Sigh... When someone makes a comment within the context of the discussion, let's call it (A), it is entirely appropriate, and pertinent, for someone else to raise analogies so as to contest and challenge that point (A).
If the analogies have
no connection to what's being discussed, they have no business in the discussion. They're just a waste of everyone's time. Don't do that.
You already said this in the first paragraph. Do you think repeating things over and over in a single post is helpful to discussions?
Not only were your 3 analogies all failed analogies, but your claim of having "countless" analogies was also a FAIL. It's OK to fail; but I can't understand why you continue to argue about your failed analogies.
There you go twisting the analogies and context again. Can you even remember what they were responding to?
You were trying to compare clear examples of immoral behavior in companies to Apple's behavior in
arranging [their]
affairs to keep [their]
taxes as low as possible. And we have precedent in our country: there's nothing sinister in that.
All of your innuendo claiming that Apple is somehow immoral is a house of cards.
And yet, you had the audacity to throw around terms like dogmatism?
Do you understand the difference between a Supreme Court decision and a dogmatic action?
I do.
Based on your "audacity" comment above, you have absolutely no idea. A Supreme Court decision is based on facts and reasoning. It is the opposite of one of your dogmatic pronouncements here -- one of your multiple failed analogies.
Do you realize a decision can be overturned if deemed inappropriate?
Yes. I live in the US and am well-grounded in its governance. I sensed a while back that you are not a US citizen and are far less familiar with how such things work.
Do you understand this reversal can be done by the courts themselves, or through new legislation?
Of course. Do
you understand the difference in significance between a Supreme Court decision and some random opinion that you utter here? That should be obvious, but I can't quite tell if you do.
If I'm advocating for legislative reform that would make that decision and precedent worthless, then bringing up the decision doesn't contribute to the discussion.
If you were
actually advocating, perhaps. Other than uttering your opinions here, what specific actions have you taken? As far as we can tell, you are just opining here.
All it is, is a fallacious appeal to authority.
Why do you say that? Have you read the decision? Do you have specific comments about its facts and reasoning?
Your argument is the essence of dogma; Hand's decision is the essence of thoughtful reasoning.
If we are inquiring as to the propriety of the decision, then repeating over and over what the decision says contributes nothing to the discussion.
It's an invitation for you to actually investigate the decision and
read it for yourself. So far, you've given no indication that you have taken that action.
Prove it. Give us some indication that you have actually
read the ruling.
I disagree with it. Is that hard to comprehend?
It's hard to believe. You've given us nothing to show that you've done any due diligence in investigating that decision.
As far as we can tell, yours is the
essence of dogmatism. You don't like something, but you've given no evidence whatsoever that you have researched it at all.
I'm not claiming you must accept my assessment. I'm not even claiming my position is necessarily true. I'm sharing it and providing grounds and reasons in an attempt to persuade others. That isn't dogmatism by any standard.
It looks like dogma. So far, your reasoning has been a failure (re: the failed analogies).
I've told you multiple times that isn't my complaint.
We don't believe you. It makes no sense: if Apple did what it did and it made no difference on the bottom line, it would make no sense -- and you wouldn't be upset.
I did, on multiple occasions, provide the specificity you here require. You must have missed it while you were busy with other nonsense.
You have never ever made any specific commentary on Hand's majority opionion.
Go back and read my comments explaining why I think the digital age is unprecedented and requires new forms of regulation.
You made a
conjecture that Hand's decision doesn't apply. But your opinion here is inconsequential. Are there any federal lawsuits going to attempt to overturn the law? Are there any legislative initiatives? Are you supporting any of them?
So now you are going to tell me what my own question/concern is all about?
I can tell you have absolutely no curiosity about the FairTax. If you wanted to know why its creators think it's fair, you would have
read the FAQ. If you had commentary about the FairTax, you would have made them.
If you had something of substance to say, you would have cited it.
Have you no respect for what your interlocutor says? You shamelessly twist everything out of context to fit your preselected molds. The speaker is the authority of his own words. Not you.
I stand by the words. All you've given us is some vague innuendo about the "fair tax". You've given us absolutely no indication that you have actually read any information on the fairtax.org website, the wikipedia, or any other site about the initiative.
I did, and provided specific reasons why I thought there was something wrong with the proposal.
I just did an exhaustive search on messages that the user "JohnDoe98" has done including the keyword "fairtax". There were a total of three messages where you used that word. In the first message (
#725 in this thread), you said:
I'm not. I'm asking people who are proponents of the FairTax why they are calling it FairTax. My question is: What is fair about it? You realize they intentionally chose that word, and for a reason. If the tax wasn't aiming at fairness, to call it FairTax would be intentionally deceptive and disingenuous. Maybe you don't have a qualm with deception, lying, etc. I don't know. Either way, I think asking anyone who is a proponent of the FairTax what is fair about their tax proposal is a legitimate question. And if their tax proposal isn't fair, then we need not even entertain it. Time to actually stop dodging and start answering for once.
There were no specific reasons there -- just innuendo. In the second message (
#778 in this thread) you said:
Your definition is still too vague. In accordance with which rules or standards? Tell me about those. The rest sounds fine. But those standards and rules may be objectionable.
Again, no specific complaints, and no evidence that you have actually done any research into the FairTax. The third message was the one I am responding to now: nothing there, either. Did you really provide specific commentary about the FairTax anywhere?
If you want to be credible as someone to comment about the fairness of taxation in our society, you should have
already done your due diligence on the FairTax.