OK. But just to recap, the question was this:Empiricist-Bruno wrote:Your last question isn't clear to me; if you would be kind enough to restate in in other words, maybe that would help me understand. Thanks for your questions.
The reason I asked it is that when you said this:Steve3907 wrote:Would the fact that animal testing of drugs occurs mean that the answer wouldn't be taxation?
I asked you this:Empiricist-Bruno wrote:My concern is that as I start reading the arguments from those who support taxation as it works today, I am struck by the powerful stench of greed emanating from them. I stand shocked by it.
And your reply contained this:Steve3907 wrote:Could you quote an example of that stench?
So obviously I got the impression that your objection to taxation was due to the fact of animal testing in drug development. Hence:Empiricist-Bruno wrote:See, I am vegan and now we have a covid vaccine that has been tested first on monkeys and which is now in the process of saving the world but I can't have it myself because I am vegan and that's an animal tested product.
Products that have been tested on animals bear an incredible stench, don't you agree?...
You didn't object to that. So, on the basis of what you've said there, it seems that you wouldn't pay the salaries of such people as police etc from taxation, because, among other reasons, you're against paying taxes because of, perhaps among other reasons, your objection to animal testing.Steve3007 wrote:So your objection is to the use of animal testing in drug development which you see as an objection to taxation. Understood.
You remember saying these things right? Just for future reference: If I ask you a question and you quote that question and then say something underneath it, is that something underneath it intended in any way to be an answer to the question? Or just a general comment about various aspects of the world, like animal testing or the Canadian Prime Minister?