15 votes

Help My Grandson in His Debate Anyone?

My grandson is being home schooled this year for the first time. The majority of the HS program is KONOS which is Christian-based.
He is taking debate and the topic this semester is "Should the federal government supply foreign (humanitarian) aid?" He will soon be in the regional competition and there is even a national competition for home schooled students.

Here is his dilemma. He is very anti-big government and the students have been given a huge packet of information which contains a lot of very good information (most of which you would all agree with) about why the federal government should not be into foreign aid. My question has nothing to do with that as I would imagine we are all in agreement. However, in debate you have to be able to debate both sides. Other than going into Christian reasons for charity, what "could" his pro side contain. (Remember debate is an exercise in critical thinking).

About all I could come up with is a little off the wall. After acknowledging that hisoipponents have presented very good anti reasoning, he might throw out that (a) there is no possibility that big government will go away over night and return to the Constitution and (b) given the obvious political-geographic dickering with the slush fund we call foreign aid it, too, is not likely to go away. How then do we turn the tide into foreign aid (of the supposedly humanitarian flavor) into a relatively good thing?

Suppose the foreign aid money delineated for humanitarian aid and taken from the tax payers is returned to the States (by some fair method either based on the percentage of taxes paid in or the population by state). The state then allows communities to vote on whether they want the "humanitarian aid" to go to its communities in need or overseas. Never could there be a better time to do this as due to the economy and the government, there has never been greater need within the communities and if they were to vote to send that money overseas, it would more nearly approximate true Christian charity. Note: I am betting all or most of that money would stay in the communities.

LOL...I know that's off the wall. Was wondering if anyone has a thought on how you could present a pro side. In another thread I shared that my Mom lost the National High School Debate in Washington on the topic "Will the US get pulled into WWII." She drew the side that yes we would at a time when the American people were totally against it. One of her arguments was that we would if something happened like..say, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor." She knew nothing about false flags at that time and just came up with that. She lost the debate because her argument was considered too preposterous.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So, he has to argue the pro-side

of foreign aid?

fonta

Josf & I are continuing to talk abit below, but something just crossed my mind about drawing the pro side of the debate. This may have already been considered because I have not read the discussions herein. I am wondering what the 1st occasion of American foreign aid might have been. Were we on the receiving end of the giving end? Why was it given/received. Also, has the definition of foreign aid been strictly defined in the debate rules. Is the Statue of Liberty a symbol of foreign aid...foreign good will? Well those are just questions that came to mind that could lead to some ideas. Oh, and now I just read the post from David below! DP connections with connections! :)

If you are indeed serious...

If you are indeed serious, call this number. (701) 317-5317. Speak to Jamie and tell him that David told you to call.

He was on Michael Medved's debating team and Time Magazine did a story on him when he was a teenager. He has also had two New York Times best sellers written about him.

His is a genius when it comes to debating on subjects like the one you are talking about. Just make sure to tell him that David from Florida told you to call and you got this info off of the Daily Paul. He will help your grandson.

Let me know how it goes.

I wish him the best of luck

I wish him the best of luck in the debate.

Loan on Interest called "Aid".

this virus is more like HIV-AIDS. A short animated video explains it all.

Economic Hitmen =(2.08 min)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ

the best children's debate came from Rachel Corrie, =
Rachel Corrie On Humanitarianism - YouTube (1.05 min)

Debates serve a purpose,= develops skills. On some subjects where vested interest is involved the talent scouts are searching for the $mart guys to employ, & train, become the sophisticated devil's advocate, knows best how to skirt vital issues, an orator like obama, his mother worked for 'aid' foundations, traveled overseas.

Love that last paragraph about your mom's HS debate

Pretty savvy for a high-schooler to use those arguments back in that day.

When I was in high school, I chose to do a persuasive speech in favor of having more oil spills. I said that they donate a valuable resource to the public, they increase wildlife lubrication, and they create jobs. Obviously, each of those points is easily refuted, but I ended up getting a B on it due to the degree of difficulty for the position, and my delivery of the message.

Why I bring this up is that almost all of the awful things about foreign aid are positives for *somebody*, or we wouldn't bother with it. Consider:

1) Dictators in foreign countries endorse our decision to prop up dictators in foreign countries.

2) General Dynamics heartily endorses our policy of giving money to dictators, provided that a chunk of has to go toward purchasing F-16s.

3) Military types who are afraid of not having anyone to fight in 10 years endorse our policy of sponsoring oppressors, because it invites blowback like nobody's business.

4) Government types endorse our policy of mislabeling bribe money as humanitarian, because it's something that can be used to fool the uninformed.

5) The vapid, barely-conscious, dancing-with-the-stars-watching masses here love to feel like they're helping poor people in other countries, and foreign aid helps them feel that way, without any immediate cost to themselves.

See, lots of people like foreign aid, he just has to argue from their perspective!

And That Is What He Will Do If He Draws Pro

...he is quite the actor when need be and I can see him taking it on as though he is a Romney, OBama, Bush...pick a name...and "being" them distorting the truth very persuasively. I think it is so cool that the whole group wants Con and the debate is basically resolved before it begins.

Great comments Fiat and I will pass them on to my grandson as I have all the comments. He is appreciative.

Thanks for the comment on my Mom who is dead now and never got to know about Ron Paul although she would have loved him. The "Government" approached her about a job when she graduated Magna Cum Laude from college, but she turned them down. Always laughed and said she was afraid they might try to turn her into another Mata Hari (or however you spell it.)

She was a college English professor and once gave a student an F on a paper where they were to describe in detail how to do something well enough that the instructions could be followed with success. The guy thought he'd be cute and wrote on how to score in the backseat of a sport scar. She said he wrote well about all the obstacles and difficulties and convinced her he was writing about something that he had had no success with which wasn't the assignment.

fonta

Follow-Up to Homeschooling Debate on Foreign Aid

Talked to my daughter and she said that everyone after studying the topic for a month, everyone wants Con.

She also said that going into it, many were (this is a Christian based homeschooling program) very much for "humanitarin" flavor of foreign aid. She even said that she was "for" because of her perception which had changed and she saw it for what it is.

Parents in this program learn along with their children and all participate in events like the debates. A confusing topic which has been misrepresented was brought to the surface and many of these students now understand that whatever their prior feelings about "charity" they now know that applying a word does not make it so.

The program seems to be very pro Constitution and "l"ibertarian in many ways. My daughter said her son very adamently believes that the Federal Government has no Constitutional right to take taxpayers money and arbitrarily dole it out for political purposes that have to do with control

My daughter also said that she believes that the program is actually an educational tool ...way more interesting than discussion...in that it forces a way of looking at the issue without pre-conceived
bias.

And, my grandson will, in the event he draws pro, come very much from Wolfe's perspective, ie presenting the reasons TPTB "really" love the foreign aid slush fund going beyond just the reasons presented and intended to influence the tender-hearted.

