[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

If I oppose Social Security and push for its dissolution, do you really think I would be worried about drawing from it?

You hide behind the sophistic method of constantly trying to shift the foundation upon which discourse takes place. There are plenty of people in the world who argue for the dissolution of something and still benefit from it.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

And yes, I have answered your questions about which programs to cut. You never asked why or anything else, you just asked what programs we would cut.

I presumed your reasoning was what you quoted from the Constitution and the 17 things you say the federal government has responsibility for, all related to defense and regulation of the currency.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

And no, I did not put words in your mouth. If you you are as indifferent to such programs as you have stated or oppose them like I do, my feelings about the subject would have been implied and it would have unnecessary to ask such questions. You came across with an aire of defensiveness and preference towards such welfare programs and I took it as such. You have said before that it is up to the writer to be understood and had you made the effort to get across to me that you were purely interested in my opinion and said something like "I do not understand Angry Postman. Could you please clarify?" or something to the effect, rather than saying things like "Answer now!", perhaps I may have obliged you in a kinder manner.

I am purely interested in your opinion about Social Security and whether one who is on principle opposed to it should ever draw from it. This is abundantly clear from my questions. The only clarification that has been requested is of your method of arguing, which is to ascribe to me things I did not write.

Again, I defy you to prove your point, with quotes, that I expressed "defensiveness and preference" regarding welfare programs. I wrote about the notion of "social solidarity" and used such programs as an example. I've quote you again and again in this discourse, but thus far you have failed to provide a single quote to back up your characterizations of HOW I have engaged in the discourse.

I don't know how else to explain this, so I apologize in advance for the analogy I am about to use. It is used only because I am at a loss for any other way to make my point.

I teach at a university. All of my students are PhD students. We have seminars in which there is very heated discourse.

Let's imagine that the interaction you and I have been having on this site took place at my university in a classroom. Further assume, as is the case, that there is an accepted rule that professors and students are equals in seminars -- that is, there is no formal hierarchy, and any informal hierarchy is seriously frowned upon. I have absolutely not doubt that if the full record of our interactions were put before an independent body of students and professors serving as a commission of inquiry, that you would be found to have violated the standards for legitimate discourse. I am so certain of this that I would bet my career on it.

Now, before you dismiss this with some vitriol about liberal academia, I should point out that I am referring to my principal appointment at the university, which happens to be in the Management school -- hardly a bastion of liberalism, no matter what else the rest of my institution, or any other one for that matter, might be.