For Lukie: A great Debate thread of Epic Proportions

[Ragnar4]

Typically to start a great debate, you need 2 equally important values kicking eachother in the head.

Resolved: Family Security is more important that freedom.

I'll go first.

I agree with the above statement. While Bejnamin Franklin is famous for the quote: "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Didn't spend any time in todays world. He understood the concept of dieing to protect something such as land, or an idea, but what about the concept of dieing to project an idea upon someone else?

Terrorism, may not be as rampant as George W. Bush would have us believe, with a new suicide bomber around ever corner, and arabs looking for a new way to steal an airplane and crash it into a building on a daily basis, but a very real threat is out there, and certain freedoms should be given up in order to secure our society. We can commit terrorism every day simply by exercising our own american freedom of speech.

Like my freedom to run through an airport, screaming at the top of my lungs, "I'm going to crash an airplane", or yelling "fire" in the middle of a crowded theatre when there is no fire is one that I should not be allowed to exercise without some form of reprecussion. The blunt force attack on your security, and moreover well-being that either of these two "freedoms" enact upon your security could cost you a good nights sleep, a limb, or even your life.

Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr. is famous for the quote "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I think the above paragraph is an extreme example of this quotation and, evidence that Security should be valued over freedom.

What freedoms do we give up, in order to ensure the security of other people? The freedom to drink alcohol and drive, the freedom to drive without a seatbelt, the freedom to say "I intend to kill the president" over the phone... etc etc. There is no freedom I give here without much thought in order to increase my, and everyone elses security around me.

[Hawk]

Sure would suck if this thread bombs after a title like that.

[Ragnar4]

Hey.. no derailing. don't post if you don't have something to add! Please.

[Hawk]

Our personal freedoms should be extended up to the point where we put other people or their property in harms way or take away from their own personal freedoms.

[MuddyWicket]

freedom without responsibility is not worth aspiring to.

[dalecooper]

I'm not interested in engaging this head on but I read a point the other day that I think applies here. We have developed a culture of fear in this country, which is bad enough in itself, but the worst part is specifically what we are afraid of: the stuff that barely does anything to us. We are worried about terrorists and kidnapper/pedophiles and things that barely ever happen to anyone, and we willfully turn a blind eye to most of the stuff that actually harms us. Most of us don't give a meaningful shit about our diet (we pay good lip service about carbs and fat, but we won't ever just admit that it would be better to eat more fruits and vegetables, and eat less meat, dairy, and grain). Most of us don't worry about heart disease or cancer until it happens to us or someone we know. Half the country still believes global warming is exaggerated or flat-out fake. We'd rather sit through a news show about the potential threat of killer bees than make and promote simple lifestyle changes that would save millions of people a year and prolong our average lifespan considerably.

So yeah, I don't really give a fuck about terrorism. Here's just one of a hundred similar arguments on the web: http://cafr1.com/Terror.html

[SaulPaul]

^ awesome post

[pgil]

Like my freedom to run through an airport, screaming at the top of my lungs, "I'm going to crash an airplane", or yelling "fire" in the middle of a crowded theatre when there is no fire is one that I should not be allowed to exercise without some form of reprecussion.

hate to rain on your parade, but these examples aren't actually covered under freedom of speech, basically due to reasons related to your Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr. quote in the next paragraph. But those are trivial examples of free speech anyways.

What freedoms exactly would you advocate giving up in order to secure our society? Once those freedoms are given up, I bet you would feel much less secure.

The freedom from unlawful imprisonment is already on its way out in the US. That would make me damn scared if I were a minority, or held any non-orthodox views whatsoever (which I do). Especially considering the government is listening in on all of your phone conversations.

Cruel and unusual punishment is now allowed, as long as you call it by a different name. Scary stuff. Doesn't make me feel more secure.

Freedom from unlawful search and seizures will be the next to go completely out the window. Free speech is already on its way out. It will be quite the safe secure dictatorship once you lose all of those, at least it will be secure for those in power, as you will not be able to oust them because you will either be in prison, or you will be under constant surveillance.

