posted
It seems for certain issues people are locked into their views. I've always believed anyone should be able to debate any view from both sides. What if, for just one day, you had to argue for the side. Snarkyness aside, I mean really argue for it. Think KoM debating the merits of religion. Think Jay coming up with reasoned ideas for evolution. I'd like a day where the whole hatrack community decided to see things from the otherside.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is an idea destined to fail. Consciously people will respond with nothing more half-hearted repsonses. What we will have is a debate devoid of the passion that drives many of us to post. At the end of the day nothing will have changed. The next day we will all go back to posting as we always have. It's a nice idea, but way to idealistic.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll give it a try, though. Same-sex marriage should be legal. Under the Constitution and the bill of rights, all people are equal, and have access to equal rights. Denying marriage to homosexuals is discrimination, and a breach of their rights. A civil marriage does not violate the sanctity of a religious marriage. Indeed, it enrichens society, and can help to foster acceptance of the fact that homosexuality is normal. With all the celebrity weddings and break-ups, and all the phony marriages happening in the world, why is the government so intent on denying people who are in love the ability to get married?
Good idea Wowbagger.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But during National Brotherhood Week National Brotherhood Week It's National Everyone-Smile-At- One-Another-hood Week Be nice to people who Are inferior to you It's only for a week, so have no fear Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!
quote:It is an idea destined to fail.
I should think the problem will be in this idea that many people don't take one side or the other in an argument, but present their own personal arguement that may happen to line up
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are more than two sides to an argument. People don't necessarily park themselves on one of two sides and then argue from that side come heck or high water. The question is: what is the other side.
In addition, if I were to give the same consideration to some idea, only from, say, a fairly Christian standpoint, I should very much hope to come up with almost the same argument, showing the same level of thought. For instance, in the Valedictorian thread, I would probably end up in the same place I am now- almost-, but by a different thought process:
quote:Teshi-In-An-Alternate-Universe says: I can see that Ms. McComb is a very devout young woman, which is, of course, commendable. She should also be able to share the experience of her God with others without being rudely told to get off the stage like someone in a dictatorial country who has spoken out against El Dictatori.
However, that given, I do recognise the fact that we do not live in a Christian country. I do not know exactly what the proportion of atheists, Jews, Muslims etc. were in the audience but in a Public School we are supposed to give consideration to the various minorities (if they are indeed minorities). The girl's speech certainly was filled with religious references and encouragement which might be seen as being offensive to these groups of people who do not share these views. I would be offended if an atheist got up and started using the same type language, only reversed.
Therefore, I think it was within the bounds of acceptibility for the school board to insist that she reconsider her speech, even if that meant not expressing exactly what was in her heart on that day.
I do think that the school board should have more thoroughly explained their position to help her to understand why she should change her speech. Then maybe, given the proper guidance, she would have felt the need to break the rules.
Sometimes, you just have to let people come to God by example, rather than trying to make them come.
Similar argument, different thought process. I would be happy with that. Here, the "other side" is just another way of coming to what I, as myself- which is not part of the change-, consider a fair and balanced argument.
Of course, there would be certain viewpoints where my Christian persona, by virtue of her beliefs and such, would be unable to meet in the middle with my Me persona.
However, I have less interest in looking at those from another perspective in such detail simply because, without the faith-based beliefs, the opposite viewpoint is incompatible, argumentally, with my own. For example, the evolution thread is a difficult thread to argue over because the two sides go like this:
quote:1. Evolution doesn't exist; there isn't enough evidence.
2. Yes there is, here's some evidence: <insert evidence>
This isn't really an argument because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will cross sides and there is no way to meet in the middle. You either think there is a lot of viable evidence, or you do not.
EDIT: I realised that my evolution argument required a little tweaking. There is a third argument, which is the middle, which is: "Evolution doesn't exist for sure."
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Invasion of Iraq: Making the Case for the Future of the Middle East Twinky's contribution to the Project For A New American Century
Centuries ago, the Middle East was the centre of global civilization. Indeed, it is the very cradle of the same -- the birthplace of agriculture, base ten arithmetic, and home to several wonders of the ancient world. Yet while Europe advanced and ultimately industrialized, the Middle East languished. Conquered, reconquered, and conquered again, the region's development was stifled by tyrants. After the defeat of the Ottomans in World War I, the colonial powers squandered the best chance for freedom that the Middle East had seen in centuries by carving it up into fiefdoms and either ruling directly or installing puppet monarchies. We ourselves wasted similar opportunties in Iran, as well as in the subject of this paper, Iraq.
