[Chancellor]

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.

But he didn't say "they don't." He said, "This is such a weird strain of American libertarianism, this concept that parents deserve complete control over their children." Now, if someone wants me to explain why, he or she can ask. Oh, by the way, I'm not making arguments or engaging in debate, I'm having a conversation.

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 is nothing socialist about the form of government established under the Constitution and I resent you suggesting that there are.

There are social services, there are legal age limits for buying certain goods, engaging in certain activities, or watching more mature material.

Just because the government has usurped authority it does not have doesn't make it right (referring specifically to the federal government here). What state and local governments do is their concern (though, arguably, the 14th amendment puts them under the same constitutional limits as the federal government).

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.

Oh, they may not belong to the American Socialist Party but they are actual socialists. Any time you start believing that it's the role of government to provide social services, otherwise take care of its citizens' needs from cradle to grave, or that we must look to government for solutions to problems is socialist. And there is no place for such a view here in America because it is contrary to everything the founding fathers fought for (there, I provided a why for you without you even asking).

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 isn't about whether they agree or disagree with me - I really don't care whether they agree or disagree with me. It's about what their views represent. Some of these people are of a mindset that looks to government as problem-solver, looks to government to fix things, etc. and that is socialist.

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?

Some people in Volconvo do that kind of thing to me (usually based on how they interpreted what I said and not the actual words that I posted). What's your point? Yes, I do refer to some people as socialists or leftists or other such things but it's because of views they've presented in a number of different threads (or because they're from Canada :) ), not just this one.

That still says nothing about what the best course of action is.

People disagree on what the best course of action is. I and some others here would say the best course of action would be where the government stays within its constitutional bounds.

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.

I'm not convinced that he doesn't want a socialist America and he's using "totalitarian" to refer to my view about parental authority and not government authority.

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.

That's the problem: those of you who are trying to assign motives seem to be operating with only half a brain (I'm kidding). Seriously, though, it is not your place to assign motives. I am identifying someone's political/philosophical bent, it is honest for me to do so, and just because I am indentifying a particular bent doesn't mean I'm also using the term assigned to that bent pejoratively. Understand this: I mean exactly and only what I post and it is not your place or anyone else's to try to assign motives or to assume I mean anything other than what I post.

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?

See above.

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"".

It's shorthand, get over it! You assume that just because someone is using a term that they're using it with a particular motive and it's not your place to do that. You wrongly assume that just because I refer to someone as a socialist or a leftist that I'm doing it in order to insult him or her. If one believes in what one believes then using the correct label for those beliefs is not an insult.

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.

It's shorthand, get over it! It's not your place to try to assign motives to people.

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.

No, not inaccurate, not irrelevant, not dishonest, and not implications. You need to stop reading things into what people post because that is dishonest.

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.

No, I'm being entirely honest about it. You were arguing that the government is already doing it - as if to say that this must be considered right. In response to that, I said, "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." Like it or not, by insisting that I must give consideration to the fact that government already does things to "assist" (I would say "interfere with") parenting is saying, in this context, that because government does it that makes it right for them to do so. If you don't mean that it's right for government to do it (because they are doing it), then appealing to the fact that government is already doing it was inappropriate.

What I was saying, which you have greviously and purposefully misinterpreted - was that by ignoring what the government is already doing to assist parenting

See above.

- 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.

You'd better believe I'm taking an absolutist attitude toward government! It has no role that the Constitution does not give it. If you don't like such absolutism, that's your right. As for what's best for society, what's best is for the government to stay within its constitutional bounds and otherwise keep its nose out of people's lives. As for what is preferred by the majority, the United States of America is not a democracy: what the founding fathers gave us was intended, in part, to protect us from the tyrrany of the majority. Besides, if the majority of society prefers to stupidly cede their liberties to the government or to have the government take care of it from cradle to grave, the majority of society is free to try and have the Constitution amended or to scrap it for an entirely new Constitution.

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

That they're nothing more than sheeple.

CONTINUED...