TopQuark, replied in comment #43:
"Really? Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax. What's so patriotic about not having the military, then?"
FamilyOp: That's the slippery slope fallacy...
That's what you claimed in the preceding post as well. As in that post, you do not attempt to demonstrate that the argument is fallacious. If it is, then you've got to explain why.
I am afraid, the real reason for the irritation shows up next:
... and a typically anti-conservative argument.
As guilt by association, this is fallacious and not quite fair. If I fall into a trap and repeat, however inadvertently, anti-conservative arguments, this should definitely be pointed out to me -- I would be only grateful. But you don't say what those "anti-conservative" arguments are or why my statements are fallcious.
So, you leave us only with your beliefs that (i) I committed a fallacy, and (ii) such fallacy is typical for our opponents.
No less important is that you appear to misunderstand what the (indeed fallacious) slippery-slope argument is, thinking that an extreme example is the slippery-slope fallacy. It is not. That argument erroneously posits that the fist step leads invariably to a sequence of events ending is some undesirable outcome. In the present discussion, however, nobody mentioned any process or steps, connected or otherwise.
The question was about the relationship between not paying taxes and patriotism.
It was also dishonest,...
Oh my, how easily you through accusations. Dishonest? Not some error, mistake or careless thinking; not possibly limitations on the ability to think carefully ---- it was dishonest. Oh my.
..., as Jotmo did not advocate for shutting the military forces down.
I did not suggest he ever did: I gave that example.
Since you preferred not to look up the preceding post as I suggest, I an pasting it for you:
------------------------------
Jotmo: "It's every American's patriotic duty to pay as little tax as possible."
And: "It does not follow that "It's every American's patriotic duty to pay as little tax as possible." leads to "nobody pays any federal tax.", or the implication in that statement which is, "the federal government gets no revenue."
That is correct. But nobody suggested that implication; are now arguing, quite correctly, against a straw man. We are not talking about an implication. The situation "nobody pays any tax" is a special case of "little tax" to which you referred in your original claim. This is, moreover, the most illustrative special case: since zero is the smallest nonnegative number, the "zero tax" is the ultimate illustration of "little tax."
But, since you appear to have been derailed by this issue of zero tax, let me rephrase my question staying entirely within your "little tax:" Smaller taxes translate into a smaller provision of public goods and, in particular, a weakening of our national defense. Surely you will agree that there is nothing patriotic about weakening America's defense.
-----------------------
I would be only grateful if you point out my errors. It would help, however, it you ensured first that you understand what was and was not said in this exchange.
It’s now clear that you’re a liar. You say nobody suggested that implication, but the “implication” is a DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOU. You are the one that said DIRECTLY that paying as little tax as possible lead to nobody paying any taxes. It’s not a straw man because it is EXACTLY what YOU said:
“Really? Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax. What’s so patriotic about not having the military, then? “
You are the one that jumped straight from “as little as possible” to “nobody pays any”. That’s you, not a straw man. Every time you call it a straw man, every time say nobody implied it, you are LYING. You said it. STOP LYING.
You (TopQuark) wrote, “Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax. What’s so patriotic about not having the military, then?” You first posted the implied assumption that people trying to pay “as little tax as possible” would slide toward paying no federal tax at all. That’s the slippery slope fallacy. The second sentence was a typically anti-conservative argument. You begged the question while using it as a false accusation. Asking, “What’s so patriotic about not having the military, then?” is much like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Jotmo made no proposition for paying no federal taxes or having no military.
Implying a dishonesty for the purpose of denying it later is a dishonest method of argument that we’ve seen from many anti-conservatives. Implying a dishonesty in accusation is a typically feminist tactic.