After the Iranian revolution and in the run-up to the Iran-Iraq war, we supported and supplied Saddam Hussein's brutal dicatorship. When Hussein gave us an opening to depose him with his invasion of our ally, Kuwait, we again pulled back and allowed the country to wither under horrific sanctions. Madeleine Albright herself had the gall to declare that the lives of hundreds of thousands of children were "worth it" to acheive the previous Administration's aims in Iraq, aims that were vague at best. This Administration's aim is nothing less than the correction of a long history of egregious misdeeds -- to help the people themselves plant the seed of true representative democracy in a land where the voice of the people has long been stifled, to overturn a history of dictatorship and, eventually, to allow the region to develop free of outside interference.
Of course, the first question asked by many naysayers is "After such a long and ignominious history of failed interventions, why should one further intervention be the cure?" The answer is simply that there is no other choice. We could not in good conscience continue to allow Iraq to languish under the boot of Saddam Hussein. His regime was an open sore in the heart of the Middle East. Also, we ourselves bore some responsibility for the sorry state of Iraq, for having supported Saddam Hussein and then failed to depose him when the opportunity presented itself. We owe a great debt to the Iraqi people, and so we will defend them with our very lives if need be. True, there are other dictatorships, but the Middle East, with its vast natural resources, is singularly and uniquely important to the rest of the world. A stable Middle East would lead directly to a dramatic increase in overall global stability. The reasons, then, are partly altruistic and partly pragmatic. This action is good for Iraq, good for the Middle East, good for the United States of America, and good for the world as a whole.
So, then, we must intervene. But why the attempt to foster democracy? Wouldn't installing another puppet regime result in stability? No, the numerous examples from this past half-century alone are enough to put lie to that assertion. Even if we were purely selfish in our motivations for deposing Saddam Hussein's regime, installing another dictator would only lead to further strife in the Middle East. We and others had hoped to wait for a revolution in Iran, and lent our support to such efforts, but given the need for immediate action in Iraq it makes sense to kill the two proverbial birds with one stone. A democratic Iraq can only help the prospects of democracy in Iran. The creation of a representative democracy is a difficult task. Some would call it impossible; to them, we say: you should hope that we succeed. Rather than wasting energy in criticism, lend us your support and your expertise. We must try to do this, and we welcome your help in our efforts.
Indeed, we are making progress. The Iraqi elections were observed more closely and by more nations than even our own domestic elections, and deemed "free and fair." Efforts to produce a formal Constitution ultimately met with success, and the political process, while still troubled by assassinations and sectarian strife, is moving forward. We are doing our best to control and counter the insurgency, and helping the Iraqi forces move toward a state of readiness to take over major operations. Yes, these operations are currently costing American and Iraqi lives, but compare the loss of life during the insurgency to the loss of life during the era of sanctions and we can't help but wonder, if that price was thought to be "worth it," why then is there so much debate over our efforts now? The only reasonable conclusion is that these naysayers value American lives more highly than those of Iraqis, a belief we find repugnant. The Declaration of Independence does not say that only Americans are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; rather, all of humanity is endowed with these rights. We will see them granted to Iraqis, and with your support we hope to live to see a time when the whole of the Middle East prospers in the freedom and democracy it has been denied for so long.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not locked in my views For one thing, I am content to concede to the fact that terrorist need to be detained and isolated, however, I don't believe they should be held without a trail or tortured for information. I believe in middle ground more than leaning to one philosophy and idea.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is, the only argument for any god that makes any sort of sense is personal experience. There is absolutely no rational reason to believe in one. So if you try arguing for <insert god here> without having had the personal experience, you end up arguing really badly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just write it, KOM, as though you were arguing for believing in something else you have experienced, and then go back and insert the word "God" for the something else.
posted
I think often, one of the reasons people pick one side of an argument is because they don't fully understand and appreciate the other side. Not always, but to a certain extent.