Keep in mind that curtailing the freedoms of your own citizenry is not the way to secure a society from outside attackers. But, instilling fear and mistrust in the populace is the perfect way to remove freedoms for those in power, and thus to secure their place at the top.

[Lukie]

I'm not interested in engaging this head on but I read a point the other day that I think applies here. We have developed a culture of fear in this country, which is bad enough in itself, but the worst part is specifically what we are afraid of: the stuff that barely does anything to us. We are worried about terrorists and kidnapper/pedophiles and things that barely ever happen to anyone, and we willfully turn a blind eye to most of the stuff that actually harms us. Most of us don't give a meaningful shit about our diet (we pay good lip service about carbs and fat, but we won't ever just admit that it would be better to eat more fruits and vegetables, and eat less meat, dairy, and grain). Most of us don't worry about heart disease or cancer until it happens to us or someone we know. Half the country still believes global warming is exaggerated or flat-out fake. We'd rather sit through a news show about the potential threat of killer bees than make and promote simple lifestyle changes that would save millions of people a year and prolong our average lifespan considerably.

So yeah, I don't really give a fuck about terrorism. Here's just one of a hundred similar arguments on the web: http://cafr1.com/Terror.html

Ok, I agree with most of what you said, particularly the part about dietary and lifestyle changes. Most people need to do this. Of course I feel (lean) meat is one of the best things you can put in your body, but that's just being nit-picky. Overall, can't argue.

That said, none of this really has anything to do with the thread.

[Lukie]

Like my freedom to run through an airport, screaming at the top of my lungs, "I'm going to crash an airplane", or yelling "fire" in the middle of a crowded theatre when there is no fire is one that I should not be allowed to exercise without some form of reprecussion.

hate to rain on your parade, but these examples aren't actually covered under freedom of speech, basically due to reasons related to your Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr. quote in the next paragraph. But those are trivial examples of free speech anyways.

What freedoms exactly would you advocate giving up in order to secure our society? Once those freedoms are given up, I bet you would feel much less secure.

The freedom from unlawful imprisonment is already on its way out in the US. That would make me damn scared if I were a minority, or held any non-orthodox views whatsoever (which I do). Especially considering the government is listening in on all of your phone conversations.

Cruel and unusual punishment is now allowed, as long as you call it by a different name. Scary stuff. Doesn't make me feel more secure.

Freedom from unlawful search and seizures will be the next to go completely out the window. Free speech is already on its way out. It will be quite the safe secure dictatorship once you lose all of those, at least it will be secure for those in power, as you will not be able to oust them because you will either be in prison, or you will be under constant surveillance.

Keep in mind that curtailing the freedoms of your own citizenry is not the way to secure a society from outside attackers. But, instilling fear and mistrust in the populace is the perfect way to remove freedoms for those in power, and thus to secure their place at the top.

I think this is a good post. I agree with a lot of it, even if I wouldn't have taken some of the points quite as far.

In general, I am against stripping people of certain liberties because of a chance that a small number of people may abuse those liberties.

[Lukie]

To address some of the specific examples:

What freedoms do we give up, in order to ensure the security of other people? The freedom to drink alcohol and drive, the freedom to drive without a seatbelt, the freedom to say "I intend to kill the president" over the phone... etc etc. There is no freedom I give here without much thought in order to increase my, and everyone elses security around me.

Freedom to drink alcohol and drive: 2 beers? Sure. 20 beers? Absolutely not. Where the line is drawn I don't really know. I think the punishment for driving at .08 is far too severe and the punishment for driving at .20 is far too weak. A lot of the laws that apply to DUI's are very odd and are very exclusive.

Freedom to drive without a seatbelt: It really shouldn't be an issue. You should ALWAYS wear your seatbelt. Normally I would be against the type of law that mandates you to do something like this, but I actually support this one for the reason that there are just too many dumb people out there that think they are cool to not wear one and needlessly put themselves in harm's way.

[dalecooper]

That said, none of this really has anything to do with the thread.