So...many homeschoolers and their parents are learning a great deal through this exercise and apparently in all cases resolving that foreign aid should not be given in any way shape or form. I would say this is a small strike against the forces of deceit and I approve of the exercise!

(And, Joe, I agree with your observations about the reference to pop-psychological testing. That was actually an article link on the Konos program inserted because of the stated benefits of debate as a tool for rational thinking. No psychological testing is done in this program and, in fact, my daughter said parents would withdraw their children if there was any move in that direction. Most have their children in homeschooling to get them away from government school propaganda and control through testing. (Note: I do not like everything about the program; however, it is head and shoulders above public education and the two private schools my grandchildren were in. They are fortunate to have this option and it is a shame all children do not.)

fonta

(and the battle isn't over yet)

With very few exceptions I have been sent into exile. I seek discussion, not argument, and so it is unusual, in my experience, to have these opportunities to respond to specifics that are specifically challenging my competitive viewpoint.

I don't often find, in my experience, specific acknowledgments of points I offer to counterpoints existing whereby a point intends to be compared with another point and where the two points appear to be contradictory, and at which point, having both points side by side, there then is an opportunity to evaluate those points as those points contradict each other, so as to reach a goal of knowing better as to which point is more accurate, more productive, less deceptive, less destructive, and in a word, which point is good, relative to which point is not so good.

Bear, if I may tell on her, has just gone through a David and Goliath moment on this point that I'm trying to point out, as this point compared to a competitive point and the point being stated as such:

Things are being held accountable for the actions of people.

Perhaps that point has been acknowledge and affirmed and I just fail to know better.

I write anyway.

Case in point:

"My daughter said her son very adamently believes that the Federal Government has no Constitutional right to take taxpayers money and arbitrarily dole it out for political purposes that have to do with control"

It takes a mightily determined individual power of will to slay this dragon, as can be attested by those who are doing that slaying, and I don't think the battle is ever over, since the lie proliferates human conscience in so many ways.

If it is not a lie, then it is an efficient use of language to say that "the Federal Government has no Constitutional right...", as the meaning of those words mean to convey the accurate understanding of how there are people who make up a company of people where that company of people share a common set of thoughts and actions and that set of people known as The Federal Government, which is a list of names, "has no Constitutional right...".

When such an efficient use of English Language is done in that way, then the speaker does not have to list all the people on the list of people who share those thoughts and actions that constitute The Federal Government.

On the other hand, as happens often, there are people who are taken by the lie, swept up in it, whereby a THING such as The Federal Government becomes a responsible, and accountable, entity, a Legal Person, a God among men, a thing that thinks, wants, acts, and benefits from those actions, or suffers from those actions, breathing, blood flowing, in pain, or happy, the THING is pointed at, and blamed when things go wrong, and the THING takes CREDIT for good times.

Where does this type of falsehood manifest itself?

I submit:

_________________________
1) It provides us some amount of control and leverage over certain foreign powers that would otherwise be hostile. It is in effect, a bribe to a specific regime, and therefore affords certain benefits.
_________________________

At the risk of being misunderstood, as to motive, or as to meaning, and without any reservation on my part as to the significance of the facts here, but with a certain understanding that I can be very wrong, those words in the lines above appear to be words that convey manifestations of the aforementioned infectious lie.

Please consider defending the point or perspective or viewpoint whereby a list of people who is identifiable as "us" and then please consider the significance of hold "us" to account for those things being done in this specific case where things are being done.

I may be wrong, of course, but I do not think that my concerns are trivial on this matter.

There are dragons to be slayed.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Coming to a theater near you?

Joe

But the Battle Has Begun Josef

(Josf)) With very few exceptions I have been sent into exile. I seek discussion, not argument, and so it is unusual, in my experience, to have these opportunities to respond to specifics that are specifically challenging my competitive viewpoint.

((Fonta)) I understand completely, Josf. Many of us crave the kind of discussion you describe. No, you have not been sent into exile, unless you choose to think that you have. You can always find like minded people with similar communication styles who want to dig deeper, share their thoughts and discuss.. From time to time I have found many on the DP. Many communicate in a different manner which does not mean they do not have the knowledge base or the ability. Some do and due to time restraints or interest areas simply choose not to. Some operate in sound bytes much like on Twitter. Some seem to enjoy arguing for argument's sake rather than to grow and resolve. Some have no interest in listening to others and a forum like this offers an opportunity to just express yourself monologue style without seeking exchange. Some lie and some attempt to tell the truth. Such is the nature of the society that we live in and the various communication modes we encounter and live with.

((Josep))I don't often find, in my experience, specific acknowledgments of points I offer to counterpoints existing whereby a point intends to be compared with another point and where the two points appear to be contradictory, and at which point, having both points side by side, there then is an opportunity to evaluate those points as those points contradict each other, so as to reach a goal of knowing better as to which point is more accurate, more productive, less deceptive, less destructive, and in a word, which point is good, relative to which point is not so good.

((Fonta)) I understand where you are coming from and how you have moved from an ongoing wealth of self-education to a strong desire to share and be shared with in order to teach what you know, but also to learn and grow from the experience of meaningful exchange. Wish I could remember more from a class I took years ago using symbolic logic to teach physics. It was a new experience for me and I was amazed that there is a mathematical logic in some deep philosophical phrases which can indicate the amount of truth contained. If I remembered more, I would more fully understand your very long sentence above. It does make sense to me; however, (LOL) I encounter you at a time when I recognize a personal need to be more succinct. in order to better communicate with more people. Most of my posts are overlooked because they are too long. I know that. However, sometimes when you reach an "aha" and can put it down in writing, you feel released, not exiled.

((JOSF)))Bear, if I may tell on her, has just gone through a David and Goliath moment on this point that I'm trying to point out, as this point compared to a competitive point and the point being stated as such:

((Fonta)) I have followed your exchange with Bear and found it very interesting and I have learned from it as well as an observer. I have also noticed that she had much to share with you as you recognize her as a very spiritual person and you were open to her sharing and I respect you for that. Being teachable is just as important as teaching." I was impressed by the nature of your "thank you" on her thread to Michael.

((Josef)) Things are being held accountable for the actions of people.

((Fonta)) The above is obviously very important to you as I have seen it woven into several things you have written. I would like to throw out that while I understand what you are saying and agree that "that" is part of the problem, our discussion would be greatly enhanced by returning to the point of my post so I know if we are on the same page because it began out of interest in and love for a grandchild who is growing in grace and truth.

There are a growing number of children, my grandson being one, who are being educated outside the propaganda machine. Some programs may be better than others; however, most encourage individual thinking about issues in order to arrive at personal decisions regarding actions taken in their names by a group (Government) in bed with another group (Corporations) all geared toward a goal( Global Dominance) that will benefit a very small but powerful group (Elites).

