Genetic fallacy? Paradoxically No!

While it would be fair to assert that my argument is genetically flawed; after further explanation and consideration it is not flawed as it seems to appear.

It is fair to assert that both parties are serving their interests by arguing ad hominem in lieu of ad rem about a question of conspiracy.

Both terms, ‘conspiracy theorist’ and ‘conspiracy denier’, are merely ad hominem attacks directed at the opposition. Every man who attempts to persuade me that he is correct because his opponent is a ‘conspiracy theorist’ will never cause me to believe him as a validation of the absence of a conspiracy. And likewise, I will disbelieve the man who argues ad hominem ‘conspiracy denier’ to validate his argument of a conspiracy.

Now, concerning my viewpoint, I do not label individuals as conspiracy theorists or deniers. And any debate that involves labeling individuals as justification to believe or not believe is simply untenable.

Consider my argument to be a tenable response to the untenable position of most people about conspiracies.

As someone who knows at least a small amount of American history I can safely say that I am extremely grateful that we are far away from what the founders of this country intended.

The government did not "stay out of the way" in general during any point in the history of this country. The Federal government's role in individual state's affairs (and the affairs of citizens within states) has continuously expanded since our nation's founding.

For one, it is hard to argue that the founders didn't intend for the role of the Federal government to expand. It expanded from the beginning. The last founding father died in the 1800's, (The last founder to die, Madison, died in 1836).

Secondly, even if the Federal Government's role was minimal, state governments had a huge amount of control over people's lives. State governments are still, you know, governments.

You have to remember that many millions of African Americans were under total control by their slave-owners, which were supported by the laws and armed forces under the control of local, state, and Federal Governments.

Additionally, moral codes, religious doctrines, and sanctions against entire groups of people (genders, ethnicities, and sexualities) were rigidly enforced. Also, besides African Americans, women did not have the full, universal vote in all states until 1920 (two years after the Soviet Union granted Universal Suffrage).

That's not even counting the Federal and State government's role in wiping out/driving out millions of Native Americans and appropriating their lands for white settlers.

Economic practices were regulated less in the 1800's than in the 1900's, but there wasn't a whole lot to regulate back then. Most economic activities were pretty rudimentary and most people worked for themselves. There is no point to labor laws when most people are working for themselves or their families.

To put it bluntly, you are extremely lucky to have been born in the United States in 2009 instead of 1779 (incidentally, you wouldn't have been allowed to vote either. Non-property owners couldn't vote until the 1800's). You are freer now than any American in previous generations. You have a better lifestyle, more opportunities, and much more freedoms than even the wealthiest Americans from the Founding Father era.

swearing on you, lawman or someone who created this debate, i cannot understand it! If you can explain then i might , i mean, my arguments might prove worthy!