What did you mean when you said taxed the first time in this thread? That is all I am asking, Jon. I don't give a fuck about any of the bullshit you just wrote. I only want to know what you meant.

(January 21, 2013 at 11:11 pm)jonb Wrote: Actually, it did shake me, I am aware of great wealth, but that it would only take a 25% tax on 100 people to end extreme poverty. We are not even talking about the 1% just 100 individuals.
I cannot avoid the thought, if they don't sort this out themselves, it is time to make them pay.

I wrote the above about my reaction to the Oxfam report, how so few people hold so much wealth that just a part of could affect so many others positively. And how I have thoughts that I am inclined towards ending that level of inequality. I think the quoted statement expresses my thoughts well.

So, you think that a 25% government tax involving the exchange of monies, not some tiresome abstract, should be imposed on the top 100 wealthiest people so as to end poverty? That is what it says there, yet you went on to tell Tiberius that it is not what you meant. You also went on to blather on about the other meanings of taxing, committing the fallacy of equivocation repeatedly. Now, with all of that being said. Quite plainly, you meant a monetary tax on these people, yes?

You sir have been lying and slinking around for pages. You should be ashamed of yourself, seriously. You could have admitted what you meant or defended your original position like an adult. Instead, you bullshitted. For shame.

(January 25, 2013 at 7:10 pm)Shell B Wrote: So, you think that a 25% government tax involving the exchange of monies, not some tiresome abstract, should be imposed on the top 100 wealthiest people so as to end poverty?

Do I, is that what you are telling me I think?
Have you any other powers of Telepathy?

jonb,

You are making yourself look like more of a fool every time you refuse to say what you meant by the word "tax" in your original statement. You are not winning the favour of anyone by dancing around the question, which, I might add, is mindbogglingly simple to answer. Pick a definition of the word "tax" that applies to your statement in the context it was given, and let us know what it is.

I might remind you, nomatter how much you blather on about how the word tax can be used in the "it is taxing to climb these stairs" form, this is not a valid use in your case, as you use it with the "20%" descriptor, and it is mentioned in the context of money, as well as taking money.

I will not separate parts of a statement. The word functions as part of a whole.

You may not like that, but it is how English works.

It should be clear to you by now that is my position.

I'm very clear that statements should be taken as a whole. My issue is with the meaning of the entire sentence, which depends upon the meaning of the word "tax" in that statement, as you have denied it means "government tax", yet have not explained what kind of tax it does mean. As such, the entire statement is incomprehensible.

Please though, continue to ignore our requests to state your definitions. It makes you look ridiculous.

(January 25, 2013 at 8:08 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'm very clear that statements should be taken as a whole. My issue is with the meaning of the entire sentence, which depends upon the meaning of the word "tax" in that statement, as you have denied it means "government tax", yet have not explained what kind of tax it does mean. As such, the entire statement is incomprehensible.

Yes, it seems some are not capable of understanding.

It seems that Tibby does not comprehend that Jonb is not avoiding the question, he simply expressed it how he felt, there is no RIGHT or WRONG way of expressing it afterall.

Furthermore, when you state 'he is not winning the favour of anyone' I think this is the difference between your arguing technique and his, It seems that Tibs' argument is purely about getting Jonb to admit he is wrong or that his wording was so that everybody can see Tibs won.

Finally, Tibs has gotten to a point were he realises his argument is ludicris so therefore his arguing technique changes to that of speaking down to him stating he is acting like a child. Like many here I believe it is the other way round.

(January 25, 2013 at 8:14 pm)HorribleOffensiveScouser91 Wrote: It seems that Tibby does not comprehend that Jonb is not avoiding the question, he simply expressed it how he felt, there is no RIGHT or WRONG way of expressing it afterall.

No, there is a right way and a wrong way to use words. jonb denied that the word "tax" meant a government tax, but has yet to say what definition of the word "tax" meant. That is what annoys me about his posts here; he has rejected my understanding of his post (and has even gone on to say I focus too much on single things), but hasn't explained how I am wrong.

Quote:Furthermore, when you state 'he is not winning the favour of anyone' I think this is the difference between your arguing technique and his, It seems that Tibs' argument is purely about getting Jonb to admit he is wrong or that his wording was so that everybody can see Tibs won.

I don't care about winning anything here; I want answers as to why I'm apparently wrong with my interpretation of what he said. Read back over my posts and his; you'll see that he avoids answering my question despite me asking it several times.

Quote:Finally, Tibs has gotten to a point were he realises his argument is ludicris so therefore his arguing technique changes to that of speaking down to him stating he is acting like a child. Like many here I believe it is the other way round.

My argument is far from ludicrous. If he didn't mean the word "tax" in the governmental sense, he must have meant it in a different sense. I can't for the life of me figure out what that sense is, hence why I've asked him repeatedly to define it.

...and yes, he is acting like a child, by refusing to either admit he used the wrong word, or give me the definition he was using. In a debate, it is very poor form to call someone out and claim they have misunderstood you, and then refuse to explain how they have done so, especially if they ask you for specifics.