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.
This is what your statement reads like: "Playing violin while trying to cook dinner is a preposterous tactic used by many tax-collectors. Doing so while also sleeping is a typically Roman strategy."
What does this nonsense even means, let alone what relevance does it have to anything said before?
I indeed wrote: “Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax.”
Your conclusion: "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."
There is no implied assumption. There is no "would" (as in would slide) of any kind. There is no speculation of what will or will not take place.
Here is what the statement does say:
1. "Small taxes" is a category of situations where the number expressing the tax paid is, well, small. Most people yould probably agree that it includes as special cases, $100 tax, $20 tax, $1 tax...
I used one such example:
2. Zero tax cleally belongs to the category "small taxes." In fact it is the smallest nonnegative tax possible. So I focus on that special case:
3. Suppose people don't pay taxes.
In sum, the reasoning is this: if (suppose) people don't take taxes; then there is a consequence of no defense, to which no patriot would subscribe --- a contradiction, which shows that the statement is false. This form of reasoning is standard and referred to as "reductio ad absurdum" or "proof by contradiction."
The only implication (something of the form "if...then") in my reasoning is: "no taxes" implies "no defense." There are no other. You misread it, unfortunately, as "Little taxes" implies "no taxes" (which would indeed make it look like a slippery slope). No such thing has been said. The connection here is not even an implication at all: it is a specialization.
If something is claimed (by Jotmo) to be true for an entire category (little taxes), it must be true for every special case in that category (for zero tax). This is not an implication, something of the form "A implies B;" this statement is specialization: you (Jotmo) claim something to be true "for all X; Ok, let's consider it for a specific X.
That you compelled me to write the foregoing after I clarified this earlier makes me wonder what you are after here. Your posture looks more like a hunt rather than a discussion: you seem unconcerned with the subject matter or what I think aboout, being bent instead "proving" that what I said is not only not conservative but even anti-conservative.
If my impression is incorrect, let's return to a discussion of the subject matter. Otherwise, stay with whatever conclusions you want and use whatever tortured logic you choose to "prove" your supposition about me, but I shall not dignify with a firther reply these ridiculously unfounded attacks. These drummed up "charges" were not worth even this post.