These children and many of their parents are just beginning with issues like "foreign aid" and realizing the lies, as you say, contained therein. Perhaps at this point they are no farther along than waking up to a new understanding that (a) foreign aid is not what they thought it was, (b) what is called humanitarian is often anything but, (c) with their new understanding it is both untruthful as presented and immoral once understood and (d) .for the first time they are studying the Constitution.

Josef, I appreciate the discussion and will get back to you on the rest of your post. However, I just want to be sure that you understand we are talking 13 and 14 year olds. Remember that you said at that age you had little more to go on than a book on the Lusitania. I see this assignment and the outcome so far as very positive in regards to the education movement that has to take place and is taking place. The kids are digging up the information and discussing it among themselves. Yes, a debate will take place; however, they have pretty much resolved the conclusion. They learned a lot in a period of a month and a half. I would venture to say they learned more about foreign aid than some adults on this blog know. My grandson knew very little about the Constitution several months ago and yet, through the internet, had many questions about the way our government operates and he had a growing suspicion that much of the news was lies. What he did not have was a forum...a place to discuss with his peers. His parents weren't as informed as they should have been. He felt like he was in exile like you said about yourself, in that he did not have a place to discuss his thoughts with peers...where he wouldn't be treated as just a kid by adults that he wasn't so sure knew as much as they thought they knew. His parents are also listening and growing, thinking and learning. They are also learning to respect their sons' thoughts and listen and encourage him..

My point is that while perhaps imperfect to you...this is all a very good thing. They are beginners. They are moving in the right direction. I don't think there are any lies in the approach or their conclusions. I am certain they are all aware that there are individuals within those groups we call government, corporation, lobbyist, elitists that are responsible for the immoral decisions and the lies. They will be replaced each administration with more individuals that have names. They are responsible but so are the masses who allow the circus to continue administration after administration. We the people are the enablers through apathy and ignorance,

Meanwhile I am delighted that a little thirteen year old with a very good mind, since of moral responsibility, understanding that there are 13 year olds like him all over the world asking the same questions, has a place to discuss these issues openly in a manner that creatively affirms him and excites him. He is not just playing video games and twitting. Education works...is a slow process...but is happening in some quarters. I see hope in that. Don't you?

fonta

Sypathetic but not empathetic

"I would like to throw out that while I understand what you are saying and agree that "that" is part of the problem, our discussion would be greatly enhanced by returning to the point of my post so I know if we are on the same page because it began out of interest in and love for a grandchild who is growing in grace and truth."

In order to set the stage up for my answer I think it may be a good idea to define what I mean by my sympathy applied to the young person in question. I had a father who would be physically ill when he observed other people who were ill and I call that empathy, and I call that empathy only because I need a stronger word than sympathy, because I am not like may father was, I am only capable of imagining what someone else is feeling, I don't myself feel bad when someone else is feeling bad.

I am sympathetic concerning your grandchild, because I apply my thinking along those lines. I do so willfully, and with great interest. I cannot be emphatic, so defined.

I participated in very few public speaking events and as a child, having been uprooted enough times to become very shy, or other things occurring whereby a fear grew in me of contact with many people who may have their attention aimed at me, and those fears I can say, without reservation, can be crippling to someone who may have information that is worth communicating.

Avoiding crippling things may be a good idea.

The messenger can be shot before the message is delivered.

In that context, or along those lines, I began responding to this Topic.

I can also add that my fears of public speaking were overcome, to a large degree, during the limited time of my name being on the National Congressional Election Ballot in 1996.

I spoke to the voters assembled on a few occasions, and I did so without stumbling over my words, and afterwards there were some occasions whereby people shook my hand and thanked me for having made the effort.

I heard: "I agree with what you are saying but..."

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/1996/primary/cand/cand_k.htm

I was the Libertarian voice during one official Congressional debate. I went alone to it, at my own expense. The incumbent did not attend, at my expense too.

It amazes me, as you may never know, that I "ran for congress", in part because of Ron Paul's example. That was the past me, and I can be sympathetic there too. Past me, is not the current me. I've slayed many dragons since.

For the most part, because of Waco.

I ran on the "it isn't nice to torture and murder church goers" campaign.

I did not mince words, I did not play the games, I did not blame THINGS for the actions of people, and I did not lose the election (it was stolen, they are all stolen with few exceptions). The same things happening at that election effort on my part occur today, in my personal life, as just recently I showed up, going past the Rapiscan scanners, at the court house entrance, to "Jury Duty". Being herded into a room, past the bar. During "interviews" I spoke to the assembled people, a rare thing for me, and I did not mince words, I did not play the games, I did not share the lies, accurate perception was not in demand there either, not in an official capacity.

My versions of communications, factual, without the lies, is not in demand even today - as measured mathematically.

If your grandchild does not acknowledge the significance of the lie whereby people share the lie, whereby THINGS are held accountable for the actions of people, then to me, that is a very poor, weak, and powerless position to be in, and I can sympathize.

That is the context of my message.

My point of mentioning the often resort to exile does not apply to you, as you are among the few exceptions. I do not speak personally, in public, often, but I have been writing, in public, almost every day, for decades.

I don't know who the remnant are, I can't, but I know that we exist, if by remnant I can refer to an author named Albert J. Nock, in reference to those who refuse to "join'em" because we won't claim that we can't "beat'em", or some other shared lie - perhaps many of us are the silent remnant, not yet ready to stick our necks out very far, not willing to be counted so overtly, in public, for various reasons, not just for fear, or even concern, or self-preservation.

If we can't have fun, a balance, there is no point in waking up in the morning - it seems to me.

I don't know.

Your grandchild may be setting a fine example, if it does not get too hot, and if he does not wither, and if he does not become, like the pod people, one of them; I mean, without any ambiguity, one of those people who share the lie that THINGS are accountable for the actions of people.

"There are a growing number of children, my grandson being one, who are being educated outside the propaganda machine."

The propaganda machine, a case in point, includes all the spaces between all the ears, and I know my parents were infected, one still is infected, the lies run very deep.

Without prejudice is a very interesting term, a new one on me, worth understanding - it seems to me - and possibly connected intimately to this line of thinking: making THINGS accountable for the actions of people = prejudice.

"These children and many of their parents are just beginning with issues like "foreign aid" and realizing the lies, as you say, contained therein."

Principle lies are like bases of operations, like Central Banks, where the ancillary sat-elites grow (exponentially) from the root, like weeds, perhaps, persist, or like ants persisting, until sugar and boric acid employs the army to deliver the solution to the queen - if you know what I mean.

I think you do.

"However, I just want to be sure that you understand we are talking 13 and 14 year olds."

We (my wife and I) are blessed with a son who is 23, and a daughter who is 18. After Waco I forbid the television for about 5 years, and that may have been a significant unintended consequence of that abuse of collected power by those people who had obvious goals in mind. My 13 and 14 year old's were teaching me, in those years, as much, or more, than I was teaching them, but some lies are very persistent, and require constant vigilance. I hope my own children can measure up to your grandchild's standard where the bar is being set very high.

