(05-27-2018, 07:55 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(05-27-2018, 07:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: Now there is, at least, a view that is internally consistent. I suppose that prosecuting rapists and murderers is one of the very "minimum" functions of government, right? I mean I already asked you this once you gave me a lecture about protecting my own family rather than answering my question.
Obviously this minimum amount of government would need a minimum amount of funding. Why would a tax on head of cattle be any worse than any other tax, assuming that the total of all taxes was minimal as you seem to want?

---

Just as long as you recognize that I didn't make up my ideas out of thin air and that your disagreement is with people who are smarter and much more influential than both of us.

Just so we're clear, you're going to stack Strawman, Red Herring, and Appeal to Authority on your portfolio of logical fallacies. Anymore you want to add? Oh, I forgot about Sugar Plum, so we can add good old Ad Hominem as well,. You are a superstar here!

Any time B re-states A's argument, B is vulnerable to a charge of strawman from A.  A simply has to stay engaged and explain why the re-statement to is too different from his original argument. Eventually, you did so regarding if government is needed, but you still have not done so regarding the goodness of some taxes.

A charge of red herring is probably the most subjective of the fallacies, whether idea X is related to Y will be in the eye of the beholder. 

In both cases, the things I said that you are calling a strawman and a red herring were part of my argumentum ad absurdum, which is a valid, non-fallcious tactic.

Appeal to authority is only fallacious if the one appealed to is not a sufficient authority on the subject.  The definition of words is, like grammar and spelling, not really a matter of absolutes but of social consensus. So really almost anybody can be a sufficient authority on the definition of a word, and words can have multiple meanings for this reason.  This is why dictionaries often list multiple meanings, and cite passages in old literature (authorities) to show the word being used that way.

Name-calling is not as hominem.  It is abusive, and bad, but ad hominem is more specific.  "You're a softie" is not ad hominem.  When Byronlefttown and others said I was fearful and inadequate as a protector, and called me a "beta" that was also name-calling, but wasn't ad hominem. If they had said explicitly, "You're a softie, and that's why you're wrong" that would be ad hominem.  I didn't say that copycat was wrong.

---