MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:24 pm
It's still strawman, as your rebuttal did not address the issue of the handouts, but instead changed the subject to tax rates.
How is it a strawman? Do you even know what a straw man is? Did you learn logic from Prager U or something?
A straw man is when you attribute to someone a premise or opinion or argument they do not hold or make that is easy to debunk for the purposes of "winning an argument." I didn't make your argument for you... hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. I made it abundantly clear that I wasn't making your argument for you, but instead was trying to understand your position by stating it a certain way and checking for accuracy.
Further, this is a thread on tax rates first and foremost, and the topic of immigration got brought into it as a topic of comparison topic to these so-called principles in terms of how to use state force when enforcing the popular will. You seemed to be (tell me if I'm wrong) using popular opinion about borders as a defense for strict border patrol, but did NOT apply the same standard to high tax rates. Why is that?
At the risk of getting accused of getting accused (again) of straw-manning, I'm merely stating that you SEEMED to be stating something. If I'm straw-manning, please steel-man it up for me: Does something being popular lend evidence towards its moral legitimacy, even if it's not borders but instead high tax rates on very high incomes or the wealthy (the original topic of this thread)?
If the answer is yes, then why all the moralizing about tax rates earlier in this thread?
If the answer is no, why?
If the question is unfair, please clarify how?
I'm giving you all the outs here. If I'm straw-manning anywhere, or any other logical fallacy. Please specifically highlight it and correct it for me.