Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Blocking Locke's Social Contract

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 1:03:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If by "block" you mean invalidate, simply point out the contradiction in enforcing a contract against someone who has not consented to it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 2:46:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 1:03:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If by "block" you mean invalidate, simply point out the contradiction in enforcing a contract against someone who has not consented to it.

As an extension of this, argue that the contract has been signed by a minority to apply to the majority. The idea behind the contract is to set up a system of communal or state-wide rights, but this is a contradiction if the rights are brought about by an oligarchic oppression.

It depends on whether the debate is economic or social. If it's economic, the counter argument is that those who participate in the economy sign the contract by default and the moral obligations of the government to provide for the unfortunate outweigh the costs of mild oppression. The counter-argument is much more watered down depending on the social issue you're talking about.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 3:08:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 2:46:52 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/7/2010 1:03:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If by "block" you mean invalidate, simply point out the contradiction in enforcing a contract against someone who has not consented to it.

As an extension of this, argue that the contract has been signed by a minority to apply to the majority. The idea behind the contract is to set up a system of communal or state-wide rights, but this is a contradiction if the rights are brought about by an oligarchic oppression.
It's a contradiction anyway, majority or minority. The only way for it not to be a contradiction is for unanimous signers.

I hope you mean "the social contract," not "the contract" btw. "the contract" in general has nothing to do with community and very little to do with state.


It depends on whether the debate is economic or social. If it's economic, the counter argument is that those who participate in the economy sign the contract by default
Everyone participates in the economy. Failure to commit suicide being a signature of a contract is absurd. Further, it's a circular argument, since it already presumes the government's jurisdiction over the economy is legitimate in order to prove it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 5:30:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 3:08:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's a contradiction anyway, majority or minority. The only way for it not to be a contradiction is for unanimous signers.

I hope you mean "the social contract," not "the contract" btw. "the contract" in general has nothing to do with community and very little to do with state.

Yes, I do mean the social contract.


Everyone participates in the economy. Failure to commit suicide being a signature of a contract is absurd. Further, it's a circular argument, since it already presumes the government's jurisdiction over the economy is legitimate in order to prove it.

Moving is also an acceptable choice, or running for government to make the changes you feel are necessary.

And actually, it rightfully presupposes jurisdiction because states usually have real contracts, aka constitutions that outline government interaction within the economy. If people do not agree with the constitution, they would not have moved there. They, therefore, are making the decision for their children and if the children do not agree, they may leave when they come of age. While I realize the situation is not always that black-and-white in most countries, namely those who did not outlaw social safety nets or income taxes in their constitutions, nor did all states have a constitution when they became a country, I think we're talking in fairly theoretical terms.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 5:31:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 7:12:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lol Rezz,

Whoever made that video is an idiot. Not necessarily because of the "farm" premise, which by all accounts makes sense, and actually had something behind it, but then he goes on about some other things without giving any substance behind them. Just sort of spouts them off. Whoever made that video has set it up in such a way as to seem like there is something behind it, but in general it is nothing but rhetoric, which is ironic since that is a pure political ploy, being used by an anarchist.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 9:17:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 1:03:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If by "block" you mean invalidate, simply point out the contradiction in enforcing a contract against someone who has not consented to it.

I would argue that the contract is signed biologically by the fact that we are human. We evolved from species who are by their very genetics, inclined towards a societal structure.

An argument that claims that this contract is invalid on the basis that it was not signed out of free will is no better than arguments by Intelligent Designers claiming that our complicated cell machinery must have a creator since all machines have a creator.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 9:47:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 5:30:45 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/7/2010 3:08:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's a contradiction anyway, majority or minority. The only way for it not to be a contradiction is for unanimous signers.

I hope you mean "the social contract," not "the contract" btw. "the contract" in general has nothing to do with community and very little to do with state.

Yes, I do mean the social contract.


Everyone participates in the economy. Failure to commit suicide being a signature of a contract is absurd. Further, it's a circular argument, since it already presumes the government's jurisdiction over the economy is legitimate in order to prove it.

Moving is also an acceptable choice
The economy is global, and there is nowhere to escape.

or running for government to make the changes you feel are necessary.
This does not permit escape unless you are in the majority, and is meaningless to an oppressed minority.


And actually, it rightfully presupposes jurisdiction because states usually have real contracts, aka constitutions
No, those are not real contracts-- see the part about contracts can only be claimed against individuals who conent to them. If I write up a "constitution" declaring your house my jurisdiction, what's the difference except the government has a bigger mob?