All things are relative.

"The kids are digging up the information and discussing it among themselves."

If all the information is couched in the language whereby the lie of making THINGS accountable for the actions of people, which so far that appears to be the truth, unfortunately, then it is WIN/WIN for the Legal Criminals, and that remains to be my POINT that I think aught to be acknowledged.

Due diligence.

"Yes, a debate will take place; however, they have pretty much resolved the conclusion."

Respectfully, I disagree, if the making of THINGS accountable for the deeds of people remains intact, then the Trojan Horse is in the gate, and the virus will consume everything soon enough, and I may be a nutcase after all, but that is how I see it, again, due diligence, so long as I have thrown my hat in this ring.

I was born in 1958, thank God, mom and dad, and I walk the EARTH!

"My grandson knew very little about the Constitution several months ago and yet, through the internet, had many questions about the way our government operates and he had a growing suspicion that much of the news was lies."

I can't know, but the words used in that sentence above could indicate a manifestation of the lie, since the counterfeit version looks so much like the genuine article, as designed.

Government is not a THING to be held accountable for the actions of people unless the true believers (in the lie) do.

VERBS: "our government operates".

The genuine article, and not the counterfeit version, is a convenience, a use of language whereby the speaker does not list all the names of all the people who share the thoughts and actions specific to the SET of people being referenced with the word "government".

If the speaker is employing the genuine truth of the matter, whereby "our government operates" then there is a list of names that constitute "our government".

If everyone is not on the list, then how can it be "our" government?

I do not torture.

I do not mass murder.

Who does?

The power I earn is stolen from me, and that power is used to kill my friends IN Liberty, my power is used, after it is stolen from me, to torture my friends IN Liberty.

If that is not due diligence, say so, and I'll get the picture.

How does our government work?

Are you infected?

Is your grandson infected?

I don't know. But I have an interest in knowing, because, as stated, failure to reach back to the roots of the infection is a set-up for failure in this adventure, this animated contest of freedom, yes, or no?

1.
Failing to acknowledge the fact that I still, during weak moments, think in terms of holding THINGS accountable for actions done by people, is very bad for me, as that weakness lends way too much moral, and then eventually material, support to very bad people.

2.
Nevermind, nothing worth noting here, insignificant stuff, and irrelevant.

I can sympathize. My children teach me, if I listen.

" What he did not have was a forum...a place to discuss with his peers. His parents weren't as informed as they should have been. He felt like he was in exile like you said about yourself, in that he did not have a place to discuss his thoughts with peers...where he wouldn't be treated as just a kid by adults that he wasn't so sure knew as much as they thought they knew. His parents are also listening and growing, thinking and learning. They are also learning to respect their sons' thoughts and listen and encourage him.."

So...having a particularly destructive dragon in sight, if it exists, and I can't know, will it be slayed or not?

1.
Language is being used to convey a known SET of people contained in the word "government", which is ours, and those people do this, and those people do that, so those people, in that SET, are accountable, responsible, because THINGS are not responsible, and THINGS are not accountable, such as "government".

2.
Government did it.

Which is it, in any case?

"My point is that while perhaps imperfect to you...this is all a very good thing."

Is the imperfection all there is to consider in my mind?

I don't think so. I can sympathize, and I can offer a word of advice.

Slay that dragon if it exists in your mind, please. I think you may eventually see the significance of my concern, sharing it, if you will.

Or not, I can't know, you may be employing language in a way that intends to convey a SET of people called "government" where by the people sharing those thoughts and actions are people on that list, where it is too much work to list all the names on the list, and you are not infected with the lie - at all - more power to you.

I don't know.

I think it is worth the effort to find out.

It was for me.

It still is.

"They are moving in the right direction. I don't think there are any lies in the approach or their conclusions."

Tests are easy enough to invent. A badge or license is not a requirement to find out the facts.

If by "government" the user of the word means "them" and not "us" then how can it be "our" government?

In context (abundant examples):

Fill in the blank.

I am merely delivering the message. What you do with the message is out of my power. I prefer good things.

"I am certain they are all aware that there are individuals within those groups we call government, corporation, lobbyist, elitists that are responsible for the immoral decisions and the lies."

"They" constitute "our" government?

I have to question myself, sure, as I step outside my being, figuratively speaking, and look at me being an ass about this, and I see a nutcase too often.

Why?

This is not insignificant.

The bodies continue to pile up.

It is only insignificant because it isn't on the kitchen table yet.

So, yes, I'm the bad messenger boy.

Who is responsible?

They are?

"I am certain they are all aware that there are individuals within those groups we call government, corporation, lobbyist, elitists that are responsible for the immoral decisions and the lies."

I'm a creep too, sure, I get that too, and I may be stepping over the line of decorum. Sure, I get that. I spoil the fun, plopping tortured bodies onto every kitchen table, figuratively, party pooper.

Here comes the torture and mass murder guy. Bodies all over me, 8 by 10 glossies, arms, legs, severed heads.

Commingled masses, all burnt.

No heads.

It, not ambiguously it, but specifically it, the dragon of which I speak, is in the headlights, because I am shinning light on it.

If it does not exist, in your world, thank God, and thanks for avoiding it, thanks for not lending it any moral or material support.

If only we can all do the same.

Things can be falsely made accountable for the actions of people.

A dragon or not?

Insignificant, superfluous, fecal matter, or a word to the wise worthy of note, if it exists, and if it exists, then can it be rendered powerless?

If so, then to me, good things are bound to happen like this:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Henry Ford

Lies do not infect the liars who invent the lies.

Who does that leave?

I don't know, in your case.

"He is not just playing video games and twitting. Education works...is a slow process...but is happening in some quarters. I see hope in that. Don't you?"

Much hope, more so now than ever, while at the same time, unfortunately, the level of ongoing destruction, on our dimes, appears to be peaking in many ways too.

If Rand Paul can be infected, whereby Dad is not, if that is the case, and I can't know, then, it seems to me, the Dragon is worthy of note, and that is my point.

The Dragon is in darkness, not in the light, so laughter, fun, profits, and good things are happening all around, even while the Dragon works in our sleep - for now - and even while our earnings flow to specific people who are now torturing and mass murdering innocent victims.

They scream bloody murder, some people take time to listen, some people want more.

Here is my vote.

Here is my dime.

It may be a good idea to slay that Dragon if it is infecting you, or your grandson.

That is not all that I am saying, but I am saying that much, because I think that that specific point is relevant to your grandson stepping into the battle where that Dragon sleeps.

I can sympathize.

There is hope.

Joe

Another JTK Quote:

"If by "government" the user of the word means "them" and not "us" then how can it be "our" government?"

