Yesterday I had new visitors to my blog. My newly acquired dim witted progressive friends, who seem to have high opinion of their intellect, from factose intolerant challenged me to debate them. I accepted.
Now, I do not normally like to engage the typical trolls that occasionally show up but these 5 guys (I do not know how many of them will actually engage me) seem to have a degree of intellectual honesty (as much as progressives can) and, from what I have gleaned on their site, conviction of their ideological leanings. I will take a Ralph Nader or a Dennis Kucinich any day over squishy progressives who likes to disguise themselves as 'moderates'. I value principled people no matter how diametrically opposed we may be. So let the war begin!
A quick side note to broletariat who said "we just know we’ll look 1,000 times smarter than you because you are completely misinformed and have no idea how to analyze information, much less formulate a logical, reasonable argument":
Don't be so sure.....in order to look smarter, you will have to make sense of your progressive views in a logical manner and back them up with evidence. Pure opinions that are not based on a solid foundation count for nothing other than rhetoric. I cannot wait for your rationalization of the indefensible. But, then again, I am keeping an open mind. In fact, at the bottom of this post, I have a few preliminary questions for you guys that I would appreciate your views on. They will go a long way towards establishing the premise of my arguments.
Now, I am not sure what your backgrounds are but mine include having travelled and lived in several countries around the world, having studied K-12 in Europe in the late 1960s-1970s while classic education was the approach (which is sorely lacking from the PS system here), having two masters from prestigious grad schools, various levels of involvement in national and international affairs (campaigns, round table discussions, etc.), and 20 year membership in Mensa. This is not meant to be 'tooting my horn' but rather familiarizing you with my background so that you limit your ad hominem attacks.
As this post is for their benefit as well as others who frequent my blog, here are a few ground rules:
1) Issues can cover anything we post on our blogs as well as philosophical issues that may come up.
2) Proper defense of POV needs to tie together philosophy, logic, and empirical evidence.
3) Responses may take more than a day to post (as I have other responsibilities as you probably do) and no overwhelming with multiple posts since I am just one person.
4) Starting now, lets try to refrain from ad hominem attacks on each other (that also means calling each other juvenile names) or people involved in our posts. I know it seems weird to request this but watching MSNBC types (whom my new friends find witty and intellectual, I am sure), I know that if it wasn't for ad hominem attacks, there would be little progressive commentary on air (case in point: just watch what is said about, Palin, Beck, etc. - almost never challenging them on their substance (especially with Beck) but ridiculing them as their bible - Rules For Radicals Rule #5 - dictates)
So without further ado, here are my opening questions:
1) What are your opinions (generally speaking - you do not have to write a 50 page essay) of our Founding Documents and their relevance to modern day U.S.?
2) Do you believe in a 'living constitution'?
3) What do you think a 'right' is and what are basic 'human rights' as you see it?
4) Where do you draw the line between 'rights' that need to be protected by the government and 'wants' that should be individual responsibility?
I will have more questions later but these should suffice to have a philosophical discussion going.
By the way, I will be responding to your first post (probably in sections since it was long) over the week-end.
Thank you, gentlemen.