• 3017amen
    837


    Cool, thanks.... certainly worth another thread to explore....
  • frank
    3.6k
    Which you rather: a doctor who cures your disease, but breaks the law to do it,

    Or a doctor who fails you, but upholds the law?
  • 3017amen
    837


    What if the doctor didn't tell you he was breaking the law?

    (Would you care to know?)
  • frank
    3.6k
    Either way. The doctor is a criminal, and you're cured, or the doctor is a law abiding citizen and you're not cured.

    Establishing priorities.
  • 3017amen
    837


    I would need a little bit more information. Is the doctor a public servant? And is he trying to cure clinical narcissism?
  • frank
    3.6k
    He's a prominent citizen. Does it concern you if a prominent person breaks the law and gets away with it? Can society be damaged by that?
  • 3017amen
    837


    If the doctors is a public servant he must follow the law no?
  • frank
    3.6k
    If the doctors is a public servant he must follow the law no3017amen

    Must? No.
  • 3017amen
    837


    Are public servants above the law then?
  • frank
    3.6k
    They can be. Can you give me an argument for why they shouldn't be?
  • 3017amen
    837


    "They can be. ". Really, how so?
  • frank
    3.6k
    "They can be. ". Really, how so?3017amen

    By getting away with it.
  • 3017amen
    837


    Is that what you want from your public servants?
  • frank
    3.6k
    Is that what you want from your public servants?3017amen

    It depends on what's at stake. If it's a package deal:

    A. cure the disease, win the war, accomplish the goal, AND criminal activity, or
    B. failure and no criminal activity

    I might pick A. There's a potential cost to picking A though. Rule of law could be degraded by it.

    Do you think some of the people who elected Trump knew he was a shady character, but chose him for other reasons?
  • Maw
    1.6k
    I think it's cute that your breaking point for Trump was when he asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival, and not, say separating families and placing them in concentration camps.
  • 3017amen
    837


    Do you think some of the people who elected Trump knew he was a shady character, but chose him for other reasons?"

    Sure I can understand what a protest vote means...should it mean that one sells their souls at all costs, or recognize their errors and cut their losses?
  • 3017amen
    837


    Being a moderate independent, I'm okay with enforcing immigration laws and deportation of illegal immigrants not paying their share. And the previous administration did a great job with deportations of same.
  • frank
    3.6k
    Sure I can understand what a protest vote means...should it mean that one sells their souls at all costs, or recognize their errors and cut their losses?3017amen

    Good question. But could we go back to establishing priorities for a second?

    In your view, are there times when breaking the law is ok, for instance to win a war (as an extreme example)? Or is it never ok?
  • 3017amen
    837


    It's a good question and I'll give you a quick example of an exception, for a public servant.

    God forbid if a plane carrying 50 people was going to hit a tall building with 5,000 people, I would acquiesce to shooting down the plane with 50 to save the 5,000.
  • 3017amen
    837


    ... An important point to add when you say breaking point, it was a combination of many things over time. Regarding our elections, he supported Russian meddling in 2016 and is attempting to do the same again...

    As they say, fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.
  • Maw
    1.6k
    you don't need to separate families at the border and throw people in concentration camps in order to "enforce the border". Further, illegal immigrants also pay taxes, so not sure what "not paying their fair share" means here.
  • frank
    3.6k
    God forbid if a plane carrying 50 people was going to hit a tall building with 5,000 people, I would acquiesce to shooting down the plane with 50 to save the 5,000.3017amen

    I think a lot of Americans would say that the benefits of Trump as a president outweigh his faults and lawlessness. For instance, even if he killed 50 Americans, his SCOTUS will eventually save 5000 people from death by abortion.

    How would you address that logically? Is there a logical approach?
  • 3017amen
    837


    Sure absolutely not, as a Independent Moderate I can make a case to support your view.

    To answer your concern, what I was referring to were illegal immigrant's not paying taxes. I don't think you would take issue with that.
  • 3017amen
    837


    Great question!.

    As an Independent Moderate, with few exceptions, I am opposed to killing of any kind. Don't support death penalty; but don't support a cushy prison life either. I believe practicing deterrence (in all its forms whether it's crime or public safety laws or gun control et.al.) first and foremost.

    That's a more reasonable approach in my view. I can give you specifics... .

    I WILL BE UPDATING THE SYLLOGISTIC POINT LIST VIZ. THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY SHORTLY.
  • Maw
    1.6k
    undocumented immigrants pay taxes
  • 3017amen
    837


    Sure but many don't. You have the numbers by chance?
  • Isaac
    1.6k
    Sure but many don't. You have the numbers by chance?3017amen

    I'm only glancing through this conversation, and I suspect what I have to say is what @Maw had in mind anyway, but I'm going to say it because this sort of attitude really pisses me off. We have VAT here in the UK, you have Sales Tax in America. We both have various other levies and duties on goods and services, but apparently if someone doesn't pay any income tax on their salary, they suddenly "don't pay any taxes". Its just a convenient myth to beat the lower classes with, but it gets trotted out too often, so I like to refute it wherever I see it

    Unless your immigrants are buying absolutely nothing but tax-free food items or the like, then they definitely do pay taxes, all of them.
  • 3017amen
    837


    In the interest of the OP, I won't belabor or detour much from the original thread topic, however, your point is well received!

    Very good point. Unfortunately, many would view it as tantamount to getting a partial discount or a windfall from the taxes they owe; in that case not paying the full amount. In other words, they may be paying some, but not all/not paying the full amount that other's are paying.

    In keeping with the theme of using logic, that's why I asked for the statistics, if available.
  • Isaac
    1.6k
    In other words, they may be paying some, but not all/not paying the full amount that other's are paying.

    In keeping with the theme of using logic, that's why I asked for the statistics, if available.
    3017amen

    Exactly. A situation which large corporations and the very wealthy are in too. Anyone who can afford a tax advisor will pay less tax than the equivalent person who cannot. Now you're moving from "not paying any taxes" to "not paying enough taxes", which is an entirely different argument, and one which I very much doubt immigrants will come out on the losing side of.

    Surely you're not saying that everyone should pay a fixed amount of tax no matter what they earn? So income tax being related to pay is essential. So those who get paid less, pay less. What happens at zero pay? Zero tax. It's not cheating, its the exact same system by which you pay less tax than Donald Trump.
  • frank
    3.6k
    I think the lesson here is that it only takes one emotion-injector to deflect logic. Emotion always wins.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.