyuha diri uy, lawm naman ni
Simpol ra ni akoa, maayo bitaw pabayrun na sila tax pud kay kaming mga ordinaryong mga empeyado, gisiguro man amu share, di mi kalikay nya gagmay raba tawn mig kita. Para patas ba

[shoeless_rebel]

OT: u know what bfginus? u remind me of somebody who posted a topic here in this thread that caused an uproar that in the end the topic was moved to humor

i'm not saying ur the guy but it's just in the way u replied

peace!

[bfginus]

i sympathize with you, Uzer.

thank you, shoeless_rebel. i sincerely take it as a compliment. humor, after all, and for all it is worth, serves to somehow ease the pain and bring smiles on some people's faces. i hope this may somehow temper some people's belligerent outrage too.

[mannyamador]

eviident is the gist of your pronouncements that what you want is total non-payment of taxes, not non-payment of more taxes.

There you go putitng words in my mouth. Your conclusion is non sequitir. Such a tactic totally fails from a logical point of view, as you should know. As I said BEFORE, there's no on-off switch. My position has never been absolutist, as you claim it is. If you disagree, show me an explicit statement by myself stating such. You can't, right?

Case closed.

[mannyamador]

my dear mannyamador, the information you wanted could easily be obtained from any basic political science textbook you can borrow. just do your homework.

In other words, you're afrtaid to post. You have so far failed to make a case.

[bfginus]

bfginus wrote:
evident is the gist of your pronouncements that what you want is total non-payment of taxes, not non-payment of more taxes.

mannyamador answered:
There you go putitng words in my mouth. Your conclusion is non sequitir. Such a tactic totally fails from a logical point of view, as you should know. As I said BEFORE, there's no on-off switch. My position has never been absolutist, as you claim it is. If you disagree, show me an explicit statement by myself stating such. You can't, right?

these statements have been quoted time and again in this thread. so you never really listen to my suggestion, after all. i say and repeat that suggestion here and now. do justice to your own words. read and understand them.

[bfginus]

bfginus wrote:
my dear mannyamador, the information you wanted could easily be obtained from any basic political science textbook you can borrow. just do your homework.

mannyamador answered:
In other words, you're afrtaid to post. You have so far failed to make a case.

make a case? no need. why waste ammunition in an encounter where the foe is using his own to shoot himself down?
why, his parting shot even misfired hitting his foot as a result! thank god, his foot was not in his mouth where it had always been.

i would have wanted the faithful to have the last word to redeem himself. but as he declares,

Case closed.

so i say... so be it.