How can one intelligently argue in favor of something which they do not understand completely, don't feel in touch with, or don't appreciate?
I agree that it's a cool social experiment idea, but I think it would be difficult for most people to do effectively.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am certainly capable of arguing for positions that I oppose, but two things stop me here: first, I fear that my arguments may someday be quoted and used to misrepresent me, and second, I honestly think that those who disagree with me are doing a fine job arguing their own points and they don't need my help to do so.
(Also, contentious is not what I come to Hatrack for. I've got enough heavy stuff in my real life, that I like to keep it light here, as a refuge.)
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you eat a meal such as a turkey dinner, the food items should all blend together, or even be piled on top of each other. For example, you might put your turkey on top of your mashed potatoes, and gravy over all of that.It is best if the pea juice bleeds into the stuffing, and that bits of stuffing jump over the line and land in the area of the turnips. Heck, just take the whole plate of food and mix it together with your fork!
Even more important is eating bites of different items, such as combining a bite of peas with a bite of turkey. Never eat one thing at a time before moving on to the next item. That would be really creepy. Who would do that?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snakes are not interesting. They can bite you and make you bleed. They might be poisonious and kill you. If you are walking down a street and a snake comes out of the grass, one should imediately run to the human and ask for a baseball bat, even if the snake is clearly harmless. All sayings, such as: Red near yellow, bite a fellow. Red near black, venom lack should be disregarded and forgotten. All snakes are evil and should be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Posts: 1164 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love getting mosquito bites, especially when I am lying in bed at night, bone tired. I turn out the light, but I realize I am not alone in the room. It is a great feeling! I can hear a high-pitched whine, and I know that a little mosquito has come to say goodnight.
Nature is great, because we give back and forth to one another. The mosquito keeps me company, and I can provide it with a little of my blood in exchange. It really isn't that difficult, and I don't even feel it!
It is amazing how one little creature can have such a huge effect on me. Even though I may miss my little friend, I can remember him for days as I scratch the spot where he had his dinner. My daughter is even luckier. She can pick at the bugbite for weeks, reopening the wound again and again.
Mosquitos are wonderful.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
First a little background on Joss Whedon. He wrote several screenplays for movies including Toy Story. He has made two successfull tv programs, that Firefly would be a good show was never in question. No one knew just how good.
Well we never got the chance to find out. From out of sequence showing order to different timeslots to little or no advertising it seems Fox killed the show on purpose. as it was only 11 of the 14 shows that were produced were shown. The only saving grace being the DVD set releaced, finally fans could watch all 14 episodes as Joss Whedon had intended. What we got was an excellent character driver show with a fresh take on western AND sci fi themes, thing which are sorely lacking in todays television landscape. the show was far to great to keep to themselves. Thus began one of the largest fan driven campaigns in tv history as the Browncoats spread the gospel to other about this wonderful show. what a huge payoff it has been. Sales have been huge making it one of the largest TV DVD releases in history. Not bad for a canceled tv show .
Although Firefly never made it back onto broadcast television Universial made a movie based on the show called Serenity (named for the ship the crew lives in). Same Cast, Same Director/Writer/ Same excellent result. You care for the characters. When someone dies, you really feel it. Not only are the deaths shocking it has an emotional impact, unlike some movies where people are killed with little rhyme or reason *cough* X3 *cough* In the end you can't stop the signal, as long as there are people who've never seen serenity there will be Browncoats to share their love.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you misunderstood Wowbagger, this is supposed to be writing things contrary to what you, and everyone else believes. Not the awesome, powerful truth.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love television shows. They are such a brilliant potrayal of everyday American life. One can gleen such good values from watching sitcoms and reality shows. They can learn important life lessons.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that once you've made up your mind about something, you should never change it. It is a good thing to have such strong convictions that little things like the truth will never sway you.
This goes hand in hand with the importance of being close-minded. If you allow yourself to understand other people of different walks of life, and to see things from their points of view, you could be mislead by attractive lies and the devil will block the path that God has laid out for you.
By definition, having faith in the Lord Jesus Christ means not even admitting the possibility that those heathens across the ocean will not burn in Hell for eternity. The Lord Almighty has commanded from Heaven that those who do not bow down and devote their lives to serving him will never be able to taste the fruits of immortality, and will instead burn in hell for ever, which is somehow different than immortality.
