Hovind : Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee - HAH!

[shemp]

Gee I'm so sad. It couldn't have happened to a nicer douche.

 

[Tailgater]

Now if the government would care about dropping tax breaks to mainstream religions building multi-million dollar churches as much as they do about a creationist dino park.....

 

[geni]

Now if the government would care about dropping tax breaks to mainstream religions building multi-million dollar churches as much as they do about a creationist dino park.....

Seperation of church and state cuts both ways.

 

[Skeptic]

How is this good news? Hovind is a douche-bag, no doubt, but how is it good that someone goes to jail for choosing to keep their hard earned dollar?

Because he chose to break the law?

 

[Skeptic]

I agree. The middle east is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and the USA is a hotbed of christian fundamentalism.

The problem is, the christian fundamentalists show their fundamentalism by refusing to pay income tax or writing odd web pages about the "second coming", while the Islamic fundamentalists show their fundamentalism by blowing people up.

 

[Tony]

Because he chose to break the law?

So? Do you think people who "break the law" are always de-facto in the wrong?

 

[Tony]

The problem is, the christian fundamentalists show their fundamentalism by refusing to pay income tax, writing odd web pages about the "second coming", murdering gay people, bombing abortion clinics, advocating theocracy, while the Islamic fundamentalists show their fundamentalism by blowing people up.

You forgot to include some relevant data. I appended your post for you lest anyone think you're a liar.

 

[Chaos]

So? Do you think people who "break the law" are always de-facto in the wrong?

As long as there are other, legal ways to express their disagreement... they´re wrong to break the law. Doesn´t mean they don´t have a valid point, just that they have chosen an invalied way of making it, and thus deserve what they get for it.

 

[Tony]

As long as there are other, legal ways to express their disagreement... they´re wrong to break the law. Doesn´t mean they don´t have a valid point, just that they have chosen an invalied way of making it, and thus deserve what they get for it.

So, you'd respect laws in favor of slavery as long as there was a legal way of expressing your disagreement with those laws?

 

[Apollyon]

So, you'd respect laws in favor of slavery as long as there was a legal way of expressing your disagreement with those laws?

I would show my disagreement by not owning slaves.

If the law made it mandatory to own slaves, your fallacy might have had a point.

 

[Tony]

I would show my disagreement by not owning slaves.

But you'd do nothing to stop it right?

If the law made it mandatory to own slaves, your fallacy might have had a point.

Apparently, in your world "fallacy"=reason.

 

[Apollyon]

But you'd do nothing to stop it right?

I'm already protesting by refusing to own slaves. Your question should be more appropriately posed as "Would you do more?"

Apparently, in your world "fallacy"=reason.

Reason, eh? Turn your argument around to a different topic that's a bit more contemporary, Tony. There are people who protest abortion and do everything in their power to prevent it from being legal, including killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics.

Are they being reasonable in fighting a law they disagree with?

See? Apparently, in your world, fallacy does=reason.

 

[Tony]

I'm already protesting by refusing to own slaves.

So, no, you would not do anything to stop it. You would allow other people to force human beings into servitude. Glad we're clear on that. I'm safe in concluding that you're no better than a bucket of feces.

There are people who protest abortion and do everything in their power to prevent it from being legal, including killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics.

Are they being reasonable in fighting a law they disagree with?

Apples and oranges. But you already knew that.

 

[Apollyon]

So, no, you would not do anything to stop it. You would allow other people to force human beings into servitude. Glad we're clear on that. I'm safe in concluding that you're no better than a bucket of feces.

More ad homs, the usual response received whenever someone yanks Tony's pants around his ankles in here.

Apples and oranges. But you already knew that.

Well at least you got that part right. Comparing slavery to taxes was completely apples and oranges. Maybe there's hope for you yet?

 

[Tony]

More ad homs

You offer tacit support of slavery in society and you think it's an ad hom call a spade a spade? Keep digging dude.

Well at least you got that part right.

Yes, i did. Abortion and slavery are completely different animals.

Comparing slavery to taxes was completely apples and oranges. Maybe there's hope for you yet?

I wasn't comparing slavery to taxes, and the fact that you think so underlines your poor comprehension. I was posing a hypothetical by using he Socratic Method of asking questions to see under what condidtions (in this case slavery) Chaos would abodond his "they´re wrong to break the law" ideal. I'm familiar with Chaos and I trust he understood that, I understand why you don't.

