[Orruar]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What terms have I conflated?

A social contract is an idea that goes way back, and is perhaps made most famous by Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes said that in order for people to organize and come together, they had to enter into a tacit agreement in which they would all sacrifice some of their rights in exchange for enhanced security and a list of other provisions. Now, what these provisions include is the source of contention. Social democracies have now become the norm for developed countries. Part of social democracies is that within their social contract, there is a provision for social safety nets and welfare, therefore cutting that provision out would be to break contract. Now, if the majority of people within one of these social democracies, such as the US, decided that the contract no longer included welfare, thereby removing a provision, it would be far more severe and different than changing welfare itself.

Now you might say similar about taking guns away, but that's only if you believe that owning a gun is part of running a well regulated militia. However, that is because you seem to have little idea as to the context of the 2nd amendment, and why it was drafted at the time.

Originally Posted by orruar

My argument is retarded because it's your exact same argument turned around to this situation. Perhaps now you have a chance to learn from your previous mistake. Or perhaps you'll continue to fight tooth and nail to not learn anything.

It's like I'm some kind of god damned superhero with the ability to see the future. Or maybe your stupidity is just predictable.