There are a specific willful individuals with names perpetrating specific individual crimes on the American people (also individual people) and those crimes have been made legal by those criminals...those criminals each housing a human body with a legal name on a birth certificate. That is the enemy: that single person, and that single person, and that single person and they, those criminal people, are doing what they do on purpose, lawfully injuring innocent American people, each of who pays the cost of that injury.

I can't remember what the debate is about, but if that JTK Quote is relevant to the subject, and if a debate works on a Thesis Sentence, then that JTK quote might be a good one from which to work...I have no idea how to prepare for a debate...but if there is a pre-set list of questions...I do not know...then perhaps forming a thesis and hammering away the truth of that thesis as specifically applied to each topic/or question may be a way to perform well and get a single very important point across...whatever that point is determined to be. Perhaps having an out of the box point would be eye opening to all involved. That being said do not know the rules of the debate, or what a predetermined outcome means. Just tossing out some quick thoughts I had.

But again, I don't know about debates, so that summation may be way out of the realm of how to prepare wisely.

bear, nosy bear, that is. :)

...

Bear quotes

"There are a specific willful individuals with names perpetrating specific individual crimes on the American people (also individual people) and those crimes have been made legal by those criminals...those criminals each housing a human body with a legal name on a birth certificate. That is the enemy: that single person, and that single person, and that single person and they, those criminal people, are doing what they do on purpose, lawfully injuring innocent American people, each of who pays the cost of that injury."

Once a victim of fraud realizes the fact of the matter, can there be any turning back from that moment when that dragon of falsehood is dead and no longer cooking the books with fire breath?

Yes.

I think the answer is yes, since a person can then begin to play the game too, finding targets, and cooking the books, to gain at the expense of: fill in the blank.

That is my point, asked, concerning the choice to employ deceit as a means of accomplishing a goal.

Who wins in that case where the art of deception is voluntarily chosen as a means to an end?

Joe

Who wins?

My quote that you quoted...I am wondering if a whom belonged where I used the who...
-------------
Josf:
"Who wins in that case where the art of deception is voluntarily chosen as a means to an end?"

No one because deceit is build upon deception and even if the target starts out as another criminal entity the entity building the new deceit becomes criminal.

Who pays the price http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2827443:

"Team A saves everyone from Team B.

Team C on deck.

Team C saves everyone from Team A.

Team B on deck.

Thesis - Antithesis = Synthesis

Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia

Hey, weren't those old bosses, really, really, bad?

How bout those new bosses aye?"

...even if some groups of individuals within A, B, C do not know they are in collusion?
--------------
We are in a break from the monopoly at the moment. I have a question...is it equitable to skip rent if the owner does not notice occupancy?

...

Very good questions?

"We are in a break from the monopoly at the moment. I have a question...is it equitable to skip rent if the owner does not notice occupancy?"

Before answering that specific question I think it may be justified to work, willfully, toward connecting the answer to this Topic in some way - if possible.

Why are people inspired to lie at debates?

Why are people inspired to pay a price for renting?

In both cases there is a measurable answer, and if the measuring is done accurately, then the very good questions will be justly answered.

People are inspired to lie at debates because there is a scarcity, or demand, for those lies, and therefore PEOPLE produce that which is demanded, so as to supply that which is demanded, so as to meet the demand for that which is demanded.

People are inspired to pay the price for renting because there is a scarcity too, something is demanded, and then PEOPLE produce that which is demanded, so as to supply that which is demanded, so as to meet the demand for that which is demanded.

That is the general POWER perspective I work from, my rock of Liberty, and it works for me, as you have seen, or may want to see, better, and from that the general perspective can be made much more specific to any case.

The case of the Debate, for example, involves a young man supplying he demand for lies, with lies, if the case turns out to be a case of "Pro", or justifying, fraud, extortion, torture, and mass murder made legal.

That is very specific, and if the measure is accurate, then can the measure be made more accurate, which means: can the perspective of that specific case be made LESS false?

The case of the RENT payments, if made specific, has to be a person, in time and place, inspired to pay RENT, to a person, in time and place, for something in time and place.

RENT = Purchasing POWER

A person produces (or steals, or acquires, or gains control of) purchasing POWER in the form of Federal Reserve Notes, in a typical case of a person paying RENT, to another person.

Why?

The good question again (to remind anyone as to the POINT):

"We are in a break from the monopoly at the moment. I have a question...is it equitable to skip rent if the owner does not notice occupancy?"

Who controls the house in question, and who pays the costs associated with that control over that house in any case whatsoever?

If you prefer to think in terms of "ownership", which to me is a can of worms filled with lies, a web of deceit, a dragon, falsehood, but none-the-less a high demand item, "ownership" IS demanded, and therefore there is a supply produced to meed that demand for "ownership", so we can agree, to our mutual benefit, to think in terms of "ownership", instead of "control", then, OK, let's go down that rabbit hole, and we can, if possible, compare, competitively, later, how the "ownership" perspective, compares to the "control" perspective.

Question again:

"We are in a break from the monopoly at the moment. I have a question...is it equitable to skip rent if the owner does not notice occupancy?"

The owner is who?

If a small group of people existing behind a lie called the "Nation" OWN all the land they claim to own, and they extract all the POWER from everyone on that land, who, if you will please inform me, OWNS the property in question?

Your "ownership" perspective, if that is what you want to use in this case, is falling apart, is it not?

Is it a matter of "our" mutual benefit for "us" to ignore the few people behind a lie called the "Nation" with the "National Interest" in this case, or any other case, involving this concept of "ownership"?

If access to power is made scarce, by someone, then someone else may be inspired to do anything to survive when that power is no longer available without "paying the price" demanded.

When the power supply is X on this day, and when the power supply is used to increase the power supply, as a matter of accurately measurable fact, the power supply is greater than, not less than, X.

How is that FACT hidden, in FACT, so as to inspire actual people to do just about anything, pay any price, to gain access to the POWER required to survive?

I don't know?

Really?

Back to the question:

"We are in a break from the monopoly at the moment. I have a question...is it equitable to skip rent if the owner does not notice occupancy?"

Those who have stolen the POWER to steal POWER, in a phrase "provide the means by which we suffer", and in another phrase "federal income tax liabilities", OWN their victims now.

You can all it ownership, if that works for you.

I call it control.

We are demanding from each other RENT at a price that distributes the scarce supply of POWER inequitably, because that is our decision to do so, when that is our decision to do so, and all that nonsense evaporates when X is used to make more X in time, when POWER is allowed to be abundant, instead of POWER being made scarce, on purpose, for fun and profit, of a few, at the expense of many.

You, Bear (bear), follow this, and I think that Fonta (fonta) does too, it is not within my POWER to know, so I'm guessing, and it is past time to fight each other over the last crumb of bread.

It is time to know this:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

It is time to know this:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

_____________________________________

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
______________________________________

Know this:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise."