The only way to find out the truth is to ask your superiors. And by superiors, I mean church officials. Only they can pass down the divine teachings, and only they can absolve you from your sins (which are endless and started at birth and if you don't already feel so guilty about them that your romantic/sex life will be completely stinted for the next 40 years you are burning in hell!).
There is only one truth and that is the Bible. Anyone who refutes this will suffer eternally.
Oh yeah, and the absolute only way that people will do good things in their life is if you promise them that they will live forever and threaten to throw them in a pit of fire. No one, ever, is good of their own accord. If you are good, it is only because God allows you to be good. But if you are bad, it is not God's fault, you just don't have enough faith. Now go kneel on some raw rice and pray 85 times.
(note: This is not intended as an attack on anyone, it is merely an argument for the exact opposite of what I believe. I had no particular individual in mind while writing this and am sorry if anyone is offended, though it was admittedly written very tongue-in-cheek.)
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: Dont be such a spoil sport. CRAP! I mean,
KOM: You are right, there is absolutely no way a person could argue rationally in the belief of a God. The whole idea behind a God is clearly impossible to prove. At best the individual could provide personal anecdotes and situations that are easily discarded as unrepeatable, and are easily explained as mere happenstance. At worst they are simply the blind followers of their ancestors and totally devoid of the ability to think for themselves.
The arguement that one can live the precepts of a religion and then request verification from a divine being is equally unimportant as after having lived and focused ones mind to live within the system of a certain philosophy their minds are already preconditioned to receive the responses they anticipate receiving. They are merely giving themselves what they seek.
The sheer amount of evil that has been commited in the name of religion clearly shows that there is no distinct advantage (moralistically speaking) to being religious as opposed to being non religiously affiliated.
A God that stands by and allows evil to happen is just as guilty as the man who sees a car veering out of control towards a child, has time to act, and does nothing.
It makes no sense that literature of centuries ago contains so many "supposed" manifestations of the divine and yet today we simply do not see it. What did God suddenly lose the power to speak? Or does he/she simply have no more plans for mankind?
Finally if there is a God why can he/she not come up with a fool proof way to make him/herself known? The fact there are so many religions and none of them can without insurmountable difficulty prove its divine authenticity clearly shows that either God A: Does not really care to reveal himself to man, or B: There is no God to be found.
To believe in God one has to close their minds to the obviousness of the truth. There is no visable advantage to believing in a God, and there is no process that has been shown to prove God's existance. Why then can anybody believe in a God and not be a fool, and why cannot those who believe in God simply admit their inability to show any reason why they hold to that belief?
Well I could have done a better job I imagine but I was under a time constraint Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say tongue in cheek, you say snarling sarcasm. Meh, you may be closer to the truth. My bad. Is a rewrite in order?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your right, it wasn't. I was writing it more in the spirit that the posts about loving mosquitoes and the way you eat a turkey dinner were. That is: intended to be humorous. I felt like going to the extreme achieved that purpose, but if I'm wrong, and it instead tainted the thread or offended anyone, I have no problems rewriting it with much more toned down diction.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: I say tongue in cheek, you say snarling sarcasm. Meh, you may be closer to the truth. My bad. Is a rewrite in order?
I think you are capable of presenting the arguements that you do without making them seem intentionally stupid.
i.e Its important to have such strong convictions that little things like the truth cannot sway you. ------
I do not know ANYBODY who would argue that. I have found that there is somebody with the opposite opinion for almost EVERYTHING I believe. But if NOBODY believes what you are saying then its not really an OPPOSITE point of view is it?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, yeah. I was drawing inspiration from Steven Colbert on that one. He said something to that effect during the Correspondents Dinner. But you are correct: I don't believe anyone could hold that point of view.
Edit: Also, I didn't intend that comment to be in reference to the religious comments that followed. It was a completely separate commentary.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It isn't really in the spirit of the thread.
I think that's true of a lot of the posts. I wasn't going to mention it, origianlly, but I do agree with you.
I've been thinking about trying to do another one, but I'm pressed for time this week. I may start working on one and finish it up next week.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Liz
