Comment: Serious business

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thanks Josf (see in situ)

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