Political Crossfire Forums

[anselfir]

"Freedom or security?" is a false dilemma.

Good start, but define the terms so you are able to show false dilemma.

"This renders the question to be "collective security vs. individual rights," and is a question worth approaching. " Ok, good, although too much time was spent on nation/states, simply deduce the relevant argument to collective security from the start would have been fine.

---continue after i do some school work---

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
Did you like my essays? :)

no one did, you failed.

Remember our discussion about hurting the ones we love?

The Comrade wrote:
just kidding

Oh, Okay!! :-D

emerald wrote: Quote: Did you like my essays?

:) yeah i did, it was very impressive, you're a good writer

*grandmasters ego is ready to explode* :-D

Excellent Emerald, Thank you! :-D
*thumps chest*
You've always been one of my favorites.

[Revenant]

The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
Did you like my essays? :)

no one did, you failed.

Remember our discussion about hurting the ones we love?

The Comrade wrote:
just kidding

Oh, Okay!! :-D

emerald wrote: Quote: Did you like my essays?

:) yeah i did, it was very impressive, you're a good writer

*grandmasters ego is ready to explode* :-D

Excellent Emerald, Thank you! :-D
*thumps chest*
You've always been one of my favorites.

I think you are talented at writing pretentious bullcrap.

[The Grandmaster]

anselfir wrote: I can comment on the essays.
I'll do more later if I feel like it, or there is demand.

Grandmaster's essay went from a vague idea to an even more vague idea, which made me lol'd quite unexpectedly. Civil rights > liberty is not so easy a transition to make, nor is it practical to go from a vague but legalistic idea to a vague and surreal idea.

Unfortunately, you didn’t do my favorite of the two essays, the one on the citizen’s role in governance. I rather liked that one, and considerably more so than my one on security vs civil rights, which I felt was a bit rushed.

anselfir wrote: "It is no strange concept to any reasonable person why national security is important."

Come on.

Come on? Perfectly reasonable statement. Surely you would agree that any reasonable person would be able to see the importance in keeping a protected and secure state wouldn’t you?

anselfir wrote: "We can see it around us all the time. So the questions we ought to ask ourselves are to what degree can you have one, before it becomes destructive to the other."

Can't really ask that question before defining the conflict/harmony you mentioned 1 or 2 sentences before, repeatedly. Otherwise we have not learned anything from this paragraph at all.

Actually, I defined the conflict/harmony between the two through metaphor. Possibly more than once even. It was clear.

anselfir wrote: "Why is liberty, or why is security even important at all?"
A good question! Now expand on it, define the approach to the question.

Expand on it? In fact I did, and it was one of the main thrusts of the entire essay, and probably my favorite part.

"It is no strange concept to any reasonable person why national security is important. The reason security is important is because you cannot have any type of society if this society is constantly being invaded, overthrown, and suppressed. National security is important because if we want to have a system that is going to thrive like we would want it to, then we have to have the ability to defend that system. National security is the very basis, the soil in which liberty will take root. Security is important because without it, the concept of liberty becomes pointless.

Civil Liberties are important because we understand quite simply, it is not enough, merely, to live. As the British philosopher Bertrand Russell illustrated well, “Animals are happy so long as they have health and enough to eat. Human beings, one feels, ought to be, but they are not, at least in the great majority of cases.”
It is not enough to breath, it is not enough to sleep, it is not enough to work, everyday. Rather, you need the spice of life. You need the ability to listen to a song you want to listen to. You need the ability to tell a story, to whistle a tune, to look at the stars, to dance, to love…to enjoy. I would challenge that for a society out there that would have no civil liberties, you would be hard pressed to prove they were anything more than prisoners. We might say that you could live without these things, that you could survive. I would ask however, what kind of a life is that? We give this life to those in prison. We universally call this punishment. "

Remember ^

anselfir wrote: "if this society is constantly being invaded, overthrown, and suppressed."
vagueness rules when talking to kids, but not here. Try defining specific actions that compose security, and make so that the relativistic nature of the term comes through. now we have a vague society and vague suppressions, you can't even make the argument that certain actions that endanger civil liberties are the same actions that pose a security risk if carried out by "foreigners" instead you have the reference to prisoners, which requires another consideration. bad use of resources there, or not enough insight into the issue.

It is fair to say I would best be served to propose specific examples, indeed. I procratinated, and ran low on time. I planned on adding examples of the Alien and Sedition acts, Abraham Lincoln’s actions during the civil war, and few others to add flesh to the skeleton I had here.

anselfir wrote: "*my mistake, can't give you points for that either, sincethat reference is in the next paragraph.
Instead of some shreds of elegance, we have something like "National security is the very basis, the soil in which liberty will take root." Please do not use metaphors without defining the concepts first, you are not jesus here, and we are not asked to find the meaning of life through a love of truth, k

Oh I have to disagree with that. I find technical writing dry and tiring. The metaphor used here is something anyone would be able to relate to, and so understand the underlying principles of what is occurring.

anselfir wrote: "I for one do not give a s**t what russell has to say on rabbits or men.

