[Chancellor]

Quote by: Captain Cardio I don’t agree with the conclusions you’ve drawn, but if the American people as a majority wanted that, why do you think they should be forced to live in a system that the minority, you, wants?

Because the founding fathers specifically designed our form of government to protect us from the tyrrany of the majority. This is not a democracy and "majority rule" does not apply. If the majority of the American people want the government to do something or if they stupidly want to cede more power to the federal government, they must either amend the Constitution or they must scrap it for an entirely new one.

That says nothing about the rights of the children.

First, you assume that children even have rights. Second, it wasn't intended to address whether children have rights or what those rights. Try reading what people post instead of looking for hidden meanings! I'll ask again, "Do we have to address why in a thread about whether tobacco companies should be allowed to give free cigarettes to children?"

No, that’s again taking it to the extreme. We’re talking about social services and movie restrictions, not putting children in charge of their parents.

No, it's not taking anything to the extreme; I used a simile (one thing is like another) and I cited an example from history. I was challenging the view that children should not be under parental authority or that parental authority should be limited.

I was referring to my hypothetical interpretation of what you guys said - something I would hope you guys could do without somebody prompting you - not being up for scrutiny, because it wasn't the point.

The only correct interpretation of what we said was what we actually said. We were engaged in conversation (I presume you know what a conversation is).

Of course if I actually state something, it is up for scrutiny, but I put absolutely none of myself behind the interpretations of what you guys might have been saying.

Why the deception? Are you not willing to stand behind what you're saying?

I understand the idea of shorthand perfectly thank you, but what you were typing that you refer to as ‘shorthand’ was not shorthand, it was just unsophisticated name calling dressed up to look like it was actually debate.

Apparently you don't understand shorthand if you continue to insist that we were engaged in name-calling. It's not your place to attribute motives.

Granted, you guys have progressed your conversation somewhat since I posted, but when I did post, you guys were in the process of an unsophisticated, unproductive argument.

Our conversation is just that - a conversation. Feel free to join in if you wish but don't presume to try to stand on the outside manipulating and controlling it.