Entwhat? Where's the debate?

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Right, something is amiss here. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and I'm not talking about the cheese.

What's happened to the discussion? What's happened to the arguments? This board use to have a bit of spunk about it! Have we all taken chill pills?


Right then lads and lasses, shall we?
1.
Hitler was, while a bad man, a bonifide genius and quite brilliant in many of his endeavours.
2.
Terrorists are not just crazed madmen, they have legitimate concerns to be angry about.
3.
The United States form of democracy is fundamentally flawed, and is not the best form of represntative government.


Discuss!

[Count Comfect]

1. "Many of his endeavours." Define.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

1. "Many of his endeavours." Define.

In the 1920's and early 30's, Germany was bankrupt, morally and physically destroyed, militarily laughable and utterly in chaos. Within six years of coming to power, Hitler took an utterly crushed Germany and made the country able to take on the world again. It's only the eventual entry of the Yanks into the war, and the disastrous decision to invade Russia that caused Germany to be defeated.

Utterly defeated, starving and bankrupt in 1919: Conquering Europe in 1939, with a massive military and economic structure to back it up.

It's really impressive, however you look at it. A similar thing can be said about the Japanese (a backwards civilisation that modernised incredibly rapidly so as to sink almost the entire US Fleet and conquer most of s.e. Asia)

Well, that’s just one "endeavour". Let’s start with that.

[rohirrim TR]

2. the terrorist problem is really about a culture clash, the history of jihad in america is quite long and interesting. Sorry I don't have time to discuss it Classes.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

3. Hells yeah!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

1.
Hitler was, while a bad man, a bonifide genius and quite brilliant in many of his endeavours.

He would have to be to pull off the atrocities he pulled off.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I would debate the "bona fide" bit, as I'm not sure if "good faith" can be ascribed to such activities.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

3. Hells yeah!

While flawed; is still the best form of government. the 'least bad' to paraphrase Jefferson IIRC.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No comment...

[Nurvingiel]

Fenir! You're back!

What do you mean "no debate" - there always seems to be a debate about gay marriage around here.

Sure, Hitler turned the defunct German economy around, but what does it matter since he used his power to murder about 10 million people, and almost destroyed Germany again.

What's a robust economy when compared to the lives of millions?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Sure, Hitler turned the defunct German economy around, but what does it matter since he used his power to murder about 10 million people, and almost destroyed Germany again.

Nurvi, he did destroy Germany again. Because of his war endeavors, it was turned into an utter wasteland, a desert. The people were starving, prostitutes sold their wares in all the main squares, industry was taken down to virtually nill. Germany was obliterated.

[Nurvingiel]

My bad. So there it is - he rendered his economic accomplishments meaningless by destroying the country and murdering millions of people.

Debate resolved. Next question!

2.
Terrorists are not just crazed madmen, they have legitimate concerns to be angry about.

I say it depends on the person in question, and who is applying the label "terrorist". A dictator may label a political protester a terrorist.

Some terrorists are simply nuts, and some have a legitemate complaint, and some are both. There would certainly be other factors at work as well. It's too complicated to simply say terrorists are nuts/not nuts.

[The Gaffer]

Good point on Hitler. It shows that economic / material success alone is no way to gauge the success of human systems.

On the lack of debate, I put it down to a number of things. Not least of which is how we won the argument on Iraq: events have proven us to be correct.

Unfortunately, the neocons NEVER acknowledge mistakes and, when there's no possibility of doublethinking their way out of it, just ignore it and go on about something else. Therefore there can be no meaningful discussion about the way forward until the neocons are fully consigned to the dustbin of history.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Unfortunately, the neocons NEVER acknowledge mistakes and, when there's no possibility of doublethinking their way out of it, just ignore it and go on about something else.

I've noticed this too.....sort of stifling for progress. We've got to get out of this us versus them mentality. Government shouldn't be a contest.

[Lief Erikson]

Hey, come on, Gaffer. I'm not admitting that the argument for the war in Iraq is weak when I say this, but I will comment that I have only once seen a liberal admit defeat on any issue, no matter how thoroughly his or her arguments are pulled to pieces. That particular liberal who did admit defeat once only did so on a rather insignificant issue, also.

There's no way you can just blame that on "neocons." It's everybody.

[brownjenkins]

It's not a question of admitting defeat. It's a question of how you approach a situation.

Liberals generally approach issues with an open mind, trying to find the solutions by examining the problem pragmatically. If one solution doesn't work, they try another. It's the essence of democracy.

Conservatives generally approach issues with their solutions already set in stone, be they from theology or ideology, and the "problem" from their point of view, is getting everyone in step with what they see as the only solution.

Hitler, and facism for that matter, is an example of extreme conservatism.

[BeardofPants]

Well... if by open-minded you mean to all but conservative ideas.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Well... if by open-minded you mean to all but conservative ideas.

I'm open-minded about conservative ideas. I will consider it and weigh the pros and cons like I will any idea. I consider myself liberal, rather than conservative, because I usually find liberal ideas preferable to conservative ideas (with the exception of personal finances, noting that some of my budget is allocated to social welfare and the environment, just like a real liberal ).

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's not a question of admitting defeat. It's a question of how you approach a situation.

Liberals generally approach issues with an open mind, trying to find the solutions by examining the problem pragmatically. If one solution doesn't work, they try another. It's the essence of democracy.

Conservatives generally approach issues with their solutions already set in stone, be they from theology or ideology, and the "problem" from their point of view, is getting everyone in step with what they see as the only solution.

Hitler, and facism for that matter, is an example of extreme conservatism.

Those are hardly classical definitions of either "Liberal" or "Conservative" - so I don't know where you're getting them from.

And if you want to class Hitler with conservatism, don't forget to mention Stalin and Mao Tse Tung as bastions of liberalism.

[Beor]

BeardofPants, huh? More like, "BeardofnoPants"! Get a job, Beard! Anyway, Im with Val (gotta stay on topic, I suppose)