If people do not agree with the constitution, they would not have moved there.
They, therefore, are making the decision for their children and if the children do not agree, they may leave when they come of age.
Again assuming there is somewhere to exit. A false assumption in reality.

I would argue that the contract is signed biologically by the fact that we are human.
How? I don't recall pissing my name on a constitution.

We evolved from species who are by their very genetics, inclined towards a societal structure.
The inclinations of primordial primates do not constitute my consent. Consent is a condition of contracts. You wanna make an argument that tries to justify something without my consent, don't call it a contract. (I'm not an anarchist, you know, I myself advocate a government not based on the "consent of the governed." How do I do it? Well, for starters I don't use the word "contract" to describe the justification.)

An argument that claims that this contract is invalid on the basis that it was not signed out of free will is no better than arguments by Intelligent Designers claiming that our complicated cell machinery must have a creator since all machines have a creator.
Those arguments would be valid critiques of secular abiogenesis theories-- if in fact the advocates of such theories held that cells were "machines."

Like social contract theorists hold that social contracts are, well, "contracts" for example.

If A is defined in terms of B, and B is lacking, you do not have an A. That's pretty basic logic there.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 9:51:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 9:17:36 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 1/7/2010 1:03:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If by "block" you mean invalidate, simply point out the contradiction in enforcing a contract against someone who has not consented to it.

I would argue that the contract is signed biologically by the fact that we are human. We evolved from species who are by their very genetics, inclined towards a societal structure.

What is in this contract?

An argument that claims that this contract is invalid on the basis that it was not signed out of free will is no better than arguments by Intelligent Designers claiming that our complicated cell machinery must have a creator since all machines have a creator.

I apologize, but this is the most ridiculous comparison I have ever heard.

We are considering the moral validity of a supposed contract that was never agreed to.

How is that in any way comparable to a claim that only an "Intelligent Designer" can create "our complicated cell machinery"?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 9:56:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 5:30:45 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/7/2010 3:08:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And actually, it rightfully presupposes jurisdiction because states usually have real contracts, aka constitutions that outline government interaction within the economy.

I can right on a piece of paper and get a few of my buds to sign it too.

If people do not agree with the constitution, they would not have moved there.

Not necessarily.

They, therefore, are making the decision for their children and if the children do not agree, they may leave when they come of age.

Why should they have to leave to not be robbed?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 9:56:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@Ragnar

The "social contract" constitutes a contract the way "cellular machinery" constitutes machinery, or the way the "genetic code" constitutes an actual code. These are all generally descriptive phrases.

One cannot argue that cells were created by arguing that all machines are created. One cannot argue that the genetic code had a designer by arguing that all codes are designed. Similarly, one cannot argue against the social contract by saying that it violates the definition of a contract.

To answer your question, I think there is nothing wrong with terming it "the social contract". However, it shouldn't be treated as an exact contract.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 9:58:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 9:56:20 PM, Kleptin wrote:
@Ragnar

The "social contract" constitutes a contract the way "cellular machinery" constitutes machinery, or the way the "genetic code" constitutes an actual code. These are all generally descriptive phrases.

One cannot argue that cells were created by arguing that all machines are created. One cannot argue that the genetic code had a designer by arguing that all codes are designed. Similarly, one cannot argue against the social contract by saying that it violates the definition of a contract.

To answer your question, I think there is nothing wrong with terming it "the social contract". However, it shouldn't be treated as an exact contract.

So what is in this social contract and how did you figure it out?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 9:59:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 9:51:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What is in this contract?

Nucleic acid base pairs bound together by hydrogen bonds.

I apologize, but this is the most ridiculous comparison I have ever heard.

A hippo is like a transvestite pastor streaking across a football field.

We are considering the moral validity of a supposed contract that was never agreed to.

No, that's what *you* are doing. What I was doing was showing how it is erroneous for you to assume that we can treat the social contract as a definitive contract. It is the same logic as treating the genetic code as a definitive code and cellular machinery as definitive machinery.

How is that in any way comparable to a claim that only an "Intelligent Designer" can create "our complicated cell machinery"?

Semantics. See my above response to Ragnar.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 10:01:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 9:58:39 PM, Reasoning wrote:
So what is in this social contract and how did you figure it out?

