Wednesday, April 14, 2010

A Typical Conversation

Ok, so if you read Musings of a Madman, you know we have recently begun dating. Part of the fun of our relationship is our intelligent conversations. Many of our conversations end up as friendly debates stemming from our differences of political and theological opinions.  What's funny is that some of the time, as these debates progress, and we become more determined to get the other to see our point we become more and more rigid. We tend to go to extremes to prove our points. Many times, we are not quite as extreme in our beliefs as we portray in order to convince the other they are wrong.

Below is a typical "conversation" we had via instant message today. Again, I remind you, quite often we will each take on the role of "devil's advocate" simply to prove to the other how crazy their argument is. I am not asking you to join the debate, you can if you wish, but mainly demonstrating how our debates progress:

gamecockvaughn: Ok. Explain something to me.
Julio: ok

gamecockvaughn: Why close guantanamo?
Julio: the only reason we have them in GB is so we do not have to follow our own legal system
gamecockvaughn: Ok. I get that. But...
gamecockvaughn: They are talking about bringing some of them to the Naval Brig here in Charleston. They already had Jose Padilla here for a while. There was a huge outcry because it is viewed as a terrorist threat to have them on american soil. I *thought* that was part of the reason to house them at gitmo too?
Julio: so can I ask a question that most conservatives find offensive..they never answer it but they find it offensive?
 You can ask
Julio: are you telling me our troops are only good at destroying things, blowing things up and killing people on foreign soil..these good men and women in uniform are completely incapable of doing a passive form of defense on our own soil that we have to be afraid of bringing our own prisoners here to be dealt with on our own soil and intead we have to take and endanger people that we dont even respect enough to lift an embargoJulio: (2) IF they ARE a danger, are we morally right to push the danger of our own war on other people, ESPECIALLY people that we dont have the decency to even lift sanctions while we are endangering them...that is assuming that they are a danger lol
amecockvaughn: I have already conceeded that point.
gamecockvaughn: It amazes me

Julio: and here is the real kicker...
gamecockvaughn: How
Julio: (3) if they are NOT a danger then why are they in Gitmo...

gamecockvaughn: We can both be on opposite views yet argue similar pointsd
gamecockvaughn: They are a danger
gamecockvaughn: That's why they are in prison

Julio: the answer?  The 
Bush regime misdirected the American people, dangling fear and a false sense of safety so they could sidestep the principles that make us who we are the very ideals that make us civilized and the terrorists criminals
gamecockvaughn: Oh stop it!
gamecockvaughn: Lol
Julio: oh I am sorry...I misunderstood...I thought you wanted my opinion
Julio: grins
gamecockvaughn: Ass
gamecockvaughn: Lol

Julio: bitch
Julio: lol

gamecockvaughn: Rofl
gamecockvaughn: It always goes back to "the Bush Regime"
gamecockvaughn: Because
gamecockvaughn: Clearly
gamecockvaughn: There was no Gitmo prior to Bush

Julio: yes there was. a gitmo...but the gitmo we are discussing is the gitmo we are using to break every rule in our own legal system

gamecockvaughn: No.
Julio: do we form our legal system because it is RIGHT or because it is RIGHT for Americans and every body else be damned?

gamecockvaughn: Well clearly everybody else be damned
Julio: if our legal system is RIGHT...then it is right for everybody.  We cannot hold our principles as RIGHT only when it is convenient.  We have to hold our principles as RIGHT...even when it is not convenient

gamecockvaughn: When national security is on the line? If we could have stopped 9/11? Ok for different rules then?
Julio: you tell me?  where do you draw the line?
Julio: how much of 9/11 was us not breaking the rules...and how much was our lax intelligence and the lack of cooperation between our intelligence agencies?
Julio: THAT point has already been proven dear
Julio: the senate report made it clear that we had the was a matter of lack of communication between our intelligence agencies

gamecockvaughn: Oh I agree lack of communication and a sense of "we can't be touched" HUGE part of the problem.
gamecockvaughn: But do you stop there or do you become PROactive instead of REactive?

Julio: I dont know...are you ok with your phone line being tapped without due process?

gamecockvaughn: I have nothing to hide.
Julio: are you ok with you being profiled based on your religion, creed, color?

gamecockvaughn: Again, I have nothing to hide.
Julio: does the fact you have nothing to hide justify an intrusive government?
Julio: these are REAL liberties that could be endangered and exploited...not the imaginative liberties the Tea Party people cook up

gamecockvaughn: If it keeps me and my family safe? If it prevents another massive loss of life due to terrorism be it foreign or domestic, why would I care?
Julio: I disagree completely

gamecockvaughn: And
gamecockvaughn: I agree. I have a different perspective. I am not likely to be targeted for investigation by my government. Perhaps that makes me an unfair judge.

