reply to post by jennybee35
In my response to my worthwhile opponents comments, here she states:
I must give props to my opponent. He is able to effectively argue an untenable position using the governments own line of rationale. I mean, his point
here is that "they" really know what's best for us, right? We can't be allowed to decide what is best for us, because we are not capable of taking
in all the facts and making reasonable choices. The truth has to be "bent" a little so that we are steered to make decisions that TPTB consider best
for all of us. I don't think I have to argue that as a really skewed line of reasoning. It's what we have been led to believe all of our lives.
I don't believe that even once I actually stated people are incapable of making their own decisions; more so I pointed to the fact that the younger
members of our generation, in particular those of a primary school age, are unable to comprehend the complexities of the world we live in and in
sticking to a "total honesty" approach we could potentially affect these individuals in a negative manner.
However, I do understand my opponents intentions; from a personal point of view I'd love a world of total honesty however from a realistic
perspective I think the majority will agree that total honesty, whilst not only being counter productive, would also be dangerous, uncaring and down
right cruel in it's application.
It's my belief that in general, most people accept the fact that at times we may tell a White Lie
order to spare someone the harsh realities of the truth and in my opinion this concept is particulary relevant when speaking too or educating a
younger member of society.
For example, as we have recently got Christmas out the way, taking into account my opponents belief, would it be right to tell the truth and inform
all school children that in actual fact "Father Christmas" doesn't exist? Or is it generally accepted that we can bend the truth to protect their
My opponent also goes on to say:
So, following this line of thought, those in power are the ones to decide what truth gets bent and what doesn't, right? How is this a “good”
thing for America? Are we to assume that our government is right and that we are too dumb to understand the truth? It's bad enough that they hide or
“bend” the truth for our young children: what about the fact that they continuously hide the truth from us all? I guess that's acceptable also,
since we can't handle the truth, apparently.
Once again, I'm pretty sure I haven't mentioned the idea that the majority of us are too dumb to handle the truth, however speaking from a relative
position how do I know this isn't the case? I'm pretty sure there are things out there that the majority of us couldn't even begin to imagine, let
alone actually deal with the facts on a continual 24/7 basis.
There is a reason why the people in power are there, I'm not saying this means that it's a fail proof method but once again the subject of the
debate is that America doe's more good than Evil overall.
As far as space exploration and the internet are concerned: our government continually censors the photos of deep space for a reason. What is that
reason? I think it's because they have seen things out there that they believe we are too stupid to handle. They believe that we would be a panicked,
looting riotous mass if they revealed what they have really seen. Need I even mention that they are now going to censor the internet? That's how they
operate. Give us the freedom to travel the world on the web until it becomes clear that we may be getting a little too much truth, then slap their
limits on it when they become uncomfortable with our awakening.
Ties in pretty nicely with regards to my above point, if you haven't seen the things you believe
have been censored from your view, then how
can you comment on your reaction to said stimuli? The answer is you cannot and in reality you could only truthfully recount your reaction when faced
with something similiar; and even this isn't a given.
In response to your comments regarding the Internet, firstly let it be known that I work in the IT/Telecommunications trade and I can personally
guarantee that the WWW as we know it will never be completely censored.
I'm not arguing that people will try, for a variety of different reasons, but ask anyone with knowledge of how the system works; they will all say
Governments can try to restrict or censor Internet access, but from a realistic perspective it's never going to happen, at least not to the extent
that it will be a problem to those with a little more technical and creative endurance.
All those things aside, America was founded because we were looking to be free of tyranny. The founding principles were set into place to assure that
the people were able to have a say in what happened to their rights and property. Today we are no more than serfs paying taxes and tenants on our own
land. At some point, the evil moved in and became dominant. It overtook the good intentions that were in place in the beginning of our government.
Instead of government for the people, by the people, we now have government for the elite, by the elite. How could that ever be a good thing in
You come out with this statement but at the same time you are alive and well, capable of typing out that reply. Surely, given the convincing backing
by your statements aka that America doe's more good than Evil, you wouldn't even be hear to participate in this debate?
With your description of America's evil doings and your account of America's prolific Internet Censoring campaign, doesn't it seem to be kind of
contradictionary you even have the ability to argue the subject with me online?
You do realize that these eggs are usually people, huh? This sounds very reminiscent of our governments own reasoning. A little collateral damage is
not to be counted when it comes to their agenda, aye? A few eggs, a few people, what the hey: as long as the plans are accomplished it's all good?!
This is exactly the problem I have with our government. We are not counted as anything but pawns in their game of world domination.
Without wanting to sound like a broken record, but I'll have to bring Polycontexturality
into the equation here. I have already stated my personal opinion that it's impossible to please everyone, I'd argue that yes you can't make an
omlette without breaking eggs.
With that in mind, someone people are always going to lose out but unfortunately that's one of the negative aspects of life. Any type of major system
based policy will always have a few minor subsribers who aren't happy with it, however as long as the Happy to Unhappy balance is postive then I'd
And I am not implying that our government has ulterior motives behind giving their “help”: I am saying it outright! Every other nation that has
been in the position of having to accept the help of America has been permanently occupied by us since the time that they accepted the help! Look
around the world and tell me how many sovereign nations are free of our military at this point. I can show you, and it is a staggering thing to
Well I applaud your honesty at least.
What you fail to mention is that the majority of these countries has requested the help of the US!
All of these nations needed our help at one time but were forced to accept military occupation permanently as the price. Can you imagine if the roles
were reversed? Do you really think that the good ol' U.S. of A. would ever agree to foreign military bases on our soil? Of course not, but we have
made sure that it's a condition of every bit of help we've ever given any other nation. Doesn't sound altruistic to me.
But surely this is a negative opinion of your own, as afterall, if I was a country and owned a smaller country who needed protection I'd be quiet
happy to locate my allies and give them a place of stay. It's a small price to pay for a distinguished level of safety...
SQ #1: Do you agree with our government's policy of invading other nations and taking our people to war using false information?
You use the words "taking our people to war"
I'd highlight the fact that no US serviceman or women, to my knowledge, was forced to participate in any war. The whole concept behind an army,
ultimately, revolves around people prepared and willing to fight for their
So therefore, in your eyes, your fellow countrymen are as guility as you perceive your Government to be? Seems a little bit of strange logic to
SQ #2: Is the governements policy of hiding the truth from it's people using the "we know what's best for you" line always acceptable in your
Is it always acceptable? I'll relent, and say no it probably isn't.
Is it a perfect strategy? Once again, no not perfect.
Is it the most realistic strategy to implement given peoples differing opinions of right and wrong? Absolutely!
As I have already mentioned, unless you have experienced something it's not possible to give a concrete description of your reaction. I'm fairly
certain, actually more than fairly certain, that the majority of individuals in any country (not just the USA) would react in a negative manner if
they knew the truth regarding the world around them.
The term false information implies a deliberate lie told in a negative manner. Bending the rules is a concept universally accepted and when it's done
with the right intentions, I honestly see no issue...
1.) Given your approach to total honesty, would you for example believe it to be right that any single person suffering a terminal illness should
be told of their exact predicted time of death? Or would you agree with "bending the rules" to make that person as happy and care free as
2.) Do you honestly believe that the majority of individuals who live in the USA would have the emotional/intellectuall ability to comprehend the
3.) Do you believe that school aged children should be taught the "truth" about the USA as a country and if so what do you believe the
implications would be?
4.) Considering you believe the USA to do more Evil than Good, why are you still living in the US if your feelings are that strong?