I don't think you're really at a loss, but okay.
TGD Point (paraphrased) - "This puts internet sellers on the same footing as brick and mortar stores."
BBS's Argument (paraphrased) - "Taxes [when not linked to state benefits granted] are bad. Therefore this tax is bad."
A fine argument. One that I agree with on a general basis. But why have that discussion in what is ostensibly a discussion about the taxation of products sold over the internet and not about taxation generally? Is "taxes are bad" tangentially relevant? Sure. Is it relevant in the context of explaining why brick-and-mortar stores and internet companies are now on equal footing? No.
To go back to my analogy, in a thread about eminent domain and contract law, bringing up the environmental impact of fracking is irrelevant to the conversation. Is it tangentially relevant? Yes. Is it relevant in the context of responding to a post about contract law? Of course not; it's just white noise.
If I didn't know you better, I would accuse you of trying to change the discussion to suit your particular knowledge and interests (e.g. Player in every thread). But I acknowledge that I'm incredibly egotistical and jumped at the chance to provide knowledgeable insight in this thread... and you've made me angry because you're typing stuff that I think, as an expert, is irrelevant, but it also happens to be stuff that I agree with.
Oh, I see. Yeah, we're talking about two different subjects. I'm addressing people who see the necessity of the tax (Brucewars, now AAFitz, etc.), and you're addressing some other issue.
We'll just not talk to each other ITT if that makes you happy because neither of us seems interested in each other's topic.