I never said he had to agree with me...he is free to disagree by stating a different point of view. But he isn't saying a different point of view, he is stating that what I posted is lacking.
Bondo, do you know anything about debate? Didn't think so. I was dismanteling your argument. It's one technique of debate. I already said this, and I said why.
Bucc, that you quoted me at all pretty much shows that you were more concerned with what I had to say about it then having your own view.
What a pompus ass you are then, because you see something that doesn't exist. See above and a previous post. Going through, point by point of your argument, and showing where it isn't true, doesn't make sense, or is just bullshit, is a technique of debate. Isn't that what you put this up for, debate? It wasn't "here, share your views, what do you think about social democracy", was it?
Anyways, I'm sorry that my simple rules weren't able to be followed by one particular hard-headed individual who seems destined to insult my views rather than have views of his own. I'm going to lock this thread and hopefully a moderator will then delete it.
Again, you are being an ass. I chose not to, wasn't unable. Said as much. Have my own views, but you started with an argument (your paper) and I chose to work on what was provided. But Bondo, I'm so sorry that you can't just censor me, make me play by your rules. Lke I said, grow up. If you wanted to debate this issue, I put in plenty of meat into my comments that can be debated.
Don't cover your lack of ability to actually defend your premise with a cry of foul. If you are correct and America should become a social democracy, stand up and prove it. Don't slink away playing the wounded, sensative little boy. You've said enough that you don't care about my opinion, so drop the drama. I'm pretty sure just about everyone can see through it to the point that you just can't make a really convincing argument to support your position.
BTW, the technique I was using(roughly at best compared to the source) is called deconstruction used by Jacques Derrida. It's realated to elenchus, made popular by Socrates and later by Plato. A little quote about this for you:
"...the elenchus leads to a fuller understanding of the topic under discussion. Evidence suggests that in actual practice, Socrates's method succeeded largely in confounding--and most likely irritating--his listeners. " - unnamed source at the University of Hawaii Philosopy Department
