Proposal: "They" Hate Us for: a)Our Freedoms b)Our Policies

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by hypewaders, Jan 20, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    The following merits our attention here because it keeps recurring, and is central to the "War on Terrorism" conundrum. Because I would like for this important issue to be examined more rigorously, I challenge Mr. Spock, or anyone willing to sincerely take up the "For Our Freedoms" side to a reasoned and reasonable contest of ideas in this forum.

    Because I consider this debate more important than any personalities involved, I request consideration of the following terms: That each participant be empowered to unconditionally hand over their side of the argument to a single designated member for continuation of the debate whenever available time or inspiration reaches a significant personal deficit.

    For introduction, here is the most recent conversation that reminded me of this recurring topic:


    I would like to offer the following link as background reference, and I will read and consider any preliminary material comparable in size and scope that supports the opposing view:

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    For your convenience, I would like to direct interested persons to Page 40 of the above reference, where there is a close description of where I would like to begin my argument:

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. angrybellsprout paultard since 2002 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,251
    Bah, what an utter load of bullshit.

    If you'd like additional support for the fact that the past ~100 years of western forgien policies is the reason why they hate us, then I'd be glad to help.

    Not to mention brilliant men such as Pat Buchanan and Dr. Paul.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7aFXRAW7mg
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    Thanks ABS, for your offer of support, and for the clip you linked, which is a great intro.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    Moderator note: Please remember that Proposal threads should not be used for debating, but for agreeing to the terms of conduct of the debate.
     
  9. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    It should be a team debate, perhaps hyperwaders and SAM vs Spock and otheadp ? or whoever.
    What about Sandy vs SAM ? Clash of the titans... (wait, we've seen that one haven't we ?)
     
  10. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Hahaha...that would be over pretty quick!
     
  11. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    I don't think that anyone is going to take the opposite side. people never do. James, I suggest you delete this forum..
     
  12. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    Let's not underestimate the Freedom Friars. Surely they believe that what they espouse is worth defending in a fair debate. I'm holding out hope that someone will have the conviction to step up. Even Spock may summon the courage. He, Otheadp, GeoffP, Buffy, and others have more than enough brains to be worthy opponents of myself or other Policy Pundits.

    All they seem to lack right now is courage. Come on: Defend the Decider; come out and fight; don't be such a cant; eh man, y'all kant; dar, when?

    James R: "Moderator note: Please remember that Proposal threads should not be used for debating, but for agreeing to the terms of conduct of the debate."

    That's debatable. Please remember that in cases like these, good knights may be compelled to throw down the gauntlet as plainly as can be done. What's the point of debating someone who doesn't know what they're getting into? That would be an unfair contest.

    Challenger78: "I don't think that anyone is going to take the opposite side. people never do."

    Maybe you're right, at least for the quality of convictions of the Bush supporters posting here. Or maybe we should allow them more time and opportunity. Could it be that such a dominant meme in US society as "They hate us for our Freedoms" has no sincere backing?

    If that were so, how could that meme have gotten us so deeply into the shit?
     
  13. angrybellsprout paultard since 2002 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,251
    That and the simple fact that I wasn't trying to debate you, but I noticed that we were on the same side and I felt that the proper thing to do would be to share some of the most basic of resources.
     
  14. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    If we have no able opponents, then how have those of like mind with our opponents ascended to directorship of US foreign policy? If I could rationally do it, in advancing our understanding of this mystery -so help me- I'd switch sides for the purpose of an instructive debate here.

    But having grown up in the Mideast, I'm intellectually and viscerally aware that "they hate us for our freedoms" is a naked lie. I know that love and desire for freedom are the very core of the universal, intrinsic human drive, or spirit- the core of any society's highest ideals, including those of the USA. I do suspect there's no passion for the alternative, only cynicism and denial. But I'm making allowance for the possibility that I may be wrong.

    Come out and fight, you Beauties.
     
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    if sure james could play devils advocate for you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    pitty xev or adam arnt here they would do it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I know its not the proposed position, but I would represent the position "They" hate us for our dominance.
     
  17. angrybellsprout paultard since 2002 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,251
    I'd be willing to argue that "they" hate us for our dominance of their affiars?
     
  18. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    ABS you do realise thats what he was saying in the first place dont you?
    That the reason they want to fight against you is because your stealing there resorces or whatever v they hate you because they hate you basically
     
  19. angrybellsprout paultard since 2002 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,251
    Did you read my first reply or watch the video that I posted?
     
  20. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    You must be looking for the Argument Thread. That's down the hall, just past Abuse. This is Debate.. except we're forbidden to debate here.
     
  21. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    Could it be that there is no rational basis in reality for the still rampant hate-us-for-our-freedoms line?

    I've yet to encounter a cogent argument for it, nor a single person who will stand up to this challenge with any rigor.
     
  22. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    Is it still running rampant on the airwaves in the US ?, I'd hope one of the presidential candidates would have cleared it up by now.
     
  23. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    The neoconservative message has mutated now, but the meme persists, even as its proponents shrink away from any substantive debate, that might expose such suggestions to daylight. A more recent version is President Bush's unprecedented abandonment of the "water's edge" domestic politics convention, where he made a veiled comparison in the Knesset of Obama's emphasis on diplomacy with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. As with the status of this thread, there's a noticeable asymmetry of substantive policy debate in the Presidential campaign. The rhetoric flies, but real debate is dodged.

    -Obama

    In a very similar vein as found in discussion here, Obama offers to debate the issues, and offers to communicate with "Them" (neoconservatism's bogeymen). Obama's opponents in the Bush/McCain campaign only rant superficially about appeasement, and stoke fears of Iranian villainy, while avoiding any specifics or any acknowledgement of Iranian interests and diplomacy.

    Obama:
    McCain:

    This is what passes for intelligent debate in the mainstream, and is the most that Bush and McCain supporters offer here: Superficial fear-mongering, and a pattern of shrinking from intelligent debate.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page