IBCoupe wrote:Ah, so you are retarded then.
Here's a fundamental thing you're going to need in order to actually accomplish anything intellectually: the ideals of the person behind the statement don't matter. The identity of the person behind the statement don't matter.
If you can't get past who I might be or what I might think to address what I've actually written, you need to turn off your computer, go outside, and focus on your car. That probably is a much better medium for you.
You're a creature incapable of defending a point of view without throwing the first insult. This is the primal response of someone who feels attacked and doesn't have an ability to defend himself. [Maybe if you growl harder, the crocodile will run.]
Your use of the word family is a metaphor, and metaphors are used to demonstrate beliefs and values. Your value system makes it pretty clear that you see the US as a collective unit in need of protection from its parental/governing organizations.
You've completely disregarded any discussion of human nature, what our purpose is, and why and how we should exist. Your preference is to keep the debate on a superficial level, chucking links back and forth in perpetuity like useless pundits on a cable news debate program.
In order to debate someone, you have to have a COMMON VALUE SYSTEM in order to move beyond the initial contention. In the absence of agreed values, you have to understand what someone believes and where they INTEND to go.
If you weren't self-limiting in your scope and depth, you'd be more inclined to engage. But again, you want to keep it superficial. You don't want to get to the core question of why you value collectivism over individuality, or whether a governing entity in a democratic system is destructive over the long term.
Stop acting like a wounded animal in the wilderness. I'm not attacking YOU. I'm attacking your VALUE SYSTEM which is deeply flawed. All debates eventually break down into value questions, and if you understood that and the legacy of modern ethics discussions left behind by Abraham Lincoln and his peers in the abolition movement, you'd be able to engage in a discussion. [I say this despite disagreeing with Lincoln on most of what he did as president.]
--
This is why I was saying to C-Kwik earlier (whose views, intellect, and ideas I have much respect for) that unless we have an agreement of values, we can't go further in our discussion -- unless we debate those values themselves.
Before creating legislation, the moral question at one point in the past was raised, at least for a moment, before moving on to the methods of implementation and enforcement. There are examples in American history where the issue of morality -- the immorality of infringing upon freedom through collective means on a wide national scale -- was never raised. Because of this, we ended up with alcohol prohibition, marijuana prohibition, and other regulations of industry, personal choice, and economic activity, many of which were slowly repealed when we realized the error of our ways and the knee-jerk short-term-thinking laws passed to assuage the concerns of a frightened public.
The question MUST BE RAISED and discussed at length to ensure a free society.
I don't want to call anyone stupid, as I value the friendships and connections I've made on this forum over the last seven years, but if you choose to bury your head in the sand and throw defensive bombs instead of opening yourself up to a deeper discussion, what else is there to say?