Julio: well...ok..true...but what happens when 10 years from now (hypothetically) when muslims no longer are our most dangerous, but ultra conservatives that think that the government is the anti christ and they start bombing government building (like OK city) and the new religious enemies are ultra conservatives and ultra religious christians?
gamecockvaughn: Then I still feel the same way.
Julio: and you My dear are a minority on that...the christians already feel that the government is out to get them...
Julio: one of our founding fathers is credited with saying something along the lines that the person that is willing to trade their liberties for safety does not deserve either

Julio: and will lose both
Julio: and no that is not a quote...that is a paraphrase

gamecockvaughn: Make it personal. I am out with bethanie somewhere and we are victims of a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by all this. Would it have been ok then to have given up a bit of privacy??
Julio: if I am to stay true to my principles? no.  And here is why...unlimited government that is willingly given the right to intrude at will on my life will eventually become the true terror
Julio: there is a chance of that scenario happening
Julio: regardless

gamecockvaughn: That is taking it to extremes
Julio: is it?
Julio: then what are priniciples dear?
Julio: principles are not priniciples if we are willing to toss them at the first hypothesis of dange

gamecockvaughn: They are just different principles. My #1 priority is to protect my family. If someone breaks into my house I am legally allowed to shoot them. They lose their rights when they choose to endanger my family. If there was a way that could have been prevented would that not have been better for all involved?

Julio: without principles, love, we have anarchy.  We cannot be guided ONLY by the principle to protect our family because we will forego the rules that make society civilized.  Protecting my family is my priority and I would shoot a person that endangered my family.  But I also feel that if I allow government to go ramapant then I am NOT defending my family.  My children and grand children will pay the consequences.
gamecockvaughn: Clearly I do not want government running rampant, love. I just want to feel safe. That is what this entire conversation boils down to.
Julio: OK...and I can see that...but I think that having these prisoners in custody period is a danger for retaliation...regardless of where they are at.  Do you think the danger to us would be less if we do a military tribunal in Gitmo and sumarily shoot em up or if we bring them here and go through the due process of our laws and the people that were injured see justice done?  do you think that a big turkey shoot at gitmo where we railroad them is going to give them less ammunition to use against us?
gamecockvaughn: Clearly I do not  think a  masive  turkey  shoot  is  a  good  idea
Julio: the point is that we have due process because 
due process works.  If we follow our principles and follow our due process then we have the moral high ground against them.  If we railroad them through military tribunals on foreign soil so we can break every rule in the book then we do ourselves a disservice and give them even more ammunition to use against us
Julio: that does not protect us...that endangers us even more

gamecockvaughn: Clearly? This will be better discussed than typed.
Julio: chuckles ok
Julio: I will hush

gamecockvaughn: 2 hours later! Lol
Julio: lol you DID bring it up baby 

gamecockvaughn: Is it really that easy to make you "hush"? Lol
gamecockvaughn: Hmmm

Julio: it took you 2 call that easy? lol

gamecockvaughn: With you?
gamecockvaughn: Yes

I'm sure from this you can tell we enjoy "goading" each other. This is pretty typical of how our conversations/debates seem to go. It's really going to be fun...don't you think??  What do you think I should "engage" him on next??

**Note: I do not, honestly, believe all things portrayed in this dialogue. I was simply, quite often, trying to make a point. It is sometimes hard to be heard via instant message!  So, please, my dear friends, do not lose faith in me politically! 


Kim said...

I think, for the most part, taking the Devil's advocate approach is good. When done correctly and respectfully, which is what you did.

No one is going to agree 100 % on everything. It's what makes relationships fun.

So, Rock ON!


Anonymous said...

A good playful debate is fun and good for you. Gives you something to think about and talk about.

Evil Twin's Wife said...

The Evil Twin and I are in lock step with each other, so we banter about things other than politics.

duvetdiva said...

Ok so i said i would get round to replying.
My hubby and I have these sort of debates all the time ! and the other stuff that normally evolves from this type of conversation. (drug legalisation, abortion,Religion etc)
normally one of us gets pissed off with the other for not listening to they're point of view (ME 9 times out of 10) and then i get upset and dont say anything for 3 hours lol.
But without these conversations life would be very boring and i have found that the more you actually agree on, the harder it can be to work through... I know that sounds crazy.
The debating can be a pain but remember that the making up and love you get from the other person should always make it better, if it doesnt then you have a problem.
I wish you both all the luck in the world as you embark on your new relationship, and hope you will be very happy together.
I will be around if you ever need a chat