The way it connects is this: we don't need to sacrifice liberty in exchange for safety because our country is geographically isolated and a military powerhouse, and terrorists aren't a real threat to us. And we've devoted way too much time, energy, and mental space to this issue as a society because 1. that's how we roll, and 2. look buildings blow up on TV OMG WTF

We are fish terrified of the cat sitting outside our aquarium that can't even get to us, and not paying any attention to the fact that our water is toxic and our food is reprocessed animal waste. And we are like this because all we care about any more is comfort and luxury.

[Ltrain]

The point of this thread more than security versus freedom, it is giving up freedom as part of a social contract to society in exchange for peaceful living. The way we live our lives is not "natural", no skyscrapers exist in nature. If we did not give up some of our freedoms to an ordered society, we would be barbarians running around the land stealing and killing to eek out a life for ourselves, hardly a way to have billions of people on this earth. The problem is, what freedoms do we give up and for what return. We pay taxes and have obligations to the government in order for the government to provide safe food, mass infrastructure that we could not afford on our own, and yes, police, army, etc. to keep an ordered society. But we need to draw the line on what is necessary to keep that order without sacrificing the whole reason the security is in place, to permit each person the opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (i.e, wealth or property in early drafts).

Regarding keeping order, I agree with Pgil. If you want to FEEL a free society, travel to Spain. I ran with the bulls in Pamplona and partied for 5 days straight and I can tell you it was an incredible experience; freedom at its best. However, if I was hurt, it isn't like I have any recourse. When I tell the story in the states, it is funny to hear responses like: "did you have to sign up for this?" Nope. "did they have you sign a waiver?" Of course not!, what are you going to do? The cops actually push people back in during the run (you want to be a man, be a man). All throughout the country, same feeling of freedom and individual responsibility; enjoy life, but if you get hurt doing it it is your own responsibility. It is sad, but yes, we are overly fearful and paranoid here and have lost that feeling of freedom and individual responsibility. More and more we are also a country of worker bees trying to one up the joneses next door and enjoy life less and less...

[bigslikk]

For any ideological issue (like this one), a person feels an emotional pull towards one side. Then, they pull reasons out of their ass (potentially good reasons) to "logically justify" their visceral response, to prove to themselves / others that their particular worldview is "right."

The debate over how much power to give the government, more power = more security against your neighbors, less power = more "freedom" (security against the government) can be boiled down to a simple question, which has been frothed over by antifederalists / federalists, democrats/repulicans in this country for centuries:

Are you more afraid of the state or the mob?

i.e. is it a more frightening concept to you that the other apes in your neighborhood / your country / the planet will assault, rob, injure, bomb you? Or that Uncle Sam will unlawfully lock you in prison for no good reason and throw away the key?

The strength of each of these "fears" can help explain the demographics of the political groups in the US. Think of your "average" stereotypical Republican. Perhaps some upper class white guy. He fears al quaeda is going to bomb his high rise, that the ruly inner city animals want to rob / stab him, and wants the "good guys"- i.e. the cops and the judges, to have as much power as possible. Those thugs who commit crimes in the ghetto? Those arab terroists? Throw 'em in prision for a million years for all he cares!

Then take your sterotypical / average democrat / liberal. He fears/ resents the Republcian "old boys" club that seemingly runs things around here. Politicans are rich thugs looking to get theirs. I mean, the Senate used to be called the "millionaire's club" for crissakes. The courts- those are run by crooks too. Cops lie on the stand (the illegally obtained drug evidence "fell out of the suspect's pocket", so it's okay). Minories are stopped for DWB's- driving while black. The President, the Congress, and the business interests that run them care nothing about "freedom" or "justice," just their own interests. You think anyone's going to care if you get wrongfully jailed? You, Joe Nobody? Hahaha you're below the status of pawn in this high stakes political game.

So there you have it. If you think there's a non-trivial chance that you're going to be killed by a terrorist attack, and believe that the government is an "officer friendly" of sorts, you'll probably be in favor of "security"- keeping the regular joe in check.

If you are cynical about the government, and feel okay letting the guy next to having some more freedoms, less harsh sentences and all that shit, you're probably more in favor of freedom (keeping the government in check).

