So, if we cannot create absolute and total equality at a stroke, we shouldn’t make any improvements in that direction because…ah, because…why, again?
Sure.
I don’t say we shouldn’t.
I say that you don’t get to unilaterally win an argument by declaring that certain changes are improvements.
Well, do you get to win by saying they aren’t?
Well, that’s what happened, so your challenge to name an alternative to representational democracy, indeed the notion that such an alternative is required or relevant, is moot.
But I don’t agree that’s what happened. And you can’t simply declare that this happened.
Or, more accurately, you can, and I can simply declare that it didn’t.
Report him to the Mods if you feel he’s done something he oughtn’t’ve.
Yes.
Does this seem unfair?
But it’s a consequence that arises because I don’t have the burden of making any case. I’m just sitting here. If I prove nothing, and you prove nothing, no proposition is advanced. Things remain as they are. I am fine with that.
But you are not. You seek change.
I don’t say he’s flouted the rules of the SDMB.
I say he’s missing the burden of proof in debate.
Declare anything you want, sport. You lost on moral and logical grounds and this idea that we have to supply an alternative to the legislative process is the obvious desperation of a loser trying to claim he was playing.a different game all along.
You’re comically wrong in your effort to divert, compounded by the fact that you only bring your “you hate democracy” tactic into play after you’ve lost the argument.
As a suggestion for Bricker, the next time a voter ID thread starts, he should make clear in his very first post that opponents to such laws must describe an alternative to the legislative process or else they will be missing the burden of proof in debate, and that he refuses to further participate until this burden is met. THAT’LL show US!
I don’t agree I’ve lost on any grounds.
As long as you retain the right to define moral laws, then of course you’ll construct a moral framework in which your arguments are all miraculously winners.
But your ability to declare your moral laws true is pretty limited.
I declare my moral laws true.
That was easy. So, if your demands for an alternative to the legislative process are met, will you then demand to know exactly how much steel and concrete were used for each floor of the World Trade Center?
No, no, he’s quite right, things as they are is the default position, those wild-eyed radicals who assert that things should be changed have to overcome the burden of proof, and conclusively show that changing things will make them better. All sensible people know this.
God Save the King!
You can’t let people go around changing things. That’s how you get Protestants.
[quote=“Bryan_Ekers, post:6134, topic:624943”]
I declare my moral laws true.
That was easy.
[quote]
But in debate, meaningless, since a gratuitous assertion like that can be denied by your opponents, equally gratuitously.
So: no they’re not.
Yes, they are.
I came here for an argument, not mere gainsaying!
“We hold these truths to be self-evident” is about as gratuitous an assertion as has ever been made.