Donald Trump's Tax.

[Atheist]

What do ABers make of this? If he really paid only $750 as a year's tax, does that set a good example to US citizens?

[Peter Pedant]

actually I would have thought heez Holiness
might have said in an encyclical - de fiscalibus

Geev to Caesar what eez Caesar's
( da caesari bona imperalia )

but lets leave da Papa oudda thees

[Spicerack]

Hating on JRM now.
Dear me, you lefties are consumed by hate.
I feel quite sorry for you. I'd like to help you but you just don't listen.

[Spicerack]

I think the big boss said that, peter.

[Sunk]

Peter Pedant

You are totally missing the point.
When Jacob Rees Mogg moved his operation to Dubln, it wasn’t Tax avoidance it was Brexit avoidance.

He is perfectly entitled to move his businesses where ever he wants. He s breaking no law.

But it does smack of hypocrisy. Telling Brits how wonderful it will be outside the EU. And then when he has been very instrumental in extracting the UK from the EU, he relocates his businesses (and € taxes) back into the EU.

Shameless.

[tomus42]

It's a genius move from the stable genius to have avoided paying any tax into the coffers of the country he wants to make great again for so long.

It's strange he's been bragging about all the millions he's paid though, being so successful and everything. You'd think he'd be proud of his tax avoiding prowess, as all his acolytes seem to be, and boasting about that instead.

[ToraToraTora]

every sentence preceded by the word "so" does not come under the "so rule". Similarly the word "so" is not necessary to invoke the so rule, here is an example from this very thread:
//"Then 60% of Britons were allowing their skewed sense of morality to get in the way of simple fiscal prudence."

Like those that give to charity you mean. Silly fools. //

[1ozzy]

So TTT?
So what point are you making?

[ToraToraTora]

I can't put it any clearer.

[Ellipsis]

The so-called "So rule" is simply an instance of a Straw man argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - // The so-called "So rule" is simply an instance of a Straw man argument. //

You've pointed that out before, more than once - no-one argued with you then, no-one is arguing with you now.

[Peter Pedant]

// You PP are totally missing the point.
(bit of AB clag blah blah blah that stuff , interposes
But it does smack of hypocrisy. //

then I dont think I am missing the point - Pip pip old boy -

Note I pay alot of tax - the english tax man wants £50 000 this year but I have told him he has doubled something (things)

[Ellipsis]

When TTT wrote ...

> every sentence preceded by the word "so" does not come under the "so rule". Similarly the word "so" is not necessary to invoke the so rule

... he was describing a Straw man argument, not the so-called So rule.

[Ellipsis]

It doesn't interest me. It simply "is". It's a phrase, it exists, people understand what it means, it even has a Wikipedia entry. Then somebody invents another phrase for the same thing, gets the huff when it's pointed out that a phrase already existed and goes on the offensive ...

[ToraToraTora]

no the straw man is completely different. take the example in your link elipsis:
A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
under the "so rule" B would say something like: " So, you are happy that everyone gets cirrhosis of the liver".

[ToraToraTora]

sunk: "Peter Pedant
You are totally missing the point. " - as you are new here you should be aware that PP only posts mostly unintelligible drivel. It may occasionally be relevant but most of us will not know as we usually just skip his posts. I intend this to be helpful but by all means determine this for yourself.

[Ellipsis]

To quote the Wikipedia entry (and make the two steps a little clearer):

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through:

1) the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and
2) the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

"So" is typically used at step 1, to stand up a straw man. "So [what you're saying is] X", where X is nothing like what was being said. And then, step 2, X is knocked down.

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - // It doesn't interest me. It simply "is". It's a phrase, it exists, people understand what it means, it even has a Wikipedia entry. Then somebody invents another phrase for the same thing, gets the huff when it's pointed out that a phrase already existed and goes on the offensive ... //

I don't 'get the huff ...' as you put it - I am aware of the concept of the Straw Man argument, but as TTT accurately points out, that is not what I pick up.

AB'ers who accuse someone of something they have not said, and then criticize them for it, are nothing like that subtle - they steamroller in with a made-up point and then moan, and either precede that with the actual "So ..." in their post, or something close to it - your Straw Man is far too subtle for them.

But the fact remains, this is at least the second time you have pointed out your dodgy comparison, no-one cared then, no-one cares now, including me.

Time to move on I think ...

[Ellipsis]

We clearly cross-posted at 10:53. There is nothing dodgy about the comparison, as my 10:53 post demonstrates - "so" is often used to stand up a straw man before knocking it down, that's all.

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - // We clearly cross-posted at 10:53. There is nothing dodgy about the comparison, as my 10:53 post demonstrates - "so" is often used to stand up a straw man before knocking it down, that's all. //

Are you done now?

Hope so.