my friend I responded to your initial point by pointing out that even if this really is what you care about, what you're describing is clearly an issue with the

my friend I responded to your initial point by pointing out that even if this really is what you care about, what you're describing is clearly an issue with the current enforcement strategy, not the thing itself. quite clearly directly engaging with your argument as made -- your response entirely ignored that engagement entirely besides taking a quote out of context in a weak and obvious attempt to draw moral outrage, more or less proving my point that you were simply using women's rights as a way to produce outrage and scare people into agreeing to be honest perhaps I was a little quick to judge your motivations, and if you hadn't replied like this, perhaps you might have a leg to stand on, but instead you proved the point for me whether or not calling it a tax was a rhetorical gambit or not, when pressed, it was instead a "non-voluntary charitable donation", and yet, is watching live TV not a choice? are you so unable to tear your eyes away from the 800th repeat of the Botswana special on Dave? is it "charitable" if the person who "donates" is provided with a consumable product? can you avoid taxes by simply not letting the taxman in your house? can you avoid taxes by simply living in a house with someone who does pay taxes? can you avoid taxes by simply denying that you earn money? and then you just started to make childish personal attacks about literacy. boring