Why? Reference to writers greater than themselves has been a tool used by writers for centuries, and there nothing is wrong with that.

anselfir wrote: Also, taking this "spice of life" argument makes liberty seems like a luxury without defining it at all. What specific actions compose this liberty, what specific coercive powers are given the government. we've no idea, all we are told is that these things rabbits will not understand or appreciate.

I gave very relatable and simple examples of what constitutes “the spice of life.” The ability to do things we enjoy, that we live for. Remember? Surely you don’t want someone to name them all. Such a task could never be finished.

anselfir wrote: Now the decision part!
"this is not possible to answer in a general sense." Nor is it possible to answer without defining the terms to describe empirical situations.

"Here we can understand that security would take precedence"
Who are "we," is this an essay by democracy? Democracy is a logical fallacy the last time i checked.

Really? How so?

anselfir wrote: "But we must insure simultaneously, that their remains something left to protect." Replace this paragraph with this sentence, nothing much will change. Expand on this and define terms.

"These acts of congress became known as the Alien and Sedition Acts." Great story, but reference it simply as ASA and get along with the argument, if there is any beyond some simple declarations.

Thus, my falling short on time. I would have liked to have done that.

anselfir wrote: ". In our examination of the role of the citizen in governance, I stated that in order for any action to be justified for a governance, it must stand up to scrutiny."

Scrutiny by whom? nevermind the implicit democracy-is-truth aura

Scrutiny by whom? By Whom? Why, why the populus! By those whom the decision is to effect, by those who would challenge it of course.

anselfir wrote: ASA attacked, but from the same front as the previous "liberty is good" front. Nothing wrong with that, but maybe diversify with some utilitarian candy or something that attracts the crowd. Your love of liberty is like Bush's love of liberty, except his has the extra divine flavor.

"Any act that is to truly protect us from a threat that would be sufficient to destroy us, or damage the very liberties we live for, and is effective in doing so has an exceptional basis for justification."
Ok. But you are repeating stuff that are obvious if we were to follow your preferences.

Overall, I must ask, were you John Kerry's speech writer?

No, I am better than him, but I do not get paid as much.

anselfir wrote: I'll do the anarchist one next.

Oh...do my Goverance and Civil Rights! Do the Goverance and Civil Rights huh? *jumps up and down* I did like that one a lot more. This one was 'okay' but I did not feel really pleased with it when it was finished.

[The Grandmaster]

Revenant wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
Did you like my essays? :)

no one did, you failed.

Remember our discussion about hurting the ones we love?

The Comrade wrote:
just kidding

Oh, Okay!! :-D

emerald wrote: Quote: Did you like my essays?

:) yeah i did, it was very impressive, you're a good writer

*grandmasters ego is ready to explode* :-D

Excellent Emerald, Thank you! :-D
*thumps chest*
You've always been one of my favorites.

I think you are talented at writing pretentious bullcrap.



I think you are talented at EATING Bulls Crap!
OHHHHH!

Oh Noes! Ohh man.....Prawned!1!

[The Comrade]

[anselfir]

sigh, i'll have to explain to you the need for Empirical definitions. o.O

Otherwise, was this argument the strongest you felt you had? There are definitely arguments a lot stronger than that that could have been rationally said.

I'll look at the previous round later, but I dont think i'll be able to like it. :lol:

[Revenant]

The Grandmaster wrote: Revenant wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
Did you like my essays? :)

no one did, you failed.

Remember our discussion about hurting the ones we love?

The Comrade wrote:
just kidding

Oh, Okay!! :-D

emerald wrote: Quote: Did you like my essays?

:) yeah i did, it was very impressive, you're a good writer

*grandmasters ego is ready to explode* :-D

Excellent Emerald, Thank you! :-D
*thumps chest*
You've always been one of my favorites.

I think you are talented at writing pretentious bullcrap.



I think you are talented at EATING Bulls Crap!
OHHHHH!

Oh Noes! Ohh man.....Prawned!1!

:-| :( :? :cry:

[emerald]

Quote: Excellent Emerald, Thank you!
*thumps chest*
You've always been one of my favorites.

:lol: i'm much honoured........................



(i think....... :shock: )

[The Grandmaster]

anselfir wrote: sigh, i'll have to explain to you the need for Empirical definitions. o.O

Otherwise, was this argument the strongest you felt you had? There are definitely arguments a lot stronger than that that could have been rationally said.

I'll look at the previous round later, but I dont think i'll be able to like it. :lol:

I mistyped earlier. I meant my "The Role of the citizen in modern governance." not "the role of governance and civil rights." That's the one you should do next! I liked it much better. And onofthem, I think you will love that one too.

[anselfir]

no, i wont, unless you are a raving anarchist or something. honestly i am very irritated by certain collectivists right now to not get allergic at the mention of anything resembling "governance" :lol:

[FCTE]

Nothing can be as bad as Revenant's rebuttals.

[The Comrade]

FCTE wrote: Nothing can be as bad as Revenant's rebuttals.

macaron chakaron by el mudo ftw