Bendira wrote:Here is the fundamental problem with this argument. Typically when presented with a problem, a choice is defined as a logical route to take in solving your problem. So lets take, for example, a man who wanted to travel from his house to a diner. He considers his options, and logically he comes up with 3 choices. He can either walk, ride his bike or drive (for the sake of keeping it simple, I will leave out the other obvious choices such as taxi or bus). So when you think of a choice, you would think of 3 logical choices right? Well technically, he has the choice to kill himself and not have to worry about the diner at all. But nobody rational would actually entertain such a rediculous choice. Many would barely consider it a choice at all, since it solves the problem in such an "inefficient" way. So your argument that we should GTFO is the metaphorical suicide choice, where it is just plain rediculous.
But that's not what we're saying. We're saying the man has the opinion between walking, riding his bike, or driving. Walking is a more difficult choice, because it requires the most work, but it's still a choice.
You're assuming that we we say, if you don't want to be taxed, leave, that we're suggesting something absurd like to kill yourself-- which isn't what we're saying at all, we're suggesting you walk.