Know too that even that is only half true, since X, the POWER SUPPLY, can increase to a point of abundance, whereby the choice between Evil A or Evil B is no longer in demand, at all, and instead the former victims have before them, us, higher quality and lower cost choice A, or even higher quality and even lower cost choice B, because that becomes our choices as we work to make that our choices instead of being OWNED by our falsehoods that exist because we allow them to exist.

Know this:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Henry Ford

Can that be known, owned, employed, used, understood, acted upon, realized, to our mutual benefit?

Yes, no, maybe, or hey, how about this for an idea, how about joining them, since we can't beat em?

Joe

Additional defense

On the flank in the battle are the lies that claim that the "aid" saves the starving children etc.

One cause of much starvation involves the "aid" called tariff and subsidy, whereby the legal looting of honest productive people in America moves the surplus wealth from those honest producers, who could provide actual aid to starving people closer to home, or to starving people in other countries, but can't because those honest producers at home are kept in a constant state of debt, or starving, and that collected surplus wealth from all those honest producers in America is then paid to "farmers" in America to NOT grow food, or to destroy crops, or other tactics, to make food scarce, and increase demand (starvation), and to manipulate the price of food precisely too high for masses of individual foreigners to afford American food, and precisely too low for farmers in foreign countries to compete in food production on the international markets.

The "aid" sent to foreign countries is sent to oppressors who then take control of the water, land, and other capital supplies required to compete in the production of the necessities of life such as food.

It may help when being attacked with those lies to gain a comprehensive understanding of the principles involved which boil down to a battle between Monopoly and Competition, Dictatorship and Individual Sovereignty, Crime and Liberty, at the base of the oppositions argument will always be a blind obedience to falsehood, where the opposition must, always, resort to deceit,threats, and violence, because that is source of their power, against the naked truth, actual competition seeking higher quality and lower cost, and efficient employment of scarce productive power in the necessary work required to make productive power abundant.

Gaining that principled understanding, as opposed to memorizing dogma, is vital when the Davids of our present struggle meet the Goliath of modern Crime made Legal.

A solid foundation of principle is vital when facing the onslaught of well worn deceptions.

These are not idle words.

Productive power in scarce supply employed in the work required to make productive power abundant is that foundation of Liberty that is, in fact, the process that fights against the enemies of Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, moral life, good life, productive life, human life, where the enemies employ that same scarce supply of productive power that is made in Liberty, stolen, then used in their criminal work of seizing that power and using that power to seize more of it, and an example may prove the validity and necessity of the point being communicated.

Compare, side by side, the competitive employment of forms of humanitarian aid produced or paid for by American producers as such:

1.
Send military hardware to military mercenaries in other countries at a total cost of debt charged to American tax payers.

2.
Send instead a shipment of specific productive capacity, proven to work, whereby the shipment, if assembled and employed as designed, the end result is a steady output of increased productivity.

Side by side, compare, the investment of productive capacity, as designed to accomplish the stated goal.

1.
Send 1 billion dollars worth of small arms, ammo, military vehicles, and well trained "advisers" who know the fine arts of torture and mass murder as they have been trained in The School of The Americas right here in U.S.A.

2.
Send 1 billion dollars worth of Solar Panels, Vertical Farming Greenhouse Modular Units, water well drilling equipment, and a fully functioning modular farm system, that can be planted almost anywhere, self powered by the sun, and having a known output productive capacity powered by water, the sun, and reproductive plant life (seeds).

When the false argument then claims that good things can't be shipped to countries where the bad guys steal those good things, so their "argument" of sending arms, ammo, and training in torture and mass murder is warranted, then turn that around and demand that those good things be distributed here instead, OR, if their argument is such a good idea, then send those arms, that ammo, and that military training in how to torture and mass murder locally, in New Jersey, New York, Missouri, California, so that The People at home can defend against having our good things stolen from us.

Joe

Thanks Josf

...great points for him to consider if he gets the "con" side!

He actually has reversed himself and through Wolfe's suggestion sees a challenge and a way out in the event he draws "pro." It is a very difficult proposition in scholastic debate to draw a side that you are totally against. And, yet...what better way to learn how to defend your beliefs than by being forced into stepping (for one debate) into the shoes of the 1% who make these immoral decisions and then sell them into the masses.

He now sees the possibility, given pro, of presenting "the deciders" case with such clarity (media sell-in lies) and conviction (their selfish convictions) that he sows seeds for its destruction and at the same time "presents" the best case and "wins" the debate. It would be a win/win allowing him to be true to himself while learning the not so fine art of debate based on fallacies.

His other choice would be to quit debate class and that is not an option! We are slowly raising a generation of thinkers in some of the home rather than government schooling programs.

fonta

Serious business

"It would be a win/win allowing him to be true to himself while learning the not so fine art of debate based on fallacies."

If I may wander from the topic even further (not offering false justifications for legal crime) might I add that the concept of debate, itself, appears to be part of the problem, a manifestation of it.

In a competitive sense, or common law sense, where the good guys share a goal of liberty, the discussions are not win/win, lose/win, win/lose, or lose/lose, the discussions are geared toward improving quality and lowering costs.

Self-governing is serious business, not a game, not a show, not a contest of who is better at deception, not a base principle that might makes right, and not as the saying goes: All is fair in love and war.

If the premise of the debate presupposes that authority exists because it exists, and shall not be questioned, then rules are in place, obviously, to credit lies with authority, when no such authority or credit exists, there is no justification, yet someone, somewhere lends that moral support? That is patently absurd.

The teachers teach the validity of lies?

The debate organizers allow lies to go unchallenged?

The score keepers increase the value of a better lie?

Lies are encouraged, supported, justified, condoned, encouraged, and the pay is good?

I'm just wondering if that angle of view is competitive, along the lines of sharing a desire to make self government higher in quality, and lower in cost for all those who share the concept of self-government, as opposed to the alternatives where liars are paid so well, because, I suppose, there isn't enough lies to go around, in such short supply, that we the people are willing to pay any price to get a better liar produced out of our number.

Win/win, it seems to me, would be a discussion, instead of a debate, whereby none of the participants gave anything but accurate exposure to any liars daring to spread their lies during serous proceedings of merit, concerning liberty.

Give an inch, and what can be expected from then on?

I guess, perhaps, that I am failing to see the finer points here, but for me to be placed in those shoes, to be the proponent of something, it seems to me, it would be a good idea to communicate precisely what it is that I am expected to promote, otherwise, and this is fair warning, the event may be a set-up.

The criminals in charge of legal crime did not get where they are by being naive.

Joe

Josf...The Benefits of Debate

The following article based on the debate curriculum based on the debate program KONOS uses tells alot about why they do it. Note that for the past few years there are issues resolved by the debate season topic and it seems to me that most of what they resolved I would agree with.

