/lit/ - Literature

>>22086301
The most hilarious thing about this post is that I'm the guy who posted the smug slurp, and this post wasn't me. But it could have been because that's my view exactly.

To elaborate: just because you say that someone disproves someone else, doesn't mean that I have to show how you're wrong. That's being asked to prove a negative, which is impossible. Instead, the person making the claim is supposed to provide evidence. So in this case, the Proudhon cocksucker needs to take the dick out of their mouth long enough to type up how Proudhon disproves Locke, ideally with textual citations.