Nucleic acid base pairs. I figured it out by realizing that formation of a social group is ingrained in human nature and in the nature of our evolutionary ancestors.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 10:04:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 10:01:07 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 1/7/2010 9:58:39 PM, Reasoning wrote:
So what is in this social contract and how did you figure it out?

Nucleic acid base pairs.

So how would I break this contract then? I don't w what is in it except apparently nucleic acid base pairs.

I figured it out by realizing that formation of a social group is ingrained in human nature and in the nature of our evolutionary ancestors.

What's this? Natural Law?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 10:05:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 9:56:20 PM, Kleptin wrote:
@Ragnar

The "social contract" constitutes a contract the way "cellular machinery" constitutes machinery, or the way the "genetic code" constitutes an actual code. These are all generally descriptive phrases.
False descriptions you mean. Well, depends on the definition of code, but other than that, definitely false.


One cannot argue that cells were created by arguing that all machines are created.
True-- unless you're arguing with someone who calls them a machine.

One cannot argue that the genetic code had a designer by arguing that all codes are designed.
I didn't know that's what code meant lol.

Similarly, one cannot argue against the social contract by saying that it violates the definition of a contract.
Yes. One can, until and unless the person is willing to give up the metaphor after realizing one is not buying it and start talking about wtf they really mean. Lysander Spooner pointed out the contradiction about 2 centuries ago. The social contract theorists have had plenty of time to abandon the failed metaphor, stop calling themselves social contract theorists, and be honest about wtf their actual point is.
So far I haven't seen them accomplish anything in that direction.


To answer your question, I think there is nothing wrong with terming it "the social contract". However, it shouldn't be treated as an exact contract.
Politics is a matter of life and death. If you can't use exact terms about who you're going to kill and for what, get out and let the people who are honest with themselves about what they want handle things. It's okay to use a metaphor, if you think it'll help explain something. It's not okay to keep banging your head into it 2 centuries after it's made clear that it's getting you nowhere. It's especially not okay to not even realize it's supposed to be a "metaphor" (i.e. most believers in the social contract as far as I can tell think their idea is exactly a contract, probably as a result of not listening. Don't give them defense even they don't appreciate).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 10:08:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 9:59:39 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 1/7/2010 9:51:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What is in this contract?

Nucleic acid base pairs bound together by hydrogen bonds.
How does that entail any conclusion relevant to the subject matter? I have such pairs. I still refuse to sign on the contract. How do those pairs justify taking me without my consent? Taking me to do what btw? I incidentally happen to obey the pairs, so what's government got against me if the pairs are its big whoop?

No, that's what *you* are doing. What I was doing was showing how it is erroneous for you to assume that we can treat the social contract as a definitive contract.
It's erroneous to take people at their word?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 7:46:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 12:48:33 PM, ciphermind wrote:
Does any debater here know how to effectively block John Locke's social contract theory?

Social contract is pretty cut and dried as the only way to have a successful government. Instead of bashing it, twist it around to help you.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 9:02:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 7:46:57 AM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
At 1/7/2010 12:48:33 PM, ciphermind wrote:
Does any debater here know how to effectively block John Locke's social contract theory?

Social contract is pretty cut and dried as the only way to have a successful government.
By this standard, no government has ever been successful, as no social contract has ever occurred.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:30:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 9:47:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The economy is global, and there is nowhere to escape.

And I feel bad for your libertarians, I really do, I just happen to value the economic security of the lower classes more than your self-recognized right to live with no government.

This does not permit escape unless you are in the majority, and is meaningless to an oppressed minority.

Right, so what you're saying is that, as the minority, you should not be allowed to decide national issues of the whole, even if that decision is to forgo any other decisions of the government. So, by extension, your will to abolish the government is (to some extent) infringing on your opposition to the government.

No, those are not real contracts-- see the part about contracts can only be claimed against individuals who conent to them. If I write up a "constitution" declaring your house my jurisdiction, what's the difference except the government has a bigger mob?

Well there isn't really, if you want to get into semantics. The difference is that, by participating in the democratic process, the population is reaffirming or renewing their contract with the government.

Again assuming there is somewhere to exit. A false assumption in reality.

There's always Somalia.

At 1/7/2010 9:56:00 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I can right on a piece of paper and get a few of my buds to sign it too.

And if you can find some land, feel free to start a country.

Not necessarily.

Well no, you're right, but the fledgling governments essentially said "If you move here, you understand that you have to respect our laws."