 

[Skeptic]

So? Do you think people who "break the law" are always de-facto in the wrong?

No, I don't think it is always wrong for anybody to break any law. I simply think that it is wrong for Kent Hovind to break the income tax law.

I mean, you and I both know it's not as if Dr. "don't wanna pay taxes" Dino is going to refuse to drive on government-built roads, or to be protected by a government-paid police force (let alone a government-paid military), or to get treatment in a government-funded hospital with medicines developed by government-funded basic research (etc., etc., etc.)

Hoving has no problem at all benefiting from people paying taxes... as long as he doesn't pay. He only has "principled objections" (yeah, right) to taxation when he has to pay anything himself.

He's just a wannabe freeloader.

 

[Apollyon]

You offer tacit support of slavery in society and you think it's an ad hom call a spade a spade? Keep digging dude.

You can continue on with your straw man argument by using fabricated accusations and continue to look absolutely foolish to anyone with the slightest bit of reading comprehension, Tony. The choice is yours.

Yes, i did. Abortion and slavery are completely different animals.

So are slavery and taxes. That was the point, though I'm not surprised that point flew completely over your head, even at the low altitude flightpath it was on.

I wasn't comparing slavery to taxes, and the fact that you think so underlines your poor comprehension. I was posing a hypothetical by using he Socratic Method of asking questions to see under what condidtions (in this case slavery) Chaos would abodond his "they´re wrong to break the law" ideal. I'm familiar with Chaos and I trust he understood that, I understand why you don't.

Your hypothetical was a fallacy. I would suggest you do some reading on logical fallacies and come back when you have a firmer grasp of that particular subject because at this moment you appear absolutely oblivious and ignorant in that department.

 

[kevin]

How is this good news? Hovind is a douche-bag, no doubt, but how is it good that someone goes to jail for choosing to keep their hard earned dollar?

Because I have to help make up what he didn't pay. If all the tax dodgers paid their taxes, my taxes might actually be able to go down (ignoring the inability of current administration to actually spend less). If you want to fight for lower taxes go right ahead, skipping out on paying them doesn't accomplish this.

It's actually pretty hard to go to jail on tax problems, they usually have to be pretty large. The IRS usually wants money more than jail time.

The article references the charges including "income tax evasion, making threats against investigators and filing false complaints against Internal Revenue Service agents."

 

[Tony]

No, I don't think it is always wrong for anybody to break any law.

Good answer.

I simply think that it is wrong for Kent Hovind to break the income tax law.

I mean, you and I both know it's not as if Dr. "don't wanna pay taxes" Dino is going to refuse to drive on government-built roads, or to be protected by a government-paid police force (let alone a government-paid military), or to get treatment in a government-funded hospital with medicines developed by government-funded basic research (etc., etc., etc.)

I don't think all of these are funded by income tax, but I take your point.

Hoving has no problem at all benefiting from people paying taxes... as long as he doesn't pay. He only has "principled objections" (yeah, right) to taxation when he has to pay anything himself.

In principle, I object to both taxes and government. However I understand that they are necessary evils. But should someone go to jail simply for not paying them? Shouldn't they be given a chance to make amends or opt out before they're sent to jail? Is this not the land of the free? Call me overly patriotic or nationalist or whatever, but I think it's a sad day in America when a supposedly free person is carted to jail for not caving into the state's demands for money.

 

[Tony]

You can continue on with your straw man argument by using fabricated accusations and continue to look absolutely foolish to anyone with the slightest bit of reading comprehension, Tony. The choice is yours.

Ok. I'll give you another chance. If there were slavery in society (like in 1850's america) would you do anything to stop it?

So are slavery and taxes. That was the point, though I'm not surprised that point flew completely over your head, even at the low altitude flightpath it was on.

Yeah, if that's what you want to believe. Go ahead.

Your hypothetical was a fallacy.

No it wasn't. It's only a "fallacy" because you don't like it.

Writer's note: Notice how he doesn't describe how or why or even what fallacy it is. He thinks that he can declare something a fallacy and *poof* it is.

I would suggest you do some reading on logical fallacies and come back when you have a firmer grasp of that particular subject because at this moment you appear absolutely oblivious and ignorant in that department.

That's a complement coming from you.