Although I oversimplified things a shit-ton, the jist is that any policy debate (security-freedom, life-versus-choice, affirmitive action or not, death penalty or not, etc. etc.) has to do with the emotional response someone has to the positions IMO.

The view comes first. The justification later. That's why debate (spewing of after-the-fact logical justifications) is pointless. It's difficult if even possible to move someone off their worldview, which causes their different emotional responses to shit.

Thus, these political "debates" are like a debate between Green Bay and Chicago residents over which team is better: the Bears or the Packers. Just as heated, just as pointless. And the beliefs came about the same way- from a person's worldview which probably was forged when they were a kid (and the parent's likely had a strong affect- compare your parents' favorite religion / political party / sports team to yours).

The only purpose of these debates it seems, is convince indifferent people by trying to persuade them towards your worldview, or else baffle dumb people into agreeing with the you; the ultimate goal being to get your way. There are probably like 1-10% of people to be won over in any debate like that, the other 90% being sucked in to the pointless dance and who end up seething with rage.

Anyway I'm in favor of freedom. Why? The flying speghetti monster told me to be, and he's always right.

[ChrisBCritter]

...Freedom to drink alcohol and drive: 2 beers? Sure. 20 beers? Absolutely not. Where the line is drawn I don't really know. I think the punishment for driving at .08 is far too severe and the punishment for driving at .20 is far too weak. A lot of the laws that apply to DUI's are very odd and are very exclusive.

Freedom to drive without a seatbelt: It really shouldn't be an issue. You should ALWAYS wear your seatbelt. Normally I would be against the type of law that mandates you to do something like this, but I actually support this one for the reason that there are just too many dumb people out there that think they are cool to not wear one and needlessly put themselves in harm's way.

Your example of the DUI punishments is spot on. I agree wholeheartedly. People who drive with a slight buzz should not be castrated at the same level as someone who is fall-down drunk.

I don't agree with your seatbelt law issue though. It's called personal responsibility. I live in a state with a seatbelt law, and while I personally would never put myself into a moving vehicle without a seatbelt on, punishing people for not putting their own on is stupid IMO. I relate it to helmet laws, or better yet, why not have a law that makes it illegal to step out into the road in front of a moving 18-wheeler? Common-sense laws do nothing but create resentment for the government, and I am fully against them. If stupid people want to put themselves in harms way, why is it the governments responsibility to "save" them?

[Ltrain]

( see above)

The point about the government vs. the mob is well taken; in both instances, people desire order to live life as peacefully as they can and are going to either create it voluntarily or involuntarily. The point about desires for security also has merit. The ideals of american society is life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (property). Again, I highlight property since it was in the eary drafts and is the basis for "pursuit of happiness". In other words, one of our MAIN PRINCIPALS as Americans is protecting the accumulation of wealth. If you have accumulated wealth, you are more concerned about security to guarantee you continue your wealth. If you don't have wealth, you don't have as much to lose. The problem is when society is structured to have the rich get richer and the poor poorer, but that is a different discussion.

The line is drawn with the Packers Bears though. The Packers are so clearly the better football team in both the past and present there is no need for debate.

[Jack Sawyer]

fearfulness is conducive to ease of controlling of the masses

[givememyleg]

...Freedom to drink alcohol and drive: 2 beers? Sure. 20 beers? Absolutely not. Where the line is drawn I don't really know. I think the punishment for driving at .08 is far too severe and the punishment for driving at .20 is far too weak. A lot of the laws that apply to DUI's are very odd and are very exclusive.

Freedom to drive without a seatbelt: It really shouldn't be an issue. You should ALWAYS wear your seatbelt. Normally I would be against the type of law that mandates you to do something like this, but I actually support this one for the reason that there are just too many dumb people out there that think they are cool to not wear one and needlessly put themselves in harm's way.

Your example of the DUI punishments is spot on. I agree wholeheartedly. People who drive with a slight buzz should not be castrated at the same level as someone who is fall-down drunk.

I don't agree with your seatbelt law issue though. It's called personal responsibility. I live in a state with a seatbelt law, and while I personally would never put myself into a moving vehicle without a seatbelt on, punishing people for not putting their own on is stupid IMO. I relate it to helmet laws, or better yet, why not have a law that makes it illegal to step out into the road in front of a moving 18-wheeler? Common-sense laws do nothing but create resentment for the government, and I am fully against them. If stupid people want to put themselves in harms way, why is it the governments responsibility to "save" them?

People have chose not to wear seatbelts and in the process have killed others. Heard of a few times where people it the back seat of a vehicle without seat belts decapitated the people in the front. I don't get what the big deal is with wearing a seat belt anyway, why does it suck so much that people get mad when forced to do it? Also, anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is just loldumb. However, for the most part I agree with you, common sense laws are usually pretty silly.

[ChrisBCritter]

Excellent Point GMML, and that would be a very good reason for the law. Probably one of the few good reasons. Wearing a seat belt is NOT a big deal, people just don't like being told what to do is all. And after having been in the Military for almost 10 years, I can understand why...

[Deuce Blue]

Half the country still believes global warming is exaggerated or flat-out fake.

Thats because it is. Al Gore winning a Nobel Peace Prize is the single stupidest thing I have seen in the last 20 years. Is there global warming?? maybe. Are we the cause of it?? I doubt it. We aren't helping things but this could very well be a natural climate change that has happened before and will happen again. Gore is an idiot and the people that fall for the "we are killing our planet" BS are almost as dumb. Do we need to be greener, damn right. Nature is the greatest gift we have and need to do anything we can to protect it, but not because what the alarmist are saying about global warming. The far left says something on MoveOn. org or something and everybody buys it like its a fact. Look at the research and the large and growing segment of scientists that are saying the whole thing is sketchy at best. My prediction is in 20 years Global warming will be exposed as the biggest fraud pulled on the world. And they will make Al Gore give the Nobel prize back. Jesus, Al Gore??? Are you f'ing kidding me. Lets give Michael Moore one why we are at it. I mean he did figure out 9/11 was an inside job. Thats at least as good as Gores work.

[will641]

actually jimmy carter winning it was even stupider imo.

[dalecooper]

Is there global warming?? maybe. Are we the cause of it?? I doubt it.

Got a real argument or at least some scientific credentials up your sleeve?

We aren't helping things but this could very well be a natural climate change that has happened before and will happen again.

Ah yes, the old "it's cyclical" argument. You should bring up "solar activity" next, I think that one is also getting worked over quite thoroughly these days.

Gore is an idiot and the people that fall for the "we are killing our planet" BS are almost as dumb. Do we need to be greener, damn right. Nature is the greatest gift we have and need to do anything we can to protect it, but not because what the alarmist are saying about global warming. The far left says something on MoveOn. org or something and everybody buys it like its a fact.

Right, because the far left, with their crazy alarmist agenda to get us to... what? Go to war with Iraq? (Oh no, wrong party.) Support their ties to big oil and the auto manufacturers? (Oh no, wrong party again.)

Look at the research and the large and growing segment of scientists that are saying the whole thing is sketchy at best.

The research is certainly out there. I question your familiarity with it.

"Growing segment" of scientists? Here they are. Decide for yourself if that amounts to anything like meaningful support for the position that human activity is having no effect on the earth's climate. Very few credible scientists in relevant fields of research would make that claim today. It should be noted, at this point, that scientists as a group don't work for the Democratic Party (in case that wasn't clear).

People who still want this to be a debate use Al Gore as a focal point and an excuse to continue to do nothing. The funny thing to me is that they've mobilized an army of people with no vested interest in it to propogate their bullshit on the internet and elsewhere.

(Full disclosure: I have no political affiliation and do not vote straight ticket for either party. And yet somehow I've still "swallowed" all these "liberal lies." I guess Big Science got to me.)

[Deuce Blue]

actually jimmy carter winning it was even stupider imo.

Damn, forgot about that. Coin flip me thinks. I see Al eventually losing his mind like Jimmy and taking his place as King of the Idiots.

[Deuce Blue]

Is there global warming?? maybe. Are we the cause of it?? I doubt it.