So really, that government owes no obligation to respect the absolute freedom of those who moved there, but rather they should be working with or for those people to make the country better.

Why should they have to leave to not be robbed?

Yeah, I love oversimplifying and distorting debate with buzzwords too.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:35:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 11:30:05 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/7/2010 9:47:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The economy is global, and there is nowhere to escape.

And I feel bad for your libertarians, I really do, I just happen to value the economic security of the lower classes more than your self-recognized right to live with no government.

Well, they sure are secured by policy in their lower class position if that's what ya mean :)

This does not permit escape unless you are in the majority, and is meaningless to an oppressed minority.

Right, so what you're saying is that, as the minority, you should not be allowed to decide national issues of the whole , even if that decision is to forgo any other decisions of the government.
What does that have in common with what I said? I said it does not permit escape, I did not say it should not :).

So, by extension, your will to abolish the government is (to some extent) infringing on your opposition to the government.
Explain further mon.


No, those are not real contracts-- see the part about contracts can only be claimed against individuals who conent to them. If I write up a "constitution" declaring your house my jurisdiction, what's the difference except the government has a bigger mob?

Well there isn't really, if you want to get into semantics. The difference is that, by participating in the democratic process, the population is reaffirming or renewing their contract with the government.
No, not the population, just the biggest part of it. There is no "the population" in such matters so long as there is a single dissident.



Again assuming there is somewhere to exit. A false assumption in reality.

There's always Somalia.
Nah, Somalia has government too. Mostly ultralocal governments, but still governments, and none that meet my standards as far as I can tell. Better than what they had before, but that isn't saying much.

Well no, you're right, but the fledgling governments essentially said "If you move here, you understand that you have to respect our laws."
Didn't move.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 4:16:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 7:12:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
Lol Rezz,

Whoever made that video is an idiot.
You're an idiot. Your argument is invalid.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 5:18:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 11:30:05 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/7/2010 9:47:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The economy is global, and there is nowhere to escape.

And I feel bad for your libertarians, I really do, I just happen to value the economic security of the lower classes more than your self-recognized right to live with no government.

There is no conflict here. A free market would greatly raise the standard of living of the poor.

No, those are not real contracts-- see the part about contracts can only be claimed against individuals who conent to them. If I write up a "constitution" declaring your house my jurisdiction, what's the difference except the government has a bigger mob?

Well there isn't really, if you want to get into semantics. The difference is that, by participating in the democratic process, the population is reaffirming or renewing their contract with the government.

If a master permits his slave to pick a new master and he picks the lesser of two evils, does that mean that he consents to being a slave?

Also, less than half of those that can vote do not even vote for president. (Technically they are voting on electors but that is besides the point.) How many individuals does it take to not vote to invalidate this supposed contract?

Again assuming there is somewhere to exit. A false assumption in reality.

There's always Somalia.

Does the draftee agree to be conscripted if he does not jump of the boat into the sea?

At 1/7/2010 9:56:00 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I can right on a piece of paper and get a few of my buds to sign it too.

And if you can find some land, feel free to start a country.

I have and you happen to be part of it. We expect the taxes by Wednesday, but you really just owe it to yourself since this is your government. And this is fair because if you don't like it you can leave.

Not necessarily.

Well no, you're right, but the fledgling governments essentially said "If you move here, you understand that you have to respect our laws."

Except for the individuals already living in the area that the state claims.

The gang says, "If you move here, you understand that you have to pay us protection money."

So really, that government owes no obligation to respect the absolute freedom of those who moved there, but rather they should be working with or for those people to make the country better.

The best way to do so would be to abolish the state.

Why should they have to leave to not be robbed?

Yeah, I love oversimplifying and distorting debate with buzzwords too.

"The first great lesson to learn about taxation is that taxation is simply robbery. No more and no less. For what is "robbery"? Robbery is the taking of a man's property by the use of violence or the threat thereof, and therefore without the victim's consent. And yet what else is taxation?" - Murray Rothbard
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 5:19:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 4:16:45 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
You're an idiot. Your argument is invalid.

Good rebuttal. Your intellectual side shows.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 5:22:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 5:19:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/8/2010 4:16:45 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
You're an idiot. Your argument is invalid.

Good rebuttal. Your intellectual side shows.

He was trying to point out that you were using an ad hominem by using one himself.

Though, I don't think you intended your response to be a refutation, merely an observation.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran