[Captain Cardio]

To which I would answer, "none."

That's the problem right there - is that you don't feel the need to give a reason for your opinion. The debate doesn't end there - you need to provide some sort of reason for why you think the government shouldn't play any parental role.

Any powers not specifically given to the federal government under the Constitution belong to the states or to the people.

Are you saying social services, or age restrictions on movies are unconstitutional?

Or are you claiming the majority of Americans don't want social services or age restrictions for movies?

If the majority of Americans want those two things, shouldn't the constitution be amended to suit them, rather than have us dogmatically hold on to a dated piece of paper that erroneously represents our values? Or should we hold on, in the interests of appeasing you, the minority.

Yes the US should be sticking by it's constitution, or if it doesn't, it should go through the proper procedures for amendment, but appealing to it as the moral authority on an issue, especially when your stance on that issue doesn't represent the majority's desires, is not valid.

Since parents have a certain responsibility for their children and since children are not legally capable of running their own lives, some preference must be given to the rights of the parents.

You're interpretation of the above as 'some preference must be given to the rights of the parents', could just have easily have been interpreted as 'the government needs to get involved in some ways'. You're not really answering the question. - and you didn't even address the fact that the government is already involved in certain ways of which society largely approves - with other movie viewing restrictions and social services. You've taken an absolutist attitude toward this thread, and completely abandoned the actual issue.

Of course, that was specifically in response to "This is such a weird strain of American libertarianism, this concept that parents deserve complete control over their children." Would you have preferred I say "Parents do deserve complete control over their children"?

You missed the point entirely, we don't need you to spell out more specifically what you mean by "They do." we need you to provide some sort of convincing argument for why you believe that. If he says 'they don't', and you say 'they do', that isn't good enough if you want your argument to be considered persuasive or intelligent. 'They don't' - 'they do'. "Ya-huh" - "Na-huh". If you disagree with what somebody said, you should always say why. I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

Do you understand that in making this statement I'm saying something about the underlying philosophy of what America is? Do you understand that in making this statement I'm saying that being a leftist/socialist (I use the terms synonymously) is inconsistent with the American ideals of limited government and maximized liberty.

Fine you were refering to an assumption about the underlying philosophy, but thats a bad assumption, because, depending on the practicality of the issue in question, there are socialist aspects to the US.

There are social services, there are legal age limits for buying certain goods, engaging in certain activities, or watching more mature material - . When you say that you' should kick the socialists out of America - and that thats a valid point with a deeper philosophy behind it' - thats disingenuous. As I have already stated - there are very, very few actual socialists, within America. There may be people who disagree with you on specific issues, and you might interpret their stance on a specific issues to be socialist, but just because one of their opinions coinsides with a non-relevant, larger political viewpoint, doesn't make them socialist - it's taking their viewpoint to the extreme - and the practicality or non practicality of that related to the actual issue comes into question.

It's like if I say it's a good philosophy to 'turn the other cheek' - somebody says "Oh, you must be Christian because of your opinion on that one thing", and suddenly say's Im stupid because I'm against gay marriage. What would that have to do at all, with the stand alone, original statement?

Identifying someone's political/philosophical bent isn't necessarily a bad thing and it's not your place to make any assumptions about how the term is being used.

That still says nothing about what the best course of action is. In this case, it clearly has been a bad thing, because like I've already said - you guys are trying to pigeon hole each other's view into an entire political stance - rather than acknowleging the specifics and that neither of you guys wants a socialist america or a totalitarian america. By saying you are identifying your opponents political/philosophical bent - isnt at all honest, because anybody with half a brain who has read your guys conversation, knows that that isn't what is going on. It is so obvious that you guys were trying to insult each other there. Seriously, who are you trying to kid? Did you think I wasn't going to notice, or call you on it again?

A person's particular position may indeed be a "right" (conservative), "left" (liberal), "socialist" (see "left") or "totalitarian" (see "right" and "left"). Using such terms as shorthand makes for shorter posts.

Nonononononono, there would be a very obvious difference between shorthand, and doing exactly what I pointed out that you were doing "only attempt to associate your opponent with something bad - basically, intelligent sounding ways of saying "well if you believe that, you're wrong"". If you are genuinely using short hand- and I sincerely don't believe that for a second - then its very, very bad short hand, because its wildly inaccurate to use that short hand in the conversation I've witnessed. That 'shorthand' puts down all sorts of completely inaccurate, non-relevant, dishonest implications about your opponents stance - in a way that is completely unnecessary to a coherent debate.

That doesn't make such involvement right and it's really beneath you to use the "Well, the government does it and so that makes it right" argument.

Again - you are dishonestly representing somebody you are debating with. I did not say the government does it, so that makes it right, - that is a very weak intrepretation. If I said that without backing up such a statement - yes, that would be beneath me. But that wasn't me making such a statement - it was you putting said words in my mouth to try and make me look wrong - and then say I'm wrong because of those words - that I never said.

What I was saying, which you have greviously and purposefully misinterpreted - was that by ignoring what the government is already doing to assist parenting - you are taking an absolutist attitude toward government and are not giving any credence to the notion of what's best for society or what is prefered by the majority in society.

The fact that most American citizens are fine with social services and age restrictions on certain products, says something.

If you are claiming that the current, minor government involvement in parenting is not right - well that's fine for you to have your opinion, but you need to provide much better reasons than simply "It is the parent's responsibility - not the governments" and leave it at that. That is not debate. Debate does not mean unbacked opinion fun hour with chancellor. Unless you have some reasoning, logic, substance, evidence or something to back up your opinion, we're not intererested in what you have to say. By continuing to debate in that manner, even after you are called on it - is an obvious slap in the face of the people at this site that are interested in serious, rational debate, and not the childlike dance around the issue that you've been doing.