Got a real argument or at least some scientific credentials up your sleeve?

Item: Just days before Gore's charge up Capitol Hill, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner. Before the start of the debate, held in New York City, the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a crisis. But following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. Conclusion - when people hear both sides they can easily judge for themselves what is truth.

Item: On March 13, The New York Times, one of the most adamant promoters of the Global Warming gospel, published a landmark article stating "scientists argue that some of (former Vice President Al) Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous."

Item: French scientist Claude Allegre, a prominent French Socialist and supporter of Global Warming dogma, recanted his belief in man-made catastrophic global warming and now says promotion of the idea is motivated by money.

Item: One of Israel's top young scientists, Nir Shaviv, recently reversed his opinion, declaring that the link between emissions and climate variability has nothing more that "circumstantial evidence."

Item: The United Kingdom's famed environmental activist David Bellamy also recently converted to skepticism, as did Meteorologist Reid Bryson, who has switched from the 1970's global cooling scare to a global warming skeptic.
Item: A report by the Heartland Institute, entitled "What Climate Scientists Really Say About Global Warming," exposes the weakness of the "consensus" claims of Global Warming shock troops. To reach its findings the report examined two surveys conducted among climate scientists; the first in 1996, and the second in 2003. Both surveys confirm scientists are divided on the issue. Says the report -


More climate scientist "strongly disagree" than "strongly agree" with the notion that climate change is caused by humans.

Most climate scientists do not believe "the current state of knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability" over 100-year periods.

Only 2 percent of climate scientists surveyed "strongly agree" that modeling programs designed to predict climate changes are accurate, and

Almost all climate scientists agree that climate change could have "positive effects for some societies."
Item: After Global Warming propagandists rushed to declare that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report proved conclusively that Global Warming was caused by human action, (a report by the way that won't be released until May) the just released summary predicts less global warming than was forecast by previous IPCC reports.

Item: New research by international scientists is revealing that the sun has been a major driver of climate variability. Solar specialist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center explained "We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years."

As Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) sums it up, "The usual suspects will still insist that there is a 'consensus' of scientists who agree with Gore. And yes, many governing boards and spokesmen of science institutions must toe the politically correct line of Gore-inspired science, but rank and file scientists are now openly rebelling.

As real debate finally forces fact over headline-making one liners, the truth will become ever more inconvenient to Al Gore and his Global Warming zealots.

We can go on like this all day man. Might want to check this out as well...

Most climatologists agree that the earth's temperature has increased about a degree over the last century. The debate is how much of it is due to mankind's activity. Britain's Channel 4 television has just produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a documentary that devastates most of the claims made by the environmentalist movement. The scientists interviewed include top climatologists from MIT and other prestigious universities around the world. The documentary hasn't aired in the U.S., but it's available on the Internet. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU)

[dalecooper]

Tom DeWeese (the guy who wrote the article you present without citation above) has no scientific credentials at all. He's a conservative advocate for free enterprise. And the article that comes from (that is actually the whole article, isn't it?) is a standard bullet point list with no citations and free of any context or counter-arguments. Nir Shaviv, for example, is embroiled in a debate now with two other scientists about the accuracy of his findings - but we don't get to hear about that here. We just see his name mentioned as a "top scientist" (whatever that means).

I hate that this has been politicized so effectively. And honestly I'm not too interested in having this argument, again, with another knee-jerk conservative. It's discouraging to know that you'll read and suck up articles by Tom Fucking DeWeese but won't go read published and peer-reviewed papers by ACTUAL SCIENTISTS.

As far as that documentary, I file it right next to "Loose Change" on the shelf of "documentaries" I only needed to watch once to see how narrow and pre-determined their viewpoint was, and how selectively they picked over the data they wanted to present. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle Of particular interest there is the part about "top MIT climatologist" Carl Wunsch, and his take on the film. My favorite part: "I'm somewhat troubled that TV companies around the world are treating it as though this were a science documentary. It's not. It's a tendentious political propaganda piece of the sort I really could imagine the Bush Administration in this country could have put out on its own to throw raw meat to their believers. It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement."