Koan it is the point. Your claim was not that they were brutal, but that they could not hold together. I posted "A society can be held together without democracy", and you insisted I was wrong.
You really should try to avoid this argument pattern. You say A, I prove not A, then you say B, and I either point out that B is irrelevant to A, or I prove B wrong, or both, and you say "but the real point is C". Often enough your C (or D or E, or however many steps you move away from the original point) is wrong as well, but right or wrong (and sometimes its right) its irrelevant. Stick to the point, or concede the point, or just explicitly change the subject to something else, but don't present some unconnected idea as proof that you were right all along, and then attack the other side as ignorant.
You want to talk about something else, then do so, but first answer - Can societies stick together without democracy (and without habeus corpus)? If you admit they can, then your accepting that your wrong. That's fine everyone should accept that they where wrong on occasion. If you say they can not, then your just refusing to admit you where wrong despite the evidence of history. |