Their point is not really winners or losers apparently but more an effort to teach critical thinking. It is head and shoulders above public school approach to teaching government, politics and world issues. I believe that they bank on logic and higher ground to win. It sounds to me like a good program based on their goals. What do you think:

http://www.home-school.com/Articles/the-benefits-of-debate.php

fonta

I think in terms of ideas

I am self taught in the area of political economy and I have learned a way of seeing things that is not well understood by anyone else I know, and as I read things I frame things from my principled viewpoint.

Before I tell you, or anyone else willing to hear a competitive viewpoint, which is not an "argument" in the generally known sense, I will tell you, since you asked so kindly, and since I assume that your question was honest and therefore you care to hear the answer, and I assume that you do not care to hear a false answer.

I read all the way down to Number 11 before an Idea struck me as to how I would respond to your question concerning the debate link, with all that home-school debate information.

A topic for debate is my idea:

Is the acting out of "might making right", where deceit is allowed to be invented, or employed, in reaching a goal of gaining in some measurable way by someone upon someone: is that way a competitively productive way to do things compared to the obvious competitive alternative: whereby deceit is not allowed to be invented, or employed, in reaching a goal of some measurable way by someone upon someone?

I looked for a rule, of any kind, whereby the rules of debate do not specifically allow deceit, also known by many other names, such as libel, slander, fraud, wrong, not nice, criminal, deceitful, crooked, fraudulent, slanderous, base, and even uncivilized, but, perhaps more importantly, the rules do not forbid deceit either, as far as I read, so far.

The idea of that debate topic popped into my head, as often may be the case, since I started down this path to educate myself on political economy: since that idea first popped into my head.

I will look further for such a rule, do no harm by way of lies, to forbid the use of deceit in this "argument" of mimicking, or merely being, normalized human behavior.

Everyone lies, and the pay-off is handsome.

Monkey see, monkey do, may be a statement that conveys what I think, in ways that leave way too much room to read between the lines. I do not, ever, desire to employ deceit to gain at the expense of some innocent person, the idea has yet to pop into my brain without immediate rejection, not just for lack of specialty, talent, or training in such things, but because it is morally wrong to do so, it is uncompetitive to do so, it is unproductive to do so, even if in the short term, certainly not in the long term, and certainly not compared to the competitive alternatives.

I do not wish to gain at anyone's expense, by my word choices.

Monkey see, monkey do, is unkind, and I admit it, but it is a sound bite, of some notability, and it can possibly convey an intended meaning, without prejudice.

If you think I mean something, but you can't know if I mean what you think I mean, then there is a tried and true method of finding out, if, by chance, we both avoid any resort to deceit.

So, while thinking, I can rephrase the Idea concerning a Debate Topic as such:

Which is more productive: 1 or 2.
In the longer term, such as, which is more survivable for a species of living beings, when comparing two types of human interactions such as the two described below?

1.
Argument whereby the combatants are perfectly willing, able, and well trained at the art of deception.

2.
Discussion whereby the resort to deception as a means of accomplishing the goal of having the deceiver gain at the expense of the deceived is strictly judged to be wrong and therefore not acceptable during discussion.

I can read further into the link on debate, the merits, and rules, to find any references concerning what happens when anyone, including the teachers, the rule makers, or anyone, resorts to deceit, by inventing it, or by merely parroting it uncaringly or without thought otherwise.

Meanwhile the iron is still hot in an ongoing discussion I've managed to find after many decades of looking for ongoing discussions.

It seems to me that there are problems worth solving and then there are problems that have to be solved soon because the competitive alternatives can't measure up: since our species merely ends without those solutions.

Joe

Thank You Josf

...not only for your thoughts but also for taking the time to have them. And, for anyone who thinks this topic is not relevant given the current events of the week, I would like to offer that the world in which my grandchildren will be adults is very much tied into the evil politics of today and the spiral we are going down. Many have said that the mark of a declining civilization is when its citizens no longer care about future generations. At 64, it is actually all I do care about. My life is on the last leg (hardly giving up although priorities do shift).

I was 100% behind my daughter deciding to home school this year. It is a huge commitment and much is left up to her as far as how she presents and directs that curriculum. There were other choices with the programs offered that I might have chosen.

I also have tried to dig deep and understand just why this topic was chosen and what outcome is expected. Also, how my grandson benefits from participation. He, of course, could have said I do not choose to debate and will drop this class because I do not want to be put in a position of defending something I do not believe in.

Unfortunately most of our politicians find themselves in exactly that position. In order to be elected, they defend party platform issues that they do not believe in. It is apparently a requirement in order to be nominated by their party.

To me that is one of the reasons Ron Paul stands alone. He said "no." He would not...could not...ever back down, compromise or shelf his life-long principles. His message is his legacy and by spreading it, perhaps there will be a paradigm shift whereby this approach to education would be unthinkable.

I was not the family decider in choosing the curriculuum or program; however, I know my grandson is getting a far better education than he would in public school. I also feel certain that the 2012 debate issue will be resolved: "The federal government should not participate in foreign aid even for humanitarian reasons."

Thanks again Josf! And, you obviously have made that paradigm shift to nothing but the truth for any reasons...even debate! I applaud that.

fonta

And One Last Thought

...LOL which is why I am replying to myself.

Wolfe posted some "mental exercises" elsewhere intended to stimulate logical thinking and deal a lethal blow to cognitive dissonance.

In a sense, although my post about my grandson's debate topic is hardly hypothetical, it puts a "reality show" setting as well as a "how we educate the youth" perspective on the topic of foreign aid (humanitarian and otherwise). This is one of Ron Paul's platform issues. In recent months it has hardly been touched upon in the DP although in years past it was visited extensively by some great thinkers.

The thoughts expressed by others on my seemingly should go in Homeschooling or and other area post have brought out many, if not most, of the reasons the federal government should not give foreign aid. Thank you all who offered your thoughts as it has been for me a very excellent mental exercise and refresher course!

fonta

I'm not dead yet.

I have more than one last thought in this vital topic.

Providence, or whatever power, once had me taking a College course for an Associates Degree, as an elective, where the subject matter concerned such things as personality tests.

So as not to stray too far off the topic, can it be understood that my thinking is such that the Debate in question is a set-up, there will only be Legal Criminals who win, win/win, for them.

Personality tests are mentioned in the link to "The Gold Standard Critical Thinking Test" from the link on the Debate information and a claim is made concerning the validity of specific tests that test for critical thinking.

Really, seriously, what in the world are they testing?

Again, not to stray too far off the topic, do those PEOPLE who conduct the Debate tend to reward, in a measurable way, those who resort to deceit, and do so in the best, most inventive, ways?

Here is a sample question concerning the supposed tests that test critical thinking, which again is linked to the Debate in question:

http://www.thinkwatson.com/wp-content/uploads/WGII-USUKAUS-N...

Note: I cannot cut and paste so there is an obvious roadblock in place that is preventing the free flow of information, for some reason.
_________________________________________________
Watshon Glaswer II Form E

Example

Two hundred students in their early teens voluntarily attend a recent weekend student conference in Midwestern City. At this conference, the topics of race relations and means of achieving lasting world peace were discussed, since these were the problems the students selected as being most vital in today’s world.

Inference 1

As a group, the students who attended this conference showed a keener interest in broad social problems than do most other students in their early teens.

True

Probably True

Insufficient Data

Probably False

False
___________________________________________________________

When I read such things I am reminded of the information I processed in College whereby personality tests were described in great detail, the purposes of them, the accuracy of them, the capacity to improve them, and the necessity of keeping information from the test subjects so as not to alter the test results.

The words, or terms, used to describe these things is Personality Tests, and if the goal is exactly that, to test a personality, then that can be proven precisely that, within a very fine tolerance of reaching the specific goal intended. I know that much, at least.

Work that out in your mind - please.

The actual fact of the matter is, in many cases, that the process of Personality Testing, is, in fact, behavioral modification, response conditioning, brain washing, and reinforcing a false belief that is infecting the test subjects.

Case in point:

"...since these were the problems the students selected as being most vital in today’s world."

If, in fact, the designers of the test question were testing to see how effective a lie is, and the idea of the test is to accomplish the goals of reinforcing the lie, and gaining feedback as to how well the lie is working, and, on top of that, the goal is to identify those few people among the target population who know better, then the results of the test can be used, statistically, to arrive closer toward these stated goals.

The lie is:

Groups, or things, can be held accountable for the actions of an individual person.

If you do not see how that one question, that first question in that example test, can accomplish those goals stated above, then there are many competitive and possible reasons for your failure to see what I intend to transfer to you intact.

I could be just another nutcase.

You could be infected with that lie.

You could actually know better, and your response is to lie about it.

You could know better, and you could set me straight, but you won't because who cares if I know better.

You prefer not to know one way or the other, there are plenty of more important things to do with your time.

On and on.

To whom it may concern?

Joe

wolfe's picture

There is an HONEST pro side.

But it requires you throw away the propaganda, just as much as our side of things require.

Benefits of humanitarian aid:
1) It provides us some amount of control and leverage over certain foreign powers that would otherwise be hostile. It is in effect, a bribe to a specific regime, and therefore affords certain benefits.

2) It allows us to prop up wars in regions to prevent any one power from getting strong enough to touch us economically.

3) It generates artificially low foreign wage/cost markets that allow "our" corporations to provide goods to us at a lower cost and still make a greater profit.

4) It creates a subservient class in foreign countries that learn a dependance on the US which increases our general control over the worlds economic markets.

5) It requires an increase in tax dollars, which helps to create a slave mentality in the domestic population, but has the benefit of sounding benign. Who would be against feeding starving people? (REAL answer is everyone who has ever ignored Sally Struthers, but that is a hard thing for people to admit about themselves).

In other words, it has numerous benefits that are immoral, and damaging to our citizens as well as the foreign power's citizens, but which help to a great degree our slave masters.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Thanks Wolfe ..

...and to all those below who responded. I am passing this thread on to my grandson.

I think Wolfe has the only possible approach which provides a better understanding of scholastic debate to me. Christian (grandson's name) should, if he draws pro, very intelligently provide the reasons our slave masters give for foreign aid (your 1-5 pretty much covers it) with specific examples. Make a strong case which, in doing so, points out that all are immoral without saying so.

I will tell Christian that he should hope to rile folks up ... stir up some righteous indignation...because the debate exercise will be teaching. And, after all, since the majority of people in the US actually believe "humanitarian aid" is simply the strongest, wealthiest nation helping nations in need, there is a great need for waking people up by understanding the "pro" side...seeing how the deciders think. Christian could possibly convince the judges that he presented the strongest case despite the fact that the reasons are not moral. After all, an entire nation has either fallen for it or they don't care.

Thanks Wolfe...that was great and I appreciate the thought you put into it. It will give Christian some meat to dig into and, perhaps, keep him from praying he draws con. In fact, he is so far from herd mentality that he might even begin liking the challenge of drawing pro.

fonta

wolfe's picture

I hope it works out for him... :)

This may sound strange but I actually convince as many people by taking the honest pro side of their arguments. I worked with someone who was very pro-war, so one day, I agreed with him, and laid out all of the reasons we should be in Iraq (this was a while back), and why it was worth the cost in life, blood, and money. At the end of it, he was a little disgusted by his previous positions. Prior to that, no pro-peace argument had ever been able to sway him.

The truth matters.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Totally Into Jonathan Gullible, Wolfe

...now that I found it through your post. No wonder your post screamed "truth wordsmith" to me.

No,it does not seem strange to me at all that you used the agreeing with approach with your pro-war friend as I got what you were saying from your first post. Perhaps the best way to win a difficult debate even with friends is to sometimes say exactly what they are saying but with such clarity that they start questioning themselves. I am convinced that many people have very firm beliefs about things they have never thought about in depth. I think it will work out for Christian and both of your posts will be important for him.

Equally important for him will be the flash presentation "The Philosophy of Living." You have made my day. Thank you so much for putting the link on your posts. Now back to reading ....

fonta

wolfe's picture

I thought you might enjoy these videos...

Government Explained Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k&feature=share&lis...

Government Explained Part 2 (The Constitution):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhSqzANQvbk&feature=share&lis...

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

And I Did Wolfe

...thank you so much. I sent them to my daughter in hopes that she will use them in her homeschooling curriculum, because despite the "great debate" and the things I like about the curriculum she has chosen, there seems to be a total lack of good sources on government.

I hope she will share with others as well as her own children. Also, sent to my other children (with children) who are not homeschooling in hopes they will watch as a family and discuss.

All you can do with grown kids is share...and hope (ya know?!) I was able to honestly tell them that I learned many things from the videos and that it is my prayer that they insure that their children do not grow up as ignorant as I have and, at the same time, apologized for, through ignorance, not exposing them to everything I should have. I hope they do not make the same mistake.

Christian has now debated both sides as all the students must. He and his parents are growing and learning much from the experience. He has only participated in the first round and there are more giving many opportunities to re-visit your prior perceptions and rightness or wrongness of "debate" or the appropriateness of the subject matter. It is about learning. Through the exercise, the kids have of course found themselves landing in the territory of foreign policy from the springboard of foreign aid. Most importantly they have learned that things are not always what they appear to be or what they have been told. And, finally, they are authenticating themselves as young adults, with minds and the ability to reason.

Based on the results, I applaud the teaching method...and any other techniques that are successful in engaging a game-media saturated generation of non-thinkers into ethical citizens and reasoning human beings.

Thanks again. I am so glad I was by co-incidence introduced to your work and contributions to education and awakening the masses!

fonta

Nicely done.

Nicely done.